?vCi: 
 
 
 
 M%m% 
 
tihxavy of t:he t:heolo0ical ^tmin<xvy 
 
 PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY 
 
 •d^D* 
 
'Bk^. TTT ST. 
 
S^-- ' ^ L,.,J><rS:^ ^? • -''^ 
 
 V 
 
 V-- 
 
 "-'OA 
 
 MAR 2"^' 1969 
 
 
 UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES 
 
 IN THE WRITINGS BOTH OF 
 
 W^t €>\ti antJ ^cU> Crstament, 
 
 AN ARGUMENT OF THEIR VERACITY: 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES BETWEEN 
 THE GOSPELS AND ACTS, AND JOSEPHUS. 
 
 BY THE REV. J. J. BLUNT, B.D., 
 
 MAHGAEET PBOFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 
 
 THIRD EDITION. 
 
 LONDON: 
 JOHN MURKAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 
 
 1850. 
 
LONDON: 
 OEORGE WOODFALL AND SON, 
 
 ANOEL COURT, SKINNKR STREET. 
 
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 THE present Volume is a republication, with cor- 
 rections and large additions, of several short 
 Works which I printed a few years ago separately; 
 and which, having passed through more or fewer 
 editions, have become out of print: I have thus been 
 furnished with an opjDortunity of revising and consoli- 
 dating them. These works w^ere : " The Veracity of 
 the Books of Moses ;" " The Veracity of the Historical 
 Scrijitures of the Old Testament ;" and " The Vera- 
 city of the Gospels and Acts," argued from undesigned 
 coincidences to be found in- them when compared in 
 their several parts ; and in the last instance, when 
 compared also with the writings of Josephus. They 
 were all of them originally the substance of Sermons 
 delivered before the University, some in a Course of 
 Hulsean Lectures, others on various occasions. And 
 though two of them, the Veracity of the Books of 
 Moses, and The Veracity of the Gospels and Acts, 
 were divested of the form of Sermons before pub- 
 lication, the third. The Veracity of the Historical 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament (which constituted 
 the Hulsean Lectures) still retained it. I have thought 
 that by reducing this to the same shape as the rest, 
 
 A 2 
 
iv PREFACE. 
 
 and combining it with them, the whole would present 
 a continued argument, or rather a continued series of 
 independent arguments, for the Veracity of the Scrip- 
 tures, of which the effect would be greater than that 
 of the separate works could be, which might be read 
 perhaps out of the natural order, and which were not 
 altogether uniform in their plan. But as this test of 
 veracity proved applicable, though in a less degree, for 
 reasons I have assigned elsewhere, to the Prophetical 
 Scriptures also, I have introduced into the present 
 Volume, in its proper place, evidence of the same kind 
 which had been long lying by me, for the Veracity 
 of some of those Writings; thus employing one and 
 the same touchstone of truth, to verify successively the 
 Books of Moses, the Historical Scriptures of the Old 
 Testament, the Prophetical, and the Gospels and Acts, 
 in their order. 
 
 The argument, as my readers will of course be 
 aware, is an extension of that of the Horce PauUnce, 
 and which originated, as was generally supposed, with 
 Dr. Paley. But Dr. Turton\ the present Bishoj) of 
 Ely, has rendered the claims of Dr. Paley to the first 
 conception of it doubtful, by producing a passage from 
 the conclusion of Dr. Doddridge's Introduction to his 
 Paraphrase and Notes on the First Epistle to the 
 Thessalonians, to the following effect. 
 
 " Whoever reads over St. Paul's Epistles with atten- 
 tention will discern such intrinsic characters in their 
 genuineness, and the divine authority of the doctrines 
 
 ^ In his " Natural Theology 
 considered with reference to Lord 
 
 Brougham's Discourse," &c., p. 
 23 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 they contain, as will perhaps produce in him a stronger 
 conviction than all the external evidence with which 
 they are attended. To which we may add, that the 
 exact coincidence observable between the many allu- 
 sions to particular facts, in this, as well as in other 
 Epistles, and the account of the facts themselves as 
 they are recorded in the History of the Acts, is a re- 
 markable confirmation of the truth of each." 
 
 Be this, however, as it may, Dr. Paley first brought 
 the argument fully to light in support of the Epistles 
 of St. Paul ; and I am not aware that it has since been 
 deliberately applied to any other of the sacred books, 
 except by Dr. Graves, in two of his Lectures on the 
 Pentateuch, to that portion of holy writ. Much, how- 
 ever, of the same kind of testimony I have no doubt 
 has escaped all of us ; and still remains to be detected 
 by future writers on the Evidences. For myself, 
 though I may not lay claim to the merit (whatever 
 it may be) of actually discovering all the examples of 
 consistency without contrivance, which I shall bring 
 forward in this volume, — indeed, I could not myself 
 now trace to their beginnings thoughts which have 
 progressively accumulated ^ — and though in many cases, 
 where the detection was my own, I may have found, 
 on examination, that there were others who had fore- 
 
 ^ I have availed myself in this 
 republication, of several sugges- 
 tions on the subject of the Patri- 
 archal Church (No. i. Part i.), 
 offered to me some years ago in a 
 letter by the Rev. J. W. Burgon 
 of Worcester College, Oxford ; 
 
 and of one coincidence (No. xi. 
 Part iv.) communicated to me in 
 substance by letter also, by the 
 Rev. J. Daniel, of St. John's Col- 
 lege, Cambridge, soon after the 
 first edition of the Veracity of 
 the Gospels came out. 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 stalled me, qui nostra ante nos, yet most of them I have 
 not seen noticed by commentators at all, and scarcely 
 any of them in that light in Avhich only I regard them, 
 as grounds of Evidence. It is to this application, there- 
 fore, of expositions, often in themselves sufficiently 
 familiar, that I have to beg the candid attention of 
 my readers ; and if I shall frequently bring out of the 
 treasures of God's word, or of the interpretation of 
 God's word, " things old,'' the use that I make of 
 them may not perhaps be thought so. 
 
 As the argument for the Veracity of the Gospels 
 and Acts, derived from undesigned coincidences, dis- 
 coverable between them and the Writings of Josephus, 
 does not fall within the general design of this work, as 
 now constructed, and yet is related to it, and important 
 in itself, I have thought it best not to suppress, but to 
 throw it into an Appendix. 
 
 Cambridge, May 3, 1847. 
 
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 In this Edition I have corrected a few errors overlooked 
 ill the former, chiefly in the references ; strengthened 
 several of the arguments ; and supplied one or two 
 others — a proof of the truth of the remark made in 
 the foregoing Preface, that the subject was still (and 
 probably it may be added, ever will be) open to further 
 enlargement. 
 
 With respect to the origin of the Horce PaulhuB 
 itself, another point there adverted to, I would suggest, 
 that the twelfth chapter of Mr. Biscoe's " History of 
 the Acts of the Holy Apostles," considered as evidence 
 of the truth of Christianity — a chapter in which the 
 author " would further observe the agreement there is 
 between the Acts and the Epistles in the names and 
 descriptions of St. Paul's fellow-labourers and converts," 
 — might perhaps be as likely as the passage in Dr. 
 Doddridge, to have put Dr. Paley on the plan of his 
 Work : not to say that Mr. Biscoe's Work appeared 
 whilst Dr. Doddridge's Commentary was in progress. 
 Certain it is, that in the course of the details by which 
 Mr. Biscoe supports his proposition, more than one of 
 the coincidences of the HorcB PauUnce are touched. 
 
 Cambridge, Jan. 1, 1850. 
 
THE VERACITY 
 
 THE BOOKS OF MOSES 
 
 PART I. 
 
 IT is my intention to argue in the following pages 
 the Veracity of the Books of Scripture, from the 
 instances they contain of coincidence without design, in 
 their several parts. On the nature of this argument I 
 shall not much enlarge, but refer my readers for a 
 general view of it to the short dissertation prefixed to 
 the HoT(B Paulina of Dr. Paley, a work where it is 
 employed as a test of the veracity of St. Paul's Epistles 
 with singular felicity and force, and for which suitable 
 incidents were certainly much more abundant than 
 those which any other portion of Scripture of the same 
 extent provides ; still, however, if the instances which 
 I can offer, gathered from the remainder of Holy Writ, 
 are so numerous, and of such a kind as to preclude the 
 possibility of their being the effect of accident, it is 
 enough. It does not require many circumstantial co- 
 incidences to determine the mind of a jury as to the 
 credibility of a witness in our courts, even where the 
 life of a fellow-creature is at stake. I say this, not as 
 
 B 
 
2 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 a matter of charge, but as a matter of fact, indicating 
 the authority which attaches to this species of evidence, 
 and the confidence universally entertained that it can- 
 not deceive. Neither should it be forgotten, that an 
 argument thus popular, thus applicable to the affairs of 
 common life as a test of truth, derives no small value 
 when enlisted in the cause of Revelation, from the 
 readiness with which it is apprehended and admitted 
 by mankind at large, and from the simplicity of the 
 nature of its appeal ; for it springs out of the docu- 
 ments the truth of which it is intended to sustain, and 
 terminates in them ; so that he who has these, has the 
 defence of them. 
 
 2. Nor is this all. The argument deduced from co- 
 incidence without design has further claims, because, if 
 well made out, it establishes the authors of the several 
 books of Scripture as independent witnesses to the facts 
 they relate; and this, whether they consulted each 
 other's writings or not ; for the coincidences, if good 
 for anything, are such as coidd not result from combi- 
 nation, mutual understanding, or arrangement. If any 
 which I may bring forward may seem to be such as 
 might have so arisen, they are only to be reckoned ill 
 chosen, and dismissed ; for it is no small merit of this 
 argument, that it consists of parts, one or more of 
 which (if they be thought unsound) may be detached 
 without any dissolution of the reasoning as a whole. 
 Undesujnedness must be apparent in the coincidences, 
 or they are not to the purpose. In our argument we 
 defy people to set down together, or transmit their 
 writings one to another, and produce the like. Truths 
 known independently to each of them, must be at the 
 bottom of documents having such discrepancies and 
 such agreements as these in question. The j^oint, 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 3 
 
 therefore, whether the authors of the books of Scrip- 
 ture have or have not copied from one another, which 
 in the case of some of them has been so much laboured, 
 is thus rendered a matter of comparative indifference. 
 Let them have so done, still by our argument their 
 independence would be secured, and the nature of 
 their testimony be shown to be such as could only 
 result from their separate knowledge of substantial 
 facts. 
 
 3. I will add another consideration which seems to 
 me to deserve serious attention : that in several in- 
 stances the probable truth of a miracle is involved in 
 the coincidence. This is a point which we should dis- 
 tinguish from the general drift of the argument itself. 
 The general drift of our argument is this, that when 
 we see the wTiters of the Scriptures clearly telling the 
 truth in those cases where we have the means of clieck- 
 ing their accounts, — when we see that they are artless, 
 consistent, veracious writers, where we have the oppor- 
 tunity of examining the fact, — it is reasonable to be- 
 lieve that they are telling the truth in those cases 
 where we have not the means of checking them, — that 
 they are veracious where we have not the means of 
 putting them to proof. But the argument I am now 
 pressing is distinct from this. We are hereby called 
 upon, not merely to assent that Moses and the author 
 of the Book of Joshua, for example, or Isaiah and the 
 author of the Book of Kings, or St. Matthew and St. 
 Luke, speak the truth when they record a miracle, be- 
 cause M^e know them to speak the truth in many other 
 matters (though this would be only reasonable where 
 there is no impeachment of their veracity whatever), 
 but we are called upon to believe a imrticular miracle, 
 because tJie very circumstances icJiicJi attend it furnish the 
 
 B 2 
 
4 THE VERACITY OF THE Paet I. 
 
 coincidence. I look upon this as a point of very great 
 importance. I do not say that the coincidence in such 
 a case establishes the miracle, but that, by establish- 
 ing the truth of ordinary incidents which involve the 
 miracle, which compass the miracle round about, and 
 which cannot be separated from the miracle without 
 the utter laceration of the history itself, it goes very 
 near to establish it. 
 
 4. On the whole, it is surely a striking fact, and one 
 that could scarcely happen in any continuous fable, how- 
 ever cunningly devised, that annals written by so maii^/ 
 hands, embracing so many generations of men, relating 
 to so many different states of society, abounding in 
 supernatural incidents throughout, when brought to 
 this same touchstone of truth, undesignedness, should 
 still not flinch from it ; and surely the character of a his- 
 tory, like the character of an individual, when attested 
 by vouchers not of one family, or of one place, or of 
 one date only, but by such as speak to it under various 
 relations, in different situations, and at divers periods 
 of time, can scarcely deceive us. 
 
 Perhaps I may add, that the turn which biblical 
 criticism has of late years taken, gives the peculiar 
 argument here employed the advantage of being the 
 word in season ; and whilst the articulation of Scrip- 
 ture (so to speak), occupied with its component parts, 
 may possibly cause it to be less regarded than it should 
 be in the mass and as a whole, the effect of this argu- 
 ment is to establish the general truth of Scripture, and 
 with that to content itself — its general truth, I mean, 
 considered with a reference to all practical purposes, 
 which is our chief concern — and thus to pluck the 
 sting out of those critical difficulties, however numerous 
 and however minute, which in themselves have a ten- 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 5 
 
 dency to excite our suspicion and trouble our peace. 
 Its effect, I say, is to establish the (jeneral truth of 
 Scripture, because by this investigation I find occasional 
 tokens of veracity, such as cannot, I think, mislead us, 
 breaking out, as the volume is unrolled, — unconnected, 
 unconcerted, unlooked for ; tokens which I hail as gua- 
 rantees for more facts than they actually cover ; as spots 
 vi^hich truth has singled out whereon to set her seal, in 
 testimony that the whole document, of which they are 
 a part, is her own act and deed ; as pass-words, with 
 which the Providence of God has taken care to furnish 
 his ambassadors, which, though often trifling in them- 
 selves, and having no proportion (it may be) to the 
 length or importance of the tidings they accompany, are 
 still enough to prove the bearers to be in the confidence 
 of their Almighty Sovereign, and to be qualified to 
 execute the general commission with which they are 
 charged under his authority. 
 
 I shall produce the instances of coincidence without 
 design which I have to offer, in the order of the Books 
 of Scriptiu-e that supply them, beginning with the 
 Books of Moses. But before I proceed to individual 
 cases, I will endeavour to develope a principle upon 
 which the Book of Genesis goes as a whole, for this is 
 in itself an example of consistency. 
 
 I. 
 
 There may be those who look upon the Book of 
 Genesis as an epitome of the general history of the 
 world in its early ages, and of the private history of 
 certain families more distinguished than the rest. And 
 so it is, and on a first view it may seem to be little 
 else; but if we consider it more closely, I think we 
 
6 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 may convince ourselves of the truth of this proposition: 
 that it contains frarj7iie}its {as it were) of the fabric of a 
 Patriarchal Church — fragments scattered, indeed, and 
 imperfect, but capable of combination, and, when com- 
 bined, consistent as a whole. Now it is not easy to 
 imagine that any impostor would set himself to com- 
 pose a book ujwn a plan so recondite ; nor, if he did, 
 would it be possible for him to execute it as it is exe- 
 cuted here. For the incidents which go to prove this 
 proposition are to be picked out from among many 
 others, and on being brought together by ourselves, 
 they are found to agree together as imHs of a system, 
 though they are not contemplated as such, or at least 
 are not produced as such, by the author himself. 
 
 I am aware that, whilst we are endeavouring to ob- 
 tain a view of such a Patriarchal Church by the glimpses 
 afforded us in Genesis, there is a danger of our theology 
 becoming visionary : it is a search upon which the ima- 
 gination enters with alacrity, and readily breaks its 
 bounds — it has done so in former times and in our 
 own. Still the principle of such investigation is good ; 
 for out of God's book, as out of God's world, more may 
 be often concluded than our philosophy at first suspects. 
 The principle is good, for it is sanctioned by our Lord 
 himself, who reproaches the Sadducees with not knowing 
 those Scriptures which they received, because they had 
 not deduced the doctrine of a future state from the 
 words of Moses, " I am the God of Abraham, and the 
 God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," though the doc- 
 trine was there if they would but have sought it out. 
 One consideration, however, we must take along with 
 us in this inquiry, that the Books of Moses are in most 
 cases a very incomplete history of facts — telling some- 
 thing and leaving a great deal untold — abounding in 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 7 
 
 chasms which cannot be filled up — not, therefore, to be 
 lightly esteemed even in their hints, for Jmits are often 
 all that they offer. 
 
 The proofs of this are numberless ; but as it is im- 
 portant to my argument that the thing itself should be 
 distinctly borne in mind, I will name a few. Thus if 
 we read the history of Joseph as it is given in the 37th 
 chapter of Genesis, where his brethren first put him into 
 the pit and then sell him to the Ishmaelites, we might 
 conclude that he was himself quite passive in the whole 
 transaction. Yet when the brothers happen to talk 
 together upon this same subject many years afterwards 
 in Egypt, they say one to another, " We are verily 
 guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish 
 of his soul tvhen he besought us, and we would not hear.'" 
 All these fervent intreaties are sunk in the direct his- 
 tory of the event, and only come out by accident after 
 all. As another instance. The simple account of Ja- 
 cob's reluctance to part with Benjamin would lead us 
 to suppose that it was expressed and overcome in a 
 short time, and with no great effort. Yet we inciden- 
 tally hear from Judah that this family struggle (for 
 such it seems to have been) had occupied as much time 
 as would have sufficed for a journey to Egypt and back^. 
 As a third instance. The several blessings which Jacob 
 bestows on his sons have probably a reference to the 
 past as well as to the future fortunes of each. In the 
 case of Reuben the allusion happens to be a circum- 
 stance in his life with which we are already acquainted ; 
 here, therefore, we understand the old man's address^; 
 but in the case of several at least of his other sons, 
 where there are probably similar allusions to events in 
 
 1 Gen. xlii. 21. ^ Gen. xlix. 4. 
 
 2 Ibid, xliii. 10. 
 
8 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 their lives too, which have not, however, been left on 
 record, there is much that is obscure ; the brevity of 
 the previous narrative not supplying us with the proper 
 key to the blessing. Of this nature, perhaps, is the 
 clause respecting Simeon and Levi, " In their anger 
 they slew a man, and in their self-will they digged 
 down a wall.'" As another instance. The address of 
 Jacob on his death-bed to Reuben, to which I have 
 just referred, shows how deeply Jacob resented the 
 wrong done him by this son many years before, and 
 proves what a breach it must have made between them 
 at the moment ; yet all that is said of it in the Mosaic 
 history is, " and Israel heard it,"^ — not a syllable more. 
 Again, of Anah it is said^ " This was that Anah that 
 found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses 
 of Zibeon his father :" an allusion to some incident ap- 
 parently very well known, but of which we have no 
 trace in the previous narrative. Once more. The 
 manner in which Joshua is mentioned for the first time, 
 clearly shows how conspicuous a character he already 
 was amongst the Israelites; and how much previous 
 history respecting him has been suppressed. " And 
 Moses said unto Joshua, choose us out men, and go out, 
 fight with Amalek."* And the same remark applies to 
 Hur, in an ensuing sentence, " And Moses, Aaron, and 
 Hur went up to the top of the hill :" the Jewish tradi- 
 tion being that Hur was the husband of Miriam. 
 Again, it is said, " that Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, 
 took Zipporah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her 
 hackr^ The latter clause refers to some transaction, 
 familiar, no doubt, to the historian, but of which no 
 
 ^ Gen. xlix. 6. 
 ^ Ibid. XXXV. '22. 
 ^ Ibid, xxxvi. 24. 
 
 * Exod. xvii. 9. 
 ^ Ibid, xviii. 2. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 9 
 
 previous mention had been made. It is needless to 
 multiply instances ; all that I wish to impress is this, 
 that in the Book of Genesis a Jiint is not to be wasted, 
 but improved ; and that he who expects every probable 
 deduction from Scripture to be made out complete in 
 all its parts before he will admit it, expects more than 
 he will in many cases meet with, and will learn much 
 less than he might otherwise learn. 
 
 Having made these preliminary remarks, I shall now 
 proceed to collect the detached incidents in Genesis 
 which appear to point out the existence of a Patriar- 
 chal Church. And the circumstance of so many inci- 
 dents tending to this one centre, though evidently 
 without being marshalled or arranged, implies veracity 
 in the record itself; for it is a very comprehensive 
 instance of coincidence without design in the several 
 parts of that record. 
 
 1. First, then, the Patriarchs seem to have had 
 places set apart for the worship of God, consecrated, as 
 it were, especially to his service. To do things " before 
 the Lord"" is a phrase not unfrequently occurring, and 
 generally in a local sense. Cain and Abel appear to 
 have brought their offerings to the same spot, it might 
 be (as some have thought) \ to the East of the Garden, 
 where the symbols of God's presence were displayed ; 
 and when Cain is banished from his first dwelling, and 
 driven to wander upon the earth, he is said to have 
 "gone out from the presence of the Lord f^ as though, 
 in the land where he was henceforw^ard to live, he 
 would no longer have access to the spot where God 
 had more especially set his name : or it might be a 
 
 1 Hooker.Eccl.Pol. b.v. §11. 
 Vide Mr. Faber's Three Dispen- 
 sations, Vol. i. p. 8 ; and comp. 
 
 Wisdom ix. 9. 
 2 Gen. iv. 16. 
 
10 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 sacred tent, for it is told Cain, " if thou doest not well, 
 sin (i.e. a sin-offering) lieth at the f/oor:"' and we 
 know that the sacrifices were constantly brought to the 
 door of the Tabernacle, in later times^ Again, when 
 the angels had left Abraham, and were gone towards 
 Sodom, " Abraham," we read, " stood yet before the 
 Lord,''^ i.e., he staid to plead with God for Sodom in 
 the place best suited to such a service, the place where 
 prayer was wont to be made ; and accordingly it follows 
 immediately after, " and Abraham drew near and 
 said ;"* and again, the next day, " Abraham gat up 
 early in the morning," (probably his usual hour of 
 prayer), ^' to the place where he stood before the Lord"^ 
 the same where he had put up his intercessions to God 
 the day before ; in short, the place where he " built an 
 altar unto the Lord" when he first came to dwell in 
 the plain of Mamre*^, for that was still the scene of 
 this transaction. Again, of Rebekah we read, that 
 when the children struggled within her, " she went to 
 inquire of the Lord," and an answer was received pro- 
 phetic of the difterent fortunes of those children''. And 
 when Isaac contemplated blessing his son, which was a 
 religious act, a solemn appeal to God to remember his 
 covenant unto Abraham, it was to be done " before the 
 Lordr^ The place might be, as I have just said, an 
 altar such as was put up by Abraham at Hebron, by 
 Isaac at Beer-sheba, or by Jacob at Beth~el, where 
 they respectively dwelt^; it might be, as I have also 
 suggested, a separate tent, and a tent actually was set 
 
 1 Gen. iv. 7. 
 ^ See Liglitfoot, i. 3. 
 ^ Gen. xviii. 22. 
 * Ibid, xviii. 23. 
 ^ Ibid. xix. 27. 
 
 " Gen. xiii. 18. 
 ' Ibid. XXV. 22. 
 ® Ibid, xxvii. 7. 
 9 See Gen. xiii. 18 ; xxvi. 25 
 XXXV. 6. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 11 
 
 apart by Moses outside the camp, before the Taber- 
 nacle was erected, where every one repaired who sowjlit 
 the Lord '; or it might be a separate part of a chamber 
 of the tent ; but however that was, the expression is a 
 definite one, and relates to some appointed quarter to 
 which the family resorted for purposes of devotion. 
 Accordingly the very same expression is used in after- 
 times, when the Tabernacle had been set up, confessedly 
 as the place where the people were to assemble for 
 prayer and sacrifice. "He shall offer it of his own 
 voluntary will at the door of the Tabernacle of the 
 congregation before the Lord, and he shall kill the 
 bullock before the Lord''^ " Three times in the year 
 shall all thy males appear before the Lord thy God in 
 the place which he shall choose."^ Here there can be 
 no question as to the meaning of the phrase ; it occurs, 
 indeed, some five-and-thirty times in the last four books 
 of Moses, and in all as significant of the place set apart 
 for the worship of God. I conclude therefore, that in 
 those passages of Genesis which I have quoted, Moses 
 employs the same expression in the same sense. 
 
 Such are some of the hi7its which seem to point to 
 places of patriarchal worship. 
 
 2. In like manner, and by evidence of the same in- 
 direct and imperfect kind, I gather that there were 
 persons whose business it was to perform the rites of 
 that worship — not perhaps their sole business, but their 
 appropriate business. Whether the first-born was by 
 right of birth the priest also, has been doubted ; at the 
 same time it is obvious that this circumstance would 
 often, perhaps generally where there was no impedi- 
 ment, point him out as the fit person to keep alive in 
 
 ^ Exod. xxxiii. 7. ^ Deut. xvi. 16. 
 
 ^ Lev. i. 3. 
 
12 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 his own household the fear of that God who alone 
 could make it to prosper. Persons, however, invested 
 with the sacerdotal office there undoubtedly were ; 
 such was Melchizedek " the Priest of the Most High 
 God," as he is expressly called', and the functions of 
 his ministry he publicly performs towards Abraham, 
 blessing him as God's servant, as the instrument by 
 which His arm had overthrown the confederate kings, 
 and receiving from Abraham a tenth of the spoil, which 
 could be nothing but a religious offering, and which 
 indeed, as such, is the ground of St. Paul's argument 
 for the superiority of Christ's priesthood over the Levi- 
 tical. Tithes, therefore, were already paid^ Such 
 probably was Jethro " the Priest of Midian."^ More- 
 over, we find the priests expressly mentioned as a body 
 of functionaries existing amongst the Israelites even 
 before the consecration of Aaron and his sons*; the 
 " young men," who offered burnt-offerings, spoken of 
 Exod. xxiv. 5, being the same under a different name, 
 probably the first-born. Then if we read of Patriarchal 
 Priests, so do we of Patriarchal " Preachers of Rig-h- 
 teousness," as in Noah^ So do we of Patriarchal 
 Prophets, as in Abraham®, as in Balaam, as in Job, as 
 in Enoch. All these are hi7its of a Patriarchal Church, 
 differing perhaps less in its construction and in the 
 manner in which God was pleased to use it, as the 
 means of keeping Himself in remembrance amongst 
 men, from the churches which have succeeded, than 
 may be at first imagined. 
 
 3. Pursue we the inquiry, and I think a hint may be 
 discovered of a peculiar dress assigned to the Patriar- 
 
 ^ Gen. xiv. 18. 
 
 2 Heb. vii. 9. 
 
 3 Exod. ii. 16. 
 
 ■* Exod. xix. 22. 
 ^ 2 Pet. ii. 5. 
 ^ Gen. XX. 7. 
 
Part I. 
 
 BOOKS OF MOSES. 
 
 13 
 
 chal Priest when he officiated ; for Jacob, being akeady 
 possessed of the birthright, and probably, in this in- 
 stance, of the priesthood with it, since Esau by surren- 
 dering tlie birth-right became ''profaner^ goes in to 
 Isaac to receive the blessing, a religious act, as I have 
 already said, to be done before the Lord. Now on this 
 occasion, Rebekah took '''■ goodly raiment " (such is our 
 translation) " of her eldest son Esau, which were with 
 her in the house, and put them upon Jacob her younger 
 son."^ Were these the sacerdotal robes of the first- 
 born ? It occurred to me that they might be so ; and 
 on reference I find that the Jews themselves so inter- 
 preted them', an interpretation which has been treated 
 by Dr. Patrick more contemptuously than it deserved 
 to be*; for I look upon it as a trifle indeed, but still as 
 a trifle which is a component part of the system I am 
 endeavouring to trace out : had it stood alone it would 
 have been fruitless perhaps to have hazarded a word 
 upon it ; as it stands in conjunction with so many other 
 indications of a Patriarchal Church it has its w^eight. 
 Now I do not say that the Hebrew expression^ here 
 rendered "raiment" (for of the epithet "goodly" I 
 will speak by and by) is exclusively confined to the 
 garments of a priest ; it is certainly a term of consider- 
 able latitude, and is by no means to be so restricted ; 
 still, when the priest's garments are to be expressed by 
 
 1 Heb. xii. 16. 
 
 ^ Gen. xxvii. 15. 
 
 ■'' Vide Patrick in loc. 
 
 * More especially as he quotes 
 in another place (on Exod. xxviii. 
 2) an opinion of the Hebrew 
 Doctors, that vestments were in- 
 separable from the priesthood, so 
 that Adam, Abel, and Cain, did 
 
 not sacrifice without them; see 
 Gen. iii. 22 : and again (on Exod. 
 xxviii. 35), a maxim among the 
 Jews, that when the priests were 
 clothed ^^•ith their garments they 
 were priests ; when they were 
 not so clothed, they were not 
 priests. 
 5 DHJn 
 
14 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 any general term at all, it is always by the one in ques- 
 tion. Yet there is another term in the Hebrew', per- 
 haps of as frequent occurrence, and also a comprehen- 
 sive term ; but whilst this latter is constantly applied 
 to the dress of other individuals of both sexes, I do not 
 find it ever apj^lied to the dress of the priests. The 
 distinction and the argument will be best illustrated by 
 examples : — Thus we read in Leviticus^ according to 
 our version, " the high-priest that is consecrated to put 
 on the cjarments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend 
 his clothes.'" The word here translated "garments" in 
 the one clause, and " clothes " in the other, is in the 
 Hebrew in both clauses the same — is the word in ques- 
 tion — is the raiment of Esau which Rebekah took, and 
 in both clauses the priests' dress is meant, and no other. 
 So again, what are called^ "the clothes of service," is 
 still the same word, as implying Aaron's clothes, or 
 those of his sons, and no other. And again, Moses 
 says*, "uncover not your heads, neither rend your 
 clothes, lest ye die ;" still the word is the same, for he 
 is there speaking to Aaron and his sons, and to none 
 other. But when he says^, " your clothes are not waxed 
 old," the Hebrew word is no longer the same, though 
 the English word is, but is the other word of which I 
 spoke®; for the clothes of the people are here signified, 
 and not of the priests. 
 
 This, therefore, is all that can be maintained, that 
 the term used to express the "raimoit" Avhich Rebekah 
 brought out for Jacob, is the term which would express 
 appropriately/ the dress of the priest, though it certainly 
 
 ^ tit2b\D or nbryD 
 
 ^ Chap. xxi. 10. 
 ^ Exod. xxxY. 19. 
 
 4 Lev. X. 6. 
 ^ Deut. xxjx. 5. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 15 
 
 would not express it exduswely. But again, the epithet 
 ''" (joodly'" (or "■desirable''''^ as the margin renders it 
 more closely) annexed to the raiment is still in favour 
 of our interpretation, though neither is this word, any 
 more than the other, conclusive of the question. Cer- 
 tain, however, it is, that though the word translated 
 " goodly " is not restricted to sacred things, it does so 
 happen that to sacred things it is attached in very many 
 instances, if not in a majority of instances, where it 
 occurs in Holy Writ. Thus the utensils of the Temple 
 which Nebuchadnezzar carried away are called in the 
 Book of Chronicles^ " the _^oog?/?/ vessels of the House 
 of the Lord." And Isaiah writes, " all our pleasant 
 things are laid waste," ^ meaning the Temple — the word 
 here rendered " pleasant," being the same as that in 
 the former passages rendered "goodly;" and in the 
 Lamentations* we read, "the adversary hath spread 
 out his hand upon all our pleasant things," where the 
 Temple is again understood, as the context proves ; 
 and in Genesis'^, " a tree to be desired to make one 
 wise," the term perhaps meant to convey a hint of 
 violated sanctity as entering into the offence of our first 
 parents. In other places it occurs in a bad sense, as 
 relating to what was held sacred by heathens only, but 
 still what was held sacred — " The oaks which ye have 
 desired f^ "all pleasant pictures,"^ objects of idolatry, 
 as the tenour of the passage indicates ; " their delectable 
 things shall not profit,"^ that is, their idols. I may 
 add too, that the o-ioXt] of the Septuagint (for this 
 answers to the " raiment " of our version), though not 
 
 - 3 Chron. xxxvi. 10. 
 ^ Isa. Ixiv. 11. 
 " Lam. i. 10. 
 
 ^ Gen. iii. 6. 
 
 fi Isa. i. 29. 
 
 7 Ibid. ii. 16. 
 
 8 Ibid. xliv. 9. 
 
16 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 limited to the robe of the altar, is the term used in the 
 Greek as the appropriate one for the robe of Aaron ; 
 and finally, that the care with which this vesture had 
 been kept by Rebekah, and the perfumes with which 
 it was imbued when Jacob wore it (for Isaac " smelled 
 the smell of his raiment "), savour of things pertaining 
 unto God. Indeed we read in the Law' of particular 
 drugs which were appropriated to compose the incense 
 used in the service of God. 
 
 Again, it seems to be by no means improbable that 
 " the coat of many colours,''' {^(^bTwva ttolkiXov, as the 
 LXX understands it^) which Jacob made for Joseph, 
 was a sacerdotal garment. It figures very largely in a 
 very short history. It appears to have been viewed 
 with great jealousy by his brothers ; far greater than 
 an ordinary dress, which merely bespoke a certain par- 
 tiality on the part of a parent, would have been likely 
 to inspire. They strip him of it, when they put him in 
 the pit ; they dip it in the blood of the goat, when they 
 want to persuade Jacob that a wild beast had devoured 
 him. Reuben, Jacob's first-born, and naturally there- 
 fore the Priest of the family, had forfeited bis father's 
 affection and disgraced his station by his conduct 
 towards Bilhah. Jacob might feel that the priesthood 
 was open under the circumstances ; and his fondness 
 for Joseph might suggest to him, that he might in 
 justice be considered his first-born ; for that he sup- 
 posed Rachel, Joseph's mother, to be his wife, when 
 Leah, Reuben's mother, had been deceitfully sub- 
 stituted for her. He might give him, therefore, " this 
 coat of many colours " as a token of his future oflfice. 
 Hannah brought Samuel " a little coat " from year to 
 
 ' Exod. xxxvii. 29. I - Gen. xxxvii. 3. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 17 
 
 year, when she came up with her husband to offer his 
 yearly sacrifice': and, though Aaron's coat is not called 
 a coat of many colours, it was so in fact ; " and of the 
 blue and purple and scarlet they made cloths of service, 
 to do service in the holy place, and made the holy gar- 
 ments for Aaron." ^ On the whole, therefore, I think 
 there was a meaning in this " coat of many colours " 
 beyond the obvious one ; and that it was emblematical 
 of priestly functions which Jacob was anxious to de- 
 volve upon Joseph. 
 
 4. Furthermore, the Patriarchal Church seems not to 
 have been without its forms. Thus Jacob consecrates 
 the foundation of a place of worship with oiP; the 
 incident here alluded to being apparently a much more 
 detailed and emphatic one than it seems at first sight : 
 for we find him, by anticipation, calling " this the house 
 of God, and this the gate of heaven,"* and promising 
 eventually to endow it with tithes^: and we hear God 
 reminding him of this solemn act long afterwards, when 
 he was in Syria, and appropriating to Himself the very 
 title of this Temple : " I am the God of Bethel, where 
 thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a 
 vow unto me."^ And accordingly we are told at much 
 length, and with several of the circumstances of the 
 case described, that Jacob, after his return from Haran, 
 actually fulfilled his pious intentions, and "built an 
 altar," and " set up a pillar," and " poured a drink- 
 offering thereon."'' 
 
 Then there appears to have been the rite of imposi- 
 tion of hands existing in the Patriarchal Church ; and 
 
 1 1 Sam. ii. 19. 
 
 ^ Exod. xxxix. 1. 
 
 ^ Gen. xxviii. 18. 
 
 * Ibid, xxviii. 17. 
 
 ^ Gen. xxviii, 22. 
 « Ibid. xxxi. 13. 
 ■^ Ibid. XXXV. 1. 15. 
 
18 
 
 THE VERACITY OF THE 
 
 Part I. 
 
 Avlieii Jacob blessed Joseph's children, he is very care- 
 ful about the due observance of it ; the narrative, 
 succinct as on the whole it is, dwelling upon this point 
 with much amplification'. 
 
 Again, the shoes of those who trod upon holy ground, 
 or who entered consecrated places, were to be put off 
 their feet ; the injunction to this effect, of which we 
 read in the case of Moses at the bush, implies a usage 
 already established^; and this usage, though nowhere 
 expressly commanded in the Levitical Law, appears to 
 have continued amongst the Israelites by tradition from 
 the Patriarchal times ; and is that which a passage in 
 Ecclesiastes^ probably contemplates in its primary 
 sense, " Look to thy foot Avhen thou comest to the 
 House of God."^ And finally the Patriarchal Church 
 had its posture of worship, and men bowed themselves 
 to the ground when they addressed God^ 
 
 But if there were Patriarchal Places for worship — if 
 there were Priests to conduct the worship — if there 
 were Tithes paid them — if there were decent Robes 
 wherein those priests ministered at the worship — if 
 there were Foims connected with that worship — so do 
 I think there were stated Seasons set apart for it ; 
 though here again we have nothing but Jiints to guide 
 us to a conclusion. 
 
 5. I confess that the Divine institution of the Sab- 
 bath as a day of religious duties, seems to me to have 
 been from the beginning; and though we have but 
 glimpses of such a fact, still to my eye they present 
 themselves as parts of that one harmonious whole which 
 
 1 Gen. xlviii. 13—19. 
 
 ^ Exod. iii. 5. 
 
 ^ Eccles. V. 1 . 
 
 ^ See Mede's Works, b. ii. p. 
 
 340 et seq. 
 
 ^ Gen. xxiv. 26—53; Exod. 
 iv. 31; xii. 37. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES 19 
 
 I am now endeavouring to develope and draw out — 
 even of a Patriarchal Church, whereof we see scarcely 
 anything but by glimiDse. 
 
 "And it came to pass that on the sixth day they 
 gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man^ 
 and all the rulers of the congregation came, and told 
 Moses. And he said unto them. This is that which the 
 Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the Holy 
 Sabbath unto the Lord. Six days ye shall gather it ; 
 but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it 
 there shall be none." ' And again, in a few verses after? 
 " And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to 
 keep my commandments and my laws ? See, for that 
 the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he 
 giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days." 
 Now the transaction here recorded is by some argued 
 to be the first institution of the Sabbath. The inference 
 I draw from it, I confess, is different ; I see in it, that a 
 Sabbath had already been appointed — that the Lord 
 had already given it ; and that, in accommodation to 
 that institution already understood. He had doubled the 
 manna on the sixth day. But even supposing the In- 
 stitution of the Sabbath to be here formally proclaimed, 
 or supposing (as others would have it, and as the Jews 
 themselves pretend), that it was not now promulgated, 
 strictly speaking, but was actually one of the two pre- 
 cepts given a little earlier at Marah^, still it is not 
 uncommon in the writings of Moses, nor indeed in 
 other parts of Scripture, for an event to be mentioned 
 as then occurring for the first time, which had in fact 
 occurred, and which had been rej^orted to have occur- 
 red, long before. For instance, Isaac and Abimelech 
 
 ' Exod. xvi. 22. ~ Exod. xv. 25, and compare Deut. v. 12. 
 
 C 2 
 
20 THE VERACITY OF THE Paet I. 
 
 meet, and swear to do each other no injury. " And it 
 came to pass the same day, that Isaac's servants came 
 and told him concerning the M'ell which they had 
 digged, and said unto him, We have found ^vater : and 
 he called it Shebah ; therefore the name of the city is 
 Beer-Sheba unto this clayT^ Now who would not say 
 that the name was then given to the place by Isaac, 
 and for the first time ? Yet it had been undoubtedly 
 given by Abraham long before, in commemoration of a 
 similar covenant which he had struck with the Abime- 
 lecli of his day. " These seven ewe-lambs," said he to 
 that Prince, "shalt thou take at my hand, that they 
 may be a witness unto thee that I have digged this 
 well ; wherefore he called the 'place Beer-Sheha, because 
 they sware both of them."^ Again, " So Jacob came 
 to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan, that is, Beth-el, 
 he and all his people that were with him. And he 
 built there an altar, and called the place El-Beth-el, 
 because there God appeared unto him when he fled 
 from the face of his brother."^ Who would not con- 
 clude that the new name was given to Luz now for the 
 first time ? Yet Jacob had in fact changed the name 
 a great many years before, when he was on his journey 
 to Haran. " And Jacob rose up early in the morning, 
 and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and 
 set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. 
 And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the 
 name of the city was called Luz at the first."^ Or, as 
 another instance : — " And God appeared unto Jacob 
 again when he came out of Padan-Aram, and blessed 
 him : and God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob, thy 
 name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel 
 
 ' Gen. xxvi. 32. 
 ^ Ibid. xxi. 31. 
 
 ' Gen. XXXV. 0, 7. 
 ■■ Ibid, xxviii. 18, 19. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 
 
 21 
 
 shall be thy name, and he called his name Israel."^ 
 Who would not suppose that the name of Israel was 
 now given to Jacob for the first time ? Yet, several 
 chapters before this, when Jacob had wrestled with the 
 angel (not at Beth-el, which was the former scene, but 
 at Peniel), we read, that " the angel said, What is thy 
 name? and he said, Jacob: and he said. Thy name 
 shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for as a 
 prince hast thou power with God, and with man, and 
 hast prevailed."^ Thus again, to add one example 
 more, we are told in the Book of Judges', that a cer- 
 tain Jair, a Gileadite, a successor of Abimelech in the 
 government of Israel, " had thirty sons that rode on 
 thirty ass-colts, and they had thirty cities, which are 
 called Havoth-Jaii' unto this day, which are in the land 
 of Gilead." Who would not conclude that the cities 
 were then called by this name for the first time, and 
 that this Jair was the person from whom they derived 
 it? Yet we read in the Book of Numbers^ that 
 another Jair, who lived nearly three hundred years 
 earlier, " went and took the small towns of Gilead " 
 (apparently these very same), " and called them Havoth- 
 Jairr So that the name had been given nearly three 
 centuries already. Why, then, should it be thought 
 strange that the institution of the Sabbath should be 
 mentioned as if for the first time in the 16th chapter 
 of Exodus, and yet that it should have been in fact 
 founded at the creation of the world, as the language 
 of the 2nd chapter of Genesis^ taken in its obvious 
 meaning, implies ; and as St. Paul's argument in the 
 4th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews (I think) 
 
 1 Gen. XXXV. 10. I ^ Num. xxxii. 41 , 
 
 2 Ibid, xxxii. 28. ^ Gen. ii. 3. 
 ' Judges X. 4. I 
 
22 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 requires it to have been ? — Nor is such a ease without 
 a j3arallel. " Moses gave unto you circumcision," says 
 our Lord ; yet there is added, " not because it is of 
 Moses, but of the Fathers ;"^ — and the like may be 
 said of the Sabbath ; that Moses gave it, and yet that 
 it was of the Fathers. And surely such observance of 
 the Sabbath from the begiiining is in accordance with 
 many hints which are conveyed to us of some distinc- 
 tion or other belonging to that day from the hecfinniriq 
 — as when Noah sends forth the dove three times suc- 
 cessively at intervals of seven days : as when Laban 
 invites Jacob to " fulfil his week,'"' after the marriage of 
 Leah ; the nuptial festivities being probably terminated 
 by the arrival of the Sabbath^: as when Joseph makes 
 a mourning for his father of seven days'; the lamenta- 
 tion most likely ceasing with the return of that festival: 
 these and other hints of the same kind being, as ap- 
 pears to me, pregnant with meaning, and intended to 
 be so, in a history of the rapid and desultory nature of 
 that of Moses. Neither is there much difficulty in the 
 passage of Ezekiel^ with which those, who maintain 
 the Sabbath to have been for the first time enjoined 
 in the wilderness, support themselves. " Wherefore," 
 says that Prophet, *' I caused them to go forth out of 
 the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilder- 
 ness — and I gave them my statutes, and showed them 
 my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in 
 them — moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths^ Here, 
 then, it is alleged, Ezekiel affirms, or seems to affirm, 
 that the Almighty gave the Israelites his Sabbaths 
 when He was leading them out of Egypt, and that He 
 had not given them till then. Yet his statutes and 
 
 ^ John vii. 29. 
 ^ Gen. xxix. 27. 
 
 Gen. 1. 10. 
 
 Ezek. XX. 10, 11, 12. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 23 
 
 judgments are also spoken of as given at the same time, 
 whereas very many of those had surely been given long- 
 before. It would be very untrue to assert, that, until 
 the Israelites were led forth from Egypt, no statutes or 
 judgments of the same kind had been ever given : it 
 was in the wilderness that the law respecting clean and 
 unclean beasts was promulgated, yet that law had cer- 
 tainly been published long before'; and the same may 
 be said of many others, which I will not enumerate 
 here, because I shall have occasion to do it by and by. 
 My argument, then, is briefly this : — that as Ezekiel 
 speaks of statutes and judgments given to the Israelites 
 in the wilderness, some of which were certainly old 
 statutes and judgments repeated and enforced, so when 
 he says that the Sabbaths were given to the Israelites 
 in the wilderness, he cannot be fairly accounted to 
 assert that the Sabbaths had never been given till then. 
 The fact indeed probably was, that they had been neg- 
 lected and half forgotten during the long bondage in 
 Egypt (slavery being unfavourable to morals), and that 
 the observance of them was re-asserted and renewed at 
 the time of the promulgation of the Law in the Desert. 
 In this sense, therefore, the Prophet might well de- 
 clare, that on that occasion God gave the Israelites his 
 Sabbaths. It is true, that in addition to the motive 
 for the observance of the Sabbath (hinted in the 2nd 
 chaf)ter of Genesis, and more fully expressed in the 
 20th of Exodus), which is of universal obligation, other 
 motives were urged upon the Israelites specially appli- 
 cable to them — as that "the day should be a sign 
 between God and them"^ — as that it should be a 
 remembrance of their having been made to rest from 
 
 ' Gen. vii. 2. I ~ Exod. xxxi. 17. 
 
24 
 
 THE VEEACITY OF THE 
 
 Part I. 
 
 the yoke of the Egyptians\ Yet such stipplementary 
 sanctions to the performance of a duty (however well 
 adapted to secure the obedience of the Israelites) are 
 quite consistent with a previous command addressed to 
 all, and upon a principle binding on alP. 
 
 I have now attempted to show, but very briefly, lest 
 otherwise the scope of my argument should be lost 
 sight of, that there were among the Patriarchs places 
 set apart for worship — persofis to officiate — a decent 
 ceremonial — an appointed season for holy things ; I will 
 now suggest in very few words (still gathering my in- 
 formation from such hi7its as the Book of Genesis sup- 
 plies from time to time,) something of the duties and 
 doctrines which were taught in that ancient Church : 
 and here, I think, it will appear, that the Law and 
 the Prophets of the next Dispensation had their pro- 
 totypes in that of the Patriarchs — that the Second 
 Temple was greater indeed in glory than the First, 
 but was nevertheless built up out of the First, the one 
 body " not unclothed," but the other rather " clothed 
 upon." 
 
 6. In this primitive Church, then, the distinction 
 of clean and unclean is already known, and known as 
 much in detail as under the Levitical Law, every animal 
 being arranged by Noah in one class or the other^; 
 and the clean being exclusively used by him for sacri- 
 fice*. The blood, which is the life of the animal, is 
 
 1 Deut. V. 15. 
 
 ~ Justin Martyr, it is true, 
 frequently speaks of the Pa- 
 triarchs as observing no Sab- 
 baths (See, e. g., Dial. § 23); but 
 it is certain that his meaning 
 was, that the Patriarchs did not 
 observe the Sabbaths according 
 
 to the peculiar rites of the Jewish 
 Law; his use of the word o-«/3- 
 /SaTi^En- has always a reference to 
 that Law ; and by no means that 
 they kept no Sabbaths at all. 
 
 ^ Gen. vii. 3. 
 
 ^ Ibid. viii. 20. 
 
Part I. 
 
 BOOKS OF MOSES. 
 
 already withheld as food\ Murder is already denounced 
 as demanding death for its punishment I Adultery is 
 already forbidden, as we learn from the cases of Pharaoh 
 and Abimelech^ of Reuben*, and Joseph^ Oaths are 
 already binding". Vows were already made^ Forni- 
 cation is already condemned, as in the case of Shechem, 
 who is said " to have wrought folly in Israel, which 
 thing ought not to be done."^ Marriage with the un- 
 circumcised or idolater is already prohibited^. A curse 
 is already denounced on him that setteth light by his 
 father or his mother '°. Purifications are already enjoined 
 those who approach a holy place, for Jacob bids his 
 people " be clean and change their garments" before 
 they present themselves at Bethel". The eldest son 
 had already a birthright'^. The brother is already com- 
 manded to marry the brother's widow, and to raise up 
 seed unto his brother '^. The daughter of the Priest (if 
 Judah as the head of his own family may be considered 
 in that character) is already to be brought forth and 
 burned, if she played the harlot'*. These laws, after- 
 wards incorporated in the Levitical, are here brought 
 together and reviewed at a glance ; but as they occur 
 in the book of Genesis, be it remembered, they drop 
 out incidentally, one by one, as the course of the nar- 
 rative happens to turn them up. They are therefore 
 to be reckoned fragments of a more full and complete 
 
 ^ Gen. ix. 4. 
 
 ~ Ibid. ix. 6 ; xlii. '22. 
 
 ^ Ibid. xii. 18; xxvi. 10. 
 
 ^ Ibid. xlix. 4 
 
 ""^ Ibid, xxxix. 9. 
 
 « Ibid. xxvi. 28. 
 
 ^ Ibid, xxviii. 20; xxxi. 13. 
 
 ^ Ibid, xxxiv. 7, 
 
 '•^ Ibid, xxxiv. 14, and comp 
 
 Exod. xxxiv. 16, and Dr. Pa- 
 trick's Comment. 
 
 '" Gen. ix. 25, and comp. Deut. 
 xxvii. 16. 
 
 ^' Ibid. XXXV. 2. 
 
 ^^ Ibid. XXV, 31 ; and comp. 
 Exod. xxii. 29 ; and Deut. xxi. 17. 
 
 ^' Ibid, xxxviii. 8. 
 
 ^^ Ibid, xxxviii. 24. 
 
26 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 code, which was the groundwork, in all probability, of 
 the Levitical code itself; for it is difficult to suppose 
 that where there were these, there were not others like 
 to them. But this is not all — the Patriarchs had their 
 sacrifices, that great and leading rite of the Church of 
 Aaron ; the subjects of those sacrifices fixed ; useless 
 without the shedding of blood ; for what but the viola- 
 tion of an express command full of meaning, could have 
 constituted the sin of Cain' ? Their sacrifices, how far 
 regulated in their details by the injunctions of God 
 himself, we cannot determine; yet it is imi^ossible to 
 read in the 15th chapter of Genesis the particulars of 
 Abraham's offering of the heifer, the goat, the ram, the 
 turtle-dove, and the pigeon — their ages, their sex, the 
 circumspection with which he dissects and dis^DOses 
 them — whether all this be done in act or in vision, 
 without feeling assured that very minute directions 
 upon all these points were vouchsafed to the Patri- 
 archal Church. And as that Church had her rite of 
 sacrifice, so had she her rite of circumcision : and ac- 
 cordingly she had her Sacraments. 
 
 Then as she had her sacraments, so had she her 
 f?/pes — types which in number scarcely yield to those 
 of the Levitical Law, in precision and interest per- 
 haps exceed them. For we meet with them in the 
 names and fortunes of individuals whom the Almighty 
 Disposer of events, without doing violence to the natural 
 order of things, exhibits as pages of s, living book in which 
 the Promise is to be read — as characters expressing 
 his counsels and covenants writ by his own finger — as 
 actors, whereby He holds up to a world, not yet prepared 
 for less gross and sensible impressions, scenes to come. 
 It would lead me far beyond the limits of my argument 
 
 ' See Gen. iii. 21 ; iv. i, 5. 7. 
 
Part I. 
 
 BOOKS OF MOSES. 
 
 27 
 
 were I to touch upon the multitude of instances, which 
 will crowd, however, I doubt not, upon the minds of my 
 readers. I might tell of Adam, whom St. Paul himself 
 calls "the figure "or type "of Him that was to come."^ 
 I might tell of the sacrifice of Isaac (though not alto- 
 gether after him whose vision upon this subject, always 
 bright though often baseless, would alone have immor- 
 talized his name) — of that Isaac whose birth was pre- 
 ceded by an annunciation to his mother^ — whose con- 
 ception was miraculous^ — who was named of the angel 
 before he was conceived in the womb^ and Joy, or 
 Laughter, or Rejoicing was that name^ — who was, in its 
 primary sense, the seed in which all the nations of the 
 earth were to be blessed" — whose projected death was a 
 rehearsal (as it were), almost two thousand years before- 
 hand, of the great oifering of all — the very mountain, 
 Moriah, not chosen by chance, not chosen for con- 
 venience, for it was three days' journey from Abraham's 
 dwelling-place, but no doubt appointed of God as the 
 future scene of a Saviour's passion too '' — a son, an only 
 son the victim — the very instruments of the oblation, 
 the wood, not carried by the young men, not carried by 
 the ass which they had brought with them, but laid on 
 the shoulders of him who was to die, as the cross was 
 borne up that same ascent of Him who, in the fulness 
 of time, was destined to expire upon it. But indeed I 
 see the Promise all Genesis through, so that our Lord 
 might well begin with Moses in expounding the things 
 concerning Himself^; and well might Philip say, "We 
 have found Him of whom Moses in the Law did 
 
 ^ Eom. V. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 45. 
 
 ^ Gen. xviii. 10. 
 
 •^ Ibid, xviii. 14. 
 
 4 Ibid. xvii. 19. 
 
 ^ Geu. xxi. 0. 
 
 « Ibid. xxii. 18. 
 
 ■^ Ibid. xxii. 2; 9 Chron. iii 1, 
 
 * Luke xxiv. 27. 
 
28 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 write.'" I see the Promise all Genesis through, and if 
 I have constructed a rude and imperfect Temple of 
 Patriarchal worship out of the fragments which offer 
 themselves to our hands in that history, the Messiah to 
 come is the spirit that must fill that Temple with His 
 all-pervading presence, — none other than He must be 
 the Shekinah of the Tabernacle we have reared. For I 
 confess myself wholly at a loss to explain the nature 
 of that Book on any other principle, or to unlock its 
 mysteries by any other key. Couple it with this con- 
 sideration, and I see the scheme of Revelation, like the 
 physical scheme, proceeding with beautiful wiiformity 
 — an unity of plan connecting (as it has been well said 
 by Paley) the chicken roosting upon its perch with the 
 spheres revolving in the firmament ; and an unity of 
 plan connecting in like manner the meanest accidents 
 of a household with the most illustrious visions of a 
 prophet. Abstracted from this consideration, I see in 
 it details of actions, some trifling, some even offensive, 
 jDursued at a length (when compared with the whole) 
 singularly disproiDortionate ; while things which the 
 angels would desire to look into are passed over and 
 forgotten. But this principle once admitted, and all is 
 consecrated — all assumes a new aspect — trifles that 
 seem at first not bigger than a man's hand, occupy the 
 heavens ; and wherefore Sarah laughed, for instance, at 
 the prospect of a son, and wherefore that laugh was 
 rendered immortal in his name, and wherefore the 
 sacred historian dwells on a matter so trivial, whilst 
 the world and its vast concerns were lying at his feet, I 
 can fully understand. For then I see the hand of God 
 shaping everything to his own ends, and in an event 
 thus casual, thus easy, thus unimportant, telling forth 
 ' John i. 45. 
 
Part I. 
 
 BOOKS OF MOSES. 
 
 29 
 
 his mighty design of Salvation to the world, and work- 
 ing it up into the web of his noble prospective counsels\ 
 I see that nothing is great or little before Him who 
 can bend to his purposes whatever He willeth, and con- 
 vert the light-hearted and thoughtless mockery of an 
 aged woman into an instrument of his glory, effectual 
 as the tongue of the seer which He touched with living 
 coals from the altar. Bearing this master-key in my 
 hand, I can interpret the scenes of domestic mirth, of 
 domestic stratagem, or of domestic wickedness, with 
 which the history of Moses abounds. The Seed of the 
 Woman, that was to bruise the Serpent's head^, how- 
 ever indistinctly understood (and probably it was un- 
 derstood very indistinctly), was the one thing longed 
 for in the families of old, was "the desire of all 
 nations," as the Prophet Haggai expressly calls it^; and 
 provided they could accomplish this desire, they (like 
 others when urged by an overpowering motive) were 
 often reckless of the means, and rushed upon deeds 
 which they could not defend. Then did the wife forget 
 her jealousy, and provoke, instead of resenting, the 
 faithlessness of her husband*; then did the mother 
 forget a mother's part, and teach her own child 
 treachery and deceit^; then did daughters turn the 
 instincts of nature backward, and deliberately work 
 their own and their father's shame ^; then did the 
 daughter-in-law veil her face, and court the incestuous 
 bed^; and to be childless was to be a bye-word^; and 
 to refuse to raise up seed to a brother was to be spit 
 
 ^ Gen. xxi. 6. 
 
 - Ibid. iii. 15. 
 
 ■' Hag. ii. 7. 
 
 ■^ Gen. xvi. 2; xxx. 3; xxx. 9. 
 
 ^ Gen. XXV. 23; xxvii. 13. 
 
 « Ibid. xix. 31. 
 
 ■^ Ibid, xxxviii. 14, 
 
 ^ Ibid. xvi. 5 ; xxx. 1. 
 
30 
 
 THE VERACITY OF THE 
 
 Pakt I. 
 
 upon'; and the prospect of the Promise, like the ful- 
 fihnent of it, did not send peace into families, but a 
 sword, and three were set against two, and two against 
 three^; and the elder, who would be promoted unto 
 honour, was set against the younger, whom God would 
 promote ^ and national differences were engendered by 
 it, as individuals grew into nations^; and even the 
 foulest of idolatries may be traced, perhaps, to this 
 hallowed source ; for the corruption of the best is the 
 worst corruption of all^ It is upon this principle of 
 interpretation, and I know not upon what other so 
 well, that we may put to silence the ignorance of 
 foolish men, who have made those parts of the Mosaic 
 History a stumbling-block to many, which, if rightly 
 understood, are the very testimony of the covenant ; 
 and a principle, which is thus extensive in its applica- 
 tion and successful in its results, which explains so 
 much that is difficult, and answers so much that is 
 objected against, has, from this circumstance alone, 
 strong presumption in its favour, strong claims upon 
 our sober regard ^ 
 
 Such is the structure that appears to me to unfold 
 itself, if we do but bring together the scattered mate- 
 rials of which it is composed. The 'place of worship — 
 \X\Q j)riest to minister — the tithes to support him — the 
 sacerdotal dress — the ceremonial forms — the appointed 
 seasons for holy things — preachers — prophets — a code of 
 laws — sacrifices — sacraments — types — and a Messiah in 
 
 ^ Gen. xxxviii. 26; Deut. xxv. 
 
 ' Ibid, xxvii. 41. 
 
 ^ Ibid. iv. 5 ; xxvii. 41. 
 
 « Ibid. xix. 37; xxvi. 35. 
 
 ^ Numb. xxv. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 " See Allix, " Reflections on 
 the Books of Holy Scripture," 
 where this interesting subject is 
 most ingeniously pursued. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 31 
 
 prospect, as leading a feature of the whole scheme, as 
 He now is in retrospect of a scheme which has suc- 
 ceeded it. Complete the building is not, but still there 
 is symmetry in its component parts, and unity in its 
 whole. Yet Moses was certainly not contemplating 
 any description of a Patriarchal Church. He had 
 other matters in his thoughts : he was the mediator 
 not of this system, but of another, which he was now 
 to set forth in all its details, even of the Levitical. 
 Hints, however, of a former dispensation he does in- 
 advertently let fall, and these we find, on collecting 
 and comparing them, to be, as far as they go, har- 
 monious. 
 
 Upon this general view of the Book of Genesis, then, 
 I found my first proof of consistency 'without desigii in 
 the writings of Moses, and my first argument for their 
 veracity — for such consistency is too uniform to be 
 accidental., and too unobtrusive to have been studied. 
 Such a view is, doubtless, important, as far as regards 
 the doctrines of Scripture ; I, however, only urge it as 
 far as regards the evidences. I shall now enter more 
 into detail, and bring forward such specific coincidences 
 amongst independent passages of the Mosaic writings, 
 as tend to prove that in them we have the Word of 
 Truth, that in them we may put our trust with faith 
 unfeigned. 
 
 II. 
 
 In the 18th chapter of Genesis we find recorded a 
 very singular conversation which Abraham is reported to 
 have held with a superior Being, there called the Lord. 
 It pleased God on this occasion to communicate to the 
 Father of the Faithful his intention to destroy forth- 
 with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, of which the 
 
32 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 cry was great, and the sin very grievous. Now the 
 manner in which Abraham is said to have received the 
 sad tidings is remarkable. He does not bow to the 
 high behest in helpless acquiescence — the Lord do 
 what seemeth good in his sight — but, with feelings at 
 once excited to the uttermost, he pleads for the guilty 
 city, he implores the Lord not to slay the righteous ivith 
 the wicked I and when he feels himself permitted to 
 speak with all boldness, he first entreats that fifty good 
 men may purchase the city's safety, and, still en- 
 couraged by the success of a series of petitions, he rises 
 in his merciful demands, till at last it is promised that 
 even if ten should be found in it, it should not be de- 
 stroyed for ten's sake. 
 
 Now was there no motive beyond that of general 
 humanity which urged Abraham to entreaties so impor- 
 tunate, so reiterated ? None is named — perhaps such 
 general motive will be thought enough — I do not say 
 that it was not ; yet I think we may discover a special 
 and appropriate one, which was likely to act upon the 
 mind of Abraham with still greater effect, though we are 
 left entirely to detect it for ourselves. For may we not 
 imagine, that no sooner was the intelligence sounded in 
 Abraham's ears, than he called to mind that Lot his 
 nejihetv, with all his family, was dwelling in this accursed 
 town \ and that this consideration both prompted and 
 quickened his prayer? For while he thus made his 
 supplication for Sodom, I do not read that Gomorrah 
 and the other cities of the plain ^ shared his intercession, 
 though they stood in the same need of it — and why 
 not? except that in them he had not the same deep 
 interest. It may be argued too, and without any undue 
 
 ^ Gen. xiv. 12. | ^ q^^^ ^i^. 28; Jude 7. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 33 
 
 refinement, that in his repeated reduction of the 
 number which was to save the j)lace, he was governed 
 by the hope that the single family of Lot (for he had 
 sons-in-law who had married his daughters, and daugh- 
 ters unmarried, and servants,) would in itself have sup- 
 plied so many individuals at least as would fulfil the 
 last condition — ten righteous persons who might turn 
 away the wrath of God, nor suffer his whole displeasure 
 to arise. 
 
 Surely nothing could be more natural than that 
 anxiety for the welfare of relatives so near to him 
 should be felt by Abraham — nothing more natural than 
 that he should make an effort for their escape, as he 
 had done on a former occasion at his own risk, when he 
 rescued this very Lot from the kings who had taken 
 him captive — nothing more natural than that his family 
 feelino^s should discover themselves in the earnestness of 
 his entreaties — yet we have to collect all this for our- 
 selves. The whole chapter might be read without our 
 gathering from it a single hint that he had any relative 
 within ten days' journey of the place. All we know is, 
 that Abraham entreated for it with great passion — that 
 he entreated for no other place, though others were in 
 the same peril — that he endeavoured to obtain such 
 terms as seemed likely to be fulfilled if a single righteous 
 family could be found there. And then we know, from 
 what is elsewhere disclosed, that the family of Lot did 
 actually dwell there at that time, a family that Abra- 
 ham might well have reckoned on being more prolific 
 in virtue than it proved. 
 
 Surely, then, a coincidence between the zeal of the 
 uncle and the danger of the brothers son is here detailed, 
 though it is not expressed ; and so utterly undesigned 
 is this coincidence, that the history might be read 
 
 D 
 
34 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 many times over, and this feature of truth in it never 
 happen to present itself. 
 
 And here let me observe, (an observation which will 
 be very often forced upon our notice in the prosecution 
 of this argument,) that this sign of truth (whatever may 
 be the importance attached to it) offers itself in the 
 midst of an incident in a great measure miraculous : and 
 though it cannot be said that such indications of veracity 
 in the natural parts of a story prove those parts of it to 
 be true which are supernatural ; yet where the natural 
 and supernatural are in close combination, the truth of 
 the former must at least be thought to add to the 
 credibility of the latter ; and they who are disposed to 
 believe, from the coincidence in question, that the peti- 
 tion of Abraham in behalf of Sodom was a real petition, 
 as it is described by Moses, and no fiction, will have 
 some difficulty in separating it from the miraculous cir- 
 cumstances connected with it — the visit of the angel — 
 the prophetic information he conveyed — and the terrible 
 vengeance with which he was proceeding to smite that 
 adulterous and sinful generation. 
 
 III. 
 
 The 24th chapter of Genesis contains a very beautiful 
 and primitive picture of Eastern manners, in the mission 
 of Abraham's trusty servant to Mesopotamia, to procure 
 a wife for Isaac from the daughters of that branch of 
 the Patriarch's family which continued to dwell in 
 Haran. He came nigh to the city of Nahor — it was 
 the hour when the people were going to draw water. 
 He entreated God to give him a token whereby he 
 might know which of the damsels of the place He had 
 appointed to Isaac for a wife. " And it came to pass 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 35 
 
 that behold Rebekah came out, who was born to 
 Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's 
 brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder" — "Drink, 
 my lord," was her greeting, " and I will draw water for 
 thy camels also." This was the simple token which 
 the servant had sought at the hands of God ; and 
 accordingly he proceeds to impart his commission to 
 herself and her friends. To read is to believe this 
 story. But the point in it to which I beg the attention 
 of my readers is this, that Rebekah is said to be " tJie 
 daughter of Bethuel, the son of Milcah, which she bare 
 unto NahorT It appears, therefore, that the grand- 
 daughter of Abraham's brother is to be the wife of 
 Abraham's son — i. e. that a person of the third genera- 
 tion on Nahor's side is found of suitable years for one 
 of the second generation on Abraham's side. Now what 
 could harmonize more remarkably with a fact elsewhere 
 asserted, though here not even touched upon, that 
 Sarah the wife of Abraham was for a long time barren, 
 and had no child till she ivas stricken in years ' ? Thus 
 it was that a generation on Abraham's side was lost, 
 and the grand-children of his brother in Haran were 
 the coevals of his own child in Canaan. I must say 
 that this trifling instance of minute consistency gives 
 me very great confidence in the veracity of the his- 
 torian. It is an incidental point in the narrative — most 
 easily overlooked — I am free to confess, never observed 
 by myself till I examined the Pentateuch with a view 
 to this species of internal evidence. It is a point on 
 which he might have spoken differently, and yet not 
 have excited the smallest suspicion that he was speak- 
 ing inaccurately. Suppose he had said that Abraham's 
 son had taken for a wife the daughter of Nahor, instead 
 ^ Gen. xviii. 12. 
 
 D 2 
 
36 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 of the grand-daughter^ who would have seen in this any- 
 thing improbable ? and to a mere inventor would not 
 that alliance have been much the more likely to sug- 
 gest itself? 
 
 Now here, again, the ordinary and extraordinary are 
 so closely united, that it is extremely difficult indeed 
 to put them asunder. If, then, the ordinary/ circum- 
 stances of the narrative have the impress of truth, the 
 extraordinary have a very valid right to challenge our 
 serious consideration too. If the coincidence almost 
 establishes this as a certain fact, which I think it does, 
 that Sarah did not bear Isaac while she was young, 
 agreeably to what Moses affirms ; is it not probable 
 that the same historian is telling the truth when he 
 says, that Isaac was born when Sarah was too old to 
 bear him at all except by miracle ? — when he says, that 
 the Lord announced his future birth, and ushered him 
 into the world by giving him a name foretelling the 
 joy he should be to the nations ; changing the names 
 of both his parents with a prophetic reference to the 
 high destinies this son was appointed to fulfil ? 
 
 Indeed the more attentively and scrupulously we 
 examine the Scriptures, the more shall we be (in my 
 opinion) convinced, that the natural and supernatural 
 events recorded in them must stand or fall together. 
 The spirit of miracles possesses the entire body of the 
 Bible, and cannot be east out without rending in pieces 
 the whole fi-ame of the history itself, merely considered 
 as a history. 
 
 IV. 
 
 There is another indication of truth in this same 
 portion of patriarchal story. It is this — The consistent 
 insignificance of Bethuel in this whole affair. Yet he 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 37 
 
 was alive, and as the father of Rebekah was likely, it 
 might have been thought, to have been a conspicuous 
 person in this contract of his daughter's marriage. For 
 there was nothing in the custom of the country to war- 
 rant the apparent indifference in the party most nearly 
 concerned, which we observe in Bethuel. Laban was 
 of the same country and placed in circumstances some- 
 what similar ; he, too, had to dispose of a daughter in 
 marriage, and that daughter also, like Rebekah, had 
 brothers ' ; yet in this case the terms of the contract 
 were stipulated, as was reasonable, by the father alone ; 
 he was the active person throughout. But mark the 
 difference in the instance of Bethuel — whether he was 
 incapable from years or imbecility to manage his own 
 affairs, it is of course impossible to say, but something 
 of this kind seems to be implied in all that relates to 
 him. Thus, when Abraham's servant meets with Re- 
 bekah at the well, he inquires of her, " whose daughter 
 art thou ? tell me, I pray thee, is there room in thy 
 father s \\ovl^q for us to lodge in?"^ She answers, that 
 she is the daughter of Bethuel, and that there is room ; 
 and when he thereupon declared who he was and 
 whence he came, " the damsel ran and told them of 
 her mother's house" (not of Yver father s house, as Rachel 
 did when Jacob introduced himself^) " these things." 
 This might be accident ; but " Rebekah had a hrother,'' 
 the history continues, and " his name was Laban, and 
 Laban ran out unto the man, and invited him in^. 
 Still we have no mention of Bethuel. The servant now 
 explains the nature of his errand, and in this instance 
 it is said, that Laban and ^e^/me/ answered^; Bethuel 
 
 ^ Gen. xxxi. 1. 
 ~ Ibid. xxiv. 23. 
 ^ Ibid. xxix. 13. 
 
 * Gen. xxiv. 29. 
 ^ Ibid. xxiv. 50. 
 
38 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 being here in this passage, which constitutes the sole 
 proof of his being alive, coupled with his son as the 
 spokesman. It is agreed, that she shall go with the 
 man, and he now makes his presents, but to whom? 
 " Jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, he 
 gave to Rebckahr He also gave, we are told, " to her 
 brother and to her mother precious tilings ;" ^ but not, it 
 seems, to her father ; still Bethuel is overlooked, and 
 he alone. It is proposed that she shall tarry a few days 
 before she departs. And by whom is this proposal 
 made? Not by her father, the most natural ])erson 
 surely to have been the princij^al throughout this whole 
 affair ; but " by her brother and her mother^ ^ In the 
 next generation, when Jacob, the fruit of this marriage, 
 flies to his mother's country at the counsel of Rebekah, 
 to hide himself from the anger of Esau, and to procure 
 for himself a wife, and when he comes to Haran and 
 inquires of the shepherds after his kindred in that 
 place, how does he express himself? " Know ye," says 
 he, "Laban the son of Nahorf"^ This is more marked 
 than even the former instances, for Laban was the son 
 of Bethuel, and only the grandson of Nahor ; yet still 
 we see Bethuel is passed over as a person of no note 
 in his own family, and Laban his own child designated 
 by the title of his grandfather, instead of his father. 
 
 This is consistent — and the consistency is too much 
 of one piece throughout, and marked by too many par- 
 ticulars to be accidental. It is the consistency of a 
 man who knew more about Bethuel than we do or 
 than he happened to let drop from his pen. It is of 
 a kind, perhaps, the most satisfactory of all for the 
 purpose I use it, because the least liable to suspicion 
 
 ^ Gen. xxiv, 53. ^ Gen. xxix. 5. 
 
 ^ Ibid. xxiv. 55. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 39 
 
 of all. The uniformity of expressive silence — repeated 
 omissions that have a meaning — no agreement in a 
 positive fact, for nothing is asserted ; yet a presumption 
 of the fact conveyed by mere negative evidence. It is 
 like the death of Joseph in the New Testament, which 
 none of the Evangelists affirm to have taken place 
 before the Crucifixion, though all imply it. This kind 
 of consistency I look upon as beyond the reach of the 
 most subtle contriver in the world. 
 
 V. 
 
 On the return of this servant of Abraham, his embassy 
 fulfilled, and Rebekah in his company, he discovers 
 Isaac at a distance, who was gone out (as our transla- 
 tion has it) " to meditate,'' or (as the margin has it) " to 
 pray in the field at eventide."^ 
 
 Now in this subordinate incident in the narrative 
 there are marks of truth, (very slight indeed it may be,) 
 but still, I think, if not obvious, not difficult to be per- 
 ceived, and not unworthy to be mentioned. Isaac 
 went out to oneditate or to p'«j/ — but the Hebrew word 
 does not relate to religious meditation exclusively, still 
 less exclusively to direct prayer. Neither does the cor- 
 responding expression in the Septuagint {ahoX^ayricyai) 
 convey either of these senses exclusively, the latter of 
 the two perhaps not at all. The leading idea suggested 
 seems to be an anxious, a reverential, a painful, a de- 
 pressed state of mind — " out of the abundance of my 
 coinplainV (or meditation, for the word is the same 
 here, only in the form of a substantive), " out of the 
 abundance of my meditation and (frief have I spoken," 
 are the words of Hannah to Eli^ " Who hath woe, 
 
 1 Gen. xxiv. 63. I ^ \ Sam. i. 16. 
 
40 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 who hath sorrow, who hath contentions, who hath 
 babblinq, (the word is here still the same, and evidently 
 might be rendered with more propriety melancholy,) 
 who hath wounds without cause, who hath redness of 
 eyes?"^ Isaac therefore went out into the field, not 
 directly to pray, but to give ease to a wounded spirit in 
 solitude. Now the occasion of this his trouble of mind 
 is not pointed out, and the passage indeed has been 
 usually explained without any reference to such a feel- 
 ing, and merely as an instance of religious contempla- 
 tion in Isaac worthy of imitation by all. But one of 
 the last things that is recorded to have happened before 
 the servant went to Haran, whence he was now return- 
 ing, is the death and burial of Sarah, no doubt a tender 
 mother (as she proved herself a jealous one) to the 
 child of her old age and her only child. What more 
 likely than that her loss was the subject of Isaac's 
 mournful meditation on this occasion ? But this con- 
 jecture is reduced almost to certainty by a few words 
 incidentally dropped at the end of the chapter ; for 
 having lifted up his eyes and beheld the camels coming, 
 and the servant, and the maiden, Isaac " brought her 
 into his mother SaraKs tent, and took Rebekah and she 
 became his wife ; and he loved her, and was comforted 
 after his mother s death.''^ 
 
 The agreement of this latter incident with Avhat had 
 gone before is not set forth in our version, and a scene 
 of very touching and picturesque beauty imj)aired, if 
 not destroyed. 
 
 VI. 
 
 We have now to contemplate Isaac in a different scene, 
 
 and to remove with him (after the fashion of this 
 
 1 Prov. xxiii. 29. I ^ Qq^_ xxiv. 67. 
 
Paet I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 41 
 
 earthly pilgrimage) from an occasion of mirth to one 
 of mourning. 
 
 Being now grown old, as he says, and " not knowing 
 the day of his death,'' he prepares to bless his first-born 
 son " before he dies.''' ^ So spake the Patriarch. This 
 looks very like one of the last acts of a life which time 
 and natural decay had brought near its close ; yet it is 
 certain that Isaac continued to live a great many years 
 after this, nay, that probably a fourth part of his whole 
 life yet remained to him — for he was still alive when 
 Jacob returned from Mesopotamia; when even many 
 of Jacob's sons were grown up to manhood who were 
 as yet in the loins of their father^ ; and even after that 
 Patriarch had repeatedly migrated from dwelling-place 
 to dwelling-place in the land of Canaan. For "Jacob," 
 we read when all these other events had been related in 
 their order, " came unto Isaac his father, unto Mamre, 
 unto the city of Arbah, which is Hebron, where Abra- 
 ham and Isaac sojourned."^ 
 
 How, then, is this seeming discrepancy to be got 
 over ? I mean the discrepancy between Isaac's anxiety 
 to bless his son before he died, and the fact of his being 
 found alive perhajDS forty or fifty years afterwards ? 
 My answer is this — that it was probably at a moment 
 of dangerous sickness when he bethought himself of 
 imparting the blessing — and I feel my conjecture sup- 
 ported by the following minute coincidences. That Isaac 
 was then desirous to have " savoury meat such as he 
 loved," as though he loathed his ordinary food : that 
 Jacob bade him " arise and sit that he might eat of his 
 venison," as though he was at the time stretched upon 
 his bed ; that he " trembled very exceedingly^' when Esau 
 
 ^ Geu. xxvii. 2. 4. ^ q.^.^ ^yj^y. 27. 
 
 ^ Ibid, xxxiv. 5. 
 
42 THE VEEACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 came in and he was apprized of his mistake, as though 
 he was very weak ; that the words of Esau, when he 
 said in his heart " the days of mournhif) for my father 
 are at hand," are as though he was thought sick unto 
 death ; and that those of Rebekah, when she said unto 
 Jacob " should I be deprived of you both in one day," 
 are as though she supposed the time of her widowhood 
 to be near. 
 
