'^f w 
 
 \- 
 
 rrC- 
 
 G-avin Carlyle 
 
 Criticism, True and False j 
 
 BSI275 
 4C28 
 
«5? 
 
 -j^ofmSc^ 
 
 APR 13 ID. 9 
 
 BS\^7S 
 
 .4CP-8 
 
CRITICISM, 
 
 TRUE AND FALSE; ■iif'^^Y^^^' 
 
 i hEc.stPiua/ 
 \THaOLOGIC 
 
 THE PRESENT STATE OF TffiE. r-^, _.. 
 
 DEUTEROJfOMY CONTROYERSY. 
 
 /'Sfriri 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. GAVIN CARLYLE, M.A., 
 
 EALING, LONDON, 
 
 AiitJior of " The Battle of Unbelief;' Editor of " The Collected 
 
 Writings of Edward Irving^'' ^c. 
 
 EDINBURGH : JOHN MACLAREN AND SON. 
 
 GLASGOW : D. BRYCE AND SON. 
 
 ABERDEEN : A. & R. MILNE. 
 
 LONDON : RANKEN AND CO. 
 
 MDCCCLXXIX. 
 
 PRICE FOUR?ENCH. 
 
J 
 
 I. Subjective Criticism ... ... ... 5 
 
 II. The Theories of the Critics ... 10 
 
 III. Language, Laws, and Ordinances ... 17 
 
 IV. CO-\XLUSION 2X 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THESE articles appeared in the columns of a weekly 
 journal. The author has been requested to repub- 
 lish them, and it is believed that it may be of interest 
 to do so at the present time. There are many who do not 
 adhere to the recent criticism -of Deuteronomy, who think 
 that full liberty should be given in Presbyterian Churches 
 for the discussion of all such questions. I agree with them 
 so far as genuine criticism, limited to its own sphere, is 
 concerned. The case, however, is very different with that 
 sweeping criticism which proceeds to deal with books in 
 a method that, if adopted generally, would subvert all 
 testimony to any literature whatever. If applied to any 
 known author of our own country it would lead to the most 
 strange and absurd conclusions. As applied to sacred 
 literature, it tends to undermine the foundations on which 
 our Christian faith rests. The Book of Deuteronomy does 
 not stand alone. Many other books of the Old and 
 New Testament have been dealt with in the same manner. 
 Large portions of the Prophet Isaiah, the Book of Daniel, 
 the Acts of the Apostles, the Gospels, many of the 
 Epistles,^ in fact almost all parts of the Bible, have been 
 assigned by one or other of the subjective critics to periods 
 and authors different from those represented. Anyone 
 acquainted with German religious literature and controversy 
 knows how such criticism has undermined the faith of 
 multitudes, to whom nothing is left but blank and dreary 
 scepticism. If the freedom desired be granted as to 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 Deuteronomy, the whole Bible will be open, without possible 
 ecclesiastical control, to similar treatment. Such is the broad 
 question now to be determined. No book of the Bible 
 more distinctly professes to be historical than Deuteronomy. 
 It bears by a thousand significant marks the stamp of its 
 intended historic character. If not historical, it is not a 
 mere work of fiction. It is clearly a designed personation, 
 or, to speak plainly, misrepresentation, or even imposition, 
 and in such case inspiration is out of the question, though 
 we give credit to the honesty, but not judgment or breadth 
 of view, of those who would still hold it inspired. 
 
Errata.— Page lo, line lo, for "five" read "four;" 
 p. 13, line 2, for " Shaddia " read " Shaddai." Note 
 omitted at p. 15, line 31, which appeared in original 
 articles, excepting the closing chapters of Deuteronomy. 
 
k£C, SEPibSI 
 
 VTHSOLOGICitL 
 
 CRITICISM, TRUE AND FALSE;^ 
 
 
 L— SUBJECTIVE CRITICISxM. 
 
 I PURPOSE, in a few short articles, to consider clearly and 
 in a popular spirit the state of the question as regards 
 the Book of Deuteronomy. The theories in regard to the 
 origin of this book, to which considerable attention has 
 recently been called, are illustrative of a general system of 
 criticism, applied to much of the Old and New Testament. 
 First, therefore, as lying at the basis of the controversy, I shall 
 consider the question of subjective criticism. 
 
 By subjective criticism I mean that criticism which is based 
 on insight, as supposed, into the style, includin,2j method of 
 thought and habit of expression, of the writer. Some men are 
 so characteristic in their style that there is no mistaking it. 
 I might give as an instance the late Dr. James Hamilton. 
 Others vary exceedingly, and it is difficult to judge. The 
 greatest errors are made even by contemporary writers. No 
 man's style was better known in Scotland twenty years ago 
 than Hugh Miller's ; yet many of the ablest literary judges 
 imputed to Hugh Miller articles which were written by others, 
 as by the late Dr. McCrie. Hugh Miller's style was markedly 
 special, yet not so entirely so as not thus to be mistaken by 
 able judges. Before Sir Walter Scott made himself known as 
 the author of the Waverley Novels, many acute critics imputed 
 them to a number of contributors, and ridiculed the idea of 
 unity of authorship. Sir Walter himself, with his complete 
 mastery of the early ballad literature, mistook the " Raid of 
 Featherstonehaugh," which was written in his own day by Mr. 
 R. Surtees, for an old ballad, and quoted it in " Marmion." 
 Dr. Reinhold, of Wurtemburg, revolted by the method of 
 Strauss, Ewald, Baur, Lengerke, &c., wrote the story of 
 " Amber Witch " as a tale of olden time. All the Tiibingen 
 reviewers of the Strauss school fell into the trap, accepted it as 
 a genuine ancient chronicle, speculated as to the century to 
 which it belonged, &c., and would not believe Reinhold, till 
 he produced the most ample testimony, that it was his own 
 original work. 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 The subject with which I deal first is distinct from that of 
 language. Apart from internal marks of authorship, there is 
 the evidence of language. If a part of Homer had been found 
 written in Attic Greek, there could have been no doubt that it 
 was an addition of a later period, however similar the style of 
 thought and metaphor to that of the original. If a book, 
 professedly of the age of Chaucer, were written in the very 
 different English of the age of Shakespeare, or of the later 
 age of Milton, it would of course be at once assigned to this 
 later period. But it must be stated once for all that this is 
 not the main argument of those who would change the period 
 of the writing of Deuteronomy. So little is there in the 
 language that some of the most scholarly critics of the 
 sceptical school have been of opinion that the Book of 
 Deuteronomy is the most ancient of the Books of the Penta- 
 teuch. A few words may be selected to attempt to harmonise 
 the book with the theory of the later date, but there is no 
 possibility of asserting that the Hebrew is altogether different 
 in style from that of the age generally assigned to the book, or 
 from that of the previous books. This question I shall refer 
 to more fully. 
 
 I, however, direct attention in this first communication to 
 the one matter of subjective criticism — viz., the internal 
 evidences, apart from language, of a different authorship. Of 
 these any intelligent man is capable of judging, to at least a 
 large extent, for the evidences are in the broad Hues of the 
 book criticised, not in its minute particles. High scholarship 
 may and must claim to decide on questions of grammatical 
 structure and refined differences of meaning, but high scholar- 
 ship does not make a man supreme judge of the great 
 leading characteristics of a book. Shakespeare drank into the 
 spirit of Italian tales and even of Greek and Latin literature 
 in a way that numbers of the greatest scholars have never 
 approached, because they have not had the genius and insight. 
 For the general scope and character of a book, who would not 
 rather have the judgment of a Scott, or a Macaulay, or a 
 Carlyle, or a Hugh Miller, than of any man, however learned, 
 who had not their literary power of discernment ? There is a 
 wide difference between mere learning and insight, though 
 they are frequently united, as in Milton. Many men of great 
 learning have been merest pedants — as regards broad literary 
 criticism. 
 
