lilllS

Jigher Critics Critia

^M^

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

THE

Higher Critics Criticised.

A Study of the Pentateuch
For Popular Reading,

BEING AN INQUIRY INTO THE AGE OF THE SO-CALLED BOOKS OF
MOSES, WITH AN INTRODUCTORY EXAMINATION OF
DR. KUENEN'S "RELIGION OF ISRAEL"
BY
RUFUS P. STEBBINS, D.D.

WITH PRELIMINARY CHAPTERS ON
THE HIGHER CRITICISM
AND AN APPENDIX CONCERNING
THE WONDERFUL LAW,
By H. L. HASTINGS
Editor of "IKE CHRISTIAN," Boston, U.S.A.

Scriptural Tract repository Marshall Bros., Agts.
london, 5a pathrnosthr row, k. c.
Alt Rights Reserved

H. L. Hastings
BOSTON, MASS , NO. 47 CORNHILL
Copyrighted jSgj

[Printed in America ]

:dki>5"

Higher Crittcs Criticised— 2M,—4-'95.
REPOSITORY PRESS, BOSTON, MASS.

THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

THE

HIGHER CRITICISM.

BY H. L. HASTINGS,

He who made man, made him intelligent, and gave him the
power to perceive, to compare, and to reason. Consequently all
men have, to a greater or less extent, the ability to examine and
decide concerning matters which affect their interests. This God-
given power of examination is the source and foundation of what
we call criticism.
The field of criticism is world-wide, and stretches through the
ages. Everything on earth is liable and subject to just criticism.
Of course there are matters which are not worth a, critical
thought ; and there are also other matters concerning which men
should offer criticism with care and respect. A prisoner at the bar
would not be expected to criticise the law under which he was
tried, or the judge by whom he was to be sentenced, with as much
freedom as a man at liberty would criticise some passing circum
stance, or some unsupported statement; for the fact that certain
principles had been embodied in legal enactments, would be evi
dence that they had already been to some extent examined and
discussed, and that they were not merely the casual utterances of
a single individual.
There is perhaps no more important field for criticism than that
which is afforded by the Sacred Books which have come to be
regarded in various quarters as of superhuman origin and divine
authority. These books, whether in India, China, or elsewhere,
whether written in Sanscrit, Chinese, Hebrew, Greek, or Arabic,
make such demands upon the faith and obedience of men, that it
is an obvious duty to scrutinize their claims, and refuse to admit
them unless they are solidly established. The critical examination
of such documents comprehends various departments. First, there

X THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
is tne careful study of the documents themselves, as translated into
the common speech of the common people. Second, there is the
critical study of the original records from which these translations
were made. Third, there is the investigation of the history, and the
record of the transmission of these documents, which involves the
tracing of them from age to age to demonstrate their authenticity
or spuriousness. Fourth, there is another form of criticism which
aims to determine from internal evidence, the origin, date, author
ship, and reliability of such documents as are submitted to its test.
All these forms and methods of criticism are legitimate ; all are
useful ; all have their advantages ; and all are liable to abuse and
misconception. Hence while the right of criticism is undoubted,
and the duty of criticism is imperative, yet it is important that we
carefully guard against the abuse of things which in themselves
are right, proper, and important.
It therefore appears that the field for criticism is very wide ; and
persons who have critical tastes have abundant opportunity for the
exercise of their abilities. There are man}' books which come to us
claiming great authority, and which are so vast in extent that schol
ars might spend their lives in their investigation. For instance they
might examine the Rig Veda, the foundation of Brahminism, con
taining ten hundred and twenty-eight hymns, averaging ten stanzas
each. They might extend their examination to the Code of Manu,
comprised in some twenty big law books, and dating back to b. c.
400 or 500. They might investigate the story of Ramayana, that
most sacred poem of 24,000 verses, of which it is said whoever
reads or hears it will be freed from all sin. They might examine
the Maha-bharata, a poem of 220,000 lines, or seven times as long
as the Iliad and Odyssey combined, a copy of it filling eight good
sized volumes. Or they might turn, for a change, to the Upani-
shads, " the kernel of the Vedas," a series of mystical Hindu books
" that no man can number ; " one hundred and fifty of which have
been catalogued, some of them comprising hundreds of pages. Or
they might study the Puranas, or Hindu traditional stories, which
date from a. d. 600 down, of which there are eighteen Maha or
principal Puranas, containing 1,600,000 lines, and other minor
Puranas, containing about as many more. There were, the Hindu
sages tell us, a billion of lines, but the rest were mercifully kept in
heaven for home consumption !
Having examined all these sacred books, which are held by their
votaries to be far superior to anything contained in the Hebrew
and Christian Scriptures, they might turn to the Chinese Cyclo
pedia of Ancient and Modern Literature with its 6,109 volumes,

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XI
including eighteen volumes of index ; and having spent six or eight
years learning the ten thousand different Chinese characters in com
mon use, and fifteen or twenty years in learning to read the language
fluently, they might, with the aid of the latest Imperial Dictionary,
containing 43,960 characters, go through these publications, and
subject them to the crucial tests of the Higher Criticism. When this
was done they might visit the British Museum and turn their
attention to the Jangyn, or Cyclopedia of Thibetian Buddhism, —
a delightful little work comprised in 225 volumes, each two feet
long, and six inches thick. These, — which are held to be fully equal,
if not superior to, the Hebrew Scriptures, by some of the skep
tics of the present day who know little of either, — would fur
nish a very inviting field for the exercise of the critical faculty.
And so long as the vast multitudes of China, India, and Thibet
accept and embrace these wonderful productions, receiving them
with unquestioning faith, it would certainly seem quite proper for
men of critical and philanthropic inclinations to investigate the
pretensions of these remarkable volumes, and inform the multi
tudes who accept them as to their authenticity, inerrancy, and
authority. When the precise character of all these sacred writings shall
have been ascertained and definitely determined, their dates being
assigned and their authorship established; when the writings of
Confucius and Zoroaster have been inspected ; when thu Zend-
a vesta, the Koran, and the book of Mormon have all passed the
crucial test of the Higher Criticism, it may then be well to direct at
tention to the lost literature of past ages; the acres of Egyptian
hieroglyphics inscribed upon the walls of hidden tombs and
ruined temples ; the cuneiform inscriptions of ancient Persia ; the
records of the Babylonians and the Hittites, from which the mists
of ages are slowly clearing ; and the vast mass of Assyrian litera
ture which has come to us from the ruins of Nineveh the buried
city. And when these records are thoroughly investigated, and
compared with the unwritten traditions of every heathen land'
beneath the sun, and their position thoroughly established by the
" consensus " of the critics of our times, we shall then be pre
pared for a comprehensive and comparative view of the religions
of the world, and the Sacred Books whence men derive their ideas
of supernatural revelation.
It is a remarkable fact that the Higher Critics of the present
day have hitherto failed to thoroughly explore these vast and
inviting fields, but have mainly devoted their attention to the
examination and discussion of sixty -six little, insignificant pamphlets,

Xll THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
the sacred literature of a small, isolated, scattered, anu perse
cuted nation, which in numbers is positively insignificant in
comparison to the vast multitudes which accept the voluminous
sacred books we have mentioned. And it is a somewhat remark
able fact that this mighty mass of Assyrian, Babylonian, Chinese,
Hindu, and Thibetian sacred literature escapes criticism, and some
times receives actual commendation, while the only documents
which are especially criticised, and whose errancy and mythical
and unhistorical character is pointed out with unsparing zeal, are
the records and laws of a nation which has had no political existence
for nearly two thousand years, which does not control or possess a
government, a city, a country, or even an island on the face of
the earth. Why this book, of all others, should be subjected to
such criticism as no other book has ever endured, and why this
must run the gauntlet and receive the blows of friends and foes,
while a vast mass of sacred oriental literature passes unnoticed
and unscathed, is a phenomenon which baffles the comprehension of
ordinary minds.
But we have to deal with existing facts ; and as the Higher
Critics of the present day do not trouble themselves to explore,
dissect, and subject to microscopic examination the sacred writings,
traditions, and theories of the hundreds of millions which compose
the vast majority of the human family; and as they do not trouble
themselves to point out the inconsistencies, discrepancies, and
errancies of those books, we are limited to a much narrower range
in the consideration of the performances of the Higher Critics
whose sphere of action is by their own choice thus circumscribed
and limited.
The fact that these critics have themselves learned all they know
of criticism and science, in schools, colleges, and universities which
exist only under the light and influence of this Book; and that
most of them depend for the leisure they enjoy, the libraries they
explore, the salaries they receive, and the bread that thej- eat,
upon foundations and institutions endowed by men who loved
and reverenced these very writings ; might itself inspire a de
gree of reverential deference for such venerable documents ; and
the fact that these same critics, if born in any land where these
writings are unknown, might have been exposed in the fields, flung
out into the city streets, or drowned in the nearest horse-pond
before they had time to criticise anything, would seem at least a
sufficient reason why they should undertake with candor and re
spectful consideration the examination of a Book, to the influence
of which they may owe their very existence, or without which they

THE niGHER CRITICISM. XU1
might to-day have been howling and whirling in some circle of
Dervishes, or sitting besmeared with cow dung on the banks of the
Ganges, and seeking purification and salvation amid the obscenities
and idolatries of heathen lands.
The work of criticising such writings is not to be rashly under
taken. It is an occupation for men who speak the words of truth
and soberness. These records are hoary with age. They have
survived the wreck of nations and empires. They have been and
still are regarded with reverence, not merely by ignorant and
degraded races, the worshipers of idols and the regarders of
fetishes, but by the most intelligent and intellectual peoples on the
face of the earth. The only nations which at the present time
stand in the forefront of the world in art, in science, and in litera
ture, are the nations which have read and cherished these books.
They have entered into the civilization, the literature, and the
jurisprudence of the civilized world ; and it is impossible now to find
a nation no.ed for art, invention, science, and progress, which has
not paid reverence to these books.
These books are also as a literary phenomenon worthy of special
consideration. Other nations have their sacred books, and keep
them. The writings of Mohammed, or Confucius; the teachings
of Buddha and Zoroaster ; the Vedas and other sacred writings of
the Hindoos, have never been translated by their own disciples into
the languages of the world. To translate them would be to
degrade them and destroy their efficacy. If we have the Koran of
Mohammed in our own toague it is because some Christian has
translated it. If we have the sacred books of India it is because
some man, trained under the light of the Scriptures, has taken the
trouble to present them in an English dress. If we have the
teachings of Confucius we must thank, not his disciples, but the
disciples of Jesus of Nazareth for bringing them to our notice.
But this book has been translated, printed, and disseminated, as no
other book has ever been. Hence a book so remarkable, so unique
in its character and position, while it is subject to the most search
ing criticism, is not to be regarded as a new or strange or untried
volume, but as one which has lived in the blaze of investigation
for two millenniums ; which has fought its way through the storms
and convulsions of ages and generations ; and has maintained its
position in the face of all attacks and oppositions, until after
having endured ten times as much assault, resistance, and criticism
as any other book that ever was made, we have to-day ten times as
many of them in existence as of any other book that ever was
printed.

X1T THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
These facts do not exempt the book from critical examination,
but they should ensure it a decently respectful treatment at the
hands of candid and impartial critics ; and they should serve as a
caution to persons who suppose that every question concerning
this book can be settled at short notice and with little difficulty.
For a book which has held its way and maintained its position for
so many centuries, is not likely to be disposed of by a sneer or
demolished by a pamphlet. The man who undertakes the work of
criticism in the spirit of rashness and self-confidence, may well
remember that he who girdeth on the harness is not to boast like
him that putteth it off; and the man who in a more reverent spirit
supposes that he has mastered this entire subject, may yet learn
that there are in it judgments which a>re unsearchable, and ways
which are past finding out.
There are signs of the existence of a mortal fear among some of
the younger students of theology, that in the rapid progress of
scientific criticism they may be left behind. They have heard
about Galileo and Copernicus, the decrees and anathemas of coun
cils, bulls against comets, and similar instances of " religious "
bigotry, until, — forgetting that these were simply instances of old
science disputing the claims of new science, a phenomenon which
occurs continually, — they have determined that nobody shall get
the start of them in the race of modern scientific investigation.
Hence, whatever assertions or demands a scientist or critic may
make, they hasten to accept his statements and obey his behests.
But this plan of unconditional surrender may be carried too far ;
and when men believe everything which scientific men have
guessed at, and admit and endorse the vagaries of scientific vision
aries, before even their authors and inventors are satisfied of their
truth, they remind one of the mythical coon which Davy Crockett
treed, and which, on learning who the hunter was, said, " Colonel,
you need not fire, I will come down.'' It is not best for men to
part with their common sense or lose their balance for fear of
being laughed at a thousand years hence. It is safe to hasten
slowly. Everything that can be shaken will be shaken, but some
things that cannot be shaken will remain ; and it is possible that
there will be, after all the whirlwinds of criticism, some things
which cannot be shaken ; and the only way to find out what they
are is to wait, and investigate and see.
A story is told of a lunatic who, finding his way into a crowded
church and grasping one of the pillars supporting the gallery said,
" I am going to pull the house down ! " Timid women screamed
and shouted; but an old minister calmed the tumult by callin"

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XV
out, " Let him try ! let him try ! " So there are men who are per
fectly willing to have the critics try their hands at the Bible, and
will abide the results. If they can grind it to powder let them do
so: if they grind themselves to powder it will only be another
instance of the rat gnawing the file.
But if men wish their theories admitted they must prove them ;
if they wish their ideas accepted they must show that they are
worthy of all acceptation. There are critics who talk very loudly
against the infallibility of others, and of course such persons can
make no claim to infallibility for themselves ; and there are per
sons who have had such acquaintance with the Scriptures that they
will not lightly abandon the faith on which their souls have been
stayed. They have been ready to give to every man a reason for
the hope that is within them, and they have a right to demand that
those who would unsettle their confidence should give them abun
dant evidence for their new position.
One thing somewhat perplexing to the average mind, is the air
of semi-omniscience with which this whole subject of Biblical
Criticism is discussed in certain quarters. We are assured that
"all thinkers" think thus and so; that "all leading minds"
have reached certain conclusions ; that " there is no dispute among
learned men " about these matters. But if the whole subject be so
plain that it is beyond question in the minds of the learned, they
must be able first, to come to an agreement among themselves, and
second, to bring the facts and arguments on which they rest their
conclusions to the understanding of candid men of average intelli
gence and studious habits. If a thing is demonstrably true, then
its truth can in some way be shown. Ordinary people wish for
argument, not authority. They are not so positive that " all
learned men " are agreed upon this matter ; nor are they entirely
certain that all these eminent critics are agreed among themselves ;
and they are not so anxious to know what certain wise men believe,
as they are to know why they believe it.
This desire seems to be reasonable and proper, and any man
who sets himself up as an authority in these matters, should be
able not only to state his position, but also to defend it, and that
by arguments which are appreciable, and can be grasped by the
common mind.
There are those who believe that they are forbidden to call any
man master, or to take the unsupported assertions even of learned
men without a question. They admit that learned men have great
advantages, and are worthy of great respect ; but they have never
known that learned men were entirely exempt from prejudice and

XVI THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
error. In all the contentions existing among different classes of
Christian people, they have found men of no small learning ar
ranged in opposition to each other ; and it is only a mark of com
mon prudence to insist upon knowing, so far as possible, some of
the facts on which such tremendous conclusions are based.
Moreover it has come to pass within the last few years, that
many positions taken by " learned men " have been distinctly re
pudiated by other men equally learned; and in many cases new
discoveries have shown that with all their learning these men were
ignorant of many important facts. The spade of the explorer
has sometimes played havoc with the lofty assertions of scholarly
men, who have often proved themselves far from infallible. They
have presented theories which they could not prove, but which
subsequent investigations have disproved. Their insuperable objec
tions have melted away in the light of extended research. Among
themselves they have propounded theories variant and self-contra
dictory, and they are to-day full of disagreement and dispute ; and
their conclusions concerning things which they regard as settled
may yet require revision. Intelligent and candid people are pre
pared for discovery, suggestion, proof, and argument, but they are
not disposed to yield the whole matter in dispute because some
body says they must, or because " all the learned " have agreed
upon it. They have their doubts whether learning is confined to
one particular school of thought. They admit that they may be
in error, but if so, they ask to be instructed, not commanded.
They are willing to listen to advice, but are not prepared to accept
assertions as authority beyond which no man can go. Hence they
wait, not merely till learned men decide what the truth is, but till
learned men are able to show that truth to other people in an
intelligible and convincing form. They have become enamored of
the Great Teacher of whom it was said, " Never man spake like this
man,'' and yet, "The common people heard him gladly. " If Jesus
of Nazareth was utterly mistaken about the writings and authority
of Moses and the prophets, they wish to know it ; and they wish to
understand precisely in what light this Great Teacher may be
regarded. Many have nothing to hinder them from accepting
truth whatever it may be. They are bound by no creed, ami have
sworn no adherence to any confession of faith. They have no
pecuniary interest in declaring certain opinions, and are under no
constraint, while believing one thing in private, to teach another in
public. They have not even accepted a creed " for substance of
doctrine," reserving the right to believe what they please concern
ing the subjects to which it refers. They have 'renounced the

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XVII
hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling
the Word of God deceitfully, but by the manifestation of the truth
they would commend themselves to every man's conscience in the
sight of God. They are, therefore, prepared to hear the truth,
embrace it, and confess it. They have no fear of sacrificing office,
position, or salary by frankly declaring their faith and hope ; for
they have already sacrificed such things, and counted them as
loss and dross. They do not stand in awe of great men, nor fear to
embrace new ideas ; but they do insist on knowing what they be
lieve, and why they believe it, and in having such a knowledge that
they can tell it to others plainly, and openly, not with bated breath,
guarded phrase, and studied circumlocution ; but they wish frankly
to say what they have to say, and not feel obliged to explain it
away or take it back to avoid unpleasant consequences. Such men
desire to know what they believe, and whereof they affirm. To
tell them that the Rev. Professor this one, or the Rev. Doctor that
one, and all the learned Rabbis have agreed and settled the matter,
is so much wind. The question is not who ? but whi/ ? and they
wish for sound arguments and solid facts, rather than great author
ities and big names.
It is not needful to go wild with panic over the results of the
' Higher Criticism, or of any other criticism. If these gentlemen
throw away half or two-thirds of the Bible, there will still be more
left than most people are likely to study carefully or practice
faithfully; and besides if half the books of the Bible can be
thrown overboard, it will save a large amount of labor for those
expositors who spend so much time trying to prove that the book
does not mean what it says, nor say what it means ; and there will
be quite as much consistency exhibited in rejecting the writing, as
there is in accepting it, and then perverting its sense.
There are men whose knowledge of the things of God is not
dependent entirely upon books or critics. They know Whom they
have believed, and they are not likely to be 'stampeded' by any
criticism that may be offered, whether constructive or destructive.
" He that believeth shall not make haste." Inertia is said to be
one of the properties of matter. It is probably also one of the
properties of mind. Large bodies move slowly, and sometimes
do not move at all. The best of men, with the best of causes
and the clearest of arguments, have sometimes found that trying
to change the minds of the mass of a community is much like
kicking a dead elephant; and men who have no higher mission
than to pull the Bible to pieces, may find that the old book will stand
a" deal of rough usage, and not be much the worse of wear. And

XV1H THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
such is the iuherent vitality and power of this Word, that men
have been known to have been saved and utterly changed in heart,
and life, and aim, by a single sentence from that book, or by a
s.ngle chapter or verse. The most destructive of the critics will
perhaps leave us as much as that ; or possibly we shall keep it,
whether they leave it or not ; for, that there is something in that
Book which lays hold upon the human mind, and conquers and
subjects the human heart, seems evident even from some of the
critics themselves, who, after they have definitely asserted that the
book is mostly a forgery and a deception, full of errors and false
hoods, go right on reading and preaching it, and drawing their sal
aries for so doing, and saying it is the best book in the world, and
contains the revelation of God to man. Blood is thicker than
water, and common sense and conviction are sometimes mightier
than criticism.
It must also be remembered that we are not dealing with a single
book, but with sixty-six different books. The only way to confute
them is to take them one by one. They stand together it is true,
but they do not necessarily fall together; and if fifty of them in
the crucible of the Higher Critic vanish like the baseless fabric of
a vision, there are sixteen left, and they will be enough to take us
through; so that if the hurricane of Higher Criticism blows away
the masts, sails, and rigging, the old ship may still outride the
storm, be able to pick up some of the drowning critics, and make
her port under a jury mast. Hence the prospect seems very hope
ful. Let our good friends the Higher Critics work away. If they
can eat the Bible up, then we are better off without it, and if it
really proves to be a file, they will know it when they see a heap
of white powder beside it.
The sublime assurance with which some modern critics announce
their judgment concerning the origin, authorship and authenticity
of the Holy Scriptures, implies the possession of great self-confi
dence, if not absolute omniscience. They speak as if the ques
tions under consideration were definitely settled, and as if only the
ignorant, prejudiced, and bigoted, could for a moment presume to
question the soundness of their conclusions, or the accuracy of
their assertions. Thus questions of vast importance and wide-
reaching interest are decided with an assumption of infallibility
or inerrancy, which ordinary mortals scarcely dare to claim. And
all this is done in the name of Higher Criticism, and exact Bibli
cal science, by men whose greatness is supposed to be so manifest
that the very mention of their names should awe people into silence
and submission.

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. Xix
When the question was raised, whether modern Assyriologists
had really found the key to the Cuneiform writings of Nineveh
and Babylon, a method was devised by which the matter could be
tested. In March, 1857, Mr. Fox Talbot sent to the Royal Asiatic
Society, in a sealed packet, his translation of a cuneiform inscrip
tion on a cylinder containing about a thousand lines, which 'had
been lithographed by Sir Henry Rawlinson, and which bore the
name of Tiglath Pileser I. As Sir Cornewall Lewis had questioned
the accuracy of these Assyrian translations, Mr. Talbot suggested
to Sir Henry Rawlinson the making of separate and independent
translations of this particular inscription. His own translation
was already made and sealed. Sir Henry Rawlinson, Rev. Edward
Hincks, D. D., and Dr. Julius Oppert, of the University of Bonn,
were each requested to make a translation of the same inscription.
It was agreed that they were not to communicate with each other
in any way concerning the translation, and each was to forward his
translation under seal, to be opened by a committee of Fellows of
the Royal Asiatic Society, consisting of Dean Milman, Rev. Dr.
Whewell, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge; Professor H. H.
Wilson, Sir J. G. Wilkinson the Egyptologist; and Mr. George
Grote, the Historian.
The translations were duly made : the packets were opened by
the committee ; the separate translations were read and found to
agree in their essential particulars, having only such slight varia
tions as demonstrated their entire independence. This settled the
question. The mystery of the long-lost Assyrian language was
solved. A TEST FOR THE HIGHEK CRITICS.
Such a test as this commands the respect and confidence of
thoughtful and intelligent men. And now, if a dozen of the more
eminent Higher Critics of the present day could be shut up in
separate cells, and fed like the Hebrew captives in Babylon upon
pulse and cold water, or some diet favorable to bodily health and
mental activity ; furnished with Hebrew Bibles and Greek Testa
ments; and supplied with paper and pens, and ink and scissors,
and paste-pots and brushes, and deprived of all access to the
writings of German Theologians, English and American Higher
Critics, and French infidels, back to Jean Astruc himself; and
then could be told to stay where they were till each could settle
the question of the authorship, authenticity, inspiration, and
inerrancy of each part of the sacred Scriptures for himself ; and to
cut and slash, and criticise and examine, and sort and winnow,
until they could give us at last the clean wheat : a Bible on which

XX THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
we could rely in life, in death, and at the day of judgment : — then,
when they had all finished their work, and the dozen books were
produced for examination and comparison, we could tell whether
they had really obtained the key of knowledge, or whether they
had simply produced twelve specimens of literary patch-work and
botch-work, which, when compared and combined, would furnish a
theological crazy-quilt beside which Joseph's coat of many colors
would be as plain as a Quaker dress pattern.
Will these gentlemen ever try the experiment? Perhaps not.
Indeed it is hardly needful that they should do it. We have al
ready had specimens of their work, and a more amazing tangle of
inconsistencies and contradictions can hardly be found in ancient
or modern literature. The old disputes concerning the authorship
of the Iliad and the Odyssey, which some one summed up as
having demonstrated that the poems were "not written by Homer,
but by another man of the same name, and living at the same
time and place," were lucidity itself, compared with the revelations
of the Higher Critics concerning the origin and authorship of the
sixty-six books of the Old and New Testament. There are plenty
of people who may be unable to judge as to the correctness of the
position occupied by any one of these learned critics, but there
can be no possible difficulty about deciding that when each one
of a dozen contradicts all the others, they cannot all be infallible ;
and here is the opportunity for the common reader to exercise a
little common sense.
Meantime while learned men are waiting for the verdict, one
poor, insignificant mortal has taken the trouble to keep tally for
the Higher Critics, and give us a kind of census as well as a consen
sus, of their number and their doings. One need not be a great
man or a critic to do that. Any one can count, and cut notches in
a stick, even if he cannot play in the game; and so we have a list
of the doings of a few of the Higher Critics, who are getting our
articles of faith ready for us, and who propose to let us know in
due time just how much Bible we are to be allowed to believe, and
how much " inerrancy " there is about it, after the " unhistorical "
portions are eliminated.
In the "Methodist Review" for March-April, 1891, page 265,
the late learned and lamented editor, J. W. Mendenhall, D. D.
LL.D., while speaking of "The intrusion of the hypothetical
spirit in the investigation of Biblical Doctrines, and of the origin
of Biblical Literature," thus illustrates the uncertainty of this sci
entific guess-work, by which certain critics have endeavored to de
termine infallibly the origin and authorship of the various books

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XXI
of the Old and New Testaments, until, "where truth ought to be
found as transparent as sunlight, we find it clouded and hidden in
the thick net-work of rhetorical and fallacious theorizing."
" The extent to which theory has been applied to the date, com
position, and authorship of the several books of the Bible is
startling when viewed in its aggregate result. Without pretending
to exhaust the list we submit the following as our summary of the
theories that have been invented respecting each book of the Bible
since the rise of the Tubingen school, and as showing the untrust
worthiness of the results of the critics who assume to be investi
gators of the books. As to Genesis, we record 16 theories ; Exo
dus, 13; Leviticus, 22; Numbers, 8; Deuteronomy, 17; — total on
Pentateuchal books, 76. As to Joshua, 10; Judges, 7; Ruth, 4;
1 and 2 'Samuel, 20; 1 and 2 Kings, 24; 1 and 2 Chronicles, 17;
Ezra, 14; Nehemiah, 11; Esther, 6; — total on historical books,
113. As to Job, 26; Psalms, 19; Proverbs, 24; Ecclesiastes, 21 ;
Song of Solomon, 18 ; — total on poetical books, 108. As to Isaiah,
27; Jeremiah, 24; Lamentations, 10; Ezekiel, 15; Daniel, 22; —
total on the greater prophetical books, 98. As to Hosea, 13;
Amos, 15; Joel, 18; Obadiah, 9; Jonah, 14; Micah, 12; Nahum,
10; Habakkuk, 13; Zephaniah, 9; Haggai, 6; Zechariah, 14;
Malachi, 11 ; — total on Minor prophetical books, 144. Grand total
of the theories respecting the Old Testament books, 539. The
work of the theorist as regards the New Testament is equally com
prehensive and instructive. As to Matthew, we discover 7 theo
ries; Mark, 10; Luke, 9; John, 15; — total as to the gospels, 11.
As to the Acts, 12. As to the epistle to the Romans, 15 ; 1 and 2
Corinthians, 18; Galatians, 11; Ephesians, 8; Philippians, 8 ; Co
lossians, 12 ; 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 9 ; 1 and 2 Timothy, 12 ; Titus,
6; Philemon, 4; Hebrews, 8; — total as to Paul's epistles, 111. As
to James, 5 ; 1 and 2 Peter, 7 ; 1, 2, and 3 John, 13 ; Jude, 7 ; Rev
elation, 12 ; — total, 44. The number of theories applied to the
New Testament books is 208. Adding to 539, we have a total of
747 theories applied to the biblical books since 1850, or within
forty years. Of the 747 theories 603 are defunct, and many of
the remaining 144 are in the last stages of degeneracy and disso
lution." " It will assist the reader in estimating the work of the critics to
remember that nearly one hundred theories die annually, many of
them never advancing beyond infancy, and others being stricken
with leprosy as for the first time they have taken hold of the horns
of the altar of the Lord. We have by no means recorded all the
inventions of the critics since Baur's day, but we have given

XX11 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
enough to show that theory is the chief instrument of the critic.
He does not always seek facts or truths, but is wedded to his
hypothesis of the biblical question. Of the large number of theo
ries here given no two of them agree, every one being distinct and
separate from all the others. We have little doubt, if a correct
enumeration of the theories that have been proclaimed during the
last forty years could be obtained, it would be found to exceed two
thousand, for we suspended our examination long before the end
had been reached. In these startling facts the orthodoxist finds
abundant reason for refusing to follow the leadership of men
whose chief business is to contradict truth, fact, history, and the
fundamental principles of the Christian religion, with no stronger
warrant than their own fancy or the limitations of their special
education." This, then, is a summary of the work of these learned critics,
some of whom, smoke-dried and beer-sodden, handle the oracles of
God with little reverence, and instead of trembling at His words,
which shall judge them at the last day, seem to have no more
respect for the messages of those whom God has set " over the
nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and
to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant " (Jer. i. 10),
than they have for an erotic song of a licentious pagan poet, or
some legend of heathen mythology. And these men, who contra
dict each other at every breath, and devour each other's theories
as fast as they are born ; ask us to accept assertions without facts,
arguments without proofs, and crude speculations unsustained by
historical testimony ; and seek to unsettle our faith in those sub
lime and awful " Scriptures of truth " which have plowed their
way through ages and centuries, leaving the mighty demonstra
tions of their divine authority and omniscient foresight in the des
olations of Nineveh, the ruins of Babylon, the destruction of
Tyre, the degradation of Egypt, the downfall of Jerusalem, the
dispersion of Israel, the decline and fall of mighty Rome ; and
in hundreds of instances where history answers to prophecy as the
mirrored likeness answers to the human face; — and they expect
men to leave their anchorage, slip their cable, and go drifting out
upon an unsounded sea of vague speculation, wild hypothesis,
misty theorizing, and uncertain assertion, there to float rudderless,
and without chart or compass, into regions of fog and darkness,
of skepticism and unbelief.
Out of such a chaos of critical conclusion it is not easy for the
ordinary mind to recall or remember anything. We therefore copy
from the New York Independent a summary of " the generally

THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

XXlll

accepted views of progressive Old Testament scholars," giving " the
literary results of advanced research in a nutshell," as presented
in the new Einleilung in das Alte Testament, by Prof. C. H. Cornill,
of the University of Konigsberg, who thus presents a
BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
WRITINGS ACCORDING TO THE RESULTS OF THE SPECIAL INTRO
DUCTION. __, 
PERIOD BEFORE THE KINGS.
The song of Deborah. THE EARLIEST PERIOD UNDER THE KINGS.
David's authentic Song of the Bow, II Sam. i. 19-27.
Solomon's authentic Temple Dedication Prayer, I Kings viii. 12-13 (LXX.)
PERIOD OF THE DIVIDED KINGDOMS.
Israel. Judah.
The so-called Blessing of Jacob, Gen. xlix, 1-27.
The Book of the CoYenant, Exod. xxi-xxiii.
The Book of the wars of Jehovah. | The Book of the Just.
THE ORIGINAL BALAAM PROPHECIES.

The oldest Ephraimitic historical nar-
atives, worked by E. into Judges
and Samuel.
Ephraimitic accounts concerning Eli-
sha and Elijah embodied in I Kings
xvii to II Kings xiii.
The so-called Blessing of Moses, Deut.
xxxiii; about .800.
In the time of Jehoshaphat the fol
lowing :
About 760. Amos from Judah, but
laboring in Israel exclusively.
About 750, the great historical work
of the Elohist.
Hosea i-iii.
In Ike anarchy after the downfall
of the Dynasty of Jehu the follow
ing:
Between 738 and 735, Hos. iv-xiv.

In the year of Uzziak's death (735?)
Isaiah's consecration as a prophet.
From 735 to 722:
Isa. vi, 1, 2, 3; ii-iv; v; ix, 7-10:
iv, 17; vii; viii, 1-9; vi; xi, 1-9;
i, 4-9; xviii-xxxii.
Before 722: Micah i-iii.
AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF SAMARIA, 722.
722, Isa. xiv, 28-32 (?).
Still in the time of Ahaz Jj according to Budde; at any rate before 700.
The original Obadiah, according to Ewald.

Jahvist J, in the time of Jehoshaphat,
about 850.

In the time of Uzziah and Jeroboam
II the following :
About 780, the anonymous Jewish
prophet in Isa. xv-xvi, the oldest
prophetic writing extant.

XXIV THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
IN THE TIME OF SARGON, 722-705.
Isa. xvi, 13, 14 ; [xxi, 11-17] ; xx (from the year 711) ; x, 6-34 ; xiv, 24, 27, (?) .
IN THE TIME OF SENNACHERIB.
Before 704, Isa. xviii; xxxix, 5-7.
Before 701, Isa. xxii, 15-25.
701, Isa. xxviii, 31; xxxvii, 6, 7 (?), 22-32; xxii, 1-14.
After 701, Isa. i, 10-17; xix.
Still in the times of Hezekiah (?), the Judean Temple narratives in II Kings
xi-xii; xvi; xviii, 4, 14-16; and an account of the deliverance of the
Temple and of Jerusalem, which is worked up in II Kings xviii, 17-19, 37 ;
possibly also in I Kings, 6, 7 (?).
IN THE TIME OF MANASSEH.
Micah vi, 1-vii, 6.
Isa. lvi, 9-lvii, 13 (?) ; lix 3-16a (?).
About 650 E2, a revision of E. by an Ephraimite who had remained in Pal
estine on the basis of the development of prophetic thought.
J, Union and harmonizing of JiandJ2in the Primitive Narratives, and
other younger Jahvistic and pre-Deuteronomic pieces.
Rj, Union and harmonizing of J and E; the second half of the seventh cen
tury being yet pre-Deuteronomic. IN THE TIME OF JOSIAH.
About 630, Zephaniah.
627, Jeremiah's consecration as a prophet.
About 624, Nahum.
621, Proclamation of the original Book of Deuteronomy, which had been
written a short time before, and the reform of the cultus based thereon.
Song of Hannah, I Sam. ii, 1-10, in the timeof Josiah (?), but certainly
pre-exilic. IN THE TIME OF JEHOIACHIM.
Jer. xiii.
Psa. lxxxix (?).
597, Ezekiel banished together with the king.
IN THE TIME OF ZEDEKIAH.
592, Ezekiel's consecration as a prophet in Babylonia.
Before 586, Jer. xx, 7-18; xxi, 11-xxiii, 40; xxiv, xlix, 34-39; xxxii;
xxxiii, 4-13. AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OP JERUSALEM.
Jer. xxx-xxxi. BABYLONIAN EXILE.
First Half.
About 580, Isa. xxiii.
October, 572, Composition and completion of the Book of Ezekiel.
April, 570, Addition of supplement to Ezek. xxix, 17-21.
The two separate editions and revisions of the original books of Deuterono
my by Dh and Dp.
Lamentations 2 and 4 younger than Ezekiel ; 1 and 5 Boon after,

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XXV
Seeond Half.
The redaction of the great exilic historical work written in the spirit of
Deuteronomy for the Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges by Rd. and for
kings by Rd. (?).
Pi, The first systematic compilation of a priestly character.
Biographical parts of the book of Jeremiah, and practically the completion
of the whole book.
Isa. xxi, 1-10 (and 11-17 ?).
Isa. xl-xlviii, between 546 and 538.
Isa. xiii, 2-14; xxiii; and xxxiv-xxxv, shortly before 538.
THE PERSIAN PERIOD.
After 538, Psa. cxxxvii (?).
After 536, Isa. xlix-lxvi.
September to December, 520, Haggai.
November, 520, to December, 518, Zecb. i-viii.
About 500 Pi, written in Babylon.
Before 458, Malachi. UNION OF Pi and p«.
About 450, Aramaic history of the building of the Temple and the walls.
About 444, Proclamation of the priestly legislation, Pi-f-P2.
After 444, Ezra's Memoirs.
After 432, Nehemiah's Memoirs.
About 400, Essentially completion of the Hexateuch by Rp.
Revision and excerpting of the Memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah by the author
of Ezra x and Neh. viii, 1-ix, 5.
IN THE FOURTH CENTURY.
Final redaction of the historical books, Gen. xiv. Px in the Hexateuch, Rp.
in Judges and Samuel.
Joel, probably after 400.
The canonical Obadiah, according to Hitzig in 312.
Jonah, ) probabl from the Greek period.
Proverbs. J
The bulk of the Psalms from the time of the second Temple, and older than
Chronicles.
Song of Songs (?). THE GREEK PERIOD.
About 330, Isa. xxiv-xxvii.
About 300, The Chronicler ; also, the author of the Ezra-Nehemiah book in
its present form.
About 280, Zech. ix-xiv.
About275, Translations of the Pentateuch into Greek ; beginning of the LXX.
Before 250, Secondary and reproducing prophetic writings:
Isa. ii, 2-4; iv, 5,6; xi, 10-xii, 6; xxxii, 1-8, 9-xxxiii, 24.
Jer. iii, 17, 18; v, 20-22; x, 1-16; xv, 11-14; xvii, 19-27; xiv, 30-38;
xxxi, 35-37; xxxii, 17-23; xxxiii, 2, 3; 1, i-li, 58.
Hos. i, 7; ii, 1-3; iii, 5; iv, 15a.
, Amos ii, 4, 5; iv, 13; v, 8, 9; ix, 5, 6.

XXVI THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Micah iv, 1-4, 11-14; v, 1-3, 6-14, and ii, 12, 13; iv, 5-10; v, 4, 5 ; vii, 7-20.
Hab. ii, 9-20; 3 (?).
Zeph. iii, 14-20, and portions in chaps, ii and iii.
About 250, Completion of the prophetic canon.
Job, under all circumstances later than Proverbs.
204, Ecclesiastes, according to Hitzig.
The latest retouching of the historical and prophetic books on the basis of
the Septuagint. THE MACCABEAN PERIOD.
Psa. xliv; lxxiv; lxxix; andlxxxiii certainly,
January, 164, Daniel.
About 130, Esther.
About 100, Actual close of the Old Testament canon.

So much for " the literary results of advanced research in a
nutshell." It would be useless to criticise this re-arrangement of the He
brew Scriptures, or to show that it was arbitrary, illogical, or
erroneous, if we were able to do so ; for the moment this was done
another host of critics would start up with the reply that they had
never endorsed any such arrangement as that, but had reached
other conclusions widely different and equally reliable ; and thus
we should find ourselves in a maze of confused and contradictory
theories, from which the Higher Criticism would afford us no way
of escape.
With all the variations among the Higher Critics, the general
sentiment is, that most, if not all, of the books of the Old Testa
ment were written no one knows just when, where, or by whom ;
the only certain thing about their authorship being, that they were
not written by the persons whose names they bear, nor at the times
when they purport to have been written. Who their authors were
their critics do not undertake to tell, nor do they produce the
slightest evidence, historical or traditional, concerning their author
ship. But we are invited to believe on their testimony as Higher
Critics, that these writings, which have been guarded from genera
tion to generation, and transmitted for many centuries by the Jew
ish nation, the Samaritans, and the Christian church ; which have
been the rallying center around which the scattered host of Israel
have maintained their existence, in spite of all the persecutions and
afflictions of ages ; which have been the flaming pillar and the
guiding cloud of the most progressive nations and races on the
earth ; and have thrilled and comforted the hearts of devout men
for centuries and millenniums past ; are really the production of
certain anonymous, patriotic, and priestly scribblers, who forged

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XXV11
laws in the name of Moses, and prophecies in the name of the Most
High God ; who not only failed to sign their own names to
things which they had written, but affixed to them the names of
other famous men of preceding ages, — though why they selected
chose men, who had written nothing, and done nothing down to that
time, to secure fame, and whose fame now rests, not upon anything
they ever wrote or did, but upon the spurious acts and records
which were forged and invented at that time, — is more than we can
easily understand.
One thing is noteworthy ; that is the persistent effort to bring
down the date of these documents to modern times. In no single
instance so far as known, is the age of a book declared by these
critics to be greater than has been popularly supposed — invariably
the date is brought down to more modern times.
What is the meaning of these persistent efforts to lower the
date of all the ancient Hebrew writings f Why are these men so
anxious to prove that all these books were written at dates so much
more recent than has been ordinarily supposed f Why was it that
Porphyry, the heathen philosopher, argued for the late origin of
the book of Daniel ? Why have skeptical writers been so anxious
to prove that the art of writing was unknown in the time of Moses ?
Why have modern skeptics and rationalists devoted their energies
to bringing down the date of these books 1 Are they trying to
PROVE THAT ALL PROPHECY IS A FABLE f
The religion of the Bible depends largely for its authority upon
sacred prophecy. In this respect it differs from all other religions.
The Old Testament constantly asserts the power of the Hebrew
prophets to foretell future events ; and this claim was not made
in the interest of jugglers and fortune-tellers, who by occult arts
professed to read and guess the future, but it was declared by
men who claimed to be the servants and messengers of One who
had supreme authority over human affairs ; who ruled among the
kingdoms of men ; who had not only the wisdom to declare what
should come to pass, but who had the might to bring to pass that
which He had purposed ; who declared that He worked all things
according to the counsel of His own will, saying, " My counsel
shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure ; " who declared " the end
from the beginning, and from ancient times the things which are
not yet done," and who was supreme among the armies of heaven
and the people on the earth. And the prophet challenges the gods
and prophets of heathen nations to submit to this one test, to dem
onstrate before the eyes of the world that they had such power of

XXVI11 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
foresight as Jehovah possessed. Thus he says : " Produce your cause,
saith the Lord ; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of
Jacob. Let them bring them forth, aDd shew us what shall happen:
let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may con
sider them, and know the latter end of them ; or declare us things
for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may
know that ye are gods : yea, do good or do evil, that we may be dis
mayed, and behold it together." Isa. xii. 21-23. "Behold the
former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare ; before
THEY SPRING FORTH I TELL YOU OP THEM." Isa. xiii. 9. -" Bring
forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears.
Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be
assembled : who among them can declare this, and shew us former
things? Let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be
justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth. Ye are my wit
nesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen : that
ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am He : before
me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I,
even I, am the Lord ; and beside me there is no saviour." Isa.
xliii. 8-11. "The great God hath made known to the king what
shall come to pass hereafter." Daniel ii. 45.
The whole story of the New Testament, and the proof of the
Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth, revolves around the expressions :
"Thus it is written," and, "That it might be fulfilled which was
spoken by the prophets." The Saviour in the concluding days of
His ministry rebuked His disciples as being " slow of heart to believe
all that the prophets have spoken ; " and the apostles, in proving the
Messiahship of the son of Mary, reasoned out of the prophets, and
the Scriptures, saying none other things but those which Moses
and the prophets did say should come to pass. Christianity
therefore stands or falls with the truth of sacred prophecy, and
the apostle solemnly enjoins upon us to "despise not prophesyings."
But prophecy in recent years has become greatly despised. The
prophetic scriptures have been overlooked, and neglected, and the
importance of prophecy has been belittled. A church goer from
childhood to manhood declared to the writer that in all his life he
had never heard a sermon on prophecy, and he was consequently a
skeptic, though a member of the church. This neglect of scripture
prophecy has been a virtual abandonment of one of the strongest
lines of defense for the Christian faith. Persons have belittled its
importance, and neglected it, and then the enemies of the gospel
quick to see their advantage, have endeavored to invalidate all
argument from this source. Hence Porphyry asserted that the
28

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XXIX
prophecy of Daniel was written after the events predicted had
transpired. The wish was father to the thought ; and the recent
drift of criticism, constantly laboring to bring down the date of these
ancient writings, is believed to be not entirely in the interest of pure
criticism, but rather to show that prophecy is a, fable, and thus
undermine this foundation on which rests the doctrine of the
Messiahship of Jesus, and the truth of the gospel of Christ.
Of course an argument thus constructed would be entirely incon
clusive to any well instructed student of the scriptures, for if we
are to admit the latest date that is claimed by the wildest of modern
critics for the origin of both the Old and New Testament writings,
we should still have prophecy fulfilling around us. The predictions
of .Christ that His words should not pass away ; that His gospel
should be proclaimed in all lands ; that Jerusalem should be trodden
under foot of the Gentiles; that the Jews should be scattered
among all nations ; the predictions of Moses concerning the calam
ities that should overtake the Israelites if they disobeyed God ; the
prediction of Hosea that the children of Israel should abide many
days without a king, without an altar and without a sacrifice; the
predictions of Daniel concerning the Roman empire ; after throwing
out entirely all those passages which refer to events prior to the
latest asserted date of the writings of Daniel ; the predictions of
the ruin of Babylon, the overthrow of Tyre, the desolations of Petra,
and the degradation of Egypt, all of which were existing and flour
ishing long after every page of both Old and New Testament was
written, still furnish us evidence of omniscient foresight and divine
power, presiding over the destinies of nations, controlling the events
of human history, and foretelling things that should come to pass
hereafter ; so that if we move the origin of the Scripture writings
down to the latest possible date, we still have prophecies which
are now being circumstantially accomplished, to which we can point
and say, " This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."
The Higher Critics despise and discredit prophecy by asserting
that the men who claimed to be the messengers of God were really
pretenders, forgers of fables, and writers of fictitious books ; and
hence they make constant efforts to bring down the dates of the
books of the prophets and sacred writers to a period subsequent to
the events to which they referred, thus endeavoring to prove that
prophecy is a fable ; that no man has ever been inspired of God to
foretell future events; whence it follows that Christianity is a
fraud, and Jesus of Nazareth was not the promised Messiah, the
Son of God, the Saviour of the world, and that no prediction for
the future can be accepted or depended upon.

XXX THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Doubtless persons enamored of the Higher Criticism will disavow
all this, and deny that they admit any such conclusions. We are
not concerned with their conclusions, which may be as illogical as
their assumptions or their arguments; but they may be sure that
others, accepting their arguments, will reach these logical conclusions,
and renounce all faith in divine revelation, and in Christ the Sav
iour of sinners. Hence it becomes important at the outset to care
fully examine the underlying principles which govern the action of
these Critics, and to closely scrutinize their claims and pretensions.
The assaults on Christianity at the present day are not open and
above-board, they are covered and insidious. The process of sap
ping and mining is going on. We are told that such an argument
must be abandoned, but then we do not need it ; that another
position must be given up, but there are others that are so much
stronger that it makes no difference. We are informed that " all
the learned believe " this, and that " all the critics believe " that, and
only a few belated, old time bigots maintain the " traditional view."
And yet there are men who had given thought and study to these
questions before most of these Higher Critics were born, and who
examined these difficulties when some of these learned gentlemen
were in their swaddling clothes, and they are not at all certain that
wisdom is likely to die with a lot of German Doctors who, over
their pipes and beer, discuss and everlastingly settle these questions
beyond the possibility of doubt or appeal, and make their conclu
sions the end of the law regarding this matter.
There are certain sympathetic elements essential to the highest
criticism, and some of these elements are not possessed by all
critics who take upon themselves to handle the Scriptures of truth,
and who have never yet learned that a solemn reverence befits
men who deal with those words that shall judge them at the last
day. " To this man will I look, even to him that is poor, and of a
contrite spirit, and trembleth at My Word." But there is another
man of a very different class who is thus described : " He that kill-
eth an ox, is as if he slew a man ; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he
cut off a dog's neck ; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered
swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol."
Such men have little in common with the servants of God. " They
have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their
abominations. I also will choose their delusions, and will bring
their fears upon them." Isa. lxvi. 2-4.
The musical critic must understand music ; the art critic must
know something of art ; and he who criticises the Hebrew Scriptures
should possess thatSpirit by which their authors were moved to speak.

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XXXi
We are pleased to hear that many of the Higher Critics are
men of blameless life and reverent spirit. We are thankful for
the assurance. We shall be glad to know that they are able to
stop when half way down Niagara; and that with them sentiment
and education may be stronger than logic. But we are concerned
not with the influence of certain opinions upon men who propagate
them, but rather with their effect upon people who hear them and are
misled by them. There are no doubt scholarly Gallios who hold
their opinions so loosely and so calmly that they can think or say
what they like, and yet maintain the reputable behavior in which
they were trained by pious parents in years gone by ; but there are
others who have had no such training or culture, and it is important
to know what their conclusions will be when they have learned that
prophecy is " a cunningly devised fable," inspiration a vain pre
tense, and that the Scriptures are not merely the unreliable state
ments of erring, fallible men, but the deliberate inventions, false
hoods, and pious frauds of men who it would seem have regarded
lying as a virtue, and forgery and deception as marks of special
grace. Possibly some persons interested in these critical studies may
yet have to face other deeper and more serious questions than those
which at present engage them. We are at present hearing what
some of them say about the Bible ; it is possible that we may hear
later what the Bible says about them. They have freely told what
they thought of the God of the Bible ; and there may yet be an
opportunity to know what the God of the Bible thinks of them.
They have given us their opinion concerning the person and teach
ings of Jesus of Nazareth ; perhaps, to change the subject, we may
yet ascertain His opinion concerning them. It may not be difficult
to learn it, for we have some records which might aid us in our
investigations. There was once a man who had the privilege of personal conver
sation with this Teacher concerning whose character men have dis
puted so much. He was a man who could read Hebrew without
consulting lexicons or grammars ; he knew it as our Higher Critics
know their mother tongues. He lived nearly two thousand years
nearer the times of the prophets than we do, he had access to older
and more correct manuscripts of the Scriptures than we now have.
He was familiar with Jewish traditions ; and the public records and
genealogies were open before him. He was skilled in Jewish law,
so that with a single question he could sometimes break up the
sitting of a whole Sanhedrim. He lived nearer the time when our
Higher Critics tell us the canon of Scripture was closed, than we

XXXII THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
do to the time of Christopher Columbus, or the Pilgrim fathers.
He had opportunities for observation, and the privilege of personal
acquaintance with many facts which are only transmitted to us
through successive generations ; and as the result of his observations
and investigations, in the face of all the doubts, and questions, and
cavilings of the learned and the captious of his time, he expressed
his personal conviction that Jesus of Nazareth was " a teacher come
from God," because no man could do the miracles which he wrought
unless God was with him. But to this man, influential, prominent,
learned, candid, and truthful, the Teacher of Nazareth said, " Ver
ily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot
see the kingdom of God." " Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye
must be born again." The wise man did not understand how these
things could be, — it is doubtful if he understood entirely how he
was born at first, — but his failure to understand did not at all inval
idate the testimony of the Teacher, whose solemn words declared
and enforced the necessity of a new birth, the beginning of a new
life. It was not a question of the theories or opinions of Nicodemus,
the Saviour found no fault with them ; but there must be the begin
ning of a new life within the soul: he must be born of God.
Judging from the spirit, temper, and methods of some of the
teachers and critics of the present day, a personal interview with the
Saviour might bring to their knowledge the fact that they needed
something more than correct opinions and Scriptural views, namely,
to be " born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by
the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever." " That which
is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is
spirit." There are now as in ancient times, men who are " soulual,
having not a spirit." Jude, 19. There are natural men who dis
cern not the things of the Spirit, for they are foolishness with
them ; but there are also spiritual men who discern all things,
and yet whose inward life is a mystery to those who have never
known it. 1. Cor. ii. 14-15. The Christ of God was rejected
and condemned by men who knew Hebrew from their infancy ,
while unlearned and ignorant men accepted the salvation that Jesus
Christ proclaimed ; and it may still prove to be the case that there
are deeper secrets than those that are mastered by the critics of
our time, and that of some important matters it may be said to-day,
as of old, " Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent,
and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Pather: for so it
seemed good in thy sight." Matt. xi. 25, 26.
We calmly await the results of honest investigation. Perhaps
the Higher Criticism may yet get down so low that the common
32

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XXXlii
peopie can examine it, and see what it is like. If certain books
in the Bible are to go, there is this consolation, we shall have more
left than most people heed. Perhaps if half the Bible is flung
away, people will find time to study the other half. If the critics
will leave us a little, say a Gospel, an epistle or two, and a few
Psalms, it will be as much as many people read, and far more than
they practice. Perhaps when our critical Sibyls have burned up
two or three installments of the Book, the common people may
learn the value of what remains. We hope the matter will be
settled somehow soon. For several thousand years some thou
sands or millions of critics, more or less, have been working away
at the Bible. Criticism is not peculiar to any age or land ; it is not
confined to Germany or to America. Even in the Garden of Eden
there was a critic ready to say, " Hath God said, Ye shall not eat
of every tree of the garden? " Gen. iii. 1. Jannes and Jambres,
the wise men of Egypt in the days of Moses, were quite at home
in that department of Higher Criticism which eliminates the super
natural and denies the miraculous ; and they met with considerable
temporary success, though their serpents were finally swallowed ;
their theories led those who accepted them into water beyond
their depth ; and their folly was made manifest, as that of others
may yet be. Jehoiakim, with his penknife, was as free a critic as
can easily be found at the present day ; but after he had cut the
prophecy of Jeremiah in pieces and flung it in the fire, it came
back to him improved and amplified, and was eventually fulfilled.
Jer. xxxvi. 23-32. Zedekiah was an acute critic ; for while one
prophet declared that he should go to Babylon and die there, and
another informed him that he should not see Babylon, he, in the
exercise of the critical faculty, concluded that since the prophets
disagreed with each other, it was safe to disbelieve them both.
But when Zedekiah was captured, his sons slain before his face,
his eyes put out, and he taken to Babylon to die there, he learned
that a man might go to Babylon and yet never see Babylon*
Celsus the philosopher showed that Christianity was an absurd
ity, and his quotations from the New Testament stand now to con
found the skeptics who deny the early origin of those books.
Porphyry asserted that the prophecy of Daniel was a forgery,
written after the events had occurred ; but Porphyry is dead and
buried, and the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies is still going on.
Diocletian, in 303, commanded to tear down the churches and

* Jeremiah xxxii. 4, 5; Ezekiel xii. 13, Josephus Antiq. Book x. chap.
vii. § 2; chap. viii. § 2.

XXXIV THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
burn up the Scriptures ; and struck a medal with the legend
" Christianity is Destroyed ; " but two years later he quit the emperor
business, and went to raising cabbages. Julian, the apostate, as
sailed the new religion, and perished on the battlefield and sunk
into oblivion. And from that time down there has been a suc
cession of kings, princes, rulers, and ecclesiastics who have been
working away to demolish the Bible, or restrict its circulation, and
keep it from the people, till we come down to Voltaire, and Paine,
and the smaller fry of critics who repeat their borrowed arguments.
The Christian Register for June, 1891, a paper fully alive to the
merits, and quite in harmony with the methods and conclusions of
the Higher Critics, says : " Thomas Paine, though stigmatized and
set aside as an infidel, finds reincarnation in the modern Biblical
critic. Paine pointed out the contradictions in the Bible, which
rendered impossible the claim that it is an infallible book He
lived too far in advance of his age. The spirit of modern scientific
criticism had not yet come. . . . And now it is interesting to find
that with a different spirit, and with different tools, and bound by
certain traditions from which Paine was free, the professors in our
orthodox seminaries are doing again the work which Paine did, and like
him in the interests of honesty and truth."
So the work goes on, and the woods are full of skeptics and crit
ics with their wonderments about Noah's Ark, and Moses' coney,
and Jonah's fish, and Abraham's burying ground, and heaven
knows what else ; and it now looks as if the job was likely to be
finished once for all.
Well, we shall feel relieved when it is over, and we hope they
will be quick about it. We want the matter settled somehow. If
it is necessary to appoint a receiver for the old concern, let it be
done, and let it go into liquidation and see what is left ; only we
hope that these great and learned men, who are hired and paid to
tell people how much of the Bible they may believe, will make a
clean job of it, finish it up once for all, and let us know just where
we are. We want to get our assets into shape, so that we may
know exactly how we stand. Will they leave us John iii. 16? or
Matthew xi. 28? or Luke xv.? or Psalm xxiii.? or John xiv.? or
1 Cor. xv.? or Rev. xxi. and xxii.? What we want to know is, just
what we can depend on, and just how we are coming out.
And then if we find ourselves short of Bible, we want to know
on whom We shall draw to meet the deficiency. Shall we go to
Confucius, or Buddha, or Plato, or Pythagoras? to Zoroaster, to
Mohammed, or Joseph Smith? to the Rig Veda, or the Book of
Mormon? to the Age of Reason, or the Light of Asia? Shall we

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XXXV
consult the 0,030 volumes of the Chinese Cyclopedia, with its
eighteen volumes of index; or shall we examine the 225 volumes
of the Jangyn, the pocket cyclopedia of Thibetan Buddhism? Of
course we must not be left without something, and we wish to
know definitely "To whom we shall go" to find "the words of
eternal life? " We are tired of being unsettled, and if our learned
critics will put their heads together and decide this whole business,
once for all, we shall be relieved and feel thankful.
But they must not ask us to depend on authority when we drop
the Bible. We cannot make a fetish of the new books of the
Higher Critics. They must give us evidence, and demonstration,
and must bring this evidence down where the common people can
read and understand it ; and if they will kindly agree among them
selves, so that when one of them has settled everything no one
else will come along next day and upset the whole, we shall be
truly thankful. Especially would we be glad to have them tell us
what they believe, and why they believe it. " Tell me what you
believe, I have doubts enough of my own;" is a saying attributed
to Goethe. These gentlemen have spent time enough telling us
what they do not believe ; now will they inform us what they do
believe, and also why they believe it? They have showed us how to
cut our cable : will they now tell us how to come to anchor, and
where we are to find an anchorage ground?
Truth courts investigation. Candid men are not afraid to con
sider difficulties which occur in the Hebrew Scriptures ; but when
such difficulties are invented or exaggerated, they indicate the erran
cy of the critic rather than that of the Book he criticises. Intelli
gent, careful, honest criticism is legitimate and welcome; but carp
ing skepticism is not legitimate criticism.
The phrase 'Higher Critic' is as indefinite as the term 'reptile,'
which may be either a crocodile, a mud-turtle, a lizard, or a striped
snake ; or the word 'animal,' which may be a mouse, a mammoth,
a pussy cat, or a Bengal tiger. So there are critics and critics, of
every variety, from the mildest grade of perplexed doubters to the
most out-spoken type of skeptics and unbelievers. Names and brands
signify little now ; — every parcel must be examined. Doubtless
some of the Higher Critics are men of devout spirit and true faith,
but they are in questionable company, and are, sowing seed which
may produce an unlooked for harvest. They must not complain
if men scrutinize or suspect them. Plain people are anxious to
know just what the critics of the day are, and what they are doing.
Are they Christians or infidels? Are they trying to pilot the old
ship into port, or wreck it on the sand bars? Christians are quite

XXXVI THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
willing that critics should scrape off barnacles, but they are not
ready to have them scuttle the ship : and it seems to be time for
those in whom faith is not utterly dead, to watch the course of
events, and stand for the defense of truths which are rashly assailed.
A survey of the various destructive, discordant, and self-contra
dictory theories of some of the Higher Critics, affords a degree of jus
tification for the following words from a well known English paper :
" What is called the criticism of the Old Testament consists of a
series of idle conjectures concerning the dates and the authorship
of the books and of the various parts of them. The reason why
these conjectures are put forth is this : That the ' critics ' are infi
dels who want to overthrow religion by casting doubts on the Bible.
Their efforts are concentrated on discrediting anything in the Bible
which implies miracle or the supernatural. When future events
are foretold, they say that the prophecy is a fraud, having been
written after its alleged fulfillment. When God's miraculous deal
ings with man are narrated, the ' critics' set to work to show that
the story is an embellished version of some purely natural occur
rence. When the author declares that he himself was an eye-wit
ness of the marvels he relates, the ' critics ' say the work is a late
forgery. Afterwards, when their guess-work has been proved base
less and their arguments torn to tatters, the ' critics ' publish new
books carefully ignoring all that has been urged against the old
ones, and simply reaffirming dogmatically their former conclusions.
Then certain weak-kneed Christians, deeply impressed with the
audaciously positive assertions of the destructive school, hasten to
accept them as the undoubted ' results of criticism.' They fly to
church congress to 'warn' their brethren against the danger of dis
puting these ' results.' They wildly attempt the impossible task of
' serving two masters.' They imagine they can still remain Chris
tians and still profess a reverence for the Bible as a whole, while
accepting in detail the destructive theories of the rationalist school."
We must act prudently where such mighty issues are involved,
and 'lasten slowly while doctors disagree so radically ; calmly wait
ing until scores of critical theories have run their course, and their
authors and their imitators are forgotten. We will read the Bible
until something better comes. We will welcome all legitimate
criticism, which brings light instead of darkness. We will scruti
nize every book and every page. We will prove all things, and
hold fast that which is good ; and in so doing we believe that we
shall still be found " holding fast the faithful Word," that we "may
rejoice in the day of Christ" that we have " not run in vain, neither
labored in vain." Titus i. 9 ; Phil. ii. 16.

JESUS OE NAZARETH AS
A HIGHER CRITIC.

JESUS OF NAZARETH
AS
A HIGHER CRITIC.

BY H. L. HASTINGS.

It is probable that there is not a single fact stated in the entire
Bible that is not questioned, controverted, or contradicted by some
critic or skeptic. It is therefore necessary to examine, investigate,
and settle every point. Nothing must be assumed, nothing taken
for granted, and every claim of Christ or Christianity must be dis
regarded, until the entire status of the case is settled on the basis
of exact scientific criticism. There are many who would settle crit
ical questions by reference to the authority of Jesus of Nazareth ;
but the system of Higher Criticism goes to the roots of things, and
declines to rest its conclusions upon the authority of any one. Of
course a disciple of Christ might accept the testimony of Jesus of
Nazareth, and ask no further evidence, but all men are not disciples
of Christ, and with them " the testimony of Jesus," which is " the
spirit of prophecy," has no weight.
There are men who may be described as " the contrary minded,"
who deny that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. These, however,
are not Higher Critics ; their conclusions make so clean a sweep
that there is nothing left to criticise ; but with the Higher Critics in
general, Jesus of Nazareth was a historic personage, and as such
may be subjected to critical consideration. Some who accept Him
as the Saviour of the world, yet believe that He was subject to
" human limitations " that should qualify our estimate of the valid
ity of His utterances concerning such matters as the authorship
and authority of the Scriptures.
It is useless to find fault with these positions ; this condition of
things confronts us, we must therefore meet it ; and if we are to
come to any understanding with doubters and unbelievers, we must
(xl) 40

Xii THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
put ourselves in their place, and consider Jesus of Nazareth, not as
a divine being, but as a human being ; not as God manifest in the
flesh, but as the man Christ Jesus : not even as a prophet, but as
one of many Jewish teachers who from time to time arose among
the people.
Let us therefore consider Jesus of Nazareth in His human aspect,
and with all the limitations which pertain to human life. And
First : He was a Jew, of the tribe of Judah, of the stock of Abra
ham. He was not a Jew in exile or captivity, exposed to Gentile
influences and foreign culture, but He was born and bred a Jew in
the land of Israel, and surrounded by Jewish associations, influ
ences, and family affiliations. Second : He was under the care of
those who were bound by Jewish law to diligently teach Him its
precepts. It is probable that the very first devotional poem which
He ever read or learned testified of the happiness or blessedness of
the man " whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law
doth he meditate day and night." Third : His knowledge of the
Hebrew and Syriac tongue was not acquired under the weekly
lessons of a Gentile professor during a three years' course in a theo
logical seminary. He had been brought up where these tongues
were the language of common life, and had learned them from his
mother's lips. He was not in a land of uncultured barbarians : there
were schools and books around Him. Foreign languages were also
spoken, so that in the metropolis it was deemed necessary by the
authorities to inform the passers by of the crime of an executed
malefactor by inscriptions in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.
Fourth : His knowledge of Jewish antiquities was not derived
from books or libraries, but from personal acquaintance and invest
igation. His acquaintance with Jerusalem and Judea and the land
of Israel, was acquired, not in a trip of two or three weeks, with a
dragoman to ask his questions, a Turk to answer them, and a com
pany of soldiers to keep him from being knocked in the head and
robbed by wandering Bedawin ; but he had probably made a hun
dred journeys to and from the Sacred City. Three times a vcar
from the age of twelve till he began to be about thirty years old,
he had gone up to appear in Zion before the Lord, and there had
mingled with his countrymen who gathered from Dan to Beersheba.
Herod's magnificent temple was standing, and there, on his first
visit to Jerusalem, he had found his way in among the doctors
listening to them and asking them questions ; and we may easily
believe that in his later visits he improved similar opportunities.
From time to time he also visited other portions of the land of
Israel, traversing the hills and valleys, climbing the mountains,
41

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. Xiii
skirting the shores and the borders of Gennesaret ; mingling in the
hum and tumult of the crowded city, and again turning aside into
the desert to rest ; traversing Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, and thus
becoming acquainted with rabbies, teachers, scribes, and lawyers :
venerable men who had devoted their lives to the study of their
ancient records, and who were familiar with law, and learned in
Hebrew lore.
Fifth : He had no occasion to hunt through lexicons, concordan
ces, and grammars to master the mysteries of Hebrew lexicography,
the subtilties of Hebrew grammar, or the idiomatic structure of the
sacred tongue. There were men all around him who were experts
in all these departments. There were priests and learned men who
had read and spoken Hebrew, Syriac, and Chaldee all their days,
and who were capable of pronouncing a critical judgment upon the
style, idioms, archaisms, and peculiarities of any Hebrew document.
They were men of deep research, patient application, subtile intel
lect, and great national pride. Every one of them by the aid of
those " endless genealogies " which were kept on record, could trace
his lineage back to the " father of the faithful." As priests, their
position depended upon keeping the ri cords of this lineage, and as
citizens of the land their citizenship and the possession of their
estates rested upon their ability to trace their lineal descent from
those Hebrews who had entered the promised land. They had a
considerable literature, and an abundance of traditions, both written
and oral. They were as near the times of David and Solomon as
we are to Alfred the Great. They were as near the times of Nebu
chadnezzar and the Babylonian captivity, as the Englishman of to
day is to the times of William the Conqueror. They were as near
the times of Malachi, Ezra, and Nehemiah as we are to the times of
John Huss, Jerome of Prague, and Martin Luther. They were
nearer the times assigned by the Higher Critics to the authors of
much of the Old Testament, than we are to the times of Shake
speare and Milton, John Bunyan and Jeremy Taylor. They were in
a little territory about as large as the State of Massachusetts,
where for more than fourteen hundred years they and their fathers
had lived continuously, with the exception of the brief period of
the Babylonish captivity. Every hill and every valley of that
region was historic. They needed no " Biblical Researches " to
inform them concerning the localities and facts mentioned in Jew
ish history. Uncontradicted history and uninterrupted tradition
had brought down the memories of the stirring events of past ages.
They were as familiar with the mountains, the valleys, the monu
ments, and the battle fields of their native laud as we are with
42

Xliii THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
similar localities made memorable to us by events of by-gone years.
They did not know everything about the outside world, and did
not explore distant lands while ignorant of their own. The world
was smaller then than now ; the telegraph did not bring its daily
deluge of the gossip and garbage of the world to their tables. No
printing-presses were tumbling out tons of ill-digested reading mat
ter, and unreliable and sensational intelligence. No vast public
libraries existed, out of which seventy-five per cent of the books
taken were fiction; but they had their histories and their traditions,
their proverbs and their songs, their laws and their parables ; they
had the genealogies of their families and the public records of the
leading events of their time.
Trained under such circumstances and such influences, Jesus of
Nazareth had great opportunities for familiarizing himself with the
Semetic languages and literature. He was familiar with the Syriac
tongue, the language of common life. He spoke it by the wayside,
in the house, in common conversation, in secret prayer, in his dying
agonies upon the cross.* He had undoubtedly read Hebrew at an
age when most of the Higher Critics did not know the first letter of
the Hebrew alphabet. He could stand up before a public assembly
of Jews and read a Hebrew manuscript at sight, and pronounce his
words correctly. How many Higher Critics could do that today?
He had access to Hebrew manuscripts in all the synagogues in Pal
estine, besides copies in private hands, and every one of those man
uscripts was hundreds of years more ancient than any Hebrew manu
script which any Higher Critic ever saw or ever will see. His discourses
clearly indicate that he had diligently read those books, and was
familiar with their contents. There are probably not more than a
dozen Higher Critics on earth who would set themselves above Him
in native abilities, mental grasp, and intellectual acuteness. He
could sing, and preach, and pray in Hebrew as well as ordinary
critics can in English or in German ; and in all his references to
the Hebrew Scriptures we do not recall a palpable error or a blun
der ; and upon purely literary grounds his position as a critic must
be infinitely higher than that of any man on earth to-day. He was
nearer the days of Ezekiel and Daniel than we are to the times of
Wycliffe, our oldest translator of the Bible. He was nearer the time
of the origin of large portions of the Scriptures, according to the
Higher Critics, than we are to the Pilgrim Fathers, and about as

*For numerous instances of our Saviour's use of the Syriac language, see
the writer's Historical Introduction to Dr. Murdock's Translation of the
Peshitto Syriac New Testament, p. xxxi. Scriptural Tract Repository,
Boston, Mass., 1893. 43

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. xliv
near to what they call the " actual close of the Old Testament canon "
as we are to the Revolutionary War, and the battle of Bunker Hill.
It therefore follows, that upon purely literary grounds, Jesus of
Nazareth, considered only as a Jewish teacher and critic, must
stand infinitely higher than any man who lives on earth to-day. If the
original writings of Moses had been as old as any man ever sup
posed them to be, they would not have been much older than the
Sinaitic manuscript which Tischendorf obtained in the monast^ry
of St. Catharine, and which is now in the Imperial Library at St.
Petersburg. A parchment manuscript written by Adam or Noah
might, with a single transcription, have been easily preserved to the
time of Jesus of Nazareth.
" The man Christ Jesus " was in a position to speak impartially
concerning these matters. He was neither a Priest nor a Levite,
and did not subsist upon the tithes and offerings of the people, and
so had no pecuniary interests in the national religion. He was not
a Scribe nor a Lawyer, nor was he a theological professor, bound
by his position, his vows, or his salary to study the law and defend
and proclaim it however he might doubt its authority. He was
untrammelled by creeds, confessions, and sectarian bands. He was
neither a Pharisee, a Sadducee, an Essene or a Herodian. He was
of royal lineage, but he laid no claim to authority on that account.
He was a plain, working man ; his hands ministered to his necessities.
He was able and willing to earn his living, and could afford to tell
the truth : nor was he subject to Jewish traditions, or entangled in
the cobwebs of antiquity. He refuted and condemned the tradi
tions of the elders, by which the law of Moses was made void ; but
he knew the Holy Scriptures. He lived in a land where these books
were held sacred, guarded with sedulous care; deposited in the
temple and places of worship, and publicly read in the synagogues
every sabbath day.
If therefore we may not cite the testimony of Jesus of Nazareth,
the Messiah, the Son of God, perhaps we may ask the opmion of
Jesus of Nazareth, the Higher Critic, who, from his acquaintance
with Biblical antiquities, Hebrew idioms, and textual criticism, was
in a position to give lessons to every Higher Critic now on the face of the
earth : and whose personal independence, conscientious truthfulness,
mental grasp, and intellectual acumen, give his words a weight not
possessed by those of many of the critics of to-day.
Now what does Jesus of Nazareth, as a man, as a teacher, and as
a Higher Critic say concerning the Old Testament Scriptures ? He
quotes from Psalm lxxxii. 6, as "the Word of God," and informs
us that "the Scripture cannot be broken." He lived a hundred
44

Xiv THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
years nearer the time when the Higher Critics say the book of
Daniel was forged, than we do to the time when the Pilgrims landed
on Plymouth Rock ; and he could judge whether the prophecies
contained in the book of Daniel had been forged after their accom
plishment or fulfilled before they were written ; but he boldly men
tioned " Daniel the prophet," and pointed forward to the future
fulfillment of predictions which at that time were not accomplished,
saying, " When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, — whoso
readeth let him understand — then let them which be in Judea flee
into the mountains." Matt. xxiv. 15, 16. He spoke of " the law
of Moses "and the miracles which Moses wrought. The uplifted
serpent in the wilderness was the type of the uplifting of the Son
of man. The manna which their fathers did eat was the type of
the breadof God which He gave that men might live forever.
The deliverance of Jonah from the belly of hell he presented as
the type of his own resurrection. He bade his hearers, " Search the
Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are
they which testify of Me." He declared, " If they hear not Moses
and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose
from the dead." Luke xvi. 31. He says, " Had ye believed Moses,
ye would have believed Me : for he wrote of me. But if ye believe
not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" John v. 46. He
recognized the three divisions which comprised the Jewish Scrip
tures, and declared that the things written in the Law of Moses, and
in the Prophets, and in The Psalms, " must be fulfilled." Luke xxiv.
44. He endorsed the scriptural account of the creation of man,
" He which made them at the beginning, made them male and
female." Matt. xix. 4-6. He accepted the Mosaic record of the
first martyrdom, when he speaks of the " blood of righteous Abel."
Matt, xxiii. 35. He endorsed the story of the deluge, and tells us
that " as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son
of man be." Matt. xxiv. 37. He reminded his hearers of the over
throw of Sodom, and Gomorrah, exhorting them to " Remember
Lot's wife." Luke xvii. 32. He declared, " Your fathers did eat
manna in the wilderness." John vi. 49. He tells us that David
" did eat the shewbread." 1 Sam. xxi. ;Matt. xii. 3-4. He cites the
miracle of the shutting of heaven for three years and six months
in answer to Elijah's prayers, the feeding of the hunted prophet by
the widow of Sarepta, and the cleansing of Naaman the leper in Jor
dan, in accordance with Elisha's directions. Luke iv. 25-27. In
the synagogue at Nazareth he read from the book of the Prophet
Isaiah, and said, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears "
45

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. xlvi
Isa. lxi. 1.* Luke iv. 18-22, and his quotations from Isaiah and
Psalms are too numerous to be mentioned. Ho quotes from Malaciii
the last prophet, " Behold, I send my messenger before thy face"
(Mai. iii. 1 ; Matt. xi. 10), and in the fulfillment of the predictions
of the prophets he rested the proof of his own Messiahship.*
Once he met the great Enemy of righteousness in a hand to hand
conflict, and resisted and defeated him. He used as a weapon the
Sword of the Spirit. He introduced four passages of Scripture,
saying of each of them, " It is written." In that day of fiercest
battle he thrust his adversary through and through with this
" sharp, two-edged sword." And where did he find those passages?
Every one of them was taken from, the book of Deuteronomy, t If the
Tempter in the wilderness could have got a few points from
modern Higher Critics, he might have ended the conflict by inform
ing his opponent that Deuteronomy was a recent forgery bv an
unknown writer in the time of Josiah, or later; but he was not equal
to the occasion, and so Christ was victorious, and Satan departed
from him, and angels ministered unto him. Does this fact explain
why unbelievers seem to have such a special spite against the book of
Deuteronomy ? Is this why so many pipe-smoking, beer-drinking
critics when out of a job, are set at work on Deuteronomy? Well,
thus far Deuteronomy seems to hold its own very well.
As a mere human teacher and Higher Critic, Jesus of Nazareth
must be accounted far superior to all the critics of modern times
both in abilities, opportunities, and facilities ; and Jews and Gen
tiles, skeptics and critics, unite to describe him as a good, blameless
and heroic man. Indeed one man declared that he " did no sin,
neither was guile found in his mouth." What then were
THE CLAIMS OP JESUS OP NAZARETH?
The claims of Jesus of Nazareth are not those of a mere human
teacher. " I came forth from the Pather, and am come into the
world : again I leave the world and go to the Father." John xvi.
28. " What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he
was before ? " John vi. 62. " No man hath ascended up to heaven,
but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man." John
iii. 13. " Glorify Thou me with thine own self, with the glory
which I had with Thee before the world was." John xvii. 5.
Such are s^ome of the utterances which voice His claims ; but no
such claims could be admitted without there were credentials,

*For further particulars, consult the " Testimony of Christ to the Truth of
the Old Testament," by Robert Patterson. Anti-Infidel Library, No. 4,
tLuke iv. 1-13. Deut. viii- 3, vi. 13, x. 20, vi. 16.
43

Xlvii THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
tokens, and proofs of His divine legation. This fact was well un
derstood among the Jewish people ; and hence they were continually
seeking for signs. As the ancient prophets showed by visible and
manifest tokens that they possessed peculiar power and authority,
so these people were disposed to say, " What sign showest Thou, that
we may believe ? " and the Saviour himself declares, " The same
works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me."
John v. 36. " The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear
witness of me." John x. 25. " Believe me that I am in the Father,
and the Father in me : or else believe me for the very works' sake."
John xiv. 11. And the Apostle John, after having related many
things which the Saviour did, declares, " Many other signs truly did
Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in
this book : but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus
is. the Christ, the Son of God ; and that, believing, ye might have
life through his name." John xx. 30-31. The Saviour himself
says, " If I had not done among them the works which none other
man did, they had not had sin." John xv. 24 ; and the Apostle
Peter, standing up in the presence of the multitude, said, " Ye men
of Israel, hear these words ; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of
God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did
by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being
delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye
have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain : whom
God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death : because it
was not possible that He should be holden of it." Acts ii. 22-24.
This was a plain, definite assertion of wonderful works done by
divine power ; and this assertion, made in the presence of the multi
tude at Jerusalem, was not only uncontradicted, but after it was
made not less than three thousand persons believed the story of the
death and resurrection of Christ; and that not in some far off and
unknown region, but in the very city where not two months before
Jesus of Nazareth was scourged, and mocked, and spit upon, and
buffeted, and crowned with thorns, and led away to be crucified.
Not only did Jesus of Nazareth do great and wonderful works,
but he uttered wonderful words. There is nothing more transient
and evanescent than a word. There are millions" of people who
have lived and talked from childhood to old age, and no single
word that they have uttered is remembered. There are multi
tudes of people speaking to-day, and everything they say is forgot
ten within a few moments after it is uttered. But this man said,
" Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass
away," and though he wrote no books, though none of his speeches
47

THE niGHER CRITICISM. xlviii
appeared in the public journals, yet by some means his words have
lived, and live to the present day. They live in the records of his
disciples ; they live in the literature of the ages ; they live in the
hearts of the people ; they live because the power of life is in them.
What has given these words such wonderful vitality ? Let us hear
Him speak on this subject, " The words that I speak unto you I
speak not of myself . . . The word which ye hear is not mine, but
the Father's which sent me." John xiv. 10, 24. Again he said,
" He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that
judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge
him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself ; but the
Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should
say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment
is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the
Father said unto me so I speak." John xii. 48-50. Again in that
last prayer offered before he went out to suffer he said, " I have
given unto them the words which Thou gavest me, and they have
received them, and have known surely that I came out from Thee,
and they have believed that Thou didst send me." John xvii. 8.
It is true that some men see nothing but an exalted humanity in
these words. But what other man has ever had the audacity to use
them? It is related that one man conversing with a much lauded
pundit, a sage of the Brahminical caste of Newenglandstan, who
could not see the pre-eminent dignity of the Son of man, asked him :
" Could you say, ' I am the resurrection and the life ? ' "
" Yes," said he, " I could say that."
" But could you make any one believe it ? " was the next question ;
and to that the answer was not forthcoming. But Jesus of Naza
reth has said these words, and has made men believe them ! and his
words live to-day, and will live till heaven and earth shall pass away.
Now, many of the words which Jesus spoke, had reference to the
writings of the ancient prophets. He himself read out of those
Scriptures in the synagogue on the Sabbath day. He constantly
referred to the Scriptures, and bade them search the Scriptures that
they might know the truth. He said to his disciples, " O unwise,
and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. . . .
These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with
you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law
of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Then opened he their understanding that they might understand the
Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it be
hooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day."
Luke xxiv. 25, 44-46. He frequently quotes from the Scriptures.
48

Xlix THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
He said, " Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me : for
he wrote of Me." John v. 46. When accused of making himself
God, he answered, referring to Psalms lxxxii. 6, " Is it not written
in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods unto
whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken ;
say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the
world, Thou blasphemest ; because I said, I am the Son of God?
If I do not the works of My Father believe Me not, but if I do,
though ye believe not me, believe the works : that ye may know,
and believe, that the Father is in Me, and I in Him." John x.
34-38. Again he refers to another passage when proving the resur
rection of the dead, " Have ye not read that which was spoken
unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? " Matt. xxii. 31, 32.
The argument seems very plain : Christ came claiming to be a
messenger of God ; he wrought signs and wonders and miracles ;
he ruled the winds, he calmed the waves ; he controlled the fishes
of the sea ; he healed the sick, he raised the dead ; he cast out
devils ; he was avowed to be the " well beloved Son " of God by a
voice from heaven. He himself declared that he had " done the
works which none other man ever did," and thousands who saw the
works and knew the facts believed on Him. And then he dis
tinctly claimed that his words that he spoke were given him of
God, that they were a message from the eternal throne, and were to
outlast the world, and to judge men at the last day ; and that the
Jewish Scriptures which he and they read were "The Word of
God," the words of life and salvation. Are these things so?
We are to embrace the truth at whatever hazard, and are to fol
low it wherever it leads. But first we must know what is truth, and
see whether that which is presented as truth is likely to lead us into a
labyrinth of absurdities. Hence we have a right to examine a theory
in all its bearings and consequences before accepting or rejecting it.
An arc of a great circle may seem like a straight line. We may
need to carry it around in its sweep to convince ourselves that every
inch of it is crooked. Two lines may seem exactly parallel, but
if we project them a million of miles they may show a vast diver
gence. So theories must be tested not only by the experiences of
time but by the revelations of eternity. That which is not eternally
true may not be true at all ; and if a theory leads us away from
Him who is the Truth, we may well hesitate before we embrace it.
Let us see what are the results of some of this critical teaching,
as stated by Rev. Philip H. Wicksteed, in an article on Abraham
Kuenen whose disciple and translator he was ;
43

THIS HIGHER CRITICISM. 1
" The position which Kuenen took . . . involved the absolute sur
render of orthodox dogmatics, of the authority of the Scriptures, of
the divine character of the church as an external institution ; and
of course it based the claims of Jesus of Nazareth to our affection
and gratitude solely upon what history could show that he, as a
man, had been and had done for men." — Jewish Quarterly Review,
July, 1892, p. 596.
This witness is true, and has the courage of his convictions. He
is logical, and follows his logic, until we have no prophecy, no mir
acles, no Bible, no Saviour.
A theory is responsible for its consequences. Those who embrace
it may not be responsible. They may be faulty in logic and incon
sistent in act. They may not look to the final results of their
theorizing. They may be led blindly into the marshes and quag
mires of error and unbelief. We must not be so led. We must
walk in the light, and understand the direction and the end of the
path into which we enter.
Of course facts will stand, whatever they may be. But we must
know that we have the facts. There axe false facts as well as false
arguments ; false premises as well as false conclusions ; errors at the
root as well as errors in the branches; defects in foundations as
well as in superstructures ; and we are to examine everything, test
everything, and investigate everything ; we are to " prove all
things and hold fast that which is good."
A settled principle with some of these Higher Critics, — if any of
their principles can be said to be settled, — is, that inspired prophecy
is an impossibility, that all claims to it are mere rhapsody, or fraud
and trickery ; and that the authors of the prophetical writings, as
well as the writers of the Pentateuch, were simply patriotic liars
and romancing forgers, who strove to fire the hearts of their coun
trymen by spurious predictions, falsely attributed to men who never
predicted such events, nor indeed any other events, — an instance
apparently of issuing counterfeit notes on a bank whose genuine
bills were worthless.
Of course if it be settled that prophecy is impossible, that ends
all controversy regarding its inspiration, and it also ends all faith
in the writings of those apostles who reasoned out of the Scrip.
tures, saying none other things than those which Moses and the
prophets did say should come (Acts xxvi. 22), and proves that the
Jews were perfectly justified in rejecting a Saviour, who had
never been predicted, and whose coming was not a fulfillment of
any recorded promise or purpose of the God of Abraham.
Great differences of opinion exist regarding the estimate which
50

Ii THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
should be placed upon those writings known as the Holy Scriptures.
There are those who believe that they are able to make men "wise
unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus " and that by
them " the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto
all good works : " there are others who assert that " ' The Bible as
we now have it, swarms with errors;" and they naturally would
give but a guarded and qualified endorsement to such a volume.
FETISHISM AND EIBLIOLATRY.
According to some of the wise and prudent Critics of the day,
there is great danger that the Bible will be regarded as a sort of
fetish, like those which are worshiped by the lowest idolaters, who
tie bags of rags, snake skins, dried toads and other trumpery about
them, and make them objects of adoration. And there seems to be
a fear that the civilization and intellectual advancement of the age
will be imperiled by people who look on the Holy Scriptures with
superstitious regard as a fetish : and consequently when critics who
have been emancipated from this form of fetish worship by find
ing out that the Bible is nothing but an ordinary book, full of
errors, blunders, misstatements, fictions, falsehoods, and forgeries,
they at once become enamored of its beauty, and prize it far more
highly than they ever did when they regarded it as a fetish.
There are some things which are peculiar to this special form of
fetish worship. As an invariable rule other fetishes are only found
among the most ignorant, degraded, barbarous, and brutal races on
the face of the earth, who worship fetishes, capture slaves, eat
human flesh, live by predatory warfare, practice every kind of bar
barism and impurity, and find nothing in fetish worship inconsistent
with these practices and barbarities. This particular fetish, how
ever, seems to be most prized and regarded among the most intel
lectual, prosperous, humane, and progressive races on the face of
the earth. Wherever you find the common school and universal
education you find this fetish. Wherever you find a place of wor
ship, where instead of noise, ceremony, and dumb-show, the ser
vices appeal to intelligence, intellect, and chastened emotion, there
you find this fetish. Wherever you find the bonds of the slave
broken, and liberty proclaimed to the captive, you find this fetish.
Wherever you find colleges and universities teaching art, science,
literature, and pure morality, you find this fetish at the bottom of
it all. Wherever you find female schools, academies, and semin
aries, there you find this fetish in the place of honor. Wherever
you find one of near a hundred languages and dialects which had only
existed for ages in speech and memory, at last reduced to writing
51

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. Hi
grammatically analyzed, and the foundations laid for its litera
ture, you find that the work has been done by a votary of this partic
ular fetish ; and the chief corner stone of the new literature which
blesses these bookless multitudes, is this same fetish, from which
they read in their own tongues wherein they were born, the story
of the wonderful works of God. Wherever we find advancement
and invention we find this fetish leading the way. If we travel by
steamer or by railway it is only in lands where this fetish has in
fluence. If we use mowing machines, and reaping machines, and
threshing machines, and sewing machines, we find them only among
the people who are interested in thi9 fetish. If we use the printing-
press, the telegraph, or the telephone ; if we grind our corn in the
most approved manner ; if we produce our clothes, and boots, and
shoes, by spinning machines, power looms, stitching machines, and
all the host of labor saving devices of the present day ; these with
out exception come from men who have been brought up under the
influence of this fetish, and who have been taught to regard it of
the utmost value. Wherever we find hospitals for the sick, asylums
for the insane, orphanages for the fatherless, schools for the blind,
soup kitchens for the poor, and homes for the homeless, we will
find this same fetish at the bottom of the whole. Wherever we
find a cannibal turned to a peaceable Christian there we find this
fetish. Wherever we find a Mohawk or a Modoc putting off his
war paint and putting on the habiliments of civilization, we find
this fetish. Wherever we find a savage tribe civilized, humanized,
and educated we find this fetish. Wherever we find womanhood
honored, infancy protected, family life held sacred,"property secure,
and liberty regarded, we find this fetish. The worshipers of this
fetish all read and write : the worshipers of other fetishes cannot.
The only nation that has lived through thirty centuries of conflict,
storm, and trouble, is a nation which has crystalized around this
fetish, which has maintained its existence in spite of invasion, cap
tivity, dispersion, and affliction, while all the nations and govern
ments of its time have rotted down through their vices and their
sins : and to-day, in the United States of America the representa
tives of that ancient nation of fetish worshipers have a death-rate
only half as heavy as that of the nation at large, with all its culture,
its criticism, its skepticism, and its contempt for the Word of God.
Wherever we find other fetishes we find idolatry, savagery, cruelty,
debauchery, and all abominations as deep and as dark in the clos
ing years of the nineteenth century as they ever were in the darkest
ages of antiquity. It is only among the worshipers of this partic
ular fetish that progress, advancement, and civilization may be
62

liil THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
discerned. Surely such a fetish as this is not likely to do a vast
amount of harm, — especially as it is found that most of the crimi
nals and evil men who disgrace and distress our land are men who
have had little to do with this fetish, and have been brought up out
side of its influence.
Doubtless fetish worship in general is to be deplored and dis
countenanced ; but there are fetishes and fetishes, and if the men
who are opposing this particular type of fetishism would devote
their attention to uprooting other forms of fetish worship, which are
widely prevalent in other lands, they might meet a more urgent
need, and have greater prospects of success. For while hundreds
of other fetishes have been abandoned and cast aside by the sav
ages which adored them, we do not recall a single nation where this
fetish had established itself, which has ever given it up.
One thing to be noted is that while other fetishes are manufac
tured by old women, medicine-men, and magicians, in dim corners,
and in dark ages and dark places of the earth, the manufacture of
this particular fetish has flourished most in the centers of educa
tion, intelligence, and civilization ; and since the year 1804 a single
Society organized in London, the commercial and literary metrop
olis of the world, has produced 135 millions of these fetishes, in 307
languages, 262 of which have been translated between 1803, and
1893 ; more than four millions (4,049,756), of them having been sent
forth during the year 1892-3. And though there have been more
books written against this fetish, more laws made prohibiting it, more
men persecuted and slain for having it than any other fetish that
the world has ever known, yet there are to-day ten times as many
of these fetishes in existence as there are of any other fetish known
to man. Indeed this fetish has made such progress, gathered so
many adherents, and acquired such endowments and evidences of
material prosperity, that some of the men who seem least inclined
to respect its merits are yet quite willing to tacitly accept the
fetish and the emoluments that attend it ; very few of them having
been known to resign comfortable positions in order to free them
selves from all complicity with it. Indeed we can hardly recollect
one of the opposers of this fetish who has ever run the risk of
being stoned, sawn asunder, beaten with rods, or of receiving "forty
stripes save one," because of his opposition to this fetish worship.
Other fetishes seem to be easily uprooted — this maintains its hold.
Other fetishes are dead trash ; but " the Word of God is living and
powerful, and sharper than a two-edged sword." Can it be that
the reason why the worship of this fetish dies so hard is because
it is " The Word op God that liveth and abideth forever? "
53

THE PENTATEUCH,
ITS ORIGIN AND AUTHORSHIP.

