^r IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) A V] <^ /}. ^r c^: V M 1.0 1^™- IIM 1^ ipn 25 2.2 I.I S ,^ I li£ lllllio 1.8 1.25 1.4 1 1.6 << 6" _ .^ Photographic Sciences Corporation 4^ iV \\ 9) 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 6^ ? ' ,.ivine Providence pledgeil for its pieservatiou 7 (2) Transmitted almost without variation since the .\postolic age 7 SrUnai'itan Text, Septuagint, and Hook of .Iul)ilees tested : Itesults 7 (3) Autliorsbip of the Helirew Scriptures investigateil ... 8 Prof. Smith's great argument on .Teremiah 27 tested Also on 1 Samuel 17 : The Twofold style of .Scripture Portentous t)nn'ns which Hatiomili.-im cannot explain The Armageildon battlefield prepared Ludicrous fluctuations and inconsistencies of it itionalisni True Solution of the Klohistic and Jcliovistic piolilem 8 9 9 9 10 10 .'ViM'i(;i,i: in. — The Ixteouatiox of Uirle Truth, Outlines for every devout reader to fill up 11 (1) The Moral Law : Its fundamental ore-eminence 11 The ?i«Mii^S*(!»*i'«»i«l«^^ i 1 2 2 3 .•3 4 4 5 5 G (i 7 7 7 8 8 9 y 9 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 liEPL! 10 MESoft mmm m\\\. Bv THE Rkv. p. Melville, a..m., b. d., St. Columija Church, Hopewell, N. S. It is a ])leasinf,' ta.sk to meet manfully, tlio latent and l)ost arf,nunfnt.s of a really intelligent, -sinccri', ami able tliink<.r, although he he an adver- sary to onr dearest ideas and liojies. When our faith and hope are sure and .safe f. ir all eternity, we may well lie frank and Lrave. And even if th'jre 1)6 danger on some {joint.-:, w(; are but i)oor morali.st.s, as well as ])oor heroes, if we are not able and willing to risk onr \\,\. on tlu! triumph of TRUTH, and to look the very strongest opposition full in the face, " "With that stern joy which warriors feel lu foeiiien woithy of their steel." I liave very carefully and minutely studied Prof. W. Robertson .Smith'.s twelre lectures on " The Old Testament in the Jewish Church ;" and, though honoring and loving tiio man and the thinkiT, I have detected some fundamental errt-rs in his theory, which should be corrected at once. I refer not now to slight slips on the surface, but to false princi[)les in the very basis of his theory, wliicli all'ect the very foundations of faith ; and which are, therefore, of a fundamental and fatal tendency. ]Iad [ sullicient space and timC; it wonld be most easy to take the I,ectures in their printed order. l!ut to condense tln' correction of twelve able lectures into two or three .slujrt newspaper articles, I sliall review them in more Logical order, as follows: (1) Our Protestant Faith ; (2) Tlie Canon of Scripture, and its History ; and (3) The Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Annals. The theme is intensely interesting ; and though I make no pretence to infallil)ility, like the would be " Oinniacicnf Critics" yet I have good ground of trust that the clear and simple truth of my argument will win the heart and mind of truth-lovers, not oidy in onr dear native land, with its youthful colleges, hut tar and near throughout the world ; while I try (1) to correct the fundamental errors referred to, (!2) to solve the l)riuciital difhculties of I>ible (Jriticism.s, and (.'J) to indicate brielly the true Integrative Theory oi (Scripture lievelation. ^^■■■i^^'^^i mmmm ARTlCl.i: I. OUR I'UOTKSTANT FAITH. Tender this lieacl I shall correct the following fuiulainental errors of Prot*. Smith's theory. 1. Ho conileinns tlie spiritual intorpretation of Scripture, which he calls " Tropical Exegeslfi" or Figurative Explanation. 2. He holils that the. inspivod writers perfectly U)ulerslood as well as perfectly recorded what (Jod spdko to them. .3. He lujlds that the real meaning of the Bible must be its natural meaning. 4. He holds that the n-h'iJe hnaincm of scholarly criticism lies with the hnman side of .S(;ri[itnre ; and tiiat it must be examined by the ordinary laws of evidence _///.s< like ant/ ntlier ancient hook, jTliese princi[)les are so astoundingly erroneous, that I have gone over the lectures again and again to see if any other meaning could be got out of them. In correcting them 1 shall rpiote Prof. Smith's own words, to prevent any mis-representation of hie views. 