in data, nor the same invincible logic in the deductions to render it authoritative, as does an inferential position at utter variance with that spirit. Our position may contain only a higher probability of truth than theirs, and still be enough to warrant correspondent action. While such is the inconsistency of their position with the whole tenor of the New Testament, and so contradictory is it to some of its plainest precepts, that unless the deductions by which it is. reached have all the distinctness and force of a definite precept, it will not afford justifiable ground of disfellowship; a distinction this which we wish our readers to bear in mind in pursuing the arguments which are to follow.

There is one thought in this connection which is deserv ing of the momentary consideration of our opponents. The "kind of evidence," the mode of reasoning, on which they so satisfactorily rely to establish the antecedence of baptism to the sacramental supper, is precisely that on which we rely for the vindication of infant baptism, and in part for disproving the modality of the rite; though, as we consider the gospel church essentially the same as the Sinaitic, standing on the same covenant, based on the same great principles of grace, the arguments for our conclusions are far more satisfactory on our point of view than theirs can be on their point of view. Hence, while essaying to strengthen their works on one side, they are compelled to adopt a mode of reasoning which incalculably weakens them on the other. For, only prove that infant baptism is evangelical and that the initiatory rite to the church is not modal, and our alleged wrong views of baptism are refuted. The ground of strict communion is removed. Their fortifications are demolished by their own guns.

ARTICLE II.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH.

BY SAMUEL C. BARTLETT, D.D., PROFESSOR IN CHICAGO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

(Continued from Vol. XX. p. 865.)

AUTHORSHIP is a matter of testimony. Resemblance in style and thought, and apparent conformity of circumstances, though they may confirm the testimony, can never take its place as evidence. The presence of certain qualities in the composition cannot dispense with actual testimony; because those qualities admit of skilful imitation. Nor can the absence of those qualities, unless in extreme degree, outweigh the force of testimony; because the same writer, in different moods and at distant intervals, sometimes greatly differs from himself. Abundant instances show the facility with which acute judges may be misled when they rely merely on their critical powers; while the frequent conflicting decisions of the most dogmatic of literary critics ought to be a standing admonition to all such arrogance. Men like Hume, Lord Kames, and Robertson, fully deceived at first by the poems of " Ossian," and some of them never undeceived; Sheridan and many other literary men of London accepting the "Vortigern" of the boy Ireland as a relic of the myriad-minded Shakspeare; Sir Walter Scott commenting on the "Raid of Featherstonehaugh" as a genuine ancient ballad; Gesenius, Hamaker, and Rochette imposed upon by spurious Greek and Phenician inscriptions from Malta; German scholars (including Tübingen Reviewers) maintaining the antiquity of the "Amber Witch," till the author found it hard to prove his authorship; the enigma of "Junius," baffling Europe for half a century; cases like these are memorable and instructive. Questions of authorship are to be settled chiefly by testimony.

We bring testimony, positive and various, to sustain the received opinion that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. First, it has been shown that this position is entirely credible by the known circumstances of the case: The art of writing was in abundant use around the Israelites at that period; the requisite impulse—a great national and religious epoch - had arrived; the occasion for such a composition now existed in the fixed establishment of a nation's institutions and religion; the requisite person had also appeared, in the remarkable man who is admitted, not only to have delivered the nation, but to have founded their civil and religious institutions, and in whom, legislating for the present and the future, it would have been the height of folly to dispense with written records. Secondly, it has been shown that there is positive, abundant, and uncontradicted testimony to sustain the position: This testimony is found, first, in the volume itself, which ascribes to Moses, and to him alone, a direct agency in its production. None deny that most of Deuteronomy, and portions of Exodus and Numbers are therein referred to Moses; no other author is hinted at; the specifications in those cases exclude no other portions, but virtually include them, and the more especially as the reasons for a record in other instances were still more urgent; distinct indications are given that these passages were but parts of a larger whole; special provision was also made, on the one hand, for a record of all God's utterances to Moses, and a claim was set up, on the other, to be that exact record; and meanwhile the portions admitted to claim a Mosaic authorship rehearse and authenticate the essential features of the whole Pentateuch. Again, the later books of the Old Testament often refer to the Pentateuch, in whole or in part, frequently ascribing it to Moses, and never, either in whole or in part, to any other author. Still further, it was the undisputed belief of the Jewish nation at and before the time of Christ, known to be handed reverentially down from the past, a testimony so well known that its echoes are to be found even in heathen