THE PENTATEUCH: ITS
OKIGEN" AND AUTHOBSHIP.

BY H. L. HASTINGS.

Some of the Critics of the present day have a quiet way of assum
ing as facts things which they do not undertake to demonstrate,
and taking for granted what they cannot prove. For thousands of
years the " Five Books " of the Jewish Law, called the Pentateuch,
have been attributed to Moses, the Hebrew Lawgiver. Josephus
states in his treatise Against Apion, (i. 8,) they had "twenty-two
books, which contain the records of all the past times, which are
justly believed to be divine. And of them, five belong lo Moses,
which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of mankind
till his death." The names of these five books are of Greek origin,
and perhaps due to the translators of the Septuagint. They are sep
arate divisions of one great work. The rabbinical writers call these
books " the five-fifths of the law."
But Modern Critics, instead of discussing the question of the
origin of the Pentateuch, have taken to discussing the origin of the
" Hexateuch," the six books, thus including Joshua ; and proceeding
to argue for the late origin of all these books. Of course if they
can add a number of books which no one ever supposed Moses
wrote, and which make no claim to a Mosaic origin ; and then can
jumble and churn them all together as if they were of uncertain
date, it helps them greatly in their effort to show that the Penta
teuch is a late forgery by unknown Jewish writers ; and so the
whole matter is assumed so quietly, that before persons are aware
of the fact, the ground is shifted, and half the argument is claimed
as if it were conceded.
We do not assent to this re-arrangement. We are not discuss
ing a " Hexateuch," — of which no one ever heard till the Higher
(lv) 56

lvi THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Critics invented it — but the Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses,
which have been known for thousands of years as " the Book of the
Law," which was to be put " in the side of the Ark of the Covenant,"
Deut. xxxi. 26 ; " the book of the law of the Lord ; " the code by
which the Jewish nation was governed. " The law which Moses my
servant commanded thee." Josh. i. 7. " The Book of the law of
Moses which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel."
Josh. viii. 31-35. " The commandment and the law, which Moses
the servant of the Lord charged you." Josh. xxii. 5. "The stat
utes and judgments which the Lord charged Moses with concern
ing Israel." 1 Chron. xxii. 13. " The book of the law in the
house of the Lord." 2 Ki. xxii. 8. "The law of Moses the man
of God." 2 Chron. xxx. 16. " The statutes, and the ordinances,
and the law, and the commandment which God wrote for you." 2
Ki. xvii. 34-37. " The law of Moses which the Lord God of Israel
had given," Ezra vii. 6. " The book of the law of Moses which
the Lord had commanded to Israel." Neh. viii. 1. "The law of
Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all
Israel, with the statutes and judgments." Mai. iv. 4.
The Law of Moses and these Five Books of Moses were entirely
separate from the succeeding books, from Joshua to Malachi.
They furnished the basis for the commonwealth of Israel ; they were
the organic law of the nation. Later books contain history, gene
alogy, prophecy, theology, and ethical and practical instruction,
but none of them are legislative or organic. The Jewish nation
had no legislature ; their laws were not enacted one year and repealed
the next. Given at first in the wilderness, modified as they stood
on the borders of Canaan, they henceforth remained the sacred
heritage of the chosen people, who, clustering around them, have
maintained their existence under most adverse circumstances till
the present time. And the Mosaic authorship of the Jewish law
has been expressly affirmed, not only by the Jews, and Samaritans,
and Christians, but by numerous heathen authors, such as Hecataeus,
Manetho, Lysimachus, Tacitus, Strabo, Juvenal, Longinus,* etc.
The man who had twenty reasons to offer for the non-appearance
of his friend in court, was doubtless possessed of much logical
power and acumen ; but having stated as his first reason, that the
man was dead, the court considerately waived the hearing of the
other nineteen, and dismissed the subject. There are doubtless
skeptical critics who could give us twenty reasons why the law of
Moses should not be received as of divine authority and inspiration,
but they lay their axe at the root of the tree when they state at
*For References and proofs, see Remarks on the Mistakes of Moses pp 4^7
56

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lvii
the outset that Moses did not write the law, and had little or nothing
to do with it. This fact if once established, carries everything else
with it, and stamps the whole as a fraud and a forgery.
It is a wearisome task to assail the Bible in detail, and to deny
and contradict its declarations one by one ; but the matter is greatly
simplified if we can treat the books themselves as suppositious,
legendary, and ' unhistorical.' Thus men save the trouble of dis
cussing separate points and particulars, and throw the book over
board at once : for a man who would prove that the various books
comprised in the Hebrew Scriptures were forgeries and fictions, and
then attempt to cultivate reverence for these exploded legends, and
found a religious worship upon them, might be expected to construct
a school geography upon the basis of Gulliver's Travels, or found a
system of religion upon the teachings of the Arabian Nights.
The question of the origin and authorship of the Pentateuch, or
the " Five Books" of Moses, therefore becomes a primary question,
to be considered before we greatly trouble ourselves concerning the
character and contents of the books themselves. It is consistent
thus to lay the axe at the root of the tree. If the work is a fraud,
an invention, and an imposition, we need not discuss its contents or
its character ; if, however, it is found to be a genuine work, written
at the time it purports to be, and substantially by the man to whom
it is attributed, it will then be in order to examine its contents and
discuss its merits.
In reading a book there is a natural interest to know its author.
If it bears upon its title page a well-known name, we usually accept
this testimony as conclusive evidence of its authorship. If, how
ever, we learn that some one else claims to have written the book,
we then enter upon an investigation to ascertain who is the rightful
claimant. If a book is openly known and publicly read from the
time of its origin, its authorship can hardly be a matter of dispute.
There was a time when the book was unknown, and did not exist;
when it came to be known there were persons who knew its author
ship, and unless they were interested to conceal it, the facts could
be easily ascertained. If a book purported to be recently discov
ered, after having been hidden and unknown for ages, of course the
question of its authorship would be more complicated; but if a
book had been written and published, and was generally read, and
known, and accepted as the production of a certain author ; and if
no other person ever claimed the authorship thereof ; then unless
there were very cogent reasons for doubting the veracity of the
claimant, we should regard the authorship of the volume as settled.
It is not easy to impose a spurious book upon any nation or
57

lviii THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
community, especially a book of laws, rules, and regulations, or even
a book of histories dealing with matters known to them or to their
fathers. A spurious book is liable to be criticised, and its defects
are quite sure to be discerned. Literary deceptions do not usually
long remain undetected. If a man succeeds in perpetrating a liter
ary fraud, some sharp-witted investigator will pierce the disguise
and expose the cheat; or possibly the author himself, through
remorse, or from vanity, will voluntarily declare what he has done,
and take to himself the honor or the blame due for his production.
A few years since there went the rounds of the papers a crude
rhyme which purported to be the prophecy of a certain "Mother
Shipton/' who lived about 1448, and who in it foretold steam loco
motion, the invention of balloons, revolutions in France, the career
of DTsraeli, the erection of the Crystal Palace, etc. It had a con
siderable currency, and was sometimes cited by skeptics as a
modern instance of prophetic foresight. It reappeared from time
to time with certain slight additions, the work apparently of some
" redacteur" or editor, containing additional predictions correspond
ing to new developments of current events. At length the author
ship of the prophecy was traced to one Charles Hindly, who
wrote the Mother Shipton prophecy in 1862, and set it adrift to
take its chances among the critics.
Toward the close of the last century a Tory Parson, Samuel A.
Peters, concocted and published that farrago of nonsense and
absurdity known as the " Blue Laws " of Connecticut ; and there
are probably on earth to-day a few benighted skeptics and editors
of Sunday papers, who really believe that the legislature of
the New Haven Colony, Connecticut, did enact laws " that no
husband should kiss his wife, and no mother her children on
Sunday or on Fast Day; that a bc-jr barrel should be whipped if
the beer in it worked on Sunday ; that on that day no one should
cook food, make beds, sweep house, cut hair, or shave himself ; and
that every male in the colony should have his hair cut round by a
cap, or, if a cap was wanting, then by the scooped-out shell of a
half-pumpkin!" And hence, when legislators and philanthropists,
seeking to protect both man and beast from the exactions of
tyranny and greed, by the enactment of laws securing to weary
toilers that weekly day of rest which is demanded by physical law
and is essential to the physical and moral well-being of mankind ¦ *
these fomenters of irreligion, anarchy and disorder — who seem to

*For facts concerning the importance of the weekly rest day, consult
" The Wonderful Law," "Remarks on the Mistakes of Moses," "Divi
dends," etc., by H. L> Hastings. 58

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lix
regard a man as only a cog-wheel in a great money-making ma
chine, to be run till it breaks, and then flung away and replaced by
another — set up their periodic wail about the abridgment of per
sonal liberty by " Connecticut Blue Laws," and " Puritanic legis
lation." But though an intelligent believer in the "Connecticut Blue
Laws " fiction, might fitly claim a place as a fossil in a dime museum,
yet there are other specimens which seem equally worthy of pres
ervation.* And the man who can now believe that a few centuries
hence the Blue Laws of Connecticut will be adopted and enforced as
authoritative in that ancient commonwealth ; and that the prophecies
of Mother Shipton will also be received as a divine revelation ; and
that both together will be read in all the synagogues of Connect
icut every sabbath day, would be justly entitled to a preservation
as an unnatural curiosity, beside a stuffed specimen of Parson Pe
ters' wonderful " Whapperknocker."
Such a man would probably be credulous enough to believe that
within the space of a very few hundred years, the laws, proph
ecies, and sacred writings of the Old Testament could have
been forged, imposed upon the people, accepted by them, placed
among their sacred records, and handed down through successive
generations as holy writings inspired by the Spirit of the living
God. And the men who are able to believe that so many different
writers, capable of producing laws like those of Moses, prophecies
like those of Isaiah, poetry like that of Job, and psalms like those
of David ; who in their lif e-time~were scattered over a tract of hun
dreds of years ; would all, in an excess of modesty, conceal their
names, deny the authorship of their own writings, and attribute
them to certain men long dead, who had written nothing, said
nothing, and done nothing which should make them specially
famous, — the men who could believe all this, and could believe that
*"The true origin of these 'Blue Laws' " says the N. Y. Observer, "is
that they were written by the Rev. Samuel A. Peters, a renegade Tory, who
was driven from the colony, and who, in anger and spite published these
laws in 1781 . According to the historian Trumbull he was known as the
greatest falsifier in the colony, telling such incredibly absurd stories as that
of the ' Windham Frogs,' and of those unearthly and fearful quadrupeds,
the ' Cuba, ' and the ' Whapperknocker ; ' and that the Rev. Thomas Hooker
of Hartford spread the poison of small-pox on the leaves of Bibles which he
sent to the Indians, and so swept away the great sachem Connecticote — an
imaginary person — and his warriors, and so laid waste their kingdom; and,
climax of all, that in the Connecticut river at Bellows Falls, Vt., 'the
water is consolidated without frost, by pressure, as it swiftly passes
between the binding, sturdy rocks, to such a degree of induration that no
iron bar can be forced into it; here iron, lead, and cork have one common
weight ; here steady as time and harder than marble, the stream passes as
irresistibly, if not as swiftly as lightning.' "
59

Ix THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
such laws and prophecies, so produced and sent forth, would remain
for centuries with their authorship unknown, and the imposition
undetected, until they were accepted and enforced as genuine,
authoritative, and divinely inspired; would seem to be endowed
with many of the qualities which enter into the composition of the
Higher Critic of the present day, to qualify him to sit in judg
ment upon *' the oracles of God."
CHANGES IN STYLE AND LANGUAGE.
It is held by some critics that the Pentateuch could not have
been written by Moses, because it agrees in style with the later
Jewish writings ; for it is held that the Hebrew language must have
been greatly modified through the centuries of their national exist
ence. But in answer to this it is said, that the later books of the
minor prophets do differ in style from the Pentateuch, as well as
from the earlier prophetical writings, by reason of the introduction
of the Chaldee element, during the seventy years captivity in
Babylon. But as regards changes in the ancient Hebrew tongue,
the question aris-es, What chance was there for change? This
language was the legal, social and ecclesiastical language of
the nation, used in daily life, in law, and in worship. The litera
ture of such a nation could not have been extensive. The Mosaic
law was to be read to the people publicly once in seven years, and
as the people were homogeneous, having one common organization,
and as their males were required to assemble three times a year in
Jerusalem, and as the Israelites were commanded to meditate in
this law, and diligently teach it to their children, it is not easy to
see how their language could be corrupted or broken up into
tribal dialects. They were not a company of petty nationalities
and principalities ; they were one nation, children of one father,
bound by one law, and ruled from one center. They were not a
commercial people, and had little communication with outside na
tions : they were separated from other races by their faith, their
customs, their religion, and their government, all of which were
prescribed and fixed by the Mosaic law. They were taught to
abhor and avoid the surrounding idolatries ; and the literature of
other nations, so far as they had any literature, can have had very
little effect upon the Israelites. Carried captive to Babylon, of
course they learned the language of their conquerors ; but till the
Babylonish captivity their language was substantially unchanged.
We are not to draw a parallel between things which essentially
differ. The changes in the English language, springing from such
diverse sources — Aryan, Roman, Scandinavian, Teutonic, and
60

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. Iii
Norman ; broken up by internecine convulsions and external inva
sions, by changes in government and religion, by the spread of litera
ture, by the discovery of printing, and the wide acquaintance thus
gained with the languages and writings of other nations ; can afford
no criteria for estimating the modifications in the laws and language
of a quiet, isolated, homogeneous, secluded people like the Israel
ites during the lapse of passing centuries.
The testimony of competent scholars leads to the conclusion that
nations do not change their languages so readily as some imagine.
Otlier influences besides the mere lapse of years must contribute to
such changes, as can be shown by many illustrative examples.
Between the times of Plautus, (b. c. 254-184), and Gregory the
Great, (a. d. 550-604), stretched a period of seven or eight hundred
years, during which the Latin was a living and ever changing
tongue. During that period wars had convulsed the nations, revo
lutions had rocked the world, Christianity had appeared, Rome had
reached the acme of her glory, and had gone far down in decay,
and yet these two writers used the same language. New words are
introduced, old words become obsolete, but the language as a whole
was the same.
So down to the year a. d. 530, the Greek was a current language
with the people, and it was as nearly identical with the Greek of
seven or eight hundred years before, as the Hebrew of the Jews
when they went into captivity was with that of the Pentateuch.
Specimens of Egyptian papyrus of widely different eras show that,
though separated by an interval of a thousand years, they are of
the same stamp and general character, and their grammar has not
undergone the slightest change; and the language of Asiatic
nations, like their customs and usages, still shares a similar perma
nence, notwithstanding the flight of time.
Arguments of this kind of course depend upon the judgment of
experts ; but it is not altogether certain that expert testimony is
absolutely unimpeachable, or that expert judgment is entirely in
fallible. We have not yet had the verdict of half a dozen experts
writing independently of each other, and in utter ignorance of each
other's views and conclusions ; and the consensus of a number of
critics after comparison and consultation, may not be absolutely con
vincing to the average student, who makes no claims to expert
critical ability, but who still is not disposed to yield to the unsup
ported assertion of one or two collusive critical authorities. In
deed if these scholars would win our unquestioning confidence, it
behooves them to test their critical abilities in some manner which
shall be tangible, and within the reach of the ordinary student.
61

lxil THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Dr. Franklin Johnson in an article in The Watchman, has proposed
the following very sensible method of
TESTING THE HIGHER CRITICS ON SHAKESPEARE :
" Some of the statements of the Newer Criticism are so incred
ible in themselves that they should be supported by mighty evi
dences before we give them credence. We are asked to believe,
for example, that the critic, working in an ancient and dead
language, cannot only determine- that a given book was written by
four or five different authors, but can assign his part accurately to
each one of them, running the dividing line at times through the
middle of a sentence, thus ' distinguishing a hair twixt north and
north-west sides.' This claim of the critics is so astounding that
we may well demand the most cogent proofs before admitting it.
We are told that it is a question which can be settled only by
experts, and that since all the experts agree, we should believe
on their testimony. But the experts themselves need to be tested before
we can believe in their ability to do this thing. The test is easily
applied, and if their claims are just, may be easily met. Let the
critics do in their own language what they profess to have done in a
foreign and dead language. There are the mixed plays of Shake
speare, partly his work, and partly the work of his associates. Let the
critics solve this problem before they demand too much of our faith.
Indeed they have tried to solve it, and have failed, as they them
selves confess. Coleridge was, perhaps, the last of the students of
Shakespeare to believe that he could separate the work of the
great poet from the rest ; and Macaulay pronounces his pretentions
pure nonsense. The failure of the critics in this case is the more
instructive for us since the style of Skakespeare is so peculiar, so
different from that of every other writer, so entirely his own. Let
the critics of art tell us what part of the frescos of the Vatican
were painted by Raphael, and what part by his pupils. Until these
lighter tasks have been accomplished by the experts, we may be
slow to believe that they have accomplished the heavier."
If half a dozen of these Higher Critics could be separated and
secluded, and set at work sorting out Shakespeare ; and then if the
results of their studies could be printed without comparison or
collusion ; we might by comparing their work judge of their infalli
bility as critics, and the exactness of the science of Higher Criti
cism ; and we might then be ready to have them undertake to
reconstruct the Bible in the same manner and under the same
conditions and restrictions. Are they ready for such a test? How
would they endure it? 62

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lxtii
The editor of The Watchman vouches for the following instance
illustrating the uncertainty of this style of criticism : •' A certain
editor was interrogated by Prof . A., an eminent critic, as to the
authorship of an article, and as soon as the question was asked, he
said: 'Of course you do not care to say, but I know that B. wrote
it; it is full of his peculiarities of style.' A few days later the
editor fell in with Dr. B., the man to whom Prof. A. had referred.
'By the way,' he said,' that was a pretty good article that you had
the other day,' — -mentioning the one of which Prof. A. had spoken.
' I know it was written by Prof. A. It is just like him.' "
Such instances might be multiplied. It is not easy for persons to
pronounce with infallible correctness concerning the style of per
sons who live in their own time, and write in their own tongue, and
with whom they have personal acquaintance. What dependence
then can we place upon their critical judgment concerning the
authorship of documents thousands of years old, written in foreign
tongues, and under unknown circumstances, and so brief that they
afford but very limited data for the exercise of critical judgment
concerning their origin. THE GERMAN CRITICS TESTED.
In the year 1843 there issued from the German press a volume
entitled Die Bernstein Hexe, or " The Amber Witch," which was
edited and had an introduction by Pastor Johann Wilhelm Mein-
hold, of the Island of Rugen in the Baltic, who related that some
time after he was appointed to his cure in the Island, in a chest in
his sacristy he found a number of old documents ; parish registers,
bills, records of marriages, deaths, and other parish matters ;
and among them a Roll, written in Old German, in a style now
disused, which proved to be a narrative, by one of his predecessors,
of the trial of a woman for witchcraft, in the Island of Rugen.
This manuscript he deciphered, and thus introduced to the world.
It caused a great sensation. It gave much information concerning
the period after the death of Luther and his associates, and learned
critics indulged in many conjectures regarding its authorship. The
German reviews took it up, and discussed it for about twelve
months, and were as delighted with the light it cast upon an
obscure period, as they were with the critical evidence produced by
Strauss that the gospel story was a myth, and the history of Christ
a series of cunningly devised fables.
At length Meinhold wrote thus to the reviews and newspapers :
" Reliable critics you are of the Greek of the New Testament
Books ! The book you have been reading and praising is the

lxiv THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
production of my own brain in my own study in the last five years.
You were not able to discover the deception and detect the forgery
in your own language. You may be dismissed as critics of the
Books of the New Testament."
The critics were enraged, and assailed him as a lying impostor.
But he was the author of "The Amber Witch," and proved that he
was ; and criticism had another illustration of the infallibility of
the learned critics, who expect the common people to accept their
assertions as the end of both law and gospel ; and who are as confi
dent of their ability to assign dates to manuscripts of whose origin
they can have no positive knowledge, as the Cape Cod skipper
was of his ability to tell his location in a fog, by smelling of the
sounding lead as he hauled it up from the bottom of the sea.
TIME NOTES AND FOOT NOTES.
Undoubtedly there are certain nqtes of events contained in the
different books of the Bible which indicate the time in which the
author wrote. Thus we are told in Joshua xv. 63, " The Jebusites
dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day." Then
we read in 2 Samuel, v. 6-9, that David took the stronghold of
Zion, notwithstanding the resistance of the Jebusites. This shows
that the book of Joshua was written before the time of David's
conquest of Jerusalem. So in Joshua xvi. 10 it is written of the
Israelites, " they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer,
but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and
serve under tribute." But we read in 1 Kings ix. 16, " Pharaoh king
of Egypt had gone up and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and
slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for a pres
ent unto his daughter, Solomon's wife. And Solomon built Gezer."
This was in the time of Solomon, about a thousand years before the
birth of the Saviour, and the book of Joshua must have been writ
ten before that time. But there are doubtless other instances where
suggestive or explanatory expressions occur, which are the marginal
notes or comments of later writers, students or transcribers.
Nothing is more common than the appending of necessary sup
plementary notes to important books and documents. The works
of most great writers have been issued with annotations by various
authors. The productions of Shakespeare, Milton, Gibbon, Homer,
Herodotus, Plato, and most of the ancient philosophers, historians,
and poets, have been published with comments and explanations,
needful for the elucidation of obscure passages, the explanation of
obsolete words, and the information of readers unfamiliar with the
subject of the writings or the circumstances under which they
64

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lXV
were written. Such notes, comments, and explanations, are some
times bracketed in the text, but are more usually placed in the
margin, or at the bottom of the page, and are distinguished from
the text by certain marks of reference, and by being printed in
smaller type.
There are also books in almost every library, which have, in ad
dition to such appended annotations, manuscript notes, inserted by
thoughtful and attentive readers, making needful explanations,
alluding to related facts, or giving references to other sources of
information. It is the constant practice of many persons to thus
annotate the books in their libraries, and so prone are readers to
do this, that in public libraries stringent rules are necessary to pre
vent readers writing on the margins of books which do not belong
to them. All such annotations being in manuscript, show for
themselves that they were appended after the volumes were pub
lished. No books have ever been so largely annotated and commented
upon as the different books of the Bible. Multitudes of ponderous
tomes of these annotations have been written and published.
Every translation of the Bible, or any part of it, includes more or
less of paraphrase, annotation, and explanation. We have in our
times scores of Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures. When
we go back to past ages, we find volumes and volumes of annota
tions and comments in the early Christian church. Going still
further back, we find the Jewish Talmuds and Targums, and the
Chaldee Paraphrases, which were greatly esteemed and served
very important purposes among the Jews.
Now it would be natural to suppose that at still earlier dates,
notes and explanations might have been added to the text of
Scripture by any one who chanced to be the possessor of a manu
script copy, and who might wish to define a locality the name of
which had been changed, explain something which would otherwise
be obscure to the uninformed, or place on record some connected
fact which ought not to be forgotten. And as books were few,
and writing materials were not always accessible, unless such mem
oranda were written then and there, they might never be recorded.
We must bear in mind that these books of the Bible which would
thus naturally be annotated were not printed; so there were no
different kinds of type in use to distinguish notes from text.
There was no proof-reading, or careful editing, as is now the case
when such books are issued, and any comments written upon the
manuscript might be in the same hand-writing as the body of the
book. What then would be more natural than that a future
65

lxvi THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
transcriber, who might not be intellectually acute or critical, and
might have no knowledge of the special facts in the case, and no
other copy of the manuscript roll for comparison, should fail to
notice that certain sentences were comments and additions, and
should copy them into his manuscript as if they were a part of
the original work.
Such considerations as these, it is believed, very reasonably
explain some of the few passages which are quoted as indicating
a non-Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, — an explanatory phrase or
sentence being added here or there by some thoughtful reader, and
embodied in the text by some subsequent transcriber, and thus
being transmitted to later ages as a portion of the original text.
But if, in consideration of these difficulties, we are led to admit
the non-Mosaic and recent origin of these books, we are speedily
confronted with ten-fold greater difficulties than those we escape by
such admission.
The Pentateuch has not been hidden in a corner and recently
discovered. It was not transmitted bj- oral tradition for hundreds
of years before being written down, like the sacred books of the
East. It does not claim to have been revealed in a single night
like the Koran, nor dug out of a hole in the ground like the book
of Mormon ; but it is a book which has been publicly known and
read in an open and above-board manner for thousands of years.
It has been brought down to us in the guardian care of three distinct
and antagonistic classes of people, the Jews, the Samaritans, and
the Christians. There has not been a week for thousands of years
when it has not been publicly read in various places, and in the
ears of multitudes of people ; and through all these ages no person
has ever laid claim to the honor of its authorship, for himself or any
one else. Such presumptive evidence of the genuineness of the
Pentateuch should be met by distinct and authentic traditions, and
ancient historical records, showing who really did write the books
if they were not the work of " Moses, the man of God."
It may not be needful to assert that every line of these five books
was personally written by Moses' own hand. He may have em
bodied quotations from pre-existing writers, and genealogical rec
ords, which had been carefully preserved and handed down by
previous generations. The books may have been partly written by
an amanuensis from dictation, or by a secretary or recorder who
kept the journal of the days' doings as they came ; and yet such
books, written by the authority, and under the dictation of Moses
may have been really his books, for whose contents he was entirely
responsible. 66

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lxvii
Often internal evidence determines questions concerning the
authorship of a work. A book full of grammatical blunders would
no., be regarded as the work of a finished scholar, even if it bore
his name. In the autumn of 1880, a letter purporting to have been
written by a candidate for the presidency of the United States ;
which, for political purposes, was scattered in fac-simile through
the length and breadth of the land on the very eve of the election, by
some of those politicians who are especially frugal in their use of
truth on such occasions ; was found to contain certain words so mis
spelled as to indicate clearly that it could not have been from the
pen of a literary gentleman like General Garfield, whose name had
been villainously appended to it ; but must have been rather the
production of some politician or office-seeker, who evidently had
neglected to study his spelling-book, as well as to learn the Ten
Commandments. A book full of the abstrusest learning would not be easily
accepted as the production of an ignorant boor or clown. A com
prehensive treatise on common law would not be expected from a
police court shyster, or a .country Dogberry; and a treatise on
hygiene, furnishing the best code of health possessed by any nation,
and reducing the death-rate of those who observed it to one-half
the death-rate of the people around them, could not be supposed to
heve emanated from the mind of a rude, uncultured barbarian.
But there is nothing in the character of the five books of Moses
which is inconsistent with the claim that they were written by a
man learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, brought up in the
court of the Pharaohs, skilled in the conduct of civil and military
affairs, and trained and fully experienced as a commander and
judge, in the management of a great people. Who else can be
named in the history of the Hebrew people so capable of producing
such a code and such a record, as he of whom it is said, "There
arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord
knew face to face? "
It is claimed that there are differences in style in the different
books ascribed to Moses, and that he could not have been the author
of those books. But there are differences of style in different
works on various subjects, produced by any man of flexible intel
lect, and wide and varied culture. A mechanical, narrow-minded,
and comparatively ignorant man, possessed of few ideas and limited
vocabulary, can only write in one style ; but a man acquainted with
law, medicine, history, politics, poetry, archaeology, ethnology, and
geography, as he treats upon these various subjects, deals with
them in varied styles of diction. 67

lxviii THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Besides it is more than possible that in preparing the book of
Genesis, Moses examined and made use of documents, records, and
traditions, that were written, preserved, and handed down by patri
archs and prophets who preceded him, and some of these may have
been incorporated in his writings without essential change of diction.
When we remember that eleven chapters in Genesis bring us
down from the creation unto the calling of Abraham, it will
easily be seen that the recollection and preservation of such a
brief record was a slight task, compared with the transmission of
the 15,677 lines of the Iliad which was handed down for generations
and perhaps for centuries before it was ever written ; or 1,017 hymns
of the Rig Veda, a work about four times as large as the Iliad,
which was not only memorized, but has been brought down by
word of mouth, independent of books and manuscripts, for thousands
of years, by a class of priests in India, who are required to know
the whole of it by heart.
We must remember that though the time from the creation to
the flood, a period of about 1656 years, would cover nearly fifty
generations at the present time ; yet of this period Adam lived
more than half, or 930 years. At Adam's death Methuselah was
233 years old, and he lived till 1655, — the year before the flood.
Thus two lives covered the antediluvian period; and Noah and
his house connect the old world that was destroyed with the new
world that succeeded it.
As Adam lived 930 years, and Noah was 600 years old at
the time of the deluge, there were only 126 years between the
death of Adam and the birth of Noah. But Noah's father was 182
years old at Noah's birth, and he, having been cotemporary with
Adam fifty-six years, lived with Noah 595 years, dying five years
before the flood. Therefore Noah during 595 years, had the oppor
tunity of learning all that was known by his own father, who had
lived fifty-six years the cotemporary of Adam, and was besides,
cotemporary with Enos, Cainan, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah.
Shem, Noah's son, was ninety-eight years old at the time of the
flood, and was thus for ninety-three years cotemporary with
Lamech, his grandfather, who was fifty-six years old at the death
of Adam. Living 500 years after the flood, Shem was for 150 years
the cotemporary of Abraham : hence between Adam and Abraham
were only three witnesses, Lamech, Noah, and Shem ; Abraham being
removed by only four lives from the creation of the first man.
Abraham lived 175 years ; and Jacob was fifteen years old when
Abraham died, and lived 147 years. At his death Joseph was fifty
six years old, and Joseph lived to the age of 110, in the midst

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lxiX
of the splendors of Egyptian civilization, with literature, records,
and inscriptions which may be seen to-day upon the walls and pil
lars of Egyptian temples, palaces, and tombs.
The writer has trustworthy unwritten traditions of words spoken
and acts done by his father grandfather, great grandfather, and
great, great grandfather ; besides written records of preceding gene
rations, and these traditions have come down casually, charged with
no important message, but bearing every evidence of truthfulness.
Now through the long reaches of antediluvian and patriarchal ages
it would require but six lives to cover the space from the creation
of man to the establishment of the Israelitish nation in the midst
of Egyptian civilization and literature. Hence there was nothing
difficult in the transmission of uncorrupted traditions and au
thentic records, from the time of the creation of Adam down to
the days of Moses and the giving of the Law.
It is sometimes objected that the recorded longevity of the patri
archs is incredible: though no man can tell why a person who
increases in strength every year for forty years, might not under
favorable conditions live on indefinitely ; nor why humanity, fresh
from its Creator's hands, untainted by vices and excesses, and with
the energies of divine life yet unspent, should not continue to live
on for centuries. Indeed, such ancient writers as Manetho, who
wrote Egyptian history; Berosus, who wrote the history of Chal
dea ; and the Grecian writers, Hesiod, Hecatseus, and Ephorus,
testify that in the earliest ages of the world men lived to be nearly
a thousand years old.
There are also traditions and records of great longevity in the
ages succeeding the times of Noah. Eratosthenes, the astronomer
and geometer, who was born b. c. 276, and lived some eighty years
and who, during the reigns of Ptolemy Euergetes, and his successor,
was for many years superintendent of the great library at Alexan
dria, — the largest collection of ancient literature the world has ever
seen, — -in his account of the kings of Egypt, compiled at the request
of Ptolemy, and drawn, of course, from the boundless stores of liter
ature at his command, which he compared with the original records
kept at Thebes ; states that Menes, — who is believed to be identical
with Mizraim, the son of Ham, — the first king of Egypt, reigned
sixty-two years, and died at the age of 252, being lamented by the
Egyptians as having been cut off in the flower of his age. His suc
cessor, Thoth reigned fifty-nine years, and lived to the age of 276
years ; he was cotemporary with Arphaxad, who lived 433 years.
A later king, Amachus, reigned seventy-nine years, and Apappua,
the twentieth king, reigned one hundred years.*
* Arthur Bedford's Scripture Chronology, page 62.
69

lxx THE ntGIIER CRITICISM.
The Chinese chronology also gives us similar information. Be
ginning with Fohi, the first king of China, who is believed to have
been the same as Noah, and of whose great age the Chinese records
make mention : it is said that he reigned one hundred and fifteen
years. His successor Zinnum, reigned one hundred and forty years,
Hoanti reigned a hundred years, and died at the age of a hundred
and eleven. Zaohao reigned eighty-four years, and died at the age
of one hundred. Chuciihio reigned seventy-eight years, and died
at the age of ninety-one. Tico reigned seventy years, and lived a
hundred and five years. Yao, who is believed to have been cotem
porary with Moses, reigned one hundred years, and died at the age
of a hundred and eighteen. Zun reigned fifty years, and lived a
hundred and ten years.* These long reigns and long lives corres
pond quite closely with the lives of the patriarchs of the same date.
In like manner the story of the deluge finds confirmation in the
records and traditions of all nations ancient and modern. The
account of the confusion of tongues at Babel, furnishes the only
explanation of the existence of thousands of languages in which
people of one blood express the same thoughts, ideas and affections ;
and the account of the dispersion and genealogy of the race (Gene
sis x., xi.) helps us to trace all nations to their origin.
It has been claimed that the Mosaic law was written, compiled,
and published by Ezra, or some one about his time. The book of
Ezra records the fact of Ezra's reading the law of Moses, and giv
ing the sense distinctly, in the presence of the assembled people
who had returned from Babylon, some of whom were so old that
they remembered the temple at Jerusalem which had b°en de
stroyed seventy years before ; but the record says nothing about
Ezra forging the law of Moses, or inventing the ritual ; nor could
such a forgery have passed unchallenged before such an assembly.
On the other hand the people hearing this law repented of the sins
which it condemned, lamented their violation of the Mosaic pre-
, cepts, and made haste to renew their covenant with God, and keep
the commandments which their fathers had disobeyed. And the
prophet Malachi, who lived very near the time of Ezra, and who
might be supposed to know as much about what was done in
Ezra's time as modern critics who lived thousands of years later,
and thousands of miles distant ; knew nothing about the invention
of the Pentateuch by Ezra or any of his cotemporaries, but the
Word of the Lord which he uttered, was, " Remember ye the law
of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for
all Israel, with the statutes and judgments." Mai. iv. 4
» Arthur Bedford's Scripture Chronology, pp. 76-82.
70

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lxxi
The prominence given to Egypt in the Hebrew Scriptures, is
utterly inexplicable unless great wonders were wrought " in the
land of Ham " in the days of Israel's early history. Egypt is men
tioned in the Old Testament 683 times, and the Egyptians thirty
times ; and the references to the land of Egypt, its cities, rulers,
customs, sins, and idolatries, are unnumbered. Egypt was the
background of Israel's history, which fact alone can explain the
Hebrew Scriptures, which shine on every page with the light of the
flaming pillar and the guiding cloud. The Hebrew prophets and
teachers were not all of them masters of the art of realistic fiction ;
and the scribe with his weary and yet persistent pen could offer no
such golden temptations to the inventors of religious fictions as are
held out by the enterprising publishers of the present day. The
countless references to Egypt would have baffled the skill of the
most astute inventor of history and prophecy; and yet lynx-eyed
criticism, after searching for a century among tombs, temples, pyr
amids, obelisks, and inscriptions, though determined to find contra
dictions, only finds confirmations ; and confesses the accuracy and
genuineness of the Hebrew Records.
Wilkinson's "Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians," in
its three volumes, has references to Scripture on more than 230
pages. Dr. Brugsch in his " History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,"
quotes more than one hundred passages of Scripture, illustrating
and confirming its statements ; and says : (vol. ii. p. 330), " any
one must certainly be blind who refuses to see the flood of light
which the papyri and the other Egyptian monuments are throwing
on the venerable records of the Holy Scripture."
The spade of the explorer exhibits to us not only " The Castle of
the Jew's Daughters," the ruined palace of Pharaoh-hophra, at
Tahpanhes, whither the daughters of king Zedekiah fled for asy
lum (Jer. xliii.) ; but also disinters Pithom the treasure city which
the Israelites built, and exhibits the bricks they made and laid
there. From the walls of the Temple of Shishonk at Karnak thtre
still look down upon us the Jewish profiles of the captives which
Shishak took from Palestine in the days of Solomon's foolish son,
Rehoboam ; and the names of the cities he conquered are still
inscribed upon those temple walls. 2 Chron. xii. 1-8. Each new
discovery answers some skeptical cavil, or removes some honest
doubt. And yet, after all this, the Higher Critic asks us to believe
that these books are a series of "cunningly devised fables," that
they are fictitious, legendary, and unhistorical ; and that they were
invented by men who knew little or nothing about Egypt, and who,
out of a few vague, mythical legends, have constructed this
71

lxxii THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
marvellously compacted mass of history and prophecy, on which has
beat the burning light of scrutiny and investigation for two thousand
years, but which is now expected to evaporate in the crucible of
the Higher Criticism of the nineteenth century, notwithstanding
the fact that every year new discoveries, coincidences, and confir
mations more firmly establish the truthfulness of these ancient
documents. One fact worthy of notice is the measurement of time given in
the Mosaic account of the flood. The flood is described as having
lasted one hundred and fifty days, from the seventeenth day of the
second month to the seventeenth day of the seventh month. This
would make five months of thirty days each. The only known cal
endar which had twelve months of thirty days is the ancient Egyp
tian calendar, which had twelve months of thirty days, and then
five intercalary days to fill out the year. During the time of the
second temple the Jews used months of thirty and twenty-nine days,
and the fact that the book of Genesis reckons months of thirty days
each, indicates that it was written soon after the Exode from Egypt,
and while that method of counting time was fresh in the minda of
the people.
Time and space would not admit the presentation of a tithe of
the facts which confirm the statements and indicate the antiquity
of the Pentateuch, But it seems proper to cite
ONE INDEPENDENT WITNESS
to the authenticity and great antiquity of these venerable writings.
On the walls of the fallen palace of Khorsabad, among the ruins of
buried Nineveh, Austen Henry Layard about the year 1845 discovered
a sculptured representation of the siege of Samaria, which was pic
tured as a fortress around which mounds had been erected, from
which soldiers assailed and captured the city. The account of this
siege is recorded among the exploits of Shalmaneser, who com
menced it about 724 b. c, two years before his death. The siege
continued three years, the city finally falling in the first year of the
reign of Sargon, — who succeeded Shalmaneser, claiming to be the
descendant of " the three hundred and fifty kings of Assyria," and
reigned from 722 to 705 b. c
In Dr. Eberhard Schrader's Cuneiform Inscriptions of the Old Tes
tament, Translated by Owen C. Whitehouse, are found the following
statements from the Great Triumphal Inscription of Sargon corres
ponding with the Scripture account in 2 Kings xvii :
"The city Samaria I besieged, I captured; 27,280 of its inhabit
ants I carried away ; 50 chariots of them I took [for myself] their
72

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lxxiii
remaining effects I caused [my subalterns] to take ; my viceroy I
placed over them, the tribute of the former king I imposed on
them."— Vol. I. p. 264.
Another inscription, much mutilated, apparently recounts the
same events : " In the begining ... of the Samaritans .... I
carried away ; 50 chariots I took as my royal share  in the
place of them [the deported] I assigned abodes to the inhabitants
of countries taken [by me]. I imposed tribute on them like As
syria." — p. 266.
The Annals of Sargon for the first year of his reign record that
" [Merodach Baladan], whom since he, not according to the will
of the gods, the rule over Babel [had seized for himself, I overcame
in war and smote] .... seven inhabitants — together with their
property I transported and settled them [in the land] Chatti." — i. e.
of the Hittites— the land of Israel, p. 268.
Another Cylinder Inscription reads : [Sargon], who the people
of Tamud, Ibadid, Marsiman, Chajap, the remainder of whom was
carried away, and whom he transported to the land of Bit Omri " —
i. e. the land of Omri, in Palestine, p. 269.
Again, in the Annals of Sargon's seventh year b. c, 715, he says:
" They of Tamud, Ibadid, Marsiman, Chajap, the Arbaeans, the
distant who inhabit the land of Bari, whom no scholar and messen
ger-sender has known, who to the kings my fathers never had offered
their tribute ; in confidence on Asur, my lord, I subjugated them, their
remnants I transplanted, and settled in the city Samaria." p. 270.
In the words of Schrader, "Thus the inscriptions place the fact
in. the clearest light that Sargon settled subjugated tribes in Sama
ria. Now, in the passage first cited from the Annals, Babylonians
are represented as being deported to the Land of Chatti, which, as
we have seen already, included Northern Israel ; while the Bible
represents Babylonians as being quartered in Samaria. There can
not therefore be any doubt that the settlement of the Babylonian
population to which the Bible refers, is that which is reported in
Sargon's Annals as having occurred in the first year of his reign,
i. e. 721 b. c This deportation, however, was subsequently fol
lowed by later detachments, perhaps on several occasions, at all
events in the seventh year of Sargon's reign, 715 b. c. We find
Sargon also in other instances carrying out repeated deportations
of population to one and the same place." p. 270.
The counterpart of these Assyrian Records taken from the walls
of the palaces of Nineveh, may be found recorded in the Jewish
Scriptures, in the seventeenth chapter of the second book of Kings,
which thus refers to the same transactions :
73

lxxiv THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
" Hoshea reigned in Samaria over Israel nine years, and did
that which was evil in the sight of the Lord." " Against him came
up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant,
and gave him presents." Afterward Hoshea conspired with the
king of Egypt, and sought to throw off the Assyrian yoke. Then
the king of Assyria took Hoshea captive, and shut him up, and
bound him in prison ; and invaded the land of Israel and besieged
Samaria three years. In the ninth year of Hoshea, " the king of
Assyria," whose name is not here given, but who was Sargon, who
had succeeded Shalmaneser, " took Samaria, and carried Israel
away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the
river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes." This was declared
to be in punishment for their sins, for " The Lord testified against
Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers,
saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments
and my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your
fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets. Not
withstanding, they would not hear, but hardened their necks, like
to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the Lord their
God. And they rejected His statutes and His covenant that He made
with their fathers, and His testimonies which He testified against
them ; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after
the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the
Lord had charged them, that they should not do like them. And
they left all the commandments of the Lord their God, and made
them molten images, even two calves, and made a grove, and wor
shiped all the host of heaven, and served Baal. And they caused
their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used
divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the
sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger. Therefore the Lord
was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of His sight :
there was none left but the tribe of Judah only. Also Judah kept
not the commandments of the Lord their God, but walked in the stat
utes oj Israel which they made." " So was Israel carried away out
of their own land to Assyria. And the king of Assyria brought
men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from
Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Sama
ria, instead of the children of Israel : and they possessed Samaria,
and dwelt in the cities thereof."
This portion of the land of Israel was thus stripped of the bulk
of its own inhabitants, who had sinned in disobeying the law which
God had given them, and whose national unity was thus broken up by
deportation and dispersion. Their territory was then re-peopled from
74

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. IxXV
other regions, by other races who had been conquered, who, in ac
cordance with this same policy, were carried from their own homes
to the land of Israel and planted there. Of course they brought
with them all the superstitions, errors, and idolatries of heathen
ism, which they continued to practice in the land of Israel. From
some cause calamities overtook them. The author of the book of
Kings says, " And so it was at the beginning of their dwelling
there, that they feared not the Lord ; therefore the Lord sent lions
among them, which slew some of them." This state of things led
them to consideration, "Wherefore they spake to the king of As
syria, saying, The nations which thou hast removed, and placed in
the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land :
therefore he hath sent lions among them, and behold they slay them,
because they know not the manner of the God of the land." This was
quite in accordance with the general opinion of those times, when
men believed that certain gods were the special protectors of cer
tain kingdoms and nations. The Assyrian king was disposed to
consider their condition, recognized the justness of their con
clusions, and speedily devised a remedy. " Then the king of As
syria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of the prietts whom ye
brought from thence ; and let them go and dwell there, and let him
teach them the manner of the God of the land. Then one of the priests
whom they had carried away from Samaria, came and dwelt in
Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the Lord." But these
inhabitants of Samaria were not Israelite's, nor did they propose to
abandon their hereditary idolatries. They simply added the God of
Israel to the list of deities which they worshiped, and while " every
nation made gods of their own," they still gave a partial recogni
tion to the God of Israel. And so they " made unto themselves of
the lowest of them priests of the high places, which sacrificed for
them in the houses of the high places. They feared the Lord, and
served their own gods, after the manner of the nations from among
whom they had been carried away." Revised Version. They thus
continued their idolatries and their mongrel worship, and the writer
declares that " Unto this day they do after the former manners :
they fear not the Lord, neither do they after their statutes, or after
their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the Lord
commanded the children of Jacob, whom He named Israel ; with whom
the Lord had made a covenant, and charged them, saying, — Ye
shall not fear other gods, nor bow yourselves to them, nor serve
them, nor sacrifice to them : . . . And the statutes, and the ordinan
ces, and the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, ye
shall observe to do for evermore, and ye shall not fear other gods."
75

LXXVi THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
About half a century later, there seems to have been another
deportation of foreigners into Samaria by Esar-haddon King of
Assyria, the son and successor of Sennacherib. Ezra iv. 2 At this
time the worship of the God of Israel, doubtless in a corrupted
form, seems to have predominated, if we may believe the Samari
tans themselves, who claimed to have offered sacrifices to the God
of Israel " since the days of Esar-haddon." Ezra iv. 2.
We thus gather from the ancient monuments of the Ninevites,
confirmed by the parallel records of the Jewish people, these facts ,
(1) that the Ten Tribes prior to 722 b. c, had the Lord's " statutes,"
" ordinances,"" law," and " commandments which he wrote," (2 Ki.
xvii. 37) ; by which they were taught the fear of God ; (2) that they
disregarded this law, and for their neglect of it were doomed to
captivity ; (3) that their nation was overthrown, and that they were
carried into distant lands, their places being filled with heathen
nations ; (4) that in consequence of the troubles which these heathen
encountered, they determined to seek the protection of the God of
Israel ; (5) that one of the priests of Israel was brought back to
teach these untrained heathen how to fear and worship the Most
High God ; (6) that as they retained their idolatries, and refused to
submit wholly to the law of God, a mingled and corrupt form of
worship prevailed among them ; (7) that from the days of Esar-
haddon they offered sacrifices to the God of Israel.
About a hundred and thirty-four years after the conquest of
Samaria by Sargon, Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, and
the Jews themselves were carried away captive to Babylon. After
seventy years they returned to undertake the rebuilding of the tem
ple at Jerusalem, in which work this mixed community of Samari
tans, in whom Idolatry seems to have decayed under the influence
of the law of God, desired to unite.with them. Ezraiv. 1-2. Their
assistance being refused, they then exerted themselves to prevent
the rebuilding of the temple and the walls. Josephus (Antiq. Bk.
xi. ch. viii.), informs us that they welcomed criminals or refugees
from Jerusalem, which of course would be displeasing to the Jews ;
and, repelled from worshiping at Jerusalem, they finally erected a
rival temple on Mount Gerizim, where Mannasseh, brother of Jad-
dua the Jewish high priest, and son-in-law of Sanballat the governor
of Samaria, presided, — he having refused to dissolve his unlawful
marriage, and having thus left the Jews and joined the Samaritans.
This temple remained till it was destroyed by John Hyrcanus, e. c.
130. Now as " unto this day,'' when 2 Kings xvii. 34 was written, the
Samaritans retained their heathenish ways of worship, it is evident
76

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lXXVii
that 2 Kings xvii. 34 was written before the days of Ezra, at which
time the Samaritans were anxious to unite with the Jews in build
ing the second temple and in worshiping the God of Israel to whom
they had offered sacrifice " since the days of Esarhaddon." Ezra iv. 2.
The worship of the ten tribes had been corrupted by " the stat
utes of Israel which they made." 2 Ki. xvii. 19. For this apostacy
" the Lord removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his
servants the prophets." 2 Ki. xvii. 23. And as the captive priest
was brought back to teach the Samaritan colonists " the manner of
the God of the land" (2 Ki. xvii. 26), that they might escape the
calamities which had overtaken them in their idolatry, it cannot be
supposed that he would instruct them in the calf worship of Bethel
for which Israel had just been carried into captivity, and so plunge
them into still deeper troubles ; but rather that he would teach
them the law and commandments and statutes which had brought
peace to the sons of Israel so long as they obeyed them. But
to teach these statutes and laws and judgments, he must have had a
copy of the Pentateuch; and the fact that before the time of Ezra
this mingled people had been won from their idolatries to the wor
ship of the one God of Israel, shows that they must have been
instructed out of the Mosaic Law, which had subdued their idola
tries and powerfully influenced their lives.
The refusal of the Jewish rulers to allow so large an alien ele
ment as the Samaritans to incorporate itself in the Jewish nation,
which thus must have lost its racial purity, resulted in much bitter
ness of feeling, which was increased by other circumstances, until
the Jews had " no dealings with the Samaritans." John iv. 9.
Matthew in his Gospel, written especially for the Jewish converts,
notes the fact that at their first going forth Christ said to his disci
ples, " Into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not." Matt. x. 5.
Yet the Saviour himself was not unwilling to enter " into a village
of the Samaritans," though " they did not receive him, because his
face was as though he would go to Jerusalem." Luke ix. 52-53.
The Saviour had no prejudice against the Samaritans. He visited
Sychar, a city of Samaria, and there told the woman of Samaria
of the water of life which he gave, and revealed to her first the
secret of his Messiahship. John iv. 26. And yielding to the
entreaties of the Samaritans "He abode there two days, and many
more believed because of his own word," saying: We have heard
him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour
of the world." John iv. 42. He took note of the fact that of the
ten lepers cleansed only one, who returned to give glory to God, was
a "stranger," — a Samaritan. Luke xvii. 11-18. He taught the
77

Ixxviii THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
catechising, quibbling Jewish lawyer his lesson concerning love to
his neighbor by the example of "a certain Samaritan," whose
kindness he has embodied and embalmed in the story of the man
who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves.
Luke x. 29-37. Indeed his friendliness for the Samaritans seems to
have provoked the criticism of the Jews, who said, " Say we not
well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? " John viii. 48.
The last sentence that he spoke to his disciples was, " Ye shall be
witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in
Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." Acts i. 8.
And his disciples when persecuted " were scattered abroad through
out the regions of Judasa and Samaria," and "preached the gospel
in many villages of the Samaritans." Acts viii. 1, 25. There
Philip preached, and Samaria "received the word of God;" and
thu3 a portion of that people were called out into that new frater
nity, the church of the living God. The Samaritan people, how
ever retained their existence as a nation or tribe, distinct alike
from Jews, and Chrisrians, Greeks and Romans.
In the time of the Roman Emperor Vespasian they revolted, and
11,600 of them were slain; and from that time they maintained a
troubled and contentious existence, being equally at variance with
Jews and Christians. In 1099 they came under the power of
the Crusaders, remaining under Christian domination most of the
time to 1244, when they passed under Mohammedan rule. Since
1517 they have been subject to the Turks.
Near the close of the fifteenth century Joseph Justus Scaliger
(a. d. 1540—1609), the tenth of the fifteen children of the learned
Julius Caasar Scaliger, — a man who if not learned in all the wis
dom of modern times, was yet able to speak thirteen languages,
read many others with facility, and repeat the Greek poets from
memory, — remembering some of the references to the Samaritans
in earlier writers, addressed letters to the two Samaritan congrega
tions at Nablus and Cairo. Answers to these letters were returned
after Scaliger's death, and were translated into Latin by John
Morin, and given to the public. This long-forgotten people was
thus brought to public notice, and they have since been repeatedly
visited. They dwell near by Jacob's well at Shechem, or Nablus, 
a corruption of Neapolis or New-Town, which was built by Vespa
sian a little west of the older town, that was then in ruins.
The Samaritans still number about one hundred and fifty persons.
They are probably the oldest community on earth which has main
tained its existence uninterruptedly in the same place. Israel has
been scattered among all nations ; Jerusalem has been trodden
78

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lxXlX
under foot of the Gentiles ; Christians have been persecuted and
dispersed; empires have risen and fallen; but the Samaritans
still linger in their ancestral seat, and perpetuate the traditions
that have come down to them from the far off past. Why have
they thus been preserved?
In connection with the re-appearance of the Samaritans on the
stage of history, it was remembered that some of the early fathers.
as Eusebius, Jerome, Cyril, of Alexandria, Procopius of Gaza, and
others, had recorded the fact that these Samaritans were possessors
of the Five Books of Moses. This fact had been lost sight of for a
thousand years, but in 1616 Pietro della Valle obtained a copy of
the Samaritan Pentateuch from the Samaritans in Damascus. De
Sancy the French ambassador at Constantinople, sent this manu
script to the library of the Oratore in Paris, in 1623, and it was
published in Le Jay's Paris Polyglot of 1645, by John Morin, or
Morinus. In addition to this there was discovered a Samaritan ver
sion of the Pentateuch, a different work, in the Samaritan dialect,
which resembles both the Chaldea and the Syriac, and which is also
of great antiquity. This also was first printed by Le Jay in the
Paris Polyglot, and was regarded as older than the schism between
the Jews and Samaritans, After this issue of the Samaritan Penta
teuch in 1645, Archbishop Usher obtained six additional manuscript
copies from the East, and by the aid of these and the Parisian
Polyglot, Brian Walton printed a corrected edition of the Samaritan
Pentateuch in the London Polyglot of 1657. In the time of Benja
min Kennicott, 1718-1783, other copies had been discovered, so
that as many as sixteen Samaritan manuscripts were accessible, and
were collated by Kennicott for his critical edition of the Hebrew
Bible. This Samaritan Pentateuch, while it has certain variations, often
agreeing with the Septuagint, and shows some marks of alteration
is to all intents and purposes essentially the same as the Five Books
of Moses in the possession of the Jews. It is in the Hebrew
tongue, but in an older style of letters than the Jews now use.
Now where did the Samaritans get these Five Books? They did
not get them from the Christians, for the Samaritan community
was far older than the Christian church. They did not get them
from the Jews, for the Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans.
They did not get them in the days of Nehemiah, for at that time
the two communities were at open variance, the Jews rejecting the
overtures of the Samaritans, and the Samaritans exerting them
selves to hinder the Jews in rebuilding their desolate city and tern
pie. They could hardly have got them from the Jews while
79

1XXX THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
the Jews were in captivity in Babylon. Whence then did they derive
these books? The book of Joshua was an ancient book, written
before the time of Da vid and Solomon, as we learn by comparing
Josh. xv. 63, with 2 Sam. v. 6-9 ; and Josh. xvi. 10, with 1 Ki. ix.
16. But the Samaritans do not have the book of Joshua, nor
indeed any of the prophets, they have simply the Five Books of Mo
ses ; and those books, our critical friends insist, were invented,
forged, or manufactured somewhere in the time of Hezekiah, or
Jeremiah, or Josiah, or Ezra, or somebody else, nobody knows
when, or where, or by whom.
The Higher Critic tells us that " the original of the Samaritan
Pentateuch" was "brought from Jerusalem by Manasseh,""a copy
of the Pentateuch that Manasseh carried with him."* It is much
easier to assert this twice than it is to prove it once ; and so the
critic chose the easier course. Not a vestige of evidence is
adduced for the assertion ; though its truthfulness is essential to
the existence of many of the modern critical theories ; but ordinary
Bible readers are expected to believe this statement solely on the
bare assertion of a Higher Critic, who speaks " as one having
authority, and not as the scribes." What proof he has that not a
single copy of the Pentateuch remained in the land of Israel, after
the bulk of the Ten Tribes were carried away, he does not say .
what evidence he has that the priest who was carried back to Sama
ria " to teach them how to fear the Lord," had no copy of the Pen
tateuch, he does not state ; nor does he inform us by what means
the Samaritans, destitute of the divine law, had been led to sacrifice
to the God of Israel for more than a century ; nor has he told us
why the Samaritans in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah should
desire to unite with the Jews in the worship of a God whose law
they had never seen, and which, in fact, was only a recent inven
tion; nor why they, smarting under the rejection of their over.
tures made to the Jews, should now adopt the newly forged law and
ritual of a nation which had spurned their friendship, and with
whom they were at variance. Nor does he give a reason why Ma
nasseh should carry with him to Samaria a copy of a law which he
must have known was a recent forgery invented by lying priests,
—a law which he himself had disregarded and refused to submit
to, — and the provisions of which had already caused his exile from
his own people ; or why Manasseh, going from Jerusalem to Sama
ria three or four hundred years before Christ, did not take with
him a "Hexateuch" instead of a "Pentateuch," with all the other
prophecies, forgeries, and fictions which had recently been trumped
* C. A Briggs in Johnson's Cyclopedia, article, Samaritans.
80

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lxxxi
up and imposed upon the Jewish people. All such questions the
Higher Critic discreetly overlooks. Hence we lose the assistance
of his oracular utterances in settling these vital issues.
From the sources of information at our command it appears that
about two hundred and seventy-five years before the time of Nehe
miah, the Ten Tribes were carried away into captivity for serving
idols, and thus disobeying the command of God, who had said unto
them, " Ye shall not do this thing. Yet the Lord testified against
Israel and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers,
saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments
and my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your
fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets.
Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their necks,
and they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made
with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against
them . . . and they left all the commandments of the Lord their
God, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made a
grove, and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served Baal."
"And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the command
ment, which he wrote for " them, they disobeyed, " therefore the
Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his
sight : there was none left but the tribe of Judah only." 2 Ki. xvii.
Having thus cleared the land of the peop-Ie who disregarded the
Law which God "wrote" for them, the Assyrian king replanted it
with heathen captives from the East, who, being afflicted with wild
beasts, presented their petition to the king; whereupon he com
manded that one of the priests whom they had carried away from
Samaria should be brought back, who " came and dwelt in Bethel,
and taught them how they should fear Jehovah." It would seem neces
sary that this teacher of the fear of the Lord should have a text book
containing that written law, for disobeying which Israel had been sent
into captivity ; and as the only such book in existence was the Pen
tateuch he must necessarily have carried that with him. He did not
need the historical writings, nor did he need the ' Hexateuch,' nor
do the Samaritans have it to this day. His people, the Ten Tribes,
had revolted from the tyranny of Rehoboam, the son of Solomon,
and had broken off all connection with the house of David ; hence
they had no interest in David's Psalms or Solomon's Proverbs ; and
when one of their number went back to teach these new settlers
" the manner of the God of Israel," he needed only a copy of the
Mosaic law. This was the only portion of the Jewish Scriptures
which the Samaritans have ever received. This they did receive,
and under its influence they were won back^from idolatry, and
^ 81

lxxxii THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
from " the days of Esarhaddon " offered sacrifices to the God of
Israel. And through all the vicissitudes of ages this unique little
commonwealth, differing from all the nations and races of the
earth, has guarded this sacred treasure, the Mosaic Law. They
evidently had it in the days when Nineveh exalted itself in its
splendor as the capital of the mighty Assyrian empire; they have
it now when Nineveh is "empty, and void, and waste," and when
the shepherds of Assyria slumber, her nobles dwell in the dust,
and her people are scattered upon the mountains, and no man
gathereth them. Nahum ii. iii. They had it when Babylon was
the glory of the Chaldees' excellency, the lady of kingdoms, the
most splendid city on the face of the earth ; they have it to-day
when Babylon is heaps, desolate, and forsaken. They had it in
the times when Persia spread her power and built her palaces ;
they have it now when that power is broken, and those palaces and
cities are in ruins. They had it in the days of Grecian dominion,
when Alexander and his successors ruled ; they have it still, when
Alexander's empire is but a dream of the past. They had it when
Rome was the proud mistress of the world, and her eagles hastened
like vultures to prey upon them ; and now when mighty Rome has
fallen, and the glory of the Caesars has forever passed, within the
whitewashed walls of the tiny synagogue of Nablus, in a silver
case, is still carefully guarded the age-worn manuscript of the
Samaritan Pentateuch. The priests in charge of it know or care
nothing about the squabbles of the Higher Critics, the forgeries of
" post-exilic " scriptures, or the work of the dozens of "redactors "
that the Higher Critics have discovered or invented. They are in
different to the opinions of Jews or Gentiles ; but they call them
selves "the Shomerim,'' or custodians of the Law; and they guard
that old time-stained manuscript, which they declare ha3 been
handed down to them from Eleazar, the third son of Aaron ; and
while nations and empires have risen and fallen, decayed and
perished, this little flock, guarding this Law of Moses, and paying
heed to the precepts, has outlived races, and empires, and dynasties,
and still retains its existence as a witness for this ancient Law.
The Higher Critics dissect this Law as the spurious production
of Jewish priests and patriotic liars, who forged it after the return
of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity ; but they are met by
this copy of the Pentateuch providentially placed for safe keeping in
the hands of the Samaritans some twenty-five hundred years ago ;
and when the Law of Moses, having fallen among the Higher Crit
ics, lies stripped and wounded, and half dead, the Good Samaritan
comes as of old, to bind up the wounds, and pour in oil and wine.
82

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lxXxiii
And we have not only the testimony of the Samaritans, but that
of the scattered sons of Israel. In Principles of Biblical Criticism,
p. 244, J. J. Lias says, "I have recently seen a communication from
the Jews of Yemen, Arabia, to those in Jerusalem, in which the
former state, that their ancestors never returned to Judea after the
captivity. Yet their version of the Scriptures is precisely identi
cal with that of their brethren." Who forged their Scriptures?
The criticisms of the Higher Critics are not entirely new. Many
of them are simply Old Wine in New Bottles, the skepticism of the
past masquerading as the Christianity of the present. Celsus and
Porphyry, Voltaire and Paine, Astruc and Strauss have had their
day and said their say. And whatever their personal characters
may have been, any facts or arguments which they offer are enti
tled to fair, candid, dispassionate investigation. It does not disprove
a man's argument to prove that he is a knave or hypocrite. He
may be all this, and yet he may present difficulties which demand
careful investigation. So the Higher Critics of the present day
are entitled to a fair and candid hearing. If they were a trifle less
oracular and omniscient in their attitude and tone, they might be
more agreeable instructors, for humanity learns best of those who
are "meek and lowly in heart." Nevertheless facts are facts, and
facts will stand, however they are stated ; truth will prevail how
ever imperfectly it may be declared. But " he that believeth shall
not make haste," and those who do make haste in such important
matters, sometimes reach disastrous conclusions.
It is easy to cut a boat adrift from its moorings, but who can
tell what currents will bear it away, or on what rocks it may at last
be wrecked? So it may be easy to unsettle the faith of honest but
ill taught souls, but who shall answer for the results?* Whether the
Higher Critics of the present day will ever follow their own premises
to their legitimate conclusions or not we cannot say; but some
of their disciples will be sure to do it ; and though the inventors
and disseminators of doubt and uncertainty are not likely to aban
don their posts, sacrifice their salaries, or desist from praising the
Scriptures whose authority they have so thoroughly undermined ;
yet many common sense readers will not be likely to long retain a
reverence for exploded fictions, nor accept a volume of forged laws,
priestly inventions, pious frauds, and old-wives fables, as a divine
revelation and an infallible rule of faith and practice. And the
amount of mischief which may result from the broadcast sowing of
* "A statement has been widely circulated in the public press, that the
number of persons in Germany who this year declared themselves to be of no
religion is fourteen times as great as in 1871. Is there no connection between
this fact and the manner in which German criticism has treated the Bible?"
— Principles of Biblical Criticism, by J. J. Lias, p. 216.
83

lxxxiv THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
undigested theories and critical cavilings, no mortal can estimate.
In closing a sermon before the students of Cornell University,
Dr. J. M. Buckley, editor of The Christian Advocate, said :
" A series of sermons was published in Scotland, teaching that
almost everything held to be fundamental to Christian faith had,
by the researches of modern scholarship, been found untenable, and
speaking of what remains in an indefinite way. These discourses
were republished in the United States. Among those who read
and accepted them was a woman in the city of New York, of great
intelligence and intellectuality and of high culture.
" A year or two later she removed to a suburb upon the Hudson
River, continuing to attend |the Presbyterian Church, hut frankly
informing the pastor that she had lost faith, and attributing the
change to those discourses. Afterwards she became ill and died of
a lingering disease. During the months of steady but not rapid
progress to the grave, the pastor frequently visited her, making
every effort to re-establish her faith in the simple provisions of the
gospel, but in vain. To the last she said that she knew nothing
and was not able to believe anything positively. So much had been
shaken that she was not certain there was anything that could not
be shaken.
" Less than a year after her death, the author of those sermons
was summoned to trial for heresy. When the charges were submit
ted he asked a little time for reconsideration, and submitted a state
ment that when he prepared those discourses he believed them-, but
further reflection had convinced him that he had erred in taking
many things for granted that had not been proved, deducing con
clusions that were not warranted even by his premises, and express
ing himself in an unguarded manner, and that he desired to retract
several of the discourses in whole, and in part all but one or two.
" But the woman who had given up her faith in the essentials of the
gospel for faith in him, had died in darkness."
Those who watch for souls as they that must give account, that
they may do it with joy and not with grief, cannot shirk their respon
sibilities. They must meet hereafter those whom they have "nour
ished up in words of faith and sound doctrine," or whom they have
blindly misled into devious and dangerous paths. And the Master
to whom we all must give account has said, " It is impossible but
that offences will come, but woe unto him through whom they
come. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about
his neck and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one
of these little ones." Luke xvii. 2.
84

SCRIPTUKAL TRACT REPOSITORY, 47 CORNIIILL, BOSTON, MASS.

A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
INTEODUCTOEY.

A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH

FOE POPULAE EEADING:

BEING AN INQUIRY INTO THE AGE OF THE SO-CALLED BOOKS OF
MOSES, WITH AN INTRODUCTORY EXAMINATION OF RECENT
DUTCH THEORIES, AS REPRESENTED BY DR. KUENEN'S
" RELIGION OF ISRAEL. "

RUFUS P. STEBBINS, D. D.,
Late President, Lecturer on Hebrew Literature, and Professor of
Theology in the Meadoille Theological School.

Second Edition.

SCRIPTURAL TRACT REPOSITORY:
H. L. HASTINGS, I MARSHALL BROS., Asts.,
Boston, Mass., No. 47 Cornhill. | Loncon, 10 Paternoster Row, E. C.
1895.

PEEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

Standing in the drift and whirl of modern research, investiga
tion, and discovery, and observing the remarkable results reached
by students and critics, considerate people are sometimes led to in
quire, " Will there be anything left when Criticism has completely
done its work1 " And this question seems more natural from the
fact that much of the investigation and criticism of the day is
claimed to be the work of trained experts, whose processes are
held to be beyond the understanding or judgment of ordinary ob
servers, who must simply accept conclusions which they have
neither opportunity nor ability to verify.
In matters of exact science, the conclusions of professional ex
perts are usually accepted with little question, even though they
are subject to frequent revisions; but in the case of moral, relig
ious, and eternal verities, the prudent man hesitates ; partly be
cause of the importance of the questions involved ; partly be
cause the experts themselves seem to agree in nothing except in
contradicting the conclusions which he has believed to be well
grounded; and partly because he has in his own experience a
knowledge of certain of the matters involved in the controversy,
to which he believes that some at least of these critical experts
may be strangers, and without which they can hardly be accepted
as authoritative interpreters of all the facts in the case.
Under such circumstances the prudent man, instead of inconti
nently accepting the contradictory theories of a dozen Higher Crit
ics, falls back upon his experience, his observation, and his com
mon sense ; and investigates for himself as far as he is able ; being
aided therein by others whose studies have qualified them to in
struct him, — though their investigations may not have led them so
far from their customary orbit as some of the " wandering stars "
which are so often flashing out amid the darkness of night, and
fading into forgetfulness before the morning's dawn.
Among those who have discussed the question of the origin of
the Hebrew Scriptures, the author of " A Study of the Pentateuch,"
has certain claims to the attention of the candid enquirer. A
(Ixxxv) —  — . _  — '""

lxxxvi publisher's preface.
conservative representative of a somewhat radical school of thinkers,
he occupied a platform where the most absolute freedom of opinion
and speech was tolerated, and his position as a teacher and leader
in such a fraternity placed him beyond the fear of censure, or the
temptation to stifle his convictions, or suppress his honest conclu
sions.* In discussing the origin of the Five Books of Moses, he was
entirely untrammelled. He was under no obligations to reach the
conclusions he reached, or defend the position he had taken. He
was retained by no party, and was bound by no creed, confession,
vow, pledge, or promise to maintain the position he assumed. He
was entirely free to study the facts in the case, and declare the

*Rufus Phineas Stebbins was born March 3, 1810, in South Wlbra-
ham, Mass. Of humble parentage, he grew up under the discipline of pov
erty and hard work. His mother was a devoted Christian, at a time when
the somewhat frigid orthodoxy of the Puritans was being touched by the
fervor of old time Methodism, which had a stronghold in Wilbraham Acad
emy, of which Wilbur Fisk was principal in his early years. Eufus in his
early days was strong, vigorous, and athletic. He spent his summers upon the
farm, his winters in the public school or in the academy; taught school, and
at the age of twenty entered Amherst College, — a classmate of Henry Ward
Beecher, — with whom he graduated at the age oi twenty-four. Embracing
the opinions of Dr. Channin2, he entered the Divinity School at Cambridge,
with Henry Ware, J. G. Palfrey, and Andrews Norton as teachers, and
E. H. Sears, H. W. Bellows, C. A. Bartol, as fellow-students. He grad
uated in the class of 1837, was united in marriage with Miss Eliza I.iv-
ermore, of Cambridge, a sister of the well known scholar, George Livermore,
and became pastor of the church in Leominster in 1837, where he spent
seven years preaching, teaching, preparing boys for college, etc. In 1844
he was called to the presidency of the Meadville Theological School, where
he remained twelve years, going from thence to a pastorate in Woburn,
Mass., in 1856, where he remained eight years. The next six years were
spent in Cambridge, and in occasional preaching in other regions round
about, after which he removed to Ithaca, N. Y., spending seven years
preaching and lecturing upon theological subjects. In 1877 he removed to
Newton Center, where he preached for nearly eight years.
He possessed a sound mind, a sound body, an indomitable will, tireless
energy, strong, positive views, a Puritan's sternness of exterior, with warm
sympathies, and the ejenial, trustful heart of a child. In a ministry of
forty-eight years he only lost one Sunday by sickness. "As a preacher, " says
one who knew him from boyhood, "he delighted in the Commandments,
and his honest, burnins, indignant soul would have liked it better if there
had been three or four more. As a young man he drove his burning plow
share through old fields whose habits and sins had pastured peacefully to
gether for generations. . . . As a teacher he belonged to that class of minds
who deal with the definite and the positive. His opinions were deliberately
formed, steadfastly entertained, and honestly and unflinchingly expressed."
He died suddenly at Cambridgeport, August 13th, 1885. ^hen told that
the end was near, he was not surprised nor alarmed. He said, " I have
had a long and happy life, a very happy life, I have no desire to live but to
care for my wife. I have no last words to speak. Everything has been said
that needs to be said," and so he fell asleep. The old physician who watched
over him said, "I can truly pray that my last end may be like his."

publisher's preface. lxxxvii
truth as he found it, without fear of censure, ostracism, or condem
nation, and no accusation of insincerity or inconsistency could be
brought against him for so doing.
Under such circumstances he undertook to investigate and ascer
tain the exact facts in the case. He keeps to the main question,
he discusses no side issues ; he does not undertake to demonstrate
the authority, the inspiration, the "errancy" or "inerrancy" of
the laws of Moses. He takes in hand the single question whether
Moses did write those books which bear his name, or whether they
are the spurious productions of unknown impostors in later gene
rations. This question he examines from a purely literary point of
view, and presents his conclusions in intelligible language for the
acceptance of the common people. How well he has succeeded in
his " Study," those who read must decide.
The author of this " Study " proposed in a second edition to cor
rect some slight verbal inaccuracies which had been noticed ; but
his earthly labors are finished, and he is consequently unable to
reply to his critics, or in any way improve the work which he had
done. A few errata which he left behind him have been corrected
in their places by the publisher, who has also carefully looked over
a large collection of critiques and reviews which have appeared in
the various papers, — most of them being heartily appreciative, — to
see if they presented anything which required further attention.
One review, in the defunct Index, gives us in its opening sen
tence a sufficient intimation of the " sweet reasonableness " of
its character, as follows :
"Dr. Stebbins has written a book which is the counterfeit pre
sentment of his striking personality ; a book that is loud and vehe
ment, belligerent, bellicose, bursting with sacred rage."
The candid reader is thus advised as to what he will find within
the pages of this book. He can read it for himself, and thus
verify the statements of this writer. The main point which the
Index makes is, that on pages 70 and 71 of this book " Every pas
sage mentioned is beyond Ex. vi. 2, and it is the doctrine of Kuenen
and all other scholars who accept the documentary theory, that
beyond Ex. vi. 2 Jehovah is used almost exclusively." We give
this remark for what it is worth, and quote another statement:
"One of the most charming instances connected with the publica
tion of Dr. Stebbins' volume, is the review of it by Prof. Toy, of
the Cambridge Divinity School. . Prof. Toy's review of Dr.
Stebbins' st'idv was an exquisite piece of work ; it took off the
Doctor's head so quietly that his mouth is talking still, in absolute
unconsciousness of the Professor's deadly stroke."

lxxxviii publisher's preface.
So much for the Index ; and now in the interests of perfect fair
ness, we take the liberty of reprinting what Prof. Toy had to say on
the subject, as contained in the Christian Register, of December 15,
1881. As his criticism is endorsed by the Index as absolutely fatal
to Dr. Stebbins, and as Prof. Toy has written an article which sat
isfied the critical instincts of the Index, without violating the
decencies of civilized life, we are glad to give it place, that people
may see what can be said by an able man, in brief space, on the
other side of this question.
THE AGE OF THE PENTATEUCH.

BY PROF. C. H. TOY.