 Applying the test of subjective criticism, many German 
 scholars have represented that the Book of Deuteronomy 
 could not proceed from the same author as the previous books. 
 They consider these books to have been compiled from various 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 documents, and Deuteronomy to have been written as the 
 distinct work of one author at a later date. This documental 
 theory I shall consider in my next article, but confine myself 
 in this to the alleged discrepancy of style of Deuteronomy and 
 the earlier books. They assert that the tone, method, and 
 even spirit of this book are quite different from those of the 
 others. They also allege differences in ordinances and laws, 
 which I shall consider afterwards— not now. Here I confine 
 myself to the one question of style in the larger sense. It 
 is of course plain on the surface that the whole plan of 
 Deuteronomy is different from that of the previous books. 
 The others contain the laws and history. This is a direct, 
 inipassioned appeal to the people to keep the laws. But is 
 this difference sufficient to warrant the assertion of a different 
 authorship ? May the same man not be a calm historian or 
 lawgiver at one time and an impassioned speaker at the other? 
 How different is the style of any great lawyer in making a draft 
 of a new Act and in appealing to Parliament in defence of it ! 
 To intelligent literary criticism nothing appears more natural 
 than for a lawgiver — after having stated the minute laws — to 
 close, in his old age, with recapitulation of them, and then 
 with earnest exhortation to the people to observe those laws, 
 and warning against the consequence of departing from them. 
 This might naturally occur in any case, but how much more 
 in the case of one whom believing critics, even those who 
 doubt the unity of authorship, recognise as an inspired law- 
 giver? Moses' work would not have been complete had he 
 merely written down detailed laws, and had he not, in a large 
 and comprehensive method, shown the general tendency of the 
 laws, the reason why God had given them, and the danger of 
 departing from them. Any man of statesmanlike spirit, when 
 he advocates certain laws, rises far above the mere details ; 
 and, with the grasp of large intelligence, shows their bearing 
 on the interests of the nation and of mankind at large. 
 The man who cannot do this, and who does not do it, is 
 unfit to be a lawmaker, for all good law is based upon great 
 principles, and must be seen in the light of these. Nothing, 
 therefore, could be more natural than for Moses, at the close, 
 to depart from the minute and special and to take an eagle 
 view of the whole bearing of the law, and of the necessity of 
 keeping it in all parts. This — even if he had not been 
 inspired. But when we consider him as the inspired lawgiver, 
 it becomes a necessity. To burden a people with a number 
 of minute observances, without showing to them clearly and 
 intelligibly the great bearing of these, were the part not of a 
 legislator, but of a tyrant ; and surely the man whom God 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 raised up to constitute a new nation, through a system of law- 
 given from Himself, might be expected to show before his 
 death the solemn bearing of that law, and the necessity of 
 observing it. We hold, therefore, that, from the broad literary, 
 as distinguished from the narrow and pedantic point of view, 
 nothing was more natural than that the Book of Deuteronomy 
 should have been written, and its words spoken, by Moses, as 
 a fitting conclusion to the earlier books of the law. Delitzsch's 
 sketch gives to the book its natural place. After speaking of 
 Genesis, he thus describes the four last books : — " The second 
 depicts the inauguration of the kingdom at Sinai. Of the 
 third and fourth, the former narrates the spiritual, the latter 
 the political organisation of the kingdom by facts and legal 
 precepts. The fifth recapitulates the whole in a hortatory 
 style, embracing both history and legislation, and impresses it 
 upon the hearts of the people, for the purpose of arousing 
 their fidelity to the covenant, and securing its lasting duration." 
 This is a clear and intelligent view. The well-known Prof. 
 Moses Stuart says also on this question, " Deuteronomy 
 appears to my mind as the earnest out-flowings and admoni- 
 tions of a heart which felt the deepest interest in the welfare 
 of the Jewish nation, and which realised that it must soon bid 
 farewell to it. . . . Instead of bearing on its face, as 
 alleged by some, evidences of another authorship than that of 
 Moses, I must regard this book as being so deeply fraught 
 with holy and pairiotic feeling, as to convince any unprejudiced 
 reader, who is competent to judge of its style, that it cannot 
 with any tolerable degree of probability be attributed to any 
 prde7ider to legislation or any mere imitaion of the great legis- 
 lator. Such a glow as runs through all this book, it is vain to 
 seek for in any artificial or suppositious composition." This 
 must be the verdict of the unprejudiced reader, judging from 
 ihe purely literary point of view. It bears all the evidence of 
 having been written under the circumstances it professes, viz., 
 by the aged Moses, before his separation from the people he 
 had long led. To imagine a book so full of glow and enthu- 
 siasm and earnest personal exhortation as of the living voice, 
 the production of one who knew nothing of the circumstances, 
 and passed through none of the experiences it records, is to 
 imagine a literary impossibility. To represent someone as 
 sitting down to write such a book many hundred years after, 
 in the reign of any of the Kings — apart from the moral 
 (|uestion altogether, to be afterwards noted, of deliberately 
 palming off fiction as history — for it is plainly designed to be 
 received as history — is to tax our credulity in the most extra- 
 ordinary manner. None are often so credulous as the incre- 
 
( 9 ) , 
 
 dulous. Let anyone read the burning words of Deuteronomy, 
 and on rising from doing so reflect on the possibility of the 
 theory of the whole being a fiction — -written at the distance of 
 time of 700 or 800 years. I conclude, then, by maintaining 
 that, in a large literary point of view, there is everything to 
 connect Deuteronomy with the earlier books, and also to asso- 
 ciate it with Moses as its author. We hear ringing through 
 the addresses, and warnings, and appeals to past experiences, 
 and loving exhortations, the voice of the great leader of the 
 millions of Israel through a real toilsome journey of many 
 years in the wilderness, with a living power, so to speak, which 
 no fiction could distantly imitate. 
 
 In highest literature the same writer constantly adopts 
 difterent attitudes in different circumstances. Look, for 
 instance, to Milton. Which of these judges would impute by 
 subjective criticism the " Paradise Lost " to the writer of the 
 abusive passages which abound everywhere in Milton's prose 
 writings ? They would proclaim as beyond doubt, on internal 
 evidence, if history were not too strong for them, that the 
 violent partisan could never have been the sublime poet. Who 
 of this school would impute, by his subjective criticism, the 
 jealousy of Othello or the passion of Lady Macbeth to the 
 author of the early sonnets ? Who would conclude that 
 Goethe's later poems were from the same pen as those of his 
 early period ? Who would imagine that the author of " Sartor 
 Resartus " was the contributor of the essays written in the 
 Edinburgh Review in such flowing classic English ? or that the 
 historian of the French Revolution was the author of " Crom- 
 well's Letters and Speeches," with its strange style and startling 
 antitheses? Men of power vary immensely in their styles, 
 and adapt themselves to positions the most different. It is in 
 vain that by subjective criticism, especially of men of mere 
 learning apart from genius, we can arrive at accurate historic 
 results. The German critics who pursue this method, as to 
 the Scriptures, differ widely from each other. No two are 
 agreed on almost any point. The method is, as a rule, utterly 
 valueless. There are numerous writings in almost all cultivated 
 languages in which the same author presents much greater 
 differences of style than are to be traced between Deuteronomy 
 and the earlier books of the law. 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 II.— THE THEORIES OF THE CRITICS. 
 
 I HAVE considered the great uncertainty of subjective 
 criticism, and that, though the aim of Deuteronomy and its 
 method is different from that of the previous books, there is 
 nothing, in a Uterary point of view, to require a different 
 authorship. This argument did not of course touch the 
 alleged discrepancies as to facts and laws, to which I shall 
 afterwards refer. The one thing that I have sought, as yet, to 
 show is that there is no difficulty, in a literary point of view, 
 in supposing that the author of Deuteronomy was the same 
 as the author of the previous five books, or that that author 
 was Moses. The Book of Deuteronomy has, indeed, all the 
 appearance of having been written in the manner indicated. 
 It has entirely the aspect" of being the work of an old man 
 recounting the experiences through which he and the people 
 addressed had passed. It bears, also, the strongest internal 
 evidence to its unity, for in a naturally continuous method it 
 passes on from topic to topic. 
 
 Let us now look to the leading outlines of the theories 
 advocated as to the origin of the Pentateuch by many of the 
 critics. There are at least two chief documents supposed to 
 be discerned in the books of Moses. The fundamental one 
 employs Elohim alone, and avoids Jehovah up to Exodus vi., 
 2 to 4. After that it adopts both. The second one usually 
 employs the word Jehovah. The two names of the Deity are, 
 it is alleged, intimately connected with pieces bearing definite 
 distinctive characteristics. The critics who advocate diversity 
 of authorship do not rely solely on the uniform use of the 
 names in different sections, as evidence of separate author- 
 ship. Elohim may occur occasionally in a Jehovistic section, 
 and Jehovah in an Elohistic one. Along with the peculiar 
 use of these appellations, there are other circumstances clearly 
 showing diversity of authorship. In the Elohistic fundamental 
 document* there was no mention of sacrifices or altars ; no 
 distinction between clean and unclean animals ; nothing 
 expressly Levitical ; and in it God appears to and speaks 
 with His servants, directly. In the Jehovistic document, 
 sacrifices are introduced as offered by Abel and Noah ; the 
 distinction of clean and unclean animals appears ; there is a 
 Levitical tone ; Jehovah is represented as appearing in human 
 
 • strangely enough this document is imputed to a priest, oi", at least, a Levite. 
 
