that religion in any case is only a natural development, the supernatural being impossible and incredible; this is certainly the view of Kuenen and Wellhausen, yet no man who holds it can possibly be a fair interpreter of Scripture. (14) These latter writers not only exclude the divine factors from the history of Israel, but assert the existence of fictions in that history, not merely in single, separate instances, but passim, wherever a patch was needed to give the story an air of authority. (15) The analysis of the documents is based often upon very subtle criteria, is frequently mechanical, and again makes assumptions that are purely conjectural; hence there is serious difficulty in accepting its conclusions when they are at war with the statements of the history itself. (16) The existence of different documents is no argument against the Mosaic authorship, for the man of God may have compiled his first book from antecedent data, and in those that followed may have reduced into form what had previously been put in writing by others under his direction. Conjecture is just as allowable in favor of Moses as it is against him. (17) So in regard to the book of Joshua, the natural complement of the Pentateuch, there is nothing strained or unnatural in the opinion that some of the men trained under the guidance of the great law giver made this record. (18) The testimony of the New Testament is clear and strong as to the Mosaic authorship. Our Lord said (John v: 46) of Moses, "He wrote of me," and in the next verse speaks of "his

writings." No principle of accommodation will explain this language. In Mark xii: 26 he asked, "Have ye not read in the book of Moses?" So the Apostle Peter said (Acts iii: 22), "Moses indeed said: A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you." And the Apostle Paul cites the Pentateuch in the terms, "It is written in the law of Moses," and again "Moses saith," and again "Moses describeth the righteousness that is of the Law" (I Cor. ix: 9; Rom. x: 19; x: 5). It does not seem possible to understand these references as meaning anything else than the accepted view of that age that Moses was the author of the books that bear his name.

17. It only remains to be said that the view which is maintained in these essays does not deny that the Pentateuch was edited after it left the hands of Moses by the insertion of slight notes, such as the statement (Gen. xxxvi.31): "These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." Nor does it deny that different docu. ments were used by Moses in composing the narrative found in the book of Genesis, nor that he modified by divine direction the laws which he set forth, whenever a change of circumstances required such modification, nor that he brought about a fuller development of the system as a whole in the later books of the law. It is freely admitted that there is a real basis for many of the distinctions drawn between the Book of the Covenant, the Priest-code, and the Deuteronomic ut

terances. But it is maintained that none of these when fairly considered are inconsistent with the Mosaic authorship of the work as a whole. There are indeed difficulties, as one would naturally expect, in a work of such antiquity, so small in compass, yet covering so wide a field; but these are much fewer and slighter than those which attend the theory that puts the composition of the Pentateuch from six hundred to a thousand years later than the date of the events and laws which it records.

30

ARGUMENT OF THE TRACT.

THE possibility of a Revelation is assumed, and the question is one of evidence. We do not look for demonstrative but for probable evidence. The great

feature of the Religion of Israel is its teaching of God. No other ancient religion furnished so high a conception. For this there must be a cause, and human evolution is insufficient. Monotheism lies at the basis of this religion, and is its most ancient teaching. No date assignable to the sacred books can do away with this fact. The Religion of Israel was also unique in its teaching of the holiness of God. Objections to this statement considered. It is also peculiar in its view of the nature of sin, and of man's duty towards God. Its sacrifices are widely different from heathen sacrifices: (1) in having regard to the character of the offerer, and (2) in rejecting the notion of sacrifice as itself a compensation for sin. It based man's acceptance with God upon faith; objections to this. Why was the ceremonial law given? Two answers: (1) that of certain critics, which is shown to be insufficient and self-destructive; (2) that of St. Paul, which is reasonable and in accordance with the facts. The improbability that the priests should have devised the law. Sundry characteristics of the law. The Religion of Israel preparatory for Christianity; and Christianity the completion and fulfillment of the Religion of Israel. The view of the Apostles, and of our Lord.

WAS THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL A REVELATION OR A MERELY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT?

BY PROF. GARDINER.

IN considering this question, if we assume that the Creator cannot communicate with His creatures in any especial or unusual way, it is answered in advance; there could have been no revelation, and the religion of Israel, like all others, must have been of merely human development. But if we admit that an Almighty and loving Father may seek to guide His children directly, when their own weakness and ignorance would miss the way, then the matter becomes simply a question of evidence. *

It is not necessary to consider here the supposition of a primeval revelation enjoyed alike by all the ancestors of the human race, some rays of which continued long to shine through the fogs of human tradition, brightened, perhaps, by further Divine inspiration. Our question has solely to do with the various religions as they appear on the stage of history.

In looking at the question without prepossession on either side, we cannot ask for demonstrative proof, for this is impossible, one way or the other, from the nature of the subject. Our inquiry is

* We need not here consider the assumption that, whether there were a revelation or not, there can be no evidence of it appealing to the senses and the reason. See Max Müller, Hibbart Lectures on the Origin of Religion." Lect. IV., p. 174.