To the general reader, who looks only at the surface of the question, the
opinions of scholars concerning the Pentateuch may seem to be in a chaotic
state. One eminent critic pulls down what another has toiled to build up.
As to the division of the text among the several Elohistic and Yahvistic
authors or editors, and the dates of the several parts, different writers
appear to be hopelessly at variance. The Egyptologists, the Assyriologists,
the historical critics, and the grammarians seem to be pulling in opposite
directions; and the unlearned reader is dazzled and confounded by mutually
hostile arrays of facts, all drawn from the same source, but used by various
investigators to establish various and sometimes mutually contradictory
positions. Yet in this critical madness a method is discernible: it is evident
that opinion among the great body of authorities has been steadily moving
toward a late redaction of the Pentateuch. The earlier school of De Wette
and Von Bohlen has passed away. Hupfeld, Ewald, and Bleek have been
superseded; and later writers, representing different sides of the investiga
tion, — Dillmann and Wellhausen, the literary-grammatical, Gramberg and
Baudissin, the cultural, Kuenen and Oort, the evolutional, and Schrader
and Friedrich Delitzsch, the Assyriological, — have entered into their labors,
retained a certain part of their results, gathered new evidence, settled
some points with greater precision, and essayed to lay the foundations of a
science of Pentateuch criticism, not without differences among themselves
(lor disagreement is a necessary accompaniment of living research), but
with an increasing clearness of perception that certain facts carry with them
certain consequences. On the other hand, a different school of critics hold
fast to the traditional view of the Pentateuch, for which they find new
support in modern discoveries and investigations, on the basis of certain
canons of interpretation. Out of the midst of the conflict of opinions,
principles are emerging, whose value is not destroyed by the different inter
pretations that may be given to details.
No one will deny the desirableness of laying the principles and results of
a science clearly before the mass of intelligent readers, who have not the
time to go into the investigation for themselves. Dr. Stebbins has under
taken to do this in a sort for the Pentateuch question. He addresses himself
not to scholars, but "to the sound sense and sober thought of the people."

publisher's preface. Ixxxix
But, instead of acting as teacher simply, he takes the position of advocate,
and appeals to the people as judge. He asks them to compare his argu
ment with their Bibles, and "exercise the same sound practical judgment
respecting its validity that they exercise in the common affairs of life" (p. 3).
Sound judgment, however, can be exercised only where there is acquaint
ance with the facts; and, with all respect for the intelligence of the people,
they have not the requisite acquaintance with the facts. These facts, the
acquisition of which costs years of study, cannot be given in one book, or
mastered by a few hours reading. It would have been better, in my opinion,
if Dr. Stebbins had either made an argument for scholars or given a simple
exposition for those who are not specialists in this department. His book,
as it stands, is too elementary for the former class, and too much crowded
with detail for the latter. But this, if it be a fault, is a fault of construc
tion, and does not effect the validity of his argument. He gives us here the
results of his personal investigation, ' ' extending over a period approaching
half a century," in the form of an external and au internal argument for
the early origin of the pentateuch, preceded by a criticism of Kuenen's
"Religion of Israel." Clear, vigorous, sometimes trenchant in style, not
abstaining from an occasional laugh at the follies of Kuenen and others, the
book is interesting in itself, apart from the respect with which the opinion,
of its esteemed author will be received.
In this argument, especially as addressed to the general public, it is very
desirable that the main canons of criticism should be clearly stated; and it
is to be regretted that our author has nowhere done this. When in our
inquiry into the age of the Pentateuch, we come to look into its composition
and into the evidence derived from other books, we find that its material is
various, including bits of historical narration of very different character
and import, and laws indicating very different degrees of religious and
ecclesiastical development, and that the other books of the Old Testament
contain references and allusions to men and things which appear also,
though not always in the same shape, in the Pentateuch. We must care
fully scrutinize these references to events and uses of words before we can
determine how they bear on the question of the age of our Pentateuch.
Suppose, for example, that a popular custom is mentioned in Ruth (4: 8) as
existing several generations before David's time, and that something like it
(though the two in this case are by no means identical) is found in Deuter
onomy (25 : 9) : this does not prove that the book of Deuteronomy was com
posed in those early times, it need show nothing more than that the author
of the book introduced this old custon into his code ; and, if there be other
considerations pointing to a late origin for Deuteronomy, the presence of
such laws will not stand in the way of the conclusion. Or, if the prophet
Hosea (chapter 12) shows acquaintance with the history of Jacob, this does
not authorize us to infer that he had our book of Genesis before him: there
may have been in existence in his day some brief compendium of the lives
of the three patriarchs, or he may have quoted simply from the oral tradi
tion ; and, if other considerations lead us to assign a post-exilian date to
Genesis, these references to Jacob will present no difficulty for such date.
That the pre-exilian prophets and other writers speak of sacrifices, feasts,

XC PUBLISHER'S PREFACE.
and other religious observances mentioned in the Pentateuch has nothing to
do with the date of composition of our books of Leviticus and Numbers.
No one doubts that such things existed from very early times, and that
regulations concerning them may have been early committed to writing.
The question is, whether there are not in these middle books of the Penta
teuch some laws that are not referred to before the exile, and are not
explicable by the pre-exilian history. No word is more misleading in this
respect than the common term tora, translated "law" in the common
version. Its proper meaning is ''instruction," and it occurs abundantly
in the prophets in this general, untechnical sense. For example, the
prophet Isaiah (8: 16, 20) uses it of an exhortation or instruction on a par
ticular point which he has himself given a few verses before; and its occur
rence, in this simple shape, is no proof of the existence of any definite
code, much less of that which is contained in our present Pentateuch.
Confronted by these simple canons, the greater part of Dr. Stebbins'
external argument for the antiquity of the Pentateuch, as it appears to me,
falls away. It is true, as he says, that sacrifices and feasts and other old
usages are mentioned in the prophets and in historical narrations as con
nected with early times, that the word "law " occurs frequently before the
exile, and that during and after the reign of Josiah the expression "law of
Moses" comes into use; but these facts are consistent with the view that
there existed from an early period a body of usages which were traditionally
referred to Moses, and that this body of common law, constantly changing
its character by growth and decay, was put into shape by a prophetic writer
in the reign of Josiah (smaller collections of laws having perhaps before
this been committed to writing), and afterwards enlarged and systematized
by other prophetic and priestly men. This external argument, therefore,
fails to establish other existence of our Pentateuch before the exile.
The same defect inheres in the internal argument, so far as it is based on
indisputable facts. It does not prove what is claimed. It is undoubtedly
true that there is minuteness of detail in the Pentateuch (as in the descrip
tion of the Tabernacle), that various laws are said to have sprung from
definite historical occasions, that there are frequent references to the wilder
ness, and that along with many discrepancies there is a general concinnity
in the structure of the book. But to affirm that these facts establish its
wilderness origin is to deny that later Hebrew writers were capable of
elaborating a connected and tolerably consistent narrative from a mass of
traditions, usages, laws, and narrations that may have come down from
remote times, gathering volume and acquiring shape with each generation.
Such an elaboration is, however, not only conceivable, but quite in keeping
with Oriental ideas and practice ; and it presupposes neither mental blind
ness nor moral depravity. A pious man of Josiah's time, feeling deeply
certain wants of his people, might, without offence to his sense of truth and
honesty, gather up the best existing laws which in his opinion rested on a
Mosaic basis, and send them forth under the name of Moses, prefaced by a
hortatory discourse put into the mouth of the great lawgiver; and pious
priests and scribes during and after the exile might, with equal conviction
of right, still further combine and arrange and interweave into the history

PUBLISHER'S PREFACE. XCI
succeeding laws and usages, which, believing them to proceed from the God
of Israel, they would without hesitation refer to the man whom the ac
cepted tradition regarded as God's instrument for revealing to his people
all that was necessary for their national religious life. There would be no
obtuseness or dishonesty in all this. These writers were not modern critical
historians: they were simply pious Jews, who could not doubt that what
they believed to be the divine law had been given by Moses, just as the
pious, learned, acute Jews of the Talmudic period believed without dishon
esty that the Man of the Great Synagogue wrote the book of Daniel, and a
later generation held that Ezra had introduced the square Hebrew conso
nants and the vowel points, though the latter had come in almost under
their noses.
The correctness of the representation of Egyptian matters in the Penta
teuch is undeniable. Ebers, for example, has illustrated this in a very
striking manner. The proper inference from this is that the Egyptian
narratives in Genesis and Exodus rest on correct tradition or observation,
not that they were written by Joseph and the ancestors of Moses ; and still
more decidedly not that the books of Genesis and Exodus were composed at
that time. If the ark and the urim and thummim are of Egyptian origin,
this may show that the Israelites once dwelt in Egypt, but it gives no tes
timony to the date of our Pentateuchal books.
There is, finally, the argument from language, the alleged antiquity of
style of the Pentateuch. Here, again, it is necessary to move cautiously,
both in stating the facts and in drawing conclusions from them. The list of
words peculiar to the Pentateuch cannot be said to be evidence of date, for
it is now commonly held that their presence is due to the fact that in the
later verbal recensions the Tora, _or Law, was dealt with sparingly by
reason of the greater sacredness that attached to it. Other books, which
may have been equally old, were revised, and this was left almost
untouched. Then there is no grammatical-literary objection to putting
Deuteronomy in the seventh century b. c, or to assigning most of the legal
parts of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers to the period of the exile. As to
the remaining portions, it is difficult to discover any important differences
of style between Genesis and Exodus on the one hand and Judges and
Samuel on the other; and these last may be assumed to have been composed
during the exile. That there are earlier fragments in the historical books
and the Pentateuch, few critics will be disposed to deny; but there is noth
ing in the language calling on us to date any of them earlier than the days
of the writing prophets. Dr. Stebbins pertinently points out that the style
of the Tora is free from Aramaisms, and that the text therefore belongs to
the pre-Aramaic period, — that is, it is almost certainly not later than the
fifth century b. O. Farther than this, it is difficult for the purely linguistic
argument to go.
I believe I have stated the main grounds on which the work under review
rests its defence of the antiquity of the Pentateuch, not with the purpose
of discussing the general question, but simply to test the validity of these
grounds; to ask whether our author's very interesting and instructive
grouping of the facts carries with it the conclusion that he draws, or
91

xcii publisher's preface.
whether some other supposition may not equally well explain the phenom
ena. The space does not allow an examination of his criticism of Kuenen's
book; but his remarks are based on the same principles that he announces
in his main argument, and stand or fall with them. The real question at
issue is the propriety of the historical method employed by Kuenen and
others, not the correctness of their particular results. Dr. Stebbins thinks
this method essentially vicious, and proposes one of his own, which, though
it is skillfully defended, seems to me not to be satisfactory.
To this courteous critique, Dr. Stebbins, in the succeeding num
ber of the Register, briefly replied as follows :
"I have no desire to enter into any criticism of Prof. Toy's
notice of my little book. . . Only one passage demands notice.
Prof. Toy says:
'The real question at issue is the propriety of the historical method em
ployed by Kuenen and others, not the correctness of their particular results.
Dr. Stebbins thinks this method essentially vicious, and proposes one of his
own, which, though it is skillfully defended, .seems to me not satisfactory.'
"This is not an exact statement of the case, if I correctly
understand the passage. I deny that Dr. Kuenen's method is his
torical, and show by a quotation from him that his whole ' method '
is based upon 'a supposition with respect to the Mosaic period' and
' our (his) conception of historical development.' See ' Study,' pp.
14, 15, 16. H the history does not conform to these, it is wrong:
if it does, it is right. This, I said, was not the historical method,
but a purely empirical method. On the other hand, I 'assumed'
nothing, I 'supposed' nothing. I had no hypothesis of 'human
progress ' to which all ancient records must be conformed. I laid
down a canon of historical criticism to which all historical enquir
ies must conform to result in truth. It may be found on page
eighty-three of my book :
'If we find that an ancient book is referred to, in all later works, by
the name which is now given to it, and that references are made to it,
and that quotations are made from its contents, such substantially as we
now find in it, then the proper, the necessary conclusion is that the book is
the same as that which we possess.'
" Yet Prof. Toy regrets that I have not ' clearly stated the main
canons of criticism.' That canon I scrupulously regarded ¦ and,
by regarding it, the conclusion was reached that ' the Pentateuch
is substantially of the Mosaic age, and largely, either directly or
indirectly, of Mosaic origin.' Till this ' canon of historical criti
cism' is proved incorrect, or my adherence to it imperfect, this
' conclusion will stand unshaken. Rufus P. Stebbihb."
The conclusions reached by some of the Higher Critics may be
expressed in the words of Dr. Toy in his tract on " Modern Biblical
Criticism " (pp. 9-11) where, referring to the account of " the com
plete conquest of the land under Joshua," contained m the books of
Joshua and Judges, he says : 92

publisher's preface. xciu
" This story, which violates all historical probability, must be
rejected ; the march from Egypt through the wilderness, and the
exploits of Moses and Joshua must be regarded as a mass of legend,
whose kernel of history, if there be any, we are not able to extract.
This reasoning applies with still greater force to the stories of
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, in Genesis. The ancestors of
Ehud, Gideon, and Jepthah could not have led such lives. These
biographies are beautiful legends, with here and there vague remi
niscences of events of the time of the judges and later. . . . The first
great Law-book, Deuteronomy, appears under Josiah. . . . During
the exile Ezekiel and others develop the ritual ; . . . a century or
two later the Levitical law (as we have it in Leviticus and Num
bers) is introduced into Palestine by Ezra. . . The book of
Chronicles, written several centuries after the exile, . . . makes
David and his successors acquainted with the whole law of Moses,
and must be looked on as untrustworthy in its accounts of Religion."
"Historical probability" is one thing, historical truth is another.
Inventors of falsehoods take pains to make them as probable as
they can. Improbable things often happen, and truth is often more
strange than fiction. Fifty years ago, in the middle of the nine
teenth century, you could buy a man in Fiji for seven dollars, and
slaughter him and eat him. It would " violate all historical prob
ability " to believe that now you could not purchase a man there at
any price, and that under the light of the Bible nearly every house
in those islands has become a place for God's worship, and more
than nine-tenths of the people may be found on the Lord's day peace
ably assembled to hear the Word of God and worship the Most High.
Twenty centuries hence, when the Higher Critics of to-day are
classified with the Dodo, the Megatherium, and other extinct species,
another race of observers, explorers, and investigators may arise,
who will scout the tales of the nineteenth century cannibalism and
conversion, as " a violation of all historical probability ," pro
nounce the biographies of Judson and Livingstone and Paton myth
ical legends ; and reasoning from the historic accounts of the opium
trade in China, the rum traffic in Africa, and other enterprises en
gaged in by " Christian nations " such as England, Germany, France,
and America, will, on critical grounds, conclude that the New Tes
tament was an unknown book at the close of the nineteenth century,
and that the Sermon on the Mount was never preached at all.
There are historical probabilities concerning the future as well as
the past. It is a poor rule that will not work both ways ; and
it will be hard to find anything in the stories of the Judges which
is a greater violation of " historical probability " than the locomotive,
the steam-ship, the telegraph, the telephone, the electric light,
the electric motor, and a hundred other things, which would have
93

xciv publisher's preface.
been spurned as day-dreams a century ago, but which now stand
before us as undeniable facts. It is the unexpected that happens,
and it is the unexpected which is thought worthy of record. The
improbabilities and impossibilities of a century ago are the prosaic
and common-place facts of to-day. The question is not " What is
probable?" but "What is true?" Dr. Stebbins has some words
upon this point well worthy our attention.
" As an illustration of the danger of rejecting as authentic his
tory remarkable occurrences and marvelous statements of numbers,
I will call the reader's attention to the following fact respecting the
class presenting themselves for entering Harvard College, 1881.
Two hundred and forty young men presented themselves, of whom
one hundred and fifty-four were admitted, and eighty-six rejected.
These men were numbered from 1 to 240, of these the first 5, with
one exception, in every 20 were rejected. Thus 1-5, inclusive, 21-25,
inclusive, 41-45, 61-65, 81-85, 101-105, 121-125, 141-145, 162-165,
181-185, 201-205, 221-225. Now, the chance that this would hap
pen, or a priori be sure, is as one to infinity, or as one to » row of
figures around the earth. It looks like a carefully arranged plot.
"But this is not all. All the number 9's in the even 10's (as 29,
49, 69, 89, etc.) to 149 were rejected, while all the number 9's in the
odd 10's (as 9, 19, 39, 59, etc.) to 159 were admitted, and also all
numbers above 159 having 9 for the last figure, as 169, 179, 189,
199, etc. That such should be the result of the examination of 240
persons seems incredible. The statement would be instantly rejected
by many critics if found in the Hebrew books. Indeed, things not
half as improbable would be scouted.
" A remarkable corespondence of years is found in the ages and
time of service of the presidents of the "United States. Jefferson
was born eight years after John Adams, and Madison eight years
after Jefferson, and Monroe eight years after Madison, and John
Quincy Adams eight years after Monroe. This is curious enough,
and antecedently to proof incredible enough; but there is some
thing to render it more incredible. John Adams, Jefferson, Madi
son, and Monroe were each sixty-six years old when they retired
from the presidency. Nor is this all. The first three died on the
4th of July, and two of the three died on the same 4th, and these
two were signers of the Declaration of Independence. Now the
improbability of such a coincidence is as one to millions of millions.
Yet it is true that it did take place. It will not do to be hasty in
denying the occurrence of very strange things."
Those who seek to eliminate the supernatural from the Bible,
have yet to face the fact that "wonders" and "wonderful works"
are the special characteristics of the God of Israel. He showed
" signs and wonders upon Pharaoh," Neh. ix. 10. "His wonders"
were to be declared "among all people." Ps. xcvi. 3. "Many, O
Lord my God, are thy wonderful works." Ps. xl. 5. *' He hath
made his wonderful works to be remembered." Ps. cxi. 4.
94

publisher's preface. xcv
The world a -.und us is full of marvels. We are fearfully and
wonderfully made. The microscope and telescope are constantly
revealing wonders that are almost beyond belief. He who wrought
wonders of old is working wonders still. " He that will watch for
providences will never lack providences to watch." God liveth
yet, and he hears, and answers, and delivers, and helps his people.
Doubters may doubt, despisers may "wonder and perish;" but they
that are of faith are still " blessed with faithful Abraham," and
" the people that do know their God, shall be strong and do exploits."
A book which contained no knowledge *' too wonderful " for an
ignorant and short-sighted man, and which recorded no events but
the commonplace occurrences of ordinary life, would have little
claim to our regard as a divine revelation, and indeed little reason
for its own existence. A book from God must be a book of
"depths, both of wisdom and knowledge;" and a book which records
His works, must have judgments which are "unsearchable" and
"ways past finding out." Eom. xi. 33. And, as a musical compo
sition, recording harmonies which angels might bend to hear, would
convey no sound or thought to an unmusical eye and ear ; as a
mathematical treatise which measured the universe would be but a
bewildering mass of senseless figures to the untaught reader; as
the most eloquent words ever penned would be utterly meaningless
to one who looked upon them written in an unknown tongue ;  so
a divine book, a record of the wondrous works of an almighty God,
inspired by his Spirit, and filled with his wisdom, would naturally
be as unintelligible to the "wise and prudent," whose wisdom is
only " earthly, sensual and devilish," as a page of Sanscrit would
be to a country clod-hopper, or a treatise on the higher mathemat
ics to a savage who could not count ten. There must be a " prepa
ration of the heart" which "is from the Lord," before we can
"know the things that are freely given to us of God." We must
take Christ's yoke upon us ; and as we learn of him who is "meek
and lowly of heart," and find rest to our souls, we shall see that
one step in wisdom's ways prepares for another, and shall be better
fitted to explore those " treasures of wisdom and knowledge " which
are hid in Him "in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead
bodily." "The world by wisdom knew not God." There are ran
ges of truth which the intellect of the "natural man" or " soulual
man," (1 Cor. ii. 14, 15), fails to grasp. "The wisdom of this world
is foolishness with God. He taketh the wise in their own crafti
ness." 1 Cor. iii. 19.
A judicious writer has remarked : " It is a common mistake with
men of no real piety, to suppose that what they know of other
95

xcvi publisher's preface.
subjects qualifies them to judge properly of religion ; but religion is
a subject sui generis, and requires not only the exercise of reason,
but the possession of its own organ ; and this only God can give, and
he will give to every one who rightly seeks it. ' The natural man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God . . neither can he know
them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spirit
ual judgeth all things.'" 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15. This principle when
understood may explain much of the contradictory and discordant
criticism of the day. It does not help a blind man to give him
more light : what he needs is sight. The apostle's first errand to
the Gentiles was " to open their eyes ;" then he was " to turn them
from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God."
Acts xxvi. 18. Intellectual greatness does not insure the knowl
edge of God. Egypt built pyramids and worshiped cats! Many a
man, wise with the world's learning, needs to be taught that " the
fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom ;" and to " receive the
kingdom of God as a little child."
As Dr. Leonard Staehlin declared before the Leipsic Pastoral
Conference : "It is a righteous Nemesis that the Old Testament
conceals its content in the presence of a treatment to which, for a
time, it has been subjected. There is in the Old Testament a certain
something which cannot be reached by the hammer, the lever, the
crow-bar, which have been used around the building. Remarked
Oettinger once, ' God has so ordered his Word that the learned do
not get behind it.' And when people try to resolve the revelation
of God, contained in the Old Testament, into common history, the
peculiarity of its contents remains untouched, and the method
followed in the matter can have no authority as a historical method,
for which it gives itself out, for, by this method, in the place of
really miraculous events, are but the supposed events of ordinary
history, of which absolutely nothing is known, because the sources
are wanting. In opposition to all such clamorings stands the Old
Testament, in its holy, quiet heights, like the God whom it declares,
surrounded by darkness, enveloped in clouds, but out of which, like
lightning, the whole majesty of the divine revelation breaks forth."
In conclusion, let it be remembered that the questions involved in
this discussion are momentous. If God has spoken in these books we
should know it ; if he has not thus spoken we should not be deceived.
May He who is the Way the Truth and the Life, open our under
standings, that we may understand the Scriptures, and grant to us
the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.
r, .. -vr tt a a H- L- HASTINGS.
Boston, Mass., IT. S. A.,
April, 1895. 96

AUTHOR'S PREFACE.

PREFACE.

This work is substantially a reprint of a series of articles pub
lished in the years 1879 and 1880. I have not found it necessary
to essentially modify any of the arguments there presented in the
present publication. Several works and many articles, at home
and abroad, have since been published ; but they do not in the
slightest degree affect the force of the argument presented in
the following " Study."
It seemed better to give the criticism on the Dutch School as
represented by Dr. Kuenen as originally written than to attempt
by partial rewriting and voluminous notes to introduce the sub
stance of it into the body of the work. In this manner, the argu
ment of the " Study " is not interrupted by noticing the objections
and answering the arguments and criticising the evidence which
are offered by many writers as well as by Dr. Kuenen. Professor
W. Robertson Smith's lectures, on the Old Testament and the
Jewish Church were not published till this work was more than
half through the press. I have examined it with care, and find
very little which would have required any notice, had I received
it in season. Though he takes substantially the same ground on
many points as the Dutch school, he denies that Deuteronomy is
a forgery of the priests of the time of Josiah, and that the Books
of the Chronicles are historical forgeries to sustain the new claims
of the priesthood. The three principal reasons which he gives for
the late origin of the Pentateuch, especially the ritual portion of
it, are : first, the neglect of observing the law, and direct viola
tions of it, down to the division of the kingdom or later ; second,
a distinct priestly family or caste did not exist till the time of
C3J

4 PREFACE.
Ezra ; and, third, the early prophets, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and
Micah, refer to no written law, and denounce ritual observances.
I have examined with care whether the evidence adduced to sus
tain these reasons is sufficient to justify the author's opinion, and
do not find it necessary to add but few special notes to the body
of this work, in order to show that it fails to confirm the theory
of the late origin of the Pentateuch. The "Introductory on Dr.
Kuenen's Religion of Israel " examines the validity of these rea
sons as presented by the Dutch school, and I do not wish to
enlarge this work by a mere repetition of the argument in another
form and in other words. The same may be said of the special
arguments of Graf and several other writers.
This work is not addressed to scholars, but is an appeal to the
sound sense and sober thought of the people. It has been pub
lished at the request, however, of scholars, professors in theo
logical schools, and ministers of different denominations, for their
own use and for the use of their classes and parishes. I have
not, therefore, filled the bottom of the page with references, as
it would have been very easy to have done ; for they would have
been utterly useless to the great body of the people, for whose
instruction I send forth this book. Let my readers take their
Bibles and compare my argument in this " Study,'' as they read
it, with the sacred narrative, and exercise the sound, practical
judgment respecting its validity which they exercise in the com
mon affairs of life, and I have no fear of the result. May the
Source of all Truth bless this endeavor to find and proclaim it !
Rtjftjs P. Stebbins.

CONTENTS. Pack

Introductory on "Kuenen's Religion of Israel," 7
A Study of the Pentateuch.
I. Introduction,  75
II. External Evidences,  82
III. Internal Evidences,  157
Analytical Index,  231

INTRODUCTORY

Dr. KUENEN'S " RELIGION OF ISRAEL" *

Of the brilliant constellation of Dutch Biblical crit
ics which has just risen above the horizon, Dr. Kuenen
appears to be the principal star. His works on The
Religion of Israel and The Prophets and Prophecy in
Israel are by far the most extensive and elaborate of
any works of this new and able school of writers.
The eyes of scholars are now turned from Germany to
Holland ; and the wonder of some and the admiration
of others are challenged to the utmost. Condemnation
and laudation will be visited upon these authors in
unstinted measure; for they give no quarter to dissen
tients, and will, therefore, receive none from them.
They write in a tone of perfect self-reliance, and hold
in low estimate any opinions not corresponding with
theirs. The infallibility of the late Pio Nono was
modesty compared with the dogmatic certainty with
which they make affirmations upon subjects about
* The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State. By Dr. A. Kue
nen, Professor of Theology at the University of Leyden. Translated from the
Dutch by Alfred Heath May. Vol. I., pp. ix., 412. 1874. Vol. II., pp. 307.
1875. Vol. III., pp. 345. 1875. 8vo. Williams & Norgate, 14 Henrietta
Street, Covent Garden, London, and 20 South Frederick Street, Edinburgh.

8 INTRODUCTORY.
which such scholars as Gesenius, Ewald, De Wetve, to
say nothing of others hardly their inferiors, hesitated
to give an opinion, much less to dogmatize. The
emphatic manner in which they announce as finalities
some of the flimsiest of their speculations and hypoth
eses provokes a smile.* There will be ample and fre
quent opportunity to illustrate this signal characteristic
of the work under review in the course of this essay.
The style of this work of Dr. Kuenen's is as dry as
it is dogmatic. We are informed, by those competent
to judge, that the translator has done no injustice to
the original. It is true that freshness and raciness
are not to be expected as the prime qualities of a work
of this kind ; yet it ought to be exempt from jejune-
ness, and to be animated and warm with the dignity
and importance of the subject. It should surely
kindle some enthusiasm to trace the history of a
people like the Jews, and describe a literature which
includes such writings as the Book of Job, the Psalms,
and the prophecies of Isaiah and Amos and Joel and
Hosea. It is true that Dr. Kuenen is not writing a
history of the literature of Israel, and may not have
felt any of the admiration which an appreciative reader
of these marvellous productions cannot suppress, as
he feels the glow and heart-throb in every syllable of
the ancient poet. His eye was fixed almost exclu
sively on "altars" and "asheras" and "bull-gods,"
and "chiuns" and "chemoshes" and "Molochs" and
"Levites" and "priests" and the "ritual" that was
not before Ezekiel "certainly," not before Ezra "prob
ably." Dr. Kuenen's theme was the "religion," not
* See Appendix A, p. 59.

KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 9
the literature, of Israel, and he is not to be blamed but
praised for adhering to it. If it was a dry subject, it
was not his fault. He is responsible only for its treat
ment. To an examination of this, we will now address
ourselves. Dr. Kuenen, in the three octavo volumes before us,
treats of the development of the "Religion of Israel"
from the earliest period down "to the fall of the Jew
ish State." He does not fail of doing justice to the
theme for want of space. Three octavo volumes,
including over one thousand closely-printed pages,
cannot be judged a cramped or an abbreviated discus
sion of the subject. As far as quantity is concerned,
there is no ground for fault-finding. What, then, is the
quality of the work done by the author ?
With an honorable frankness, at the very start Dr.
Kuenen states his " stand-point," his "sources of in
formation," and " the plan and division " of his history.
" Our stand-point," he says, " is sketched in a single
stroke, as it were, by the manner in which this work
sees the light. It does not stand entirely alone, but is
one of a number of monographs on ' the principal re
ligions.' For us, the Israelitish is one of these relig
ions, nothing less, but also nothing more." These
religions may differ from each other in value, but one
is no more a special revelation from God than another.
Christianity belongs in the same category. All relig
ions claim to be revelations from God, and the claims
of all are equally delusive. This is the author's
" stand-point," from which he views and discusses the
"religion of Israel."* It is not our purpose to chal-
• Vol. I., pp. 5-12, 27.

10 INTRODUCTORY.
lenge its justness, at least not in this stage of the dis
cussion. The author's "sources of information" are "the
entire literature of Israel, so far as it originated in the
period " of which he treats. The value of each writ
er's opinion and testimony must be determined by the
age in which he lived and the authorities which he
used. Hence "it is of the highest importance to trace
out and determine, first of all, the age of the various
books and of their several constituent parts, — for in
stance, of the different prophets and psalms." But
the authors of the historical books of the Old Testa
ment, from Genesis to Esther, were not contemporaries
with the events which they record ; and, therefore, we
cannot receive their account of the origin and devel
opment of their religion, unless it agrees with the laws
of human progress, as understood by the author.
These histories also contain narratives of incredible
events, miracles, — such as the passage of the Red Sea
and the Jordan, the manna, the wandering in -the wil
derness, the giving of the law at Sinai. All these
events are simply impossible, and are therefore incredi
ble. Hence, we discover that these writers " fearlessly
allowed themselves to be guided in their statements
by the wants of the present and the requirements of
the future. They considered themselves exempt from
all responsibility." The priests and the prophets took
opposite views, and perverted history to sustain their
respective opinions. The narrative of the same trans
action in the Books of the Kings differs widely from
that given in the Books of the Chronicles. In these
latter and later books, the priests colored or invented

KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. n
the history to suit their ends, without regard to truth.*
We give an illustration referred to by Dr. Kuenen as
a type of the style of these falsifying historians: "If
any one wishes to form an idea of the modifications
which the materials supplied by tradition underwent
upon being worked up afresh, let him compare together
II. Kings xi., and II. Chronicles xxii., 10; — xxiii., 21.
If the chronicler, under the influence of his sympathy
for priests and Levites, could give such an entirely
different version of the elevation of Joash to the throne
of his fathers, which was related with perfect clearness
in the older account, with which he was well acquainted,
how much more likely " was it that earlier writers
should handle the more ancient narratives in a manner
to answer their priestly ends. (The italics are ours.)
Such is the statement of Dr. Kuenen's chosen illus
tration of the partisan bias of the chronicler, and its
influence on his work. Let us examine its value and
by it judge the value of all such accusations.
I. Dr. Kuenen says his " materials were supplied by
tradition." The chronicler says that these things and
more "are written in the story of the Book of the
Kings," xxiv., 27 ; and the historian of the reign of
Joash, in II. Kings xi., xii., says that " the rest of the
acts of Joash and all that he did are written ... in the
Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah." Both
writers relied upon written documents and not upon
"tradition.'' Comment is unnecessary.
II. Dr, Kuenen assumes that the chronicler had be
fore him no written documents except our Book of
Kings, and that he "worked up" the facts there re-
* Vol. I., pp. 8-22, 24.

12 INTRODUCTORY.
corded as he pleased. The work which he refers to
here and in other places is apparently a very different
one from our Book of Kings, and was undoubtedly the
public records which had been saved during the cap
tivity. But how could Dr. Kuenen say that his " mate
rials were supplied by tradition," when he was perfectly
" well acquainted " with the " older account " in Kings,
which he had " worked up " to suit his priestly ends ?
III. Dr. Kuenen accuses the writer of falsifying his
tory to sustain the priestly pretensions, not to say usur
pations, of his age, for two reasons : one, because he is
fuller in his account of the action of the priests during
the reign of Joash, and the other, apparently, because,
if the chronicler's narrative is substantially correct, his,
Dr. Kuenen's, theory of the development of the religion
of Israel is false. We have nothing to say about the
latter reason. Of the former, we say that the writer of
the Kings may be in error. But there is no reason to
suppose that both writers are not substantially correct.
There is no direct contradiction between them. Apply
ing the common rule of criticism, that " what one does
by another he does himself," there is no appearance of
contradiction in their accounts. Jehoiada, the high-
priest, and the priests, are represented in Kings as
being very active in both civil and religious affairs.
The special services which they rendered in both are
more fully narrated by the chronicler ; but there is not
a shadow of evidence that he was laboring under such
an ecclesiastical bias as to lead him to falsify history,
that he might exalt the priesthood to honor. On the
contrary, he relates, without rebuke, how, in the great
reformation under Hezekiah, II. Chronicles xxix., 34,

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAFL. 13
when " the priests were too few, so that they could not
flay all the burnt offerings, their brethren, the Levites,
did help them till the work was ended, and until the
other priests had sanctified themselves ; for the Levites
were more upright in heart to sanctify themselves than the
priests" A writer whose purpose was to elevate the
priesthood above the Levites would not have thus
written. See also xxx., 15, 17 ; xxxv., 10-15.
IV. Dr. Kuenen says the chronicler gives " an en
tirely different version of the elevation of Joash to the
throne" from the writer of Kings. Let us note the
facts: Jehosheba ",100k Joash and hid him and his
nurse in the bed-chamber from Athaliah, so that he
was not slain " in the massacre of the rest of the
family ; so also the chronicler states. He was hid six
years; so the' chronicler. And in the seventh year
Jehoiada gathered the rulers over hundreds and other
officers into the house of the Lord, where they took an
oath and made a covenant, and showed them the king's
son and crowned him, stationing a guard in different
parts of the city and temple ; the chronicler only adds
that in the temple as guards none but priests and
Levites entered. When Athaliah learned what was
done, and cried " Treason ! " she was slain ; so the
chronicler. And Jehoiada took the king to the king's
house, and sat him on the throne of the kingdom : the
same in Chronicles, save that Jehoiada arraigned also
the priests, that the services of the temple might be
renewed, as it is "written in the law of Moses." Are
these " entirely different versions of the elevation of
Joash to the throne of his fathers " ? We submit
that it would be difficult to find two accounts of the

14 INTRODUCTORY.
coronation of Queen Victoria more alike. We are
curious to know what accounts Dr. Kuenen would
call similar if these are "entirely different."*
But it is time to return from specific criticism to a
consideration of the main course of argument in the
work before us ; were we to yield to the temptation
offered, we should write a volume.
Such being " the condition of the sources of our in
formation," Dr. Kuenen may well ask, " How are we to
endeavor to arrive at historical truth" respecting the
religion of the people ?
The answer to this question discloses the "plan " of
the author. It is as follows : —
" We offer, for instance, a supposition with respect to
the Mosaic period. On the strength of various indi
cations, we assume that the people of Israel and the
man who delivered them out of their bondage in Egypt
had reached such and such a degree of religious devel
opment. We proceed with our investigation, and grad
ually come to the centuries during which the narratives
about Moses and his work were written down. We
now succeed in showing that, if our conception of ihe
course of historical development be the true one, the repre
sentation given in these narratives must necessarily have
been formed at that time, and could have assumed no
other shape."!
This is frank and intelligible. The author informs
us that he " assumes " as an historical verity a certain
state of " religious development," and then affirms that
if, according to his theory of the evolution of ideas and
human progress, the condition of the people, five or ten
*Vol. I., pp. 12-27. t Vol. I., pp. 26-32.

KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 15
centuries later, conforms to the demands of the theory,
the " assumed " state of things was correct, and the
representation of those early ages given in the histor
ical books must have been merely the mistaken con
ception of the writers ; and proves that all narratives
containing such representations of opinions must have
been written at a later period, since no such opinions,
according to his theory of development, could have
been entertained by the men of the Mosaic age, nor
long subsequent to it. In short, Dr. Kuenen has a
theory respecting what could, and could not, have been
believed and done in the Mosaic and following age ;
and since the historical books do not sustain that theory,
they are not ancient, they are not reliable ; the writers have
attributed opinions, laws, customs of their own times to
the time of their great ancestor. It does not appear to
have occurred to Dr. Kuenen that his theory may be
wrong, and that the old histories may be substantially
correct. Now if his theory, or assumption, or "sup
position " is without solid foundation in reason and
undoubted facts, then the whole elaborate structure of
his work, — " Like the baseless fabric of a vision,
. . . shall dissolve,
And leave not a rack behind."
Such is the "plan," the theory, which is to determine
the age and value of the Old Testament books and the
opinions which were prevalent among the Israelites in
the time of Moses, and in all subsequent times: — if a
book contains opinions and describes customs and al
ludes to religious rites, which, according to Dr. Kuenen's

1 6 INTRODUCTORY.
theory, could not have been developed and prevalent at so
early a period, then the writer, unwittingly or maliciously,
states what is false ; for all historical truth or falsehood
is to be tested by this theory. It is the Procrustean bed
on which all statements are to be fitted, however great
the compression or extension.
Where, then, does the author think he finds solid
ground on which he may stand, and whence he can
take his departure and apply his theory of historical
verity ? As there is almost no historical literature ex
tant which was composed before the captivity, 588 B.C.,
the writings of the early prophets are examined to
learn the condition of religion and religious customs in
Israel, 808-700 B.C. Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Zechariah,
Micah, and Nahum are accepted as authority, and
quoted to show what opinions were prevalent, and
what rites were customary in the eighth century before
Christ, the fifth or sixth century after Moses. Dr.
Kuenen does not omit the prophet Joel on any theo
retical grounds, but because some writers place him in
a later period. There is no valid reason, however, why
the writings of Joel, as well as those of the other
prophets named, should not be considered as good
authority for the religious condition of this period.
In order to understand the bearing of these quota
tions on Dr. Kuenen's theory, it is necessary now to
state, in as intelligible a manner as brevity will admit,
the order of the evolution of religious ideas, as assumed
in this theory among men, and especially among the
ancestors of the Israelites, and among the Israelites
themselves. The first religious state is fetichism, pre-
Abrahamic; then polytheism, sub-Abrahamic, down to

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL 17
the return from the captivity ; then monotheism. A
few men were monotheists so far as Israel was con
cerned. This people had but one God. They believed,
however, there were other gods for other nations, and
no more doubted their existence than they doubted the
existence of Jahveh. Moses was one of these, and
others succeeded him ; but they were few who believed
in but one God for Israel. The idea of God became
purer, however, as generations passed away, till, in the
eighth century, in the time of Amos, very much more
worthy and nobler views were entertained of the nature
and character of the Supreme Being, and worthier and
purer worship was demanded. The sacrifices of beasts
and fruits were remanded to a secondary place, and
human sacrifices were pronounced abhorrent to God.
Moses wrote nothing of the Pentateuch but an abbre
viated form of the Ten Commandments or " Ten
Words." A few chapters in Exodus and Leviticus may
have been composed before settling in Canaan ; but
the Book of Deuteronomy was not composed till the
reign of Josiah, 620 B.C., and the historical portions
of the four other books were not written till the cap
tivity. Ezra and his fellow-priests drew up nearly the
whole ritual as we now find it in Leviticus and the
other books of the Pentateuch just before his return to
Jerusalem from Babylon, and brought it with him,
and introduced it, with the aid of Nehemiah and the
priests, as a Mosaic production, and venerable with age
and the observance of the fathers ; and the Books of
Chronicles were written, perverting and falsifying his
tory, to sustain the false claim of Ezra's ritual to an
tiquity and the supremacy of the tribe of Levi, and the

1 8 INTRODUCTORY.
dignity and sacredness of the priesthood. The older
historian of the Books of the Kings had no knowl
edge of any such ritual and priesthood. The prophets
disappeared before the new order of priests, and the
voice of the poet-preacher was stifled by the smoke of
holocausts. In due time, after centuries of struggle, suffering,
despair, and hope, the great Teacher came and an
nounced a spiritual worship, demanding no sacrifice
but a devout heart, no temple but a consecrated spirit ;
and Judaism blossomed into Christianity, and the relig
ion of Israel was transformed into the religion of the
world. Such is substantially Dr. Kuenen's theory of
the development of religious ideas in Israel, and the
origin of the books of the Old Testament. We are
confident that we have not omitted any important par
ticular or element of it.
We now return to an examination of Dr. Kuenen's
method of laying the foundation of his proof of this
theory or hypothesis in the writings of the prophets,
named on a previous page, who wrote during the eighth
century before Christ, or five or six centuries after the
putative time of Moses. And now let it be most dis
tinctly understood that the historical books are ruled
out of this discussion for the present by Dr. Kuenen's
own decision of their modern date and careless or un
scrupulous writers. He must not refer to them when
they record something which corresponds with his the
ory, and ignore them or challenge them when they
record something which opposes his theory. No doubt
he intends to hold the scales evenly balanced, but he
is sometimes tempted beyond what he is able to bear

KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 19
to appeal as authority to the very witness he has pro
nounced not trustworthy. Examples of this weakness
would be given were it necessary for our purpose, but
our space is all of it to the last letter demanded for
our special object, namely, to show the radical defect
and failure of Dr. Kuenen's supposed proof of his the
ory respecting the origin of these books, and hence of
the origin and development of the "Religion of Israel."
In the very brief writings of these prophets, " mono
theism " is most emphatically taught, and the sin of
worshipping idols and serving the gods of other nations
is most emphatically rebuked ; and the severest calam
ities are threatened if they forsake " the law of " Jeho
vah ; and "captivity" as well as "drouth" and "lo
custs " are predicted as the portion of the nation, if
the people obey not God, and do not observe his
"commandments." The temple was in existence, sac
rifices were offered, feasts were kept, " priests " served
at the altar, and " the law " was often appealed to as a
rule of duty. In these brief fragments of the poetic
addresses of the prophets, we have allusions to all the
main features of the ritual service as described in
Chronicles and Ezra. The sternness of the rebukes
of these prophets, when they saw the wickedness of
the people in making and worshipping idols, is not
strange; is far from being "a remarkable phenome
non," even when producing open " conflict " and perse
cution. What may be done and said without opposi
tion in Holland now we do not know ; but what was
done to free speakers and writers centuries ago we
know well enough ; and we know that in later times
Fox and Wesley and Whitefield were persecuted as

20 INTRODUCTORY.
bitterly as those prophets of 800 B.C., to say nothing
of Rogers and Cranmer, the martyrs of bloody Mary,
and the victims of the merciless Jeffries, cruelly tor
tured in the blasphemed name of religion, There are
no "causes" far to seek, or hard to understand, as
Dr. Kuenen supposes, why these prophets were assailed
by the law-breakers, the cruel, the false, the idol-wor
shippers, and idol-makers. The " conflict " is as old as
time, and will continue till time shall be no longer.
Yet our author infers — nay, affirms — that this " con
flict" and persecution could not have arisen if the
Pentateuch had existed.
One would suppose that Dr. Kuenen would now ex
amine with closest scrutiny these statements, so clear
and explicit, and their bearing upon his theory, which
these writers, whose veracity he does not question,
furnish so abundantly. He does no such thing. He
hastens to inquire into " the earlier fortune of the peo
ple of Israel," as if he perceived that these prophets
furnished his theory no support. But what materials
has he, on his own theory, to furnish him any informa
tion about it ? Not a line of history was written, as he
affirms, till this period, or later ; and what was written
then was "not historical." The writers of most of
these historical books, called so only by way of cour
tesy, lived, on the theory of Dr. Kuenen, after these
prophets, and "considered themselves exempt from all
responsibility " as to the truth of the events which they
narrate. If there is no reliable record of events pre
vious to 800 B.C., we are very much at a loss to guess
where he gets his information. If he writes from his
"inner consciousness" only, his history has no more

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 21
reliable source than that of those old Jewish writers
whom he so soundly berates for their groundless sto
ries. If the Books of the Kings and of Samuel are
not reliable accounts, how can he quote them as he
does to show the state, civil and religious, of the people
" earlier " than the eighth century ? We stand firmly
here. Dr. Kuenen must either reject or accept these
historical books as being substantially reliable. If he
accepts them, then the controversy is ended, and his
emphatic condemnation of the untrustworthiness of
their writers is a gross injustice. If he rejects them,
then he has no right to appeal to them as authority in
any case whatever. He can take which horn of the
dilemma he chooses. He cannot be permitted to select
here and there a story, cull out here and there a sen
tence, because it answers the purposes of his theory
and confirms his " assumption," and reject all the rest.
The references to the early history and customs of
the people from the time of Abraham onward are so
numerous in these prophets that Dr. Kuenen confesses
that we should be compelled to suppose that at least
Micah " was acquainted with those narratives " as con
tained in the Pentateuch, " unless appearances should
tend to show that they were written or modified at a
later date," — that is, later than the time of these
prophets ; * and this Dr. Kuenen believes. They were
not written till the time of the captivity, or two hundred
years later than the time of these prophets. What
these prophets say, therefore, about the early past, they
have no authority for. They only express "the idea
which was entertained of that history in the eighth century
* Vol, I., pp. X02, IO3.

22 INTRODUCTORY.
B.C." Be it so. Then it is only repeating the folly of
the " wild ass that eateth up the east wind " to rake
over the stories in Genesis and Exodus, which were not
committed to writing till two centuries after this period,
to supplement the " ideas " of the eighth century as
given by these prophets. Our author does it, however,
and concludes that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob "are
not historical personages." Nor are the twelve tribes
descendants of Jacob's twelve sons. There may be
some truth, but not much, in the account of the emi
gration from Egypt, the wandering in the wilderness,
the entrance and partial conquest of Canaan, and the
anarchical condition from the time of Joshua to the
coronation of Saul. But he who believes least of what
is told is the wisest man.*
Dr. Kuenen, however, becomes so enamoured with
these old story-tellers that he gives us three chapters
more upon " The Israelitish Prophets before and during
the Eighth Century B.C.," and " The Course of Israel's
Religious Development," and " The History of Israel's
Religious Development before and during the Eighth
Century B.C." Now let it be most distinctly under
stood that for every fact, or supposed fact, in these
three chapters, covering two hundred and twenty-four
pages, Dr. Kuenen is indebted to these same books
which he affirms to have been written not only by men
who lived from a thousand to five hundred years after
the events described, but by men who " considered
themselves exempted from all responsibility" to tell
the truth ! No statement of fantastic act in the life of
Samson would be antecedently more incredible than
•Vol. I., p. in etstq.

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 23
this. And yet the thing has been done by a renowned
scholar, — the pages are open before us in all their com
pact beauty. But if Dr. Kuenen's theory is correct,
if his statements respecting the unhistorical character
of these books are to be accepted, then it is the beauty
of a harlot; for he can put no more historical truth
into these chapters of his book than he finds in these
books of the Old Bible ; and, if they are untrue, these
chapters are untrue. The same fountain cannot send
forth sweet waters and bitter, truth and lies. The logic
of the whole matter is, that methods and places of
worship, customs and habits of life, prevailed, accord
ing to these writers, down to this eighth century, in
direct violation of the Mosaic law as recorded in the
Pentateuch, and which would not have prevailed had
' the Mosaic law been in existence or been known by
the people. Therefore, the Mosaic laws, so called, were
not composed till after the eighth century B.C. ! A
most magnificent non sequitur. As if the violation of
a law was any evidence that the law was not on the
statute-book ! Or, to state the matter differently, as if
the performance of an act was proof that there was no
law against it, or that the existence of a custom was
proof that there was no statute forbidding it. Accord
ing to these "unhistorical" books of unknown author
ship and irresponsible composition, other men than
priests offered sacrifices, in other places than at the
tabernacle. Punishments were inflicted by men having
no authority, and which were cruel and vindictive to
the last degree. The laws of Moses, in a word, were
not observed, and therefore they did not exist, — one of

24 INTRODUCTORY.
the most inconclusive inferences which could possibly
be drawn. All history shows its fallacy. *
Passing on from the eighth century B.C., the next
chapter treats of " The Religion of Israel to the Fall
of Jerusalem, in B.C. 588." The only two points of
special interest discussed in this chapter are (1) the
reform under Hezekiah, who overthrew the altars of
the idols, and cut down the groves [or the asheras],
and made a very thorough change in the administra
tion of the religion of the people ; and (2) the finding
of the " Book of the Law," in the reign of Josiah, by
Hilkiah, the priest. It is necessary to pause a moment
to consider the value of these incidents in settling the
age of the Pentateuch.
Hezekiah attempted to reform the worship of the
people, which, it is very important to note, for over a
century had been growing grosser and grosser, like the
ceremonies of the Romish Church during the Dark
Ages. Idols were set up and altars erected and sacri
fices offered on the " high places." The prophets de
nounced these practices in vain. The kings were sat
isfied to administer the civil law ; and on grounds of
* It is objected repeatedly by other writers that the absence of the record of
any enforcement of a law is sufficient proof that no such law existed. See Uni
tarian Review, October 1880, p. 300, passim. ' ' Good kings did not remove
idolatrous worship," therefore there was no law against idolatry. How much
these good kings did toward ridding the kingdom of idolatry we do not know
That they did not wholly succeed is all that can be inferred from the passage
Can it not be said that we had good governors who did not shut up the liquor-
shops, and good mayors who did not close the most popular gambling saloons ?
Does it follow that there was no prohibitory law in Boston, because there were
more than two thousand bars where liquor was sold? We know there was.
There are also hundreds of vile houses in Boston which the good mayor has
not shut up. Is there no law against them ? Such reasoning would not be tol
erated in the lowest form of a grammar school. See pp. 46-48.

KUENENS RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 25
expediency, or supposing, by some method of inter
pretation of their own, that idol-worship was consistent
with the worship of Jehovah, they not only permitted
but encouraged it, as the popes encouraged image-
worship and the selling of indulgences. The nation
had departed no further from the requirements of the
Mosaic law — assuming that it was given as early as
his time — than the Church of the sixth to the tenth
centuries had departed from the teachings of Christ.
But customs are not easily changed ; and, though Hez
ekiah appears to have been in earnest, he could not
eradicate the religious rites and opinions which had
been cherished and firmly rooted with increasing vigor
for more than three generations. He did his best to
purify their worship ; but, when he died, reaction came,
and a return to the long established and cherished
customs. For two generations, or during the long
reign of Manasseh, of fifty-five years, and the brief
reign of Amon, of two years, idolatry was practised in
its worst forms. The restraint under Hezekiah gave
way to unbridled license under Manasseh, as the re
straint of the Commonwealth gave way to the license
of Charles II. and James II. He not only re-erected
the "high places," but he "built altars in the house of
the Lord, . . . and he built altars for all the hosts of
heaven, in the two courts of the house of the Lord.
And he made his son pass through fire, and observed
times and used enchantments and dealt with familiar
spirits and wizards." He set one of the abominable
"graven images of the grove," as our translation names
it to conceal its obscenity, "in the house of the Lord,"
in the very temple itself, — a baseness of profanation

26 INTRODUCTORY.
of which even Athaliah did not dream or Ahaz at
tempt. They appear to have reverently closed the
temple doors, and to have erected their idols only in
the courts. Nor is this all. " Moreover, Manasseh
shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jeru
salem, from one end to the other." What horrors of
martyrdom the reformers under Hezekiah suffered,
these few words but dimly hint. The true prophets
fled and concealed themselves, or were slaughtered.
The true priests escaped as they could, and suffered
all extremities, even to perishing with hunger. The
reaction and persecution under Mary Tudor were not
greater or bloodier or more merciless than those under
Manasseh. And this prevalence of idolatry continued
for seventy-five years, till Josiah again attempted a
reform ; and this persecution of Hezekiah's reformers
continued till the last voice was silenced and the last
hand cold.
Nothing in Dr. Kuenen's work has so awakened our
regret, not to say our indignation in this instance, as
his attempt to palliate the abominations and atrocities
of Manasseh, saying that he " represented a convic
tion " as well as Hezekiah. The " account [of his cru
elties] is unworthy of credit," affirms Dr. Kuenen.
He only did what his grandfather Ahaz did in setting
up idols, and causing his son to pass through fire !
" Free from all exclusivism, Manasseh cannot well
have become a persecutor of his own accord. If he
took this part upon him, he was driven to it by the
reception accorded to his measures ! " No doubt.
Mary Tudor's measures were not accepted; and, lo,
the stake, the rack, the red-hot iron 1 Isabella's meas-

KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 27
ures were not received; and, lo, the horrors of the
Inquisition! We have read apologies for Judas Iscar
iot with considerable patience ; for the poor fellow
saw his guilt and shame, and hung himself. But we
have no hint that Manasseh ever relented in his work
of blood, or was abashed in the presence of his
"groves," or "asheras." He persecuted as long as
a hunted victim could be found. He practised his
licentious rites as long as subjects for their lustful
orgies could be furnished. He stands eminent among
the Anakims of cruelty, though he had " a conviction,"
as Mary Tudor had, as James II. had, as Torquemada
had, — "a conviction"/ Heaven help us to escape
" convictions " !
We now turn to consider the origin, character, and
extent of the reform under Josiah. For personal rea
sons, probably, Amon, the son of Manasseh, after a
brief reign of two years, was assassinated by his ser
vants in his own house. The people punished the assas
sins, and placed his son Josiah, only eight years of
age, on the throne. Under influences which are not
named, his counsellors appear to have administered
civil affairs wisely, without interfering with the forms
of religion, till, in the eighteenth year of his reign,
while the temple was undergoing repairs, Hilkiah, the
high-priest, informs Shaphan, the scribe, that he had
"found the book of the law in the house of the Lord."
It was read before the King, and he was so moved in
view of the sins of the people, as revealed by this
"book of the law," that "he rent his clothes," and
directed that measures should be taken at once to
obey " the book of the law." He gathered the elders

28 INTRODUCTORY.
of the people, and " the book " was read in their hear
ing, even " all the words of the book of the covenant."
Then the King and the people "made a covenant
before the Lord to walk after the Lord, and to keep
his commandments and his testimonies and his stat
utes with all their heart and all their soul, and to per
form the words of this covenant that were written in
this book." The work commences of conforming to
the law as recorded in this book. " The high-priest
and priests of the second order " bring out of the
temple all the vessels of Baal, and the shameful ashera,
"grove," burn them, and carry the ashes to Bethel.
He displaced the " idolatrous priests who burned in
cense in the high places unto Baal, to the sun and to the
moon and to the planets and to all the host of heaven.
He brake down the houses of the Sodomites, that were
by the house of the Lord, and defiled the high places
and Topheth." He burned to ashes all that would
burn, and ground to powder all that could be pulver
ized, of the articles used in idol-worship ; and, having
cleansed the land of idolatry, he commanded the pass-
over to be kept as directed " in the book of this cove
nant." But it was too late. Josiah was killed in a
battle with Pharaoh-Nechoh ; and under his sons the
nation again relapsed into idolatry, and Jerusalem was
taken, and the captivity followed.
Now, what was this "book of the law of the Lord"
which aroused Josiah to attempt a radical reform in
the religious practices of the nation? Dr. Kuenen
says : " Moses bequeathed no book of the law to the
tribes of Israel. Certainly, nothing more was com
mitted to writing by him, or in his time, than ' the ten

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 29
words,'" the ten commandments, "in their original
form." How, we ask with significant emphasis, how
does Dr. Kuenen know that Moses wrote these " ten
words " ? or that they were written as early as his day ?
Where is the proof of it? None is given, — not a line,
not a letter.* The testimony of the "inner conscious
ness " cannot be taken in this case ; and we challenge
him to bring any proof that Moses wrote " the ten
words " which will not also prove that he wrote a great
many words.f Dr. Kuenen says that the fragmentary
laws in existence before Josiah's time would not satisfy
what he calls the "Mosaic party," — that is, the anti-
idolatrous portion of the people, — -and some one or
more of them, Hilkiah or others, forged " a book of
the law of the Lord," in the name of the old law
giver. " Notions about literary property were then in
their infancy." They would have no " qualms of con
science " who declared they had " found " a book when
they did not find it, but wrote it ; nor when they attrib
uted its authorship to Moses, though they knew they
lied! The Mosaic party must gain their end at all
hazards. " Now or never," — hence forgery and lying
are justifiable. That forgery — as unblushing and more
criminal than the forged election returns in Louisiana,
* Some weak and inconclusive proof of a part of them is attempted, Vol. I. ,
p. 283 and following.
t A writer in the Unitarian Review, November, 1880, pp. 435, 436, says the
ten commandments, as written on the tablets of stone, are n >t given in the
second writing, Exodus xxxiv., as in the first, Exodus xx. The historian says
they were. Compare Exodus xxxiv., 1, and xxxiv., 27, 28. The writer mistakes
when he understands that the laws given in this chapter were written on the two
tables. They were written as the other laws were. Moses was commanded to
write these words or commands because they were " after the tenor" based
upon the words or commands given before. There were not ten of them, no
more, no less ; but a code of rules based upon the ten laws or commandments,
which were written on the tables, and not here repeated. They are not said to
te tie words of the covenant, but "after ihe tenor," based upon them.

30 INTRODUCTORY.
or the Decretals — was the Book of Deuteronomy ; not
the whole of it, but Deuteronomy iv., 44 — xxvi. and
xxviii. These chapters, no more, no less, were delib
erately forged for a religious purpose at this time.
Now, what is the proof of it? Let us pick up as we
may the alleged evidence produced by Dr. Kuenen.
1. " The first four books of the Pentateuch are more
recent than the seventh century before our era " ; and
therefore they cannot be, either one or all of them, the
book " found " or forged, the latter, not the former,
in Josiah's reign. But this is simply taking for granted
what must be proved. No evidence, not a line, has
yet been brought by Dr. Kuenen to show that the first
four books of the Pentateuch were not written till after
this period, save that laws contained in it were often
violated, and sometimes with impunity.
2. "Let it be further remembered that the writing
found by Hilkiah is called the ' book of the law,' and
the ' book of the covenant? " It is true that in Deuter
onomy iv., 44, we read, "And this is the law which
Moses set before the children of Israel. These are
the testimonies and statutes and judgments which
Moses spake unto the children of Israel." And in
chapter v., 2, 3, it is said that " the Lord our God made
a covenant with us in Horeb." But in no place is
Deuteronomy called " the book of the law," or " the
book of the covenant." But we read in Exodus xxiv.,
7, that Moses took the book of the covenant, and read in
the audience of the people ; and numerous sections of
the other books of the Pentateuch are called " the
law." The inference drawn by Dr. Kuenen, from the
possible meaning of the phrases " the law " and " the

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 31
covenant," as used in Deuteronomy, is theiefore not
valid, and is far from proving that only the last book of
the Pentateuch is referred to, excluding the others.
3. " It cannot have been of any great length, if we
may believe the statement that it was read by Shaphan,
and then read before Josiah in one day." This would
be true of any of the sections named " the law " and
"the covenant," which are contained in any of the
books. These important sections might all be read
more easily than twenty-three chapters in Deuteronomy.
The only possible objection to this view is found in
one word in the history of this transaction, II. Kings
xxiii., 2 : "And he read in their ears all the words of
the book of the covenant," — as if the whole of the
book, whatever the topic, was read. There are large
sections of Deuteronomy which have no special rela
tion to the reforms instituted by Josiah ; and laws re
specting all his reforms are found in other portions of
the Pentateuch. Certainly, Dr. Kuenen will not rest
the proof that " the book of the law" read before Josiah
was our present Book of Deuteronomy, on the single
use of the word " all " by a historian who is not known,
and who belongs to a class of writers who are said
by himself " to consider themselves exempt from all
responsibility " to write the truth. We however believe
this writer was honest, and intended to tell the truth,
and did tell it ; and that what he said is that " all "
was read which pertained to the Being whom they wor
shipped, and the place and form of worship then nec
essary to be known, and the penalties which would
follow disregard of this law.
4. The final reason given by Dr. Kuenen for believ-

32 INTRODUCTORY.
ing that Deuteronomy is " the book of the law " found,
forged, by Hilkiah is that the customs reformed are
all rebuked in Deuteronomy, and the penalties threat
ened for transgression are there written. But all these
threatenings and all these laws are also contained in
other books of the Pentateuch. It is not necessary,
therefore, to infer that the reading would be confined
to the last of the five books. Hilkiah or Shaphan may
have made selections from any part of " the book of
the law" which were appropriate to the occasion.
What book this was which Hilkiah " found " or
forged must be determined in a very different manner
from that which Dr. Kuenen has adopted. In the
proper place, we shall give it the consideration which it
demands. The seventh chapter on "The Israelitish Exiles in
Babylon " contains so little which bears upon the ques
tion which we are discussing that we shall pass it by
with the single remark that it is very full and able,
giving a correct view of the condition of the exiles,
and the influences of the peoples among whom they
dwelt upon their religious ideas and forms.
The eighth chapter, which describes the return from
the captivity and "The Establishment of the Hie
rarchy and the Introduction of the Law," demands
special attention ; for we are here told of the origin of
the rest of the Pentateuch, and especially of the com
position and introduction of the ritual law. As the
subject is a large one, and our space is limited, we
must confine ourselves to those points which have
direct reference to the origin of the Pentateuch and
the historical books.

KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 33
Dr. Kuenen affirms in the strongest language * that
"the priestly laws" and "priestly ordinances were
made known and imposed upon the Jewish nation now
for the first time," by Ezra, 457 B.C. " They were not
laws which had been long in existence, and which were
now proclaimed afresh and accepted by the people,
after having been forgotten for a while. No written
ritual legislation existed in EzekieFs time." \ During the
first thirteen years after Ezra's return, he perfected the
code which he had brought with him from Babylon,
where he and others drew it up. It received some modi
fications at the hand of Nehemiah, and perhaps others ;
and this code of laws was palmed off upon the returned
exiles as "God's law which was given by ['the hand of]
Moses, the servant of God," and which they bound them
selves by a solemn oath, under a curse, to obey. (Ne
hemiah x., 29.) No priest discovered the fraud ; no
scribe, versed in the traditions, customs, and laws of
the nation, had a suspicion that this formidable, exact
ing, and onerous code was a barefaced forgery, a pro
digious fraud ; or else they were all silent in the very
face of an imposition upon the credulity of a long-
suffering nation without a parallel in the history of the
*Vol. II., p. 231.
|Dr K. maintains that Lev. xviii. -xxvi. was written by or after the time of
Ezekiel. Thtre is not a shadow of evidence of it. The peculiar archaisms
which are characteristic of the rest of the book and of all the Pentateuch are
found in this section, which are not found in the extant writings of Ezekiel, nor
in any other writing of the Old Testament subsequent to that of the Pentateuch.
He must have taken great pains to imitate the style of the ancient books to con
ceal this fraud, or some scribe must have tampered with his copy to give it the
antique form ; and, further, he must have taken great pains in his extant proph
ecy to refer to this section as containing the laws given to the " fathers," and
referring to this forged section as if given in ancient times in the ''wilderness"
(chapter xx.., passim), when he knew that he wrote it himself.

34 INTRODUCTORY.
world. The stupidity of these people must have been
as amazing, as incredible, as was the fraud. There
were men and women among these exiles who were not
idiots, and who knew whether Ezra was introducing a
ritual and law which were new, and not in accordance
with the " customs " of the nation before the captivity.
There were thousands of those who returned with Ze-
rubbabel from the Babylonian exile, whose fathers had
worshipped in the temple which Solomon built, and
who were familiar with the whole ritual code. Could
their children be blinded to such a degree as not to
know a new code so minute in its details, reaching
even to the kind and cooking of their food ; the ma
terial, form, and make of their garments; the construc
tion and care of their houses ; the number, amount,
and payment of their taxes ; the rate of interest and
collection of debts ; the manner of treating strangers
and slaves ; the observance of the Sabbath, and the
penalty of its desecration ? And these are but a few of
the laws which touched their persons, their homes, and
daily occupations. The bare statement of an hypoth
esis which demanded such a belief would seem to be
its sufficient and swift confutation. Imagine all the
men and women and children of those exiles who had
refused to sing the songs of their dear native land by
the rivers of Babylon, and who had mourned over the
loss of their homes, their temple, and their worship,
when they had returned to erect anew their altar, and
kindle anew its fires, to have had presented for theii
acceptance such a ritual as they had never heard of ;
such a religious administration as never before existed
in the nation ; and yet not a priest, not a Levite, not a

KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 35
scribe, not a prophet, not a prophetess, ever hinted by
word or line that this ritual, this code, was new ; was
not the ritual and code of the fathers ; was not the
manner of administration and form of worship which
prevailed in the land before Jerusalem was destroyed
and Judah carried captive ! The great company which
returned with Zerubbabel had built their homes, and
established anew the worship of their nation in the
rebuilt temple, and according to the "customs" of the
fathers. For over half a century, for fifty-eight years,
after the dedication of their new temple, " the priests
in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses,"
had conducted the services of the temple, "as it is
written in the book of Moses"; and twenty years before
the temple was finished, on their arrival at Jerusalem,
Jeshua and the priests and others " builded an altar to
the God of Israel to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it
is written in the law of Moses, the man of God." They
kept the feast of the tabernacle, " as it is written," and
" offered the daily burnt offerings by number, according
to the custom." They a.lso observed the " new moons,
and all the set feasts of the Lord." This large com
pany, with the "high priests" and the "priests" and
"Levites" and "singing men" and "singing women"
and the "porters " with " the vessels of gold and of sil
ver," and "priests' garments " and "knives," had been
keeping "passovers" and "all the feasts," and wor
shipping according to the " custom " of the fathers, "as
written in the book of Moses," " in the law of Moses,
the man of God," during two generations, in the un-
doubting belief that they were honoring God and obey
ing his law given to their fathers. And yet not a word

36 INTRODUCTORY.
of astonishment or objection is spoken, no contention
arises between these people and the company of Ezra
when they return and he introduces his ritual and
code which were " never before heard of ," and " now for
the first time imposed upon the Jewish nation " ! Every
tongue is dumb, every pen is idle; and this unparal
leled monstrous forgery is accepted without a word of
challenge, a shadow of suspicion, by a people which
could boast of such writers as Amos, Isaiah, Micah,
Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel, and the Psalmist ! If so, the
miracles of Egypt, as well as those recorded in the
Book of the Judges, become mere commonplace affairs
in the history of Israel.
Monstrously incredible as this hypothesis is, Dr.
Kuenen has his reasons for adopting it. What are
they ? It is our duty, as reviewer of his work, to state
and examine them. In doing this, we shall be obliged
to adopt an order of our own, since Dr. Kuenen's rea
sons are spread over the whole work, and are inter
woven with his whole argument, and are nowhere so
arranged in separate paragraphs and distinctly an
nounced as to make verbal quotations easy. We will,
however, strive to cover his whole ground with the
reasons which we shall name. It will be impossible to
refer to the page on which the reasons which we shall
state may be found, since they are implied or hinted or
assumed through whole chapters, without a brief and
clear enunciation. We omit, in this connection, as we
shall have occasion to consider it hereafter, the differ
ence in the style of the author or authors of the Penta
teuch and that of Ezra and the writers of his time,
which is to us most conclusive evidence that the Jewish

KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 37
ritual was not the work of any writer who lived after
the captivity.*
The first reason which we will notice offered in
support of Dr. Kuenen's theory is that no mention is
made of any such work as the Pentateuch, or any such
ritual as it contains, in any work written before the
captivity. The value of this reason will depend upon
the number and character of the works thus early
written. If very few works were written, and they
were lyrical like the Psalms, or didactic like the Prov
erbs, or hortatory like many of the prophets, we should
not expect to find formal quotations from the Penta
teuch, assuming its early existence, any more than we
should expect to find formal quotations from the Gos
pels in our Christian hymn-books, or in such sermons
as Channing's and Robertson's and Bartol's and Mar-
tineau's. All that could be expected in such writings
would be an occasional allusion, a particular expression,
a special phraseology, which would indicate that the
writers of these lyric and didactic and prophetic books
were familiar with the contents of the Pentateuch, ar
the sermons of these preachers and the hymns of these
poets show that they are familiar with the contents of
the Gospels. Whether we do find any such indications
of familiarity with the contents of the Pentateuch in
the writers before the captivity will be determined sub
sequently in its proper placet
But we are by no means willing to confine the testi
mony to the early origin of the Pentateuch to works
written before the captivity. What sound reason can
* See " Study of the Pentateuch,'' under " Style f page 159 of this volume.
tSce "Study of the Pentateuch," under "Quotations" page 104 of this
volume.

38 INTRODUCTORY.
be given for not accepting the testimony of those who
wrote after the captivity to events transpiring and cus
toms prevalent before it, if they have good authority
for what they say which disappeared soon after, and
had in their hands documents which have perished?
None whatever. And here we must enter once more
our most decided protest against Dr. Kuenen's whole
sale accusation and condemnation of the Hebrew writ
ers, historians, and others. There is no evidence that
they were shamelessly destitute of veracity, "and con
sidered themselves exempt from all responsibility " to
tell the truth, " and fearlessly allowed themselves to be
guided in their statements by the wants of the present
and the requirements of the future " ! After the events
of the life of Samuel from 1100 B.C., the writers of
Jewish history are exceptionally scrupulous to refer to
their authorities. The writer of the Books of the
Kings specifies at the close of every section where a
full account of what he has very briefly narrated may
be found. Bancroft and Palfrey and Parkman are not
more scrupulous and frank in informing their readers of
the sources of their information. He does not appear
to think that he is writing to a set of ignoramuses who
could be duped, nor to a party of demagogues who
were to be flattered and sustained. Honesty and
scholarship glow on every page. If the reader of the
Books of the Kings is impressed with any one thing
more deeply than another, it is with the truthfulness of
the writer. Undoubtedly, he was sometimes mistaken
in his interpretation of the old records on which he
relied ; but not wilfully to gain an end, but humanly as
not omniscient. There is no reason to distrust his

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 39
statements respecting the laws, customs, and religion
of the Jews, if he did write four or five hundred years
after the reign of David, and closed his history with
the fall of Jerusalem and the captivity of Judah; and
we shall use his work freely and confidently when we
have occasion to do so in this discussion.
We turn now to a consideration of the accuracy and
value of the narratives in the Books of the Chronicles.
These books are made the subject of the severest
criticism by Dr. Kuenen. He accuses the writer of
them of very slight regard for truth ; of so coloring
facts, and of inventing them when there are none, as
to sustain the priestly ritual and code forged in the
name of Moses by Ezra. Indeed, Dr. Kuenen may
be said to believe and maintain that the Books of the
Chronicles are substantially historical forgeries com
posed to give color of truth to the ritual forgeries of
Ezra. The priests have invented a religion and forged
a history to prove it true.* This all took place, and
no scribe of the age, not a man of all the writers of
the age, detected the cheat or exposed the falsifier
of his nation's history. Mark the point. The writer
of the Books of the Chronicles is not a blunderer, an
ignorant pretender, an unfortunate bankrupt in author
ities : he is an intelligent, deliberate, persistent, and
determined falsifier of the annals of his nation which
were in his hands ; for this writer appeals as constantly
to his authorities for his statements as does the writer
of the Books of the Kings. Why, then, should Dr.
Kuenen assume that where these historians, or rather
annalists, differ, the writer of the Chronicles perverts
?Vol. III., p. 70 et seq.

40 INTRODUCTORY.
or inverts or invents his facts ? Why is it impossible
that the writer of the Kings maybe mistaken? Simply
because it would spoil the whole of Dr Kuenen's
theory; for it is past all possible question that the
priesthood and the ritual are as old as the time of
David, if the narratives in the Chronicles are substan
tially true. But Carthago delenda est. The early, es
pecially the Mosaic origin of the priesthood and ritual
must be false : therefore, every historian asserting its
antiquity is thereby shown to be a liar or an ignoramus !
That the writer of the Chronicles is an antiquarian,
and often busies himself about very small matters, is
true. That he is given to genealogies is also true.
That he writes an ecclesiastical and not a civil history
is also true. But this does not prove that he delib
erately lied, and said that things were as he knew they
were not. Neal's History of the Puritans differs as
much from Hume's history of the same period as the
Chronicles differ from the Kings ; and yet Neal is as
reliable an historian as Hume. He dwells upon other
topics and enlarges upon them, and is very diffuse upon
some points which Hume omits or only touches. So we
find it in the Chronicles. The writer lingers lovingly
around topics which the writer of the Kings passes
over very lightly or wholly omits, and sometimes they
contradict each other. But this is no proof that either
of them was a liar. Their authorities may have dif
fered. The figures given in the Chronicles and in the
other books are obviously unreliable, for some reason
which is not yet explained. The blunders of copyists
do not satisfactorily account for all of them. But
these obvious mistakes do not affect in the slightest

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 41
degree the historical accuracy of the statements respect
ing the religious usages and legal ceremonies of the
period of which the work is a fragmentary history, —
indeed, only the briefest annals. The fact of a battle
having been fought is not discredited because the
number of killed and wounded is incorrect, and the
name of the commander and the day of the fight are
obviously misstated. Genealogies may be erroneous,
and yet the events recorded may be substantially cor
rect. It would be a miracle, indeed, if the writer of
the Chronicles had made no mistakes in the names
of his long lists of ancient families ; and a still greater
one if the copyists of them for centuries had accu
rately, letter for letter, reproduced the original. We
have tried our hand at both, and do not wish to con
demn ourselves by accusing the writer of the Chron
icles of being either an idiot or a knave because of the
mistakes which are found in his work. There is open
before me, as I write, the first volume of Savage's Gene
alogy of New England, a "very miracle of accuracy,"
and yet there are twenty octavo pages of "additions and
corrections " at the end of it. How critics of the school
of Dr. Kuenen would revel in a volume' like this !
After the most patient and long examination of these
books, we find nothing which proves or even indicates
that their writer falsified his documents and invented
incidents. As far as he writes the history of his nation,
he writes as a priest would naturally write — relig
iously. He describes the acts of the priesthood much
more fully than those of the civil magistrates. He
does not bring his history down further than the de
struction of Jerusalem. The books close with the issue

42 INTRODUCTORY.
of the decree by Cyrus for the return of the captives,
536 B.C. The writer probably composed his work
after the return of Nehemiah, and compiled from docu
ments the so-called Books of Ezra and Nehemiah as a
fitting appendix to his own work. We submit that
there is no valid reason for supposing, with Dr. Kuenen
and others, that the Books of Chronicles were not writ
ten as early as we have stated, simply because two gen
ealogies of a few names are carried down to 250 B.C.
These names might well have been added by a later
hand. It may be assumed, therefore, with large meas
ure of assurance, that all the historical books included
in our Bible, as we now have them, were composed
before 400 B.C., and that they are substantially reliable
in their account of the affairs of the nation, both civil
and ecclesiastical ; that there is no evidence which
would be admitted for a moment in any court of jus
tice that these writers were arrant knaves, forging laws
and falsifying history ; that an indictment based upon
such evidence as is adduced against the integrity and
ability of these writers would be quashed by any mod
ern court, or a nol. pros, would be entered by any pros
ecuting attorney.
A word must be said respecting the writings which
treat of the affairs of the nation from the time of
Moses to that of David, a period, according to Dr.
Kuenen, of about three hundred years in round num
bers, — 1300 — 1000 B.C. The Book of Joshua gives
an account of the conquest and division of the land of
Canaan among the tribes, and covers a period of about
thirty years. If we can rely upon a statement in chap.
xvi., 10, "The Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 43
[in Gezer] unto this day," the book must have been
written before the end of Solomon's reign, for we lead,
in I. Kings ix., 16, that Pharaoh took Gezer, burned it
with fire, slew the Canaanites, and gave it as a present
to his daughter, Solomon's wife. This passage would
be of little value in overcoming opposing evidence, were
there any ; but there is none of any weight. The fre
quent use of the phrase "unto this day" implies some
time after the events described, but is very indefinite.
This Book of Joshua may have been written as early as
the reign of Saul. There is no internal evidence against
such a date for its compilation. Its subject is of the
conquest, the battles, and the location of the tribes upon
their portions of the land. No reasonable critic would
expect to find much, if anything, which would treat of
their religious manners and customs. What there is
said about them we shall call attention to in the proper
place.* If there were no allusion to anything of the
kind, it would not surprise us, nor should we draw the
astounding inference that they were a people without
a religion and without a ritual.
The Book of Judges is a very composite work ; but if
we may rely upon a statement, chap, i., 21, that "the
Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jeru
salem unto this day," the book must have been written
before the conclusion of David's reign ; for we read in
II. Samuel, v., 6-8, that David drove the Jebusites
out of Jerusalem, and took the stronghold of Zion, and
David dwelt in it. Another passage in one of the ap
pendixes of the book, chap, xviii., 30, may indicate
•See " Study of the Pentateuch," under "Quotations <rom Joshua!' page
14? of this volume.

44 INTRODUCTORY.
that this portion was not written till two or three centu
ries afterward; for certain persons are said to have
served as priests to the tribe of Dan "until the day of
the captivity of the land," referring, apparently, to the
deportation of the ten tribes of Shalmaneser and Esar
haddon, 721 B.C. As an apology for the lawlessness
and insecurity of those days the writer of the appen
dixes especially calls attention to the fact that there was
"no king in Israel in those days" (xviii., 1, and else
where). The book was possibly written as illustrative
of the importance of a closer union of the tribes and
of a stronger central government, or, more probably,
it was the work of a curiosity hunter, who gathered the
traditions of the most wonderful events which had hap
pened during a period of civil and foreign wars, if bor
der ravages and riotous outbreaks can be called wars,
like the feuds of the Scottish clans, or the fights of
Miles Standish and Captain Church with the Indians.
The writer was an Israelitish Cotton Mather, and his
book of the wonders of New England, Thaumaturgus,
is the Puritan Book of Judges. No reasonable critic
would expect to find much respecting religious affairs in
such a work, covering three or four centuries in sixteen
chapters, and devoting four of them to the exploits of
Samson, the Israelitish Morrissey (we mean no disre
spect to either champion : we make our apology to the
shades of both). Whatever light the book will throw
upon the subject we shall produce in due time.* We
have said enough to show that Dr. Kuenen's argument,
drawn from the silence of the book, is very weak, if not
entirely destitute of force. •
•See "Study of the Pentateuch," under "Quotations from Judges" page
141 of this volume.

KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 45
The historical notices contained in I. Samuel, preced
ing the anointing of David, will require but a word of
consideration. They were probably written by some
earlier writer than the author of the Books of the Kings,
and he may have continued the history to near the close
of David's reign. The style is more diffuse than that
of the author of Kings, and is freer from Aramaean
or Chaldee words. What records he used, if any, he
does not inform us ; and the amount of credit which
we give to his narrative will depend upon the probabil
ity of the events occurring under the circumstances de
scribed. Very strange things happen sometimes ; and
this rule, therefore, must be applied with great caution
and modesty. Very little, if anything, respecting eccle
siastical affairs would be likely to be found in a brief
description of the transition of the people from a state
of anarchy and tribal rivalship and independence to the
restraints of a monarchy and the authority of a central
government. And what little there should be found
would be such imperfect hints or such dissevered state
ments as would aid but little in forming a correct opin
ion of their religious rites and hierarchy. And if there
were a ritual and a priesthood and an altar prescribed,
it would be impossible in such stormy limes to enforce
or enjoy its observance, " every man for himself " doing
what was right in his own eyes ; and, as necessity knows
no law, religious rites and ceremonies would be regarded
or disregarded as circumstances compelled or permitted.
If the appointed altar could not be reached, the sacri
fice would be offered elsewhere ; if the appointed priest
could not be found, the next most worthy person would
officiate ; if the day appointed could not be observed,

46 INTRODUCTORY.
the next day most appropriate would be chosen. Laws
would not be enforced, criminals would escape, crimes
would be winked at. Whether any evidence whatever
exists in these narratives of the existence of any ritual
or code of forms of worship will be the subject of fut
ure examination.* It certainly would not disappoint a
student of history to find little or nothing on the sub
ject. He certainly would not decide categorically, as
Dr. Kuenen has done, that there was no such ecclesias
tical polity in existence, because at this particular period
of anarchy it was in abeyance, or because in these
scraps of civil history and accounts of insurrections
it was not specially mentioned.
On the contrary, Dr. Kuenen maintains that the rit
ual contained in the Pentateuch could not have been in
existence during this period, because no direct reference
is made to it by these writers, and because so much was
done which was in violation of it. But who does not know
that laws are violated, customs disregarded, rites neg
lected? Who does not know that the Thirty-nine Arti
cles of the Episcopal Church are Calvinistic, and that
its preaching is largely Arminian? Was the ritual, so
to speak, of the gospel less ignored by the Church 600
— 1000 A.D. than the ritual of the Pentateuch from
Joshua to Hezekiah, if you please, six centuries ? The
inference from comparative silence and disregard is not
a safe nor a sound one, where that silence can be ex
plained and that disregard accounted for, as can easily
and satisfactorily be done during the period before us.
The narratives relate almost exclusively to civil affairs,
* See "Study of the Pentateuch,'' under "Quotations from Samuel," page
136 of this volume.

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 47
and, for the most part, in the briefest manner ; and the
people were governed by passions and appetites made
greedy and lawless by centuries of slavery and suffer
ing in the midst of the grossest idolatry, and therefore
spurned the restraints of law and the denial of idol-
worship. A people cannot be lifted in an hour or a cen
tury from ignorance, brutality, and idolatry to knowl
edge, refinement, and spiritual worship; and well may
it have taken a millennium of struggle and failure and
worshipping of asheras and Baals before these degraded
slaves could accept a "spiritual monotheism," and burn
their asheras, and understand that even their own ritual
was an offence to God unless the heart was pure and
the hands clean which observed it. We will quote, as
we can, such authority as De Wette in support of our
position : " The observance' or non-observance of par
ticular laws, the appearance or non-appearance of par
ticular legal institutions, in a certain period, can prove
nothing, either fcr or against the existence of a written
lawbook."* We submit that the silence of these books
respecting the existence and observance of the Mosaic
ritual, and the few accounts of religious observances
not conforming to it, are no valid proof that it did not
exist, especially as against the later tradition of the na
tion. We shall in due time show that perfect silence
does not pervade these books. We are now only deal
ing with Dr. Kuenen's argument.
Respecting the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah to
which allusion has just been made, a few words must
be said j for in these very brief fragments of the con
dition of the Israelites for about a century, 537 — 434
•Parker's De Wette, § 161, ...

48 INTRODUCTORY.
B.C., after their return from captivity, we may find
some evidence of Dr. Kuenen's remarkable theory.
He thinks he does. Let us examine the books, and
see what it is worth, if indeed there is any.
It is evident that the best-conditioned and most
religious of the captives, those to whom "Jerusalem
was their chief joy," would undertake the long desert
journey, and attempt to rebuild the city and temple,
and re-establish the services of the fathers. They were
among the most intelligent and devoted of their race,
and would be most solicitous to establish in its purity
the worship of the fathers, and to render perfect obed;-
ence to those laws whose violation had been visited ^y
the destruction of their city and the captivity of its
citizens. The first company which went up under the
lead of Zerubbabel as civil governor or king, and of
Jeshua as high-priest and head of religious affairs,
were accompanied by all the servants serving in the
old temple worship, and carried back the vessels which
Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the temple and carried
to Babylon. There were about fifty thousand souls, —
men, women, and children. On arriving at Jerusalem,
they immediately erected an altar, and at once com
menced worship in accordance with the custom of the
fathers, offering sacrifices " as it is written in the law of
Moses, the man of God." They either had with them a
written ritual, or they knew there was one which they
remembered, and which they observed. They also
arranged their singers after " the ordinance of David,
King of Israel" showing by this act also strict regard to
the customs of the fathers. How Dr. Kuenen can say
that they did not sing, but only "hoarsely shouted," can-

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 49
not be reconciled with Ezra iii., 1 1 , which says, " And
they, the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the
Levites, the sons of Asaph, with their cymbals, sung to
gether by course in praising and giving thanks unto the
Lord ; because he is good, for his mercy endureth for
ever toward Israel "; and so thrilled were the multitude,
as they heard again the old temple anthems, that they
" shouted with a great shout, and the noise was heard
afar off." There is not a shadow of evidence but that
all this ritual service was familiar to them, and that it
was observed as it was " written in the law of Moses,
and after the ordinance of David." Having finished
their temple, after twenty years' hindrance and hard
labor, it was dedicated by the sacrifice of "bullocks and
lambs and he-goats ; by the priests in their divisions,
and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God,
. . . as it is written in the book of Moses." They kept
" the passover and the feast of unleavened bread."
They also "kept the feast of tabernacles, as if*is
written ; according to the custom, daily burnt offerings "
were offered. There is not the slightest hint that the
temple service was not continued for fifty-eight years,
till Ezra and his company arrived, without intermission,
and in accordance with the "custom" of the fathers,
and as "it was written in the book of Moses."
Did Ezra introduce any change ? Did he make
"known and impose upon the Jewish nation priestly
ordinances, now for the first time" commanded ? Were
rites now introduced of which Zerubbabel and Jeshua,
the king and high-priest, and these devoted exiles
knew nothing, as Dr. Kuenen affirms ? * Let us read
•Vol. II., p. 231.

50 INTRODUCTORY.
what the fragments of history preserved in the Book
of Ezra tell us on this subject. Ezra " was a ready
scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel
had given" (Ezra vii., 6) ; and he was a priest, great-
grandson of Hilkiah, who found the "book of the law"
in the reign of Josiah, if the genealogy is correct ; and.
" Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the
Lord and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and
judgments." After a few days, " the princes," who
apparently had succeeded Zerubbabel in the govern
ment, complained to Ezra, who came with authority
from the Persian King, that the people had intermar
ried, contrary to the law, with the neighboring people.
Ezra at once set about a reform, and a covenant was
made to put away their unlawful wives. " And let it
be done," they said, "according to the law." "Some
of these wives had children," not all. The whole
number of guilty persons was one hundred and thir
teen only, out of a population of over fifty thou
sand. Not a great number, certainly, if we consider
the condition of the people and the strength of the
temptation. This act of Ezra is founded upon no new
interpretation of "the law written by Moses," which had
been the law of the nation from the beginning; much
less was it a new law of Ezra's.
Nehemiah now visits Jerusalem. In his prayer for
guidance before he left the palace in Shushan, he con
fesses that "we have not kept the commandments, nor
the statutes, nor the judgments, which thou commandest
thy servant Moses," as if he knew no code but the old
code of the fathers, — the code which the returned
people had used for three generations, " as written in

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 5 1
the book of the law of Moses." Complaint was made to
Nehemiah that the poor were oppressed by the " usury "
demanded, and some of them had lost their homes by
the unlawful and cruel exaction of creditors. Nehe
miah was " angry, and rebuked the nobles and the
rulers, and directed them to leave off this usury and to
restore their olive yards and houses." And they prom
ised under oath to do so. After some years, Ezra again
appears upon the stage as a teacher of the law. The
people felt their need of fuller instruction. He used
for this purpose " the book of the law of Moses, -which
the Lord had commanded for Israel." The same book
evidently which Zerubbabel had used seventy years
before, and of which Nehemiah spoke in his prayer.
This old "book of the law" Ezra read and explained.
to the people. The devout wept when they learned
how they had sinned. The direction to dwell in
"booths" in the seventh month seems to have been
new to them, though they had kept the " feast of the
tabernacles " since their return.
A farther separation takes place from " strangers."
In the ninth chapter, a synopsis of the history of the
people is given as recorded in the Pentateuch, showing
that the " law " which was read was supposed to have
had its origin at that time ; and the covenant of the
fathers is renewed by the children, " to walk in God's
law, which was given by Moses, the servant of God, and
to observe and do all the commandments of the
Lord, . . . and not to give our daughters unto the
people of the land, nor take their daughters for our
sons." And they promise to contribute to the support
of the Levites "as it is written in the law." All this is

52 INTRODUCTORY.
in the Pentateuch, and is not spoken of as anything
new. A selection of one man in ten is made by lot to
dwell in Jerusalem. This is new; but it has nothing
to do with the ritual. They further "read in the book of
Moses that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not
come into the congregation of God forever." They
therefore " separated from Israel all the mixed multi
tude." Nehemiah, also, reformed the acts and labors
of the people on the Sabbath, to conform to the
" custom " of the fathers. This is all. There is not
the slightest shade of evidence that Ezra introduced
an entire new code of laws, never before known, but
the contrary. A few new arrangements are made to
meet the new condition, in which the people find them
selves ; but there is not a hint that anything new to
which they were not accustomed, save in three or four
instances at the most, and these unimportant, was
added to "the book of the law given by Moses." It is
incredible that no breath of opposition should have
been felt against this code, if it had not been what it
claimed to be, " the law given by Moses." It is incredi
ble, if there had been any opposition on this ground,
that no hint of it, nor the slightest trace of it, should
be found in these accounts of the reorganization of
the national worship. The very slight changes in a
few forms, which changed circumstances compelled, by
no means furnish proof or justify the suspicion that
the whole post-captivity code was the invention of
priests for selfish purposes, with Ezra at their head ;
and that he had the hardihood to proclaim to the
people that it was the very " law given by Moses," and
" written " by him. and observed by their fathers, and

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 53
whose violation, at last, was the cause of their captivity
and renewed obedience to which would now make them
prosperous ; and that the people were so stupid as not
to detect the fraud and expose the deceivers, and visit
them with swiftest and severest punishment ; or, if
they did, that all record of this detection, opposition,
and punishment, should have been lost by accident,
or erased by design, from both history and prophecy.
That the historical books contain no evidence of such a
ritual-forgery palmed off upon the returned exiles, we
have already fully shown. Nay, more : we have shown
that every fragment of these annals, every shred of the
story, informs us that this " law '' was the old law, and
that this ritual was the ritual of the fathers. We turn
now to examine the teachings of the prophets during
this period, to see whether Dr. Kuenen's appeal to
them in support of his theory is of any more value
than his appeal to history. Unless we utterly mistake,
this support will also prove to be a broken reed which
will pierce him through who leans upon it.
(1) Dr. Kuenen says " that when Ezekiel, in the
year 572 B.C., wrote his description of the new Israel
itish State (chaps, xl. — xlviii.), no written regulations
for religious worship, no complete priestly legislation,
yet existed." And he says further, "that no evident
trace of these laws, or of the spirit which they breathe,
is to be found in the prophecies which saw the light
toward the end of the captivity, — about 538 B.C.*
Ezekiel we will notice first, as being probably the
earliest of the group, then the later Isaiah and Zecha
riah, and then Haggai and Malachi. Ezekiel was not
•Vol. II., p. 153.