( .1 ) 
 
 form. Poetic pieces, as Balaam's prophecies and Jacob's last 
 address to his sons, belong to the Jehovistic document. In 
 biographies the Elohist is briefer and more historical. The 
 Jehovist presents persons in a more imposing light. According 
 to the Elohist, man is made up of body and soul, but in the 
 Jehovist, in addition to the soul, a breath of God is assumed. 
 The Elohist does not speak of man as corrupt till near the 
 time of the Flood, whereas the Jehovist describes him as 
 wicked from a very early period. In the Elohist God is the 
 national God ; in the Jehovist the universal God. These 
 two documents were not merely the creations of two 
 writers, but had assumed the characteristic features in 
 the circles of the nation's traditions before they were com- 
 mitted to writing, and were transcripts of different 
 classes into which those accumulated traditions had been 
 moulded. . The two documents and others were finally put 
 together by an editor, who wished to unite documents em- 
 bodying different traditions of national history. In doing this 
 he was obliged to take liberties in the w-ay of omission, 
 addition, interpellation, Szc. By way of illustration, it may be 
 noticed that there are considered to be two distinct accounts 
 of the creation, marked by the use of Elohim alone and of 
 Jehovah-Elohim — the one in Genesis i. to ii. 3, and the other 
 from Genesis ii. 3, to iii. 24. There are also two accounts o( 
 the Flood, curiously interwoven, but separable. There is also a 
 third document, which has been called that of the junior 
 Elohist. This is plain in certain portions in which, though 
 Elohim is used, the spirit is not that of the senior Elohist. 
 The tone and manner rather resemble ihe Jehovist, as in the 
 history of Jacob and Joseph ; but still the style differs from 
 his, and the name Elohim, not Jehovah, is given to God. 
 
 Such is a general outHne of the theory adopted by many 
 of the critics, though they differ much as to details. Ewald 
 and most others consider that Exodus xx. to xxiii. belongs to 
 the time of Moses, and was written during that period. The 
 historical portions of the Pentateuch, he supposes, were 
 written in the second half of the Judges' period. The primi- 
 tive Elohist wrote after the Canaaniies were driven out of 
 Palestine and a ter the beginning of the kingdom, since 
 promises were given to Abraham and Jacob that kings should 
 spring from them— an idea which would not have suggested 
 itself to the mind of a Hebrew, till after a kingdom 
 had been appointed. The Jehovist belongs to the kingly 
 period, probably to about the time of Solomon, certainly not 
 before it. The time that he wrote, let it be noted, is fixed by 
 the fact that Balaam apparently prophesies, in Numbers xxiv., 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 the conquest of Agag, the name given to kings of the Amale- 
 kites, and then of Moab and of Edom, and, prediction being 
 out of the question, this part of the Pentateuch must have 
 been written after the time of Saul, who conquered the Amale- 
 kites, and of David, who conquered the Moabites and Edom- 
 ites. On the same principle. Genesis xxv. 23, where Rebekah 
 is told apparently that the elder shall serve the younger, was 
 written after Edom was subdued by David, but before, in the 
 time of Solomon, the Edomites threw off the yoke of the Jews. 
 The age of the Jehovist is therefore fixed as late in the reign 
 of David or early in that of Solomon. The Elohim document 
 was a private writing, which attained to general acceptance, 
 and was circulated among the people who could read, by whom 
 its contents were made known to others. The Jehovah 
 document was composed independently, by a much later writer, 
 not without a plan. But its unity and sequence are more 
 difficult to trace, because the editor who put the two together 
 dealt with it freely, and suppressed many parts. The junior 
 Elohist is considered to have been probably of the time of 
 Elijah, judging again by the historical events which he, in his 
 part, relates as prophecies. The editor of the four first books 
 who pieceded the Deuteronomist, in binding together the 
 three documents, acted with considerable independence, add- 
 ing occasionally a connecting link, omitting what seemed to 
 stand in the way of the connection, abridging in different 
 modes, and transposing pieces according to his own view. 
 The Deuteronomist is an independent writer of the whole of 
 this one book, by which, assuming the name of Moses, he 
 adapted the law to the requirements of his own age. He lived 
 probably in the latter part of Manasseh's reign. There are 
 thus at least five independent leading contributors to the 
 Pentateuch after Moses, who gave the central law (Exodus xx. 
 to xxiii.) : i. The Elohist, who lived, it is believed, in the 
 later time of the Judges or in the reign of Saul, and who is 
 supposed to be a priest ; 2. The Jehovist, living about the 
 period of Solomon, and probably a prophet ; 3. The junior 
 Elohist, living at about the period of Elisha ; 4. The editor 
 of the four first books of the Pentateuch, living at a period 
 between this and the reign of Manasseh ; 5. The Deuterono- 
 mist, living at the latter end of the reign of Manasseh, and 
 responsible for the whole book of Deuteronomy. Various other 
 lesser contributions are included in the first four books. 
 
 Such is the general outline of the theory, though there are 
 as many differences, in even important details, as there are 
 critics. On what does this theory rest ? First, I would say, 
 as its chief support, on Exodus, vi., 2-4, where it is said, " 1 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 am the Lord (Jehovah), and I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, 
 and Jacob by the name of God Almighty (El Shaddia), but 
 by my name Jehovah was I not known to them." This is 
 attributed to the Elohist, the writer of the earlier portion of 
 the Pentateuch, who is supposed to have introduced here the 
 name Jehovah for the first time, whereas it occurs in many 
 passages in Genesis, which must therefore have been con- 
 tributed at a later date. Such is the argument from this 
 passage. When, however, the word translated " I was known " 
 is considered, and the whole statement taken into account, it 
 fails to cany the structure laid upon it. Moses returns 
 disappointed from his first attempts to induce Pharaoh to let 
 Israel go. He has only added to their burdens and hardships 
 by his interference. God then reminds Moses of His 
 covenant. He points attention to the fact that that name* of 
 His which was especially associated with the covenant, and might 
 be regarded as its seal — implying in its very sound, the 
 unchanging one — was not known in its hidden meaning — 
 proved in the reality of events — to the patriarchs, as it would 
 now be to Moses himself and the Israelites. God would now 
 make apparent that He was Jehovah, always the same, 
 faithful to His covenant, after the lapse of long intervals, 
 whereas the fathers had only heard the promise, and not 
 known its fulfilment. This is the plain and natural meaning 
 of the passage when viewed in connection with the context. 
 It does not imply that the name Jehovah was used for the 
 first time. Even Dr. Samuel Davidson acknowledges in 
 regard to this, " The name Jehovah was sometimes employed 
 in the pre-Mosaic time. Probably it was used among the 
 maternal forefathers of Jochebed, as the composition of her 
 name implies." The name, thus, was known before. The 
 purport of the declaration " By my name Jehovah was I not 
 known to them " is then plain, and does not involve the con- 
 clusion that Jehovah was here used by the writer for the first 
 time — and, therefore, the double authorship of Genesis. The 
 second basis on which this theory of different authorship rests, 
 and by which it is thought by this school of critics to be 
 established, is the alleged difference of style and idea traceable 
 in the different parts. I have already considered the value of 
 such subjective criticism, as far as regards style — not laws or 
 ordinances, which will be noticed in other articles. No one 
 reading these books, even critically, would be led to suppose 
 them made up of different documents. In fact, the unity is 
 felt, and there is nothing as regards the literary style more 
 varied than in the books of numbers of authors. Almost 
 
 * Name as applied to God means His attributes or character always. 
 
( 14 ) 
 
 every historian passes, in one chapter after another, from the 
 more dry and statistical to the life-like and pictorial. Both 
 elements are necessary — the outlines and the life-like reality — in 
 all history worthy of the name. A third basis for the theory, 
 if not of a varied authorship, at least of a later origin than the 
 time of Moses, and one which has had much influence, is 
 the apparent reference to names and events belonging to ages 
 subsequent to that of Moses, as, for instance. Genesis xii., 6, 
 where it is said, " And the Canaanite was then in the land," 
 as if the Canaanite had been driven out when these words 
 were written ; or Genesis xiii., 7, where the same is repeated, 
 the Perizzite being added ; Genesis xxiii., 2, where Hebron is 
 explained as meant by Kirjath-Arba ; Genesis xxxvi., 31, and 
 following verses. There are a good many cases of this kind, 
 which may, however, be easily accounted for on the supposi- 
 tion that these explanations were given at later periods, to 
 make the facts more intelligible ; perhaps put in the margin 
 and incorporated by mistake, or even inserted directly in the 
 text. This seems the most likely explanation of them, though 
 Dr. Hengstenberg doubts it. It seems to me not at all 
 unreasonable to suppose that inspired prophets might be 
 guided by the Spirit to insert such explanatory statements, so 
 as to make the narrative more clear to the then settled 
 inhabitants of Palestine, and to all future generations. It is 
 certainly absurd to base on a few easily-explained references 
 the vast theory of a different authorship and period. 
 
