bulent demagogues; and in the theocratic form of government he can see nothing but a parallel -(the blasphemy is his, not mine) to the reign of Virtue established by Robespierre!

It would be an insult to the understandings of this assembly to offer one word in reply to these views for to read the Bible is to reject them; and Christian charity would forbid me to give utterance to the feelings of indignation such language is calculated to inspire. The arguments which this writer has advanced I have endeavoured to consider fairly and fully (as far as they bear on this one question), without reference to the conclusions he draws from them; and in bringing them forward here I have but wished to shew that we follow the faith of our forefathers, not from ignorance of the discoveries, as they are called, of our own days, but from examination of the grounds on which they rest; I have but wished to urge those who have leisure and opportunity, to a deeper investigation, and to persuade those who have not, that we ask their faith, not because the hopes of the Bible are pleasant to the human heart, but because its words are truth. We urge, we intreat, the fullest examination from those who have the means of

of the two languages; so that every German reader may be enabled to judge whether I have represented the author's sentiments fairly.

investigation, for we have no fears as to the result. But this we do, because while we believe the words of the Bible to be truth, and nothing but truth, we believe also that those words contain the only purifying principle for, as well as the only abiding source of, consolation; and therefore we feel, that to allow man to be despoiled of his faith in its promises by our neglect, is to inflict the deepest injury upon our fellow-men. It is to suffer a false philosophy to rob them of that which alone can cheer man under sorrow, and sustain him through the trials of life-to rob them of that faith which, when all the blossoms of the spring-time of life are withered and decayed, can alone pretend to breathe a second spring-of that faith, which when the body is weighed down with disease, and the mind with cares, if it cannot restore the frame, can pour freshness and joy into the soul-of that faith, which, when friends, and kindred, and comforters are departed, can alone cure the hollow heart from aching-of that faith which has hitherto proved the only safe guide in life, the only unfailing source of hope in death.

LECTURE III.

2 PETER I. 16.

We have not followed cunningly devised fables.

CONTROVERSY is so little fitted for this place, that nothing but necessity will excuse a protracted discussion of subjects which involve only points of evidence, without furnishing any matter of spiritual improvement. But as it was impossible to condense into the limits of one Lecture a general view of the question which was treated of on Sunday last, I am obliged to devote this day also to the completion of our inquiries into the present state of the controversies respecting the early existence of the five books of Moses. Even thus it will be a question but incompetently treated, because it is one where no man can fully judge the weight of arguments except by the laborious investigation of passage after passage, with a view of ascertaining whether they prove the points they are alleged to prove. It is a question which can be carried out only where constant means of reference are at hand; but the general principles on which it has been conducted will admit of

being stated in a general manner here. A few points still remain to be considered, in order that

I

may be enabled to lay before you some account of the chief arguments' which I have been able to find as alleged against the belief that the Mosaic Code, with the exception of some few short interpolations, is of the age of Moses. I am the more anxious to place before you the principles on which our opponents proceed, and to shew in a general manner what appears to me the ground of their unsoundness; because although the wildness of these modern speculations has called forth a host of opponents in the land which gave them birth, I apprehend that the writings of the new school of criticism are better known in this country than those of its opponents, that the poison has often touched where the antidote has been unable to reach.

1 My own acquaintance with the objections of our opponents is almost entirely derived from their own works, for I have not been very solicitous to seek the works of those who espouse the same side of the question with myself, as I prefer in general considering the objections when they are stated in their utmost strength, and judging of them from the working of my own mind.

I have occasionally looked at a few parts of the following treatises :

Fritzsche, Christian Friederich. Prüfung der Gründe mit welchen neuerlich die Aechtheit der Bücher Mosis bestritten worden ist. Leipzig, 1814.

There are some very acute remarks in this work on the objections made by Vater and Hartmann to the genuineness

of

The chief points to which I would venture to draw your attention, in the completion of this sketch, are the following:

of these books, arising from the presumed non-existence of writing materials, &c., and other similar grounds, such as the improbability that the materials of which the tabernacle was constructed should have been found among the Israelites in the wilderness. In §. 8 and 9, Dr Fritzsche collects some of the passages in the later books of the Bible which refer to the Pentateuch. Even Dr Hartmann, who usually is severe enough on those who uphold the old opinions, allows considerable merit to this book. (Hartmann, Pent. p. 44, 45.) He will not, of course, allow its arguments to be satisfactory, or its conclusions well-founded, but praises its acuteness, &c. in detached parts. The author is quite a different person from Dr C. F. A. Fritzsche of Rostock, the neological commentator on the New Testament.

Griesinger. Ueber den Pentateuch; a work by no means equal in merit to the former.

I have not hitherto been able to obtain the works of Kelle, Hertz, and Pustkucken. The latter, I believe, adopts the notion which has been often taken up on very superficial grounds, that the first ten chapters of Genesis were not written till after the Captivity, but defends the genuineness of the rest of the Pentateuch. Kelle's work is against De Wette, but I expect the most assistance for my future enquiries from the work of Hertz. It is entitled, 'Are Traces of the Pentateuch and of the Mosaic Law to be found in the Books of Kings?' If well executed, this would be an invaluable work.

I have seen Hävernick's Commentary on Daniel, which defends the genuineness, &c. of the book against Gramberg and other writers; but Keil's Apologetischer Versuch über die Bücher der Chronik und die integrität des Buches Ezra, Berlin, 1833, I received only a very short time ago; and from consulting it in some parts of the argument in regard to the Chronicles with which I was familiar, I can speak most

highly