54 INTRODUCTORY.
of the company carried to Babylon. He was a dweller
on the remote river Chebar. The description which he
gives (chaps, xl. — xlviii.) of the division of the land
among the returned exiles, whenever they should return,
and of the temple they would build, is purely ideal, and
as impracticable, should an attempt be made to make
it real, as the throne or chariot of the Deity which
he describes in chapter i. is impracticable. This Dr.
Kuenen admits apparently, but he will not admit that
Ezekiel would have given play to his imagination in
describing the " ritual " of his ideal temple. Why not ?
Was the sacrifice more sacred than the altar? Was
the priest's attire more holy than the " holy of holies " ?
Why, then, should the prophet restrain his pen in de
scribing the " snuffers " and the " snuffer-trays " and
the "tongs "and the robes, when he had not shrunk
from describing ideally the altar and the holy place?
The presumption is that he would not. " Why did he
go into these minute descriptions of the ritual, if he
had the Pentateuch ? Why did he not content himself
with a simple reference to the Mosaic laws ? " asks
Dr. Kuenen. If Ezekiel was here, we have no doubt
he would reply, Because I was writing a poem, and
wished to fill out my ideal state and temple and ritual
in every particular. Besides, Ezekiel clings close to
the forms and substance contained in the Pentateuch
which he idealizes in his poem. Dr. Kuenen says "he
was not acquainted with the whole of the Mosaic law.
Deuteronomy and the still older book of the covenant
aie presupposed by him throughout, but nothing be
yond these collections." v Now the fact is this : by a
careful collation of the passages and references which

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 55
are found in Ezekiel, nearly the whole ritual as it is con
tained in the Pentateuch could be obtained. Ezekiel
uses the whole of the ritual as it stands in the Penta
teuch; that is, all which his work demanded. Could
space be given, we would prove it by an examination of
the passages quoted. It must suffice, however, to say
that Ezekiel shows himself to be perfectly familiar
with the "law of Moses" as recorded in the Penta
teuch, writing in a distant part of the country, one
hundred and fourteen years before Ezra went up to
Jerusalem, and thirty-six years before the great migra
tion under Zerubbabel, who had regard in offering sac
rifices to what " was written in the law of Moses, the
man of God," and who arranged the courses of the
priests " as it is written in the book of Moses." *
(2) We turn to examine the support furnished to
Dr. Kuenen's theory by the later, or "Deutero," Isaiah.
This writer "lays special stress upon Jahveh's one
ness" ; he expresses most significantly his contempt
of false gods; he is a strong "monotheist." There is
not a passage which implies the non-existence of the
ritual law or of the Pentateuch, but much to the con
trary. He speaks of the worthlessness of the ritual
unless the heart is in its observance ; but this is evi
dence for the existence of the ritual, and not proof
that it did not exist. As we shall have occasion to
recur to this writer again before we finish this discus
sion, we waive farther examination of his work till
then, having said sufficient to show that Dr. Kuenen's
inference is unfounded.t
•For further proof, see " Study of the Pentateuch," under "Ezekiel," p. 105.
t See "Study of the Pentateuch,'' under "Isaiah" p. 112,

56 INTRODUCTORY.
(3) But a word is necessary upon the writings of
the later Zechariah. He was a contemporary of Zerub
babel, and the numerous visions which he describes
assume the existence of the ritual, though no direct
reference is made to it. Indeed, Dr. Kuenen does not
appear to place much reliance upon his silence as valid
evidence that the ritual was not in existence, and re
garded as far as the circumstances would allow.
(4) The prophet Haggai, in the brief fragment of
only two chapters of his writings which have come
down to us, uses the language of the Pentateuch, and
speaks of "the law," as respecting things "clean and
unclean." Dr. Kuenen infers from chap, ii., n, be
cause the prophet directs the people to inquire " con
cerning the law " of the priests, that there were no
"enactments of the written law": "only a priestly
tradition existed." As if, because one was referred to
the lawyer when he inquired after the "law" on a cer
tain subject, we should infer that there was no statute,
written law, but only the tradition of the bar. It so
happens that the very point inquired about is stated
and decided in Numbers xix., n. Haggai furnishes
no support to Dr. Kuenen's theory.
(5) The brief prophecy of Malachi, who was a
contemporary of Nehemiah, is thought by Dr. Kuenen
to give support to his theory, because he shows that
" Ezra and Nehemiah in their attempt at reform met
with strong opposition." The people violated the law
in various ways, and some of them despised Jahveh's
name. But this " law " which Malachi denounces the
people for disregarding and violating is no forgery of
the priesthood and Ezra, no new ritual palmed off

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 57
upon the nation by a conspiring hierarchy, Nehemiah
assenting and abetting, — it was none other than "the
law of Moses," the servant of Jehovah, which God
"commanded him in Horeb for all Israel." If Malachi
reproved the people, it was for transgressing the " law
as it was written by Moses " ; and, if the people opposed
Ezra and Nehemiah, it was because they enforced
against evil-doers "the law as written by Moses," and
not a fraudulent code of Ezra's. There is not a
shadow of evidence that any opposition arose against
the administration of these men because they intro
duced "new laws never before heard of"; but all the
evidence that exists of the opposition itself as well as
of its cause implies or affirms that it originated in the
enforcement of laws whose violation was the cause of
their captivity, and whose origin was in the ancient
days, " in Horeb," and whose author " was Moses, the
man of God."
The prophetical writings of this period not only give
no countenance to Dr. Kuenen's theory, but they op
pose it in letter as well as in spirit.
We have now examined the main reasons adduced
by Dr. Kuenen in support of his hypotheses of the
origin of the Pentateuch, as they are less frequently
stated than implied in these volumes. To discuss every
point affirmed or suggested, to challenge every state
ment which is doubtful or incorrect, to expose every
fallacious inference from conceded facts, would de
mand as many volumes as the original work. We have
omitted nothing vital to his argument.*
See Appendix B, page 66.

58 INTRODUCTORY.
Thus far in the discussion, we have been laboring at
a disadvantage. We have been proving a negative.
We have been showing that the arguments adduced by
Dr. Kuenen are not valid to sustain his theory of the
late and forged composition of the Pentateuch. The
positive argument for its antiquity and substantial gen
uineness does not appear. Dr. Kuenen's argument in
support of his theory may be confuted, and yet his
theory may be correct. We propose, therefore, to dis
cuss the question positively and affirmatively, confuting
his theory indirectly by an examination into the age
and authorship of the so-called Books of Moses di
rectly and critically, as we have confuted his argumems
in support of it by testing their logical and historical
value. We gird ourselves to the work in the assurance
that the antiquity of the Pentateuch can be vindicated,
and that the Mosaic origin of most of its contents can
be established.

APPENDIX A.*
In The Bible for Learners, by Dr. H. Oort, Professor
of Oriental Languages, etc., Amsterdam, and Dr. T.
Hooykaas, pastor at Rotterdam, with the assistance of
Dr. A. Kuenen, Professor of Theology at Leiden, there
are abundant specimens of these "flimsiest specula
tions." I quote a few to justify to the reader the
use of such language respecting the works of this
school of critics.
"The tabernacle," Dr. Oort says, "never really ex
isted, except in the imagination of the writer," who lived
after the captivity. This writer must have been infatu
ated with this creation of his imagination, of " rams'
skins dyed red," and " badger skins," and " fine-twined
linen," and "loops and couplings, blue upon the edge,
and taches and curtains of goats' hair, and boards of
shittim wood, and two tenons on one board, and forty
sockets of silver, two sockets under one board, and bars
of shittim wood, five bars for the boards of the taber
nacle on the one side, and five bars for the boards of
the tabernacle on the other side, and the middle bar in
the midst of the boards shall reach from end to end,"
etc., — must have been infatuated, indeed, for he repeats
the wearisome, dry details in the following chapters,
which one has hardly patience to read once.
The "representation of the camp of the Israelites,"
as given in the Book of Numbers, we are told "the writer
* See page 8.

60 INTRODUCTORY.
had invented and worked out himself." No truth is in
it. We must class it with the historical " lies," for there
is no doubt about the writer's intending that his readers
should believe it was a true description of the work of
Moses. Dr. Oort tells " learners " that " the prophet Malachi
[420-450 B.C.] is the first to use the expression 'law
of Moses.' " Now, the title is used I. Kings ii., 3, and
II. Kings xxiii., 25, books acknowledged by such critics
as De Wette and Davidson to have been written about
550 B.C. And the title is also used by the writer of
the Book of Joshua, placed by the same critics about
650 B.C., or two centuries earlier than Dr. Oort admits
that the title was used. Dr. Oort tells "learners" that
" the very name given to . . . the Mount of Sinai signi
fies the moon-god." We do not say that some modern
critics are moon-struck, but the moon has as much in
fluence on their criticism as it has on the meteorology
of the rustic. Gesenius (Hebrew Thesaurus, ad verb?)
says Sinai signifies " lutum," " mire " ! Again, Dr. Oort
tells " learners " that " the very name of the hero himself
[Samson] signifies ' sun-god.' " Gesenius says it signi
fies "sunlike." These assertions need no comment.
They admonish " learners " to choose judicious teachers,
and to beware of disregarding truth, as the Hebrew
writers are said to have done.
Dr. Oort seems disposed, at times, to give the worst
interpretation possible to popular phraseology. For
example, he says the proverb, as used in Ecclesiastes
" A living dog is better than a dead lion," means, "Life,
though branded with infamy, is preferable to the most
honorable of deaths " ! The real meaning of the pro-

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 6l
verb is, while there is life there is capacity, activity,
hope of change from misfortune and sorrow; but when
dead we are good for nothing, can do nothing, can hope
for nothing. " Infamy " is not said to be " preferable to
death." So base a sentiment could not be found among
the O jib ways.
We will take one of Dr. Oort's myths, and learn his
style of interpretation. Solar myths are fashionable now
among the critics ; and the story of Samson opens a
rich field for fancy to riot in, as Dr. Oort in his chapter
on this Hebrew athlete illustrates. He opens his criti
cism with a reference to Osiris and Horos and Typhon
and Herakles and Balder and Loki, original solar myths ;
and, as the " very name " of the hero " Samson " signi
fies " sun-god," the reader is admonished in the outset
of the solar myth to be narrated. A rhetorical descrip
tion, in his own language, is given of the interview of
the angel and Manoah, the father of Samson. He then
interprets : " Samson had long hair. These long hairs
are rays of the sun. The angel who rises up in the
flame of Manoah's sacrifice signifies the glow of the
dawn that blazes against the heavens, and heralds the
approach of the sun who brings to the world fresh life."
This is rich, but there is richer in store. Dr. Oort gives
a glowing description of Samson's exploits, "killing the
lion," "getting honey from the carcass," and his riddle
about it. A very simple thing for a fellow like Samson
to do. Now for the mythical interpretation. The "lion"
is a "sign in the zodiac." "Samson rends the lion;
that is to say, the sun passes through the constellation
of that name." ..." How did sweet food, honey, pro
ceed from the strong and ravenous lion ?"..." When

62 INTRODUCTORY.
the sun passes through the lion, the bees make their
combs ; and, when he leaves it, the honey is ready." Is
not this richer? Instead of saying, what was not at all
improbable, that a swarm of bees had made honey in
the hollow, bone-covered portion of the fleshless re
mains of the slain beast, we are directed to the constel
lations for an answer to the riddle. It is no wonder
that the Philistines did not guess the riddle, and it is a
wonder that Samson was such a fool as to think they
did when they did not ; for they only thought of the
real beast : they had no zodiacal signs in mind.
Now for the story of the jackals (foxes), tied " tail
to tail, with a burning torch between them," and sent
among the Philistines' wheat all ready to harvest, which
so provoked them that they followed him to Lehi, where
he was delivered up by his friends, who feared the ven
geance of the Philistines, bound with two new ropes.
But, when the Philistines shouted and came upon him,
he snapped the ropes, and seized the jaw-bone of an
ass, and slew them by the thousand ; and they fled ;
and, when he was thirsty, he cried to Yahweh, and
"God split the hollow of the jaw-bone, and watei
flowed out from it to drink." One word of criticism
before proceeding to give the mythical interpretation
of this exploit. The water did not flow from the
hollow in the jaw-bone of the ass, used by Samson in
beating off the Philistines, but from a hollow, a spring,
in Lehi, the place where the squabble was. Now, the
Hebrew word Lehi signifies "jaw"; and Dr. Oort
thinks the Lehi where the spring of water was was
the jaw-bone of the ass, and not the place Lehi. Our
translators made a mistake in translating the name :

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 63
" But God clave a hollow place that was in the jaw,"
when they should have said, " a hollow place that was
in Lehi." There was a spring of water in that place,
Lehi, which Samson found and drank from. This is all.
But it is time to give Dr. Oort's mythical interpreta
tion. In " the reddish-brown jackals, with torches be
tween their tails,-we easily recognize the lurid thunder
clouds, from the projecting points [tails?] of which
lightning flashes seem to dart." "When he has tri
umphed over his foes, the sun-god no longer uses the
thunder-cloud as a weapon, but makes the rain pour
out of it. This explains why Samson threw away his
weapon after the victory, and that a spring rose from
the hollow of the jaw-bone." This is certainly richer
still !
Patience ! But one more specimen remains. Samson
loses his locks by the betrayal of Delilah, and grinds
in the mill of the Philistines, among the women. His
hair grows again ; he is taken out to make sport for the
curious multitude, who so pile the roof of the building
that, by a push upon a couple of its pillars, it fell, and
killed many besides Samson. All very probable and
intelligible, and substantially true, past all reasonable
question. Now for the solar-myth interpretation. Los
ing his locks in the winter months, "the sun-god is
gradually encompassed by his enemies, mist and dark
ness. He loses all his power and glory. Gradually
his strength returns, and at last he reappears, . . . and,
in the end, triumphs over his enemies once more. This
final victory is represented by the scene in the Temple
of Dagon." The sun dies every year, and comes to life
again ; but " Samsw. was buried between Zorah and

64 INTRODUCTORY.
Eshtahol, in the burying-place of Manoah, his father,"
and we hear no more of him. Such is the interpreta
tion of the stories of the Bible commended to " learn
ers." It is true that this is the most extravagant one of
all that have come under my observation ; but the only
reason why others are not as extravagant seems to be
that no others furnish such opportunity for the revels of
imagination. If this is criticism, what would be trav
esty? An instance of the way the author has of charging
the Hebrew writers with disregard of truth, and of fal
sifying their own records, is found in his account of the
story of Korah.* "A later priest," he says, "who ac
cepted the story as historical, was sadly perplexed by
the fact that Korah's family not only still existed, but
was held in high honor. He therefore took the liberty
of making a note to the effect that Korah's children did
not perish with him (Numbers xxvi., 1 1), thereby contra
dicting the story itself, which expressly says that both
he and his were destroyed " (Numbers xvi., 32). Now,
the original account does not say that the children of
Korah were swallowed up. It does not even say that
Korah was swallowed up. It says that " Dathan and
Abiram came out and stood in the door of their tents,
and their wives and their sons and their little children ;
. . . and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed
them up, and their houses, and all the men that apper
tained to Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that
appertained to them, went down alive into the pit." . . .
Not a word is said that Korah was there with Dathan
and Abiram when the earth opened. It is nowhere said
• Vol. II., page 523.

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 65
that Korah or his children were swallowed up. It is
nowhere said that Korah, himself, was killed, either by
the opening of the earth or by the "fire that came out
from the Lord and consumed the two hundred and fifty
men that offered incense " " at the door of the taberna
cle of the congregation." But, as Moses had told Ko
rah the day before to be present with his company at
that place, it is a fair inference that he was one of the
two hundred and fifty who were " consumed by fire from
the Lord at the door of the tabernacle," while Dathan
and Abiram and their families were swallowed up in
another part of the camp, where were the tents of
Reubenites. So far is it, therefore, from being true
that Hebrew writers " concerned themselves very little
with the question whether what they narrated really
happened so or not," that they excelled, in accuracy of
writing and scrupulous regard to facts, some of their
modern readers and commentators.

APPENDIX B*
Some of Dr. Kuenen's affirmations are too important
to be passed by in entire silence.
(I.) Dr. Kuenen affirms (Vol. IL, p. 299) " that the
Deuteronomist considers all Levites, without distinc
tion, qualified to fill the priestly office," and " that a
reconciliation of Deuteronomy with Exodus — Numbers
is not to be thought of." This, he affirms, is certain
"from Deuteronomy x., 8, 9; and xviii., r-8, where he
[the Deuteronomist] expresses himself quite unambigu
ously." ..." He directly contradicts them [Exodus —
Numbers] . . . and expressly allows (Deuteronomy
xviii., 6, 7) that which, according to the priestly law
giver (Numbers xviii., 3), is punished with death.
We take distinct issue with Dr. Kuenen on this
point. In Deuteronomy xviii., 6, 7, we read, " If a Le-
vite come from any of thy gates out of all Israel where
he sojourned, and come with all the desire of his mind
unto the place which the Lord shall choose, there he
shall minister in the name of the Lord his God, as all
his brethren the Levites do, which stand before the Lord."
Now what says Numbers xviii., 2, 3 ? "And thy
[Aaron's] brethren of the tribe of thy father, bring
them with thee, that . . . they may minister unto thee ;
but thou and thy sons with thee shall minister before the
tabernacle of witness, and they shall keep thy charge and
the charge of all the tabernacle; only they shall not come
* See page 57.

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 67
nigh the vessels of the sanctuary and the altar, that
neither they, nor ye also, die." And further on in this
chapter many specific duties of the Levites, as distin
guished from those of the priests, are enumerated.
Where, we ask with emphasis, does Numbers "ex
pressly contradict" Deuteronomy? What does Deu
teronomy "expressly allow" which Numbers "pun
ishes with death " ? Both direct that Levites may serve
at the tabernacle, Numbers specifying their duties,
Deuteronomy only saying that the persons specified
"should serve as all the Levites do " ; that is, as directed
in Numbers. We renew our question with stronger
emphasis, Where is the " direct contradiction "?
Now let us examine ihe first affirmation that "all Le
vites, without distinction, [were] qualified to fill the
priestly office," according to Deuteronomy viii., 9 ;
xviii., 1-8. We have already quoted the important
portion of the latter passage, and have only to remark
that all attempts to build up a theory of the Jewish
priesthood and the identity of the office of the priest
and the Levite, because of the use of the phrase, "The
priests, the Levites," are futile. All priests were Le
vites, but "all" Levites were not qualified for priests;
and this idiomatic phrase proves only that priests
were Levites. A critical examination of this Hebrew
idiom would take too much space, and lead us into
details too dry and minute to interest our readers ; and
we refer them to the constructio asyndeta of the Hebrew
grammars. We turn, therefore, to notice the other
passage, which proves that "all Levites, without dis
tinction, [were] qualified to fill the priestly office,"
Deuteronomy x., 8, 9. It reads thus: "At that time

68 INTRODUCTORY.
[at Mount Sinai] the Lord separated the tribe of Levi
to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand
before the Lord to minister to him, and to bless in his
name unto this day. Wherefore Levi hath no part
nor inheritance with his brethren ; the Lord is his in
heritance, according as the Lord thy God promised
him." What is there in this passage to show that
"all" Levites were or might be priests? Not a line.
The duty of the tribe of Levi is specified in the briefest
manner, including the service of both priests and Le
vites, into which two classes the tribe is elsewhere said
to be divided. "The reconciliation of Deuteronomy
with Exodus — Numbers is not to be thought of,"
therefore, only because there is nothing to reconcile.
Where there is no contradiction, there is no demand
for conciliation. Dr. Kuenen's inference, therefore,
that, since the Deuteronomist makes no distinction
between the priest and Levite, he must have written
before the " priestly ritual " of Exodus — Numbers and
of Ezra was composed, is without support. Dr. Kuenen
has mistaken an eddy for the current.*
(II.) Dr. Kuenen says again (Vol. II., p. 116),
" Ezekiel is the first to desire other rules [than that
all Levites might officiate as priests] for the future :
after the return of Israel to her native land, ' the sons
of Zadok ' shall be the only lawful priests." But it is
evident from the context (Ezekiel xliv., 10- xiv.) that
*The statement, Unitarian Review, Nov. 1880, p. 937, that, "before this
captivity, the terms ' priest ' and ' Levite ' are synonymous," is incorrect, as shown
"(III.)" ; and another writer echoes Kuecen's statement to the same effect, and
further informs us that Kuenen " revised his whole scheme of Israel's history "
on account of this supposed synonymousness of "priest" and "Levite." A
pyramid on its apex, surely. See " The Levitical Priests," by Curtis.

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 69
Ezekiel had reference in this passage to the Levites,
and priests of the family of Aaron, who had served at
the altars of false gods in the reigns of Hezekiah and
Josiah, and who had thus forfeited their claim to their
official position ; and as the " sons of Zadok " only of
the family of Aaron remained loyal to Jehovah, they
alone could officiate as priests. The most sacred ser
vices of the temple could be performed by them alone.
Ezekiel desires no new rule. He only enforces an old
one that those who forsake Jehovah and serve at the
altars of false gods shall not serve at his altar. Dr.
Kuenen is betrayed into this error by his not seeing
that the priests are sometimes spoken of as Levites of
whom they formed a part when the writer refers to the
position and duties of the tribe as a body. And while
in some instances it must be confessed that the sacred
writers are not so clear as is desirable, yet nothing but
an " assumed " theory could have led the author so far
astray. (III.) Again, Dr. Kuenen says (Vol. I., p. 325), "In
David's days, no one thought of either the descendants
of Aaron or the Levites being the only persons compe
tent to discharge the functions of priests." This is a
remarkable statement to make, when not the name of
a person acting as priest is mentioned who is not a
descendant of Aaron. The legitimate inference is that,
where names are not mentioned, the " priests " who
are officiating at the altar are the posterity of Aaron.
Priests and their services are mentioned frequently
during the reign of David by the writer of the Books
of Samuel and Kings, and not a hint is given that they
are not Aaronic.
(IV.) Dr. Kuenen says (Vol. I., p. 208): "In the

70 INTRODUCTORY.
eighth century B.C., the prophet of Jahveh has become a
writer. ... It does not appear that the older prophets . . .
thought of writing down what they had spoken." Yet
we read that the " acts of David and Solomon," in the
ninth and tenth centuries B.C., were "written by Na
than, the prophet," and also "in the visions of Iddo,
the seer," and also in "the book of the prophet Gad,
David's seer" (I. Chronicles xxix., 29; II. Chronicles
ix., 29). The only marvel is that so much, not that so
little, of the early miscellaneous literature of the He
brews was preserved, when we remember the fortune
of that people.
(V.) Dr. Kuenen says (Vol. I., p. 273), " Probably
not one of the Psalms is from David's hand." So
destructive a critic as Hitzig claims that he wrote ten
certainly, perhaps more. And Ewald claims fifteen,
and probably several others. Davidson claims still
more. So does Eichorn, and Dr. Noyes, also. A
dozen eminent Hebrew scholars might be named who
believe that David wrote from twenty to eighty of the
Psalms; but it is not necessary. Every student of
the Hebrew Scriptures knows them. But genera!
readers are widely and sadly misled by such state
ments, and judicious, reliable scholars do not make
them. (VI.) Dr. Kuenen is very confident that he can
pick out the portions of the " Book of Origins," or the
Elohim document, from Exodus — Numbers; and he
confides in the accuracy of his dissection with an assur
ance which is surprising to one who has made the sub
ject a study. The fact is, no confidence can be placed
in any of these attempts to find and define the sup
posed documents of which some writers affirm thai

KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 71
these books are composed. We have given the subject
a careful and most minute study, and we say without
hesitation that all these attempts are abortive. Some
specimens will be given taken from Kuenen (Vol. II.,
p. 163 — ). "Exodus xii., 1-23, 28, 37 (?), 40-51, are
from his [Elohist's] hand." Now, this writer calls the
Supreme Being, in Hebrew, Elohim, God, as distin
guished from the later writer who calls the Supreme
Being, in Hebrew, Jehovah, Lord. This is a " chief
characteristic " of his style. In this passage, quoted
by Dr. Kuenen as written by the Elohist, the name
" Jehovah " is used fifteen times and " Elohim " not
once. In another passage, " Exodus xxv., 1 ; xxxi.,
17," Jehovah is used forty times and Elohim but three
times. Theodore Parker says, " I would rather con
sider the whole passage as Jehovistic." Again, " Exo
dus xxxv.-xl.," Jehovah is used thirty-three times and
Elohim once. Theodore Parker says, "To me, this
passage seems Jehovistic throughout." Again, "Le
viticus viii.-x.," Jehovah is used forty times, Elohim
not once. Again, "Numbers xv.-xix.," Jehovah is
used fifty-seven times and Elohim twice. Once more,
" Numbers xxvi.-xxxi.," Jehovah is used fifty-two
times and Elohim but once. It is not necessary to ex
tend this note further. The "chief characteristic" of
the Elohim document almost entirely disappears in the
passages attributed to the Elohist writer by Dr. Kue
nen, and the " chief characteristic " of the Jehovistic
writer is found in them. This is sufficient to show the
fallacy of the whole criticism ; for, if the " chief char
acteristic " of one of the theoretical documents is found
to be almost universally used in the other in practice,
either the theory or the practice is sadly at fault,

A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.

A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.

INTRODUCTION.
The Pentateuch, as well as other writings claiming a
high antiquity, has been made to pass the fiery ordeal
of criticism since the revival of Oriental learning, and,
like not a few of them, has been denied the venerable
age which had before been awarded to it. I do not
complain that these writings have been tried in so puri
fying a fire. Nor will I complain that there has been
some rashness manifested in this process of purification,
since, in all first attempts, more or less imperfection
must exist. But I have no doubt that it will be found
in the end, after thorough scholarship and laborious re
search have done their work, that many of those writ
ings, whose antiquity has been denied, will again be in
stalled in their original places of reverence and age.
The tendency is in that direction, even at this time;
and it will grow stronger and stronger as the discoveries
of scholars in the ruins of the ancient cities give deci
sive evidence of the general, and sometimes minute, ac
curacy of the accounts which these books contain, and
of a literature as abundant, as various, and as copious
as is found in the Pentateuch.
There was a time, and it is not long since, when the
history of Herodotus was looked upon as largely myth-

76 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
ical, as composed of " tales imposed upon the credulity
of the Father of History " ; but almost every modern
discovery goes to confirm the general accuracy of He
rodotus, and convict the incredulity of his critics. The
same is true of other ancient documents, and frag
ments of documents, which have come down to our
day. Thorough modern research seems to be fast con
firming the old opinion respecting the antiquity and
authenticity of the writings which claim to be the work
of ancient men.
The Old Testament writings have shared to some
extent the fate of the writings of Herodotus and other
ancient authors. Their historical parts have been put
to the test of criticism, and have been declared want
ing. But recent discoveries and more thorough exam
ination are confirming their general accuracy, and win
ning back to them a continually increasing portion of
the confidence which they formerly commanded. Es
pecially is this true of the Pentateuch. The writings
of Moses, as they are usually called, have been sub
jected to the closest scrutiny by the most profound
scholars. Perhaps no work claiming its origin in re
mote antiquity has passed through such an ordeal, and
with such various results. In the first instance, a very
modern date was given to it. The age of Ezra was
reported by some as that in which it first saw the light.
The date of its origin has, however, been receding ; and
generally an antiquity considerably higher is now con
ceded to it by most of the same school of critics.
But it is not my purpose to write a history of the
progress of criticism upon the age and authenticity of
the Pentateuch. I have made these remarks to notify

INTRODUCTION. 77
my readers of the present tendency of that kind of
criticism, which has been, by some defenders of the
ancient records, styled " destructive," that they may be
better able to appreciate the force of the arguments
which I propose to adduce in this study, to show that
the Pentateuch is of the age of Moses; that there are
reasons, by no means without weight, for the opinion
that the first five books of the Old Testament, called
the Pentateuch, were in the main compiled and written
either by Moses himself or by one or more of his
contemporaries, perhaps under his direction, or, at the
latest, by his immediate successors. It is no part of
my plan to prove the authenticity of these books, — the
truth of the statements made in them, — though inci
dentally I shall touch that subject. My object is a
single and simple one. I wish to present the reasons
which have induced many of the most eminent schol
ars and the great mass of believers, so far as they have
had reasons to give for their belief, for attributing the
Pentateuch to an author or authors of the Mosaic Age.
Nor do I propose to show or maintain that these writ
ings have come down to us without damage, in their
original state precisely. I shall assume that they have
met with the same fate in their transmission to our
age which has befallen all other ancient writings.
Nor shall I claim for them any inspiration, in any sense
of that word. I shall examine them as I would any
other writings of antiquity.
I propose this only as my theme, — to examine the
evidence of the origin and age of the first five books
in our Bible, commonly called the Pentateuch. I call
this essay a Study, because it is the result of my own

78 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
personal investigation extending over a period ap
proaching half a century, and during a portion of
which time my duty as teacher at Meadville required
me to read the Pentateuch, as well as the rest of the
Hebrew literature contained in the Old Testament,
annually with the students ; and nothing has surprised
or pained me more of late years than the careless facil
ity with which even men having the reputation of
scholarship copy and adopt the statements of others,
especially if they have come over the sea, without ver
ifying them ; and are not only led far astray themselves,
which would be little, but they lead far astray multi
tudes of others who confide in them, just as if they
were authority, and knew themselves, by their own
studies, whereof they affirm. The credulous, confiding
public is flooded with books and pamphlets written
without knowledge and published without thought. It
is a very easy thing to do to rewrite a dry, dull book
into a fresh and attractive one, and to scatter broadcast
in volume or pamphlet, in essay or sermon, the crude,
wild, baseless theories and hypotheses of persons who,
like the old Athenians, have nothing to do but to tell
some new thing, or startle men with some astonishing
discovery, or mortify them with some bold irreverence.
No responsibility seems to be felt for the influence of
opinions, and little regard is paid oftentimes to truth.
There is hot haste to get every new hypothesis, the
last guess, before the public. It goes up like a rocket,
fizzing and sparkling, to the admiration of the on-look-
ers, but soon grows dim, fades away, disappears, and
disappoints. No such charge as haste or want of care can be

INTRODUCTION. 79
attributed to the preparation and publication of this
Study. Want of skill, want of knowledge, may be its
vital, fatal defects. Had I known more, I should have
escaped my errors ; had I delayed pub'ication longer,
I might have been wiser, and not have printed my con
clusions. But such as I have, after these long years
of inquiry, I give, in the hope that my contribution to
this branch of Biblical criticism will not be wholly in
vain. Before entering upon the examination of the subject
in hand, however, it will be necessary to give an outline
of the construction and contents of the work which we
are to examine, that the course of our inquiry may be
clearly understood. The Pentateuch is composed of
a sketch of the lives of the three great ancestors of
the Hebrew people, — Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Gen
esis xii.-L, — preceded by a sketch of the creation and
the flood, and genealogies of the descendants of Adam
in the line of Abraham to him (Genesis i.-xi.) ; and
followed, after an interval of centuries, with an account
of the residence of the Hebrews in Egypt and their
escape from bondage to Mount Sinai (Exodus i.-xix.).
All this is historical, and, excepting what is in Exodus,
relates to what transpired before the birth of Moses,
and may have been the work of some other person,
even after his death. Nor is it probable that what is
contained in Exodus up to the twentieth chapter was
written by him. Nor by any one else was it written at
the time the events recorded took place, and may
not have been written for a century or more after
ward. Moses and all the other leaders were too
busily engaged in rescuing the people from the Egyp-

80 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
tians, and providing for their wants and organizing them
into some orderly body, to undertake any literary
labors. The laws given and the ritual prescribed and
the place of worship erected, and its furniture, and the
priest's duties and garments, are described and re
corded. (Exodus xx. — Numbers x., i o). This portion
was written as the laws were given and as the events
transpired, day by day, at Sinai. Whatever is written
respecting their wanderings, till they arrived on the east
ern bank of the Jordan (Numbers x., i i-xxxvi.), was
written as the events took place, either by Moses or
by his scribe, or by both. The closing addresses by
Moses, and the amendments and additions to the laws
contained in them, were written by Moses himself or
under his direction, by his scribes (Deuteronomy i.-
xxxi.). There is no conclusive internal evidence that
he did not compose the song contained in the thirty-
second chapter, and the blessings in the thirty-third ; but
some other hand of course gave the account of his
death and burial in the thirty-fourth chapter. The
whole Pentateuch, however, was written before any
other books that have come down to us, as the style,
the " archaic language," shows, and will be illustrated
hereafter. This inquiry respecting the origin and age of the
Pentateuch may be pursued, if one pleases, as a purely
literary one ; for the Mosaic dispensation is not ours,
nor is the Law our rule of life. Whatever may prove
true in regard to the Pentateuch, our relations to God,
to Christ, and to man, are unchanged. Whether the
Law was of human or of divine origin, we are, as
Christians, to obey Christ, and accept the " substance,"

INTRODUCTION. 8 1
of which the Law, at the best, was only a " shadow."
As a purely literary inquiry, therefore, I shall discuss
them. Three distinct questions present themselves for con
sideration in opening our inquiry : Is the Pentateuch
as old as the time of Moses ? Is Moses its author ?
Does it contain a reliable account of the revelation
which God made to the Jews ? The first of these ques
tions may be answered in the affirmative, and yet both
the others be answered in the negative. The first two
may be answered in the affirmative, and the last in the
negative. The second may be answered in the nega
tive, and the first and last in the affirmative. We can
suppose Moses wrote the book and wrote incorrectly.
We can suppose it to be of the Mosaic Age, and yet
not written by him. We can suppose that, though not
written by him, it contains the truth.
In this Study, I propose to examine and answer only
the first question : Is the Pentateuch as old as the time
of Moses ? The inquiry will be divided into two
parts : (i) the historical indications of the existence of the
book ; and (2) the evidence to be derived from its internal
character, — or the external and internal evidence. I
shall commence with the former.

PART I.

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

In tracing the historical references to this work, we
must have regard to the character of the writings in
which the references are contained, and to the state of
mind which the people were in to whom these writings
were addressed. Where a people are well acquainted
with a book, the references to it will be incidental
rather than direct, implied rather than expressed. The
Pentateuch, in the time of our Saviour, was so well
known that it was not necessary to be definite in de
scribing the book when references were made to it.
The copy used, the page from which the quotation was
taken, or to which reference was made, were not stated.
The writer or speaker thought he had been sufficiently
explicit if he had said " The Law " or " The Law of
Moses " or " The Book of the Law." More frequently
in that age, the Pentateuch was called only " The Law."
Let us, then, trace back from this period, in which the
Pentateuch was undeniably called " The Law " when
reference was made to it, indications of its existence in
still earlier periods. And if we find references made
to " The Law " and to " The Book of the Law " and
to " The Law of Moses " and to " The Law of the
Lord," we are bound to infer, unless overpowering
reasons to the contrary can be given, that the Penta
teuch is the book referred to ; and especially are we

FROM CHRIST TO MALACHI. 83
bound to infer this, if quotations are made from the
book referred to which are contained in the Pentateuch
as we now have it, or as it existed at the time the quo
tations were made. These statements, if reduced k>
a canon of criticism, would give the following law of
historical inquiry, which I believe to be correct ;
namely, if we find that an ancient book is referred to, in
all later works, by the name which is now given to it, and
that references are made to it, and that quotations are
made from its contents, such substantially as we now find
in it, then the proper, the necessary conclusion is that the
book is the same as that which we possess.
This law of historical criticism I intend to apply to
this inquiry respecting the antiquity of the Pentateuch
in substantially the same form as that in which it existed
in the time of Christ. I propose to go back, step by
step, examining all the writings relating to the subject
which have come down to our time, that we may learn
whether they refer to the " Book of Moses," and, if so,
in what manner. If we find such a book alluded to,
named, quoted from, in the writings which have come
down to us from the Jewish people, then the conclusion
is that the book is at least as old as any of these writ
ings, just as a traveller who has ascended the Nile from
Alexandria to its outflow from a lake in central Africa
would be sure he had found its source.
SECTION I. FROM CHRIST TO MALACHI.
I begin with the first Book of Esdras, which was
probably written a short time before the birth of Christ.
It speaks of the " Book of Moses," of " The Law of
Moses," of "The Law of the Lord," and of "The

84 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
Law." That in the last instance a book is meant is
clear from the rest of the passage: after Esdras had
brought "The Law of Moses," "When he had opened
the Law, they stood up " (ix., 46).
The first Book of Maccabees was written about one
hundred years before Christ. " The Book of the Law "
is spoken of (iii., 48), and "The Law" is very fre
quently alluded to in it. The Book of Ecclesiasticus
was written about a century before the Book of Macca
bees, according to the more probable opinion. In this,
we find reference to "The Law which Moses com
manded " (xxiv., 23), to " The Book of the Covenant of
the Most High God," to "The Law of God," and to
" The Law " very frequently. The translator of this
book, who lived about seventy years later, speaks of
"The Law," referring to the Pentateuch, five times in
his short preface. One hundred years earlier than this
book was written, the Septuagint translation was made ;
and, one hundred years before the Septuagint translation
was made, the Samaritan Pentateuch was in existence.
How much earlier than this it existed, 1 do not now at
tempt to decide. But that it existed as early as four
hundred years before Christ there is no good reason to
doubt. I have now gone back to the time of the
Prophet Malachi. From his time down to the time of
the son of Sirach, who composed the Book of Ecclesi
asticus, we have probably no Jewish writings.
What they were accustomed to call the Pentateuch,
when they referred to it by name, we cannot tell. It
was in existence during this period we know ; for the
Septuagint translation was made, and the Samaritan
Pentateuch was in existence. Back to the time of Mai-

FROM MALACHI TO EZRA. 85
achi, it is very easy to trace the use of the Pentateuch
as it existed in the time of Christ. There can be no
mistake respecting it.
SECTION II. FROM MALACHI Tt EZRA.
Let us now examine the books which arc extant which
were written after the return from the captivity, or rather
those which give an account of the nation after its return
from the captivity to the time of Malachi; for I will
omit a consideration of the testimony of the Books of
Chronicles for the present. The prophecies of Mala
chi, Zechariah, and Haggai, and the histories contained
in Ezra and Nehemiah, cover a period of about one
hundred and fifty years, extending back to five hundred
and thirty-two years before Christ. Malachi exhorts the
people to " remember the Law of Moses." He accuses
the priests of being " partial in the Law," and of caus
ing many to stumble at "The Law," and tells them that
the people should seek " The Law " at the mouth of the
priest (iv., 4; ii., 7, 8, 9). Haggai is directed by the
Lord to ask the " priest concerning the Law " (ii., 1 1).
Zechariah accuses the people of making "their hearts
as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the Law"
(vii., 12). The particular sins of which these prophets
reproach the people are violations of precepts contained
in the Pentateuch, and the virtues which they approve
are founded on obedience to the laws found in it.
But we find much more distinct reference to the Pen
tateuch in the Books of Nehemiah and Ezra than in
these poetical books. In the eighth chapter of the
Book of Nehemiah there is a very full account of "The
Book of the Law of Moses." A summary may be given

86 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
in a few words, in which the various names by which
this book was called may be included. The people
spake to "Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law
of Moses, . . . and he brought the Law . . . and read
therein, . . . and the ears of all the people were atten
tive unto the Book of the Law. . . . And Ezra opened
the Book," and he appointed many others who "caused
the people to understand the Law. ... So they read in
the Book of the Law of God distinctly. . . . And the
people wept when they heard the words of the Law. . . .
Also he read in the Book of the Law of God." In the
tenth chapter, we read of " God's law given by the hand
of Moses," and of that which " is written in the Law."
In the thirteenth chapter, it is said, "They read in the
Book of Moses." These passages show us most clearly
that this book was called by different names, and that
one of them was simply " The Law." The passages
quoted in Nehemiah from " The Book of the Law " are
found in the Pentateuch. Indeed, the Samaritan Pen
tateuch was nearly contemporaneous with Nehemiah, as
some of the ablest critics contend, if it does not date
back many years earlier, as is not improbable, to say the
least of it.
The Book of Ezra, which contains a history of a still
earlier period, is equally clear and explicit in its refer
ences to the Book of Moses. It is said that they " of
fered burnt-offering, as it is written in the Law of Mo
ses " (iii., 2) ; that they " set the priests, ... as it is
written in the Book of Moses " (vi., 18). We read that
Ezra was a "ready scribe in the Law of Moses," and
that he "prepared his heart to seek the Law of the
Lord " (vii., 6, 10). Strange wives are said to have been

FROM THE CAPTIVITY TO DAVID. 87
put away, according to "The Law " (x., 3). This Ezra,
a learned scribe in "The Law," is said, in the history
which gives an account of his deeds, to have instructed
the people in the Law, and to have established the wor
ship as required by the Law. He is evidently fully hon
ored in the book ; but the greatest work which tradition
attributes to him is not alluded to, not hinted at in the
most remote manner. I refer to the work of recovering
the Law, and putting in order its commands, after they
had been lost during the captivity. Of this work, noth
ing is said, nothing is hinted. " The Book of the Law "
is spoken of * as something in existence, not as something
which Ezra composed or compiled or found. Whatever
may have been its origin, Ezra was not its author. And,
should there be no evidence of its existence before the
time of Ezra or before the captivity, it would still be true
that we have not a shadow of historical evidence that
Ezra was the author of the book, but, rather, most abun
dant evidence should we have to the contrary. The
quotations which are made from this "Book of the
Law " are taken from the Pentateuch as we now have
it ; and the historical proof is strong that he read to the
people the book which has come down to us. So far,
the historical notices of the book are all that could be
expected under the circumstances. No work of so high
antiquity has come down to us with so good evidence of
its genuineness. SECTION III. FROM THE CAPTIVITY TO DAVID.
A broader field now opens before us, and more diffi
cult to traverse. Are there any traces of the existence
of this book at an earlier period ? Are there any refer-

88 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
ences to such a work in the earlier writings of the Jew
ish nation, or in writings of the period of Ezra which
relate to the earlier times of the people ? This is the
question which is now to be answered.
Before proceeding to answer the question proposed,
however, it is necessary to notice a few particulars
touching the writings which have come down to us.
They may be divided into two classes, the poetical
and the historical. Respecting the latter class, little
or nothing need be said by way of explanation. In
poetical books, we do not expect such explicit refer
ences to books, especially to those which are familiar
to us, as in prose compositions. How few references
to the New Testament of such a nature as you will see
in a librarian's catalogue, or a critic's treatise, will you
find in all the poetical works in the English language !
Even in our sacred poetry, no such specific titles of
the New Testament are found. " God in the gospel of
his Son" is, I think, the most specific reference in one
of our hymn-books. And, even in sermons, it is not
often that book and chapter and verse are referred to.
It is sufficient for our purpose, if there is such a refer
ence or allusion to the Gospels as enables us to per
ceive that such is the poet's or preacher's intent. So
in the poetical books of the period preceding and dur
ing the captivity. All that we can expect to find, and
all that we need to find, to prove the existence of the
"Book of the Law," which Ezra read and taught, is
such allusion to its contents and spirit, and such use
of its words and phrases, as to show that it was in the
poet's mind. If we demand more proof than this, we
demand what, from the very nature of the case, we
ought not to expect.

FROM THF CAPTIVITY TO DAVID. 89
Respecting the historical books, it should be remem
bered that a period of probably one thousand years
is covered by the Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings,
the whole contents of which would not make a volume
larger than the fifth volume of Bancroft's History of
the United States, which embraces a period of but three
years. The Books of Chronicles cover a portion of
the same period, beginning with David, and giving
only brief genealogies of what preceded his time.
Surely, if " The Law " was really a well-known book, we
should expect to find but very few specific references
to it in these writings. None, indeed, should we expect
to find there, unless something very closely connected
with the book itself should call for them. All that
we can expect is such a reference to manners, customs,
institutions, duties, as shall indicate an existing, funda
mental law, such as was contained in Ezra's " Book of
the Law," which he read to the people, and taught
them to obey, as having been given by Moses in con
formity to the divine command. More reference than
this to the Pentateuch, I hesitate not to say, cannot be
expected in these books. Were there more, I should
not be surprised to find an argument, drawn from their
very frequency, against the reliableness of the books
themselves, such as is now drawn against the reliable
ness of Chronicles, because the writer has dwelt at
greater length on ecclesiastical affairs than the writer
of the Books of the Kings has seen fit to do. Let us
bear in mind, then, as we proceed to examine these
books, both poetical and historical, that we must not
expect more, nor a different kind of, references to the
"Book of the Law" than the circumstances of the

90 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
case authorize. On the supposition that the Penta
teuch did exist as early as the time of David, we can
not expect reasonably any more evidence of the fact
from these Jewish writings than I have before indi
cated. I. Evidences from the Historical Writings. — In the
first place, I will examine the historical writings which
treat of the period before the captivity from the time
of David ; and, as some objection has been raised
against the reliableness of the Books of the Chroni
cles, I will first examine the Books of the Kings. I
will mention the passages in which " The Book of the
Law " is referred to, and then I will quote those words
and phrases which are evidently taken from that book.
This division of the evidence seems necessary in order
to bring out its force fully. I will then turn to the
Books of the Chronicles, and inquire whether there is
such an obvious prejudice in the writer's mind respect
ing this Book of the Law as to make void all his state
ments in regard to it.
In the Books of the Kings, we find the following
references to the Pentateuch. In the time of Josiah,
whose reign closed twenty-three years before the cap
tivity, we read (II. Kings xxii.) that Hilkiah, the high
priest, "found the Book of the Law in the house of
the Lord," which was then undergoing repairs. When
the king " heard the words of the Book of the Law, he
rent his clothes " ; for the people, both under the reign
of his father and that of his grandfather for sixty
years, had disregarded the Law utterly, having erected
idols in the Temple for the people, and having endeav
ored by the utmost cruelties to exterminate the worship

EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 9 1
of Jehovah. And in the twenty-third chapter we read
that the king "read all the words of this covenant that
were written in this book." And he " commanded all
the people to keep the passover, as it is written in the
book of this covenant." And he "turned to the Lord
with all his soul and with all his might, according to
all the Law of Moses."
It will be noticed that the same name is given to the
book found by Hilkiah which was given to the book
which Ezra used in instructing the people. Some diffi
culties, however, have been started respecting this trans
action which demand a moment's notice. It has been
asked significantly how it was possible for Josiah to be
entirely ignorant of the contents of the Law of Moses.
It has always appeared to me that the answer is very
easy, when we consider the condition of the kingdom.
Manasseh, the grandfather of Josiah, had reigned most
wickedly for fifty-five years. He had introduced all
the "abominations of the heathen," had "built altars
in the house of the Lord," and had built "altars for
all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house
of the Lord." He also made his son pass through
fire, and " dealt with familiar spirits and wizards," and
" shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled
Jerusalem from one end to the other." And Amon,
his son, the father of Josiah, in his short reign of two
years, "forsook the Lord and walked in all the way of
his fathers." So that for fifty-seven years the Law had
been utterly disregarded, and very probably all the
copies of the Law on which the wicked kings could lay
their hands had been destroyed. Josiah came to the
throne when he was a mere child, only eight years of

92 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
age. When he had reigned eighteen years, as some
maintain, or when he was eighteen years of age, and
had reigned ten years, as others suppose, he appears
to have learned something about the religion of the
fathers, and to have commenced repairs on the Tem
ple. The pious Jews would unquestionably try his
disposition toward a change from idol worship ; and,
when it was found that he was disposed to return to
the worship of his fathers, a copy of the Law was pro
duced for his examination. It was very probably the
Temple copy, — perhaps the autograph of Moses which
had been hidden by the priests to keep it from the
destroying hands of Manasseh. As Hilkiah expresses
no surprise at finding the book, nor Shaphan at its
contents, they probably had arranged this matter so as
to put this venerable copy into the king's hands. Tak
ing all these circumstances into the account, it is
neither wonderful that Josiah was overwhelmed with
grief when the book was read, nor that Hilkiah should
have brought the book from its hiding-place at this
time. It is possible, to take another view, namely,
that, in removing the rubbish from the Temple, the lost
Mosaic autograph copy of the Law, which was kept in
the Temple for sacred purposes, may have been found.
At all events, there is nothing in this account which
indicates that the book was not in existence before
this time, as some have maintained, but quite the con
trary ; for how could it have been found if it had not
existed before the finding ? De Wette admits that the
book here found is the Pentateuch. These are his
words : " The discovery of the Book of the Law in
the Temple, under Josiah's reign, about 624 B.C., re-

EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 93
lated in II. Kings xxii., is the first certain trace of tne
Pentateuch in its present form." That the Pentateuch
was "in its present form " in the time of Josiah is suf
ficiently clear from the historical proof that we have
adduced. Whether De Wette is correct or not in say
ing that it is the " first certain trace of it in its present
form " will soon appear.*
In the reign of Hezekiah, who preceded Josiah
about one hundred years, we read (II. Kings xvii., 13)
that the kingdom of Israel had neglected the covenant
"made with the fathers"; and they are exhorted to
turn from their evil ways, and to walk " according to
all the Law." In the thirty-fourth and thirty-seventh
verses, it is stated that the people " fear not the Lord,
neither do they after their statutes or after their ordi
nances or after the Law and commandment which the
* It has been objected to this account of the loss and recovery of the roll of
the Law that it is so highly improbable as to render it incredible, and furnish
evidence of its being a forgery. But the historical scholar will recall cases
more wonderful than this. William Bradford s manuscript History of Ply
mouth Plantation was cited by Prince in 1736, and composed a part of his
library deposited in the tower of the Old South Church, Boston, Mass. It
was last cited by Governor Hutchinson in 1767. It was lost, though most dili
gent search was made for it for eighty years, when it was found accidentally in
England by the Bishop of Oxford, in the Fulham Library, as he was searching
for material for his History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America.
Bradford's Letter-Book MS. was also lost for many years. At last, a portion
of it was accidentally found in a grocer's shop in Halifax, N. S., by James Clarke,
Esq. These specimens of lost and recovered MSS. in modem limes must
suffice to show the perfect credibility of this account of Hilkiah. It will not
be considered to the point probably to mention that Herculaneum and Pompeii
were lost for over sixteen centuries in the heart of Italy. Most certainly, a
Hebrew roll might be lost for sixty years in the ruined, desecrated Temple of
Jerusalem. Prof. W. Robertson Smith says, in his lectures on the Old Testament in the
Jewish Church » p. 362, " The comparison of Deuteronomy xviii. with II. Kings
xxxiii., et seq.> effectually disproves the idea of some critics that the Deuter-
onomic Code was a forgery of the Temple priests or of their head, the high priest
Hilkiah."

94 A -STUDY OF THE fENTAl EUCM.
Lord commanded the children of Jacob " ; ... with
whom the Lord had made a covenant and charged
them, saying, " Ye shall not fear other gods, nor bow
yourselves to them, nor serve them (Exodus xx., 5). . . .
But the statutes and the ordinances and the Law and
the commandment which he wrote for you, ye shall
observe, since the Lord brought you out of the land of
Egypt." The reference here to a book, and the same
book which Josiah found, is too clear to need comment.
Itis so minutely described as containing the " statutes ''¦
and "ordinances" and "commandments" that there
seems to be no room for reasonable doubt about the
identity of the books. If room for doubt is left by
these passages, chapter xviii., 6, closes it : Hezekiah
" clave to the Lord, and kept his commandments which
the Lord commanded Moses."
In about 830 B.C., a hundred years before the reign
of Hezekiah, we read (II. Kings xiv., 6) that Amaziah,
King of Judah, " slew not the children of the murder
ers [who had slain his father], according unto that
which is written in the Book of the Law of Moses,
wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers
shall not be put to death for the children, nor the
children be put to death for the fathers " (Deuteronomy
xxiv., 16). Here the "Book" is distinctly spoken of
as having been in existence in the time of Amaziah,
two hundred years before the reign of Josiah. If it
should be said that this is a remark of the historian
derived from the opinions of his own time, the case is
varied but little ; for it would show that in this time
the antiquity of the book was the common belief.
About fifty years earlier than this, when Jehoash was

EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 95
anointed king, we read (II. Kings xi., 12) that a part
of the ceremony of his coronation consisted in giving
him "the testimony," or, as De Wette and Gesenius
translate, "The Law." In Deuteronomy xvii., 18, 19,
it is required of the king that he should have " a copy
of' the Law," ... "to read therein all the days of his
life." It is also recorded of Jehu, who reigned over
Israel but a few years earlier, that he " took no heed
to walk in the Law of the Lord God of Israel " (II.
Kings x., 31). When the days drew nigh that David
should die, he called Solomon to him, and charged him
most solemnly to walk in the ways of the Lord, "to
keep his statutes and his commandments and his judg
ments and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law
of Moses " (I. Kings ii., 3).
Such are the explicit references in the Books of the
Kings to the Law of Moses. The references are made
to one book, the same as that which Josiah had, and
from which Ezra taught. In about sixty pages of the
copy of the Bible before me, containing a civil history
of five hundred years, could more specific references
to the Pentateuch have been expected ? So brief, so
limited, is the history that but few facts of any kind
could be stated : much less could there be a continual,
specific reference by name to a book which was so well
known as that which contained the fundamental law of
the nation must necessarily have been.
The last remark suggests another argument in favor
of the existence of the book during the period of the
Kings. It is that the sins rebuked are violations of
the Mosaic Law, that the blessings promised are con
ditional upon obedience to that law. The whole tone

96 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
of the history is taken from the Pentateuch. I will
enter into a more minute examination of this phenom
enon, that the force of the argument derived from it
may be more fully appreciated. This is the second
division of the evidence to be derived from the Books
of the Kings which I proposed to examine. If we
discover that a writer is borrowing words and phrases
which we find in a book to which he sometimes refers
by the usual title, we are still more confirmed in the
belief that he had before him the identical book which
has come into our hands ; just as, when we find the
phraseology of the New Testament in the sermon or his.
tory which we are reading, we feel assured that the
author had a copy of that book substantially like our
own. I have already, in the examination of the Books
of the Kings, made one or two quotations which con
tain passages from the Pentateuch. / will now pro
ceed to show that there is a Mosaic phraseology, an intro
duction and use of religious terms and antique expressions
which indicate familiarity with the Books of Moses ; as
the phrases, "was let hitherto," "thorn in the flesh,"
" given to hospitality," indicate familiarity with the
language of the New Testament.
In I. Kings ii., 3, Solomon is directed to keep the
Law, that " he may prosper in all that he does," — a
verbal quotation from Deuteronomy xxix., 9, except
the change of person from plural to singular, to adapt
it to the person addressed. In the prayer which Sol
omon delivered at the dedication of the Temple, there
are numerous words and phrases taken from the Pen
tateuch, such as, " if any man trespass against his
neighbor," " blasting and mildew," " the people of

EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 97
thine inheritance," "the Lord is God, there is none
else." And if we consider that, in connection with
the use of these phrases, Solomon makes use of thes
expressions, " as thou spakest by the hand of Moses thy
servant, when thou broughtest our fathers out of the
land of Egypt," " there hath not failed one word of all
his good promise which he promised by the hand of Moses
his servant," we cannot but feel a strong assurance, not
to say certainty, that we have the book which contained
those promises. In chapter xxi., 3, Naboth says to
Ahab, who had proposed that Naboth should give him
his vineyard, "The Lord forbid it me that I should give
r.he inheritance of my fathers unto thee." The " inher
itance of the fathers " was inalienable according to the
Law, and was considered very precious, as may be seen
by referring to Numbers xxxvi. In chapter xxii., n,
Zedekiah, a false prophet, who had " made him horns
of iron," declared to Ahab, " With these shalt thou push
the Syrians," referring directly to Deuteronomy xxxiii.,
17, where it is said of Joseph, "His horns are like the
horns of unicorns ; with them shall he push the people
together to the ends of the earth." In the seventeenth
verse of the same chapter, it is said, "I saw all Israel
. . .as sheep that have not a shepherd." This phrase
is taken from Numbers xxvii., 17 : "That the congrega
tion of the Lord be not as sheep which have no shep
herd." The agreement in the Hebrew is verbal. In
the twenty-seventh verse, a prophet is sentenced by the
king to eat the " bread of affliction," a phrase taken
from Deuteronomy xvi., 3, where the poor bread which
the people were compelled to eat on their departure
from Egypt is so called. In II. Kings ii., 9, Elisha

98 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
prays Elijah, " Let a double portion of thy spirit rest
on me." This phrase, " double portion," is taken from
Deuteronomy xxi., 17, where the portion of the "first
born " is described and defined. The use of the word
phi in the sense of "portion " is found but three times
in the Old Testament. In chapter iii., 19, 20, we find
Elisha directing the king, when he made war upon the
Moabites, to "fell every good tree," which is an allusion
to Deuteronomy xx., 19, 20. In chapter iv., 16, we find
a very peculiar expression relating to the birth of a
child which is also found in Genesis xviii., 10, 14, where
Sarah is assured that she shall have a son. The simi
larity of the two cases in some of their circumstances
no doubt prompted the use of the peculiar phrase in
Kings, " About this season, according to the time of life,
thou shalt embrace a son." In the forty-second verse
of this chapter, we read that a man brought to Elisha
" bread of the first-fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and
full ears of corn " (carmel). This word is used to de
note the "polenta of early grain in Leviticus ii., 14-
xxiii., 14," says Gesenius. In chapter v., 27, we read
that the servant of Elisha went out from his presence
" a leper white as snow." This peculiar phrase is
used in Numbers xii., 10; Exodus iv., 6; and nowhere
else. The phrase as used in those passages under such
peculiar circumstances is very strongly marked, and
is used by the writer in Kings to indicate the severity
of the punishment which fell upon the servant of
Elisha. A peculiar word is used in Genesis xix., n, to
indicate blindness : " They smote the men that were at
the door with blindness." This Hebrew word is used
in II. Kings vi., 18 : " Smite, I pray thee, this people

EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 99
with blindness." Elisha doubtless had in his mind the
peculiar word which indicated the blindness with which
the rioters about Lot's house had been smitten. The
word is used in only these two instances. In chapter
vii., 2, an unbeliever is represented as addressing Elisha
thus : " If the Lord would make windows in heaven,
might this thing be?" In Genesis vii., 11, "the win
dows of heaven " are spoken of as having been opened
to produce the devastating flood. So here the speaker
says that, when a flood comes again, this which you
have predicted may happen. So references in the
Prophets are made to the same event in this peculiar
phrase (Isaiah xxiv., 18 ; Malachi iii., 10), which is
used nowhere else.
Such is a specimen of the peculiar words which are
used in the Books of the Kings, taken from the Penta
teuch. But we also find in these books statements re
specting the observance of ordinances required in the
Pentateuch. In I. Kings xviii., 29, 36, we read of the
"time of offering the evening sacrifice," as required in
Exodus xxix., 39 ; and in II. Kings iii., 20, we read that
aid was afforded " in the morning when the meat offer
ing was offered." Compare this with the same passage
in Exodus, and we shall find that offerings were required
morning and evening, and that a meat (or meal) offer
ing was to be offered with the lamb. In II. Kings iv.,
23, we read of two festal days, " the new moon " and
"the Sabbath." And, in the first verse of the same
chapter, we read of a creditor of whom a woman says,
he " is come to take unto him my two sons to be bond
men." This the Law (Leviticus xxv., 39) permitted
and regulated. Solomon is represented as "offering

!00 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
burnt-offerings and peace-offerings," both of which were
required by the Law. He also assembled all the people
" at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the sev
enth month." This was the feast of the tabernacle, and
the Temple was dedicated at this time. On account of
the joyfulness of the occasion, Solomon doubled the
days of this most joyful of all the feasts. In I. Kings
xii., 32, after the division of the kingdom, we read that
Jeroboam " ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the
fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in
Judah, ... in a month which he had devised of his own
heart." Well did the historian say this, for the Law re
quired the feast to be in the seventh month, not in the
eighth. The testimony rendered in the Books of the Kings —
by the name of the book, by the use of its peculiar
terms, by the quotations made from its contents, by the
description of observances, sacrifices, feasts, offerings,
such as the Law requires — to the existence of "the
Book of the Law of Moses " which Ezra used in teach
ing the people is as full and as specific as, under the
circumstances, we could expect. Had we no other writ
ings of this period, the proof of the existence of the
Pentateuch would be as great as that which is furnished
for the antiquity of any other work of that age. But
there are other writings. The Books of the Chronicles
are still to be examined.
The writer of these Books of the Chronicles speaks
more of ecclesiastical affairs, and hence we would ex
pect to find in his writings more frequent reference to
the rites and ceremonies of their religion. De Wette,
Kuenen especially, and others, have decried these books

EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. IOT
because they have what they call a Levitical spirit. I
am not sure that a priestly spirit is more likely to bias
an historian than a political spirit. There has been no
evidence brought that the bias of the writer has cor
rupted his integrity. At all events, I am sure that the
reader, after comparing what the chronicler has re
corded respecting the Law with what is said respecting
it in the Books of the Kings, will not be disposed to
think that his Levitical bias has done him serious harm
as an historian. Let us, then, see what this writer, who
has been so unceremoniously treated, has to say of the
Law, and the customs of the people so far as they re
garded the Law.
In I. Chronicles xvi., 40, we read that Zadok the
priest did " according to all that is written in the Law
of the Lord, which he commanded Israel." In chapter
xxii., 12, 13, David charges Solomon to "keep the Law
of the Lord," and to " take heed to fulfil the statutes
and judgments which the Lord charged Moses with con
cerning Israel." In II. Chronicles vi., 16, Solomon
prays that God's promise to his father, founded on this
condition, — if "thy children take heed to walk in my
Law," — may be fulfilled in him. This passage has been
quoted before, from Kings. In chapter xii., 1, Reho-
boam is said to have forsaken " the Law of the Lord."
In chapter xiv., 4, Judah is commanded " to do the
Law." In chapter xvii. is an account of the good king
Jehoshaphat's sending out teachers to instruct the peo
ple; and "they took the Book of the Law of the Lord
with them, and went about throughout all the cities of
Judah, and taught the people." In chapter xxiii., 18, it
is said that Jehoiada appointed persons who should

102 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
" offer the burnt-offerings of the Lord, as it is written in
the Law of Moses." In chapter xxv., 4, we read that
Amaziah slew not the children of his father's murderers,
"but did as it is written in the Law of the Book of Moses,
where the Lord commanded, saying, " The fathers shall
not die for the children, neither shall the children die
for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin."
This passage is quoted from Deuteronomy xxiv., 16.
The parallel passage is II. Kings xiv., 6. In chapter
xxx., 16, we read that the priests and Levites stood in
their "place, . . . according to the Law of Moses." In
the thirty-first chapter, Hezekiah directs that " morning
and evening burnt-offerings, and the burnt-offerings for
the Sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set
feasts " shall be offered, " as it is written in the Law of
the Lord." He further directed that " the portion of the
priests and Levites" should be given them, "that they
might be encouraged in the Law of the Lord." And
" every work that he began ... in the Law ... he did
with all his heart." In chapter xxxiii., 8, we read of " the
whole Law and statutes and ordinances by the hand of
Moses." In chapter xxxiv., we have an account of the
finding of the " Book of the Law of the Lord given by
Moses,'7 parallel to the passage in II. Kings xxii. In
chapter xxxv., Josiah commands to kill the passover
" according to the word of the Lord by the hand of
Moses " ; and they did " as it is written in the Book of
Moses." And the good king's acts were " according to
that which was written in the Law of the Lord." It
will be observed that the " Book of Moses " and " the
Law of the Lord " are identical.
Such is the manner in which the Pentateuch is spoken

EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 103
of in the Books of the Chronicles. There is no marked
difference between the style of referenct and that in
the Kings. Nor are the references much more numer
ous. These titles of the book, or the names by which it
is called, are the same as those which we found in the
Books of the Kings, in Ezra, in Nehemiah, in Malachi,
in Ecclesiasticus, and in Maccabees. The same names
being used, the inference is that the same book is re
ferred to. But as we found quotations from the book
in Kings, so we do in the Chronicles, still more cer
tainly identifying it as the same book by its contents.
The use of peculiar and emphatic terms which are found
in the Pentateuch shows that the writer was familiar
with the book as we now have it. The people are ex
horted not to be "stiff necked " as their fathers were, —
II. Chronicles xxx., 8. In the Pentateuch, this is a fa
vorite term. " The mighty hand and stretched-out arm "
are spoken of in chapter vi., 32, which is a peculiar
phrase of the Pentateuch. God is said to be " gracious
and merciful," chapter xxx., 9, which is a quotation from
Exodus xxxiv., 6. It is used elsewhere in the Penta
teuch, however. In chapter xxx., 15, we read that
"they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the
second month"; and "kept the feast of unleavened
bread seven days," verse 21. This is in accordance
with what is recorded in Exodus xii. The feasts are
spoken of. In chapter viii., 13, we read of the solemn
feasts, three times a year, " even the feast of unleavened
bread, and the feast of weeks, and the feast of taber
nacles." And in these books, as in the Books of the
Kings, the whole tone of rebuke and approbation is
taken from the standard established in the Pentateuch.

104 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
Nothing could be expected different in their style and
tone, if it were mathematically certain that the Penta
teuch existed at this time, by information derived from
an entirely different source.
I have now examined the historical works which
treat of the condition of the people from the time of
David. It is for the reader to determine whether there
is not as much and as explicit reference to the Penta
teuch as, under the circumstances, could be expected.
What book of that age can be so certainly traced in
history ? We have found no hint of any remodelling
of the work, and we have no historical reason to sup
pose that any such thing was done. Without any far
ther evidence, we have sufficient proof of the existence
of the Pentateuch in the days of David, within three
or four centuries of the time of Moses. But the whole
field of the poetical books is yet to be explored. Fur
ther and striking evidence will here appear of the an
tiquity of the " Law of Moses, the man of God."
II. Evidence from the Poetical Books. — I have al
ready remarked that in poetical works we do not ex
pect to find books referred to by quoting their title-
page ; and usually we may expect that the reference
will be the less explicit as the work referred to is well
known. We shall only look for general terms and
phrases, and shall often expect to find some word ex
pressive of the contents of the book used by me
tonymy to denote the book itself. In the historical
books, we have found that the Pentateuch was referred
to by the name of " The Law," " The Law of Moses,"
"The Law of the Lord," "The statutes, judgments,

EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 105
commandments, and ordinances of the Lord." We
may therefoie expect to find only these, and still
more general, names given to the book by the poets.
1. The Book of Daniel is supposed by many to
have been written at a late period, long after the cap
tivity. As I do not propose to enter into any discus
sion respecting the age of the books which I shall
quote, I will only remark that, if Daniel was written
at as late a period as is maintained by some, it shows
how the Pentateuch was referred to at that time, and
enables us to trace the book, by the manner in which it
is spoken of, back to earlier times. In Daniel ix., 10,
n, 13, we find the prophet lamenting, in his prayer,
the sins of the people ; and he confesses as follows :
" Neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our
God to walk in his laws. . . . Yea, all Israel have trans
gressed thy Law ; . . . and therefore the curse is poured
upon us. . . that is written in the Law of Moses, the ser
vant of God. . . . And he hath confirmed his words, . . .
as it is written in the Law of Moses." That the Pen
tateuch is here referred to is past all question.
2. Habakkuk, speaking of the violence that pre
vailed in the land, gives, as a reason for it, that " the
Law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth,"
chapter i., 4.
3. Zephaniah, chapter ii., 3, exhorts all those "to
seek the Lord which have wrought his judgment," i.e.,
obeyed his Law ; for we shall soon find that this word
sometimes stands for the whole Law.
4. Ezekiel, who lived during the captivity, prophesy
ing of the evil yet to befall the people, says, chapter
vii., 26, " The Law shall perish from the priests." In

[06 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
the name of God, he says to the people, chapter v., 6,
" they have refused my judgments and my statutes,
and have not walked in them." He declares, chapter
xi., 20, that their heart will yet become flesh, so that
they will walk in "the statutes and keep the ordi
nances" of the Lord. He repeats the same truth in
chapter xxxvi., 27. In the eighteenth chapter, the same
expressions are used to denote the Law ; and specific
statutes are referred to. He promises that blessings
shall attend the man who " hath not defiled his neigh
bor's wife " (Leviticus xviii., 20) ; nor hath come near
to a woman when she is ritually unclean, — a technical
term (Leviticus xviii., 19); nor hath "oppressed any"
(Leviticus xxv., 14) ; "but hath restored to the debtor
his pledge " (Exodus xxii., 26) ; " hath spoiled none by
violence " (Leviticus vi., 2) ; " hath given his bread to
the needy, and hath covered the naked with a gar
ment" (Deuteronomy xv., 7, 8); that "hath not given
forth upon usury" (Exodus xxii., 25) ; that " hath exe
cuted true judgment between man and man " (Leviti
cus xix., 15). In chapter xi., 12, Ezekiel gives as a
reason why so great punishments should fall upon
these people that they " have not walked in the stat
utes nor executed the judgments " of the Lord, but
have done after the manner of the heathen. If we
look into the Law (Leviticus xviii., 4, 5), we shall find
it declared that the people shall not do according to
other people's laws and customs ; and it is commanded
them, " Ye shall keep my statutes and my judgments."
These references will suffice for this prophet, to show
that he quotes the Law, and that he gives it the same

EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 107
names, in his references to it, which are given by other
writers whose works we have examined.*
5. From Ezekiel, I will pass to Jeremiah, who was
his contemporary for a part of his life. Jeremiah went
from Jerusalem into Egypt. Ezekiel, many years previ-
* ** It is difficult," says a writer in The Unitarian Review lor November,
1880, p. 431, "it is difficult to read his [EzekiePs] pages written in Babylon,
and believe that any important priestly legislation had preceded them. He does
not quote from existing laws/* In view of this unqualified denial from so re
spectable a source, I feel called upon to invite the reader's attention to farther
p'oof that Ezekicl's writings give overwhelming evidence of his acquaintance
with "existing laws." It is assumed from the character of the writer th.it
no quibble is intended in the use of the word " quote." If it is meant that the
name of the writer, and the chapter and verse in which the quotation may be
found, are not mentioned, then there is an instant end to the discussion. But,
if it is meant that there are no clear quotations oE statutes and phrases from the
Pentateuch as definitely made as could be expected in a poetical address, thea
I must take direct issue, and appeal to the judgment of the reader by fortifying
my previous references ; and the reader is especially requested to observe that
the captivity of the people is ascribed to disobeying the law quoted.
Examples: Ezekiel iv., 14, "Behold, my soul hath not been polluted; for I
have not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces ; neither came
there abominable flesh into my mouth " Compare now the different laws on
this subject: Exodus xxii., 31, "Neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of
beasts"; Leviticus xvii., 15, "And he shall be unclean until the even";
Deuteronomy xiv , 3, "Thou shalt not cat any abominable thing" ; and Leviti
cus xxii., 8, " That which dieth of itse1f, or is torn, he shall not eat." These
scattered laws are condensed by Ezekiel. Ezekiel iv., 16, reads, " I will break
the staff of bread in Jerusalem; and they shall eat bread by weight, and with
care" ; Leviticus xxvi , 26, " When I have broken the staff of your bread, . . .
they shall deliver you your bread by weight " ; Ezekiel v., 10, " The fathers shall
cat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers, , . . and
the whole remnant of thee will I scatter into all the winds." Compare Leviti
cus xxvi., 29, "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your
daughters"; and verse 33, "And I will scatter you among the heathen " ; also
Deuteronomy xxviii., 64, " The Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the
one end of the earth even unto ihe other." This is another instance of Ezekie/s
condensing separate threatenings into one. Ezekiel v., 12, " I will scatter a
third part into all the winds, and I will draw out a sword after them " ; Leviti
cus xxvi., 33, "I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a
sword after you"; Ezekiel xiv., 14, 15, " I will make thee waste, and a re
proach among the nations. ... It shall be a reproEch and a taunt, an instruction
and an astonishment unto the nations"; Leviticus xxvi., 31, "I will make
your cities waste, ai*d bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, . . . and your eue-

108 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
ously, went to Babylonia as a captive. The following
remarkable quotation from the Pentateuch is found in
Jeremiah iv., 23, " I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was
without form and void" a phrase found only in Gene
sis i., 2. In chapter ii., 8, the prophet says, in the
mies . . . shall be astonished at it." So Deuteronomy xxviii.,37, " Thou shalt be
come an astonishment, a proverb, and a by-word among all nations" ; Ezekiel v.,
17, "I will send upon you famine, and evil beasts, and they shall bereave
thee"; Leviticus xxvi., 22, "I will also send wild beasts among you, which
shall rob you of your children"; Ezekiel vi., 4, 5, "I will destroy your high
places, ycir altars shall be desolate and your images shall be broken, and I will
cast down your slain before your idols, and I will lay the dead carcasses of the
children of Israel before their idols " ; Leviticus xxvi., 30, " I will destroy your
high places and cut down your images, and cast your carcasses upon the car
casses of your idols"; Ezekiel vi., 6, " The cities shall be laid waste, and the
high places shall be desolate"; Leviticus xxvi., 31, "I 'will make your cities
waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation " ; Ezekiel xiv., 8, " I will set
my face against that man, . . . and will cut him off from the midst of my people " ;
Leviticus xvii., 10, " I will set my face against that soul, . . . and will cut him off
from among his people " ; Ezekiel xiv., 15, " Wild beasts will desolate the land."
So Leviticus xxvi., 22 ; Ezekiel xvi., 59, " Thou hast despised the oath in break
ing the covenant"; Deuteronomy xxix., 12, "That thou shouldest enter iuto
covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath " ; verse 14, " Neither with
you only do I make this covenant and this oath " ; Ezekiel xviii., 6. There is a
special reference to the law respecting the relation of the sexes, which is found in
Leviticus xviii., 19, 20, and xxiv., 18 ; Ezekiel xviii., 7, " And hath not oppressed
any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge"; Exodus xxii., 26, "If thou
take thy neighbor's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it to him by that the sun
goeth down"; xxiii., 9, " Thou shalt not oppress a stranger"; Ezekiel xviii., 20,
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear
the iniquity of the son " ; Deuteronomy xxiv., 16, " The fathers shall not be put
to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the
fathers"; Ezekiel xx., 6, "a land flowing with milk and honey"; Exodus
iii., 8, " a good land, ... a land flowingwith milk and honey" ; Ezekiel xx., 11,
" And I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments, which if a man
do he shall live in them " ; Leviticus xviii., 5, " Ye shall keep my statutes and
my judgments, which if a man do he shall live in them"; Ezekiel xx., 12, "I
gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them ' ' ; Exodus xxxi. , 13,
" My sabbaths ye shall keep, for it is a sign between me and you " ; Ezekiel xx.,
13, "Then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to
consume them"; Numbers xiv., 29, 32, 33, "So will I do to you: your car
casses shall fait in this wilderness" ; Ezekiel xx., 23, (( I lifted up my hand unto
them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and

EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 109
name of the Lord, "They that handle the Law knew
me not " ; for the priests and the prophets whose office
it was to know the Law were both of them violating it
by serving Baal. In chapter xviii., 8, the prophet
complains, in a prayer to the Lord, of the boasting of
disperse them through the countries." The threatening is recorded in Leviticus
xxvi., 33, " I will scatter you among the heathen"; Ezekiel xx., 31, "When
ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire " ; Leviticus
xviii., 21, "Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech."
This chapter is largely the language of the Levitical law: Ezekiel xxii., 7,
*' They have set light by father and mother " ; Deuteronomy xxvii., 16, " Cursed
be he that setteth light by his father or his mother " ; also, " They have dealt op
pression with the stranger " ; Exodus xxii., 21, "Thou shalt neither vex a stran
ger, nor oppress him " ; also, " In thee have they vexed the fatherless and the
widow"; Exodus xxii., 22, "Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless
child." In Ezekiel xxii., the language and phrases and sentences of the Pen-
;ateuch are so frequent as to forbid quotation. After one more quotation,
I must refer the interested reader to the chapter itself. Verse 26 reads thus :
"Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things:
they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they
showed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes
from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them " ; Leviticus xxii., 2, ** Speak
unto Aaron and to his sons, . . . that they profane not my holy name in those
things which they hallow unto me " ; x., 10, * ' And that ye put difference between
holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean." Here is certainly a clear
reference to priests, to a ritual law, and the duty of observing it. There are not
less than twenty distinct references to the law and passages from it in this
chapter of only thirty-one verses.
It would seem to most minds a sheer waste of time and patience to pur
sue this inquiry further, but one or two more passages demand attention : Ezek
iel xxiv., 7, " Her blood, . . . she poured it not upon the ground to cover it with
dust " ; Leviticus xvii., 13, " He shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover
\t with dust." In Deuteronomy xii., 16, it reads, "Ye shall pour out the blood
upon the earth as water," and nothing is said of " covering it with dust," show
ing that Ezekiel had the priestly law of Leviticus before him, or in mind, which,
according to Kuenen's hypothesis, was not written till a century after his death!
If the reader has interest enough to do it, and is not yet satisfied, he may com
pare Ezekiel xxviii., 24, with Numbers xxxiii., 55 ; and Ezekiel xxxiii., 15, with
Exodus xxii., 4, Numbers v., 6, Leviticus xviii., 5 ; and Ezekiel xxxiii., 25, with
Leviticus vii., 26; Ezekiel xxxiv., 25-27, with Leviticus xxvi., 6, 7; Ezekiel
xxxvi., 3, 17, with Deuteronomy xxviii., 37, Leviticus xviii., 25; and Ezekiel
xxxix., 23, with Deuteronomy xxxi., 17. But enough : I must hold my hand.
I have taken pains to compare the frequency of Ezekiel's use of the language

110 .A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
the wicked, who say, " The Law shall not perish from
the priest." In chapter xliv., 23, he upbraids the peo
ple because they have not " obeyed the voice of the
Lord, nor walked in his Law, nor in his statutes, nor in
his testimonies." And in the tenth verse he is still
more explicit : speaking in the name of the Lord, he
says, "Ye have not walked in my Law, nor in my stat
utes that I set before you and before your fathers."
f n the twenty-second verse, he says that on account of
their sins their "land is a desolation and an astonish
ment and a curse," — words used in Leviticus xxvi., 32,
to denote the punishment which should follow trans
gression. These are a specimen of the terms used by
this prophet when he refers to the Pentateuch. The
whole spirit and almost letter of Jeremiah's prophesy
is based upon the Pentateuch. His promises and
threatenings are all founded upon the laws therein con
tained. All the rites and ceremonies which he de
scribes are such as are found in " The Law." There
is but one passage which appears to invalidate this
in the law, and references to it and quotations from it, with that of four of our
most celebrated preachers' reference to the gospel, or quotations from it. Dr.
Dewey, in the Two Great Commandments, a volume of three hundred
pages, uses the language of the Gospels (texts of sermons excepted) but forty.
five times. Mr. Martineau, in Hours of Thought seco d series, uses the lan
guage of the Gospels twenty-five times. Dr. Channing, in the Perfect Life,
uses the language of the Gospels eight times m two hundred pages. Dr.
Walker, in Reason, Faith, and Duty, uses the language of the Gospels eighteen
times in two hundred pages: and in but tot? instances does he say he takes it
from the Gospels, and in but very few instances do the others.
Since this note was written, I learn (3i6liolheca Sacra, April, 1881, p. 390)
that Prof. R. Smend, in his recent work, The Prophet Ezekiel{Der Prophet
Ezechiel), 1880, maintains that ihe Levitical law was developed from Ezekiel,
and not Ezekiel's quotations taken fr"m the law. Of any such hypothesis, the
reading of Ezekiel is the swiftest and most conclusive confutation. Ezekiel's
quotations are not only from a law already in existence, but from a law given to
the fathers, and for not obeying which they were carried captive. v

EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. Ill
conclusion. It is contained in chapter vii., 21-23:
" Put your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat
flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor com
manded them in the day that I brought them out of
the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacri
fices. But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey
my voice and I will be your God, and ye shall be my
people." The state of mind in which the prophet ut
tered this passage must be considered, in order to un
derstand his meaning. " The children gather wood,"
says he, "and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women
knead their dough to make cakes to the queen of
heaven, and to pour out drink-offerings unto other
gods," in the streets of Jerusalem. The flagrant viola
tion of the Law in offering these sacrifices to such vile
gods in the streets of the city so fired his soul with in
dignation that he put the comparative value of sacrifices
and an obedient heart in direct contrast with each
other: "The Lord did not command sacrifices; he re
quired a pure heart." Another view is that the
prophet here made a sharp distinction between what
was commanded and what was only regulated. It is
contended by some critics that sacrifices are regulated
by the Law, not commanded by it, — they were already
in existence, like circumcision.* Whatever view we may
take of the prophet's meaning, we cannot understand
him as looking upon sacrifices as offensive to God; for
in chapter xvii., 26, in describing the great glory and
pure worship of the blessed period which would come
after their enemies were destroyed and God's kingdom
* Leviticus i., z., "Speak unto the children of Israel and say unto them, if
any man bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring," etc.