 Such is the fabric constructed, and not only constructed, 
 but presented with all pretentiousness as the only intelligent 
 explanation of the origin of the Pentateuch. The battle has 
 been fought in Germany by very able men in the past, but we 
 are informed that now there is almost universal agreement. 
 Even Delitzsch, we are told, is to be classed on the same side, 
 but Delitzsch's position is very different. He considers Moses 
 the sole author of Deuteronomy, but that the laws of the other 
 books had been given orally by Moses and had been reduced 
 to writing by the priests, one of whom, say Eleazar, was perhaps 
 the Elohist of the critics. He recognises two sources, but 
 otherwise he holds with the orthodox that the Pentateuch lies 
 at the beginning or formation of Israel's history. The battle 
 has been fought, as I have said, by very able Hebraeists in 
 Germany, but it is important to notice that those on the one 
 side almost all have been believers, as Keil, HLivernick, 
 Hengstenberg, Drechzler, Kurtz, Rosenmiiller, and Delitzsch, 
 while those on the other side have been either unbelievers, 
 or at best only quasi-believers, in a direct revelation of God, 
 in inspiration and in the supernatural. And, not only so, but 
 
( 15 ) 
 
 almost all the arguments of weight as to the late authorship, 
 are based on the belief that professed prophecies are mere 
 historic records, put in a prophetic form. In fact, it is beyond 
 all question that the whole theory, as to the different author- 
 ships and the calculated dates at which the supposed authors 
 and editors did their work, is intimately associated with a 
 naturalistic view of the origin and facts of the books. Those 
 who have defended the integrity of the Pentateuch in Germany 
 with much ability have been the champions of the great doc- 
 trines of Christianity; those who have attempted to explain it 
 away have been almost all the assailants of these doctrines, 
 or have held them in the most vague and indeterminate 
 manner. 
 
 And now what is the weight of argument on the other 
 side? What are the testimonies to the authorship of the 
 so-called books of Moses ? There is not a shadow of reason 
 for stating, as is often done, that the Jews were careless on the 
 question of authorship. The statement that they were so is 
 gratuitous. We know the reverence with which they regarded 
 their sacred books. Is it likely that a people who preserved 
 with the most reverent care books which pronounced the most 
 withering condemnation of their own actions because they 
 associated them with revered names, and held them as inspired 
 of God, as they did beyond all question, would be indifferent 
 as to the evidences on which they accepted them, or would 
 easily receive writings not genuine under the feigned names of 
 those held in highest reverence ? Besides, there was a regular 
 priestly order from the beginning, prepared certainly to watch 
 against any daring innovations. What, then, are the facts ? 
 The constant and invariable ancient testimony, never disputed 
 among the ancient Jews, was that the Pentateuch was all 
 written by Moses. It is recognised as his by all the prophets 
 and historians of the Old Testament, by the writers of the 
 Apocrypha, by Philo, by Josephus, and by all the New Testa- 
 ment writers, and expressly and repeat-edly by Christ Himself. 
 This matter rests on the universal tradition and belief of the 
 Jews of all ages, in the same manner as the authorship of the 
 classic writers of Greece and Rome rests on the testimony of 
 the nations to which they respectively belong. 
 
 No fact could be attested by external evidence more 
 strongly. It has become a custom to speak even of Christ's 
 testimony on such subjects as unimportant, because it is said 
 He accommodated Himself to the state of knowledge of the 
 people. This is a great error, because He universally opposed 
 what He regarded as the mere traditions of men. Again, we 
 find references to the Pentateuch and quotations from it all 
 
( i6 ) 
 
 through the history, and the psalms, and the prophets, begin- 
 ning with the first chapter of Joshua. Of course, if doubt is 
 thrown upon the dates of all the books, this testimony may be 
 shaken ; but this indicates what a vast overthrow is neces- 
 sitated in this Pentateuch scheme. The whole Old and New 
 Testaments may be treated, as they have been treated, in the 
 same method. 
 
 Moses may have used, and probably did use, under the 
 guidance of the Spirit, certain documents handed down from 
 remote ages in writing the book of Genesis, which, it has been 
 suggested, with great probability, was written during the forty 
 years in Midian. But if he did there is no confusion. There 
 are not two histories of creation. The first chapter gives a 
 general view of the renovations of the earth in preparation for 
 the advent of man ; the second from the fourth verse descends 
 quite naturally from the general outline to the particular 
 description of man's life on earth. The two are perfectly in 
 harmony* — relating to different stages of history. As to the 
 other books, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, they might well 
 have been written during the forty years in the wilderness. 
 " The whole," says Professor Moses Stuart, " wears the air of a 
 historic journal, as well as record of legislation which was 
 engaged in as often as circumstances called for it. Everything 
 is more or less minutely recorded, according to the relative 
 importance at the time when it was written down. It looks 
 exactly like the journal of a man who was often interrupted in 
 writing by the pressure of his other engagements. If Moses 
 was actually the responsible leader of two and a-half millions 
 of people for forty years through the Arabian desert, he must 
 assuredly have been a very busy man and have had but little 
 time for writing their laws. It bears the marks of being a 
 series of brief compositions, written in a manner independently 
 of each other, for they were doubtless written at very different 
 times and places, and some of them quite remotely from each 
 other." This is a very probable account of the writing of the 
 three books. Deuteronomy, on the other hand, appears to 
 have been written much more rapidly, Moses summoning his 
 whole spirit, under the power of inspiration, for a final appeal 
 to his people, before he was taken from them, and to all future 
 generations. It bears the distinct impress of such excitement. 
 It was probably written down before it was delivered and read 
 by the aged prophet in the ears of the chiefs and of the 
 people. 
 
 * The use of Elohim only in speaking of God as the Creator is quite natural, while 
 Jehovah-Elohira describes His special relations to man. 
 
( 17 ) 
 
 III.— LANGUAGE, LAWS, AND 
 ORDINANCES. 
 
 It is alleged that there is no important difference between 
 the language of the Pentateuch and of books written shortly 
 before the return of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon. 
 "But if," says Gesenius, ''there was an interval of nearly looo 
 years between these writings, as there must have been, on the 
 supposition that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, a 
 phenomenon would be presented to which nothing in the 
 whole history of language is parallel, viz., that the living 
 language of a people and the circle of their ideas should 
 remain unaltered for so long a time." In answer to this (ist), 
 Havernick, Keil, Macdonald, and others have collected a 
 number of peculiar words, phrases, and forms which never 
 occur elsewhere, and which separate the Mosaic from the post- 
 Mosaic age, and Dr. Samuel Davidson acknowledges these 
 archseisms, but ascribes them to the poetic character of the 
 books. This is begging the question, even if they had that 
 poetic character, but the large portion is plain historic state- 
 ment. (2ndly), Professor Moses Stuart has shown that, 
 acknowledging that there is a close resemblance in language, 
 though with these differences, this is accounted for — even on 
 the theory of the supposed difference of time between the 
 writing of the Pentateuch, as the work of Moses, and the 
 writings of the prophetic age. The slower or more rapid 
 changes of language are re'gulated by the special position and 
 circumstances of nations. In some countries the changes 
 have been almost imperceptible for ages, in others they are 
 visible in decades. He gives examples of the slow progress 
 of change in the Pechito, the old Syriac -version of the New 
 Testament made during the second century, which is altogether 
 of the same linguistic tenor as the Syriac Chronicon of Bar 
 Hebraeus, written about one thousand years later ; also in the 
 Arabic of the Coran and of the Arabic writers just before and 
 after the time of Mohammed, differing but slightly from that 
 of the Arabic writers from the tenth down to the eighteenth 
 century ; and again the statement of the well-known Dr. 
 Marshman, translator of Confucius, as to Confucius and 
 certain of his commentators, who, though writing at an interval 
 of 1500 years from each other, use exactly the same type of 
 language. In the case of the Jews, separated so much in 
 their early period from other nations by their laws and customs, 
 we would expect naturally but little change. But, further, 
 
( i8 ) 
 
 the written language was accounted sacred, and would, there- 
 fore, be liable to much less change than the spoken language. 
 It was probably, to some extent, distinct. The argument from 
 language, which was only an after-thought when the Mosaic 
 authorship had been discarded on other grounds, is therefore 
 really of no weight. There are archseisms clearly proved, and 
 acknowledged by opponents, and, if the divergence is not 
 great, this is just what the circumstances and position of Israel 
 at the time would have led us to expect. 
 
 I propose next to consider the alleged contradiction 
 between Deuteronomy and the other books in laws and 
 ordinances. 
 
 It would be impossible, in brief articles of this kind, to go 
 into very minute investigations. I can only attempt to indi- 
 cate the leading points in which there is an alleged contradic- 
 tion between the teaching of Deuteronomy and that of the 
 other books, and also between it and the practice, as recorded 
 in the history. 
 