 I will add that the prolongation of Isaac's life unew- 
 "pededly (as it should seem), may have had its influence 
 in the continued protection of Jacob from Esau's anger, 
 the latter, even in the first burst of his passion, i-etain- 
 ing that reverence for his father which determined him 
 to put off the execution of his evil purposes against 
 Jacob, till lie should be no more. And this affection 
 seems to have been felt by him to the last ; for wild 
 and wandering as was his life, the sword or the bow 
 ever in his hand, we nevertheless find him anxious to do 
 honour to his father's grave, and assisting Jacob at the 
 burial '. The filial feelings, therefore, which had stayed 
 his hand at first were still tending to soothe him during 
 Jacob's absence, and to propitiate him on Jacob's re- 
 turn ; for the days of mourning for his father were still 
 not come. 
 
 VII. 
 
 My next coincidence may not be thought in itself so 
 convincing as some others, yet, as it at once furnishes 
 an argument for the truth of Genesis and an answer to 
 an objection, I will not pass it over. When Jacob is 
 about to remove wnth his family to Beth-el, a place 
 already consecrated in his memory by the vision of 
 angels, and thenceforward to be distinguished by an 
 
 ' Gen. XXXV. 29. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 43 
 
 altar to his God, he gives the following extraordinary 
 command to his household and all that are with him : 
 " Put away the straiige cjods that are among you, and be 
 clean, and change your garments;"^ or as it might be 
 translated with j^erhaps more closeness, " the gods of 
 the stranger r Had Jacob, then, hitherto tolerated the 
 worship of idols among his own attendants ? Had he 
 connived so long at a defection from the God of his 
 fathers, even whilst he was befriended by Him, whilst 
 he was living under his special protection, whilst he 
 was in frequent communication with Him ? This is hard 
 to be believed ; indeed it would have seemed incredible 
 altogether, had it not been remembered that Rachel 
 had Images which she stole from her father Laban, and 
 which he at least considered as his household gods. 
 Those images, however, might be taken by Rachel as 
 valuables, silver or gold perhaps, a fair prize as she 
 might think, serving to balance the portion which Laban 
 had withheld from her, and the money which he had 
 devoured. That she used them herself as idols does 
 not appear, but rather the contrary — and that Jacob 
 was perfectly unconscious of their being at all in his 
 camp, whether as objects of worship or as objects of 
 value, is evident from his giving Laban free leave to 
 put to death the party on w4iom they should be founds 
 He therefore w^as not an idolater himself; nor, as far 
 as we know, did he wdnk at idolatry in those about him. 
 Whence, then, this command, issued to his attendants 
 on their approach to Beth-el, that holy ground, " to put 
 away the strange gods that were amongst them, and to 
 maJce themselves clean f'' 
 
 Let us only refer to an event of a former chapter^, 
 
 ^ Gen. XXXV. 3. I ^ Geu. xxxiv. 
 
 ~ Ibid. xxxi. 32. 
 
44 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 and all is plain. The sons of Jacob bad been just 
 destroying tlie city of tlie Sbechemites — they had slain 
 the males, but " all their wealth, and all their little 
 ones, and their wives, took they captive, and spoiled all 
 that was in the house." These captives, then, so lately 
 added to the company of Jacob, were in all probability 
 the strangers alluded to, and the idols in their possession 
 the gods of the strangers, which accordingly the Patri- 
 arch required them to put away forthwith, before 
 Beth-el was approached. Moreover, it may be observed, 
 that the terms of the command extend to " all that were 
 with hhnr which may well have respect to the recent 
 augmentation of his numbers, by the addition of the 
 Shechemite prisoners : and the further injunction, that 
 not only the idols were to be put away, but that all 
 were to be clean and change their garments, may have 
 a like respect to the recent slaughter of that people, 
 whereby all who were concerned in it were polluted. 
 
 Yet, surely, nothing can be more incidental than the 
 connection between the sacking of the city and the 
 subsequent command to put the idols of the stranger 
 away — though nothing can be more natural and satis- 
 factory than that connection when it is once perceived. 
 Indeed so little solicitous is Moses to point out these 
 two events as cause and consequence, that he has left 
 himself open to misconstruction by the very unguarded 
 and artless manner in which he expresses himself, and 
 has even placed the character of Jacob, as an exclusive 
 worshipper of the true God, unintentionally in jeopardy. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 In the character of Jacob I see an indimduality which 
 marks it to belong to real life : and this is my next 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 45 
 
 argument for the veracity of the writings of Moses. 
 The particulars we read of him are consistent with each 
 other, and with the lot to which he was born ; for this 
 more or less models the character of every man. The 
 lot of Jacob had not fallen upon the fairest of grounds. 
 Life, especially the former part of it, did not run so 
 smoothly with him as with his father Isaac — so that he 
 might be tempted to say to Pharaoh towards the close 
 of it naturally enough, that " the days of the years of it 
 had been evil." The faults of his youth had been 
 visited upon his manhood with a retributive justice not 
 unfrequent in God's moral government of the world, 
 where the very sin by which a man offends is made the 
 rod by which he is corrected. Rebekah's undue par- 
 tiality for her younger son, which leads her to deal 
 cunningly for his promotion unto honour, works for her 
 the loss of that son for the remainder of her days — his 
 own unjust attemj^ts at gaining the superiority over his 
 elder brother entail upon him twenty years' slavery in 
 a foreign land — and the arts by which he had made 
 Esau to suffer are precisely those by which he suffers 
 himself at the hands of Laban. Of this man, the first 
 thing we hear is, his entertainment of Abraham's ser- 
 vant when he came on his errand to Rebekah. Hospi- 
 tality was the virtue of his age and country ; in his 
 case, however, it seems to have been no little stimulated 
 by the sight of " the ear-ring and the bracelets on his 
 sister's hands," which the servant had already given her^ 
 — so he speedily made room for the camels. He next is 
 presented to us as beguiling that sister's son, who had 
 sought a shelter in his house, and whose circumstances 
 placed him at his mercy, of fourteen years' service, 
 when he had covenanted with him for seven only — en- 
 ^ Gen. xxiv. 30. 
 
46 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 deavouring to retain his labour when he would not pay 
 him his labour's worth — himself devouring the portion 
 which he should have given to his daughters, counting 
 them but as strangers \ Compelled at length to pay 
 Jacob wages, he changes them ten times, and in the 
 spirit of a crafty griping worldling makes him account 
 for whatever of the flock was torn of beasts or stolen, 
 whether by day or night. When Jacob flies from this 
 iniquitious service with his family and cattle, Laban 
 still pursues and persecutes him, intending, if his in- 
 tentions had not been overruled by a mightier hand, 
 to send him away empty, even after he had been 
 making, for so long a period, so usurious a profit of him. 
 I think it was to be expected that one who had 
 been disciplined in such a school as this, and for such a 
 season, would not come out of it without bearing about 
 him its marks ; and that oppressed first by the just 
 fury of his brother, which put his life in hazard, and 
 drove him into exile, and then still more by the con- 
 tinued tyranny of a father-in-law, such as we have seen, 
 Jacob should have learned, like maltreated animals, to 
 have the fear of man habitually before his eyes. Now 
 that it was so is evident from all the latter part of his 
 history. 
 
 He is afraid that Laban will not let him go, and 
 therefore takes the 'precaution to steal from him un- 
 awares, when he is gone to a distance to shear his 
 sheep. He approaches the borders of Edom, but here 
 the ancient dread of his brother revives, and he takes 
 the precaution to propitiate him or to escape him by 
 measures which breathe the spirit of the man in a 
 singular manner. He sends him a message — it is from 
 " Jacob thy servant " to " Esau my lord." Esau ad- 
 
 ' Gen. xxxi. 15. 
 
Paet I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 47 
 
 vances, and he at once fears the worst. Then does he 
 divide his peojile and substance into two bands, that if 
 the one be smitten, the other may escape — he provides 
 a present of many cattle for his brother — he commands 
 his servants to put a space between each drove, appa- 
 rently to add effect to the splendour of his present — he 
 charges them to deliver severally their own portion, 
 with the tidings that he was behind who sent it — he 
 appoints their places to the women and children with 
 the same prudential considerations that mark his whole 
 conduct ; first the handmaids and their children ; then 
 Leah and her children ; and in the hindermost and 
 least-exposed place, his favourite Rachel and Joseph. 
 Such are his precautions. They are all, however, need- 
 less — Esau owes him no wrong— ^he even proposes to 
 escort him home in peace, or to leave him a guard out 
 of the four hundred men that were with him. But 
 Jacob evades both proposals ; apprehe7idi7ig, most likely, 
 more danger from his friends than from his foes ; and 
 dismisses his brother with a word about " following my 
 lord to Seir;" an intention which, as far as we know, 
 he was in more haste to express than accomplish. All 
 this ended, the honour of his house is violated by 
 Shechem, a son of a prince of that country. Even this 
 insult does not throw him off his guard. He heard it, 
 " but he held his peace " till his sons, who were with the 
 cattle in the field, should come home. They soon pro- 
 ceed to take summary vengeance on the Shechemites. 
 The fear of man, however, which had restrained the 
 wrath of Jacob at the first, besets him still, and he now 
 says to his sons — " Ye have troubled me to make me 
 to stink among the inhabitants of the land; and I 
 being few in number, they shall gather themselves to- 
 gether against me and slay me; and I shall be de- 
 
48 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 stroyed, I and my house." ^ Jacob would have been 
 better pleased with more compromise and less cruelty 
 — he was not prepared to give utterance to that feeling 
 of turbulent indignation, reckless of all consequences, 
 which spake in the words of Simeon and Levi, " Shall 
 he deal with our sister as with an harlot?" Here 
 again, however, his fears proved groundless. Many 
 years now pass away, but when we meet him once 
 more he is still the same — the same leading feature in 
 his character continues to the last. His sons go down 
 into Egypt for corn in the famine — they return with an 
 injunction from Joseph to take back with them Ben- 
 jamin, or else to see his face no more. This is urged 
 upon Jacob, and the reply it extorts from him is in 
 strict keeping with all that has gone before : — "Where- 
 fore dealt ye so ill with me, as to tell the man ivhether 
 ye had yet a brother?'''^ Still we see one whom suffer- 
 ing had rendered distrustful — who would lend many 
 his ear, but few his tongue. The famine presses so 
 sore that there is no alternative but to yield up his 
 son. Still he is the same individual. Judah is in 
 haste to be gone — he will be surety for the lad — he 
 will bring him again, or bear the blame for ever. But 
 Jacob gives little heed to these vapouring promises of 
 a sanguine adviser, and, as stooping before a necessity 
 which was too strong for him, he prudently sets 
 himself to devise means to disarm the danger; and 
 " if it must be so now," says he, " do this, take of the 
 best fruits of the land in your vessels, and carry down the 
 man a present, a little balm and a little honey, spices 
 and myrrh, nuts and almonds — and take double money 
 in your hand ; and the money that was brought again 
 
 1 Gen. xxxiv. 30. I ^ G&n. xliii. G. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 49 
 
 in the mouth of your sacks, carry it again in your hand ; 
 peradventure it was an oversight." ^ 
 
 I cannot j^ersuade myself that these are not marks 
 of a real cliarader — especially when I consider that this 
 identity is found in incidents spread over a period of a 
 hundred years or more — that they are mere hints, as it 
 were, out of which we are left to construct the man ; 
 hints interrupted by a multitude of other matters ; the 
 genealogy and adventures of Esau and his Arab tribes ; 
 the household affairs of Potiphar ; the dreams of Pha- 
 raoh ; the polity of Egypt — that the facts thus dispersed 
 and broken are to be brought together by ourselves, 
 and the general induction to be drawn from them by 
 ourselves, nothing being more remote from the mind of 
 Moses than to present us with a portrait of Jacob ; nay, 
 that of Isaac, who happens to be less involved in the 
 circumstances of his history, he scarcely gives us a single 
 feature. Surely, with all this before us, it is impossible 
 to entertain the idea for a moment of any studied uni- 
 formity. Yet an uniformity there is ; casual, therefore, 
 on the part of Moses, who was thinking nothing about 
 it ; but complete, because, without thinking about it, he 
 was by some means or other drawing from the life. 
 
 And now am I thought to disparage the character of 
 this holy man of old ? God forbid ! I think that in the 
 incidents I have named his conduct may be excused, if 
 not justified. But were it otherwise, I am not aware 
 that any of the Patriarchs has been set up, or can be 
 set up, as a genuine pattern of Christian morals. They 
 saw the Promise, (and the more questionable parts of 
 Jacob's conduct are to be accounted for by his impa- 
 tience to obtain the Promise, and by his consequently 
 using unlawful means to obtain it,) but " they saw it 
 
 ' Gen. xliii. 12. 
 
50 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 afar off" — "they beheld it, but not nigh." They lived 
 under a code of laws that were not absolutely good, 
 perhaps not so good as the Levitical ; for as this was 
 but a preparation for the more perfect Law of Christ, 
 so possibly was the Patriarchal but a preparation for the 
 more perfect Law of Moses. Indeed I have already 
 observed, that many scattered hints may be gathered 
 from this latter Law, which show that it was but the 
 Law under which the Patriarchs had lived recon- 
 structed, augmented, and improved ; and I apprehend 
 that such a scheme of progressive advancement, first 
 the dawn, then the day, then the perfect day, is analo- 
 gous to God's dealings in general. But the broad light 
 in which the Fathers of Israel are to be viewed is this, 
 that they were exclusive worshippers of the One True 
 Everlasting God, in the world of idolaters — that they 
 Avere living depositaries of the great doctrine of the 
 Unity of the Godhead, when the nations around were 
 resorting to every green tree — that they were " faithful 
 found among the faithless." And so incalculably im- 
 portant was the preservation of this Great Article of 
 the Creed of man, at a time when it rested in the keep- 
 ing of so few, that the language of the Almighty in the 
 Law seems ever to have a respect unto it : fury, anger, 
 indignation, jealousy, hatred, being expressions rarely, 
 if ever, attributed to him, except in reference to idolatry ; 
 and, on the other hand, enemies of God, adversaries 
 of God, haters of God, being there — chiefly and above 
 all, idolaters. But in this sense God was emphatically 
 the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of 
 Jacob, none of them, not even the last (for the only 
 passage which savours of the contrary admits, as we 
 have seen, of easy explanation), having ever forfeited 
 their claim to this high and glorious title ; however, 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 51 
 
 such title may not be thought to imply that their moral 
 characters and conduct were faultless, and worthy of 
 all acceptation. 
 
 IX. 
 
 The marks of coincidence Mdthout design, which I have 
 brought forward to prove the truth of the Books of 
 Moses, as successively presenting themselves in the 
 history of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, I shall now 
 follow up by others in the history of Joseph. 
 
 By the ill-concealed partiality of his father, and his 
 own incaution in declaring his dreams of future great- 
 ness, Joseph had incurred the hatred of his brethren. 
 They were feeding the flock near Shechem, Jacob 
 desires to satisfy himself of their welfare, and sends 
 Joseph to inquire of them and to bring him word again. 
 Meanwhile they had driven further a-field to Dothan, 
 and Joseph, informed of this by a man whom he found 
 wandering in the country, followed them thither. They 
 beheld him when he was yet afar oW; his dress was 
 remarkable', and the eye of the shepherd in the plain 
 country of the East, like that of the mariner now, was 
 no doubt j^ractised and keen. They take their counsel 
 together against him. They conclude, however, not to 
 stain their hands in the blood of their brother, but to 
 cast him into an empty pit, which, in those countries, 
 where the inhabitants were constantly engaged in a 
 fruitless search for water, was a very likely place to be 
 on the spot. There he was to be left to die, or, as 
 Reuben intended, to remain till he could rid him out 
 of their hands. Nothing can be more artless than this 
 story. Nothing can bear more indisputable signs of 
 
 ^ Gen. xxxvii. 3. 
 
 E 2 
 
52 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 truth than its details. But the circumstance, on which 
 I now rest, is another that is mentioned. The brothers 
 haying achieved their evil purpose, sat down to eat 
 bread — possibly some household present which Jacob 
 had sent them, and Joseph had just conveyed, such as 
 on a somewhat similar occasion, in after-times, Jesse 
 sent and David conveyed to his elder brethren in the 
 camp — though on this, as on a thousand touches of 
 truth of the like kind, the reader of Moses is left to 
 make his own speculations. And now " they lifted up 
 their eyes and looked, and behold a company of Ish- 
 maelites came from Gilead with their camels, bearing 
 spicery and halm and myrrh, going to carry it down to 
 Egypt.''' ' Now this, though by no means an obvious 
 incident to have suggested itself, does seem to me a 
 very natural one to have occurred ; and, what is more, 
 is an incident which tallies remarkably well with what 
 Ave read elsewhere, in a passage, however, having no re- 
 ference whatever to the one in question. For have we 
 not reason to know, that at this very early period in 
 the history of the world, this first of caravans upon 
 record was charged with a cargo for Egypt singularly 
 adapted to the w^ants of the Egyptians at that time ? 
 Expunge the 2nd and 3rd verses of the 50th chapter 
 of Genesis, and the symptoms of veracity in the nar- 
 rative which I here detect, or think I detect, would 
 never have been discoverable. But in those verses I 
 am told that " Joseph commanded the Physicians to 
 embalm his father — and the Physicians embalmed Israel 
 — and forty days were fulfilled to him ; for so are ful- 
 filled the days of those which are embalmed, and the 
 Egyptians mourned threescore and ten days." I con- 
 clude, therefore, from this, that in these very ancient 
 ' Gen. XXX vii, Q5. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 53 
 
 times it was the practice of the Egyptians (for Joseph 
 was here doing that which was the custom of the 
 country where he lived) to embahii their dead ; and 
 we know from the case of our Lord that an hundred 
 pounds weight of myrrh and aloes was not more than 
 enough for a single body'. Hence, then, the camel- 
 loads of spices which the Ishmaelites were bringing 
 from Gilead, would naturally enough find an ample 
 market in Egypt. Now, is it easy to come to any other 
 conclusion when trifles of this kind drop out, fitted one 
 to another like the corresponding parts of a cloven tally, 
 than that both are true? — that the historian, however 
 he obtained his intelhgence, is speaking of particulars 
 which fell within his own knowledge, and is speaking of 
 them faithfully? Surely nothing can be more incidental 
 than the mention of the lading of these camels of the 
 Ishmaelites ; it has nothing to do with the main fact, 
 which is merely this, that the party, whoever they were, 
 and whatever they were bent upon, were ready to buy 
 Joseph, and that his brethren were ready to sell him. 
 On the other hand no one can suspect, that when Moses 
 relates Joseph to have caused his father's body to be 
 embalmed, he had an eye to corroborating his account 
 of the adventure which he had already told concerning 
 the Ishmaelitish merchants, who might thus seem oc- 
 cupied in a traffic that was appropriate. I think that 
 this single coincidence would induce an unprejudiced 
 person to believe, that the ordinary parts of this story 
 are matters of fact fully known to the historian, and 
 accurately reported by him. Yet it is an integral por- 
 tion of this same story, uttered by the same historian, 
 that Joseph had visions of his future destinies, which 
 were strictly fulfilled — that the whole proceeding with 
 1 John xix. 39. 
 
54 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 regard to him had been under God's controlling influ- 
 ence from beginning to end — that though his brethren 
 " thought evil against him, God meant it unto good," 
 to bring to pass, as he did at a future day, " to save 
 much people alive." ' 
 
 X. 
 
 Nor is this all with regard to Egypt wherein is seen 
 the image and superscri])tion of truth. An argument 
 for the Veracity of the New Testament has been found 
 in the harmony which pervades the very many inci- 
 dental notices of the condition of Judea at the period 
 when the New Testament professes to have been 
 written. A similar agreement without design may be 
 remarked in the occasional glimpses of Egypt which 
 open upon us in the course of the Mosaic History. For 
 instance, I perceive in each and all of the following 
 incidents, indirect indications of this one fact, that 
 Egypt was already a great corn country, though I do 
 not believe that such a fact is directly asserted in any 
 passage in the whole Pentateuch. Thus, when Abrani 
 found a famine in the land of Canaan, " he went down 
 into Egypt to sojourn there."^ There was a second 
 famine in a part of Canaan, in the days of Isaac : he, 
 however, on this occasion went to Gerar, which was in 
 the country of the Philistines, but it appears as though 
 this was only to have been a stage in a journey which 
 he was projecting into Egypt ; for we read, that " the 
 Lord appeared unto him and said. Go not down into 
 Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee 
 of."^ There is a third famine in Canaan in the time of 
 
 ^ Gen. 1. 20. 
 ' Ibid. xii. 10. 
 
 ^ Gen. xxvi. 2. 
 
Pabt I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 55 
 
 Jacob, and then " all countries ca7ne unto Egypt to buy 
 corn, because the famine was so sore in all lands.'" 
 Again, I read of Pharaoh being wroth with two of his 
 officers — they are spoken of as persons of some distinc- 
 tion in the court of the Egyptian King — and who were 
 they? One was the chief of the Butlers, but the other 
 was the chief of the Bakers'^. Still I see in this an 
 indication of Egypt being a corn country ; of bread 
 being there literally the staff of life, and the manufac- 
 turing and dispensing of it an employment of consider- 
 able trust and consequence. So again I find that, in 
 the fabric of the bricks in Egypt, straiv was a very 
 essential element ; and so abundant does the corn crop 
 seem to have been — so widely was it spread over the 
 face of the country, that the task-masters of the 
 Israelites could exact the usual tale of the bricks, 
 though the people had to gather the stuhhle for them- 
 selves to supply the place of the straw, which was 
 withheld^. Still I perceive in this an intimation of the 
 agricultural fertility of Egypt, — there could not have 
 been the stubble-land here implied unless corn had 
 been the staple crop of the country. Then when 
 Moses threatens to plague the Egyptians with a Plague 
 of Frogs, what are the places which at once present 
 themselves as those which are likely to be defiled by 
 their presence ? " The river shall bring forth frogs 
 abundantly, which shall go up and come into thine 
 house, and into thy bed-chamber, and upon thy bed, 
 and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people, 
 and into thine ovens, and into thy hieading-troKglisr^ 
 And of these kneading-troughs we again read, as uten- 
 sils possessed by all, and without which they could not 
 
 1 Gen. xli. 57. 
 ^ Ibid. xl. 1. 
 
 3 Exod. V. 7. 
 " Ibid. viii. 3. 
 
56 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 think even of taking a journey ; for on tlie delivery of 
 the Israelites from Egypt, we find that "they took 
 their dough before it was leavened, their kneading- 
 troucjlis being bound up in their clothes upon their 
 shoulders."^ 
 
 Now it may be said that we all know Egypt to have 
 been a great corn country — that the thing admits of no 
 doubt, and never did — I allow it to be so ; and if such 
 a fact had been asserted in the writings of Moses as a 
 broad fact, I should have taken no notice of it, for it 
 would then have afforded no ground for an argument 
 like this ; in such a case, Moses might have come at 
 the knowledge as we ourselves may have done, by 
 having visited the country himself, or by having re- 
 ceived a report of it from others who had visited it, and 
 so might have incorporated this amongst other incidents 
 in his history ; but I do not observe it asserted by him 
 in round terms ; it is not indeed asserted by him at all 
 — it is intimated — intimated when he is manifestly not 
 thinking about it, when his mind and his pen are quite 
 intent upon other matters ; intimated very often, very 
 indirectly, in very various ways. The fact itself of 
 Egypt being a great corn country was, no doubt, per- 
 fectly well known to Dr. Johnson, but though so much 
 of the scene of Rasselas is laid in Egypt, I will venture 
 to say, that there are in it no hints of the nature I am 
 describing ; such, I mean, as would serve to convince 
 us that the author was relating a series of events which 
 had happened under his own eye, and that the places 
 with which he combines them were not ideal, but those 
 wherein they actually came to pass. Nay, more ; when 
 anything of this kind is attempted in fiction, how sure 
 is it to fail ? Witness the Phileleutherus Lipsiensis of Dr. 
 ^ Exod. xii. 34. 
 
Pakt L books of MOSES. 57 
 
 Bentley, which it is impossible to read without speedily 
 detecting, from internal evidence, that the author of it 
 is no man of Leipsic ; even his very attempts to make 
 himself appear so, betraying him. 
 
 Surely, then, it is very satisfactory to discover con- 
 currence thus uniform, thus uncontrived, in particulars 
 falling out at intervals in the course of an artless narra- 
 tive which is not afraid to proclaim the Almighty as 
 manifesting himself by signal miracles, and which con- 
 nects those miracles, too, in the closest union with the 
 subordinate matters of which we have thus been able 
 to ascertain the probable truth and accuracy. 
 
 XI. 
 
 Before we dismiss this question of the Corn in Egypt, 
 we may remark another trifling instance or two of con- 
 sistency without design, declaring themselves in this 
 part of the narrative, and tending to strengthen our 
 belief in it. Joseph, it seems \ advised Pharaoh before 
 the famine began, to appoint officers over the land, that 
 should " take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in 
 the seven plenteous years." After this we have several 
 chapters occupied with the details of the history of 
 Jacob and his sons — the journey of the latter to Egypt 
 — their return to their father — the repetition of their 
 journey — the discovery of Joseph — the migration of the 
 Patriarch with all his family, of whom the individuals 
 are named after their respective heads — the introduc- 
 tion of Jacob to Pharaoh, and his final settlement in 
 the land of Goshen. Then the affair of the famine is 
 again touched upon in a few verses, and a permanent 
 regulation of property in Egypt is recorded as the acci- 
 
 1 Gen. xli. 34. 
 
58 THE VERACITY OF THE Pakt I. 
 
 dental result of that famine. For the people who had 
 sold both themselves and their lands to Pharaoh for 
 corn to preserve life, are now permitted to redeem both 
 on the payment of a fifth of the produce to the King 
 f(yr ever. " And Joseph made it a law over the land of 
 Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have iheffth 
 part."^ Now this was, as we had been told in a former 
 chapter, precisely the proportion which Joseph had 
 " taken up " before the famine began. It was tJien an 
 arrangement entered into with the proprietors of the 
 soil prospectively, as likely to ensure the subsistence of 
 the people ; the experiment was found to answer, and 
 the opportunity of perpetuating it having occurred, the 
 arrangement was now made lasting and compulsory. 
 Magazines of corn were henceforth to be established, 
 which should at all times be ready to meet an acci- 
 dental failure of the harvest. Can anything be more 
 natural than this? anything more common than for 
 great civil and political changes to spring out of pro- 
 visions which chanced to be made to meet some tem- 
 porary emergency? Has not our own constitution, and 
 have not the constitutions of most other countries, 
 ancient and modern, grown out of occasion — out of the 
 impulse of the day ? 
 
 Further still. Though Joseph possessed himself on 
 his royal master's account of all the land of Egypt be- 
 sides, and disposed of the people throughout the country 
 just as he pleased ^ ''he did not buy the land of the 
 priests, for the priests had a portion assigned them of 
 Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave 
 them, wherefore they sold not their lands." The priests 
 then, we see, were greatly favoured in the arrange- 
 ments made at this period of national distress. Now 
 1 Gen. xlvii. 26. I ^ Gen. xlvii. 22. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 59 
 
 does not this accord with what we had been told on a 
 former occasion, — that Pharaoh being desirous to do 
 Joseph honour, causing him to ride in the second 
 chariot that he had, and crying before him, Bow the 
 knee, and making him ruler over all the land of Egypt \ 
 added yet this as the final proof of his high regard, 
 that " he gave him to wife Asenath, the daughter of 
 Potipherah, Priest of On?"^ When, therefore, the 
 priests w^ere thus held in esteem by Pharaoh, and when 
 the minister of Pharaoh, under whose immediate direc- 
 tions all the regulations of the polity of Egypt were at 
 that time conducted, had the daughter of one of them 
 for his W'ife, is it not the most natural thing in the 
 world to have happened, that their lands should be 
 spared ? 
 
 XII. 
 
 I HAVE already found an argument for the veracity of 
 Moses in the ideiititi/ of Jacob's character : I now find 
 another in the identity of that of Joseph. There is one 
 quality (as it has been often observed, though with a 
 different view from mine,) which runs like a thread 
 through his wdiole history, — his affection for his father. 
 Israel loved him, we read, more than all his children — 
 he was the child of his age — his mother died whilst he 
 was yet young, and a double care of him consequently 
 devolved upon his surviving parent. He made him a 
 coat of many colours — he kept him at home when his 
 other sons were sent to feed the flocks. When the 
 bloody garment was brought in, Jacob in his affection 
 for him, (that same affection which, on a subsequent 
 occasion, when it was told him that after all Joseph was 
 
 1 Gen. xli. 43. I ^ Gen. xli. 45. 
 
60 THE VERACITY OF THE Pakt I. 
 
 alive, made him as slow to believe the good tidings as 
 he was now quick to apprehend the sad,) in this his 
 affection for him, I say, Jacob at once concluded the 
 worst, and " he rent his clothes and put sackcloth upon 
 his loins, and mourned for his son many days, and all 
 his daughters rose up to comfort him ; but he refused 
 to be comforted, and he said. For I will go down into 
 the grave of my son mourning." 
 
 Now what were the feelings in Joseph which re- 
 sponded to these ? When the sons of Jacob went down 
 to Egypt, and Joseph knew them though they knew not 
 him, for they (it may be remarked, and this again is not 
 like fiction,) were of an age not to be greatly changed 
 by the lapse of years, and were still sustaining the 
 character in which Joseph had always seen them, whilst 
 he himself had meanwhile grown out of the stripling 
 into the man, and from a shepherd-boy was become the 
 ruler of a kingdom — when his brethren thus came 
 before him, his question was, " Is your father yet 
 alive ? " ' They went down a second time, and again 
 the question was, " Is your father well, the old man of 
 whom ye spake, is he yet alive?" More he could not 
 venture to ask, whilst he was yet in his disguise. By a 
 stratagem he now detains Benjamin, leaving the others, 
 if they would, to go their way. But Judah came near 
 unto him, and entreated him for his brother, telling him 
 how that he had been " surety to his father " to bring 
 him back, how that " his father was an old man," and 
 that this was the " child of his old age, and that he 
 loved him," — how it would come to pass that if he 
 should not see the lad with him he would die, and his 
 grey hairs be brought with sorrow to the grave ; for 
 "how shall I go to my father, and the lad be not with 
 ^ Gen. xliii. 7. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 61 
 
 me? — lest, peradventure, I see the evil that shall come 
 on my father.'''' Here, without knowing it, he had 
 struck the string that was the tenderest of all. Joseph's 
 firmness forsook him at this repeated mention of his 
 father^ and in terms so touching — he could not refrain 
 himself any longer, and causing every man to go out, 
 he made himself known to his brethren. Then, even in 
 the paroxysm which came on liim, (for he wept aloud 
 so that the Egyptians heard,) still his first M^ords, 
 uttered from the fulness of his heart, were, " Doth mt/ 
 father yet live?" He now bids them hasten and bring 
 the old man down, bearing to him tokens of his love 
 and tidings of his glory. He goes to meet him — he 
 presents himself unto him, and falls on his neck and 
 weeps on his neck a good while — he provides for him 
 and his household out of the fat of the land — he sets 
 him before Pharoah. By and by he hears that he is 
 sick, and hastens to visit him — he receives his blessing 
 — watches his death-bed — embalms his body — mourns 
 for him threescore and ten days — and then carries him 
 (as he had desired) into Canaan to bury him, taking 
 with him as an escort to do him honour " all the elders 
 of Egypt, and all the servants of Pharoah, and all his 
 house, and the house of his brethrei\, chariots and horse- 
 men, a very great company." How natural was it now 
 for his brethren to think that the tie by which alone 
 they could imagine Joseph to be held to them was 
 dissolved, that any respect he might have felt or 
 feigned for them, must have been buried in the Cave 
 of Machpelah, and that he would now requite to them 
 the evil they had done ! " And they sent a message 
 unto Joseph, saying, Thy father did command before he 
 died, saying. So shall ye say unto Joseph, Forgive, I 
 pray thee now, the trespass of thy brethren and their 
 
62 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 sin, — for they did unto tliee evil," And then they add 
 of themselves, as if well aM-are of the surest road to 
 their brother's heart, " Forgive, we pray thee, the tres- 
 pass of the servants of the God of thy father." In 
 everything the fathers name is still put foremost : it 
 is his memory which they count upon as their shield 
 and buckler. Moreover it may be added, that though 
 all intercourse had ceased for so many years between 
 Joseph and his family, still the lasting affection he bore 
 a parent is manifested in the name which he gave to 
 his son born to him only two years before the famine, 
 even Manasseh or foo^getting, for God, said he, " hath 
 made me forget all my toil and all my father's house;" ' 
 as though ' instead of his father he must have children' 
 to fill up the void in his heart which a parent's loss 
 had created. 
 
 It is not the singular beauty of these scenes, or the 
 moral lesson they teach, excellent as it is, with which 
 I am now concerned, but simply the perfect, artless con- 
 sistency which prevails through them all. It is not the 
 constancy with which the son's strong affection for his 
 father had lived through an interval of twenty years' 
 absence, and, what is more, through the temptation of 
 sudden promotion t,o the highest estate — it is not the 
 noble-minded frankness with which he still acknow- 
 ledges his kindred, and makes a way for them, " shep- 
 herds" as they were, to the throne of Pharaoh himself — 
 it is not the simplicity and singleness of heart, which 
 allow him to give all the first-born of Egypt, men over 
 whom he bore absolute rule, an opportunity of observ- 
 ing his own comparatively humble origin, by leading 
 them in attendance upon his father's corpse, to the 
 valleys of Canaan and the modest cradle of his race — it 
 » Gen. xli. 51. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 63 
 
 is not, in a word, the grace, but the identity of Joseph's 
 character, the light in which it is exhibited by himself, 
 and the light in which it is regarded by his brethren, to 
 which I now point as stamping it with marks of reality 
 not to be gainsaid. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 A COINCIDENCE now presents itself in the history of 
 Jacob's family, very similar to that noticed in No. III. 
 
 Levi had three sons, one of whom was Kohath\ 
 Kohath had fom- sons, one of whom was Amram, the 
 father of Moses. 
 
 Amram took to wife Jochebed, his father's sister ; 
 and she became the mother of Moses. 
 
 Thus Amram, the (jrandson of Levi, was married to 
 Jochebed, the daughter of Levi. This would seem 
 to be improbable from disparity of age ; the parties not 
 being of the same generation. 
 
 But let us now turn to Numbers ^ and we there find, 
 " And the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the 
 daughter of Levi, whom her mother hare to Levi in 
 Egyytr 
 
 From this we may conclude, that Jochebed was born 
 to Levi long after his other children ; that Kohath, her 
 brother, who was born in Canaan, was much older than 
 herself; and this the rather, forasmuch as Levi's sons 
 born in Canaan were probably of a considerable age 
 when they went to Egypt, since Jacob was then a 
 hundred and thirty years old ^ and Levi was one of his 
 elder sons, his third *; a child, therefore, most likely of 
 Jacob's youth ; Joseph being actually distinguished 
 from his elder brethren by being described as the 
 
 ^ Exod. vi. 16. 18. 20. 
 "^ Num. xxvi. 59. 
 
 ^ Gen. xlvii. 28. 
 * Ibid. xxix. 34. 
 
64 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 son of Jacob's old age '. It would appear, therefore, 
 to be almost certain that the difference of age between 
 Kohath and Jochebed, his sister, must have amounted 
 to a generation ; and accordingly, that Am ram of the 
 second descent would be about coeval with Jochebed 
 of the first. Is it possible to suppose that the short 
 incidental notice of Jochebed being born in Egypt was 
 introduced for the purpose of meeting the objection 
 which might suggest itself wdth respect to the disparity 
 of years of the j^arties in this marriage — an objection 
 altogether of our own starting, for there is no allusion 
 to it in the history ? 
 
 XIV. 
 
 I WILL now follow the Israelites out of Egypt into the 
 wilderness, on their return to the land from w^hich their 
 fathers had wandered, and which they, or at least their 
 children, were destined to enjoy. 
 
 In the tenth chapter of Leviticus we are told that 
 " Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of 
 them his censer and put fire therein, and put incense 
 thereon, and offered strange fire unto the Lord, which 
 he commanded them not. And there went out fire 
 from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before 
 the Lord." Now it is natural to ask, how came Nadab 
 and Abihu to be guilty of this careless affront to God, 
 lighting their censers probably from their own hearths, 
 and not from the hallowed fire of the altar, as they 
 were commanded to do? Possibly we cannot guess 
 how it happened — it may be one of those many mat- 
 ters which are of no particular importance to be known, 
 and concerning wdiich we are accordingly left in the 
 dark. Yet, when I read shortly afterwards the follow- 
 ^ Gen. xxxvii. 3. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 65 
 
 ing instructions given to Aaron, I am led to suspect 
 that they had their origin in some recent abuse which 
 called for them, though no such origin is exj^ressly as- 
 signed to them. I cannot help imagining, that the 
 offence of Nadab and Abihu was at the bottom of 
 the statute. " Do not drink wine nor strong drink^ 
 thou nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the 
 Tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die — it shall be 
 a statute for ever throughout your generations : and 
 that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, 
 and between clean and unclean, and that ye may teach 
 the children of Israel all the statutes ^^hich the Lord 
 hath spoken unto them by the hands of Moses." Thus 
 far at least is clear, that a grievous and thoughtless in- 
 sult is offered to God by two of his Priests^ for which 
 they are cut off — that without any direct allusion to 
 their case, but still very shortly after it had happened, 
 a law is issued forbidding the Priests the use of wine 
 when about to minister. I conclude, therefore, that 
 there was a relation (though it is not asserted) between 
 the specific offence and the general law ; the more so, 
 because the sin against which that law is directed is 
 just of a kind to have produced the rash and incon- 
 siderate act of which Aaron's sons were guilty. If, 
 therefore, this incidental mention of such a law at such 
 a moment, a moment so likely to suggest the enact- 
 ment of it, be thought enough to establish the law as a 
 matter of fact, then have we once more ground to stand 
 upon ; for the enactment of the law is coupled with the 
 sin of Aaron's sons; their sin with their punishment; 
 their punishment with a miracle. Nor, it may be 
 added, does the unreserved and faithful record of such 
 a death, suffered for such an offence, afford an incon- 
 siderable argument in favour of the candour and honesty 
 
 F 
 
66 THE VERACITY OF THE Part T. 
 
 of Moses, who is no respecter of persons, it seems, but 
 when God's glory is concerned, and the welfare of the 
 people entrusted to him, does not scruple to be the 
 chronicler of the disgrace and destruction even of the 
 children of his own brother. 
 
 XV. 
 
 Another coincidence suggests itself, arising out of this 
 same portion of history, whether, however, founded in 
 fact or in fancy, be my readers the judges. From 
 the 9th chapter of Numbers, v. 15, we learn that the 
 Tabernacle was erected in the wilderness preparatory 
 to the celebration of the first Passover kept by the 
 Israelites after their escape from Egypt. From the 
 40th chapter of Exodus we find, that it was reared on 
 the first day of the first month (v. 2), or thirteen days 
 before the Passover \ and that at the same time Aaron 
 and his sons were consecrated to minister in it (v. 13). 
 In the 8th and 9th chapters of Leviticus are given the 
 particulars of their consecration (8th, 6, 12, 30), and 
 the ceremony is said to have occupied seven days 
 (v. 33), during which they were not to leave the Taber- 
 nacle day or night. On the eighth day they offered up 
 sin-offerings for themselves and for the people. It was 
 on this same day, as we read in the 10th chapter ^ that 
 Nadab and Abihu were cut off because of the strange 
 fire which they offered, and their dead bodies were dis- 
 posed of as follows : — " Moses called Mishael and Eliza- 
 jDhan the sons of Uzziel, the uncle of Aaron, and said 
 unto them. Come near, carry your brethren from before 
 the sanctuary out of the camp. So they went near and 
 carried them in their coats out of the camp." (x. 4.) 
 
 ^ Lev. xxiii. 5. | - See ch. ix. 8. 12 ; x. 19. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 67 
 
 All this happened on the eighth clay of the first month, 
 or just six clays before the Passover. 
 
 Now in the 9th chapter of the Book of Numbers, 
 which speaks of this identical Passover (v. 1), as will 
 be seen by a reference to the first verse of that chapter 
 (indeed there is no mention of more than this one Pass- 
 over having been kept in the whole march'), in this 
 9tli chapter I am told of the following incidental diffi- 
 culty : — that " there were certain men who were defiled 
 by the dead body of a man, that they could not keep 
 the Passover on that day — and they came before Moses 
 and before Aaron on that day — and those men said 
 unto him. We are defiled by the dead body of a man, 
 wherefore are we kept back that we may not offer an 
 offering to the Lord in his appointed season among the 
 children of Israel." (v. 6, 7.) The case is spoken of 
 as a solitary one. 
 
 •Now it may be observed, by way of limiting the 
 question, that the number of Israelites who paid a tax 
 to the Tabernacle a short time, and only a short time, 
 before its erection, was 603,550, being all the males 
 above twenty years of age, the Levites eoece'pted'^ — at 
 least this exception is all but certain, that tribe being 
 the tellers, being already consecrated, and set apart 
 from the other tribes, and it not being usual to take 
 the sum of them among the children of Israeli More- 
 over, the number is likely, in this instance, to be cor- 
 rect, because it tallies with the number of talents to 
 which the poll-tax amounted at half a shekel a head. 
 But shortly after the Tabernacle had been set up (for 
 it was at the beginning of the second month of the 
 second year), the number of the people was again taken 
 
 * See also Josh. v. 9, 10. 
 ^ Exod. xxxviii. 20. 
 
 •■' See Num. i. 47. 49, and 
 xxvi. 02. 
 
 F 2 
 
68 THE VERACITY OF THE Paet I. 
 
 according to the families and tribes \ and still it is just 
 the same as before, 603,550 men. In this short in- 
 terval, therefore (which is that in which we are now 
 interested), it should seem that no man had died of the 
 males who were above twenty, not being Levites — for 
 of these no account seems to have been taken in either 
 census — indeed in the latter census they are expressly 
 excepted. The dead body, therefore, by which these 
 " certain men " were defiled, could not have belonged 
 to this large class of the Israelites. But of a case of 
 death, and of defilement in consequence, which had 
 happened only six days before the Passover, amongst 
 the Levites, we had been told (as we have seen) in the 
 9th chapter of Leviticus. My conclusion, therefore, is 
 that these '• certain men," who were defiled, were no 
 others than Mishael and Elizaphan, who had carried 
 out the dead bodies of Nadab and Abihu. Neither can 
 anything be more likely than that, with the lively im- 
 pression on their minds of God's wrath so recently 
 testified against those who should presume to approach 
 him unhallowed, they should refer their case to Moses, 
 and run no risk. 
 
 I state the conclusion and the grounds of it. To 
 those who require stronger proof, I can only say, I 
 have none to give ; but if the coincidence be thought 
 well founded, then surely a more striking example of 
 consistency without design cannot well be conceived. 
 Indeed, after it had been suggested to me by a hint to 
 this effect, thrown out by Dr. Shuckford, unaccompanied 
 by any exposition of the arguments which might be 
 urged in support of it, I had put it aside as one of those 
 gratuitous conjectures in which that learend Author 
 may perhaps be thought sometimes to indulge — till, by 
 1 Num. i. 46. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 69 
 
 searching more accurately through several detached 
 parts of several detached chapters in Exodus, Leviticus, 
 and Numbers, I was able to collect the evidence I have 
 produced ; whether satisfactory or not — be my readers, 
 as I have said, the judges. For myself, I confess, that 
 though it is not demonstrative, it is very persuasive. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 " All the congregation of the children of Israel," we 
 read\ "journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, after 
 their journeys according to the commandment of the 
 Lord, and pitched in Hephidhn, and there was no water 
 Jhr the people to drink." — " And the people thirsted 
 there for water ; and the people murmured against 
 Moses, and said. Wherefore is this, that thou hast 
 brought us up out of Egypt to kill us and our children 
 and our cattle with thirst?" (v. 3.) Moses upon this 
 entreats the Lord for Israel ; and the narrative proceeds 
 in the words of the Almighty — " Behold, I will stand 
 before thee there upon the rock in Horeb, and thou 
 shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of 
 it, that my people may drink. And Moses did so in 
 the sight of the elders of Israel. And he called the 
 name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the 
 chiding of the children of Israel, and because they 
 tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us, or 
 not?" '■^ Then came A ?nalek" the narrative continues, 
 " and fought with Israel in Rephidim.''' 
 
 Now this last incident is mentioned, as must be 
 perceived at once, without any other reference to what 
 had gone before than a reference of date. It was 
 ^^then" that Amalek came. It is the beginning of 
 another adventure which befel the Israelites, and which 
 ^ Exod. XV ii. 1. 
 
70 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 Moses now goes on to relate. Accordingly, in many 
 copies of our English version, a mark is here introduced 
 indicating the commencement of a fresh paragraph. 
 Yet I cannot but suspect, that there is a coincidence 
 in this case between the production of the w^ater, in 
 an arid wilderness, and the attack of the Amalekites 
 — that though no hint whatever to this effect is 
 dropped, there is nevertheless the relation between 
 them of cause and consequence. For what, in those 
 times and those countries, w^as so common a bone of 
 contention as the possession of a well ? Thus we read 
 of Abraham reproving Abimelech " because of a well 
 of water i which Abimelech's servants had violently taken 
 away." ' And again we are told, that " Isaac's servants 
 digged in a valley and found there a well of sprhujing 
 water — and the herdsmen of Gerar did strive with 
 Isaac's herdsmen, saying. The water is ours, and he 
 called the name of the well Esek, because they strove 
 with him. And they digged another well, and strove for 
 that also ; and he called the name of it Sitnah. And 
 he removed from thence, and digged another well, and 
 for that they strove not ; and he called the name of it 
 Rehoboth ; and he said. For now the Lord hath made 
 room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land." ^ In 
 like manner when the daughters of the Priest of 
 Midian " came and drew w^ater, and filled the troughs 
 to water their father's flock, the shepherds," we find, 
 " came and drove them aivay : but Moses stood up and 
 helped them, and watered their flock." ^ And again, 
 when Moses sent messengers to the King of Edom 
 with proposals that he might be permitted to lead the 
 people of Israel through his territory, the subject of 
 
 ^ Gen. xxi. 95. 
 2 Ibid. xxvi. 22. 
 
 Exod. ii. 17. 
 
Pakt I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 71 
 
 water enters very largely into the terms : " Let me 
 pass, I pray thee, through thy country : we will not 
 pass through the fields and through the vineyards, 
 neither will we drink of the water of the wells : we will 
 go by the king's highway — we will not turn to the 
 right hand nor to the left, until we have passed thy 
 borders. And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not 
 pass by me lest I come out against thee with the sword. 
 And the children of Israel said unto him. We will go 
 by the highway : and if I and my cattle drink of thy 
 water, then I will pay for itP ' Again, on a subsequent 
 occasion, Moses sent messengers to Sihon, king of the 
 Amorites, with the same stipulations : — " Let me pass 
 through thy land : we will not turn into the fields or 
 into the vineyards ; we will not drink of the waters of 
 the well, but we will go along by the king's highway, 
 until we be past thy borders." ^ And when Moses in 
 the Book of Deuteronomy recapitulates some of the 
 Lord's commands, one of them is, as touching the 
 children of Esau, " Meddle not with them ; for I will 
 not give you their land, no, not so much as a foot 
 breadth, because I have given Mount Seir unto Esau 
 for a possession. Ye shall buy meat of them for money 
 that ye may eat, and ye shall also buy water of them for 
 money that ye may drinks ^ And at a later date we 
 find the well still associated with scenes of strife — 
 " They that are delivered from the noise of archers in 
 the 'places of drawing water, there shall they rehearse 
 the righteous acts of the Lord."^ Indeed the well is 
 quite a feature in the narrative of Moses, brief as that 
 narrative is. It unobtrusively but constantly reminds 
 us of our scene lying ever in the East — just as the 
 
 ^ Nuin. XX. 17. I ^ Deut. ii. 0. 
 
 ^ Ibid. xxi. 22. [ ^ Judges v. 11. 
 
72 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 Forum could not fail to be perpetually mixing itself up 
 with the details of any history of Rome which w^as not 
 spurious. The ivcU is the spring of life. It is the place 
 of meeting for the citizens in the cool of the day — the 
 place of resort for the shepherds and herdsmen ; it is 
 here that we may witness acts of courtesy or of strata- 
 gem — acts of religion — acts of civil compact — acts 
 commemorative of things past ; it is here that the 
 journey ends — it is by this that the next is regulated ; 
 hither the fugitive and the outcast repair — here the 
 weary pilgrim rests himself; the lack of it is the curse 
 of a kingdom, and the prospect of it in abundance the 
 blessing which helps forward the steps of the stranger 
 when he seeks another country. It enters as an ele- 
 ment into the language itself of Holy Writ, and the 
 simile, the illustration, the metaphor, are still telling 
 forth the great Eastern apophthegm, that of " all things 
 WATER is the first." Of such value was the well — so 
 fruitful a source of contention in those parched and 
 thirsty lands was the possession of a well. 
 
 Now, applying these passages to the question before 
 us, I think it will be seen, that the sudden gushing of 
 the water from the rock (which was the sudden dis- 
 covery of an invaluable treasure), and the subsequent 
 onset of the Amalekites at the very same place — for 
 both occurrences are said to have happened at Rephi- 
 dim, though given as perfectly distinct and independent 
 matters, do coincide very remarkably with one another ; 
 and yet so undesigned is the coincidence (if indeed 
 coincidence it is after all), that it might not suggest 
 itself even to readers of the Pentateuch whose lot is 
 cast in a torrid clime, and to whom the value of a 
 draught of cold water is therefore well known ; still less 
 to those who live in a land of brooks, like our own, a 
 
Pakt I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 73 
 
 land of fountains and depths that spring out of the 
 valleys and hills, and who may drink of them freely, 
 without cost and without quarrel. 
 
 If then it be admitted, that the issue of the torrent 
 from the rock synchronizes very singularly with the 
 aggression of Amalek, yet that the narrative of the two 
 events does not hint at any connection whatever be- 
 tween them, I think that all suspicion of contrivance is 
 laid to sleep, and that whatever force is due to the 
 argument of consistency without contrivance, as a test, 
 and as a testimony of truth, obtains here. Yet here, as 
 in so many other instances already adduced, the stamp 
 of truth, such as it is, is found where a miracle is inti- 
 mately concerned ; for if the coincidence in question be 
 thought enough to satisfy us that Moses was relating 
 an indisputable matter of fact when he said that the 
 Israelites received a supply of water at Rephidim, it 
 adds to our confidence that he is relating an indisputable 
 matter of fact, too, when he says in the same breath, 
 that it was a miraculous supply : where we can prove 
 that there is truth in a story, so far as a scrutiny of our 
 own, which was not contemplated by the party whose 
 words we are trying, enables us to go, it is only fair to 
 infer, in the absence of all testimony to the contrary, 
 that there is truth also in such parts of the same story 
 as our scrutiny cannot attain unto. And indeed it 
 seems to me, that the sin of Amalek on this occasion, a 
 sin which was so offensive in God's sight as to be trea- 
 sured up in judgment against that race, causing Him 
 eventually to destroy them utterly, derived its heinous- 
 ness from this very thing, that the Amalekites were 
 here endeavouring to dispossess the Israelites of a vital 
 blessing which God had sent to them by miracle, and 
 which He could not so send without making it manifest. 
 
74 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 even to the Amalekites themselves, that the children of 
 Israel were under his special care — that in fighting 
 therefore against Israel, they were fighting against God. 
 And such, I persuade myself, is the true force of an ex- 
 pression in Deuteronomy used in reference to this very 
 incident — for Amalek is there said to " have smitten 
 them when they were weary, and to have feared not 
 God ;"^ that is, to have done it in defiance of a miracle, 
 which ought to have impressed them with a fear of 
 God, indicating, as of course it did, that God willed not 
 the destruction of this peojile. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 Amongst the institutions established or confirmed by 
 the Almighty whilst the Israelites were on their march, 
 for their observance when they should have taken pos- 
 session of the land of Canaan, this was one — " Three 
 times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year. 
 Thou shalt keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread — thou 
 shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded 
 thee, in the time appointed of the month Abib ; for in 
 it thou camest out from Egypt ; and none shall appear 
 before me empty : — and the Feast of Harvest, the first- 
 fruits of thy labours, which thou hast sown in thy field : 
 ■ — and the Feast of In-gathering, which is in the end of 
 the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of 
 the field."' 
 
 Such then were the three great annual feasts. The 
 first, in the month Abib, which was the Passover. The 
 second, which was the Feast of Weeks. The third, the 
 Feast of In-gathering, when all the fruits, wine, and oil, 
 as well as corn, had been collected and laid up. The 
 
 1 Deut. XAV. J 8. I ^ Exod. xxiii. J 4. 
 
Paet I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 75 
 
 season of the year at which the first of these occurred 
 is all that I am anxious to settle, as bearing upon a 
 coincidence which I shall mention bv and by. Now this 
 is determined with sufficient accuracy for my purjDose, 
 by the second of the three being the Feast of Harvest, 
 and the fact that the interval between the first and 
 second Avas just seven weeks' : " And ye shall count 
 unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath" (this was 
 the Sabbath of the Passover), " from the day that ye 
 brought the sheaf oi the wave-offering; seven Sabbaths 
 shall be complete. Even unto the morrow after the 
 seventh Sabbath shall ye number fifty days, and ye 
 shall offer a new meat-offering unto the Lord. Ye 
 shall bring out of your habitations two wave-/oaz;e5, of 
 two tenth-deals, they shall be of fine flour, they shall 
 be baken with leaven. They are the first-fruits unto 
 the Lord." 
 
 At the Feast of Weeks, therefore, the corn was ripe 
 and just gathered, for then were the first-fruits to be 
 offered in the loaves made out of the new corn. If then 
 the ivJieat was in this state at the second great festival, 
 it must have been very far from ripe at the Passover, 
 which was seven weeks earlier; and the wave-sheqf, 
 which, as we have seen, was to be offered at the Pass- 
 over, must have been of some grain which came in 
 before wheat — it was in fact barley'^. Now does not 
 this agree in a remarkable, but most incidental manner, 
 with a circumstance mentioned in the description of 
 the Plague of the Hail ? The hail, it is true, was sent 
 some little time previous to the destruction of the first- 
 born, or the date of the Passover, for the Plague of 
 Locusts and the Plague of Darkness intervened, but it 
 was evidently only a little time ; for Moses being eighty 
 
 ^ Lev. xxiii. 14. I ^ See Ptutb ii. 23. 
 
76 THE VERACITY OF THE Pakt I. 
 
 years old when he went before Pharoah', and having 
 walked /b?-(?/ years in the wilderness^ and being only a 
 hundred and twenty years old when he died^ it is plain 
 that he could have lost very little time by the delay of 
 the plagues in Egypt, the period of his life being filled 
 up without any allowance for such delay. I mention 
 this, because it will be seen that the argument requires 
 the time of the hail and that of the death of the first- 
 born (or in other words the Passover) to be nearly the 
 same. Now the state of the crops in Egypt at the 
 period of the hail we happen to know — was it then 
 such as we might have reason to expect from the state 
 of the crops of Judea at or near the same season? — i. e. 
 the barley ripe, the wheat not ripe by several weeks ? 
 
 It is well, inasmuch as it involves a point of evi- 
 dence, that one of the Plagues proved to be that of 
 Hail — for it is the only one of them of a nature to 
 give us a clue to the time of year when they came to 
 pass, and this it does in the most casual manner imag- 
 inable, for the mention of the hail draws from the his- 
 torian who records it the remark, that " the flax and 
 the barley were smitten, for the barley was in the ear 
 and the flax was boiled ; but the wheat and the rye 
 were not smitten, for they were not grown up" (or 
 rather perhaps, were not out of sheath^). Now this is 
 precisely such a degree of forwardness as we should 
 have respectively assigned to the barley and wheat — 
 deducing our conclusion from the simple circumstance 
 that the seasons in Egypt do not greatly differ from 
 those of Judea, and that in tlie latter country wheat 
 was ripe and just gathered at the Feast of Weeks, 
 barley just fit for putting the sickle into fifty days 
 
 ' Exod. vii. 7. I ^ Deut. xxxiv. 7. 
 
 " Joshua V. 6. ^ Exod ix. 32. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 77 
 
 sooner, or at the Passover, which nearly answered to 
 the time of the hail. Yet so far from obvious is this 
 point of harmony, that nothing is more easy than to 
 mistake it ; nay, nothing more likely than that we 
 should even at first suspect Moses himself to have been 
 out in his reckoning, and thus to find a knot instead of 
 an argument. For on reading the following passage \ 
 where the rule is ffiven for determining the second 
 feast, we might on the instant most naturally suppose 
 that the great wheat-hsiryest of Judea was in the month 
 Abib, at the Passover — " Seven weeks shalt thou 
 number unto thee, begin to number the seven weeks 
 fi'om such time as thou beginnest to put the sickle to 
 the corn." Now this " putting the sickle to the corn " 
 is at once perceived to be at the Passover, when the 
 wave-sheaf was offered, the ceremony from which we 
 see the Feast of Weeks was measured and fixed. Yet 
 had the great w;/^m^-harvest been here actually meant, 
 it would have been impossible to reconcile Moses with 
 himself; for he would then have been representing the 
 wheat to be ripe in Judea at a season when, as we had 
 elsewhere gathered from him, it was not grown uj) or 
 out of the sheath in Egypt. But if the sickle was to 
 be put into some grain much earlier than wheat, such 
 as barley, and if the barley-harvest is here alluded to as 
 falling in with the Passover, and not the wheat-harvest, 
 then all is clear, intelligible, and free from diflficulty. 
 
 In a word then, my argument is this — that at the 
 Passover the barley in Judea was ripe, but that the wheaf 
 was not, seven weeks having yet to elapse before the 
 first-fruits of the loaves could be offered. This I collect 
 from the history of the Great Jewish Festivals. Again, 
 that at the Plague of Hail (which corresponds with the 
 
 ' Deut. xvi. 9. 
 
78 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 time of the Passover to a few clays), the harlei/ in Egypt 
 was smitten, being in the ear, but that the wheat was 
 not smitten, not being yet boiled. This I collect 
 from the history of the Great Egyptian Plagues. The 
 two statements on being compared together, agree to- 
 gether. 
 
 I cannot but consider this as very far from an unim- 
 portant coincidence, tending, as it does, to give us 
 confidence in the good faith of the historian, even at a 
 moment when he is telling of the Miracles of Egypt, 
 " the wondrous works that were done in the land of 
 Ham." For, supported by this circumstantial evidence, 
 which, as far as it goes, cannot lie, I feel that I have 
 very strong reason for believing that a hail-storm there 
 actually was, as Moses asserts ; that the season of the 
 year to which he assigns it was the season when it did 
 in fact happen ; that the crops were really in the state 
 in which he represents them to have been — more I 
 cannot prove — for further my test will not reach : it is 
 not in the nature of miracles to admit of its immediate 
 application to themselves. But when I see the ordinary 
 circumstances which attend upon them, and which are 
 most closely combined with them, yielding internal 
 evidence of truth, I am apt to think that these in a 
 great measure vouch for the truth of the rest. Indeed, 
 in all common cases, even in judicial cases of life and 
 death, the corroboration of the evidence of an unim- 
 peached witness in one or two particulars is enough to 
 decide a jury that it is worthy of credit in every other 
 particular — that it may be safely acted uj^on in the 
 most awful and responsible of all human decisions. 
 
Pakt I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 79 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 The argument which I have next to produce has been 
 urged by Dr. Graves \ though others had noticed it 
 before hini^; I shall not, however, scruple to introduce 
 it here in its order, connected as it is with several more 
 arguments, all relating to the economy of the camp. The 
 incident on which it turns is trifling in itself, but nothing 
 can be more characteristic of truth. On the day when 
 Moses set up the Tabernacle and anointed and sancti- 
 fied it, the princes of the tribes made an offering, consist- 
 ing of six waggons and twelve oxen. These are accord- 
 ingly assigned to the service of the Tabernacle : " And 
 Moses gave them unto the Levites ; Ttvo waggons mid 
 four oxen he gave unto the sons of Gershon according to 
 their service, and four ivagcjons and eight oxen he gave 
 unto the sons of Merari according to their service."^ 
 Now whence this unequal division? Why twice as many 
 waggons and oxen to Merari as to Gershon ? No reason 
 is expressly avowed. Yet if I turn to a former chapter, 
 separated however from the one which has supplied this 
 quotation, by sundry and divers details of other matters, 
 I am able to make out a very good reason for myself. 
 For there, amongst the instructions given to the families 
 of the Levites, as to the shares they had severally to 
 take in removing the Tabernacle from place to place, I 
 find that the sons of Gershon had to bear " the cur- 
 tains," and the " Tabernacle " itself {i. e., the linen of 
 which it was made), and "its covering, and the covering 
 of badgers' skins that was above upon it, and the hang- 
 ing for the door," and " the hangings of the court, and 
 
 ' On the Pentateuch, Vol. i. 
 p. 111. 
 
 ~ See Dr. Patrick on Num. vii. 
 
 7,8. 
 
 ^ Num. vii. 7, 8. 
 
80 THE VERACITY OF THE Pabt I. 
 
 the hanging for the door of the gate of the court," and 
 "their cords, and all the instruments of their service;"^ 
 in a word, all the lighter part of the furniture of the 
 Tabernacle. But the sons of Merari had to bear " the 
 boards of the Tabernacle, and the bars thereof, and the 
 pillars thereof, and the sockets thereof, and the pillars 
 of the court round about, and their sockets, and their 
 pins, and their cords, with all their instruments ;"^ in 
 short, all the cumbrous and heavy part of the materials 
 of which the frame-work of the Tabernacle was con- 
 structed. And heuce it is easy to see why more oxen 
 and waggons were assigned to the one family than to 
 the other. Is chance at the bottom of all this? or 
 cunning contrivance ? or truth and only truth ? 
 
 XIX. 
 
 In the tenth chapter of the Book of Numbers we have 
 a particular account of the order of inarch which was 
 observed in the Camp of Israel on one remarkable 
 occasion, viz., w^hen they broke up from Sinai. " In the 
 first place went the standard of the camp of Judah ac- 
 cording to their armies" (v. 14). Does this precedence 
 of Judah agree with any former account of the disposi- 
 tion of the armies of Israel ? In the second chapter of 
 the same book I read, " on the East side toward the 
 rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp 
 of Judah pitch throughout their armies" (v. 3). All 
 that is to be gathered from this passage is, that Judah 
 pitched East of the Tabernacle. I now turn to the 
 tenth chapter (v. 5), and I there find amongst the 
 orders given for the signals, " when ye blow an alarm 
 {i. e., the Jirst alarm, for the others are mentioned suc- 
 
 ^ Num. iv. 25. I ^ Num. iv. 32. 
 
Paet I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 81 
 
 cessively in their turn), then the camps that lie on the 
 East parts shall go forward." But from the last pas- 
 sage it appears that Jndah lay on the East parts, there- 
 fore when the first alarm was blown, Judah should be 
 the tribe to move. Thus it is implied from two pas- 
 sages brought together from two chapters, separated by 
 the intervention of eight others relating to things in- 
 different, that Judah was to lead in any march. Now 
 we see in the account of a specific movement of the 
 camp from Sinai, with which I introduced these re- 
 marks, that on that occasion Judah did in fact lead. 
 This, then, is as it should be. The three passages agree 
 together as three concurring witnesses — in the mouth 
 of these is the word established. Yet there is some 
 little intricacy in the details — enough at least to leave 
 room for an inadvertent slip in the arrangements, 
 whereby a fiction would have run a risk of being self- 
 detected. 
 
 Pursue we this inquiry a little further ; for the next 
 article of it is perhaps rather more open to a blunder of 
 this description than the last. It may be thought that 
 the leading tribe, the van-guard of Israel, was an object 
 too conspicuous to be overlooked or misplaced. In the 
 18th verse of the same chapter of Numbers, it is said, 
 that after the first division was gone, and the Taber- 
 nacle, "the standard of the camp oi Reuben ^et forward 
 according to their armies." — The camp of Reuben, 
 therefore, was that which moved second on this occa- 
 sion. Does this accord with the position it was else- 
 where said to have occupied ? It is obvious that a 
 mistake might here most readily have crept in; and 
 that if the writer had not been guided by a real know- 
 ledge of the facts which he was pretending to describe, 
 it is more than probable he would have betrayed him- 
 
 G 
 
82 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 self. Turn we tlien to the second chapter (v. 10), 
 where the order of the tribes in their tents is given, 
 and we there find that " on the south side was to be 
 the standard of the camp of Reuben, according to their 
 armies." Again, let us turn to the 10th chapter (v. 6), 
 where the directions for the signals are given, and we 
 are there told, " When ye blow the alarm the second 
 time, then the camps on the south side shall take their 
 journey;" — but the passage last quoted (which is far 
 removed from this) informs us that Reuben was on the 
 south side of the Tabernacle; the camp of Reuben 
 therefore it was, which was appointed to move when 
 the alarm was blown the second time. Accordingly we 
 see in the description of the actual breaking up from 
 Sinai, with which I set out, that the camp of Reuben 
 was in fact the second to move. The same argument 
 may be followed up, and the same satisfactory conclu- 
 sions obtained in the other two camps of Ephraim and 
 Dan ; though here recourse must be had to the Sep- 
 tuagint, of which the text is more full in these two 
 latter instances than the Hebrew text of our own ver- 
 sion, and more full precisely upon those points which 
 are wanted in evidenced On such a trifle does the 
 practicability of establishing an argument of coincidence 
 turn ; and so perjDetually, no doubt (were we but aware 
 of it), are we prevented from doing justice to the vera- 
 city of the writings of Moses, by the lack of more 
 abundant details. 
 
 In all this, it appears to me, that without any care 
 or circumspection of the historian, as to how he should 
 make the several parts of his tale agree together — 
 without any display on the one hand, or mock conceal- 
 ment on the other, of a harmony to be found in those 
 ' Septuagint, Num. x. 6. 
 
Paet I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 83 
 
 several parts — and in the meantime, with ample scope 
 for the admission of unguarded mistakes, by which a 
 mere impostor Mould soon stand convicted, the whole is 
 at unity with itself, and the internal evidence resulting 
 from it clear, precise, and above suspicion. 
 
 XX. 
 
 1. The arrangements of the camp provide us with an- 
 other coincidence, no less satisfactory than the last — for 
 it may be here remarked, that in proportion as the 
 history of Moses descends to particulars (which it does 
 in the camp), in that proportion is it fertile in the 
 arguments of which I am at present in search. It is 
 in general the extreme brevity of the history, and 
 nothing else, that baffles us in our inquiries; often 
 affording (as it does) a hint wdiich we cannot pursue 
 for \vant of details, and exhibiting a glimpse of some 
 corroborative fact which it is vexatious to be so near 
 grasping, and still to be compelled to relinquish it. 
 
 In the sixteenth chapter of the Book of Numbers w^e 
 read, " Now Korah the son of Izhar, the son of Koliatli^ 
 the son of Levi, and Dathan, and Al)iram, the sons of 
 Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took 
 men : and they rose up before Moses, with certain of the 
 children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of 
 the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of 
 renown : and they gathered themselves together against 
 Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take 
 too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are 
 holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them : 
 wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congre- 
 gation of the Lord?"^ Such is the history of the con- 
 spiracy got up against the authority of the leaders of 
 
 * Num. xvi. 1. 
 
 G 2 
 
84 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 Israel. The principal parties engaged in it, we see, 
 were Korah of the family of Kohath, and Dathan, 
 Abiram, and On, of the family of Reuben. Now it is a 
 very curious circumstance, that some thirteen chapters 
 before this — chapters occupied with matters of quite 
 another character — it is mentioned incidentally that 
 " the families of the sons of Kohath were to pitch on 
 the side of the Tabernacle southward.''''^ And in another 
 chapter yet further back, and as independent of the 
 latter as the latter was of the first, we read no less in- 
 cidentally, " on the south side (of the Tabernacle) shall 
 be the standard of the camp of Reuben, according to 
 their armies." ^ The family of Kohath, therefore, and 
 the family of Reuben, both pitched on the same side of 
 the Tabernacle — they were neighbours, and were therefm'e 
 conveniently situated for taking secret counsel together. 
 Surely this singular coincidence comes of truth — not of 
 accident, not of design ; — not of accident, for how 
 great is the improbability that such a peculiar propriety 
 between the relative situations of the parties in the 
 conspiracy should have been the mere result of chance ; 
 when three sides of the Tabernacle were occupied by 
 the families of the Levites, and all four sides by the 
 families of the tribes, and when combinations (arith- 
 metically speaking) to so great an extent might have 
 been formed between these in their several members, 
 without the one in question being of the number. 
 It does not come of design, for the agreement is not 
 obvious enough to suit a designer's purpose — it might 
 most easily escape notice : — it is indeed only to be 
 detected by the juxtaposition of several unconnected 
 passages falling out at long intervals. Then, again, 
 had no such coincidence been found at all ; had 
 ' Num. iii. 29. I * Num. ii. 10. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 85 
 
 the conspirators been represented as drawn together 
 from more distant parts of the camp, from such parts 
 as afforded no peculiar faciHties for leaguing together, 
 no objection whatever would have lain against the accu- 
 racy of the narrative on that account. The argument, 
 indeed, for its veracity would then have been lost, but 
 that would have been all ; no suspicion whatever against 
 its veracity would have been thereby incurred. 
 
 2. But there is yet another feature of truth in this 
 same most remarkable portion of Mosaic history ; and 
 this has been enlarged upon by Dr. Graves \ I shall 
 not, however, scruple to touch upon it here, both be- 
 cause I do not take quite the same view of it through- 
 out, and because this incident combines with the one I 
 have just brought forward, and thus acquires a value 
 beyond its own, from being a second of its kind arising 
 out of one and the same event — the united value of two 
 incidental marks of truth being more than' the sum of 
 their separate values. Indeed, these two instances of 
 consistency without design, taken together, hedge in the 
 main transaction on the right hand and on the left, so 
 as almost to close up every avenue through which sus- 
 picion could insinuate the rejection of it. 
 
 On a common perusal of the whole history of this 
 rebellion, in the 16th chapter of Numbers, the im- 
 pression left would be, that, in the punishment of 
 Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, there was no distinction 
 or difference ; that their tents and all the men that 
 appertained unto Korah, and all their goods, were 
 destroyed alike. Nevertheless, ten chapters after, when 
 the number of the children of Israel is taken, and when, 
 in the course of the numbering, the names of Dathan 
 and Abiram occur, there is added the following incideu- 
 
 ' Ou the PeuUiLeucb, Vol. i. p. 155. 
 
86 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 tal memorandum — " This is that Dathan and Abiram 
 who were famous in the congregation, who strove 
 against Moses and against Aaron, in the company of 
 Korah, when they strove against the Lord." Then 
 the death which they died is mentioned, and last of all 
 it is said, " Notwithstanding the children of Korah died 
 notr^ This, at first sight, undoubtedly looks like a 
 contradiction of what had gone before. Again, then, 
 let us turn back to the 16th chapter, and see whether 
 we have read it right. Now, though upon a second 
 perusal I still find no ejcpress assertion that there was any 
 difference in the fate of these several rebellious house- 
 holds, I think upon a close inspection I do find (what 
 answers my purpose better) some difference implied. 
 For, in verse 27, we are told, " So they gat up from the 
 Tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, on every 
 side ;" — /. e. from a Tabernacle which these men in 
 their political rebellion and religious dissent (for they 
 went together) had set up in common for themselves 
 and their adherents, in opposition to the great Taber- 
 nacle of the congregation. "And Dathan and Abiram," it 
 is added, " came out and stood in the door of their tents; 
 and their wives, and their sons, and their little children." 
 Here we perceive that mention is made of the sons of 
 Dathan and the sons of Abiram, but not of the sons 
 of Korah. So that the victims of the catastrophe about 
 to happen, it should seem from this account too, were 
 indeed the sons of Dathan and the sons of Abiram, but 
 not (in all appearance) the sons of Korah. Neither 
 is this difference difficult to account for. The Levites 
 pitching nearer to the Tabernacle than the other tribes, 
 forming, in fact, three sides of the inner square, whilst 
 the others formed the four sides of the outer, it would 
 ' Num. xxvi. 1 1. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 87 
 
 necessarily follow, that the dwelling-tent of KoraJi, a 
 Levite, would be at some distance from the dwelling- 
 tents of Dathan and Abiram, Reuhenites, and, as brothers, 
 probably contiguous ; at such a distance, at least, as 
 might serve to secure it from being involved in the 
 destruction which overwhelmed the others; for, that 
 the desolation was very limited in extent, seems a fact 
 conveyed by the terms of the warning — " Depart from 
 the tents of these wicked men" {i. e. the tabernacle 
 which the three leaders had reared in common, and the 
 two dwelling-tents of Dathan and Abiram) \ as if the 
 danger was confined to the vicinity of those tents. 
 
 In this single event, then, the rebellion of Korah, 
 Dathan, and Abiram, I discover two instances of coin- 
 cidence without design, each independent of the other 
 — the one, in the conspiracy being laid amongst parties 
 whom I know, from information elsewhere given, to have 
 dwelt on the same side of the Tabernacle, and therefore 
 to have been conveniently situated for such a plot — the 
 other, in the different lots of the families of the con- 
 spirators, a difference of which there is just hint enough 
 in the direct history of it, to be brought out by a casual 
 assertion to that effect in a subsequent casual allusion 
 to the conspiracy, and only just hint enough for this — 
 a difference, too, which accords very remarkably with 
 the relative situations of those several families in their 
 respective tents. 
 
 But if the existence of a conspiracy be by this 
 means established, above all dispute, as a matter of 
 fact — if the death of some of the families of the con- 
 spirators, and the escape of others, be also by the same 
 means established, above all dispute, as another matter 
 
 ' See chap. xvi. ver. 27. An to have been the tents meant, 
 attention to this verse shows these 
 
88 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 of fact — if the testimony of Moses, after having been 
 submitted to a test which he could never have contem- 
 plated or been provided against, turn out in these par- 
 ticulars at least to be worthy of credit — to what are M^e 
 led on ? Is not the historian still the same ? is he not 
 still treating of the same incident, when he informs us 
 that the punishment of this rebellious spirit was a 7ni- 
 raculous punishment ? that the ground clave asunder 
 that was under the ringleaders, and swallowed them 
 up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained 
 unto them, and all their goods ; so that they, and all 
 that appertained unto them, went down alive into the 
 pit, and the earth closed upon them, and they perished 
 from amonff the congre2:ation ? 
 
 XXI. 
 
 The arrangements of the camp suggest one point of 
 coincidence more, not perhaps so remarkable as the 
 last, yet enough so to be admitted amongst others as 
 an indication of truth in the history. 
 
 In the 32nd chapter of Numbers (v. 1), it is said, 
 " Now the children of Reuben, and the children of Gad, 
 had a very great multitude of cattle ; and when they 
 saw the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead, that 
 behold the place was a place for cattle, the children 
 of Gad and the children of Reuben came and spake 
 unto Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and unto the 
 princes of the congregation, saying, Ataroth, and Dibon, 
 and Jazer, and Nimrah, and Heshbon, and Elealeh, and 
 Sheban, and Nebo, and Beon, even the country which 
 the Lord smote before the congregation of Israel, is a 
 land for cattle, and thy servants have cattle ; wherefore, 
 said they, if we have received grace in thy sight, let 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 89 
 
 this land -be given unto thy servants for a possession, 
 and bring us not over Jordan." 
 
 Here was a petition from the tribes of Reuben and 
 of Gad, to have a portion assigned them on the east 
 side of Jordan, rather than in the land of Canaan. But 
 how came the request to be made conjointly by the 
 children of Reuben and the children of Gadf — Was it 
 a mere accident ? — Was it the simple circumstance 
 that these two tribes being richer in cattle than the 
 rest, and seeing that the pasturage was good on the east 
 side of Jordan, desired on that account only to establish 
 themselves there together, and to separate from their 
 brethren ? Perhaf)S something more than either. For 
 I read in the 2nd chapter of Numbers (v. 10, 14), that 
 the camp oi Reuben was on the south side of the taber- 
 nacle, and that the tribe of Gad formed a division of 
 the camp of Reuben. It may very well be imagined, 
 therefore, that after having shared together the perils 
 of the long and arduous campaign through the wilder- 
 ness, these two tribes, in addition to considerations 
 about their cattle, feeling the strong bond of well-tried 
 companionship in hardships and in arms, were very 
 likely to act with one common council, and to have a 
 desire still to dwell beside one another, after the toil 
 of battle, as quiet neighbours in a peaceful country, 
 where they were finally to set up their rest. Here 
 again is an incident, I think, beyond the reach of the 
 most refined impostor in the world. What vigilance, 
 however alive to suspicion, and prepared for it — what 
 cunning, however bent upon giving credibility to a 
 worthless narrative, by insidiously scattering through it 
 marks of truth which should turn up from time to time 
 and mislead the reader, would have suggested one so 
 very trivial, so very farfetched, as a desire of two tribes 
 
90 THE VERACITY OF THE Pabt I. 
 
 to obtain tlieir inheritance together on the same side of 
 a river, simply upon the recollection that such a desire 
 would fall in very naturally with their having pitched 
 their tents side by side in their previous march through 
 the wilderness ? 
 