112 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
was established, he says, " They shall come from the cit
ies of Judah, and from the places about Jerusalem, and
from the land of Benjamin, and from the plain, and
from the mountains, and from the south, bringing burnt-
offerings and sacrifices and meat-offerings and incense,
and bringing sacrifices of praise unto the house of the
Lord." The more probable interpretation is that which
is founded upon the supposition that the prophet is
asserting a strong negative to show the comparative
value of sacrifices and the spirit in which they should
be offered. But, admitting that we could adopt no in
terpretation which would reconcile this passage with
others, it would not be reasonable to deny the asser
tion of a hundred passages because of the apparent
counter assertion of one. His prophecy teaches most
clearly that offering sacrifices in accordance with the
regulations of the Pentateuch was a part of the na
tional worship, and shows, whatever was the origin of
that book, that it was in existence in his time. This,
indeed, is the only point which I am now endeavoring
to establish. In Lamentations, it is said, chap, ii., 9,
that " the Law is no more " ; that is, not regarded.
6. Passing now to a still earlier period, we come
to Isaiah who flourished about 730 B.C. The style
of his poetry is much loftier than that of the prophets
whom we have examined, and hence we should expect
to find fewer explicit references to the statute-book of
the nation. I do not speak too strongly, however,
when I say that the prophecies of Isaiah are based
upon the doctrines of the Pentateuch. Their tone and
spirit are just as we should expect them to be, if Isaiah
had made himself familiar with that book. In describ-

EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 1 13
ing the future glory of the kingdom, in a passage taken
from a still earlier prophet, he says, " For out of Zion
shall go forth the Law" to be established among all
nations. In the eighth chapter, he rebukes the people
for going after false gods, " and to wizards that peep
and mutter " ; and asks, " Should not a people seek
unto their own God ? ... To the Law and to the testi
mony ; if they speak not according to this word, it is
because there is no light in them." Nothing can be
clearer than that the prophet counsels the people to
study the book of their own law instead of consulting
wizards, if they wish to learn their duty. In chapter xiii.,
21, 24, the prophet declares that, notwithstanding the
neglect which it has received, the Lord " will magnify
the Law and make it honorable " ; and he gives as a
reason why Jacob had been given for a spoil and Israel
to robbers, that they " would not walk in the ways of
the Lord, neither were obedient to his Law." Ge
senius says that the phrase, " I will make my judgment
to rest for a light of the people " (chap. Ii., 4), refers to
the Mosaic Law. It should be remarked concerning
the last two passages that they are in that portion of
Isaiah which has been assigned to a later date and an
other writer. In chapter xxiv., 5, it is affirmed that the
people "have transgressed the laws, changed the ordi
nance, and broken the everlasting covenant." By
these terms " The Law " is referred to in other books,
and very probably they refer to it here. In the first
chapter of his prophecy, Isaiah rebukes severely those
who " trample the courts of the Lord," bringing their
sacrifice with wicked hearts and bloody hands. He
says to the people, if " ye be willing and obedient, ye

114 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
shall eat of the good of the land." This is in conform'
ity with the Law, Deuteronomy iv., 30; viii., 20; and
many other places. He speaks of their "new moons ';
and " appointed feasts." He asks where - the people
can be "smitten" again, since "from the sole of the
foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it,"
with evident reference to Deuteronomy xxviii., 35,
where it is said of the nation, if it sin, " The Lord shall
smite thee . . . with a sore botch that cannot be healed,
from the sole of thy foot to the top of thy head." He
says to them, "Your country is desolate; your cities
are burned with fire ; your land — strangers devour it,
and it is desolate,'' as it was foretold would be the case
in Deuteronomy xxviii., where it is said, " The nation
from far . . . shall eat the fruit of thy land " until it be
" destroyed." " But," he continues, " if ye be willing
and be obedient, ye shall consume the good of the
land ; but, if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured
with the sword ; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken
it." In Leviticus xxvi., 5, the Lord says, " If ye walk
in my statutes, ... ye shall eat your bread to the full " ;
but, if ye will not hearken to me, I " will draw out a
sword after you" (verse 33) ; "my sword shall devour
flesh " (Deuteronomy xxxii., 42). In the description
which the prophet gives of the enemy which he will call
to destroy his wicked people, there is evident allusion
to Deuteronomy xxviii., 49, 50. Isaiah says (chap, v.,
26. 27), "He will lift up an ensign to the nations from
far, and will hiss them from the end of the earth. . . .
They shall come with speed swiftly." In Deuteron
omy, referred to above, Moses says, "The Lord shall
bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of

EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 115
the earth, as swift as an eagle flieth." These speci
mens must suffice to show how Isaiah's style abounds
with words and phrases which are taken from the Pen
tateuch. They prove that the style of the old Law
Book and its very words were imbedded in his mind so
as to make a part of his thoughts.
7. The prophet Micah was a contemporary of
Isaiah. His short prophecy is based, in all its rebukes
and promises, upon the laws and threatenings and
promises made in the Pentateuch. In the closing verse
of his prophecy, he declares that faithfulness and mercy
will yet visit the people, " which," he says, addressing
the Lord, "thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the
days of old." These promises will be found in Gene
sis xii., 2 ; xxvi., 24; xxviii., 13; Deuteronomy xxx., 1-
5. I will not pause to examine minutely this prophecy.
It exhibits the same characteristics as does that of
Isaiah ; and, as he was contemporary with that prophet,
it is less important to present his allusions, mostly quite
obscure, to the Law. And I pass on the more readily,
since Dr. Kuenen, in his elaborate work on The Relig
ion of Israel, admits that the references of Micah are so
numerous and so exact to the events recorded in the
Pentateuch that " we must even suppose that he was
acquainted with those narratives, unless appearances
should tend to show that they were written or modified
at a later date " (Vol. I., p. 103). I will therefore pro
ceed to a consideration of the prophecies of Hosea,
Amos, and Joel, taking them up in order.
8. Hosea (780 B.C.) says to the people (chap, iv., 6),
" Thou hast forgotten the Law of thy God." Again,
he says (chap, viii., 1), " They have transgressed my

Il6 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
covenant and trespassed against my Law," therefore
" He shall come as an eagle against the house of the
Lord." The reference is to Deuteronomy xxviii., 49,
"The Lord shall bring a nation ... as swift as an
eagle flieth." Speaking of Ephraim, in the name of
the Lord, he says (viii., 12), " I have written to him
the great things of my Law, but they were counted as
a strange thing." One of the distinguishing features
of the style of this book is the repeated use of the
words " whore," " whoring," " whoredom," to signify
desertion of the true God and worship of false gods,
This phraseology is derived from the Pentateuch most
obviously. In Exodus xxxiv., 15, 16; Leviticus xx., 5,
6 ; Numbers xiv., t,^ ; Deuteronomy xxxi., 16, and in
numerous other places, these, words are used to signify
idolatry. Indeed, the style of Hosea is colored through
and through with the style of the Books of Moses. I
will commence with the first chapter and proceed with
an examination of his style as far as is necessary for
my purpose. The land is said (chap, i., 2) to have
" committed a great whoredom." Leviticus xix., 29,
" Lest the land fall to [" commit " ; the original word
is the same as in Hosea] whoredom.'' In verse 10, it
is said, " The number of the children of Israel shall be
as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor
numbered," which is a verbal quotation from the prom
ise made to Jacob (Genesis xxxii., 12), "I will make
thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be num
bered for multitude." In the eleventh verse, the
prophet says that the people " shall come up out of the
land " of their captivity. This phrase is used repeat
edly in the Pentateuch when the deliverance from

EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 1 17
Egypt is spoken of, and therefore had great signifi
cance to the Jews. In chapter ii , 8, the prophet says,
" She," Israel, " did not know that I gave her corn and
wine and oil," a quotation from Deuteronomy vii., 13,
where God says, " I will bless the fruit of thy land, thy
corn and thy wine and thine oil." And, in the tenth
verse, God says, " None shall deliver her out of my
hand," a phrase taken from Deuteronomy xxxii., 39,
"Neither is there any that can deliver out of my
hand." Inverse n, we have mention of "her feast
days," which are the Passover, Pentecost, and Tab
ernacles ; her "new moons," Numbers xxviii., n, 12;
¦and "her Sabbaths," Leviticus xxiii., 3 ; "and all her
solemn feasts." A very clear reference is made in the
twelfth verse, in the word "rewards," meaning wages
of whoredom, to Deuteronomy xxiii , 18. It is said
in verse 17 that the Lord would take the "names of
Baalim out of her mouth," which phrase is used in
Exodus xxiii., 13, "make no mention of the names of
other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth."
In chapter iv., 4, we read that reproof and rebuke are
useless, for the "people are as they that strive with
the priest." And how were they that strove with the
priest? In Deuteronomy xvii., 12, we read that the
" man that will not hearken unto the priest . . . shall
die." There was reason, then, why no reproof should
be given to the people, — they were past help. How
clear is the reference to the Pentateuch in this pas
sage ! A very striking instance of quotation is found
in chapter iv., 10. The prophet is describing the
suffering that shall come upon the people for their
sins ; and he tells them, " They shall eat and not be

Il8 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
satisfied " (c.v., " not have enough "). In Leviticus
xxvi., 26, where the Lord threatens calamities if the
people sin, he says, " When I have broken the staff of
your bread, ... ye shall eat and not be satisfied," — a
verbal quotation. In the same verse is a distinct ref
erence to Genesis xxviii., 14, and Leviticus xx., 20, 21 :
"They shall commit whoredom, and shall not increase."
The original word for "increase," " to break forth," is
used in the promise to Jacob, " And thou shalt spread
abroad ["break forth"] to the west and to the east,"
etc. This use of the word is peculiar to the Penta
teuch; and the threatening of not increasing is con
formed to the passage referred to in Leviticus and
many other places in the Law. In the thirteenth verse,
the prophet accuses the people of sin, because they
have done as wickedly as the nations which they were
commanded to destroy : " They sacrifice upon the tops
of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills,
under oaks and poplars and elms." In Deuteronomy
xii., 2, where the practices of the nations are described,
the same phrases are used, except that, in the last
clause, the prophet has substituted specific names for
" every green tree." In chapter v., 6, the prophet says
it will not be with them now as it was of old, when
they "go with their flocks and with their herds " to
seek the Lord, for he will have withdrawn from them
on account of their wickedness. In describing the sac
rifices which the people offered to the Lord, in the
Pentateuch the phrase "with your flocks and with
your herds " is very common. Why were " the princes
of Judah like them that remove the landmark "
("bound," c.v.), and upon whom the prophet declares

EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. II9
that the Lord will " pour out his wrath like water " ?
Because in Deuteronomy xxvii., 17, it is said, "Cursed
be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark." This
reference is too striking to admit of doubt. And the
prophet continues, " Ephraim is oppressed and crushed
[c.v., broken in judgment] because he forsook the
Lord " ; just as it is declared it shall happen unto the
nation, if they forsake God, in Deuteronomy xxviii., 33 :
" Thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway."
In chapter v., 15, and vi., 1, we read, " In their affliction
they will seek me early," and say, " Come, let us return
unto the Lord, for he hath torn and he will heal us ; he
hath smitten and he will bind us up." This is a fulfil
ment of the prophecy in Deuteronomy iv., 30, " When
thou art in affliction [c.v., tribulation], ... in the latter
days, and thou turn to the Lord thy God " ; and in
Deuteronomy xxxii., 39, " I kill and I make alive ; I
wound and I heal ; neither is there any one that can
deliver out of my hand." Compare with this Hosea
v., 4, " I will tear, . . . and none shall deliver " (c.v.,
rescue). In chapter vii., 10, the people are reproved
because, after all their afflictions, " they do not return
to the Lord their God, nor seek him," as required in
Deuteronomy iv., 29, 30. The declaration, " I will
chastise them, as hath been proclaimed in their congre
gation " (c.v., "as their congregation hath heard "), chap
ter vii., 12, is to the point, as the laws were usually said
to be proclaimed " to the congregation " in the Penta
teuch. And here seems to be an explicit reference to
punishments which had been threatened to the people
at that time. In chapter viii., 6, there is an apparent
reference in the original to the calf which was burned at

120 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
Horeb. The prophet says, " The calf of Samaria shall
be broken in pieces " (made " kindlings " literally).
In the twelfth verse there is the explicit declaration,
" I have written to him the great things of my law " ;
or, as it should be translated, " I have written for him
many laws ; but they were counted as a strange thing."
Here we have proof that the laws quoted were written,
and these laws are found word for word in the Penta
teuch. In the next verse is quoted the remarkable
prophecy in Deuteronomy xxviii., 68, " They shall re
turn to Egypt." In chapter ix., 4, in speaking of the
calamity of the impending captivity, he says, " They
shall not offer wine-offerings to the Lord ; . . . their
sacrifices shall be unto them as the bread of mourners ;
all that eat thereof shall be polluted." In Leviticus
xix. is a full statement of the defiled condition of
all who are mourning. In the fifth verse, it is asked,
"What will ye do in the solemn day [i.e., feast days
generally], and in the day of the feast of the Lord ? "
(i.e., of the Passover, or some other of the three great
feasts), — showing that feast days were observed at this
time in Israel. The historical allusions in this chapter
are too numerous for quotation. The feast of the tab
ernacles was celebrated in Israel ; for in chapter xii., 9,
we read, " I will yet make thee to dwell in tabernacles,
as in the days of the solemn feasts " (feast). In verse
14, it is said of Ephraim, " He shall leave his blood
upon him," which is a phrase used in the Law to show
the penalty which hangs over the evil-doer, Leviticus
xx., 9 : "He that curseth his father or his mother, his
blood shall be upon him," i.e., he shall be put to death.
But I must not dwell upon the writings of this

EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 121
prophet any longer. We find that he speaks of the
Law, sometimes almost makes a formal quotation from
it, and in almost innumerable instances makes use of
its language. I have marked more than twice as many
clear references to the Law as I have quoted. But, if
these are not sufficient to convince the reader, no num
ber would be. They most clearly identify the Law
which was " written," and with which Hosea was famil
iar, with the Pentateuch of Ezra, of the son of Sirach,
of Josephus, and of Martin Luther. His prophecy is
as full of allusions to the Pentateuch, and his style par
takes as much of its flavor, as the sermons of the Puri
tans do of the Bible ; and one would as soon think of
denying that John Robinson or John Cotton had our
New Testament as that Hosea had our Pentateuch.
It is admitted that the ritual and priesthood were" exist
ing in perfection, and that the Pentateuch was in the
hands of Malachi substantially as we have it to-day,
yet he does not refer to its contents or to the ceremo
nies of the ritual any more frequently than Hosea, who
lived three hundred years before him. If Hosea makes
as free use of it as Malachi, why is it not conclusive
evidence that he had it ? This inference can be over
come only by very weighty objections.
(9) I must make some examination of the writings
of Amos, who was a little earlier than Hosea. In chap
ter ii., 7, our translation reads, " and turn aside the
way of the meek " : it should be rendered, " wrest the
judgment of the weak," which agrees with Exodus
xxiii., 6, " Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy
poor." An abominable sin is spoken of in the same
verse, which the Lord says " profanes his holy name,"

122 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
— a verbal reference to Leviticus xx., 3 : I will set my
face against that man who " profanes my holy name."
The wicked people are said (verse 8) "to lay them
selves down upon clothes laid to pledge." Exodus
xxii., 26, forbids this, and requires that "raiment taken
to pledge " shall be delivered to the owner when " the
sun goeth down." The phrase, verse 10, " and led you
forty years in the wilderness," is a verbal quotation
from Deuteronomy xxix., 5. The people are rebuked,
verse 12, for giving "the Nazarites wine to drink."
Why not ? In Numbers vi., 3, the Nazarites' vow to
abstain from wine is given.
The fourth chapter of Amos is so filled with refer
ences to the Pentateuch that a specific enumeration of
them would be impossible in this study. Not less
than a -dozen instances of the use of language to be
found in the different books of the Pentateuch could
be quoted. I must content myself with a condensed
summary, leaving the reader who is interested in this
examination to pursue it into its details at his leisure.
" Bring your sacrifices every morning," Numbers xxviii.,
3, 4, " and your tithes after three years," Deuteronomy
xiv., 28, which reads, "At the end of three years, thou
shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase " ; a
very clear reference. " Offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving
with leaven," Leviticus ii., 11, "and publish the free
offerings," Leviticus xxii., 18. " I have given you want
of bread," Leviticus xxvi., 26, "yet have ye not returned
to me, saith the Lord." This last phrase is used sev
eral times in this chapter, and has evident reference
to Deuteronomy iv., 30, where the people are exhorted,
in their troubles, "to turn to the Lord their God." " I

EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 1 23
have smitten you with blasting and mildew," Deuteron
omy xxviii., 22. " I have sent among you the pestilence,
after the manner of Egypt," as predicted in Leviticus
xxvi., 25 ; Deuteronomy vii., 15 ; xxviii , 27. In chap
ter v., 11, the prophet says, "Ye have built houses of
hewn stone, but ye shall not dwell in them " ; Deuter
onomy xxviii., 30, where it is said, " Thou shalt build
an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein." Further,
the prophet says, "Ye have planted pleasant vineyards,
but ye shall not drink wine of them " ; predicted in
Deuteronomy xxviii., 39, " Thou shalt plant vineyards,
. . . but shalt not drink of the wine." The prophet de
nounces them, because " they afflict the just, they take
a bribe." Exodus xxiii., 8, Deuteronomy xvi., 19, declare
"Thou shalt not wrest judgment, thou shalt not respect
persons, neither take a gift" (bribe). In verse 17, he
says, " I will pass through thee " as I passed through
the land of Egypt on the dreadful night when the first
born were slain and you were preserved. Now you
will be punished, and a great " wailing " will be heard
among you, as a " great cry " was raised by Pharaoh
and his servants. (Exodus xii., 30.) The Lord ex
presses his dislike (verses 21, 22) of their "feasts,"
their " solemn assemblies," their " burnt-offerings and
meat-offerings," and of their " peace-offerings." (Num
bers xxix., 25 ; Leviticus xxiii., 36 ; Deuteronomy xvi.)
The prophet accuses the oppressors of the people of
being so greedy of gain as to say, chap, viii., 5, " When
will the new moon be gone that we may sell corn, and
the Sabbath that we may set forth [open] wheat ? " A
remarkable resemblance exists in the original between
the words marked in italics and those in Genesis xii.,

124 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
56, " And Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold
unto the Egyptians." No " servile work " could be
done on the new moon of the seventh month, or the
beginning of the civil year. Leviticus xxiii., 24, 25.
He further charges these greedy traffickers with " mak
ing the ephah small," Deuteronomy xxv., 14, " and the
shekel great," Deuteronomy xxv., 13, "and falsifying
the balances by deceit." Leviticus xix., 36, requires
"just balances." When carried captive, the wicked
people would not escape suffering, for the Lord says to
them by the mouth of the prophet, chapter ix., 4,
" Thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay
them " (those in captivity), which is a reiteration of the
threatening in Deuteronomy xxviii., 65, and Leviticus
xxvi., 33, " I will draw out a sword after you among the
heathen." In the same chapter, eighth verse, the Lord
says, " I will destroy it [Israel] from off the face of the
earth," which is a verbal repetition of the punishment
threatened in Deuteronomy vi., 15, "The Lord thy
God . . . will destroy thee from off the face of the earth."
These quotations from Amos make it evident that he
was familiar with the language of the Pentateuch. He
rebukes Israel for violating the laws therein contained,
and writes precisely as if the contents of that book were
as familiar to him as the contents of the gospel were to
John Bunyan. He calls the book by the name which
it has had through all succeeding years up to his time.
In giving a general reason for the punishment which
would come upon tl e people, he says, in chapter ii., 4,
" They have despised the Law of the Lord, and have
not kept his commandments," a direct reference to the
threat in Leviticus xxvi., 15, where it is said, "If ye

EVIDENCE FROM THE POETH.AL BOOKS. 125
shall despise my statutes," the most terrible calamities
shall fall upon you. The customs, rites, worship which
the prophet describes are all identical with those spoken
of in " The Law."
It is important to remember that both Hosea and
Amos prophesied in the kingdom of Israel. They
addressed the rulers, princes, priests, and people of
that nation as if they were familiar with the Law. They
speak of them as keeping the feast days, the new
moons, and the Sabbaths. Is it improbable that the
people of Israel had a copy of the Law, whose contents
are so fully stated in these prophecies ? It is further
to be remembered that Amos was " no prophet," that
is, by education, " nor the son of a prophet " ; he was
a "shepherd and a gatherer of sycamore fruit." If,
then, he was so familiar with " The Law," never hav
ing been educated in it, how much of its language must
have been on the lips of those who had attended the
schools of the prophets ? There is more reason than
some scholars are willing to allow for referring the
Samaritan Pentateuch to a much earlier age than is
commonly assigned to it. It is by no means improb
able that copies of " The Law " existed in the northern
kingdom before the captivity, and that the people who
were left in the land had copies with them, and that it
has been handed down among that people from age to
age, to the present day. If such a supposition is rea
sonable, the existence of the Samaritan Pentateuch is
evidence of the high antiquity of the Hebrew Penta
teuch. But I do not rest this argument on any such basis. I
am tracing references to "The Law," the Pentateuch,

126 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
back through the Hebrew writings that have come
down to us ; and we find abundant evidence of its exist
ence in the writings of the two prophets who were sent
to prophesy to the kingdom of Israel. But this aside.
We must pursue our inquiry still further.
10. Next in order comes the prophecy of Joel, who
was a little the predecessor of Amos, at least in the
opinion of some scholars ; but he prophesied to the
kingdom of Judah.
The prophecy of Joel is very brief, covering but a
few pages. The whole spirit of his prophecy is derived
from "The Law." His promises and threatenings are
all derived from those contained in " The Law." He
says, " The meat-offering and the drink-offering is cut
off from the house of the Lord ; the priests mourn."
" The harvest of the field is perished, the river is dried
up, the fig-tree languisheth ; . . . call a solemn assem
bly," for the " locust hath eaten " up the harvest.
Compare with these expressions Deuteronomy xxviii.,
38-42. In the second chapter, the prophet directs
them to call an assembly. " Blow ye the trumpet," says
he. In Numbers x., 3, we find that this was the ap
pointed method of calling an assembly. He says,
describing the locusts, " There hath not been ever the
like, neither shall there be any more after it, even to
the years of many generations." This is a clear ref
erence to Exodus x., 14, where, describing the locusts
of the plague in Egypt, the writer says, " Before them
there were no such locusts as they, neither after them
shall there be such." In chapter ii., 13, the prophet
exhorts the people to repent, assuring them that the
Lord God "is gracious and merciful, slow to anger.

EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 127
and of great kindness " ; an assurance which he could
well give, for, Exodus xxxiv., 6, the Lord himself de
scended in a cloud, and proclaimed, "The Lord God,
merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in
goodness and truth." The prophet further says that
the Lord will leave a blessing behind him, " a meat
offering and a drink-offering." Most earnestly he im
plores the people "to blow the trumpet, to proclaim a
solemn assembly, to appoint a congregation, ... to
let the priests weep between the porch and the altar,
and say, Spare thy people, O Lord, arid give not their
heritage to reproach, that the heathen should use a by
word against them " (marginal reading). In Deuter
onomy xxviii., 37, the people are threatened, if they
sin, with the punishment of becoming " a proverb and
a by-word among all nations." The reference is clear.
Joel's prophecy is filled with Mosaic terms, and with
the spirit and letter of the Law. Let it be remem
bered that Hosea, Amos, and Joel, whose references
to Deuteronomy are so numerous, wrote a century and
more before Hilkiah forged it, according to Kuenen.*
n. The testimony of two more books yet remains
to be examined, the Proverbs and Psalms. In Ecclesi-
astes and Solomon's Song, we find nothing to our pur
pose, nor should we expect to. Nor should we expect
to find much light on our theme in the Book of Proverbs.
The subject of the book forbids it. Yet even here are
there some hints of the existence of the Pentateuch.
*Yet, notwithstanding this evidence that the prophetic writings are saturated
with the spirit and sprinkled all over with the phrases and ceremonies of the
Pentateuch, a writer in the Unitarian Review for November, 1880, p. 427, asks
in a tone of haughty challenge, " What reference to Mosaic law or Mosaic rites
can 5 ou find in any of the earlier prophets ? " " What appeal to their authority ? "

128 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
King Lemuel's mother taught him, chapter xxxi., 5, that
princes should not drink wine lest they "forget the
Law, and pervert the judgment of any that are afflicted."
Deuteronomy xxiv., 17, Exodus xxiii., 6, "Thou shalt
not pervert judgment." In chapter xxviii., 4, 7, 9, " The
Law" is spoken of. So also in chapter xxix., 18, we
read, " He that keepeth the Law, happy is he," " but
where there is no vision the people perish." Other
passages of like character are found in the book which
it is unnecessary to quote, as they add nothing to our
argument. Davidson says, Vol. IL, p. 342, "The Prov
erbs are ethical maxims deduced from the Mosaic Law
an ; Divine Providence." The Book of Psalms con
tains lyric poems, for the most part, which were com
posed during a long period of the nation's existence.
Some were probably composed before the time of
David, many by him, and by his contemporaries and
immediate successors, and some as late as after the
return from captivity. If we could certainly select
those of the earliest date, they would be much more to
our purpose than those composed at a later period. As
in many cases such a distinction cannot accurately be
made, I shall quote from those which are more gener
ally conceded to be of the earlier class, after I have
drawn a few illustrations from those of a confessedly
later period. The seventy-eighth psalm is supposed to
have been written much later than the time of David.
It is an historical poem, and repeats the most prominent
incidents recorded in the Pentateuch. It speaks dis
tinctly of the " covenant of God," and declares that the
people refused in early times "to walk in his Law";
that " he established a testimony in Jacob, and a])

EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 1 29
pointed a Law in Israel," which he commanded the
fathers to "make known to their children." Deuter
onomy iv., 9, vi., 7, xi., 19, require that the Law should
be taught to the children. The use of the language of
the Pentateuch in this psalm is so pervading that I
must ask readers to examine it for themselves in con
nection with this argument. To make quotations is
impossible. Psalm cxix. is a very artistic poem, con
structed with express reference to the Law, the statutes,
the commandments, and the judgments of the Lord.
Through one hundred and seventy-six verses, it labors,
with all variety of phrase, to extol "The Law" of the
Lord, and inculcate obedience to all its " statutes."
In Psalm xcvii., the writer says that the Lord spake to
his people "in the cloudy pillar; they kept his testimo
nies and the ordinance that he gave them." In Psalm
lxxxix., 30-32, the writer, enumerating the calamities
which shall rest upon the house of David, says, in the
name of the Lord, " If his children forsake my Law,
and walk not in my judgments ; if they break my stat
utes, and keep not my commandments ; then will I visit
their transgression with the rod." Moses is spoken of
as one to whom God had made himself known, ciii., 7 ;
cv., 26; cvi., 16, 23, 32. These psalms are also filled
with the incidents and language of the Pentateuch. In
Psalm xix. there is a comparison made between the in
struction given in the works of Nature and that which
is given in " The Law of the Lord." " The Law of the
Lord is perfect, converting the soul ; the testimony of
the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes
of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart ; the command
ment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The

130 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
fear [by metonymy, that which teaches us the fear] of
the Lord is clean, enduring forever ; the judgments of
the Lord are true and righteous altogether." In Psalm
xl, 8, we have a very clear statement of the existence
of books in the time of David. " In the volume of the
book it is written of me, . . . Thy law is within my
heart." As it has been suggested that this may be a
figurative reference to God's purposes, not to any literal
volume, I do not press the inference that it refers to
the Book of the Law, but simply say that it proves the
existence of written books in the time of David ; and we
have seen already that, I. Kings ii., 3, David charges
Solomon to keep the " statutes and commandments and
judgments and testimonies " of the Lord, " as it is writ
ten in the Law of Moses." The poem and the history
agree. In Psalm i., 2, it is said that the delight of the
good man " is in the Law of the Lord, and in his Law
doth he meditate day and night."
These references to the Pentateuch, under the same
names which we have found in use from the time of
Paul and the Son of Sirach, are proof of the existence
of the same work which Paul and the Son of Sirach
used, unless some proof can be brought that it was
remodelled between these periods. Of such a trans
formation, history does not record a syllable : therefore
the work is the same as that to which David and the
Psalmists alluded, as that which Paul and the Son of
Sirach used, unless internal evidence, derived from the
book itself, can be brought to show the contrary. To
that internal evidence, I shall attend in due time. I
now confine myself to the historical evidence.
But we find not only the old names, but also the

EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 131
style of the Pentateuch introduced into the Psalms, its
facts alluded to, its rites mentioned. I will notice a
few of the latter. In Psalm xix., i, there is the same
distinction between the heavens and the firmament as
in Genesis i. The word " firmament " is a peculiar
one, and is doubtless used by the Psalmist on that
nccount. Psalm xxxiii., 6, 7, teaches us that " By the
word of the Lord v/ere the heavens made " (Genesis i.,
14, "And God said, Let there be lights in the firma
ment "), " and all the host of them by the breath of
his mouth " (Genesis ii., i, " Thus the heavens and
earth were finished, and all the host of them "). " He
gathereth the waters of the sea together as a heap "
(Genesis i., 9, "And God said, Let the waters ... be
gathered together into one place "). In Psalm lxxxi.,
3-5, there is a direct reference to the time when a stat
ute there named was enacted : " Blow the trumpet in
the new moon " (Numbers x., 10, " In the beginnings of
your month [i.e., new moons], ye shall blow with the
trumpets "), "in the time appointed, on our solemn feast
day ; for this is a statute for Israel and a law of the
God of Jacob. This he ordained . . . when he went
out through [of] the land of Egypt." Verse 6, " I
removed from his shoulder the burden" (Exodus i.,
11). In Psalm xv., 3-5, we read that a good man
"backbiteth not with his tongue" (Leviticus xix., 16),
"nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbor" (Exo
dus xxiii., 1). " He putteth not out his money to usury "
(Exodus xxii., 25), "nor taketh a reward against the
innocent" (Exodus xxiii., 8). "He sweareth to his
own hurt, and changeth not " (Numbers xxx., 2).
These references are all too distinct to be mistaken.

132 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
"Burnt-offerings and sin-offerings" are spoken of in
xl., 6; li., 19; lxvi., 13, 15 : "I will go into th} house
with burnt-offerings ; . . . I will offer unto thee burnt
sacrifices of fatlings, with the incense of rams." Psalm
cxxxiii.. the "precious ointment that ran down on
Aaron's beard " refers to his anointing (Leviticus viii.,
12), where Moses is said to pour the "anointing oil"
on Aaron's head.
It is not necessary to accumulate these quotations
any further. It is evident that, upon the supposition of
the existence and familiar use of the Pentateuch by
the writers of the Psalms, we could not expect to find
more frequent allusions to the book, nor more evident
use of its words and phrases, than we do find. Hence,
the argument is as full and cogent from this quarter as
is required for my purpose.
I have now closed my examination of the historical
and poetical writings of the Jewish nation back to the
time of David. And, all through both classes of writ
ings, we find not only the title of the Pentateuch
named in references to it, but we also find constant
use of its style, and allusion to its rites, ceremonies,
and laws. I hesitate not to say that no writing which
has come down to our day from a remote antiquity can
show such an array of historical evidence attesting its
age as the writings of the Jews furnish to the existence
of the Pentateuch in the time of David. The book
which David referred Solomon to as the "Law of
Moses," in which were " written the statutes, com
mandments, judgments, and testimonies of the Lord,'"
is the book which now lies open before me, or else I

EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 1 33
have no reason or right to speak of the history of
Thucydides as being in our hands. Those who are
not accustomed to inquiries of this kind may not be
aware of the superior amount and quality of the evi
dence which can be adduced in favor of the existence
of the Pentateuch in the time of David, over that
which can be produced in favor of the early origin of
any other work of remote antiquity which has come
into our hands, and which, nevertheless, we accept as
being sustained by all the evidence which, under the
circumstances, could be expected.
Let us remember, too, the period at which we have
arrived. We are within four hundred years or less of
the time in which Moses lived, who is supposed by
David to have written these laws. The golden age of
Hebrew literature is fixed at this period. A glorious
temple was to be erected in which the worship of
Jehovah, as prescribed in "The Law," could be
offered. The schools of the prophets had been send
ing out scholars into all parts of the land for a hun
dred years. It is incredible that a book containing the
fundamental laws of such a nation, on an obedience to
which rested their national destiny, could have been so
universally referred to their great law-giver, if indeed
he had no hand in its composition. Had we no frag
ments of history relating to the period between David
and Moses, we could not hesitate to refer the book to
him to whom it was referred at this period. The men
of that age were abundantly capable of determining
such a question. They were under the most impera
tive obligation to determine it correctly, and there is
no more reason, historically, to suppose them to be

134 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
mistaken than we have to suppose that the English
monarchs and scholars are mistaken in referring the
Doomsday Book to the time of William the Con
queror. SECTION IV. FROM DAVID TO MOSES.
As far as external historical evidence is concerned, 1
might pause here. But there are some earlier writings,
some portions of which were composed probably before
the time of David, or during his reign, — namely,
the book of Judges ; and some which, though relating
to the times previous to him, were not composed till
a later period, — namely, the Books of Samuel.
To understand the value of the evidence rendered
by these books to the antiquity of the Pentateuch, a
word is necessary respecting their age and contents.
The Book of Joshua was written before the close of
the reign of Solomon, if we can rely upon the state
ment made in chapter xvi., 10, where it is said, "The
Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites [in Gezer]
unto this day." But, in I. Kings ix., 16, we read
that Pharaoh "took Gezer, burned it with fire, slew
the Canaanites, and gave it as a present to his
daughter, Solomon's wife." The book may have been
composed earlier, even in the reign of Saul, or during
the life of Samuel. There is nothing in the style or
contents of the book which requires a later author.
The contents of the book are such as rather to forbid
than admit any specific quotations from the Pentateuch,
consisting, as they do in the first half, of a description
of passing over Jordan, and of the battles of the

FROM DAv'ID TO MOSES. 135
conquest, and, in the last half, of a condensed state
ment of the boundaries of the tribes and their cities.*
The Book of Judges tells us, in chapter i., 21, that
"the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in
Jerusalem unto this day," which shows, if the passage
can be relied upon, that the book, or the main part of
it, must have been written before the end of David's
reign, since in II. Samuel, chapter v., 6-8, we learn
that David drove the Jebusites out of Jerusalem, and
took the stronghold of Zion and dwelt in it. A passage
in the appendix of the book, which was added at a
later date, chapter xviii., 30, would probably place this
addition as late as 721 B.C. "The day of the captivity
of the land" is spoken of. There is nothing in the
language or contents of the body of the book to forbid
its composition in the early years of the monarchy,
since its descriptions of the anarchical condition of
the people have very much the appearance of an apol
ogy or good reason for a stronger and consolidated
government, as well as of an illustration of the peril of
" doing evil in the sight of the Lord." The subject of
both the book and its appendix is such as not to require
or even permit many references to the Pentateuch,
made up as it is of battles and exploits of heroes and
heroines, and devoting four chapters to the freaks and
•Davidson says (Intro. O. T., Vol. I., p. 415): "The ecclesiastical state of
the people under Joshua appears to have been in accordance with the divine
law. There was the ark of the covenant, priests, a high priest Eleazer, Leviti
cal cities. Circumcision and the passover were observed. The tabernacle was
set up, and the congregation assembled beside it. [Dr. Oort, Bible for Learners,
says, "The tabernacle never really existed except in the imagination cf ihe
writer" (of Exodus), who lived after the captivity.] The Reubenites, Gadites, and
half-tribe of Manasseh ' kept all that Moses, the servant of God, commanded
them.' "

136 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
follies and feats and gallantries of the renowned ath
lete, Samson.
The Books of Samuel, down to the reign of David,
appear to be closely connected with the succeeding his
tory, and very probably were the production of the au
thor of the history of that reign, whose writings were
used by the author of the Book of Kings, who wrote at
the commencement of the captivity, 586 B.C. During
this tumultuous period of establishing the monarchy,
but little reference would be made, in brief annals, to
rituals and customs. Weightier and novel matters
would press upon the writer's attention. And in all
these writings we cannot rely upon any stronger evi
dence of the age of the Pentateuch than is furnished
by the opinion of the age in which they were written,
as expressed by their authors. It is true that they did
not rely wholly upon tradition. They had, apparently,
in their hands scraps of records and songs which fur
nished some written testimony to the customs and laws
of this period, and to the existence of the Mosaic rit
ual. These obscure references and passing hints we
shall do well to notice and weigh.
In I. Samuel i., 3, we read that Hannah and her hus
band, a hundred years before the time of David, "went
up yearly to worship and to sacrifice unto the Lord of
hosts, in Shiloh," where the tabernacle was. In chap
ter L, 21, 22, the writer tells us that the journey was
repeated the next year by the father alone, and that
the second year the child Samuel was with them. This
"yearly" journey was required by "The Law" at the
feast of the passover, but we do not read of it again in
the book, showing how many things customary are not

FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 137
named. We read of the offering of "burnt-offerings"
and " peace-offerings " at different times and at differ
ent places, since no spot had been selected as the per
manent resting-place of the ark. There are, also, found
some phrases in the Books of Samuel which the his
torian evidently took from the Books of Moses ; but as
he wrote at as late a period as is covered by some of
the books already examined, and as his style would
only prove the existence of the Pentateuch when he
wrote, I will not occupy much space by making quota
tions. In I. Samuel, chapter xii., 14, Samuel says to
the people, " If ye will not rebel against the command
ment of the Lord," it will be well with you ; " but if ye
rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then shall
the hand of the Lord be against you, as it was against
your fathers." This is obviously said in reference to
the Law, for " the commandment," " the testimony,"
are often used for the Pentateuch. The writer of the
Book of Judges, chapter iii., 4, says, "They [the na
tions not conquered] were to prove Israel, ... to know
whether they would hearken unto the commandments
of the Lord, which he had commanded their fathers by
the hand of Moses." In Joshua i., 7, 8, the Lord is rep
resented as thus addressing Joshua : " Be thou strong
and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do
according to all the Law which Moses, my servant, com
manded thee. . . . This Book of the Law shall not depart
out of thy mouth, . . . that thou mayest do all that is
written therein." In chapter viii., 30, 31, we read that
" Joshua built an altar, ... as Moses the servant of the
Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is written
in the Book of the Law of Moses." In chapter xxiii , 6,

138 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
we read of what "is written in the Book of the Law
of Moses"; and in chapter xxiv., 26, we read that
" Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of
God." Such are the names given in these early annals to
the book or code by which the people were governed.
Let us now see if the references to it or the customs of
the period render it certain that our Pentateuch is
intended by these names. The priests are represented
in Joshua as " bearing the ark," and the " ark of the
covenant," and the " ark of the Lord," and " the ark
of the testimony " ; and " Phinehas, the son of Aaron,"
is said to have " stood before the ark of the covenant
of God in those days," in the Book of Judges ; and in I.
Samuel it is spoken of ten times, and in II. Samuel five
times. In Joshua xviii., 1, " the tabernacle of the con
gregation" is said to "be set up at Shiloh," and it is
mentioned again xxii., 19 ; and three times it is spoken
of in Samuel. The "curtains " of the dwelling-place of
the ark are mentioned in II. Samuel vii., 2, and in the
sixth verse the " tent and tabernacle " are spoken of,
describing the original tabernacle accurately, the " tent "
signifying the outward covering of skins and cloth of
goat's hair, and " the tabernacle " signifying the "cur
tains of fine twined linen and blue and purple and
scarlet," Exodus xxvi., 1, 14. This passage shows how
carefully the material and form of the ancient taber
nacle had been preserved through all ages and vicissi
tudes, amid 'repairs and renewals down to the time of
David, a period of about four hundred years, when we
find him ambitious to erect a more imposing struct
ure for the administration of the ritual. We read, in

FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 139
I. Samuel xxi., 6, of the " shew bread " which was in the
tabernacle at Nob, chapter xxii., n, and which was
"hallowed bread," of which David and his men were
permitted to eat after much deliberation, as it was
sacredly set apart for the priests, Leviticus xxiv., 9.
In I. Samuel, during times bordering upon those of the
Judges, we read frequently of " offerings " and " sacri
fices," offered apparently at places where the " taber
nacle " was from time to time located, and sometimes
on altars built for the occasion.
These records of religious observances are quite fre
quent, though brief ; but they are hints of what existed
and was common, as the "yearly sacrifice " to which the
people are said to go up is mentioned specially but three
times. And it is to be remembered that these were
turbulent times, and the writer of Judges does not
dwell upon the years of peace, but describes almost
exclusively the insurrections and forays and personal
exploits of the time. We read of " priests " in Joshua
and Judges and Samuel, and of their presence at the
place of the tabernacle. There is no evidence which is
decisive that any service which was allotted by the Law
to a priest was performed by any other person. In the
case of Samuel, there are two or three instances in
which he may have offered sacrifice ; but it is by no
means clear that even in those a priest was not in
attendance, though not spoken of. But, granting that
Samuel did offer sacrifices two or three times, it does
not follow that it was lawful, but rather that he violated
the Law. And, further, if we can rely upon the record,
the relation of Samuel to the priesthood was unique ;
and he may have felt authorized to act as a priest in

140 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
certain contingencies, if he did so. In either view
of his action, it does not furnish even a presumption
against the existence of the ritual ; much less does it
furnish an argument against its existence.
Did I not fear that I should utterly exhaust the pa
tience of my readers, I should like to refer to some yet
more obscure indications of the existence of the Pen
tateuch contained in these fragmentary sketches of the
earliest anarchical times, and yet so exact as to com
mand attention. I must satisfy my desire to give a
specimen of them : I. Samuel i., n, "And there shall
no razor come upon his head " ; a literal statement of
the Law of the Nazarite, Numbers vi., 5. Chapter i.,
24, she "took three bullocks and an ephah of flour"
for her offering ; just the right proportion of flour pre
scribed to a bullock, Numbers xxviii., 12. Chapter
ii., 2, " Neither is there any rock like our God," is
literally taken from Deuteronomy xxxii., 30. The
departure from the ritual by the wicked sons of Eli is
described in chapter ii., 13-15, in not " burning the fat "
and the " sodden meat " which were prescribed in Le
viticus vi., 28, and vii., 31-35. In verses 18, 19, the
child Samuel's " linen ephod " is mentioned, and his
"little coat" (robe), which was the priest's garment
worn under the " ephod," both described in Exodus
xxviii., 6, 31. In chapter iii., 3, we read of the " lamp
which burnt " in the place " where the ark of God was,"
Exodus xxvii., 21. In chapter iii., 14, we read of the
"sacrifice" (zabacli) and "offering" (mincah) required
by the Law in many places. I have already alluded to
the frequency with which the " ark of the covenant "
is mentioned. Chapter vi., 6, speaks of the " harden-

FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 141
ing " of the people's hearts as the heart of " Pharaoh
was hardened," Exodus xii., 31. In chapter vii., 9, we
read that "Samuel took a sucking lamb, and offered it
for a burnt-offering wholly to the Lord," Leviticus xxii.,
7. Chapter viii., 3, Samuel's " sons took bribes and
perverted judgment," Exodus xxiii., 8. Chapter ix., 24,
" And the cook took up [heaved up] the shoulder, and
set it before Saul,'' Exodus xxix., 27. Chapter x., 25,
" Samuel wrote in a book the manner of the kingdom,"
Deuteronomy xvii., 18, 19. Chapter xx., 5, 6, "To-mor
row is the new moon," said David, " let me go ... to
Bethlehem, for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all
the family," Numbers x., 10; xxviii., n. Verse 26,
"Saul . . . thought something had befallen him [David],
he is not clean ; surely he is not clean," Leviticus vii.,
20, 21. Chapter xxviii., 3, " And Saul put away those
that had familiar spirits and wizards out of the land,"
Deuteronomy xviii., 11, 12. Chapter xxx., 7, 8, "And
David said to Abiathar, the priest, bring me hither the
ephod [in which were the Urim and Thummim]. . . .
And David inquired of the Lord," Numbers xxvii., 21.
Frequently the " Lord " is said to be " inquired of " in
the life of David. In II. Samuel vi., 2-17, we read of
the " ark of the Lord and the cherubim," and of the
death of Uzzah for touching it, Numbers iv., 15.
In Judges i., 20, we read that "they gave Hebron
unto Caleb, as Moses said," Numbers xiv., 24; Joshua
xiv., 9, 13. In chapter ii., 17, 20, 22, the people are
charged with going "a whoring after other gods, and
turning quickly out of the way which their fathers
walked in, . . . transgressing my covenant, which their
fathers did keep " (chap, iii., 6) ; and the children of

142 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
Israel "took their [Canaanites'] daughters to be their
wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and
served their gods," and, verse 4, did not "hearken unto
the commandments of the Lord, which he commanded
the fathers by the hand of Moses." Read the Law,
Exodus xxxiv., 15, 16. The "ephod," in which were
the Urim and Thummim, is spoken of as if essential
even in forbidden forms of consultation, viii., 27 ;
xvii., 5; xviii., 14, 17, 18. In xiii., 19, we read that
" Manoah took a kid with a meat [meal] offering, and
offered it upon a rock to the Lord." This kind of
offering is required, Numbers xv., 24. " Burnt-offer
ings" and "peace-offerings" are mentioned in xiii., 16;
xx., 26; xxi., 4. "The ark of the covenant" is spoken
of, xx., 27. "The house of God in Shiloh," that is the
"tabernacle," is spoken of in xviii., 31, and very prob
ably also in x.x., 18; xx., 18, 26, 31; and xxi., 2.
Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, "stands before the
ark," xx., 28. " A man plucked off his shoe, and gave
it to his neighbor to confirm " a bargain respecting mar
riage under peculiar circumstance, as reported in Ruth
iv.,' 8. The Law is found in Deuteronomy xxv., 9. A
reference is also made in iv., 12, to Genesis xxxviii., 29.
But I must refrain, or patience will be utterly ex
hausted. I wished to quote some of my notes on
Joshua, especially those including passages where it is
said that something was done "as Moses the servant
of the Lord commanded," as, in chapter xi., 12,
"Joshua smote all the cities of those kings and all the
kings of them with the edge of the sword, and he
utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the
Lord commanded." The command of Moses is in

FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 143
Numbers xxxiii., 52, and Deuteronomy vii., 2, "Thou
shalt smite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt
make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto
them." I leave them all, and close here the direct
historical or external evidence of the antiquity of the
Pentateuch. Fragmentary and obscure as many of
these notices and references are in these early books, I
submit that they are as numerous and as explicit as any
reasonable critic would expect to find. I confess to my
own surprise at finding so many. Only Hebraists can
estimate the loss I feel in not being able to make these
quotations from the original language, that their force
might be fully estimated.*
I cannot better meet the objection which is raised
against the existence of the Mosaic ritual during the
time of the Judges and Samuel, founded upon the infre
quent mention of it and of its observance, than by refer-
•Much has been made by Kuenen, Graf, Prof. Smith, and others, of the use
of the words, " ihe priests, the Levites," in Deuteronomy xvii., 9, 18, and else
where, without the copulative conjunction, "and," as if it proved that there
was no distinct portion of the tribe of Levite priests before the captivity. But
the same formula is used after the captivity (Nehemiah x , 28, 34 ; xi., 20 ; I.
Chronicles ix., 2; II. Chronicles v., 5; xxiii., 18; xxx., 27; Isaiah Ixvi., 21;
Jeremiah xxxiii., 18), showing that, however it is to be explained, it certainly
does not mean that all Levites were priests or could be ; but undoubtedly it
meant that all priests were Levites of the tribe of Levi, as the history testifies.
There are only twenty-four places in the Old Testament where this phrase is
u: ed, and these may well be explained by the not unusual grammatical asyn
detic construction, where "conjunctions which serve to connect words and
phrases are omitted," as in Genesis xxxi., "yesterday [and] the day before";
Judges xix., -=, "a year [and] four months"; Habakkuk iii., n, "sun [and]
moon"; Nahum iii., r," it is full of lies [andj robbery " ; Isaiah Ixiii., n, " Moses
[and] his people"; Proverbs xxii., 21, "words [and] truth "; Zechariah i., 13,
" words [and] consolations " ; Exodus xxiv., 5, " offerings [and] peace-offerings "
These examples must suffice. To build up a theory of the Jewish priesthood on
this phrase used but twenty-four times in opposition to the clear and explicit decla
rations of both the law in the Pentateuch and the testimony of subsequent history
is erecting a pyramid on its apex.

144 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
ring to the early history of the colony of Plymouth.
That the Pilgrims had the Bible and ministers and
churches and regular services on Sunday, everybody
knows. William Bradford, for many years governor of
the colony, wrote a history of it down to 1646, or for
twenty-six years after the colony landed at Plymouth.
It makes an octavo volume of four hundred and forty-
four pages. I have looked through its pages to see
how he treats the subject of religion, — its ministry, its
church, its ordinances, its Bible. I may have over
looked some instances in which he speaks of them, but
I am confident they can be but few. He mentions
"the Lord's day" but twice; he speaks of "ministers"
but fifteen times; of the "church" but twenty times;
of "baptism" but once; and in every instance very
briefly. Four times he speaks of the "Scriptures";
four times of "the word of God"; and once of "the
infallible word of God," — evidently meaning in all'
these cases the Bible. There are repeated quotations
from the Bible, and its language is used frequently; and
sometimes the book and the chapter and verse are men
tioned from which the quotation is taken. And the
"gospel" is spoken of ten times as if the New Testa
ment was meant in distinction ftom the Old ; and once
"the pure Testament of Christ" is named, with evident
reference to the New Testament. There is one refer
ence to " neglecting hearing the word on the Lord's
day." The choice of a "pastor" is spoken of three or
four times. Two instances of setting apart a " day of
humiliation " are recorded. " Taxing for preaching " is
once spoken of. And yet this history is written in a
religious spirit, and "God's providence" is mentioned

FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 145
on almost every page. Now, the very brief Book of
Judges covers a period ten times as long as Bradford's
history does, and would give room for ten times less ref
erence to the ritual than Bradford makes to the Pil
grims' ecclesiastical affairs, were the book as large as
Bradford's ; but, if its size is taken into the account also,
there would be eighty times less chance in Judges to
treat of religious rites and books than in Bradford ; and
if Bradford does not speak of the Bible in any phrase
ology, under any name, but about sixteen times, how
many times could we expect Judges to speak of the
"Law of Moses," on the supposition that it was used
as freely and observed as scrupulously during that
period as the Bible was by the Pilgrims ? An answer to
this question gives the weight of the objection named
above, and it is found to be of no value. And, in farther
confirmation of this estimate of the little weight to be
attached to this objection, another cause of the infre
quent reference to the Law and its ritual is found in Dr.
Kuenen's Religion of Israel. He says (Vol. II., p. 293),
"A temporary abeyance of the ritual legislation is not
inconceivable" under "kings indisposed" to regard it.
Much more, then, may we suppose that its observance
was frequently held in "abeyance" during the stormy
times of the Judges, and the convulsions which at
tended the establishment of the monarchy.
If " amidst arms laws are silent," we should not ex
pect to hear anything of ritual observances during the
tumults of the Judges.
This would be the place to examine the evidence
which the Book of Deuteronomy furnishes of the ex
istence of the Book of the Law, the ritual code, were

I46 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
it not that the references to it are so intimately con
nected with the internal evidence, the second division
of my Study, as to make its examination at that time
most convenient and suitable. It must suffice, there
fore, to say here and now that the existence of some
such book or code is clearly implied, if not necessi
tated, by the laws quoted and amended, and the cere
monies modified and the demands withdrawn. These
will be fully examined and illustrated in due time, and
are of such a nature and so numerous as to bind all
the previous historical evidence back to a date as early
as the death of Moses.
We have now traced back through a period of over
a thousand years notices of a work containing the laws
which governed the Jews. We find that the various
names by which it is called, beginning with the New
Testament, in all the works which have come down to
our time, are repeated in an unbroken series back to
the time of Joshua. "The Law," "The Law of
Moses," "The Law of the Lord," "The Book of the
Law," " The Book of the Law by the hand of Moses,"
"The Book of the Law of the Lord," "The statutes
and commandments of the Lord," are used as names
to designate the Pentateuch from the days of Paul to
the days of Joshua. And, further than this, we have
found that the passages which are quoted by all this
series of writers from the book referred to under those
names are contained in the Pentateuch, and are often
quoted with verbal exactness, even when the language
of the Pentateuch is peculiar. And, still further, we
have found that peculiar words and phrases are used

FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 147
frequently in all these writings, which are most obvi
ously taken from "The Law," showing that it was a
book whose contents were as familiar to these writers
as the language of the New Testament is to the preach
ers of our day. In a word, we have found all the evi
dence that could be expected, and vastly more than is
found for the antiquity of any other writing of an age
even much less remote.
The whole atmosphere of these books is fragrant
with the incense which rose from the Law, and the
whole elaborate, magnificent ritual of the nation is
found imbedded in it. Our Pentateuch did exist in
their day. It must have existed, or all historical evi
dence is false and worthless.
It is hardly necessary to allude to an objection to the
early origin of the Pentateuch which was raised by a
former class of critics, and pressed with great vehe
mence. It was maintained that the art of writing, even
if known, was not sufficiently advanced to produce
such works as the Pentateuch as early as the time of
Moses. Modern discoveries, however, in Egypt and
Chaldea and Babylonia have removed all doubt that
writing was common in all these countries as early as
the age of Moses. The walls of the tombs and tem
ples of Egypt are adorned with representations of
scribes engaged in writing ; and a room has been
opened in one of the great palaces which is called a
"library," showing that works were collected for use.
Cloth, papyrus, skins, and stones were used for engrav
ing and writing. Rituals and financial documents of
almost every kind are found among the relics in the
tombs. In Chaldea and Babylonia, also, writings are

148 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
found on tablets of hardened clay, showing that poems
were written in the Ur of Abraham before he was born.
The Legends of Izdubar are about half as long as the
Iliad, and they were written five centuries before the
birth of Moses. And from that remote date, 2000
B.C., down, we have writings of every kind, — accounts,
deeds, biographies, histories, legends, etc., — demon
strating not only the possibility, but the probability
that the great law-giver of Israel would commit his
ritual and code to writing, as it is affirmed in the Pen
tateuch that he did. But I have lingered on this effete
objection longer than its inherent weight justifies ; yet
as an illustration of the baselessness of many other
objections, and of the confirmation of the antiquity of
the Pentateuch found in the abundance of books and
writings of various kinds of a far earlier date even, it
seemed necessary to say as much as this respecting it.
It may be expected that something will be said at
this point respecting the marvellous events which are
recorded in the historical portions of the Pentateuch.
As this Study is not exegetical, but historical, such an
inquiry does not fall within my subject; at least, I have
no occasion to treat of these marvellous events any
further than their record affects the question of the
age and origin of the Pentateuch. The historical book
of Genesis closes at least two centuries before the time
of the Hebrew law-giver, and is evidently composed of
such traditions, recorded and oral, as had come down
to his time. We have no conclusive proof that the
wonderful things there recorded are true, or that they
ever transpired ; and the contents of the book do not
in the' slightest degree weigh against the opinion that

FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 1 49
it was written or compiled in the Mosaic age, while
the " Archaic Language " was in use. I enter into no
speculation on this subject.* . . . Were these wonderful
events accurately recorded, and were they stupendous
miracles, the antiquity of the Pentateuch would not be
in the least affected by it, for that is proved in an en
tirely independent manner. Almighty power is amply
equal to doing what is here recorded ; and, if any one
chooses that interpretation of these remarkable events,
the way is open without in the slightest degree shaking
the conclusion, otherwise reached, of the age and
origin of the Pentateuch. . . .
It is hardly necessary to remind the intelligent
reader that passages have occasionally found their way
into the text which were at first only marginal notes
and explanations of names and places, — which has
happened to all ancient writings, and by no means
proves the composition of the work itself to have been
at as late a period as that of the note. A few speci
mens of these later notes will be given. Genesis xii.,
6, " And the Canaanite was then in the land." Gene
sis xiii., 7, "And the Canaanite and the Perizzite
dwelt in the land." These sentences were added after
the conquest. Genesis xxiii., 2, "In Kirjath-arba;
the same is Hebron." The last words were written
after the conquest, to define an ancient city. Another
passage shows that the interpolated note was not
written till after the monarchy was established : Gene
sis xxxvi., 31, "before there reigned any king over the
* In the present edition of this " study,'' one or two paragraphs, not essential
to the main argument, and "not closely connected with the subject," are
omitted, and two foot-notes are incorporated in the text. H.

150 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
land of Israel." The passage respecting the cessation
of the manna (Exodus xvi., 35) belongs to the same
class. Leviticus xviii., 28, " as it spued out the nations
before you," is evidently a note. Deuteronomy ii., 12,
contains another. So also Exodus vi., 20, and xi., 3,
unless, as is more probable, the whole account, Exodus
i.-xix., 25, was written later. "The meekness of the
man Moses," Numbers xii., 3, is clearly a marginal
note. These are specimens of the explanatory notes
which have found their way into the text. Their
parenthetical character most clearly shows that such
was their origin, and they raise hardly the slightest
antecedent presumption against the antiquity of the
original work.
. . . But it is time to return to the direct discussion
of my subject, which is not related except very re
motely to any of these questions, any more than the
age and authorship of Gulliver's Travels and Robinson
Crusoe are related to, or depend upon, the authenticity,
the truth of, the accounts recorded in them. The
contents may be incredible, but their age and author
ship may be indubitable. Things differing so widely
must not be confounded with each other.
Great stress is laid upon the fact by many writers,
and by Professor Smith in particular, that " anointed
stones" (Matstsebahs) were erected, and "carved im
ages " set up by kings and priests until the captivity,
and thus proving that the law against idol-worship was
not in existence. But it is evident that many of these
"anointed stones" and "carved images" were not
made for worship, and were forbidden by the law only
when worshipped. Not only were the curtains of the

THE MAKING OF GRAVEN IMAGES. 15 1
tabernacle " wrought with cherubim of cunning work "
(Exodus xxxvi., 8), but two cherubim were made of
pure gold to stand on either end of the mercy-seat in
the Most Holy place, on the Most Holy ark (xxxvii.,
10). The second commandment did not forbid mak
ing " carved images," but it forbid making carved work
or any images for worship (Exodus xx., 4, 5). When
Solomon erected his Temple, he not only covered the
walls with " carvings of cherubim and palm-trees and
open flowers," but he set up two pillars at the entrance
of the Temple, covered all over with carvings of vines
and pomegranates, and made a molten sea "which
stood upon twelve oxen," and "between the ledges
were lions, oxen, and cherubim," showing that Solo
mon did not interpret the law as forbidding making
images for ornament, but for gods (I. Kings vi.). If
any one should say that all this use of carved orna
ments, and images of beasts and fruits and vines,
shows either the absence of the law or its disregard,
let him turn to Ezekiel, and he will find that his ideal
temple is adorned in the same manner, as far as he
gives a particular description of it. Not only were
cherubim and palm-trees carved upon the walls of the
temple, but each " cherub had two faces, the face of a
man and the face of a young lion" (Ezekiel xii.). So
the great reformer and composer of the law, as some
maintain, did not hesitate to use " carved images " to
ornament his ideal temple, while in his law — for it is
maintained by some of these authors that Ezekiel
wrote Leviticus xvii.-xxvi. — he had absolutely forbidden
all images for any use. So evident is it that the

152 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
second commandment only forbade the use of images
as representing Jehovah, and set up for worship.
I have carefully examined all the cases of disregard
of the Levitical law referred to by Professor Smith,
which are recorded as taking place down to the time
of David and a little after, and find not one which is
not impliedly in violation of the law or excused on the
ground of the unsettled state of the nation, or growing
out of a false interpretation of the law itself. The
worship of strange gods in the time of Solomon, and
under his patronage, was not more antagonistic to the
Levitical law than was the worship of images under
the patronage of the Pope in the tenth century. The
universal prevalence of taking oaths all over Christen
dom, and the numerous grounds of divorce in all
Christian lands, would be greater evidence of the non
existence of the gospel history than the offering of
sacrifices by Samuel and Saul and Solomon is of the
non-existence of the Levitical law which permitted the
priests alone to offer them, — if indeed these men and
others did offer them, for often what one does by
another as his agent one is said to do himself, as
Solomon is said to have built the Temple, though he
hewed neither stone nor timber.

SECTION V. CONCLUSION OF THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.
Here I rest the historical evidence for the antiquity of
the Pentateuch. Were there no internal evidence in
support of the external, we should be obliged, by the
laws of historical criticism, to accept "The Book of
the Law of Moses " as originating in his age. That

CONCLUSION OF THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 1 53
the last four books, or portions of them, indirectly
profess to have been written in that age, is not dis
puted. The validity of this profession is sustained by
the internal as well as by the external evidence, as I
shall show. But, before examining it, I will quote some
of the opinions of leading liberal, not to say radical,
critics on the antiquity of portions, at least, and large
ones, of the books contained in the Pentateuch, that
the reader may see the extravagance of some re
cently broached hypotheses, and how very near these
able scholars come to sustaining the result of my own
historical inquiry.
De Wette says (§ 162, b.), " He [Amos] must have
had the Book of Genesis, in its present form, about 790
B.C." " Hosea (785 B.C.) affords us a trace of its ex
istence. He must have known the Book of Numbers, as
well as the original documents and later fragments of
Genesis." "Isaiah (759 B.C.) evidently refers to Gen
esis." And "Micah (725 B.C.) refers to Numbers and
Genesis." " The discovery of the Book of the Law in
the Temple, under Josiah's reign, about 624 B.C., re
lated in II. Kings xxii., is the first certain trace of the
existence of the Pentateuch in its present form " (§ 162,
a.). And he says (§ 12, b.), "Our present four books
of Moses originated in the time of Solomon," 1000
B.C. De Wette decides that "the Elohim document
was written in the time of Samuel or Saul " (1100 B.C.)
(§ 158), and the "Jehovistic document before the refor
mation under Hezekiah took place" (726 B.C.) (§ 159).
But this whole hypothesis of the use of Elohistic and
Jehovistic documents, especially after the Book of Gen
esis, is shown to be without sufficient reason, and all

154 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
conclusions drawn from it are therefore unreliable.
The "archaic" words and phrases which Ewald and
Gesenius and De Wette maintain are found in the
Pentateuch are as numerous in what are called the
"Jehovistic" documents as in the Elohistic; but the
former, according to De Wette, was written about three
hundred years after the latter. He says, "The Penta
teuch was completed about the time of Josiah" (§ 12, b.).
Dr. Davidson (Vol. I., p. 133) says, " The present
Pentateuch had been completed shortly before the
reign of Josiah" (641 B.C.), "in the reign of Manas
seh " (690 B.C.?) (p. 123). "The Book of the Law of
Moses, spoken of II. Kings xiv., 6, may or may not
have been the whole Pentateuch. The notice in ques
tion proceeds from the compiler of the Kings, who
wrote after the present Pentateuch was completed. . . .
In this passage, we understand the Book of the Law
to be coextensive with the Pentateuch" (p. 119). "The
same meaning may be assigned to the same phrase in
II. Kings xxii., 8, n, and II. Chronicles xxxiv., 14, 15,"
where Shaphan is said to have found " The Book of the
Law in the house of the Lord." And Dr. Davidson
goes so far as to say that it must have the same sense
in II. Chronicles xvii., 9, where it is said Jehoshaphat
(912 B. C.) sent out men to teach "the Book of the Law
of the Lord through all the cities of Judah." This
statement is made on the authority, as the writer of
Chronicles says, of what he found " written in the Book
of Jehu, the son of Hanani," whose works were a part
of " the book of the kings of Israel." On this admis
sion it is not easy to see why Dr. Davidson does not
also admit that the Pentateuch, at least, may have been

CONCLUSION OF THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 1 55
in existence at this time "in its present form." He
does say with emphasis that "it is impossible to assign
it to so late a date " as the time of Ezra (p. 122). He
also maintains that Moses wrote not only the com
mandments, Exodus xx., but also xxi.- xxiii., 19; xxv.-
xxxi. He further claims that Moses was the writer of
Leviticus i — vii., xi.- xvii., "which have the genuine
Mosaic stamp " very perceptibly. Numbers i. " exhibits
a minuteness, circumstantiality, and historical verisimil
itude which scarcely allow of a different writer. All is
natural on the supposition of their belonging to the time
of Moses. Chapter iv. belongs to the same times ;
x., 1-8, must be regarded as Mosaic ; xix. is a wilder
ness enactment. These are not the only parts of
the three middle books of the Pentateuch written by
Moses. The tabernacle was made in the wilderness,
and the Levitical legislation was Mosaic in its origin
and essence" (Vol. I., pp. 109-113). Here are about
thirty chapters attributed to the pen of Moses in Exodus
— Numbers by as radical a critic as Dr. Davidson.
Lengerke places the Elohistic document in the time of
Solomon and the Jehovistic in the time of Hezekiah.
Tuch places the Elohistic document in the time of
Saul, and the Jehovistic in the time of Solomon.
Stahelin places the Elohistic document in die time
of the Judges and the Jehovistic in the time of
Manasseh. Ewald, whose theory of documents was
peculiar and accepted by few or none, believed they
were all written before the end of the seventh century
B.C., and assumed nearly their present form (History
of Israel, Vol. I., p. 130). Some fragments, he thinks,
were pre-Mosaic; one large one as old as the begin-

156 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
ning of Samuel's jurisdiction; another larger portion
of the Pentateuch, which he calls by the name of the
" Book of Origins," was composed in the reign of Sol
omon, but all were written three hundred years before
the time of Ezra, to whose authorship the Dutch school
refer a large portion of them.
It will be observed that all these scholars who had
no theories of the evolution of religious ideas to support
remit the origin of the largest portion of the Pentateuch
to a very early period, and all of it to times before the
reign of Josiah, 640 B.C., or two hundred years before
the time of the return of Ezra. But the distinction
which these scholars make between the Elohistic and
Jehovistic portions of the last four books is chimerical,
as will be made evident. The " archaic " styte is as
obvious in the Jehovistic as in the Elohistic portion ;
and to date the one in the time of the Judges, as
Stahelin does, and the other in the time of Manasseh,
five hundred years later, is a leap in literary criticism
which cannot be imitated nor vindicated, and proves
conclusively the falseness of these theories. Were
there, therefore, no further or other evidence of the age
and probable author of the Pentateuch, I should feel
justified in claiming that its antiquity and authorship
were as fully proved as could be reasonably expected
when we consider the scant literature of these early
ages and nations. But more and more conclusive proof,
if possible, is waiting for admittance, derived from the
writings themselves.

PART II.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE.
To appreciate fully the force of the internal evidence
which I shall present respecting the age of the Penta
teuch, it is necessary to consider the circumstances
under which the external evidence raises the strongest
probability, if it does not prove, that it was written, and
the kind of composition, both in style and construction,
which under those circumstances we should expect to
find. According to the presumption raised by the external
evidence and their own profession, these writings, or
a large part of them, were composed during a period
of forty years in which the Jewish people were sojourn
ing in the region lying between Egypt and Palestine
or Canaan. They had just escaped — a portion at least
of them — as slaves from long and bitter servitude in
Egypt, and were on their way to take possession of the
land which their fathers had inhabited, and from which
they had emigrated some hundreds of years before into
Egypt. During this sojourn in the wilderness, they
received laws adapted to their condition, and directing
their occupation and mode of life and worship in the
country of which they were to take possession. Their
situation was peculiar, and peculiar regulations would
be needed for both their civil and religious, as well as
social, welfare. Difficulties would arise in the interpre
tation and execution of a new code of laws under new
circumstances. Rebellions would take place when any

158 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
special perils awaited the people or any disappointment
overtook them. We should expect in a book composed
under such circumstances that many minute incidents
then occurring would be related, many laws passed,
growing out of passing events, many difficulties re
corded in the execution of the laws, and growing out
of the contradictory character of some parts of their
theoretical and experimental legislation. We should
expect that the record of these years would be frag
mentary, journal-like, often abrupt in its statements,
disconnected, incoherent, omitting periods in which
nothing specially worthy of record transpired, recording
many things which have little interest to us, but which
were of great importance to them. Such would be the
character of the book if written under such circum
stances as I have supposed, and which are affirmed in
the book itself to be the circumstances in which it was
composed. Nor these marks only should we expect to find. The
book would have passed through all manner of perils
during the turbulent period of the judges and the es
tablishment of the monarchy, when it had no secure
place for preservation and would undoubtedly suffer
in the disarrangement of its parts, the loss of some of
them, the errors of any attempts at copying and cor
recting, the glosses of subsequent scribes to render old
expressions intelligible, old names modern, old customs
understood. We should expect to find, scattered all
through it, the explanations, additions, queries, of more
modern writers, such as the compliment to the " meek
ness " of Moses, the song at the old well, the modern
names of old towns and old professions.

EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 159
Let us now examine, the books, and see whether
the construction and contents of the Pentateuch do
not indicate pretty clearly such an origin ; whether it
does not "breathe the desert air"; whether the camp
and a nomadic state do not give form and coloring
to the whole work; and whether the language does not
contain archaic and obsolete words, and forms of
words, and use words in a peculiar sense, all of which
indicate a period much earlier than that in which the
remaining books of the Old Testament were composed,
and prove past successful refutation the Mosaic Age of
the work.
SECTION I. EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE.
I will first examine the proof of its antiquity to be
found in the Style and Language of the Pentateuch.
Respecting "the archaisms and other peculiarities of
the language " which are found in Pentateuch, De
Wette says, " All that can be proved [by them] is that
some of the fragments of which it is composed are earlier
than others." " And since the Book of Joshua, notwith
standing its affinity with Deuteronomy, does not possess
in common with it certain archaisms, we must admit
that a certain uniformity of language was observed and
established by the author or compiler." * Let the
reader mark two important affirmations : (1) There are
"archaisms and other peculiarities of language" in the
Pentateuch. (2) They are so marked as to distinguish
even the Book of Deuteronomy from the Book of
Joshua, in which they are not found. But, says De
•I 157.

160 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
Wette, " all that can be proved by these archaisms and
peculiarities of language is that some of the fragments
of which it [the Pentateuch] is composed are earlier
than others." Now, the fact respecting these " archa
isms and peculiarities " is that they are found in both
the so-called Elohistic and Jehovistic documents as
selected by De Wette himself. They are not limited
to any of these theoretical or real documents or frag
ments. They pervade the whole work. They make as
clear a distinction between the Pentateuch and all the
following books of the Bible as the contents of the
rocks do between the Eocene and the Miocene periods ;
and it is lamentable that he should have allowed him
self, when struggling with this objection to his theory
of the late origin of the Pentateuch, derived from its
"archaisms and peculiarities of language," to entirely
misrepresent the method and result of Jahn's Study
on this subject. He says,* "Jahn, without examining
and sifting, has huddled all together, . . . especially
[names of] things which do not occur elsewhere, — tech
nical terms." This is just what Jahn did not do, what
he especially avoided. He omitted all such words as
De Wette accuses him, in this quotation, of introduc
ing, as our subsequent notice of Jahn's method will
show. In § 34, De Wette says, " The oldest writers, the
authors of the Pentateuch, . . . write in the purest and
most beautiful language. . . . During the exile and
after it, the influence of the Aramaean language be
comes visible, as well as other peculiarities in the usage
of the language." Gesenius divides Hebrew literature
into two periods, that before and during and that after
*§ i57> Note a.

EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. l6l
the captivity. The " Aramaean tinges " all the second
period. " The Pentateuch belongs to the first period,
with Joshua and Judges and Samuel and Kings." And
what is unaccountable is that, after saying that "the
language and usage of the Pentateuch, in the historical
passages, agree perfectly with those of the other histori
cal books," he immediately continues : " However, the
Pentateuch has some peculiarities," which he concedes
may indicate " a high antiquity of these books." *
Gesenius obviously means by this that they are the
oldest in Hebrew literature, as the " archaisms " prove,
and consequently were not written in whole or in part
by Ezra. But Gesenius says more than this : " From
the circumstance that these idioms appear also in the
later Book of Deuteronomy, it is in the highest degree
probable that a conforming hand has been busy with
them." Mark the consequence of this "probability."
Deuteronomy is supposed to be the book found or
forged by Hilkiah. If so, as these critics maintain,
then "the archaisms and peculiarities of language,"
which it is affirmed distinguish the four other books of
the Pentateuch, Genesis — Numbers, had already gone
out of use, and rendered it necessary for the writer of
Deuteronomy to "conform" his style to those older
books, in order that his forgery might escape detection.
But if these books, Genesis — Numbers, were not writ
ten, as the Dutch school maintain, till during the cap
tivity and after it, why was it necessary that the writer
of Deuteronomy should feel compelled to " conform "
his style to that of books not in existence ? Indeed, to
ordinary minds, it does not seem possible that he could
*De Wette, Vol. I., Appendix D, § 8.

1 62 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
do it without miraculous foresight. And, more wonder
ful still, why should these forgers of the laws during
and after the captivity have taken so much pains to in
troduce these " archaisms and peculiarities " when there
was no old literature to show that they ever existed, no
older books considered sacred ?
In order, however, to justify his placing Deuteronomy
at a considerably later period than Genesis — Numbers,
Gesenius says : " A remarkably different style prevails in
Deuteronomy [from that in the earlier books]. Its most
remarkable characteristic consists in a certain diffuse,
rhetorical, and moralizing tone, and the constant re
turn of favorite phrases." That is to say, " its most
remarkable characteristic " is precisely that which dis
tinguishes an oration from a statute, an address from
an enactment. Deuteronomy is an oration, an address.
Exodus — Numbers are made up of "orders" and
" laws." They demand a different style from an ad
dress, and they have it. Yet the fragments of addresses
which are scattered through these earlier books are as
" diffuse, rhetorical, and moralizing in tone " as Deu
teronomy. There is nothing in the style of Deuter
onomy to separate it in age from the other books. The
different styles demanded by moral precepts and stat
ute laws and specifications for work and an address
fully explain and justify the difference between the
style of Exodus — Numbers and that of Deuteronomy.
Then, again, the mood of mind in which a person
writes, and whether he dictates or holds the pen, has
his extemporaneous address taken down by another or
writes it out afterwards himself, make a difference in the
same person's style which few critics appreciate. As I

EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 1 63
write, a notable instance of it comes to mind. It is in
Mr. Whipple's Memoir of Thomas Starr King* In an
interview with Mr. King, Mr. Whipple says : " I main
tained that he lost in compactness many of the advan
tages he gained in compass, — that his pen when placed
in his own fingers not only hit on the best word or
phrase to express his thought, but really deepened the
thought by the pauses which composition exacts. The
dispute culminated late one Sunday evening after he
had delivered a carefully premeditated lecture on Hilde-
brand. I recklessly offered to distinguish among the
promiscuous passages which were fresh in my memory
those which he had himself written from those he had
dictated to his amanuensis. Manuscript in hand, he
laughingly defied me to undertake the task. By good
luck, I happened to be right in every guess." Two
thousand years hence or less, some critic of this disin
tegrating school will be proving to admiring students
of " advanced thought " that this lecture on Hildebrand
is a composite work patched up by a later hand from
different authors !
As this matter of style has an important, not to say a
decisive, bearing on the age of the Pentateuch, I make
one more reference to the opinion of Gesenius. He
says, in his Hebrew Grammar, Introduction, 3 : " The
Pentateuch undoubtedly has some peculiarities of
language which may pass for archaisms," and then
proceeds to name a few which distinguish it from all
other literature before the captivity : " Jeremiah and
Ezekiel are examples of a decided approach to the
Aramaean hue of the silver age," or to the books written
•Page 58.

164 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
during the later period of the captivity and after the
return, " in all of which a Chaldee [Aramaean] coloring,
although in different degrees, is exhibited." He says
further, as quoted in Parker's De Wette* " As the
language appears at present in the writings of the Old
Testament, we can distinguish in them only two periods
distinctly marked by their character, — those writings
before the exile and those during the exile and after it."
On page 443, he says: "With the exile begins a new
epoch for language and literature, which is particularly
distinguished by an approach to the cognate East-Ara
maean dialect to which the Jews in the land of exile
became accustomed." And he further says, page 450 :
" Ezekiel stands on the borders of the two periods. . . .
He shares many peculiar terms and Chaldaic expres
sions with his contemporary, Jeremiah. But they are
more numerous in Ezekiel ; and, among all writers of
the Old Testament, perhaps he has proportionably the
greatest number of grammatical anomalies and inac
curacies." " Ecclesiastes is tinged most deeply with
Aramaean dye." This would seem to be conclusive
respecting the composition of any part of the Penta
teuch in this period or near it, and yet we are gravely
told by Dr. Kuenen that Leviticus xviii.-xxvi. was
written by this eminently Chaldeeizing Ezekiel.
Dr. Davidson says : " There are some peculiarities
in the Pentateuch . . . which were afterwards modified or
dropped. There are diversities between the language
as found in it, and the language some centuries after,
which can be recognized." " The Aramaean [Chaldee]
element is a characteristic feature which distinguishes
* Vol. I., Appendix D, p. 440.

EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 1 65
the language of this [later] period." " This deteriora
tion is observable even in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who,
in point of language, stand on the borders of the two
ages," that before and that after the captivity. " It is
still more noticeable in the post-exile prophets." * And
yet a school of critics contend that a portion of the
Pentateuch was written by Ezekiel, and, more incredible
still, that large parts of it were written by Ezra. Nine
years later, when Davidson was goaded into becoming
a partisan rather than a critic, he endeavors to parry
the force of the argument derived from " archaisms " in
favor of the Mosaic age of the Pentateuch by exposing
the extravagant claims of some of their advocates ; but
he says, "We do not say that there are no diversities
of language between the Pentateuch and later books."
The fact then remains that there is an observable differ
ence in the style of the Pentateuch from that of the later
books, and indicating an earlier age. And this is all
that is claimed. The more or less diversity is of no
vital importance.
Ewald, the great Hebraist, whose fanciful theory of
five or six writers of different portions of the Pentateuch
has not been accepted by critics, says, " These frag
ments," referring to the earliest, according to his classi
fication, " display many both rare and archaic peculiarities
in the usage of words " ; and he gives several in a note,
and remarks, "We find here, in proportion to the trifling
bulk of the passages, a great number of words which are
either wholly unknown elsewhere, or are not usual in
prose." t But the same holds true of all the portions
•Bit. Crit., Vol. I., pp. 15,18.
jHis.c/Is.,Vo\.l., p. 65.

1 66 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
or sections made by Ewald ; and these peculiarities all
disappear in the books following the Pentateuch, prov
ing that a period of considerable length must have in
tervened between the close of its composition arid that
of those books. I cannot understand how Hebrew
scholars can believe that the Pentateuch, so marked by
its " archaisms," could have been written after Joshua
— Kings (a large part of it even by Ezra), which are free
from them ; and these books were most certainly written
before the middle of the captivity, most of them before
its commencement, and some of them as early as or
earlier than the time of David.
The emphasis with which Ewald characterizes the dif
ference in the style of the Pentateuch and that of the
rest of the books written before the captivity (Joshua
— Kings) demands notice. "The first phenomenon,"
he says, " that strikes the observer here is the marked
difference in the language [of these later books] in com
parison with that of the preceding great book of the
primitive history [the Pentateuch]. Although both are
equally made up of passages by the most diverse writ
ers, yet on the whole each is distinguished by a peculiar
cast of language. Many fresh words and expressions
become favorites here [in Joshua — Kings] and sup
plant their equivalents in the primitive history [Genesis
— Deuteronomy] ; others that are thoroughly in vogue
here [in Joshua — Kings] are . . . avoided in the primi
tive history. But the most remarkable and pervading
characteristic is that words of common life, which never
occur to the pen of any single relater of the primitive
history, find an unquestioned reception here [in Joshua —
Kings]." " I have no hesitation in saying," he yet

EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 167
more emphatically affirms, " that the established usage of
centuries must have sanctioned for the primitive history
[the Pentateuch] a style of narrative and a cast of lan
guage utterly different from those customary in the his
tory of the Kings," in which Ewald includes Judges —
Kings. They " naturally created a new style of narra
tive and of language." * The italics are mine. Ewald
here affirms that for " centuries " the " primitive style "
of the Pentateuch existed before the writers of the later
books and literature lived. But we have good reason
to believe that we have remains of literature as early
as the time of David in some of the Psalms, to say
nothing of the probability that the Book of Judges and
portions of Samuel and all of Joshua may have been
written in his reign or shortly after, in none of which
are there any of the " archaisms and peculiarities of lan
guage " which are " utterly different from those custom
ary " in Joshua — Kings, and constituting a " new style
of narrative and language." But, according to the esti
mate of many modern critics, only about three centuries
intervened between Moses and David or Solomon, and
only about five, according to the earlier critics. Ewald's
" usage of centuries " reaches back easily to the time
of Moses in either chronology. To make as great a
change in the language as he affirms, that length of
time, in that age, would be required. The age of the
Pentateuch is thrown back, therefore, to the time of
Moses by the demand of its "utterly different" style from
that of the later books. For this " archaic style tinges "
all the different documents of which some critics think the
work is composed, as Ewald admits "even Deuteronomy
tobe."t * Vol. I., pp. 134, 135- t Page 135.

1 68 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
These opinions of eminent Hebrew scholars, with
which nine-tenths of the scholars in this country who
can read Hebrew agree, must suffice as proof of the
"archaic style" of the Pentateuch. A popular essay
like this is not the place for a minute exhibition and
criticism of these " archaisms and peculiarities of lan
guage." A few specimens only will be given, as indi
cations of their character, and illustrations of their
number and variety, in which the common reader may
be interested.
The most striking and obvious peculiarity in the style
of the Pentateuch is the use of the same word for the
singular pronoun in the third person of both genders,
he and she. In the rest of the Hebrew writings, a dis
tinction is always made and a different word is used for
the feminine pronoun she. Ewald himself admits that
" this is a proof which cannot be mistaken, in favor of
the high antiquity of the Pentateuch." And when we
remember that this pronoun is used nearly two hundred
times in the Pentateuch, and, with but eleven excep
tions, in the same form, the "proof" becomes decisive
that the book is older than any other Hebrew writings
which have come down to us ; hence older even than
the Psalms of David, in which no such " archaic " word
is found. The same remark may be made respecting
a word which in the Pentateuch is used twenty-five times,
and is applied indifferently to either a young man or a
young woman ; while in the other Hebrew writings the
feminine termination is added to distinguish the gender.
A peculiar form of the plural demonstrative pronoun
" these " is found in the Pentateuch. One phrase which
indicates strongly the very early origin of the book is

EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 1 69
that used to denote the death of an Israelite. He is
said " to be gathered to his people" ; while in the later
writings he is said " to be gathered to his fathers." The
nation not yet being settled in the land of promise, the
"fathers " are not spoken of. A peculiar word is used
in the Pentateuch to denote species, kind, of animals
and plants twenty-eight times, and is never used in later
writings, with but one exception, when Ezekiel (xlvii,, 10)
most obviously quotes the language of the Pentateuch,
Genesis i., 21. A peculiar phrase is used twenty-one
times to signify the relation of the sexes. Fourteen
times a peculiar word is used for lamb. A peculiar
word for laugh is used thirteen times, or rather a pecu
liar spelling of a word. A peculiar word is used fifty
times for goat which is never used for that animal in the
other books. A word is used for female twenty-one
times in the Pentateuch, and never in the other writings
except by Jeremiah (xxxi., 22), with evident reference
to the old usage. Nephesh is used eighteen times for
"creature" and but once elsewhere, Ezekiel xlvii., 9.
Such is a specimen of the " archaic " words and
phrases used in this book. Dr. Jahn, who made a
special examination of these " archaisms," after omit
ting all words which treat of subjects peculiar to the
Pentateuch, such as names of towns, villages, nations,
men ; of diseases and symptoms of diseases ; of blem
ishes in sacrifices, priests, men, and women; of parts
of the tabernacle, and its altars, curtains, and furni
ture, — in short, after the omission of all words which
were used to signify things or ideas not spoken of in
the later books, — found over two hundred words, used
from two to two hundred times each, which are peculiar

170 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
to the Pentateuch* When we consider the meagre
vocabulary of Hebrew words, this number is a very
large one, and is conclusive evidence that the book
was composed in a period remote from that in which
the other Hebrew books were written. " The few sol
itary Chaldaisms which occur in the writings of the
Golden Age," and which have been adduced as proof
of the modern origin of the Pentateuch, Gesenius says,
" may be accounted for by the fact that these books
passed through the hands of copyists whose language
was Chaldee." Besides, it is not certain that all these
so called Chaldaisms are such. " Some of them are
not found," says Gesenius, " in Chaldee, and seem to
have belonged to the Hebrew popular dialect." f
Looking at the language only, therefore, we are re
quired to refer the Pentateuch to an age as remote
as that of Moses. It is objected, however, to this
view of the age of the Pentateuch, that the language
must have undergone a greater change between the
*Yet in the face of all this conscientious and scholarly discrimination, De
Wette is rash enough and unjust enough to say that Jahn was utterly heedless
and undiscriminating in his selection of words.
t The latest statement which I have seen respecting the language of the Pen
tateuch is contained in a notice of a H istorico-Crilical Commentary on ihe
Language of the Elohist in the Pentateuch (by C. Victor Ryssel : 8vo, pp.
92; Leipzig, Fernan, 1878), in which it is said that "the result of the au
thor's laborious examinations is that only some parts of the Books of Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, contain peculiarities of language which point to a rather
late date of composition. These are the parts which, taken together, form the
so-called Priest's Code. But the greater parts of the Elohistic book, and the
weightiest, i.e., the historic and the supreme laws, are to be referred to the early
days of the literature of the Israelite people." Of the ability of this scholar to
decide on this subject, I have no knowledge. Accepting his decision as correct
respecting the fact of "certain peculiarities of language" in the ritual which
" point to a rather late date of composition," this would be expected ; for ritual
language survives all other, and would be used, when ritualistic matters were
treated of, long centuries after the ritual was composed and adopted.

EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 171
Mosaic Age, in which it is claimed that the Penta
teuch was written, and the age in which the remaining
books, Joshua — Kings, were written, than we find that
it has undergone in these books. If, however, Joshua
and Judges and a portion of Samuel were written in
the age of David or Solomon, as is most probable, only
about three hundred years intervened between their
composition and that of the Pentateuch, according to
the most commonly received chronology ; and, setting
their composition as late as that of the Books of the
Kings, but about seven hundred years separate them.
Now, it is well known that the early Oriental languages
do not change as rapidly as those in modern days.
The late George H. Smith, the eminent Assyriologist,
says :* " The texts of Rim-agu, Sargon, Hammurali, who
were one thousand years before Nebuchadnezzar and
Nabonidus, show the same language as the texts of these
later kings, there being no sensible difference in style to
match the long interval between them." These older
texts were of the age of Moses, according to the old
chronology, and just as much time elapsed between
their composition and the later texts as elapsed be
tween the time of Moses and the captivity, when the
Books of the Kings were written ; but, according to
the new chronology, the text of Rim-agu is three hun
dred years older than that of the Pentateuch.
The Egyptologists also testify to the slight changes
which took place in the early centuries in the language
of Egypt. In the Revue Arch'eologique (1867, unless my
reference is incorrect) is the following statement : " In
comparing the demotic papyrus with the romance of
•Vol. II., h-23-

172 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
the Two Brothers, even a superficial examination shows,
not only that the language and the formulae of the two
papyri, separated from each other by an interval of
some thousand years, are of the same kind, but also —
a point of most special interest — even the grammar has
not undergone the least change." Well might there
not have been any greater change in the Hebrew lan
guage of the time of Moses down to the time of the
captivity than we find when we compare the language
of the Pentateuch and that of the Books of the Kings.
There is a change, and as great as we should expect to
find under the circumstances, as great as the analogy of
other Oriental languages would lead us to anticipate.
The language of the Pentateuch is " archaic " ; sig
nally different from the earliest of the other writings,
and some of these date back to the time of David.
The time between Moses and David was none too great
to have wrought this difference. Governed by the lan
guage of the work, we must date the Pentateuch as
early as the Mosaic Age.
Nor can it be said with any ground of reason that
this " archaic language " in the Pentateuch is only the
" priestly idiom " which was used by the priestly forgers,
Hilkiah and Ezra ; for there is no proof that there was
any " priestly idiom." And, more than this, the writ
ings of the priests which have come down to us contain
none of these " archaic peculiarities." Jeremiah, Eze
kiel, Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah, all priests, write in the
degenerate language of the age of the captivity, and
use none of the " archaic " words which distinguish the
language of the Pentateuch from all the other books.
This they would not have done, had these peculiai
words been the special vocabulary of priestly men.

EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 1 73
Before dismissing a consideration of the language of
the Pentateuch, as furnishing an argument for its an
tiquity, it is necessary to consider an objection to this
conclusion which has been drawn from the marked
diversity of style in the books themselves. A sufficient
reply to this objection, so far as my argument is con
cerned, is that, however diverse the style of the differ
ent parts of these books may be, the style of all these
parts is " archaic," and hence they were written long
before Joshua — Kings. But I cannot admit that such
diversities of style as the objection implies are found in
the Pentateuch. Excepting the first eleven chapters of
Genesis, which contain some notices of the world before
the time of Abraham, and excepting several passages
in the remainder of Genesis, there is a unity of style as
clearly marked as in any writing by even one person,
spread over as long a period (forty years) and includ
ing as many different subjects, to say nothing of the
probability of the employment of scribes who would
naturally write in different styles while using the same
" archaic language." I have gone through the drudg
ery of examining all De Wette's divisions founded upon
what he is pleased to call diversities of style, and have
risen from the task entirely satisfied that there is no
good foundation for any such wide diversities as he
maintains are to be found, making it possible with any
degree of certainty to identify the different writers.
The self-contradictory nature of some of the rules by
which he professes to be governed, the different words
which in different sections he quotes as proving the
identity of the authorship of some sections and the dif
ferent authorship of other sections, are sufficient to lead

t^4 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
the student to suspect that a mistake has been made in
this portion of his Introduction ; and upon further and
closer examination he will find his suspicions changed
into firm conclusions that such heterogeneousness of
style, as is affirmed so decidedly to exist, is not to be
found in these books. But we will not be allured much
further from a positive consideration of our subject by
the fruitful field of criticism which opens before us in
this direction.
A very brief space only must be taken to illustrate
the fatuity of all such attempts to cull out the parts
which are attributed to the different hypothetical
writers. I use De Wette's fragments, who confesses
to following " Stahelin's plan." Did De Wette test this
plan by comparing it with the text ? It does not seem
possible. He says Exodus xvi. is from the Elohist
writer, yet God is called Elohim but once and Jehovah
twenty-two times. Chapter xx., 19-21, is Jehovistic,
and yet God is called Elohim three times and not once
Jehovah. Leviticus iii., 6, is called Elohistic, yet God
is called Jehovah. These are selected as Elohistic, yet
God is called Jehovah in all of them : Leviticus vi., 18 ;
vii., 20, 21 ; x., 15, used twice. Leviticus xiv., Jehovah
is used twenty-three times, Elohim once. Leviticus i.-
iii., Jehovah twenty-nine times, Elohim once; xvii.,
4-10, Jehovah seven times, Elohim not once; xix., 8,
34, Jehovah in each; xxii., 3, Jehovah twice; xxiv., 16,
22, Jehovah in both; xxvii., 9, n, 16, 21, 22, 28, Jeho
vah eight times and Elohim not once in these later ref
erences. Let us look into Numbers i.-x. : Jehovah is
used ninety-nine times, Elohim once J xviii., Jehovah
sixteen times, Elohim not once; xx., 1-13, Jehovah

EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE.