 Let us look to several of the chief difficulties that have 
 been raised. And first to the law of the kingdom. In Deu- 
 teronomy xvii. directions are given, professedly by Moses, as 
 to the appointment of a king — that he was not to be a stranger 
 — and as to the conduct he was to pursue. Now it is said 
 that the act of appointing a king was represented in Samuel 
 as a sinful one, and that God therefore could not arrange for 
 such an appointment. This is really a misrepresentation. 
 God was grieved with the children of Israel because they 
 asked for a king when He had raised up Samuel to be their 
 judge and protector. He Himself had in the past selected 
 men for every emergency, and had thus saved them from their 
 enemies. Their desire for a king arose at the time from want 
 of faith in God, as shown in the impatient manner of its 
 expression. This want of faith, and not the mere desire of a 
 king, was the sin. God could not have countenanced an act 
 in itself necessarily sinful, and yet He chose Saul to be king 
 and commanded Samuel to anoint him as such, as afterwards 
 He also chose David and sent the same prophet to anoint 
 him. In the history which records these anointings by the 
 command of God, there is precisely the same difficulty as in 
 Deuteronomy. If God would not before arrange for a sinful 
 act neither would He countenance it afterwards. But it is 
 evident that the establishment of the kingdom itself was not 
 the sinful act. The objection of Ewald and others who consider 
 that there is no Divine guidance in the writing of these books 
 is valid. Their argument, perfectly fair and conclusive from 
 their point of view, is that, as no kingdom existed, nor was 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 thought of till long after the Mosaic period, it would never 
 have entered into the minds of Moses or his contemporaries to 
 make regulations for it, and that such regulations could only 
 have been given after the kingdom was established, therefore 
 that Deuteronomy was written in the time of the kingdom. 
 But if the book, whenever written, was inspired, it was not 
 only possible, but most likely, that God should give command- 
 ments beforehand to prepare the way for that which He saw 
 was to arise. Here, as everywhere, it will be found that the 
 arguments for the later date have real force, only as proceeding 
 from those who deny inspiration and every supernatural 
 element in the Jewish history. 
 
 Another leading point is the law given in DeuteroAomy xii. 
 as to a central place of sacrifice. It is said that this law was 
 evidently given for a purpose at a later date, when it was 
 desired to bring up the whole nation to worship at the temple 
 of Jerusalem. When we consider the whole spirit of the 
 Mosaic legislation, this statement appears even trivial. We 
 know that the tabernacle was erected in the wilderness. We 
 know that in the very portion of the law acknowledged by the 
 critics to be Mosaic, it is commanded (Exodus xxiii., 17), 
 " Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the 
 Lord God," and directions are given as to the sacrifices. This 
 of course pointed to one place, though it might be a different 
 place at different times. We know again, if we can know any- 
 thing, for Joshua has been regarded as composed of two or 
 more documents, edited at a later date like the four first books 
 of the Pentateuch, that the tabernacle was set up at Shiloh, as 
 soon as th«re was peace secured in Canaan, and that thither 
 the_ people were accustomed for a long period to go up to offer 
 their sacrifices. The tribes went up to one place, and the 
 feasts were observed at the tabernacle. Now Deuteronomy, 
 though it may prophetically indicate a fixed place, as we 
 believe it does, does not associate the command with such. 
 The essence of its directions was that they were to go up and 
 offer sacrifices at the one place ordained of God, at the time in 
 which they lived. The law was fulfilled in the offerings at 
 Shiloh in those earlier periods, for the Lord had chosen then 
 that the tabernacle should be set up there. Until the nation 
 became thoroughly settled it was impossible to have an im- 
 movable place. It was when his kingdom was firmly esta- 
 blished, and its enemies conquered, that David thought of 
 building a temple. But it is remarkable that the twelfth 
 chapter of Deuteronomy does not name either a tribe or a 
 place, as it would surely have done, if written for the purpose 
 suggested. That Deuteronomic law was fulfilled in all its 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 completeness as much when the tabernacle was in Shiloh as 
 when the temple was in Jerusalem. The one point is clear, 
 that the idea was fixed from the building of the tabernacle in 
 the wilderness to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, that 
 there was to be one great central place — not, however, neces- 
 sarily fixed — where sacrifices were to be offered, and to which 
 the people were to go up at the feasts. 
 
 It is said that the law of a central place was not observed 
 even by devoted Israelites, as by Samuel and Elijah, and that 
 sacrifices were offered up by them elsewhere. To this it may 
 be answered that the periods in which they lived were special. 
 In the age of Samuel — during his whole career — the ark, 
 which was the very centre of the holy of holies, the bond 
 of the covenant, was not in the tabernacle at all. The 
 country was in a state of great turmoil and confusion, the 
 Philistines having become almost masters, and no secure 
 central position could be found. In the age of Elijah there 
 was an utter severance between the two kingdoms, and it was 
 not within the range of political possibility for the ten tribes, 
 after the long separation, to go up to Jerusalem. In both 
 these ages other altars must have been erected than a central 
 one, if God was to be worshipped at all. Besides, though 
 Deuteronomy says, " Take heed to thyself that thou offer not 
 thy burnt-offerings in any place that thou seest, but in the 
 place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy tribes," it is, 
 I believe, straining the command to say that no other altars 
 were to be erected by God's appointed servants at any period. 
 The spirit of the command was that men were not at their own 
 instance to erect altars where they chose, thus to run the risk of 
 destroying their national unity and the order of the worship 
 ordained by God, but were to go up to one central place ; but 
 that spirit was not, we conceive, violated, when inspired men, 
 as Samuel and Elijah, and others, not as private citizens^ but 
 as possessed of a special authority, erected altars for special 
 purposes. The regulation was given to the people for ordinary 
 life, and not to overrule special interferences by inspired men 
 for special purposes. If we consider this it removes the whole 
 difficulty on which such a huge mountain has been built. The 
 twelfth of Deuteronomy is quite in accordance not only with 
 the spirit of Exodus xxiii., but with the general facts of the 
 history in after ages. The Jewish religion would have been 
 shattered to pieces if private individuals, as such, might have 
 erected altars and offered sacrifices wherever they chose. 
 
 Nothing can be more feeble than to represent, as is done, 
 that a complete code of laws, such as that given in the Penta- 
 teuch, could not be written, adapted to different periods, but 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 that the laws must have arisen, according to the national 
 development. This has been well dealt with by Principal 
 Douglas, who has shown that it is the great principles or heads 
 of law with which we have here to deal, not with all the 
 modifications required by change of circumstances. Besides, 
 an objection which would apply to a barely or strictly human 
 code does not apply to one acknowledged to be inspired of 
 God. As in the laws of the kingdom, so elsewhere, God fore- 
 saw the future of the nation, and provided for it in the most 
 striking manner. And as a question of history, we know that 
 the law of the Jews underwent marvellously little change. 
 The Mosaic code was applied — though, of course, falsely 
 applied — almost literally, in the persecution of Christ Himself 
 and of His followers in the Apostolic age. It is one of the 
 evidences of the inspiration of the books of the Pentateuch 
 that they take such a comprehensive grasp of the possible 
 future circumstances, and arrange so clearly for almost all 
 eventualities. Some great lawgivers have attempted this, but 
 with comparative failure. Still, in all just codes of law there 
 are certain great regulative principles which are the same for 
 all times and nations. See the effect of Roman law in our 
 own code to this day. But here there was much more than 
 this. There was, if the books were inspired, a higher direction 
 of Him who judged not merely of the present, but had before 
 Him a clear view of the events and requirements of remote 
 ages. 
 
 Many of the minute points I must pass over hastily in this 
 brief article. I can scarcely do more than enumerate them 
 with the replies which have been given. One is that the dis- 
 tinction of priests and Levites is much less marked in Deuter- 
 onomy than elsewhere. To this it is replied that in so far as 
 there is any foundation for the statement, and there is not 
 nearly so much as indicated, the distinction would naturally 
 not be so marked in a book, not recording the laws with the 
 same minuteness, but recapitulating what had been already 
 given and understood. The Levites were very closely asso- 
 ciated with the priests, all through the history of Israel, — to 
 the time of the latest prophets. If Deuteronomy was written 
 as professed, in connection with the other books, which gave 
 all particulars as to the priesthood, it was sufficient for it to 
 refer simply to the distinction. It is represented that there 
 are two inconsistent laws of tithing — one in Numbers and one 
 in Deuteronomy. These were clearly distinct tithes. That 
 in Numbers was the equivalent for the Levites having no share 
 in the land. That referred to in Deuteronomy was '' an 
 offering to God for joyful services at His house." It is absurd 
 
( " ) 
 
 to imagine that the Levites who were, from beginning to end, 
 so much revered by the Jewish people were, at any period, 
 left in the position of mendicants, though they may have often 
 suffered from the want of faithfulness of the people in payment 
 of the tithes. The cities of the priests and Levites were set 
 apart by Joshua, and the difficulties raised in regard to them 
 disappear when we suppose that the Levites had residences in 
 those cities, but were not the sole occupants. 
 