1. Early in his first lecture, speaking of the Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation of Scri[)ture, he says : " This is nothing else than the method of Tropical Exegesis, that reigned supreme in the Old (^atholic and Mediiuval Church. The ancient fathers laid down the principle that everything in Scripture which, taken in its natural sense, appears uneclifying, must be made edifying by some method of typical or figurative application. In principle this is no longer admitted in the Protestant Churches, except perhaps for the Song of Solomon." Now is this so ] Have we, Protestants, in principle rejected the spirit- ual interpretation of Scripture] I never thought so. Our Church, at least, has not done so. Any Church which does so, will have to reject the method and doctrine of not only the Primitive Church with all its Christian Fathers, but also the method and dcctrine of the Apostles and Prophets themselves, and their divine Lord ! Witness the Epistle to the Hebrews ; the General and I'aulin.e Epistles, in every page ; the Gospels with manifold " fuUillings " of old types and new parables ; the Law with all its symbolic sacrifices and " shadows of good things to come ;" the tabernacle and temples with their patterns divinely foreshown ; the Prophets with symbolic visions and voices, which they " heard but understood not ;" and the crowning Kevelation, full of sublime symbols and allegories, whose only " Temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb!" And yet are we as Protestants shut out from seeking the spiritual interpretation of these symbols and those mysteries? I trow nof? Else what do you say of " Solomon's Temple spiritualized," by IJunyan, and the vast Puritan literature of its kind ; with all the Hebrew names they gave to their homes, and their wanderings, and their children ; not to speak of the ever growing host of sermons and poems and volumes on Scripture symbolisms, now more abundant and more edifying than ever before^ Head Knox's First IJook of Discipline, chap. I, Exp. 1. :Nay ! " The Bible is the religion of Protestants." "The Word of wmm ^^■ iiMii 3 il errors of Avliidi he I as well as its natural n lies with )(1 by the gone over be got out words, to r Spiritual a than the <1 (Jatliolic nciple that e, appears typical or tted in the tlie spirit- Jhurch, at B to reji;ct ith all its xi.stles and istle to the he Gospels ) Law with )me ; " the lown ; the heard but e symbols y and the e spiritual lot? Else nyan, and ew names dren ; not olunies on than ever 1. Word of Tiod PDutaincd in the Scriptures of the Old and the Xcw Ti'stamcnt is the, only rule to direct us Ihjw wc may glorify Iliui." The whole lUlde, pure and entire, is our Protestant fiiith. ilut the whole IWlile has a s]tiiit and lift; as well as a letter, *J (,'or, 3 : G, »ind .lohn (! : 03. Wo tlii'H'fniv rt-ei'iv<' if not oidy iti its /r/^cr or nnlaral sciixo, as the natural niiin receives it, luit also in its sjurit (iinl life, as the natural man will not receive it, 1 (Jov. 2 : 14 Now this s|)int and lih; of Scripture is Just the T,ord himself, the Divine laving W(jrd, 2 Cor, 3 : T* compared witli verses 17 and l.S, and with .IjIiu 1:1, ike. The true and Scripture doctrine is, that " the testimony of .fesus is the spirit of prophecy," whatever its letter n)ay be, Rev. 19 : 10. We therefort! as I'rotestants ore tauglit to seek and lind the l-ord as the spirit and life of every iScriptun! ; since " all Scripture is given by insi)iiation of (lod and is prolitable," 2 Tim 3; 16. If in any Scripture we do not lind the Lord, it is because we have not ixiached its spirit and life at all. 2. I'lof. Smith says further on in his first lecture: "The inspired writers weix! so led by the spirit, that they jK-rfectly understood, and |jerfectly recorded every word which (tod spoke to their hearts." XotV how utterly different is this from the testimony of Daniel 12:8: " 1 heard, but I (iinlcrfttood not ; then said I, Oh niv Lord, what shall bo the end of these things? And he said, flo thy way Daniel ; lor the words are rinsfd up (ind .sni/ad till the time of the end." S(j also St. Peter tells us that the very prophets enquired and searched dilligentjy " what the Spirit of Christ in them did signily, when it foretold the suH'erings ot ( Jhrist and the glory that should f()llow. Unto whom it was revealed that not unt(-i themselves but unto us they did minister those things . . into which things the very angels desire to look," (1 Peter 1:11, 12). So too St. Paul declares, " Now we see through a glass darkly . . . Now I Inmo I u part"' (1 Cor 13 : 12). It is hardly necessary to say nK)re on this point, except to remark that the, reiterated notion of Prof. Smith, tiiat the true way to understand Scripture