 XXII. 
 
 Numbers x. 29. " And Moses said unto Hobab, the son 
 of Raguel the Midianite, Moses' father-in-law, We are 
 jom-neying unto the place of which the Lord said, I 
 will give it you : come thou with us, and we will do 
 thee good : for the Lord hath spoken good concerning 
 Israel. 
 
 30. "And he said unto him, I will not go ; but I will 
 depart to mine own land, and to my kindred. 
 
 31. "And he said. Leave us not, 1 pray thee; foras- 
 much as thou knowest how we are to encamp in the 
 wilderness, and thou mayest be to us instead of eyes. 
 
 32. " And it shall be, if thou go with us, yea, it shall 
 be, that what goodness the Lord shall do unto us, the 
 same will we do unto thee. 
 
 33. "And they departed from the mount of the 
 Lord," &c. 
 
 It does not appear from this jjassage, whether Hobab 
 accepted or rejected Moses' invitation. Yet, on turn- 
 ing to Judges i. 16, we find it said quite incidentally, 
 and in the midst of a chapter relating to various ad- 
 ventures of the tribe of Judah after the death of 
 Joshua, "And the children of the Kenite, Mose^ father- 
 in-law, went u]) out of the city of palm-trees Avith the 
 children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which 
 lieth in the south of Arad ; and they went and dwelt 
 among the people." This casual mention of " the 
 children of the Kenite," was evidently here suggested by 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 91 
 
 the subject of Judali being that of which the history was 
 treating, and amongst which tribe their lot happened to 
 be cast. Thus we learn, for the first time, that Moses' 
 invitation to his father-in-law was accepted, — that he 
 joined himself to the Israelites, and shared their for- 
 tunes. The fact transpires in the course of the narra- 
 tive some sixty or seventy years after Moses had made 
 his proposal to Hobab, the issue of which had been 
 hitherto uncertain, and transpires, too, not in the re- 
 appearance of Hobab himself, but in the discovery of 
 his posterity, and the place of their settlement. 
 
 It is incredible that so very unobtrusive a coincidence 
 as this in the narratives of two authors (for the Books 
 of Numbers and of Judges of course are such) should 
 have presented itself, had the whole been a forgery ; or 
 that an incomplete transaction, as occurring in the one, 
 should have had its character fixed by its results, as 
 those results happen to pass before us, in the other. 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 Some circumstances in the history of Balak and Balaam 
 supply me with another argument for the veracity of 
 the Pentateuch. But before I proceed to those which 
 I have more immediately in my eye, I would observe, 
 that the simple fact of a King of Moab knoiving that a 
 Prophet dwelt in Mesopotamia, in the mountains of the 
 East, a country so distant from his own, in itself sup- 
 plies a point of harmony favouring the truth and reality 
 of the narrative. For I am led by it to remark this, 
 that very many hints may be picked up in the writings 
 of Moses, all concurring to establish one position, viz. 
 that there was a communication amongst the scattered 
 inhabitants of the earth in those early times, a circula- 
 tion of intelligence, scarcely to be expected, and not 
 
92 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 easily to be accounted for. Whether the caravans of 
 merchants, which, as we have seen, traversed the deserts 
 of the East — whether the unsettled and vagrant habits 
 of the descendants of Ishmael and Esau, which singu- 
 larly fitted them for being the carriers of news, and 
 with whom the great wilderness was alive — whether 
 the pastoral life of the Patriarchs, and of those who 
 more immediately sprang from them, which led them 
 to constant changes of place in search of herbage — 
 whether the frequent petty wars which were waged 
 amongst lawless neighbours — whether the necessary 
 separation of families, the parent hive casting its little 
 colony forth to settle on some distant land, and the 
 consequent interest and curiosity which either branch 
 would feel for the fortunes of the other — whether 
 these were the circumstances that encouraged and 
 maintained an intercourse among mankind in sjDite of 
 the numberless obstacles which must then have opposed 
 it, and which we might have imagined would have in- 
 tercepted it altogether ; or whether any other channels 
 of intelligence were open of which we are in ignorance, 
 sure it is, that such intercourse seems to have existed 
 to a very considerable extent. Thus Abraham had a 
 servant, Eliezer, whose ancestors were of Damascus \ 
 Thus, far as Abraham was removed from the branch 
 of his family which remained in Mesopotamia, " it came 
 to pass that it was told him, saying. Behold, Milcah, she 
 hath also born children unto thy brother Nahor ;" and 
 their names are then added K In like manner Isaac 
 and Rebekah appear in their turn to have knowai that 
 Laban had marriageable daughters ^ ; — and Jacob, when 
 he came back to Canaan after his long sojourn in Haran, 
 
 1 Gen. XV. 2, 3. i » Geti. xxviii. 3. 
 
 2 Ibid. xxii. 20. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF 'MOSES. 93 
 
 seems to have known that Esau was ahve and pros- 
 perous, and that he lived at Seir, whither he sent a 
 message to him ^ ; — and Deborah, Rebekah's nurse, who 
 went with her to Canaan on her marriage, is found 
 many years afterwards in the family of Jacob, for she 
 dies in his camp as he was returning from Haran ^ and 
 therefore must have been sent back again meanwhile, 
 for some purpose or other, from Canaan to Haran ; — 
 and at Elim, in the desert, the Israelites discover twelve 
 wells of water and threescore and ten palms, the num- 
 bers, no doubt, not accidental, but indicating that some 
 persons had frequented this secluded spot acquainted 
 with the sons and grandsons of Jacob ^ ; — and Jethro, 
 the father-in-law of Moses, is said " to have heard of all 
 that God had done for Moses and for Israel his 
 people."* And when Moses, on his march, sends a 
 message to Edom, it is worded, " thou hioivest all the 
 travail that hath befallen us — how our fathers went 
 down into Egypt, and we have dwelt in Egypt a long 
 time;"^ together with many more particulars, all of 
 which Moses reckons matters of notoriety to the in- 
 habitants of the desert. And on another occasion he 
 speaks of "their having heard that the Lord was 
 among his people, that he was seen by them face to 
 face, that his cloud stood over them, and that he went 
 before them by day-time in a pillar of cloud, and in a 
 pillar of fire by night." ^ And this may, in fact, account 
 for the vestiges of so many laws which we meet with 
 throughout the East, even in this very early period, as 
 held in common — and the many just notions of the 
 Deity, mixed up, indeed, with much alloy, which so 
 
 ' Gen. xxxii. 3. 
 ^ Ibid. XXXV. 8. 
 '■' Exod. XV. 27. 
 
 ■* Exod. xviii. ]. 
 ^ Num. XX. 15. 
 ^ Ibid. xiv. 14. 
 
94 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I 
 
 many nations possessed in common — and tlie rites and 
 customs, whether civil or sacred, to which in so many 
 points they conformed in common. Now all these un- 
 connected matters hint at this 07ie circumstance, that 
 intelliofence travelled throuofh the tribes of the Desert 
 more freely and rapidly than might have been thought, 
 and the consistency with which the writings of Moses 
 imply such a fact (for they neither affirm it, nor trouble 
 themselves about explaining it) is a feature of truth in 
 those writings. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 Through some or other of the channels of information 
 enumerated in the last paragraph, Balak, King of Moab, 
 is aware of the existence of a Prophet at Pethor, and 
 sends for him. It is not unlikely, indeed, that the 
 Moabites, who were the children of Lot, should have 
 still maintained a communication with the original stock 
 of all which continued to dwell in Aram or Mesopota- 
 mia. Neither is it unlikely that Pethor, wdiich was in 
 that country', the country whence Abraham emigrated, 
 and where Nahor and that branch of Terah's family re- 
 mained, should possess a Prophet of the true God. Nor 
 is it unlikely again, that, living in the midst of idolaters, 
 Balaam should in a degree partake of the infection, as 
 Laban had done before him in the same country ; and 
 that whilst he acknowledged the Lord for his God, and 
 offered his victims by sevens (as some patriarchal tradi- 
 tion perhaps directed him^), he should have had recourse 
 to enchantments also — mixing the profane and sacred, 
 as Laban did the worship of his images with the worship 
 of his Maker. All this is in character. Now it was not 
 Balak alone who sent the embassy to Balaam. He was 
 * Num. xxiii. 7. | " See Job xlii. 8. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 95 
 
 but King of the Moabites, and had nothing to do with 
 Midian. With the elders of Midian, however, he con- 
 sulted, they being as much interested as himself in 
 putting a stop to the triumphant march of Israel. Ac- 
 cordingly we find that the mission to the Prophet came 
 from the two people conjointly ; — " the elders of Moab 
 and the elders of Midian dej^arted, with the rewards of 
 divination in their hand." ^ In the remainder of this 
 interview, and in the one which succeeded it, all mention 
 of Midian is dropped, and the " princes of Balak," and 
 the servants of Balak," are the titles given to the 
 messengers. And when Balaam at length consents to 
 accept their invitation, it is to Moab, the kingdom of 
 Balak, that he comes, and he is received by the King 
 at one of his own border-cities near the river of Arnon. 
 Then follows the Prophet's fruitless struggle to curse 
 the people whom God had blessed, and the consequent 
 disappointment of the King, who bids him " flee to his 
 place, the Lord having kept him back from honour ;'' 
 " and Balaam rose up," the history concludes, " and went 
 and returned to Ms place, and Balak also went his way." ^ 
 So they parted in mutual dissatisfaction. 
 
 Hitherto, then, although the elders of Midian were 
 concerned in inviting the Prophet from Mesopotamia, 
 it does not appear that they had any intercourse what- 
 ever with him on their own account — Balak and the 
 Moabites had engrossed all his attention. The subject 
 is now discontinued : Balaam disappears, gone, as we 
 may suppose, to his own country again, to Pethor, in 
 Mesopotamia, for he had expressly said on parting, 
 " Behold, I go unto tny people."" ^ Meanwhile the his- 
 torian pursues his onward course, and details, through 
 
 ■^ Num. xxii. 7. 1 ^ Num. xxiv. 14. 
 
 ^ Ibid. xxiv. 25. 
 
96 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 several long chapters, the abandoned profligacy of the 
 Israelites, the numbering of them according to their 
 families, the method by which their portions were to be 
 assigned in the land of promise, the laws of inheritance, 
 the choice and appointment of a successor, a series of 
 offerings and- festivals of various kinds, more or less im- 
 portant, the nature and obligation of vows, and the dif- 
 ferent complexion they assumed under different circum- 
 stances enumerated, and then (as it often happens in 
 the history of Moses, where a battle or a rebellion per- 
 haps interrupts a catalogue of rites and ceremonies) — 
 then, I say, comes an account of an attack made upon 
 the Midianites in revenge for their having seduced the 
 people of Israel by the wiles of their women. So " they 
 slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that 
 were slain, viz. Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and 
 Reba, five kings of Midian ;" and lastly, there is added, 
 what we might not perhaps have been prepared for, 
 " Balaam also, the son of Beor, they slew ivith the 
 swordr ^ 
 
 It seems then, but how incidentally, that the Pro- 
 phet did not, after all, return to Mesopotamia, as we 
 had supposed. Now this coincides in a very satisfactory 
 manner with the circumstances under which, we have 
 seen, Balaam was invited from Pethor. For the depu- 
 tation, which then waited on him, did not consist of 
 Moabites exclusively, but of Midianites also. When 
 dismissed, therefore, in disgust by the Moabites, he 
 would not return to Mesopotamia until he had paid his 
 visit to the Midianites, who were equally concerned in 
 brino'ino; him where he was. Had the details of his 
 achievements in Midian been given, as those in Moab 
 are given, they might have been as numerous, as im- 
 ' Num. xxxi. 8. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 97 
 
 portant, and as interesting. One thing only, however, 
 we are tohl, that by the counsel which he suggested 
 during this visit concerning the matter of Peor, and 
 which he probably thought was the most likely counsel 
 to alienate the Israelites from God, and to make Him 
 curse instead of blessing them, he caused the children 
 of Israel to commit the trespass he anticipated, and to 
 fall into the trap which he had provided for them. 
 Unhappily for him, however, his stay amongst the Midi- 
 anites was unseasonably protracted, and Moses coming 
 upon them, as we have seen, by command of God, slew 
 them and him together. The undesigned coincidence 
 lies in the Elders of Moab and the Elders of Midian 
 going to Balaam ; in Midian being then mentioned no 
 more, till Balaam, having been sent away from Moab, 
 apparently that he might go home, is subsequently 
 found a corpse amongst the slaughtered Midianites. 
 
 XXV. 
 
 In the consequences which followed from this evil 
 counsel of Balaam, I fancy I discover another instance 
 of coincidence without design. It is this. — As a pun- 
 ishment for the sin of the Israelites in partaking of the 
 worship of Baal-Peor, God is said to have sent a Plague 
 upon them. Who were the leaders in this defection 
 from the Almighty, and in this shameless adoption of 
 the abomination of the Moabites, is not disclosed — nor 
 indeed whether any one tribe were more guilty before 
 God than the rest — only it is said that the number of 
 "those who died in the Plague was twenty and four 
 thousand.'" I read, however, that the name of a cer- 
 tain Israelite that was slain on that occasion (who in 
 
 ' Num. XXV. 9. 
 
 H 
 
98 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I- 
 
 the general humiliation and mourning- defied, as it were, 
 the vengeance of the Most High, and determined, at all 
 hazards to continue in the lusts to which the idolatry- 
 had led), I read, I say, that " the name of this Israelite 
 that was slain, even that was slain with the Midianitish 
 woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a chief 
 house among the Simeonites."^ And very great im- 
 portance is attached to this act of summary punishment 
 — as though this one offender, a pri?ice of a chief house 
 of his tribe, was a representative of the offence of 
 many — for on Phinehas, in his holy indignation, putting 
 him to instant death, the Plague ceased. " So the 
 jilague was stayed from the children of Israel."^ 
 
 Shortly after this a census of the people is taken. 
 All the tribes are numbered, and a separate account is 
 given of each. Now in this I observe the following 
 particular — that, although on comparing this census 
 with the one which had been made nearly forty years 
 before at Sinai, it appears that the majority of the 
 tribes had meanwhile increased in numbers, and none 
 of them very materially diminished ^ the tribe of Simeoti 
 had lost almost two-thirds of its whole body, being 
 reduced from ^^ fifty-nine thousand and three hundred,"* 
 to ''Hwenty-two thousand and two hundred."^ No 
 reason is assigned for this extraordinary depopulation of 
 this one tribe — no hint whatever is given as to its 
 eminence in suffering above its fellows. Nor can I 
 pretend to say that we can detect the reason with any 
 certainty of being right, though the fact speaks for 
 itself that the tribe of Simeon must have experienced 
 disaster beyond the rest. Yet it does seem very natural 
 
 ^ Num. XXV. 14. 
 
 ^ Ibid. XXV. 8. 
 
 ^ Conip. Num. i. and xxvi. 
 
 ■* Num. i. 23. 
 ■'' Ibid. xxvi. 14. 
 
Part I. 
 
 BOOKS OF MOSES. 
 
 99 
 
 to think, that, in the recent Plague, the tribe to which 
 Zimri belonged, who is mentioned as a leading person 
 in it with great emphasis, ivas the tribe upon wJilch the 
 chief fury of the scourge fell — as having been that which 
 had been the chief transgressors in the idolatry. 
 
 Moreover, that such was the case, T am further in- 
 clined to believe from another circumstance. One of 
 the last great acts which Moses was commissioned to 
 perform before his death, has a reference to this very 
 aifair of Baal-Peor. " Avenge the children of Israel," 
 says God to him, " of the Midianites ; afterward thou 
 shalt be gathered unto thy people." ^ Moses did so : 
 but before he actually w^as gathered to his people, and 
 while the recent extermination of this guilty nation 
 must have been fresh in his mind, he proceeds to pro- 
 nounce a parting blessing on the tribes. Now it is sin- 
 gular, and except upon some such supposition as this I 
 am maintaining, unaccountable, that whilst he deals out 
 the bounties of earth and heaven with a prodigal hand 
 upon all the others, the tribe of Simeon he passes over 
 in silence, and none but the tribe of Simeon — for this 
 he has no blessing^ — an omission w'hich should seem to 
 
 ^ Num. xxxi. 2. 
 
 ^ Deut. xxxiii. 6. It is nothing 
 but fair to state that the reading 
 of the Codex Alexandr. is ^»jtw 
 
 uiuii £<7Tiy 'TroAf? fv a.^tBij,u, " J_iet 
 
 Reuben live and not die, and let 
 Simeon be many in number." 
 This reading, however, the Codex 
 Vaticanus, the rival MS. of the 
 Alexandrine, and at least its 
 equal in authority, does not re- 
 cognise; neither is it found in 
 the Hebrew text, nor in any of 
 
 the various readings of that text 
 as given by Dr. Kennicott — nor 
 in the Samaritan — nor in the 
 early Versions. It is difficult to 
 believe that the name of Simeon 
 should have been omitted, in so 
 many instances, by mistake ; 
 whilst it is easy to suppose that 
 it might have been inti'oduced 
 in some one instance by design, 
 the transcriber not being aware 
 of any cause for the exclusion of 
 this one tribe, and saying, " Per- 
 ad venture, it is an oversight." 
 H 2 
 
100 
 
 THE VERACITY OF THE 
 
 Part I. 
 
 have some meaning, and which does in fact, as I appre- 
 hend, point to this same matter of Baal-Peor. For if 
 that was pre-eminently the offending tribe, nothing 
 coukl be more likely than that Moses, fresh, as I have 
 said, from the destruction of the Midianites for their 
 sin, shonld remember their principal partners in it too, 
 and should think it hard measure to slay the one and 
 forthwith bless the other. Nor can I help remarking, 
 in further support of this conjecture, that the little 
 consideration paid to this tribe by their brethren shortly 
 afterwards, in the allotment of the portions of the Holy 
 Land, implies it to have been in disgrace — their in- 
 heritance being only the remnant of that assigned to 
 the children of Judah, which was too much for them^; 
 and so inadequate to their wants did it prove, that in 
 aftertimes they sent forth a colony even to Mount Seir. 
 
 Admitting, then, the fact to be as I have supposed, 
 it supports (as in so many other cases already men- 
 tioned) the credibility of a miracle. For the name of 
 the audacious offender points incidentally to the offend- 
 ing tribe — the extraordinary diminution of that tribe 
 points to some extraordinary cause of the diminution 
 — the pestilence presents itself as a probable cause — 
 and if the real cause, then it becomes the judicial pun- 
 ishment of a transgression, a miracle wrought by God 
 (as Moses would have it), in token that his wrath was 
 kindled against Israel. 
 
 So much for the Books of Moses ; not that I believe 
 the subject exhausted, for I doubt not that many ex- 
 amples of coincidence without design in the writings of 
 Moses have escaped me, which others may detect, as 
 
 Moreover, the blessing of Eeuben 
 tbus curtailed, "Let Reuben live, 
 and not die," seems tame, and 
 
 unworthy the party and the oc- 
 casion. 
 
 ^ Josh. xix. 9. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 101 
 
 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 pre- 
 sents 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, ex- 
 tending 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 heaveuj 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) considency witlioid 
 design in the many hints of a Patriarchal Church inci- 
 dentally scattered through the Book of Genesis taken 
 as a ivliole — I have found it in particular instances ; in 
 the impassioned terms wherein the Father of the Faith- 
 ful 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 Mas the child 
 of his parent's old age, the miraculous offspring of a 
 sterile bed — I have found it in the several oblique in- 
 timations of the imbecility and insignificance of Betliuel 
 
102 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 — 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 fol- 
 lowers, 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 tlie identity of the character of Jacob, a character 
 offered to us in many asj^ects 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 sucli a variety of ways, and so inad- 
 vertently in all, as compared one with another — ^I have 
 found it in the proportion of that crop iwrmmiently 
 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 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 103 
 
 of Naclab and Abiliu, as compared with the remarkable 
 law which follows touching- the use of ivine — and in the 
 removal of their corpses by the sons of Uzziel, as com- 
 pared 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 Re- 
 phidim, 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 o^'eu 
 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 con- 
 spirators did not perish alike, as compared with a sub- 
 sequent most casual assertion, that though the house- 
 holds of Dathan and Abiram were destroyed, the chil- 
 dren of Korali 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 comj^ared Avith their con- 
 tiguous position in the camp during their long and 
 trying march through the wilderness — I have found it 
 
104 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 in the uniformity with which Moses imphes a free com- 
 jnunication 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 apj^arently to return to his 
 own country, as compared witli 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, some- 
 times 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 docu- 
 ments precludes any arising out of contemporary his- 
 tory. 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 jire- 
 sented themselves to my mind whilst I have been 
 engaged in investigating that argument — several of 
 rhese 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 ; 
 
Pakt I. BOOKS OF MOSES. 105 
 
 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 other- 
 wise than as strokes from the life — as where "the miwed 
 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 ^ — 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 ^. 
 
 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 charac- 
 teristic 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^? (Could 
 an impostor have devised such a trifle ?) How the in- 
 heritance of the daughters of Zelophehad is to be dis- 
 posed of, there being no heir-male*. 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 simpliciti/ 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 ^ of the murmuring of the Israelites and the 
 
 ^ Num. xi. 4; 
 ^ Exod. xxxii. 24. 
 ^ Num. XV. 32. 
 
 * Num. xxXvi; 2. 
 ^ Exod. xiv. Joseph. Antiq. 
 b. 2. c. xvi. 
 
106 
 
 THE VERACITY OF THE 
 
 Part I. 
 
 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 '. 
 
 5. There is a candour in the treatment of his sub- 
 ject by Moses, which argues his truth ; as when he 
 tells of his own want of elequence, which unfitted him 
 for a leader ^ — his own want of faith, which prevented 
 him from entering the promised land ^ — the idolatry of 
 Aaron his brother* — the profaneness of Nadab and 
 Abihu, his nephews^ — the disaffection and punishment 
 of Miriam, his sister ^ 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 ^ 
 
 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 pro2)hetical 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 ^. 
 
 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- 
 
 1 Exod. xvi. Joseph. Aiitiq- 
 b. 3. c. i. 
 
 ~ Ibid. iv. 10. 
 •* Num. XX. 12. 
 ^ Exod. xxxii. 21. 
 
 12. 
 
 ^ Levit. X. 1. 
 ^ Num. xii. 1. 
 
 ^ Exod. vi. 20 ; Levit. xviii. 
 I 
 
 "" Deut. xxviii. 
 
Part I. 
 
 BOOKS OF MOSES. 
 
 107 
 
 tree in the midst of the garden which the dragon 
 guarded — the destruction of mankind by a flood, all 
 excej^t two persons, and those righteous persons — 
 
 " Innocuos ambos, cultores numiuis ambos :"^ 
 
 the rainbow, " which Jupiter set in the cloud, a sign to 
 men" ^ — the seventh day a sacred day ^ — with many 
 others : all conspiring to establish the reality of the 
 facts which Moses relates, because tending to show 
 that vestiges of the like present themselves in the tra- 
 ditional history of the world at large. 
 
 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 ex- 
 clusively, or even principally. The New Testament 
 demands acceptance on its own merits, on merits dis- 
 tinct 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 dispensa- 
 tions, separated by an interval of some fifteen hundred 
 years, each exhibiting prophecies of its own, since ful- 
 filled — 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 
 
 ^ Ovid, Met. i. 327. 
 
 ~ Horn. I], xi. 27, 28. 
 
 •^ Hesiod. Oper. et Di. 770. 
 
 See Grot, de Verit. Rel. Christ. 
 1. ]. xvi. 
 
108 THE VERACITY OF THE Part 1- 
 
 to stand in the closest relation to one another, and yet 
 both turn out impostures after all. 
 
 10. Above all, there is a comparative inirity 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 doc- 
 trine 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 rera !) 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 ^ should have been the produce of an age, which 
 the very provisions of the Levitical Law itself show to 
 have been full of savasre and licentious abominations ? 
 
 o 
 
 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 ; re- 
 minded, 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 in- 
 stance, celebrated by all — no man doubting its mean- 
 ing, 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 ; 
 
 ^ Exod. XX. 3 ; Deut. vi. 4 ; 
 Exod.iii. 14; Deut xi. 14; Levit. 
 
 xix. 2 ; Ibid. xix. 18 ; Deut. xxx 
 6; Exod. XX. 17. 
 
Part 1. 
 
 BOOKS OF MOSES. 
 
 109 
 
 by right of which credentials, and no other, it sum- 
 moned from all quarters of the M^orld, at great cost, and 
 inconvenience, and danger, the dispersed Jews — none 
 disputing the obligation to obey the summons. 
 
 12. Then the heroic devotion with w^iich the Is- 
 raelites continued to regard the Law, even long after 
 they had ceased to cultivate the better part of it, even 
 wdien that very Law only served to condemn its wor- 
 shippers, 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' — 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 cow^ardly pursuers^. 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 na- 
 tional 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 ob- 
 stacle 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 
 
 ^ Joseph. Bell. Jud. b. '2. c. x. 
 
 §4. 
 
 Autiq. Jud. b. 12. c. 6. § 2. 
 
110 THE VERACITY OF THE Part I. 
 
 unto them, even the noble works that He had done in 
 the ohl 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 f ^ 
 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^ Would they sow? 
 — Then must not the seed be mixed ^ Would they 
 reap ? — Then must they not reap clean *. Would they 
 make bread ? — Then must they set apart dough enough 
 for the consecrated loaf^ Did they find a bird's nest? 
 — Then must they let the old bird fly away''. Did they 
 hunt ? — Then they must shed the blood of their game, 
 and cover it with dust''. Did they plant a fruit tree? — 
 For three years was the fruit to be uncircumcised^ 
 
 1 John vi. 13. 
 
 2 Deut. xxii. 10. 
 ■' Ibid. xxii. 9. 
 
 "* Lev. xix. 9. 
 
 ^ Num. XV. 20. 
 
 *' Deut. xxii. 6. 
 
 '^ Lev. xvii. 13, 
 
 « Ibid. xix. 23. 
 
Part I. BOOKS OF MOSES. Ill 
 
 Did they shave their beards ? — They were not to cut 
 the corners \ Did they weave a garment ? — Then must 
 it be only with threads prescribed ^ Did they build a 
 house? — They must put rails and battlements on the 
 roof^. Did they buy an estate? — At the year of Ju- 
 bilee back it must go to its owner*. This last was in 
 itself and alone a provision which must have made 
 itself felt in the whole structure of the Jewish com- 
 monwealth, 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 enact- 
 ments which it must have required extraordinary in- 
 fluence in the Lawgiver to enjoin, and extraordinary 
 reverence for his powers to perpetuate. 
 
 ^ Lev. xix. 27. 
 ^ Ibid. xix. 19. 
 
 ^ Deut. xxii. 8. 
 ■* Lev. XXV. 13. 
 
THE VERACITY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 HITHERTO I have endeavoured to prove the vera- 
 city of the Mosaic writings by the instances they 
 contain of coincidence ivithout design in their several 
 parts ; and I hope and believe that I have succeeded 
 in pointing out such coincidences as might come of 
 truth, and could come of nothing but truth. These 
 presented themselves in the history of the Patriarchs, 
 from Abraham to Joseph; and in the history of the 
 chosen race in general, from their departure out of 
 Egypt to the day when their great Lawgiver expired on 
 the borders of that land of Promise into which Joshua 
 was now to lead them — a long and eventful history. I 
 shall now resume the subject ; pursue the adventures of 
 this extraordinary people, as they are unfolded in some 
 of the subsequent books of holy writ ; and, still using 
 the same test as before, ascertain whether these portions 
 of Scripture do not appear to be equally trustworthy, 
 and whilst, like the former, they assert, often without 
 any recourse to the intervention of second causes, 
 miracles many and mighty, they do not challenge 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 113 
 
 confidence in those miracles by marks of reality, con- 
 sistency, and accuracy, which the ordinary matters of 
 fact combined with them constantly exhibit. " For this 
 credibility of the common scriptm*e history," says Bishop 
 Butler, " gives some credibility to its miraculous history ; 
 esi3ecially as this is interwoven with the common, so as 
 that they imply each other, and both together make up 
 one revelation." ' 
 
 Moses then being dead, Joshua takes the command of 
 the armies of Israel, and marches them over Jordan to 
 the possession of the land of Canaan. It was a day 
 and a deed much to be remembered. " It came to 
 pass, when the people removed from their tents, to pass 
 over Jordan, and the priests bearing the ark of the 
 covenant before the people ; and as they that bare the 
 ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests 
 that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, 
 (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks in the time of 
 harvest,) that the waters which came down from above 
 stood and rose up upon an heap very far from the city 
 Adam, that is beside Zaretan: and those that came 
 down toward the sea of the plain, even the salt sea, 
 failed, and were cut off: and the people passed over 
 right against Jericho. And the priests that bare the 
 ark of the covenant of the Lord stood firm on dry 
 ground in the midst of Jordan, and all the Israelites 
 passed over on dry ground, until all the people were 
 passed clean over Jordan." ^ 
 
 Such is the language of the Book of Joshua. Now 
 in the midst of this miraculous narrative, an incident is 
 mentioned, though very casually, which dates the season 
 
 1 Analogy, p. 389. ] ' Josh. iii. 14—17. 
 
 I 
 
114 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 of the year when this passage of the Jordan was effected. 
 The feet of the priests, it seems, were dipped in the 
 brim of the water ; and this is explained by the season 
 being that of the periodical inundation of Jordan, that 
 river overflowing his banks all the time of harvest. The 
 barle7/-\mr\est is here meant, or the former harvest, as 
 it is elsewhere called, in contradistinction to the ivheat, 
 or latter harvest ; for in the fourth chapter (v. 19) we 
 read, " the people came up out of Jordan on the tenth 
 day of t\ie first monili^'' that is, four days before the Pass- 
 over, which fell in with the barley-harvest ; the wheat- 
 harvest not being fully completed till Pentecost, or fifty 
 days later in the year, when the wave-loaves of the first- 
 fruits of the wheat were offered up\ The Israelites 
 passed the Jordan then, it appears, at the time of 
 hmieyA\Xix^Q%i. But we are told in Exodus, that at 
 the Plague of Hail, which was but a day or two before 
 the Passover, " the flax and the barley were smitten, 
 for the barley was in the ear and the flax was boiled, 
 but the wheat and the rye were not smitten, for they 
 were not grown up."^ It should seem, therefore, that 
 the flax and the barley were crops which ripened about 
 the same time in Egypt; and as the climate of Ca- 
 naan did not differ materially from that of Egypt, this, 
 no doubt, was the case in Canaan too ; there also these 
 two crops would come in at the same time. The 
 Israelites, therefore, who crossed the Jordan, as we 
 have seen in one passage, at the harvest, and that 
 harvest, as we have seen in another passage, the harley- 
 harvest, must, if so, have crossed it at the flace- 
 harvest. 
 
 Now, in a former chapter, we are informed, that 
 
 ^ This question of the harvests 
 is examined in greater detail in 
 
 Part I. No. xvi. 
 ~ Exod. ix. 31. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 115 
 
 three days before Joshua ventured upon the invasion, 
 he sent two men, spies, to view the land, even Jericho^ 
 It was a service of peril : they were received by Rahab, 
 a woman of that city, and lodged in her house : but the 
 entrance of these strangers at night-fall was observed : 
 it was a moment, no doubt, of great suspicion and 
 alarm : an enemy's army encamped on the borders. 
 The thing was reported to the King of Jericho, and 
 search was made for the men. Rahab, however, fear- 
 ing God' — for by faith she felt that the miracles wrought 
 by Him in favour of Israel were proofs that for Israel He 
 fought, — by faith, which, living as she did in the midst 
 of idolaters, might well be counted to her for righteous- 
 ness, and the like to which, in a somewhat similar case, 
 was declared by our Lord enough to lead those who 
 professed it into the kingdom of God, even before the 
 chief jjriests and elders themselves^ — she, I say, having 
 this faith in God, and true to those laws of hospitality 
 which are the glory of the eastern nations, and more 
 especially of the females of the East, even to this day, 
 at much present risk jDrotected her guests from their 
 pursuers. But how ! " She brought them up to the 
 roof of her house, and hid them with the stalks of 
 fiaw''^ — the stalks of flax, no doubt just cut down, which 
 she had spread upon the roof of her house to steep and 
 to season. 
 
 Here I see truth. Yet how very minute is this 
 incident ! how very casually does it present itself to our 
 notice ! how very unimportant a matter it seems in the 
 first instance, under what the spies were hidden! enough 
 that, whatever it was, it answered the purjjose, and 
 saved their lives. Could the historian have contem- 
 
 1 Josh. i. 2; ii. 1.22; iii. 2. 
 
 2 Heb. xi. 31; Matt. xxi. 31. 
 
 ^ Josh. ii. 6. 
 
 I 2 
 
116 THE VERACITY OF THE Pakt II. 
 
 plated for one moment the effect which a trifle about a 
 flax-stalk might have in corroboration of his account of 
 the passage of the Jordan ? Is it possible for the most 
 jealous examiner of human testimony to imagine that 
 these flax-stalks were fixed upon above all things in the 
 world for the covering of the spies, because they were 
 known to be ripe with the barley, and the barley was 
 know^n to be ripe at the Passover, and the Passover was 
 known to be the season w^hen the Israelites set foot in 
 Canaan ? Or rather, would he not fairly and candidly 
 confess, that in one particular, at least, of this adven- 
 ture (the only one which we have an opportunity of 
 checking), a religious attention to truth is manifested ; 
 and that when it is said, " the feet of the Priests were 
 dipped in the brim of the water," and when a reason is 
 assigned for this gradual approach to the bed of a river, 
 of wdiich the banks were in general steep and precipi- 
 tous, we are put in possession of one unquestionable 
 fact at least, one particular upon which w^e may safely 
 repose, whatever may be said of the remainder of the 
 narrative, and that assuredly truth leads us by the 
 hand to the very edge of the miracle, if not through 
 the miracle itself? 
 
 II. 
 
 The Israelites having made this successful inroad into 
 the land of Canaan, divided it amongst the Tribes. 
 But the Canaanites, though panic-struck at their first 
 approach, soon began to take heart, and the covetous 
 policy of Israel (a policy which dictated attention to 
 present pecuniary profits, no matter at what eventual 
 cost to the great moral interests of the Commonwealth) 
 had satisfied itself with making them tributaries, con- 
 trary to the command of God, that they should be 
 
Part IT. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 117 
 
 driven out ' ; and, accordingly, they were suffered, as it 
 was promised, to become thorns in Israel's side, always 
 vexing, often resisting, and sometimes oppressing them 
 for many years together. Meanwhile the Tribe of Dan 
 had its lot cast near the Amorites. It struggled to 
 work out for itself a settlement ; but its fierce and 
 warlike neighbours drove in its outposts, and succeeded 
 in conlining it to the mountains ^ The children of 
 Dan became straitened in their borders, and, unable to 
 extend them at home, " they sent of their family five 
 men from their coasts, men of valour, to spy out the 
 land and to search it." So these five men departed, 
 and, directing their steps northwards, to the nearest 
 parts of the country which held out any prospect to 
 settlers, " they came," we are told, " to Laish, and saw 
 the people that were therein, how they dwelt careless, 
 after the manner of the Zidonians, quiet and secure, and 
 there was no magistrate in the land that might put 
 them to shame in anything, and they were far from the 
 Zidonians, and had no business with any man." ^ Thus 
 the circumstances of the place and the people were 
 tempting to the views of the strangers. They return 
 to their brethren, and advise an attempt upon the 
 town. Accordingly, they march against it, take it, and, 
 rebuilding the city, which was destroyed in the assault, 
 change its name from Laish to Dan, and colonise it. 
 From this it should appear that Laish, though far from 
 Sidon, was in early times a town belonging to Sidon, 
 and probably inhabited by Sidonians, for it was after 
 their manner that the people lived. 
 
 Such is the information furnished us in the eighteenth 
 chapter of the Book of Judges. 
 
 1 Exod. xxiii. 31. 
 - Judges i. 34. 
 
 Judges xviii. 7. 
 
118 
 
 THE VERACITY OF THE 
 
 Part II. 
 
 I now turn to the third chapter of the Book of 
 Deuteronomy, and I there find the following passage : 
 " We took at that time," says Moses, " out of the hand 
 of the two kings of the Amorites the land that was on 
 this side Jordan, from the river of Anion unto Mount 
 Hermon — which Hermon the Sidonians call Strion, and 
 the Amorites call it Shenir." ^ But why this mention 
 of the Sidonian name of this famous mountain ? It was 
 not near to Sidon — it does not appear to have belonged 
 to Sidon, but to the king of Bashan^ The reason, 
 though not obvious, is nevertheless discoverable, and 
 a very curious geographical coincidence it affords be- 
 tween the former passage in Judges and this in Deuter- 
 onomy. 
 
 For Hermon, we know, was close to Ctesarea Phi- 
 lippi. But Ca^sarea Philippi, we are again informed, 
 was the modern name of Paneas, the seat of Jordan's 
 flood : and Paneas, we further learn, was the same as 
 the still more ancient Dan or Laish ^. Now Laish, we 
 have seen, was probably at first a settlement of the 
 Sidonians, after whose manner the peoj^le of Laish 
 lived. Accordingly, it appears, — but how distant and 
 unconnected are the passages from which such a con- 
 clusion is drawn ! — that although this Hermon was far 
 from Sidon itself, still at its foot there was dwelling a 
 Sidonian colony, a race speaking the Sidonian language; 
 and, therefore, nothing could be more natural than 
 
 ^ Deut. iii. 8, 9. 
 
 ^ Josh. xii. 4, 5. 
 
 ^ " Dan Phcenices oppidum, 
 quod nunc Paneas dicitur. Dan 
 autem unus e fontibus est Jor- 
 danis." — Hieronym. in Qufes- 
 tionibus in Genesin i. j). 382. It 
 was also Caesarea Philippi. — 
 
 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. vii. c. xvii. 
 
 ' The Hierusalem Targum, 
 Num. XXXV. writes thus, " The 
 mountain of Snow at Caesai'ea 
 (Philippi) — this was Hermon." ' 
 — Lightfoot, Vol. ii. p. 62, fol. 
 See also Psalm xlii. 8. 
 
Pakt II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 119 
 
 that the mountain which overhung the town should 
 have a Sidonian name, by which it was commonly 
 known in those parts, and that this should suggest it- 
 self, as well as its Hebrew name, to Moses. 
 
 III. 
 
 Connected with the circumstances of this same colony 
 of Laish is another coincidence which I have to offer, 
 and I introduce it in this j^lace, because it is so con- 
 nected, for otherwise it anticipates a point of Jewish 
 history, which, in the order of the books of Scripture, 
 lies a long way before me. The construction of Solo- 
 mon's TemjDle at Jerusalem is the event at which it 
 dates. 
 
 In the seventh chapter of the First Book of Kings 
 I read, " And king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram 
 out of Tyre. He was a widow's son of the Tribe of 
 JVapJitali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker 
 in brass ; and he was filled with wisdom and under- 
 standing, and cunning to work all works in brass. And 
 he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work." 
 (v. 13.) But in the j^arallel passage in the second 
 chapter of the Second Book of Chronicles (v. 13), 
 where we have the answer which king Hiram returned 
 to Solomon, when the latter desired him to " send him 
 a man, cunning to work in gold, and in silver, and in 
 brass ;" I find it running thus : — " Now I have sent a 
 cunning man, endued with understanding, of Huram 
 my father's (or perhaps Huram- Abi by name), the son 
 of a woman of the daughters o^ Dan, and his father was 
 a man of Tyre, skilful to work in gold." It is evident, 
 that the same individual is meant in both passages ; yet 
 
120 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 there is an apparent discrepancy between them : the 
 one in Kings asserting his mother to be a woman of 
 the Tribe of IVaphfali ; the other, in Chronicles, assert- 
 ing her to be a woman of the daughters of Dan. The 
 difficulty has driven the critics to some intricate ex- 
 pedients, in order to resolve it. " She herself was of 
 the Tribe of Dan," says Dr. Patrick ; " but her first 
 husband was of the Tribe of Naphtali, by whom she 
 had this son. When she was a widow, she married a 
 man of Tyre, who is called Hiram's father, because he 
 bred him up, and was the husband of his mother." All 
 this is gratuitous. The explanation only serves to show 
 that the interpreter was aware of the knot, but not of 
 the solution. This difficulty, however, like many others 
 in Scripture, when once explained, helps to confirm its 
 truth. We have seen in the last paragraph, that six 
 hundred Danites emigrated from their own Tribe, and 
 seized upon Laish, a city of the Sidonians. Now the 
 Sidonians were subjects of the king of Tyre, and were 
 the selfsame people as the Tyrians ; for in the fifth 
 chapter of the First Book of Kings, where Solomon is 
 reported as sending to the king of Ti/7-e for workmen, 
 he is said to assign as a reason for the application, 
 " Thou knowest that there is not among us any that 
 can skill to hew timber like unto the Sidonians ." (v. 6.) 
 The Tyrians, therefore, and the Sidonians were the 
 same nation. But Laish or Dan, we found, was near 
 the springs of Jordan ; and therefore, since the " out- 
 goings" of the territory of Najjhtali are expressly said 
 to have been at Jordan, there is good reason to believe 
 that Laish or Dan stood in the Tribe of Naphtali. But 
 if so, then is the difficulty solved ; for the woman was, 
 by abode, of Naphtali ; Laish, where she dwelt, being 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 121 
 
 situated in tliat Tribe, as Jacob is called a Syrian, from 
 his having lived in Syria ' ; and by birth, she was of 
 Dan, being' come of that little colony of Danites, which 
 the parent stock had sent forth in early times to settle 
 at a distance. Meanwhile the very circumstance which 
 interposes to reconcile the apparent disagreement, ac- 
 counts no less naturally for the fact, that she had a 
 Tyrian for her husband. 
 
 Now upon what a very trifle does this mark of truth 
 turn ! Who can suspect anything insidious here ? any 
 trap for the unwary inquisitor after internal evidence in 
 the domestic circumstances of a master-smith, employed 
 by Solomon to build his temple ? 
 
 I am glad to have it in my power to produce this 
 geographical coincidence, because it is rare in its kind — 
 the geography of Canaan, owing to its extreme per- 
 plexity, scarcely furnishing its due contingent to the 
 argument I am handling. However, that very intricacy 
 may in itself be thought to say something to our pre- 
 sent purpose ; arising, as it in a great degree does, out 
 of the manifold instances in which different places are 
 called by the same name in the Holy Land. Now 
 whilst this accident creates a confusion, very unfavour- 
 able to determining their respective sites, and conse- 
 quently stands in the Avay of such undesigned tokens of 
 truth as might spring out of a more accurate knowledge 
 of such particulars ; still it accords very singularly with 
 the circumstances under which Scripture reports the 
 land of Canaan to have been occupied : — I mean, that 
 it was divided amongst Twelve Tribes of one and the 
 same nation ; each, therefore, left to regulate the names 
 within its own borders after its own pleasure ; and all 
 having many associations in common, which would often 
 ^ Deut. xxvi. 5. 
 
122 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 overrule them, no doubt, however unintentionally, to 
 fix upon the same. We have only to look to our own 
 colonies, in whatever latitude dispersed, to see the like 
 workings of the same natural feeling familiarly exempli- 
 fied in the identity of local names, which they severally 
 present. And it may be added, that such a geogra- 
 phical nomenclature was the more likely to establish 
 itself in the new settlements of the Israelites, amongst 
 whom names of places, from the earliest times down- 
 wards, seem to have been seldom, if ever, arbitrary, but 
 still to have carried with them some meaning, which 
 was, or which was thought to be, significant. 
 
 IV. 
 
 I HAVE said that the Canaanites, who were spared by 
 the Israelites after the first encounter with them, partly 
 that they might derive from the conquered race a 
 tribute, and partly that they might employ them in the 
 servile offices of hewing wood and drawing water, by 
 degrees recovered their spirit, waged war successfully 
 against their invaders, and for many years mightily 
 oppressed Israel. The Philistines, the most formidable 
 of the inhabitants of Canaan, and those under whom 
 the Israelites suffered the most severely, added policy 
 to power. For at their bidding it came to pass (and 
 probably the j)recaution was adopted by others besides 
 the Philistines), that "there was no smith found through- 
 out all the land of Israel ; for the Philistines said. Lest 
 the Hebrews make themselves swords and spears. But 
 all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to 
 sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his 
 axe, and his mattock." ^ Such is said to have been the 
 rigorous law of the conquerors. The workers in iron 
 ' 1 Sam. xiii. 19. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 123 
 
 were everywhere put down, lest, under pretence of 
 making implements for the husbandman, they should 
 forge arms for the rebel. Now that some such law 
 was actually in force (I am not aware that direct men- 
 tion is made of it except in this one passage), is a fact 
 confirmed by a great many incidents, some of them very 
 trifling and inconsiderable, none of them related or con- 
 nected, but all of them turned by this one key. 
 
 Thus, when Ehud prepared to dispatch Eglon the 
 King of Moab, to whom the Israelites were then sub- 
 ject, " he made liwC (we are told) " a dagger, which had 
 two edges, of a cubit length, and he did gird it under 
 his raiment upon his ricjht tJiighr^ he made it himself, 
 it seems, expressly for the occasion, and he bound it 
 upon his right thigh, instead of his left, which was the 
 sword-side, to baffle suspicion ; whilst, being left-handed, 
 he could wield it nevertheless. Moreover it may be 
 observed, in passing, that Ehud was a Benjamite^; and 
 that of the Benjamites, when their fighting men turned 
 out against Israel in the affair of Gibeah, there were 
 seven hundred choice slingers left-handed ^ ; and that of 
 this discomfited army, six hundred persons escaped to 
 the rock Rimmon, none so likely as the light-armed ; 
 and that this escape is dated by one of our most careful 
 investigators of Scripture, Dr. Lightfoot, at thirteen 
 years before Ehud's accession ^. What, then, is more 
 probable — yet I need not say how incidental is this 
 touch of truth — than that this left-handed Ehud, a 
 Benjamite, was one who survived of those seven hun- 
 dred left-handed slingers, who were Benjamites ? 
 
 Thus, again, Shamgar slays six hundred of the Phi- 
 
 Judges iii. 16. 
 Ibid. iii. 15. 
 Ibid. XX. 16. 
 
 "• Lightfoot's Works, i. 44 — 
 47. 
 
124 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 listines with an ox-goad^ \ doubtless having recourse to 
 an implement so inconvenient, because it was not per- 
 mitted to carry arms or to have them in possession. 
 
 Thus Samson, when he went down to Timnath with 
 no very friendly feeling towards the Philistines, how- 
 ever he might feign it, nor at a moment of great poli- 
 tical tranquillity, was still unarmed; so that when 
 " the young lion roared against him, he rent him, as he 
 would have rent a kid, and he had nothing in his 
 hand." ^ And w hen the same champion slew a thousand 
 of the Philistines, it was with a jaw-bone, for he had no 
 other choice. " Was there a shield or a spear seen 
 among forty thousand in Israel ?"^ 
 
 All these are indications, yet very oblique ones, that 
 no smith or armourer wrought throughout all the land 
 of Israel ; for it will be perceived, on examination, that 
 every one of these incidents occurred at times when 
 the Israelites were under subjection. 
 
 Moreover, it was probably in consequence of this 
 same restrictive law, that the sling became so popular 
 a weapon amongst the Israelites. It does not appear 
 that it was known, or at least used, under Moses. 
 Whilst Israel was triumphant, it was not needed : in 
 those happier days, her fighting-men were men that 
 " drew the sword." In the days of her oppression they 
 were driven to the use of more ignoble arms. The 
 sling was readily constructed, and readily concealed. 
 Whilst a staff or hempen-stalk grew in her fields, and 
 a smooth stone lay in her brooks, this artillery at least 
 was ever forthcoming. It was not a very fatal weapon, 
 unless wielded with consummate skill. The Philistines 
 despised it : Goliath, we may remember, scorns it as a 
 
 Judges iii. 31. 
 Ibid. xiv. 5, G. 
 
 Judges V. 8. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 1^5 
 
 weapon against a dog : but, by continual application to 
 the exercise of it (for it was now their only hope), 
 the Israelites converted a rude and rustic plaything 
 into a formidable engine of war. That troop of Ben- 
 jamites, of whom I have already spoken, had taken 
 pains to make themselves equally expert with either 
 hand — (every one could sling stones at an hair-breadth 
 and not miss) — and the precision with which David 
 directed it, would not perhaps be thought extraordinary 
 amongst the active and practised 3'outlis of his day. 
 
 These jmrticulars, it will be perceived, are many and 
 divers ; and though they might not of themselves have 
 enabled us to draw them into an induction that the in- 
 habitants of Canaan withheld from Israel the use of 
 arms ; yet, when we are put in possession of the single 
 fact, that no smith was allowed throughout all Israel, 
 we are at once supplied with the centre towards which 
 they are one and all j^erceived to converge. 
 
 I know not how incidents of the kind here produced 
 can be accounted for, except by the supposition that 
 they are portions of a true and actual history ; and they 
 who may feel that there is in them some force, but who 
 may at the same time feel that fuller evidence is wanted 
 to compel their assent to a Scripture which makes 
 upon them demands so large ; who secretly whisper to 
 themselves, in the temper of the incredulous Jew of 
 old, " We would see a sign ;" or of him M-ho mocked, 
 saying, " Let Him now come down from the cross, and 
 we will believe" — let such calmly and dispassionately 
 consider, that there could be no room for faith, if there 
 were no room for doubt ; that the scheme of our proba- 
 tion requires, perhaps as a matter of necessity, that 
 faith should be in it a very chief ingredient ; that the 
 exercise of faith (as we may partly perceive), both the 
 
126 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 spirit which must foster it, and the spirit which must 
 issue from it, is precisely what seems fit for moulding 
 us into vessels for future honour; that natural religion 
 lifts up its voice to tell us, that in this Morld we are 
 undoubtedly living under the dispensation of a God, 
 who has given us probability, and not demonstration, 
 for the principle of our ordinary guidance ; and that He 
 may be therefore well disposed to proceed under a 
 similar dispensation, with regard to the next world, 
 trying thereby who is the "wise servant" — M-ho is rea- 
 sonable in his demands for evidence, for such He rejects 
 not ; and who is presumptuous, for such He still further 
 hardens ; — saying to the one with complacency and 
 satisfaction, " Because I said unto thee, I saw thee 
 under the fig-tree, believest thou ? Thou shalt see 
 greater things than these ;" ' and to the other, in 
 sorrow and rebuke, " Because thou hast seen me, thou 
 hast believed ; blessed are they that have not seen, and 
 yet have believed."^ 
 
 It is most satisfactory to find, as the history of the 
 Israelites unfolds itself, the same indications of truth 
 and accuracy still continuing to present themselves — 
 the same signatures (as it were) of a subscribing witness 
 of credit, impressed on every sheet as we turn it over 
 in its order. The glory of Israel is now brought before 
 us: David comes upon the scene, destined to fill the 
 most conspicuous place in the annals of his country, 
 and furnishing, in the details of his long and eventful 
 life, a series of arguments such as we are in search of, 
 decisive, I think, of the reality of his story, and of the 
 
 ^ John i. 50. I ~ John xx. 29. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 127 
 
 fidelity with which it is told. With these I shall be 
 now for some time engaged. 
 
 The circumstances under which he first apjDears 
 before us are such as give token at once of his intrepid 
 character and trust in God. " And there went out a 
 champion " (so we read in the seventeenth chajiter of 
 the First Book of Samuel), " out of the camp of the 
 Philistines, Goliath o^ Gath, whose height was six cubits 
 and a span." The point upon which the argument for 
 the veracity of the history which ensues will turn is 
 the incidental mention here made of Gath, as the city 
 of Goliath, a patronymic which might have been 
 thought of very little importance, either in its insertion 
 or omission ; here, however, it stands. Goliath of Gath 
 was David's gigantic antagonist. Now let us mark the 
 value of this casual designation of the formidable Phi- 
 listine. The report of the spies whom Moses sent into 
 Canaan, as given in the thirteenth chapter of the Book 
 of Numbers, was as follows : — " The land through which 
 we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the 
 inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in 
 it were men of a fji'eat stature. And there we saw the 
 giants, the sons of Anak, which came of the giants. 
 And we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so 
 we were in their sight."' Moses is here a testimony 
 unto us, that these Anakims were a race of extra- 
 ordinary stature. This fact let us bear in mind, and 
 now turn to the Book of Joshua. There it is recorded 
 amongst the feats of arms of that valiant leader of 
 Israel, whereby he achieved the conquest of Canaan, 
 that "He cut off the Anakims from the mountains, 
 from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from the 
 mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of 
 1 Num. xiii. 32, 33. 
 
128 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 Israel : Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities. 
 There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the 
 children of Israel, only" (observe the exception) "in 
 Gaza, in Gath, and in Aslidod, there remained.'" Here, 
 in his turn, comes in Joshua as a witness, that when he 
 put the Anakims to the sword, he left some remaining 
 in three cities, and in no others; and one of these 
 three cities was Gath. Accordingly, when in the Book 
 of Samuel we find Gath most incidentally named as the 
 country of Goliath, the fact squares very singularly with 
 those two other independent facts, brought together 
 from two independent authorities — the Books of Moses 
 and Joshua — the one, that the Anakims were persons 
 of gigantic size ; the other, that some of this nearly 
 exterminated race, who survived the sword of Joshua, 
 did actually continue to dwell at Gath. Thus in the 
 mouth of three witnesses — Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, 
 is the word established: concurring as they do, in a 
 manner the most artless and satisfactory, to confirm one 
 particular at least in this singular exploit of David. 
 One particular, and that a hinge upon which the whole 
 moves, is discovered to be matter of fact beyond all 
 question ; and therefore, in the absence of all evidence 
 whatever to the contrary, I am disposed to believe the 
 other particulars of the same history to be matter of 
 fact too. Yet there are many, I will not say miraculous, 
 but certainly most providential circumstances involved 
 in it ; circumstances arguing, and meant to argue, the 
 invisible hand by which David fought and Goliath fell. 
 The stripling from the sheepfold withstanding the man 
 of war from his youth — the ruddy boy, his carriage and 
 his cheeses left for the moment, hearing and rejoicing 
 both to hear and accept the challenge, which struck 
 
 ^ Josh. xi. ^1, 22. 
 
Part II. HISTORICx\L SCRIPTURES. 129 
 
 terror into the veterans of Israel — the shepherd's bag, 
 with five smooth stones, and no more (such assurance 
 did he feel of speedy success), opposed to the helmet of 
 brass, and the coat of brazen mail, and the greaves of 
 brass, and the gorget of brass, and the shield borne 
 before him, and the spear with the staff like a weaver's 
 beam — the first sling of a pebble, the signal of panic 
 and overthrow to the whole host of the Philistines — 
 all this claims the character of more than an ordinary 
 event, and asserts (as David declared it to do), that 
 " The Lord saveth not with sword and spear ; but that 
 the battle is the Lords, and that he gave it into Israel's 
 hands."' 
 
 VL 
 
 I PROCEED with the exploits of David : for though the 
 coincidences themselves are distinct, they make up a 
 story which is almost continuous. David, we are told, 
 had now won the hearts of all Israel. The daughters 
 of the land sung his praises in the dance, and their 
 words awoke the jealousy of Saul. " Saul had slain his 
 thousands — David his ten thousands." Accordingly 
 the King, forgetful of his obligations to the gallant 
 deliverer of his country from the yoke of the Philistines, 
 and regardless of the claims of the husband of his 
 daughter, sought his life. Twice he attacked him with 
 a javelin as he played before him in his chamber : he 
 laid an ambuscade about his house : he pursued him 
 with bands of armed men as he fled for his life amongst 
 the mountains. David, however, had less fear for him- 
 self than for his kindred — for himself he could provide 
 ■ — ^his conscience was clear, his courage good, the hearts 
 of his countrymen were with him, and God was on his 
 side. But his name might bring evil on his house, and 
 ^ 1 Sam. xvii. 47. 
 
 K 
 
130 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 the safety of his parents was his first care. How, then, 
 did he secure it? "And David," we read, "went 
 thence to Mizpeh of Moah, and he said unto the king 
 of Moah, Let ray father and my mother, I pray thee, 
 come forth, and be with you till I know what God will 
 do for me. And he brought them before the king of 
 Moab ; and they dwelt with him all the time that David 
 continued in the hold." ^ 
 
 Now why should David be disposed to trust his 
 father and mother to the protection of the Moabites 
 above all others ? Saul, it is true, had been at war 
 with them"^, whatever he might then be, — but so had 
 he been with every people round about ; with the Am- 
 monites, with the Edomites, with the kings of Zobah. 
 Neither did it follow that the enemies of Saul, as a 
 matter of course, would be the friends of David. On 
 the contrary, he was only regarded by the ancient in- 
 habitants of the land, to whichever of the local nations 
 they belonged, as the champion of Israel ; and with 
 such suspicion was he received amongst them, not- 
 withstanding Saul's known enmity towards him, that 
 before Achish, king of Gath, he was constrained to 
 feign himself mad, and so effect his escape. And 
 though he afterwards succeeded in removing the scru- 
 ples of that prince, and obtained his confidence, and 
 dwelt in his land, yet the princes of the Philistines, in 
 general, continued to put no trust in him ; and Avhen 
 it was proposed by Achish, that he, with his men, 
 should go up with the armies of the Philistines against 
 Israel, — and when he had actually joined, — "the princes 
 of the Philistines said unto him, Make this fellow return, 
 that he may go to the place wdiich thou hast appointed 
 him ; and let him not go down with us to battle, lest in 
 ' 1 Sam. xxii. 3, 4. I - 1 Sam. xiv. 47. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 131 
 
 the battle he be an adversary to us : for wherewith 
 should he reconcile himself unto his master? should it 
 not be with the heads of these men ? ' 
 
 Whether, indeed, the Moabites proved themselves 
 to be less suspicious of David than these, his other 
 idolatrous neighbours, does not appear ; nor whether 
 their subsequent conduct warranted the trust which he 
 was now compelled to repose in them. Tradition says, 
 that they betrayed it, and slew his parents ; and certain 
 it is, that David, some twenty years afterwards, pro- 
 ceeded against them with signal severity ; for " he 
 smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting 
 them down to the ground; even with two lines measured 
 he to put to death, and with one full line to keep 
 alive." ^ Something, therefore, had occurred in the in- 
 terval to excite his heavy displeasure against them: and 
 if the punishment seems to have tarried too long to be 
 consistent with so remote a cause of offence, it must be 
 remembered that for fourteen of those years the throne 
 of David was not established amongst the Ten Tribes ; 
 and that, amidst the domestic disorders of a new reign, 
 leisure and opportunity for taking earlier vengeance 
 upon this neighbouring kingdom might well be wanting. 
 But however this might be, in Moab David sought 
 sanctuary for his father and mother ; perilous this deci- 
 sion might be — probably it turned out so in fact — but 
 he was in a great strait, and thought that, in a choice of 
 evils, this was the least. 
 
 Now what principle of preference may be imagined 
 to have governed David when he committed his family 
 to the dangerous keeping of the Moabites ? Was it a 
 mere matter of chance ? It might seem so, as far as 
 appears to the contrary in David's history, given in the 
 
 ^ 1 Sam. xxix. 4. | ^2 Sam. viii. 2. 
 
 K 2 
 
132 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 Books of Samuel ; and if the Book of Ruth had never 
 come down to us, to accident it probably would have 
 been ascribed. But this short and beautiful historical 
 document shows us a iwop'iety in the selection of Moab 
 above any other for a place of refuge to the father and 
 mother of David ; since it is there seen that the grand- 
 mother of Jesse, David's father, was actually a iI/oa^^Ye5vs; 
 Ruth being the mother of Obed, and Obed the father 
 of Jesse \ And, moreover, that Orpah, the other Moab- 
 itess, who married Mahlon at the time when Ruth 
 married Chilion his brother, remained behind in Moab 
 after the departure of Naomi and Ruth, and remained 
 behind with a strong feeling of affection, nevertheless, 
 for the family and kindred of her deceased husband, 
 taking leave of them with tears ^ She herself then, or, 
 at all events, her descendants and friends, might still be 
 alive. Some regard for the posterity of Ruth, David 
 would persuade himself, might still survive amongst 
 them. An interval of fifty years, for it probably was 
 not more, was not likely, he might think, to have worn 
 out the memory and the feelings of the relationship, in 
 a country, and at a period, which acknowledged the ties 
 of family to be long and strong, and the blood to be 
 the life thereof. 
 
 Thus do we detect, not without some pains, a certain 
 fitness in the conduct of David in this transaction, 
 which marks it to be a real one. The forger of a story 
 could not have fallen upon the happy device of shelter- 
 ing Jesse in Moab, simply on the recollection of his 
 Moabitish extraction two generations earlier ; or, having 
 fallen upon it, it is probable he would have taken care 
 to draw the attention of his readers towards his device 
 by some means or other, lest the evidence it was in- 
 1 Ruth iv. 17. I 2 Ruth i. 14. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 133 
 
 tended to afford of the truth of the history might be 
 thrown away upon them. As it is, the circumstance 
 itself is asserted without the smallest attempt to ex- 
 plain or account for it. Nay, recourse must be had to 
 another book of Scripture, in order that the coincidence 
 may be seen. 
 
 VII. 
 
 Events roll on, and another incident in the life of 
 David now offers itself, which also argues the truth 
 of what we read concerning him. " And Michal, Saul's 
 daughter, loved David," we are told'. On becoming 
 his wife, she gave further proof of her affection for him, 
 by risking the vengeance of Saul her father, when she 
 let David through the window that he might escape, 
 and made an image and put it in the bed, to deceive 
 Saul's messengers^ After this, untoward circumstances 
 produced a temporary separation of David and Michal. 
 She remains in her father's custody, — and Saul, who 
 was the tyrant of his family, as well as of his people, 
 gives her " unto Phaltiel, the son of Laish," to wife. 
 Meanwhile David, in his turn, takes Abigail the widow 
 of Nabal, and Ahinoam of Jezreel, to be his wives ; 
 and continues the fugitive life he had been so long 
 constrained to adopt for his safety. Years pass away, 
 and with them a multitude of transactions foreign to 
 the subject I have now before me. Saul, however, is 
 slain ; but a formidable faction of his friends, and the 
 friends of his house, still survives. Abner, the late 
 monarch's captain, and Ishbosheth, his son and suc- 
 cessor in the kingdom of Israel, put themselves at its 
 head. But David waxing stronger every day, and a 
 feud having sprung up between the prince and this his 
 ^ 1 Saui. xviii. -20. I ~ I Sam. xix. 12. 
 
134 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 officer, overtures of submission are made and accepted, 
 of which the following is the substance : — " And Abner 
 sent messengers to David on his behalf, saying, Whose 
 is the land? saying, also, Make thy league with me, 
 and, behold, my hand shall be with thee to bring about 
 all Israel unto thee. And he said. Well, I will make 
 a league with thee ; but one thing I require of thee — 
 that is, Thou slialt not see my face, except thou first 
 bring Michal, Saul's daughter, when thou comest to see 
 my face. And David sent messengers to Ish-bosheth, 
 Saul's son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, whom I 
 espoused to me. And Ish-bosheth sent and took her 
 from her husband, even from Phaltiel the son of Laish. 
 And her husband Avent with her along, weeping heliind 
 her to Ba/mrim. Then said Abner unto him. Go, 
 return ; and he returned." ' It is probable, therefore, 
 that Michal and Phaltiel parted very reluctantly. She 
 had evidently gained his affections ; he, most likely, 
 had won hers : and in the meantime she had been 
 supplanted (so at least she might think), in David's 
 house and heart, by Abigail and Ahinoam. These 
 were not propitious circumstances, under which to 
 return to the husband of her youth. The effect, indeed, 
 they were likely to have upon her conduct is not even 
 hinted at in the remotest degree in the narrative ; but 
 they supi^ly us, however, incidentally with the link that 
 couples Michal in her first character, with Michal in 
 her second and later character; for the difference 
 between them is marked, though it might escape us on 
 a superficial glance ; and if our attention did not happen 
 to be arrested by the events of the interval, it would 
 almost infallibly escape us. The last act then, in which 
 we left Michal engaged, was one of loyal attachment to 
 ' y Sam. iii. 12—16. 
 
Part IL HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 135 
 
 David — saving his life, probably at great risk of her 
 own ; for Saul had actually attempted to put Jonathan 
 his son to death for David's sake, and why should he 
 spare Michal his daughter'? Her subsequent marriage 
 with Phaltiel was Saul's business; it might, or might 
 not, be with her consent : an act of conjugal devotion 
 to David was the last scene in which she was, to our 
 knowledge, a voluntary actor. Now let us mark the 
 next — not the next event recorded in order, for we 
 lose sight of Michal for a season, — but the next in 
 which she is a party concerned ; at the same time re- 
 membering that the Books of Samuel do not offer the 
 slightest explanation of the contrast which her former 
 and latter self present, or the least allusion to the 
 change. David brings the Ark from Kiijath-jearim, 
 where it had been abiding since it was recovered from 
 the Philistines, to his own city. He dances before it, 
 girded with the priestly or prophetical vest, the linen 
 ephod, and probably chanting his own noble hymn, 
 " Lift up your heads, ye gates ! and be ye lift up, ye 
 everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come 
 in !"^ Michal, in that hour, no doubt felt and reflected 
 the joy of her husband ! She had shared with him the 
 day of adversity — she was now called to be partaker of 
 his triumph ! How read we ? The reverse of all this. 
 " Then did Michal, Saul's daughter, look through a 
 window, and saw king David leaping and dancing 
 before the Lord, and she despised him in her heartr^ 
 Nor did she confine herself to contemptuous silence : 
 for when he had now set up the Ark in the midst of 
 the tabernacle, and had blessed the people, he came 
 
 ^ 1 Sam. XX. 33. I ■* 'I Sam. vi. 1(5. 
 
 ^ Psalm xxiv. 7. 
 
136 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 unto his own household, prepared, in the joy and devo- 
 tion of the moment, to bless that also. How then is 
 he received by the wife whom he had twice won at the 
 hazard of his own life, and who had in return shown 
 herself heretofore ready to sacrifice her own safety for 
 his preservation ? Thus it was. " Michal came out to 
 meet him, and said. How glorious is the king of Israel 
 to-day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants ! — 
 as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth him- 
 self" Here was a burst of ill temper, which rather 
 made an occasion for showing itself, than sought one. 
 Accordingly, David replies with spirit, and with a right- 
 eous zeal for the honour of God — not without an 
 allusion (as I think) to the secret, but true cause of 
 this splenetic attack, — " It was before the Lord, which 
 chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to 
 appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over 
 Israel : therefore will I play before the Lord. And I 
 will yet be more vile than this, and will be base in mine 
 own sight ; and of the 7naid-serva7its ivJiich thou hast 
 s'poken of, of them shall I be had in honour T^ In these 
 handmaids or maid-servants, which are so jjrominently 
 set forth, I recognise, if I mistake not, Abigail and 
 Ahinoam, the rivals of Michal ; and the very pointed 
 rebuke which the insinuation jDrovokes from David, 
 appears to me to indicate, that (whatever she might 
 affect) he felt that the gravamen of her pretended con- 
 cern for his debasement did, in truth, rest here. And 
 may I not add, that the winding up of this singular in- 
 cident, " Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had 
 no child unto the day of her death," well accords with 
 my suspicions ; and that whether it be hereby meant 
 
 ^ 2 Sam. vi. 21, 22. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 137 
 
 that God judged her, or that David divorced her, there 
 is still something in the nature of her punishment 
 approp'iate to the nature of her transgression ? 
 
 On the whole, Michal is now no longer what Michal 
 was — but she is precisely what, from the new position 
 in which she stands, we might expect her to be. Yet 
 it is by the merest glimpses of the history of David and 
 her own, that we are enabled to account for the change. 
 The fact is not formally explained ; it is not even for- 
 mally asserted. All tha't appears is a marked inconsis- 
 tency in the conduct of Michal, at two different points 
 of time ; and when we look about for an explanation, 
 we perceive in the corresponding fortunes of David, as 
 compared with her own during the interval, a very 
 natural, though, after all, only a conjectural, expla- 
 nation. 
 
 Herein, I again repeat, are the characters of truth — 
 incidents dropping into their places w^ithout care or 
 contrivance — the fragments of an imperfect figure re- 
 covered out of a mass of material, and found to be still 
 its component parts, however they might not seem such 
 when individually examined. 
 
 And here let me remark, (for I have been unwilling 
 to interrupt my argument for the purpose of collateral 
 explanation, and yet without it I may be thought to 
 have purchased the evidence at some expense of the 
 moral,) that the practice of polygamy, which was not 
 from the beginning \ but which Lamech first adopted, 
 probably in the hope of multiplying his issue, and so 
 jjossessing himself of that " seed," which was now the 
 " desire of the nations " — a desire which serves as a 
 key (the only satisfactory one, I think) to much of the 
 conduct of the Patriarchs, — the practice of polygamy, I 
 
 ^ Matt. xix. 8. On this subject, see Origen, Ep. ad Afvicau. § 8. 
 
138 THE VERACITY OF THE Pabt II. 
 
 say, thus introduced, continued, in David's time, not 
 positively condemned ; Moses having been only com- 
 missioned to regulate some of the abuses to which it 
 led ; and though his writing of divorcement must be 
 considered as making allowance for the hardness of 
 heart of those for whom he was legislating (our Lord 
 himself so considers it) — a hardness of heart confirmed 
 by a long and slavish residence in a most polluted land; 
 still that writing, lax as it might be, was, no doubt, in 
 itself a restrictive law, as matters then stood. The 
 provisions of the Levitical code in general, and the 
 extremely gross state of society they argue, prove that 
 it must have been a restrictive law, an improvement upon 
 past practices at least. And when the times of the 
 Gospel approached, and a better dispensation began to 
 dawn, the Almighty prepared the world, by the mouth 
 of a Prophet, to expect those restrictions to be drawn 
 closer — Malachi being commanded to proclaim, what 
 had not been proclaimed before, that God " hated put- 
 ting away." ^ And when at length mankind were ripe 
 for a more wholesome decree, Christ himself pronounced 
 it, and thenceforward " A man w^as to cleave unto his 
 wife," and " they twain were to be one flesh," and by 
 none were they " to be put asunder, God having joined 
 them together." ^ A progressive scheme this — agreeable 
 to that general plan by which the Almighty seems to 
 be almost always guided in his government — the de- 
 velopment of that same principle by which the law 
 against murder was passed for an age that was full of 
 violence ; and was afterwards sublimed into a law 
 against malice : by which the law against adultery was 
 provided for a carnal and grovelling generation ; and 
 was afterwards refined into a law against concupiscence: 
 1 Mai. ii. 16. i - Mark x. 7 ; 2 Cor. xi. 2. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 139 
 
 by which the law of strict retaliation, and no more, eye 
 for eye, and tooth for tooth — a law, low and ungenerous 
 as it may now be thought, nevertheless in advance of 
 the people for whom it was enacted, and better than 
 the law of the strongest — afterwards gave place to that 
 other and nobler law, " resist not evil." And it may be 
 observed, that the very case of divorce (and polygamy 
 is closely connected with it) is actually in the contem- 
 plation of our Lord, when He is thus exhibiting to the 
 Jews the more elevated standard of Christian morals, 
 and is ever contrasting, as He proceeds, — " It was said 
 by them of old time," with his own more excellent 
 way, " but I say unto you ;" as if in times past, accord- 
 ing to the words of the Apostle, " God suffered nations 
 to walk in their own ways," ^ for some wise purpose, and 
 for a while " winked at that ignorance." ^ 
 
 VIII. 
 
 But there is another circumstance connected with this 
 removal of the Ark of God to Jerusalem, which be- 
 speaks, like the last, the fidelity with which the tale is 
 told. It was the intention of David to have conveyed 
 this emblem of God's presence with his people from 
 Kirjath-jearim (from Ephratah, where they found it in 
 the wood^) at once to his own city. An incident, how- 
 ever, of which I shall presently speak, occurred to 
 shake his purpose and change his plan. " So David," 
 we read upon this, " would not remove the Ark of the 
 Lord unto him into the city of David ; but David 
 carried it aside into the house of Obed-Edom, the 
 Gittitey * Now what regulated David in choosing the 
 house of Obed-Edom as a resting-place for the Ark ? 
 
 ^ Acts xiv. 16. 
 - Ibid. xvii. 30. 
 
 Ps. cxxxii. 6. 
 2 Sam. vi. 10. 
 
140 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 Was it an affair of mere cliauce ? It might be so ; no 
 motive whatever for the selection of Ids house above 
 that of another man, is assigned — but this we are 
 taught, that "when the cart which bare the Ark came 
 to Nachon's threshing-floor, Uzzah put forth his hand 
 and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it — and the 
 anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God 
 smote him there for his error, and he died by the Ark 
 of God." ' It had been commanded, as we find in the 
 seventh chapter of the Book of Numbers (v. 9.), that 
 the Ark should be borne on the shoulders of the 
 Levites — David, however, had placed it in a cart, after 
 the fashion of the Philistines' idols, and had neglected 
 the Levitical precept. The sudden death of Uzzah, 
 and the nature of his offence, alarms him, sets him to 
 think, reminds him of his neglect, and he turns to the 
 house of Obed-Edom, the Gittite. The epithet here so 
 incidentally annexed to the name of Obed-Edom, en- 
 ables us to answer the question, wherefore David chose 
 the house of this man, with some probability of being 
 right in our conjecture. For we learn from the Book 
 of Joshua, that Gath (distinguished from other towns 
 of the same name, by the addition of Rimmon ^) was 
 one of the cities of the Levites; nor of the Levites 
 only, but of the Kohathites (v. 20), the very family 
 specially set apart from the Levites, that " they should 
 bear the Ark upon their shoulders."^ If, therefore, 
 Obed-Edom was called the Gittite, from this Gath, as 
 he doubtless was so called from some Gath or other, 
 then must he have been a Levite ; and more than this, 
 actually a Kohathite ; so that he would be strictly in 
 his office when keeping the Ark ; and because he was so, 
 
 ^ 2 Sam. vi. 6. 
 ^ Joshua xxi. 24. 
 
 Num. vii. 9. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 141 
 
 he was selected ; David causing the Ark to be "carried 
 aside," or out of the direct road (for that is the force of 
 the expression '), precisely for the purpose of depositing 
 it with a man of an order, and of a peculiar division of 
 that order, which God had chosen for his Ark-l^earers. 
 Accordingly, we read in the fifteenth chapter of the first 
 Book of Chronicles, — where a fuller account, in some 
 particulars, is given, than in the parallel passage of 
 Samuel, of the final removal of the Ark from under the 
 roof of Obed-Edom to Jerusalem, — that the profane cart 
 Avas no longer employed on this occasion, but the more 
 reverential mode of conveyance, and that which the Law 
 enjoined, was now strictly adopted in its stead (v. 15); 
 and, moreover, that Obed-Edom was appointed to take 
 an active part in the ceremonial (v. 18, 24). 
 
 This I look upon as a coincidence of some value — 
 (supposing it, of course, to be fairly made out) — of some 
 value, I mean, even independently of its general bear- 
 ing upon the credibility of Scripture ; for it is a touch 
 of truth in the circumstantial details of an event which 
 is in its nature miraculous. This it establishes as a 
 fact, that, for some reason or other, David went out of 
 his way to deposit the Ark with an individual of a 
 family whose particular province it was to serve and 
 bear the Ark. This, I say, is established by the coinci- 
 dence as a fact — and here, taking my stand Mdth sub- 
 stantial ground under my feet, I can with safety, and 
 without violence, gradually feel my way along through 
 the inconvenience which prompted this deviation from 
 the direct path ; this change in the mode of convey- 
 ance; this sudden reverence for the laws of the Ark; 
 even up to the disaster which befel the rash and uncon- 
 
 ' See Num. xx. 17, where the same Hebrew word is used, and 
 xxii. 23. 
 
142 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 secrated Uzzali, and tlie caution and alarm it inspired, 
 as being a manifest interposition of God for the vindi- 
 cation of his honour; and Avhen I find the apparently 
 trivial appellation of the Gittite, thus pleading for the 
 reality of a marvellous act of the Almighty, I am re- 
 minded how carefully we should gather up every word 
 of Scripture, that nothing be lost ; and I am led to con- 
 template the precautions, the superstitious precautions 
 of the Rabbins, if you will, that one jot or one tittle 
 may not be suffered to pass from the text of the Law, 
 not without respect, as if its every letter might contain 
 some hidden treasure, some unsusjiected fount from 
 wdiicli virtue might happily go out for evidence, for doc- 
 trine, or for duty. 
 
 IX. 
 
 We are now arrived at another incident in the history 
 of David — for I must still call the attention of my 
 readers to the memoirs of that extraordinary person, as 
 exhibiting marks of truth and reality, numerous, per- 
 haps, beyond those which any other character of the 
 same antiquity presents — an incident which has been 
 accounted, and most justly accounted, the reproach of 
 his life. The province which I have marked out for 
 myself in this work is the evidence for the veracity of 
 the sacred historians, and not the interpretation of the 
 moral difficulties which the history itself may some- 
 times involve. In the present instance, however, the 
 very coincidence which establishes the trustworthiness 
 of the history, may serve also to remove some stumbling- 
 blocks out of the sceptic's path, and vindicate the ways 
 of God to man. 
 