 I shall not go further into these details with which Principal 
 Douglas has dealt so thoroughly. I would only notice that 
 the difficulties raised by them arise from a narrow and carping 
 method — from attempting to force expressions to bear mean- 
 ings which are not necessarily implied in them, and from a 
 want of true philosophy and broad common sense in interpret- 
 ing historical documents. One feels indeed that the most of 
 them would never have occurred at all as difficulties but for 
 the exceeding desire of the critics, who adopt them, to main- 
 tain foregone conclusions. This theory of the several docu- 
 ments, which is as genuine a castle-in-the-air as ever was built, 
 but which is essential to those who, a J>rwn\ deny the super- 
 natural must be maintained at all hazards, and, unconsciously, 
 the minds of the critics pledged to it become accustomed to 
 pick holes and see little discrepancies, where none exist in 
 reality. They thus end in convincing themselves that their 
 positions are impregnable, and that their castle is a real one. 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 IV.— CONCLUSION. 
 
 We have to guard against misunderstanding in this discus- 
 sion. There is much said about criticism, and it is constantly 
 represented by the advocates of the new theories that their 
 opponents are afraid of criticism. They represent themselves 
 as the advocates of intelligent criticism,' and all others as timid 
 alarmists. This is an entire misrepresentation of the case. 
 Historic, linguistic, or literary criticism we welcome. Criticism 
 has dene much to clear away difficulties and to throw new 
 light on the Scriptures. That which is objected to is not 
 intelligent criticism. It is rather the attempt to supersede 
 such criticism by proceeding, instead of with patient research, 
 on certain a J^riori methods, to sweeping conclusions. This is 
 a return from the Baconian method to the method of the 
 schoolmen. Certain principles are taken for granted, and by 
 these all the Scripture documents are measured, and their 
 authorship and dates regulated. 
 
 For it is evident that the theories of the different docu- 
 ments in the authorship of the Pentateuch proceed from that 
 school in Germany which rejects a priori the supernatural on 
 the ground either of pantheism, or, broadly, naturalism. I do 
 not deny that some few honestly hold them who have no 
 sympathy with the philosophies on which such ^ /r/^r/ judg- 
 ments are founded. It cannot, however, be contravened that 
 the originators and defenders of these theories in Germany 
 have been to a large extent Hegelians, or, if not so, naturalists 
 — using this term broadly, in opposition to supernaturalists. 
 This fact is of the utmost importance when we consider the close 
 connection between these theories and the a priori principles 
 with which they are associated. 
 
 It stands to reason that the whole current of criticism must 
 be changed when we deny the possibility of the miraculous, or 
 even attempt to reduce the number and extent of miracles to 
 the smallest possible compass. If there were no such marvels 
 accomplished by the mighty power of God, as those related, 
 then it is settled at o?ice that these books were not written by 
 Moses or by one who witnessed the events, but were founded 
 on the mythical traditions of a later age. In such a case an 
 honest critic must exercise his ingenuity to explain how they 
 originated, and though his theory be but tentative and unsatis- 
 factory, it is so far a help towards historic accuracy. It was 
 the great merit of Niebuhr that he threw much light on Roman 
 history by the application of the principles of a genuine 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 criticism to the legendary tales of the early period. We may 
 note, however, in passing, that, with his keen critical insight, 
 Niebuhr recognised that the marvellous events of the Old 
 Testament and the New were altogether different from the 
 reported wonders of other ages and nations, and denied that 
 his critical principles could be applied to them. Such differ- 
 ence appears on the surface. They are not grandiloquent 
 representations fitted to excite national vanity, as legendary 
 tales generally are, but calm, clear, forcible, unimpassioned, 
 intelligent, representations of wonderful events which are 
 recorded as frequently, in the Old Testament, to the dishonour 
 of the Jewish nation as to its honour, in cases in which great 
 sins brought severe judgments — of events, however, all 
 illustrative of the guiding care of God — of His holiness. His 
 justice, and His truth, as well as of His power and majesty.* 
 
 If there be no miracles, as a Hegelian or naturalist neces- 
 sarily holds, then of course the Pentateuch must have originated 
 at a later period of Jewish history, when the halo of age had 
 cast its misty grandeur over the commonplace events of an 
 earlier period. These theories of the critics, which we stated 
 at some length in our second article, clearly show, in their very 
 structure, their close relation to the philosophies of those who 
 deny on a prion grounds the possibility of miracles. Let 
 any one examine them, and he will see how they are almost 
 inseparably bound up with such philosophies. The chief 
 means by which the periods assigned to the four different 
 original contributors to the Pentateuch are fixed are the pro- 
 fessed prophecies, which are treated as mere statements of 
 
 * Professor Lindsay, in an article in the Contemporary Review, states the position 
 misleadingly, though, I doubt not, honestly according to his oAvn conviction. There has 
 been, it is true, great progress in recent times in historic criticism, but that progress 
 has consisted as much in discerning genuine historical writings from spurious ones as in 
 discoYering the origin and meaning of legends. Historic criticism has strengtheaed 
 and not weakened tlie authority of such trustworthy writers as Thucydides and Tacitus. 
 It never attempts to confound truthful historians such as these with the writers of 
 mere legendary tales. The views of Deuteronomy and other historic books of Scripture 
 to which I have referred, and which were condemned by Niebuhr, proceeded from 
 literary narrowness and not from literary breadth. There lies at the basis the confusion 
 of classes of literature which are essentially distinct. A parable, or symbolic book or 
 work of fiction, is not false, because it professes to embody truths in invented narratives 
 so as to impress them. Hut a book that has the distinct form of history and relates as 
 facts what are not facts is false and unworthy. This is a universally recognised law of 
 criticis'U, without any exceptions. Therefore is Livy condemned sw severely. On the 
 same principle Deuteronomy and other historic books, written in the plain historic 
 form, must, //-o?/* the literary 2>oint of view, be condemned as dishonest, if not true 
 history, and cannot of course, if so condemned, be in.>-pired. Let us note also that the 
 standard ot judgment applied in ordinary historic criticism, viz., the rejection as 
 legendary of all that is beyond human power to accomplish, cannot by possibility be 
 applied to Scriptural historic documents, unless we declare beforehand miracles to be 
 Impossible and unreal. As to jjrophecy, though it has other aspects as well as the 
 predictive, let us remember that on prophecy as predictive Curist and His Apostles 
 dwelt constantly, in proof of His being the true Messiah. The hopes of God's servants 
 in every age have rested largely on the clear predictions of Holy Scripture. Again, it 
 is utterly iiopeless to expect that, if the historic basis on which Christianity rests be 
 shaken, the dogmata or doctrines can long be retained. They are indissolubly bound 
 up with great lacts of hiitory through which they were both established and revealed. 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 historic facts in a prophetic form, because prophecy is quietly 
 set aside. The main outlines of this anti-Mosaic plan are 
 laid by those who consider that all the facts stated are to be 
 explained on purely natural grounds. What may be excellent 
 criticism on such principles may be of no value whatever, 
 when the supernatural character of the events is acknowledged. 
 The two systems cannot be interwoven, and must, in the 
 nature of things, lead to results of an opposite character. The 
 attempt to interweave them must always lead to inextricable 
 confusion. 
 
