and extended reputation actually possesses an erudition exceedingly various, if not the most profound.

The style, moreover, of the essay in question, is such as to make a strong impression upon the unthinking, the uninformed, and those whose minds. are already biased towards the conclusions which it is designed to establish. With a show of logical precision and an affectation of considerable candor, there are joined much confident assertion, and many unwarrantable assumptions both of facts and principles.

The author has also brought within a narrow compass, and exhibited in a popular manner, all the difficulties, real or imaginary, which are attached to the theory of the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. That question then, which is at all times one of importance, becomes now one of peculiar interest. By those who sustain the theory just mentioned, some attention must be paid to it, if they would prevent the prevalence of erroneous opinions derived from a one-sided view of the subject. It is not meant that the matter has not hitherto been fully discussed. The contrary is the fact. As the objections to the genuineness and authenticity of the books, commonly ascribed to the Hebrew lawgiver, have been frequently produced; so they have been patiently considered, learnedly met, and we think satisfactorily refuted. In making this statement, I am aware that the writer under view has asserted the direct contrary. He has

pronounced with all authority, "that not one of the objections in question, has been refuted or attempted to be refuted."* The affirmation is an astounding one, and so utterly at variance with fact, that we cannot imagine under the influence of what hallucination it was made. Partiality to our own views may readily lead us to deny the soundness of arguments proposed against them; but it cannot surely pervert our apprehensions so as to render us unaware of the fact of their having been offered. Professing therefore an entire incompetency to explain this mystery, it is again affirmed that very many attempts have been made to answer the objections proposed. But these do not exist in a form fitted to produce an impression on the public mind in general; but are found in voluminous works of a grave character, which few persons excepting theologians consult. Of the multitudes who may read Dr. C.'s pamphlet—so pregnant with difficulties, which are alleged to be insuperable, so full of scornful denunciations of his adversaries, and sovereign contempt for their arguments-how few can be expected to seek information from any source such as those above indicated. On this account it has been thought desirable that this community should have presented to them some considerations respecting the genuineness and au

thenticity of the Pentateuch, with a statement of the mode in which the usual objections can be obviated.

In the outset of the investigation, let us survey the ground which it is proposed to occupy. It is not then designed to mingle in the inquiry any personal or temporary considerations whatever. No reference will be had to the origin or merits of that controversy which seems to have been the occasion of the hostile demonstration against the Hebrew Scriptures, which it is now intended to meet in a spirit of candor, and with the weapons of legitimate argument.

The point at issue is this-Was the Pentateuch the production of Moses? Is it genuine, really proceeding from him to whom it is ascribed? Let it be remembered, that this is a consideration entirely distinct from the question respecting the authenticity of an historical record. Admit the Pentateuch to have been written by Moses; we may still inquire-Are its statements authentic? Prove that it proceeded from some other sourcestill its historical details may be true. Το say then that this book abounds with falsehoods and absurdities, is not, consistently with the views of the Infidel, to suggest any proof that Moses did not write it, although such would be the fact upon the principles maintained by the Jew or Christian.

Before proceeding any farther, it may be well to

inquire-What influence the decision of this question may have upon the authority of revealed religion in general, and upon that of the Christian religion in particular.

What is the nature of the connection between the Old and New Testaments, and between the religious dispensations which they severally established? To what extent does the latter affirm the authority of the former? And how far may the manifest error involved in any portion of the one, affect the question respecting the truth of the other? These are questions of importance. Let us hear in reference to them the observations of the judicious Paley: "Undoubtedly our Saviour assumes the divine origin of the Mosaic institution-undoubtedly also, he recognizes the prophetical character of many of their ancient writers. So far, therefore, as Christians, we are bound to go. But to make Christianity answerable with its life, for the circumstantial truth of each separate passage in the Old Testament, the genuineness of every book, the information, fidelity, and judgment of every writer in it, is to bring, I will not say great, but unnecessary difficulties into the whole system. These books were universally read and received by the Jews in our Saviour's time. He and his Apostles, in common with the other Jews, referred to them, alluded to them, used them; yet except where he expressly ascribes a divine authority to

particular predictions, I do not know that we can strictly draw any conclusion from the books being so used and applied, besides the proof, which it unquestionably is, of their notoriety and reception at that time. In this view our Scriptures afford a valuable testimony to those of the Jews."*

It is not by this intended to say, that the inquiry concerning the genuineness and authenticity of the books of the Old Testament, is not an important one; nor that this inquiry cannot to our minds be satisfactorily terminated ;-it is only meant to affirm that this is a distinct question from the one respecting the divine authority of the Christian religion, excepting in so far as has been above stated.

It is no easy matter to follow our author in his somewhat desultory observations and arguments. He sets out with laying down many principles— some in a greater or less degree correct, others the reverse, but taken as a whole, covering the entire ground of the controversy. With respect to the admission of these, he professes to anticipate no difficulty. He, however, enters more into detail, and again and again suggests various theories, derived from others, respecting the origin of the Pentateuch; with many objections to its genuineness, and mixing up the question in reference to this, with the consideration of its authenticity,

* Evidences, part iii. chap. 3.