 That the man after God's own heart should have so 
 fallen from his high estate, as to become the adulterer 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 143 
 
 and the assassin, has been ever urged with great effect 
 by unbelievers ; and tliis very consequence of David's 
 sin was foreseen and foretold by Nathan the prophet, 
 Avhen he approached the King, bearing with him the 
 rebuke of God on his tongue, and saying, "By this 
 deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of 
 God to blaspheme." Such has indeed been its effect, 
 from the day when it was first done unto this day, and 
 such probably will its effect continue to be unto the 
 end of time. David's transgression, committed almost 
 three thousand years ago, sheds, in some sort, an evil 
 influence on the cause of David's God, even now. So 
 Mide- wasting is the mischief which flows from the 
 lapse of a righteous man ; so great the darkness be- 
 comes, when the light that is amongst us is darkness ! 
 But was David the man after God's own heart here ? 
 It were blasphemy to suppose it. That the sin of 
 David was fulfilling some righteous judgment of God 
 against Uriah and his house, I doubt not — for God 
 often makes his enemies his instruments, and without 
 sanctifying the means, strikes out of them good. Still 
 a sin it was, great and grievous, offensive to that God 
 to whom the blood of Uriah cried from the ground. 
 And this the Almighty proclaimed even more loudly, 
 perhajDS, by suffering David to live, than if, in the sudden 
 burst of his instant displeasure. He had slain him. For, 
 at the period when the King of Israel fell under this 
 sad temptation, he was at the very height of his glory 
 and his strength. The kingdom of Israel had never so 
 flourished before ; it was the first of the nations. He 
 had thoroughly subdued the Philistines, that mighty 
 people, who in his youth had compelled all the Israel- 
 ites to come down to their quarters, even to sharpen 
 their mattocks, so rigid was the exercise of their rule. 
 
144 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 He had smitten the Moabites, on the other side Jordan, 
 once themselves the oppressors of Israel, making them 
 tributaries. He had subdued the Edomites, a race that 
 delighted in war, and had stationed his troops through- 
 out all their territories. He had possessed himself of 
 the independent kingdom of the Syrians, and garrisoned 
 Damascus their cajiital. He had extended his frontier 
 eastward to the Euphrates \ though never perhaps 
 beyond it^ and he was on the point of reducing the 
 Ammonites, whose city, Rabbali, his generals were 
 besieging; and thus, the whole of the Promised Land, 
 with the exception of the small state of Tyre, which 
 the Israelites never appear to have conquered, was now 
 his own. Prosperity, perhaps, had blinded his eyes, 
 and hardened his heart. The treasures which he had 
 amassed, and the ease which he had fought for and 
 won, had made him luxurious ; for now it was, that the 
 once innocent son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, — he who 
 had been taken from the sheep-folds because an excel- 
 lent spirit was in him, and who had hitherto prospered 
 in all that he had set his hand unto, — it was now that 
 that man was tempted and fell. And now mark the 
 remainder of his days — God eventually forgave him, for 
 he repented him (as his penitential psalms still most 
 affectingly attest), in the bitterness and anguish of his 
 soul ; but God dried up all the sources of his earthly 
 blessings thenceforward for ever. With this sin the 
 sorrow of his life began, and the curse which the pro- 
 phet denounced against him, sat heavy on his spirit to 
 the last ; a curse — and I beg attention to this — which 
 has a peculiar reference to the nature of his crime ; as 
 though upon this offence all his future miseries and 
 misfortunes were to turn ; as though he was only spared 
 1 2 Sam. viii. I - See Ezra iv. 20. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 145 
 
 from the avenger's violent hand to be made a spectacle 
 of righteous suffering to the world. He had committed 
 murder by the edge of the sword, and therefore the 
 sword was never to depart from his house. He had 
 despised the commandment of the Lord (so Nathan 
 expressly says), and taken the wife of another to be his 
 wife ; therefore Avere his own wives to be taken from 
 him, and given to his neighbour in turn. The com- 
 pleojion, therefore, of his remaining years, was set by 
 this one fatal deed of darkness (let none think or say 
 that it was lightly regarded by the Almighty), and 
 having become the man of blood, of blood he was to 
 drink deep ; and having become the man of lust, by 
 that same baneful passion in others was he himself to 
 be scourged for ever. Now the manner in which these 
 tremendous threats are fulfilled is very remarkable ; for 
 it is done by way of natural consequence of the sin itself; 
 a dispensation which I have not seen developed as it 
 deserves to be, though the facts of the history furnish 
 very striking materials for the purpose. And herein 
 lies the coincidence, to which the remarks I have 
 hitherto been making are a needful prologue. 
 
 By the reheUion of Absalom it was that these menaces 
 of the Almighty Judge of all the earth were accom- 
 plished with a fearful fidelity. 
 
 Absalom was able to draw after him the hearts of all 
 the people as one man. And what was it that armed 
 him with this moral strength? What was it that gave 
 him the means of unseating his father in the affections 
 of a loyal people ? — the king whom they had so greatly 
 loved — who had raised the name of Israel to a pitch of 
 glory never attained unto before — whose praises had 
 been sung by the mothers and maidens of Israel, as the 
 champion to whom none other was like? How could 
 
 L 
 
146 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 lie steal away the hearts of the people from such a 
 man, with so little effort, and apparently with so little 
 reason ? I believe that this very sin of David was made 
 the engine by which his throne was shaken ; for I ob- 
 serve that the chief instrument in the conspiracy was 
 AhithopJiel. No sooner has Absalom determined upon 
 his daring deed, than he looks to Ahithophel for help. 
 He appears, for some reason or other not mentioned, 
 to have quite reckoned upon him as well-affected to his 
 cause, as ready to join him in it heart and hand ; and 
 he did not find himself mistaken. " Absalom," I read', 
 " sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David's counsellor, 
 from his city, even from Giloh, while he offered sacrifices. 
 And the conspiracy" (it is forthwith added, as though 
 Ahithophel was a host in himself) " was strong; for the 
 people increased continually with Absalom." David, 
 upon this, takes alarm, and makes it the subject of his 
 earnest prayer to God, that " he would turn the counsel 
 of Ahithophel into foolishness." Nor is this to be won- 
 dered at, when we are told in another place that " the 
 counsel of Ahithophel, which he counselled in those 
 days, was as if a man had enquired at the oracle of 
 God : so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with 
 David and with Absalom."^ He therefore was the 
 sinews of Absalom's cause. Of his character, and the 
 influence which he possessed over the people, Absalom 
 availed himself, both to sink the spirits of David's party, 
 and to inspire his own with confldence, for all men 
 counted Ahithophel to be as a prophet. But indepen- 
 dently of the weight of his public reputation, it is pro- 
 bable that certain private wrongs of his own (of which 
 I have now to speak) at once prepared him for accept- 
 ing Absalom's rebellious overtures with alacrity, and 
 1 2 Sam. XV. 12. I - 2 Sara. xvi. 23 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 147 
 
 caused him to find still greater favour in the eyes of 
 the people, as being an injured man, whom it was fit 
 that they should avenge of his adversary. For in the 
 twenty-third chapter of the second Book of Samuel, I 
 find in the catalogue of David's guardsmen, thirty-seven 
 in number, the name of " Eliam the son of AhitJiopJiel 
 the Giloniie" (v. 34). The epithet of Gilonite suffici- 
 ently identifies this Ahithophel with the conspirator of 
 the same name. One, therefore, of the thirty-seven 
 officers about David's person, was a son of the future 
 conspirator against his throne. But, in this same cata- 
 logue, I also meet with the name of Uriah the Hittite 
 (v. 39). Eliam, therefore, and Uriah must have been 
 thrown much together, being both of the same rank, 
 and being each one of the thirty-seven officers of the 
 King's guard. Now, from the eleventh chapter of the 
 second Book of Samuel, I learn that Uriah the Hittite 
 had for his wife Bath-sheba, the daughter of one Eliam 
 (v. 3). I look upon it, therefore, to be so probable, as 
 almost to amount to certainty, that this was the same 
 Eliam as before, and that Uriah (as was very natural, 
 considering the necessary intercourse of the parties) had 
 married the daughter of his brother officer, and accord- 
 ingly the grand-daughter of Ahithophel. I feel that I 
 now have the key to the conduct of this leading conspi- 
 rator ; the sage and prudent friend of David converted, 
 by some means or other, into his deadly foe — for I now 
 perceive, that when David murdered Uriah, he mur- 
 dered Ahithophel's grandson by marriage, and when he 
 corrupted Bath-sheba, he corrupted his grand-daughter 
 by blood. Well then, after this disaster and dishonour 
 of his house, might revenge rankle in the heart of 
 Ahithophel ! Well might Absalom know that nothing 
 but a fit opportunity was wanted by him, that he might 
 
 L 2 
 
148 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IT. 
 
 give it vent, and spend his treasured wrath upon tl>e 
 head of David his wrong-doer ! Well might he ap- 
 proach him with confidence, and imj^art to him his 
 treason, as a man who woukl welcome the news, and be 
 his present and powerful fellow-worker ! Well might 
 the people, who, upon an apjieal like this, seldom fail 
 to follow the dictates of their better feelings, and 
 to stand manfully by the injured, find their allegiance 
 to a throne defiled with adultery and blood, relaxed, 
 and their loyalty transferred to the rebel's side ! And 
 the terms in which Shimei reproaches the King, when 
 he follows after him to Bahurim, casting stones at him, 
 not improbably as expressive of the legal punishment 
 of the adulterer, " Come out, come out, thou bloody 
 man, and thou man of Belial;" ^ and the meekness more- 
 over with which David bows to the reproach, accepting 
 it as a merited chastisement from God, " So let him 
 curse, because the I^ord hath said ?mto him, Curse 
 David" (v. 20) ; are minute incidents which testify to 
 the same fact — to the popular voice now lifted up 
 against David, and to the merited cause thereof. Well 
 might he find his heart sink within him, when he 
 heard that his ancient counsellor had joined the ranks 
 of his enemies, and when he knew but too well what 
 reason he had given him for turning his arms against 
 himself in that unmitigated and inextinguishable thirst 
 for vengeance which is sweet, however utterly unjus- 
 tifiable, to all men so deeply injured, and sweetest of 
 all to the children of the East ! And in the very first 
 word of exhortation which Ahithophel suggests to Ab- 
 salom, I detect, or think I detect, the wounded spirit 
 of the man seizing the earliest moment for inflicting a 
 punishment upon his enemy, of a kind that should not 
 ^ 2 Sam. xvi. 7. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 149 
 
 only be bitter, but appropriate, the eye for the eye ; 
 and when Absalom said, " Give counsel among you what 
 we shall do," and Ahithophel answered, " Go in unto 
 thy father's concubines which he hath left to keep the 
 house," ' he was not only moved by the desire that the 
 rebellious son should stand fairly committed to his 
 rebellion by an unpardonable outrage against the ma- 
 jesty of an eastern monarch, but by the desire also to 
 make David taste the bitterness of that cup which he 
 had caused others to drink, and to receive the very 
 measure which he had himself meted withal. And so 
 it came to pass, that Absalom followed his counsel, and 
 they spread for him the incestuous tent, we read, on the 
 top of the house, in the sight of all Israel ^, on that very 
 roof, it should seem, on which David at even-tide had 
 walked, when he conceived this his great sin, upon 
 which his life was to turn as upon a hinge ^ ; and so 
 again it came to pass, and under circumstances of local 
 identity and exposure which wear the aspect of strictly 
 judicial reprisals, that that which he had done secretly 
 (his abduction of another man's wife) God did for him, 
 and more also, as He said He would, before all Israel, 
 and before the sun\ 
 
 Thus, having once discovered by the apposition of 
 many passages, that a relation subsisted between Ahi- 
 thophel and Uriah, a fact which the sacred historian is 
 so far from dwelling upon, that he barely supplies us 
 with the means to establish it at all, we see in the 
 circumstances of the conspiracy, the natural recoil of 
 David's sin ; and in his punishment, retributive as it is, 
 so strictly retributive, that it must have stricken his 
 conscience as a judgment, even had there been no warn- 
 
 ^ 2 Sam. xvi. 21. I -'2 Sam. xi. 2. 
 
 ^ Ibid. xvi. 22. ^ Ibid, xii. 12. 
 
150 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 iiig" voice concerning it, the accomplishment, by means 
 the most easy and unconstrained, of all that Nathan 
 had uttered, to the syllable. 
 
 X. 
 
 There is another incident connected with this part of 
 the history of David, which I have pondered, alternately 
 accepting and rejecting it, as still further corroborating 
 the opinion I have expressed, that the fortunes of 
 David turned upon this one sin — that having mounted 
 to their high-mark, they henceforward began, and con- 
 tinued to ebb away — this one sin which, according to 
 Sci'ipture, itself eclipsed every other. For though it 
 would not be difficult to name sundry instances of 
 ignorance, of negligence, of inconsideration, of infirmity, 
 in the life of David besides this, it is nevertheless said, 
 that "he did that which was right in the eyes of the 
 Lord, and turned not aside in anything that he com- 
 manded him all the days of his life, save only in the 
 matter of Uriah the Hittite.""^ I ])ropose, however, this 
 coincidence for the reason I have said, not without 
 some hesitation ; though at the same time, quite with- 
 out concern for the safety of my cause, it being, as I 
 observed in the beginning of this work, a very valuable 
 property of the argument by which I am endeavouring 
 to establish the credibility of Scripture, that any member 
 of it, if unsound or unsatisfactory, may be detached, 
 without further injury to the whole than the mere loss 
 of that member entails. 
 
 This, therefore, I perceive, or think I perceive, that 
 David became thoroughly encumbered by his connexion 
 with Joab, the captain of his armies ; that he was too 
 suspicious to trust him, and too weak to dismiss him ; 
 
 ' 1 Kings XV. 5. See Sanderson, Serm. iv. ad Aulam. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 151 
 
 that this officer, by some chance or other, had esta- 
 blished a despotic control over the King ; and that it is 
 not unreasonable to believe (and here lies the coinci- 
 dence), that when David made him the 'partner and 
 secret agent of his guilty purpose touching Uriah, he sold 
 himself into his hands ; that in that fatal letter he sealed 
 away his liberty, and surrendered it up to this his un- 
 scrupulous accomplice. Certain it is, that during all 
 the latter years of his reign, David was little more than 
 a nominal king. 
 
 Joab, no doubt, was by nature a man that could do 
 and dare — a bold captain in bad times. The faction of 
 Saul was so strong, that David could at first scarcely 
 call the throne his own, or choose his servants accord- 
 ing to his pleasure ; and Joab, an able warrior, though 
 sometimes avenging his own private quarrels at the 
 expense of his sovereign's honour, and thereby vexing 
 him at the heart, was not to be displaced ; he was then 
 too hard for David, as the King himself complains'. 
 But as yet, David was not tongue-tied at least. He 
 openly, and without reserve, reprobated the conduct of 
 Joab in slaying Abner, though he had the excuse, such 
 as it was, of taking away the life of the man by whose 
 hand his brother Asahel had fallen. Moreover, he so 
 far asserted his own authority, as to make him rend his 
 clothes, and gird him with sackcloth, and mourn before 
 this very Abner, whom he had thus vindictively laid 
 low ; doubtless a bitter and mortifying penance to a 
 man of the stout heart of Joab, and such as argued 
 David, who insisted upon it, to be as yet in his own 
 dominions supreme. Circumstances might constrain 
 him still to employ this famous captain, but he had not 
 at least (young as his authority then was) yielded him- 
 
 ' 2 Sam. iii. 30. 
 
152 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 self up to his imperious subject. On the contrary, 
 waxing stronger, as he did every day, and the remnant 
 of Saul's party dispersed, he became the king of Israel 
 in fact, as well as in name; his throne established not 
 only upon law, but upon })ublic opinion too, so that 
 " whatsoever the king did," we are told, " pleased all the 
 people."^ He was now in a condition to rule for him- 
 self, and for himself he did rule (whatever had become 
 of Joab in the mean season) ; for we presently find him 
 appointing that officer to the command of his army by 
 his own act and deed, simply because he happened to 
 be the man to win that rank when it was proposed by 
 David as the prize of battle to any individual of his 
 whole host, who should first get up the gutter and 
 smite the Jebusites at the storming of Zion^ And 
 whoever will peruse the eighth and tenth chapters of 
 the second Book of Samuel, in which are recorded the 
 noble achievements of David at this bright period of 
 his life, his power abroad and his policy at home, the 
 energy which he threw into the national character, and 
 the respect which he commanded for it throughout all 
 the East, will perceive that he reigned without a 
 restraint and without a rival. Now comes the guilty 
 act ; the fatal stumbling-block against which he dashed 
 his foot, and fell so pernicious a height. And hence- 
 forwards I see, or imagine I see, Joab usurping by 
 degrees an authority which he had not before ; taking 
 upon himself too much ; executing or disregarding 
 David's orders, as it suited his ow^n convenience ; and 
 finally conspiring against his throne and the rightful 
 succession of his line. Again, I perceive, if I mistake 
 not, the hands of David tied, his efforts to disembarrass 
 himself of his oppressor feeble and ineffectual : his re- 
 ^ 2 Sam. iii. 30, | ^ 2 Sam. v. 8; 1 Chrou. xi. 0. 
 
Pakt II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 153 
 
 sentment set at nought ; his punishments, though just, 
 resisted by his own subject, and successfully resisted. 
 For I find Joab suggesting to David the recall of 
 Absalom after his banishment, through the widow of 
 Tekoah, in a manner to excite the suspicion of the 
 King'. "Is not the hand of Joab with thee in all 
 this ?" were words in which probably more was meant 
 than met the ear. It is not unlikely (though the pass- 
 age is altogether mysterious and obscure) that there 
 was then some secret understanding between the soldier 
 and the future rebel, which was only interrupted by the 
 impetuosity of Absalom, who resented Joab's delay, 
 and set fire to his barley^; an injury which he must 
 have had some reason to feel Joab durst not resent, 
 and which, in fact, even in spite of the fury of his 
 natural character, he did not resent. Howbeit, he 
 remembered it in the rebellion which now broke out, 
 and took his personal revenge whilst he was professedly 
 fighting the battle of David, to whom his interest or 
 his passion decided him for this time to be true. "Deal 
 gently for my sake with the young man, even with 
 Absalom," was the parting charge which the King gave 
 to this dangerous champion as he went forth with the 
 host ; in the hearing of all the people he gave it, and 
 to all the captains who were with him. It was the 
 thing nearest his heart. For here it may be observed, 
 that David's strong parental feelings^ of which we have 
 many occasional glimpses, give an identity to his cha- 
 racter, which, in itself, marks it to be a real one. The 
 fear of the servants to tell him that his infant was 
 dead^; the advice of Jonadab, "a subtle man," who 
 had read David's disposition right, to Amnon, to feign 
 
 » 2 Sam. xiv. 19. 
 2 Ibid. xiv. 30. 
 
 2 Sam. xii. 18. 
 
154 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 himself sick, that " ivhen his father came to see him^ 
 he might prefer to him his request'; his "weeping so 
 sore" for the death of this son, and then again, his 
 anguish subsided, " his soul longing to go forth " to the 
 other son who had slain him^; the little trait which 
 escapes in the history of Adonijah's rebellion, another 
 of his children, that " his father had not displeased him 
 at any time, in saying, Why hast thou done so?"^ are 
 all evidently features of one and the same individual. 
 So these last instructions to his officers touching the 
 safety of Absalom, even when he was in arms against 
 him, are still uttered in the same spirit ; a spirit which 
 seems, even at this moment, far more engrossed with 
 the care of his child, than with the event of his battle. 
 " Deal gently for my sake with Absalom." Joab heard, 
 indeed, but heeded not ; he had lost all reverence for 
 the King's commands ; nothing could be more deliberate 
 than his infraction of this one, probably the most impe- 
 rative which had ever been laid upon him : it was not 
 in the fury of the fight that he forgot the commission 
 of mercy, and cut down the young man with whom he 
 was importuned to deal tenderly; but as he was hang- 
 ing in a tree, helpless and hopeless ; himself directed to 
 the spot by the steps of another ; in cold blood ; but 
 remembering perhaps his barley, and more of which we 
 know not, and caring nothing for a king whose guilty 
 secret he had shared^ he thrust him through the heart 
 with his three darts, and then made his way, with coun- 
 tenance unabashed, into the chamber of his royal master, 
 where he was weej)ing and mourning for Absalom. 
 The bitterness of death must have been nothing to 
 David, compared with the feelings of that hour when 
 
 ^ 2 Sam. xiii. 5. '' 1 Kiiias i. 6. 
 
 2 Ibid. xiii. 39. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 155 
 
 his conscience smote him (as it doubtless did) with the 
 complicated trouble and humiliation into which his 
 deed of lust and blood had thus sunk him down. The 
 rebellion itself, the fruit of it (as I hold) ; the audacious 
 disobedience of Joab to the moving entreaties of the 
 parent, that his favourite son's life might be spared, 
 rebel as he was, felt to be the fruit of that sin too ; for 
 by that sin it was that he had delivered himself and 
 his character, bound hand and foot, to the tender mercies 
 of Joab, who had no touch of pity in him. The sequel 
 is of a piece with the oj:)ening; Joab imperious, and 
 David, the once high-minded David, abject in spirit and 
 tame to the lash. " Thou hast shamed this day the 
 faces of all thy servants. Arise, go forth, and speak 
 comfortably unto thy servants ; for I sw^ear by the Lord, 
 if thou go not forth, there will not tarry one with thee 
 this night : and that will be worse unto thee than all 
 the evil that befell thee from thy youth until now."' 
 The passive King yields to the menace, for what can 
 he do ? and with a cheerful countenance and a broken 
 heart obeys the command of his subject, and sits in the 
 gate. But this is not all. David now sends a message 
 to Amasa, a kinsman whom Absalom had set over his 
 rebel army ; it is a proposal, perhaps a secret proposal, 
 to make him captain over his host in the room of 
 Joab. The measure might be dictated at once by 
 policy, Amasa being now the leader of a powerful party 
 whom David had to win, and by disgust at the recent 
 perfidy of Joab, and a determination to break away 
 from him at whatever cost. Amasa accepts the offer; 
 but in the very first military enterprise on which he is 
 despatched, Joab accosts him with the friendly saluta- 
 tion of the East, and availing himself of the unguarded 
 moment, draws a sword from under his garment, smites 
 
 ' 2 Sam. xix. 7. 
 
156 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 him under the fifth rib, and leaves him a bloody corpse 
 in the highway. Then he calmly takes upon himself 
 to execute the commission with which Amasa had been 
 charged ; and this done, " he returns to Jerusalem," we 
 read, " unto the king," and once more he is " over all 
 the host of Israel." 
 
 It is needless to point out how extreme a help- 
 lessness on the part of David this whole transaction 
 indicates. Here is the general of his own choice 
 assassinated in an act of duty by his own subject, his 
 commission usurped by the murderer, and David, once 
 the most popular and powerful of sovereigns, saying not 
 a word. The dishonour, indeed, he felt keenly ; felt it 
 to his dying day, and in his latest breath gave utterance 
 to it^; but Joab has him in the toils, and extricate 
 himself he cannot. The want of cordiality between 
 them Avas now manifest enough, however the original 
 cause might be conjectured, rather than known ; and 
 when Adonijah prepares his revolt — for another enemy 
 now sprung up in David's own house — to Joab he 
 makes his overtures ^ having observed him, no doubt, 
 to be a thorn in the King's side ; nor are the overtures 
 rejected ; and, amongst other facts developed in this 
 second conspiracy, it incidentally appears, that the or- 
 dinary dwelling-place of Joab was "m the ivilderness ;"^ 
 as if, suspicious and suspected, a house within the w^alls 
 of Jerusalem was not the one in which he would ven- 
 ture to lay his head. It is remarkable that this for- 
 midable traitor, from whose thraldom David, in the 
 flower of his age, and the splendour of his military re- 
 nown, could never, we have seen, disengage himself, 
 fell at once, and whilst whatever popularity he might 
 have with the army must have been fresh as ever, 
 
 ' 1 Kings ii. 5. I '* I Kings ii. 34. 
 
 - Ibid. i. 7. I 
 
Pakt II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 157 
 
 before the arm of Solomon, a stripling, if not a beard- 
 less boy ; who, taking advantage of a fresh instance of 
 treachery in this hardened adventurer, fearlessly gave 
 command to " fall upon him and bury him, that he 
 might thus take away," as he said, the innocent blood 
 which Joab shed, from him, and from the house of his 
 father ; when he fell upon two men more righteous and 
 better than himself, and slew them with the sword, his 
 father David not knowing thereof; to wit, Abner, the 
 son of Ner, captain of the host of Israel, and Amasa, the 
 son of Jether, captain of the host of Judah \ But 
 Solomon had as yet a clear conscience, M'hich David 
 had forfeited with respect to Joab ; this it was that 
 armed the youth with a moral courage which his father 
 had once known what it was to have, when he went 
 forth as a shepherd-boy against Goliath, and which he 
 afterwards knew what it was to want, when he crouched 
 before Joab, as a king. So true it is, the " wicked flee 
 when no man pursueth, but the righteous is bold as a 
 lion." 
 
 And now can any say that God winked at this 
 wickedness of his servant? That the man after his 
 own heart, for such in the main he was, frail as he 
 proved himself, sinned grievously, and sinned with im- 
 punity ? On the contrary, this deed was the pivot upon 
 which David's fortunes turned ; that done, and he Avas 
 undone; then did God raise up enemies against him 
 for it out of his own house, for " the thing," as we are 
 expressly told, " displeased the Lord ;" ^ thenceforward 
 the days of his years became full of evil, and if he lived 
 (for the Lord caused death to pass from himself to the 
 child, by a vicarious dispensation ^) it was to be a king. 
 
 ^ ] Kings ii. 32. 
 
 - 2 Sam. xi. 2T ; xii. 11. 
 
 2 Sam. xii. 13. ")^a;rn. 
 
158 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 with more than kingly sorrows, but with little of kingly 
 power ; to be banished by his son ; bearded by his 
 servant ; betrayed by his friends ; deserted by his 
 people ; bereaved of his children ; and to feel all, all 
 these bitter griefs, bound, as it were, by a chain of com- 
 plicated cause and effect, to this one great, original 
 transgression. This was surely no escape from the 
 penalty of his crime, though it was still granted him to 
 live and breathe — God would not slay even Cain, nor 
 suffer others to slay him, whose punishment, neverthe- 
 less, was greater than he could bear — but rather it was 
 a lesson to him and to us, how dreadful a thing it is to 
 tempt the Almighty to let loose his plagues upon us, 
 and how true is He to his word, " Vengeance is mine, I 
 will repay," saith the Lord. 
 
 Meanwhile, by means of the fall of David, however 
 it may have caused some to blaspheme, God may have 
 also provided, in his mercy, that many since David 
 should stand upright ; the frailty of one may have pre- 
 vented the miscarriage of thousands ; saints, with his 
 example before their eyes, may have learned to walk 
 humbly, and so to walk surely, when they might other- 
 wise have presumed and perished ; and sinners, even 
 the men of the darkest and most deadly sins, may have 
 been saved from utter desperation and self-abandon- 
 ment, by remembering David and all his trouble ; and 
 that, deep as he was in guilt, he was not so deep but 
 that his bitter cries for mercy, under the remorse and 
 anguish of his spirit, could even yet pierce the ear of 
 an offended God, and move Him to put away his sin. 
 
 XL 
 
 My subject has compelled me to anticipate some of the 
 events of David's history according to the order of 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCEIPTURES. 159 
 
 time. I must now, therefore, revert to certain inci- 
 dents in it, which it would before have interrupted my 
 argument to notice, but which are too important, as 
 evidences of its credibility, to be altogether overlooked. 
 
 The conspiracy of Absalom being now organized, it 
 only remained to try the issue by force of arms ; and 
 here another coincidence presents itself. 
 
 In the seventeenth chapter of the second Book of 
 Samuel, we read that " David arose, and all the people 
 that were with him, and they passed over Jordan" 
 (v. 22) ; and in the same chapter, that " Absalom passed 
 over Jordan, he and all the men of Israel "with him" 
 (v. 24) ; and that " they pitched in the land of Gilead" 
 (26). Now in the next chapter, where an account is 
 given of a review of David's troops, and of their going 
 forth to the fight, it is said, " So the people went out 
 into the field against Israel, and the battle was in the 
 wood of Ephraimy ' But is not the sacred historian, in 
 this instance, off his guard, and having already placed 
 his combatants on one side the river, does he not now 
 place his combat on the other ? Is he not mistaken in 
 his geograj^hy, and does he not thereby betray himself 
 and the credit of his narrative ? Certain it is, that 
 Absalom had passed over Jordan eastward, and so had 
 David, with their respective followers, pitching in 
 Gilead ; and no less certain it is, that the tribe of 
 EpJiraim lay altogether west of Jordan, and had not a 
 foot of ground beyond it : how then was the battle in 
 the wood of Ephraim ? By any fabulous writer this 
 seeming difficulty would have been avoided, or care 
 would have been taken that, at least, it should be ex- 
 plained. But the Book of Samuel, written by one 
 familiar with the events he describes, and with the 
 * 2 Sara, xviii. 6. 
 
160 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 scenes in which they occurred ; written, moreover, in 
 the simplicity of his heart, probably without any notion 
 that his veracity could be called in question, or that he 
 should ever be the subject of suspicious scrutiny, con- 
 tents itself with stating the naked facts, and then leaves 
 it to the critics to reconcile them as they can. Turn 
 we then to the twelfth chapter of the Book of Judges. 
 There we are told of an attack made by the Ephrahn- 
 ites upon Jeplithah, in the land of Gilead, on pretence 
 of a wrong done them when they were not invited by 
 the latter to take part in his successful invasion of 
 Amnion. It was a memorable struggle. Jeplithah in- 
 deed, endeavoured to soothe the angry assailants by 
 words of peace, but when he spake of peace, they only 
 made themselves ready for battle. Accordingly, " he 
 gathered together all the men of Gilead, and fought 
 with Ephraim." Ephraim was discomfited with signal 
 slaughter; those who fell in the action, and those who 
 were afterwards put to death upon the test of the 
 word Shibboleth, amounting to forty-two thousand men ; 
 almost an extinction of all the fighting men of Ephraim. 
 Now an event so singular, and so sanguinary, was not 
 likely to pass away without a memorial ; and what 
 memorial so natural for the grave of a tribe, as its own 
 name for ever assigned to the spot where it fell, the 
 Aceldama of their race ? 
 
 Thus, then, may we account most naturally for a 
 " wood of Ephraim'' in the land of Gilead ; a point 
 which would have perplexed us not a little, had the 
 Book of Judges never come down to us, or, coming 
 down to us, had no mention been made in it of Jeph- 
 thah's victory ; and though we certainly cannot prove 
 that the battle of David and Absalom was fouffht on 
 precisely the same field as this of Jeplithah and the 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 161 
 
 Epliraimites some hundred and twenty years before, 
 yet it is highly probable that this was the case, for both 
 the battles were assuredly in Gilead, and both appa- 
 rently in that part of Gilead which bordered upon one 
 of the fords of Jordan. 
 
 Thus does a seeming error turn out, on examination, 
 to be an actual pledge of the good faith of the histo- 
 rian ; and the unconcern with which he tells his own 
 tale, in his own way, never pausing to correct, to balance, 
 or adjust, to supply a defect, or to meet an objection, 
 is the conduct of a witness to whom it never occurred 
 that he had anything to conceal, or anything to fear ; 
 or, if it did occur, to whom it was well known that 
 truth is mighty, and will prevail. 
 
 XII. 
 
 David having won the battle, and recovered his throne, 
 prepares to repass the Jordan, and return once more to 
 his capital. His friends again congregate around him, 
 for the prosperous have many friends. Amongst them, 
 however, were some who had been true to him in the 
 day of his adversity; and the aged Barzillai, a Gileadite, 
 who had provided the King with sustenance whilst he 
 lay at Mahanaim, and when his affairs were critical, 
 presents himself before him. He had won David's heart. 
 The King now entreats him to accompany him to his 
 court, " Come thou over with me, and I will feed thee 
 with me in Jerusalem." But the unambitious Barzillai 
 pleads fourscore years as a bar against beginning the 
 life of a courtier, and chooses rather to die in his own 
 city, and be buried by the grave of his father and of his 
 mother. His son, however, had life before him : " Be- 
 hold thy servant Chimham ; let him go over with my 
 lord the king ; and do to him what shall seem good 
 
 M 
 
162 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 unto tliee. And the king answered, Cliimham shall go 
 over with me, and I will do to him that which shall 
 seem good unto thee." ' So he went with the king. 
 Thus begins, and thus ends, the history of Chimham ; 
 he passes away from the scene, and what David did for 
 him, or whether he did anything for him, beyond pro- 
 viding him a place at his table, and recommending him, 
 in common with many others, to Solomon before he died, 
 does not appear. Singular, however, it is, and if ever 
 there was a coincidence which carried with it the stamp 
 of truth, it is this, that in the forty-first chapter of 
 Jeremiah, an historical chapter, in which an account is 
 given of the murder of Gedaliah, the officer whom 
 Nebuchadnezzar had left in charge of Judea, as its 
 governor, when he carried away the more wealthy of its 
 inhabitants captive to Babylon, we read that the Jews, 
 fearing for the consequences of this bloody act, and 
 apprehending the vengeance of the Chaldeans, prepared 
 for a flight into Egypt, so "they departed," the narrative 
 continues, " and dwelt in the habitation of ChimJiam, 
 which is by Bethlehem, to go to enter into Egypt" (v. 17). 
 It is impossible to imagine anything more incidental 
 than the mention of this estate near Bethlehem, which 
 was the habitation of Chimham — yet how well does it 
 tally with the spirit of David's speech to Barzillai, some 
 four hundred years before ! for what can be more pro- 
 bable, than that David, whose birth-place was this very 
 Bethlehem, and wdiose patrimony in consequence lay 
 there, having undertaken to provide for Chimham, 
 should have bestowed it in whole, or in part, as the 
 most flattering reward he could confer, a personal, as 
 well as a royal, mark of favour, on the son of the man 
 who had saved his life, and the lives of his followers in 
 1 2 Sam. xix. 37. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 163 
 
 the hour of their distress ; and that, to that very day, 
 when Jeremiah wrote, it should have remained in the 
 possession of the family of Chimham, and have been a 
 land called after his own name ? 
 
 XIII. 
 
 I PROCEED with the history of David, in which we can 
 scarcely advance a step without having our attention 
 drawn to some new, though perhaps subtle, incident, 
 which marks at once the reality of the facts, and the 
 fidelity of the record. No doubt the surface of the 
 narrative is perfectly satisfactory ; but beneath the sur- 
 face, there is a certain substratum now appearing, and 
 presently losing itself again, which is the proper field of 
 my inquiry. Here I find the true material of which 
 I am in search ; coincidences shy and unobtrusive, not 
 courting notice — as far from it as possible — but having 
 chanced to attract it, sustaining not only notice, but 
 scrutiny ; such matters as might be overlooked on a 
 cursory perusal of the text a hundred times, and which 
 indeed would stand very little chance of any other fate 
 than neglect, unless the mind of the reader had been 
 previously put upon challenging them as they pass. 
 Therefore it is that I feel often incapable of doing 
 justice to my subject with my readers, however familiar 
 they may be with Holy Writ. The full force of the 
 argument can only be felt by him who pursues it for 
 himself, when he is in his chamber and is still ; his 
 assent taken captive before he is aware of it; his 
 doubts, if any he had, melting away under the continual 
 dropping of minute particles of evidence upon his mind, 
 as it proceeds in its investigation. It is difficult, it is 
 scarcely possible, to impart this sympathy to the reader. 
 And even when I can grasp an incident sufficiently sub- 
 
 M 2 
 
164 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 stantial to detach and present to his consideration, I 
 still am conscious that it is not launched to advantage ; 
 that a thousand little preparations are lacking- in order 
 that it may leave the slips (if I may venture ujDon the 
 expression) with a motion that shall make it win its 
 Avay ; that the plunge with which I am compelled to 
 let it fall, provokes a resistance to which it does not de- 
 serve to be exposed. I proceed, however, with the 
 history of David, and to a passage in it which has partly 
 suggested these remarks. When Saul in his fury had 
 slain, by the hand of Doeg, Ahimelech the high-imest, 
 and all the priests of the Lord, " one of the sons of 
 Ahimelech," we read, " named Abiathar, escaped, and 
 fled after David." ' David received him kindly, saying 
 unto him, " Abide thou with me, fear not ; for he that 
 seeketh my life seeketh thy life; but wath me thou 
 shalt be in safeguard." Abiathar had brought with 
 him the ephod, the high-priest's mysterious scarf; and 
 his father being dead, he appears to have been made 
 high-priest in his stead, so far as David had it then in 
 his power to give him that office, and to have attended 
 upon him and his followers ^ These particulars we 
 gather from several passages of the first Book of 
 Samuel. 
 
 We hear now nothing more of Abiathar (except that 
 he was confirmed in bis office, together with a colleague, 
 when David was established in his kingdom) for nearly 
 thirty years. Then he re-appears, having to play not an 
 inconspicuous part in David's councils, on occasion of 
 the rebellion of Absalom. Now here we find, that 
 though he is still in his office of priest, Zadok (the 
 colleague to whom I alluded) appears to have obtained 
 the first j)lace in the confidence and consideration of 
 1 1 Sam. xxii. 20. I M Sam. xxx. 7. 
 
Part IT. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 165 
 
 David. When David sends the Ark back, which he 
 probably thought it irreverent to make the partner of 
 his flight, and delivers his commands to this effect, it 
 may be remarked that he does not address himself to 
 Abiathar, though Abiathar was there, but to Zadok — 
 Zadok takes the lead in everything. The king says to 
 Zadok, " Carry back the Ark of God into the city :" ' — 
 and again, " The king said also unto Zadok the priest, 
 Art not thou a seer ? return into the city in peace ;" 
 and when Zadok and Abiathar are mentioned together 
 at this period, Zadok is placed foremost. No doubt 
 Abiathar was honoured by David ; there is evidence 
 enough of this (v. 35) ; but many trifles lead us to 
 conclude that herein he attained not unto his com- 
 panion. 
 
 Now, unquestionably, it cannot be asserted with con- 
 fidence, where there is no positive document to substan- 
 tiate the assertion, that Abiathar felt his associate in 
 the priesthood to be his rival in the state, his more than 
 successful rival ; yet that such a feeling should find 
 a place in the breast of Abiathar seems most natural, 
 seems almost inevitable, when we take into account 
 that these two priests were the representatives of two 
 rival houses, over one of which, a prophecy affecting 
 its honour, and well nigh its existence, was hanging un- 
 fulfilled. For Zadok, be it observed, was descended 
 from Eleazar, the eldest of the sons of Aaron; Abiathar 
 from Ithamar, the youngest ^ and so from the family of 
 Eli, a family of which it had been foretold, some hun- 
 dred and fifty years before, that the priesthood should 
 pass from it. Could Abiathar read the signs of his 
 time without alarm ? or fail to suspect (what did prove 
 the fact) that the curse which had tarried so long, was 
 ' 2 Sam XV. 25. I M Chron. xxlv. 3. 
 
166 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 now again in motion, and that the ancient office of his 
 fathers was in jeopardy ; a curse, too, comprising cir- 
 cumstances of signal humiliation, calculated beyond 
 measure to exasperate the sufferer ; even that the house 
 of Eli, which God had once said should walk before 
 Him for ever, should be far from Him ; even that He 
 would raise up (that is from another house) a faithful 
 l^riest that should do according to that which was in 
 his heart and his mind : and that the house of that 
 man should be sure built ; and that they of the house 
 of Eli which were left, "should come and crouch to him 
 for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread, and say, Put 
 me, I pray thee, into one of the priests' offices, that I 
 may eat a piece of bread ? " ^ Abiathar must have had 
 a tamer spirit than he gave subsequent proof of, if he 
 could have witnessed the elevation of one in whom this 
 bitter threat seemed advancing to its accomplishment, 
 and in whom it was in fact accomplished, witli com- 
 placency ; if he could see him seated by his side in the 
 dignity of the high-priesthood, and favoured at his ex- 
 pense by the more frequent smiles of his sovereign, 
 without a wounded spirit. 
 
 Now having possessed ourselves of this secret key, 
 namely jealousy of his rival, a key not delivered into 
 our hands directly by the historian, but accidentally 
 found by ourselves (and here is its value), let us apply 
 it to the incidents of Abiathar's subsequent conduct, 
 and observe whether they will not answer to it. We 
 have seen Abiathar flying from the vengeance of Saul 
 to David ; protected by David in the wilderness ; made 
 by David his priest, virtually before Saul's death ^, and 
 formally, when he succeeded to Saul's throned We 
 
 ' 1 Sam. ii. 36. ^ 2 Sara. viii. 17. 
 
 ^ 1 Sam. xxiii. 2 — 6. 
 
Part II. HISTOEICAL SCRIPTURES. 1 67 
 
 have seen, too, Zaclok united with him in his office, and 
 David giving signs of preferring Zadok before him ; a 
 preference the more marked, and the more galling, 
 because Abiathar \vas undoubtedly the high-priest (as 
 the sequel will prove), and Zadok his vicar only, or 
 sagan'. 
 
 This being the state of things, let us now observe the 
 issue. When David was forced to withdraw for a 
 season from Jerusalem, by the conspiracy of Absalom, 
 Zadok and Abiathar were left behind in the capital, 
 charged with the office of forwarding to the King any 
 intelligence which his friends within the walls might 
 communicate to them, that it Mas for his advantage to 
 know. Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, and Jonathan, the 
 son of Abiathar (the sons are named after the same 
 order as their fathers), are the secret messengers by 
 whom it is to be conveyed ; and on one occasion, the 
 only one in which their services are recorded, we find 
 them acting together ^ But I observe that after the 
 battle in Mhich Absalom was slain, a battle which seems 
 to have served as a test of the real loyalty of many of 
 David's nominal friends, Ahimaaz, the son oi Zadok, and 
 not Jonathan, the son of Abiathar, is at hand to carry 
 the tidings of the victory to David, who had tarried 
 behind at Mahanaim ; and this office he solicits from 
 Joab, who had intended it for another, with the utmost 
 importunity, and the most lively zeal for the King's 
 caused This, it Avill be said, proves but little; more 
 especially as there is reason to belive that David waSj 
 at least, upon terms with Abiathar at a later period 
 than this*. Still there may be thought something sus- 
 
 1 See Lightfoot's Works, Vol. ' ■' 2 Sam. xviii. 19—22. 
 i. 911, 912, fol. I -^ Ibid. xix. 11. 
 
 ~ 2 Sam, xvii. 21. 
 
168 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 picious in the absence of the one messenger, at a 
 moment so critical, as compared with the alacrity of 
 the other, their office having been hitherto a joint one ; 
 it is not enough to ;;rove that the loyalty of Abiathar 
 and his house was waxing cool, though it accords with 
 such a supposition. Let us, liowever, proceed. Within 
 a few years of this time, probably about eight, another 
 rebellion against David is set on foot by another of his 
 sons. Adonijah is now the offender. He, too, prepares 
 him chariots and horsemen, after the example of his 
 brother. Moreover, he feels his way before he ojDenly 
 appears in arms. And to whom does he make his first 
 overtures? " He confers," we read, " with Abiathar the 
 priest,"' having good reason, no doubt, for knowing 
 that such an application might be made in that quarter 
 with safety, if not with success. The event proved 
 that he had not mistaken his man. " Abiathar," we 
 learn, '■''foUoiving Adonijah, helped him ;" not so Zadok; 
 he, we are told, ''was not with Adotiijah ;'' on the 
 contrary, he was one of the first persons for whom 
 David sent, that he might communicate with him in 
 this emergency ; his staunch and steadfast friend ; and 
 him he commissioned, together with Nathan the pro- 
 phet, to set the crown upon the head of Solomon, and 
 thereby to confound the councils of the rebels ^ Nor 
 should we leave unnoticed, for they are facts which 
 coincide with the view I have taken of Abiathar's 
 loyalty, and the cause of it, that one of the first acts of 
 Solomon's reign was to banish the traitor " to his own 
 fields," and to thrust him out of the priesthood, " that 
 he might fulfil " (so it is expressly said in the twenty- 
 seventh verse of the second chapter of the first Book of 
 Kings) " the word of the Lord, which he spake concern- 
 ' 1 Kino-s i. 7. I ~ I Kings i.- 32. 34. 
 
Part IT. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 169 
 
 ing the house of Eli in Shiloh," — fulfil it, not by that 
 act only, but by the other also, which followed and 
 crowned the prophecy; for "Zadok the priest," it is 
 added, "did Solomon put in the room of Ahiathar ^^ 
 or, as the Septuagint translates it still more to our 
 purpose, Zadok the priest did the King muke frst priesi 
 (et<? lepea nrpunov) in the room of Abiathar ; so that 
 Abiathar, as I said, had been hitherto Zadok's superior; 
 his superior in office, and his inferior in honour ; a posi- 
 tion of all others calculated to excite in him the heart- 
 burnings we have discovered, long smothered, but at 
 last bursting forth — beginning in lukewarmness, and 
 ending in rebellion. 
 
 This is all extremely natural ; nothing can drop into 
 its place better than the several parts of this history ; 
 not at all a prominent history, but rather a subordinate 
 one. Yet manifest as the relation which they bear to 
 one another, is, when they are once brought together, 
 they are themselves dispersed through the Books of 
 Samuel, of Kings, and of Chronicles, without the 
 smallest arrangement or reference one to another ; their 
 succession not continuous ; suspended by many and long 
 intervals; intervals occupied by matters altogether 
 foreign from this subject; and after all, the integral 
 portions of the narrative themselves defective : there 
 are gaps even here, which I think, indeed, may be filled 
 up, as I have shown, with very little chance of error ; 
 but still, that there should be any necessity even for 
 this, argues the absence of all design, collusion, and 
 contrivance in the historians. 
 
 ^ 1 Kings ii. 35. 
 
170 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 We have now followed David through the events of his 
 chequered life ; it remains to contemplate him yet once 
 more upon his death-bed, giving in charge the execu- 
 tion of his last wishes to Solomon his son. Probably in 
 consideration of his youth, his inexperience, and the 
 difficulties of his position, David thought it well to put 
 him in possession of the characters of some of those 
 with whom he would have to deal ; of those whom he 
 had found faithful or faithless to himself; that, on the 
 one hand, his own promises of favour might not be for- 
 feited, nor, on the other, the confidence of the young 
 monarch be misplaced. Now it is remarkable, that in 
 this review of his friends and foes, David altogether 
 overlooks Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan. Joab 
 he remembers, and all that he had done; Shimei he 
 speaks of at some length, and puts Solomon upon his 
 guard against him. The sons of Barzillai, and the ser- 
 vice they had rendered him in the day of his adversity, 
 are all recommended to his friendly consideration; but 
 of Mephibosheth, who had played a part, such as it was, 
 in the scenes of those eventful times, Which had called 
 forth, for good or evil, a Chimham, a Barzillai, a 
 Shimei, and a Joab, he does not say a syllable. Yet he 
 was under peculiar obligations to him. He had loved 
 his father Jonathan. He had promised to show kind- 
 ness to his house for ever. He had confirmed his 
 promise by an oath. That oath he had repeated'. On 
 his accession to the throne he had evinced no disposi- 
 tion to shrink from it ; on the contrary, he had 
 studiously inquired after the family of Jonathan, and 
 having found Mephibosheth, he gave liim a place at his 
 1 1 Sam. XX. 17. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 171 
 
 own table continually, for his father's sake, and secured 
 to him all the lands of Saul\ 
 
 Let us, however, carefully examine the details of the 
 history, and I think we shall be able to account satis- 
 factorily enough for David's apparent neglect of the 
 son of his friend ; for I think we shall find violent cause 
 to suspect that Mephibosheth had forfeited all claims 
 to his kindness. 
 
 When David was driven from Jerusalem by the re- 
 bellion of Absalom, no Mephibosheth appeared to share 
 with him his misfortunes, or to support him by his 
 name, a name at that moment of peculiar value to 
 David, for Mephibosheth was the representative of the 
 house of Saul. David naturally intimates some surprise 
 at his absence ; and when his servant Ziba appears, 
 bringing with him a small present of bread and fruits 
 (the line of the king's flight having apparently carried 
 him near the lands of Mephibosheth), a present, how- 
 ever, offered on his own part, and not on the part of his 
 master, David puts to him several questions, expressive 
 of his suspicions of Mephibosheth's loyalty : " What 
 meanest thou by these? Where is thy master's son?"^ 
 Ziba replies in substance, that he had tarried at Jerusa- 
 lem, waiting the event of the rebellion, and hoping that 
 it might lead to th3 re-establishment of Saul's family on 
 the throne. This might be true, or it might be false. 
 The commentators appear to take for granted that it 
 was a mere slander of Ziba, invented for the purpose of 
 supplanting Mephibosheth in his possessions. I do not 
 think this so certain. Ziba, I suspect, had some reason 
 in what he said, though probably the colouring of the 
 picture was his own. Certain it is, or all but certain, 
 that the tribe of Benjamin, which was the tribe of Me- 
 
 ^ 2 Sam. ix. 6, 7. l ' - Sam. xvi. 2, 3. 
 
172 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 phiboslietli, did, in general, take part with the rebels. 
 When David returned victorious, and Shimei hastened 
 to make his peace with him, a thousand men of Ben- 
 jamin accompanied him ; and it was his boast that he 
 came the first of " all the house of Joseph" to meet the 
 King \ as though others of his tribe (for they of Ben- 
 jamin were reckoned of the house of Joseph, the same 
 mother having given birth to both) were yet behind. 
 Went not then the heart of Mephibosheth in the day 
 of battle with his brethren, rather than with his bene- 
 factor? David himself evidently beheved the report of 
 Ziba, and forthwith gave him his master's inheritance ^ 
 The battle is now fought, on which the fate of the 
 throne hung in suspense, and David is the conqueror. 
 And now, many who had forsaken, or insulted him in 
 his distress, hasten to congratulate him on his triumph, 
 and to profess their joy at his return ; Mephibosheth 
 amongst the rest. There is something touching in 
 David's first greeting of him ; " Wherefore wentest thou 
 not with me, Mephibosheth ? " A question not of cu- 
 riosity, but of reproach. His ass was saddled, forsooth, 
 that he might go, but Ziba, it seems, had taken it for 
 himself, and gone unto the King, and slandered him 
 unto the King; and meanwhile, "thy servant was lame." 
 The tale appears to be as lame as the tale-bearer. I 
 think it clear that Mephibosheth did not succeed in 
 removing the suspicion of his disloyalty from David's 
 mind, notwithstanding the ostentatious display of his 
 clothes unwashed and beard untrimmed ; weeds which 
 the loss of his estate might very well have taught him 
 to put on : for otherwise, would not David, in common 
 justice both to Mephibosheth and to Ziba, have punished 
 the treachery of the latter — the lie by which he had 
 ^ 2 Sam. xix. 17—20. | ' 2 Sam. xvi. 4. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 173 
 
 imposed upon the King to his own profit, and to his 
 master's infinite dishonour and damage, by revoking 
 altogether the grant of the lands which he had made 
 him, under an impression ivhich proved to be a mistake, 
 and restoring them to their rightful owner, who had 
 been injuriously supposed to have forfeited them by 
 treason to the crown? He does, however, no such 
 thing. To Mephibosheth, indeed, he gives back half, 
 but that is all ; and he leaves the other half still in the 
 possession of Ziba ; doing even thus much, in all pro- 
 bability, not as an act of justice, but out of tenderness 
 to a son, even an unworthy son of Jonathan, whom he 
 had loved as his own soul. And then, as if impatient 
 of the wearisome exculpations of an ungrateful man, 
 whose excuses were his accusations, he abruptly puts an 
 end to the parley (the conversation having been appa- 
 rently much longer than is recorded), with a " Whi/ 
 speakest thou any more of thy matters ? I have said. 
 Thou and Ziba divide the land." ^ 
 
 Henceforward, whatever act of grace he received at 
 David's hands was purely gratuitous. His unfaithfulness 
 had released the King from his bond ; and that he lived, 
 was perhaps rather of sufferance, than of right ; a con- 
 sideration which serves to explain David's conduct 
 towards him, as it is reported on an occasion subsequent 
 to the rebellion. For when propitiation was to be 
 made by seven of Saul's sons, for the sin of Saul in the 
 slaughter of the Gibeonites, " the king," we read, 
 " spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of 
 Saul, because of the Lord's oath that was between them, 
 between David and Jonathan the son of Saul;"^ as 
 though he owed it to the oath only, and to the memory 
 ^ 2 Sam. xix. 29. I '2 Sam. xxi. 7. 
 
174 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 of his father's virtues, that he was not selected by 
 David as one of the victims of that bloody sacrifice. 
 
 Now, under these circumstances, is it a subject for 
 surprise, is it not rather a most natural and veracious 
 coincidence, that David, in commending on his death- 
 bed some of his stanch and trustworthy friends to 
 Solomon his son, should have omitted all mention of 
 Mephibosheth, dissatisfied as he was, and ever had been, 
 with his explanations of very suspicious conduct, at a 
 very critical hour? considering him, with every appear- 
 ance of reason, a waiter upon Providence, as such per- 
 sons have been since called — a prudent man, who would 
 see which way the battle went, before he made up his 
 mind to which side he belono^ed? This coincidence is 
 important, not merely as carrying with it evidence of a 
 true story in all its details, which is my business with 
 it; but also as disembarrassing the incident itself of 
 several serious diflficulties which present themselves, on 
 the ordinary supposition of Ziba's treachery, and Me- 
 phibosheth's truth ; diflficulties which I cannot better 
 explain, than by referring my hearers to the beautiful 
 " Contemplations " of Bishop Hall, whose view of these 
 two characters is the common one, and Avho conse- 
 quently finds himself, in this instance (it will be per- 
 ceived), encumbered with his subject, and driven to the 
 necessity of impugning the justice of David. It is 
 further valuable, as exonerating the King of two other 
 charges which have been brought against him, yet more 
 serious than the last, even of indifference to the memory 
 of his dearest friend, and disregard to the obligations 
 of his solemn oath. But these are not the only in- 
 stances in which the character of David, and indeed of 
 the history itself, which treats of him, has suffered from 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 175 
 
 a neglect to make allowance for omissions in a very 
 brief and desultory memoir, or from a want of more 
 exact attention to the under-current of the narrative, 
 which would, in itself, very often supjDly those omissions. 
 
 XV. 
 
 The history of the people of God has thus far been 
 brought down to the reign of Solomon, and its general 
 truth and accuracy (I think I may say) established by 
 the application of a test which could scarcely fail us. 
 The great schism of the tribes is now about to divide 
 our attention between the kingdoms of Israel and 
 Judah ; but before I proceed to olfer some observations 
 upon the effects of it, both religious and political, on 
 either kingdom, observations which will involve many 
 more of those undesigned coincidences which are the 
 subject of these pages, I must say a word upon the 
 progress of events towards the schism itself; for herein 
 I discover combinations, of a kind which no ingenuity 
 could possibly counterfeit, and to an extent which 
 verifies a large portion of the Jewish annals. " By 
 faith, Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed his children." 
 On that occasion, Judah and Epliraim were made to 
 stand conspicuous amongst the future founders of the 
 Israelitish nation. "Judah," says the prophetic old 
 man, " thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise : thy 
 hand shall be on the neck of thine enemies : thy 
 father's children shall bow down before thee. Judah 
 is a lion's whelp : from the prey, my son, thou art gone 
 up. He stooped down, he crouched as a lion, and as 
 an old lion : who shall rouse him up ? The sceptre 
 shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from be- 
 tween his feet, till Shiloh come; and unto him shall 
 
176 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 the gathering of the people be."' All this, and more, 
 did Jacob foretel of this mighty tribe. Again, crossing 
 his hands, and studiously laying the right upon the 
 head of Ephraim, the younger of Joseph's children, 
 " Manasseli also shall be a people," he exclaimed, " and 
 he also shall be great ; but truly his younger brother 
 shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a 
 multitude of nations. And so he blessed them that 
 day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make 
 thee as Ephraim and as Manasseli."^ Thus did these 
 two tribes, Judah and Ephraim, enter the Land of 
 Promise some two hundred and forty years afterwards, 
 with the Patriarch's blessing on their heads ; God 
 having conveyed it to them by his mouth, and being 
 now about to work it out by the quiet operations of his 
 hands. As yet, neither of them was much more 
 powerful than his brethren, the latter less so ; Judah 
 not exceeding one other of the tribes, at least, by more 
 than twelve thousand men, and Ephraim actually the 
 smallest of them all, with the single exception of 
 Simeon'\ The lot of Ephraim, however, fell upon a 
 fair ground, and upon this lot, the dis^Josing of which 
 was of the Lord, turned very materially the fortunes of 
 Ephraim ; it fell nearly in the midst of the tribes ; and 
 accordingly, the invasion and occupation of Canaan 
 being effected, at SJiiloh in Ephraim, the Tabernacle 
 was set up, there to abide three hundred years and up- 
 wards, during all the time of the Judges^. Hither, we 
 read, Elkanah repaired year by year for worship and 
 sacrifice ; here the lamp of God was never suffered to 
 go out " in the Temple of the Lord," (the expression is 
 
 ^ Gen. xlix. 8. 
 » Ibid, xlviii. 20. 
 
 •'' Num. xxvi. 
 ^ Judges xxi. 1 ! 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 177 
 
 remarkable,) " where the Ark of God was ;" ' here 
 Samuel ministered as a child, all Israel, from Dan even 
 to Beer-sheba, speedily perceiving that he was esta- 
 blished to be a prophet, because all Israel was accus- 
 tomed to resort annually to Shiloh, at the feasts^ 
 ShiloJi, therefore, in Epliraim, was the great relifjious 
 capital, as it were, from the time of Joshua to Saul, the 
 spot more especially consecrated to the honour of God, 
 the resting-place of his tabernacle, of his prophets, and 
 of his priests^; whilst at no great distance from it 
 appears to have stood Shechem^, once the political 
 capital of Ephraim, till civil war left it for a season in 
 ruins, but which, even then, continued to be the gather- 
 ing point of the tribes^; Shechem, where was Jacob's 
 well", and where, accordingly, both literally and figura- 
 tively, was the prophecy of that Patriarch fulfilled, 
 "Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a 
 well, whose branches run over the wall."^ 
 
 Thus was this district in Ephraim, comprising Shiloh 
 and Shechem, probably the most populous, certainly 
 the most important, of any in all the Holy Land during 
 the government of the Judges ; and, constantly recruited 
 by the confluence of strangers, Ephraim seems to have 
 become (as Jerusalem became afterwards) what Jacob 
 again foretold, " a multitude of nations." 
 
 There are other and more minute incidents left upon 
 record, all tending to establish the same fact. For 
 I observe, that amongst the Judges, many, whether 
 themselves of Ephraim or not, do appear to have re- 
 
 ^ 1 Sam. iii. 3. 25, 26. 
 
 2 Ibid. iii. 20, 21. 
 •^ Psalm cxxxii. 6; Ixxviii. 67; 
 1 Sam. ii. 14. 
 
 ^ Judges xxi 19; Josh. xxiv. 
 
 ^ Josh. xxiv. 1 ; Judges ix. 2 ; 
 1 Kings xii. 1. 
 ^ John iv. 6. 
 ~ See Lightfoot, Vol. i. 49, fol. 
 
 N 
 
178 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 paired thither as to the proper seat of government. I 
 find that Deborah " dwelt under the palm-tree, between 
 Ramah and Bethel, in Mount Ephraim,'' and that there 
 the children of Israel went up to her for judgment^ 
 I find that Gideon, who was of Ophrah in Manasseh, 
 where he appears in general to have lived, and ^^diere 
 he was at last buried, had, nevertheless, a family at 
 Sliecliem, it being incidentally said, that the mother of 
 his son Abimelech resided there, and that there Abime- 
 lech himself w^as born^: a trifle in itself, yet enough, I 
 think, to suggest, that at Shechem in Ephraim, Gideon 
 did occasionally dwell ; the discharge of his judicial 
 functions, like those of Pilate at Jerusalem, probably 
 constraining him to a residence which he might not 
 otherwise have chosen. I find this same Shechem the 
 head-quarters of this same Abimelech, and the support 
 of his cause when he usurped the government of Israel^. 
 And T subsequently find Tola, though a man of Issachar, 
 dwelling in Shamir, in Mount Ephraim (Shechem 
 having been recently laid waste), and judging Israel 
 twenty and three years*. 
 
 Nor is this all. The comparative importance of 
 Ephraim amongst the tribes during the time of the 
 Judges is further detected in the tone of authority, not 
 to say menace, which it occasionally assumes towards 
 its weaker brethren. Gideon leads several of the tribes 
 against the Midianites, but Ephraim had not been con- 
 sulted. " Why hast thou served us thus," is the angry 
 remonstrance of the Ephraimites, "that thou calledst 
 us not when thou wentest to fight with the Midianites? 
 And they did chide with him harshly."^ Gideon stoops 
 
 ^ Judges iv. 5. 
 
 2 Ibid. viii. 27—32; ix. 1. 
 
 ^ Ibid. ix. 22. 
 
 ^ Judges X. 1. 
 ^ Ibid. viii. 1. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 179 
 
 before the storm ; he disputes not the vast superiority 
 of Ephraim, his gleaning being more than another's 
 grapes. Jephthah, in later times, ventures upon a 
 similar invasion of the children of Amnion, and dis- 
 comfits them with a great slaughter, but he, too, with- 
 out Ephraim's help or cognizance: again the pride of 
 this powerful tribe is wounded, and " they gather them- 
 selves together, and go northward, and say unto Jeph- 
 thah, Wherefore passedst thou over to fight against the 
 children of Ammon, and didst not call us to go with 
 thee? we will burn thine house upon thee with fire."' — 
 All this, the unreasonable conduct of a party conscious 
 that it has the law of the strongest on its side, and, by 
 virtue of that law, claiming to itself the office of dic- 
 tator amongst the neighbouring tribes. Well, then, 
 might David express himself with regard to the support 
 he expected from this tribe, in terms of more than 
 common emphasis, when at last seated on the throne, 
 his title acknowledged throughout Israel, he reviews 
 the resources of his consolidated empire, and exclaims, 
 ''^Ephraim is the strength of my head''"^ Accordingly, 
 all the ten tribes are sometimes expressed under the 
 comprehensive name of Ephraim^; and the gate of 
 Jerusalem which looked towards Israel appears to have 
 been called, emphatically, the gate of Ephraim^; and 
 Ephraim and Judah together represent the whole of 
 the people of Israel, from Dan to Beer-sheba^ 
 
 In tracing the seeds of the future dissolution of the 
 ten from the two tribes, I further remark, that whilst 
 Samuel himself remains at Ramah, a border town of 
 Benjamin and Ephraim (for Shiloh and Shechem were 
 
 ' Judges xii. 1. 
 
 * Psalm Ix. 7. 
 
 ^ 2 Chron. xxv. 6, 7. 
 
 ^ 2 Kings xiv. 13. 
 5 Isai. vii. 9 — 17, et alibi; 
 Ezek xxxvii. 19. 
 
 N 2 
 
180 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 probably now in possession of the Philistines), there to 
 sit in judgment on such causes as Ephraim and the 
 northern states should bring before him, he sends his 
 sons to be judges in Beer-sheba', a southern town be- 
 longing to Judah^, as though there was already some 
 reluctance between these rival tribes to resort to the 
 same tribunal : and the fierce words that passed between 
 the men of Israel and the men of Judah, on the subject 
 of the restoration of David to the throne, the former 
 claiming ten parts in him, the latter nearness of kin^ 
 still indicate that the breach was gradually widening, 
 and that however sudden was the final disruption of the 
 bond of union, events had weakened it long before. 
 Indeed, humanly speaking, nothing could in all proba- 
 bility have preserved it, but a continuance of the govern- 
 ment by judges, under God ; who, taken from various 
 tribes, and according to no established order, might 
 have secured the commonwealth from that jealousy 
 which an hereditary possession of power by any one 
 tribe was sure to create, and did create ; and which 
 burst out in that bitter cry of Israel, at the critical 
 moment of the separation, " What portion have we in 
 David f neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse 
 — to your tents, Israel : now see to thine own house, 
 David."* And so, by the natural motions of the human 
 heart, did God take vengeance of the people whom He 
 had chosen, for rejecting Him for their sovereign; and a 
 king, indeed. He gave them, as they desired, but He 
 gave him in his wrath. 
 
 Thus have we detected, by the apposition of many 
 distinct particulars, a cjradual tendency of the Ten Tribes 
 to become confederate under Ephraim; an event, to which 
 
 ^ 1 Sam. viii. 2. 
 ' Josh. XV. 28. 
 
 3 Sam. xix. 43. 
 1 Kings xii. 16. 
 
Paet II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 181 
 
 the local position, numerical superioritj, and tlie seat 
 of national worship, long fixed within the borders of 
 Ephraim, together conspired. 
 
 But meanwhile, it may be discovered in like manner, 
 that Judah and Benjamin were also, on their part, 
 knitting themselves in close alliance ; a union promoted 
 bj contiguity; by the sympathy of being the only two 
 royal tribes ; by the connection of the house of David 
 with the house of Saul (the political importance of 
 which David appears to have considered, when he 
 made it a preliminary of his league with Abner, that 
 Michal should be restored, whose heart he had never- 
 theless lost'); and finally, and perhaps above all, by 
 the peculiar position selected by the Almighty ^, for the 
 great national temple which was soon to rob Ephraim 
 of his ancient honours ^ ; for it was not to be planted 
 in Judah only, or in Benjamin only, but on the confines 
 of both ; so that whilst the altars, and the holy place, 
 were to stand within the borders of the one tribe, the 
 courts of the temple were to extend into the borders of 
 the other tribe *, and thus, the two were to be riveted 
 together, as it were, by a cramp, bound by a sacred and 
 everlasting bond, being in a condition to exclaim, in a 
 sense peculiarly their own, " The Temple of the Lord, 
 the Temple of the Lord are we." 
 
 We have thus traced, by means of the hints with 
 which Scripture supplies us (for little more than hints 
 have we had), the two great confederacies into which the 
 tribes were gradually, perhaps unwittingly, subsiding ; 
 as well as some of the circumstances by which either 
 confederacy was cemented. Let us pursue the subject, 
 
 ' 2 Sam. iii. 13. ■* Comp. Josh. xv. 63, and 
 
 ^ 1 Chron. xxviii. 11. xviii. 28; and see Lightfoot, Vol. 
 
 3 Psalm Ixxviii. 67. i. p. 1050, fol. 
 
182 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 but still by means of the under-current of the history- 
 only, towards the schism. 
 
 And now Ephraim was called upon to witness pre- 
 parations for the transfer of the seat of national worship 
 from himself to his great rival, with something, we may 
 believe, of the anguish of Phinehas' wife, when she 
 heard that the Ark of God was taken, and Shiloli to be 
 no longer its resting-place ; and I-chabod might be the 
 name for the mothers of Ephraim at that hour to give 
 to their offspring, seeing that the glory was departing 
 from among them \ For what desolation and disgrace 
 were felt to accompany this loss may be gathered from 
 more passages than one in Jeremiah, where he threatens 
 Jerusalem with a like visitation, " I will do unto this 
 house " (saith the Lord, by the mouth of the prophet), 
 " which is called by my name, wherein ye trust, and 
 unto the place which I gave to you, and to your fathers, 
 as I have done to Shiloh. And I will cast you out of 
 my sight, as I have cast out all your brethren, even the 
 wJiole seed of Ephraim^ And again — " I will make 
 this house like Shiloh, and will make this city a curse 
 to all the nations of the earth." ^ With a heavy heart, 
 then, must this high-spirited and ambitious tribe have 
 found that " the place which God had chosen to set his 
 name there" (so often spoken of by Moses, and the 
 choice suspended so long,) was at length determined, 
 and determined against him ; that his expectation (for 
 such would probably be indulged) that God would 
 finally fix his seat where He had so long fixed his 
 Tabernacle, was overthrown ; that the Messiah, whom 
 some sanguine interpreters of the prophets amongst 
 his sons had declared should come from between his 
 
 ' 1 Sam. iv. 21. | - Jer. vii. 14, 15; xxvi. 6. 
 
Pabt II. 
 
 HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 
 
 183 
 
 feet, was not to be of him ' ; but that " refusing the 
 tabernacle of Joseph, and not choosing any longer the 
 tribe of Ephraim, (mark the patriotic exultation with 
 which the Psalmist proclaims this,) God chose the Tribe 
 of JudaJi and Mount Zion, which he loved." ^ 
 
 Such was the posture of the nation of Israel, such 
 the temper of the times, " a breach," as it were, " ready 
 to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking 
 cometli suddenly at an instant," when Solomon began 
 to collect workmen, and to levy taxes throughout all 
 Israel, for those vast and costly structures which he 
 reared, even "the house of the Lord and his own house, 
 and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem," ^ besides many 
 more ; in some of them, indeed, showing himself the 
 pious founder, or the patriot prince ; but in some, the 
 luxurious sensualist ; and in some, again, the dissolute 
 patron of idolatry *. On, however, he went ; and as if 
 in small things as well as great, this growing division 
 amongst the tribes (fatal as it was in many respects to 
 prove) was ever to be fostered ; as if the coming event 
 was on every occasion to be casting its shadow before, 
 a separate ruler, w^e read, "was placed over all the 
 charge of the house of Joseph ;" ^ that is, one individual 
 was made overseer over the work, or the tribute, or 
 both, of the ten tribes ; for so I understand the phrase, 
 agreeably to its meaning in other passages of Scripture ^. 
 
 ^ See on this subject, AUix, 
 Reflections upon the Four last 
 Books of Moses, p. 180. 
 
 * Psalm Ixxviii; 67. 
 
 ^ 1 Kings ix. 15. 
 
 " Ibid. xi. 7. 
 
 •5 Ibid. xi. 28. 
 
 '' See 3 Sam. xix. 20, and Pole 
 
 in loc. TrfOTi^oi; TravTo; 'itr^arjA Kdl 
 
 oiKov 'luavi'P. Sept. The rights 
 of primogeniture, which Reuben 
 had forfeited, appear to have 
 been divided between Judah and 
 Joseph : to Judah, the headship \ 
 to Joseph the double portion of 
 the eldest son, and whatever else 
 belonged to the " birthright." 
 See I Chron. v. 2. Thus the 
 
184 
 
 THE VERACITY OF THE 
 
 Part II. 
 
 And who was he ? — a young man, an industrious man, 
 a mighty man of valour, (for these qualities Solomon 
 made choice of him,) and above all, a man of Bphraim^; 
 Jeroboam it was. 
 
 It is impossible to imagine events working more 
 steadily towards a given point, than here. The knot 
 had already shown itself far from indissoluble, and now, 
 time, opportunity, and a skilful hand, combine to loose 
 it. Here we have a great body of artificers, almost an 
 army of themselves, kept together some twenty years — 
 Ephraimites and their colleagues engaged in works con- 
 secrated to the glory and aggrandizement of Judah and 
 Benjamin, rather than to their own — Ephraimites con- 
 tributing to the removal of the seat of government from 
 Ephraim to Judah — Ephraimites paying taxes great and 
 grievous, not merely to the erection of a national place 
 of worship, (for to this they might have given consent, 
 the command being of God,) but to the construction of 
 palaces for princes, never again to be of their own line ; 
 and temples for the idols of those princes, living and 
 dead, which were expressly contrary to the command of 
 God — and lastly, we have an Ephraimite, even Jero- 
 boam, with every talent for mischief, endowed with 
 every opportunity for exercising it, put into an office 
 
 people of Israel became bicejjs, 
 and were comprised under the 
 names of the two heads. See 
 Judges X. 9, where the house of 
 Ephraim is synonymous with the 
 house of Joseph. 
 
 Lightfoot considers Joseph to 
 have been the principal family 
 while the Ark was at Shiloh, and 
 all Israel to have been named 
 after it, as in Ps. Ixxx. 1, but 
 
 that when God refused Joseph, 
 and chose Judah for the chief, 
 Ps. Ixxviii. 68, 69, then there 
 began, and continued, a differ- 
 ence and distinction betwixt 
 Israel and Judah, Joseph and 
 Judah, Ephraim and Judah, the 
 rest of the tribes being called by 
 all these names, in opposition to 
 Judah. — Lightfoot, i. 66, fol. 
 ' 1 Kings xi. 26. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 185 
 
 which at once invested him with authority, and secured 
 him from suspicion, so that his future crown was but 
 the consummation of his present intrigues ; the issue of 
 his own subtilty, and the people's discontent. Nor is 
 this matter of conjecture. Is it not written in the 
 Book of Kings (most casually, however), that the people 
 of Israel — I speak of Israel as distinguished from Judah 
 and Benjamin — in the first moment of madness, on the 
 accession of Rehoboam, wreaked their vengeance — 
 upon whom, of all men? — upon Adoniram, the very 
 man whom Solomon his father had appointed to levy 
 men and means throughout Israel, the tax-gatherer for 
 the erection of these stupendous works ! and him, the 
 victim of popular indignation, did all Israel stone with 
 stones till he died \ The wisdom and policy of Solo- 
 mon, indeed, in spite of his faults and follies, upheld 
 his empire till the last, and saved it from falling in 
 pieces before the time ; but how completely the fulness 
 of that time was come is clear, when no sooner was he 
 dead, than his son, and rightful successor, found it ex- 
 pedient to hasten to Shechem, there to meet all Israel, 
 conscious as he was, that however his title was admitted 
 by Judah, it was quite another thing whether Ephraim 
 would give in his allegiance too ; and, as the event 
 proved, his apprehensions were not without a caused 
 
 And now Jeroboam, a man to seize upon any seem- 
 ing advantages which his situation afforded him, at once 
 enlisted the ancient sympathies of the people, by forth- 
 with rebuilding Shechem, which had been burned by 
 Abimelech^ and making it his residence, though he had 
 all the northern tribes among whom to choose; and, 
 with similar policy, he proceeded to provide for them a 
 
 1 1 Kings V. 14; xii. 18. 
 ^ Ibid. xii. 1. 
 
 ^ 1 Kings xii. 25, 
 
186 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 worship of their own, nor would allow that "in Jerusa- 
 lem alone was the place where men ought to worship" — 
 a worship, rather, I think, a gross corruption, than an 
 utter abandonment of the true, the idolatry of the 
 second, more than of the first commandment, though 
 the two offences are very closely connected, and almost 
 of necessity run into one another. For I observe, 
 throughout the whole history of the kings of Israel, 
 a distinction made between the sin of Jeroboam and 
 the worship of Baal, somewhat in favour of the former; 
 and that, offensive as they both were to the one Eternal 
 and Invisible God, Baal-worship was the greater abomi- 
 nation. Perhaps, too, it may be added, that this dis- 
 tinction is recognised by the Apostle, whose words are, 
 that, " the glory of the uncorruptible God was," — not 
 altogether abjured — but " changed into an image made 
 like four-footed beasts." ' But, however this may be, 
 a worship of their own, independent of the temple, and 
 of the regular priesthood, Jeroboam established, still 
 building upon the religious rites of old time, and ac- 
 commodating the calendar of feasts in some measure to 
 that which had existed before^; and whatever might 
 be his reason for selecting Bethel for one of his calves, 
 whether the holy character of the place itself, or its 
 vicinity to the still holier Shiloh ', whither the people 
 had habitually resorted, I discover a very sufficient rea- 
 son for his choice of Dan for the other, exclusive of all 
 consideration of local convenience, the curious circum- 
 stance, that in this town there had already prevailed for 
 ages a form of worship, or of idolatry (I should rather 
 say), very closely resembling that which he now pro- 
 posed to set up throughout Israel, and furnishing him, 
 
 1 Rom. i. 23. I U ; ix. 5. 
 
 - 1 Kings xii. 32; Hosea ii. | ' Judges xxi. 19. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 187 
 
 if not with a strict precedent, at least with a most suit- 
 able foundation on which to w^ork. For in this town 
 stood the teraphim, or images of Micah, whatever might 
 be their shape, which the original founders of Dan had 
 taken with them, and planted there ; and a priesthood 
 there was to minister to these images, precisely like 
 that of Jeroboam, not of the sacerdotal order, for they 
 were sons of Manasseh; and thus was there an organized 
 system of dissent from the national church, existing in 
 the town of Dan, " all the time that the House of God 
 was in Shiloh ;" ^ and thus was accomplished, I suspect, 
 that mysterious prediction of Jacob, " Dan shall be a 
 serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth 
 the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward." ^ 
 On the present occasion, those undesigned coincidences, 
 which are the staple of my argument, have not been 
 presented in so perspicuous a manner as they may have 
 been sometimes ; for the attention has, in this instance, 
 been directed not to one point, singled out of several, 
 but to the details of a continuous history. This I could 
 not avoid. At the same time, these details, on a review 
 of them, will be found to involve many minute coin- 
 cidences, and those just such as constitute the difference 
 between the best-imagined story in the world and a 
 narrative of actual facts. For let this be borne in mind, 
 that the sketch which I have offered of the gradual de- 
 velopment of the schism between Israel and Judah, is 
 by no means an abridgment of the obvious Scripture 
 account of it — very far from it. — Looking to that part 
 of Scripture which directly relates to this schism, and 
 confining ourselves to that, we might be led to think 
 the rent of the kingdom as sudden and unshaped an 
 event, as the rending of the prophet's mantle, which was 
 
 ' Jmk'es xviii. 31. I ^ Gen. xlix. 17. 
 
