But we have it again suggested, "that it is not true, that certain ancient fathers had no other reason for their opinion, than the passage in fourth Esdras— they were supported by the traditions of the whole Jewish nation, leaving it uncertain whether the Pentateuch was a composition, or compilation by Ezra, or partly one, and the other." How very logical is the conclusion arrived at in this remark; the fact that the book of the law was burnt and restored by Ezra, is proved, by the universal tradition of the Jewish nation, declaring what?-why, "leaving it doubtful whether the Pentateuch was composed, compiled, or partly one, or partly the other."

And here, I would note, once for all, the artful and disingenuous use which our author makes of the phrase, "the Pentateuch, as we now have it." If Ezra had added a single note, or modernized a single name, it might be said, that the book as we now have it, was not the work of Moses. So, also, if in the lapse of ages, any, the least accidental corruption or omission in the text had occurred. When, therefore, an author is cited by our antagonist, as holding that the Pentateuch, as we now have it, was not the work of Moses; let him state what degree of change was believed to have passed upon it. Let him also, more particularly explain his meaning, when he declares, that he would not believe upon his oath, any well-informed man, who

should assert, that the Pentateuch, as we now have it, was written by Moses. But we are told, that "after the complete destruction of Jerusalem, no positive evidence of the loss of all documents, is necessary." In reference to this, let us remember our objector's favorite adage, "affirmantis est probare." It is no where said, that all the copies of the law were in Jerusalem, much less in the temple. Had it been so, they might have been preserved among the precious things, the vessels of the house of God, which were carried off by the conqueror. But Daniel had long before gone into captivity, and being an individual of great learning and piety, doubtless had with him the sacred books of his nation. So would we remark of Ezekiel, who prophesied among the exiles-and of Jeremiah, who remained in Judea until a party of his countrymen compelled him to accompany them into Egypt. Surely also, some of the priests and Levites, a body of men especially devoted to performing the ceremonial observances, and teaching the moral precepts of their law, must have had copies of it. Confirmation of this conjecture is furnished by contemporary documents, as will be shown in the next section.

SECTION IV.

Of the agency of Ezra, in relation to the Pentateuch, as appears from history, as affirmed by tradition, and as indicated by the probabilities of the case.

THE utter worthlessness of the fourth book of Esdras, as furnishing any evidence of an historical fact, having been clearly shown, it only remains for us to inquire, what light is thrown upon the subject of our present investigation, by the productions which are, unquestionably, derived from the age to which it refers. In the book which bears his name, Ezra is introduced to our notice as a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given. Certainly then we are to understand this law as existing and in writing; for in the account given in a previous chapter (iii.) of the return of the first band of exiles under Zerubbabel, more than fifty years before, it is recorded that they built the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt-offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God. Ezra is farther represented as leading a second colony to Jerusalem, authorized by the Persian king to establish and enforce all ordinances necessary to the well-being of his nation. Various abuses are reformed by him; and under his auspices, with the concurrence of the succeeding governor, Nehemiah, there takes place a solemn

recital of the law, of all the people. selves together as

in the hearing and at the request "All the people gathered themone man; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the Lord had commanded Israel.”— ch. viii. 1. On the 24th of the seventh month, a solemn fast is held, with confession of sin. The Levites on this occasion, in the course of their acknowledgment, make a particular recital of those incidents in the history of the Jews, connected with their deliverance from Egypt and settlement in Canaan. This circumstance furnishes proof that the Pentateuch, substantially in its present form, then existed. The time taken for its deliberate reading is a corroborating consideration; and there is not the least intimation, that on this occasion, any production was brought under view of the people, of which they were before ignorant. And here it may be a matter of curiosity to collate two passages, connected with this subject, from "Geology and the Pentateuch." In page 47, we read : "Ezra the scribe brings out the book of the law of Moses, and reads it to the assembled people. This took up from the morning until midday, including the time occupied by the comments and explanations of thirteen priests, besides Ezra and Nehemiah. Now, this could not have been the Pentateuch, whatever it was-a morning could not have sufficed for the purpose." Nor did it. The reading

was continued for seven successive days, as we shall find our author with strange inconsistency arguing, in the extract which I shall next adduce. In giving reasons for his belief of the Esdrine origin of the Pentateuch, the third consideration alleged is: "Because the book of the law composed or compiled by Ezra, took him seven days to read it to the people."-Page 50. Was there ever a more glaring contradiction? Can we have any confidence in a writer who is so utterly careless as to commit such an oversight? Or can it be possible that it was intentionally committed, with the hope that it would pass unobserved by the multitude of his readers?

The account of the solemn reading of the law, which I have above extracted from the book bearing the name of Ezra, is all that we meet with in documents written at that time, concerning his connection with the Pentateuch. We find elsewhere abundant recognition of its existence, but no specific account of any critical care bestowed, in correcting, editing, or arranging it. It is well known, however, that according to the traditions received by the Jews of later times, much of this nature has been ascribed to the individual who so largely shared in the work of reorganizing the Jewish polity after the captivity. Let us see what the representation of that tradition is. Let us take it from Prideaux, who is admitted by Dr. C. to be a witness of un