writers. Furthermore, the Saviour and his apostles reasserted the received opinion, clearly committing themselves, by positive statements, to that view. In addition to all this, there is an entire absence of any other claimant, either af firmed or hinted at in the course of history. Thirdly, it has been shown how this testimony is confirmed by other indications: The manner of the volume accords with the notion of a record made in the time of the main transactions recorded; most of the other books of the Old Testament contain traces of its previous existence; various archaisms are found in it; fresh marks of a residence in Egypt appear upon it;1 traces of the wilderness are not wanting; no later period can be suggested whose characteristics would have given rise to such a book; and finally, those who deny that Moses was the author cannot present, much less maintain, a plausible substitute, there being among them no agreement as to the number or the date of the alleged writers.

A more remarkable instance of testimony lying entirely on one side of a question cannot be found. Nor is it easy to mention any legitimate kind of evidence which is wanting. An additional sweeping declaration in the Pentateuch, that the volume as a whole was written by the great lawgiver, would not have helped the case; not only because of possible questions as to changes made subsequent to the declaration, but also by reason of the entire nonchalance with which the masters of the "higher criticism" summarily set aside such testimony. Thus all these critics, De Wette, Knobel, Davidson, and the like, freely admit that the whole

1 In addition to the correspondences of Hebrew and old Egyptian names of familiar objects, mentioned in a former Article (Bib. Sacra, Vol. XX. p 845), we may give the following from Seyffarth: i, Egyptian s'pr, trumpet; Jaxy, tb, finger; nay, hrt, span; m, s'p, palm; xi, papyrus, km, represented by a picture of the plant, and formning the symbol of lower Egypt; b, harp, Egyptian nfr, represented by the outline of a harp, though having the derivative sense of "good;" and several other words, of which the connection is in most instances very clearly traceable through the Coptic. - Scyffarth's Theologische Schriften der Alter Aegypter, p. 117.

a

book of Deuteronomy (except the beginning and the ending) claims to be the exact utterance of Moses. But the statement goes for nothing with them. Says De Wette:! "The author of Deuteronomy, as it appears, would have us regard his whole book as the work of Moses; but," adds this judicial personage," the obscurity and unfitness of these claims deprive them of all value as proofs." After the same manner, Dr. Davidson proceeds in his latest work:2 "A late writer," he says, "represents the whole of Deuteronomy, or at least chaps. iv. - xxx., as proceeding from Moses's hand (ch. xxxi). This was a bold step for the unknown author; and had not this been a time of some literary activity, the thing could scarcely have suggested itself to his mind, or been successfully executed." He thinks "the deception was an innocent one," and proceeds to deal both with the moral question and with the extraordinary phenomenon he has conjured up, of such a forgery palmed off upon Moses in " time of some literary activity," in the following mode: "The sentiments conveyed by the Deuteronomist are essentially those of Moses. In this manner we reduce the fiction of the writer to a very harmless thing. Nor is it without example in the range of the national history of the Jews; for the book of Ecclesiastes presents a parallel. Why it was not challenged we are unable to say [!]; but there were comparatively few persons in the nation at the time. who had a knowledge of literature, some Levites and prophets being the learned class. And it is possible that at the particular time and among the people of the Jews the work would not be regarded as reprehensible simply on account of its envelope. The temper of the times was favorable to the reception of the work, even though it may have been recognized in its true character, since it is unreasonable to look for a high standard of Christian morality in a period of Jewish degeneracy. Comparatively innocent as the fiction was, we cannot blame the age for accepting it

1 De Wette's Introduction (Parker's Translation), Vol. II. p. 159. 2 Davidson's Introduction, Vol. I. pp. 375, 376.