I?S

seven times, Elohim once ; xxv., 1-18, Jehovah six
times, Elohim once. These are sufficient illustrations
of the complete unreliableness of this attempt to parcel
out these books, Exodus — Numbers, among different
authors on this use of the names of God. Further
exposure was made of the attempt in the Review of
Kuenen, p. 71.*
* The utter futility of all attempts to separate the Levitical or priestly parts
of the middle books, Exodus — Numbers, from the rest of the writing, will be
best understood by the reader from the disagreements of the scholars who have
attempted to separate them. I will give the parts selected by Nbldeke, as
quoted by Prof. Smith, pp. 432, 433, and as selected by Stahelin, as quoted in
r'arker's De Wette, Vol. II., pp. 106-130.
For greater ease in comparing them, I will tabulate their selections. The
verses selected are often not connected.

Exodus,

chapter

i-,

Ntildeke

9

verses;

Stahelin

22

-

a

ii-
vi..
vii.,

<«

27 -si
"
ti
a
3
30 7
(I
tt
viii., ix.xi.,
xii.,
II II
It
7iS2
37
It
41
tttttt
a
0 0
0
42
((
it
u
xiii., xiv. XV.
1
((
3
¦S3 2i
-2
it it
n it
4
00
utt
tt
it
it
(i
XX.
xxvi.
xvi.
xvii.. xix.,
-xxiv. ,
,-xxxi. ,
T7
If
(( (1
36 \t> 2
3
all
tttttl
tt K
00
118* all
"
"
xxxv. -xl.
II
all
"
"
all
Leviticus.
, "
i
,-xxvi.,
. z
"
all but 48
"
t(
all
(<
«'
xxvii.
'I
all
(«
"
allt
Numbers
t
i.-viii., ix.-x.;
222S
K
all
all
«
<(
4 verses more
g verses more
u
"
xiii.,
"
19 3'
¦2
"
"
all
? De 'Wette and Parker differ from both Noldeke and Stahelin and from each other.
, Parker utterly objects to both.
176 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
I cannot close this already extended discussion of the
" archaic language " of the Pentateuch as proof of its
high antiquity, without saying that my reading of the
Hebrew and my examination of the discussion of the
eminent critics quoted above compel me to make three
periods of the language of the Old Testament Script
ures : The first covering the Pentateuch ; the second,
Joshua — Kings ; the third, Chronicles — Esther. The
poetical books belonging to the second and third periods
can be nearly as easily distinguished as the historical.

Numbers,

chapter

xiv.,

Noldeke

23 verses ;

Stahelin

all

"

11

xvi.,

"

7 3-2

II

"

all

<«

ii

xvii. -xix.,

it

all

"

n

confused

(i

«

XX.,

ft

i8£

If

tt

confused

ii

it

xxi.,

tt

2^

tt

(<

0

K

tt

xxii.,

tt

1

"

it

0

((

tt

xxv.,

ti

18

((

"

0

tt

a

xxvi.,

"

siH

(1

it

65

"

it

xxvii.,

it

all

tl

"

all

tf

k

xxviii.,

11

0

tt

ti

all

tt

k

XXIX.,

11

0

tt

it

all

tf

(i

XXX.,

it

14

"

ii

16

tt

<i

xxxi.,

it

all

it

ci

all

"

"

xxxii.,

"

23^

tl

tt

32

11

• t

xxxiii.,

tt

5°

It

u

49

tt

** xxxiv.-xxxvi.,

<(

all

ti

ti

all

Decided dissent is expressed by both De Wette and Parker from many of
these selections, which I did not think it necessary to note. Prof. Smith says,
" Nbldeke's table is generally accepted as careful and correct in essentials ."
De Wette says, " Stahelin's is, as a whole, certainly correct! " The italics are
mine. Comment is unnecessary. But that the reader may see what this table
does not show, the manner in which these verses are selected by Nbldeke, I will
give a few specimens as furnishing farther proof of the imaginary line which
separates the verses chosen and the verses left. Exodus i., 1-5, 7, 13, 14; ii.,
23, 24, 25; xiii., 1, 2, 20; xii., 1-23, 28, 37, 40-51 ; xi., 9, 10; Numbers xvi., 1,
half of 2, 3-1 j, 16-23, part of 24, 26, 27, 35; xxxii., 2 (3?), 4-6, 16-32, part of
33, 40. These specimens must suffice. Any reader can turn to the Bible, and
judge whether there is any ground for selecting just these passages. I have no
fear of the result. See Note A, p. 231.

EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 1 77
SECTION II. EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE.
Were there, therefore, no other evidence of the age
of the composition of the Pentateuch, its archaic lan
guage would be sufficient to determine it. But there is
other evidence corroborative of this, and also adding its
own independent weight to the same conclusion. This
evidence is found in the contents and structure of the
books of the Pentateuch, and determines their age as
certainly and as evidently as the contents and structure
of the rocks determine their age. The contents and
structure of the Silurian rocks no more surely prove
their deposition to have been before the Devonian than
the contents and structure of the Pentateuch prove it to
have been written before any other books in the Bible.
Another internal argument in favor of the antiquity
of the Pentateuch is found in the journal-like character
of the work itself. It is in precisely the form it would
have been in, had it been written under the circum
stances commonly believed to exist at the time of its
composition. It is fragmentary and abrupt, relating
incidents in such a manner and form as to induce the
belief that the writer was on the spot and narrated what
he saw, and his own feelings under the circumstances.
To fully appreciate this characteristic of the Penta
teuch, or the last four books of it, we must go into
particulars, which will show very clearly that they were
composed on the spot where the transactions recorded
transpired. I. I will first refer to the occurrence of unexpected
difficulties which arose, making it necessary to amend or

I7B A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
repeal laws which had been previously enacted. A
marked instance of this nature occurs respecting the
law of inheritance in accordance with which none but
sons could inherit the real estate of the father; and
specific regulations were made respecting the manner
in which it should be divided. But, when the tribes
were about to enter upon possession of the promised
land, the daughters of Zelophehad came forward, and
stated that their father had left no sons at his death,
and therefore that their father's portion of the land
would go out of the family. They pray, therefore, that
a possession may be given them among their brethren.
To meet this emergency, Moses enacts a new, or rather
amends the old, law. He enacts that, " if a man die
and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to
pass unto his daughter." And farther provisions are
made in case no daughter should survive (Numbers
xxvii., i-n). If we turn forward nine chapters, we
shall find that this new law was found to be as defec
tive as the old one, but in another direction. It was
the intention of Moses that no part of the inheritance
of one tribe should pass into the possession of another
tribe. But these daughters of Zelophehad were pro
posing to marry into another tribe, — not into that to
which their father belonged. This caused the children
of the other families of the tribe to make complaint to
Moses that his amendment to the old law, which gave
the inheritance to the sons only, and giving it, in case
of no sons, to the daughters, would disinherit their tribe
of a part of their estate, since these daughters of
Zelophehad were about to marry out of the tribe, and
thus take their father's inheritance with them. Moses

EVIDENCE FkOM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 1 79
saw the conflicting nature of both the original law and
his amendment, and he amended the amendment by en
acting that, in all cases, " every daughter that posses-
seth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of
Israel shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe
of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy
every man the inheritance of his fathers." Let, there
fore, the daughters of Zelophehad " marry to whom
they think best ; only to the family of the tribe of their
fathers shall they marry " (Numbers xxxvi.). Thus,
after three experiments, the law is perfected, and the
details of the cause of these changes are given as if
written on the spot. Would a compiler of the laws of
the Hebrews in the time of Ezra have thus stated this
matter ? It is very improbable, not to say incredible.
Another incident is related, showing the imperfect
character of the first enactment, and how, from time to
time, laws were added to meet these new emergencies.
A man was found violating the Sabbath by picking up
sticks (Numbers xv., 32). The law had forbidden all
work. A man is found violating the law : how is he
to be punished? Moses adds a new section to the
law containing the penalty for violating the Sabbath.
Stone him with stones without the camp. Here we see
clearly that a history of the origin of the penalty is
given, which would not have been given by a compiler
of a later age. The same is true of the law against
blasphemy (Leviticus xxiv., 10-23) t0 be noticed soon.
The change which was made in the law respecting
usury indicates the journal-like character of the Penta
teuch. It is first enacted (Exodus xxii., 25) that no usury
shall be taken of the poor, as it would be oppressive ;

180 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
but it is distinctly implied that it might be taken of the
rich. Just as the tribes were to enter Canaan, thirty-
eight years after, we find that this law is so modified as
to forbid the taking of usury from any Hebrew (Deut
eronomy xxiii., 19). It had been found, probably, that
very little money would be loaned to the poor with
out usury, when it could be loaned to the rich with
usury. All usury of Hebrews is therefore now forbidden.
But another curious change is found in these usury laws
respecting strangers who came to dwell among the He
brews. Soon after the people left Egypt, it was enacted
that no usury should be taken of the poor of their own
people, but of the poor of other people who had come
among them nothing is said. In about two years, just
before the people leave Sinai, a more stringent law is
passed respecting usury (Leviticus xxv., 35) ; and stran
gers are included in it, and especially those who had
been overtaken by calamity and had lost their property.
Just before entering Canaan (Deuteronomy xxiii., 19),
we find that the law forbidding usury when loans were
made to sojourners and strangers is repealed. It is
very easy to see why a writer on the spot should insert
all these particulars ; but it is not easy to see why a
later writer giving a compend of the law should have
inserted all these minute matters, or indeed how he
could have known them unless some one had written
them at the time, and the later writer had used his
journal. The old law was found upon trial to be im
perfect : an amendment was enacted, and inserted in
the book containing the legislative proceedings, as is
done at this day.
An unforeseen difficulty arose respecting the passover

EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. l8l
(Leviticus xxiii., i). Every Israelite was bound by the
original law to keep the passover on the fourteenth day
of the first month, and a heavy penalty rested upon
him who failed to obey it. Yet it was equally perilous
for a person ritually unclean to minister in any sacred
rite. In Numbers ix., we have the record of such a
conflict in the laws. " Certain men who were defiled
by the dead body of a man," so that they could not
keep the passover, came to Moses and Aaron and in
quired what they should do. Moses saw the conflict in
the laws, and enacted that they, and all persons who
should hereafter be in their situation, might eat the
passover on the fourteenth day of the second month, re
garding, at the same time, all the ceremonies which
were required of those who ate it in the previous
month. A long series of amendments is found in Deuter
onomy to adapt laws, many of which were designed
for a camp and nomadic life, to the settled, agricultural
condition of the people in Canaan. In camp, they were
required to kill their animals for food at the tabernacle,
that the priests might see that no idolatrous rites were
performed with the blood and entrails : in the land of
their inheritance, they could kill animals for food at
their own homes. Tents were to be exchanged for
houses, and laws respecting their construction and
purification are enacted.
A difficulty arose respecting the penalty to be in
flicted on one of that " mixed " race which came out of
Egypt with Israel. A son of an Israelitish woman and
of a man of Egypt had a fray, blasphemed and cursed.
He is kept in ward till his case could be inquired into ,

182 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
and it is at last determined, after careful inquiry, that
he should be put to death as an Israelite must be who
had committed the same crime (Leviticus xxiv., 10-23).
Such changes, additions, and amendments in the laws,
made to meet emergencies apparently unforeseen, most
certainly indicate a writer on the spot, and not a histo
rian of remotely succeeding generations.
II. But this Book of Deuteronomy and the light
which it throws upon the age of the Pentateuch de
mand a thorough examination, as so much misappre
hension exists concerning both.
Dr. Kuenen affirms that the forger of Deuteronomy
intended to deceive the people, and that "men used to
perpetrate such fictions without any qualms of con
science." * De Wette says : " The author of Deuter
onomy would have us regard his whole book as the
work of Moses" (Parker's De Wette, Vol. IL, p. 159).
Davidson says, " A late writer represents the whole of
Deuteronomy, or at least chapters iv., 44-xxx., as pro
ceeding from Moses' hand." ..." The deception was
an innocent one, being merely a veil or form for
communicating and enforcing lessons of importance ! "
Indeed, all supporters of this theory admit that
Deuteronomy is a flagrant forgery. Yet they are
compelled to admit, also, that the writer had before
him many older documents containing laws ancient
and venerated. I propose to show how the laws given
at Sinai, forty years before, were amended on the east
bank of the Jordan by the original law-giver, and thus
prove by its contents that the address of Moses is not
a " fiction " written eight centuries later, but a substan-
•Vol. II., p. 18.

EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 183
tially correct report of a real transaction. In Deuter
onomy xii.-xxvi., we have a series of additions and
amendments to previous laws, all based upon new circum
stances or defects discovered in the original enactment, none
of them affecting the fundamental law of the nation.
It would require more space than I can take, and more
patience in the reader than can be assumed, to quote
or refer to all the changes made and the reasons for
them ; nor is it necessary for my argument to do so.
A few must suffice as indicating the rest. I give the
following as average illustrations of all of them : Per
mission is given to the people to kill animals at their
own homes instead of at the door of the tabernacle.
Secretly enticing to idolatry is made a capital crime.
Idolatrous cities are to be razed to the ground.
Mourners are not to shave between the eyes. A dead
carcass may be sold to an alien. The animals that
may be eaten are named. When the distance is " too
great to carry the tithe of corn and wine and oil and
the firstlings of thy herds and flocks" to the place
which God shall choose, "then thou shalt turn it into
money " to use at the place chosen. Payment of debts
is not to be enforced in the Sabbatical year from the
poor. Slaves are to be emancipated on the seventh
year. Female slaves are to have the same rights as
males : they are to be provided for, when bearing, by
their master. Judges are to be appointed in all cities.
Regulations are made respecting a king. An addition
is made to a priest's perquisites. A test of a false
prophet is given. Minute regulations are made re
specting cities of refuge. Landmarks are not to be
changed. Two witnesses are to be required for " any

184 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
iniquity" as well as for "murder." A false witness is
to be punished as the criminal, if guilty, would be.
Regulations are given for drafting soldiers for war.
Trees are not to be destroyed when besieging cities.
The treatment of a town in case of uncertain murder
is described. Conditions of marrying a female cap
tive are given, etc. There are over sixty amendments
and additions to the law as contained in Exodus —
Numbers, in these chapters, and they are such as
one having the original laws before him would, under
the circumstances, have made ; but it appears incred
ible that one having the laws of Deuteronomy before
him could have- composed those of Exodus — Num
bers, as the theory assumes.
Again, the indirect quotations of the original laws
and references to them contained in Exodus — Num
bers, by the speaker in Deuteronomy, in connection
with the amendments and additions which he makes,
are of such a kind as to compel the belief that Exo
dus — Numbers were in the hand of the speaker; at
any rate, they raise a violent presumption that these
books were already written, and their contents well
known to the Deuteronomist.
In about a dozen places, the speaker in Deuteron
omy quotes from what God " had commanded " or
" said," and his quotation or reference is found in the
previous books. In some instances, the quotations are
verbal ; in others, free, but including a peculiar word or
phrase, as not to " lift up " an iron tool on building an
altar (Deuteronomy xxvii., 5=Exodus xx., 26); to drive
out the Canaanites " little by little " (Deuteronomy
vii., 22=Exodus xxiii., 30); God is a "jealous God"

EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 185
(Deuteronomy iv., 24= Exodus xx., 5) ; thou shalt not
wear a garment of " divers sorts " (Deuteronomy xxii.,
n=Leviticus xix., 9). Some of these words and
phrases are used only in the passages quoted. These
quotations are sufficient to indicate the character of
the rest of the passages, and the reader can judge of
their weight in this argument. To an unbiassed critic
who had no theory to support, they alone would seem
to be decisive of the whole question. But lest some
readers should still hesitate to accept this conclusion
on the testimony of these passages, I will trespass
upon the patience of others by quoting a few more
passages which must remove the least shadow of
doubt. In Deuteronomy i., 16-18, Moses says the
"judges shall not respect persons in judgment, but ye
shall hear the small as well as great, and judge right
eously between every man and his brother. ... I com
manded you at that time [' whilst at Horeb '] all the
things which ye should do." In Leviticus xix., 15,
is the original law. In Deuteronomy iii., 18, Moses
says, addressing the tribes which were to settle on
the east side of Jordan, " I commanded you at that
time, saying, Ye shall pass over armed before youi
brethren," and help them subdue the land first. This
command is in Numbers xxxii., 20-23. In Deutei
onomy xi., 22-25, in order to encourage the people ta
go up and take the land, Moses reminds them, that the
" Lord hath said that he will drive out all these na
tions from before you." This saying of the Lord is in
Exodus xxiii., 27-29. In Deuteronomy xviii., 2, he
says, " The tribe of Levi . . . shall have no inheritance
among their brethren ; the Lord is their inheritance, as

l86 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
he hath said unto them " ; and he said it in Numbers
xviii., 20. In Deuteronomy xx., 17, Moses repeats the
"command of the Lord" contained in Exodus xxxiv.,
11, to drive out or exterminate the " Hittites and the
Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hiv-
ites and the Jebusites," from the land. In Deuter
onomy xxiv., 8, Moses directs the people "to take
heed in the plague of leprosy to observe diligently and
do according to all that the priests the Levites shall
teach you : as I commanded these, so ye shall observe
to do." This " command " is found in Leviticus xiii.,
14.* •Awriterin the Unitarian Review, October, 1880, p. 303, after reci..ng the
stoning of Achan's children, with their father, for his sin, and the hanging of
seven of Saul's sons for the sin of Saul in slaying the Gibeonites, says, "If they
had had the law of Deuteronomy, * The children shall not be put to death for the
father,' " Joshua would not "have killed Achan's innocent children," nor David
" have hanged the seven innocent sons of Saul." Perhaps they were no better
interpreters of the Law of Moses than the Supreme Court of the United States,
headed by the profound Chief Justice Taney, when he said, "The negroes had 1.0
rights which a white man was bound to respect " ; and, possibly, the apparent con
flict of laws may have puzzled the poorly educated jurists, Joshua and David,
for the so-called ten tables announced that their God was " a jealous God, visiting
the iniquity oj the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth genera
tion of them that hate him.'' If, under the light of the nineteenth century, the
highest court in the United States could announce such an opinion as Chief
Justice Taney's, may not Joshua have been mistaken three thousand years
before? More remarkable still, two opposite decisions were made by the same
court within about a year, touching a more vital point in the Constitution, — the
constitutionality of the legal-tender law raising paper money to an equality with
gold. Different interpretations of a law are so far from proving that there is no
jaw that they prove its existence past all question.
It may not be inapposite to remind the reader that different interpretations are
very frequently given of law by different administrations, and that laws for
generations obsolete or remaining unenforced are revived and enforced, as jut>t
at this time the English law of eviction, which has been obsolete for two centuries,
is being enforced in Ireland, or as an old law of Maryland has just been dis
covered, which requires the tongue of a Unitarian, one who denies the Trinity, tu
be bored through with an iron, which never was enforced and whose existence
surprises the present generation.
He also objects that two different reasons would not have been given for keeping

EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 187
But I must refrain from quoting further. Reasonable
readers have rights which unreasonable ones are bound
to respect. If these passages are not conclusive and
do not remove the last shadow of a reasonable doubt,
then the presence and testimony of Moses himself
could not dispel it. The author of Deuteronomy was
familiar with the preceding books, or historical ques
tions are incapable of settlement.
So evident are these references, and so numerous,
that even Dr. Davidson admits that " it is possible that
the successive laws may have been given by Moses,
the Sabbath in Deuteronomy v. and Exodus xx. by the so-called Origtnist, the
former because of release from Egyptian bondage, the latter because of God's rest
from creating. But would the Originist writing after the Deuteronomist, with
whose reason he was familiar and the people also, and which would be so pleasant
to them, have giyen another and obviously much less touching and humane
reason ?
The same writer affirms that Deuteronomy and the historical books take a
wholly different view of the sacerdotal tribe and the priesthood from Exodus —
Numbers {Unitarian Review, p. 307). He says that in Joshua — Kings the
restriction to sacrifice to the family of Aaron is unknown. This objection has
been fully answered in the text. In some cases the law may have been violated
by supposed necessity, in others priests may have been officiators, but not named.
Quid facit per alium facit per se ; and so far is it from being true, as this
writer affirms, that Ezekiel is the parent of the priestly legislation, that he is
perpetually referring to and quoting the laws relating to sacrifices already in
existence, as I have most fully illustrated.
The same writer affirms in italics, on page 305, that the " Deuteronomist is unac
quainted with the Book of Origins," or the main portion of the other books of the
Pentateuch, and appeals to Deuteronomy xii., 8, and Leviticus xiv., 8, 9, to prove
it. In Deuteronomy, referring to the change in their condition consequent on the
people's passing over Jordan, the writer says, " Ye shall not do after all the things
that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes," — that is,
regarding the law as best you can in your migratory condition. But, in Leviticus,
the Originist, so called, says that he who regardeth not the law of sacrifice
referred to " shall be cut off from among his people." But if the Originist wrote
after the Deuteronomist, as is maintained, wo^ild he h?ve written that it was a
law given on the mount to Moses by Jehovah, when the Deuteronomist had
written that there was no such law in existence according to these interpreters ?

188 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
from the first code at Sinai till the time of his death in
Moab; the legislation being supplemented, enlarged,
modified, altered as circumstances arose." * And he
also admits, respecting Deuteronomy, that " it is pos
sible indeed to conceive of Moses, provided he wrote
the preceding books of the Pentateuch, giving a survey
of the historical circumstances through which he had
passed at the head of the Israelites, and modifying or
abrogating such enactments as would be unsuitable to
the people when they had obtained possession of the
promised land." f " There is no doubt," he says, " that it
[Deuteronomy] is built on the historical facts embodied
in the former parts of the Pentateuch. It alludes to
them throughout. Yet it is still possible . . . that his
[the author's] acquaintance with them may have been
borrowed from oral tradition." But, only two pages
further on, Dr. Davidson says : " These proofs [filling
three pages] of the Deuteronomist's acquaintance with
the four preceding books might be multiplied, since
almost every chapter presents some indication, however
slight, that written documents were employed by him." J
Now pass on seven pages further, and we find Dr.
Davidson saying, "The Deuteronomist found the first
four books made up in their present form of two or more
leading documents, and terminating with Moses' death."
Comment on such criticism is unnecessary. Dr. Ku
enen, who maintains that the chief portion of Exodus
— Numbers was not composed till two centuries after
Deuteronomy, must settle the matter as he can with Dr.
Davidson, who affirms that the "four books," Genesis
•Vol. I., p. 75. t Vol. I., p. 253.
tVol. I., pp. 386, 387. The italics are mine.

EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRVCTURE. 189
— Numbers, "in their present form," were in the
hands of the Deuteronomist.
III. Another evidence of the time and place and
manner of writing these books and enacting these laws
is found in Deuteronomy xxviii.-xxx. compared with
Leviticus xxvi. At the conclusion of the residence at
Sinai, when the code and ritual had been given, Moses
exhorts the people, Leviticus xxvi., to obedience, as
they were soon to be settled in the promised land, by
all the motives which c6uld influence a patriotic and
religious people. He pictures before them all the
blessings of peace and all the luxuries of prosperity
consequent upon obedience, and all the desolations
of war. and the horrors of famine and plague which
will follow disobedience. It was as natural as fit that
then and there such an earnest and ardent and admon
itory address should be made. But the people did
not enter the land as was expected. They wandered
about for thirty-eight years, till nearly all who heard
the address had forgotten it or were dead. We are not
surprised, therefore, to find, as the people were about
to enter the land after their long wanderings, and as
their great leader could not pass over with them, that
he again addresses them at even greater length and
with supreme earnestness. The same principles are
clothed in more glowing language, and are warmed
with a patriot's anxiety and importunity. The time,
the circumstances, give coloring to the words spoken.
Accept the historical account as correct, and both
speeches find their place and justification. Deny the
reliableness of the history, and either the one or the
other of the speeches is superfluous, and its origin can-

ItjO A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
not be accounted for, nor the location of the one in the
Book of Leviticus justified. The internal evidence of
the age and origin of the Pentateuch, derived from the
construction, contents, and repeated references to the
other books, and the amendments and repeal of laws
contained in them, the enactment of new laws de
manded by the changed conditions of the people, as
exhibited in Deuteronomy, would of itself justify the
belief of the Mosaic Age of these books.
But there is more evidence of the same kind con
tained in the description of the condition of the people,
and the enactment of new laws, and the amendment of
old ones, thirty-seven years before, when the people
were about to enter Canaan from Kadesh, as written in
the Book of Numbers to which we must now turn our
attention.* IV. The fourteenth chapter of Numbers closes ap
parently the account of the residence of the people at
Kadesh after the repulse of the revolutionary attempt
to force their way into Canaan. No further account is
given of them till they appear again at Kadesh in the
desert of Zin, thirty-seven years afterwards. Of this
period, we know nothing except the list of stations where
they encamped, given in the thirty-third chapter, and
the modified or new laws, given in chapters xv. - xix.,
including the rebellion of Korah. I propose now to
examine these chapters to see what light they throw
upon the age and authorship of the Pentateuch.
These regulations were made with express reference to
*A writer in the Unitarian Review, October, 1880, page 302, says: "The
Deuteronomist could not have known the Levitical law as we now have it. ... He
flatly contradicts many of its most positive statements." The repeal of some of
the old laws and the enactment of different ones, as shown above, rather proves
a familiarity with them.

EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. Igt
the wants of people when settled in the promised land, and
when they were supposed to be about to enter it. " When
ye come into the land of your habitations," says Moses,
you will regard the following laws. As the history re
cords, it was supposed by Moses as well as by the
people that they were to enter at once upon their inheri
tance ; and therefore he had so improved the original
code as to better adapt it to their new condition. There
is no reason to suppose he would have made these addi
tions and amendments, as recorded in the fifteenth chap
ter, now, if he had known they were to be wanderers in
the wilderness one generation, or thirty-seven years
longer. The history implies the reason why these laws
were made then, and the implication of immediate en
trance "into their habitations" contained in the pub
lication of such laws confirms the authenticity of the
history, and shows the journal-like style of the work.
The fifteenth chapter was written evidently before the
repulse took place, and the rebellion was punished by
the denial of that generation to enter the land.
Do the laws themselves, as compared with other
laws, throw any light upon the origin of these books ?
Chapter xv., 1-16, extends the regulation respecting
strangers at the passover to all the sacrificial ritual, as if
the people were to be so situated that strangers would
be very likely to join them more frequently than they
had done before ; and, most obviously, strangers would
be more numerous when they were settled in the land.
Again, the quantity of flour and oil and wine is specified
for each offering of a lamb or of a ram or of a bullock,
as if there would be hereafter no lack of flour and oil
and wine as there was in the desert, when the quantity

IQ2 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
for an offering was not specified (Leviticus ii.), — indi
cating that they were about to change a nomadic for
an agricultural life.
Numbers xv., 17-21. This law of the "heave offer
ing" of a "cake of the first of the dough," with grain
taken from the " threshing floor," is new, and implies
that they were soon to be husbandmen. No such cere
mony of thankfulness could have been observed in the
desert. Numbers xv., 22-29. " A kid of the goats " is added
to the sin-offering for sins of ignorance of the congre
gation (Leviticus iv., 13-21). The cause of this addi
tion does not appear. But emphasis is laid on the
obligation of " the stranger that sojourneth " with them
to obey this law, as if more such persons would be
likely to be among them. This is new. Numbers xv.,
30-36. The presumptuous sinner is to " be cut off
from among his people" ; and a case of such presumpt
uous violation of the law of observing the Sabbath is
brought before Moses, and he decides that the form of
"cutting off from the people," or that capital punish
ment, shall be stoning. This law and the form of the
penalty are both new.
Numbers xv., 37-41. The law requiring the wear
ing of " fringes on the borders of their garments " is
new. This law, unlike the others, does not include
" strangers," as it indicates race. There is nothing in
either this law or the one before to indicate the time in
which they were made ; but their connection with the
others • raises a strong presumption that they were en
acted at the same time, and before the repulse on " the
hill even unto Hormah " and the rebellion of Korah.

EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 1 93
Numbers xvi. contains an account of the rebellion
of Korah and Dathan and Abiram and On, — the
first a Levite, the other three Reubenites. That a
second rebellion should have sprung up just at this
time among the chief men, since Moses and Aaron had
failed to take them into the promised land and were
about to lead them back into the desert, is very credi
ble. They gave as a justification for their rebellion
the very plausible, not to say satisfactory, reason that
Moses and Aaron had taken too much upon themselves,
as the recent great reverses and the sufferings of the
great and terrible wilderness journeyings threatened
showed. Reuben was the eldest son, and Judah the
fourth : why should not the children of Reuben lead in
the march, and command instead of being placed behind
Judah, as second in rank ? Korah was a descendant
of an elder son of Kohath than Elzaphan, who had been
made " chief of the families of the Kohathites," and
was cousin of Moses and Aaron, and might well aspire,
after such disasters and such prospects, to a higher
place. The time and circumstances correspond with
the insurrection, and are its sufficient reason. The
rebellion was nipped in the bud by the destruction of
the leaders in a marvellous manner, and the right of
Aaron to be the head of the priesthood is vindicated
by the budding of his rod when all the other rods of
the tribes budded not (chap. xvii.). Then follows, in
chapter xviii., a repetition of many of the laws re
specting the priesthood, with additions and changes,
and a special charge to Aaron respecting his official du
ties and perquisites as distinguished from the Levites.
These laws settled the questions in dispute between

194 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
the Kohathites and the priests, Aaron and his sons,
In verse 8, the " anointing " of the priests is spoken
of, referring to the law which is recorded in Leviticus
viii., 30. It is announced (chap, xviii., 12, 13) that the
"first-fruits" should be given to Aaron, which is new;
verse 14, every devoted thing is given to Aaron (Levit
icus xxvii., 28), also new ; verse 13, redeemed firstlings
are to be Aaron's (Exodus xxxiv., 9), new.
Chapter xviii., 20, informs us that Aaron (the priest
hood) should "have no inheritance in the land " as the
Levites did, which is new ; but the Levites must give a
tenth part of their tithe to the priesthood (verses 26, 28).
In this manner, all future dispute about the income of
the priests is avoided. That this special legislation
should have taken place at this critical time is strong
evidence of the substantial accuracy of the history.
And the legislation without the history would be strong
evidence that something very important had transpired
in the camp to render it necessary.
The nineteenth chapter contains a minute account of
the preparation and use of the water of purification for
any one who had been made unclean by contact with a
dead body ; the water to be used with the ashes of a
red heifer. The occasion of this law is found in the
plague, recorded in the sixteenth chapter, which carried
off many thousands of the people. The whole cere
mony was a most vigorous and efficient health law, and
being enacted at this particular time corroborates the
history. All these laws indicate special causes for their en
actment, and justify the belief that these chapters (xv.
-xix.) were written at the time the people were

EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 195
encamped near Kadesh, — the xv., before their repulse,
when they were soon expecting to enter the prom
ised land, and the xvi. - xix., after that repulse. For
farther evidence of the truth of these accounts, the
reader is referred to Undesigned Coincidences, where the
subject of Korah's rebellion is more fully examined.
V. After the wanderings in the wilderness were over
and the people were encamped near Jordan, we find
Moses giving more directions to the people, some
entirely new, some modifications of previous laws. Let
us see if there is anything in these directions or laws
which will throw light upon the time and cause of their
enactment, or anything in the condition of the people
which will account for these laws being given at this
particular time.
In Numbers xxviii., 1-8, the daily offering is spoken
of, required in Exodus xxix., 38-42 ; and there is added
to the original law the following amendment : " In the
holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be
poured." Both the place and the kind of wine are
new. The original word for wine is translated in
Leviticus x., 9, " strong drink." If it means " old wine,"
as the rabbins say, it implies that they were soon to be
settled where they could keep wine till it was old,
which they had not been able to do before. And the
command to pour it " in the holy place " indicates that
they might be tempted when settled in the land, by
remoteness, to pour it elsewhere. Numbers xxviii., 4,
and Exodus xxix., 39, are in the same words, showing
that the writer of Numbers was familiar with the old
law. Numbers xxxviii., 9, 10. The Sabbath-day offering of

196 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
two lambs is new, and implies that they would be so
situated that their flocks would permit such a draft on
them, and also distinguish that day from other days.
Numbers xxviii., 11-15. These new-moon offerings
are new, and also imply an increase of their herds and
flocks and vintage and olive-trees and grain, to justify
another festival of their own nation at the time of the
idolatrous festival of other nations, and thus secure
them from joining their neighbors in idolatrous rites.
In chapter xxviii., 16-25, trie proper manner of keep
ing the passover is described. In Leviticus xxiii., 5-8,
no particulars are given. Verses 19-23 in Numbers
are new. The animals, bullocks, and lambs to be
offered in sacrifice on each of the seven days are
specified : fourteen bullocks, forty-nine lambs, and seven
goats in all. This free use of animals certainly indicates
a larger supply at hand than they had previously had.
Numbers xxviii., 26-31. The description of "the
day of first-fruits " differs in no important particular
from that in Leviticus xxiii., 19-21. There is no
obvious reason why it should have been inserted here,
except that it was intimately connected with the new
moon and passover.
Numbers xxix., 1-6, prescribes the sacrifices which
are to be offered at the feast of trumpets, which is not
done in Leviticus xxiii., 24, 25. This again shows
clearly that flocks and herds would be more numerous,
as they certainly would be as soon as they had settled
in the promised land.
Numbers xxix., 7-1 1, describes the services of the
holy convocation on the great day of atonement, and
prescribes the sacrifices which must be offered, of
which nothing is said in Leviticus xxiii., 26-32.

EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 197
Numbers xxix., 12-34. The holy convocation of
the feast of tabernacles and the feast itself are fully
described day by day ; but in Leviticus xxxiii., 34- 44,
only briefly. Numbers prescribes the sacrifices for
each day, but says nothing about booths. Leviticus
speaks of the booths, but does not specify the sacrifices
or special ceremonies. The animals ordered for sacri
fice during this greatest of festivals are seventy-one
bullocks, fifteen rams, ninety-nine lambs, and seven
goats. This number of animals indicates a near ap
proach to more prosperous conditions than they were
enjoying. Numbers xxix., 35-40. We read in this section of
the " solemn assembly " on the eighth day of the feast
of the tabernacles, which is barely alluded to in Leviti
cus xxiii., 36. This shows clearly that this great feast,
as well as the others, was not only rarely kept, but that
they must have been destitute, when kept, of what
gave them their hold upon the people in the land of
promise. Nor is it probable that when they were
settled in the promised land they were able to keep
these great festivals, or did keep them, according to
the ideal as prescribed in these laws. They all imply
an immediate possession of their inheritance. And this
necessary implication of the laws in themselves accords
with the history and authenticates it.
Numbers xxx. It is evident from this chapter that
the judges had had serious perplexity in administering
the law of vows as recorded in the twenty-seventh chap
ter of Leviticus ; and some general principles to aid
the judges are laid down in this chapter. (1) Every
man must do according to all that proceedeth out of
his mouth ; but (2) if a woman vowed, there were con-

198 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
ditions of fulfilment depending on her father's hearing
her; if (3) she was married or betrothed, there were
conditions of fulfilment depending upon her husband
or betrothed hearing her ; if (4) she was a widow or
divorced, all shall stand ; if (5) she is a wife in her
husband's house, the conditions of fulfilment will vary
as he did or did not hear her vow.
There is nothing in this chapter to indicate when it
was written ; but as vows were often, if not always con
nected with sacrifices, it is very probable that the full
treatment of that subject in connection with these great
feasts may have opened this question of the obligation
of vows, especially when the vow must be paid by the
husband or guardian of the person making the vow.
Taking all these new laws and amendments of old
laws into the account, it is quite impossible to escape
the conclusion that they were written when the history
affirms that they were written, and when the contents
of the laws themselves require them to have been
written. This origin of these laws, or the most skilful
and criminal forgery, is the only possible conclusion of
the whole matter.
SECTION III. UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES.
I wish now to call attention to another class of phe
nomena denoting the time in which the Pentateuch
was composed. I refer to Undesigned Coincidences, —
correspondences so slight yet so peculiar as to show
that an eye-witness recorded the events to which they
relate.* * About thirty years ago, I read a small work by Blunt on this subject. As all
my references to that work are lost, I am unable to tell for how many of these
coincidences I am indebted to him, and can make only this general acknowledg
ment.

UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 199
(1) An instance of this kind is the rate of travelling
attributed to the people on their departure from Egypt.
In about six or eight days, we find that they had
marched as far as Marah, which was two-thirds of the
way to Mt. Sinai from Rameses. But they did not
reach Sinai under forty-five days. What more natural
than that they should travel thus rapidly the first part
of the way to escape the enemy, and then slacken their
speed to give repose to the feeble and time for the
stragglers to come up ? Besides, it will be found upon
examination that they fled much more rapidly from
Rameses till the passage of the Red Sea than they did
afterwards. This is entirely natural ; and, when we
reflect that the writer has only incidentally given us a
clew to discover that such was the fact, it forces on us
the conviction that he was one of the company.*
(2) The original direction respecting the order of
marching was changed for the greater convenience of
those who bore the tabernacle and its furniture. It is
distinctly stated in the general orders, as recorded in
Numbers ii., that after six tribes have moved forward,
* The peculiar and apparently unreasonable route which Moses took in leaving
Egypt, leading the people into a cut de sac, — the sea on the one hand and the
mountains on the other, and Pharaoh behind them, — is attributed by the pious
historian, writing perhaps half a century afterward, to the special direction of
Jehovah to Moses in order probably that He might show forth His power to the
fleeing nation, and give them courage to persist in the great undertaking of escap
ing from bondage and returning to the land of their remote ancestors. This may
be so. But I am inclined to another, and to me more probable as it is a more
reasonable, explanation of this remarkable mistake of Moses, as it appears to us
without the historian's theory or knowledge of its cause. Let the reader bear in
mind that God is spoken of by this very pious writer as directing everythir g and
causing everything, and that Moses is scarcely a free agent in anything. Now, I
submit as most probable that, when Pharaoh learned that the people had fled, he
changed his mind and determined to intercept their march. He accordingly
pursued with his horsemen and chariots, and succeeded in outflanking them and

200 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
when they decamp, then the Levites shall set forward
with the tabernacle. But in the tenth chapter, where
we have an account of their setting out on their march,
we read that, after three tribes had set forward, the
tabernacle was taken down, and the sons of Gershon
and the sons of Merari set forward bearing the taber
nacle. Then came three tribes more, and then the
Kohathites set forward bearing the sanctuary, the holy
utensils, the altars, and the ark. And a good reason
appears why this change was made. The tabernacle
would be set up ready to receive the sacred things as
soon as those who bore them should arrive upon the
ground of re-encampment.
(3) In the fourth chapter, we read that a division
was made of the different parts of the tabernacle be
tween the sons of Gershon, Merari, and Kohath. The
sons of Gershon were to bear the coverings of the tab
ernacle ; the sons of Merari were to bear the pillars and
boards and sockets ; the sons of Kohath were to bear
the sacred vessels, the altars, and the ark. Now, if we
turn to the seventh chapter, we read of the trains and
gettingin their front before they had reached the north-western point of the sea.
Moses had his choice cither to fight Pharaoh, now in front of him, or flee as
well as he could down the country by the side of the sea. He chose the latter
alternative, and by removing his marching signal to the rear, and deceiving
Pharaoh as to his true position, he gained time, by taking advantage of the
darkness and of a very low stage of the water, to get the people over to the other
side. When the day dawned, Pharaoh attempted to cross after them, but the
muddy bottom and the return of deep water prevented him, and a large number
of his army perished in the attempt. Moses turned down by the sea because he
was compelled to by the position of the Egyptians; and after their wonderful
escape the people saw in it the guidance of their God ; and the devout historian
of another generation introduces Jehovah as the counsellor and guide of Mases
in the whole transaction. Nothing could be more natural. But the reader of to
day must recognize in his study of these early records this pervading language of
piety, and interpret them accordingly. I am not satisfied with Brugsch's hypo
thesis respecting the route of the escaping Israelites.

UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 201
wagons which were provided some days after to carry
the tabernacle. Without giving the reason for the un
equal distribution, two wagons and four oxen were given
to the sons of Gershon, and four wagons and eight oxen
to the sons of Merari. This difference in capacity for
carrying freight corresponds to the difference in the
materials which the two parties were to carry, Merari
having much the heavier portion, as is found by look
ing back four chapters, where the distribution of mate
rials is made. It is hardly credible that a later his
torian would have separated these items in this way,
and yet have, thus incidentally, preserved the corre
spondence between the parts.
(4) The omission of the mention of Simeon in the
blessings which Moses pronounced upon the tribes, as
recorded in Deuteronomy xxxiii., has given rise to no
little speculation. If we turn back to the twenty-fifth
chapter of Numbers, a reason will be found for this
omission which is entirely satisfactory. We read in
the chapter referred to that a terrible plague smote the
camp of Israel on account of the introduction of a Mid-
ianitish woman into the camp under very offensive cir
cumstances. Twenty thousand died of the plague be
fore it was stayed. This terrible calamity, which hap
pened but a short time before Moses pronounced his
blessings on the tribes, was caused by the act of "Zimri,
the son of Salu, a prince of the chief house of the Simeon-
ites." It appears also that the plague was confined to
the tribe of Simeon ; for we find in the census, taken
but a short time after, that this tribe had diminished
thirty-seven thousand. It is not at all wonderful, there
fore, that Moses should omit to bless such a tribe, when

202 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
their diminished numbers were a standing witness of
God's displeasure, and when the plague, which had so
devastated their part of the camp, had but just been
stayed, and was fresh in the memory of all. Nor is this
the conclusion of the' matter. We find that, when the
tribe took possession of the promised land, Simeon was
made a barrier both of Egypt and the Philistines, so
that he must first suffer in case of attack from that
quarter. These facts, so purely incidental in the man
ner of their relation, scattered through different chap
ters, so perfectly accounting for other facts, remarkable
in their character yet equally incidentally related, with
out any reasons given for such strange phenomena, bear
with no little weight in the scale of the authenticity and
age of these books. That they were not introduced
into the Pentateuch for the purpose of supplying the
material for this argument to future investigators of the
age of the work is evident enough. The supposition
is absurd.
(5) The account of the visit of Balaam for the pur
pose of cursing Israel demands notice. After the in
effectual attempts made by Balak, King of Moab, to
induce Balaam to curse Israel, and after Balaam had
obtained all the gifts which he was able to wring from
the frightened king, we read, Numbers xxiv., 25, that
" Balaam rose up and went and returned to his place."
" His place," we find in chapter xxii., 5, to be "Pethor,"
a city of Mesopotamia, on the Euphrates. But we are
surprised when we read in chapter xxxi., 8, where the
chiefs of Midian are named who had been slain in bat
tle, to find that " Balaam also, the son of Beor," was
slain by the sword. How came he here, among the

UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 203
Midianites? He had left Balak, King of Moab, "to
return home." If we turn back to the twenty-second
chapter, we find that the "elders of Midian" went with
the elders of Moab, with the " rewards of divination in
their hand," to invite Balaam to come and "curse
Israel." The elders of Midian are no more mentioned
in the history ; yet in this brief line we find the cause of
Balaam's taking Midian in his way, en his return home.
More gifts he would obtain, if possible, before he left
the country. He was killed while he stopped among
that people to finish the object for which he had made
his journey from the East. The presence of the his
torian of these facts on the spot where they transpired
seems certain.
(6) In the account of the rebellion and destruction
of Korah and his company there are some very strik
ing indications of the writer's presence at the time.
The leaders of the rebels, as we learn from Numbers
xvi., 1, were "Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of
Kohath, the son of Levi; and Dathan and Abiram, the
sons of Eliab ; and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reu
ben!' How came it to pass that the tribe of Reuben, or
a part of it, and the Kohathites should be engaged in
this rebellion? If we look back thirteen chapters to
chapter iii., 29, we shall find that in recording the loca
tion of the Levites in the camp, the writer states that
"the families of the sons of Kohath shall pitch on the
side of the tabernacle southward." And still further
back, in chapter ii., 10, we read that "on the south side
shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben." At the
distance of thirteen chapters, and separated from each
other by one chapter, we find statements showing that

204 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
the tribe of Reuben and the Kohathites were on the
same side of the camp, and in close proximity. It
would be very easy for them, therefore, to confer to
gether as they are represented as doing.
(7) Again, as we read the account of the punishment
inflicted on the rebels, as recorded in the sixteenth
chapter, we seem to see the earth open, and Korah,
Dathan, and Abiram, and " their sons and their wives
and their little children," all swallowed up alive. What,
then, is our surprise, when we read, ten chapters later,
in the twenty-sixth chapter, which contains a record of
events which transpired thirty-six years afterwards, that
" the children of Korah died not." We turn back to
re-examine the sixteenth chapter, to see if we were mis
taken. We there find that the people are commanded
to " depart from the tents of those wicked men." " So
they gat up from the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and
Abiram, on every side." This tabernacle appears to
have been occupied in common by the rebels as their
place of meeting with their associates. And then we
read that " Dathan and Abiram came out and stood in
the door of their tents, and their wives and their sons
and their little ones." This public tent of meeting, it
seems, stood near the tents of these two men, who were
Reubenites, and not near the tent of Korah, who was
a Levite ; so that when " the earth opened her mouth
and swallowed them up, and their houses [tents] and
all the men [that is, the rebels] that appertained to
Korah, and all their goods," the children of Korah,
who were in the family tent among the Levites, were
not destroyed. Thus the apparent contradiction is rec
onciled in such a manner as to indicate that an eye-wit-

UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 205
ness was the historian. I cannot forbear recalling the
attention of the reader to another feature of this trans
action. Korah, the leader of this rebellion, was son of
Izhar, the second son of Kohath, Amram, the father of
Moses and Aaron, being the first. But the chief 'of the
Kohathites was Elzaphan, the son of Uzziel, the fourth
son of Kohath. It was natural, therefore, that envious
feelings should arise, on his part, against the hardship
of the younger branch of the family. The posterity of
Reuben, the eldest son of Jacob, would likewise be not
a little dissatisfied that Judah, a younger brother,
should be placed at the head of all the tribes.
(8) In the tenth chapter of Leviticus, we read that
" Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of
them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense
thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord." For
this act, they were smitten dead by fire "from the Lord."
And " Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel, the
uncle of Aaron," carried their dead bodies "from before
the sanctuary out of the camp." No cause for this
high-handed act of these two sons of Aaron is given by
the writer; but he immediately after records a new law :
" Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou [Aaron] nor
thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of
the congregation, lest ye die. . . . And that ye may put a
difference between holy and unholy, and between clean
and unclean." The cause of this new enactment was,
most obviously, the sacrilegious act of Aaron's sons,
committed when they were intoxicated, and did not put
a difference between "holy and unholy, and between
clean and unclean." Such gross outrages must not be
repeated, and a law is enacted to prevent their recur-

206 a study of The Pentateuch.
rence. Here we not only have a new law to meet an
emergency, but we also have a law based upon the
probable condition of those two priests, when the fact
of their being intoxicated is not mentioned.
(9) A farther coincidence demands notice in this
connection. This act of Nadab and Abihu took place
on the eighth day after the tabernacle was erected ; for
in Exodus xl., 2, we read that the "tabernacle of the
tent of the congregation " was to be set up on " the
first day of the first month." In the thirteenth verse,
we read that Aaron and his sons were to be anointed
and clothed in their holy garments for their sacred
office. After seven chapters in Leviticus, giving direc
tions about particular sacrifices which were to be
offered in the tabernacle, we find in the eighth and
ninth chapters a specific account of the consecration
of Aaron and his sons which continued seven days
(chap, viii., 33). On the eighth day (chap, ix., 1),
new ceremonies were performed by these priests, their
seven days of confinement and seclusion being over;
and it is on this eighth day that these sons of Aaron,
once more associating with their friends, indulged
probably so freely in the use of the cup as to profane
the Lord by attempting to serve in their holy office
while intoxicated. How natural that men who had
been accustomed to the moderate social glass should
indulge thus freely after such a week of seclusion !
Yet of all this series of causes the writer says not a
word ; nor is there the remotest ground for the sup
position that he had arranged these incidents to fur
nish us with this argument for the age of his writing.
That the narrator was on the spot and related what he
saw is too obvious to require comment.

UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 207
(10) Nor have we yet done with this account. These
dead bodies were carried " out of the camp " just six
days before the passover. Turning forward now twen
ty-five chapters, which are filled with the transactions
of these six days, to the ninth chapter of Numbers,
we come to the fourteenth day of the first month, on
which the passover was to be kept. We here find an
account of its observance ; and we read " there were
certain men who were defiled by the dead body of a man,
so that they could not keep the passover on that day ;
and they came before Moses and Aaron," and said
that they were defiled and were thus prevented from
offering their offering unto the Lord. " Seven days,"
which were necessary for the purification of those who
were unclean by contact with a dead body, had not
transpired since Mishael and Elzaphan had carried out
their kinsmen's dead bodies, and hence they could not
eat of the passover or offer the sacrifice. It is proba
ble that these were the men who came to Moses, as
above related ; for such a complaint would be likely
to originate in the first instance among the chief men,
and these men were of that class. The phrase, " the
dead body of a man," being the legal term by which
ritual uncleanness from contact with the dead is
expressed, by no means shows, or implies, that there
was but one dead body. Three implied conditions are
found in this narration, two of them connected with
other facts related ten and twenty chapters distant,
and so related as to show clearly that the writer of
these accounts must have been an eye-witness of what
he relates, or at least a contemporary of the events,
and narrating what he well knew was transpiring. Let

208 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
these ten illustrations of "undesigned coincidences"
suffice.SECTION IV. EVIDENCE FROM MINUTENESS OF DETAILS.
Another characteristic of these books, showing their
journal-like character, and indicating a writer in the
camp of Israel, is found in the minuteness of the details
in many parts of the narrative, and their repetition
under such circumstances as to exculpate any later
writer from being the author of such useless definite
ness and wearisome repetitions ; and yet these same
circumstances demanded of the desert-journalist just
such a minuteness and repetition. These phenomena
have a twofold power : they equally demand an ancient,
and forbid a modern, writer. Let us now examine
some of them.
(i) In the census of the people, an account of which
is contained in the first chapter of Numbers, there is an
illustration of the recording, at the time, of work done,
or of the journal-like character of the book. First, we
have the names, not only of the superintendents of the
census of each tribe, but also the names of their fathers,
which it is not probable would have been given by a
writer in the time of Ezra. Then we have repeated be
fore the round number of each tribe the formula under
which the census was taken, making a repetition of the
same words twelve times, which it is difficult to believe
an historian a thousand or eight hundred years later
would have done ; but it is very probable it would be
done, when the separate papers of enrolment were
passed in and recorded or filed. Seven lines of the
nine which constituted the return of each tribe are,

EVIDENCE FROM MINUTENESS OF DETAILS. 209
word for word, the same. A later historian of the
transaction, with these returns before him, would, at
the most, have written the heading but once ; and then,
after this description of the persons enrolled, he would
have named the tribes and their number in order. Of
all this, Josephus only says (chap, viii., 2), "The num
ber of the offerers [of the half-shekels, as represented
by this census] was six hundred and five thousand five
hundred and fifty."
(2) Another illustration of the time and place of writ
ing this Book of Numbers is contained in the second
chapter, in which the order of the encampment is speci
fied with great minuteness. The names of the tribes
are given, and also the name of the " captain " of the
tribe is given, and, yet more, the name of the captain's
father, and also the number in the tribe according to
the census, and, finally, the whole number in each of
the four divisions which were encamped on the four
sides of the tabernacle, the account filling thirty-two
verses of the chapter. All this would be very necessary
in the order for arranging the camp at first; but what
historian in the time of Ezra would have given an ac
count of the camp in this manner ? Josephus illustrates
this admirably (chap, xii., 5) : " When they set up the
tabernacle, they received it into the midst of their camp,
three of the tribes pitching their tents on each side of
it." And all that is said by Josephus respecting the
elaborate arrangement in the next chapter — abridged
in the paragraph below — is that " the priests had the
first place about the tabernacle ; then the Levites."
(3) Then, in the third chapter, there is a record of
the distribution of the material of the tabernacle and

210 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
its furniture among the priests and Levites, whose order
of encampment is minutely specified inside the other
tribes and around the tabernacle, which was their
special charge. The sons of Gershon shall have charge
" of the covering of the tent and the hanging for the
door of the tabernacle of the congregation a.id the
hangings of the court and the curtain for the door of
the court . . . and the cords of it." And the charge of
Kohath " shall be the ark and the table and the candle
stick and the altars and the vessels of the sanctuary
and the hanging and all the service thereof." " And
the charge of the sons of Merari shall be the boards
of the tabernacle, and the bars thereof, and the pillars
thereof, and the sockets thereof, and all the vessels
thereof, . . . and the pillars of the court round about,
and their sockets and their pins and their cords." This
has certainly the air of the camp and the desert and the
time of the great migration.
(4) But there is yet more of this, and more even, if
possible, to the purpose. How shall that portion of the
tabernacle furniture which the sons of Kohath are to
carry, and which was holy, and which none but a priest
could handle on pain of death, be approached, pre
pared, and borne? In the fourth chapter, from the
fourth to the tenth verses, we have a minute description
of the manner in which Aaron and his sons " shall cover
the ark of testimony with the covering veil, and shall
put thereon the covering of badgers' skins, and shall
spread over it a cloth wholly of blue, and shall put in
the staves thereof," by which it is to be carried. "And
upon the table of shew bread they shall spread a cloth
of blue and put thereon the dishes, and the spoons, and

EVIDENCE FROM MINUTENESS OF DETAILS. 211
the bowls and covers, . . . and they shall spread upon
them a cloth of scarlet, and cover the same with a cov
ering of badgers' skins, and shall put in the staves
thereof." And the "candlestick, and his lamps, and
his tongs, and his snuff dishes, and all the oil vessels
thereof," are to be covered with "a cloth of blue," and
to be put into " a covering of badgers' skins and put
upon a bar"; "and upon the golden altar they shall
spread a cloth of blue and cover it with a covering of
badgers' skins," "and they shall take all the instru
ments of ministry . . . and put them in a cloth of blue,
and cover them with a covering of badgers' skins, and
shall put them on a bar ; and they shall take away the
ashes from the altar, and spread a purple cloth thereon ;
and they shall put upon it all the vessels thereof, where
with they minister about it, even the censers, the flesh-
hooks and the shovels and the basins, all the vessels
of the altar, and they shall spread over it a covering of
badgers' skins, and put to the staves of it " ; then, and
not till then, the sons of Kohath shall come to bear
them. Then the service of the sons of Gershon and
Merari is to be arranged by Aaron and his sons, and a
census of these families is to be taken of all males from
thirty to fifty years old, that proper relays and reliefs
might be made while marching and in camp.
What I affirm is that all this minute direction and
organization of the Levites and priests indicates, de
mands for its justification, its cause, the precise time,
and place, and circumstances which the history de
scribes ; and that no historian of the nation in the
time of Ezra and Nehemiah would have written in this
manner. I pass by the fact that the " shittim wood,"

212 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
of which the wood-work of the tabernacle and its furni
ture was made, was abundant about Mount Sinai and
rare in Canaan, and that the "badgers' skins" were
most probably the skins of a fish which abounded in
the Red Sea, as I do not wish to introduce anything as
fact into this Study which may be challenged.
(5) But I have not done. I must challenge the
reader's patience still further. I cite as a striking
proof of the authenticity and age of the Pentateuch
the minute account of the offerings made by the princes
of Israel to the tabernacle during the period of its
dedication. It is contained in the seventh chapter of
Numbers, commencing with the twelfth verse. Each
prince brought his offering on a day by himself, so that
on twelve different days we have the entry made by the
scribe in the journal of the offering. Each prince
offered the same gifts. The wording of the entry is in
each case the same. Leave a blank in either of the
entries for the names of the princes, and they will read
alike. I will give the first entry : " And he that offered
his offering the first day v/as Nahshon, the son of
Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah ; and his offering
was one silver charger, the weight thereof was a hun
dred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy
. shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary ; both of them
were full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meat-offer
ing; one spoon of ten shekels of gold full of incense;
one young bullock, one ram, one lamb of the first year,
for a burnt-offering ; one kid of the goats for a sin-
offering; and for a sacrifice of peace-offerings, two
oxen, five rams, five he-goats, five lambs of the first
year. This was the offering of Nahshon, the son of
Amminadab."

EVIDENCE FROM MINUTENESS OF DETAILS. 213
Now, instead of simply saying that each of the
other princes of the tribes offered in like manner the
same offerings unto the Lord, the writer goes on and
repeats this inventory eleven times, through eighty
verses. It is incredible that a later writer, giving such
an account, should proceed in this manner. It appears
altogether like an entry made by the scribe to see that
the tribes did what was required of them, though no
mention of such requisition is made in the record. I
have had the curiosity to turn again to Josephus to see
how, in his summary of the law, he manages this matter,
and will quote the passage which relates to these of
ferings, that the reader may see the difference between
the style of a later writer and that of the old journal
ists. Josephus says : " Every head of a tribe brought
a bowl, a charger, and a spoon of ten daricks full of
incense. Now the charger and bowl were of silver, and
together they weighed two hundred shekels, but the
bowl cost no more than seventy shekels ; and these
were full of fine flour mingled with oil, such as they
used on the altar about the sacrifices. They brought
also a young bullock and a ram, with a lamb a year
old, for a whole burnt-offering ; as also a goat, for the
forgiveness of sins. Every one of the heads of the
tribes brought also other sacrifices, called peace-offer
ings ; for every day, two bulls and five rams, with lambs
of a year old and kids of the goats. These heads of
the tribes were twelve days in sacrificing, one sacrific
ing every day." The contrast between these two ac
counts clearly shows us how an historian living long
after the events, as in the time of Ezra, would have
managed such a subject.

214 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
(6) Another illustration of this head of my argument
is found in the wearisomely minute diagnostics of the
leprosy in men, houses, and garments (Leviticus xiii.,
xiv.). Two long chapters, of nearly sixty verses each,
are filled with the repulsive details of the indications
and purification of this most loathsome of all diseases.
I must be excused from quoting any of it. No more
modern historian would thus burden his pages ; but
then and there it was necessary, for definite rules must
be given for the guidance of the priests. Indeed, the
whole of this portion of the Pentateuch which refers to
ritual impurities indicates clearly enough that it had its
birth in the camp, among a people just emerging from
barbarism. (7) Perhaps the most marked of all these laboriously
minute descriptions and repetitions is to be found in
the last half of Exodus, where the tabernacle and its
furniture and the priests' garments are described in the
most accurate manner, even to the tassels and pins
and taches (Exodus xxv. -xxx.). Moses brings this
minute description of the whole sacerdotal dress and
tabernacle construction and incense manufacture with
him from the Mount. It is precisely like the specifi
cations in a modern contract for building a dwelling-
house or making a garment or a confection, but more
minute, if possible. The work is given out by Moses ;
and, as the workmen bring back to him the portion
which they undertook to make, it is entered again with
the same minute description in the Pentateuch (Exodus
xxxvi. -xxxix.). So that we have a duplicate descrip
tion of all these articles, so wearisomely minute that we

EVIDENCE FROM MINUTENESS OF DETAILS. 215
can hardly have patience to read it once. Admit that
this was written on the spot, and all this minuteness
and duplication is accounted for : deny this, and there
is no possible reason why such a minute detail of these
articles should be repeated, even if we can discover
why they should be once described. It seems incredi
ble that any later writer could have done it. Of the
"pattern given in the Mount," which is so minutely
described, before the work was done, in the Pentateuch,
Josephus only says (chap, v., 8), " He [God] had sug
gested to him [Moses] that he would have a tabernacle
built for him, and that the tabernacle should be of
such measure and construction as he had showed
him." Josephus then gives a careful description of
the work. There is no repetition of particulars.
To feel the full force of this argument, it is necessary
that one should read carefully the account in the Pen
tateuch, and at one sitting, if possible.
I should be glad to go into a consideration of the
specific directions given touching many of the condi
tions of camp life, and especially those health regula
tions which it was necessary for a people thus sojourning
to observe, and which no modern historian could dwell
upon so long and minutely as they are dwelt upon in
the Pentateuch ; but the nature of the subjects, as well
as the great length of my Study, requires that I should
pass them over. Their bearing upon the point which I
am considering is clear and strong ; and, in connection
with some of the circumstances which I have already
referred to, they furnish evidence, almost conclusive in
itself, of the antiquity of the work in which they are
contained.

2l6 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
SECTION V. EVIDENCE FROM CHASMS IN THE HISTORY.
The chasms in the history are another indication
of the antiquity of the Pentateuch, (i) The space of
nearly four hundred years, according to the reckoning
which commends itself to many scholars, from the
descent of Jacob and his family into Egypt to the de
parture of the people, is passed over in almost entire
silence ; and so also are the youth and manhood of
Moses, in which Josephus and the rabbins revel and
glory. Only those incidents are mentioned which are
necessary to an introduction to the great work of deliv
erance from Egyptian bondage. We can hardly sup
pose that a writer of the time of Ezra would have left
such gaps in his history. The particular and wonderful
events in the life of Moses before his flight to Midian,
which tradition had handed down, and which attracted
the Jews in the time of Josephus, could hardly have
escaped the notice of earlier writers. They would have
filled up these chasms with such traditions as had come
down to them respecting the marvellous life of their
great law-giver. That such would have been their
course can hardly be doubted by any one who is ac
quainted with Jewish writers, and knows how prone
they were to introduce traditionary tales where histor
ical facts failed them.
Nor is the chasm referred to, all. Thirty-seven
years, covering a large portion of the period of the
wandering in the wilderness, is left an entire blank, and
we know almost nothing of what transpired, except the
stations which from time to time the people occupied.
A more attractive field for the growth of traditions
could not be imagined ; and not to enter it would

EVIDENCE FROM EGYPTIAN CUSTOMS. 217
require more regard for historical truth, or a nicer
discrimination between what is true and what is false,
than later writers of that nation have shown in their
works, or than some modern critics give them credit
for. I cannot introduce illustrations to show the cor
rectness of these remarks. Those readers who are
familiar with Jewish literature do not need them, and
those who are not will find enough of them in the
writings of Philo, Josephus, the Talmudists, and the
rest. Admit that the principal parts of the last four
books of the Pentateuch are the work of a writer, a
scribe or scribes, contemporary with the events which
are recorded in them, and these chasms are easily
accounted for : assume any later period for their com
position, and they present insurmountable obstacles.
SECTION VI. EVIDENCE FROM EGYPTIAN CUSTOMS.
I should be glad to go at length into a consideration
of the minute and circumstantial references which we
find in the Pentateuch to Egyptian customs. But I
must confine myself to one, as an illustration of many,
which impresses deeply upon the mind the opinion that
an eye-witness must have recorded them. A resident
in Egypt, and none other, could thus have colored the
history with such delicate touches denoting his age and
residence. In the fifth chapter of Exodus, the histo
rian gives an account of the additional labor which was
put upon the Hebrews when they complained of their
tasks, and asked leave to go into the country for three
days to worship. " I will not give you straw," said
Pharaoh. " Go ye, get you straw where ye can find it.
... So the people were scattered abroad throughout all

2l8 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
the land of Egypt to gather stubble instead of straw."
The "straw" was that which had been broken upon
the threshing-floor ; the " stubble " was what had been
left standing in the field after reaping. If we turn now
to Wilkinson's Manners and Customs of the Ancient
Egyptians (Vol. VL, page 86), we shall find an engrav
ing, taken from the ancient tombs, in which is rep
resented the gathering of wheat. The reapers are
represented as cutting off only the heads of the grain,
which they put in baskets, and leaving the "stubble"
nearly as high as their shoulders behind them. This
was the " stubble " which the Hebrews went out to
gather, not the short stubble which was left when the
straw was cut near the ground. The overtasked He
brews had not the privilege of going to the threshing-
floors and getting their "straw" : they were compelled
to gather this high " stubble " in the field. In the
same work, we find illustrations of brick-making, and
bricks made with straw are found in the ruins of the
ancient cities.
Such minute knowledge of the manners of Egypt
as the writer of the Pentateuch everywhere shows, and
which it would cover pages to describe, confirms the
opinion of its Mosaic origin. It is hardly conceivable
that a later writer could have so fully informed himself
of ancient customs as to have spoken of them so inci
dentally and yet so accurately and minutely.
SECTION VII. EVIDENCE FROM EGYPTIAN WORDS AND
RITES.
Another evidence of the early origin of the Penta
teuch is found in the use of Egyptian words, the adop-

EVIDENCE FROM EGYPTIAN WORDS AND RITES. 2 19
tion of Egyptian customs in their worship, both in
utensils, altars, and robes, and also in the establishment
of a priesthood and ritual. In the first sixteen chapters
of Exodus, in which the bondage and escape of the
people are described, no less than forty-eight words,
exclusive of proper names, of Egyptian origin, are used,
if such scholars as Gesenius and Bunsen can be relied
upon, to say nothing of Seyffarth and Harkavy and
Wilkinson. Egypt must have been the native land of
the author. He is familiar with the manners and
customs of the people. The whole account is evidence
of such an author. The Urim and Thummim were
Egyptian symbols of Truth and Justice, and were worn
by the judge or priest in the breastplate which was
over his priestly dress, as is shown in Wilkinson's
Ancient Egyptians. The dress of the priests is not
unlike that of the Egyptian priests — linen — as repre
sented in the same work. Their bathing and shaving
the whole body were the same also. Even the ark of
the covenant and the cherubim over it are copied from
those used in Egypt, as may be seen in Wilkinson, Vol.
V., page 276. As far as modern studies in Egyptian
archaeology have gone, they confirm the accuracy of
the description of the manners, laws, and language of
that ancient people made by the writer of the Penta
teuch, and remand its composition to an early age and
a native of the country.
lt has been objected to the antiquity and unity of
the Pentateuch that such a complicated ritual and
comprehensive body of laws could not have sprung into
existence at once ; that generations, centuries, were
necessary to evolve and mature them. It is forgotten

220 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
by those who present this objection that the Egyptians
were an old nation when Jacob's family went among
them. They had the most attractive and elaborate
ritual the world knew, — priests, temples, altars, sac
rifices, were almost everywhere. Their laws were the
mature wisdom of ages. How easy was it, compara
tively speaking, for the law-giver of Israel to arrange,
with the aid of such a ritual and such laws, the ritual
and laws which we find in the Pentateuch, so similar to
those of Egypt as to reveal their relationship, and so
dissimilar as to prevent confounding them, and estab
lishing the independence of their author ! No careful
student of the Hebrew code and ritual can fail to see
the influence of an Egyptian education and residence
upon the law-giver; so that the objection is itself
transformed into an argument in favor of the antiquity
of the Pentateuch and even of its Mosaic origin. He
would naturally, trained as he had been, construct a
full code and ritual for the recently delivered people.
Nor is it any valid evidence, scarcely a presumption,
that he did not do it, because they were but imperfectly
administered, and in some respects apparently persist
ently violated for centuries. The code and the ritual
sprang fully formed, mature, from the brain of Moses,
like Minerva from the brain of Jupiter. The people
were not able to understand or appreciate but a small
part of them at first, and some portions of them were
very probably found impracticable or so burdensome as
to compel neglect. The code and the ritual were ideal,
and could not in every particular be made real. The
servile, emancipated race developed slowly up to the
standard of their law whose requirements were ever

NO EVIDENCE OF ENACTMENTS AFTER MOSES. 22 1
before them. Their barbarism gradually wore off, and
the knowledge of the one only God increased, and
diminished their belief in other gods and their relish
of idolatrous rites. The people grew up to the law, as
Christians are growing up to Christianity. The gospel
reads to-day as it did eighteen centuries ago, but how
differently it is understood and practised ! The Mosaic
code and ritual read the same through all the tumultu
ous period of the Judges and the revolution under
Samuel, and during the monarchy ; but how differently
were they regarded as the people sloughed off their
barbarisms and improved in knowledge !
SECTION VIII. NO EVIDENCE OF ENACTMENTS AFTER
THE TIME OF MOSES.
One point further, and I will close. The Pentateuch
concludes its history with the death of Moses, and
professes to contain only those laws and rites which
were prescribed by him. There is not a particle of
reliable evidence, either external or internal, that a single
law recorded in the Pentateuch was the work of the period
subsequent to the time of Moses. I affirm this with the
emphasis of assurance. The possession of the prom
ised land is always spoken of as future. New laws are
given, new regulations are established on the banks of
the Jordan, just before the people passed over to take
possession of their country, such as their changed con
dition would require. No laws were made afterwards
of which we have any record which were fundamental.
All appeals are made to the law of Moses.
So much for the antiquity of the Pentateuch. Who
was its writer ? To answer this question is no purpose

222 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
of this Study. Probably Moses was the principal
author. I am aware that one objection which has
weight in some minds is made to the Mosaic authorship
of the Pentateuch : it is that he is spoken of in the third
person in the historical portions. This is true ; and
admitting that it has weight so far as the Mosaic author
ship is concerned, it has no weight whatever against my
position ; for I am not proving that Moses was the
writer of the Pentateuch, but that it was chiefly at least
composed during his life. Against this position, the
objection has no force whatever. But I am by no
means willing to give it the weight which is claimed
for it as conclusive against the Mosaic authorship under
any circumstances. Xenophon is admitted on all hands
to have written the Anabasis, and yet he never speaks
of himself in the first person, though he is the principal
character in the work. Who can dogmatically assert
that Moses did not do the same thing? Besides, who
can say that Moses did not adopt the usual practice of
early times, as indicated both in history and in monu
ments, of employing a scribe, or scribes, who took note
of passing events, as well as writing out the laws, who
wou'd naturally speak of Moses in the third person ?
The whole book has the style and coloring, the con
tents and structure, of a writing of the Mosaic age. A
few passages of later date can easily be accounted for
as scholia — explanatory clauses — which have been in
troduced into the text by later copyists and readers.
Some apparent or real contradictions can be easily dis
posed of by the same method, or as failures in the
memory of the original writer. As well might one
challenge the antiquity of the pyramid because he had

RESULTS. 2?3
found a modern stone imbedded in one of its courses.
Whether its condition could be accounted for or not, no
antiquarian would think of pronouncing the monument
of Cheops a work of the Ptolemies, standing in its
hoary presence, with the voice of history sounding in
his ears. As no astronomer would be accounted sane
who should dispute that the sun is the source of light
because a few dark spots are found on its surface, so no
scholar who has surveyed all sides of this subject in the
full light of modern discoveries can reasonably deny
to the Mosaic age the production of the Pentateuch on
account of alleged modern interpolations, imperfect
genealogies, or contradictory dates and names which
are found in it. SECTION IX. RESULTS.
It results from the foregoing investigation : —
I. That that portion of the Hebrew Scriptures called
the Pentateuch, or the Five Books of Moses, can be
traced by a common name — " The Book of the Law,"
" The Law given by Moses," " The Law," and other
titles — from the time of Christ back through all the
extant literature of the nation — prose and poetry,
prophecy and proverb, history and psalm — till the time
of David, and in all fragments of its literature of an
earlier date ; —
II. That all the passages quoted from the book with
these titles are found in the Pentateuch, and often its
peculiar phraseology is preserved in the quotation,
showing that the book is proved to be the same by its
contents as well as by its title ; —
III. That there is not the slightest hint in the his
torical books that these laws were enacted or revised

224. A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
in any later time than that of the Mosaic age ; all Jew
ish opinions to this effect being of a much later date,
and based upon no historical evidence whatever; —
IV. That the language of the Pentateuch, its pecu
liar phrases and "archaic words," shows' that it must
have been written some centuries before any other of
the extant Hebrew writings, thus remitting its composi
tion to several generations before the time of David, as
the language of the earliest Psalms, which are free from
them, witnesses ; —
V. That the contents of the Pentateuch, the journal
like arrangement of its events and laws, the constant
assumption or implication that it was written in a camp,
and many of its laws adapted only to camp life, the
amendments of laws when on the borders of the prom
ised land to fit them to the changed condition and
wants of the people, the inventories of gifts, and the
record of specifications for wood-work, and curtains,
and garments, and vessels for sacred use, the record of
incidents which caused new laws to be enacted or old
laws to be amended, the incidental and most obviously
undesigned coincidences of events which are separated
by many chapters and much time, confirm the previous
historic and linguistic evidence of the early origin of
the Pentateuch, and place its composition in the Mosaic
age, and prove its direct or indirect Mosaic author
ship ; —
VI. That the tumultuous anarchical times before the
accession of David to the throne render it very proba
ble that sections of the law may have been misplaced,
possibly lost ; that some of the historical sections may
have been disarranged ; and that as time passed on

RESULTS.

225

old names were modernized, obscure incidents ex
plained, and modern words and phrases sometimes
substituted for the obsolete originals ; but none of
these modern explanations and interpolations and sup
posed corrections in the least degree affecting the
force of the argument derived from the above-men
tioned considerations of the age and at least the prin
cipal authorship of the work; —
VII. That, notwithstanding the difficulties attending
the reference of this work to so early an age and
authorship, they vanish into comparative unimportance
when compared with those which attend any other
theory of its composition, especially that which refers
it to the time of Ezra, or accounts for it by miscella
neous aggregations made during the ten centuries
which transpired between Moses and Nehemiah ; —
VIII. And, finally, that the only reasonable, and
indeed the necessary, inference to be drawn from these
facts — the historical references to this book by the
same names to the earliest times ; the quotations made
from it in later writings corresponding in minute par
ticulars to passages found in it ; the archaisms with
which it abounds ; the journal and camp-like arrange
ment and tone of its laws; the undesigned coinci
dences, indicating a writer on the spot; the occasional
explanation of antique words, names, and customs ;
and the insuperable difficulties of fixing upon any
other period for its composition — is that the Penta
teuch belongs to the Mosaic age, and fixes the author
ship of the book upon Moses and his contemporaries
or immediate successors.

CONCLUSION.
DIFFICULTIES OF ANY THEORY OF UNBELIEF.
I know the objections raised, the suspicion surmised.
the prejudices appealed to ; but I also know that
there are difficulties in unbelief as well as in belief. It
is often supposed that there are no difficulties trailing
after denial ; that some belief is not professed or im
plied when another is rejected. But he who denies the
antiquity of the Pentateuch will be required by that
denial to believe some things which will stagger reason
and forbid faith. That very denial will compel him to
adopt a positive opinion respecting the origin of the
Pentateuch, which will draw after it difficulties more in-
solvable and facts more incredible than the plagues of
Egypt or the refluent waves of the Red Sea. For he
must believe that an unbroken chain of writers from
the days of Josephus to the time of David, including
philosophers, historians, poets, prophets, have quoted
different books under the same title, and containing
the same laws, expressed in the same words ; that, be
tween the translation of the Septuagint, in the golden
reign of Philadelphus, and the time of the prophet
Malachi, about a century, this " Book of the Law of
Moses " was mostly written and palmed off upon the
Jewish scribes as of Mosaic origin, and gravely trans
lated by them into Greek at his command ; or that, be
tween the time of Malachi and the time of Ezra, about

CONCLUSION. 227
half a century more, some one or more of the returned
exiles constructed a work which received the approba
tion of both prophets and rulers, people and priests, as
the " Book of Moses " by whose laws their fathers had
been guided ; or that Ezra himself codified and pub
lished the national laws under the title of the " Laws
of Moses," or invented nearly all of them, and suc
ceeded in making the people receive them as such,
either by gross fraud or because they were really of
Mosaic origin, and yet his history makes no mention of
such a wonderful work in narrating the invaluable ser
vices rendered to the people by this efficient ruler ; or
that, a century before, Hilkiah and Shaphan imposed
a code under the name of " The Book of the Law of
the Lord by Moses " upon King Josiah and all the na
tion, and that Hezekiah had no such " Book of the
Law of Moses " as the historian affirms, and that Ama
ziah did not quote from it when he said, as it " is writ
ten in the Book of the Law of Moses," and that Jehos
haphat did not send out the scribes to teach that book
when they "took the Book of the Law of the Lord
with them," and that Jehoash had some other book
under the name of " the Law " given him when he was
anointed king, and that David did not refer to it when
he charged Solomon to have regard to what "is written
in the Law of Moses." He must believe, moreover,
that different books and different codifications of the
laws of the people from time to time are thus referred
to, when not one lisp in the whole history or poetry or
prophecy of the nation can be found to that effect.
He must believe that the nation was so stupid as to per
mit it, and its historians so careless as not to mention

228 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
it either to the honor or the disgrace of any scribe or
king. He must believe that in the time of Ezra or
Josiah a writer succeeded in imitating the ancient style
of the Mosaic age so perfectly that all the scribes and
priests were deceived into the belief that it was the
work of Moses, even when there was no evidence that
he ever wrote such a book, or that such a book had
ever existed in the nation. Nay, more : he must believe
that all its complicated and burdensome laws were re
ceived at once and adopted as the code of the nation,
because they believed them to be of Mosaic origin, and
submitted to the severe discipline which these laws im
posed, without once questioning the authenticity of the
book or the authority of the law-giver. He must be
lieve that the writer not only invented the accounts
of the building of the tabernacle, and wearisomely
repeated them, and also introduced the repetitious de
scriptions of the offerings and the consecration of the
sacred things, but he must believe that he could luckily
hit upon or skilfully invent those numerous undesigned
coincidences which are scattered all through the book, so
evidently unobserved by the writer himself. He must
believe that the writer — guilty of one of the grossest
impositions ever practised upon a people — was never
suspected, much less accused, of fraud, but that his
spurious work was received and adopted without a word
of complaint, suspicion, or hesitation by a whole nation.
He must believe that no " Book of the Law " was in
existence during the reign of David, and that all the
historians, prophets, and poets which have referred to
it in an unbroken series from his time down to the time
of Nehemiah and Malachi, Sirach and Philo, were mis-

CONCLUSION. 22g
taken, or else he must believe that a gross corruption
of the old copy was made, and ma Je in so skilful a
manner that no one detected it then, or can now tell
with any certainty the new portions which were added
to the old book. The learned men of Jehoshaphat,
the scholarly priest and scribe of Josiah, the noble
Ezra, the skilful Nehemiah, never suspected the fraud,
never discovered' the cheat. Nor did the prophets Joel
and Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah, Haggai and Malachi,
have a suspicion that "the Law," "the Laws of
Moses," "the Law of the Lord," on which they based
all their predictions, and to which they appealed in con
firmation of all their threatenings and promises, was a
mere collection made from age to age of the laws of
the nation, and attributed, by a pious fraud or illiterate
mistake, to their great deliverer, Moses, to give them
sanctity and power over the people. Surely, a louder
curse would have leaped from the fiery lips of Isaiah
upon the head of such a deceiver than he ever uttered
against the hypocritical priests who "trampled the
courts of the Lord." Yet such must be his belief who
disbelieves. Adopting the canon of Hume, that of two miracles
we should believe that which is the less marvellous
and incredible, I accept the miracle, if it be one, of
the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, rather than the
theory which makes it either the growth of centuries
or the work of a modern Jew of the time of Ezra.
The difficulties attending the last theory are vastly
greater than those which surround the first. As easily
could I believe that the basaltic pillars which compose
the Giant's Causeway were the work of the fabulous

230 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
race whose name they bear, and not the production of
the earth's central fires. I believe, then, that the Pen
tateuch is a work of the Mosaic age, and largely the
work of Moses himself ; that it has come down to us
with few, very few, dislocations, interpolations, and
corruptions ; and that it will be handed down to com
ing ages as an admired monument of the wisdom,
learning, and arts of that remote age, — as a monu
ment of an early revelation of the divine will, to re
store and elevate the race. I believe that the more
thorough the investigations are which are directed to
the examination of this book, the more profound and
searching the scholarship which is devoted to the in
quiry of its age and authorship, the more successful
the endeavors of the explorers of the ancient monu
ments on the Nile and the Tigris in exhuming sculpt
ured tablets and opening tombs whose walls are pict
ured history, the more brilliant the success of the
Rawlinsons, the Layards, and the Hinckses, the Smiths
and the Sayces, in deciphering the cuneiform inscrip
tions on the walls of the palaces of the successors of
Ninus, and of the Wilkinsons and the Lepsiuses and
the Mariettes in interpreting the painted symbols and
hieroglyphic histories in the tombs of the Pharaohs
contemporary with Abraham and Joseph and Moses,
the more certainty will be given to the conclusions
which I have reached, or, at least, to which I have
pointed the way : that the Pentateuch is substan
tially of the Mosaic age, and largely, either
directly or indirectly, of mosaic authorship.

NOTE A.
Several eminent critics on the Continent and in England, and
a few in this country, hold that the Pentateuch, with the excep
tion of a few brief passages, was not written till a. period long
subsequent to the time of Moses. The Book of Deuteronomy
was composed, some say forged, in the time of King Josiah, by
Hilkiah and his associates, and is the book which they pretended
to have "found" while the Temple was undergoing repairs.
They also maintain that the ritual law, or Priest-Code, as they
call it, was not written till the return from the exile, and that the
Book of Genesis was a compilation made by an author as late
probably as the last years of the kingdom of Judah. Some
critics also claim that the code of ritual laws, though not written
out, was growing up during the reign of the later kings, and that
its fragmentary character is proof of it. Indeed, they maintain
that Exodus-Numbers is a mosaic of fragments of laws selected
from larger codes, and that these fragments can be separated.
They have attempted to make this separation. But no two of
them agree as to the fragments used, which shows that the frag
mentary theory, as regards Exodus-Numbers, is by no means
established, or capable of being established. To show the reader
how the most eminent of these theoretical critics differ in their
selection of these fragments, I will give their dissection of
Exodus xii. I select six of them, — Stahelin, Knobel, Kayser,
Noldeck, Dillman, and Wellhausen.
Stahelin selects as Elohistic verses 1-28, 43-51.
Knobel selects as Elohistic verses 1-23, 28, half of 37, 40-51 ;
that is, Knobel omits four verses which Stahelin calls Elohistic,
and adds four in different places to Stahelin's number.
Kayser selects as Elohistic verses 1-10, 14-20, 28, 40-51, omit
ting thirteen verses that Stahelin accepts, and eleven verses that
Knobel accepts. No two of the three agree in their choice of
fragments. Again : —
Noldeck selects as Elohistic verses 1-23 (24-27 doubtful), 28,
(231)

232 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
half of 37, 40-51. He differs from each of the other three in his
selections, and attributes to some editor half of 37 and all of 38.
Dillman selects as Elohistic verses 1-20, 28, half of 37, 40, 4:,
43-50, differing more or less from all the others, and attributing
to another Elohistic writer verses 21 (?), 31-33, the other half of
37, 38, 42. Let the reader examine these divisions, and satisfy
himself of their utter groundlessness. But I have not done.
Wellhausen selects as Elohistic verses 1-20, 28, half of 37, 40,
41, 43-50. He and Dillman agree in these selections; but we
shall see, as we proceed, that they differ in making other selec
tions. I will only delay to say that these eminent critics, whose dis
coveries we are called upon to accept, do not agree.
But there are the fehovistic selections of these critics yet to be
examined. Stahelin selects as Jehovistic verses 29-36, leaving six verses of
the chapter unaccounted for or attributed to the compiler. This
is seen by adding together his Elohistic and Jehovistic passages.
Knobel selects as Jehovistic verses 24-27, 29—36, half of 37, and
38, 39, differing widely from Stahelin.
Kayser selects as Jehovistic verses 11— 13, 21—27, 29-39, differing
from both the former.
Noldeck selects as Jehovistic verses 29-36, 39, and attributing
to the compiler half of 37, and 38, not accounting at all for
eleven verses, and differing from all the other critics.
Dillman selects as Jehovistic verses 2i(?)-27, 29, 30, 34-36, 39,
and not agreeing with any of the above named.
Wellhausen selects as Jehovistic verses (21-27 doubtful), 29-39,
42, not agreeing in this selection, as in the other, with Dillman,
and with none of the others.
Wellhausen, the most eminent among those who have
attempted to show that the Pentateuch is made up of fragments,
has a peculiar theory, which I will state. The reader can omit it
if he is tired of this folly of learned men.
The Jehovistic document, as we now have it, or fragments of
it, in the Pentateuch, is composed of an original Jehovistic docu
ment, and a first, second, and third emendation of it, so that, in

DISCORDANT CRITICS. 2-33
fact, it had been changed by additions and subtractions three
times, and consisted of four parts ; namely, the original and the
three changes made by the three revisers.
The Elohistic document underwent the same changes as the
Jehovistic, and consisted of the original document and three re
visions. In this condition these documents would seem to be in a suffi
ciently mixed state to defy separation. But be patient, reader, if
indeed you have ventured to read. Wellhausen is not satisfied
with this mixture, but says that the three-times revised Jehovistic
document is promiscuously added to the three-times revised
Elohistic document ; and these eight, or by another reckoning
twenty, intermixed documents he claims to have detected and
separated even to clauses of only a dozen words !
No two of these critics whom we are called upon to confide in
and follow agree in more than one instance ; and several passages
in the chapter are not put into either the Jehovistic or Elohistic
class, but are attributed to the compiler or editor of the Penta
teuch. When we demand that at least two of these critics shall
agree in their separation into fragments of the books before we are
accused of stupidity or bigotry for not blindly following them, our
demand is reasonable, and we should stand by it. Wellhausen
goes so far as to say "there were at least twenty-two authors,
editors, and emendators engaged in the composition and comple
tion of the Pentateuch." Till some better agreement is reached
than we find in these critics, and from whose opinion nine-tenths,
if not nineteen-twentieths, of the Hebrew scholars in England and
America decidedly assent, it will be as reasonable as it is prudent
to accept the conclusion that the Pentateuch is a work of the
Mosaic age, and much of it the work of the hand of Moses.
*#* Readers desiring further information concerning the current critical
schools of thought are referred to a series of papers by H. L. Hastings, included
in the Anti-Infidel Library under the following titles: " The Higher Criti
cism" ; "fesus of Nazareth as a Higher Critic" ; " The Pentateuch: Its
Origin and Authority" ; "Specimen Bricks from the Babel of the Higher
Critics" ; "More Specimen Bricks from the Babel of the Higher Critics,"
etc. To be obtained of the publisher of this volume,

ANALYTICAL INDEX.

