of general history, it is not wholly barren of suggestions in relation to the great cause of Christian philanthropy. Some of these we shall barely indicate, without attempting either proof or illustration. The first thought that occurs to us, in this connection, is that even the hasty glimpse which we have taken of the later Jewish history confirms the claim of that extraordinary people to a place in the benevolent remembrance and exertion of the Christian world. Besides the interest attaching to them as the subjects of prophecy and sacred history, they are too conspicuous in that of later times to be overlooked or treated with indifference. Another inference from this historical review is, that the relative position which it represents the Jews as holding to the Christian world for ages, when taken in connection with the actual condition of the Holy Land, is by far the most plausible foundation for the doctrine, that the Jews are to be restored en masse to Palestine. A people providentially kept separate from every other, yet without a country. of their own, while that of their fathers is almost unoccupied, presents a combination and concurrence of events, which may well suggest the thought of some great providential purpose to be yet accomplished by the reunion of the two, without supposing any express promise or prediction in the Scripture. It is indeed much to be desired, that this opinion, which is daily gaining ground, may be allowed to rest upon its true foundation, without any wresting of the Scriptures in support of it. Another danger, in relation to benevolent exertion for the Jews, is that of fostering their national conceit, and the spiritual pride even of true converts, by too marked a separation of their case from that of other objects of Christian benevolence. Whatever advantages may be connected with distinct organizations for this special purpose, and however great the good accomplished by them, which we would not question or extenuate, we think that the most wholesome fruits may be expected from the subjection of this cause to the same general management with others, so that the Jews may be caught in the same net with the Gentiles, and no longer constitute a "several fishery." With these views, we heartily approve of the beginning, which has been already made in this direction, by our own church [the American Presbyterian], through her Board of Missions.

ABT. III.-The Authenticity and Genuineness of the Pentateuch.

Ir is certainly not the part of wisdom to introduce to the public, indiscriminately, the sceptical opinions on morals and religion which prevail in [the Continent of] Europe. Some of these opinions will soon perish on the soil that gave them birth. Before they can be confuted, they will cease to exist.* Other opinions are so interwoven with habits of thinking peculiar to the people of continental Europe; they are the product of a state of society, philosophical and religious, so unlike our own, that the attempt, on our part, to controvert, or even to comprehend them, would be a fruitless labour.

But some of the opinions referred to are not indigenous in France or Germany only. They are by no means exotics in English or American soil. Indeed, not a few of the most destructive theories that prevail in Germany were transplanted from England. The German sceptic is the lineal descendant of men who once figured in English literature. Doubts or disbelief in respect to the doctrines of revelation which exist among us, are the spontaneous growth of our own institutions and habits of thought, and have been only reinforced from abroad. It has been obvious, for a number of years, that there has been an increasing tendency in certain quarters to question or reject the divine authority of the Old Testament. This has been manifest in the case of some individuals who have no special regard for German literature, or who may have even a positive antipathy to it.

While the Old Testament generally is assailed, the Pentateuch is made the subject of special attack. Moses, it is alleged, is the least trustworthy of the Jewish historians, or rather the genuineness of the Pentateuch is denied altogether, and its authorship unceremoniously thrust down to the Babylonish captivity or still later. Many of the miraculous events which it describes are regarded as no better than Rabbinic fables or Grecian myths.

It may be well here to inquire, briefly, into some of the grounds of this prevalent scepticism. Why are the Hebrew Scriptures, and the five books of Moses particularly, subjected to these fresh assaults? Some causes may exist which have hitherto been unknown or comparatively inoperative.

A prominent ground of this sceptical tendency is the injudicious or incorrect method which has been pursued by not a few orthodox interpreters of the Old Testament. They have never

* F. A. Wolf is said to have remarked, that "what comes forward in Germany with eclat, may be expected, for the most part, to end, after some ten years, shabbily.”

distinctly seen the relations which exist between the Old Testament and the New. They do not, practically at least, recognise the great truth, that God has communicated his revelations gradually. They have looked for the meridian sun in the faint light of the morning. They seem never to have entered into the spirit of the declarations, that Christ brought life and immortality to light, and that the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than the illustrious forerunner of our Lord. In their view, the patriarchs did not see through a glass darkly, but enjoyed almost the perfect vision of the apostles. A system of types, extending to minute particulars, and to bad men, as well as to good, has been forced into the interpretation of the Old Testament, to the detriment of all sound philology, and often of common sense. Men of eminent learning, in our own days, have found in the Mosaic ritual all varieties of allegory and hidden sense, so that, almost literally, every cord has cried out of the tabernacle, and every pin from its timber has answered. In the predictions of the Old Testament, a speciality, or a minute historical reference has been discovered, alike at variance with the nature of prophecy and the actual events of history. In such circumstances, men

.. wearied with the incongruities or absurdities of the annotator, have become distrustful of that on which he has wasted his pains.