188 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 its type : for here, as elsewhere, the history is rapid 
 and abrupt. What I have offered is, strictly speaking, 
 a theory ; a theory by which a great many loose and 
 scattered data, such as Scripture affords to a diligent 
 inquirer, and to no other, are, with much seeming con- 
 sistency, combined into a whole ; it is the pattern which 
 gradually comes out, when the many-coloured threads, 
 gleaned up as we have gone along, are worked into 
 a web. 
 
 1. For instance — I can conceive it very possible, 
 without claiming to myself any peculiar sagacity, for a 
 man to read, and not inattentively either, the sacred 
 books from Joshua to Chronicles, and yet never happen 
 to be struck with the fact that Ephraim was a leading 
 tribe — that it was the head, allowed or understood, of an 
 easy confederacy ; the thing is scarcely to be discovered 
 but by the apposition of many passages, dispersed 
 through these books, bearing, perhaps, little or no rela- 
 tion to one another, except that of having a common 
 bias towards this one point. The same may be said of 
 the main cause of this comparative superiority of Eph- 
 raim, the accidental, as some would call it, — as we will 
 call it, the providential — establishment of the Taber- 
 nacle within its borders. The circumstance of Shiloh 
 being the place whither all Israel went up to worship 
 for three centuries and more, all important as it was to 
 the tribe whom it concerned, is not ptct fofward either 
 as accounting for the prosperity of Ephraim above its 
 fellows, whilst in Ephraim the Ark stood ; or for the 
 jealousy which it discovered towards Judah, "wlien 
 to Judah the Ark had been transferred ; nor yet as 
 being the natural means by which the remarkable 
 words of Jacob were brought to pass, touching the 
 future pre-eminence of Ephraim and Judah, howbeit. 
 
Paet II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 189 
 
 as tribes, they were then but in the loins of their 
 fathers. So far from this, when in the Book of Joshua 
 Ave are told that the Tabernacle was set up in Shiloh, 
 not a syllable is added by which we can guess where 
 Shiloh was, whether in Ephraim or elsewhere ^ ; and it 
 is only after some investigation, and by inference at 
 last, that in Ephraim we can fix it. 
 
 2. The same is true of the league between Benjamin 
 and Judah. What were the sympathies beyond mere 
 proximity, which cemented them so firmly, is altogether 
 a matter for ourselves to unravel, if unravel it we can. 
 We see them, indeed, acting in concert, as we also see 
 the other tribes acting, but the books of Scripture enter 
 into no explanations in either case. Nevertheless, I 
 find in one place, that Saul, the first king, was of 
 Benjamin, and in another, that David, the second king, 
 was of Judah, with a prospect of a continuance of the 
 succession in that line ; and here I perceive a mutual 
 sympathy likely to spring out of the exclusive honours 
 of the two royal tribes. Elsewhere, I find that the two 
 royal houses of Saul and David were united by mar- 
 riage, and here I detect a further approximation. I 
 look again, and learn that a temple was built for national 
 worship in a city, which one text places in Judah, and 
 a parallel text in Benjamin, leaving me to infer (as was 
 the fact) that the city was on the confines of both, and 
 that upon the confines of both (as was also the fact) the 
 foundations of the temple were laid. In these, and 
 perhaps in other similar matters, which might be enu- 
 merated, I certainly do discover elements of union, how- 
 ever the writers, who record them, may never speak of 
 them as such. 
 
 3. Again, the motives which operated with Jeroboam 
 
 ^ Josh, xviii. I . 
 
190 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 in the selection of Shechem for his residence, or of 
 Dan for his idolatry, are not even glanced at, though, 
 in either instance, reasons there were, we have seen, to 
 make the choice judicious. And whilst we are told 
 that he fled from Solomon, when the conspirator was 
 detected in him, or Avlien Ahijah's prophecy awakened 
 the monarch's fears, and went into Egypt, and that 
 from Egypt, at the death of Solomon, he hasted back 
 to take his part in those stirring times, no hint, the 
 most remote, is thrown out, that his sojourn in that 
 idolatrous land, and the peculiar nature of its idolatry, 
 influenced him in the choice of a calf for the represen- 
 tative of his own God, though the one fact does very 
 curiously corroborate the other, and still adds credibility 
 to the M'hole history. 
 
 In all this I discover much of coincidence, nothing of 
 design. I see an extraordinary revolution asserted, and, 
 then my eyes being opened, I perceive that the seeds 
 of it, not however described as such, and often so small 
 as to be easily overlooked, had been cast upon the 
 waters generations before. I see coalitions and con- 
 vulsions in the body politic of Israel, and I find, not 
 without some pains-taking, and after all but in part, 
 attractive or repulsive principles at work in that body, 
 which, without being named as causes, do account for 
 such effects. I see both in persons and places, so soon 
 as I become intimately acquainted with their several 
 bearings, something appropriate to the events with 
 which they are connected, though I see nothing of the 
 kind at first, because no such propriety ajjpears upon 
 the surface. These I hold to be the characters of truth, 
 and the history upon which they are stamj^ted I accord- 
 ingly receive, nothing doubting — meanwhile, not failing 
 to remark, and to admire, the silent transition of events 
 
Pakt II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 191 
 
 into those very channels which Jacob in spirit had 
 declared ages before; and to acknowledge, without 
 attempting fully to understand, the mysterious work- 
 ings of that Controlling Power, which can make men 
 its instruments without making them its tools ; at once 
 compelling them to do his will, and permitting them 
 to do their own ; proving Himself faithful, and leaving 
 them free. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 The next coincidences I have to offer will turn on the 
 condition of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah, 
 whether political or religious, as it was affected by their 
 separation ; and will supply evidence to the truth of the 
 history. 
 
 " And Baasha, king of Israel," we read, " went up 
 against Judah, and built Ramah, that he might not 
 suffer any to go out or come in to Asa, king of 
 Judah."' 
 
 Ramah seems to have been a border town, between 
 the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and to have stood in 
 such a position as to be the key to either. The King 
 of Israel, however, was the party anxious to fortify it, 
 not the King of Judah ; indeed, the latter, as we learn 
 from the Chronicles^ did his best to frustrate the 
 efforts of Baasha, and succeeded, apparently not desirous 
 of having Ramah converted into a place of strength, 
 though it should be in his own keeping ; for Asa having 
 contrived to draw Baasha away from this work, does 
 not seize upon it and complete it for himself, but con- 
 tents himself with carrying off the stones and the 
 timber, and using them elsewhere. It is evident, 
 therefore, that it was an object with the kings of 
 
 ^ 1 Kings XV. 17. I '^2 Chron. xvi. 6. 
 
192 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 Israel, that this strong frontier-post should be esta- 
 blished, — with the kings of Judah, that it should be 
 removed. Now this is singular, when we remember, 
 that after the schism the numerical strength lay vastly 
 on the side of Israel, one hundred and eighty thousand 
 men being all that Judah could then count in his 
 ranks \ whereas eight hundred thousand were actually 
 produced a few years afterwards by Jeroboam, and 
 even then he was not what he had been^. It was to 
 be expected, therefore, that the fear of invasion would 
 have been upon Judah alone, the weaker state, and 
 that, accordingly, Judah would have gladly taken and 
 kept possession of a fortress which was the bridle of 
 the kingdom on that side, and have made it strong for 
 himself Yet, as we have seen, the fact was quite the 
 other way. How is this to be explained ? By a single 
 circumstance, which accounts for a great deal besides 
 this ; though the explanation presents itself in the most 
 incidental manner imaginable, and without the smallest 
 reference to the particular case of Ramah. 
 
 In the twelfth chapter of the first Book of Kings, I 
 read (v. 20), that "Jeroboam said in his heart, Now 
 shall the kingdom return to the house of David, if this 
 people go up to sacrifice in the house of the Lord at 
 Jerusalem ;" and that accordingly he set up a worship 
 of his own in Bethel and Dan. 
 
 In the eleventh chapter of the second Book of 
 Chronicles, I read (v. 14), that " he cast off the Levites" 
 (as indeed it was most natural that he should) " from 
 executing the priest's office," and ordained him priests 
 after his own pleasure. I read further, that in conse- 
 quence of this subversion of the Church of God, " the 
 priests and the Levites that were in all Israel resorted 
 ^ 1 Kings xii. 21. | - 2 Chron. xiii. 3. 
 
Part II. HISTOKICAL SCRIPTURES. 193 
 
 unto Judah out of all their coasts ;" nor they only, the 
 ministers of God, who might well migrate, but that 
 " after them out of all the tribes of Israel, such as set 
 their hearts to seek the Lord God of their fathers ; so 
 they strengthened " (it is added) " the kingdom of 
 Judah, and made Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, 
 strong" (v. 16, 17). The son of Nebat was a great 
 politician in his own way, but he had yet to learn, that 
 by righteousness is a nation really exalted, and that its 
 righteous citizens are those by whom the throne is in 
 truth upheld. These he was condemned to lose ; these 
 he and his ungodly successors were to see gradually 
 waste away before their eyes ; depart from a kingdom 
 founded in iniquity, and transfer their allegiance to 
 another and a better soil. Hence the natural solicitude 
 of Israel to put a stop to the alarming drainage of all 
 that was virtuous out of their borders, and the clumsy 
 contrivance of a fortification at Ramah for the purpose ; 
 as though a spirit of uncompromising devotion to God, 
 happily the most unconquerable of things, was to be 
 coerced by a barrier of bricks. Hence, too, the no less 
 natural solicitude of Judah to remove this fortification, 
 Judah being desirous that no obstacle, however small, 
 should be opposed to the influx of those virtuous 
 Israelites, who would be the strength of any nation 
 wherein they settled. Here I find a coincidence of the 
 most satisfactory kind, between the building of Ramah 
 by Israeli the overthrow of it by Judah, and the tide of 
 emigration which was setting in from Israel towards 
 Judah, by reason of Jeroboam's idolatry. Yet the rela- 
 tion of these events to one another is not expressed in 
 the history, nor are the events named under the same 
 head, or in the same chapter. 
 
 o 
 
194 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 Nor is this all. Still keeping in mind this single con- 
 sideration, that the more godly of the people of the ten 
 tribes were disgusted at the calves, and retired, we may 
 at once account for the progressive augmentation of the 
 armies of Judah, and the corresponding decrease of the 
 armies of Israel, which the subsequent history of the 
 two kingdoms casually, and at intervals, displays. 
 
 Immediately after the separation, Rehoboam assem- 
 bled the forces of his two tribes, and found them, as I 
 have said, one hundred and eighty thousand men. Some 
 eighteen years afterwards, Ahijah, his son, was able to 
 raise against Jeroboam (who still, however, was vastly 
 stronger) four hundred thousand'. This is a consider- 
 able step. Some six or seven years later, Asa, the son 
 of Ahijah, is invaded by a countless host of Ethiopians. 
 On this occasion, notwithstanding the numbers which 
 must have fallen already in the battle with Jeroboam, 
 he brings into the field five hundred and eighty thousand: 
 so rapidly were the resources of Judah on the advance. 
 About two and thirty years later still, the army of 
 Jehoshaphat, the son of Asa, consists of one million one 
 hundred and sixty thousand men ^; a prodigious increase 
 in the population of the kingdom of Judah. 
 
 On the other hand, we may trace (the act, it must 
 be observed, is altogether our own, no such comparison 
 being instituted in the history,) the gradual decay and 
 depopulation of the kingdom of Israel. Jeroboam him- 
 self, we have found, was eight hundred thousand strong. 
 The continual diminution of this national army, we 
 cannot, in the present instance, always trace from actual 
 
 ' 2 Chron. xiii. 3. I ~ 2 Chron. xvii. 14—18. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 195 
 
 numbers, as we did in the former; but, from circum- 
 stances which transpire in the history, we can trace it 
 by inference. Thus, Ahab, one of the successors of 
 Jeroboam, and contemporary with Jehoshaphat, whose 
 immense armaments we have seen, is threatened by 
 Benhadad and the Syrians. Benhadad will send men 
 to take out of his house, and out of the houses of his 
 servants, whatever is pleasant in their eyes\ It is the 
 insolent message of one who felt Israel to be weak, and 
 being weak, to invite aggression. Favoured by a panic, 
 Ahab triumphs for the once ; but at the return of the 
 year Benhadad returns. Ahab is warned of this long 
 before. "Go strengthen thyself," is the friendly ex- 
 hortation of the prophet (v. 22) ; — no doubt he did so, 
 to the best of his means, but after all, " when the 
 children of Israel were numbered, and were all present, 
 and went against them, the children of Israel pitched 
 before the Syrians like two little flocks of kids, but the 
 Syrians filled the country" (v. 27). And in Joram's 
 days, the son and successor of Ahab, such was the 
 boldness of Syria, and the weakness of Israel, that the 
 former was constantly sending marauding parties, "com- 
 panies," as they are called, or " bands," ^ into Israel's 
 quarters, sometimes taking the inhabitants captive, and 
 sometimes even laying siege to considerable towns ^ 
 And in the reign of Jehu, the next king, Syria, with 
 Hazael at its head, crippled Israel still more terribly, 
 actually seizing upon all the land of Jordan eastward, 
 Gilead, the Gadites, the Reubenites, and the Manas- 
 sites, from Aroer to Bashan^ And to complete the 
 picture, the whole army of Jehoahaz, the next in the 
 royal succession of Israel, consisted of fifty horsemen, 
 
 ^ 1 Kings XX. 6. 1^2 Kings vi. 14. 23. 
 
 ^ 2 Kings V. 2; vi. 23; xiii. 21. | -■ Ibid. x. 33. 
 
 O 2 
 
196 THE VERACITY OF THE Paet II. 
 
 ten chariots, and ten thousand foot, Syria having exter- 
 minated the rest ^ : so gradually was Israel upon the 
 decline. 
 
 Now it must be remembered, in order that the force 
 of the argument may be felt, that no parallel of the 
 kind we have been drawing is found in the history 
 itself; no invitation to others to draw one. The ma- 
 terials for doing so it does indeed furnish, dispersed, 
 however, over a wide field, and less definite than might 
 be wished, were our object to ascertain the relative 
 strength of the two kingdoms with exactness : that, 
 however, it is not ; and the very circumstance, that the 
 gradual growth of Judah and declension of Israel are 
 sometimes to be gathered from other facts than positive 
 numerical evidence, is enough in itself to show that the 
 historian could have no design studiously to point out 
 the coincidence of facts with his casual assertion, that 
 the Levites had been supplanted by the priests of the 
 calves, and that multitudes had quitted the country 
 with them, in just indignation. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 There is still another coincidence which falls under the 
 same head. 
 
 In the fifteenth chapter of the first Book of Kings, 
 (v. 27) I read that " Baasha the son of Ahijah, of the 
 house of Issachar, conspired against him {i. e. Nadab 
 the son of Jeroboam) at GihhetJion, which belonged to 
 the Philistines ; for Nadab and all Israel laid siege to 
 Gibbethon." 
 
 It appears, then, that Gibbethon, situated in the 
 tribe of Dan, had by some means or other fallen into 
 the hands of the Philistines, and that the forces of 
 
 ' "2 Kings xiii. 7. 
 
Part II. 
 
 HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 
 
 197 
 
 Israel were now engaged in recovering possession of it. 
 It may seem a very hopeless undertaking, at this time 
 of day, to ascertain the circumstances of which an 
 enemy availed himself, in order to gain possession of a 
 particular town in Canaan, near three thousand years 
 ago. Yet, perhaps, the investigation, distant as it is, is 
 not desperate ; for in the twenty-first chapter of Joshua 
 (v. 23), I find Gibbethon and her suburbs mentioned as 
 a city of the Levites. Now Jeroboam, we have heard, 
 drove all the Levites out of Israel : what, then, can be 
 more probable, than that Gibbethon, being thus sud- 
 denly evacuated, the Philistines, a remnant of the old 
 enemy, still lurking in the country, and ever ready to 
 rush in wherever there was a breach, should have spied 
 an opportunity in the defenceless state of Gibbethon, 
 and claimed it as their own ^ ? It is, indeed, far from 
 improbable that this story of Gibbethon is that of many 
 other Levitical cities throughout Israel; that this is 
 but a ghmpse of much similar confusion, misery, and 
 intestine tumult, by which that kingdom was now con- 
 vulsed ; and, though a solitary fact in itself, a type of 
 
 ' That the Philistines were 
 thus dispersed over the land may 
 be gathered from many hints in 
 Scripture ; even in the kingdom 
 of Judah they were to he found, 
 much more in Israel. " Some of 
 the Philistines brought Jehosha- 
 phat presents, andtributesilver," 
 2 Chron. xvii^ 11. Probably the 
 miscreants mentioned 1 Kings xv. 
 12, whom Asa expelled, and those 
 mentioned xxii. 46, whom Jeho- 
 shaphat his son drove out, and 
 those again mentioned 2 Kings 
 xxiii. 7, who were established 
 even at Jerusalem, whom Josiah 
 
 cast out, were all of this nation. 
 And there still were Hittites 
 somewhere at hand, who had even 
 kings of their own, 1 Kings x. 
 29 ; 2 Kings vii. 6 ; and we read 
 of a land of the Philistines, where 
 the Shunammite sojourned during 
 the famine, 2 Kings viii. 2 ; and, 
 indeed, the Philistines are one of 
 the nations against whom Jere- 
 miah prophesies as about to be 
 destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, 
 (xlvii. 4,) all evident tokens that 
 a considerable body of the primi- 
 tive inhabitants of Palestine still 
 dwelt in it. 
 
198 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 many more; — and thus, in another way, did the profane 
 act of Jeroboam operate to the downfall of his kingdom, 
 and fatally eat into its strength. 
 
 Whether I am right in this conjecture, it is im- 
 possible to tell; the case does not admit of positive 
 decision either way; but, certainly the grounds upon 
 which it rests are, to say the least, very specious ; and 
 if they are sound, as I think they are, I cannot imagine 
 a point of harmony more complete, or more undesigned, 
 than that which we have found between these half-dozen 
 Avords touching Gibbethon, a Levitical city, lapsing into 
 the hands of the Philistines, and the expulsion of the 
 Levites out of Israel by the sin of Jeroboam. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 Nor is this all. There is another and a still more 
 valuable coincidence yet, connected with this part of 
 my subject ; more valuable, because involving in itself 
 a greater number of particulars, and, therefore, more 
 liable to a flaw, if the combination was artificial. When 
 Elijah has worked his great miracle on the top of 
 Carmel, and kindled the sacrifice by fire from heaven, 
 he has to fly from Jezebel for his life, who sAvears that, 
 by the morrow, she will deal with him as he had dealt 
 ■with the prophets of Baal her god, and slay him\ Now 
 when it was so common a practice, as we have seen, for 
 the godly amongst the people of Israel to betake them- 
 selves to Judah in their distress, there to worship the 
 God of their fathers without scandal and without per- 
 secution, it seems obvious that this was the place for 
 Elijah to repair unto ; the most appropriate, for it was 
 because he had been very jealous for the Lord, that he 
 
 ^ 1 Kings xviii. 40 ; xix. U. 
 
Pakt II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 199 
 
 was banished — the most convenient, for no other was 
 so near ; he had but to cross the borders, one would 
 think, and he was safe. Yet neither on this occasion, 
 nor yet during the three preceding years of drought, 
 when Ahab sought to lay hands upon him, did Elijah 
 seek sanctuary in Judah. First he hides himself by 
 the brook Cherith, which is before Jordan'; then at 
 " Zarephath which belongs to Zidon ;" and though he 
 does at last, when his case seems desperate, and his 
 hours are numbered by Jezebel's sentence, " come in 
 haste to Beer-Sheba, which belongeth to Judah,'' ^ still 
 it is after a manner which bespeaks his reluctance to 
 set foot within that territory, even more than if he had 
 evaded it altogether. Tarry he will not ; he separates 
 from his servant, probably for the greater security of 
 both ; goes a day's journey into the wilderness, and for- 
 lorn, and spirit-broken, and alone, begs that he may die; 
 then he wanders away, being so taught of God, forty 
 days and forty nights, till he comes to Horeb, the 
 Mount of God, and there conceals himself in a cave. 
 Now all this is at first sight very strange and unac- 
 countable ; strange and unaccountable that the Prophet 
 of God should so studiously avoid Judah, the people of 
 God, governed as it then was by Jehoshaphat, a prince 
 who walked Avith God^ — Judah being, of all others, a 
 shelter the nearest and most convenient. How is it to 
 be explained ? 
 
 I doubt not by this fact ; that Jehoshaphat, king of 
 
 ^ It is true that there is great at the time in Samaria, it is clear 
 difference of opinion as to the | that it could not he in Judah. — 
 
 situation of this hrook Cherith ; 
 but from the direction given to 
 Elijah being to turn Eastivard, 
 when he was to go there, he being 
 
 Consult Lightfoot, Vol. ii. 318, 
 fol. 
 
 ^1 Kings xix. 3. 
 
 •' 1 Kings xxii. 43. 
 
200 THE VERACITY OF THE Pabt II. 
 
 Judah, had already married, or was then upon the point 
 of marrying, his son Jehoram to Atlialiali^ the daughter 
 of this very Ahab, and this very Jezebel, who were seek- 
 ing Elijah's life'; his, therefore, was not now the king- 
 dom in which Elijah could feel that a residence was 
 safe ; for by this ill-omened match (such it proved) the 
 houses of Jehoshaphat and Ahab were so strictly 
 identified, that we find the former, when solicited by 
 Ahab to join him in an expedition against Ramoth- 
 gilead, expressing himself in such terms as these : " I 
 am as thou art, my people as thy people, my horses as 
 thy horses ;"^ and in allusion, as it should seem, to this 
 fraternity of the two kings, Jehoshaphat is in one place 
 actually called " King of Israel."^ 
 
 It may be demonstrated that this fatal marriage (for 
 such it was in its consequences) was, at any rate, con- 
 tracted not later than the tenth or eleventh of Ahab's 
 reign, and it might have been much earlier ; whilst 
 these scenes in the life of Elijah could not have occur- 
 red within the first few years of that reign, seeing that 
 Ahab had to fill up the measure of his wickedness after 
 he came to the throne, before the Prophet was com- 
 missioned to take up his parable against him. I men- 
 tion these two facts, as tending to prove that the exile 
 of Elijah could not have fallen out long, if at all, 
 before the marriage ; and therefore that the latter 
 event, whether past or in prospect, might well bear 
 upon it. I say that it may be proved that this mar- 
 riage was not later than the tenth or eleventh of Ahab 
 —for 
 
 X. Ahaziali, the fruit of the marriage, the son of 
 
 ^ 2 Kings viii. 18; 2 Clirou. 
 xviii. 1. 
 
 ^ 1 Kings xxii. 4. 
 '^ 2 Cliron. xxi. 3. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 201 
 
 Jehoram and Athaliah, began to reign in the kvelfth 
 year of Joram, son of Aliab, king of Israeli 
 
 2. But Joram began to reign in tlie eighteenth year 
 of Jehoshaphat, king of Juclah^ 
 
 3. Therefore, the twelfth of Joram would answer to 
 the thirtieth of Jehoshaphat (had the latter reigned so 
 long ; it did, in fact, answer to the seventh of Jehoram, 
 the son of Jehoshaphat^ but there is no need to 
 perplex the computation by any reference to this 
 reign) ; and accordingly Ahaziah must have begun his 
 reign in what would correspond to the thirtieth of 
 Jehoshaphat. 
 
 4. But he was twenty-two when he began it. There- 
 fore he must have been born about the eighth year of 
 Jehoshaphat ; and consequently the marriage of Jeho- 
 ram and Athaliah, which gave birth to him, must have 
 been contracted at least as early as the sixth or seventh 
 of Jehoshaphat. 
 
 5. NoAv Jehoshaphat began to reign in the fourth 
 of Ahab, king of Israel ; therefore the marriage must 
 have been solemnized as early as the tenth or eleventh 
 of Ahab — how much earlier it was solemnized, in fact, 
 we cannot tell ; but the result is extremely curious ; 
 and without the most remote allusion to it on the part 
 of the sacred historian, as being an incident in any 
 way governing the movements of Elijah, it does furnish, 
 when we are once in possession of it, a most satisfactory 
 explanation of the shyness of Elijah to look for a refuge 
 in a country wdiere, almost under any other circum- 
 stances, it was the most natural he should have sought 
 one ; and, where, at any other time, since the division 
 
 ^ 2 Kings viii. *25, 26. 
 ^ Ibid. iii. 1. 
 
 •' Comp. 2 Kings iii. 1 ; viii. 16. 
 ] Kings xxii. 42. 
 
202 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 of the kingdoms, he certainly would have found not 
 only a refuge, but a welcome. 
 
 XX. 
 
 I HAVE already advanced several arguments for the 
 truth of that remarkable portion of Scripture which 
 tells the history of the great prophet Elijah, and 
 showed, that, on comjiaring some of the reputed events 
 of his life with the political and domestic state of his 
 country at the time, the reality of those events was 
 established beyond all reasonable doubt. But I have 
 not yet done with this part of my subject ; and I press 
 on the notice of my readers once again, as I have re- 
 peatedly pressed it before, the consideration that these 
 casual indications of truth, found in the very midst of 
 miracles the most striking, give great support to the 
 credibility of those miracles ; that the portions of the 
 history on which these seals of truth are set, combine 
 with the other and more extraordinary portions so 
 intimately^ that if the former are to be received, the 
 latter cannot be rejected without extreme violence, and 
 laceration of the whole ; that standing or falling, they 
 must stand or fall together. 
 
 I spoke before of the flight of Elijah, and gave my 
 reasons for believing it. I speak now of a trifling in- 
 cident in that magnificent scene which is said to have 
 been the prologue to his flight. This it is. Twelve 
 barrels of water, at the command of the prophet, are 
 poured upon the sacrifice, and fill the trench. But is 
 it not a strange thing, that at a moment of drought so 
 intense, when the king himself and the governor of his 
 house, trusting the business to no inferior agent, actually 
 undertook to examine with their own eyes the water^- 
 
Pakt it. historical SCRIPTURES. 203 
 
 ing-places throughout all the land, dividing it between 
 them, to see if they could save the remainder of the 
 cattle alive'; when the prophet had been long before 
 compelled to leave Cherith, because the brook was 
 dried up, and for no reason else, and to crave at the 
 hands of the widow-woman of Zarephath, whither he 
 had removed, though a land of danger to him, a little 
 water in a vessel that he might drink ; is it not, I say, 
 a gross oversight in the sacred writer, to make Elijah, 
 at such a time, give order for this wanton waste of 
 water above all things, whereof scarcely a drop was to 
 be found to cool the tongue ; and not only so, but to 
 describe it as forthcoming at once, apparently without 
 any search made, an ample and abundant reservoir^? 
 How can these things be ? Let us but remember the 
 local position of Carmel, that it stood upon the coast, 
 as an incidental remark in the course of the narrative 
 testifies; that the water was therefore probably sea- 
 water ; and all the difficulty disappears. But the 
 historian does not trouble himself to satisfy our sur- 
 prise, being altogether unconscious that he has given 
 any cause for it ; he, honest man as he was, tells his 
 tale, a faithful one as he feels, and the objection which 
 we have alleged, and which a single word would have 
 extinguished, he leaves to shock us as it may, nothing 
 heeding. But would not an impostor have preserved 
 the keeping of his picture better, and been careful not 
 to violate seeming probabilities by this prodigal pro- 
 fusion of water, whilst his action was laid in a mira- 
 culous drought, for the removal of which, indeed, this 
 very sacrifice was offered — or, if of these twelve barrels 
 
 ^ 1 Kings xviii. 5. I the difficulty in this passage, but 
 
 - Bishop Hall in his Contem- not of its probable solution. B. 
 plations shows himself aware of I xviii. Contempl. 7. 
 
204 THE VERACITY OF THE Pakt II. 
 
 he must needs speak, by way of silencing all insinuation, 
 that the whole was a scene got up, and that fire was 
 secreted, would he not have studiously told us, at least, 
 that the water was from the sea which lay at the foot 
 of Carmel, and thus have guarded himself against scep- 
 tical remarks ? Now when I see this momentous period 
 of Elijah's ministry compassed in on every side with 
 tokens of truth so satisfactory ; when I see so much in 
 his history established as matter of fact, am I to con- 
 sider all that is not so established, merely because 
 materials are wanting for the purpose, as matters of 
 fiction only ? Or, taking my stand upon the good faith 
 with which his flight, at least, is recorded, an event 
 which, in itself, I look upon as proved beyond all rea- 
 sonable doubt by a former coincidence; or upon the 
 good faith with which his challenge at Carmel is re- 
 corded, an event not unsatisfactorily confirmed by this 
 coincidence ; or rather upon the veracity of both facts, 
 shall I not feel my way along from the prophet's recoil 
 on setting foot in Judah, to the anger of Jezebel, with 
 whom Judah was then in close alliance ; from this anger 
 of hers, to the cause assigned for it in the slaughter of 
 her priests ; from the slaughter of her priests, to the 
 authority by which he did the deed, himself a defence- 
 less individual, in a country full of the inveterate wor- 
 shippers of the God of those priests ; and thus, finally, 
 shall I not ascend to the mighty miracle by which that 
 authority was conveyed to him, God in pledge thereof 
 touching the mountain that it smoked ? 
 
 XXI. 
 
 Towards the end of the famine caused by this drought, 
 Elijah is commanded by God to "get him to Zarephath, 
 M'hich belongeth to Zidon, and dwell there ;" where a 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 205 
 
 widow- woman was to sustain him'. He goes; finds 
 the woman gathering sticks near the gate of the city ; 
 and asks her to fetch him a httle water and a morsel 
 of bread. She replies, " As the Lord thy God livetli, I 
 have not a cake, but an handful of meal in a barrel, and 
 a little oil in a cruse : and, behold, I am gathering two 
 sticks, that I may go in and dress it for me and my son, 
 that we may eat it, and die." ^ 
 
 This widow- woman then, it seems, dwelt at Zare- 
 phath, or Sarepta, which belongeth to Zidon. Now, from 
 a passage in the book of Joshua, ^ we learn that the 
 district of Zidon, in the division of the land of Canaan, 
 fell to the lot of Asher. Let us, then, turn to the 
 thirty-third chapter of Deuteronomy, where Moses 
 blesses the Tribes, and see the character he gives of 
 this part of the country : " Of Asher he said. Let Asher 
 be blessed with children ; let him be acceptable to his 
 brethren, and let him dip Ids foot in oil i'""^ indicating 
 the future fertility of that region, and the nature of its 
 principal crop. It is likely, therefore, that at the end 
 of a dearth of three years and a half, oil should be found 
 there, if anywhere. Yet this symptom of truth occurs 
 once more as an ingredient in a miraculous history — for 
 the oil was made not to fail till the rain came. The 
 incident itself is a very minute one ; and, minute as it is, 
 only discovered to be a coincidence by the juxtaposition 
 of several texts from several books of Scripture. It 
 would require a very circumspect forger of the story 
 to introduce the mention of the oil ; and when he had 
 introduced it, not be tempted to betray himself by 
 throwing out some slight hint why he had done so. 
 
 ^ 1 Kings xvii. 9. i ^ Josh. xix. 28. 
 
 * Ibid. xvii. 12. ^ Deut. xxxiii. 24. 
 
206 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 XXII. 
 
 Not long after this period, tlie history of Elisha fur- 
 nishes us with a coincidence characteristic, I think, of 
 truth. It appears that " a great woman" of Shechem 
 had befriended the prophet, finding him and his servant, 
 from time to time, as they passed by that place, food 
 and lodging. In return for this he sends her a mes- 
 sage : " Behold, thou hast been careful for us with all 
 this care ; what is to be done for thee ? wouldcst thou 
 be spoken f 07' to the king, or to the captain of the hostf' ^ 
 Now we should have gathered from previous passages 
 in Elisha's history, that Jehoram, who was then king of 
 Israel, was not one with whom he was upon such terms 
 as this proposition to the Shunammite implies. Jeho- 
 ram was the son of Ahab, his old master Elijah's enemy, 
 and apparently no friend of his own ; for when the 
 three kings, the king of Israel, the king of Judah, and 
 the king of Edom, in their distress for water, in their 
 expedition against Moab, wished to inquire of the Lord 
 through Elisha, his answer to the king of Israel was, 
 " As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, 
 surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jeho- 
 shaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, 
 nor see thee.'"^ What, then, had occurred in the inter- 
 val betwixt this avowal, and his proposal to the Shu- 
 nammite to use his influence in her favour at court, 
 which had changed his position with respect to the 
 king of Israel ? It may be supposed that it was the 
 sudden supply of water, which he had furnished these 
 kings with, by God's permission, thus saving the expe- 
 dition ; and the defeat of the enemy, to which it had 
 
 ' 2 Kings iv. 13. | ^2 Kings iii. 14. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 207 
 
 been instrumental '. This would naturally make Elisha 
 feel that the king of Israel was under obligations to 
 him and that he could ask a slight favour of him with- 
 out seeming to sanction the character of the man by 
 doing so. And this solution of the case appears to be 
 the more probable, from Elisha coupling the " captain 
 of the host'' with the king; as though his interest was 
 equally good with him too, which he might reasonably 
 consider it to be, when he had done the army such 
 signal service ; and it is further confirmed by another 
 incident related of this same Slmnammite in a subse- 
 quent chajiter. For having fled from the seven years' 
 famine into another country, she lost her house and 
 land in her own, on which she appealed to king Jeho- 
 ram. Accordingly, " the king talked with Gehazi, the 
 servant of the man of God, saying, Tell me, I pray thee, 
 all the great things Elisha hath done ; " ^ Elisha having 
 now, no doubt, actually recommended her case to the 
 king. And when Gehazi had named some of these 
 miracles, " the king appointed to her a certain oflScer, 
 saying. Restore all that was hers ;" so that the event 
 shows that Elisha on the former occasion had not mis- 
 calculated his powers, or the grounds on which he 
 might challenge the king's favours. 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 A WORD upon the marriage of which I spoke in a 
 former paragraph. Evil was the day for Judali when 
 the son of Jehoshaphat took for a wife the daughter of 
 Ahab, and of Jezebel, ten times the daughter. Sin- 
 gular, indeed, is the hideous resemblance of Athaliah to 
 her mother, though our attention is not at all directed 
 
 ' 2 Kings iii. 16, 17. ) - 2 Kings viii. 4. 
 
208 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 to the likeness ; and were the fidelity of the history 
 staked upon the few incidents in it which relate to this 
 female fiend, it would be safe — so characteristic are 
 they of the child of Jezebel — the same thirst for blood ; 
 the same lust of dominion, whether in the state or the 
 household ; the same unfeminine influence over the 
 kings their husbands ; Jezebel the setter-up of Baal 
 in Israel ; Athaliah in Judah — those bitter fountains 
 from which disasters innumerable flowed to either king- 
 dom \ preparing the one for a Shalmanezer, the other 
 for a Nebuchadnezzar. But this by the way. Whatever 
 might be the motive which induced so good a prince as 
 Jehoshaphat to sanction this alliance ; whether, indeed, 
 it was of choice, and in the hope of re-uniting the two 
 kingdoms, which is probable ; or whether it was of com- 
 pulsion, the act of an impetuous son, and not his own — 
 for the subsequent history of Jehoram shows how little 
 he was disposed to yield to his father's will, when his 
 own was thwarted by it ^ — certain it is, that it proved a 
 sad epoch in the fate and fortunes of Judah ; a calamity 
 almost as withering in its effects upon that kingdom, 
 as the sin of Jeroboam had been upon his own. Up to 
 the time of Jehoshaphat, Judah had prospered exceed- 
 ingly ; henceforward there is a taint of Baal introduced 
 into the blood-royal, and a curse for a long time, though 
 not without intermissions, seems to rest upon the land. 
 The even march with which the two kingdoms now 
 advance hand in hand is early seen; they were now 
 bent upon grinding at the same mill ; and a remarkable 
 instance of coincidence without design here presents 
 itself, which the general observations I have been 
 making may serve to introduce. 
 
 ^ See Hosea xiii. 1. I - 2 Ohron. xxi. 3, 4. 
 
Part II. HISTOKICAL SCRIPTURES. 209 
 
 1. Ahaziah, the son of Aliab, I reacV, began to reign 
 over Israel in Samaria, in the seventeenth year of Jeho- 
 shaphat king of Judah. 
 
 2. But Jehoram, the son of Ahab, began to reign 
 over Israel in Samaria, in the eighteenth year of Jeho- 
 shaphat king of Judah, his brother Ahaziah being dead^ 
 
 3. Elsewhere, however, it is said that this Jehoram, 
 the son of Ahab, began to reign in the second year of 
 Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah^ 
 
 4. Therefore, the second year of Jehoram son of Je- 
 hoshaphat must have corresponded with the eighteenth 
 of JehoshajDhat ; or in other words, Jehoram son of Je- 
 hoshaphat must have begun to reign in the seventeenth 
 of Jehoshaphat. 
 
 It is obvious that the maze of dates and names thus 
 brought together from various places in Scripture, 
 through which the argument is to be pursued, renders 
 all contrivance, collusion, or packing of facts, for the 
 purpose of supporting a conclusion, utterly impossible. 
 Now the result of the whole is this, that Ahaziah, the 
 son of Ahab king of Israel, and Jehoram, the son of 
 Jehoshaphat king of Judah, both began to reign in the 
 same year, in the respective kingdoms of their fathers, 
 their fathers being nevertheless themselves alive and active 
 sovereigns at the time. Is there anything by which this 
 simultaneous adojDtion of these young men to be their 
 father's colleagues can be accounted for ? An identity 
 so remarkable in the proceedings of the confederate 
 kingdoms can scarcely be accidental. Let us, then, 
 endeavour to ascertain what event was in progress in 
 tho seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat, the year in which 
 the two appointments were made. 
 
 ^ 1 Kings xxii. 51. ^ 2 Kings i. 17. 
 
 - 2 Kings iii. 1. 
 
210 THE VERACITY OF THE Paet II. 
 
 Now Jehoshapliat began to reign in the fourth of 
 Ahab^ But Ahab died in the great battle against 
 Ramoth-gilead, having reigned twenty-two years ^; he 
 died therefore in the eighteenth of Jehoshaphat. 
 
 Accordingly, in the seventeenth of that monarch, the 
 year in which we are concerned, the two kings were 
 preparing to go up against Ramoth — a measure upon 
 which they did not venture without long and grave 
 deliberation, concentration of forces, application to pro- 
 phets touching their prospects of success ^ 
 
 But when they approached this hazardous enterprise 
 in a spirit so cautious, can anything be more probable 
 than that each monarch should then have made his son 
 a partner of his throne, in order that, during his own 
 absence with the army, there might be one left behind 
 to rule at home, and in case of the father's death, in 
 battle (Ahab did actually fall), to reign in his stead? 
 There can be little or no doubt that this is the true 
 solution of the case, though the text itself of the 
 narrative does not contain the slightest intimation that 
 it is so. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 Such arrangements, indeed, were not unusual in those 
 days and in those countries. Here is a further proof 
 of it, and at the same time a coincidence which is a 
 companion to the last. 
 
 1. "In the thirty-seventh year of Joash king of 
 Judah, began Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz, to reign 
 over Israel in Samaria." So we are told in ope 
 
 that, " In the second year 
 
 * 2 Kings xiii. 10. 
 
 * Ibid. xiv. 1. 
 
 passaged But, 
 
 in 
 
 another ^ 
 
 ' 1 Kings xxii. 
 
 41. 
 
 ^ Ibid. xvi. 
 
 29. 
 
 
 ^ Ibid. xxii. 
 
 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCEIPTURES. 211 
 
 of Joash (Jehoash), the son of Jelioahaz, king of Israel, 
 reigned Amaziah, the son of Joash. king of Judah. 
 
 2. Therefore, Amaziah, king of Judah, reigned in 
 the thirty-ninth of Joash, king of Judah. 
 
 3. Now we learn from a passage in the second Book 
 of Chronicles \ that " Joash reigned forty years in 
 Jerusalem." 
 
 4. Therefore Amaziah must have begun to reign one 
 year at least before the death of his father Joash. 
 
 Can we discover any reason for this? The clue will 
 be found in a parenthesis of half a line, which the fol- 
 lowing paragraph in the Chronicles presents : " And it 
 came to pass at the end of the year, that the host 
 of Syria came up against him (Joash) ; and they came 
 to Jerusalem, and destroyed all the princes of the 
 peojDle . . . And when they were departed from him 
 (for they left him in great diseases), his own servants 
 conspired against him, for the blood of the sons of 
 Jehoiada the priest, and slew him on his bed, and he 
 died." 2 
 
 The great diseases, therefore, under which, it seems, 
 Joash was labouring at the moment of the Syrian 
 invasion, presents itself as the probable cause why 
 Amaziah his son, then in the flower of his age, was 
 admitted to a share in the government a little before 
 his time. Yet how circuitously do we arrive at this 
 conclusion ! The Book of Kings alone would not esta- 
 blish it ; the Book of Chronicles alone would not esta- 
 blish it. From the former, we might learn when 
 Amaziah began to reign ; from the latter, when Joash, 
 the father of Amaziah, died ; and accordingly, a com- 
 parison of the two dates would enable us to determine 
 that the reign of Amaziah began before that of Joash 
 
 ^ 2 Chron. xxiv. 1. | ~ 3 Chron. xxiv. 23. 35. 
 
 P 2 
 
212 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 ended ; but neither document asserts the fact that the 
 son did reign conjointly with the father. We infer it : 
 that is all. Neither does the Book of Kings make the 
 least allusion to any accident whatever which rendered 
 this co-partnership necessary; nor yet the Book of 
 Chronicles directly, only an incidental parenthesis, a 
 word or two in length, intimates that at the time of the 
 Syrian invasion Joash was sick. 
 
 I have adduced this coincidence, strong in itself, 
 chiefly in illustration and confirmation of the principles 
 upon which the last proceeded ; the simultaneous and 
 premature assumption of the sceptre by the sons of 
 Jehoshaphat and Ahab, as compared with the date of 
 the combined expedition of those two kings against 
 Ramoth-gilead. But I must not dismiss the subject 
 altogether without calling your attention to the U7ide- 
 signedness manifested in either case. Nothing can be 
 more latent than the congruity, such as it is, which is 
 here found ; either history might be read a thousand 
 times without a suspicion that any such congruity was 
 there ; investigation is absolutely necessary for the dis- 
 covery of it ; patient disembroilment of a labyrinth of 
 names, many being identical, where the parties are not 
 the same ; scrutiny and comparison of dates, seldom so 
 given as to expedite the labours of the inquirer. All 
 this must be done, or these singular tokens of truth 
 escape us, and many, I doubt not, do escape us after all. 
 What imposture can be here? What contrivers could 
 be prepared for such a sifting of their plausible dis- 
 closures? What pretenders could be provided with 
 such vouchers ; or, having provided them, would bury 
 them so deep as that they should run the risk of never 
 being brought to light at all, and thus frustrate their 
 own end in the fabrication? 
 
Part II. HISTOEICAL SCRIPTUEES. 213 
 
 Once more I commit to my readers facts which speak, 
 I think, to the truth of Scripture, as things having 
 authority ; facts, which aiford proof infalHble that there 
 is a mine of evidence, ''deep things of God," in this 
 sense, in the sacred writings, which they who look 
 upon them with a hasty and impatient glance — and 
 such very generally is the manner of sceptics, and 
 almost always the manner of youthful sceptics, — leave 
 under their feet unworked ; a treasure hid in a field 
 which they only who will be at the pains to dig for it 
 will find. 
 
 But if an investigation, such as this that we are con- 
 ducting, leads to such a conclusion — to a conclusion, 
 I mean, that there is a substratum of truth running 
 through the Bible, which none can discover but he who 
 will patiently and perseveringly sink the well at the 
 bottom of which it lies — and such is the conclusion at 
 which we must arrive — is it not a lamentable thing to 
 hear, as we are sometimes condemned to hear it, the 
 superficial objection, or supercilious scoff, proceeding 
 from the mouth of one whose very speech betrays that 
 he has walked over the surface of his subject merely, if 
 even that, and who nevertheless pretends and proclaims 
 that truth he finds not? 
 
 XXV. 
 
 In considering the political and religious condition of 
 the two kingdoms after the division, I have looked at 
 the establishment of the calves at Bethel and Dan by 
 Jeroboam as a great national epoch; as a measure 
 pregnant with consequences far more numerous and 
 more important, fetching a much larger compass, and 
 affecting many more interests, than its author probably 
 contemplated. I have now to fix upon another event, 
 
214 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 the wide-wasting effects of which I have ah*eady hinted 
 as another national crisis, one which, in the end, most 
 materially influenced the fortunes both of Israel and 
 Judah ; the thing in itself apparently a trifle ; " but 
 God," says Bishop Hall, " lays small accidents as foun- 
 dations for greater designs ;" I speak of the marriage 
 between Aliah and Jezebel. It is thus announced : 
 " And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing 
 for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of 
 Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel, the daughter of 
 Ethbaal, king of the Zidonians, and went and served 
 Baal, and worshipped him. And he reared up an altar 
 for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in 
 Samaria. And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did 
 more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than 
 all the kings of Israel that were before him."^ Here 
 we have the beginning of a new and more pestilent 
 idolatry in Israel. This Zidonian queen corrupts the 
 country, to which she is unhappily translated, with her 
 own rooted heathenish abominations ; and priests of 
 Baal, and prophets of Baal, being under her own special 
 protection and encouragement, multiply exceedingly; 
 and so seductive did the voluptuous worship prove, that, 
 with the exception of seven thousand persons, all Israel 
 had, more or less, partaken in her sin. Jeroboam's 
 calf had been a base and sordid representative of God, 
 but a representative still ; Jezebel's Baal was an auda- 
 cious rival. Nevertheless, Israel could not find in their 
 hearts to put away the God of their fathers altogether ; 
 and accordingly we hear Elijah exclaim, " How long 
 halt ye between two opinions ? if the Lord be God, 
 follow him; but if Baal, then follow him."^ I do not 
 think sufiicient notice has been taken of the curious 
 ^ 1 Kiugs xvi. 31. I '^ \ Kiues xviii. 31. 
 
Paet II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 215 
 
 manner in which this sudden ejaculation of the projDhet 
 corresponds with a number of unconnected incidents, 
 characteristic of the times, which lie scattered over the 
 Books of Kings and Chronicles. I shall collect a few 
 of them, that it may be seen how well their confronted 
 testimony agrees together, and how strictly, but unde- 
 signedly, they all coincide with that state of public 
 opinion upon religious matters which the words of 
 Elijah express — a halting opinion. 
 
 Thus, in the scene on Mount Carmel, we find, that 
 after the priests of Baal had in vain besought their god 
 to give proof of himself, and it now became Elijah's 
 turn to act, " he re])aired the altar of the Lord that 
 was broken down," ^ as though here, on the top of Car- 
 mel, were the remains of an altar to the true God (one 
 of those high places tolerated, however questionably, by 
 some even of the most religious kings), which had been 
 superseded by an altar to Baal, since Aliab's reign had 
 begun ; the prophet not having to build, it seems, but 
 only to renew. And agreeably to this, we have Obadiah, 
 the governor of Ahab's own house, represented as a 
 man " who feared the Lord greatly, and saved the pro- 
 phets of the Lord ;" he, therefore, no apostate, but 
 Ahab, in consideration of his fidelity, winking at his 
 faith; perhaps, indeed, himself not so much sold to 
 Baal-worship, as sold into the hands of an imperious 
 woman, who would hear of no other. And so " Ahab 
 served Baal a little,''' said Jehu, his successor^, another of 
 the equivocal tokens of the times ; whilst the command 
 of this same Jehu, that the temple of Baal should be 
 searched before the slaughter of the idolaters began, 
 lest there should be there any of the worshippers of the 
 Lord, instead of the wm'shippers of Baal only, still 
 1 1 Kings xviii. 30. | ^ g i^^gg x. 18. 
 
216 
 
 THE VERACITY OF THE 
 
 Part II. 
 
 argues the prevalence of the same half measure of faith. 
 Moreover, the character of the four hundred prophets 
 of Ahab, which, by its contradictions, has so much per- 
 plexed the commentators ; tlieir number corresponding 
 with that of those who ate at Jezebel's table ; their 
 parable, nevertheless, taken up in the Lord^s name ; 
 still their veracity suspected by Jehoshaphat, who asks 
 if "there be no prophet of the Lo7-d besides;" and the 
 mutual ill-will which manifests itself between them and 
 Micaiah ; are all very expressive features of the same 
 doubtful mind'. Then the pretence by which Ahab, 
 through Jezebel, takes away the life of Naboth, is 
 '''■ hlasj)hemy against God and the king," against the true 
 God, no doubt, the tyrant availing herself of a clause in 
 the Levitical law^; a law which was still, therefore, as 
 it should seem, the law of the land, even in the kingdom 
 of Israel, howbeit standing in the anomalous position of 
 deriving its authority from an acknowledgment of 
 Jehovah alone, and yet left to struggle against the 
 established worship of Baal, too ; enough in itself to 
 confound the people, to compromise all religious dis- 
 tinctions, and to ensure a halting creed in whatever 
 nation it obtained. Thus, whilst I see the prophets of 
 the Lord cut off under the warrant of Jezebel, and the 
 government of the Lord virtually renounced ; at another 
 time I see, as I have said, a man condemned to death 
 for blasphemy against the Lord, under the warrant of 
 Leviticus ; and the two sons of an Israelitish woman 
 sold to her creditor for bondsmen, under the same law^; 
 and the lepers shut out at the gate of Samaria, still 
 under the same^, and contrary, as it should appear, to 
 
 * 1 Kings xviii. 19 ; xxii. 6- 
 24; 2 Chron. xviii. 10—23. 
 ^ Levit. xxiv. 16. 
 
 ^ 2 Kings iv. 1 ; Levit. xxv. 39. 
 ^ 2 Kings vii. 3; Levit. xiii. 
 46 ; xiv. 3 ; Num. v. 2, 3. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 217 
 
 the Syrian practice ; for Naaman, though a leper, does 
 not seem to have been an outcast, but to have had 
 servants about him, and to have executed the king's 
 commands, and even to have expected Elisha to come 
 out to him, and put his hand upon the place. What 
 can argue the embarrassment under which Israel was 
 labouring in its religious relations more clearly than all 
 this ? — the law of Moses acknowledged to be valid, and 
 its provisions enforced, though its claim to the obe- 
 dience of the people only rested upon having God for 
 its author ; that God whom Baal was supplanting. 
 Here, I think, is truth : it would have been little to 
 the purpose to produce flagrant proofs that the worship 
 of God and the worship of Baal prevailed together in 
 Israel ; those might have been the result of contrivance; 
 but it is coincidence, and undesigned coincidence, to 
 find a prophet exclaiming, in a moment of zeal, " How 
 long halt ye," and then to find indications, some of them 
 grounded upon the merest trifles of domestic life, that 
 the people did halt. 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 But this marriage of Ahab and Jezebel, so ruinous to 
 Israel, was scarcely less so to Judah ; for in Judah the 
 same miserable alliance was to be acted over again 
 in the next generation, and with the very same conse- 
 quences. 
 
 Ahab, king of Israel, had taken to himself Jezebel, 
 a heathen, for his wife, and Israel, through her, became 
 a half-heathen nation. Jehoram, king of Judah, had 
 taken to himself Athaliah, the daughter of Jezebel, 
 worthy in all respects of the mother who bore her, to 
 be his wife ; and now Judah, in like manner, and for 
 the like cause, fell away. Of Ahab it is said, " But 
 
218 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 there was none like unto Ahab, who did sell himself to 
 work wickedness in the sight of the Lord, whom Jezebel 
 his ivife stirred up." ^ Such were the bitter fruits of his 
 marriage. Of Jehoram, it is said, " And he walked in 
 the ways of the kings of Israel, as did the house of 
 Ahab, for the daughter qf Ahab was his wife, and he did 
 evil in the sight of the Lord." ^ Such in turn was this 
 ill-omened union to him and his. Either of these 
 women, therefore, was the curse of the kingdom over 
 which her husband ruled ; and as we have already seen 
 some of the mischief brought into Israel (faulty enough 
 before) by Jezebel, so shall we now see still more 
 brought into Judah (hitherto a righteous and prosperous 
 people) by Athaliah, the daughter of Jezebel. I, how- 
 ever, shall not enter into the subject further than to 
 draw from it what I can of evidence. 
 
 And here, before I proceed further, let me notice a 
 circumstance, trivial in itself, which tends, however, to 
 establish this reputed alliance of the houses of Jeho- 
 shaphat and Ahab as a matter of fact. There is no 
 more cause, indeed, for calling this in question, than 
 any other historical incident of an indifferent nature ; 
 but still, I am unwilling to let any opportunity pass of 
 drawing out these tokens of truth, whether significant 
 or not : be the gifts great or small, which are cast into 
 the treasury of evidence, they contribute to swell the 
 amount; they contribute to justify the general con- 
 clusion, that truth is still the pervading principle of 
 the sacred writings, in minute as well as in momentous 
 matters, in things which are, or which are not, of a kind 
 to provoke investigation. 
 
 I am told, then, that a son of the King of Judah 
 marries a daughter of the King of Israel. Now, agree- 
 
 ^ I Kings xxi. 25. I - 2 Kings viii. 18. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 219 
 
 ably to this, for some time afterwards, I discover a 
 marked identity of names in the two families; so much 
 so, as to render, whilst it lasts, the contemporary history 
 of the two kingdoms extremely complicated and em- 
 barrassing. Thus, Ahab is succeeded by a son Ahaziah\ 
 on the throne of Israel ; and Jehoram is also succeeded 
 by a son Aliaziah (the nephew of the other), on the 
 throne of Judah^ Again, Ahaziah, king of Israel, dies, 
 and he is succeeded by a Jehoram^; but a Jehoram, the 
 brother-in-law of the former, is at the same moment on 
 the throne of Judah, as his father's colleague ^. How 
 much longer this mutual interchange of family names 
 might have continued, it is impossible to tell, for Ahab's 
 house was cut off in the next generation by Jehu, and a 
 new dynasty was set up ; but the thing itself is curious ; 
 and however our patience may be put to the proof, in 
 disengaging the thread of Israel and Judah at this point 
 of their annals, we have the satisfaction of feeling that 
 the intricacy of the history at such a moment is a very 
 strong argument of the truth of the history. For, al- 
 though no remark is made upon this identity of names, 
 nor the least hint given as to the cause of it, we at once 
 perceive that it may very naturally be referred to the 
 union which is said to have taken place between the 
 houses, and which many circumstances tend to show, 
 however extraordinary it may seem, was a cordial 
 union. 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 I NOW proceed to consider some of the public conse- 
 quences of this marriage to Judah. 
 
 In the eighteenth verse of the eighth chapter of the 
 
 ^ 1 Kings xxii. 49. I ^ 2 Kings i. 17; iii. 1. 
 
 2 2 Chrou. xxii. 1. I '' Ibid. i. 17. 
 
220 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 second Book of Kings, we are informed of Jehoram's 
 wickedness, and at whose instigation it was wrought. 
 In the twenty-second verse, we find it said (after some 
 account of a rebellion of the Edomites), " then Libnah 
 revolted at the same time." No cause is assigned for 
 this revolt of Libnah ; the few words quoted are inci- 
 dentally introduced, and the subject is dismissed. But 
 in the Chronicles ^ a cause is assigned, though still in a 
 manner very brief and inexplicit; "the same time, also," 
 (so the narrative runs,) " did Libnah revolt from under 
 his hand ; because he had forsaken the Lord God of his 
 fathers;' that is, because, at the persuasion of Athaliah — 
 for she, we have found ^ was his state-adviser — Jehoram 
 did what Ahab, his father-in-law, had done at the per- 
 suasion of the mother of Athaliah, set up a strange god 
 in his kingdom, even Baal. Thus, this supplementary 
 clause, short as it is, may serve, I think, as a clue to 
 explain the revolt of Libnah; for Libnah, it appears 
 from a passage in Joshua, was one of the cities of Judah, 
 given to the priests, the sons of Aaron ^ No wonder, 
 therefore, that the citizens of such a city should be 
 the first to reject with indignation the authority of a 
 monarch, who was even then setting at nought the God 
 whose servants they especially were, and who was sub- 
 stituting for him the abomination of the Zidonians. 
 This is the explanation of the revolt of Libnah. Yet, 
 satisfactory as it is, when we are once fairly in possession 
 of it, the explanation is anything but obvious. Libnah, 
 it is said, revolts, but that revolt is not expressly coupled 
 with the introduction of Baal into the country as a god; 
 nor is that pernicious novelty coupled with the marriage 
 of Athaliah; nor is any reason alleged why Libnah 
 
 1 2 Chron. xxi. 10. I ^ Josh. xv. 42; xxi. 13. 
 
 2 2 Kings viii. 18. 1 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 221 
 
 should feel peculiarly alive to the ignominy and shame 
 of such an act ; for where Libnali was, or what it was, 
 or whereof its inhabitants consisted, are things unknown 
 to the readers of Kings and Chronicles, and would con- 
 tinue unknown, were they not to take advantage of a 
 hint or two in the Book of Joshua. 
 
 XXVIII. 
 
 I AM confirmed in the supposition that the revolt of 
 Libnah is correctly ascribed to the indignation of the 
 Priests at the worship of Baal, by other circumstances 
 in the history of those times ; for many things conspire 
 to show, on the one side, the reckless idolatry of the 
 royal house of Judah (so true to their God till the 
 blood of the house of Ahab began to run in their veins) ; 
 and, on the other side, the general disaffection of the 
 ministers of God, and the desperate condition to which 
 they were reduced. For when the Temple of Jerusalem 
 was to be repaired, which was done by Joash, the grand- 
 son of Athaliah \ the effects of her wicked misrule inci- 
 dentally come out. Not only had the utensils of the 
 Temple been removed to the house of Baal, but its very 
 walls had in many places been broken up, the ample 
 funds put into the hands of the young king being prin- 
 cipally devoted, not to decorations, but to the purchase 
 of substantial materials, timber and stones ; and from a 
 casual expression touching the rites of the Temple, that 
 " there were offered burnt-offerings in the House of the 
 Lord continually all the days of Jelioiada""^ it is pretty 
 evident that, whilst Athaliah was in power, even these 
 had been discontinued ; that even Judah, the tribe of 
 God's own choice, even Zion, the hill which he loved, 
 
 ^ 2 Chron. xxiv. 4. I ^ g Chron. xxiv. 14. 
 
222 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 paid him no longer any public testimony of allegiance, 
 the faithful city herself became an harlot. So wanton 
 was the defiance of the Most High God, during the 
 reigns of Jehoram, Ahaziah, and the subsequent usur- 
 pation of Athaliah, when these, her husband, and her 
 son, were dead. 
 
 On the other hand, Joash, the rightful possessor of 
 the throne of Judah, an infant plucked from among his 
 slaughtered kindred by an aunt, and saved from the 
 murderous hands of a grandmother, grew up unobserved 
 — where, of all f)laces ? — in tJie Lord's House, contiguous 
 as it was to the palace of Athaliah, who little dreamed 
 that she had such an enemy in such a quarter; the 
 High Priest his protector ; the Priests and Levites his 
 future partizans ; so that when events were ripe for the 
 overthrow of Athaliah, the child was set up as the 
 chamj^ion of the Church of God, so long prostrate 
 before Baal, but still not spirit-broken — cast down, but 
 not destroyed ; and by that Church, and no party else, 
 was he established ; and the unnatural usurper was 
 hurled from her polluted throne, with the shriek of 
 treason upon her lips ; and having lived like her mother, 
 like her mother she died, killed under her own walls, 
 and among the hoofs of the horses'. This, I say, is a 
 very consistent consummation of a resistance, of which 
 the revolt of Libnah, some fourteen years before, was 
 the earnest: in the revolt of Libnah, a city of the 
 Priests, the disaffection of the Priests prematurely 
 breaks out ; in the dethronement of Athaliah, achieved 
 by the Priests, that same disaffection finds its final issue ; 
 the interval between the two events having sufficed to 
 fill up the iniquity of Baal's worshippers, and to organize 
 a revolt upon a greater scale than that of Libnah, which 
 ^ 2 Kings xi. 16. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 223 
 
 restored its dues to the Church, and to God his servants, 
 his offerings, and his house. 
 
 But will any man say that the sacred historian so 
 ordered his materials, that such incidents as these 
 which I have named should successively turn up — that 
 he guided his hands in all this wittingly — that he let 
 fall, with consummate artifice, first a brief and inci- 
 dental notice (a mere parenthesis) of the revolt of a 
 single town, suppressing meanwhile all mention of its 
 peculiar constitution and character, though such as pre- 
 pared it above others for revolt — that then, after aban- 
 doning not only Libnah, but the subject of Judah in 
 general, and applying himself to the affairs of Israel in 
 their turn, he should finally revert to his former topic, 
 or rather to a kindred one, and lay before us the history 
 of a general revolt, organized by the Priests ; and all in 
 the forlorn hope that the uniform working of the same 
 principle of disaffection in the same party, and for the 
 same cause, in two detached instances, would not pass 
 unobserved ; but that such consistency would be de- 
 tected, and j)ut down to the credit of the narrative at 
 large? This surely is a degree of refinement much 
 beyond belief. 
 
 Thus having traced this singular people through a 
 long and most diversified history, we are come to see 
 planted in both kingdoms of Israel and Judah the idol- 
 atrous principle which was shortly to be the downfal of 
 both. God usually works out his own ends in the way 
 of natural consequence, even his judgments being in 
 general the ordinary fruits of the offences which called 
 for them ; and in this instance the calves of Jeroboam 
 and the groves of Baal were the sin ; and from the sin 
 were made to flow, as a matter of course, the disgust of 
 all virtuous Israelites, and the intestine divisions re- 
 
224 THE VERACITY OF THE Part II. 
 
 suiting from it ; the interruption or suspension of all 
 public worship ; the mischiefs of a perpetual conflict 
 between a national code of laws still in force, and 
 national idolatry, no less actually established than the 
 laws ; the depravity of morals which that idolatry en- 
 couraged, and which served to sap the people's strength ; 
 all, elements of ruin which only wanted to be developed 
 in order to be fatal, and which in a very few genera- 
 tions did their work. 
 
 It is curious to observe how the origin, the progress, 
 and the consummation of the devastating principle, cor- 
 respond in the two kingdoms. 
 
 Israel is, the first to offend, both by the sin of 
 Jeroboam and the sin of Ahab; and Israel is the first 
 to have illustrious Prophets sent to him to counteract 
 the evil, if it were possible — whom, however, he perse- 
 cutes or slays ; and Israel is the first to be carried into 
 captivity. 
 
 Judah, after some years, follows the example of his 
 rival. Idolatry, even the worst, that of the same Baal, 
 is brought into Judah. Prophets, many and great, are 
 now in turn sent to warn him of the evil to come ; but 
 now he too has declared for the groves ; and those 
 Prophets he stones, in one instance even between the 
 porch and the altar; and, accordingly, by nearly the 
 same interval as Judah followed Israel in his idolatries, 
 did he follow him in his fate, and went after him to sit 
 down and weep by the waters of Babylon. There is 
 something very coincident in this relative scale of sin 
 and suffering. 
 
 It was the office of those Prophets of whom I spoke, 
 not only to foretel things to come, but also to de- 
 nounce the sins of the times in which they lived ; they 
 were censors, as well as seers. Of the earlier race. 
 
Part II. HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES. 225 
 
 Ahijah, Elijah, Elisha, and others, we have no writings 
 at all, otherwise they would have doubtless offered, in 
 their province as moralists, a mirror of their own age, 
 in their own nation of Israel. Of the latter race, Isaiah, 
 Jeremiah, and more, we possess the records, and in 
 those records not unfrequently a picture of the con- 
 dition of either kingdom ; of Judah more especially. 
 Here, therefore, a new scene opens before us ; a new, 
 though limited field of argument, such as I have been 
 exploring, presents itself. It remains to produce a few 
 such allusions to contemporary transactions as are 
 blended with the prophecies — to examine how they 
 tally with facts, as we find them set forth elsewhere by 
 the sacred historians ; and thence to derive vouchers 
 for the veracious character of the Prophets themselves, 
 such as may promote a disposition to give them at least 
 a favourable hearing. 
 
 Q 
 
THE VERACITY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE PROPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. 
 
 PART III. 
 
 THUS far I have been applying the test of coinci- 
 dence without design to the historical Scriptures ; 
 I will now do the same by some of the prophetical, 
 founding the argument chiefly on a comparison of these 
 latter writings with those details relating to the period in 
 which the Prophet is said to have lived, given in the con- 
 cluding chapters of the Books of Kings and Chronicles. 
 It is possible that these coincidences may be thought 
 proportionally fewer in number than those which other 
 parts of Scripture have been found to supply ; but it 
 must be remembered, that the Books of the Prophets 
 are not of any great bulk, and that the chapters in the 
 Books of Kings and Chronicles which furnish materials 
 for checking them, are neither long nor many. More- 
 over, which is the chief consideration, that the language 
 of Prophecy, as might be expected, is commonly framed 
 in terms so general, and often so dark and figurative, 
 that it is easy to overlook a latent allusion to an event 
 of the day which it may really contain, even where 
 gome notice of that event does happen also to be left 
 
Part III. PROPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. 227 
 
 on record in the contemporary history. With regard 
 to such coincidences as we do find, it may be observed, 
 1. First, that the argument they furnish has a two- 
 fold value; since it not only demonstrates the Historian 
 and the Prophet to be veracious — the one, in the narra- 
 tive of facts, the other, in such allusions to them as 
 blend with passages more strictly prophetical — but that 
 it also serves to determine the date of the Prophet him- 
 self — a date which, when once obtained, fixes many other 
 events of which he clearly seems to tell, far in futurity 
 with respect to him, and so ministers to our conviction 
 that it could not be of human knowledge that he spoke. 
 We indeed, on whom the ends of the world are come, 
 may be supposed to stand less in need of such a confir- 
 mation of our faith in the Prophets ; for since the 
 objects of their prophecy are two : the more immediate 
 events which were coming upon several kingdoms of 
 the world, and especially those of Israel and Judali ; 
 and the more distant Advent of the Messiah ; the evi- 
 dence for the genuineness of their claim to the prophe- 
 tical character arising out of this latter province, where 
 they appear as heralds of the gospel, is strong to 
 us, because we do see the actual circumstances of 
 Jesus Christ and his coming, correspond in so express a 
 manner with the sketch made of them, by Isaiah, for 
 examjDle (as nobody in this instance can dispute), so 
 many hundred years before. But their contemporaries, 
 or the generations who lived next to them (and these 
 were the persons who admitted their writings into the 
 prophetical canon), were cut off from this ground of 
 confidence in their message; they must have rested 
 their belief in them upon the accomplishment of their 
 political prophecies alone, such being the only ones of 
 which they lived to see the completion. Although 
 
 Q 2 
 
228 THE VERACITY OF THE Part III. 
 
 therefore the mere fact of the Jews having of old agreed 
 to acknowledge them as Prophets, is enough to show 
 that such evidence alone sufficed for them, they being 
 the best judges of what Avas sufficient ; still if we have 
 the means of convincing ourselves that these remark- 
 ably exact prophecies (claiming at least so to be), 
 which related to the Assyrian invasions, the captivity, 
 and the like, were certainly delivered long before the 
 events arose, we shall have a further reason, over and 
 above an experience of the fulfilment of those concern- 
 ing the Messiah, for putting our trust in them, and 
 considering them Prophets indeed. 
 
 2. Nor is this all. For, Secondly, it may be ob- 
 served, that the effect of this evidence from coincidence 
 without design is to show, that the prophet sometimes 
 occupied a considerable range of years in the deliver- 
 ing of his predictions — thus, that the whole Book of 
 Isaiah was not struck off at a heat, was no extempore 
 effusion, but a collection of many distinct predictions 
 (claiming to be such) uttered from time to time, as 
 events, or the heart hot within the prophet, prompted 
 them ; that it was in truth, as the title describes it, "the 
 vision which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, 
 in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, AJiaz, mid Hczekiah, 
 kings of Judah." Now this is an important considera- 
 tion, because it argues that the prophet did not de- 
 liver himself of some happy oracle for the once, and 
 earn the reputation of a seer by an accident, but main- 
 tained that character through a life — a circumstance 
 which goes very far in itself to exclude the possibility 
 of imposture, nothing being so fatal to fraud of this 
 kind as time. 
 
 Having made these preliminary remarks, I sliall 
 now address myself to the argument itself. 
 
Part III. PROPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. 229 
 
 I. 
 
 In the seventh chapter of Isaiah we read that Ahaz 
 king of Judah was threatened with invasion by the con- 
 federate armies of Syria and Israel, and that Isaiah the 
 prophet was commissioned by God to foretel to Ahaz 
 the result of this invasion ; and not only so, but the 
 disastrous end of one of those kingdoms, if not both of 
 them, after a period of threescore and five years. And 
 the charge is thus given to Isaiah : " Go forth now to 
 meet Ahaz, thou and Shear-jashub thy son, at the end 
 of the conduit of the ujyper pool, in the highway of the 
 fuller's field" (v. 3). Here was to be the scene of the 
 prophecy ; and, accordingly, here it professes to have 
 been actually spoken. To this point I would draw the 
 attention of my readers, because the incidental men- 
 tion of the place where it was to be delivered, furnishes 
 us with the means of showing Avith great probability 
 that a prophecy it was. For, why at the end of the 
 conduit of the upper pool ? No reason whatever is as- 
 signed, or even hinted for the choice of this particular 
 spot, rather than the palace of Ahaz, or the city gate. 
 But on turning to the thirty-second chapter of the 
 second Book of Chronicles, in which are described the 
 preparations made by king Hezekiah some thirty years 
 afterwards against a similar invasion of Jerusalem by 
 Sennacherib and the AssyrianSj I find this to be amongst 
 the number, that " he took counsel with his princes 
 and his mighty men to stop the waters oi i\\e fomitaiiis 
 which were without the city ; and they did help him. 
 So there was gathered much people who stopped all the 
 fountains, and the brook that ran through the midst of 
 the land, saying. Why should the kings of Assyria come, 
 and find much water?" ' 
 
 ^ 2 Chrou. xxxii. 8 — 5. 
 
230 THE VERACITY OF THE Part III. 
 
 Here, then, in this passage of Hezekiah's history, 
 have we the key to the passage in the history of Ahaz, 
 whicli is now engaging our inquiry, and in which the 
 prophecy of Isaiah is involved. " Isaiah was to go forth 
 to meet Ahaz, at the e7id of the conduit of the upper pool T 
 to go forth — the conduit of the upper pool, therefore, 
 was without the walls, open to the use of the enemy. 
 Ahaz, therefore, we may conjecture, was employed, as 
 we hnow, though not from Isaiah, Hezekiah under 
 similar circumstances afterwards was employed, with a 
 number of his people in providing a defence for the 
 city by stopping the fountains, of which the enemy 
 might get possession. The place, therefore, was appro- 
 priate to the subject of the message with which Isaiah 
 was charged, namely, that their labours were needless, 
 for that God would take care of their city ; and it was 
 conmnient for the publication of it, because the work 
 interested and occupied both the sovereign and the 
 people, and consequently a multitude were there ga- 
 thered together ready to hear it. Now it appears to 
 me, that this casual mention of Ahaz, being for some 
 reason or other to be found by the prophet at the 
 conduit of the upper pool, to which he was to go forth, 
 without one word of note or exjjlanation why he should 
 be found there, or what was its exact site, or why it 
 should be a fit place for delivering the message, coupled 
 with the satisfactory cause for his being there, which 
 most incidentally we are enabled of ourselves to supply 
 from another quarter, does establish it as a fact, that 
 Ahaz was occupied with concerting measures of defence 
 for the city when Isaiah hailed him. But if so, Isaiah's 
 message must have necessarily been delivered wdien the 
 invasion was only threatened, when there was yet time 
 for making provision to meet it, and when the result of 
 it, of whicli he speaks, must have been as yet in futurity ; 
 
Part III. PROPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. 231 
 
 whilst events still beyond it, to which his words extend 
 too, must have been in a futurity yet more distant ; i. e. 
 Isaiah must have been a prophet. Certainly it is a 
 small matter of fact which lays the foundation for a 
 great conclusion : but its seeming insignificance is just 
 that which gives it extraordinary value for the purpose 
 for which I use it ; since it is impossible to believe that 
 a forger of pretended prophecies, written after the 
 event, would have hit upon such an expedient for 
 stamping his imposture with a mark of truth, as to 
 make the scene of this prediction a conduit outside the 
 walls, without adding the most remote hint about the 
 inference he meant to be drawn from it. 
 
 11. 
 
 There is another coincidence, or at least a probable 
 coincidence, between a passage in Isaiah (viii. 2), and 
 other passages in the Books of Kings (2 Kings xvi. 10, 
 xviii. 2), and Chronicles (2 Chron. xxix. 1), which goes 
 to determine that the prophet was contemporary with 
 Ahaz ; thus identifying the age of Isaiah and the date 
 of his prophecying, with a period a hundred and forty 
 years before the Babylonish captivity, of which event 
 nevertheless he is full to overflowing. The following is 
 the coincidence I suppose. 
 
 It appears to have been an object with this prophet 
 to warn Judali from depending upon Assyria for helf) 
 against Syria and Israel. — He saw by the spirit, more to 
 apprehend in the ally than in the adversary (opposed as 
 this opinion was to the judgment of a generation who 
 did not allow for the ambition of Assyria, and especially 
 of Assyria when absorbed in the Babylonish empire \ 
 
 ' See Liglitfoot, Vol. i. p. 114, fol. Hosea v. 13; vii. 11. 
 
232 THE VERACITY OF THE Part III. 
 
 in its present profession of amity ; nor the approacliing 
 downfall of Syria and Israel, in their actual strength). 
 However, to impress this his projjhetical view of things 
 upon Ahaz the more effectually (the policy of that 
 monarch having been to court Assyria '), he takes his 
 pen, and writes in a great roll, again and again, after 
 the manner of his age and nation, when symbolical 
 teaching prevailed, one word of woe, Maher-shalal-hash- 
 baz — " hasting to the spoil he hasteth to the prey" — 
 which, being interpreted, spake of Assyria, that so it 
 should come to pass, touching the havoc about to be 
 wrought by Assyria; first, on the kingdoms of Syria 
 and Israel ; and eventually, when merged in the Chal- 
 dean kingdom, on Judah itself. And to render this 
 act more emphatic, or to impress it the more memora- 
 bly on the King, he calls in two witnesses, Uriah the 
 priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah (Isa. 
 viii. 2)^ 
 
 Now who are they ? Names, it may be said, of un- 
 known individuals perhaps ; nay, possibly mere names ; 
 the whole being a figure, and not a fact. Yet I discern, 
 on turning to the sixteenth chapter of the second Book 
 of Kings, that one Uriah, he also a priest, was a person 
 with whom king Ahaz was in close commimication, 
 using him as a tool for his own unlawful innovations in 
 the worship of his country ; " when he introduced into 
 the temple the fashion of the altar which he had seen 
 at Damascus :" in all which, we are told, " Uriah the 
 priest did according to all that king Ahaz commanded" 
 (v. 16). If therefore this was the same Uriah (for the 
 coincidence turns on that), we have one witness taken 
 from the confidential servants of the King. And with 
 respect to Zechariah, the other witness, I learn from 
 1 2 Chron. xxviii. 16. | = Liglitfoot, Vol. i. p. 101. 
 
Part III. PROPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. 233 
 
 the eighteenth chapter of the same Book of Kings, that 
 twenty and five years old was Hezekiah when he began 
 to reign, and that " he reigned twenty and nine years 
 in Jerusalem," and that "his mother name was Abi, 
 the daughter of Zechariah" (v. 2). It should seem, 
 therefore, that Ahaz, who was father of Hezekiah, was 
 son-in-law of one Zechariah ; if therefore this was the 
 same Zechariah — for the coincidence again turns on 
 that — we have a second witness taken from amongst 
 the immediate connections of the King ; and it may be 
 added, that the probability of these parties mentioned 
 in Isaiah being the same as those of the same names 
 mentioned in the Book of Kings, is increased by their 
 being tii^o in number : had Uriah alone been spoken of 
 in Isaiah, or Zechariah alone, and a single person of the 
 same name been met with in the Book of Kings, as 
 about the person of Ahaz, the identity of the two 
 might have admitted of more dispute than when Uriah 
 and Zechariah are both produced by the prophet, and 
 are both found in the history. If the names had been 
 twenty instead of two, and all had been found to agree, 
 no doubt whatever of the identity could have been 
 entertained. 
 
 Here, then, we can account for the choice of Isaiah, 
 who wished the transaction in Avliich he was enofasfed 
 to be enforced upon the attention of Ahaz with all the 
 advantages he could command, and so selected two of 
 the King's bosom friends to testify concerning it. 
 
 This, I say, induces the belief that the prophet really 
 was contemporary with Ahaz ; for how can we suppose, 
 that if his pretended prophecy had been a forgery of 
 after times, so happy, because so trivial an evidence of 
 its genuineness, should have been introduced, and the 
 names of his witnesses have been selected, accordino^ so 
 
234 
 
 THE VERACITY OF THE 
 
 Part III. 
 
 singularly with those of two men certainly about the 
 person of Ahaz whilst he lived ? And how difficult it 
 is to imagine that a forger, even admitting that he 
 adopted those names by a fortunate or astute device, 
 should have stopped where he did, and not have taken 
 care to make it clear that by them he meant the Uriah 
 who was the priest of Ahaz, and the Zechariah who was 
 his relation, instead of leaving the matter (as it is left) 
 open to dispute \' 
 
 III. 
 