Pagb
INTRODUCTORY ON KUENEN'S "RELIGION OF ISRAEL."
Style of the Work, and Test of the Truth of Later
Writers,  7-10
Illustrations of Perversions of History by Priests and
Prophets,  n-13
Theory of Human Progress the Test of All History, . 14-16
Point of Departure in the Inquiry of the Historic
Truth, and Dr. Kuenen's Method of Argument, . 16-24
Reform under Hezekiah and Josiah  24-27
Hilkiah's "Book of the Law,"  27-32
The Law the Work of Ezekiel and Ezra (Leviticus
xviii., xxvi.)  33"36
Objection that "No Mention is made of any such
Work as the Pentateuch in any Work written
before the Captivity " examined, ....... 37-58
Testimony of the Book of the Kings,  37_39
" " " " Chronicles, .... 39-42
" " " " Joshua, Judges, Samuel, 42-47
Ezra, Nehemiah, . . 47-57
Conclusion  57
Appendix A: "The Bible for Learners." Some of
its Theories noticed, — Sinai, Samson, Korah, . . 59-65
Appendix B : Some of Dr. Kuenen's Theories exam-
amined, — Priests, Levites, etc., . ... 66-69
No Prophetic Writing till Eighth Century, . 70
Not One Psalm from David,  70
Different Documents in Exodus and Num
bers,  71
(234)

ANALYTICAL INDEX.

235 PAGE

a study of the pentateuch.
Introduction  75-81
External Evidences  82
I. Christ to Malachi.
ist Esdras  83
ist Maccabees,  84
Ecclesiasticus,  84
Septuagint Version,  84
Samaritan Pentateuch,  84
II. Malachi to Captivity.
Malachi,  85
Haggai  85
Zechariah  85
Nehemiah,  85-86
Ezra,  86-87
III. Captivity to David.
(1) Historical Books, remarks on, . . . 87-90
Books of the Kings,  90-100
Josiah,  90-93
Hezekiah,  93~94
Amaziah  94
Jehoash  94
David  95
Solomon  95-100
Books of Chronicles,  100-104
(2) Poetical Books  104-132
1. The Prophets.
Daniel,  105
Habbakuk  105
Zephaniah  105
Ezekiel  105-107
Jeremiah,  107-112
Isaiah  112-115
Micah,  115
Hosea,  115-121
Amos,  121-126
Joel  126-127

236 ANALYTICAL INDEX. PAGE
2. Poems. Ecclesiastes,  127
Solomon's Song  127
Proverbs,  128
Psalms  128-132
Value of this Evidence,  132-134
IV. David to Moses,  134-156
ist Samuel,  134-141
Judges,  141-142
Joshua  142-146
Observations on External Evidence,  146-151
Conclusion  152-156
Internal Evidence.
General Observations as to what would be the
Character of the Books, supposing them
to have been written at the Time claimed, 157-159
I. Antiquity of Style,  159-176
II. Contents and Structure. Removal of
Unexpected Difficulties in the Laws,
and Comparison of Numb. Lev. and
Deut  177-198
III. Undesigned Coincidences, . . . 198-208
IV. Minuteness of Details,  208-215
V. Chasms in the History,  216-217
VI. References to Egyptian Customs, . . . 217-218
VII. Adoption of Egyptian Words and Rites, 218-221
VIII. No Evidences of Later Enactments, . . 221-223
IX. Results  223-225
X. Conclusion. — Difficulties of Unbelief, . 226-230

THE WONDEEPUL LAW.

THE

WONDERFUL LAW.

By H. L. HASTINGS,
Editor of tl The Christian " Boston, Mass,

* Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy Law.*1
Psalm cxix. 18.

SCRIPTURAL TRACT REPOSITORY :
H. L. Hastings, | Marshall Bkos, Agents,
Boston, U. S. A. : No. 47 Cobnhill. London : No. 10 Paternoster Row.
Copyright, 1888. ! Entered at Stationers' Hail.
PRINTED IN AMERICA.

THE WONDERFUL LAW.

BY H. L. HASTINGS.

As the sojourner in Rome passes along the Via Sacra,
among the various memorials of Rome's departed splen
dor he will observe a massive arch, which has been stand
ing for centuries, and which recalls the palmiest days of
the Iron Empire; those days when the plundered spoils
and treasures of conquered nations were gathered to
adorn and enrich the Roman Capital.
Upon the inside of this arch, some fifteen or twenty
feet above the base, are to be seen carved in stone a num
ber of life-size human figures, bearing various articles;
a table, a curious candlestick with seven branches, a cen
ser for incense, two trumpets, and other trophies of the
victorious prowess of Roman arms.
That arch is known as the Arch of Titus, and was
erected to commemorate the triumphal celebration
granted by the city of Rome in honor of the illus
trious exploits which had been performed by Titus and
his father Vespasian. Each of them had won great hon
ors by their victories, and the Roman senate had decreed
to each a public Triumph; but when Titus had re
turned from his journey to Egypt, and met his father
Vespasian and his brother Domitian, it was determined
to have but one Triumph for both father and son; and or
[9]

10 THfi WONDEEPUL LAW.
the day appointed for this pompous procession all Rome
poured out to witness the magnificent spectacle.
When the appointed morning dawned, Vespasian and
Titus came out from the temple of Isis where they had
lodged the previous night, crowned with laurel, and
clothed, in those purple robes which were proper to their
family, and went as far as the Octavian Walk, where the
senate and principal rulers waited for them; and where,
being seated in ivory chairs on a tribunal or platform,
they were hailed by the acclamations of the soldiers who
were gathered to do them honor. After solemn devotions
Vespasian briefly addressed the people. Then the soldiers
were sent away to a feast, while Vespasian and Titus
returned to the Gate of the Pomp, through which s^cb
processions marched, put on their triumphal garments,
and offered sacrifices to the gods of ancient Rome.
The triumphal procession then moved forward into the
city. In it were borne vast quantities of silver, gold, and
ivory, wrought in curious forms; purple hangings, precious
stones, crowns of gold, gems of the utmost magnificence,
imposing idols made of costly materials, and animals of
every species; the whole being attended by multitudes of
men robed in purple interwoven with gold. Captives from
many lands marched in the procession, in which were
also borne pageants, three or four stories high, covered
with carpets of gold and ornamented with ivory, on which
were portrayed happy countries laid waste, squadrons of
enemies slain, fugitives fleeing from their invaders, cap
tives led away, cities overthrown and desolated, fortifica
tions taken, strongholds stormed by armies which poured
within their walls, — with pictures of burning temples,
demolished houses falling upon their owners, rivers flow
ing through lands wasted by fire and sword, and various
other representations of war, defeat, and victory.
Following these were a. multitude of ships laden with

THE WONDEEEUL LAW. 11
the spoils gathered in abundance from conquered cities
and nations. "But," says the historian, "for those that
were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the
greatest figure of all; that is, the golden table, of the
weight of many talents, the candlestick also that was
made of gold, though its construction was now changed,
and the small branches were now produced out of it to
a great length, having likeness to a trident in their posi
tion, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp
at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven,
and represented the dignity of the number seven among
the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, were carried
the Laws of the Jews. After these spoils, passed by a
great many men carrying the images of Victory, whose
structure was entirely either of ivory or of gold; after
which Vespasian marched in the first place, and Titus fol
lowed him; Domitian also rode along with them and made
' a glorious appearance, and rode on a horse that was wor
thy of admiration." *
This great procession marched on until the rear of it
reached the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, where they
halted as was their custom, until word was brought that
the general of the enemy was slain. This general was
Simon, son of Gioras, who had been led in this show
with the captives — seven hundred of whom, eminently
tall and handsome, Titus had ordered carried to Rome to
grace his triumph. A rope had been cast over Simon's
head, and he had been dragged with abuse and insult' into
the forum, and there slain. When the news of his death
was brought back to the procession the people shouted
for joy, offered up sacrifices, and then dispersed to finish
the day with mirth and festivity.
" After these triumphs were over, and the affairs of
the Romans were settled on a sure foundation, Vespasian
*Josephua, Wars of the Jews, b. vii. chap. v. §§ 3-6.

12 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
resolved to build a temple to Peace. . . He had this tem
ple adorned with pictures and statues. . . . He also laid up
therein those golden vessels and instruments that were
taken out of the Jewish temple as ensigns of his glory.
But still he gave order that they should lay up their
Law and the purple veils of the Holy Place, in the
royal palace and keep them there."*
This was the Triumph, as described by an eye-witness,
which commemorated the downfall of Jerusalem, the over
throw of the commonwealth of Israel, the captivity of
the Jews, and their dispersion into all lands. And that
Arch of Titus stands to-day, on the Via Sacra, with
its representations of the golden candlestick, table, trum
pets, and censer, and is a perpetual memorial of the
victory of imperial Rome, the downfall of the Jewish
government, and the scattering of that nation among all
the inhabitants of the earth.
From that day to this, for more than eighteen centu
ries, the Jewish nation have been wanderers on the face of
the earth, strangers and pilgrims, exiles from their own
land, without a government, without a city, without a
temple, without a home, struggling, suffering and endur
ing; and to-day is still fulfilled in them that prophecy of
Balaam their ancient enemy, " Lo, the people shall dwell
alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations."
But, however the Jews may since have been despised
and hated, the choicest trophies which a Roman con
queror could then gather out of all the lands to grace his
imperial triumph were the vessels taken from the temple
at Jerusalem; and most precious among those spoils,
more valuable than the golden candlestick, table, cen
ser, or trumpets, was the Law that was given by
Moses, which contained the secret of all the prosperity
the Jewish nation ever enjoyed, and the violation of
* Josephus, Wars of the Jews, b. vii. chap. v. §§6, 7.

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. 13
which had brought upon that people the judgments which
had crushed their power, and bound them as captives be
neath the Roman yoke.
The graphic pen of a skeptical historian has traced
through successive centuries the " Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire;" and the proudest monuments of
Rome's imperial greatness to-day are vast ruins, desolate
palaces and broken sculptures, shattered and marred by
the vengeance of barbarians, and the destructive acci
dents of passing ages. The grandeur of Rome has de
parted. The palaces of the Caesars lie desolate. The
laws which Rome imposed upon the world are buried
in the dust of ages, and none are so poor as to yield
them allegiance. The dynasty of the Caesars has sunk
into oblivion, and the names of the proudest rulers of
earth are black with merited infamy. The world-wide
power of the Iron Kingdom has been shattered and di
vided; but the Jewish nation whose downfall was that
day celebrated, whose leader was that day slain, and
whose children, sold as slaves, were represented by the
ranks of dejected captives which swelled the pomp of
their conquerors' triumph, still lives and thrives and mul
tiplies among the nations on the earth. The ceaseless
attrition of ages has failed to crush them. The burdens
of oppression, "the slings and arrows of outrageous fort
une," the disgrace, exile, poverty, and scorn of centuries,
have in vain conspired to effect their disintegration and
destruction. Rome has fallen, but the Jewish nation still
stands. The empire of the Caesars has perished, but the
Jewish people remain. The nations that conquered them,
sold them, scattered them and oppressed them, have been
shattered into fragments, and all the gods they wor
shipped are forgotten, or only remembered with con
tempt, while the conquered people maintain their na
tionality and remember their fathers' God, and have the

14 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
comfort of knowing that His name is still adored in all
lands, while the thirty thousand idols of the Roman Pan
theon are cast to the bats and the moles, never to be
worshiped again.
But though Rome has been sacked, though her temples
have been desolated, her altars destroyed, and her laws
abolished, yet the Law contained in that Parchment Roll
which the Romans brought from the Jewish temple as
their proudest trophy in the triumph of Titus, and laid
ap at last within the imperial palace of the Roman rulers,
¦is the choicest of all the spoils which Roman prowess
aad won — that Law has been honored and preserved, and
rules to-day an empire wider than the wildest dreams of
Roman domination, and is written in the hearts and minds
of men and women scattered in every land and clime.
Translated into hundreds of languages, printed in
thousands of editions, and scattered by hundreds of mill
ions of copies, that law has gone into all the earth, and
its words unto the ends of the world. And that law to
day, though spurned and despised by the scoffing, the
godless and the unbelieving, unlocks the mystery of Jew
ish preservation and of Israel's acknowledged greatness,
and stands with them as a witness to the faithfulness of
God, and to the truth of the revelation he has given.
The Roman conquerors are gone; the deities which Titus
worshiped in that day of pomp are buried out of sight;
but the testimony of Israel, "The Lord our God is one
Loed," has gone throughout all lands, and is still sound
ing forth, lighting up the darkness of heathenism as with
a pillar of fire, and leading the van of human progress as
a pillar of cloud by day. Over the wreck and ruin of
departed empires we read, "All flesh is grass, and the
goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field;" but in
the fulfillment of sacred prophecy, and in the perma
nence of the law given by Moses, we may read that

the wonderful law. 15
though " the grass withereth, and the flower fadeth," yet
"the word of our God shall stand forever."
whence came that law?
Upon the origin of that law general history sheds lit
tle light. The sources of other laws are well known.
The code of Napoleon, the pandects of Justinian, the de
crees of the Roman emperors, the products of Grecian
legislation, have come down to us, and we can mark the
date and time when they were enacted or decreed. We
can trace the history of the British Magna Charta, or
the American Declaration of Independence, the laws of
the British Parliament, or the American Congress; but
Israel has no record or tradition of any law-making body.
No parliament or legislature ever convened to enact
or establish the statutes which governed the children
of Israel. The acts of legislative bodies, and the de
crees of monarchs, are numbered and dated, and can be
authenticated; but this law stands alone. There is no rec
ord of its gradual growth. Various ancient heathen
writers declare its Mosaic origin, some asserting that
Moses flourished before the Trojan war (b.c. 1184). Jew
ish tradition, in accordance with their written records,
declares that it was received from the Almighty through
Moses on Mount Sinai. One thing is certain, if it was
not thus received there is no record of its origin or recep
tion, and it stands to-day an unexplained enigma — a law
without a lawgiver. LAW AND HAED-TACK.
It is asserted by some that the law of Moses was a
forgery and a cheat, that it was not given by God, nor
even by Moses, but that it was imposed upon the people
at a far later date than the time when it is supposed to
have been originated.
But it is not easy to impose spurious Jaws upon any

16 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
nation. Men are jealous of their liberties and their rights.
Every Jew was an owner of landed property, and his
only title to that property was found in the writings of
Moses and Joshua, and in the genealogy of his family,
which was carefully preserved. Every law, to be accepted
as authoritative, must bear the name of the lawgiver and
the date of its enactment; otherwise it would not gain
credence or authority. It would not be easy to forge a
law and foist it upon any people. Does the history of
the world afford an instance of such a proceeding ?
Suppose that for experiment's sake, some skeptic should
go among his friends and neighbors and tell them that
there was a law that for seven days in each year every
man, woman, and child in this nation should eat " hard
tack," or a peculiar kind of thin hard bread, or biscuit;
and that during one week in April every person must use
only this kind of bread, whether they had good teeth or
poor teeth, or no teeth at all; and that no other sort of
bread should be allowed in their houses, under pain of
death. Imagine an infidel publishing such a law through
out the community, and saying to every man, woman,
and child, " On the fifteenth day of April you will all
commence to eat hard-tack; and for seven days no man
or woman shall bake, eat, or possess any other kind of
bread under the severest penalties." What success would
an infidel have in imposing such a law upon his neighbors?
They would look upon him at first with silent contempt,
or perhaps query if he was not an escaped lunatic. If
he persisted in proclaiming such a law, they would in
quire as to its origin; they would say, " We never heard
of such a law;" they would deny his authority, and they
would flatly refuse to obey it.
"Eat hard-tack!" they would say; "we do not like
hard-tack. We never have eaten it, and we do not pro
pose to begin. You say there is a law that we should eat

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. IV
this kind of bread; where is this law? who made such a
law? and why did no one ever hear of it before ?"
What would be the result of the infidel's experiment ?
Why, a man would go home and say to his wife, —
"I want you to make some bread."
"What kind of bread?"
" Any kind of bread. Make some raised bread, soft
bread, saleratus bread, yeast bread, potato bread, wheat
bread, rye bread, brown bread, — any kind of bread and
every kind of bread except hard- tack; that we will not
have, anyhow. There is an infidel 'crank' around here
saying that there is a law that for one week no bread
shall be baked or eaten in the country except hard-tack,
under pain of death; and we propose to let the fool see
that he cannot impose his laws upon us."
And so they would eat their bread, and defy the infidel
and his law, and show this new teacher that they were
not to be deceived or frightened by such a man as he.
And yet to-day there is a people, scattered from one
end of the world to the other, who for seven days in each
year eat this kind of bread, and have no other bread in
their houses. We find these people in Asia, in Africa, in
Europe, in America, and in every quarter of the globe;
and wherever they are, under the rule of czar or kaiser,
emperor or king, in England or in Egypt, in China or in
India, in lands of bondage and outrage, or in homes of
freedom and prosperity, — wherever you find the Jews,
there, in the spring of the year, for a week's time, they
not only eat this peculiar kind of bread, but they put
every other kind out of their houses. As the time ap
proaches, hundreds and hundreds of barrels of flour pass
through the great bakeries,* and are turned out in cakes
?Certain bakeries in this city have been busily engaged recently in preparing un
leavened bread for the Passover feast of the Jews. It is expected that one hundred
thousand pounds will be prepared. — Philadelphia Christian Instructor, April, 1885.

18 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
about as large as a dinner-plate, and about as thick — and
nearly as hard. And this bread is eaten by Jews wher
ever they are, throughout the entire world. And it is
not only eaten by Jews; but among the ruins of Samaria,
in Palestine, there is a little remnant of people which
have been at enmity with the Jews for nearly twenty-
five hundred years, but who yet eat unleavened bread as
the Jews do, and at the same time of the year.
Now why does this scattered nation uniformly observe
such a custom as this ? They say they do it in obedience
to their law. But who gave them such a law? And
what is the meaning of such an observance ? Who had
authority to enact such a law? And what reason can be
assigned for such a strange requirement?
When those Jewish families gather around their tables
where they eat of that unleavened bread with bitter
herbs, it is customary for a little child, the youngest in
the family, to come to the father and inquire "What is
the meaning of this feast?" And the law of Moses says:
" When your children shall say to you, What mean ye
by this service? then ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the
Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the chil
dren of Israel, in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians
and delivered our houses." Exodus xii. 26,_27.
In accordance with this law, the father gives an account
of the sojourn of Israel in Egypt, of the oppressions
which they endured, and of the great deliverance which
God wrought in bringing them out with a mighty hand
and outstretched arm, with signs and wonders, into their
own land. And he tells them that the last meal the
Israelites ate in the land of Egypt was a roasted lamb with
unleavened bread, prepared and eaten in haste, — the blood
of the lamb having been sprinkled on the posts of their
doors to protect them from the power of the destroying
angel, who slew the firstborn of Egypt and passed over

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 19
the houses whose doors were thus sprinkled with blood;
and that, in memory of this passing over, they were then
commanded to keep the passover feast each year, and for
seven days to eat only unleavened bread.
Now why do these Israelites tell this story ? When
did they begin to tell it ? Supposing it to be a lie, who
started it ? If it is a fraud, or forgery, how was a whole
nation imposed upon by such a fraud and such a forgery?
Surely, a skeptic of to-day must be exceedingly wise if
he can prove that to be false which this people for
more than thirty-three hundred years have accepted and
commemorated as true. If this story be a falsehood,
how comes it to be told in every Jewish home, from one
end of the world to the other? Different families of
this nation have had no communication with each other
for centuries and ages, but yet they all agree in declaring
that this passover has been handed down from the time
of Moses to the present day; and the Samaritans, with
whom the Jews have had no dealings for thousands of
years, tell the same story, and read it out of the same
books. Skeptics may deny the fact of the Egyptian bondage,
of Israel's deliverance, and the passage of the Red Sea;
but they cannot deny the existence of the hard-tack, for
it is here before their eyes. If the Jews were not deliv
ered from Egypt, why do they eat this bread one week
in every year ? The unleavened bread is a fact, and for
one week in every year every true Jew, old and young,
throughout the world, eats no bread but that. He does
it in obedience to the law given by Moses, commemorat
ing the miraculous deliverance of Israel from Egypt. If
we deny that the law was given, how can we account for
its observance ? And if we deny the deliverance of Is
rael from Egypt, how will the infidel explain the hard-tack?
The hard-tack is a present, palpable fact, and we can

20 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
no more account for its existence without admitting the
truth of the books of Moses, than Americans could ac
count for the celebration of the fourth day of July with
drums, trumpets, and fire-works, while denying the his
tory of the American Revolution. The skeptic might
find discrepancies in American histories, and statements
that seemed to him improbable; but if he proceeded to
deny the Declaration of Independence, and the leading
facts in the history of the American Revolution, every
cannon, and drum, and band of music, and sky-rocket,
and fire-cracker, and toy pistol, used to celebrate the day,
would give the lie to his denials, and prove beyond all
possibility of question, that there was a Declaration of
Independence in IT 76, and a Revolutionary War. It
would have been impossible for any man to have brought
about the celebration of the Fourth of July, with the
usages and customs attending it, unless there had been
something to celebrate, and something that was worth
celebrating. When the descendants of the " Pilgrim Fathers " hold
their annual feast on " Forefathers' Day," in Plymouth,
it is said that one of the courses served consists of five
grains of corn, laid on the plate of each guest, a memo
rial of that time when, in their early days of poverty
and distress, all the corn in the colony was divided, and
there were only five kernels to each person. No law re
quires the remembrance or celebration of this circum
stance. The observance does not date from the time of
the Pilgrims ; it is not a religious ordinance, nor has it
ever been widely observed; nevertheless, it would be
hard to persuade any man who had ever been present on
such an occasion that there was not some foundation for
this custom. But the feast of the passover, instituted
immediately in connection with the events which it com
memorated, and continued without interruption through

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. 21
all generations, being observed by the entire Jewish na
tion, though scattered abroad in every land, is an abso
lute demonstration of the truth of the Mosaic history;
since it would have been impossible to invent and impose
such laws and usages upon the Jewish nation unless the
facts upon which they were based were realities, and the
statements which warranted them were true.
So long as the Jews keep the passover, so long it will
be impossible for candid persons to deny the story of
Israel's deliverance from Egyptian bondage, or to dis
prove the supernatural origin of the Jewish Law. And
so long as the Arch of Titus stands, with the vessels of
the Jewish tabernacle represented upon it; so long as
every Jew in Rome shuns that arch, and avoids passing
under the memorial of his nation's overthrow; so long as
the Jewish people, wherever they dwell, keep the pass-
over and observe the Mosaic ordinances, — so long we shall
find ourselves linked by existing facts and historical mon
uments to that law given by Moses more than three thou
sand years ago, and which, preserved through all the
changes of passing ages, is still working its way among
the nations of the earth, and influencing humanity as no
other law has ever done.
is this law good or evil?
There are few things more remarkable than the op
posing conclusions at which different persons will arrive
concerning the same thing. For example, there are those
who look upon the Law of Moses as the embodiment
of sound principles, and abundant political wisdom and
sagacity; while others look upon it as a tissue of absurd
ities and abominations, hardly paralleled in the history
of human jurisprudence and imposture. Of course when
estimates differ so widely, some one must be mistaken;
and there are doubtless serious misapprehensions con
cerning this matter, in one quarter or another.

22 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
The Psalmist prayed, " Open thou mine eyes, that I
may behold wondrous things out of thy law." No man
can see much until his eyes are open; and what men see
depends quite as much upon their powers of vision as it
does upon the things to be seen. Because a blind man
sees nothing, it by no means follows that there is nothing
to be seen. A near-sighted man is a poor judge of a land
scape. Men see what they are accustomed to see, what
their eyes are trained to perceive.
Passing through the same street in a city, different
persons will see different things. One man sees books
and literature, he is a student; another man sees build
ings and architecture, he is an architect; another man
sees displays of merchandise, he is a merchant; another
sees machinery, he is a mechanic ; another man sees
styles and fashions, he is a tailor or a dandy; another
man sees the dramshops, and he is — drunk before night.
Man sees what he is trained to see, what he is competent
to appreciate, what he is interested in seeing.
Standing in a Western wilderness, the wild Indian sees
tracks of deer and buffalo, he is a hunter ; another man
sees broad acres of fertile land, and makes haste to se
cure them, he is a farmer ; another man, a civil engineer,
sees water privileges, marks the site of a city, hears the
whirr of a million of spindles, and says, " Here will be a
second Lowell or Manchester ;" another man goes down
to the water-side, and grasping a handful of sand and hold
ing it up to the sunlight, he sees gold, and straightway
thousands of adventurers go rushing to and fro to find
the precious metal.
Why did not the first man see gold ? Because he was
not trained to see gold. He would not know gold if he
did see it. Each man has seen the things which he was
trained to see. The hunter saw game ; the farmer saw
land ; the civil engineer saw the city ; the gold-digger

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. 23
saw the gold. Each man saw what he was accustomed
to see, and what he was looking for.
An angel, flying over the earth, sees men, and women,
and children, and churches ; he hears the voice of prayer
and the songs of praise ; he sees the heavens which de
clare God's glory, and the firmament which showeth his
handiwork. Over that same radiant landscape flies a
buzzard, and the only thing he sees is a dead mule or a
poor old rack-o'-bones of a horse, which staggers and falls,
and furnishes a feast for the buzzard and his friends.
Each sees the things he is interested in ; the eye catches
what it has been trained to look for and recognize.
Now it is asserted in various quarters that the Mosaic
law and the Old Testament writings connected there
with are absurd, obscene, and oppressive; and that the
acts done under that law, and professedly by divine di
rection, were, in themselves considered, unjust, unwise,
and unworthy of the character of a great and good
Creator and Governor. Others, on the other hand, of
equal intelligence and acquaintance with the facts in the
case, make directly opposing assertions. In such cir
cumstances, to what conclusion shall we arrive? The
difference cannot be in the law, — it must be in the men
who read it. Both look at the same landscape; some see
one class of objects, and others see things entirely
different. Which class sees things as they are ? Or are
they both mistaken in their views of things ?
HAVE WB ANY RULE OF JUDGMENT?
It is necessary in every argument to reach some point
of agreement, as a basis of our reasonings. We must
agree in something before we can argue about anything.
Some primary premises must be laid down as a basis of
all controversy. Can we agree on anything ?
If there is no God, if no law has been given by him,
if Moses was a myth, and man a monkey, then of course

24 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
all moral considerations must be set aside; and then
what rule have we for judging or condemning the acts
recorded in connection with the Mosaic law ? If God
has never said, "Thou shalt not steal," what is there
wrong in stealing ? Monkeys have been in the habit of
stealing, from time immemorial, and no one claims that it
is sinful for a monkey to steal. At what point and by
what means does man, the descendant and heir of the
monkey, forfeit his hereditary right to help himself to
everything which he sees, at pleasure ? It is not wrong
for a monkey to steal. That is his privilege, his right.
Why did not his descendants inherit this, with other an
cestral rights ? And if so, how absurd it is to charge
men with wrong for doing what had been the natural
right of all men from immemorial ages, a right which
was handed down to them from their brutal ancestors,
and which they had done nothing to forfeit. If the Ten
Commandments are a fable, and the Sermon on the Mount
a fantasy, the law a humbug, and the gospel a dream,
why should not men steal, lie, and deceive at pleasure ?
It is charged that the Jews under the law of Moses
were guilty of great immoralities. But why should they
be blamed for that ? If the laws enforcing purity and for
bidding vice were fabulous and deceptive froni beginning
to end ; if the teachings of Jesus Christ are entirely void
of all authority; why should not men disregard all such
imaginary restrictions, and conduct their affairs after
their own sweet wills ? Monkeys, apes and baboons have
exhibited no particular squeamishness concerning matters
of this kind. They have no rule, no law, but that which
springs from their own desires and inclinations. They
are a law unto themselves. They have needed neither
priests nor magistrates to sanction their unions. Why
should the Israelites be blamed for any irregularity in
their social relations, if they were only following in the

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. 25
steps of the monkeys from whom infidels say they were
descended, and whose examples some who profess to be
their progeny seem still quite willing to follow ?
ARE MEN RESPONSIBLE BEINGG ?
It is impossible and unreasonable to condemn and judge
irresponsible beings by commandments and regulations
addressed to beings who are morally responsible. We
cannot take both positions. If we deny moral responsi
bility we must stop abusing Moses and the Israelites for
doing wrong. If we have no sort of guide by which we
can determine what is right and what is wrong, then no
one is to be blamed, whatever they may do, and conse
quently Moses and the Israelites were perfectly justifiable
in all their acts; for " whatever is is right." Suppose the
Israelites did commit the grossest outrages and were
guilty of the vilest crimes; suppose they slaughtered and
butchered without mercy men and women and children;
suppose their law outraged all principles of justice and
truth and righteousness and decency; what of it ? If
there is no power but Force; if there is no Supreme Ruler
and superior law; if all progress is attainable only by the
survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence, one
thing is certain, the Jewish nation has survived, while the
others have gone to the wall. Hence they must be con
sidered as theflttest, and their acts must be interpreted in
accordance with that principle. Why, then, in the name
of common sense, should men go brawling about the
country, abusing Moses and the Israelites for committing
crimes and perpetrating cruelties, if they have no proof
that the acts committed were crimes and cruelties, and
if they were only carrying out their natural passions and
appetites, and doing what they had a perfect right to do,
according to the laws of nature under which they were
created and in accordance with which they lived ? Sup
pose they were cruel, brutal, and unreasonable, were they

26 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
any more so than are the " laws of nature " which govern
all things? Suppose they destroyed without discrimina
tion, mercy or justice? Is not that just the way the god
of nature is doing every day ? Is there any reason in a
whirlwind? any mercy in an earthquake? any compas
sion in a cyclone ? any pity in a famine or a pestilence ?
If we charge the God of the Bible with cruelty, brutality,
and unreasonableness, does the god of nature behave him
self any better? or are the laws of nature more merciful,
gracious, compassionate, or righteous ? Upon what prin
ciple can skeptics abuse Moses for doing just those things
which nature herself has been doing from unknown ages
down to the present time ? Surely, that is a lame kind of
logic which abuses Moses and the Jews for acts which are
forbidden by no law, but which are in accordance with all
men's ancient rights and usages, from their monkey ances
tors down; and which are in strict harmony with what is
done by nature and the god of nature every day we live.
If the law of Moses is a fable, a forgery, and a fraud,
then the principles contained in that law cannot be used by
infidels to impeach or accuse the men to whom that law
was given. If there are no principles of truth and right
eousness and justice; if we have nothing to guide us but
the instincts derived from brutal ancestors ; then on what
principle can we question or condemn any act committed
by any person, under any circumstances ? There is no law
and there can be no transgression. But if we admit the
existence of a God, and if he has implanted a law in the
human heart, or inscribed it on tables of stone, then we
have a basis upon which we may argue. If we do not
admit these primary facts, we are left to flounder in a quag
mire without a bottom or shore.
If there is no God but nature ; if man has neither crea
tor nor governor; if the rights of property, now protected
by law and guarded by the sanction of solemn oaths, are

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. 27
based upon absurd and groundless traditions; then what
is to hinder any man falling back upon his original rights,
derived from his remote ancestors, and stealing, right and
left, whatever he can lay his hands on ? And should he
succeed in plundering a government, and thus robbing
fifty or sixty millions of people of their rights, through
crooked contracts and villainous frauds, he would be per
fectly justifiable in doing it, and in invoking the aid of some
brilliant lawyer who agreed with him that Moses was
mistaken when he declared that God had said, "Thou
shalt not steal," and who would gladly aid him to escape
punishment, and divide with him the profits of the job.
It is true these principles do not work on a large scale.
So long as the majority of the people are honest, a few
thieves can exhibit their enterprise and carry out their
principles with apparent advantage to themselves. If,
however, the practice of stealing should come to be uni
versal, the novelty of the thing would pass away, and we
should find ourselves back in the realms of barbarism,
and brutality. And no principle which if universally ac
cepted and fully carried out would degrade humanity,
shipwreck civilization, and disorganize society, is worthy
of acceptation by men who have anything to lose or any
thing to hope for.
All theories which deny divine authority and moral
responsibility tend directly to barbarism; nor can any
true civilization be found outside the influence of the law
of Moses and the gospel of Christ. The infidel world
may be defied to find a place on this planet ten miles
square, where a decent man can live in decency, comfort,
and security, supporting and educating his children un
spoiled and unpolluted, enjoying the comforts of family
life, and the advantages of respectable society — a place
where age is reverenced, infancy protected, manhood re
spected, womanhood honored, and human life held in

28 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
due regard — where the revelation of the God of Abra
ham has not gone before and cleared the way, and laid
the foundations of society, and made civilization, de
cency, and security possible. And as no decent society
can be found where the law of God is unknown, so no
such society can be perpetuated where God's law is dis
carded and disregarded. Persons who, under the influ
ence of divine revelation, have been trained to the prac
tice of virtue and piety in early life, may not always cast
off its restraints under the influence of skepticism in later
years. But let the influence of such training die out,
and the practice of infidelity will soon prove the ruin of
society.* If we then turn away from theories so revolting, im
practicable and dangerous, if we admit that there is
A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG,
between vice and virtue, sin and holiness, good and evil,
we then naturally inquire, What is the cause of this differ
ence ? Does it have its origin in " the nature of things?"
Then who is responsible for "the nature of things?"
And who gave things such a nature, based upon moral
principles, and in harmony with right, and opposed to
wrong? If it be said that this distinction between right and
wrong is innate in the human constitution, then the ques-

* Thoughtful skeptics may well ponder the words of James Russell Lowell, who,
at a festival in honor of the poet Browning, said, in reply to the severe language of
a speaker against certain forms of religious faith:
" I have always been a liberal thinker, and have allowed other3 who differed with
me to think as they liked — but at the same time 1 fear that when we indulge our
selves in the amusement of going without a religion, we are not, perhaps, aware
how much we are sustained at present by an enormous mass all about us, of relig
ious feeling and religious conviction, so that whatever it may be safe for us to think,
for us v/ho have had great advantages, and have been brought up in such a way
that a certain moral direction has been given to our character, / do not know what
would become of the less favored classes of mankind if they undertook to play the
same game."

'THE WONDERFUL LA Wo 29
tion arises, Who made the human constitution, and who
endowed it with the consciousness of right and wronw,
and the ability to discern between the two? Certainly
man must derive that moral nature which approves of
right and disapproves of wrong, from some higher Being,
who also distinguishes between right and wrong, and
who hates the wrong and approves the right.
An unconscious machine cannot produce a conscious
being: a dead thing cannot give birth to a living person;
and a being who had no moral sense, or care concerning
right and wrong, would not know how to originate a be
ing possessed of a conscience which, properly enlightened,
approves the right and condemns the wrong.
If man possesses moral sense, and has innate ideas
of righteousness, they must be the gift of a righteous
Creator, who is not only the source of life and being, but
the fountain of truth and righteousness, the Father of
lights, from whom man receives not only existence, but
intelligence, conscience, and every good and perfect gift.
If, then, it be admitted that there is a God, and that
man is a responsible creature, possessed of moral sense,
and capable of perceiving the difference between good
and evil, right and wrong, truth and falsehood, vice and
virtue, we are then prepared to inquire whether the things
narrated in the books of Moses are in accordance with
the principles of natural righteousness and virtue, or
whether they are impious, outrageous, and worthy of all
condemnation. Hence we inquire,
WAS THE LAW OF MOSES A BAD LAW?
It is useless to undertake to settle this question by mere
general assertions. It must be discussed in detail. Wild,
vague charges prove nothing. We have simply to take
up, one by one, the accusations preferred, and compare
them with the facts in the case. This may be a tedious

30 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
method, but it is the only method that can be satisfactory.
It is easy to condense into a sentence a string of epithets,
or a series of accusations, and snap them off from the end
of a nimble tongue, giving no authority for the assertions
and no opportunity to inquire into the facts— thus be
guiling the simple and fooling the gullible; but such ora
torical displays serve no good purpose. They may con
fuse some who wish to be confused, and convince some
who are willing to be convinced; they may raise that
"laughter in the mouth of fools," which is "like the
crackling of thorns under a pot;" they may serve to fill
the pockets of a glib-tongued blasphemer, but they do not
work conviction in honest minds, nor satisfy the candid
thinker who is honestly inquiring, " What is truth ?"
Let us then calmly consider a few of the objections
which are continually being made against the authority
of the books of Moses, and so against the authority of
the entire Scriptures. And first let us inquire,
IS THE BIBLE A VILE BOOK?
First, we are told that the Bible is a bad book, obscene,
indelicate, and unfit to be read. Before this grave charge
can be established we must consider that the Bible was
written in a different age and country from our own.
There are countries to-day where persons can freely ap
pear in public with such costume, or such lack of costume,
as would in this country at once subject them to impris
onment for indecent exposure. Customs differ in differ
ent countries; and what is improper in one country may
give no offense in another. So there may be a simplicity,
or even a barbarism, of language, which, though indeli
cate to our ears, may have been entirely consistent with
purity and propriety at the time and in the countries
where it was written; as there may also be delicacy of
speech joined with prurient thought and corrupt behavior.

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 31
Again, the words which appear to us indelicate in the
Bible are not the words written by Moses or the prophets,
but they are English words used by the translators; and
they are words which were used in respectable society
when the Bible was translated in 1611, that is, in the
time of Shakespeare. And for every expression in the
Bible which seems objectionable, we could probably find
a dozen in the writings of Shakespeare which would not
pass current in modern society; though it does not appear
that much fault was found with them in those clays.
In the year 1400 died Geoffrey Chaucer, a London gen
tleman, a favorite of royalty, a high government official,
and "the father of English poetry;" placed by Southey
"in the first rank, with Spenser, Shakespeare and Mil
ton," and described by Hallam as "our greatest poet in
the middle ages." His poems are called " a well of En
glish undefiled;" but what infidel would be bold enough
to read a page selected from them at random, before a
promiscuous audience to-day ?
There are books written by a clergyman of the church
of England, in the last half of the eighteenth century,
which, though once widely popular, could not now be
read in public. Times change, and under the influence
of the Bible and Christianity language changes with
them. A century ago language was used in parlors that
would now be hardly tolerable in bar-rooms and stables.
The objection lies, not against the Bible, but against
the English language, which grows purer as the Bible
is circulated among English-speaking peoples. Chaucer
wrote when England had no Bible; Shakespeare wrote
before King James' translation was published; Sterne
wrote when there was not a Bible Society in the world.
The Bible was translated into the purest English then
known. No book of that age will compare with it in
purity, and the influence of the Bible and Christianity

32 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
has elevated the language and the taste of the people
till men object to language which in 1611 was deemed
unobjectionable. Moreover, Moses gave to Israel a law; and a law must
describe and specify the crimes which it prohibits. Not
only the statute laws, but the standard medical treatises
of every civilized country, contain expressions which
might be counted inappropriate for promiscuous reading.
The law of Moses deals not only with crimes, but with
the public health. If it forbids crime, it must describe
crime; and it must do it, not in the delicate euphemisms
by which French writers convey the vilest thoughts in
the politest words, but in plain, honest phrases that can
be understood by common peof)le.
We maintain a semblance of delicacy when treating
on these subjects, by using foreign words, or terms de
rived from foreign tongues, and not well understood by
common people. The strangeness of such language and
our imperfect acquaintance with its meaning, deprives it
of the appearance of coarseness. But let the obscure and
foreign words used in law and in medicine be translated
into the jjlainest and simplest English for the common
people, and there is not a charge of this kind brought
against the Hebrew Scriptures but could be urged with
equal f orce'against our statute laws, standard medical lit
erature, and against the old English writers of both prose
and poetry; — all of which are purity itself compared
with the writings of heathen authors who had no Bibles,
— such as the Greek and Roman classics which are studied
to-day in colleges and academies.
Hence the charge that the Bible is a bad book, " ob
scene, beastly, and vulgar" — made with infinite grace by
the eloquent blasphemer whose name is said to have
headed a petition for the repeal of the law designed to
prohibit the circulation of obscene literature by his fellow

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 33
infidels through the medium of the United States mails
— falls to the ground. Surely, if the Bible is such a book
as he describes, it would be taken up and circulated by
his followers and supporters, and catalogued with the
numerous obscene books and pictures which are advertised
upon the covers of his blasphemous lectures, for circula
tion among his followers, who, if they found the Bible
adapted to their peculiar tastes, would doubtless peruse it
with fresh interest, and circulate it with unexampled zeal.
There is one reason why they will never do this. While
their orator asserts that "few books have been published
containing more moral filth than this inspired Word of
God," he spoils the circulation of the book among his
friends by adding that " these stories are not redeemed
by a single flash of wit or humor. They never rise above
the dull details of stupid vice." Here is the trouble
with the Bible. If it treated sin as a joke; if its pages
were punctuated, like the lectures of this blasphemer,
with "laughter," "applause," and "great laughter;" if it
made clowns roar over crimes, and jested and sneered
at infamies which the laws of every civilized and de
cent country condemn and punish, — it would then be
much more acceptable to him and his jovial followers.
But the Bible does not deal with sin in this way; neither
do the laws of the land. The statutes against vice are
" not enlivened by a single flash of wit or humor." Sin
is no joke, and no matter for joking. The laws promul
gated, the sins condemned, and the punishments recorded,
do not furnish amusing reading for infidels. They are
not enlivened with flashes of "wit and humor." They
deal with stern and awful realities, and warn men to turn
away from sin, that they may escape ruin in this world,
and perdition in the world to come. Infidels mock at sin,
scoff at religion, and sneer at damnation, and then com
plain that the Bible, while rebuking and forbidding acts

34 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
which wreck families, destroy lives, and ruin souls, does
not enliven the subject " with a single flash of wit or
humor." Unless greatly misrej^resented, it is probable
that no living man has shown greater skill, or had more
experience, in the art of enlivening obscene stories with
"flashes of wit and humor" than the man who denounces
the Bible as "obscene, beastly, and vulgar," and "not
redeemed by a single flash of wit or humor." Nero fid
dled while Rome was on fire; and infidels complain that
the Bible does not crack jokes over sins which desolate
nations, and destroy soul and body, for this world and
the next. WAS THE LAW OF MOSES A CRUEL LAW?
It is claimed that the law of Moses was an exceedingly
cruel laio, full of wrath, vengeance, and bloodshed; that
it established a terrible tyranny, and was oj>pressive in
the extreme. What are the facts in the case ?
In the Jewish law, corporal punishment was sometimes
inflicted, but under rigid restrictions. It is not very long
since the practice of flogging was abolished in the armies
and navies of some of the foremost nations of modern
civilization. Any one who has read accounts of persons
being flogged in modern times one, two, three, four, or
five hundred lashes with the cat-o'-nine-tails; of sailors
being " flogged through the fleet;" or who has read the
accounts of the floggings inflicted with the knout and
other instruments of torture; — will perhaps be prepared to
appreciate the " barbarity " of the law of Moses, which
said: "It shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be
beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and
to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by
a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him, and
not exceed." Deut. xxv. 2, 3.
It is true that modern civilization has largely discarded

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 35
the lash, and yet in some cases it has been deemed expe
dient to return to it. When the London garroters were
robbing people on the right hand and on the left, the
magistrates sentenced them not only to imprisonment,
but to a sound flogging; and when once the precious
scoundrels felt the tingle of the lash upon their worthless
hides, garroting suddenly went out of fashion. Wife-
beating has been treated in a similar manner: and the lash
is still retained in some cases of criminal discipline. And
it is yet an open question whether it should be entirely
discarded. Modern law takes men from their families
and friends, leaving their wives to toil and their children
to suffer, and politely ushers them into prison, keeping
them in a gloomy cell for months, making honest men work
to pay taxes for their support, turning them out at last,
possibly finished rogues, perhaps broken in health and
crushed in spirit, but bearing the brand of crime and im
prisonment upon them. The law of Moses, without jails,
prisons, or penitentiaries, settled the whole matter at
once with an infliction of less than forty stripes, and the
man went about his business and supported his family;
his back got well, and he learned to obey the laws.
This was Jewish law. Are we certain that the laws of
modern civilization are greatly superior to these ordi
nances ? And to what country can infidelity point as an
example of humanity, that has not been for generations
under the influence of this same Mosaic law ?
By an act passed in 22 Henry VIII., vagrants were to
be"carriedto some market town or other place, and there
tied to the end of a cart and beaten with whips through
such market town or other place, till the back should be
bloody by reason of such whipping" (Burn's Justice,
vol. v. 501). And there are abundant records in England
of the whipping of men, with their wives and children,
widows and maidens, who were "vagrants1' or wandering

36 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
beggars. When the writings of John Taylor, " the water
poet," were published, in 1630, he says:
" In London, and within a mile I ween,
There are of jails and prisons full eighteen,
And sixty whipping posts and stocks and cages." *
The law of Moses countenances no such cruelties and
barbarities as flogging women and children, or any one
else for poverty or begging. In its enactments princi
ples of humanity prevail. If we compare the Jewish law
with the customs of the nations around them, the differ
ence will be manifest. The kings of Israel had no "burn
ing, fiery furnace " for the punishment of offenders, like
the king of Babylon; no "den of lions," like the Medes
and the Persians. They were not accustomed to bore out
peoples' eyes, or cut off their hands, like the Assyrians.
The law of Moses knew nothing of crucifixion, which
was practiced among the Romans, the horrors and pains
of which extended to the third, and sometimes to the
seventh day. It knew nothing of punishment by tor
ture on the rack, of breaking on the wheel, of impaling,
of flaying alive, of roasting over a slow fire, of drown
ing, of exposure to serpents and wild beasts, of tearing
in pieces by wild horses, of drawing and quartering, of
exposing upon the gibbet, or fixing human heads and
hands over gates, on walls, or in public places; or any of
the similar cruel and horrible inflictions which abounded
even in civilized countries almost down to the present
time. The punishments prescribed by the law of Moses were
restitution, stripes, servitude, the sword, and stoning; and
in certain cases burning was inflicted, but this is not said
to be burning alive, but was probably the burning of those
who had been previously put to death. Persons after
being slain, were sometimes hung up, and thus publicly
?Chambers* Book of Days, May 5.

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 37
exhibited, but they were not to remain exposed over
night, but must at once be buried.
When we consider the severities of the laws of ancient
Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt, we cannot deny that the
Jewish law, as a whole, was moderate and merciful be
yond any law then in existence, and also beyond most of
the laws of modern times. Of course a code of martial
laws, for the government of a people just escaped from
slavery, in a country where prisons, jails, and reformato
ries were unknown, and where punishment must of ne
cessity be summary, would necessarily differ materially
from laws established under different circumstances. But
in spite of all these difficulties, the law of Moses must
still be regarded as a law where mercy rejoiced against
judgment. It was not, indeed, a rose-water remedy for the wild
disorders of a barbarous age, where society must protect
itself or perish, and must protect itself by energetic
measures, because no others would avail. Modern refine
ment has reduced the number of capital crimes to a min
imum, and by the allowance of various delays and eva
sions has rendered the detection and punishment of the
guilty infrequent and almost impossible, while murders
¦ have increased beyond parallel.*
Under the Jewish law there were four classes of capi
tal crimes : idolatry, which was treason against God, the
Supreme Ruler; deliberate murder; drunkenness joined
with persistent disobedience and abuse of parents; and
gross and degrading crimes arising from the indulgence
of unbridled lusts, impairing or destroying the life of the
*Skeptics boast of the rapid progress of infidel and atheistic ideas. Their boast
is doubtless true, for the papers state that there were more than twice as many
homicides in the United States in the year 1884 as there were in the year 1883.
This indicates that some men are coming to believe that the declaration that God
said "Thou shalt not kill" was one of the "Mistakes of Moses." If these
are the first fruits, " What shall the harvest be? "

38 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
future generations, and so sapping the very foundations of
human society.
The capital crimes in these four classes number about
seventeen. We start at such a number, forgetting that
an army of six hundred thousand men cannot exist with'
out discipline, and that, under military law at the present
time, capital offenses are almost numberless, and men are
tried by drum-head court-martial, and promptly executed,
for offenses too numerous to mention.
Before our skeptical friends lose themselves in rhap
sodies over the sanguinary barbarism of the Mosaic law,
let us call to mind a few cold facts. Great Britain has
been progressing for a number of centuries, and was
not in utter barbarism two hundred years ago. And yet,
after three thousand years in which to improve on the
Mosaic law, there were at the beginning of this nine
teenth century more than ten times as many capital of
fenses under the laws of Great Mritain as there ever were
under the laws of Moses.
Of course the earliest laws of Great Britain inflicted
capital punishment for certain crimes, probably more nu
merous than those that were punished with death under
Mosaic law; but as we pass down the ages we find that
the number of capital crimes was largely increased from
time to time by new and stringent legislation.
Under the reign of the Plantagenets, from 1154 to
1485, four crimes were made capital. In the time of the
Tudors, from 1485 to 1603, twenty-seven more crimes were
added to the number punishable with death. Under the
reign of the Stuarts thirty-six offenses were made capi
tal ; and under the house of Brunswick one hundred and
fifty-four more crimes were made punishable with death;
an increase of 233 capital crimes between the years 1154
and 1807, at which time nearly three hundred crimes of
various grades were punishable by death in Great Britain.

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 39
Men were punishable with death for stealing twelve-
pence-ha'penny, for stealing a sheep, shooting game, or
coining money. Soldiers and sailors found begging with
out testimonials of discharge from service were punish
able with death, and a host of trivial offenses were made
capital crimes.
About 1809, Romilly procured the passage of a bill to
repeal the statute which made death the penalty for stealing
from the person. In 1810 he tried unsuccessfully to secure
the repeal of the statute which made stealing from a
shop five shillings'' worth of goods a crime punishable
with death. The death penalty for coining was repealed
in 1S32. The death penalty for stealing horses, sheep,
and cattle, and for larceny in dwellings to the amount of
five shillings, was repealed in July, 1832. The death pen
alty for forgery or for uttering counterfeit money, was
repealed August 15, 1832; that for house-breaking, Au
gust, 1833; and finally the offenses punishable with death
by civil law in Great Britain were reduced to ten.
But before this reform took place, convictions were
numerous and deaths frequent. Ireland in 1822 had
101 executions; and since 1810 more than fourteen hun
dred persons were executed in Wales for offenses not now
punishable with death. For such offenses, in the four
years from 1828 to 1831, not less than 3786 persons were
condemned to death, and 66 were executed.*
The humane skeptic who devotes his time to blas
pheming Moses' law for its cruelties, and attributes them
to the barbarism of by-gone ages, would do well to ex
plain how it comes that in the land of Shakspeare and
Milton, and in the enlightenment of the nineteenth cen
tury, there were more than ten times as many crimes pun
ishable with death as under the law given by Moses to
those Israelitish " barbarians."
* See Robert Rantoul's Addresses, pp. 492, 493, 513.

40 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
It will not do to say that this is the work of a Chris
tian government, for there are no Christian governments,
and never were; and besides, the stream cannot rise
higher than the fountain, and any legislation derived
from Christian sources must keep within the limits laid
down in the Scriptures. But instead of this, here we have
in civilized lands, and in the beginning of the nineteenth
century, laws tenfold more severe than those recorded in
that old Bible with which infidels find so much fault.
And in lands where the Bible has been unknown the
state of things has been and still is tenfold worse, not
withstanding all the fine theories of skeptics concerning
human progression and perfectibility. Infidelity has
never yet civilized a nation, and it will be impossible to
find civilization, education, morality and security on earth,
outside of the Holy Scriptures.
When in 1802 Welsh children had to walk seven miles
to find a Bible in which to read over the preacher's text;
when a man in Nova Scotia had to travel sixty miles over
the snow to obtain a copy of the Word of God; when in
all the world there was not a single society for the trans
lation and diffusion of the Living Oracles in various
tongues; when a pocket "reference Bible" had never
been seen, and when there were probably not more than
four million copies of the Scriptures on earth, — it was
then that life was held so cheaply in Great Britain that
death was the penalty of hundreds of crimes.
In 1 804 the British and Foreign Bible Society was
founded; within four years forty -three editions of the
Scriptures, in seventeen different languages, were published
or in progress,— making a grand total of one hundred
and ninety-six thousand copies of the Sacred Book.* And
the very next year commenced the agitation which, keep
ing pace with Bible circulation, purged the statute books
* See Reasons for My Hope, by H. L. Hastings, pp. 69-71.

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 41
of those sanguinary laws which cursed and disgraced the
nation. And in the last generation what man has done
more in all Great Britain to reform abuses, lift up the
poor and the weak, and protect them from wrong, than
Lord Shaftesbury, for more than thirty years president
of the British and Foreign Bible Society?
The trouble with civilized lands is not that they are
controlled by the principles contained in the Scriptures,
but that there is so much heathenism still left among
them; and hence there is need of severe and rigorous
government. Nations which are unfit for liberty must
submit to tyranny and severity; and none are fit for
freedom but those whom the truth has made free. Hence
governments established over ill-regulated populations
must sometimes be administered, with rigor; and this
rigor is increased by tyrannical and foolish rulers, who
neither know how to make laws nor to execute them
wisely. Human nature is much the same to-day as in
the time of Moses. The legal penalties of crime in the
most enlightened nations, though varied in accordance
with varying circumstances and not always for the better,
have not had their severity greatly moderated since Moses
gave his law.
England was not alone in inflicting severe punishments.
I have seen quite recently a dingy-looking little note for
four shillings, issued by the General Assembly of Penn
sylvania in 1777, on which is printed, uTo counterfeit
this is death."
There are probably to-day, under the civil and military
laws of the United States of America, more crimes pun
ishable with death, than there were under the law given
by Moses three thousand years ago. Men have been
punished with death for falling asleep, after marching all
day with knapsacks on their backs. Men have been
punished with death for going to see their wives, or their

42 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
mothers, or their children. Men have been punished
with death for writing letters, for making signals, for
conveying intelligence, for crossing lines, and for refusing
to obey orders which were perhaps unreasonable. It would
take a long time to relate the offenses punishable with
death under martial law in this country. And yet the
law Moses gave was a martial law. He was at the head
of a vast army, and discipline must be observed.
To-day, on the back of every bank and government
note issued in the United States, may be read the state
ment that counterfeiting that note, or having in posses
sion any paper made in imitation of that note, is pun
ishable with a fine of five thousand dollars, and im
prisonment for fifteen years. Moses never fined a man
five thousand dollars, or imprisoned him fifteen years, for
having a quire of blank paper in his possession. Moses
never killed a man for stealing a sheep or killing a deer,
nor for stealing thirteen pence. Moses never condemned
a man to death for writing another man's name on a piece of
paper. Moses never punished a soldier or a sailor with
death for begging. If two thousand years hence, some
man who had lived to years of discretion and common
sense, should find a copy of Moses' law, and a volume
containing the laws of Great Britain and America, instead
of abusing Moses for his barbarism, and traveling the
country to tell about his mistakes, he would be astonished
at the degeneracy of the human race, which after more
than three thousand years' progression, enacted laws far
more severe and sanguinary than those which Moses gave
to the Jews in the wilderness of Sinai.
STONING FOR SABBATH BREAKING.
But it is said that Moses commanded a man to be put
to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Precisely
so; and any general commanding an army might have

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 4r>
done the same under similar circumstances. A law had
been enacted in the interest of the poor and the down
trodden, giving every laborer, every man, and every
beast a weekly day of rest. That law was salutary.
For the lack of its observance thousands of persons to
day are in untimely graves, and millions are dragging
out weary, slavish lives. The law was a good one, and its
observance of immense importance to the well-being of
that people. This man openly and knowingly broke
the law concerning the Sabbath. There is no evidence
that death was the prescribed or ordinary penalty for a
violation of this law. In fact, no definite penalty was
attached to its violation; and hence the offender was
arrested and placed in confinement "because it was not
declared what should be done to him." Num. xv. 34.
In any well disciplined army, a man for such a violation
of military orders would be liable to be shot on the spot,
or to be tried by drum-head court martial, sentenced to
death for disobedience to orders, and promptly executed,
as a warning to others, to prevent mutiny and anarchy in
the camp. Had this open and flagrant violation of a
wholesome law passed unpunished, discipline would have
been at an end, and the people would have been robbed
of the benefits of a weekly rest. Hence it was decided
that the man should be taken without the camp, and put
to death. It was a strictly military measure, and prompt
ed by a military necessity. The death of that man, in all
probability, saved the lives of thousands of others who
would have been worked to death without it; just as a
few rounds of cannon shot promptly poured into the
midst of a yelling mob, avoids the havoc of an insurrec
tion, and saves the lives of hundreds of innocent persons.
It does not appear that this offense was subsequently
or ordinarily punished with death. The law was made
in the interests of the people, and especially of the poor.

44 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
The man-servant and the maid-servant, the ox, and the
ass, all had the benefit of a weekly day of rest. And
though the Jewish teachers by their traditions added
greatly to the strictness of the law, repeatedly complain
ing of the Saviour and his disciples for breaking the Sab
bath day, He taught them that the Sabbath was made for
the man, and not the man for the Sabbath; it was de
signed for man's repose and delight, rather than to be an
instrument of oppression, bondage, and death.
But at this time, when the Jews were just delivered
from the unremitting toil of Egyptian bondage, they
needed rest; and they doubtless prized it as those cannot
who, living all their years under the beneficent arrange
ment of a weekly rest, in their pride and self-suffie'ienc}''
seek to rebel at all authority, and to cast away one of the
greatest boons which God ever conferred upon working-
men, and one which has to do with man's highest inter
ests, physical, mental, and moral.
The one man whose insubordination imperiled such an
institution was stoned. The man died, but the Rest-day
survived, and that day of rest is worth more to humanity
than any one man, or any ten men, especially such men as
those are who resist and rebel against a law so whole
some and beneficent as that which grants to every weary
toiler a weekly day of rest.
AN EYE FOR AN EYE.
It is complained that the law of Moses sanctioned the
ancient and well-nigh universal principle called lex tali-
onis, or like for like. Thus it was written: "Thou shalt
give eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for
foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for
stripe." Exod. xxi. 24, 25. This law was not peculiar to
Moses. It existed long afterward among the polished
Athenians, and Solon, the wise legislator, enacted that

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. 45
whoever put out the eye of a one-eyed person should for his
crime have both his own eyes put out. It also formed a part
of the famous Twelve Tables of the Roman law, though
afterwards it was changed to a fine. The law of Moses
did not allow individuals to retaliate; — the legal tribu
nal must pronounce the sentence, and inflict the punish
ment prescribed.
Are we sure that such a law was a bad one ? If a rich
man gouged out his neighbor's eye, he could not walk in
to court and settle by paying a paltry fine: he must have
his oicn eye taken out, and so learn just how pleasant it
was to lose an eye. One such lesson would teach that
man to leave other people's eyes alone. Probably one
such lesson would serve for a whole community. If a
man knocked out another man's tooth, one of his own
teeth were extracted, and he thus had a taste of his own
medicine. No rich man could assault, or bruise, or maim
his poorer neighbor, and atone for it by fine. He must
receive upon his own person the punishment for his crimes.
Whoever wilfully destroyed the life of another man
must lose his own life. Any offense against property
could be settled by fines or other punishments. There
was no hanging for thieving, or any crime against prop
erty; property went for property, but the murderer must
give life for life.
Could any law have been devised more just in its char
acter, or more salutary in its influence on such a com
munity, than this? It is true that the Saviour taught a
more excellent way, but not a more just way. Moses pro
claimed law and justice for the government of a nation;
Christ preached love and mercy for the guidance of in
dividuals who take his yoke upon them. Law to rule a
nation is one thing, and gospel to guide individuals is
quite another thing. And where the gospel has not gone,
or is not obeyed, law is necessary to preserve public order

46 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
and render life safe and existence in this world tolerable.
But it was not required that this law should in all cases
be rigidly executed. A man who had offended might make
terms with the injured person, and if he could satify him
by a fine or payment of damages, the matter could be
ended. Such satisfactions were, and still are, common in
the East; — in fact, so common that Moses found it needful
to forbid them in a case of deliberate murder, saying
"Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer."
Num. xxxv. 31. This law, "an eye for an eye, and a
tooth for a tooth," stood as a perpetual guardian over the
poor. It counted every man's person sacred. Brutal
men are cowardly, and such a law as this naturally re
strained their brutality, and protected the helpless against
assaults and violence. Are we sure that modern law
makers have made great progress in this line of legisla
tion? Are our laws which allow a drunken brute to kick
and beat and maim his wife, and as a punishment for it
send him to prison for a few weeks — where, at the expense
of honest, hard-working men, he has better food and care
than he had before, and is then sent forth to repeat his
offenses — so much superior to the law which provided
wound for wound, and stripe for stripe, as skeptics would
have us imagine ?
Surely the descendants of men who less than a century
ago punished nearly three hundred crimes with death, and
who would hang a man like a dog for stealing a horse
or a sheep,* need not go back three thousand years
to pour out the vials of their wrath upon a lawgiver
whose penal code only specified seventeen capital offenses;
* " It is not so very long since both the theory and the practice of British juris
prudence might be expressed in the Hebrew formula of 'an eye for an eye/ or in such
maxims as ' a man for a sheep,1 ' a man for a guinea,' nay, mark it, ye who stigma
tize the Mosaic law of retaliation as savoring of barbaric rudeness, * a man for
twelvepence-farlhing." — E. C. Wines, Commentaries on the Jiaws of ihe Ancient
Hebrews, p. 273.

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 47
and under which no man was punishable with death for
any crime which only affected the property or pecuniary
interests of the community.
PUNISH HE NT OF CRIMES AGAINST PURITY.
Skeptics complain bitterly of the stern judgments
which the Mosaic law visited upon crimes against moral
ity and chastity; which many infidels do not regard -as
worthy of severe punishment. There was reason for
this severity. The author of that ancient law understood
the deadly nature of sin, even in its incipient forms. He
knew that the wages of sin was death, even though the
sin might be respectable or pleasurable.
Speaking to a friend, of an acquaintance of former years,
a man said, " There seems to have been some fatality at
tending him and his family. He died, and his wife died,
and his children, one after another, all died in early life."
His friend did not tell him what he well knew, that in
his youth that man was contaminated and stained by
vicious indulgences, and that in those early years could
doubtless be found the secret of that "fatality" which
not only blasted his own life, bringing him down to the
grave in his brown hair, but also wrecked the lives of his
wife and children, and utterly extinguished his race, at a
time when he should have been in manhood's prime.
Against such a crime as this, for which modern law has
neither name nor punishment, the sternest justice is the
truest mercy. The murder of an individual is a light thing
compared with indulgence in sin which may result in
sowing seeds of anguish, disease, and death through a
whole household, blasting the life of a family, and blot
ting a race out of existence.
Under the law of Moses, crimes against virtue and
morality were sternly dealt with, greatly to the disgust
of modern infidels, many of whom, while jealous of the

48 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
rights of property, and stem in their condemnation of
crimes of violence, would condone other sins which the
law of Moses vigorously condemned. But since vicious in
dulgences in their effects upon individuals and society
are often more deadly than murder itself, nothing can be
more debasing and ruinous to communities than such sins.
An hour of dissipation and debauchery may lay the foun
dation for unutterable pain and sorrow, not only bringing
years of anguish to the guilty reveler, but condemning to
suffering and death innocent persons whose lives are
blasted by his transgressions. The legislation of short
sighted man allows the seeds of death to be sown, and
only interferes with the ingathering of the horrible harvest.
But the Author of the Mosaic law, beholding the end
from the beginning, could see how the sin which to-day
seems so light, would scatter blight and sorrow and dark
ness over the race; and as a preventive measure, God's
law inflicts the severest punishment at the beginning, to
prevent the untold calamities that are sure to come at
the end. And it was to clear the ground of the horrible
abominations of heathenism, and make purity and decency
possible in one little central spot on earth, thus opening
the door of blessing to other lands and peoples, that God
decreed the utter destruction of
THE SEVEN NATIONS OF CANAAN.
Infidels never weary of finding fault with the conduct
of the Israelites in entering Canaan and dispossessing
and destroying the seven nations who dwelt there. No
language is too severe, in their estimation, to describe the
wickedness of the children of Israel in driving out the
Canaanites. We do not hear any complaint on the part of skeptics
about other nations who have immigrated, and dispos
sessed the inhabitants of different lands. Indeed it seems

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 49
quite in the natural order of events for one nation, vig
orous and energetic, to invade and overcome another na
tion, luxurious and debauched. When Rome becomes
utterly corrupt and lost to virtue and patriotism, the
Goths and Vandals are usually at hand to crush and de
stroy a civilization which is hollow and decayed at the
very core. Among other nations this is but " the survival
of the fittest;" in the Israelites it is a horrible crime
for the fittest to survive.
When God promised to give to Abraham the land
of Canaan, he told him expressly that he could not
enter immediately upon the possession of it. His children
must go into Egypt and sojourn there for a time. But
he said, " In the fourth generation they shall come hither
again; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full."
Gen. xv. 16.
So long as a trace of virtue remained among the inhab
itants of Canaan, so long as there was any reason what
ever for leniency, so long the mercy of God spared the
Canaanites; and it was not until their iniquity was full,
and justice and mercy alike demanded their extermina
tion, that Israel was given possession of the land.
The eighteenth chapter of Leviticus contains prohibi
tions of various crimes of the grossest and basest character.
In conclusion it is written, "Defile not ye yourselves in
any of these things, for in all these the nations were de
filed that least out before you. The land is defiled, and
therefore do I visit the iniquities thereof upon it. The
land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. For all these
abominations have the men of the land done, which were
before you, and the land is defiled." And so the Israel
ites were solemnly charged not to commit any of these
abominations, " that the land spue not you out also, when
ye defile it, as it spued out the nations which were before
you."

50 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
The nations of Canaan had forfeited their right to live.
They were utterly debased and brutalized. Incest, bes
tiality, and every form of the grossest vice was prev
alent among them. Individuals committing such crimes
in any civilized community would forfeit life or liberty.
What must have been the state of Canaanitish society,
when the exceptional depths of horrible crime which
startle civilization were but the dead level of their ordi
nary life? And these were not the crimes of individuals,
but of society as a whole. There was no punishment for
them; no law could reach them; the government itself
was corrupt. Their very religion was corruption itself;
their worship was lust and debauchery. All was one
mass of reeking pollution. Only the judgments of God
could purge the guilty land.
The iniquity of the Amorites had become full; and
when Israel entered the land of Canaan a warfare began
between two rival religions and civilizations, differing
from each other as light differs from darkness, as God
differs from Satan, as heaven differs from hell. It was a
struggle between the solemn worship of the sanctuary of
God, and the wild and bloody orgies of a licentious idol
atry. It was a struggle between virtue and vice, chastity
and debauchery, between ordererly family life and disso
lute revelry, between reverent adoration of Almighty God,
and the unclean revelings into which Satan had enticed
the world. The two systems were at war, and were as
irreconcilable as fire and water. Which should triumph in
the struggle? On the answer to this question hung the
destinies of the race. Victory for Midian and Baal sig
nified universal pollution. Triumph for Israel meant the
planting of an island of purity in an ocean of filth; a
single mountain peak of decency in the midst of a deluge
of debauchery. Even this solitary elevation was some
times almost overwhelmed by the swelling billows of the

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 51
surrounding sea of sin. The cancer of vice must be cut
out with the sword of war, or the race must rot and per
ish. The death of the few meant the salvation of the
many. The preservation of Balaam, and Balak, and Mid
ian, and Amalek, meant the pollution, the corruption, and
damnation of the human race. The destruction of these
vile and noxious weeds would give room for the vine of
the Lord to be planted, the nation he had chosen, that
through it all the nations of the earth should be blessed.
The people of Canaan well knew that God had given
that land to the Israelites. Joshua ii. 9-11. Their true
course was to submit or emigrate. They did neither.
The deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and their victory
over every opposing foe, was a sufficient intimation that
it was useless to resist them. In fact some of the people
did emigrate, and there appears to have been a tradition
among the people in the western part of North Africa,
that their ancestors were fugitives who were exiled from
Palestine by "Joshua the son of Nun, the plunderer.*
But why, it may be asked, were the Israelites bidden
to inflict these punishments ? Why were not the Canaan
ites destroyed by special judgments of heaven, as were the
antediluvians, the Cities of the Plain, or Pompeii and Her-
culaneum, which were overthrown in the midst of their
debaucheries ? The answer is this, these judgments
had been tried. The antediluvians had been overwhelmed
by the deluge, but the Sodomites still corrupted them
selves. The Cities of the Plain were destroyed with fire
from heaven in this very country, and yet the nations of
Canaan did not profit by their example. We know how
the ungodly and skeptical of to-day reject the idea of di
vine judgments, and do not for a moment admit that
calamities are visited upon people in consequence of their
iniquities. All are said to occur as the effects of natural
* See Rawlinson' s Historical Illustrations of the Old Testament, chap. iv. p. 95.

52 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
causes; the Divine Being has no interest or connection
with them. By the Canaanites, calamities of this kind
would have been attributed to the anger of their own
demoniac gods, and would have incited them to fresh
idolatries. And hence in order to emphasize the fact that
this was a divine judgment, the Israelites, as God's mes
sengers, were bidden to complete the destruction, and they
were distinctly told that if they imitated their predeces
sors in the abominations which had caused their overthrow,
they themselves would find no exemption from a similar
doom. A remarkable illustration of this is presented in
THE EEBELLION OF THE TRIBE OF. BENJAMIN.
This rebellion and its punishment are described in the
closing chapters of the book of Judges. It was when there
was no king in Israel, and the government was unsettled,
and more or less disorderly. A certain Levite from
Mount Ephraim, passing peaceably through the territory
of Benjamin, stopped at Gibeah for the night with his
wife. Here some demons, whom the historian calls "sons
of Belial," abused the wife in such a way as to cause her
death. The husband appealed for retribution to all the
tribes of Israel. The chiefs of all the people presented
themselves in the assembly of the people at Mizpeh, — four
hundred thousand footmen. All the tribes of Israel ex
cepting Benjamin were represented there. They carefully
examined the facts of the case, and found that certain of
the inhabitants of Gibeah had not only violated the rights
of hospitality and humanity, and broken the peace, and
committed a horrible crime, but they had also violated
the rights of all the tribes to a safe passage through the
whole country. No man in Israel could travel in safety
if such outrages went unpunished. But no one of these
tribes had jurisdiction in the case. Though they all
were assembled, they could not proceed directly to

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 53
seize and punish the offenders. They therefore sent men
" through all the tribe of Benjamin, saying, What wick
edness is this that has been done among you?" and de
manding that the guilty men should be delivered up to
punishment. Had they done this, the whole matter would
have been settled forthwith. The tribe of Benjamin
would not obey the summons, but determined rather to
dissolve their union with the other tribes, and accord
ingly gathered themselves together to go out to battle
against the children of Israel.
This act, of course, changed the whole case. It was
no longer the murder of an individual by a few sons of
Belial in Gibeah, but it was a justification of their
crime, and an open rebellion of the whole tribe of Ben
jamin. The authority of the nation, the constitution, and
the Almighty were defied, and murderers whose lives
would be forfeited in any decent country, were pro
tected. Benjamin raised an army and levied war against
all Israel, in defense of base and villanous scoundrels
who deserved immediate execution for their atrocious
crimes. The question now was whether the nation should
live, or whether it should be broken up, and anarchy
should prevail. The children of Israel inquired of the
Lord, and the answer was that they should accept
the issue forced upon them. They did so ; but so stub
born were the children of Benjamin that the national
forces were twice defeated ; but the third time they re
turned to the battle Benjamin was routed, twenty-five
thousand men were slain, the offending city was destroyed,
the region around was desolated; and six hundred
men, posted on an inaccessible rock, were all that remained
of the tribe. This was evidently a most terrible inflic
tion, and the sacred writer expressly declares that it was
at a time when there was no king in Israel, and every man
did that which was right in his own eyes. Still it can

54 THE WONDEfiFUL LAW.
hardly be denied that this proceeding, terrible as it wag,
was in the interests of order and righteousness. If Benja
min had been allowed to nullify the constitution of the
nation and harbor murderers and outlaws; if citizens
were allowed to commit the grossest crimes and be pro
tected in their guilt, of course there was an end to the
integrity of Israel as a nation. If one tribe were allowed
to rebel and withdraw from the social compact, another
might do the same ; and the history of the nation would
soon be a history of petty warfares and international
strifes. The tribe of Benjamin must have been far gone
in iniquity to have undertaken such a war for such a
cause. Centrally situated as they were, had they been
allowed to proceed in their course they would have
wrecked the nation. Hence the highest patriotism de
manded the overthrow of a rebellion which defied national
authority and justified the most revolting crimes.
THE DESTRUCTION OP THE MIDIANITES.
One of the bitterest complaints made by infidels against
the Bible has been stated in the following words:
" Our heavenly Father commanded the Hebrews to kill
men and women, fathers, sons, and brothers, but to pre
serve the girls alive. Why were not the maidens also
killed ? Why were they spared ? Read the thirty-first
chapter of Numbers, and you will find that the maidens
were given to the soldiers and to the priests. Is there,
in all the history of war, a more infamous thing than this ? "
The infidel's complaint seems to be that these maidens
were not killed. Infidels have never forgiven Moses for
sparing the lives of those young girls. They have rung
the changes on this subject with a persistency which in
dicates their interest in the topic. If the Israelites had
killed them all, as was not unusual in those days, they
perhaps would have been better satisfied.

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. 55
Let us look at the facts in this particular case. The
people referred to were Midianites. Midian was not one
of the seven nations which the Israelites were bidden to
drive out from Canaan. They were not invaded by the
Israelites, and Israel had no desire for their territory, but
were simply passing through to their own inheritance in
Canaan. While on their march toward Canaan "Israel
sent messengers unto Sihon, king of the Amorites, saying,
Let me pass through thy land; we will not turn into the
fields or into the vineyards; we will not drink of the
waters of the well, but we will go along by the king's
highway until we be past thy borders. And Sihon would
not suffer Israel to pass through his border; but Sihon
gathered all his people together, and went out against
Israel into the wilderness : and he came to Jahaz and
fought against Israel, and Israel smote him with the edge
of the sword, and possessed his land from Arnon unto
Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon; for the bor
der of the children of Ammon was strong." Num. xxi.
Thus Sihon, king of the Amorites, refused to allow the
Israelites who were fleeing from slavery the poor privi
lege of passing quietly through his land; but instead of
this made war upon them, and was destroyed, and his
land was given to the Israelites.
They then turned and went up by the way of Bashan.
" And Og, the king of Bashan, went out against them, he
and all his people, to the battle at Edrei." Num. xxi. 33.
The Lord delivered Og into the hands of Israel, and his
people were destroyed, and Israel possessed the land.
Still marching forward, they reached the plains of Moab,
and Balak, the king of Moab, consulted with the elders
of Midian, and sent the elders of Moab and the elders of
Midian as messengers to hire Balaam to curse Israel, say
ing, "Peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite
them and drive them out of the land." Num. xxii. 6.

56 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
Balaam coveted the wages of unrighteousness, and came
to curse Israel; but God turned the curse into a blessing,
and he prophesied of Israel's greatness, and solemnly
told Balak that there was no enchantment or divination
that could prevail against that nation.
Having thus failed to procure a curse upon Israel, and
so defeat them in battle, Balak wished to contrive some
other way to effect their ruin; and Balaam craftily pro
posed that the Midianites should send their wives and
their daughters to seduce the Israelites to participate in
the idolatrous debaucheries attendant on the worship of
Baal-Peor. This Satanic plan proved effectual. "Israel
abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whore
dom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the
people unto the sacrifice of their gods, and the people did
eat and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined
himself unto Baal-Peor. And the anger of the Lord was
kindled against Israel."
The very life of the nation was in danger. When we
remember that centuries later there were in polished
Corinth not less than a thousand prostitutes connected
with a single temple of Venus; when we remember that
every woman dwelling in Babylon was required once in
her life to prostitute herself to strangers in the precincts
of Venus's temple, we can imagine what must have been
the religious rites in which the Moabites, the incestuous
descendants of Lot, engaged. And in addition to these
abominations we are told in later times that the apostate
Israelites "built also the high places of Baal, to bum their
sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal." Jer. xix. 5.
This was the kind of god and this the style of worship
into which the Israelites had been beguiled. The women,
and even the daughters of the princes, lent themselves to
seduce and debase the children of Israel, defiling even the
camp of Israel with their abominations, that they might

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 57
bring upon the chosen people the curse of God, and so
accomplish their destruction. As a result of this, dis
ease entered the camp, and twenty-four thousand of the
people of Israel died, and a multitude of the Israelites
who had been involved in these abominations were slain
by the command of God.
It was after all this had transpired that "the Lord
spake unto Moses, saying, Vex the Midianites, and smite
them; for they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they
have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the mat
ter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian, their
sister, which was slain in the day of the plague for Peor's
sake." Num. xxv. 16-18. Accordingly, twelve thousand
men were sent forth by Moses to execute vengeance upon
the Midianites. They warred against them; and when
Israel went to war, it was with the expectation that some
body would get hurt. When they had conquered the
Midianites, they slew all the males that had opposed them.
They were not the first nor the last army that went forth
determined to take no prisoners of the men found in arms
against them. Men who kept away from war escaped the
sword; but those who fought must abide the issue of
the battle. They slew the five kings of Midian, and
Balaam the son of Beor also received the reward of his in
iquity, perishing at their hands. With customary hu
manity, under the general law of the Jewish nation in
the time of war, they took all the women and maidens,
with all the little ones, as captives. Men in arms for
feited their lives. The women and little ones were taken
captive and dispersed among the people, and probably
better treated than they ever had been at home; and
finally became incorporated into the Jewish nation. "So
the children of Israel took all the women and maidens
captive, and their little ones, and took a spoil of all their
cattle and all their flocks, and all their goods." In this

58 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
particular case, when the captives were brought in, special
reasons caused a departure from their usual custom.
Moses said, " Have ye saved all the women alive ? Be
hold, these caused the children of Israel, through the
counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in
the matter of Peor; and there was a plague among the
congregation of the Lord." These women whom they
had spared were the very persons who were sent by their
husbands and brothers to seduce Israel, and were insti
gators of the sin into which Israel had fallen, — the guilty
cause of the curse and calamity which came upon them.
These women of Midian were simply a horde of prosti
tutes, who had done their worst to scatter disease and
death through the camp of Israel, coolly, deliberately, and
purposely, by the direction of their rulers, and with the
approval of their husbands and fathers. Unfit to live, a
disgrace and curse to the community, persons whose very
presence signified corruption and debauchery, disease and
death; who had probably caused the death of more than
their own number of the Israelites, and who, if allowed
to live among them, would have utterly ruined the nation
through the pollutions and diseases that followed their
iniquitous course, — these were the persons who, in the
interest of home and family life; in the interest of decency
and morality; in the-interest of generations to come,
whose very existence was imperiled by their presence,
were, by the command of Moses, exterminated and swept
from the land as by the besom of destruction. Doubtless
many of the skeptics of the day would gladly have spared
them. They have never forgiven Moses for blotting out
a people in whose principles and conduct they find so
much to approve, admire, and imitate.
When these idolatrous prostitutes were exterminated,
there were left two classes. First, the male children,
who, if left to themselves, would perish with want and

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. 59
neglect. It will hardly be claimed that the Israelites,
a company of fugitives "red from the lash, and re
cent from the chain," were under obligation to pre
serve, protect, defend, and support those children, who,
growing up with all their hereditary proclivities to evil,
could only be expected to develop into intractable, vicious,
and licentious men, who at best would be a constant
curse and danger to the commonwealth, and might in
mature life undertake to avenge their parents' death.
Accordingly they shared the doom of their parents. Infi
dels might have left them to starve to death on the sands,
as a special illustration of their mercifulness.
There remained only the young girls, between infancy
and youth, who as yet had not been corrupted and polluted
by the vices and idolatries of the nation. They were
preserved alive. Infidels intimate, doubtless judging the
Israelites by themselves, that they were preserved for the
basest of purposes. Had this been the object, persons of
ordinary perception can see that the ones destroyed would
have been the ones preserved, while those preserved would
have been held of less account.
These female children were preserved as servants, and
as such came under the provisions of the Jewish law.
Had they been persons of mature age, they would still
have been hedged about by that protective law. No
Israelitish warrior was permitted to offer a captive woman
either insult or outrage.
This was the law: "When thou goest forth to war
against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath deliv
ered them into thine hands and thou hast taken them
captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman,
and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldst have her to
be thy wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thine
house; and she shall shave her head and pare her nails ;
and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off

60 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her
father and mother a full month; and after that thou
shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be
thy wife." Deut. xxi. 10-14. From this it appears that
no Israelite was allowed even to take a captive as a wife,
until after an interval of at least a month from the time
she was taken captive and brought to his house. After
the month had expired, if his inclinations had not changed
upon seeing her shaven, and deprived of her attractions,
and if she had exhibited no traits of character which in
spired dislike, he was at liberty to marry her; but she
was not his slave, nor under his absolute control. He
was to be her husband, and she was to be his wife;
and even then, if the union was irksome and distasteful
to her, her remedy was m her own hands; for if she so
conducted herself that he had no delight in her, he was
to let her go whither she would. He was not allowed to
sell her for money, but she was to have her liberty abso
lutely. This was the fate of those Midianitish maidens and chil
dren. Their fathers had fought against Israel, and all
the males had been destroyed. Their mothers and sisters
had seduced Israel to sin, and had been justly punished
with death. These innocent girls were preserved, and
scattered among the virtuous families of the Israelites,
trained to the knowledge of God and truth and duty,
made servants, under the mild protective rules of servi
tude prescribed by the Mosaic law, and finally married
into the families of the Israelites, and incorporated into
the Jewish nation. Infidels have never forgiven the act.
It has been to them a perpetual occasion of scoffing, mock
ing and complaining. If Israel had slaughtered the whole
of the Midianites, as was anciently customary, we should
have heard less complaint. If they had preserved all the
women, for the only purpose for which infidels seem to

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 61
think they were worth preserving, and had brought in
twenty or thirty thousand Midianitish prostitutes into the
Jewish nation, to corrupt and destroy it, infidels would
have found no fault with that. Or if they had allowed
those girls to grow up to the lives of debauchery and
prostitution which inevitably awaited them in their own
nation, we should have heard no complaint from infidels
on that score. But the fact that they were preserved
from death, virtuously trained, and respectably married, is
a crime which the infidelity of modern times has never
been able to forgive or forget.
By this arrangement thirty-two thousand Midianitish
female children were incorporated into the nation. Per
haps as many adult women who had been corrupted by
heathenish vices were destroyed. It was a terrible ven
geance, and none but God could have presumed to com
mand it. But what would have been the condition of
a community situated as the Israelites were, in the
wilderness, away from settled government and police
regulations, destitute of prisons and appliances for the
enforcement of social order, had there been launched
upon them, or incorporated with them, thirty thousand
infamous women, gathered from the ranks of the debased
and idolatrous Midianites; persons whose very worship
was debauchery, and who would have brought with them
all the diseases and pollutions which such a course of life
entails ? The corruption would have inevitably spread,
the curse of God would have fallen upon Israel, and that
nation which was the world's last hope, the only nation
where purity was enjoined and idolatry was prohibited,
would have gone down into the same abyss which had
engulfed the heathen world. The sword of wrath cut
out this Midianitish cancer. Their armies were slain, and
their women reaped the vengeance they had courted when
they sought to seduce Israel and planned their destruction.