Another source of the scepticism in question, is the supposed incompatibility of some of the discoveries of modern learning with the records of the Pentateuch. The students of natural science confidently affirm the indefinite antiquity of our globe, and describe the wonderful operations which were going on in its bosom ages before man was formed upon its surface. Some of these investigators, it must be confessed, proceed as independently as if the Mosaic records did not exist; or if these ancient documents should chance to cross their track, they brush them aside with as little ceremony as they would the cosmogony of Ovid or the theory of Burnet. On the other hand, some theologians have been unduly sensitive in respect to these conclusions of geology, not remembering that revelation and true science will never be found ultimately at variance, and that the period of their apparent discrepancy is generally short. But instead of waiting for time to unfold the mystery, they have denied or denounced, in their zeal for revelation, the unquestionable facts of science. In these circumstances, a third party interpose, and cut the knot which they cannot untie. They discern no difficulty in the case, for the book of Genesis is a common history, a mixture of things credible and incredible, or it is a highly-seasoned poetical composition. If a discovery of science conflicts with a statement

of Moses, then the latter is set aside as having no more authority than an affirmation of Diodorus or Livy. Thus these apparent conflicts between philology and natural science are inconsiderately made the ground of denying the credibility of the written history.

Another cause which may be mentioned, is the contradictory views which have been entertained in respect to certain usages tolerated or regulated in the Pentateuch, but which a more spiritual dispensation has been supposed to abolish. In relation to these usages, opinions diametrically opposite have been defended. According to one party, the customs referred to have the immediate divine sanction. They are not simply the growth of an early state of society, or of oriental institutions, but they meet necessities which are common to man. They are essential to, or at least are admissible in, the most perfect condition of humanity. Another party, by doing violence to the language of the Pentateuch, virtually deny the existence of these customs, or endeavour to rid them of their most essential characteristics; affirming that certain usages of modern times are in their own nature and always wrong, they wrest the plainest texts of the Pentateuch from their obvious sense, in order to free the inspired Word from the calumny of their opponents. Others, in the mean time, look with equal contempt upon both of these conflicting opinions. Their scepticism is only augmented by this radical diversity of ideas in those who believe in the divine authority of the Pentateuch. They regard the custom which has been proscribed or eulogised, as merely an evidence of a very barbarous state of society, and the regulations of the lawgiver respecting it, as well as the record of the historian, as unauthoritative and uninspired. And it must be acknowledged, that nothing could be better fitted to cherish an unbelieving spirit than the extreme opinions that have been alluded to. In fact, every text distorted, every interpretation far-fetched or unnatural, does something towards subverting the authority of the entire Scriptures, as it becomes a source of doubt and incredulity which extends far beyond itself.

The superficial philanthropy and religion, which find not a little currency in our land, is an additional cause of the sceptieism in question. The special design of the New Testament, it is alleged, is to reveal, or render more impressive, the doctrines of the immortality of the soul and the paternal character of God. An unavoidable inference from such an allegation is, that the Deity of the Old Testament is different from, or hostile to, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Mosaic Divinity is a stern tyrant or an inflexible judge, not a Being of overflowing benignity. The theophany on Sinai is the

fiction of oriental fancy, portraying the avatar of some malignant demon. A view of the Divine character extensively prevails at the present day, which is adverse to the entire spirit of the New Testament, and which virtually leads to the denial of the most explicit declarations made by the Saviour himself. Religion is divested of its commanding features, and is made to meet the necessities of a part of our constitution only. The susceptibilities of fear, and of reverence for law and authority, though as much original properties of man as pity or any other power that has been most abundantly appealed to, are degraded and cast out as worthless.

These superficial views of religion naturally lead to a superficial philanthropy. The tenderest compassion is felt for the criminal, or rather for the "unfortunate individual, overtaken in a fault," while few tears are shed for injured virtue or for society menaced with dissolution. A sacredness is attributed to human life, which has no warrant either in the New Testament or the judgment of a pure-minded philanthropist, and which would annihilate the right or possibility of national or individual self-defence. The reformation of the delinquent, it is confidently alleged, is the only or the principal object of human laws. The Old Testament, and the Pentateuch espe cially, standing as obstacles in the path of these charitable sentiments, must be set aside. Though the representation that the books of Moses breathe an implacable spirit, is altogether unfounded, yet there is much in them of a rigorous character, and which would be repugnant to the opinions and feelings to which we have alluded. It is unquestionable that there is a strong tendency at present towards an indiscriminate philanthropy, and a religion divested of those stern features which the representations of the New Testament imply, as certainly as those of the Old. Now, just so far as this tendency prevails, an influence adverse to the authority of the Pentateuch is brought into active existence. The question is judged subjectively, in accordance with the feelings and opinions of the objector. A fair estimate is not of course to be anticipated. Yet no topic in the whole compass of literature demands greater freedom from theological prepossession than one pertaining to the infancy of our race (fifteen centuries before the gospel was published), to an oriental state of society, and to a pastoral mode of life. What might seem perfectly unreasonable and distasteful to us might be most befitting to the incipient Hebrew commonwealth, and might, therefore, have come from God.

Again, some of the causes of this scepticism have multiplied themselves. The tendency to doubt has been greatly strengthened by exercise. The rejection of all supernatural agency