 And now let us consider what suppositions these theories 
 of the later and multifarious origin of the Pentateuch require. 
 Their advocates reject the universal historic testimony of the 
 Jews. What then do they substitute for it, and what do they 
 require us to believe ? These various documents out of 
 which the Pentateuch has been constructed, are believed by 
 all who support the post-Mosaic theories, except Delitzsch, 
 who is essentially on the other side, to belong to a much later 
 period of Jewish history — from the later time of the Judges to 
 near the end of the kingdom. The dates at which the different 
 documents are supposed to have been committed to writing 
 are fixed for the most part by the prophecies which are found 
 in each of them respectively. Thus we are to suppose that 
 the writers of these documents put prophecies into the mouths 
 of persons of an earlier age — for what purpose ? Is it possible 
 to say for any other purpose than the purpose of deception ? 
 Let our critics tell us on what principle the honest and 
 honourable writers of any age, instead of plainly stating 
 facts, should put into the mouths of alleged pro- 
 phets statements professedly as to the future, which 
 were descriptions of events already past. The Jehovist, 
 for instance, is supposed to have inserted the prophecy of 
 Genesis xxv., 23, where Rebekah is told by God that two 
 nations are in her womb, and that the elder shall serve the 
 younger, to indicate the conquest of Edom by David, which 
 had taken place when the pretended prophecy was written. 
 This prophecy, in fact, helps to fix the date of his contribution. 
 The beautiful and sublime prophecies of Balaam, especially in 
 Numbers xxiv., 15, to the end, are supposed to be written by 
 the same contributor for the same purpose, namely, to 
 celebrate triumphs which were already matters of history. To 
 me, it appears that, judging from the moral and literary point 
 of view, nothing could be more base or dishonourable than to 
 describe past events in the words of professed prophecy. It 
 is quite plain that there is intended deception, if the theory be 
 correct, for these prophecies appear not as parts of a poem, 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 but are related with minute accompanying details, as words 
 actually uttered at the periods ascribed to them, by historic 
 persons. Even the heathen would have condemned such 
 procedure as base. Any Greek or Roman writer who would 
 have inserted in a professed history, describing minutely the 
 historic accompaniments and dealing with historic characters, 
 such alleged prophecies or oracles would have been con- 
 demned as dishonourable. Yet, on these theories, we must 
 suppose that all this was devised by Jewish writers who 
 professed on the surface an unswerving loyalty to truth, who 
 represented God as holy, and just, and true, as hating false- 
 hood in all its forms ; that they actually, wilfully, and delibe- 
 rately wrote down fraudulent statements ; and, more 
 marvellous still, it is represented by some that they were 
 inspired so to do. Could the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of all 
 truth, encourage such methods and devices ? I do not like 
 to use the language which such a fearful supposition 
 suggests. 
 
 And it is not merely these alleged pretended prophecies 
 of which the Pentateuch is full — but the whole history itself, 
 on the supposition of the critics, is commingled with falsehood. 
 The tales of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of Joseph and his 
 brethren, with which are bound up the most solemn promises 
 of God, are legends, after all ; the tale of Moses himself, and 
 of the wonders wrought in Egypt and the deliverance there- 
 from, is but very partially true, though written, not in the form 
 of fiction, but of history. The laws published in the name 
 and by authority of Moses were, many of them, not laws of 
 Moses, but of a later age, introduced under his name. That 
 new laws might appear at a later date, it is quite possible to 
 imagine, but why should they have falsely been ascribed to 
 Moses? Why should his name have been used by those who 
 had authority from God of themselves ? 
 
 Again, let us notice specially how the main idea of the 
 division of the two chief documents^ — the Elohistic and 
 Jehovistic, implies designed falsehood. The Jehovistic docu- 
 ment is devised partly in order to prove the early institu- 
 tion of sacrifice, and division of animals into clean and 
 unclean. Thus this writer is represented as, with pious fraud, 
 ascribing to Abel, to Noah, to Abraham, and many others, 
 acts which they never performed, or colouring these acts to 
 suit his purpose. And what purpose? — viz., to represent that 
 the Jewish institutions were much more ancient than they were, 
 to give them the supposed sanction of antiquity ? Could any- 
 thing be more unworthy of an honourable, not to say inspired, 
 writer, or more trivial? 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 As to Deuteronomy, it is plainly on the face of it written 
 as a book of history, if ever book was so written. It describes 
 with all the particularity of a professed eye-witness the scenes 
 through which Moses had passed, and not only of a pro- 
 fessed eye-witness, but of the chief actor. It recalls the Various 
 journeymgs and events with minute particularity. It gives the 
 geographical details. It appeals to the people addressed as 
 witnesses of all it records. It reminds with great solemnity of the 
 most wondrous scenes of Koreb,the Mount of God, as witnessed 
 by many of those who now heard. It goes over the enactments of 
 the past in a large spirit, showing the benevolence of their inten- 
 tion, and referring to them constantly as given from God through 
 the speaker. It tells the very place and month and day that 
 Moses began to speak the words. The opening words of the 
 book show that it was designed to be understood as absolutely 
 historical. There is no possible room left, honestly, for sup- 
 posed fiction. Yet we are told that the book was not the 
 book of Moses, and by those who consider it inspired, and yet 
 hold the anti-Mosaic theory, that the Holy Ghost inspired the 
 writer to say and pretend throughout that he was Moses when 
 he was not Moses. Could credulity or daring supposition go 
 further than this ? Surely if the writer acted dishonourably 
 and untruthfully in representing as history, with all details to 
 stamp it as such, what was not history, he could not be 
 inspired. The Holy Spirit cannot possibly give His sanction 
 to imposition.* 
 
 A priori imaginative criticism asserts that these books 
 were not of Moses. Genuine historic criticism asserts most 
 conclusively that Moses was the author. We accept general 
 testimony to authorship in all writings, unless there^ is strong 
 proof to the contrary. On what principle do we impute to 
 classic writers or to the writers of our own countrv the books 
 which pass under their names. Is it not to general testimony 
 which is accepted, unless that testimony be clearly contra- 
 dicted ? There is not a book in the world that might not be 
 called in question if the same methods were applied as have 
 been applied to the Pentateuch. There is nothing to con- 
 tradict the historic account of its origin. It presents to the 
 literary critic strong evidences of its verity, and nothing 
 certainly against it. There is nothing in the language to 
 
 * In a valuable pamphlet -^vhich. has been brought under mv attention by a 
 revered friend since I began to write these articles— "The Authorship and Date of 
 the Books of Moses," by theEev. William Paul, D.D. (Aberdeen, Lewis Smith), there is 
 a list of parallelisms between Deuteronomy and the Books of Judges, Ruth. 1st Samuel 
 Kings, and Chronicles, which show conclusively that this book was knowii well when 
 these others were written. If, therefore, its.date is to be changed many hundreds of 
 years— that of all these books must be changed with it. The whole early history of the 
 Jews, in fact, must then be fictitiou tand imaginary. 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 connect it with a later age, but rather evidences of its 
 antiquity, as we have seen.* The supposed inconsistency with 
 one or another of certain laws and ordinances has been shown 
 by Hengstenberg, Havernick, and many German writers, and 
 by writers in this country, last of all Principal Douglas, to be 
 imaginary, proceeding from narrow-minded conceptions of 
 historic statements. The universal Jewish testimony remains 
 unshaken. And could testimony be stronger ? It is impossible 
 to suppose that authorship should have been dealt with as an 
 unimportant matter, when the alleged author was the man 
 most revered in Jewish history. There is not a shadow of a 
 proof iox the oft-repeated statement that the Jews were careless 
 in, such matters. It is a theory invented to suit a purpose. 
 The Scripture books themselves bear evidence to the contrary. 
 We would expect much greater particularity among the Jews 
 than other nations, because of the strict regard in which they 
 were taught to hold truth. The books themselves, in their 
 whole method and sayings, bear evidence of deep regard for 
 truth and honesty. The fact also that they contain so much 
 unfavourable to the Jews as a nation is a strong evidence that 
 they were not tampered with, for, if they had been tampered 
 with, these unfavourable reflections would naturally have dis- 
 appeared. All evidence shows that for their alleged inspired 
 writings the Jews had from the beginning the most profound 
 reverence. This appears everywhere in the writings themselves. 
 How constantly is the law of Moses, meaning the Pentateuch, 
 referred to as of ancient and Divine authority, in the other 
 Scriptures. Josephus also describes the intense reverence in 
 which these books in all their minutiae were held, not only 
 in his own day, but in all times. The historic testimony to 
 the books, instead of being weaker, is therefore on all grounds 
 much stronger than that given to any other class of books in 
 the world ; and yet we accept many writings of all countries 
 and ages as authentic, on far less weighty testimony. We 
 accept general testimony as a true exponent in such matters, 
 but here such testimony is much strengthened by other con- 
 siderations. 
 
 I would notice in conclusion that the attacks on the 
 authorship of the Pentateuch do not stand alone. The whole 
 of the Old Testament and also the New Testament have been 
 subjected to a similar mode of criticism. On the most meagre 
 pretences alleged authorship in both is rejected. The Psalms, 
 for instance, are said to be, scarcely any of them, the Psalms 
 of David. As an example of the method of judgment, let us 
 look to the 51st. If any Psalm, in its whole spirit, bears 
 
 * This subject is also well illustrated in Dr. Paul's pamphlet. 
 