62 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
We are not, however, to suppose that the entire nation
was destroyed. They were a wandering race, and were
scattered over a wide extent of country. Only twelve
thousand Israelites went to battle. They slew those who
resisted, and the others were spared. Long years after,
we find Midian's hosts invading the land of Israel, as
grasshoppers for multitude, " the sword of the Lord and
of Gideon " being Unsheathed to repel them. Judg. vi. vii.
The punishments inflicted on the Midianites, the Ca
naanites, and all those besotted nations which warred
against Israel, though severe, were demanded by the
necessities of the case, and were conducive to the public
good. Had the corrupt nations of Canaan been subju
gated, enslaved, and preserved, they would have inevita
bly demoralized their conquerors, who, in their idle leis
ure, could not have escaped contamination, if surrounded
by a people so utterly corrupt as the Canaanites. Had
the destruction of these nations resulted wholly from
natural causes, by slow decay or from sudden calamities,
the hand of God would not have been recognized in the
punishment, and men would not have learned his hatred
of sin and impurity. Hence, that the moral lesson might
not be lost upon both Israel and the surrounding nations,
such measures were taken as would leave no uncertainty
concerning the matter. First, God sent hornets before Is
rael, "to drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hit-
tites;"* much as a terrible disease swept away the Indians
of eastern Massachusetts, just before the Pilgrim Fathers
settled on those shores. Second, a series of miracles, com
mencing in Egypt, marked the career of the Israelites
until they finally were established in the land of Canaan.
All the elements seemed in league with them; the Red
Sea opened; they found sustenance in the desert; the
waters of Jordan divided; the ramparts of Jericho fell-
* Exod, xxiii. 38. Deut. vii. 20, Josh. xxiv. 12,

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 63
the stars in their courses fought against the enemies of
God; and finally the work of destruction was completed
by the Israelites themselves, who were instructed to exe
cute punishment upon the Midianites and Canaanites, that
they might teach the nations how God abhorred impurity,
and also thus learn for themselves a lesson of obedience
to the divine counsels, and of abstinence from the sins
which they were bidden to punish in others.*
Severe as were the judgments inflicted in the Mosaic
dispensation upon those who transgressed the laws of
purity, and thus sapped the foundations of individual and
national existence, yet the Mosaic law as a rule inclined
to mercy, and provided important safeguards to protect
those accused of wrong-doing, and thus secure to every
one a fair trial and a legal acquittal, or a just punishment.
One of these provisions was the establishment of
THE CITIES OF REFUGE.
The six Cities of Refuge, three of which were located
on each side of the Jordan, illustrate the merciful char
acter of Moses' law. The customs of that country, then
as now, imperatively required the nearest living relative
of a man who had been killed, to avenge his death. No
time was allowed for investigation, trial, or defense.
Hence a man guilty of manslaughter or accidental homi
cide was liable to receive the same penalty that was in
flicted upon a deliberate murderer. The law of Moses
required that whenever a man had slain his fellow, he
should at once flee for his life to the nearest City of Ref
uge, which was easy of access.
Broad, straight roads led to those cities ; and they were
inhabited by priests and Levites, who were familiar with
the law of Moses, and whose business it was to protect the
* For additional facts and arguments concerning the destruction of the nations of
Canaan, consult The Great Controversy between God and Man, by H. L. Hastings.
pp. 45-52,

64 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
refugee from private vengeance or mob violence, until he
could have a fair trial. If it was proven that he was
guilty of deliberate murder, he was then delivered over to
death; but if he was not proven guilty of murder, he was
exempt from death, but was to remain within the walls of
the City of Refuge until the death of the Jewish high
priest, after which he was at liberty to go his way in se
curity. While this law did not prohibit the avenging of blood
by private hands, in accordance with all the customs and
traditions of the times, it so modified the usage as to
secure to every man a fair and impartial trial, substantial
justice, and protection from undeserved punishment.
DID THE LAW OF MOSES SANCTION SLAVERY?
Infidels bitterly complain that the law of Moses or
dained and sanctioned slavery; asserting that no such law
could be of divine origin. This charge is another instance
of the unfairness of skeptical statements concerning sim
ple facts, within the reach of all; and it also illustrates
the ignorance of infidels concerning the plain teachings
of the Holy Scriptures. Neither slaves nor slavery are
mentioned in the books of Moses. We know but two
passages where the word slave occurs in the Bible. Jer.
ii. 14, and Rev. xviii. 13. And in Jeremiah ii. 14, the
word slave is a supplied word, not found in the original.
The Hebrew word eved which is translated servant nearly
700 times, is newer rendered slave. It is applied to David,
Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Job, Elijah, Isaiah, Ben-hadad,
the king of Babylon, Zerubbabel, and in several instances
to the Messiah himself. A strange word to describe what
vje call slavery!
In fact, we see that slavery was not mentioned in the He
brew Scriptures, and was impracticable on any extended
scale, under the Jewish system. The children of Israel

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 65
had no vast estates. They were not allowed to join field
to field. They could neither buy nor sell lands; they
could only lease them until the year of jubilee. Even
King Ahab could only obtain the inheritance of a neigh
bor for a garden by murdering the owner and con
fiscating his property. The Israelites had no extensive
manufactories or mines; no cotton fields, rice swamps,
or sugar plantations. They lived simply, and supported
themselves on their little plots of ground. And as who
ever had servants was bound to support them and their
families, the establishment of slavery on any extended
scale was utterly impracticable in the land of Israel.
What could an Israelite have done on his little twenty-acre
farm, with the ten thousand slaves of an ancient Roman ?
It is true that Abraham had a large number of servants,
but they were no more slaves than the members of a
tribe or chin are slaves. He was head or sheik of his
tribe, and they were his followers. He lived a wander
ing life, with his flocks and herds, and was surrounded by
a throng of dependants. But this was long before the
law was given by Moses; and under that law even this
arrangement was impracticable.
SLAVERY IN GREECE AND ROME.
Human slavery was a well-known, ancient, and almost
universal institution. Before Christianity had subdued
the passions and ameliorated the animosities of men and
nations, every nation looked upon every other nation as
their natural enemies, and treated them accordingly; im
prisoning, enslaving, or killing them if found on their
territory. When wars broke out, the cry was, " Woe to
the vanquished;" and men were slaughtered without
mercy, or if spared were condemned to bitter bondage,
and employed by the conquerors in the most laborious
and degrading occupations, till they sunk beneath the toil.

66 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
The erection of the Roman Coliseum is said to have been
the work of twelve thousand captive Jews. The Grecian
states countenanced piracy as a public benefit, because of
the large number of captives they were thus enabled to
enslave. In Greece slaves were lashed, mutilated, tor
tured, branded and slain, without justice or mercy. In
Attica, a state smaller than Rhode Island, at one time
there were estimated to be of citizens and aliens 124,000 or
less, and 400,000 slaves. Gibbon reckons the population of
the Roman empire under Claudius at one hundred and
twenty millions, half of whom were slaves. Mommsen
places the population of Rome at 1,610,000, of whom
900,000, or more than half, were slaves. Aristotle tells us
that the island of -<Egina, containing forty-two square
miles, with outlying dependencies, had 470,000 slaves.
Corinth had 460,000 slaves; and Delos, an opulent seat
of trade, could in a single day receive and send away
10,000 slaves.
In Greece, personal beauty in a slave was punishable
with death. Every slave received annually a certain
number of lashes to remind him that he was a slave. No
master could free a slave even if he desired to. Slaves
were compelled to drink themselves drunk, and thus ex
hibit to the Spartans an example of what intoxication
was. Under the laws of Lycurgus, every year the bold
est and brightest Grecian youth were fed high to make
them ferocious, armed with daggers, and equipped with
several days' provisions, and sent on an expedition to the
fields, where they were to hide by day, and sally out at
night and butcher all the slaves they met.
Among the captured slaves of those times were mechan
ics, poets, linguists, and men of every grade and class.
Crassus owned more than five hundred architects and
masons. Plato himself, offending Dionysius, the tyrant
of Sicily, by his plain speaking, was handed over to the

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. 67
Spartan embassador, Pollis, and exposed for sale in the
slave market in iEgina, and only escaped by being re
deemed by a friend. Human life was cheap then. In
the time of Demosthenes a good slave cost about thirty
dollars, or half the price of a good horse. In Rome, just
before the birth of Christ, a slave was worth ninety dol
lars; but after battles had been fought, captives could
be purchased for a trifle. In the camp of Lucullus in
Pontus, men could be bought for less than eighty cents.
Thus according to the laws and customs of the mighti
est and most polished nations of antiquity, any man
could be kidnapped, captured, and sold into bondage,
being absolutely under his master's power; his servitude
being perpetual, and descending to his children. Under
the Roman law a man could kill his slave as he would
kill a dog. One Roman nobleman used to cut up such of
his slaves as broke dishes, and feed them to the lampreys
in his pond. The slave had no protection whatever
against his master's avarice, anger, or lust. He was viewed
as an inferior animal, and might be scourged, tortured,
mutilated or killed at pleasure. Marriage was unknown
among slaves. The master could break up their families,
and permanently separate them at will. He could force
women to become prostitutes, and degrade men to still
baser uses. He could compel them to become gladia
tors, and train them to fight with each other or with wild
beasts, until they were killed. He could turn them out
in sickness or old age, abandoning them to starvation.
If the master was killed in his house, all the slaves could
be put to death. Tacitus {Annals, xii. 42) tells us of a
slave who in his rage killed his master, who had prom
ised him freedom and had broken his word. The case
was discussed in the senate. Cassius, the Stoic, defended
the law, and six hundred slaves, all innocent, were mur
dered by order of the Roman senate. This was slavery,

68 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
an institution as foreign to the Israelitish policy as candor
is to the character of some who assail the law of Moses
as an instrument of bondage and oppression.
THE PUNISHMENT POE MANSTEALING.
Slavery had its foundation in violence and kidnapping;
but the law of Moses said, "He that stealeth a man and
selleth him, or if he he found in his hand, he shall surely
be put to death." Exod xxi. 16. The law of Moses made
the stealing of a man, selling him, or holding the man
thus stolen in bondage, a capital crime. Again it is said,
" If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the
children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or
selleth him, then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put
evil away from among you." Deut. xxiv. 7. Under the
law of Moses no theft of property was punishable with
death. Such crimes were punished by enforcing restitu
tion, in some cases twofold, in others four or fivefold;
and in cases of poverty, by compelling the thief to work
as a bondman, and repay the value of the things stolen.
Exod. xxii. 3, 9, 12. But when a man was stolen, the
penalty was death; and the stealing or selling of a man
was thus punishable, and no mercy was allowed.
Hence slavery, properly so called, was unknown, and
the word slave does not occur in the writings of Moses.
In some cases bondmen and bondmaids were purchased
of the heathen round about, and of the children of stran
gers, and these were brought unto a condition of perma
nent servitude. Lev. xxv. 44, 45. But these persons
were already enslaved and degraded, and the change
must have been most welcome to them. And there is a
question whether this servitude extended beyond the year
of jubilee. These servants were to be circumcised, and
participate in the passover feast (Exod. vii. 44), and in
other religious festivities. Deut. xii. 12-18; xvi. 21-24.

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 69
They enjoyed the weekly rest days, which were binding
upon all who dwelt in the land. We find only two in
stances of bondmen running away from their masters men
tioned in the Old Testament. 2 Sam. xxv. 20; 2 Kings ii.
39. The wise servant had rule over the son which caused
shame, and had part of the inheritance among the breth
ren (Prov. xvii. 2); and sometimes the servant married the
daughter of the master. 2 Chron. ii. 35.
The Jews, it is true, were sometimes compelled to en
gage in wars. They were assailed, and mtist defend
themselves ; and sometimes they were made the instru
ments of chastisement to the corrupt and besotted nations
around them. In time of war, they, like other nations,
took captives. What should be done with them ? They
did not wish to slaughter or mutilate them, as most of
the neighboring nations did: if they set them free they
would only return to swell the ranks of their enemies,
and perhaps join in another invasion of their land.
Hence, the only practicable way was to place them under
restraint as bondmen. Their condition, however, was in
a vast majority of instances better than in their own
land. Captive women were protected from insult and
outrage. If servants became dissatisfied with their mas
ters and ran away, no Israelite was allowed to return
them. The law said: "Thou shalt not deliver unto
his master the servant which is escaped from his mas
ter unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among
you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy
gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress
him." Deut. xxiii. 15, 16. This was the "Fugitive
Slave Law " in the time of Moses. Have moderns greatly
improved upon it ?
There were also servants "born in the house;" probably
the children of captives taken in war. These were mem
bers of the family, and sometimes had charge of the

70 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
affairs of the household, as in the case of Abraham's stew
ard, Eliezer of Damascus (Gen. xxv. 13); and at other
times they were regarded as sons, or united by marriage
to the children and heirs of the household.
We also read in the Scriptures of servants bought with
money; but since the selling of their brethren was pun
ishable with death, how could slaves be bought with
money ? They must have been persons bought out of for
eign slavery, or else persons who, being reduced to poverty,
sold themselves. Thus it is written, "Ye have sold your
selves for nought." Isa. Iii. 3. In Leviticus (xxv. 39-47)
we read, "If thy brother be waxen poor with thee, and
sell himself 'unto thee, thou shalt not make him to serve
as a bond-servant. If a sojourner or stranger wax rich by
thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor and
sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, . . .
after that he is sold he may be redeemed again." Thus
servants were bought with money, that is, hired for a cer
tain period or term of years. A man might mortgage his
property, and might be still unable to support his family.
He might then sell himself as a servant; but no one else
could sell him. He was not a beast, to be maltreated and
slain; nor was he a chattel, to be sold, bartered, or passed
from hand to hand. He was a man, and had his rights. He
owed service to one man, who could not transfer his claim
to any one else. He could not be sent out of the country.
He might be called for and redeemed at any time, by any
friend, by the payment of a price, fixed, not by the caprice
of his master, but by computation of the amount paid for
him, and the length of his term of service yet unexpired.
At the close of the sixth year his servitude expired by
limitation, or on the jubilee year, if that occurred before
the sixth year closed.
Such a man was not a slave. He was a bondman, like
many a lad who has been " bound out" till he was of age;

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 71
or like emigrants, bound to work till their passage-money
was repaid; but such bondage was in no sense slavery.
Another cause of servitude was, if a man committed a
theft he was to restore fourfold or fivefold; and if he
had nothing, then he was to be sold for his theft. Ex.
xxii. 3. He must work out the amount which the law
required him to pay. But he could not be sold to a for
eigner or carried abroad. (Josephus, Antiquities, b. xvi.
c. 1, § 1.) He must be where he could be delivered up
if called for, or redeemed.
A man might also sell his daughter as a maid-servant
with the understanding that she was to be betrothed to
the purchaser or to his son; but if he took another wife,
and did not fulfill all his obligations to her, she was at
once to go free.
The father's power to dispose of a daughter was not
like the power of the ancient Romans, where parents had
the right to put their children to death at pleasure; and
the fact that the father sold his daughter did not make
her the property of the buyer. Boaz bought Ruth. Ruth
iv. 10. Jacob bought his wives with years of labor. Gen.
xxix. 16-23. And the purchase of wives was the general
practice in those times. Ex. xxii. 17; 1 Sam. xviii. 25.
But such purchases did not involve the idea of slavery
or of mere proprietary right. It was the marriage cus
tom of those times.
THE PEOTECTION OP SERVANTS PEOM ABUSE.
If a man smote his servant with a rod — not with a stone
or a weapon, but simply with an instrument of correction
— if he killed him, he was to be punished. If death did
not occur immediately, it was then adjudged that the
injury might have been unintentional, or accidental, or
might have resulted from other causes; and that loss of
the bondman's services was a sufficient punishment to the

72 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
master for the chastisement he had inflicted on his servant.
The master was not exempted from punishment because
the injured person was his servant, or his money, for if he
died under his hand he was to be punished for his death,
servant though he was; but in case of his lingering along,
an element of doubt entered into the case, and the
accused had the benefit of the doubt. It was presumed
that a man would not intentionally deprive himself of
the money he had paid to secure the services of a bond
man for a term of years; and every Israelite knew that
any serious injury which he might inflict on a servant re
leased him from all obligations of further service.
The servant who was maimed or injured under the cor
rection of his master, thereby became entitled to his free
dom. If in chastising a servant the master knocked out
a tooth or destroyed an eye, the servant was entitled to
liberty as a compensation for the injury done. Ex. xxi.
26, 27. The natural tendency of such a law as this was
to prevent harsh treatment by masters, and to make it
for their own interest to treat their servants with the
utmost gentleness.
The servitude of any Israelite might be terminated at
any time by satisfying the claims against him. When
the balance of the debt due was paid, the man was lib
erated or redeemed. When the thief had worked out his
time, he was free; or the year of jubilee might occur
within the time, as then the law gave all servants lib
erty. Lev. xxv. 40. Or at the expiration of six years
from the commencement of his servitude the servant
went free. Ex. xxi. 2; Deut. xv. 12. The death of the
master without leaving a male heir was held by the
Rabbins to liberate the servants. And at the termin
ation of his servitude the master was not allowed to let
the servant go away empty, but to liberally reward
him out of his field, and his threshing-floor, and his

THE WONDERFUL LAW. >J3
wine-press. Deut. xv. 13, 14. This provision of a reward,
the amount of which was left discretionary with the mas
ter, would stimulate the bondman to faithful service,
that he might at the expiration of his term have some
thing to start in the world anew.
If a servant, contented with his lot, refused to go away,
then he was to go before judges, and there by a formal
ceremony (Ex. xxi. 6; Deut. xv. 17) bind himself as a
permanent servant. He was then to remain in the house
forever, — though some of the Jews assert that this bond
only extended to the year of jubilee, the fiftieth year.
But whatever his condition he never became a chattel or
a thing. While ancient slavery denied to its subjects the
rights of manhood, under the law of Moses the servant
was a bondmcro and possessed the rights and privileges of
a human being. THE WIVES OF SERVANTS.
Great objection has been made to the provision that if
a master gave a wife to a servant, when his time of serv
itude expired the wife and children were to remain the
property of the master. To understand this provision,
we must note that the female servants thus spoken of
were doubtless persons who had been taken captive in
war, or their children who had been brought up in the
family of the master. Thus he had certain claims upon
them. It was the custom of those days for men to
purchase their wives with money or labor, and of course
the servant having rendered no such service, could not be
entitled to claim or remove the wife which he had taken
in the house of his master, without making such compen
sation for services as immemorial custom required. Of
course he was well aware of this when he contracted such
a marriage. He, moreover, had the right to remain in
the house with his wife and family; and if he departed,

74 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
it does not appear that she ceased to be his wife. She
could not be sold to another. She was provided for in
his absence or in his presence, not being dependent on
him for support; and if he went away he knew where to
find her when he returned, unless she had been set free.
Families could not there be separated or torn asunder.
But while he was free to go as he pleased, she was re
garded as owing service to that household until such
time as their claims should be canceled. The mere fact
of her marriage to a fellow-servant did not liberate her
from the obligations she was under to her master's family.
A captive woman who had been taken as a wife by an
Israelite could not again be reduced to servitude. If she
was discarded, she must be set free. A servant might
be elevated to the position of a wife, but a wife could
not be degraded to the position of a servant.
Such, in brief, are some of the provisions of the Jew
ish law concerning servitude. As it regards slavery, it
was unknown in the land of Israel, though well known
among outside nations, both in ancient and modern times.
And the charges that infidels make against the law of
Moses as countenancing slavery, clearly indicate that ig
norance of the Scriptures which is so characteristic of
skeptics as a class, or that indifference to accuracy of
statement concerning matters of fact which seems to be
an indispensable qualification for skeptical teachers.
A PEACTICABLE LAW.
One noteworthy feature of the Mosaic law was its
practicability. The wise legislator considers that he is
not making laws for an ideal society. If men were all
righteous and would always do right, laws would be need
less. Laws are made because, through ignorance and per
versity, people will do wrong and will go astray. But
laws, to be useful in a community, must be of such a

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. 75
nature that they can be enforced. When the people of
Athens, through factions and intestine broils, were on the
brink of ruin, they appealed to Draco to frame a new
code of laws for them. His laws were chiefly remarka
ble for the rigor of their penalties. Every violation of
them was punishable with death ; a severity which ren
dered them incapable of execution ; as when under Eng
lish laws capital crimes were numbered by hundreds, it
was impossible to enforce them. Witnesses would not
testify, jurors would not convict, and though in the four
years from 1828 to 1832 there were 3786 convictions, there
were only 66 executions.
Laws which cannot be executed are worse than useless.
After the failure of Draco's laws, Solon was summoned
to take the helm and save the sinking ship of state. He
introduced a constitution which he said " was not the
best in itself, but the best that the Athenians would
bear." Rousseau, the skeptic, in his treatise on the
Social Compact (b. ii. c. 8-11) says, "The prudent legis
lator does not begin by making a digest of salutary laws ;
but examines first whether the people for whom such laws
are designed are capable of supporting them. It was
for this reason that Plato refused to give laws to the Arca
dians and Cyrenians, knowing that they were rich and
luxurious, and could not admit of the introduction of
equality among them. When customs are once estab
lished, and prejudices have taken root among the people,
it is a dangerous and fruitless enterj>rise to attempt to
reform them. Legislation should be variously modified
in different countries. . . . Every people should have a
particular system of law, not always the best in itself, but
the best adapted for the state for which it is calculated."
"The secret of great statesmanship," says Niebuhr, "is
a gradual development and improvement of the several
parts to an equal constitution." Wise legislators never

76 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
attempt to raise a constitution at once to perfection.
Nations are for the most part very tenacious of their
customs, and very apt to rebel against violent innova
tions. Wise statesmen, therefore, says Montesquieu, do
not change them suddenly, but let the people make the
changes themselves. No really wise legislator will make
laws which shock the general sense of a nation.
Many regulations which might be exceedingly desira
ble, even in civilized communities, are impracticable be
cause they cannot be enforced. Entire abstinence from
all intoxicating beverages would be desirable; but a law
requiring this would probably be useless, because it could
not be executed. Hence moral means must largely be
depended on to restrain and reform mankind. Law
does not mark the highest level desired in human con
duct. It simply marks the lowest level which will be toler
ated by the community or the lawgiver. Though the law
does not forbid a man to become intoxicated, yet in the
interest of public order and morality it forbids public in
toxication. This does not imply any approval or permis
sion of private intoxication; but simply that the law does
not undertake the impossible task of regulating the pri
vate acts of individuals which do not conflict with public
order. Many evils are dealt with in the same manner,
and wise legislators often seek to restrain and regulate
wrongs which they cannot at once remove.
POLYGAMY AND DIVORCE.
An example of this is found in the Mosaic law regu
lating polygamy. The Mosaic law did not ordain, com
mand, or commend the practice. It confined itself to
regulating an old, established, and widely extended in
stitution. To have attempted to uproot it would have
seriously disturbed the existing social order. It would have
broken up families, cast off wives, disinherited children,

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. 77
and might have been attended with great dangers and
serious evils. Hence, instead of cutting down the tree,
the Mosaic law girdled it.
First, the kings of Israel were forbidden to multiply
wives unto themselves.* The course of David and Solo
mon in this respect, though in accord with Eastern usage,
was in direct opposition to the law under which they held
the throne. Besides, no person was permitted to take a
second wife to the neglect or exclusion of the first.f A
man was not allowed to take wife after wife, neglecting
the first because he had found another younger and fairer.
The full rights and privileges of the wife first taken
were solemnly guaranteed to her in every particular.
The tendency of this provision was evidently to restrain
and discourage such unions, and so far as possible to
limit the evil of polygamy. It was only under the pres
sure of the most terrible calamities, when the men of
Judah were slain by the sword, and the gates of Jerusa
lem were desolate, that seven women were to seek alliance
with one man, to remove the reproach attached to celi
bacy. Isa. iii. 25; iv. 1. The Law of Moses not only
provided every man a farm, but its provisions, which
tended to increase the male population, as a rule provided
for every woman a husband, thus honoring marriage and
restraining vice and immorality.
Another example is found in the Mosaic provision for
divorce. The Saviour distinctly says that Moses on ac
count of the hardness of their hearts suffered them to
put away their wives, but from the beginning it was not
so. The law was not in accordance with the highest prin
ciples, nor was it a regulation of an ideal society. It was
simply on account of the hardness of their hearts. The
law was graded on the lines of possibility and practica
bility. The question was not what would be a perfect
* Deut. xvii. 17. t Exodus xxi. 10.

78 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
law for a perfect people; for in a state of absolute per
fection no law would be needed. The question was not
what was the best law that could be made for angels and
saints in heaven, or for Adam and Eve in paradise; but
what was the best law that could be imposed upon a na
tion of sinners, fresh from the bondage of Egypt, in the
desert of Sinai and in the land of Canaan. In the be
ginning God created one man and one woman. This was
the primary and perfect order. But it was an order
which it might have been impossible to revive at the
time when the Mosaic law was given.
There have been countries in Christendom which ut
terly prohibit divorce. But it is by no means certain that
their laws operate to secure the well being and morality
of the people ; and it is reasonably sure that such a law
in the time of Moses would have failed to accomplish the
end desired. Indeed, it has been found in modern times
that after the enlightenment of successive generations it
is by no means easy to eradicate an evil like polygamy,
with all the machinery of law and government, armies
and navies at hand, — to say nothing of schools, missions,
and educational appliances.
The fact that the law given by Moses was a, practicable
law, not attempting impossibilities, but confining its en
actments within the bounds where its authority could be
exercised, is another instance of the divine wisdom em
bodied in that law.
THE POSITION OF WOMEN AMONG THE HEBREWS.
It is well known that under ordinary circumstances,
about one hundred and five male children are born to
every one hundred female children. This excess of births
seems intended to compensate for the greater number of
deaths which occur among the males in consequence of
the special dangers to which they are exposed. The

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 79
number of deaths among males is unquestionably in
creased by the use of intoxicants and narcotics, and va
rious other excesses, which increase may be balanced in
civilized communities by the greater mortality of women
induced by unhealthful ways of living, dress, and occu
pation. But the disposition of men to incur risks,
travel, explore, and colonize, still leaves a deficiency of
men in old and long-settled communities. In Great Brit'
ain there are over nine hundred thousand more women
than men; and the world has been horrified by accounts
of a hellish traffic in female innocence there carried on,
which could not be expected to occur were the sexes
more evenly balanced. In the State of Massachusetts
there are sixty-two thousand more women than men, and
in the city of Boston women number seventeen thousand
more than men. The presence of such an excess of
female population is not only an occasion of great incon
venience and suffering among the helpless, but is also
fraught with positive danger to the morals and well-being
of the community.
It is a curious fact that under the operation of certain
of the Mosaic interdictions yet to be mentioned, which
infidels scoff at because they cannot comprehend their
utility, the proportion of the average birth-rate is materi
ally changed; so that instead of the one hundred and five
males born to every one hundred females among the Gen
tiles, there are among the Jews one hundred and twelve
males born to every one hundred females. This peculiar
ity of birth-rate, of course, affords to the Jews great
advantage in point of national strength and increase.
It has often been remarked that the Jewish religion
was much more readily embraced by women than by
men. The painful initiatory rite stood directly in the way
of every male proselyte to Judaism. On the other hand,
the positive advantages offered women under the Jewish

80 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
law were such as must have been highly esteemed. The
position of women in the heathen world was, and ever
has been, a position of the most abject degradation im
aginable-. To-day, India has within her borders 124,000,-
000 women, " unwelcome at their birth, accursed as wid
ows, unlamented when they die; and this with all 'the
light of Asia' surrounding them."
The position of women among the Jews was far differ
ent. As a maiden, she was protected and defended by
Jewish law, and he who betrayed her was obliged to
marry her, if she consented, and without the possibility
of a future divorce. The rights of the Jewish wife were
carefully guarded. Her husband was not allowed to go
to war for a year after they were married; and though
the eastern institution of polygamy was not utterly pro
hibited, yet it was so restricted that it must not in any
way invade the rights and privileges of the wife. If a
husband became jealous of his wife's fidelity, the legal
presumptions were all in her favor. The husband was
not allowed to inflict summary punishment ; but she was
subjected to an ordeal which could by no possibility work
injury to her, unless through the guilt of her own con
science or the interposition of divine providence. Num.
v. As a mother, the Jewish woman must be honored by
her children. As a daughter, the Jewish woman had rights
and an inheritance. If the wife or daughter uttered rash
and foolish vows, the husband or father had a right to dis
annul them, provided he did it from the day it came to his
knowledge. Even the Gentile woman taken captive by
a young Israelitish warrior must have been surprised to
receive treatment so strangely different from that received
by captives in her own country, or even among modern
nations who profess to be civilized. Her captor could not
offer her an insult; she must be taken, not to a prison,
but to his home, where she must neither be abused nor

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. 81
outraged, but treated with patient consideration; and she
could not be taken, even as a wife, until a full month had
elapsed, during which he might secure her affections or
reconsider his determination. And if after her marriage
she was discontented and made herself disagreeable, she
could never again be held as a servant, but must be al
lowed to go free. Widows, who in heathen lands have
been degraded and sometimes murdered or burned,
were to be treated with the utmost tenderness. They
shared in the tithes, and were admitted to the public
festivities. They had a right to glean in the fields and
gather up the forgotten sheaves, to gather which the owner
was not allowed to go back. Injustice against widows
was treated with fearful punishment. " Thou shalt not
take the widow's raiment to pledge" (Deut. xxiv. 17),
was a benevolent law which cannot be paralleled in any
modern code. The command to lend to an Israelite in
his poverty was imperative, but no pledge of raiment
could be exacted from a widow.
Thus in a variety of ways was the Lord pleased to man
ifest his kindness and compassion for the fatherless and
the widow, and in consequence womanhood was honored
and honorable in the Jewish nation, beyond anything
known in the heathen world. From the vile and degrad
ing orgies of heathenism the women of Israel were
exempt. They feared the Lord, and at his hand received
blessings and mercies without number. Some of them
were prophets, teachers, leaders, and judges. They taught
a pure morality, trained their children according to prin
ciples of justice and righteousness, and lived in expecta
tion and hope of the coming of that Messiah in whom
all the nations of the earth were to be blessed.
These privileges enjoyed by Israelitish women, so much
superior to those accorded to women in the surrounding
nations, must have inclined many to desire the protection

82 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
and security afforded in the commonwealth of Israel.
Thus Ruth, having married one Israelitish husband, had
no desire to remain in Moab and look for his successor,
but said to her mother-in-law, who was returning to the
land of Israel, "Whither thou goest, I will go. Thy peo
ple shall be my people, and thy God my God." Doubtless
others were equally sensible of the advantages of such
unions, and hence it was comparatively easy for Jewish
men to obtain wives to supply any deficiency that might
have existed. Heathen women were all too willing to
form such alliances, and the Jews were especially warned
against intermarrying with the surrounding nations; for
though Jewish men formed the controlling element of the
nation, yet heathen women, if they did not embrace the
faith of Israel, were an occasion of spiritual decline and
apostasy, and especially of idolatry in their children.
MOSAIC INTERDICTIONS.
The prohibitions or interdictions of the Mosaic law
have been a favorite butt for the ridicule of infidels,
whose blundering criticisms clearly indicate their failure
to comprehend the depths of wisdom exhibited in the
oracles of God.
Various restrictions are common to all governments.
The existence of society depends upon mutual concessions
and the curtailment of individual rights. The law of brute
force is simple barbarism, and with its establishment
civilization ends.
Under the Jewish law there are three expressions
which require consideration in this connection. There
was first kah-dohsh', signifying to be bright, new, fresh,
untarnished, clean, consecrated, set apart for a holy use.
This word described the ideal sanctity or holiness of the
Israelitish nation, and of their worship. The temple and
altar, the curtains of the tabernacle, the sacrifices and

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 83
shew-bread, the golden lampstand, and all their utensils
of worship, were regarded as kah-dohsh', or holy. Not that
any moral quality could inhere in gold and silver, brass,
cloth, or stone, but simply to show that those material
things were consecrated to the service of the Most High,
and were to be looked upon with reverence, and to be
kept sacred from the touch of the common multitude.
This word also extended higher in its scope, and described
angelic purity, and the spotless holiness of the Most High
God. Another word used among them was tah-meh' , which
signified to be soiled, sullied, polluted, defiled, unholy,
unclean. As kah-dohsh' defined that holiness or purity to
which a man should attain to enjoy communion with
God, tah-meh' described that pollution, defilement, or un
cleanness which he was required to avoid. Those words,
therefore, set a bound about the nation of Israel, to pre
vent their participation in the vices of the surrounding
peoples, separating them from the corrupt and idolatrous
nations around them, in food, in drink, and in association.
They might not attend their idolatrous festivities, sit at
their tables, nor eat of their dainties.
While whatever was thus interdicted was termed tah-
meh' or unclean, the word tdh-hehr', signifying to shine,
to be bright, to become clean or pure, was used to de
scribe the condition of those whose ceremonial unclean
ness had been removed by compliance with the prescrip
tions of the Mosaic law. This word therefore occupied
a middle position; kah-dohsh' describing the divine holi
ness, tah-meh' expressing the depths of human pollution,
and tdh-hehr' describing the condition of those who hav
ing been polluted had been cleansed and restored to a
condition of purity.
We have in this connection especially to consider the
force of the term tah-meh', or uncleanness, which was

84 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
used, not necessarily to describe that which was filthy,
but that which was prohibited or forbidden. Thus the
touch of a dead body made any person tah-meh', or un
clean; not because material filth necessarily adhered to a
person who had touched a corpse, but to broadly mark
the distinction between the living and the dead, and to
remind men that by sin came death, and also to ensure
the speedy removal and interment of the dead, and
to prevent that contact with them which so often proves
a fruitful source of contagion, disease and death.
An illustration of the force of the term tah-meh' may
be found in the taboo of the Polynesians, by which a certain
mark or sign affixed to anything renders it taboo, and pro
hibits all people from touching or approaching it.
This ceremonial tah-meh', or prohibitory restriction,
usually translated " unclean," touched the personal life
and conduct of the Israelite at every point, extending its
control over his entire existence from birth to burial,
regulating his food, his clothing, his daily conduct, and
his most secret acts of social and domestic life. He who
violated any of these interdictions, himself became tah-
meh', or unclean, and was forbidden under pain of death
to enter the congregation of the Lord, take part in the
worship, festivities, or privileges of the children of Israel.
While he was tah-meh' he was required to make himself
a social outcast, being obliged to decline all association
or contact with his fellow-men, at least for a day, and
sometimes for a week or more. He was also required to
bathe himself in water, and to perform certain public
ceremonies of purification before he could become tdh-
hehr,' and thus regain his ordinary rights and privileges.
If we study these laws, beginning with the eleventh
chapter of Leviticus and continuing to the fifteenth, we
shall find in them indications of wisdom and evidences of
utility which skeptics little suspect. The laws which

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 85
pronounced a leper tah-meh' were of the nature of quar
antine restrictions, framed in accordance with the character
of that terrible malady, to prevent its spread among the
people. The law concerning the "leprosy of the house"
contained sanitary regulations which, if enforced today,
would demolish the mouldy and pestilential rookeries in
which civilization hives her poor, and would inaugurate a
system of sanitary inspection and improvement such as a
modern enlightenment has never yet succeeded in estab
lishing. The numerous ablutions required of those
who were tah-meh' enforced the practice of cleanliness
as a religious duty, thus conserving and promoting the
health of the nation. The directions regarding clothing
are also well worthy of attention, some of them probably
being based on sanitary considerations, and others per
haps being intended to guard against the usages of
idolatrous nations.
THE LAWS OF MOSES EEGAEDING POOD
have been to a great extent substantially adopted among
civilized peoples, most of the prohibited articles being ex
cluded from their dietary, and the few that are still used
might be most advantageously dispensed with.
Perhaps the most marked deviation of civilized nations
from the Jewish dietetic code is seen in the prevailing
use of swine's flesh, which was strictly forbidden to
Israel. The propriety of this interdiction is obvious to the
thoughtful. Swine in their natural condition are fierce as
beasts of prey, and about as swift as wild horses, and
though omnivorous, and hence unclean, may be supposed
to be comparatively free from disease. But when civil
ized and fattened they become so weak and enfeebled
that they can hardly move, but lie as helpless lumps of
lymph and adipose; and when they are too feeble to walk
and can only grunt and eat, they are supposed to be just

86 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
fit for food. The lumps which characterize what is known
as " measly pork " it is now known when eaten develop
into tape-worms in the human body; and the horrors of
trichiniasis are too well known to need description. An
intelligent lady, a teacher in the public schools, who
died of this horrible disease in consequence of tasting a
single mouthful of uncooked sausage, said to the writer
as she was panting for breath, after suffering untold
agonies from the myriads of these horrible parasites which
were working their way through every fibre of her body,
" Warn the people not to eat pork!"
The writer many years ago listened to a lecture on
health, delivered by Dr. Wieting in Tremont Temple,
Boston. To illustrate the process of respiration he intro
duced the lungs of a pig, and remarked that he had it
slaughtered on purpose for the lecture; and that some
times he found it necessary to have as many as a dozen
pigs killed before he could get a pair of sound lungs ! Is
it any wonder that people fed on the flesh of these dis
eased, enfeebled, tuberculous, filthy brutes, should die of
consumption through the "mysterious providence of God,"
who told his people thousands of years ago to let the un
clean stuff alone ? Levit. xi. 7 ; Deut. xiv. 8 ; Isaiah lxiv.
5; lxvi. 17.
Swine were designed to be scavengers, to eat up filth
and abominations; but when they had done their work, it
was not designed that men should turn around and eat
the swine. If people partake of the nature of the food
they consume, the eaters of blood becoming bloodthirsty,
while those who live upon fruits and similar articles of
food are more mild and peaceful, we can imagine what
must be the character of persons the main portion of
whose food is swine's flesh.
Persons fond of such food will naturally call to mind
some person of iron constitution, like one known to the

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. 87
writer, who claims to have eaten twenty or thirty hogs
without evil result; but they will not stop to consider the
children of such persons, most of whom die in early life
and of diseases not usually fatal. The fact is, He who for
bade his people to eat swine's flesh, undoubtedly had good
reasons for so doing, — reasons which probably concern
both health and morals.
The celibate communities known in America as Shakers,
furnish an illustration of the result of a partial conformity
to the Mosaic law in relation to diet. According to a
health journal, the Berkshire Shakers were accustomed to
eat pork until about the year 1850, when they discontin
ued the use of it, and since doing so their average age at
death has risen from less than sixty-four years to over
sixty-eight years. It is stated that when they made use
of pork as an article of food they lost several members of
their various families from consumption every year. After
abandoning the use of pork, they did not lose a single
member from consumption for years, and have actually
stamped out the disease from among them.
A rabbi of one of the Jewish synagogues of New York
in preaching recently, insisted that the Mosaic food laws
had been proved to rest on a scientific foundation and
were for the best interests of those following them. A
fair illustration of this, he said, is seen in the fact that
during the last seven years seventy-eight members of the
congregation had been buried, of whom fifty-eight lived in
obedience to the food laws, and their ages averaged sixty
years. The remaining twenty, who did not so live, had
an average life of only forty years.
It is not claimed that Gentiles and Christians are bound
by law to abstain from all things forbidden to the Jews.
But when they learn that all these interdictions are
profitable and healthful, it is for them to consider whether
they can afford to do things to their own injury, when

88 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
their impropriety and hurtfulness have been clearly pointed
out in the Mosaic Law.
The salutary restrictions concerning food have undoubt
edly tended to promote health and longevity among the
Jews. But it is especially in the relations of the sexes, and
the control of the natural instincts, that the law concern
ing tah-meh' has perhaps its most important application.
The first commandment ever given to man had reference
to the perpetuation of the human race. This command
was enforced by the implantation of natural instincts
sufficiently strong to secure the object desired, but con
stituting an array of social forces so mighty as to require
rigid control and careful guidance, lest they should wreck
society, and bury humanity in its own ruins. The first of
these restraints was imposed by the divine law ordaining
marriage; an institution primitive in its origin and world
wide in its extent. But other restraints were requisite
to prevent those excesses which, even within the bonds
of wedlock, result. in infirmity, disease, and premature de
cay, working the destruction of health, happiness, and
even of life itself.
The experience of ages has also shown that the uncon
trolled indulgence pf the natural passions, and the unre
strained and unregulated increase of the human family,
result in various evils, such as the deterioration of both
parents and offspring, the neglect of infancy, and the
prevalence of poverty, want, vice, and wretchedness; for
which evils modern publicists, politicians, and legislators
have hitherto vainly sought to provide a remedy.
In laying the foundations for a new and ideal common
wealth, these dangers were not to be overlooked, but
carefully considered and sedulously guarded against.
But how was this to be accomplished? It is useless to
legislate directly against natural inclinations and appe
tites. Such laws could never be enforced. Hence, what-

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 89
ever is done to effect the desired results must be done in
directly, and in such a way as to avoid the resistance
which the human will continually offers to every invasion
of personal liberty. Evils which cannot be directly leg
islated out of existence may sometimes be indirectly re
strained and prevented by wise and judicious enactments.
LAWS AGAINST IMPURITY.
The law of Moses guarded the purity of womanhood
with its sternest sanctions. Outrages upon women
were punished with death. The seducer of the Jewish
maiden must marry her, if her parents would permit the
marriage, and if not, must pay heavily for his misdeed ;
and while wives taken under other circumstances might
be divorced, such a marriage was indissoluble. Adultery
was punished by the death of both the guilty parties.
Prostitution was a capital crime, and no illegitimate child
could enter the congregation of the Lord, or be incorpor
ated in the commonwealth of Israel and possess the rights
of a free citizen.
But even these protections would be insufficient to pre
vent the evils to which we have alluded. To guard
against these ills some plan must be devised which would
indirectly touch and rigidly control man's personal con
duct in the most secret acts of social life.
Among the measures which looked to this result may
be mentioned the initiatory rite, the seal of the ancient
covenant, which had a direct tendency to foster conti
nence, and prevent vicious indulgence. The dietary of the
Jewish nation, both in the articles which it prescribed
and those which it excluded, tended to the same result.
And finally the statutes concerning tah-meh' or unclean
ness, and purification, were admirably adapted to cover
the entire ground. No one could give himself up to the
excessive and habitual indulgence of animal passion

90 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
without making himself for the time a social outcast, and
debarring himself from the services of the sanctuary, and
the associations of common life, as a person whose very
presence and touch was defilement, and who must per
form the prescribed ablutions and ceremonies before he
could again stand as an equal among the sons of Israel.
The weaknesses and diseases which naturally result from
excessive sensual indulgence subjected him to similar
disability, and brought his case under the constant notice
of parents and priests, thus insuring a speedy remedy.
In addition to this, the Mosaic law cast about the weak
er sex the most absolute protection imaginable. Nothing
was left to chance, to will, to caprice, or passion. The
stern law of God stood sentinel over the health, purity,
and welfare of the wife, and preserved the sanctity of
the home. For a large proportion of the time the Israelitish
wife was tah-meh' , or forbidden. That word hedged her
about on every hand. All contact with her person, her
clothing, her bed or her couch, rendered any man guilty
of it tdh-nieh', or unclean, and sent him into seclusion
from one to seven days, compelling him to bathe his
entire person before he could walk forth as a man among
men, and participate in the worship, the festivities, and
the privileges pertaining to Jewish citizenship. Exod.
xix. 10-15; 1 Sam. xxi. 4, 5; Joel ii. 16; 1 Cor. vii. 5.
This tah-meh', or prohibition, was so timed that its inev
itable tendency was to lessen the number of births
which would otherwise occur, and at the same time, accord
ing to the laws of the human constitution as discovered by
modern research, it would secure "the survival of the
fittest," the preservation of the most vigorous germs of
human existence, thus tending to produce a people phys
ically superior to other nations who lived without such
wholesome restraints.
Thus the regulation of the social life of the Hebrew was

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 91
not left to chance, passion, or blind and unreasoning im
pulse; but the lawlessness of human nature was met,
not by the remonstrances of weakness and helplessness,
but by the stern law of God, which like a flaming sword
turned every way to protect the defenseless, and guard
the purity and integrity of the home. And as each indul
gence of the natural passions was followed by a period of
tah-meh', or seclusion, the inconvenience of which is man
ifest, the natural tendency of the law was to cultivate
virtue, foster self-control, school the Jewish nation
in continence and chastity, and insure the perpetuation
of a healthful and virtuous population.
Another thing has excited the anger and contempt of
skeptics, namely, the provision by which the birth of a
son rendered the mother tah-meh' for a period of forty
days. Skeptics descant solemnly upon the saoredness
of motherhood, and deride these laws as unworthy of
a divine lawgiver; but the finer instincts of woman
hood will at once perceive the utility of a provision which,
for a period of forty days, secluded and sacredly protected
mothers, shielding them from all approach, intrusion and
contact, and so insuring and preserving that proverbial
health of the Hebrew women, who as long ago as the
time of Pharaoh, unlike the Egyptian women, were "live
ly," and able to protect their offspring from destruction.
Such a provision as this could only have a most salutary
effect upon a community, its tendency being to prevent
an over-production of ill-born and sickly children, avoid
the dangers of over-population, and preserve the strength
and vigor of the mothers in Israel.
But infidelity has found another theme for scoffing in
the fact that after the birth of a female child the mother
was tah-meh' for eighty days, or twice as long as after
the birth of a son. Such a law as this surely must be
one of " the mistakes of Moses! " But it is not well for

92 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
skeptics to form hasty conclusions. Perhaps Moses knew
more about his business than skeptics do.
There is, as it is well known, in consequence of the ex
posure of men to various dangers, a tendency to an excess
of females in civilized communities. And such an excess
forms a disturbing, if not a dangerous, element in society,
destroying the natural balance of the sexes, and in some
cases leading to serious evils; as may be seen in Great
Britain, where a preponderance of 800,000 females leads
to such horrible exhibitions of vice and sin as cannot be
openly described. We know how female infants have
been destroyed by their parents in non-Christian lands,
and all are familiar with the bitterness of the lot of Ori
ental women, where the mutilation of the ojDposite sex
tends to still further derange the natural balance of the
race, and so prepare the way for the spread of polygamy
and the horrors of the harem.
A facetious writer, after narrating her experiences in a
vain endeavor to secure employment in an overcrowded
city, ventured to suggest that some Herod who would
devote his time to the destruction of female infants would
be a public benefactor. This is substantially the solution
of the problem arrived at by the Chinese, which illus
trates the exalted moral and social tendency of the teach
ings of Confucius and Buddha, so dear to skeptical hearts,
and which renders necessary such notifications as the one
found by a missionary who, visiting the grounds of a
Chinese nobleman, and passing among the venerable
trees, shady paths, and beside the beautiful lake, with its
bridges and islands and summer houses, saw on a large
sign, in Chinese characters,
" PLEASE DON'T DROWN GIRLS HERE."
Christians are horrified at such a condition of things,
but there is a Godless and Christless heathenism at their
own doors which leads to results tenfold more horrible

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 93
than death in infancy and innocence. The poet who had
gazed upon wrecked and ruined womanhood, crushed by
poverty and toil, and then trampled by the unclean hoofs
of unbridled lust, uttered the wail,
" O God ! that bread should be so dear,
And flesh and blood so cheap ! "
and this cheapness of flesh and blood is the direct result
of an excess of the female population, in a sinful and
vicious community.
In a perfect condition of society, without deaths from
vice or violence, there might be no inconvenient excess
of the female sex under the ordinary birth-rate; and in
a pure and well-ordered community, such excess, if
it existed, might be attended by no special evil results.
But fallen humanity is far from perfection, and the evils
resulting from this state of things are neither few nor
small. The rule of force which ever prevails outside the influ
ence of the Scriptures, makes woman's lot one of sub
jection and degradation; and an excess of females in
any locality, under these circumstances tends to cheapen
and degrade them. But no such cheapening and waste
fulness of God's precious handiwork was possible under
the provisions of the Mosaic law; for the natural ten
dency of the extension of this period of maternal seclusion
after the birth of a female child, would be to slightly
reduce the number of births of females; the births in
families composed mostly of girls being thus less frequent
and less numerous than in the case of the opposite sex.
An excess of male births of course would be an element of
special strength to the Jewish nation. For, while a Jewish
maiden who married a Gentile lost her nationality, a Jew
marrying a Gentile woman brought her into the nation,
and so increased its strength. And it is stated that even
to the present day, as might be expected from this law,

94 ' THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
the proportion of births of males to females is greater
among the Jews than among their Gentile neighbors; the
tables showing that among the Jews 112 boys are born
to 100 girls; while among the Gentiles there are but 105
boys to 100 girls; giving the Jews an excess of seven per
cent, over the Gentiles in the birth-rate of males*
By such simple and effective enactments — the full pur
port and value of which was probably not apparent to
many even of those who obeyed them — did the law of
Moses secure ends which all other human legislation has
failed to effect, preserving the purity of the family, the
health of the parents, the vigor of their offspring, main
taining the balance of the sexes, preventing over-popula
tion, and quietly and indirectly effecting results which
the wisest human lawgivers have been powerless to ac
complish; and this in accordance with physiological laws
of which the world has been in ignorance for ages, and
which have only been discovered in our own generation.f
Such a law, imposed on Christendom to-day, would be
a priceless boon to thousands who are walking in weari
ness and wretchedness toward open graves. It would
stay the ravages of dire and deadly diseases, would foster
affection, hinder quarrels, prevent disgust and divorce,
and produce a chaste, vigorous, self-centred race, superior
in moral character and stamina to anything which modern
* Valuable Jewish vital statistics may be found in The IAfe of Christ, by Prof.
Sepp of Munich.
t Renouard, in his History of Medicine, translated by Dr. Comegys, as quoted by
Prof. L. T. Townsend, makes these statements: *' The writings of Moses constitute
a precious monument in the history of medicine, for they embrace hygienic rules of
the highest sagacity. ... In reading, for instance, those precepts designed to regu
late the relation of a man to his wife, one cannot repress a sentiment of admiration
for the wisdom and foresight which made such salutary regulations a religious duty.
. . . Apart from the religious ceremonies connected with them, might it not be said
that they are extracts from a modern work on hygienics ? But what more than this
excites the astonishment of physicians, is the tableaux that Moses has made of the
White Leprosy, and the regulations he established to prevent its propagation."^-
The Bible in the Nineteenth Century, p. 42,

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 95
usage and custom is likely to develop; preventing those
weaknesses and ailments which send men to unscrupulous
quacks as sheep to the slaughter; guiding the erring for
counsel to the priests, whose lips were to keep knowledge;
and laying a foundation for a physical vigor like that
of the Jewish race, which more than thirty centuries has
failed to deteriorate or destroy. The continence and the
ablutions, now prescribed by physicians, were then made
obligatory by divine law, which went to the fountain
head, demanding that men should be holy in body and
in spirit, excluding the transgressor and the sensualist
from the house and worship of God under pain of death,
and making possible a pure domestic life in the midst of
the pervading apostasy and corruption. These few Mo
saic laws were worth more to the Jewish nation than tons
of quack medicines, and cart-loads of books written by phy
sicians to instruct people in their duties in these respects.
And though infidels may scoff at them, their wives would
doubtless hail them as a priceless boon, if they could only
understand their import. And we should see fewer
faded women and fewer jaded men, if the people of this
age were instructed to conform their lives to the health
ful interdictions and requirements of the Mosaic law.
THE POOR MAN'S LAW.
It has been said most bitterly, that " There is one law
for the poor and another for the rich." We need not
bring proofs of the truth of this statement. Every one
knows that laws are usually framed by wealthy and in
fluential people, and to a great extent they are framed in
the interest of the rich, and not for the benefit of the
poor; and it is to such facts that we owe many of the
revolutions and rebellions which convulse the world.
The law of Moses was especially a poor man's law.
Not that injustice was to be done in the interest or for

96 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
the benefit of the poor. Right is right, whether among
rich or poor. So it was said, " Thou shalt not speak in a
cause to turn aside after a multitude to wrest judgment,
neither shalt thou favor the poor man in his cause." Ex.
xxiii. 2, 3. " Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judg
ment. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor
honor the person of the mighty; but in righteousness
thou shalt judge thy neighbor." Lev. xix. 15.
But having thus guarded against the injustice of favor
ing a poor man in judgment because he was poor, the
Lawgiver proceeds to protect and provide for the poor.
" If there be with thee a poor man, one of thy brethren,
.... thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine
hand from thy poor brother, but thou shalt open
thine hand unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient
for his need in that which he wanteth. . . . Thou s"halt
surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved
when thou givest unto him. . . . For the poor shall never
cease out of the land; therefore I command thee, say
ing, Thou shalt open thine hand unto thy brother, to
thy poor, and to thy needy." Deut. xv. 7-11. "And
when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not
wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou
gather the gleaning of thy harvest; and thou shalt not
glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen
fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor
and for the stranger. . . . Thou shalt not oppress thy
neighbor, neither rob him. The wages of a hired ser
vant shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.
Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block
before the blind; but thou shalt fear thy God." Lev.
xix. 9-14. " And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your
land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwell-
eth with you shall be unto you as one born among you,
and thou shalt love him as thyself." Lev. xix. 33 34.

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 97
" Six years thou shalt sow thy land and shalt gather in
the increase thereof, but the seventh year thou shalt let
it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of thy people may
eat." Exod. xxiii. 10-11.
" If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away
some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to re
deem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold.
And if the man have none to redeem it, and himself be
able to redeem it; then let him count the years of the
sale thereof, and restore the overplus unto the man to
whom he sold it, that he may return unto his possession.
But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which
is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought
it until the year of jubilee; and in the jubilee it shall go
out, and he shall return unto his possession. Lev. xxv.
25-27. " If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor
by thee, thou shalt not be unto him as an usurer, neither
shalt thou lay upon him tisury. If thou at all take thy
neighbor's raiment to pledge, thou shalt restore it unto him
by that the sun goeth down; for that is his covering only,
it is his raiment for his skin ; wherein shall he sleep ?
and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that
I will hear; for I am gracious." Exod. xxii. 25-27.
" When thou dost lend thy neighbor any manner of loan,
thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge.
Thou shalt stand without, and the man to whom thou dost
lend shall bring forth the pledge without unto thee.
And if he be a poor man, thou shalt not sleep with his
pledge; thou shalt surely restore to him the pledge when
the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his garment,
and bless thee; and it shall be righteousness unto thee
before the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not oppress an
hired servant that is poor and needy, whether it be of
thy brethren or of thy strangers that are in thy land

98 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
within thy gates; in his day thou shalt give him his
hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is
poor, and setteth his heart upon it; lest he cry against
thee unto the Lord, and it be sin unto thee." Deut. xxiv.
10-15. The highest fine imposed by Moses in punishment for
any crime was about fifteen dollars. Money of course
was much more valuable then than now, but such a law
could not be regarded as oppressive.
The law of Moses made no provision for imprisonment
for debt. Other nations have crowded their prisons with
men whose only crime was poverty. It is said that in the
eighteenth century, four thousand unhappy individuals
were condemned to prison every year for misfortune and
poverty, and were treated like criminals and outcasts.
Oglethorpe succeeded in 1728, with the aid of Parliament,
in delivering from jail great multitudes of these unhappy
creatures. In the United States, even as late as 1829, it
was estimated that there were as many as 3000 unfortu
nate debtors confined in the prisons of Massachusetts,
10,000 in New York, 7000 in Pennsylvania, 3000 in Mary
land, and a like proportion in other states. It was not
until between 1821 and 1845 that imprisonment for debt
in the United States was abolished except where fraud
was reasonably suspected.*
The land laws of Israel were framed especially for the
poor. The land was divided by lot among the different
tribes of Israel, and this division, dating back to the es
tablishment of the nation in Palestine, clearly shows that
the law under which they held their land was not an in
vention of modern writers or legislators, but was given
by Moses before they entered into Palestine. The law of
Moses provided for every man a home and a farm. He
was born heir to land, and his homestead was inalienable,
* See E. L. Brace, Gesta Christi, pp. 409, 410.

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. 99
He could not be dispossessed of his inheritance. In case
of poverty he might lease his land until the year of jubi
lee, or bind himself to servitude for a limited period, but
at the year of jubilee all conveyances of land were void
except those transferring houses or gardens within the
limits of cities or villages. These could be sold abso
lutely; but the land itself, the farms and vineyards and
fields no man could sell. An improvident father could
not dispossess his children of their rights in the land of
Israel. Nor could any creditor, by any claim, possess
himself in perpetuity of his neighbor's land. "Home
stead exemption," which has been advocated by some, is
simply a provision of the old Mosaic law; just as the
provision by which debts outlaw at the end of six years
is a relic and reminder of the institution of the Sabbatic
year among the Israelites, when debts were canceled and
bondmen went free.
This division of land laid the foundation for an inde
pendent, diligent, and thrifty community; and had this
land system been incorporated in modern law, as have
other provisions of Mosaic law, how different would have
been the condition of vast multitudes of people to-day,
who, destitute of land, have been crowded into cities and
villages, where they have not a spot on earth which they
can call their own, and do not even possess a grave.
For instance, in Scotland the land amounts to nearly
nineteen millions of acres (18,946,694). Of this amount
twelve persons hold more than one-fifth, or over four
millions of acres (4,339,672), and seventy persons hold
9,400,000 acres. Seventeen hundred persons hold nine-
tenths of the whole territory of Scotland, leaving for the
three and a half or four millions of people who remain
less than two millions of acres (1,894,669). Is it any
wonder that tens of thousands of families are living
crowded into single rooms in the great cities of Scotland ?

100 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
The area of Great Britain, outside of London, contains
a little more than seventy-two millions of acres of land
(72,117,766). This would allow about two acres to each
inhabitant. But of this land, more than one-fifth of the
whole, or over fifteen millions of acres (15,303,165), be
longs to 525 of the nobility, comprising 28 dukes, 33 mar
quises, 194 earls, 52 viscounts, and 218 barons. Below
the nobles are about 10,911 landed gentry, each owning
one thousand or more acres of land. The 11,436 nobles
and landed gentry thus possess over fifty-two millions of
acres of land (52,083,095), thus owning more than two-
thirds of the soil of Great Britain, leaving a little more
than twenty millions of acres of land (20,034,671), to be
divided among the thirty-four or five million inhabitants,
which if equally distributed would allow them less than
two-thirds of an acre each. But as this is mostly con
tained in farms of less than a thousand acres, a very large
proportion of the people never possess one foot of land,
until they are buried.
Both the Old and the New Testaments are full of com
mands, precepts, and exhortations to care for the poor.
What other nation ever had a law compelling men to
lend to the poor without interest? What other nation
ever had a law allowing the poor and the traveler to eat
and fill their hands with fruit from any vineyards and
orchards which they passed, only prohibiting their taking
any vessels or bags with them to carry fruit away?* What
other law ever forbade the taking a pledge from a widow
for her indebtedness, or required a pawned garment to
be returned to a poor man at night? What other nation
*A poor man in Scotland, in 1885, was charged with having stolen two apples
from a garden in Dundee. The person pleaded guilty, declaring that he was at the
time starving for want of food. The magistrate said he " could have applied for
relief at the proper quarter," and sentenced him to forty days' imprisonment. And
while these lines were being written, a little boy not ten years old was lying in jail
in Boston for taking two pears from a neighbor's yard.

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 101
eyer had laws requiring that the wages of the workman
should be paid, not quarterly, monthly, or weekly, but
before sunset every night? What other nation had a law
forbidding men to curse the deaf, or put a stumbling-
block in the path of the blind ? What other nation had
a law forbidding the husbandman to reap the corners of
his fields, or gather the gleanings of his harvest, or the
scattering grapes of his vineyard; but commanding him
to leave them for the poor and the stranger ? What other
people had a law which forbade the muzzling of the
ox as he was treading out the corn, or which protected
the birds upon their nests, and commanded men to show
kindness to beasts in distress, even though they belonged
to their enemies ? What other nation had a law which
required men to love their neighbors as themselves, and
forbade them to cherish grudges against them, and pro
hibited malice, tale-bearing, and revenge ? What other
nation ever had a law which gave every man an in
heritance of land, and so secured it that even the king
on his throne could not take it from him; and so arranged
it that if he himself was compelled to part with his land,
he could not sell it outright, but could redeem it at any
time when able, and if not, at the end of the jubilee
period his children could go and claim their ancient in
heritance? What nation, outside the influence of the law
of Moses, ever had a law which sacredly reserved every
seventh day for rest, and forbade people to require or per
mit their servants, or their beasts, to do any servile work
on that day ?* Surely, if there ever was a law which was
emphatically a law for the poor, the law of Moses was
that law. We might search the records of all ages, from

* For facts in relation to the Sabbatic law, indicating its salutary character and
its adaptation to the physical necessities of both man and beast, consult the au
thor's pamphlets, Remarks on "The Mistakes of Moses," p. 16, and Atheism and
Arithmetic, chapter iv.; being Nos. 6 and 15 of th&Airai-lHFlDEL Library.

102 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
the beginning to the present time, without finding an
other law so favorable to the poor, so full of sympathy,
humanity, righteousness, and truth, as this law. And the
necessity for it is obvious. The rich can care for them
selves, but the poor need protection. They cannot cope
with power and wealth, and their struggles against op
pression often plunge them into deeper woes, from which
human lawgivers fail to extricate them. But God in his
law remembered the poor — it was the poor man's law;
and when the gospel came, it was a grand proof of Christ's
Messiahship that to the poor the gospel was preached.
THE ORIGIN OF THE MOSAIC LAW.
There can be no law without a lawgiver. All laws
must spring from some authoritative law-giving power.
No private individual can make or enforce a law.
Whence, then, did the Jewish nation derive their law ?
The law exists, and has maintained its existence for ages.
How did it originate? Most laws when promulgated,
bear upon them the story of their origin, as enacted by
parliament, or by some legislative body, ordained by the
assembled representatives of the people, or issued as the
decrees of some king or autocrat. They must have au
thority from some source behind them, or no one will ac
cept or heed them. If the law be proved a forgery, it at
once loses all right to our regard ; it is a mere nullity.
But that nation had no law-making power; they had
no legislative body; but their kings and executive officers
were solemnly charged to read, study, and enforce laws
which were already made. A multitude of vexatious and
petty restrictions have since derived a partial authority
from the traditions of the elders, but none of them ever
had the force of laws, or were universally accepted.
Prudential regulations were instituted in cases of emer
gency by the assembled heads of the tribes; but these

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 103
did not affect nor supersede the fundamental laws of the
land, which were unchanged and unchangeable.
Now these laws must have been made at some time and
place, and by some law-making power. They could not
have been imposed upon the people without some author
ity. Since other laws have the date of their enactment,
and the place where and the authority by whom they were
enacted, surely if the laws of Israel were of human origin
they should bear some token of authorship and authority.
They were not borrowed from other nations, for no other
nation ever had such laws; they were not ordained by
kings, for they existed before the kings were born. In
them was embodied the title by which every Israelite held
his farm and his home; and as Israel never had a parlia
ment or a legislature, assembling annually to make laws,
and as no acts of any such Jewish law-making body are on
record, the only reasonable conclusion at which we can
arrive is that the law under which the Israelites lived was
given on Mount Sinai at the time of the founding of
their commonwealth.
Every page of the Mosaic law gives evidence of the
circumstances of its origin in the wilderness of Sinai.
It speaks not of temples, palaces, and cities, but of the
camp, and the tabernacle, the pillar of cloud and fire, the
dropping manna, and water from the smitten rock; and
it continually points forward to future days, when Israel
should enter their own land, and be established there as a
nation, and dwell in peace within their own borders.
The endless details connected with the erection of the
tabernacle and the requirements of the Jewish law, for
bid the thought of forgery or fiction. The directions
for building, the tabernacle; the boards, the corners,
tenons, pillars, sockets, and vails; the measurements,
cubits, and all the details of architecture, bear the unmis
takable impress of reality. No writer of fiction would

104 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
fill sixteen chapters with such dry particulars and de
tails. So accurate are the specifications of material, form,
and size, that a skillful mechanic, taking the books of
Moses, can reconstruct every part of the ancient taber
nacle, and exhibit it as an illustration of the accuracy of
the specifications contained in the Mosaic law.
The book of Levitcus gives us an account of the es
tablishment of certain ordinances, rites, sacrifices, laws
and rules, concerning food, raiment, marriage, health,
etc. ; and true Jews to this day, though scattered through
out the world, observe these laws so far as their circum
stances will permit. They do not eat of the things
forbidden in the book of Leviticus; they bathe themselves
as commanded, and attend to the hygienic prescriptions
contained in that book. Why do they, in all quarters of
the globe, observe these same requirements, unless they
were once the laws of a united nation ? And how came
that nation ever to observe those laws which claim a
divine origin, unless the Jewish nation knew they were
laws given to Israel by God through Moses ?
Some modern critics, who, while indebted to Chris
tianity for education, position, and support, devote their
time to proving that the Bible is the work of impostors
and deceivers, assert that the books of Moses were prob
ably forged by some zealous priestly reformers, who
were endeavoring to effect a restoration of the ancient
worship and a reformation among the Israelites, perhaps
about the time of the reign of King Josiah.
It has been suggested that we may sometimes find out
the real character of a man by ascertaining what he
thinks of his neighbors. The fact that teachers occupy
ing such positions hold that falsehood, deception, and
forgery, are the means by which "reformers" accomplish
their work, illustrates the peculiar notions of religion and
reformation held by these critics.

T

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 105
Our view of anything depends largely upon the stand
point which we occupy. And many of the critics of the
present day occupy positions confessedly different from
those which the Scriptures assign to Moses the man of
God, and to the prophets who had communion with heaven
and walked in fellowship with their Maker. Men so
situated and so constituted have little in common with
the holy men of old who spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost. Their lives are very different from the
lives of those men who wandered in sheepskins and goat
skins, and were destitute, afflicted, tormented. Men
whose learned lucubrations are largely produced under
the inspiration of lager beer and tobacco smoke, will
naturally see things in a different light from those an
cient and heroic saints whose lives were devoted to the
cause of a heavenly Master, and whose hearts were on fire
with loving zeal and fidelity to his work.
When persons say that Moses imposed upon the people,
and gave them laws which he pretended came from heaven,
we may possibly get a better idea of the critics than of
the man whom they so severely criticise. Moses the man
of God, who as a legislator occupied the highest position
that any human legislator has ever occupied, and gave a
system of laws superior to any system possessed by any
nation that ever lived in any land outside of the influence
of those laws, was in their view simply a patriotic liar, a
philanthropic fraud, a pious cheat, a deceiver who hum
bugged and deluded the people. This is their estimate of
the character of the giver of the greatest and most impor
tant code of laws the world has ever seen.
But if Moses deceived the children of Israel, and induced
them to believe that God had given them a law on Mount
Sinai which he simply invented in a thunder storm, then
are we to suppose that he also deluded them into the
idea that they made brick in the land of Egypt; that they

106 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
were sorely oppressed; that the first-born of Egypt were
slain; that they came through the Red Sea dry-shod; and
that they wandered forty years in the wilderness, being
fed with manna from heaven and refreshed with water
from the smitten rock ?
It is certain that the Israelites for ages immemorial have
believed these things; it is equally certain that they could
not have believed and received the books of Moses with
out receiving these things; and the man who finds it eas
ier to accept all these impossible absurdities, rather than
to believe that God has given his creatures a revelation
of his law, would fitly illustrate the remark of the
Hindoo Brahmin who said to Dr. William Ramsey,
" Sahib, a little truth is hard, but a big lie is easy to be
believed /"
If it be alleged that Moses borrowed his institutions to
some extent from the Egyptians, this only recalls another
fact, that generations before Moses was born, for a period
of eighty years, Joseph, the son of Jacob, controlled the
destinies of Egypt, and was appointed by Pharaoh "to
bind his princes at pleasure, and teach his senators wis
dom." Psa. cv. 22. If there was anything good in the
institutions of Egypt, it may be largely attributed to the
wisdom of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as
manifested in Joseph, whose "bow abode in strength,"
and whose arms " were made strong by the hands of the
mighty God of Jacob."
But though some principles of justice and righteous
ness are common to all laws, because without them society
could not exist, yet the laws of the Israelites differed
widely from the laws of Egypt. Egypt was under the
despotic rule of a king; Israel was the world's first re
public, — a government of the people, and for the people.
The subjects of Pharaoh were slaves; the nation of Israel
were freemen. Pharaoh ruled Egypt; the nation ruled

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. 107
Israel. The Egyptian government was founded in force;
the Hebrew commonwealth arose on the free consent of
the people.* In Egypt the will of the king was supreme;
in Palestine the law of God was above king, or priest, or
prophet; the standard by which was to be tested the
conduct of both prince and peasant. Under the laws of
Egypt that nation sunk into groveling idolatries, and has
now become the basest of kingdoms; while under the
laws of Moses, Israel, though chastened and dispersed,
yet maintain their existence and influence, and defy the
ravages of time and the changes of an inconstant world.
Says the Chief Justice of New Jersey, whilei referring
to these who talk of the dignity of human nature, in itself
considered, without the aid of divine revelation :
"When these giants in human intellect can tell me
whence Moses derived his science in legislation, without
admitting the supernatural and divine authority of the
Ten Commandments, I shall begin to listen with more
reverence to the teachers of human perfectibility. In
that short and comprehensive code, we find given us a
perfect rule of action, covering the whole ground of man's
existence; a rule not only prescribing our duty to God
and man in our external behaviour, but reaching to the
secret thoughts and feelings of hearts in every possible
condition of life, and in all our relations to our Maker and
our fellow beings. The wisdom of ages, the learning and
philosophy of the schools, have never discovered a single
defect in that code. Not a virtue which is not there in
culcated. Not a vice in its most doubtful and shadowy
form, which is not there prohibited. Whence then, I ask,
did the great Jewish lawgiver derive his spirit of legis
lation ? If that code was written by the finger of the
Almighty, let us bow to it with reverence, and seek no
better rule of life, nor any wiser principle of action. But
* Exodus xix. 8; xxiv. 3; Deut. v. 27; Joshua xxiv. 16-27.

108 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
if they emanated only from the capacious mind and were
dictated by the wisdom of Moses, — then Moses was a
wiser, a more learned man than any, of our new teachers;
and I had rather be under his jurisdiction and keep his
commandments, than learn new rules of civil polity and
social intercourse from the most learned and wise of the
present day."*
WAS MOSES' LAW THE WORK OP PRIESTS?
It is sometimes flippantly asserted that the Jewish law
was concocted by a pack of priests, to deceive and de
fraud the people. This is incredible; for the Jewish law
forbade the priests to hold any real estate except a house
and garden. The tribe of Levi, from which all the priests
came, was the only tribe which was deprived of the priv
ilege of holding landed property. Now priests are very
much like other people; they are inclined to take care of
themselves and look after their own interests. Indeed,
in modern times the priests have sometimes succeeded in
monopolizing most of the land in the country, and revolu
tions have been necessary to extricate the soil from their
grasp. No priest ever made a law forbidding himself
and his fellow priests to hold real estate. Priests do not
bite off their own noses. If priests had made the law
they would probably have reserved to themselves a double
share of the land, instead of cutting themselves off from
holding any of it.
If it be claimed that these laws were the work of
priestly impostors, the question arises, how came these
priestly impostors, who were themselves cheats, liars and
hypocrites, to invent laws exceeding in excellence all that
the wisest legislators have produced? And by what
means could such priestly hypocrites enforce upon the
people distasteful and unwelcome laws, when according
* Chief Justice Hornblower. Charge to the- Brand Jury of Essex County. Jan.
7, 1843.

THE WONDEEPUL LAW. 109
to their own laws they themselves possessed no legisla
tive power, and had not even authority to collect their
own tithes, being solely dependent upon the voluntary
contributions which the people brought for their support ?
If it be asserted that these laws were enacted by some
body of Israelitish legislators, then it may be asked how
a barbarous nation, without any law whatever, or with
only a rudimentary and imperfect legal system, was able
to frame, invent, contrive, and originate a system of
laws superior to anything produced by the wisest legis-
tors of ancient or modern times.
The great test of excellence in the skeptical world is
"the survival of the fittest." Judged by this rule the
Mosaic law is the fittest; for it has survived all others.
Could such a law have been originated by lawless barba
rians, or hypocritical priests, or leaders who had no op
portunity for instruction in righteousness, and whose
lives perpetually outraged the principles upon which the
law is based ? The law is here as a fact. It claims divine
origin* Those who deny that it came from God will do
well to trace it to its source. The fountain from which
it sprang was higher than Jewish barbarism or priestly
hypocrisy and fraud. LAW AND CIVILIZATION.
There can be no civilization without law. In its absence,
society relapses into anarchy and barbarism. But the Is
raelitish people were civilized, and hence must have been
under law. The Israelites were mainly agriculturists; but
agriculture is impossible without the protection of law.
They were land-holders; but men cannot hold land with
out the guardianship of law. The nation of Israel was a
republic; but a republic is only practicable where the peo
ple are educated and fitted for self-government. The
judges and rulers of Israel were elected from among the

110 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
people, and ruled by popular consent; but popular elec
tion presupposes subjection to law. Where law does not
exist, the will of the strongest becomes the rule, and the
result is disorder and despotism. The Israelites pos
sessed an educational and religious system, and one of
the twelve tribes was set apart for this work, and its
members were scattered among the other tribes for this
purpose. The Israelites had also sanitary laws, which
are still observed, and which make them the most health
ful people on earth. The family life of Israel was under
the control of laws which were most wise and benefi
cent. The execution of justice was provided for by law;
the defense of the land was committed to a citizen soldiery;
and the government, whether republican or monarchial,
was based upon a written constitution, and fundamental
and unchangeable laws.
These facts clearly show that the nation of Israel must
have had a law, and a law framed in accordance with the
requirements of human nature, and in some respects in
advance of the highest type of human government now
in existence.
Whether a law which forbids all sin and inculcates all
virtue, which has outlived the laws of all ancient em
perors and conquerors, which has entered into the juris
prudence of the world, and exercises to-day a greater in
fluence on the morals and manners of the world than any
other law that was ever made, — whether such a law was a
fraudulent trick of a contemptible, hypocritical liar and
impostor, or whether this law, the most perfect that the
world has ever seen, sprang from the bosom of God, the
fountain of all law, and was sent forth for the guidance
of the erring sons of men who were groping in darkness
and dying in despair, is a question which seems easy to
answer. Man, as a being possessing moral nature and
distinguishing between right and wrong, must be the

mm WONDERFUL LAW. Ill
creature of a Creator who loves the good and hates the
evil, who has linked sin with sorrow, and righteousness
with blessing. And if the Creator desires the well-being
and well-doing of men, why should he not make known
his desires to his creatures, and place them, on record for
their instruction ? But if there be any such law which
bears the impress of the divine hand, and which exhibits
energies analogous to a divine vitality, it is that law which
came by Moses, which flames forth among the nations
as a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, in the
darkness of a world of heathenism, pollution, and sin.
It is not easy to produce a complete and perfect law.
The work of the wisest lawgivers exhibits many defects.
Most codes of laws have grown up gradually, and have
been based on the experience of successive generations.
The great lawgivers of the world, from Lycurgus, Draco,
Solon, and Numa, down to Justinian and Napoleon, have
given codes to people who were already subject to law,
and whose organization had become established by the
slow processes of national development. The great phi
losophers, Pythagoras, Zoroaster, and Confucius, delivered
their sage counsels to their fellow-citizens, to be accepted
or rejected as their judgment should approve. Moham
med, after fifteen years of solitary meditation, after an
acquaintance with the Mosaic and other systems of law,
built up a code and presented it to a people who were al
ready subject to government and law.
Moses began at the beginning. After forty years' so
journing in the wilderness he came to Egypt. A stranger,
without force or arms, he undertook to found a new na
tion. But before he could establish a government for
the Israelites, he must conquer their oppressors, he must
kindle a spirit of liberty within the hearts of the Israel
itish bondmen; he must organize them into a nation, he
must find them a country in which to dwell, and give

112 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
them a code of laws in obedience to which they could live
and prosper through successive ages. He did all this;
and though the other philosophers, statesmen, and legisla
tors of antiquity have sunk into the depths of forgetful-
ness- and though the Israelitish nation is broken up, their
capital destroyed, and their land desolated, and they are
dispersed and mingled among all the nations of the earth;
yet not only do they maintain their existence, but the
whole civilized world feels the quickening influence of
the law which Moses gave, which, joined with Christianity,
has purified their social institutions, destroyed paganism,
established civil liberty, modified legislation, and infused
into civilization those principles which, more than any
others, have elevated and blessed mankind.
DO THE LAW AND GOSPEL AGREE?
There are persons who object to the Law of Moses as
being not in accordance with the Gospel of Christ. They
say the Old Testament and the New Testament do not
agree. And why shoidd they agree? The Old Testa
ment contains a code of laros, which describe sin and con
demn sinners. The New Testament contains a message
of mercy, which gives sinners hope, and offers pardon to
the guilty. The Old Testament gives directions for the
orderly establishment of a commonwealth, and for the
government of a single nation located on a limited terri
tory in Palestine. The New Testament records a message
peculiar to no nation, designed to be sent into all the
world, but containing no rules whatever for the estab
lishment of any commonwealth, or any civil government
for any nation. From the New Testament we should
never learn the duties of kings, judges, rulers, or govern
ment officials. The New Testament only teaches that
men should submit to rulers, and so govern themselves
that they will need no other governing. The New Testa
ment points out no way to establish a government, to

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 113
execute laws, to punish the rebel, the thief, the murderer,
or the transgressor, in this world. The Old Testament
gives directions for the establishment of a government,
the administration of justice and the punishment of crime.
Of course the Old Testament and the New do not agree,
for they were never intended to agree. Those who expect
them to agree know little of either. A chart of the east
ern coast of North America would not agree with the
chart of the northern coast of Africa. Why should they
agree ? They refer to different matters. G ibbon's Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire would not be expected
to agree with the latest treatise on the theory and prac
tice of medicine; nor would a volume of statute laws be
expected to agree with a book of gospel hymns.
Before we decide that the Old and New Testaments con
tradict each other we need to study the purpose of the
law of Moses as distinguished from the gospel of Christ.
When we comprehend the character of both, and distin
guish between the two, we shall hear no more about the
contradictions existing between the Law and the Gospel.
THE LAW OP MOSES NOT ARBITRARY, BUT SALUTARY.
The time would fail us to point out all the excellencies
of this wonderful Law. The more carefully we examine
its provisions, the more clearly we shall see that its pre
scriptions were not arbitrary; that its requirements were
in agreement with the nature of things; and that long
life, health, peace and prosperity came by its observance.
Of course there are many people too wise to be taught by
Moses. They will eat pork, and suffer with tapeworms,
or die of trichiniasis ; they will give loose rein to animal
passions, and become decrepit and prematurely old; they
will neglect the prescribed ablutions, and die of dirt and
cholera; they will cut their mustaches and ruin their eye
sight, and shave their throats till they suffer and die of

114 THE WONDEEPUL LAW.
bronchitis and consumption; they will eat all manner of
mixtures and abominations, and then dose and doctor to
cure the dyspepsia; they will disregard the weekly day of
rest, and consequently suffer from nervous prostration, and
be obliged to take a six months' vacation to recuperate
their wasted energies; they will disregard the provision
for rest from business every seventh year, and push and
struggle on until about the tenth year, when overproduc
tion will glut the markets, and bring widespread panic
and financial distress, as has been the case every ten
years for a century and a half; they will prate about "the
mistakes of Moses," deride the wisdom of godly old age
and pious experience, and sneer at the notions of
those "old fogies" who believe their Bibles, and whose
hoary heads are crowns of glory, being found in the way
of righteousness; but they will never notice that while
the house of prayer is often filled with " old fogies," the
haunts of vice and sin are thronged only by "young
fogies," for most of the Devil's "fogies" never get to be old,
because he sends them to their graves in their brown
hair; for those who disregard the requirements of God's
law do not live out half their days.
The skepticism of the age busies itself about "the
mistakes of Moses," but why the mistakes of Moses rather
than any one else ? There were millions of men who lived in
the time of Moses, and before his time, and after his time, —
why do we not hear something about their mistakes?
Why do not infidels discuss the mistakes of Pharaoh, the
niistakes of Nimrod, the mistakes of Sennacherib, and
Nebuchadnezzar, and Belshazzar? Why is it that Moses
mUst be singled out from all the men of antiquity and
subjected to criticism and reproach ? That fact indicates
the position which Moses occupies in this world. No
man can be named in all the ages before Christ, so prom
inent, so noteworthy, so influential, as Moses. We know

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 115
.nore of his life, his history, his character, his acts, than
of any other man who lived during three thousand years.
The nation which he founded has survived all its contem
poraries ; the institutions which he established have out
lived all the other civil and social institutions of that age.
The religious worship which he ordained has outlasted all
the worship of those days; and if we should traverse the
east, — Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Assyria, and Arabia, we
should find to-day not one example of the idolatrous wor
ship which then overspread those lands. Not one of the dei
ties then worshiped is to-day adored or honored by any
living man. The worship of the holy bulls, golden
calves, consecrated cats, divine crocodiles, sacred monk
eys, and adorable vegetables of Egypt is utterly abol
ished, and those deities have left behind them only hid
eous sculptures, mummied carcasses, vague traditions,
and indecent memorials. The temples where the Phe-
nicians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans
worshiped their gods of high and low degree are in
ruins, and not one of those deities is now adored. But
over the wreck of ruined temples, and prostrate images
and idols that have been cast to the moles and bats,
there comes a voice, which, rolling down through more than
thirty stormy centuries, and sounding not only through
the length and breadth of the civilized world, but among
the nations which still sit in darkness and the shadow of
death, proclaims that mighty word which Moses testi
fied of old, " The Lord our God is one Lord, and Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all
thy soul, and with all thy might." Deut. vi. 4, 5. The
ancient oracles are dumb; the images of Egypt are for
saken; the idols and idolatries which were followed by
the rich, the learned, the cultured, and the mighty of
those times are lost in eternal oblivion; while the words
which Moses spake are held in everlasting remembrance,

116 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
and the God whom Moses served is known and honored
in all lands and among all nations.
There were many laws and many lawgivers in ancient
times. The Pharaohs issued their mandates, the Assy
rian monarchs uttered their decrees, the proud rulers of
Babylon sent forth their commands for the government of
the peoples whom they had conquered, the laws of the
Medes and Persians were unchangeable, and other nations
had their different codes, — but where are they all to-day?
Buried in eternal forgetf ulness. Even wise men seek in
vain to find them, and no man is so abject as to fear or
obey them. But the law that was given by Moses on
Mount Sinai, the law which was laid up in the ancient
tabernacle, and borne through all the changeful scenes of
Israel's ancient pilgrimage; the law which ruled king
and prince, priest and peasant, and which established a
government more just, humane and salutary than the
world has ever known; that law which, when disobeyed,
brought down the curse of heaven upon its violators, and
which, when Jerusalem had finally fallen, was carried in
the Roman triumph as the choicest of all the conqueror's
spoils, and laid up in the palace of the Roman emperor;
that law to-day is more widely known than any law of
any lawgiver, ancient or modern, living or dead.
That law has not only wrought its substance into all
the legislation of civilization, but it has found its way
into barbarous and savage lands. It has been published
in more tongues than any other law the world has ever
known; and wherever we find truth and righteousness,
purity and religion, intellect and intelligence, science and
art, discovery and invention, education, order, morality
and good government, we find this law has gone before,
as a schoolmaster, to bring men to Christ, that they may
learn of Him the way of life and peace.
Some of the provisions of Moses' law were of local

THE WONDERFUL LAW. 117
application and are obsolete; some of its requirements
could only be observed by the Jewish nation in their own
land; some of its precepts have reference to circumstan
ces and conditions which have ceased to exist; but the
principles and substance of the moral precepts, the hygi
enic and sanitary prescriptions, and the general tenor of
the Mosaic law, survive all past changes; and the books
of Moses are to-day well worthy the attention of every
candid, honest, upright, and thoughtful man.
Under the influence of that law, notwithstanding all
the discouragements and difficulties of its present con
dition, the Jewish nation still maintains its existence and
manifests its power; and the gospel of Christ, which
had its origin in the Jewish nation, and was an outgrowth
of the Mosaic law, and a fulfillment of Jewish prophe
cies, is spreading as it has spread for centuries, and is an
instrument of blessing to a world which without it would
be dark as the shadow of the tomb. Shall not all those
who say with the Psalmist, "Oh, how love I thy law !
it is my meditation all the day," learn also to look to
Him of whom Moses in the law and prophets did
write, who came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it,
and who Himself is the end or object of the law for
righteousness to every one that believeth ?
To-day the Jewish people are in dejection and dark
ness, notwithstanding to them were committed the oracles
of God. They need something more than a law which
brings condemnation and death to the guilty; they need
a Saviour, to turn away transgression from Jacob, and
bring redemption to Israel. They need that promised
Seed of Abraham who should bless the world, that seed
of David who is given for an ensign to the nations, and
a leader and commander of the people.
If the scattered sons of Israel whoso often pray, " Open
thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things

118 THE WONDERFUL LAW.
out of thy law," could fully comprehend the force and
meaning of that revelation which was committed to their
fathers, they might learn that these long ages of suffering
and chastisement which they endure are the direct re
sult of a long-continued rejection of that Prophet whom
Moses foretold, who was to be like unto himself, and
whom they were to hear in all things. Oh that even now,
notwithstanding their revolt, they would accept the prom
ise of divine blessing, and, forsaking their unbelief, look
on Him whom they have pierced, and mourn for him as one
mourneth for his only son! Then they might say with
the prophet who described the sufferings and sorrows of
Him who grew up before the Lord "as a tender plant,"
but who was despised and rejected of men, a man of sor
rows and acquainted with griefs, — " Surely He hath borne
our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet did we esteem
him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was
wounded for our transgressions ; he was bruised for our
iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him,
and by his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep
have gone astray ; we have turned every one to his own
way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
When repentant Israel, taking on their lips these words
which their own prophets have spoken in the name of the
Lord, shall turn to Him from whom they have departed,
and by whom they have been chastised, they will find
that he is still favorable to his land, and merciful to his
people. Oh that the scattered nation, for so many years
without a king, a priest, an altar, a sacrifice or a sin-bearer,
may soon learn to look upon their own suffering Messiah,
as the " Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the
world," and " seek the Lord their God, and David their
king; and fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter
days." Hosea iii. 5.