 The next coincidence which I shall lay before you is 
 one which tends to establish two facts of the utmost 
 imj)ortance; the one, that the Assyrian army under 
 Sennacherib perished in some remarkable manner ; the 
 other, that the Babylonish Captivity was distinctly 
 foretold, when Babylon was as yet no object of fear to 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 With respect to the first, indeed, the sudden destruc- 
 tion of the Assyrian host, it was to be expected that if 
 such a catastrophe did occur, it would be an epoch in 
 the times, an event that would fill the whole East 
 with its strangeness ; and accordingly, the allusions to 
 it, direct and indirect, which are to be met with in the 
 writings of Isaiah, are very many. His mind seems 
 much possessed by it ; and this is indeed an argument 
 for the truth of the fact, not feeble in itself — but the 
 one I have to propose to you is more definite and 
 precise. 
 
 In the thirty-ninth chapter of Isaiah, I read as 
 follows : " At that time Merodach-baladan, the son of 
 
 ' It is scarcely necessary to re- 
 mark that Uriah (Isaiah viii. 2) 
 and Urijah (2 Kings xvi. 10) are 
 the same word in the Hebrew. — 
 
 Dr. Lightfoot takes for granted 
 that the parties named in Isaiah 
 and in Kings are the same. Vol. 
 i. p. 101, fol. 
 
Part III. PROPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. 235 
 
 Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to 
 Hezekiah ; for he had heard that he had been sick, and 
 was recovered. And Hezekiah was glad of them, and 
 showed them the house of his precious things, the 
 silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious 
 ointment, and all the house of his armour, and all that 
 was found in his treasures ; there was nothing in his 
 house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah showed 
 them not. Then came Isaiah the prophet to king 
 Hezekiah, and said unto him. What said these men? 
 and from whence came they unto thee ? And Hezekiah 
 said, They are come from a far country unto me, even 
 from Babylon. Then said he, What have they seen in 
 thy house ? And Hezekiah answ^ered, All that is in 
 mine house have they seen ; there is nothing among 
 my treasures that I have not showed them. Then said 
 Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord of 
 hosts : Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine 
 house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store 
 until this day, shall be carried to Babylon : nothing 
 shall be left, saith the Lord. And of thy sons that 
 shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they 
 take away ; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of 
 the king of Babylon." 
 
 1. Now the first thing I would observe is this : that 
 the embassy from the King of Babylon to Hezekiah 
 was to congratulate him on his recovery from his sick- 
 ness; which sickness must have befallen him in the 
 year of Sennacherib's invasion, and immediately pre- 
 vious to it — in that year, because he is to said to have 
 reigned twenty and nine years^; and the invasion of 
 Judah is said^ to have occurred in the fourteenth year 
 of his reign ; leaving him still fifteen years to reign, 
 1 2 Kings xviii. 'i, I -' 2 Kings xviii. 1-3. 
 
236 THE VERACITY OF THE Part III. 
 
 which was precisely the period by which his life was 
 prolonged beyond his sickness ; — immediately previous to 
 that invasion, because the prophet, in the same breath 
 that he assures him from God of his recovery, assures 
 him also that God would deliver the city out of the 
 hand of the Ki7i(i of Assyria, and would defend the 
 city (Is. xxxviii. 6), as though the danger was im- 
 minent \ The recovery, therefore, of Hezekiah, and 
 the destruction of the Assyrians, were events close upon 
 one another in point of time. And after a short 
 interval, allowing for the news of Hezekiah's recovery 
 to reach Babylon, and an embassy to be prepared, that 
 embassy of congratulation was despatched ; or, in other 
 words, the embassy from Babylon must have been close 
 upon the destruction of the Assyrian army, 
 
 Now we are told, that upon the eve of the invasion 
 of Jerusalem itself, and whilst Sennacherib was already 
 in the country taking the fenced cities of Judah before 
 him ", Hezekiah in his alarm endeavoured to buy off 
 the King of x\ssyria: "That which thou puttest on me," 
 said he, " will I bear" — " And the king of Assyria 
 appointed unto Hezekiah three hundred talents of 
 silver, and thirty talents of gold," — a sum which com- 
 pletely exhausted the means of Hezekiah ; insomuch 
 that after he had given him all the silver that was 
 found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of 
 the King's house, he was reduced to the necessity of 
 actually cutting off the gold from the doors of the 
 temple, and from the pillars which he had overlaid, 
 to give to the King of Assyria. Nothing, therefore, 
 could be more complete than the exhaustion of his re- 
 
 ^ This clearly fixes the order 
 of the two events, and shows that 
 in 2 Chron. xxxii. 21 — 24, the 
 
 order is not observed. 
 ~ 2 Kings xviii. 13, 14. 
 
Part III. PROPHETICAL SCRIPTURES, 237 
 
 sources, whether those of the palace or of the temple, 
 immediately before the advance of Semiacherib's army 
 on the capital — for in spite of this cowardly sacrifice on 
 the part of the Jews, the Assyrians broke faith with 
 them, and marched on Jerusalem. 
 
 But from the passage in Isaiah (ch. xxxix.) which I 
 have extracted, where the embassy from Babylon is 
 mentioned, and the date of which has been already 
 fixed (to the utmost probability at least), we gather that 
 Hezekiah was then in possession of a treasury singularly 
 afflue7it ; so much so, indeed, as to lead him to make a 
 vainglorious display of his vast magazines to these 
 strangers — " he was glad of them, and shewed them the 
 house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, 
 and the spices, and the precious ointments, and all the 
 house of his armour, and all that was found in his 
 treasures : there was nothing in his house, nor in all his 
 dominion, that he showed them not." ^ 
 
 Here there seems a strange and unaccountable con- 
 tradiction to the penury he had exhibited so shortly 
 before. A very brief interval had elapsed (as we have 
 proved) since he had scraped the gilding from the very 
 doors and pillars, to make up a sum to purchase the 
 forbearance of the enemy ; and now his store is become 
 so ample as to betray him into the vanity of exposing 
 it before the eyes of these suspicious strangers. There 
 is no attempt made to account for the discrepancy. A 
 passage, however, of a very few lines, and very inci- 
 dentally dropping out in the thirty-second chapter of 
 the second Book of Chronicles (v. 22, 23), and nowhere 
 else, supplies the explanation of this extraordinary and 
 sudden mutation. There, after a short account of the 
 discomfiture of the Assyrians by the angel, it is added, 
 
 ' Isaiah xxxix. 2. 
 
238 THE VERACITY OF THE Part III. 
 
 " Thus the Lord saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib the king of 
 Assyria, and from the hand of all other, and guided 
 them on every side. And mayiy brought gifts unto the 
 Lord to Jerusalem^ and f resents to Hezekiah king ofJu- 
 dah ; so that he was magnified in the sight of all natioiis 
 from thenceforthr 
 
 This fact clears up at once the apparent contra- 
 diction, though certainly introduced for no such pur- 
 pose ; no man can imagine it ; indeed, the order of 
 these several events is confounded in this chajiter of 
 Chronicles, and their mutual dependence (on which my 
 argument rests) deranged: so free from all suspicion 
 of contrivance is this combination of incidents in the 
 narrative. 
 
 For only let us recapitulate the several particulars 
 of the argument. From a passage in the second Book 
 of Kings (xviii. 13, 14), I learn that Hezekiah spent his 
 resources to the very last to bribe the Assyrian to for- 
 bearance ; but, as it proved, in vain. 
 
 By a comparison of a passage in 2 Kings (xviii. 13, 
 14), with another in Isaiah (xxxviii. 1 — 6), I learn, that 
 the sickness of Hezekiah was immediately before the 
 invasion of Jerusalem by the Assyrians. 
 
 By another passage in Isaiah (xxxix. 1), I learn that 
 an embassage of congratulation was sent to Hezekiah 
 from Babylon, on his recovery from his sickness. By 
 the same, that these ambassadors found him then in 
 possession of a treasury full to overflowing. 
 
 I am at a loss to account for this, nor does the 
 Scripture take any pains to do it for me ; but I find, 
 incidentally, a passage in the second Book of Chronicles, 
 which says (xxxii. 22, 23) that many had brought gifts 
 to the Lord at Jerusalem, and presents to Hezekiah ; so 
 
Part III. PROPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. 239 
 
 that he was thenceforth magnified in the sight of all 
 ■ nations. 
 
 This explains the change of circumstances I had 
 observed for myself. The several particulars, therefore, 
 of the history, gleaned from this quarter and that, per- 
 fectly cohere; are evidently component parts of one 
 trustworthy narrative; and no reasonable doubt will 
 remain upon our minds, that Hezekiah was greatly 
 straightened before the invasion, and was suddenly re- 
 plenished after it ; but then the truth of these facts 
 bears upon the truth of the wonderful event which is 
 said to have accompanied and terminated that invasion ; 
 not indeed 'proving the truth of it, but very remarkably 
 agreeing with the supposition of its truth. For certainly 
 this extraordinary and voluntary influx of gifts to Jeru- 
 salem from the nations round about, sinking as Judah 
 had long been in its position amongst those nations, 
 indicates some strong re-action or other in its favour at 
 that time ; as indeed does this embassage from a far 
 country (such is the description of it), a country then 
 comparatively but little known. The dignity of Israel 
 seems to have once more asserted itself ; and though it 
 is not to be affirmed as a positive fact (at least on the 
 authority of the Book of Kings or of Isaiah, though 
 the Book of Chronicles, howbeit, in other parts of this 
 transaction so defective, does seem to imply it), that 
 the miraculous destruction of the Assyrian array was 
 the event which had caused this strong sensation in the 
 countries round about ; yet such an event, to say the 
 least, is very consistent with it ; and accordingly, the 
 passage of Chronicles to which I refer (xxxii. 23), tells 
 us, that "many brought gifts to theXorc?at Jerusalem," 
 as well as " presents to Hezekiah," in testimony, it may 
 be presumed, of the work being the Lord's doing, and 
 
240 THE VERACITY OF THE Part III. 
 
 not the act of man ; /. e. that the Assyrian host fell by 
 an infliction from heaven, and not by any ordinary 
 defeat ; and if it should suggest itself, that a part of 
 these treasures^ might have been derived from the spoils 
 of the Assyrian host, and that the amount of gifts from 
 the surrounding nations might have been augmented by 
 the sacking of the tents of the enemy ; even as " all the 
 way was full of garments and vessels" (we are told on 
 another occasion of the sudden overthrow of an army of 
 a different nation) " which the Syrians had cast away in 
 their haste ;" ' the argument remains still the same. 
 
 2. Neither is this all. Hitherto, we have merely de- 
 rived from the coincidence an argument for the truth 
 of the miracle. 
 
 But it also confirms the prophecy touching the cap- 
 tivity to Babylon ; and shows the words to have been 
 spoken very long before the event. 
 
 For the aptness with which the several independent 
 particulars we have collected fit into one another, when 
 brought into juxtaposition, without being packed for 
 the purpose, viz., the threat of the Assyrian invasion ; 
 the impoverishment of the exchequer of Hezekiah to 
 avert it ; the overthrow of the Assyrian host ; the 
 influx of treasure to Jerusalem from foreign nations, or 
 from the enemy's camp ; the recovery of Hezekiah ; 
 the arrival of the embassage of congratulation from 
 Babylon ; the wealth he now exhibits to that em- 
 bassage, even to ostentation ; the harmony, I say, with 
 which these several incidents concur, both in details and 
 dates, is such as could only result from the truth of the 
 whole and of its parts. If we take therefore this fact 
 as a basis, as a fact established, for so I regard it, that 
 at that time Merodach-baladan, the son of Baladan, 
 ' 2 Kings vii. 15. 
 
Part III. PROPHETICAL SCRIPTUPtES. 241 
 
 sent letters and a present to Hezekiah ; for he had 
 heard that he had been sick and was recovered ; and 
 that Hezekiah showed the messengers all that was 
 found in his treasures, &c., the warning of Isaiah to 
 which Hezekiah's vanity gives occasion, rises so naturally 
 out of the premises, is so entirely founded upon them, 
 and so intimately combined with them, that it is next 
 to impossible not to accept it as a fact too. The folly 
 of the King, and the reproof of the prophet, must stand 
 or fall together: the one promjDts the other; the truth 
 of the one sustains the truth of the other; the date of 
 the one fixes the date of the other. But this warning, 
 this reproof of Isaiah, and this confession of the King, 
 runs thus: — "What said these men? and from whence 
 came they unto thee?" To which Hezekiah made 
 answer, "They are come from a far country unto 
 me, even from Babylon. Then said he. What have 
 they seen in thine house? And Hezekiah answered, 
 All that is in mine house have they seen ; there is 
 nothing among my treasures that I have not shewed 
 them. Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word 
 of the Lord of hosts : Behold, the days come, that all 
 that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have 
 laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to 
 Babylon, and nothing shall be left, saith the Lord."^ 
 
 Thus the period of Hezekiah's display of his finances 
 being determined to a period soon after the downfall of 
 the Assyrians, this rebuke of the prophet which springs 
 out of it is determined to the same. Then the rebuke 
 was a prophecy ; for as yet it remained for Esar-haddon, 
 the son of Sennacherib, to annex Babylon to Assyria 
 by conquest — it remained for the two kingdoms to 
 continue united for two generations more — it remained 
 
 ^ Isaiah xxxix. 
 
 R 
 
242 THE VERACITY OF THE Part III. 
 
 for Nabopolassar, tlie satrap of Babylon, to revolt from 
 Assyria, and set up that kingdom for itself — and it 
 remained for Nebuchadnezzar his son to succeed him, 
 and by carrying- away the Jews to Babylon, accomplish 
 the words of Isaiah. But this interval occupied a hun- 
 dred years and upwards ; and so far, therefore, must 
 the spirit of prophecy have carried him forward into 
 futurity ; and that, too, contrary to all present appear- 
 ances; for Babylon was as yet but a name to the 
 people of Jerusalem — it was a far country, and was to 
 be swallowed up in the great Assyrian empire, and 
 recover its independence once more, before it could be 
 brouo:ht to act as'ainst Judah. 
 
 The only objection to this argument which I can 
 imagine is, that the prophetical part of the passage 
 might have been grafted upon the historical part by a 
 later hand ; but the seaming, I think, must in that case 
 have appeared. Whereas the prophecy is in the form 
 of a rebuke ; the rebuke inseparably connected with 
 Hezekiah's vainglorious display of his treasures ; his 
 possession of those treasures to display, at the peculiar 
 crisis when the embassy arrived, though shortly before 
 his poverty was excessive, confirmed as a matter of fact 
 beyond all reasonable doubt, by an undesigned coinci- 
 dence. The premises, then, being thus established in 
 truth, and the consequences flowing from them being so 
 close and so natural, it is less easy to suppose them 
 fictitious than prophetical. 
 
 IV. 
 
 There is another ingredient in the details of this inva- 
 sion of Sennacherib which, when compared with a pas- 
 sage in Isaiah, furnishes, I think, a probable coincidence ; 
 and tends to hem round the wonderful event which is 
 
Part III. PEOPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. 243 
 
 said to have attended that invasion, with still more 
 evidence of truth. 
 
 When the King of Assyria sent his host against 
 Jerusalem on this occasion, the persons deputed by 
 Hezekiali to confer with his captains, were, we read, 
 " Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, which was over the hous- 
 hold, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph 
 the recorder.'" Their names occur more than once^ 
 and still with this distinction, namely, that the parent- 
 age of Eliakim and of Joah is given, but not that of 
 Shebna : of the two former it is told whose sons they 
 were, as well as what offices they held ; whilst Shebna 
 is designated by his office only. 
 
 Now is there a reason for this, or is it merely the 
 effect of accident? The omission certainly may be 
 accidental, but I will suggest a ground for thinking it 
 not so, and will leave my readers to be the judges of 
 the matter. 
 
 In the twenty-second chajjter of Isaiah (v. 15, et seq.) 
 we find the prophet delivering a message of wrath 
 against one Shebna, in the following terms : " Thus 
 saith the Lord God of hosts. Go, get thee unto this 
 treasurer, even unto Shebna, which is over the house, 
 and say. What hast thou here? and whom hast thou 
 here, that thou hast hewed thee out a seimlchre here, as 
 he that heweth him out a sepulchre on high, and that 
 graveth an habitation for himself in a rock ? Behold, 
 the Lord will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, 
 and will surely cover thee. He will surely violently 
 turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country : 
 there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory 
 shall be the shame of thy lord's house. And I will 
 drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he 
 
 ^ 2 Kings xviii. 18. | "2 Kings xix. 2; Isa. xxxvi. 3. 
 
 R 2 
 
244 THE VERACITY OF THE Part III. 
 
 pull thee down." The purport of which rebuke is that, 
 whereas Shebna was busily engaged in constructing 
 for himself a sumptuous sepulchre at Jerusalem, as 
 though he and his posterity were to have that for their 
 burial-place for ever, he might spare himself the pains, 
 for that God, for some transgression of his which is not 
 mentioned, was about to depose him from the post of 
 honour which he held, and banish him from his city, 
 and leave him to die in a strange land. 
 
 It is true that Shebna is here called the " treasurer," 
 whereas the Shebna mentioned in the Book of Kings, 
 with whom the coincidence requires that he should be 
 identified, is called "the scribe," but the two periods are 
 not necessarily the same, and he might have been " the 
 treasurer," at the one, and " the scribe," at the other ; 
 for that he is the same man I can have no doubt, not 
 merely from Shebna in either case belonging clearly to 
 the King's court, which greatly limits the conditions ; 
 but from Eliakim the son of Hilkiah being again spoken 
 of immediately in connection with him, in the passage 
 of Isaiah (v. 20), as he had been in the passage of the 
 Book of Kings. It being presumed, then, that the 
 Shebna of Isaiah and the Shebna of the Book of Kings 
 is the same person, I account for the omission of his 
 parentage in the history from the circumstance of his 
 being a foreiciner at Jerusalem, whilst Eliakim and 
 Joali were native Jews whose genealogy was known ; 
 and this fact I conclude from the expression in Isaiah 
 which I have printed in Italics, " What hast thou here, 
 and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewed thee out 
 a sepulchre heref' Jerusalem not having been the 
 burial-place of his family, because he did not belong to 
 Jerusalem. 
 
Part III. PEOPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. 245 
 
 V. 
 
 In the sixty-second chapter of this same prophet Isaiah, 
 reference is made to the future restoration of the Jewish 
 Church ; in the first sense, perhaps, and as a frame- 
 work of more, its restoration from Babylon ; in a second, 
 its eventual restoration to Christ, and the coming in 
 of the Jew and Gentile together. "Thou shalt no 
 more be termed Forsaken^ — so Isaiah here expresses 
 himself concerning Jerusalem, — " neither shall thy land 
 any more be termed Desolate; but thou shalt be 
 called Hephzi-bah, and thy land Beulah : for the Lord 
 delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married." 
 (v. 4.) 
 
 The figure here employed is that of a marriage : 
 there is to be a marriage between God and his Church: 
 that divorce from God, which the sins of Jerusalem had 
 effected, was to be done away, and the nuptial bond be 
 renewed. Jerusalem was to be no longer as a widow, 
 Fm^saken and Desolate, but to be as a bride, and to be 
 called Hephzi-bah, i. e., " in her is my delight," and 
 " Beulah,'' i. e., married. The verse immediately follow- 
 ing the one I have produced, still continues the same 
 figure : " For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall 
 thy sons marry (or again live with) thee ; and as the 
 bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God 
 rejoice over thee" (ver. 5). Now it is impossible to read 
 the prophets with the least attention, and not discover 
 that the incidents upon Avhich they raise their oracular 
 superstructure are in general real matters of fact which 
 have fallen in their way. When they soar even into 
 their sublitnest flights, they often take their spring from 
 some solid and substantial footing. Our Lord was act- 
 ing quite in the spirit of the older prophets when He 
 
246 THE VERACITY OF THE Part III. 
 
 advanced from his observations on the temple before 
 him, and the desolation it was soon to suffer, to the final 
 consummation of all things, and the breaking up of the 
 universal visible world ; and the commentary of those 
 who would endeavour to construe the whole by a refer- 
 ence to the destruction of Jerusalem only is not imbued 
 with the spirit of the prophets of ancient times. 
 
 From the passage before us, then, it should seem 
 that some nuptial ceremony was the accident of the 
 day which gave the prophet an opportunity of uttering 
 his parable concerning the future fortune of Jerusalem. 
 Can we trace any such event in the history of those 
 days, likely from its importance to arrest public at- 
 tention, and thus to furnish Isaiah with this figure? I 
 do not say positively that we can ; nevertheless the 
 name o^ Hephzi-bah, which he assigns to this his new 
 Jerusalem, may throw some light upon our inquiry ; for 
 in the twenty-first chapter of the second Book of 
 Kings I read that " Manasseh" (the son of Hezekiah) 
 "was twelve years old when he began to reign, and 
 reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem, and his 
 mother's name was Heplizi-hali.'''^ It is not improbable, 
 therefore, that the royal nuptials of Hezekiah occurred 
 about the time of this prophecy ; and that Isaiah, after 
 the manner of the prophets in general, availed himself 
 of the passing event, and of the name of the bride, as 
 a vehicle for the tidings which he had to communicate. 
 This, too, may seem the more likely, because this pro- 
 phecy of Isaiah does not appear to have been spoken at 
 an early period of his mission, but subsequently to the 
 sickness and recovery of Hezekiah (if the prophecies at 
 least are arranged at all in the order in which they 
 were delivered); neither is it probable that the marriage 
 
 ' 2 Kings xxi. 1. 
 
Part III. PROPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. 247 
 
 of Hezekiah was contracted till after that same sickness 
 and recovery, seeing that his son and successor was but 
 ticelve years old at his father's death, which happened, 
 we know, fifteen years after his illness. 
 
 VI. 
 
 But it is not by single and separate coincidences only, 
 that the authority of these prophecies is upheld : there 
 are some coincidences of a more comprehensive and 
 general kind, that argue the same truth. Thus, the 
 scenes amongst which Isaiah seems to write, indicate 
 the commonwealth of Israel to be yet standing. He 
 remonstrates, in the name of God, with the people for 
 a hypocritical observance of the Fast-days (ch. Iviii. 3); 
 for exacting usurious profits nevertheless ; for prolong- 
 ing unlawfully the years of bondage (v. 6) ; for profan- 
 ing the Sabbaths (v. 13) ; for confounding all distinction 
 between clean and unclean meats (ch. Ixv. 4; Ixvi. 17). 
 He makes perpetual allusions, too, to the existence of 
 false prophets in Jerusalem, as though this class of 
 persons was very common whilst Isaiah was writing ; 
 the most likely persons in the world to be engendered 
 by troubled times. And above all, he reviles the people 
 for their gross and universal idolatry ; a sin, which in 
 all its aspects, is pursued from the fortieth chapter to 
 the last with a ceaseless, inextinguishable, unmitigated 
 storm of mockery, contempt, and scorn. With what 
 position of the prophet can these, and many similar 
 allusions, be reconciled, but with that of a man dwelling 
 in Judea before the captivity, during a period, which, 
 as historically described in the latter chapters of the 
 Books of Kings and Chronicles, presents the exjDress 
 counterpart of those references in the prophet ? Heze- 
 
248 THE VERACITY OF THE Part III. 
 
 kiah and Josiah, the two redeeming princes of that 
 time, serving, as breakers, to make manifest the fury 
 with which the tide of abominations of every kind was 
 running. I say, to what other period, and to what 
 other position of the writer, does the internal evidence 
 of Isaiah jDoint ? indirectly, indeed, but not on that 
 account, in a manner the less conclusive. Had he 
 taken up his parable during the Babylonish bondage, 
 would there not have been frequent and inadvertent 
 allusions to the circumstances of Babylon ? Could his 
 style have escaped the contagious influence of the 
 scenes around him ? even as the case actually is with 
 Daniel, whose dwelling was at Babylon. Yet in Isaiah 
 there are no allusions of this nature. It is of Jerusa- 
 lem, and not of Babylon, that his roll savours through- 
 out ; of the land of Israel, and not of Chaldea. More- 
 over, it is of Jerusalem before the captivity ; for after 
 that trying furnace through which the Jewish nation 
 was condemned to pass, it was disinfected of idolatry. 
 Nay, a horror of idolatry succeeded, great as had been 
 the propensity to it aforetime ; the whole nation baring 
 their necks to the sword, rather than admit within their 
 walls even a Roman Eagle : whilst the ritual observ- 
 ances of the law, so far from falling into desuetude and 
 contempt, were now kept with even a suj)erstitious 
 scrupulosity. 
 
 I think, then, that the several undesigned coinci- 
 dences between passages in Isaiah, and others in the 
 Books of Kings and Chronicles, which have been now 
 adduced, are enough to prove that the prophet was con- 
 temporary with Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, 
 and saw his vision in their days, even as its title 
 declares. The mere introduction of the names of these 
 princes into the pages of Isaiah, is not the argument on 
 
Pabt III. PROPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. 249 
 
 which I rely. It might be said, however improbabl}% 
 that an author of a date much lower, might have 
 admitted these names, and fragments of history con- 
 nected with them, into his rhapsody, in order to give it 
 a colouring of fact ; but it is the indirect coincidences 
 between the prophet and the history, which verifies the 
 date of the former — allusions, mere allusions, to obscure 
 servants of these sovereigns (known to be such) ; to a 
 marriage of the day; to the stopping of a well; to the 
 foolish exhibition of a treasure — allusions, indeed, in 
 some cases so indistinct, that the full drift of the pro- 
 phet would have escaped us, but for the historian. 
 Such an argument ought to satisfy us that Isaiah was 
 as surely alive, and dead, long before the Babylonish 
 captivity, which he so accurately foretold, even to the 
 deliverance from it — a still further reach into futurity 
 — as that Ahaz and Hezekiah lived and died long 
 before it ; an argument, therefore, which justifies the 
 Jews in their enrolment of his name amongst the most 
 distinguished of the prophets, though they had no other 
 ground for so doing than their knowledge of his exact 
 prediction of the events of those days ; and which 
 must leave us without excuse in our incredulity, born 
 as we are after the advent of that Messiah which forms 
 so principal a subject of Isaiah's writings besides ; and 
 whose character and Gospel we have found to correspond 
 in so remarkable a manner to the description of both 
 which they contain. For it is not the least singular or 
 the least satisfactory feature in the writings of Isaiah 
 that they should thus relate to two distinct periods, 
 separated by a wide interval of time, and be found to 
 be so exact in both ; that they should have first taken 
 for their field the events preceding and accompanying 
 the captivity, foretelling them so faithfully as to convince 
 
250 THE VERACITY OF THE Part III. 
 
 tlie Jew that he was one of the greatest of his pro- 
 phets: that some hundreds of years shoukl then be 
 allowed to elapse, of which they are silent ; and that 
 then they should break out again on the subject of a 
 second and altogether different series of incidents, so 
 deeply interesting to the Christian, and be found by 
 him, in his turn, to be so wonderfully true to them — so 
 wonderfully true to them, that he cannot but be surprised 
 that the Jew, whose acceptance of the prophet was 
 even already secured by the previous stage of his pro- 
 phecy, of which we have been now examining the evi- 
 dence, should still be unable to see in him the prophet 
 of Jesus Christ of Nazareth too. 
 
 VII. 
 
 We next come to the writings of Jeremiah, which do 
 not, however, supply many arguments of the kind I am 
 collecting, nor perhaps any so persuasive in their cha- 
 racter as some which I have produced from Isaiah. 
 Still there are several which at least deserve to be 
 brought before my readers. 
 
 In the midst of a denunciation of evils to come upon 
 Jerusalem for her wickedness, which we find in the 
 thirteenth chapter of Jeremiah, — a denunciation for the 
 most part expressed in general terms, and in a manner 
 not conveying any very exact allusions, — we read at 
 the eighteenth verse, " Say unto the King and to the 
 Queen, Humble yourselves, sit down : for your princi- 
 palities shall come down, even the crown of your glory." 
 Jeremiah does not here tell us the name either of the 
 king or the queen referred to ; but as the queens of 
 Israel do not figure prominently in the history of that 
 nation, except where there is something peculiar in 
 their characters or condition to bring them out, it may 
 
Part III. PROPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. 251 
 
 be thought there was something of the kind in this 
 instance : and accordingly we have mention made in 
 the twenty-fourth chapter of the second Book of Kings 
 of an invasion of the Chaldeans, attended by circum- 
 stances corresponding to what we might expect from 
 this exclamation of Jeremiah. It was the second of 
 the three invasions which occurred at that time within 
 a few years of one another, to which I allude^; an 
 invasion made by the servants of Nebuchadnezzar, fol- 
 lowed by Nebuchadnezzar himself in person. On this 
 occasion it is said, that " Jehoiachin the king of Judah, 
 went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, 
 and his servants, and his princes, and his officers : and 
 the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of 
 his reign" (v. 12) : and again, " And he carried away 
 Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king's motJier, and the 
 king's wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the 
 land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to 
 Babylon." (v. 15.) 
 
 As Jehoiachin was at that time only eighteen years 
 old, and had reigned no more than three months (v. 8), 
 the queen dowager was no doubt still a person of con- 
 sequence, possibly his adviser, at any rate an influential 
 person as yet, so short a period having elapsed since the 
 death of her husband the last king ; and thus an object 
 of pity to the prophet, and one that called for express 
 notice and remark. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Jeremiah xxii. 10 — 12, furnishes us with another 
 instance of coincidence without design, calculated to 
 establish our belief in that prophet. We there read, 
 " Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him : but 
 ^ Q Kings xxiv. 1. 10; xxv. 1. 
 
252 THE VERACITY OF THE Part III. 
 
 weep for him that goeth away ; for he shall return no 
 more, nor see his native country. For thus saith the 
 Lord touching Shallum the son of Josiah, king of 
 Judah, which reigned instead of Josiah his father, 
 which went forth out of this place ; He shall not return 
 thither any more : but he shall die in the place whither 
 they have led him captive, and shall see this land no 
 more." 
 
 Now this passage evidently relates to several events 
 familiar to the minds of those whom the prophet was 
 addressing. It is a series of allusions to circumstances 
 known to them, but by no means sufficiently developed 
 to put us in possession of the tale without some further 
 key. It should appear that there had been a great 
 public mourning in Jerusalem : but it is not distinctly 
 said for whom ; it might be supposed for Josiah, whose 
 name occurs in the paragraph ; — that another calamity 
 had come upon its heels very shortly afterwards, calling, 
 as the prophet thought, for expressions of national 
 sorrow which might even supersede the other ; a prince, 
 the son of Josiah, led away captive into a foreign land ; 
 but whither he was thus led, or by whom, is not de- 
 clared. The whole is evidently the discourse of a man 
 living amongst the scenes he touches upon, and con- 
 scious that he has no need to do more than touch upon 
 them to make himself understood by his hearers. 
 
 Now let us turn to the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth 
 chapters of the second Book of Chronicles, where cer- 
 tain historical details of the events of those times are 
 preserved, and the key will be supplied. In the former 
 chapter I find that the death of Josiah, a king who had 
 been a blessing to his kingdom, and who was slain by an 
 arrow, as he fought against the Egyptians, was in fact 
 an event that filled all Jerusalem with consternation and 
 
Part III. PROPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. 253 
 
 grief : " he died, and was buried in one of the sepulchres 
 of his fathers. And all Judali and Jerusalem mourned 
 for Josiah. And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah : and 
 all the singing men and the singing women spake of 
 Josiah in their lamentations unto this day, and made 
 them an ordinance in Israel : and, behold, they are 
 written in the lamentations." ^ Here we have the first 
 feature in Jeremiah's very transient sketch completed. 
 
 I look at the continuation of the history in the 
 next chapter, and I there find that the son of Josiah, 
 Jehoahaz by name (and not called Shallum in the 
 Chronicles), " began to reign, and he reigned three 
 months in Jerusalem ; and the king of Egypt put him 
 down at Jerusalem, and condemned the land in a 
 hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. And 
 the king of Egypt made Eliakim his brother king over 
 Judah and Jerusalem, and turned his name to Jehoia- 
 kim. And Necho took Jehoahaz his brother^ and carried 
 him to Egyptr Here we have the other outlines of 
 Jeremiah's picture filled up. The second calamity did 
 come, it appears, on the heels of the first, for it was 
 only after an interval of three months. The King of 
 Egypt, we now find, was the conqueror who carried the 
 prince away, and Egypt was the country to which he 
 was conducted. And though the victim is called Je- 
 hoahaz in the history, and Shallum in the prophet, the 
 facts concerning him tally so exactly, that there can be 
 no doubt of the identity of the man ; whilst the absence 
 of all attempt on either side to explain or reconcile this 
 difficulty about the name, is a clear proof that neither 
 passage was written in reference to the other : though 
 it may be conjectured, that as Necho gave a new name 
 to Eliakim ^ the one brother, so he might have done 
 
 ' 2 Chron. xxxv. 34, 25. I ^ g Kings xxiii. 34. 
 
254 THE VERACITY OF THE Pabt III. 
 
 the like by the other, and called him Shallum instead 
 of Jehoahaz. 
 
 But there is a farther hint. " Weep ye not," says 
 Jeremiah, " for the dead : but weep for him that goeth 
 away : for he shall return no more." This should imply 
 that the prince of whom Jerusalem was thus bereft, was 
 acceptable to his people ; more acceptable than he who 
 was to supply his place. The thing to be lamented was 
 that he would return no more. It is true that for the 
 little time Jehoahaz reigned, he did evil in the sight of 
 the Lord ' ; but so did Jelioiakim ^ ; so that in this 
 respect there was nothing to choose ; and in the con- 
 dition of the Jews at that time, an irreligious prince 
 (for that would be the meaning of the term) would not 
 necessarily be an unpopular one. I repeat, therefore, 
 that the words of Jeremiah seem to indicate that the 
 prince who had been carried away was more acceptable 
 than the one who was left in his stead. I now turn, 
 once again, to the thirty-sixth chapter of the second 
 Book of Chronicles (v. 1), or to the twenty-third chapter 
 of the second Book of Kings (v. 30), and I there dis- 
 cover (for the incident is not obvious) a particular with 
 regard to this prince who w^as carried away captive by 
 Necho, and to his brother who was appointed to reign 
 in his stead, very remarkably coinciding with these 
 inuendos of Jeremiah. For in the former reference it 
 is said, that on the death of Josiah, " the people of the 
 land took Jehoahaz" (the Shallum of the Prophet) " the 
 son of Josiah, and made him king in his father's stead 
 at Jerusalem. Jehoahaz," it continues, "was twenty 
 and three years old when he began to reign." Then 
 comes the history of his deposal, abduction, and of the 
 substitution of his brother Eliakim to reign in Jerusa- 
 ^ 2 Kings xxiii. 32. | - '2 Chron. xxxvi. 5. 
 
Part III. PROPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. 255 
 
 lem in his place, under the name of Jehoiakim : " and 
 Jehoiakim," it is added, " was twenty and five years okl 
 when he began to reign." Now inasmuch as Jehoahaz 
 had reigned only three months, Jehoahaz must have 
 been younger than Jehoiakim by nearly two years : how 
 then came the younger son to succeed his father on the 
 throne in the first instance ? " The peojjle of the land 
 took him,'' we have read : i. e., he was the more popular 
 character, and therefore they set him on the throne in 
 spite of the superior claims of the firstborn. And a 
 phrase which occurs in the latter of the two references 
 confirms this view ; for the people are there said not 
 only to have taken him, but to have " anointed him'''' — a 
 ceremonial, which, whether invariably observed or not 
 in cases of ordinary descent of the crown, never seems 
 to have been omitted in cases of doubtful succession '. 
 
 This history, it will be seen, supplies with great suc- 
 cess the particulars which are incidentally omitted in 
 the prophecy, though clearly constructed with no such 
 intention ; and fixes the date of Jeremiah to a period 
 long before several of the events which he foretels. 
 
 IX. 
 
 Of Hosea, we read that he prophesied " in the days 
 of UzziaJi, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Ju- 
 dah." i. 1. 
 
 In the course of this prophecy we find frequent 
 incidental allusions to a scarcity of food in the land of 
 Israel. 
 
 " Therefore will I return, and take away my corn in 
 the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof," 
 ii. 9. *' I will destroy her vines and her fig-trees," 12. 
 
 ^ See 2 Kings ix. 3, and Patrick in loc. and also on 2 Kings 
 xxiii. 30. 
 
256 THE VERACITY OF THE Part III. 
 
 " Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that 
 dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the 
 field, and with the fowls of heaven ; yea, the fishes of 
 the sea also shall be taken away," iv. 3. " They have 
 not cried unto me with their heart, when they howled 
 upon their beds : they assembled themselves for corn 
 and wine, and they rebel against me," vii. 14. " They 
 have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind : 
 it hath no stalk : the bud shall yield no meal:" viii. 7. 
 " The floor and the wine-press shall not feed them, and 
 the new wine shall fail in her." ix. 2. 
 
 Again, Amos is said to have prophesied concerning 
 Israel " in the days of Uzziah, king of Judah, and in 
 the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel." 
 i. 1. 
 
 In this prophet also, in like manner, as in the former, 
 we find incidental allusions to dearth in the land. " The 
 habitations of the shepherds shall mourn, and the top 
 of Carniel shall wither," i. 2. " I also have given you 
 cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and want of bread 
 in all your places, yet have ye not returned unto me, 
 saitli the Lord. And also I have withholden the rain 
 from you, when there were yet three months to the 
 harvest: ... So two or three cities wandered unto one 
 city, to drink water ; but they were not satisfied : . . . 
 I have smitten you with blasting and mildew : when 
 your gardens, and your vineyards, and your fig-trees, 
 and your olive-trees increased, the palmerworm de- 
 voured them : ... they shall call the husbandman to 
 
 the mourning And in all vineyards shall be 
 
 wailing;" iv. 6 — 9; v. 16, 17. — With more to the 
 same effect in both these prophets. 
 
 Now, if we turn to 2 Chronicles xxvi. 10, where we 
 have a brief history of the reign of this same king 
 
Paet III. PROPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. 257 
 
 Uzziah, under whom we have seen they lived, we shall 
 find a feature of it recorded, which seems to tally ex- 
 tremely well with this representation of the condition 
 of Israel. For it is there told of him, amongst other 
 things, that " he built towers in the desert, and digged 
 many wells : for he had much cattle, both in the low 
 country, and in the plains : husbandmen also, and vine 
 dressers in the mountains, and in Carmel : for he loved 
 husbandryr As tliough the precarious state of the 
 supply of food in the country had turned the King's 
 attention in a particular manner to the improvement of 
 its agriculture. 
 
 X. 
 
 It has been remarked, with respect to the Prophet 
 Amos, that the style in which his prophecies are 
 written, and the images with which they abound, are in 
 strict harmony with his calling and occupation. Yet, 
 whatever coincidence of this kind there may be, is evi- 
 dently casual. 
 
 Thus in chap. vii. v. 14, we read, " Then answered 
 Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither 
 was I a prophet's son ; but I was an herdmmi, and 
 a gatherer of sycomore fruit : And the Lord took me 
 as / followed the flock, and the Lord said unto me. Go, 
 prophesy unto my people Israel." 
 
 Compare this with the following passages, all found 
 in the compass of nine chapters, for the Book of Amos 
 consists of no more, and those short ones. 
 
 Ch. i. 2. " And the habitations of the shepherds shall 
 mourn, and the tojD of Carmel shall wither." 
 
 3. " For three transgressions of Damascus, and for 
 four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; 
 
 s 
 
258 THE VERACITY OF THE Part III. 
 
 because they have threshed Gilead with threshing instru- 
 ments of iron :" 
 
 ii. 9. " Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, 
 whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he 
 was strong as the oaks ; yet I destroyed his fruit from 
 above, and his roots from beneath." 
 
 13. "Behold, I am pressed under you, as a cart is 
 pressed that is full of sheaves^ 
 
 iii. 4. " Will a lion roar in the forest, when he hath 
 no prey? will a young lion cry out of his den, if he 
 have taken nothing?" 
 
 5. " Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where 
 no gin is for him? shall one take up a snare from 
 the earth, and have taken nothing at all ?" 
 
 12. " As the shepherd taketh out of the mouth of the 
 lion two legs, or a piece of an ear ; so shall the children 
 of Israel be taken out." 
 
 iv. 3. "And ye shall go out at the breaches, evert/ 
 cow at that which is hefore herT 
 
 V. 11. " Forasmuch therefore as your treading is 
 upon the poor, and ye take from him burdens of 
 wheat,'' &c. 
 
 16. "Alas! alas! and they shall call the husbandman 
 
 to mourning, and in all vineyards shall be wail- 
 
 ing." 
 
 19. " As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear 
 met him." 
 
 vi. 4. They " that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch 
 themselves upon their couches, and eat the lambs out of 
 the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stalls 
 
 12. " Shall horses run upon the rock? will one plough 
 there with oocen ? " 
 
 vii. 1. " And, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the 
 
Part III. PROPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. ^59 
 
 beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth ; and, 
 lo ! it was the latter growth after the king's mowings." 
 
 viii. 1. " Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me : 
 and behold a basket of sumvier fruit. 
 
 2. " And he said, Amos, what seest thou ? and I said, 
 A basket of summer fruit." 
 
 5. " When will the new moon be gone, that we may 
 sell cmmf and the sabbath, that we may set forth 
 wheat f " 
 
 6. " Yea, and sell the refuse of the wheat f' 
 
 ix. 9. For, lo ! I will command, and I will sift the 
 house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted 
 in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.''' 
 
 13. " Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the 
 plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of 
 grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall 
 drop sweet wine " 
 
 14. " And they shall plant vineyards, and drink 
 
 the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat 
 the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their 
 land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their 
 land." 
 
 I do not press this argument beyond a point. All I 
 mean to say is, that the occupation of the prophet 
 being accidentally made known to us, his language 
 throughout his prophecy is just what might be expected 
 to result from it. 
 
 XL 
 
 The following is an example of a case where the hints 
 which transpire in the prophet agree very well with 
 particulars recorded in the history ; but perhaps that is 
 all that can be said of it with safety : the language of 
 the prophet not being sufficiently specific to fix the 
 
 s 2 
 
260 THE VERACITY OF THE Part III. 
 
 coincidence to a certainty. The reader must judge for 
 himself of the value of the argument in this particular 
 instance. 
 
 We read in Amos (vii. 10, 11) as follows: "Then 
 Amaziah the priest of Beth-el sent to Jeroboam king of 
 Israel, saying, Amos hath conspired against thee in the 
 midst of the house of Israel : the land is not able to hear 
 all his words. For thus Amos saith, Jeroboam shall 
 die by the sword, and Israel shall surely be led away 
 captive out of their own land." 
 
 We have here a priest of Beth-el, i. e., of the calves, 
 denouncing to the King of Israel the prophet Amos, as 
 one who was unsettling the minds of the people by liis 
 prophecies — prophecies which " the land was not able to 
 bear.'" It would seem then, from this phrase, that the 
 state was in a critical condition ; such a condition as 
 gave double force to a prediction which went to deprive 
 it of its king, and to consign its children to bondage. 
 It was ill able to spare Jeroboam, or bear up against 
 evil forebodings. This we gather from the passage of 
 Amos. 
 
 Let us now turn to the fourteenth chapter of the 
 second Book of Kings. There we read, first of all, 
 of Jeroboam, that " he dejjarted not from all the sins 
 of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin" 
 (v. 23) — i. e., that he strenuously supported the worship 
 of the calves. This fact, then, makes it highly probable 
 that Amaziah, a priest of Beth-el, would find in Jero- 
 boam a ready listener to any sinister construction he 
 might put upon the words of a prophet of the Lord, 
 like Amos. 
 
 We further learn, that this same Jeroboam was one 
 of the most successful princes that had sat upon the 
 throne of Israel ; restoring her coasts, and recovering 
 
Part III. 
 
 PKOPHETICAL SCRIPTURES. 
 
 261 
 
 her possessions by force of arms (v. 25. 28) : a sovereign, 
 therefore, to be missed by the nation he ruled, Avhen- 
 ever he should be removed ; and especially if there was 
 nobody forthcoming calculated to replace him. Let us 
 see how this was. Jeroboam reigned forty-one years 
 (2 Kings xiv. 23), but in the twenty-seventh of Jero- 
 boam, Azariah (or Uzziah as he is called in the Chro- 
 nicles, 2 Chron. xxvi. 1), began to reign in Judah 
 (2 Kings XV. 1) ; i. e., Jeroboam's reign expired in the 
 fifteenth of Azariah. But his son and successor Zacha- 
 riah, for some reason or other, and owing to some im- 
 pediment, which does not transpire, did not begin his 
 reign over Samaria till the thirty-eighth of Azariah 
 (ib. 8). Therefore the throne of Samaria must have 
 been in some sort vacant twenty-three years : nor did 
 the anarchy cease even then, for Zachariah having at 
 length ascended the throne, after a reign of six months 
 was murdered publicly " before the people ;" and Shal- 
 lum, the usurper who succeeded him, shared the same 
 fate, after a reign of a single month (ib. 13) ; and 
 Menahem, the successor of Shallum, was reduced to the 
 necessity of buying off an invasion of the Assyrians (the 
 first incursion of that people) under Pul (ib. 19) ; Assyria 
 having in the meanwhile grown great, and now taking 
 advantage of the ruinous condition of Israel, consequent 
 on the death of Jeroboam, to come against him \ 
 
 Amaziah, therefore, might well declare that the land 
 was not able to bear the icords of Amos, for in all pro- 
 bability he could foresee, from the actual circumstances 
 of the country, the troubles that were likely to ensue 
 
 ^ This is the first mention of 
 tlie kingdom of Assyria since the 
 days of Nimrod (Gen. x. 11). It 
 seems to have been inconsiderable 
 
 when the eighty-third Psahia was 
 jDenned, in which Assur is repre- 
 sented as helping tlie children of 
 Lot (v. 8). 
 
262 THE VERACITY, &c. Part III. 
 
 whenever Jerobam's reign should be brought to an 
 end. 
 
 Here, then, I say, the language of the prophet is at 
 least very consistent with the crisis of which he speaks, 
 as represented in the Book of Kings. 
 
 I could add several other examples of this class, 
 i. e., where allusions in thej^rophets are very sufficiently 
 responded to by events recorded in the historical Books 
 of Scripture, but still the want of precision in the terms 
 makes it difficult to affirm the coincidence between the 
 two documents with confidence : and therefore I have 
 thought it better to suppress such instances, as not 
 possessing that force of evidence which entitles them 
 to a place in these pages ; as for the same reason I 
 drew no contingent to my argument from a comparison 
 between the Psalms and the Books of Samuel; for 
 though many of the Psalms concur very well with the 
 circumstances in which David is represented to have 
 been actually placed from time to time, in the Books 
 of Samuel; and though the Psalms are often headed 
 with a notice that this was written when he was flying 
 before Saul, and that when he was reproached by 
 Nathan ; yet the internal testimony is not so strong as to 
 carry conviction along with it, of such being really the 
 case ; and this failing, it is folly to weaken a sound 
 argument by a fanciful extension of it. 
 
THE VERACITY 
 
 THE GOSPELS AND ACTS. 
 
 PART IV. 
 
 I NOW proceed to apply the same test of truth, 
 the test of coincidence without design, which the 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament have sustained so 
 satisfactorily, to the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles ; 
 and I am pleased that my first coincidence in order 
 happens to be one of the class where a miracle is in- 
 volved in the coincidence. 
 
 I. 
 
 In the fourth chapter of St. Matthew we read thus : — 
 "And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw 
 two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his 
 brother, casting a net into the sea : for they were 
 fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and 
 I will make you fishers of men. And they straight- 
 way left their nets, and followed him. And going 
 on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James 
 the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a 
 ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets / 
 and he called them. And they immediately left 
 the ship and their father, and followed him." 
 
 Now let us compare this with the fifth chapter of St. 
 
264 THE VERACITY OF THE Pakt IV. 
 
 Luke. " And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed 
 upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the 
 lake of Gennesaret, And saw two ships standing by the 
 lake : but the fishermen were gone out of them, and 
 were washing their nets. And he entered into one of 
 the ships, which was Simon's, and prayed him that he 
 M'ould thrust out a little from the land. And he sat 
 down, and taught the jieople out of the ship. Now 
 when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch 
 out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. 
 And Simon answering said unto him. Master, we have 
 toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless 
 at thy word I will let down the net. And when they had 
 this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes ; and 
 their net brake ; And they beckoned to their partners 
 which were in the other ship, that they should come and 
 help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, 
 so that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw it, 
 he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me ; 
 for I am a sinful man, Lord. For he was astonished, 
 and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes 
 which they had taken : And so was also James, and 
 John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with 
 Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not ; from 
 henceforth thou shalt catch men. And when they 
 had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and 
 followed him." 
 
 The narrative of St. Luke may be reckoned the 
 supplement to that of St. Matthew ; for that both re- 
 late to the same event I think indisputable. In both 
 we are told of the circumstances under which Andrew, 
 Peter, James, and John, became the decided followers 
 of Christ ; in both they are called to attend Him in the 
 same terms, and those remarkable and technical terms ; 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. ^Q5 
 
 in both the scene is the same, the grouping of the 
 parties the same, and the obedience to the summons 
 the same. By comparing the two Evangelists, the 
 history may be thus completed : — Jesus teaches the 
 people out of Peter's boat, to avoid the press ; the boat 
 of Zebedee and his sons, meanwhile, standing by the 
 lake a little further on. The sermon ended, Jesus 
 orders Peter to thrust out, and the miraculous draught 
 of fishes ensues. Peter's boat not sufficing for the 
 fish, he beckons to his partners, Zebedee and his com- 
 j^anions, who were in the other ship. The vessels are 
 both filled and pulled to the shore ; and now Jesus, 
 having convinced Peter and Andrew by his preaching, 
 and the miracle which he had wrought, gives them the 
 call. He then goes on to Zebedee and his sons, who 
 having brought their boat to land were mending their 
 nets, and calls them. Such is the whole transaction, 
 not to be gathered from one, but from both the Evan- 
 gelists. The circumstance to be remarked, therefore, 
 is this : that of the miracle, St. Matthew says not a 
 single word; nevertheless, he tells us, that Zebedee 
 and his sons were found by our Lord, when He gave 
 them the call, " mending their nets." How it happened 
 that the nets wanted mending he does not think it 
 needful to state, nor should we have thought it needful 
 to inquire, but it is impossible not to observe, that it 
 perfectly harmonises with the incident mentioned by 
 St. Luke, that in the miraculous draught of fishes the 
 nets brake. This coincidence, slight as it is, seems to 
 me to bear upon the truth of the miracle itself. For 
 the " mending of the nets," asserted by one Evangelist, 
 gives probability to the " breaking of the nets," men- 
 tioned by the other — the breaking of the nets gives 
 probability to the large draught of fishes — the large 
 
266 
 
 THE VERACITY OF THE 
 
 Part IV. 
 
 draught of fishes gives probability to the miracle. I 
 do not mean that the coincidence proves the miracle, 
 but that it marks an attention to truth in the Evange- 
 lists ; for it surely would be an extravagant refinement 
 to suppose, that St. Matthew designedly lets fall the 
 fact of the mending of the nets, whilst he suppresses 
 the miracle, in order to confirm the credit of St. Luke, 
 who, in relating the miracle, says, that through it the 
 nets brake \ 
 
 ^ The identity of the event 
 here recorded by St. Matthew 
 and St. Luke is questioned, and 
 upon the following grounds: 
 
 1. In St. Matthew, "Jesus 
 walks by the sea of Galilee." In 
 St. Luke, " the people press upon 
 him to hear the word as he stood 
 by the lake." The quiet walk has 
 nothing in common with the press 
 of the multitude. But how do we 
 know that the walk was a quiet 
 one ? It is not, indeed, asserted 
 that it was otherwise, but the 
 omission of a fact is not the ne- 
 gation of it. Nobody would sup- 
 pose, from St. John's account of 
 the crucifixion, that nature was 
 otherwise than perfectly still ; yet 
 there was an earthquake, and 
 rending of rocks, and darkness 
 over all the land. 
 
 2. In St. Matthew, "Jesus 
 saw two brethren, Simon and An- 
 drew," and addressed them both, 
 " Follow me." In St. Mark (i. 17, 
 who certainly describes the same 
 incident as St. Matthew), he says, 
 " Come ye." In St. Luke, Simon 
 only is named ; and "Launch out," 
 {kiruvocyixyi) is in the singular. But 
 
 though Simon alone is named, it 
 is evident that there was some 
 other person with him in the boat ; 
 for no sooner is it needful to let 
 down the nets (an operation which 
 probably required more than one 
 pair of hands) than the number 
 
 becomes plural (;^aAaaars). Who 
 the coadjutor was, is not hinted 
 at ; but it strikes me that there is 
 a coincidence, and not an idle 
 one, between the intimation of 
 St. Luke, that though Simon only 
 is named, he was nevertheless not 
 alone in the boat, and the direct 
 assertion of St. Matthew and St. 
 Mark, that Andrew was with him ; 
 indeed the plural is used in all the 
 remainder of St. Luke's narrative 
 — " they inclosed " — " they beck- 
 oned" — not meaning Jesus and 
 Simon, but Simon and some one 
 with him, as is manifest from 
 Jesus himself saying, " Let ye 
 down the nets," for so the trans- 
 lation ought to have run. And 
 though it is true that in St. Luke 
 the call is expressly directed to 
 Simon alone, " thou shalt catch 
 men," it was evidently considered 
 to apply to others; for "they 
 
Pakt IV. 
 
 GOSPELS AND ACTS. 
 
 267 
 
 Besides, though St. Matthew does not record the 
 miraculous draught, yet the readiness of the several dis- 
 
 forsook all and followed him ; " 
 amongst whom Andrew might 
 well be included. 
 
 3. In St. Matthew, Simon and 
 Andrew receive one call, James 
 and John another. In St. Luke 
 one call serves for all. But where 
 the two calls were to the same 
 effect, and so nearly at the same 
 time, I do not think it inconsistent 
 with the nature of the rapid me- 
 moranda of an Evangelist to com- 
 bine them into one, any more than 
 that the cure of the two blind 
 men near Jericho of St. Matthew, 
 should be comprised in the cure 
 of one by St. Mark ; for the iden- 
 tity of these miracles, in spite of 
 some trifling differences, I can- 
 not doubt. 
 
 4. In St. Matthew, James and 
 John are leisurely mending their 
 nets. In St. Luke, they are busily 
 engaged in helping Simon. But 
 to draw a contradiction from this, 
 it is necessary to show first of all, 
 that St. Matthew and St. Luke 
 both speak to the same instant of 
 time. The mending of the nets 
 does not imply that they had not 
 been helping Simon, nor does the 
 helping Simon imply that they 
 would not presently mend their 
 nets. 
 
 5. It is further objected that, 
 if the mending of the nets of St. 
 Matthew was subsequent to the 
 breaking of the nets of St. Luke, 
 or the miraculous draught, Simon 
 and Andrew casting their nets 
 
 into the sea was also subsequent 
 to it, for that v. 18 and v. 21 
 (Matt, iv.) relate to events all but 
 simultaneous. It may be so, for 
 my impression is, that when Si- 
 mon and Andrew cast their net 
 into the sea, it was for the pur- 
 pose of washing the net after the 
 fishing was over, and not of fish- 
 ing : i3a^^o^Ta? Ufji.<pl^Xriar^oii is the 
 
 expression, and perhaps plunging 
 the net would be the better trans- 
 lation ; and I feel confirmed in 
 this by the fact that, whatever the 
 operation was, it was done close to 
 shore, if not on shore, whilst Jesus 
 was talking to them on the land. 
 Whereas, for fishing, it was neces- 
 sary to move out to sea: " Launch 
 out into the deep," says our Lord 
 when he wants them to let down 
 their nets for a draught. 
 
 6. It is said, that according to 
 St. Luke, Simon's net brake, and 
 that, therefore, Simon and his 
 companion were the persons to 
 mend it ; whereas, according to 
 St. Matthew, Zebedee and his 
 sons were the parties employed. 
 But they were all partners, and 
 therefore the property was, pro- 
 bably, common property ; and 
 that as the " hired servants " 
 were with Zebedee and his sons, 
 it is not unlikely, but the con- 
 trary, that the labour of mending 
 the nets would devolve upon 
 them (Mark i. 20). 
 
 7. The last objection which 
 remains is, that a comparison of 
 
268 
 
 THE VERACITY OF THE 
 
 Part IV. 
 
 ciples on this occasion to follow Jesus (a thing which he 
 does record), agrees, no less than the mending of the 
 nets, with that extraordinary event ; for what more 
 natural than that men should leave all for a master 
 whose powers were so commanding ? 
 
 II. 
 
 Matth. iv. 21. — "And going on from thence, he saw 
 other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, 
 and John his brother, in a ship ivith Zebedee their 
 Father:' 
 
 Ch. viii. 21. — "And another of his disciples said unto 
 him. Lord, suffer me first to go and bur^/ my 
 fatherr 
 
 Ch. XX. 20. — " Then came to him the mother of Zebe- 
 
 St. Mark, i. 23—39, with St. 
 Luke iv. 31 — 44, shows the call 
 in St. Mark (which is certainly 
 that of St. Matthew) to have been 
 prior to the call in St. Luke. 
 So it does, if St. Luke observes 
 strictly the order of events in his 
 narrative ; but I see no sufficient 
 reason for believmg that what is 
 related in ch. iv. 31 — 44, hap- 
 pened before what is related in 
 ch. V. 1 — 11. In the former 
 passage St. Luke tells us that 
 "Jesus came down to Capernaum, 
 and taught them on the Sahbaih- 
 daijs" and he then goes on to 
 mention some Sabbath-day occur- 
 rences, concluding the whole, 
 " and he preached in the syna- 
 gogues of Galilee." This had 
 carried him too much in madias 
 res, and therefore in ch. v. he 
 brings up some of the work-day 
 
 events, which a wish to pursue 
 his former subject without inter- 
 ruption had led him to withhold 
 for awhile, though of prior date. 
 And only let us observe how 
 clumsily the narrative would pro- 
 ceed upon any other supposition 
 — Jesus calls Andrew and Peter, 
 James and John, as he was walk- 
 ing by the sea-side — then he goes 
 to Capernaum — heals Peter's 
 wife's mother, performs other 
 cures, and retires to a solitary 
 place (Mark i. 16—36). Then, 
 supposing St. Luke here to take 
 up the parable (ch. iv. 42), he 
 goes again to the sea-side, and 
 again calls Peter, James, and 
 John ; which would surely be one 
 call too much. 
 
 I doubt not, therefore, the 
 identity of the events described. 
 
Part IV. GOSPPJLS AND ACTS. 269 
 
 dees cJiildren with lier sons, worshipping him, and 
 desiring a certain thing of him." 
 Ch. xxvii. 55, 56. — " And many women were there 
 beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from 
 Galilee, ministering unto him. Among which 
 was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of 
 James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee^s 
 childrenr 
 When the coincidence which I shall found upon these 
 passages first occurred to me, I felt some doubt 
 whether, by producing it, I might not subject myself 
 to a charge of over-refinement. On further considera- 
 tion, however, I am satisfied that the conjecture I 
 hazard (for it is nothing more) is far from improbable ; 
 and I am the less disposed to withhold it from having 
 observed, when I have chanced to discuss any of these 
 paragraphs with my friends, how differently the impor- 
 tance of an argument is estimated by different minds ; 
 a point of evidence often inducing conviction in one, 
 which another would find almost nugatory. 
 
 Whoever reads the four verses which I have given 
 at the head of this Number in juxtaposition, will pro- 
 bably anticipate what I have to say. The coincidence 
 here is not between several writers, but between 
 several detached passages of the same writer. From 
 the first of these verses it appears that, at the period 
 when James and John received the call to follow 
 Christ, Zebedee their father was alive. They obeyed 
 the call, and left him. From the last two verses it 
 ajDpears, in my opinion, that, at a subsequent period of 
 which they treat, Zebedee was dead. Zebedee does not 
 make the application to Christ on behalf of his sons, 
 but the mother of Zebedee' s children makes it. Zebedee 
 is not at the crucifixion, but the motlier of Zebedee s 
 
270 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 cliildren. It is not from liis absence on these occasions 
 that I so much infer his death, as from the expression 
 appHed to Salome ; she is not called the wife of Zebe- 
 dee, she is not called the mother of James and John, 
 but the mother of Zebedees children. The term, I 
 think, implies that she was a widow. 
 
 Now from the second verse, which relates to a 
 period between these two, we learn that one of Jesus' 
 disciples asked him permission "^o go and bury his 
 father^ The interval was a short one ; the number of 
 persons to whom the name of disciple was given, was 
 very small (see Matthew ix. 37) ; a single boat seems to 
 have contained them all (viii. 23). In that number we 
 know that the sons of Zebedee were included. My 
 inference therefore is, that the death of Zebedee is here 
 alluded to, and that St. Matthew, without a wish, per- 
 haps, or thought, either to conceal or express the indi- 
 vidual (for there seems no assignable motive for his 
 studying to do either), betrays an event familiar to his 
 own mind, in that inadvertent and unobtrusive manner 
 in which the truth so often comes out. 
 
 The data, it must be confessed, are not enough to 
 determine the matter with certainty either way ; it is a 
 conjectural coincidence. They who are not satisfied 
 with it may pass it over: I am persuaded, however, 
 that nothing is wanted but more copious information to 
 multiply such proofs of veracity as these I am collect- 
 ing to a great extent. It is impossible to examine the 
 historical parts of the New Testament or Old in detail, 
 without suspicions constantly arising of facts, which, 
 nevertheless, cannot be substantiated for want of docu- 
 ments. We have very often a glimpse, and no more. 
 A hint is dropped relating to something well known at 
 the time, and which is not without its value even now, 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 271 
 
 in evidence, by giving us to understand that it is a 
 fragment of some real story, of which we are not in full 
 possession. Of this nature is the circumstance recorded 
 by St. Mark (xiv. 51), that when the disciples forsook 
 Jesus, " there followed him a certain young man, 
 having a linen cloth cast about his naked body, and the 
 young men laid hold on him ; and he left the linen 
 cloth, and fled from them naked." This is evidently 
 an imperfect history. It is an incident altogether de- 
 tached, and alone : another narrative might give us the 
 supplement, and together with that supplement indica- 
 tions of its truth. As another example of the same 
 kind, may be mentioned an expression in the beginning 
 of the second chapter of the Gospel of St. John, " and 
 the tJiird day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee" 
 (v. i) ; the Apostle clearly having some other event in 
 his mind which does not transpire, from which this 
 third day dates. Meanwhile let us but apply ourselves 
 diligently to comparing together the four witnesses 
 which we have, instead of indulging a fruitless desire 
 for more, and if consistency without design be a proof 
 that they are " true men," I cannot but consider that 
 it is abundantly supplied. 
 
 III. 
 
 Matth. viii. 5. — "And when Jesus was entered into 
 Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, be- 
 seeching him." 
 It has been remarked that favourable mention is made 
 of the Centurions throughout the whole of the New 
 Testament. In the present instance, the centurion is 
 represented as merciful, anxious for the care of his 
 servant ; as humble-minded, " I am not worthy that 
 thou shouldest come under my roof;" as having great 
 
272 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 faith, "speak the word only." In the corresponding 
 case of the centurion in Luke vii. 2 (if we suppose the 
 party not the same), there are still exhibited the same 
 virtues ; with the addition that he " loved the nation 
 of the Jews, and had built them a synagogue." 
 
 In Matthew xxvii. 54, the centurion at the Cru- 
 cifixion appears to advantage ; " Now Avlien the centu- 
 rion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw 
 the earthquake, and those things that were done, they 
 feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God :" 
 in St. Luke's account, xxiii. 47, to still greater ; " Now 
 when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified 
 God, saying. Certainly this was a righteous man." 
 
 In Acts X. 1, 2, we find the same honourable men- 
 tion made of a centurion. Cornelius was " a devout 
 man, and one that feared God with all his house, which 
 gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God 
 alway." 
 
 In Acts xxii. 25, When Paul had been rescued from 
 the populace at Jerusalem, by the guard, and the chief 
 oflficer having lodged him in the castle, commanded 
 that he should be examined by scourging ; " Paul said 
 unto the centurion that stood by. Is it lawful for you 
 to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?" 
 And accordingly he found in the centurion a reasonable 
 man, who at once reported his case to his superior, and 
 the sentence was not carried into execution. 
 
 And in the sequel of this transaction, when it had 
 come to Paul's knowledge through his sister's son, that 
 forty persons had entered into a conspiracy to kill him, 
 he at once " called for one of the centurions," as though 
 confident that he would see him protected, and desired 
 him to take his informant to the chief captain, which 
 he at once did (xxiii. 17). 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 273 
 
 In Acts xxvii. 1, we read of another centurion, 
 Julius, and still to the credit of his character- — " He 
 courteously entreated Paul, and gave him liberty to go 
 unto his friends to refresh himself "(3) ; and when in 
 the wreck, " the soldiers' counsel was to kill the 
 prisoners ;" " the centurion, wishing to save Paul, kept 
 them from their purpose." (43.) 
 
 It appears, therefore, as I have said, that often as a 
 centurion is presented to us in the Gospels, it is uni- 
 formly to his praise. 
 
 I think there is truth at the bottom of this consis- 
 tency, which is evidently undesigned. It is impossible 
 to suppose that notices thus incidental, occurring from 
 time to time, at distant intervals, and moreover ex- 
 hibiting the centurion under a variety of circumstances 
 calculated to test him in different ways, should have 
 been constructed on a plan ; should have been contrived 
 for the purpose of giving a colouring of veracity to the 
 narrative. The detection of such a token by the reader 
 could not have been reckoned upon with certainty. It 
 is probable that to most of those who may peruse 
 these pages, the fact of such consistency had not 
 presented itself before : it had not to myself, till my 
 attention was recently called to it^ I may not be 
 able to account for it, but that does not make the 
 argument the worse. Perhaps in the well-regulated 
 Roman armies, the more intelligent and orderly 
 soldiers were promoted to this command. Perhaps, 
 too, their rank and position, not much removed from 
 that of the teachers of the Gospel, might lead these 
 officers to sympathize with them and their cause. Cer- 
 tain it is, that the Evangelists have no theory what- 
 ever on the subject. Their testimony would be less 
 
 ' By Mr. Humphry's Commentary on Acts x. 3. 
 
 T 
 
274 THE VERACITY OF THE Paet IV. 
 
 valuable for the purpose I use it, if they had. They 
 simply make statements; the inference drawn from 
 them is altogether our own. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Matth. viii. 14. — " And when Jesus was come into 
 Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and 
 sick of a fever." 
 The coincidence which I have here to mention does not 
 strictly fall within my plan, for it results from a com- 
 parison of St. Matthew with St. Paul ; if, however, it 
 be thought of any value, the irregularity of its intro- 
 duction will be easily overlooked. 
 
 In this passage of the Evangelist, then, we dis- 
 cover, in a manner the most oblique, that Peter was a 
 married man. It is a circumstance that has nothing 
 whatever to do with the narrative, but is a gratuitous 
 piece of information, conveyed incidentally in the 
 designation of an individual who was the subject of 
 it. 
 
 But that Peter actually was a married man, we learn 
 from the independent testimony of St. Paul : " Have 
 we not power," says he, " to lead about a sister, a wife^ 
 as well as other Apostles, and as the brethren of the 
 Lord and Cephas f' 1 Cor. ix. 5. Where it may be 
 remarked that the difference in name, Cephas in the 
 one passage, Peter in the other, is in itself an argu- 
 ment that the one passage was written without any re- 
 ference to the other — that the coincidence was without 
 design. Here again, be it observed, as in former 
 instances, the indication of veracity in the Apostle's 
 narrative, is found where the subject of the narrative 
 is a miracle ; for Christ having " touched her hand, the 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 275 
 
 fever left her, and she arose and ministered unto them," 
 V. 15. 
 
 I cannot but think that any candid sceptic woukl 
 consider this coincidence to be at least decisive of the 
 actual existence of such a woman as Peter's wife's 
 mother ; of its being no imaginary character, no mere 
 person of straw, introduced with an air of precision, 
 under the view of giving a colour of truth to the 
 miracle. Yet, unless the Evangelist had felt quite 
 sure of his ground, quite sure, I mean, that this remark- 
 able cure would bear examination, it is scarcely to be 
 believed that he would have fixed it upon an individual 
 who certainly did live, or had lived, and who therefore 
 might herself, or her friends might for her, contradict 
 the alleged fact, if it never had occurred. 
 
 Matth. viii. 16. — " When the even was come, they brought 
 unto him many that were possessed with devils ; 
 and he cast out the spirits with his word, and 
 healed all that were sick." 
 The undesignedness of many passages in the Gospels 
 is overlooked in our familiar acquaintance with them. 
 They have been so long the subject of our reading and 
 of our reflection, that the evidence they furnish of their 
 own veracity does not always present itself to us with 
 that freshness which is necessary to give it its due 
 efi^ect. We often, no doubt, fill up an ellipsis and 
 complete a meaning almost instinctively, without being 
 aware how strongly the necessity for doing this, marks 
 the absence of all caution, contrivance, and circumspec- 
 tion in the writers. For instance, why did they bring 
 the sick and possessed to Jesus when the even was come? 
 I turn to the parallel passages of St. Mark (i. 21) and 
 
 T 2 
 
276 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 St. Luke (iv. 31), and find that the transaction in ques- 
 tion took place on the Sabbath-day. I turn to another 
 passage in St. Matthew (xii. 10), wholly independent, 
 however, of the former, and find that there was a 
 superstition amongst the Jews that it " was not lawful 
 to heal on the Sabbath-day." I put these together, 
 and at once see the reason why no application for a 
 cure was made to Jesus till the Sabbath was past, or in 
 other words, till the even was come. But St. Matthew, 
 meanwhile, does not offer one syllable in explanation. 
 He states the naked fact — that when the even was 
 come, people were brought to be healed ; and, for 
 aught that appears to the contrary, it might have been 
 any other day of the week. Suj^pose it had happened 
 that St. Matthew's Gospel had been the only one which 
 had descended to us, the value of these few words, 
 " when the even was corned would have been quite lost 
 as an argument for the veracity of his story ; for how 
 could it have been conjectured that the thought which 
 was influencing St. Matthew's mind at the moment 
 when they escaped him, was this, that these things 
 were done on the evening o^ 2i Sabbath-day f There is 
 no one circumstance in the previous narrative of the 
 events of that day as given by this Evangelist, to point 
 to such a conclusion. Jesus had entered into Caper- 
 naum — he had healed the centurion's servant — he had 
 healed Peter's wife's mother of a fever — how could it 
 be known from any of these acts that the day was the 
 Sabbath? Or suppose we had been in possession of 
 the other three Evangelists, but that the Gospel of St. 
 Matthew had just been discovered among the manu- 
 scripts at Milan, I ask whether such an argument as 
 this would not have had much weight in establishing 
 its authority ? 
 
Pakt IV. 
 
 GOSPELS AND ACTS. 
 
 277 
 
 I am not concerned about the perfect intelligibility 
 of this passage in St. Matthew. Its meaning is obvious, 
 and it would be a waste of words to offer what I have 
 done, as commentary — all that I am anxious to do is 
 to point out the undeskpiedness apparent in it, which is 
 such, I think, as a writer of an imaginary narrative 
 could not possibly have displayed. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Matth. ix. 9, 1 0. — " And as Jesus passed forth from 
 
 thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at 
 
 the receipt of custom ; and he saith unto him. 
 
 Follow me ; and he arose and followed him. And 
 
 it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house ^, 
 
 behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat 
 
 down with him." 
 
 How natural for a man, speaking of a transaction which 
 
 concerned himself, to forget for a moment the character 
 
 of the historian, and to talk of Jesus sitting down in the 
 
 house, without telling his readers whose house it was ! 
 
 How natural for him not to perceive that there was 
 
 vagueness and obscurity in a term, which to himself was 
 
 definite and plain \ Accordingly, we find St. Mark and 
 
 St. Luke, who deal with the same incident as historians, 
 
 not as principals, using a different form of expression. 
 
 " And as he passed by," says St. Mark, " he saw Levi 
 
 the son of Alpheus sitting at the receipt of custom, and 
 
 said unto him. Follow me : and he arose and followed 
 
 him. And it came to pass, that as Jesus sat at meat 
 
 in his house." ii. 15. 
 
 fV T») 04)Cia. 
 
 I do not observe 
 that Bishop Middleton notices 
 
 this instance of the definite use 
 of the Article. 
 
278 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 " And Levi," says St. Luke, " made him a great feast 
 in his own house." v. 29. 
 
 It may be further remarked, that a number of pub- 
 licans sat down with Jesus and his disciples ujion this 
 occasion ; a fact for which no reason is assigned, but 
 for which we discover a very good reason in the occupa- 
 tion which St. Matthew had followed. 
 
 I think the odds are very great against the pro- 
 bability of a writer preserving consistency in trifles like 
 these, were he only devising a story. I can scarcely 
 imagine that such a person would hit upon the phrase 
 " in the house," as an artful way of suggesting that the 
 house was in fact his own, and himself an eye-witness of 
 the scene he described ; still less, that he would refine 
 yet further, and make the company assembled there 
 to consist of publicans, in order that the whole picture 
 might be complete and harmonious. It may be added, 
 that Capernaum, wdiich was the scene of St. Matthew's 
 call, was precisely the place where we might expect 
 to meet with a man of his vocation — it being a station 
 where such merchandize as was to be conveyed by 
 water-carriage, along the Jordan southwards, might be 
 very conveniently shij)ped, and where a custom-house 
 would consequently be established. There is a similar 
 projDriety in the habitat of Zaccheus (Luke xix. 2) ; he 
 was a " chief among the publicans," and Jesus is said to 
 have fallen in with him near Jericho. Now Jericho w^as 
 the centre of the growth, preparation, and export, of 
 balsam, a very considerable branch of trade in Judea ; 
 and therefore a town which invited the presence of the 
 tax-gatherers. These are small matters, but such as 
 bespeak truth in those who detail them. 
 
Pakt IV. 
 
 GOSPELS AND ACTS. 
 
 279 
 
 VII. 
 
 Akin to this is my next instance^ of consistency with- 
 out design. 
 
 Matth. X. 2. — " Now the names of the twelve Apostles 
 are these : the first, Simon, who is called Peter, 
 and Andrew his brother; James, the son of Ze- 
 bedee, and John his brother ; Philip, and Bartho- 
 lomew ; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James, 
 the son of Alpheus, and Lebbeus, whose surname 
 was Thaddeus ; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas 
 Iscariot, who also betrayed him." 
 This order, as far as regards Thomas and Matthew, is 
 inverted in St. Mark and St. Luke. " Philip and Bar- 
 tholomew, and Matthew and Thomas^'' is the succession 
 of the names in those two Evangelists (Mark iii. 18; 
 Luke vi. 15) ; and by neither of them is the odious, but 
 distinctive, appellation of " the publican" added. This 
 difference, however, in St. Matthew's catalogue, from 
 that given by St. Mark and St. Luke, is precisely such 
 as might be expected from a modest man when telling 
 his own tale : he places his o\yi\ name after that of a 
 colleague who had no claims to precedence, but rather 
 the contrary, and, fearful that its obscurity might render 
 it insufficient merely to announce it, and, at the same 
 time, perhaps, not unwilling to inflict upon himself an 
 act of self-humiliation, he annexes to it his former call- 
 ing, w^iich was notorious at least, however it might be 
 unpopular. I should not be disposed to lay great stress 
 upon this example of undesigned consistency were it 
 a solitary instance, but when taken in conjunction with 
 
 ^ In this argument I am in- 
 debted to Nelson (Festivals and 
 Fasts, p. 229), "who advances it, 
 
 however, for a different end, to 
 prove the humility, not the vera- 
 city, of St. Matthew. 
 
280 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 so many others, it may be allowed a place ; for tliougli 
 the order of names and the annexed epithet might be 
 accidental, yet it must be admitted that they would be 
 accounted for at least as well by the veracity of the 
 narrative. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Matth. xii. 46. — " While he yet talked, behold, his 
 mother and his brethren stood without, desmng to 
 speak iiiith himr 
 What his mother's communication mis^ht be the Evan- 
 gelist does not record. It seems to have been made 
 privately and apart, and was probably not overheard by 
 any of his followers. But in the next chapter, St. 
 Matthew very undesignedly mentions, that " when he 
 was come into his own country^ he taught them in the 
 synagogue" (xiii. 54). Hence, then, we see, that the 
 interview with his mother and brethren was shortly 
 succeeded by a visit to their town. The visit might, 
 indeed, have nothing to do with the interview, nor does 
 St. Matthew hint that it had anything whatever to do 
 with it (for then no argument of veracity, founded 
 upon the undesigned coincidence of the two facts, could 
 have been here advanced), but still there is a fair 
 presumption that the visit was in obedience to his 
 mother's wish, more especially as the disposition of the 
 inhabitants of Nazareth, which must have been known 
 to Christ, was unfit for his doing there any mighty 
 works. 
 
 IX. 
 
 The death of Joseph is nowhere either mentioned, or 
 alluded to, by the Evangelists ; yet, from all four of 
 them it may he indirectly inferred to have happened whilst 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 281 
 
 Jesus was yet alive; a circumstance in which, had they 
 been imposing a story upon us, tliey would scarcely 
 have concurred, when the concurrence is manifestly not 
 the effect of scheme or contrivance. Thus in the 
 passage from St. Matthew, quoted in the last paragraph, 
 we find his mother and brethren seeking Jesus, but not 
 his reputed father. In St. Mark we have the whole 
 family enumerated, but no mention made of Joseph. 
 " Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother 
 of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and 
 are not his sisters here with us?" vi. 3. 
 