( ^9 ) 
 
 evidence to the truth of the description of its origin it is this. 
 Yet it is rejected, and imputed to the Babylonian period, and 
 why? Because it says in the i8th verse, "Do good in thy 
 good pleasure unto Zion ; build thou the walls of Jerusalem." 
 This was a most natural wish for David to express soon after 
 he had taken Jerusalem. The walls were probably not com- 
 pleted. He was engaged in building new palaces, and pre- 
 paring for the temple, and making the city a stronghold. But 
 the critics who lose sight of the spirit in the merest surface 
 assert superciliously the Psalm to have been written when 
 Jerusalem was desolate, because the building of the walls is 
 mentioned. This is a specimen of the method of criticism 
 which is most trivial, and which no man of literary power and 
 judgment could bear, with even complacency, if applied in 
 general literature. There is a vast difference between mere 
 scholarship of the minuter species and that literary judgment 
 and breadth of view without which genuine higher criticism is 
 impossible."^ 
 
 This is but part of a great question. Almost all books of 
 Scripture are assailed in the same manner. The Jewish history 
 is thought to have been written with imperfect information, 
 long after the events — for a purpose. The latter part of 
 Isaiah, though the sublimest portion of the prophecy, belong- 
 ing evidently to the golden age, and in thorough harmony 
 with the earlier part, is ascribed to the Great Unknown of 
 Babylonish period, because its prophecies of Babylon are so 
 distinct. Daniel is cast aside without compunction, because 
 it so distinctly prophesies concerning the Macedonian empire 
 and the four kingdoms to issue from it. The whole critical 
 evidence as regards Daniel is, as I have shown elsewhere,!. on 
 the other side. And in the same manner — and just as 
 decidedly, and indeed more decidedly — the New Testament 
 has been cut to pieces by the critics of the naturalistic school. 
 The book of Acts has been especially obnoxious to the 
 a priori critics, and its life-like narratives, so full of power and 
 reality, have been ascribed to some dry student of the second 
 
 * When I resided in Germany, Lord Palmerston -was especially obnoxious to the 
 German couits and people — a fact much referred to in the recently-published Memorials 
 of the Prince Consort. A ridiculous story appeared in the papers which looked only 
 like a second-rate joke. It was to the elTect thHt his Lordship had actually had his 
 name put on knives intended for purposes of assassination. The name was really 
 Palmer & Son. To my astonishment some of the learned critics, profound in lan.£?iiages, 
 took it up seriously, and saw no impossibility in it. Their views of English politics at 
 that time were of the strangest kind, and I felt that if their judgment on contemporary 
 events were so strange, it was not wonderful if it should be more strange on the distant 
 past. A friend of mine tells a story of some minute critics in this country whom he 
 found busy observing the striking manner in which a Jersey man was translating 
 Jersey French into English. They were much interested in the process which they 
 never doubted was taking place, when my friend informed them that the speaker was a 
 genuine Eughshman or Scotchman, ignorant of Jersey French. 
 
 t In a note in " The Battle of Unbtdief." 
 
( 30 ) 
 
 century, desirous for no ascertained reason, to reconcile the 
 alleged oppositions of the Pauline and Petrine theologies. 
 The historic testimony of the first century is of course treated, 
 in the usual method of this school, as of no value. These 
 theories of the Pentateuch are but part of a system by which 
 the authority of the whole Scripture is at present assailed. 
 
 If this method of criticism, which is not true criticism, 
 but an attempt to fit facts into the grooves of foregone con- 
 clusions, be triumphant, there will nothing be left. Chris- 
 tianity is a religion of the supernatural, as was Judaism. The 
 special interferences and government of a personal God 
 constitute the very web and woof of both ancient Judaism 
 and Christianity. A criticism which attempts to eliminate 
 these must lead to entire overturn. It has destroyed the 
 authority of the Bible in Germany. It has ruined the 
 Churches there whose services are not regularly attended by 
 probably above three per cent, of the people — the bulk 
 of them now falling gradually back into a heathenish mate- 
 rialism ; it has sapped the foundations of Christianity, and is 
 now undermining social order. This destructive criticism, 
 which I have shown to be, beyond all doubt, at the root of 
 these theories of the Pentateuch, which, in the very statement 
 of them in my second article, is seen to be their mainstay, 
 will produce the same results wherever it is adopted. It must 
 undermine faith, for it leads to mistrust of all Scriptural 
 authority and evidence. Such criticism is not either scientific 
 criticism nor higher criticism. It refuses to take cognisance 
 of clear historic evidence, and starts with sweeping principles 
 opposed to the very essence of the Christian faith. Let us 
 discuss it in its philosophy, but let us not accept its con- 
 clusions as to portions of Scripture, without understanding its 
 basis and its aim. The views which it gives of the authority 
 of our Lord are also most perilous. He was the Prophet of 
 Prophets, filled without measure with the Holy Ghost, and 
 to represent Him as making mistakes or speaking in the 
 language of popular error, when He attributed so clearly and 
 definitely, in many parts, to Moses these books, which were 
 bound together in the Jewish mind as the books of Moses, is 
 strangely to misrepresent His Divine power and majesty. He 
 rejected the traditions of men, but to the Scriptures He paid 
 always the greatest regard, and He bore witness in the most 
 striking manner to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch.* 
 In what position are we likely soon to place Christ Himself 
 
 * Christ never yielded to popular delusions. lie condemned even venerable tradi- 
 tions when used as a means of imposing ordinances on the people, and thus roused the 
 bitter hatred of the Scribes and Pharisees. 
 
( 31 ) 
 
 if we treat His testimony so lightly ? « .Moses " in connection 
 with his writings had, in the sayings of Christ, but one 
 meaning— VIZ., the books that passed universally under his 
 name as their author which our Lord ascribed to him. Shall 
 we then disregard that authority while we acknowledge Him 
 as the Messiah of the world and the eternal Son of God ? 
 I know well the arguments used on this subject ; but to me 
 they appear the merest fallacies, and I am certain that they 
 would have so appeared to apostles and prophets, and the 
 hving Church of every age. 
 
 RANKEN AND CO, PRINTERS, DRURY HOUSE, ST. MARY-LE STRAND, 
 
THE 
 
 "BATTLE OF UNBELIEF/ 
 
 LONDON: HODDER AND STOUGHTON. 
 
 The Very Rev. J. McCosh, D.D., IiL.D., 
 
 President of Princeton College, United States. 
 " It is written calmlv and judiciously, and is fitted to persuade as well as convince. 
 It should be placed in the hands of young men who are liable to be carried away by the 
 scepticism of the times." 
 
 The Rev. W. Goold, D.D., 
 
 Formerly Professor in the Reformed Presbyterian Church. 
 " Most useful, most judicious, most seasonable. There are some thoughts especially 
 valuable, as, for instance, that the battle of unbelief in our day turns mainly on 
 general principles. " 
 
 The Rev. W. "Wilson, D.D., 
 
 General Secretary of the Sustentation Fund of the Free Church of Scotland. 
 " I have read the ' Battle of Unbelief by Mr. Carlyle with much satisfaction. It is 
 evidently the work of a capable man, intelligently versant in the speculations and 
 theories by which so many are seeking to undermine ' the faith once delivered to the 
 saints.' The book is in small compass, and does not enlarge very copiously on any one 
 topic ; but in the author's brief handling he makes it abundantly evident that he is 
 able to cope with the adversaries of the faith, both physical and metaphysical." 
 
 The Rev. A. Moody Stuart, D.D., 
 
 Late Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland. 
 " I read it with unfeigned pleasure and delight. The whole is remarkably well 
 stated and reasoned, and fitted to be of great service in the present tmie that is so 
 trying for the faith of many." 
 
 The " British Quarterly." 
 
 " His method is critical, and the value of his chapters consist in the intelligent and 
 •searching criticisms which he applies to positions antagonistic to Christianity. We 
 have read the book wirh interest, and have generally found ourselves in accord with its 
 positions and criticisms." 
 
 " Literary World." 
 
 " In language of singular clearness and force, with arguments well chosen and 
 convincing, and with a deep and earnest conviction of truth, briefly and to the point, 
 the questions are discussed." 
 
 Edinburgh " Daily Review." 
 
 " This is a most seasonable work, by one fully competent for the task he has chosen. 
 The author possesses not only great fullness and accuracy of information on the subjects 
 that he handles, but great insight into the motive of the evidence that is most vital in 
 its importanfe. His style is clear and vigorous, and the spirit in which he writes is 
 admirable." 
 
 "Record." 
 
 " The gifted author of this little volume is known to a wide circle of intelligent and 
 pious readers His largo acquaintance with German philosophy as the ibuntain of all 
 recent attacks on the Bible and Christianity, render him eminently fitted to encounter 
 the enemy at the gate." 
 
 "Weekly Review." 
 "This is the very book demanded by the present state of the conflict between 
 Christianity and Unbelief, and is fitted to be of excellent use to all who will avail them- 
 selves of its instruction and directions. Mr. Carlyle is endowed with the faculty of 
 seeing at once the essential point on wliich the controversy turns." 
 
PAMPHLET BINdIT 
 
 ■ Syracuse, N. Y. 
 • Stockton, Calif. 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
w 
 
 "JSf^A. . 
 
 BS1275.4.C28 
 
 Criticism, true and false : or, The 
 
 Princeton Theological Semlnary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00037 0439