at presenting the doctrines of the Bible in a more systematic form. At the time of the Reformation, when so many false views were held by the great mass of the people, these classes of Christian writers were very necessary and performed a great service to the Church, both for the benefit of the individual members and the general spread of true doctrine. Unfortunately, philosophy, physical science and Christian doctrine came to appear as if in antagonism; the view that reason and faith were utterly irreconcilable became especially prevalent. The Reformed doctrines appeared to be in direct opposition to the authority of the Church, especially when the Reformers set up the belief in the Right of Private Judgment. Properly understood, this is not so, for the highest welfare of the individual, the Church, or the State can only be secured on the eternal basis of sound reason, as opposed to what is commonly called reason. A State not founded on sound reason is, so far, an unsound State; a Church not founded on sound reason is an unsound Church, while both States and Churches are only sound and strong in proportion as the character of their members is built up on a faith founded on sound reason. Reason is the essence of genuine private judgment, and private judgment not based on sound reason is just as false in the individual as it is when it forms the judgment of the majority of the Church or State. In the progress of truth, and in preparing the way for a clear, broad and sound logical philosophy of the Christian Religion and of Nature, we claim that our great theologians, commentators, and preachers, during and since the Reformation, notwithstanding their partial blindness concerning the true nature of reason, are worthy of high regard, admiration, and praise, and in a good sense were Christian philosophers,

6

Without them the Christian world generally, and the states of Europe and America, would have been much poorer.

to regard itself as .

Now, however, as Dr. Stirling puts the question of logical philosophy, if the Ego-Ego as Egocan be allowed to constitute a single ground-fact and is capable of being operated on to the extrusion and extraction of the whole system of explanatory and indubitable truth,' then it is now for philosophy science, simply science.' Then philosophy has entered a new era and reached an indubitable foundation or starting-point.' But if, as Stirling says,' the public, possibly, is not always so much at fault when it is heard to mutter that socalled "great philosophers" are to common folk, now and then, great fools,' we may add that, though many theologians and commentators may have written much that is foolish, do not let us fall into the error of thinking they were all simpletons in comparison with men of this and the last generation. No, there were giants in the past also; and let us believe that the Bible is the word of God and our best and most valued treasure. That the Bible is the word of God in the sense it professes to be, can, we believe, be demonstrated by a sound logical philosophy, beyond all cavil.

NOTWI

CHAPTER XV

MOSES AND THE PENTATEUCH

6

OTWITHSTANDING all that the critics have written to the contrary, we are firmly convinced that Moses was the real author of the Pentateuch. He may not have written all with his own hand. He may have had other writings and used them in a manner suitable to the divine purpose he had in hand. Our modern critics talk a great deal of scientific methods, but when we examine the results of more than a century's work, we see great disagreement. As Dr. Orr says: The critical school is rent within itself,' and it seems possessed with a 'mania for disintegration.' Such general chaos and uncertainty remain to us that Dr. Orr remarks, We are happy to allow them (the critics) to answer each other.' It is of no use appealing to the verdict of the majority of critics, or telling us that certain theories are now accepted by all scholars, for we find that the conclusions of these experts are continually changing. This they argue is necessary, as the present age is one of transition, but surely some definite result is to be expected after the work of more than a century; we find, however, that what at one time is regarded as settled beyond doubt, is a few years later held to be quite unworthy of serious consideration. Until the time of Graf, the unity of the main part of Deuteronomy was generally regarded as firmly established.

Thus we find that Bleek, De Wette, Colenso and Driver all speak of the marks of unity to be found in this work. Now, however, it is broken up into fragments, each being the work, not of a single writer, but of a school.' school.' With the later critics the main idea is to make the Pentateuch and the Bible as a whole fit in' with the theory of evolution.

The Graf-Wellhausen theory is supposed now to have established firmly the 'date' of the production or compilation of Deuteronomy as the reign of Josiah, about 622 B.C. It is stated that the parallelism, which they find to exist between the history of Israel and the gradual development of the religion and ritual, proves the late date of this book. Moses is entirely set aside as its author; by many he is not even held to be a historical character. The book is a pseudograph, produced or invented' by either the priests or the prophets of the eighth or seventh century B.C. Space forbids us to enter fully into the question of the finding of the Book of the Law in the temple just prior to the Reformation of Josiah's reign. Dr. Orr deals with the whole of the critical theories and their results very thoroughly and convincingly in his Problem of the Old Testament, and to this book we would refer all serious students of Biblical criticism. We are convinced that a careful study of the Book of Deuteronomy from the point of view of a product of the time of Josiah shows such a position to be utterly untenable. These scientific critics show great readiness in accepting as 'probable,' hypotheses which, to an unbiassed mind, seem to be mere conjectures or 'bold guesses,' lacking any mark of truth. In this direction their faith is indeed great and can with little compunction even 'swallow whales,' though nothing can exceed their contempt towards the simple, ungrounded beliefs

of the traditionalists. By the Graf-Wellhausen theory the whole History of the Jewish nation, as handed down through many centuries, is wiped out,' nothing certain being, however, substituted. Moses, David, Solomon, etc., are non-existent or unrecognizable; then, why believe in Josiah or Ezekiel ?

Another essential discovery of this theory is the post-exilian origin of the Priestly Code, as given in part of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. The critics declare that no trace of these ritual and ceremonial laws can be seen in Jewish History previous to the exile, while this history presents to the scientific student abundant evidence of the late origin of these laws. The Priestly Code is said to be based on Ezekiel's vision, though the two by no means coincide in their details. It is the work of a school of priests, who produced it during their exile in Babylon. About 444 B.C., Ezra presented this code to the assembled Israelites as the work of Moses. Strange to say, as Dr. Orr shows, no one demurs in the slightest to this new set of laws, but everything is taken for granted by the whole assembly, including priests, etc. This strikes us as very remarkable if the Code is quite new, and if, as some critics declare, nothing was previously known of the ark, the tabernacle, the great feasts, incense and other great institutions. On the other hand, those critics who hold that the scribes and Ezra simply codified old existing laws or 'praxis,' must admit that if we have no evidence of the existence of a previous code, neither have we evidence of an existing 'praxis.' Thus the argument from silence breaks down for them by proving too much, while certainly it must be allowed that a record would more likely speak of a custom rather than a code. Besides, though we may not be able to find many definite references in the historical record to