 " Then came to him," says St. Luke, " his mother 
 and his brethren, and could not come at him for the 
 press," viii. 19. "After this," says St. John, "he went 
 down to Capernaum ; he, and his mother, and his 
 brethren, and his disciples." ii. 12. 
 
 Neither do we meet with any notice of Joseph's 
 attendance at the Feast of Cana, or at the Crucifixion; 
 indeed, in his last moments Jesus commends his mother 
 to the care of the disciple whom he loved, and that 
 " disciple took her to his own home." Nor at a scene 
 which occurred very shortly after his Crucifixion, though 
 one in which all the immediate friends as well as family 
 of Jesus are described as taking part ; " And when 
 they were come in, they went up into an upper room, 
 where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and 
 Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and 
 Matthew, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon 
 Zelotes, and Judas, the brother of James. 
 
 " These all continued with one accord in prayer and 
 supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of 
 Jesus, and with his brethren;" Acts i. 13, 14; the last 
 time in which Mary herself is named in Scripture. 
 
 Such a harmony as this cannot have been the effect 
 
282 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 of concert. It is not a direct, or even an incidental 
 agreement in a positive fact, for nothing is asserted ; 
 but yet, from the absence of assertion, a presumption of 
 such fact is conveyed to us by the separate narrative 
 of each of the Evangehsts. 
 
 X. 
 
 Matth. xiii. 2. — " And great multitudes were gathered 
 together unto him, so that he went into a sJiip 
 {els TO ttXocov), and sat." 
 
 ' In this, and in some other places of the Evangelists,' 
 says bishop Middleton, 'we have rrXolov with the article 
 {the sliij), not a ship) ; the force of which, however, is 
 not immediately obvious. In the present instance the 
 English version, Newcome, and Campbell, understand 
 TO Trkotov indefinitely; but that aiii/ ship, without refer- 
 ence, can be meant by this phrase, is grammatically 
 impossible. Many philologists, indeed, have adduced 
 this passage amongst others, to show that this article 
 is sometimes without meaning : but this proves only 
 that its meaning was sometimes unknown to them. 
 
 ' Mr. Wakefield observes, in his New Testament, " a 
 particular vessel is uniformly specified. It seems to 
 have been kept on the lake for the use of Jesus and his 
 apostles. It probably belonged to some of the fisher- 
 men (Matt. iv. 22) who, I should think, occasionally 
 at least, continued to follow their former occupation. 
 See John xxi. 3." Thus far Mr. Wakefield, whose 
 solution carried with it an air of strong probability: 
 and when we look at Mark iii. 9, which appears to 
 have escaped him, this conjecture becomes absolute 
 certainty. " And he spake to his disciples that a small 
 vessel should wait on him,''' (constantly be waiting on 
 
Paet IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 283 
 
 him, irpoa-Kapreprj avT<p) because of the multitude, lest 
 they should throng him. Moreover, I think we may 
 discover to whom the vessel belonged. In one Evan- 
 gelist (Luke V. 3), we find a ship used by our Saviour 
 for the very purpose here mentioned, declared expressly 
 to be Simon's ; and afterwards, in the same Evangelist 
 (viii. 22), we have t/ie ship, to trXo'lov, definitely, as if it 
 were intended that the reader should understand it of 
 the ship already spoken of. It is therefore not im- 
 probable that in the other Evangelists also, the vessel 
 so frequently used by our Saviour was that belonging 
 to Peter and Andrew." Where bishop Middleton finds 
 a philological solution, I find an undesigned coincidence. 
 St. Matthew speaks of " the ship" {to ttKoIov) into 
 which Jesus went, as though referring to a well-known 
 vessel. St. Mark tells us that he had " a small vessel 
 to wait on him." 
 
 XI. 
 
 Matth. xiv. 1. — "At that time Herod the tetrarcli 
 
 heard of the fame of Jesus, and said unto his 
 
 servants (rols iraicnv avTov), This is John the 
 
 Baptist, who is risen from the dead." 
 
 St. Matthew here declares that Herod delivered his 
 
 opinion of Christ to his servants. There must have been 
 
 some particular reason, one would imagine, to induce 
 
 him to make such a communication to them above all 
 
 other people. What could it have been? St. Mark 
 
 does not help us to solve the question, for he contents 
 
 himself with recording what Herod said. Neither does 
 
 St. Luke in the parallel passage, tell us to whom he 
 
 addressed himself — "he was desirous of seeing him, 
 
 because he had heard many things of him." By re- 
 
 ^ Bishop Middleton on the Greek Article, p. 158. 
 
284 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV- 
 
 ferring, however, to the eighth chapter of this last 
 Evangehst, the cause why Herod had heard so much 
 about Christ, and why he talked to his servants about 
 Him, is sufficiently explained, but it is most inci- 
 dentally. We are there informed, " that Jesus went 
 throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing 
 the glad tidings of the kingdom of God ; and the twelve 
 were with him, and certain women who had been healed 
 of evil spirits and infirmities : Mary, called Magdalene, 
 out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna the wife of 
 Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, 
 which ministered unto him of their substance." 
 
 And again, in chap. xiii. ver. 1, of the Acts of the 
 Apostles, we read, amongst other distinguished converts, 
 of ^'' Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod 
 the tetrarch,''' or, in other words, who was his foster- 
 brother. We see, therefore, that Christ had followers 
 from amongst the household of this very prince, and, 
 accordingly, that Herod was very likely to discourse 
 with his servants on a subject in which they were better 
 informed than himself. 
 
 XII. 
 
 MattH. xiv. 20, — In the. miracle of feeding the five 
 thousand with five loaves and two fishes, recorded by 
 all four Evangelists, the disciples, we are told, took up 
 SaBeKa Ko^lvovs ifXripeis (Matth. xiv. 20; Mark vi. 
 43; Luke ix. 17 ; John vi. 13); in all these cases our 
 translation renders the passages " twelve baskets." 
 
 In the miracle of feeding the four thousand with 
 seven loaves and a few small fishes, recorded by two of 
 the Evangelists, the disciples took up e-ma a-irvpihas 
 (Matth. XV. 87 ; Mark viii. 8) ; in both these cases our 
 translation renders the i)assages " seven baskets ;" the 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 285 
 
 term ko^vvos, and airvpls, being expressed both alike by 
 " basket" 
 
 Yet there was, no doubt, a marked difference between 
 these two vessels, whatever that difference might be, for 
 Ko^Lvos is invariably used when the miracle of the five 
 thousand is spoken of; and cnrvpls is invariable used 
 when the miracle of the four thousand is spoken of. 
 Moreover, such distinction is clearly suggested to us in 
 Matth. xvi. 9, 10, where our Saviour cautions his disci- 
 ples against the " leaven of the Pharisees and Sad- 
 ducees ;" and in so doing, alludes to each of these 
 miracles thus : " Do ye not understand, neither remem- 
 ber the five loaves of the Jive thousand, and how many 
 baskets {koJ)Ivovs) ye took up ? neither the seven loaves 
 of the yb«r thousand, and how many baskets (cnrvplBas) 
 ye took up ? " though here, again, the distinction is 
 entirely lost in our translation, both koj>lvovs and 
 airvpiBas being still rendered "baskets," alike. 
 
 The precise nature of the difference of these two 
 kinds of baskets it may be difficult to determine ; and 
 the lexicographers and commentators do not enable us 
 to do it with accuracy ; though from the word airvpls 
 being used (Acts ix. 25) for the basket in which St. 
 Paul was let dow^n over the wall, we may suppose that 
 it was capacious ; whereas from the Kocfiivoc, in this 
 instance, being twelve in number, we may in like man- 
 ner suppose that they were the provision-baskets carried 
 by the twelve disciples, and were, consequently, smaller. 
 But the point of the coincidence is independent of the 
 precise difference of the vessels, and consists in the 
 uniform application of the term Ko<^ivos to the basket of 
 the one miracle (wheresoever and by whomsoever told) ; 
 and the as uniform application of the term a-rrvpls, to 
 the basket of the other miracle ; such uniformity 
 
286 THE VERACITY OF THE Pakt IV. 
 
 marking very clearly the two miracles to be distinctly 
 impressed on the minds of the Evangelists, as real 
 events ; the circumstantial peculiarities of each present 
 to them, even to the shape of the baskets, as though 
 they were themselves actual eye-witnesses; or at least 
 had received their report from those who were so. 
 
 It is next to impossible that such coincidence in 
 both cases, between the fragments and the receptacles, 
 respectively, should have been preserved by chance ; or 
 by a teller of a tale at third or fourth hand ; and accord- 
 ingly we see that the coincidence is in fact entirely lost 
 by our translators, who were not witnesses of the mira- 
 cles ; and whose attention did not happen to be drawn 
 to the point. 
 
 There is another distinction perceptible in the narra- 
 tive of these two miracles, which, like the last, seems 
 to indicate a minute acquaintance with them, such as 
 could only be the result of ocular testimony. 
 
 In Matt. xiv. 19, where the miracle of the five 
 thousand is told, it is said, " And he commanded the 
 multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five 
 loaves," &c. 
 
 In Mark vi. 39, it is said, in the account of the same 
 miracle, " And he commanded them to make all sit 
 down by companies upon the green grass. ""^ 
 
 In John vi. 10, " And Jesus said, Make the men sit 
 down. Now there was much grass in the place ; so the 
 men sat down." 
 
 St. Luke, ix. 14, contenting himself with writing, 
 " Make them sit down by fifties in a company." 
 
 But in the description of the corresponding miracle 
 of the four thousand we find in 
 
 Matt. XV. 35, "And he commanded the multitude 
 to sit down on the ground." 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 287 
 
 And in the parallel passage of 
 
 Mark viii. 6, " And he commanded the people to sit 
 down on the ground." 
 
 The other two Evangelists not relating it. 
 
 It should seem, therefore, that the abundance of the 
 grass was a feature in the scene of the miracle of the 
 five thousand, which had impressed itself on the eye of 
 the relator, as peculiar to it. It was a graphic trifle 
 which had rendered the spectacle more vivid : and 
 accordingly, unimportant as it is in itself, the incident 
 finds a place in the narrative of three out of the four 
 Evangelists, and in all the instances where they are 
 speaking of the miracle of the five thousand. Whereas 
 " the ground," and no more, is the term used in the nar- 
 tive of the miracle of the four thousand by the two 
 Evangelists who record it. The distinction seems to 
 be of the same minute kind as that of the baskets ; 
 and, like that, marks the description to be from the 
 life, and from the eye of the spectator. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 We do not read a great deal respecting Herod the 
 tetrarch in the Evangelists ; but all that is said of him 
 will be perceived, on examination (for it may not strike 
 us at first sight) to be perfectly harmonious. 
 
 When the disciples had forgotten to take bread with 
 them in the boat, our Lord warns them to " take heed 
 and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the 
 leaven of Herod" So says St. Mark, viii. 15. The 
 charge which Jesus gives them on this occasion is thus 
 worded by St. Matthew, " Take heed and beware of 
 the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadduceesr xvi. 6. 
 The obvious inference to be drawn from the two pas- 
 
288 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 sages is, that Herod himself was a Sadducee. Let us 
 turn to St. Luke, and though still we find no assertion 
 to this effect, he would clearly lead us to the same 
 conclusion. Chap. ix. 7, " Now Herod the tetrarch 
 heard of all that was done by him ; and he was per- 
 plea^ed, because that it was said of some, that John was 
 risen from the dead; and of some, that Elias had ap- 
 peared ; and of some, that one of the old prophets was 
 risen again. And Herod said, John have I beheaded, 
 but who is this of whom I hear such things ? and he 
 desired to see him." 
 
 The transmigration of the souls of good men was a 
 popular belief at that time amongst the Pharisees (see 
 Josephus, B. J. ii. 83. 14) ; a Pharisee, therefore, would 
 have found little difficulty in this resurrection of John, 
 or of an old prophet ; in fact, it was the Pharisees, no 
 doubt, who started the idea : not so Herod ; he was 
 perplexed about it ; he had " beheaded John," which was 
 in his creed the termination of his existence ; well then 
 might he ask, " who is this of whom I hear such 
 things ?" Neither do I discover any objection in the 
 parallel passage of St. Matthew, xiv. 1 : "At that time 
 Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus, and 
 said unto his servants. This is John the Baptist ; he is 
 risen from the dead ; and therefore mighty works do 
 show forth themselves in him." It is the language of 
 a man (especially when taken in connection with St. 
 Luke), who began to doubt whether he was right in his 
 Sadducean notions : a guilty conscience awaking in him 
 some apprehension that he whom he had murdered 
 might be alive again — that there might, after all, be a 
 "resurrection, and angel, and spirit." 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 289 
 
 XIV. 
 
 Mattli. xvii. 19. — " Then came the disciples to Jesus 
 apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out ? 
 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your un- 
 belief. . . Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by 
 prayer and fasting. "" 
 Here, therefore, the words of Jesus imply that the 
 disciples did not fast. Yet the observation is made in 
 that incidental manner in M'hich a fact familiar to the 
 mind of the speaker so often comes out. It has not 
 the smallest ajipearance of being introduced for the 
 purpose of confirming any previous assertion to the 
 same effect. Yet in chapter ix. ver. 14, we had been 
 told that the disciples of John came to Jesus, saying, 
 " Why do ive and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy dis- 
 ciples fast not?" It may be remarked, too, that the 
 former passage not only implies that the disciples of 
 Jesus did not fast, but that Jesus himself did, and that 
 the latter passage singularly enough implies the very 
 same thing ; for it does not run, why do we and the 
 Pharisees fast oft, but Thou and thy disciples fast not ? 
 (which would be the strict antithesis) but only, M'hy 
 do thy disciples fast not ? 
 
 XV. 
 
 Matth. xxvi. 67. — " Then did they spit in his face, and 
 
 buffeted him ; and others smote him with the 
 
 palms of their hands, saying. Prophesy unto us, 
 
 thou Christ, who is he tJiat smote theef' 
 
 I THINK undesignedness may be traced in this j^assage, 
 
 both in what is expressed and what is omitted. It is 
 
 usual for one who invents a story which he wishes 
 
 should be believed, to be careful that its several parts 
 
 u 
 
290 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 hang well together — to make its conclusions follow 
 from its premises — and to show how they follow. He 
 naturally considers that he shall be suspected unless 
 his account is probable and consistent, and he labours 
 to provide against that suspicion. On the other hand, 
 he who is telling the truth, is apt to state his facts and 
 leave them to their fate ; he speaks as one having 
 authority, and cares not about the why or the where- 
 fore, because it never occurs to him that such parti- 
 culars are wanted to make his statement credible ; and 
 accordingly, if such particulars are discoverable at all, 
 it is most commonly by inference, and incidentally. 
 
 Now in the verse of St. Matthew, placed at the head 
 of this paragraph, it is written that " they smote him 
 with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto 
 us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee?" Had it 
 happened that the records of the other Evangelists had 
 been lost, no critical acuteness could have possibly sup- 
 plied by conjecture the omission which occurs in this 
 passage, and yet, without that omission being supplied, 
 the true meaning of the passage must for ever have 
 lain hid ; for where is the propriety of asking Christ to 
 prophesy who smote Him, when He had the offender 
 before his eyes? But when we learn from St. Luke 
 (xxii. 64) that "the men that held Jesus blindfolded 
 him" before they asked Him to prophesy who it was 
 that smote Him, we discover what St. Matthew in- 
 tended to communicate, namely, that they proposed 
 this test of his divine mission, whether, without the 
 use of sight. He could tell who it was that struck Him. 
 Such an oversight as this in St. Matthew it is difficult 
 to account for on any other supposition than the truth 
 of the history itself, which set its author above all 
 solicitude about securing the reception of his conclu- 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 291 
 
 sions by a cautious display of the grounds whereon they 
 were built. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 What was the charge on which the Jews condemned 
 Christ to death'? 
 
 Familiar as this question may at first seem, the an- 
 swer is not so obvious as might be supposed. By a 
 careful perusal of the trial of our Lord, as described by 
 the several Evangelists, it will be found that the charges 
 were two, of a nature quite distinct, and iweferred until 
 a most appropriate reference to the tribunals before lohich 
 they were made. 
 
 Thus the first hearing was before " the Chief Priests 
 and all the Council,''' a Jewish and ecclesiastical court ; 
 accordingly, Christ was then accused of blasphemy. " I 
 adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether 
 thou be the Son of God" said Caiaphas to Him, in the 
 hope of convicting Him out of his own mouth. When 
 Jesus in his reply answered that He was, " then the 
 high-priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken 
 blasphemy ; what further need have we of witnesses f 
 behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy T (Matt. xxvi. 
 65.) 
 
 Shortly after. He is taken before Pilate, the Roman 
 goveo'nor, and here the charge of blasphemy is alto- 
 gether suppressed, and that of sedition substituted. 
 " And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him 
 unto Pilate : and they began to accuse him, saying. 
 We found this fellow pervertijig the nation, and for- 
 
 • The following argument was 
 suggested to me by reading Wil- 
 son's " Illustration of the Method 
 of Explaining the New Testa- 
 
 ment by the Early Opinions of 
 Jews and Christians concerning 
 Christ." 
 
 ij 2 
 
292 THE VERACITY OF THE Paht IV. 
 
 bidding to give tribute to Cccsar, saying, that he himself 
 is Christ, a kingT (Luke xxiii. 2.) And on this plea 
 it is that they press his conviction, reminding Pilate, 
 that if he let Him go he was not Caesar's friend. 
 
 This difference in the nature of the accusation, 
 according to the quality and characters of the judges, 
 is not forced upon our notice by the Evangelists, as 
 though they were anxious to give an air of probability 
 to their narrative by such circumspection and attention 
 to propriety; on the contrary, it is touched upon in so 
 cursory and unemphatic a manner, as to be easily over- 
 looked ; and I venture to say, that it is actually over- 
 looked by most readers of the Gospels. Indeed, how 
 perfectly agreeable to the temper of the times, and 
 of the parties concerned, such a proceeding was, can 
 scarcely be perceived at first sight. The coincidence, 
 therefore, will appear more striking if we examine it 
 somewhat more closely. A charge of blasphemy was, of 
 all others, the best fitted to detach the multitude from 
 the cause of Christ ; and it is only by a proper regard 
 to this circumstance, that we can obtain the true key 
 to the conflicting sentiments of the people towards Him ; 
 one while hailing Him, as they do, with rapture, and 
 then again striving to put Him to death. 
 
 Thus, when Jesus walked in Solomon's Porch, the 
 Jews came round about Him, and said unto Him, " If 
 thou be the Christ tell us plainly. — Jesus answered 
 them, I told you, and ye believed not." He then goes 
 on to speak of the works which testified of Him, and 
 adds, in conclusion, " I and my Father are one." The 
 effect of which words was instantly this, that the Jews 
 {i. e., the people) took up stones to stone him, " for 
 blasphemy, and because, being a man, he made himself 
 God." (John x. 33.) Again, in the sixth chapter of 
 
Paet IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 293 
 
 St. John, we read of five thousand men, who, having 
 Avitnessed his miracles, actually acknowledged Him as 
 " that prophet that should come into the world," nay, 
 even wished to take Him by force and make Him a 
 king ; yet the very next day, when Christ said to these 
 same people, "This is that bread which came down 
 from heaven," they murmured at Him, doubtless con- 
 sidering Him to lay claim to divinity ; for He replies, 
 " Doth this offend you ? what and if ye shall see the 
 Son of Man ascend up where he was before f' expres- 
 sions, at which such serious offence was taken, that 
 " from that time many of his disciples went back, and 
 walked with him no more." So that it is not in these 
 days only that men forsake Christ from a reluctance to 
 acknowledge (as He demands of them) his Godhead. 
 And again, when Jesus cured the impotent man on the 
 Sabbath-day, and in defending Himself for having so 
 done, said, " My Father worketh hitherto, and I work," 
 we are told, " therefore the Jews sought the more to 
 kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, 
 but said also that God was his Father, making himself 
 equal with God." (John v. 18.) So, on another occa- 
 sion, when Jesus had been speaking with much severity 
 in the temple, we find Him unmolested, till He adds, 
 " Verily, verily, I say unto you. Before Abraham was, / 
 am''' (John viii. 58) ; but no sooner had He so said, 
 than "they took up stones to cast at him." In like 
 manner (to come to the last scene of his mortal life), 
 when He entered Jerusalem He had the people in his 
 favour, for the chief priests and scribes " feared them ;" 
 yet, very shortly after, the tide was so turned against 
 Him, that the same people asked Barabbas rather than 
 Jesus. And why ? As Messiah they w^ere anxious to 
 receive Him, which was the character in which He had 
 
294 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 entered Jerusalem — but they rejected Him as the ''Son 
 of God^' which was the character in which He stood 
 before them at his trial : facts which, taken in a doc- 
 trinal view, are of no small value, proving, as they do, 
 that the Jews believed Christ to lay claim to dimnity, 
 however they might dispute or deny the right. It is 
 consistent, therefore, with the whole tenor of the Gospel 
 history, that the enemies of Christ, to gain their end 
 with the Jews, should have actually accused Him of 
 blasphemy, as they are represented to have done, and 
 should have succeeded. Nor is it less consistent with 
 that history, that they should have actually waived the 
 charge of blasphemy, when they brought Him before a 
 Roman magistrate, and substituted that of sedition in 
 its stead ; for the Roman governors, it is well known, 
 were very indifferent about religious disputes — they had 
 the toleration of men who had no creed of their own. 
 Gallio, we hear in aftertimes, " cared for none of these 
 things ;" and, in the same spirit, Lysias writes to Felix 
 about Paul, that "he perceived him to be accused 
 of questions concerning the law, hut to ham nothing laid 
 to his charge worthy of death or of bonds."" (Acts xxiii. 
 29.) 
 
 Indeed, this case of Paul serves in a very remarkable 
 manner to illustrate that of our Lord ; and at the same 
 time in itself furnishes a second coincidence, founded 
 u])on exactly the same facts. For the accusation brought 
 against Paul by his enemies, when they had Jews to 
 deal with, and, no doubt, that which was brought against 
 him in the Jewish court, Avas blasphemy : " Men of Israel, 
 this is the man that teacheth all men everywhere against 
 the people, and the law, and this place." ' But when 
 this same Paul, on the same occasion, was brought 
 > Acts xxi. 28. 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. ^95 
 
 before Felix, the Roman (jovernor, the charge became 
 sedition, " We have found this man a pestilent fellow, 
 and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout 
 the world."' 
 
 It may be remarked, that this is not so much a 
 casual coincidence between parallel passages of several 
 Evangelists, as an instance of singular, but undesigned 
 harmony, amongst the various component parts of one 
 piece of history which they all record ; the proceedings 
 before two very different tribunals being represented in 
 a manner the most agreeable to the known prejudices 
 of all the parties concerned. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 Matth. xxvi. 71. — "And when he was gone out into the 
 
 Porch {tov irvXcova), another maid saw him, and 
 
 said unto them, This man was also with Jesus of 
 
 Nazareth." 
 
 How came it to pass that Peter, a stranger, who had 
 
 entered the house in the night, and under circumstances 
 
 of some tumult and disorder, was thus singled out by 
 
 the 7naid iti the Porch f 
 
 Let us turn to St. John (ch. xviii. ver. 16), and we 
 shall find, that, after Jesus had entered, " Peter stood 
 at the door without, till that other disciple went out 
 which was known unto the high-priest, and spake unto 
 her that kept the door, and brought in Peter." Thus 
 was the attention of that girl directed to Peter (a fact 
 of which St. Matthew gives no hint whatever), and thus 
 we see how it happened that he was recognised in the 
 Porch. Here is a minute indication of veracity in St. 
 Matthew, which would have been lost upon us had not 
 
 ' Acts xxiv. 5. (See Biscoe on the Acts, p. 215.) 
 
296 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 the Gospel of St. John come down to our times ; — and 
 how many similar indications may be hid, from a want 
 of other contemporary histories with which to make a 
 comparison, it is impossible to conjecture. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 My next instance of coincidence without design is taken 
 from the account of certain circumstances attending the 
 feeding of the five thousand. And here, again, be it 
 remarked, an indication of veracity is found, as formerly, 
 where the subject of the narrative is a miracle. 
 
 In the sixth chapter of St. Mark we are told, that 
 Jesus said to his disciples, " come ye yourselves apart 
 into a desert place" (it was there where the miracle was 
 wrought), " and rest a while ; for there were many," 
 adds the Evangelist, by way of accounting for this tem- 
 porary seclusion, " coming and going, and they had no 
 leisure so much as to eat." How it happened that so 
 many were coming and going through Capernaum at 
 that time, above all others, this Evangelist does not 
 give us the slightest hint ; neither how it came to pass 
 that, by retiring for a while, Jesus and his disciples 
 "would escape the inconvenience. Turn we, then, to 
 the parallel passage in St. John, and there we shall find 
 the matter explained at once, though certainly this ex- 
 planation could never have been given with a reference 
 to the very casual expression of St. Mark. In St. John 
 we do not meet with one word about Jesus retiring for 
 a while into the desert, for the purpose of being apart, 
 or that He would have been put to any inconvenience 
 by staying at Capernaum, but we are told (what per- 
 fectly agrees with these two circumstances), " that the 
 Passover, a feast of the Jews, urns nigh^'' vi. 4. Hence, 
 then, the " coming and going" through Capernaum w^as 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 297 
 
 SO unusually great, and hence, if Jesus and his disciples 
 rested in the desert " a while," the crowd, which was 
 pressing towards Jerusalem from every part of the 
 country, would have subsided, and drawn off to the 
 capital. For it may be observed that the desert place 
 being at some distance from Capernaum, through which 
 city the great road lay from the north to Jerusalem, the 
 multitnde could not follow Jesus there without some 
 inconvenience and delay. 
 
 The confusion which prevailed throughout the Holy 
 Land at this great festival we may easily imagine, when 
 we read in Josephus \ that, for the satisfaction of Nero, 
 his officer, Cestius, on one occasion, endeavoured to 
 reckon up the number of those who shared in the 
 national rite at Jerusalem. By counting the victims 
 sacrificed, and allowing a company of ten to each victim, 
 he found that nearly two millions six hundred thousand 
 souls were present ; and it may be observed, that this 
 method of calculation would not include the many 
 persons who must have been disqualified from actually 
 partaking of the sacrifice, by the places of their birth 
 and the various causes of uncleanness. 
 
 I cannot forbear remarking another incident in the 
 transaction we are now considering, in itself a trifle, 
 but not, perhaps, on that account, less fit for corrobo- 
 rating the history. We read in St. John, that when 
 Jesus had reached this desert place, He " lifted up his 
 eyes and saw a great multitude come unto him, and he 
 said unto Philip, Whence shall w^e buy bread that these 
 may eat ?" (vi. 5.) Why should this question have been 
 directed to Philip in particular ? If we had the Gos- 
 pel of St. John and not the other Gospels, we should 
 
 ^ Bel. Jud. vi. 0. § 3. 
 
298 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 see no peculiar ])ropriety in this choice, and should pro- 
 bably assign it to accident. If we had the other 
 Gospels, and not that of St. John, we should not be 
 put upon the inquiry, for they make no mention of the 
 question having been addressed expressly to PJdlip. 
 But, by comparing St. Luke with St. John, we discover 
 the reason at once. By St. Luke, and by him alone, 
 we are informed, that the desert place where the mira- 
 cle was wrought " was belonging to Bethsaidar (ix. 10.) 
 By St. John we are informed, (though not in the pas- 
 sage where he relates the miracle, which is worthy of 
 remark, but in another chapter altogether independent 
 of it, ch. i. 44,) that " Philip was of Bethsaida'"' To 
 whom, then, could the question have been directed so 
 properly as to him, who, being of the immediate neigh- 
 bourhood, was the most likely to know where bread 
 was to be bought ? Here again, then, I maintain, we 
 have strong indications of veracity in the case of a 
 miracle itself; and I leave it to others, who may have 
 ingenuity and inclination for the task, to weed out the 
 falsehood of the miracle from the manifest reality of 
 the circumstances which attend it, and to separate 
 fiction from fact, which is in the very closest combina- 
 tion with it. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 Mark xv. 21. — " And they compel one Simon, a Cy- 
 
 renian, who passed by, coming out of the country, 
 
 the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his 
 
 cross." 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, who lived about the end of the 
 
 second century, declares, that Mark wrote this Gospel 
 
 on St. Peter's authority at Rome* Jerome, who lived 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 299 
 
 in the fourth century, says, that Mark, the disciple and 
 interpreter of St. Peter, being requested by his brethren 
 at Rome, wrote a short Gospel. 
 
 Now this circumstance may account for his designat- 
 ing Simon as the father of Rufus at least; for we find 
 that a disciple of that name, and of considerable note, 
 was resident at Rome, when St. Paul wrote his Epistle 
 to the Romans. " Salute Rufus,'" says he, " chosen in the 
 Lord" xvi. 13. Thus, by mentioning a man living upon 
 the spot where he was writing, and amongst the people 
 whom he addressed, Mark was giving a reference for 
 the truth of his narrative, which must have been ac- 
 cessible and satisfactory to all ; since Rufus could not 
 have failed knowing the particulars of the Crucifixion 
 (the great event to which the Christians looked), when 
 his father had been so intimately concerned in it as to 
 have been the reluctant bearer of the cross. 
 
 Of course, the force of this argument depends on 
 the identity of the Rufus of St. Mark and the Rufus of 
 St. Paul, which I have no means of proving ' ; but ad- 
 mitting it to be probable that they were the same 
 persons (which, I think, may be admitted, for St. Paul, 
 we see, expressly speaks of a distinguished disciple of 
 the name of Rufus at Rome, and St. Mark, writing for 
 the Romans, mentions Rufus, the son of Simon, as well 
 known to them) — admitting this, the coincidence is 
 striking, and serves to account for what otherwise seems 
 a piece of purely gratuitous and needless information 
 offered by St. Mark to his readers, namely, that Simon 
 was the father of Alexander and Rufus ; a fact omitted 
 by the other Evangelists, and apparently turned to no 
 advantage by himself. 
 
 ^ See Michaelis, vol. iii. p. 213. 
 
300 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 XX. 
 
 Mark xv. 20. — " And it was the tJiird hour, and they 
 
 crucified him." 
 33. — " And when the sia?th hour was come, there was 
 
 darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour." 
 It has been observed to me by an intelligent friend, 
 who has turned his attention to the internal evidence 
 of the Gospels, that it will be found, on examination, 
 that the scoffs and insults which were levelled at our 
 Saviour on the cross, wei-e all during the early part of 
 the Crucijioffion, and that a manifest change of feeling 
 towards Him, arising, as it should seem, from a certain 
 misgiving as to his character, is discoverable in the 
 bystanders as the scene drew nearer to its close: I 
 think the remark just and valuable. It is at the first 
 that we read of those " who passed by railing on him 
 and wagging their heads," Mark xv. 29 ; of "the chief 
 priests and scribes mocking him," 31 ; of " those that 
 were crucified with him reviling him," 32 ; of the 
 " soldiers mocking him and oflfering him vinegar," 
 Luke xxiii. 36, pointing out to Him, most likely, the 
 " vessel of vinegar which was set," or holding a portion 
 of it beyond his reach, by way of aggravating the pains 
 of intense thirst, which must have attended this linger- 
 ing mode of death : — that all this occurred at the 
 beginning of the Passion is the natural conclusion to 
 be drawn from the narratives of St. Matthew, St. Mark, 
 and St. Luke. 
 
 But, during the latter part of it, we hear nothing of 
 this kind; on the contrary, when Jesus cried, " 1 thirst," 
 there was no mockery offered, but a sponge was tilled 
 with vinegar, and put on a reed and applied to his lips, 
 with remarkable alacrity; "owe ran'''' and did it, Mark 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 301 
 
 XV. 36 : and, from the misunderstanding of the words 
 " Eli, EH," it is clear that the spectators had some 
 suspicion that Elias might come to take Him down. Do 
 not, then, these circumstances accord remarkably well 
 with the alleged fact, that " tliere was darkness over all 
 the land from the sidih to the ninth hour?" Matth. xxvii. 
 45; Mark xv. 33. Is not this change of conduct in the 
 merciless crew that surrounded the cross very naturally 
 explained, by the awe with which they contemplated 
 the gloom as it took effect? and does it not strongly, 
 thouo'h undesiofnedlv, confirm the assertion, that such a 
 fearful darkness there actually was ? 
 
 XXI. 
 
 Mark xv. 43. — " And Joseph of Arimathsea, an honour- 
 able counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom 
 of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and 
 craved the body of Jesus." 
 
 It is evident that the courage of Joseph on this oc- 
 casion had impressed the mind of the Evangelist — he 
 " went in boldly,''' ToXfi-qaas elarjXOe — he had the bold- 
 ness to go in — he ventured to go in. 
 
 Now by comparing the parallel passage in St. John, 
 we very distinctly trace the train of thought which 
 was working in St. Mark's mind when he used this 
 expression, but which would have entirely escaped us, 
 together with the evidence it furnishes for the truth of 
 the narrative, had not the gospel of St. John come 
 down to us. For there we read (xix. 38), " And after 
 this Joseph of Arimathsea, being a disciple of Jesus, 
 but secretly for fear of the Jews^ besought Pilate that 
 he might take away the body of Jesus." 
 
 It appears, therefore, that Joseph was known to be 
 
302 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 a timid disciple; which made his conduct on the present 
 occasion seem to St. Mark remarkable, and at variance 
 with his ordinary character ; for there might be sup- 
 jDOsed some risk in manifesting an interest in the 
 corpse of Jesus, whom the Jews had just persecuted to 
 the death. 
 
 Moreover, it may be observed that St. John, in the 
 passage before us, continues, " And there came also 
 Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by nigJit, and 
 brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes" — as though the 
 timid character of Joseph was uppermost in his thoughts 
 too (though he says nothing of his going in boldly), and 
 suggested to him Nicodemus, and what he did; another 
 disciple of the same class as Joseph; and whose consti- 
 tutional failing, he does intimate, had occurred to him 
 at the moment, by the notice that it was the same per- 
 son who had come to Jesus by night. 
 
 I will add, that both these cases of Joseph and 
 Nicodemus bear upon the coincidence in the last 
 Number; for whence did these fearful men derive their 
 courage on this occasion, but from having witnessed the 
 circumstances which attended the Crucifixion ? 
 
 XXTI. 
 
 Luke vi. 1, 2. — " And it came to pass on the second 
 
 Sabbath after the first {ev a-a^/Sdro) hevrepoTrpwra),) 
 
 that he went through the corn-fields; and his 
 
 disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, 
 
 rubbing them in their hands. And certain of the 
 
 Pharisees said," &c. 
 
 This transaction occurred on the first Sabbath after 
 
 the second day of unleavened bread; on which day the 
 
 ivave sheaf was offered, as the first-fruits of the harvest'; 
 
 ' Lev. xxiii. 10 — 12* 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 303 
 
 and from which day the fifty days were reckoned to the 
 Pentecost. 
 
 Is it not, therefore, very natural that this conversa- 
 tion should have taken place at this time, and that 
 St. Luke should have especially given the date of the 
 conversation, as well as the conversation itself? 
 
 It being the first Sabbath after the day when the 
 first-fruits of the corn were cut, accords perfectly with 
 the fact that the disciples should be walking through 
 fields of standing corn at that season. 
 
 The Rite which had just then been celebrated, an 
 epoch in the church, as well as an epoch in the year, 
 naturally turned the minds of all the parties here 
 concerned to the subject of corn — the Pharisees, to find 
 cause for cavil in it — Jesus, to find cause for instruction 
 in it — St. Luke, to find cause for especially naming the 
 second Sabbath after the first, as the period of the 
 incident. And yet, be it observed, no connection is 
 pointed out between the time and the transaction, 
 either in the conversation itself, or in the Evangelist's 
 history of it. That is, there is coincidence without 
 design in both. 
 
 XXIIL 
 
 Luke ix. 53. — " And they did not receive him, because 
 
 his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem" 
 Jesus was then going to the Passover at Jerusalem, 
 and was, therefore, plainly acknowledging that men 
 ought to worship there, contrary to the practice of the 
 Samaritans, who had set up the Temple at Gerizim, in 
 opposition to that of the Holy City. That this was 
 the cause of irritation is implied in the expression, that 
 they would not receive Him, " because his face was as 
 though he would go to Jerusalem. '' Let us observe, then. 
 
304 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 how perfectly this account harmonizes with that which 
 St. John gives of Jesus' interview with the woman of 
 Samaria at the well. Then Jesus was coming from 
 Judaea, and at a season of the year when no sus])icion 
 could attach to Him of having been at Jerusalem for 
 devotional purposes, for it wanted " four months before 
 the harvest should come," and with it the Passover. 
 Accordingly, on this occasion, Jesus and his disciples 
 were treated with civility and hospitality by the Sama- 
 ritans. They purchased bread in the town without 
 being exposed to any insults, and they were even re- 
 quested to tarry with them. 
 
 I cannot but think that the stamp of truth is very 
 visible in all this. It was natural, that at certain seasons 
 of the year (at the great feasts) this jealous spirit should 
 be excited, which at others might be dormant; and 
 though it is not expressly stated by the one Evangelist, 
 that the insult of the villagers was at a season when 
 it might be expected, yet, from a casual expression 
 (ver. 51), such may be inferred to have been the case. 
 And though it is not expressly stated by the other 
 Evangelist, that the hospitality of the Samaritans was 
 exercised at a more propitious season of the year, yet 
 by an equally casual expression in the course of the 
 chapter (ver. 35), that, too, is ascertained to have been 
 the fact. Surely, it is beyond the reach of the most 
 artful imposture to observe so strict a propriety even in 
 the subordinate parts of the scheme, especially where 
 less distinctness of detail would scarcely have excited 
 suspicion ; and surely it is a circumstance most satisfac- 
 tory to every reasonable mind to discover, that the evi- 
 dence of the truth of that Gospel (on which our hopes 
 are anchored) is, not only the more conspicuous the 
 more minutely it is examined, but that, without such 
 
Pakt IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 305 
 
 examination, full justice cannot be done to the variety 
 and pregnancy of its proofs. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 John ii. 7. — " Jesus saitli unto them, Fill the water-pots 
 
 with M ater." 
 There appears to me to be in this passage an unde- 
 signed coincidence, very slight and trivial indeed in its 
 character, but not on that account less valuable as a 
 mark of truth. These water-pots had to hQ filled before 
 Jesus could perform the miracle. It follows, therefore, 
 that they had been emptied of their contents — the 
 water had been drawn out of them. But for what 
 purpose was it used, and why were these vessels here ? 
 It was for purifpng. For " all the Jews," as St. Mark 
 tells us more at large (vii. 3), " except they wash their 
 hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders." 
 The vessels, therefore, being now empty, indicates that 
 the guests had done with them — that the meal, there- 
 fore, was advanced ; for it was before they sat down to 
 it that they performed their ablutions — a circumstance 
 which accords with the moment when our Lord is re- 
 presented as doing this miracle ; for the governor of 
 the feast said to the bridegroom, " Every man at the 
 beginning doth set forth good wine . . . but thou hast 
 kept the good wine until nowT It is satisfactory, that 
 in the record of a great miracle, like this, the minor 
 circumstances in connection with it should be in keep- 
 ing with one another. 
 
306 THE VERACITY OF THE Paet IV. 
 
 XXV. 
 
 John iii. 1, 2. — " There was a man of the Pharisees, 
 named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews : The 
 same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, 
 Rabbi," &c. 
 It is a remarkable and characteristic feature of the 
 discourses of our Lord, that they are often promjjted, or 
 shaped, or illustrated, by the event of the moment ; by 
 some scene or incident that presented itself to him at 
 the time he was speaking. It is scarcely necessary to 
 give examples of a fact so undisputed. Thus it was 
 the day after the miracle of the loaves, and it was to 
 the persons who had witnessed that miracle, aiid pro- 
 fited by it, that Jesus said, " Labour not for the meat 
 which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto 
 everlasting life," ' &c. ; and nmch more to the same 
 effect. It was at Jacob's well, and in reply to the 
 question of the woman, " How is it that thou, being 
 a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of 
 Samaria?"^ that Jesus sj^ake so much at large of the 
 water whereof " whosoever drank should never thirst," 
 &c. It was whilst tarrying in this same rural sjDot, 
 that, calling the attention of his disciples to the scene 
 around them, he said, " Say not ye, There are yet four 
 months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto 
 you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields ; for they 
 are white already to harvest;"^ and he then goes on to 
 remind them of sowing and reaping to be done in 
 another and higher sense. These are a few instances 
 out of many which might be produced, where the inci- 
 
 ^ John vi. 27. ■' Jolm iv. 35. 
 
 2 Ibid. iv. 9 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 307 
 
 dent that gave rise to the remarks is actually related ; 
 and by which the habit of our Lord's discourse is 
 proved to be such as I have described. But in other 
 places, the incident itself is omitted, and but for some 
 casual expression which is let fall, it would be impos- 
 sible to connect the discourse with it ; by means, how- 
 ever, of some such expression, apparently intended to 
 serve no such purpose, we are enabled to get at the in- 
 cident, and so discover the j)ropriety of the discourse. 
 In such cases we are furnished once more with the 
 argument of coincidence without design — as in the 
 following passage : " In the last dai/, that great day of 
 the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying. If any man 
 thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. ■ He that 
 believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his 
 belly shall flow rivers of living ivater,'''^ Sec. Now, but 
 for the expression, " In the last day, that great day of 
 the feast," we should have been at a loss to know the 
 circumstances in which that speech of our Lord ori- 
 ginated. But the day when it was delivered being 
 named, we are enabled to gather from other sources, 
 that on that day, the eighth of the Feast of Taber- 
 nacles, it was a custom to otfer to God a j)ot of water 
 dra^\Ti from the pool of Siloam. Coupling this fact, 
 therefore, with our Lord's practice, already estabhshed 
 by other evidence, of allowing the spectacle before him 
 to give the turn to his address, we may conclude that 
 he spake these words whilst he happened to be ob- 
 serving the ceremony of the water-pot. And an argu- 
 ment thus arises, that the speech here reported is 
 genuine, and was really delivered by our Lord. 
 
 The passage, then, in St. John, Avith which I have 
 headed this paragraph, furnishes testimony of the same 
 ^ Johu vii. 37, 38. 
 
 X 2 
 
308 
 
 THE VERACITY OF THE 
 
 Part IV. 
 
 kind. It describes Nicodemus as coming to Jesus hy 
 night — feai', no doubt, prompting him to use this 
 secrecy. Now observe a good deal of the language 
 which Jesus directs to him — " And this is the condem- 
 nation, that light is come into the world, and men loved 
 darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 
 For every one that doetli evil hateth the light, neither 
 Cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 
 But he that doeth truth, cometh to the light, that his 
 deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in 
 God." (iii. 19 — 21.) When we remember that the 
 interview was a nocturnal one, and that Jesus was 
 accustomed to speak with a reference to the circum- 
 stances about him at the instant, what more natural 
 than the turn of this discourse ? What more satisfac- 
 tory evidence could we have, than this casual evidence, 
 that the visit was paid, and the speech spoken as St. 
 John describes? that his narrative, in short, is true'? 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 John iv. 5. — " Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, 
 
 which is called Sychar." 
 Here Jesus converses with the woman at the well. 
 She perceives that he is a prophet. She suspects that 
 he may be the Christ. She spreads her report of him 
 through the city. The inhabitants are awakened to a 
 lively interest about him. Jesus is induced to tarry 
 there two days ; and it was probably the favourable 
 disposition towards him which he found to prevail there 
 that drew from him at that very time the observation 
 to his disciples, " Say not ye. There are yet four months, 
 
 ^ I was put upon this coinci- 
 dence by a passage which I heard 
 
 in one of Mr. Marden's Hulsean 
 Lectures. 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 309 
 
 and then cometh harvest ? behold, I say unto you, Lift 
 up your eyes, and look on the fields ; for they are ivhite 
 already to harvest. And he that reapeth receiveth wages, 
 and gathereth fruit unto life eternal : that both he that 
 soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. And 
 herein is that saying true, One soweth and another 
 reapeth. I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed 
 no labour : other men laboured, and ye are entered into 
 their labours." It is the favourable state of Samaria 
 for the reception of the Gospel that suggests these 
 reflections to Jesus ; he, no doubt, perceiving that God 
 had much " people in that city." 
 
 Such is the picture of the religious state of Sychar 
 presented in the narrative of St. John. 
 
 Now the author of the Acts of the Apostles confirms 
 the truth of this statement in a remarkable but most 
 unintentional manner. From him we learn that, at a 
 period a few years later than this, and after the death 
 of Jesus, Philip, one of the deacons, " went down to 
 the city of Samaria " (the emphatic expression marks it 
 to have been Sychar, the capital), " and preached Christ 
 unto them." (Acts viii. 5.) His success was just 
 what might have been expected from the account we 
 have read in St. John of the previous state of public 
 opinion at Sychar. " The people with one accord gave 
 heed unto those things which Philip spake" (ver. 6); and 
 " when they believed Philip preaching the things con- 
 cernino- the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus 
 Christ, they were baptized, both men and women" (ver. 
 12). It is evident that these histories are not got up 
 to corroborate one another. It is not at all an obvious 
 thought, or one likely to present itself to an impostor, 
 that it might be prudent to fix upon Sychar as the 
 imaginary scene of Philip's successful labours, seeing 
 
310 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 that Jesus had been Avell received there some years 
 before ; at least in such a case some alkision or refer- 
 ence would liave been made to this disposition pre- 
 viously evinced ; it would not have been left to the 
 reader to discover it or not, as it might happen, where 
 the chance was so great that it would be overlooked. 
 Moreover, his recollection of the passage in St. John 
 would probably have been studiously arrested by the 
 use of the same word " Sychar," rather than " the city 
 of Samaria," as designating the field of Philip's labours. 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 John vi. 16. — "And when even was now come, his 
 disciples went down into the sea, and entered into 
 a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. 
 And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to 
 them. And the sea arose by reason of a great wind 
 that blew. So when they had rowed about five- 
 and-twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walk- 
 ing on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the shij) : 
 and they were afraid. But he saith unto them. It 
 is I ; be not afraid. Then they willingly received 
 him into the ship : and immediately the ship was 
 at the land whither they went. The day following, 
 when the people which stood on the other side of the 
 sea saw that there teas none other boat there, save 
 that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and 
 that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, 
 hut that his disciples were gone away alone ; (how- 
 beit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto 
 the place ivhere they did eat bread, after that the 
 Lord had given thanks :) when the people there- 
 fore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his 
 
Part TV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 311 
 
 disciples, they also took shipping, and came to 
 Capernaum, seeking for Jesus. And when they 
 had found him on the other side of the sea, they 
 said unto him. Rabbi, ivJien earnest tJiou hither f'' 
 Matth. xiv. 22. — "And straightway Jesus constrained 
 his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before 
 him unto the other side, while he sent the mul- 
 titudes away. And w4ien he had sent the multi- 
 tudes aAvay, he went up into a mountain apart to 
 pray : and when the evening was come, he was 
 there alone. But the ship was now in the midst of 
 the sea, tossed with waves : for the wind was con- 
 traryT 
 It appears from St. John, that the people thought that 
 Jesus w^as still on the side of the lake where the miracle 
 had been wrought. And this they inferred because 
 there was no other boat on the preceding evening, 
 except that in which the disciples had gone over to 
 Capernaum on the other side, and they had observed 
 that Jesus went not wuth them. It is added, however, 
 that, " there came other boats from Tiberias " (w^hich was 
 on the same side as Capernaum), nigh unto the place 
 where the Lord had given thanks. Now why might 
 they not have supposed that Jesus had availed himself 
 of one of these return-boats, and so made his escape in 
 the night ? St. John gives no reason why they did not 
 make this obvious inference. Let us turn to St. Mat- 
 thew's account of the same transaction (which I have 
 placed at the head of this paragraph), and we speedily 
 learn why they could not. In this account we find it 
 recorded, not simply that the disciples were in distress 
 in consequence of the sea arising " by reason of a great 
 wind that blew^" but it is further stated, that " the wind 
 was cont^'aryT i. e., the wind was blowing from Caper- 
 
312 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 naum and Tiberias, and therefore not only might the 
 ships readily come from Tiberias (the incident men- 
 tioned by St. John), a course for which the wind 
 (though violent) was fair, but the multitude might well 
 conclude that with such a wind Jesus could not have 
 used one of those return-boats, and therefore must still 
 be amongst them. 
 
 Indeed, nothing can be more probable than that 
 these ships from Tiberias were fishing vessels, which, 
 having been overtaken by the stdrm, suffered them- 
 selves to be driven before the gale, to the opposite 
 coast, where they might find shelter for the night ; for 
 what could such a number of boats, as suflficed to 
 convey the people across (v. 24), have been doing at 
 this desert place, neither ])0i% nor town, nor market? 
 so that here again is another instance of undesigned 
 consistency in the narrative ; the very fact of a number 
 of boats resorting to this " desert place," at the close of 
 day, strongly indicating (though most incidentally) that 
 the sea actually was rising (as St. John asserts), " by 
 reason of a great wind that blew." 
 
 I further think this to be the correct view of a pas- 
 sage of some intricacy, from considering, first, the 
 question which the people put to Jesus on finding him 
 at Capernaum the next day. Full as they must have 
 been of the miracle which they had lately witnessed, 
 and anxious to see the repetition of works so wonderful, 
 their first inquiry is, '■' Rahhi, when earnest thou hither f' 
 surely an inquiry not of mere form, but manifestly 
 implying that, under the circumstances, it could only 
 have been by some extraordinary means that he had 
 passed across; and, second, from observing the satis- 
 factory explanation it affords of the parenthesis of St. 
 John, ^'howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias,^'. . . 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 313 
 
 which no. longer seems a piece of purely gratuitous and 
 irrelevant information, but turns out to be equivalent 
 with the exj)ression in St. Matthew, that the '■^ wind 
 was contrary ;" though the point is not directly asserted, 
 but only a fact is mentioned from which such an asser- 
 tion naturally follows. 
 
 It might indeed be said, that the circumstance of 
 the ships coming from Tiberias was mentioned for the 
 purpose of explaining how the people could take 
 shipping (as they are stated to have done to go to 
 Capernaum), when it had been before affirmed that 
 there was no other boat there save that into which the 
 disciples were entered. Such caution, however, I do 
 not think at all agreeable to the spirit of the M'ritings 
 of the Evangelists, who are always very careless about 
 consequences, not troubling themselves to obviate or 
 explain the difficulties of their narrative. But, what- 
 ever may be judged of this matter, the main argument 
 remains the same ; and a minute coincidence between 
 St. John and St. Matthew is made out, of such a 
 nature as precludes all suspicion of collusion, and shows 
 consistency in the two histories without the smallest 
 design. 
 
 And here again I will repeat the observation which 
 I have already had occasion more than once to make — 
 that the truth of the general narrative in some degree 
 involves the truth of a miracle. For if we are satisfied 
 by the undesigned coincidence that St. Matthew was 
 certainly speaking truth when he said, the wind was 
 "boisterous," how shall we presume to assert, that he 
 speaks truth no longer, when he tells us in the same 
 breath that Jesus " walked on the sea," in the midst 
 of that very storm, and that when " he came into the 
 ship the wind ceased?" 
 
314 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 Doubtless, the one fact does not absolutely prove the 
 others ; but in all ordinary cases, where one or two par- 
 ticulars in a body of evidence are so corroborated as to 
 be placed above suspicion, the rest, though not admitting 
 of the like corroboration, are nevertheless received 
 without disj^ute. 
 
 XXVIII. 
 
 The events of the last week of our Saviour's earthly 
 life, as recorded by the Evangelists, will furnish us with 
 several arguments of the kind we are collecting. 
 
 1. John xii. 1. — " Then Jesus, si^ days before the 
 Passover, came to Bethany, where Lazarus was." 
 
 Bethany was a village at the mount of Olives (Mark 
 xi. 1), near Jerusalem ; and it was in his approach to 
 that city, to keep the last Passover and die, that Jesus 
 now lodged there for the night, meaning to enter the 
 capital the next day. (John xii. 12.) 
 
 St. John tells us no more of the movements of Jesus 
 on this occasion with precision ; however, this one date 
 will suffice to verify his narrative, as well as that of St. 
 Mark. Turn we, then, to the latter, who gives us an 
 account of the proceedings of Jesus immediately before 
 his crucifixion in more detail ; or rather, enables us to 
 infer for ourselves what they were, from phrases which 
 escape from him ; and we shall find that the two narra- 
 tives are very consistent with respect to them, though 
 it is very evident that neither narrative is at all dressed 
 by the other, but that both are so constructed as to 
 argue independent knowledge of the facts in the Evan- 
 gelists themselves. 
 
 In Mark xi. 1, we read, " And when they came nigh 
 to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 315 
 
 mount of Olives, He sendeth forth two of his disciples, 
 and saith unto them. Go your way into the village over 
 against you," &c. The internal evidence of this whole 
 transaction implies, that the disciples were despatched 
 on this errand the morning after they had arrived at 
 Bethany, where Jesus had lodged for the nkjht, and not 
 the evening before, on the instant of his arrival ; the 
 events of the day being much too numerous to be 
 crowded into the latter period of time — the procuring 
 the ass, the triumphant procession to Jerusalem, the 
 visit to the temple, all filling up that day ; and its being 
 expressly said, when all these transactions were con- 
 cluded, that "the even-tide was come" (ver. 11); and 
 this internal evidence entirely accords with the direct 
 assertion of St. John (xii. 12) that it was " the nea;t 
 day." Accordingly, this day closed with Jesus " look- 
 ing round about upon all things," in the temple (ver. 
 11), and then " when the eventide was come, going out 
 unto Bethany with the twelve." This, then, was the 
 second day Jesus lodged at Bethany, as we gather from 
 St. Mark. " On the morrow, as they were coming 
 from Bethany^'' Jesus cursed the fig-tree (ver. 13) ; 
 proceeded to Jerusalem ; spent the day, as before, in 
 Jerusalem and the temple, casting out of it the money- 
 changers ; and again, " when even was come He went 
 out of the city" (ver. 19), certainly returning to Be- 
 thany ; for though this is not said, the fact is clear, from 
 the tenor of the next paragraph. This was the third 
 day Jesus lodged at Bethany, according to St. Mark. 
 " In the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig- 
 tree dried up from the roots" (ver. 20), i. e., they were 
 proceeding by the same road as the morning before, 
 and therefore from Bethany, again to spend the day at 
 Jerusalem, and in the temple (ver. 27; xii. 41) ; Jesus 
 
316 THE VERACITY OF THE Paet IV. 
 
 employing himself there in enunciating parables and 
 answering cavils. After this " he went out of the tem- 
 pie" (xiii. 1), to return once more, no doubt, the 
 evening being come, to Bethany ; for though this again 
 is not asserted, it is clearly to be inferred, which is 
 better, since we immediately afterwards find Jesus sit- 
 ting with the disciples, and talking with several of them 
 privately, " on the mount of Olives" (ver. 3), which lay 
 in his road to Bethany. This was the fourth day, 
 according to St. Mark. St. Mark next says, " After 
 two daijsi was the feast of the Passover." (xiv. 1.) 
 
 This, then, makes up the interval of the sia? days 
 since Jesus came to Bethany, according to St. Mark, 
 which tallies exactly with the direct assertion of St. 
 John, that " Jesus sia,' days before the Passover came 
 to Bethany." 
 
 But how unconcerted is this agreement between the 
 Evanofelists ! St. John's declaration of the date of the 
 arrival of Jesus at Bethany is indeed unambiguous ; but 
 the corresponding relation of St. Mark, though proved 
 to be in perfect accordance with St. John, has to be 
 traced with pains and difficulty ; some of the steps ne- 
 cessary for arriving at the conclusion altogether infe- 
 rential. How extremely improbable is a concurrence 
 of this nature upon any other supposition than the truth 
 of the incident related, and the independent knowledge 
 of it of the witnesses : and how infallibly would that be 
 the impression it would produce on the minds of a jury, 
 supposing it to be an ingredient in a case of circumstan- 
 tial evidence presented to them. 
 
 • 2. A second slight coincidence, Avhich offers itself 
 to our notice on the events of Bethany, is the fol- 
 lowing : — 
 
 It is in the eveninc) that the Evangelists represent 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 317 
 
 Jesus as returning from the city to Bethany : "And now 
 the even-tide was come, he went out unto Bethany with 
 the twelve." (Mark xi. 11.) " And when even was come, 
 he went out of the city" (ver. 19), says St. Mark. 
 " And he left them, and went out of the city into 
 Bethany; and he lodged there. Now in the morning, as 
 he returned," &c. (Matth. xxi. 17), says St. Matthew. 
 
 St. John does not speak directly of Jesus going in 
 the evening to Bethany. But there is an incidental 
 expression in him which implies that such was his own 
 conviction, though nothing can be less studied than it 
 is. For he tells us, that at Bethany, " they made him a 
 suppei\^ helirvov, a term, as now used, indicating an 
 evening meal. Had St. John happened to employ the 
 same phrase St. Mark does when relating this same 
 event (KaraKecfievov avTov, " as he sat at meat,") the 
 argument would have been lost ; as it is, the mention 
 of the meal by St. John (who takes no notice of the 
 fact that Jesus lodged at Bethany, though he spent the 
 day at Jerusalem), and such meal being an evening meal, 
 is tantamount to St. Mark's statement, that he passed 
 his evenings in this village. 
 
 3 The same fact coincides with several other 
 particulars, though our attention is not drawn to them 
 by the Evangelists. It is obvious, from the history, 
 that the danger to Jesus did not arise from the mul- 
 titude, but from the priests. The multitude were with 
 Him, until, as I have said in a former paragraph, they 
 were persuaded that he assumed to Himself the charac- 
 ter of God, and spake blasphemy, when they turned 
 against Him : but till then they were on his side. 
 Judas "promised, and sought opportunity to betray 
 Him in the absence of the ?mdtitude" (Luke xxii. 6.) 
 The chief priests and elders, in consulting on his death, 
 
318 
 
 THE VERACITY OF THE 
 
 Pabt IV. 
 
 said, " Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar 
 among the peofAer (Mattli. xxvi. 5.) Jesus, therefore, 
 felt Himself safe, nay, powerful, so that he could even 
 clear the temple of its profaners by force, in the day ; 
 but not so in the night. In the night, the chief priests 
 might use stratagem, as they eventually did ; and the 
 fact appears to be, that the very first night Jesus did 
 not retire to Bethany, but remained in and about Jeru- 
 salem, He was actually betrayed and seized. There is 
 a consistency, I say, of the most artless kind in the 
 several parts of this narrative ; a consistency, however, 
 such as we have to detect for ourselves ; and so latent 
 and unobtrusive, that no forgery could reach it '. 
 
 XXIX. 
 
 It appears to me that there is a coincidence in the 
 
 following particulars, relating to this same locality, not 
 
 the less valuable from being in some degree intricate 
 
 and involved. 
 
 1. Luke ix. 51. — " And it came to pass, when the 
 
 time was come that he should be received up, he 
 
 stedfastly 8et Jiis face to go to Jerusalem.''' 
 
 Expressions occur in the remainder of this and in the 
 
 following chapter, which show that the mind of St. Luke 
 
 was contemplating the events which happened on this 
 
 journey, though he does not make it his business to 
 
 trace it step by step : thus (ver. 52), " And they went, 
 
 and entered into a village of the Samaritans." And 
 
 again (ver. 57), " And it came to pass, that, as they went 
 
 in the way, a certain man said unto him," &c. And 
 
 again (x. 38), " Now it came to pass, as they went, that 
 
 ^ Several of the thoughts in 
 this Number are suggested to me 
 
 by Mr. A. Johnson's " Christus 
 Crucifixus." 
 
Pakt IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 319 
 
 he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman 
 named Martha received him into her house. And she 
 had a sister called Mary." The Hne of march, therefore, 
 which St. Luke was pursuing in his own mind in the 
 narrative, was that which was leading Jesus through 
 Samaria to Jerusalem ; and in the last of the verses I 
 have quoted, he brings him to this " certain village," 
 which he does not name, but he tells us it was the 
 abode of Martha and Mary. 
 
 Accordingly, on comparing this passage with John 
 (xi. 1), we are led to the conclusion that the village 
 was Bethamj ; for it is there said, that Bethany was 
 " the town of Mary and her sister Martha." 
 
 But on looking at St. Mark's account of a similar 
 journey of Jesus, for probably it was not the same\ 
 we find that the preceding stage which he made before 
 coming to Bethany was from Jericho (Mark x. 46). 
 " And they came to Jericho : and as he went out of 
 Jericho with his disciples and a great number of 
 people," &c. And then it follows (xi. 1), "And when 
 they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and 
 SethauT/" &c. This, therefore, brings us to the same 
 point as St. Luke. Thus, to recapitulate : we learn, 
 from St. Luke, that Jesus, in a journey from Galilee to 
 Jerusalem, arrived at the village of Martha and Mary. 
 
 We learn from St. John, that this village was 
 Bethany. 
 
 And we learn from St. Mark, that the last town> 
 Jesus left before he came to Bethany, on a similar 
 journey, if not the same, was Jericho. 
 
 Now let us turn once more to St. Luke (x. 30), and 
 we shall there discover Jesus giving utterance to a 
 
 ^ See Luke xiii. 22; xvii. 11 ; journey is perhaps spoken of. 
 xviii. 31 ; where a subsequent 
 
320 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 parable on this occasion, which is placed in immediate 
 juxtaposition with the history of his reaching Bethany, 
 as though it had been spoken just before. For, as soon 
 as it is ended, the narrative proceeds, " Now it came to 
 pass, as they went, that he entered into a cei'tain village: 
 and a certain woman named Martha received him into 
 her house" (x. 38). And what was this parable? That 
 of " a certain man who went down from Jerusalem to 
 JericJio, and fell among thieves," &c. It seems, then, 
 highly probable, that Jesus was actually travelling from 
 Jericho to Jerusalem (Bethany being just short of Jeru- 
 salem) when he delivered it. What can be more like 
 reality than this? Yet how circuitously do we get at 
 our conclusion ! 
 
 2. Nor is even this all. The parable represents a 
 priest and Levite as on the road. This again is entirely 
 in keeping with the scene : for whether it was that 
 the school of the prophets established from of old at 
 Jericho' had given a sacerdotal character to the town; 
 or whether it was its comparative proximity to Je- 
 rusalem, that had invited the priests and Levites to 
 settle there; certain it is that a very large portion of the 
 courses that waited at the temple resided at Jericho, 
 ready to take their turn at Jerusalem when duty called 
 them^; so that it was more than probable that Jesus, on 
 coming from Jericho to Jerusalem, on this occasion, 
 with his disciples, would meet many of this order. How 
 vivid a colouring of truth does all this give to the fact 
 of the parable having been spoken as St. Luke says ! 
 
 3. Nay more still — I can believe that there may be 
 discovered a reason coincident with the circumstances 
 of the time, in Jesus choosing to imagine a Samaritan 
 for the benefactor at this particular moment — for it had 
 
 ' 2 Kiugs ii. 5. | - SeeLightfoot, vol.ii. p. 45, fol. 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 321 
 
 only been shortly before, at least it was upon this same 
 journey, that James and John had proposed, when the 
 Samaritans would not receive him, to call down fire 
 from heaven and consume them (Luke ix. 54). Could 
 the spirit they were of be more gracefully rebuked than 
 thus ? Again, how real is all this ! ^ 
 
 XXX. 
 
 John xviii. 10. — " Then Simon Peter having a sword 
 drew it, and smote the high-priest's servant, and 
 cut off his right ear. The servant's name was 
 Malcliusr 
 15. — '-And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did 
 another disciple : that disciple was known unto the 
 high-priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace 
 of the high-priest. 
 1(3. — "But Peter stood at the door without. Then 
 went out that other disciple, which was known 
 unto the high-priest, and spake unto her that kept 
 the door, and brought in Peter.'" 
 In my present argument, it will be needful to show, in 
 the first instance, that " the disciple who was known 
 unto the high-priest," mentioned in ver. 15, was probably 
 the Evangelist himself. This I conclude from three 
 considerations : — 
 
 1. From the testimony of the fathers, Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, and Jerome^. 
 
 2. From the circumstance that St. John often un- 
 questionably speaks of himself in the third person in a 
 similar manner. Thus, chap. xx. 2, " Then she runneth, 
 and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom 
 Jesus loved;" and ver. 3. " Peter therefore went forth, 
 
 ^ Comp. No. XII. of the Ap- ^ See Lardner's History of the 
 pendix. Apostles and Evangelists, ch. ix. 
 
 Y 
 
322 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 and that other discipkr The like phrase is repeated 
 several times in the same chapter and elsewhere. 
 
 3. Moreover, it may be thought, as Bishop Middleton 
 has argued, that St. John has a distinctive claim to 
 the title of " the other disciple" (6 aWos fjbaOrjTiqs, not 
 " another," as our version has it), where St. Peter is the 
 colleaofue : for that a closer relation subsisted between 
 Peter and John than between any other of the disciples. 
 They constantly act together. Peter and John are 
 sent to prepare the last Passover (Luke xxii. 8). Peter 
 and John run together to the sepulchre. John apprizes 
 Peter that the stranger at the sea of Tiberias is Jesus 
 (John xxi. 7). Peter is anxious to learn of Jesus what 
 is to become of John (ver. 21). After the ascension 
 they are associated together in all the early history of 
 the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 4. The narrative of the motions of "that disciple 
 who was known unto the high-priest," his coming out 
 and going in, is so express and circumstantial, that it 
 bears every appearance of having been written by the 
 party himself. Nor in fact do any other of the Evan- 
 gelists mention a syllable about " that other disciple ;" 
 tbey tell us, indeed, that Peter did enter the bigh- 
 priest's house, but they take no notice of the parti- 
 culars of his admission, nor how it was effected, nor of 
 any obstacles thrown in the way. 
 
 For these reasons, I understand tlie disciple known 
 unto the high-priest to have been St. John. My argu- 
 ment now stands thus : — The assault committed by 
 Peter is mentioned by all the Evangelists, hut the name 
 of the servant is given hy St. John only. How does 
 this happen ? Most naturally : for it seems that by 
 some chance or other St. John a s known not only 
 unto the high-priest, but also to his household — that 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 323 
 
 the servants were acquainted with him, and he with 
 them, since he was permitted to enter into the high- 
 priest's house, whilst Peter was shut out, and no sooner 
 did he " speak unto her that kept the door," than 
 Peter was admitted. So again, in further proof of the 
 same thing, when another of the servants charges 
 Peter with being one of Christ's disciples, St. John 
 adds a circumstance peculiar to himself, and marking 
 his knowledge of the family, that " it was his Mnsman 
 whose ear Peter cut off. " 
 
 These facts, I conceive, show that St. John (on the 
 supposition that St. John and " the other disciple" are 
 one and the same) was personally acquainted with the 
 servants of the high-priest. How natural, therefore, 
 was it, that in mentioning such an incident as Peter's 
 attack upon one of those servants, he should mention 
 the man by name, and the " servant's name was Mal- 
 chusf whilst the other Evangelists, to whom the 
 sufferer was an individual in whom they took no 
 extraordinary interest, were satisfied with a general 
 designation of him, as " one of the servants of the 
 high-priest." 
 
 This incident also, in some degree, though not in 
 the same degree perhaps as certain others which have 
 been mentioned, supports the miracle which ensues. 
 For if the argument shows that the Evangelists are 
 uttering the truth when they say that such an event 
 occurred as the blow with the sword — if it shows that 
 there actually was such a blow struck — then is there not 
 additional ground for believing that they continue to 
 tell the truth, when they say in the same passage that 
 the effects of the blow were miraculously removed, and 
 that the ear was healed ? 
 
 I am aware that there are those who argue for the 
 
 Y 2 
 
324 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 superior rank and station of St. John, from his being 
 known unto the high-priest; and who may, therefore, 
 think him degraded by this implied familiarity with his 
 servants. Suffice it however to say, — that as, on the 
 one hand, to be known to the high-priest does not 
 determine that he was his equal, so, on the other, to be 
 known to his servants does not determine that he was 
 not their superior; furthermore, that the relation in 
 which servants stood towards their betters was, in 
 ancient times, one of much less distance than at pre- 
 sent ; and, lastly, that the Scriptures themselves lay no 
 claim to dignity of birth for this Apostle, when they 
 represent of him and of St. Peter (Acts iv. 13), that 
 Annas and the elders, after hearing their defence, 
 " perceived them to be unlearned and ignorant men." 
 
 XXXI. 
 
 John xviii. 36. — " Jesus answered. My kingdom is not 
 of this world : if my kingdom were of this world, 
 tlien would my servants fight, that I should not be 
 delivered to the Jews." 
 
 Nothing could have been more natural than for his 
 enemies to have reminded our Lord that in one 
 instance at least, and that too of very recent occur- 
 rence, his servants did fight. Indeed Jesus himself 
 might here be almost thought to challenge inquiry into 
 the assault Peter had so lately committed upon the 
 servant of the high-priest. Assuredly there was no 
 disposition on the part of his accusers to spare him. 
 The council sought for witness against Jesus, and 
 where could it be found more readily than in the high- 
 priest's own house ? Frivolous and unfounded calum- 
 nies of all sorts were brought forward, which agreed 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. ' 325 
 
 not together; but tliis act of violence, indisputably 
 committed by one of his companions in his Master's 
 cause, and, as they would not have scrupled to assert, 
 under his Master's eye, is altogether and intentionally, 
 as it should seem, kept out of sight. 
 
 The suppression of the charge is the more remark- 
 able, from the fact, that a relation of Malchus was 
 actually present at the time, and evidently aware of 
 the violence which had been done his kinsman, though 
 not quite able to identify the offender. " One of the 
 servants of the high-priest, being his kinsman whose 
 ear Peter cut off, said. Did I not see thee in the 
 garden with him?" (ver. 26.) Surely nothing could 
 have been more natural than for this man to be 
 clamorous for redress. 
 
 Had the Gospel of St. Luke never come down to us, 
 it would have remained a difficulty (one of the many 
 difficulties of Scripture arising from the conciseness 
 and desultory nature of the narrative), to have ac- 
 counted for the suppression of a charge against Jesus, 
 which of all others would have been the most likely 
 to suggest itself to his prosecutors, from the offence 
 having been just committed, and from the sufferer 
 being one of the high-priest's own family ; a charge, 
 moreover, which would have had the advantage of 
 being founded in truth, and would therefore have been 
 far more effective than accusations which could not be 
 sustained. Let us hear, however, St. Luke. He tells 
 us, and he only, that when the blow had been struck, 
 Jesus said, " Suffer ye thus far : and he touched his ear 
 and healed MmJ" — (xxii. 51.) 
 
 The miracle satisfactorily explains the suppression 
 of the charge — to have advanced it would naturally 
 have led to an investigation that would have more 
 
326 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 than frustrated the malicious purpose it was meant to 
 serve. It would have proved too much. It might 
 have furnished indeed an argument against the peace- 
 able professions of Jesus's jiarty, but, at the same time, 
 it would have made manifest his own compassionate 
 nature, submission to the laws, and extraordinary 
 powers. Pilate, who sought occasion to release him, 
 might have readily found it in a circumstance so well 
 calculated to convince him of the innocence of the 
 prisoner, and of his being (M'hat he evidently suspected 
 and feared) something more than human. 
 
 XXXII. 
 
 John XX. 4. — "So they ran both together: and the 
 
 other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to 
 
 the sepulchre. 
 5. — " And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the 
 
 linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. 
 6. — " Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and 
 
 went into the sepidchre, and seeth the linen clothes 
 
 lie. 
 7. — "And the napkin, that was about his head, not 
 
 lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together 
 
 in a place by itself. 
 8. — " Then went in also that other disciple, which came 
 
 first to the sepulchre." 
 
 How express and circumstantial is this narrative ! 
 How difficult it is to read it and doubt for a moment 
 of its perfect truth ! My more immediate concern, 
 however, with the passage is this, that it affords two 
 coincidences, certainly very trifling in themselves, but 
 still signs of veracity: — 1. >S'^. John outran St. Peter. 
 It is universally agreed by ecclesiastical writers of 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 327 
 
 antiquity, that John was the youncjest of all the 
 Apostles. That Peter was at this time past the vigour 
 of his age, may perhaps be inferred from an expression 
 in the twenty-first chapter of St. John — " Verily, 
 verily, I say nnto thee," says Jesus to Peter, " when 
 thou wast youncj, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst 
 whither thou wouldst : but when thou shalt be old, 
 thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shalt 
 gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldst not." — 
 ver. 18. Or (what may be more satisfactory) there 
 being every reason to believe that St. John survived 
 St. Peter six or seven and thirty years \ it almost 
 necessarily follows, that he must have been much the 
 younger man of the two, since the term of St. Peter's 
 natural life was probably not very much forestalled by 
 his martyrdom I Accordingly, when they ran both 
 together to the sepulchre, it was to be expected that 
 John should outrun his more aged companion and come 
 there first. 
 
 I do not propose this as a new light, but I am not 
 aware that it has been brought so prominently forward 
 as it deserves. An incident thus trivial and minute 
 disarms suspicion. The most sceptical cannot see cun- 
 ning or contrivance in it; and it is no small point 
 gained over such persons, to lead them to distrust and 
 re-examine their bold conclusions. This little fact may 
 be the sharp end of the wedge that shall, by degrees, 
 cleave their doubts asunder. Seeing this, they may by 
 and by " see greater things than these." But this is 
 not all : — for, 2ndly, though John came first to the 
 sepulchre, he did not venture to go in till Peter set him 
 
 1 ■ See Lardner's History of the I ~ Consult 2 Peter i. 14, and 
 Apostles and Evangelists, cli. ix. John xxi. 18. 
 sect. 6, and ch. xviii. sect. 5. j 
 
328 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 tJie ewamfle. Peter did not pause "to stoop down" 
 and " look in," but boldly entered at once — he was not 
 troubled for fear of seeing a spirit, which was probably 
 the feeling that withheld St. John from entering, as it 
 was the feeling which, on a former occasion, caused the 
 disciples (Matth. xiv. 26) to cry out. Peter was anx- 
 iously impatient to satisfy himself of the truth of the 
 women's report, and to meet once more his crucified 
 Master; all other considerations were with him ab- 
 sorbed in this one. Now such is precisely the conduct 
 we should have expected from a man, who seldom or 
 never is offered to our notice in the course of the New 
 Testament (and it is very often that our attention is 
 directed to him), without some indication being given 
 of his possessing a fearless, spirited, and impetuous 
 character. Slight as this trait is, it marks the same in- 
 dividual who ventured to commit himself to the deep 
 and "w^alk upon the water," whilst the other disciples 
 remained in the boat; who "drew his sword and smote 
 the high-priest's servant," whilst they were confounded 
 and dismayed ; who " girt his fisher's coat about him 
 and cast himself into the sea" to greet his Master 
 when he appeared again, whilst his companions came in 
 a little ship, dragging the net with fishes ; who was 
 ever most obnoxious to the civil power, so that when 
 any of the disciples are cast into prison, there are we 
 sure to find St. Peter. (See Acts v. 18, 29 ; xii. 3.) 
 Again, I say, I cannot imagine that designing persons, 
 however Mary they might have been, however much 
 upon their guard, could possibly have given their ficti- 
 tious narrative this singular air of truth, by the intro- 
 duction of circumstances so unimportant, yet so con- 
 sistent and harmonious. 
 
Pabt IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 329 
 
 XXXIIL 
 
 The Gospel of St. John contains no liistory whatever 
 of the Ascension of Jesus; indeed, the narrative termi- 
 mates before it comes to that point. Yet there are 
 passages in it from which we may incidentally/ gather 
 that the ascension was considered by him as a notorious 
 fact. Passages which perfectly coincide with the direct 
 description of that event, contained in Acts i. 3 — 13. 
 Thus, John iii. 13. — "And no man hath ascended up to 
 
 heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even 
 
 the Son of man which is in heaven." 
 Again, vi. 62. — " What and if ye shall see the Son of 
 
 man ascend up where he was before ? " 
 Again, xx. 17. — "Jesus saith unto her. Touch me not; 
 
 for I am not yet ascended to my Father : but go 
 
 to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto 
 
 my Father, and your Father ; and to my God, and 
 
 your God." 
 Had the Gospel of St. John been the only portion of 
 the New Testament which had descended to our times, 
 and all record of the Ascension had perished, these 
 casual allusions to it might have been lost upon us ; but 
 when coupled with such record, a record quite indepen- 
 dent of the Gospel of St. John, they convey to us, far 
 more strongly than any account he might have given of 
 it in detail could have done, the testimony of that 
 Apostle to the truth of this last marvellous act of the 
 marvellous life of our blessed Lord ; and of which He 
 was himself a spectator. 
 
 XXXIV. 
 
 There is a difference in the quarter from which oppo- 
 sition to the Gospel of Christ proceeded, as rejiresented 
 
330 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 in the Gospels and in the Acts, most characteristic of 
 truth, though most unobtrusive in itself. Indeed, these 
 two portions of the New Testament might be read 
 many times over without the feature I allude to hap- 
 pening to present itself. 
 
