elsewhere. In their own character, in the degree and nature of the evidence which sustains them, and in the religious and moral system which they teach, they are surely widely removed from all competition on the part of works, reputedly sacred, existing in any other nation. Besides, Judaism is intimately connected with a more perfect and extensively diffused modification of religious belief, prevailing over the only enlightened part of the earth, and supported by the most ample proof, which can be brought more immediately under our view, being blended with the transactions of a more recent age. If to the decision of Christianity any authority is to be conceded, a divine origin must be ascribed to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and the occurrence of prophetical passages in them may reasonably be expected.

The result then of the observations proposed in the present section may be thus stated:

I. The reference of the Pentateuch to Moses as its author is sustained by the most convincing evidence.

II. Of various passages, supposed to be inconsistent with this theory, many are susceptible of an explanation entirely satisfactory.

III. Of those which remain, none are to be regarded as intentional corruptions, nor do they attach any uncertainty to the text in general. They are either to be accounted for upon the sup

position of the accidental transfer of a marginal note into the body of the work; or to be referred to some subsequent authorized writer, whose object has been either to complete what was deficient or illustrate what is obscure.

IV. It is a manifest begging of the question to regard as interpolations the numerous prophetical passages which are found in these writings.

SECTION IX.

Second objection to the genuineness of the Pentateuch.-Passages incompatible with the actual circumstances of the reputed author. -Deut. i. 1. Meaning of the Hebrew word ¬ɔy (eber,) and the Greek Περαν. (Peran.)

THE prosecution of a simple philological inquiry, would not seem to furnish any occasion, or present much inducement, to indulge in vituperation against one's adversaries. Yet is this reasonable expectation disappointed in the instance of our author, whose advanced age, long subjection to the softening influences of literary cultivation, and abundant professions of being actuated solely by the love of truth and a regard to the happiness of mankind, would seem to authorize the hope, that he would form a candid and just, if not a liberal and generous estimate of the character and motives of his opponents.

66

The critical discussion in which we are now about to follow him, is closed, on his part, with a long and virulent invective, to which there are too many parallels throughout the work upon which I am commenting. The "clerical profession is denounced as one that renders impartial examination a crime, and which requires those who adopt it, to insist on as true, what no man, who is a searcher for truth alone, can possibly accept as truth." It is said to be disgusting to observe the virulence of clerical reproaches made against those whom they are pleased to denominate infidels.'" These latter persons are represented as "braving the reproaches of the interested, the lamentations of the hypocrite, and the fierce bigotry of the ignorant dupe of an interested clergy." We who are "hired," and paid, and salaried witnesses in favor of the cause by which we get our living, are admonished to recollect "that the day has passed by when infidels and infidelity may be made with impunity the hated subjects of clerical abuse." "The clerical craft is in danger, and the members of the church militant will do well to hasten to the rescue, better armed than they have hitherto been." "The glove is thrown down before them, let those who choose take it up." A defiance given quite in the forms of the ancient institution of chivalry! Pity it were that more of knightly honor and courtesy had not been shown in the management of the combat! The gauntlet has for a considerable

time lain untouched, and doubtless the accomplished cavalier, armed at all points for the conflict, has feared that, through the recreancy of his adversaries, no farther opportunity would be furnished for the exhibition of his prowess. This delay has arisen from considerations very different from any apprehension of the issue of the test being unfavorable. Many there are who in the cause of truth, and clad in its impenetrable panoply, are ready to meet at any time and on any field their boastful assailant. We rejoice that the number of those in the Christian ranks who are competent to do this, in an effective manner, is daily increasing. Yet we regard with surprise and pity the insinuation that revelation has ever wanted adequate defenders. We triumphantly refer to days that have gone by, and challenge a comparison in point of profound and various learning, and the powers of a masterly and convincing argumentation, between them and their adversaries.

That the petulance of our author has not been sooner rebuked, and his arguments earlier met, is to be attributed to the fact that his pamphlet has not attracted the attention which he expected, and which from considerations apart from its intrinsic merits, it should have received. From its title it was supposed to relate merely to the geological exceptions taken against the Mosaic record. These, so far as any considerations drawn from a science so largely hypothetical, are deserving of attention, it was

thought might with propriety be referred to those friends of revelation, whose pursuits particularly qualified them for this investigation. And in reference to those, to whom the character of the production in question became better known, it is to be observed, that in general they deemed it unnecessary to renew a discussion which in their apprehension had been terminated in a manner satisfactory to the public mind. In this opinion it is thought they erred. It is not enough that the enemy has been once met and vanquished, the battle must be renewed in every age. As old objections are revived, they must be again answered. As new modifications of erroneous opinions appear, they must be exposed and refuted. In the absence of a worthier champion, the writer of these essays has not hesitated to accept the defiance. He is willing to attempt the succor of the beleagured citadel, imperfectly armed although he may be. In spite of the strong temptation to a contrary course, he is not conscious that he has in any degree indulged in personal invective, when he should alone feel concerned to controvert the arguments of his opponent. He has been solicitous to ascertain and vindicate truth, and not to render odious either an individual or a class.

Let us then return from this digression, and consider the objections to the genuineness of the Pentateuch, founded on passages occurring in it, incompatible with the actual circumstances or known