into several parts; one of which is the historical part, another is occupied with commands and prohibitions.

In closing the life of Moses, and after attributing to him the prophetic description of his death and the mourning that followed, he closes with these words: "Such was the life and such was the death of the king and lawgiver, and high priest and prophet, Moses, as it is recorded in the sacred Scriptures."

Philo begins his treatise on "Rewards and Punishments" with these words: "We find, then, that in the sacred oracles delivered by the prophet Moses, there are three separate characters: for a portion of them relates to the creation of the world, a portion is historical, and the third portion is legislative. Now the creation of the world is related throughout with exceeding beauty, and in a manner admirably suited to the dignity of God, taking its beginning in the account of the creation of the heaven, and ending with that of the formation of man.

"The historical part is a record of the lives of different wicked and virtuous men, and of the rewards and honors and punishments set apart for each class in each generation.

"The legislative part is subdivided into two sections, one of which has a more general object proposed to it, laying down accordingly a few general, comprehensive laws: the other part con sists of special and particular ordinances."*

* Works, Vol. III., pp. 456, 457. Bohn's translation.

Within the New Testament we have expressions of belief from others than our Lord and His apostles, and the inspired writers, which constitute a factor of value in deciding what were the current views on the subject under discussion. The sacred writings were well known, as was the division into the Law and the Prophets, and the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. It is evident, and is universally admitted, that in this two-fold or three-fold division the law was the designation of our Pentateuch. As respects the relation of Moses to this law or Pentateuch, all the allusions and references we find in the New Testament go to establish what has been supported by Philo and Josephus. Philip, for example, before called as an apostle, “findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write." John i. 45. When the Pharisees were endeavoring to entrap Christ on the points in dispute concerning the law of divorce, "They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" Matt. xix. Compare John viii. 5, ix. 28, 29; Acts xv. 5. The Sadducees used language of like import when they came to him and put their question about the resurrection, saying, "Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed to his brother." Matt. xxii. 24.

7.

To get at a glance the general view of the Jews. as a people read this extract from Luke's account

of the attack on Stephen: "Then they subornedmen, which said; We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council. And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; for we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us." Acts vi. 11-14. Compare Stephen's speech which follows, and John i. 17, Acts xv. I, xxi. 21-28.

It is needless to weary the reader with further citations.

It is enough to say that Rabbinic and early Christian tradition, and the scant allusions in Latin and Greek writers support the propositions I have affirmed. If there were need, the best and most recent authorities could be cited to sustain this. view, while none can be produced for the assumption that such was not the current belief of the time of Christ.

66

To quote only one writer, when I might quote many, Rev. Dr. Toy, in his introduction to his Quotations in the New Testament," p. xxix. says: "As to the critical opinions of the New Testament writers, there is no reason to doubt that they were those of the Jews of the time (nearly what is now known as the Christian traditional view). According to the Talmud the Pen

tateuch was written by Moses (except the eight last verses, which were added by Joshua). This, in general, was doubtless the received opinion in the first century, and must have been held by the New Testament writers. Nobody then doubted that Moses wrote the Pentateuch." The last trace of doubt should fade away in the light of the reflection that the cunning and relentless opponents of Christ never raised this question with Him. Jesus had enemies, able, acute, alert and unscrupulous, who would have seized on any opportunity to bring him into collision with any prevailing and popular national or religious idea. We see them setting traps for him by their questions, and endeavoring to compel him to commit himself to some one of the religious and political parties of the day. We know that on the vexed question of the lawfulness of paying tribute to Cæsar they made the effort to range him on one side or the other, and thereby bring him into antagonism with Rome or with the feelings of the populace. The Sadducees set their trap with the doctrine of the resurrection. The Pharisees propounded points of dispute between different schools of their own party on the law of divorce and the order of the commandments. And we know that the purposes of these enemies were at last achieved by exciting the populace against Jesus. It is as plain as can be that if any difference of opinion had existed respecting Moses and his relation to the history and religion of the Jews, and the origin and authorship of the Penta

teuch, these ingenious enemies would not have forgotten to frame a question on the subject for Christ to answer. But they ask no question of the kind, and while they charge him with hostility to Moses, they never so much as hint at what would have been the most damaging accusation of all, and never even insinuate the charge on which they could have inflamed against Him the deepest national and religious sentiments of the people.

I have been at pains to establish that such were the universally accepted beliefs, for the reason that they constitute the criterion by which to measure the contents of the language of our Lord and the apostles. We are obliged by every principle of interpretation to maintain that they, aware of these opinions and beliefs in their hearers and readers, used the same language in the same sense, and with the same general implications, unless they intimate the contrary,

The apostle Paul will fitly represent all the apostles, and this is the way in which he speaks: "For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live. thereby," (R. V.) Rom. x: 5.

"First Moses saith,

I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people." Rom. x. 19.

"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn." I Cor. ix. 9.

"For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the