 Throughout the Gospels, the hostility to the Christian 
 cause manifested itself almost exclusively from the 
 Pharisees. Jesus evidently considers them as a sect sys- 
 tematically adverse to it — " Woe unto you, Scribes and 
 Pharisees, hypocrites ! . . . . Ye are the children of them 
 which killed the prophets . . . Fill ye up then the mea- 
 sure of your fathers."' And before Jesus came up to the 
 last passover, " the chief priests and Pharisees^ we read, 
 " gave commandment, that, if any man knew where he 
 were, he should shew it, that they might take him:"^ 
 and that when Judas proposed to betray him, " he 
 received a band of men and officers from the chief 
 priests and PhariseesT^ On the other hand, through- 
 out the Acts, the like hostility is discovered to proceed 
 from the Sadducees. Thus, " And as they " (Peter and 
 John) " spake unto the people, the priests, and the 
 captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon 
 them."* And again, on another occasion, " The high- 
 priest rose up, and all that were with him, which is the 
 sect of the Sadducees, and were filled with indignation ; 
 and laid their hands on the Apostles, and put them in 
 the common prison."' And again, in a still more re- 
 markable case : when Paul was maltreated before 
 Ananias, and there was danger perhaps to his life, he 
 " perceiving," we read, " that the one part were Sad- 
 ducees, and the other Pharisees, cried out in the council. 
 
 ^ Matt, xxiii. 29. 32. 
 ^ John xi. 57. 
 3 Ibid, xviii. 3. 
 
 " Acts iv. 1. 
 ^ Ibid. V. 17. 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 331 
 
 Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pha- 
 risee;"' evidently considering the Pharisees now to be 
 the friendly faction, and soliciting their support against 
 the Sadducees, whom he equally regarded as a hostile 
 one ; nor was he disappointed in his appeal. 
 
 Whence, then, this extraordinary change in the re- 
 lations of these parties respectively to the Christians ? 
 No doubt, because the doctrine of tJie resurrection of 
 the dead, which before Christ's own resurrection, i. e. 
 during the period comprised in the Gospels, had been so 
 far from dispersed by the disciples, that they scarcely 
 knew Avhat it meant (Mark ix 10), had now become a 
 leading doctrine with them ; as any body may satisfy 
 themselves was the case by reading the several speeches 
 of St. Peter, which are given in the early chapters of 
 the Acts ; in each and all of which the resurrection is a 
 prominent feature — in that which he delivers, on pro- 
 viding a successor for Judas (Acts i. 22) ; at the feast of 
 Pentecost (ii. 32) ; at the Beautiful Gate (iii. 12) ; the 
 next day, before the priests (iv. 10) ; again, before the 
 council (v. 31) ; once more, on the conversion of Cor- 
 nelius (x. 40). The coincidence here lies in the Pharisees 
 and Sadducees acting on this occasion consistently 
 with their respective tenets : " For the Sadducees say 
 that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit : 
 but the Pharisees confess both." ^ The imdesignedness 
 of the coincidence consists in its being left to the 
 readers of the Gospels and Acts to discover for them- 
 selves that there was this change of the persecuting sect 
 after the Lord's resurrection, their attention not drawn 
 to it by any direct notice in the documents themselves. 
 
 ' Acts .\xiii. 6. I ~ Acts xxiii. 8. 
 
332 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 XXXV. 
 
 Acts iv. 36. — "And Joses, who by the Apostles was 
 siirnamed Barnabas, a Levite, and of the country of 
 Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the 
 money, and laid it at the Apostles' feet." 
 
 I HAVE often thought that there is a harmony pervading 
 everything connected with Barnabas, enough in itself 
 to stamp the Acts of the Apostles as a history of perfect 
 fidelity. In the verse which I have placed at the head 
 of this paragraph, we see that he was a native of Cyprus; 
 a circumstance upon which a good deal of what I have 
 to say respecting him will be found to turn. 
 
 1. First, then, we discover him coming forward in 
 behalf of Paul, whose conversion was suspected by the 
 disciples at Jerusalem, with the air of a man who could 
 vouch for his sincerity, by previous personal knowledge 
 of him. How it was that he was better acquainted with 
 the Apostle than the rest, the author of the Acts does 
 not inform us. Cyprus, however, tJie country of Barna- 
 bas, was usually annexed to Cilicia, and formed an in- 
 tegral part of that province, whereof Tarsus, the country 
 of Paul, was the chief city '. It may seem fanciful, how- 
 ever, to suppose that at Tarsus, which was famous for 
 its schools and the facilities it afforded for education^, 
 the two Christian teachers might have laid the founda- 
 tion of their friendship in the years of their boyhood. 
 Yet I cannot think this improbable. That Paul col- 
 lected his Greek learning (of which he had no incon- 
 siderable share) in his native place, before he was re- 
 moved to the feet of Gamaliel, is very credible ; nor 
 
 ^ Cicer. Epist. Familiar. Lib. 
 i. ep. vii. See also MafFei Verona 
 
 Illustrata, Vol. i. p. 352. 
 
 - See Wetstein on Acts ix. 11. 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 333 
 
 less so, that Barnabas slioald Lave been sent there from 
 Cyprus, a distance of seventy miles only, as to the 
 nearest school of note in those parts. Be that, how- 
 ever, as it may, what could be more natural than for an 
 intimacy to be formed between them subsequently in 
 Jerusalem, whither they had both resorted ? They were, 
 as we have seen, all but compatriots, and, under the 
 circumstances, were likely to have their common friends. 
 Neither may it be thought wholly irrelevant to observe, 
 that when it was judged safe for Paul to return from 
 Tarsus, where he had been living for a time to avoid 
 the Greeks, Barnabas seized the opportunity of visiting 
 that town in person, " to seek him," and bring him to 
 Antioch ; a journey, which, as it does not seem to be 
 necessary, was possibly undertaken by Barnabas partly 
 for the purpose of renewing his intercourse with his 
 early acquaintance. 
 
 2. Again, in another place we read, " And some of 
 them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they 
 were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preach- 
 ing the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with 
 them : and a great number believed, and turned unto 
 the Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the 
 ears of the church which was at Jerusalem. And tliey 
 sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch^ 
 (Acts ix. 20.) Here no reason is assigned why Barnabas 
 should have been chosen to go to Antioch, and acquaint 
 himself with the progress these new teachers were 
 making amongst the Grecians ; but we may observe, 
 that '■''some of them were men of Cyprus r and having 
 learned elsewhere that Barnabas was of that country also, 
 we at once discover the propriety of despatching him, 
 above all others, to confer with them on the part of the 
 church at Jerusalem. 
 
334 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 3. Again, when, at a subsequent period, Paul and 
 Barnabas went forth together to preach unto the Gen- 
 tiles, we perceive that " they departed unto Seleucia, 
 and from thence sailed to Cyprus.^'' (xiii. 4.) And further, 
 in a second journey, after Paul in some heat had parted 
 company with them, Ave read that Barnabas and Mark 
 again ''sailed unto Cyprus'' (xv. 32.) This was pre- 
 cisely what we might expect. Barnabas naturally 
 enough chose to visit his own land before he turned his 
 steps to strangers. Yet all this, satisfactory as it is in 
 evidence of the truth of the history, we are left by the 
 author of the Acts of the Apostles to gather for our- 
 selves, by the apposition of several perfectly uncon- 
 nected passages. 
 
 4. Nor is this all. " And some days after (so we 
 read, ch. xv.) Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again 
 and visit our brethren in every city where Ave have 
 preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. 
 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, 
 Avhose surname AA^as Mark. But Paul thought not good 
 to take him Avith them, who departed from them from 
 Famphylia, and went not Avith them to the work. And 
 the contention was so sharp betAveen them, that they 
 departed asunder one from the other : and so Barnabas 
 took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus." 
 
 A curious chain of consistent narrative may be traced 
 throughout the whole of this passage. The cause of 
 the contention betAveen Paul and Barnabas has been 
 already noticed by Dr. Paley ; I need not, therefore, 
 do more than call to my reader's mind (as that excel- 
 lent advocate of the truth of Christianity has done) the 
 passage in the Epistle to the Colossians, iv. 10, where 
 it is casually said, that " Marcus was sister s son to Bar- 
 nabas''' — a relationship most satisfactorily accounting 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 335 
 
 for the otherwise extraordinary pertinacity with which 
 Barnabas takes up Mark's cause in this dispute with 
 Paul. Though anticipated in this coincidence, I was 
 unwilling to pass it over in silence, because it is one of 
 a series which attach to the life of Barnabas, and 
 render it, as a whole, a most consistent and complete 
 testimony to the veracity of the Acts. 
 
 One circumstance more remains still to be noticed. 
 Mark, it seems, in the former journey, " departed from 
 them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to 
 the work." How did this hajjpen ? The explanation, 
 I think, is not difficult. Paul and Barnabas are ap- 
 pointed to go forth and j^reach. Accordingly they 
 hasten to Seleucia, the nearest sea-port to Antioch, 
 where they were staying, and taking with them John 
 or Mark, ^' sail to Ci/prusT (xiii. 4.) Since Barnabas 
 was a Cypriote, it is probable that his nephew Mark 
 was the same, or, at any rate, that he had friends and 
 relations in that island. His mother, it is true, had 
 a house in Jerusalem, where the disciples met, and 
 where some of them perhaps lodged (xii. 1 2) ; but so 
 had Mnason, who was nevertheless of Cyprus (xxi. 16). 
 How reasonable then is it to suppose, that in joining 
 himself to Paul and Barnabas in the outset of their 
 journey, he was partly influenced by a very innocent 
 desire to visit his kindred, his connections, or perhaps 
 his birth-place, and that having achieved this object, 
 he landed with his two companions in Pamphylia, 
 and so returned forthwith to Jerusalem. And this 
 supposition (it may be added) is strengthened by the 
 expression applied by St. Paul to Mark, " that he 
 went not with them to the ivork'' — as if in the par- 
 ticular case the voyage to Cyprus did not deserve to 
 be considered even the beginning of their labours. 
 
336 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 being more properly a visit of choice to kinsfolk and 
 acquaintance, or to a place at least having strong local 
 charms for Mark. 
 
 XXXVI. 
 
 Acts vi. 1. — " And in those days, when the number of 
 the disciples was multiplied, there arose a mur- 
 muring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, be- 
 cause their widows were neglected in the daily 
 ministration. 
 
 2. — " Then the twelve called the multitude of the 
 disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason 
 that we should leave the word of God and serve 
 tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among 
 you seven men, of honest report, full of the Holy 
 Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over 
 this business." 
 
 5. — " And the saying pleased the whole multitude : 
 and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of 
 the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and 
 Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, 
 a proselyte of Antioch." 
 
 In this passage, I perceive a remarkable instance of 
 consistency without design. There is a murmuring of 
 the Grecians against the Hebrews, on account of what 
 they considered an unfair distribution of the alms of 
 the church. Seven men are appointed to redress the 
 grievance. No mention is made of their country or 
 connections. The multitude of the disciples is called 
 together, and by them the choice is made. No other 
 limitation is spoken of in the commission they had to 
 fulfil, than that the men should be of honest report, 
 full of the Holy Ghost. Yet it is probable (and here 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS 337 
 
 lies the coincidence,) that these deacons were all of the 
 party aggrieved, for their names are all Grecian. 
 
 It is difficult to suppose this accidental. There 
 must have been Hebrews enough fitted for the office. 
 Yet Grecians alone seem to have been appointed. 
 Why this should be so, St. Luke does not say, does 
 not even hint. We gather from him that the Grecians 
 thought themselves the injured party ; and we then 
 draw our own conclusions, that the church, having a 
 sincere wish to maintain harmony, and remove all 
 reasonable ground of complaint, chose, as advocates for 
 the Greeks, those who would naturally feel for them 
 the greatest interest, and protect their rights with a 
 zeal that should be above suspicion. 
 
 XXXVII. 
 
 Acts x. — I think the narrative of this chapter, which 
 is very circumstantial, will supply a coincidence of 
 dates so casual and inartificial as to be strongly charac- 
 teristic of truth. 
 
 Cornelius sees a vision at Csesarea about the ninth 
 hour of a certain day. In obedience to this vision 
 he sends men to Joppa, to Peter, despatching them 
 thither on the same day he saw the vision, (v. 5. 8.) 
 They reach Joppa the next day, "on the morrow." 
 (v. 9.) They lodge with Peter at Jojipa that night, 
 (v. 23.) They set out with Peter on the next day, 
 " on the morrow," (r^ liravpiov) from Joppa to return 
 to Cornelius at Ca^sarea (v. 23) : and on " the morrow 
 after" {rr^ liravpiov) they arrive at Csesarea again, 
 (v. 24.) 
 
 Cornelius now proceeds to inform Peter how it 
 happened that he had sent for him ; and begins with 
 
 z 
 
338 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 telling him very incidentally, " Four days ago I was 
 fasting until this hour" (v. 30), and so on. Now this 
 date exactly tallies with the time which his mes- 
 sengers had been in going to and returning from 
 Joppa, as we gather it piece-meal from the previous 
 narrative — a narrative which is so far from thrustino- 
 the time upon our notice, that it requires a little 
 attention to make it out. Indeed, in the Greek, 
 " the morrow" and " the morrow after (v. 23)," as it 
 is properly expressed in the translation, are both simply 
 rrf eiravpLov, the writer not perceiving or thinking 
 about the ambiguity of the term ; and consequently 
 careless about impressing his reader with the fact 
 (familiar to himself), that the messengers were two 
 days on their return from Joppa, as they were two 
 days in going there ; and never dreaming about making 
 the time consumed in the journey coincide with the 
 date incidentally assigned by Cornelius to his vision. 
 And here again, be it observed, we detect the marks of 
 truth in a transaction of which the supernatural forms 
 a fundamental part. 
 
 XXXVIII. 
 
 Acts xi. 26. — " And the disciples were called Christians 
 first in Antioch." 
 
 The mention of this fact as a remarkable one, and 
 worthy of being recorded, is natural, and coincides 
 with the circumstances of the case as gathered from 
 other passages of the Acts. For it should seem, from 
 the various phrases and circumlocutions resorted to in 
 that book, by which to express Christians and Chris- 
 tianity, that for a long time no very distinctive term 
 was applied to either. We read of "all that believed" 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 339 
 
 {ol iriarevovTes, ii. 4A) ; of "the disciples" {ol /Madrjral, 
 vi. 1) ; of " any of this way" (ol rrjs oSov, ix. 2) ; 
 and again, of "the way of God" (^ rov Qeov 6h))s, 
 xviii. 26) ; or simply of " that way" {rj oh'os, xix. 9) ; 
 or of " this way" (avr^ r] oKbs, xxii. 4). Indeed, 
 the name Clivistian occurs but in two other places in 
 the New Testament. (Acts xxvi. 28 ; 1 Pet. iv. 16.) 
 A title therefore which characterized the new sect 
 succinctly and in a word, and which saved so much 
 inconvenient and ambiguous periphrasis, was memo- 
 rable ; and, even if given in the first instance as a 
 reproach, was sure to be soon adopted and rendered 
 familiar. On the supposition that the book of the 
 Acts of the Apostles was a fiction, is it possible to 
 imagine that this unobtrusive evidence of the progress 
 of a name would have been found in it^ ? 
 
 XXXIX. 
 
 Acts xix. 1 9. — " Many of them also which used curious 
 
 arts brought their books together, and burned 
 
 them before all men : and they counted the price 
 
 of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of 
 
 silver." 
 
 It was at Epiiesus where the effect of St. Paul's ministry 
 
 was thus powerful — and Avhere, therefore, it seems that 
 
 these magical arts very greatly prevailed. 
 
 Now it was at Ephesus that Timothy was residing 
 when St. Paul wrote to him, " But evil men and 
 seducers {joTjres, conjurors) shall wax worse and worse, 
 deceiving, and being deceived (cheats and cheated) ; but 
 continue thou in the things which thou hast learned," 
 
 ^ My attentiou was drawn to 
 this coincidence by a passage in 
 
 Bishop Pearson, Minor Theolog. 
 Works, i. p. 367. 
 
 z 2 
 
340 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 &c. (2 Tim. iii. 13.) These were the men who dealt 
 in curious arts — the trade of the place in such impos- 
 tm-es not having altogether ceased, it should seem, 
 when a bonfire was made of the books \ 
 
 XL. 
 
 Acts xxiv. 23. — " And he commanded a centurion to 
 keep Paul, and to let him have liberty." 
 
 Rather, "he commanded the centurion," to3 eKUTov- 
 
 TapxV- 
 
 It should seem, therefore, that St. Luke had in his 
 mind some particular centurion. Is there anything in 
 the narrative which would enable us to identify him ? 
 
 It will be remembered, that in the preceding chapter 
 (xxiii. 23) the chief captain " called unto him two cen- 
 turions, saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers to 
 go to Caesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and 
 spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night ; 
 and provide them beasts that they may set Paul on, and 
 bring him safe unto Felix the governor." 
 
 This escort, having arrived with their prisoner at 
 Antipatris (v. 32), divided ; the infantry returning to 
 Jerusalem, and of course the centurion who commanded 
 them ; the horsemen and the other centurion proceed- 
 ing with Paul to Ciiesarea. 
 
 When, therefore, St. Luke tells us that Felix com- 
 manded the centurion to keep Paul, he no doubt meant 
 the commander of the horse who had conveyed him to 
 Csesarea ; whose fidelity having been already proved, he 
 consigned to him this further trust. 
 
 This is very natural : but the neglect or non-detec- 
 
 ^ This coincidence is suggested by Dr. Burton's Bampton Lec- 
 tures, iv. p. 103. 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 341 
 
 tion of this touch of truth in our version, sliows how 
 deHcate a thing the translation of the Scripture is ; and 
 how favourable to the evidence of its veracity is the 
 strict and accurate, nay, even grammatical investigation 
 ofit\ 
 
 XLI. 
 
 Acts xxiv. 26. — "He (Felix) hoped also that money 
 
 should have been (jiven him of Paul, that he might 
 
 loose him : wherefore he sent for him the oftener, 
 
 and communed with him." 
 
 It is observed by Lardner^ that Felix (it might be 
 
 thought) could have small hopes of receiving money 
 
 from such a prisoner as Paul, had he not recollected 
 
 his telling him, on a former interview, that " after 
 
 many years he came to bring alms to his nation, and 
 
 offerinqsr — Hence he probably supposed, that the alms 
 
 might not yet be all distributed, or if they were, that 
 
 a public benefactor would soon find friends to release 
 
 him. 
 
 The observation is curious, and in confirmation of its 
 truth, I will add, that the personal appearance of Paul, 
 when he was brought before Felix, was certainly not 
 such as would give the governor reason to believe that 
 he had wherewithal to purchase his own freedom, but 
 quite the contrary. For a passage in the Acts (xxii. 
 28) certainly conveys very satisfactory, though indirect, 
 evidence, that the Apostle wore poverty in his looks at 
 the very period in question. When Lysias, the chief 
 captain at Jerusalem, had been apprized that he was a 
 Roman, he could scarcely give credit to the fact ; and. 
 
 ^ Bp. MiddletoB, on the Greek 
 Article, p. 298, finds a subject for 
 philology, here again, where I find 
 
 one for evidence. 
 
 2 Vol. i. p. 27, 8vo. edition. 
 
342 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 being further assured of it by Paul himself, he said, 
 " With a great sum obtained I this freedom," mani- 
 festly implying a suspicion of Paul's veracity, whose 
 appearance bespoke no such means of procuring citizen- 
 ship. The cupidity, therefore, of Felix was no doubt 
 excited, as has been said, by his recollecting the errand 
 on which his prisoner had come so lately to Jerusalem. 
 
 And this, moreover, furnishes the true explanation 
 of the orders which Felix (very far from a merciful or 
 indulgent officer) gave to the keeper of Paul, " to let 
 him have liberty, and to forbid none of his acquaintance 
 to minister or come unto him ;" a free admission of his 
 friends being necessary, in order that they might furnish 
 him with the ransom. 
 
 It is true that there is no coincidence here between 
 independent writers, but surely every unprejudiced 
 mind must admit that there is an extremely nice, 
 minute, and undesigned harmony between the speech 
 of Paul and the subsequent conduct of Felix ; though 
 the cause and effect are so far from being traced by 
 the author of the Acts, that it may be doubted whether 
 he saw any connection subsisting between them. Surely, 
 I repeat, such a harmony must convince us that it is no 
 fictitious or forged narrative that we are reading, but a 
 true and very accurate detail of an actual occurrence. 
 
 XLII. 
 
 Acts xxvii. 5. — " And when we had sailed over the sea 
 of Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra, a city 
 of Lycia. And there the centurion found a ship 
 of Alexandria sailing into Italy T 
 
 10. — "Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with 
 hurt and much damage, not only of the lading {rod 
 ^oprov) and ship, but also of our lives." 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 343 
 
 38. — "And when they had eaten enough, they lightened 
 the ship, and cast out the wheat {rov alrov) into 
 the sea." 
 It has been remarked, I think with justice, that the 
 circumstantial details contained in this chapter of the 
 shipwreck cannot be read without a conviction of their 
 truth. I have never seen, however, the following coin- 
 cidence in some of these particulars taken notice of in 
 the manner it deserves. In my opinion it is very satis- 
 factory, and when combined with a paragraph on the 
 same subject, Avhicli will be found in the Appendix, 
 (No. XXII.) establishes the fact of St. Paul's voyage 
 beyond all reasonable doubt. 
 
 The ship into which the centurion removed Paul 
 and the other prisoners at Myra, was a ship of Alex- 
 andria that was sailing into Italy. It was evidently a 
 merchant- vessel, for mention is made of its lading. The 
 nature of the lading, however, is not directly stated. It 
 was callable of receiving Julius and his company, and 
 was bound right for them. This was enough, and this 
 was all that St. Luke cares to tell. Yet, in verse 38, 
 we find, but most casually, of what its cargo con- 
 sisted. The furniture of the ship, or its " tackling," as 
 it is called, was thrown overboard in the early part of 
 the storm ; but the freight was naturally enough kept 
 till it could be kept no longer, and then we discover, 
 for the first time, that it was wheat — " the wheat was 
 cast into the sea." 
 
 Now it is a notorious fact that Rome was in a great 
 measure supplied with corn from Alexandria — that in 
 times of scarcity the vessels coming from that port 
 were watched with intense anxiety as they approached 
 the coast of Italy ' — that they were of a size not inferior 
 ^ See Sueton. Nero. § 45. 
 
344 THE VERACITY OF THE Part IV. 
 
 to our line of battle ships \ a thing by no means usual 
 in the vessels of that day — and accordingly, that such 
 an one might well accommodate the centurion and his 
 numerous party, in addition to its own crew and lading. 
 There is a very singular air of truth in all this. 
 The several detached verses at the head of this Number 
 tell a continuous story, but it is not perceived till they 
 are brought together. The circumstances drop out 
 one by one at intervals in the course of the narrative, 
 unarranged, unpremeditated, thoroughly incidental ; so 
 that the chapter might be read twenty times, and their 
 agreement with one another and with contemporary 
 history be still overlooked. I confess, it seems to me 
 the most unlikely thing in the world, that a mere in- 
 ventor of St. Paul's voyage should have been able to 
 arrange it all, try how he would. It is possible that 
 he might have affected some circumstantial detail, and 
 so have made St. Paul and his companions change 
 their ship at Myra ; he might have said that it was 
 a ship of Alexandria bound for Italy ; but that he 
 should have added, some thirty verses afterwards, and 
 then quite incidentally, that its cargo was wheat, a fact 
 so curiously agreeing with his former assertion that the 
 vessel was Alexandrian, and was sailing to Italy, argues 
 a subtlety of invention quite incredible. But if the 
 account of the voyage, as far as relates to the change 
 of ship, the tempest, the disastrous consequences, &c. 
 is found, on being tried by a test which the writer of 
 the Acts could never have contemplated, to be an un- 
 questionable fact, how can the rest, which does not 
 admit of the same scrutiny, be set aside as unworthy 
 of credit? — for instance, that Paul actually foretold 
 the danger — that again, in the midst of it, he foretold 
 ^ See Wetstein, Acts xxvii. 6. 
 
Part IV. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 345 
 
 the final escape, and that an angel had declared to him 
 God's pleasure, that for his sake not a soul should 
 perish ? I see no alternative but to receive all this, 
 nothing doubting ; unless we consider St. Luke to 
 have mixed uj) fact and fiction in a manner the most 
 artful and insidious. Yet who can read the Acts of 
 the Apostles and come to such a conclusion ? 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES BETWEEN THE 
 GOSPELS AND ACTS, AND JOSEPHUS. 
 
 IT will not be out of place, if to a work which has had 
 for its object to establish the veracity of the Scrip- 
 tures in general, and in the last Part, that of the 
 Gospels and Acts in particular, on the evidence of un- 
 designed coincidences found in them, when compared 
 with themselves or one another, I subjoin as a cognate 
 argument, some other instances of undesigned coinci- 
 dence between those latter writings and JosepJius. The 
 subject has been treated, but not exhausted, by Lardner 
 and Paley ; the latter of whom, indeed, did not profess 
 to do more than epitomise that part of the " Credibility 
 of the Gospel history" which considers the works of the 
 Jewish historian. Josephus was born a.d. 37, and 
 therefore must have been long the contemporary of 
 some of the Apostles. For my purpose it matters little, 
 or nothing, whether we reckon him a believer in Chris- 
 tianity or not ; whether he had, or had not, seen the 
 records of the Evangelists ; since the examples of 
 agreement between him and them, which I shall pro- 
 duce, will be such as are evidently without contrivance, 
 the result of veracity in both. 
 
 If we allow him to be a Christian, if we even allow 
 
Append. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 347 
 
 him to have seen the writings of the Evangelists, he 
 v^^ill nevertheless be an independent witness, as far as 
 he goes, provided his corroborations of the Gospel be 
 clearly unpremeditated and incidental. In short, he 
 will then be received like St. Mark or St. John, as a 
 partisan indeed ; but yet as a partisan who, upon cross- 
 examination, confirms both his own statements and 
 those of his colleagues. 
 
 I. 
 
 Before I bring forward individual examples of coinci- 
 dence between Josephus and the Evangelists, I cannot 
 help remarking the effect which the writings of the 
 former have, when take^i together and as a whole, in con- 
 vincing us of the truth of the Gospel history. No man, 
 I think, could rise from a perusal of the latter books 
 of the Antiquities, and the account of the Jewish War, 
 without a very strong impression, that the state of 
 Judgea, civil, political and moral, as far as it can be 
 gathered from the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, is 
 portrayed in these latter with the greatest accuracy, 
 with the strictest attention to all the circumstances of 
 the place and the times. It is impossible to impart this 
 conviction to my readers in a paragraph ; the nature 
 of the case does not admit of it ; it is the result of a 
 thousand little facts, which it would be difficult to de- 
 tach from the general narrative, and M'hich, considered 
 separately, might seem frivolous and fanciful. We close 
 the pages of Josephus with the feeling that we have 
 been reading of a country, which, for many years before 
 its final fall, had been the scene of miserable anarchy 
 and confusion. Everywhere we meet with open acts of 
 petty violence, or the secret workings of jilots, con- 
 spiracies, and frauds; — the laws ineffectual, or very 
 
348 THE VERACITY OF THE Append. 
 
 partially observed, and very wretchedly administered ; — 
 oppression on the part of the rulers ; amongst the 
 people, faction, discontent, seditions, tumults ; — robbers 
 infesting the very streets, and most public places of 
 resort, wandering about in arms, thirsting for blood no 
 less than spoil, assembling in troops to the dismay of 
 the more peaceable citizens, and with difficulty put 
 down by military force ; — society, in fact, altogether out 
 of joint. Such would be our view of the condition of 
 Judaea, as collected from Josephus. 
 
 Now let us turn to the New Testament, which, 
 without professing to treat about Judsea at all, never- 
 theless, by glimpses, by notices scattered, uncombined, 
 never intended for such a purpose, actually conveys to 
 us the very counterpart of the j^icture in Josephus. 
 For instance, let us observe the character of the para- 
 bles ; stories evidently in many cases, and probably in 
 most cases, taken from passing events, and adapted to 
 the occasions on which they were delivered. In how 
 many may be traced scenes of disorder, of rapine, of 
 craft, of injustice, as if such scenes were but too familiar 
 to the experience of those to whom they were addressed! 
 We hear of a " man going down from Jerusalem to Jeri- 
 cho, and falling among thieves, which stripped him of 
 his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving 
 him half dead." (Luke x. 30.) Of another who planted 
 a vineyard, and sent his servants to receive the fruits ; 
 but the " husbandmen took those servants, and beat 
 one, and killed another, and stoned another." (Matth. 
 xxi. 35.) Of a "judge which feared not God nor 
 regarded man," and who avenged the widow only " lest 
 by her continual coming she should weary him." (Luke 
 xviii. 2.) Of a steward who w^as accused unto the rich 
 man of having wasted his goods," and who by taking 
 
Append. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 349 
 
 further liberties with his master's property, secured him- 
 self a retreat into the houses of his lord's debtors, " when 
 he should be put out of the stewardship." (Luke xvi. 1.) 
 Of " the coming of the Son of man, like that of a 
 thief in the night," whose approach was to be watched, 
 if the master would " not suffer his house to be broken 
 up." (Matth. xxiv. 43.) Of a " kingdom divided against 
 itself being brought to desolation." Of a " city or house 
 divided against itself not being able to stand." (Matth. 
 xii. 25.) Of the necessity of " binding the strong man" 
 before " entering into his house and spoiling his goods.'' 
 (Matth. xii. 29.) Of the folly of " laying up for our- 
 selves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth 
 corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.'' 
 (Matth. vi. 19.) Of the enemy Avho had maliciously 
 sown tares amongst his neighbour's wheat, " and went 
 his way." (Matth. xiii. 25.) Of the man who found a 
 treasure in another's field, and cunningly sold all that 
 he had, and " bought that field." (xiii. 44.) These 
 instances may suffice. Neither is it to the parables 
 only that we must look for our proofs. Many his- 
 torical incidents in the Gospels and Acts speak the 
 same language. Thus, when Jesus would " have en- 
 tered into a village of the Samaritans," they would not 
 receive Him, upon which his disciples, James and John, 
 who no doubt partook in the temper of the times, pro- 
 posed " that fire should be commanded to come down 
 from heaven and consume them." (Luke ix. 52.) Again, 
 when Jesus had offended the people of Nazareth by his 
 preaching, they made no scruple " of rising up and 
 thrusting him out of the city, and leading him unto the 
 brow of the hill whereon the city was built, that they 
 might cast him down headlong" (Luke iv. 29) ; and, on 
 another occasion, after He had been speaking in the 
 
350 THE VERACITY OF THE Append. 
 
 temple at Jerusalem, " the Jews took up stones to 
 stone him," but he " escaped out of their hand." (John 
 X. 31.) Again, we are told of certain " Galilseans whose 
 blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices." (Luke 
 xiii. 1.) And when our Lord was at last seized, it was 
 " by a great multitude with swords and staves" (Matth. 
 xxvi. 47), as in a country where nothing but brute force 
 could avail to carry a warrant into execution. So again, 
 Barabbas, whom the Jews would have released instead 
 of Jesus, was one " who lay bound with them that had 
 made insurrection with him, who had committed murder 
 in the insurrection." (Mark xv. 7.) And when he was 
 at length crucified, it was between two tJiieves. Let us 
 trace the times somewhat further, and we shall discover 
 no amendment, but rather the contrary ; as we learn 
 from Josephus was the case on the nearer approach 
 to the breaking out of the war. Thus Stephen is 
 tumultuously stoned to death. (Acts vii. 58.) And 
 " Saul made havoc of the church, entering into every 
 house, and taking men and women, committed them 
 to prison." (viii. 3.) But when Saul's own turn came 
 that he should be persecuted, what a continued scene 
 of violence and outrage is presented to us ! Turn we 
 to the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd chapters of the Acts. 
 It might be Josephus that is speaking in them. 
 Paul, on his coming to Jerusalem, is obliged to have 
 recourse to a stratagem to conciliate the people, be- 
 cause " the multitude would needs come together, for 
 they would hear that he was come." Still it was in 
 vain. A hue and cry is raised against him by a few 
 persons who had known him in Asia, and forthwith 
 " all the city is moved, and the people run together 
 and take Paul, and draw him out of the temple." 
 The Roman garrison gets under arms, and hastens to 
 
Append. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 351 
 
 rescue Paul ; but still it is needful that he be " borne 
 of the soldiers, for the violence of the people." 
 He makes his defence. They, however, " cry out, 
 and cast off their clothes, and throw dust in the air." 
 He is brought before the council, and the " high-priest 
 commands them that stand by him to strike him on 
 the mouth." He now, with much dexterity, divides 
 his enemies, by declaring himself a Pharisee and a 
 believer in the resurrection. This was enough to set 
 them again at strife ; for then there arose a dissension 
 between the Pharisees and Sadducees — and such was 
 its fury, that " the captain, fearing Paul should be 
 pulled in pieces by them, commands his soldiers to 
 go down and take him by force from among them." 
 No sooner is he rescued from the multitude, than forty 
 persons and more " bind themselves by a curse to kill 
 him" when he should be next brought before the 
 council. Intelligence of this plot, however, is con- 
 veyed to the captain of the guard, who determines to 
 send him to Caesarea, to Felix the governor. The 
 escort necessary to attend this single prisoner to his 
 place of destination is no less than four hundred and 
 seventy men, horse and foot, and, as a further measure 
 of safety and precaution, they are ordered to set out at 
 the third hour of the night. All these things, I say, 
 are in strict agreement with the state of Judaea as it is 
 represented by Josephus. And it might be added, that 
 independently of such consideration, an argument for 
 the truth of the Gospels and Acts results from the 
 harmony upon this point which prevails throughout 
 them all: a circumstance which I might have dwelt 
 upon in the former section, but which it will be enough 
 to have noticed here. 
 
 But further, a perusal of the writings of Josephus 
 
352 THE VERACITY OF THE Append. 
 
 leaves another impression upon our minds — that there 
 was a very considerable intercourse between Judcea and 
 Rome. To Rome we find causes and litigations very 
 constantly referred — thither are the Jews perpetually 
 resorting in search of titles and offices — there it is 
 that they make known their grievances, explain their 
 errors, supplicate pardons, set forth their claims to 
 favour, and return their thanks. Neither are there 
 wanting passages in the New Testament which would 
 lead us to the same conclusion ; rather, however, 
 casually, by allusion, by an expression incidentally 
 presenting itself, than by any direct communication 
 on the subject. Hence may we discover, for instance, 
 the propriety of that phrase so often occurring in the 
 parables and elsewhere, of men going for various 
 purposes " into a far country T 
 
 Thus we read that " the Son of man is as a man 
 taking a far journey, who left his house and gave 
 authority to his servants, and to every man his work, 
 and commanded the porter to watch." (Mark xiii. 
 84.) And again, that "a certain nobleman went into 
 a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to 
 return^ (Luke xix. 12.) And again, that the pro- 
 digal son, " gathered all together, and took his jour- 
 ney into a far country, and there wasted his substance 
 in riotous living." (Luke xv. 13.) And again, that 
 " a certain householder planted a vineyard, and hedged 
 it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built 
 a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into 
 a far country''' (Matth. xxi. 33.) Moreover, it is pro- 
 bable that this political relationship of Judsea to 
 Rome, the seat of government, from whence all the 
 honours and gainful posts were distributed, suggested 
 the use of those metaphors, which abound in the New 
 
Append. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 353 
 
 Testament, of the " kingdom of heaven," of " seeking 
 the kingdom of heaven," of " giving the kingdom of 
 heaven," and the like. All I mean to affirm is this, 
 that such allusions and such figures of speech would 
 very naturally present themselves to a Teacher situated 
 as the Gospel rej^resents Jesus to have been — and 
 therefore go to prove that such representation is the 
 truth. 
 
 II. 
 
 Matth. ii. 3. — " When Herod the king had heard these 
 things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with 
 him. And when he had gathered all the chief 
 priests and scribes of the people together, he de- 
 manded of them where Christ should be born." 
 Nor was he yet satisfied ; for he "■privili/ called the 
 wise men, and enquired of them diligeritly what time 
 the star appeared." (ver. 7.) And when they did not 
 return from Bethlehem, as he expected, he seems to 
 have been still more apprehensive, — " exceeding wroth." 
 (ver. 16.) 
 
 Such a transaction as this is perfectly agreeable to 
 the character of Herod, as we may gather it from Jo- 
 sephus. He was always in fear for the stability of his 
 throne, and anxious to pry into futurity that he might 
 discover whether it was likely to endure. 
 
 Thus we read in Josephus of a certain Essene, Ma- 
 nahem by name, who had foretold, whilst Herod was 
 yet a boy, that he was destined to be a king. Accord- 
 ingly, " when he was actually advanced to that dignity, 
 and in the plenitude of his power, he sent for Manahem 
 and inquired of him how long he should reign ? Mana- 
 hem did not tell him the precise period. Whereupon 
 he questioned him further, whether he should reign 
 
 A A 
 
354 THE VERACITY OF THE Append. 
 
 ten years or not ? He replied, Yes, twenty, nay, thirty 
 years ; but he did not assign a limit to the continuance 
 of his empire. With these answers Herod was satis- 
 fied, and giving Manahem his hand, dismissed him, and 
 from that time he never ceased to honour all the 
 Essenes." (Antiq. xv. 10. § 5.) 
 
 III. 
 
 Matth. ii. 22. — " But when he heard that Archelaus 
 did reign in Judica in the room of his father 
 Herod, he was afraid to go thither." 
 
 On the death of Herod, Joseph was commanded to 
 return to the land of Israel, and " he arose and took 
 the young child" and went. However, before he began 
 his journey, or whilst he was yet in the way, he was 
 told that Archelaus did reign in Judsea in the room of 
 his father Herod ; on which he was afraid to go thither. 
 Archelaus, therefore, must have been notorious for his 
 cruelty (it should seem) very soon indeed after coming to 
 his throne. Nothing short of this could account for the 
 sudden resolution of Joseph to avoid him with so much 
 speed. 
 
 Now it is remarkable enough, that at the very first 
 passover after Herod's death, even before Archelaus had 
 yet had time to set out for Rome to obtain the ratifica- 
 tion of his authority from the emperor, he was guilty 
 of an act of outrage and bloodshed, under circumstances 
 above all others fitted to make it generally and imme- 
 diately known. One of the last deeds of his father, 
 Herod, had been to put to death Judas and Matthias, 
 two persons who had instigated some young men to pull 
 down a golden eagle, which Herod had fixed over the 
 gate of the Temple, contrary, as they conceived, to the 
 
Append. GOSPELS AND ACTS. S55 
 
 law of Moses. The hapless fate of these martyrs to 
 the law excited great commiseration at the Passover 
 which ensued. The parties, however, who uttered 
 their lamentations aloud were silenced by Archelaus, 
 the new king, in the following manner : — 
 
 "He sent out all the troops against them, and 
 ordered the horsemen to prevent those who had their 
 tents outside the temple from rendering assistance to 
 those who were within it, and to put to death such as 
 might escape from the foot. The cavahy slew nearly 
 three thousand men; the rest betook themselves for safety 
 to the neighbouring mountains. Then Archelaus com- 
 manded proclamation to be made, that they should all 
 retire to their own homes. So they went away, and 
 left the festival out of fear lest somewhat worse should 
 ensue.'''' (Antiq. xvii. 9. § 3.) 
 
 We must bear in mind that, at the Passover, Jews 
 from all parts of the world were assembled ; so that 
 any event which occurred at Jerusalem during that 
 great feast would be speedily reported on their return 
 to the countries where they dwelt. Such a massacre, 
 therefore, at such a season, would at once stamp the 
 character of Archelaus. The fear of him would natu- 
 rally enough spread itself wherever a Jew was to be 
 found ; and, in fact, so well remembered was this his 
 first essay at governing the people, that several years 
 afterwards it was brought against him with great effect 
 on his appearance before Csesar at Rome. 
 
 It is the more probable that this act of cruelty 
 inspired JosejDh with his dread of Archelaus, because 
 that prince could not have been much known before he 
 came to the throne, never having had any public em- 
 ployment, or, indeed, future destination, like his half- 
 
 A A 2 
 
356 
 
 THE VERACITY OF THE 
 
 Append. 
 
 brotlier, Antipater, whereby he might have discovered 
 
 himself to the nation at large \ 
 
 IV. 
 
 Matth. xvii. 24. — " And when they were come to Caper- 
 naum, they that received tribute-monei/ came to 
 Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute ? 
 He saith. Yes." 
 
 The word which is translated tribute-money is in the 
 original " the didrachma" of which indeed notice is 
 given in the margin of our version ; and it is worthy of 
 remark, that this tax seems not to have been designated 
 by any general name, such for instance as tribute, custom, 
 &c., but actually had the specific appellation of " the 
 didrachma." Thus Josephus writes : " Nisibis, too, is 
 a city surrounded by the same river (the Euphrates) ; 
 wherefore the Jews, trusting to the nature of its posi- 
 tion, deposited there the didrachma, which it is cus- 
 tomary for each individual to pay to God, as well as 
 their other offerings." — (Antiq. xviii. 10. § 1.) 
 
 There is something which indicates veracity in the 
 Evans'elist, to be correct in a trifle like this. He makes 
 no mistake in the sum paid to the temple, nor does 
 he express himself by a general term, such as would 
 have concealed his ignorance, but hits upon the exact 
 payment that was made, and the name that was given 
 it. 
 
 It may be added, that St. Matthew uses the word 
 didrachma without the smallest explanation, which is 
 not the case, as we have seen, with Josephus ; yet the 
 
 ' Lardner briefly alludes to 
 this transaction, but has not made 
 
 the best of his argument. — Vol. 
 i. p. 14, 8vo. ed. 
 
Append. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 357 
 
 argument of Jesus which follows would be quite unin- 
 telligible to those who did not know for whose service 
 this tribute-money was paid. It is evident, therefore, 
 that the Evangelist thought there could be no obscurity 
 in the term ; that it was much too familiar with his 
 readers to need a comment. Now the use of it pro- 
 bably ceased with the destruction of the temple ; after 
 which but few years would elapse before some interpre- 
 tation would be necessary, more especially as the term 
 itself does not in the least imply the nature of the tax, 
 but only its individual amount. The undesigned omis- 
 sion of everything of this kind, on the part of St. Mat- 
 thew, pretty clearly proves the Gospel to have been 
 written before the temple was destroyed. 
 
 V. 
 
 Matth. xxii. 23. — " The same day came to him the 
 Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection^ 
 and asked him," &c. 
 
 It is very unusual to find in St. MattheAv a paragraph 
 like this, explanatory of Jewish opinions or practices. 
 In general it is quite characteristic of him, and a cir- 
 cumstance which distinguishes liim from the other Evan- 
 gelists, that he presumes upon his readers being per- 
 fectly familiar with Judsea and all that pertains to it. 
 St. Mark, in treating the same subjects, is generally 
 found to enlarge upon them much more, as though 
 conscious that he had those to deal with who were not 
 thoroughly conversant with Jewish affairs. 
 
 Compare the following parallel passages in these two 
 Evangelists. 
 
 Matth. ix. 14. — " Then came to him the disciples of 
 
'358 THE VERACITY OF THE Append. 
 
 John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, 
 but thy disciples fast not ? " 
 
 Mark ii. 18. — '■'And the disciples of John and of the 
 Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto 
 him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees 
 fast, but thy disciples fast not?" 
 
 Matth. XV. 1. — "Then came to Jesus Scribes and 
 Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do 
 thy disciples transgress the tradition of the Elders? for 
 they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But 
 he answered and said unto them," &c. 
 
 Mark vii. 1. — " Then came together unto him the 
 Pharisees, and certain of the Scribes, which came from 
 Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples 
 eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, 
 hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the 
 Jews, except they wash thei't' hands oft, eat not, holding the 
 traditioyi of the Elders. And tvhen they come from the 
 market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other 
 things there he, which they have received to hold, as the 
 washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables. 
 Then the Pharisees and Scribes asked him. Why walk 
 not thy disciples according to the tradition of the 
 Elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?" &c. 
 
 Matth. xxvii. 62. — " Now the next day, that followed 
 the day of the Preparation, the Chief Priests and Pha- 
 risees came together," &c. 
 
 Mark xv. 42,- — " And now when the even was come, 
 because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before 
 the Sabbath;' &c. 
 
 These examples (to which many more might be 
 added, may suffice to show the manner of St. Matthew 
 as compared with that of another of the Evangelists ; 
 
Append. 
 
 GOSPELS AND ACTS. 
 
 359 
 
 that it dealt little in explanation. How then does it 
 happen, that in the instance before us he deviates from 
 his ordinary, almost his uniform, practice ; and whilst 
 writing for Jews, thinks it necessary to inform them 
 of so notorious a tenet of the Sadducees (for such w^e 
 might suppose it) as their disbelief in a resurrection? 
 Would not his Jewish readers have known at once, 
 and on the mere mention of the name of this sect, 
 that he was speaking of persons who denied that 
 doctrine ? 
 
 Let us turn to Josephus (Antiq. xviii. 1. § 4), 
 and we shall find him throwing some light upon our 
 inquiry. 
 
 " The doctrine of the Sadducees is, that the soul and 
 body perish together. The law is all that they are 
 concerned to observe. They consider it commendable 
 to controvert the opinions of masters even of their own 
 school of philosophy. This doctrine, however, has not 
 many followers, hut those persons of the highest rank — 
 neM to nothing of public business falls into their hands^ 
 Thus, we see, it was very possible for the people of 
 Judaea, though well acquainted with most of the local 
 peculiarities of their country, to be ignorant, or at least 
 ill-informed, of the dogmas of a sect, insignificant in 
 numbers, removed from them by station, and seldom or 
 never brought into contact Avith them by office ; and 
 therefore that St. Matthew was not wasting words, 
 when he explained in this instance, though in so many 
 other instances he had withheld explanation \ 
 
 ' See Hug's Introduction to 
 the New Testament, Vol. ii. p. 7. 
 
 Translation by the Rev. D. G. 
 
 Wait. 
 
360 THE VERACITY OF THE Append. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Matth. xxvi. 5.— "But they said, Not on the feast day, 
 
 lest there be an itproar among the people." 
 I HAVE already alluded to the insubordinate condition 
 of JiidcBa in general, about the period of our Lord's 
 ministry. We have here an example of the feverish 
 and irritable state of the capital itself, in particular, 
 during the feast of the Passover. 
 
 " The feast of the Passover," says Josephus (who 
 relates an event that happened some few years after 
 Christ's death), " being at hand, wherein it is our custom 
 to use unleavened bread, and a great multitude being 
 drawn together from all parts to the feast, Cumanus 
 (the governor) fearing that some disturbance might fall 
 out amongst them, commands one cohort of soldiers to arm 
 themselves and stand in the porticoes of the temple, to 
 suppress any riot which might occur ; and this precaution 
 the governors of Judcea before him had adopted'' — 
 (Antiq. XX. 4. § 3.) 
 
 In spite, however, of these prudent measures, a 
 tumult arose on this very occasion, in which, according 
 to Josephus, twenty thousand JevA^s perished. 
 
 VII. 
 
 Mark v. ] . — " And they came over unto the other side 
 of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes',' &c. 
 
 11. — " Now there was there nigh unto the mountains 
 a great herd of siuine feeding." 
 
 Here it might at first seem that St. Mark had been 
 betrayed into an oversight — for since swine were held 
 in abhorrence by the Jews as unclean, how (it might be 
 
Append. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 361 
 
 asked) did it happen that a herd of them were feeding 
 on the side of the sea of Tiberias ? 
 
 The objection, however, only serves to prove yet 
 more the accuracy of the Evangelist, and his intimate 
 knowledge of the local circumstances of Judaea; for on 
 turning to Josephus (Antiq. xvii. 13. § 4), we find that 
 " Turris Stratonis, and Sebaste, and Joppa, and Jeru- 
 salem, were made subject to Archelaus, but that Gaza, 
 Gadara, and Hippos, being Grecian cities, were annexed 
 by Csesar to Syria." This fact, therefore, is enough to 
 account for swine being found amongst the Gadarenes. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Mark vi. 21. — "And when a convenient day was come, 
 that Herod on his birth-day made a supper to his 
 lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee', and 
 when the dauditer of the said Herodias came in, 
 and danced," &c. 
 
 It is curious and worthy of remark, that a feast, under 
 exactly similar circumstances, is incidentally described 
 by Josephus as made by Herod, the brother of Herodias, 
 and successor of this prince in his government. ''Having 
 made a feast on his birth-day (writes Josephus), when all 
 under his command partook of the mirth, he sent for 
 Silas" (an officer whom he had cast into prison for 
 taking liberties with him), " and offered him a seat at 
 the banquet." (Antiq. xix. 7. § 1). This, I say, is a 
 coincidence worth notice, because it proves that these 
 birth-day feasts were observed in the family of Herod, 
 and that it was customary to assemble the officers of 
 government to share in them. 
 
362 THE VERACITY OF THE Append. 
 
 IX. 
 
 Mark xiv. 13. — " And he sendeth forth two of his 
 disciples, and saith unto them. Go ye into the city, 
 and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher 
 of M'ater : follow him. And wheresoever he shall 
 go in, say ye to the good man of the house. The 
 Master saith, Where is the guest-chambevy where I 
 shall eat the Passover with my disciples f' 
 
 When Cestius wished to inform Nero of the numbers 
 wdiich attended the Passover at Jerusalem, he counted 
 the victims and allowed ten persons to each head, "be- 
 cause a company not less than ten belong to every 
 sacrifice (for it, is not lawful for them to feast singly 
 by themselves), and many are tiventy in company." — 
 Bell. Jud. c. vi. 9. § 3. 
 
 Accordingly, the Gospel narrative is in strict con- 
 formity with this custom. When Christ goes up to 
 Jerusalem to attend the Passover for the last time, He 
 is not described as running the chance of hospitality in 
 the houses of any of his friends, because, on this occa- 
 sion, the parties would be made uj?, and the addition of 
 thirteen guests might be inconvenient, but He sends 
 forth beforehand, from Bethany most probably, two of 
 his disciples to the city, with orders to engage a room 
 (a precaution very necessary where so many companies 
 would be seeking accommodation), and there eats the 
 Passover with his followers, a party of thirteen, which 
 it appears was about the usual number \ 
 
 ' See Whiston's Note upon Joseph. B. J. vi. 9. 3. 
 
Append. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 363 
 
 X. 
 
 Luke ii. 42. — " And when he was twelve years old, tliey 
 went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the 
 feast." 
 I AM aware that commentators upon this text quote 
 the Rabbins, to show that children of twelve years old 
 amongst the Jews were considered to be entering the 
 estate of manhood (see Wetstein), and that on this 
 account it was that Jesus was taken at that age to the 
 Passover. Such may be the true interpretation of the 
 passage. I cannot, however, forbear offering a con- 
 jecture which occurred to me in reading the history of 
 Archelaus. 
 
 The birth of Christ probably preceded the death of 
 Herod by a year and a half, or thereabout. (See 
 Lardner, Vol. i. p. 352. 8vo. edit.) Archelaus succeeded 
 Herod, and governed the country, it should seem, 
 about ten years. " In the tentJi year of Archelaus' 
 reign, the chief governors among the Jews and Sama- 
 ritans, unable any longer to endure his cruelty and 
 tyranny, accused him before Cresar." Ca?sar upon this 
 sent for him to Rome, and "as soon as he came to 
 Rome, when the Emperor had heard his accusers, and 
 his defence, he banished him to Vienne, in France, and 
 confiscated his goods." — Antiq. xvii. c. 15. The removal, 
 therefore, of this obnoxious governor, appears to have 
 been effected in our Lord's twelfth year. Might not 
 this circumstance account for the parents of the child 
 Jesus venturing to take Him to Jerusalem at the Pass- 
 over when He was tivehe years old, and not before ? It 
 was onlv because " Archelaus reio-ned in Juda?a in the 
 room of his father Herod," that Joseph was afraid to 
 go thither on his return from Egypt ; influenced not 
 
364 THE VERACITY OF THE Append. 
 
 merely by motives of personal safety, but by the con- 
 sideration that the same jealousy which had urged 
 Herod to take away the young child's life, might also 
 prevail with his successor ; for we do not find that any 
 fears about himself or Mary withheld him from sub- 
 sequently going to the Passover, even during the reign 
 of Archelaus, since it is recorded that "they went 
 every year." I submit it, therefore, to my readers' 
 decision, whether the same apprehensions for the life of 
 the infant Jesus, which prevented Joseph from taking 
 Him into Judaea, on hearing that Archelaus was king, 
 did not, very probably, prevent him from taking Him 
 up to Jerusalem till he heard that Archelaus was 
 deposed ? 
 
 XI. 
 
 Luke vi. 13. — "And when it was day, he called unto 
 
 him his disciples : and of them he chose twelve^ 
 
 whom also he named Apostles." 
 X. 1. — "After these things the Lord appointed other 
 
 seventy also, and sent them two and two before 
 
 his face," &c. 
 
 There is something in the selection of these numbers 
 which indicates veracity in the narrative. They were, 
 on several accounts, favourite numbers amongst the 
 Jews ; the one (to name no other reason) being that of 
 the Tribes, the other (taken roundly) that of the Elders. 
 Accordingly we read in Josephus, that Varus, who held 
 a post in the government under Agrippa, "called to 
 him twelve Jews of Csesarea, of the best character, and 
 ordered them to go to Ecbatana, and bear this message 
 to their countrymen who dwelt there : ' Varus hath 
 heard that you intend to march against the king; but 
 
Append. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 365 
 
 not believing the report, he hath sent us to persuade 
 you to lay down your arms, counting such compliance 
 to be a sign that he did well not to give credit to those 
 who so spake concerning you.' " " He also enjoined 
 those Jews of Ecbatana to send semnty of their 'pviii- 
 cipal men to make a defence for them touching the 
 accusation laid against them. So when the twelve 
 messengers came to their countrymen at Ecbatana, and 
 found that they had no designs of innovation at all, 
 they persuaded them to send the seventy also. Then 
 went these seventy down to Csesarea together with the 
 twelve ambassadors." — (Life of Josephus, § 11.) 
 
 This is a very slight matter, to be sure, but it is 
 still something to find the subordinate parts of a history 
 in strict keeping with the habits of the people and of 
 the age to which it professes to belong. The Evangelist 
 might have fixed upon any other indifferent number for 
 the Apostles and first Disciples of Jesus, without there- 
 by incurring any impeachment of a want of veracity ; 
 and therefore it is the more satisfactory to discover 
 marks of truth, where the absence of such marks would 
 not have occasioned the least suspicion of falsehood. 
 
 XII. 
 
 Luke vii. 1. — "Now when he had ended all his 
 
 sayings in the audience of the people, he entered 
 
 into Capernaum." 
 11. — " And it came to pass the day after, that he went 
 
 into a city called Nain ; and many of his disciples 
 
 went with him, and much people." 
 
 Jesus comes to Capernaum — He goes on to Nain — 
 fame precedes Him as He approaches Judaea — He 
 arrives in the neighbourhood of the Baptist — He travels 
 
366 
 
 THE VERACITY OF THE 
 
 Append. 
 
 still further south to the vicinity of the Holy City, near 
 which the Magdalen dwelt — St. Luke, therefore, it 
 will be perceived, is here describing a journey of Jesus 
 from Galilee to Jerusalem. 
 
 Now let us hear Josephus (Antiq. xx. 5. § 1): "A 
 quarrel sprung up between the Samaritans and the 
 Jews, and this was the cause of it. The Galila^ans, 
 when they resorted to the Holy City at the feasts, had 
 to pass through the- country of the Samaritans. Now 
 it happened that certain inhabitants of a place on 
 the road, Nain hy name, situated on the borders of 
 Samaria and the Great Plain, rose upon them and slew 
 many." ^ 
 
 Jesus, therefore, in this his journey southwards, (a 
 journey, be it observed, which the Evangelist does not 
 formally lay down, but the general direction of which 
 we gather from an incident or two occurring in the 
 course of it, and from the point to which it tended,) — 
 Jesus, in this his journey, is found to come to a city 
 which, it appears, did actually lie in the way of those 
 who travelled from Galilee to Jerusalem. This is as it 
 should be. A part of the story is certainly matter of 
 fact. There is every reason to believe the Evangelist 
 when he says that Jesus "went into a city called Nain." 
 What reason is there to disbelieve him when he goes 
 on to say, that he met a dead man at the gate ; that he 
 touched the bier ; bade the young man arise ; and that 
 the dead sat up and spake ? 
 
 ^ Hudson reads v.u^y,c, Fivaia? 
 Xsyo/^svvi;, instead of Nai?, the com- 
 mon reading ; but see Hug's In- 
 troduction to the New Testament, 
 
 Vol. i. p. 23 (translation), where 
 the coincidence is suggested, and 
 the reasons given for abiding by 
 the ordinary text. 
 
Append. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 367 
 
 XIII. 
 
 Luke xxiii. 6. — " When Pilate heard of Galilee, he 
 asked whether the man were a Galilsean. And as 
 soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's 
 jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who Jiimself kl's,o 
 was at Jerusalem at that time.'" 
 
 The fair inference from this last clause is, that Jeru- 
 salem was not the common place of abode either of 
 Herod or Pilate. Such is certainly the force of the 
 emphatic exjiression, " who himself also was at Jeru- 
 salem at that time," applied, as it is, directly to Herod, 
 but with a reference to the person of whom mention 
 had been made in the former part of the sentence. 
 The more circuitous this insinuation is, the stronger 
 does it make for the argument. Now that Herod did 
 not reside at Jerusalem, may be inferred from the fol- 
 lowing passage in Josephus. 
 
 " This king" (says he, meaning the Herod who 
 killed James, the brother of John, Acts xii.) " was not 
 at all like that Herod who reigned before him" (meaning 
 the Herod to whom Christ was sent by Pilate), "for the 
 latter was stern and severe in his punishments, and had 
 no mercy on those he hated : confessedly better dis- 
 posed towards the Greeks than the Jews : accordingly, 
 of the cities of the strangers, some he beautified at his 
 own expense with baths and theatres, and others with 
 temples and corridors ; but upon no Jewish city did he 
 bestow the smallest decoration or the most trifling pre- 
 sent. Whereas the latter Herod (Agrippa) was of a 
 mild and gentle disposition, and good to all men. To 
 strangers he was beneficent, but yet more kind to the 
 Jews, his countrymen, with whom he sympathised in 
 all their troubles. He took pleasure, therefore, in con- 
 
368 THE VERACITY OF THE Append. 
 
 stantly limnq at Jerusalem^ and strictly observed all the 
 customs of bis nation." — Antiq. xix. 7. § 3. Tims does 
 it appear from tbe Jewisli historian, tbat tbe Herod of 
 tbe Acts was a contrast to tbe Herod in question, inas- 
 much as he loved the Jews and dwelt at Jerusalem. Nor 
 is St. Luke less accurate in representing Pilate to have 
 been not resident at Jerusalem. Csesarea seems to 
 have been the place of abode of the Roman governors 
 of Judsea in general. (See Antiq. xviii. 4. § 1. — xx. 4. 
 § 4.) Of Pilate it certainly was ; for when the JeM's 
 had to complain to him of the profanation which had 
 been offered to their temple by the introduction of 
 Caesar's image into it, it was to Csesarea that they 
 carried their remonstrance. (Bell. Jud. ii. c. 9. § 2.) 
 
 It was probably the business of the Passover Avhich 
 had brought Pilate to Jerusalem for a few days, the 
 presence of the Governor being never more needful in 
 the capital than on such an occasion. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 John iv. 15. — " The woman saith unto him, Sir, give 
 me this water, that I thirst not, neither come 
 hither to draw." 
 
 It seems, therefore, that there was no water in Sychar, 
 and that the inhabitants had to come to this well to 
 draw. Most likely it was at some little distance from 
 the town, for the woman speaks of the labour of fetch- 
 ing the water as considerable ; and Jesus stopjied short 
 of the town at the well, because He " was wearied with 
 his journey," whilst his disciples went on to buy bread. 
 Now, on the breaking out of the M-ar with the 
 Romans, some of the Samaritans assembled on Mount 
 Gerizim, close to the foot of which (be it observed) was 
 
Append. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 369 
 
 the city of Sycliar 'placed \ Upon this Vespasian de- 
 termined to put some troops in motion against them. 
 " For, although all Samaria was provided with garrisons, 
 yet did the number and evil spirit of those who had 
 come together at Mount Gerizim give ground for ap- 
 prehension ; therefore he sent Cerealis, the commander 
 of the fifth Legion, with six hundred horse, and three 
 thousand foot. Not thinking it safe, however, to go 
 up the mountain and give them battle, because many of 
 the enemy were on the higher ground, he encompassed 
 all the circuit {imoipelav) of the mountain with his 
 army, and watched them all that day. But it came to 
 pass, that whilst the Samaritans were now witliout watery 
 a terrible heat came on, for it was summer, and the 
 people were unprovided with necessaries, so that some 
 of them died of thirst that same day, and many others, 
 preferring slavery to such a death, fled to the Romans." 
 —Bell. Jud. iii. 7. § 32. 
 
 The troops of Cerealis, no doubt, cut them off from 
 the well of Sychar, which, we perceive from St. John, 
 was the place to which the neighbourhood were com- 
 pelled to resort. This is the more likely, inasmuch as 
 the soldiers of the Roman general do not appear to 
 have suffered from thirst at all on this occasion. 
 
 XV. 
 
 John xix. 13. — " When Pilate therefore heard that say- 
 ing, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the 
 judgment seat in a place that is called the Pave- 
 ment." (AiBoa-rpcoTov.) 
 
 According to St. John, therefore (he being the only 
 one of the Evangelists who mentions this incident), 
 
 ^ Zix»//ia KnjjL£vy}v TTfOi Tu r«()»^£*y o^f». — Joseph. Antiq. ii. 8. 6. 
 
 B B 
 
370 THE VERACITY OF THE Appekc. 
 
 Pilate comes out of liis own hall to his judgment-seat 
 on the Pavement. The hall and the Pavement, then, 
 were near or contiguous. 
 
 Now let us turn to Josephus. " The City was 
 strengthened by the palace in which he (Herod) dwelt, 
 and the Temple by the fortifications attached to the 
 bastion called Antonia." (Antiq. xv. 8. § 5.) Hence 
 we conclude that the temple was near the Castle of 
 Antonia. 
 
 " On the western side of the court (of the temple) 
 were four gates, one looking to the palace.'''' (Antiq. 
 XV. 11. § 5.) Hence we conclude that the temple was 
 near the palace of Herod. Therefore the palace was 
 near the Castle of Antonia. 
 
 But if Pilate's hall was a part of the palace, as it 
 was (that being the residence of the Roman governor 
 when he was at Jerusalem), then Pilate's hall was near 
 the Castle of Antonia. 
 
 Here let us pause a moment, and direct our atten- 
 tion to a passage in the Jewish War (vi. 1. § 8) where 
 Josephus records the prowess of a centurion in the 
 Roman army, Julianus by name, in an assault upon 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 " This man had posted himself near Titus, at the 
 Castle of Antonia, when, observing that the Romans 
 were giving way, and defending themselves but indif- 
 ferently, he rushed forward and drove back the vic- 
 torious Jews to the corner of the inner temple, single- 
 handed, for the whole multitude fled before him, scarcely 
 believing such strength and sjDirit to belong to a mere 
 mortal. But he, dashing through the crowd, smote 
 them on every side, as many as he could lay hands 
 upon. It was a sight which struck Csesar with astonish- 
 ment, and seemed terrific to all. Nevertheless, his fate 
 
Append. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 371 
 
 overtook him — as how could it be otherwise, unless he 
 had been more than man? — for having many sharp nails 
 in his shoes, after the soldier's fashion, he slipped as he 
 was running upon the Pavement {Kara Ac0oaTpu>Tov), 
 and fell upon his back. The clatter of his arms caused 
 the fugitives to turn about : and now a cry was set up 
 by the Romans in the Castle oi Antonia, who were in 
 alarm for the man." 
 
 From this passage it appears that a pavement was 
 near the Castle of Antonia ; but we have already seen 
 that the Castle of Antonia was near the palace (or 
 Pilate's hall) ; therefore this pavement was near Pilate's 
 hall. This then is proved from Josephus, though very 
 circuitously, which is not the worse, that very near 
 Pilate's residence a pavement {AiOoo-rpcoTov) there was ; 
 that it gave its name to that spot is not proved, yet 
 nothing can be more probable than that it did ; and 
 consequently nothing more probable than that St. John 
 is speaking with truth and accuracy when he makes 
 Pilate bring Jesus forth and sit down in his judgment- 
 seat in a place called the Pavement \ 
 
 XVI. 
 
 John xix. 15. — " The chief priests answered, We have 
 no kiufj but CcBsarr 
 
 Although the Roman emperors never took the title of 
 kings ^ yet it appears from Josephus that they were so 
 called by the Jews ; and in further accordance with the 
 writers of the New Testament, that historian commonly 
 employs the term Ccesar, as sufficient to designate the 
 reigning prince. Thus, when speaking of Titus, he says, 
 
 ^ See Hug's Intro, to the New 
 Testament, Vol. i. p. 18. 
 
 - For this remark I am in- 
 debtee! to Whiston. 
 
 BBS 
 
372 THE VERACITY OF THE Append. 
 
 " many did not so much as know that the king was in 
 any danger." And again, shortly after, "the enemy 
 indeed made a great shout at the boldness of Ccasar, 
 and exhorted one another to rush upon him." — Bell. 
 Jud. V. 2. § 2. 
 
 This is a curious coincidence in popular phraseology, 
 and such as bespeaks the writers of the New Testament 
 to have been familiar with the scenes they describe, 
 and the parties they introduce. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 Acts iii. 1, 2. — " Now Peter and John went up together 
 into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the 
 ninth hour. And a certain man lame from his 
 mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily 
 at the gate of the temple Avhich is called Beau- 
 tiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the 
 temple." 
 
 Peter recovers the cripple. The fame of his miraculous 
 cure is instantly spread abroad. 
 
 " And as the lame man which was healed held Peter 
 and John, all the people ran together unto them in the 
 poixh that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering." — 
 ver. 11. 
 
 There is a propriety in the localities of this miracle 
 which is favourable to a belief in its truth. 
 
 Josephus speaks of a great outer gate (that of the 
 Porch), " opening into the court of the women 07i the 
 East, and opposite to the gate of the temple, in size 
 surpassing the others, being fifty cubits high and forty 
 wide ; and more finished in its decorations, by reason of 
 the thick plates of silver and gold which were upon it." 
 —(Bell. Jud. v. 5. § 3.) 
 
Append. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 373 
 
 But in another passage of the same author we read 
 as follows : — " They persuaded the king (Agriftpa) to 
 restore the Eastern Porch. This was a porch of the 
 outer temple, situated upon the edge of a deep abyss, 
 resting upon a wall four hundred cubits high, con- 
 structed of quadrangular stones, quite white, each stone 
 tM^enty cubits by six, the work of King Solomon, the 
 original builder of the temple." (Antiq. xx. 8. § 7.) 
 Thus it appears that a gate, more highly ornamented 
 than the rest, looked to the East ; that a porch, of 
 which Solomon was the founder, looked also to the 
 East ; that both, therefore, were on the same side of 
 the temple, and accordingly that it was very natural 
 for the people, hearing that a cripple who usually lay 
 at the Beautiful Gate, and wdio had been cured as he 
 lay there, — -it was very natural for them to run to 
 Solomons Porch, to satisfy themselves of the truth of 
 the report '. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 Acts ix. 36. — " Now there was at Joppa a certain dis- 
 ciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is 
 called Dorcas." 
 
 It may be remarked, that Joseplms, who (like St. Luke) 
 wrote in Greek of things which happened in a country 
 where Syriac was the common language, thinks fit to 
 add a similar explanation when he alludes to this same 
 proper name. 
 
 " They sent one John, who was the most bloody- 
 miinded of them all, to do that execution. This man 
 was also called the son of Dorcas in the language of our 
 country." — Bell. Jud. iv. 3. § 5. 
 
 ' See Hug, Vol. i. p. 19. 
 
374 THE VERACITY OF THE Append. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 Acts vi. 1. — "And in those days, when the number of 
 the disciples was multiplied, there arose a mur- 
 muring of the Grecians aijainst the Hebrews^ be- 
 cause their widows were neglected in the daily 
 ministration." 
 In the first section I found an instance of consistency 
 without design in this passage, on comparing it with 
 the context ; I now find a second like instance, on 
 comparing it with Josephus. It seems that when the 
 disciples became more numerous, a jealousy began to 
 discover itself between the Grecians and the Hebrews. 
 The circumstance is casually mentioned by St. Luke, 
 as the accident which gave occasion to the appoint- 
 ment of deacons ; yet how strictly characteristic is it 
 of the country and times in which it is said to have 
 happened. 
 
 " There was a disturbance at Csesarea," writes Jo- 
 sephus, " between the Jews and Syrians respecting the 
 equal enjoyment of civil rights ; the Jews laying claim 
 to precedence because Herod, who was a Jew, had 
 founded the city ; the Syrians, on the other hand, 
 admitting this, but maintaining that Csesarea was 
 originally called the Tower of Straton, and did not 
 then contain a single Jew." — Antiq. xx. 7. § 7. In the 
 end the two parties broke out into open war. This was 
 when Felix was governor. On another occasion, under 
 Floras, we read of 20,000 Jews perishing at Coesarea 
 by the hands of the Greek or Syrian part of the 
 population. — Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1. And again, w^e are 
 told that " fearful troubles prevailed throughout all 
 Syria, each city dividing itself into two armies, and the 
 safety of the one consisted in forestalling the violence 
 
Append. GOSPP^LS AND ACTS. 375 
 
 of the other. Thus the people passed their days in 
 blood and their nights in terror." — Bell. Jud. ii. 15. 2. 
 It is most improbable that the writer of the Acts, 
 if he were making up a story, should have bethought 
 himself of a circumstance at once so unimportant as 
 this murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, 
 and yet so truly descriptive of the people where his 
 scene was laid. This little incident (the more trifling 
 the better for our purpose) carries with it the strongest 
 marks of truth ; and, like the single watch-word, is 
 a voucher for the general honesty of the party that 
 utters it. Indeed, the establishment of one fact may 
 be thought in itself to entail the credibility of many 
 more. If it be certain that there was a murmuring of 
 the Grecians against the Hebrews because their widows 
 were neglected in the daily ministration, then it is 
 probable that there was a common fund out of which 
 widows were maintained ; that many sold their posses- 
 sions to contribute to this fund ; that it must have 
 been a strong motive which could urge to such a dis- 
 posal of their property; that no motive could be so 
 likely as their conviction of the truth of Christianity; 
 and that such a conviction could spring out of nothing 
 so surely as the evidence of miracles. I do not say 
 that all these matters necessarily/ follow from the 
 certainty of the first simple fact, but I say that, ad- 
 mitting it, they all follow in a train of very natural 
 consequence. 
 
 XX. 
 
 Acts XXV. 13. — '"And after certain days King Ap'ippa 
 
 and Bcrnice came unto Ccesarea to salute Festus." 
 This Agrippa (Agrippa Minor) had succeeded, by per- 
 mission of Claudius, to the territories of his uncle 
 
376 THE VERACITY OF THE Append. 
 
 Herod ; at least, Trachonitis, Batansea, and Abilene, 
 were confirmed to him. From this passage in the 
 Acts it appears, as might be expected, that he was 
 anxious to be well with the Roman Government, and 
 accordingly that he lost no time in paying his respects 
 to Festiis, the new representative of that government 
 in Judsea. It is a singular and minute coincidence 
 well worth our notice, that Josephus records instances 
 of this same Agrippa's obsequiousness to Roman autho- 
 rities, of precisely the same kind. " About this time," 
 says he, ^^ King Agrippa went to Alea^andria, to salute 
 Alea/ander, ivho had been sent by Nero to govern Egyptr 
 —Bell. Jud. ii. 15. § 1. 
 
 And again (what is yet more to our purpose) we 
 read on another occasion, that Bernice accompanied 
 Agrippa in one of these visits of ceremony ; for having 
 appointed Varus to take care of their kingdom in 
 their absence, " they went to Berytus with the intention 
 of meeting Gessius {Florus), the Roman governor of 
 Judcear — Josephus's Life, § 11- 
 
 This is a case singularly parallel to that in the Acts : 
 for Gessius Florus held the very same office, in the 
 same country, as Felix. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 Acts XXV. 23. — " And on the morrow, when Agrippa 
 was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was 
 entered into the place of hearing, with the chief 
 captains, and j^rincipal men of the city, at Festus' 
 commandment Paul was brought forth." 
 
 It might seem extraordinary that Bernice should be 
 present on such an occasion — that a woman should 
 take any share in an affair, one would have supposed. 
 
Append. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 377 
 
 foreign to her, and exclusively belonging to the other 
 sex. But here again we have another proof of the vera- 
 city and accuracy of the sacred writings. For when 
 Agrippa {the same Agrippa) endeavoured to combat the 
 spirit of rebellion which w^as beginning to show itself 
 amongst the Jews, and addressed them in that famous 
 speech, given in Josephus, which throws so much light 
 on the power and provincial polity of the Romans, he 
 first of all "placed his sister Bernice (the same Bernice) 
 in a conspicuous situation, upon the house of the Asa- 
 monseans, which was above the gallery, at the passage 
 to the upper city, where the bridge joins the temple 
 to the gallery;" and then he spoke to the people. 
 And when his oration was ended, we read that 
 " both he and his sister shed tears, and so repressed 
 much violence in the multitude." — (Bell. Jud. ii. 16. 
 
 §3.) 
 
 There is another passage, occurring in the life of 
 Josephus, which is no less valuable; for it serves to 
 show yet further the political importance of Bernice, 
 and how much she was in the habit of acting with 
 Agrippa on all public occasions. One Philip, who was 
 governor of Gamala and the country about it, under 
 Agrippa, had occasion to communicate with the latter, 
 probably on the subject of his escape from Jerusalem, 
 where he had been recently in danger, and of his 
 return to his own station. The transaction is thus 
 described : — 
 
 " He wrote to Agrippa and Bernice, and gave the 
 letters to one of his freedmen to carry to Varus, who 
 at that time was procurator of the kingdom, which 
 the sovereigns {i. e., the king and his sister-wife) had 
 entrusted him withal, while the?/ were gone to Berytus 
 to meet Gessius. When Varus had received these 
 
378 THE VERACITY OF THE Append. 
 
 letters of Philij:), and had learned that he was in safety, 
 he was very uneasy at it, supposing that he should 
 appear useless to the sovercicjm {^aaikevo-tv) now Philip 
 was come/' — (Josephus's Life, § 11.) 
 
 XXII. 
 
 Acts xxviii. 11, 12, 13. — " And after three months 
 we departed in a ship of Alexandria, which had 
 wintered in the isle, whose sign was Castor and 
 Pollux. And landing at Syracuse, we tarried 
 there three days. And from thence we fetched 
 a compass, and came to Rhegium : and after one 
 day the south wind blew, and ive came the next 
 day to PuteoUr 
 
 PuTEOLi then, it should seem, was the destination 
 of this vessel from Aleamndria. Now, we may col- 
 lect, from the independent testimony of the Jewish 
 historian, that this tvas the port cf Italy to which ships 
 from Egypt and the Levant in those times commonly 
 sailed. Thus, when Herod Agrippa went from Judaea 
 to Rome, for the pur2)0se of paying his court to 
 Tiberius, and bettering his fortune, he directed his 
 course first to Ale,randria, for the sake of visiting 
 a friend, and then crossing the Mediterranean, he 
 landed at Puteoli. (Antiq. xviii. 7. § 4.) Again, when 
 Herod the Tetrarch, at the instigation of Herodias, 
 undertook a voyage to Rome, to solicit from Caligula 
 a higher title, which might jDut him upon a level with 
 his brother-in-law, Herod Agrippa, the latter jmrsued 
 him to Italy, and both of them (says Josephus) landed 
 at Dichcearchia (Puteoli), and found Caius at Raise. 
 (Antiq. xviii. 8. § 2.) 
 
 Take a third instance. Josephus had himself occa- 
 
Append. GOSPELS AND ACTS. 379 
 
 sion, when a young man, to go to Rome, On his 
 passage the vessel in which he sailed foundered, but 
 a ship from Cyrene picked him up, together with 
 eighty of his companions ; " a7id having safely arrived 
 (says he) at DickcEarchia, which the Italians called 
 Puteoli, I became acquainted with Aliturus, &c." 
 (Josephus's Life, § 3.) 
 
 In the last passage there is a singular resemblance 
 to the circumstances of St. Paul's voyage. Josephus, 
 though not going to Rome as a prisoner who had him- 
 self aj^pealed from Felix to Csesar, was going to Rome 
 on account of two friends, whom Felix thought proper 
 to send to Caesar's judgment-seat — he suffered ship- 
 wreck — he was forwarded by another vessel coming 
 from Africa — and finally he landed at Puteoli. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 O. Woodfall and Soh> Printers, Angel Court, Skinher Street, Londohi 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 AU'u 
 
 JAN 1 
 
 HIGHSMITH #45230 
 

 M u^\m 
 
 BS480 .B65 1850 
 
 Undesigned coincidences in the writings 
 
 Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 
 
 1/ .-.(.v* 
 
 1 1012 00006 3828 
 
 l^B 
 
 ^^'^*?5^''^^ 
 
 
 ,J,^"Vr,- 
 
 ,YJ-'i 
 
 
 
 im^M^M^