is, to take, it ja>tt as its first trriters nnd'Crstood it, is funda- mentally wrong. Pather, we should seek to understand it far U-tter than they could. Kom. 16 ; 25, 26, Eph. 3 : 5, G, and 2 Cor. 3 thnjughout. •S. Prof. Smith says, fwrt ler on, that the Church nuist try to get the whole meaning of every inspireil writer by taking his book as a whole, realizing his position " and following out in its minutest detail the progress of his thought." This is capable of a good and true sense, which we would fain hope Prot. Smith intends ; until the context, and especially his words in the ■early part of his second lecture, forc(; us to think otherwise. There ho states as " the great discovery of the Refurmatiori," that " the real mean- ing of the liible iww^ijust he its natural mcanimj" How diametrically opposite to the inspir<^'d words of St. Peter : No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation," (2 Peter 1 : 20) ' and to the inspired words of St. Paul : " We speak the wisdom of G(-«l in a nii/steri/ liut the natural man receiveth not the things of tli6 Spirit of (lud, for tlicy iiro fonlislinc.s.s unto liim ; iicitln r i;;iii Ik; ktuy\>' tlioin, U)V ffif'!/ are nj)iri find/ 1/ itini-drnafl /" (1 (J(»r. 2 : 7, 14). Also to the Words of our Nnvioiir : " Tiito yon it is given fn h-noin tin' iiii/xfrrii'.-} of tlu! kiii,t,'(loiii of licjivcii, l)nt unto tlH^ni it is not t^'ivcn," (Mat. I. '5, all). W(! .sc'i'lv not niiTcly tli(! nuf/ini/ l)ut the ,^'i)in'/inf/ meaning,' ; not nu'rely the thoughts of tli(i wrUcr, hut of tiio ])ivin(>, AiiHiur of .Scripture, " whose thouglifs are higher than man's, as lieaven is higJKM' than earth," (Isa. 5.') : 9) We seek not merely tin; words of the pro[(het, ])Ut " ///o tcord '>f ilic Lord f/iroin/fi flic /)r()/j/irf ;" not the letter meivly, but also the spirit and th(5 life, niumdy the Living Word, our Saviour I 4. Toward the end of the finst leeturc^ I'rof, Smith says, in italies : " T/ie v'holc hiiftlni'X'i of tirholarlij '.'.ntrfcsiti lies iv/'f// ///>■•< h/tuiaii i^idi'" of Scripture, Further on he argues tliat wv. must apply the orilinary laws of evidence to the lUlde "just as we shinild do to any other ancient book." Does scholarsliip thou shut its eyes to the divine side of Scriptun; ? Or have its eyes ni'ver been opened to .see tlie wonders of (.iod's law and the mysteries of His Kingdont ? The Lord's Sehcjlars at least liave their eye.'? opened and their under- standings eidighlened to understand the Scriptures (Luke 21 : ir)),foi' His Scribes are instructed in His Kingdom to bring out ever new truths as ■well as old, (Mat. 13 : 52), for His Spiiit in them searches ev(!n the deep things of CJod (I Cor. 2 : 10), and they do not put away the key of knowledge (Luke 11 : .52), nor hide it (Acts 4 : 20). Xo doubt we should .search the Scriptures and examine them with our bp.st wisdom ; but surely not by divorcing the Divine side, and criticising the poor human side alone! l!y this means you may obtain a private inter[)retation f(n' every jiropheey ; but it will nkviou be the true on(! ! " Xo j)rophccy of the Scriptures is of any private interpretation," (2 Peter 1 ; 20). You hav(^ merely reached the ]>rivate occasion of its lormal delivery ; but its interpretation is ever spirituid and Divine, saying with, still small voice in conaeieiice, " he that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto ihe Churches :" not, '* what the .lew said to some ancient jierson or peoi)le." And how can you do justice to the Jiible if it has a divine tide like .vo other book, and yet you shut out that side from exegesis, and try it by its human side ahjne, like axy other book 1 This is insanity. Common sense would say '• If the IJible has a Divine side, let it have a fair trial, at the very least ! It is a mockery of justice to exclude that UNIQUE element frotn .scholarly exegesis and judge the book by its human siile alone, just lik(.' ain/ oth(;r t)ld book !" That is like Caiaphas, ignor- ing the Saviour's divinity, and judging him like any other agitator! To take the "human side" of Scri[iture apart from its "divine side," is spiritually to take the clothing olf the Saviour and part it among the hostile sects which crucify him afresh ! If you separate the spirit from the letter, you will kill it ; and you may do as you plea.sa with the gar- ments after you have slain your Lord ! But He diuth no more. You only ,W'«f fW' I '•ail 1h' kri(/\>' 0- Also to 'Ac hlljufirll'y} Uat. !.•}, all). ; not. iiicii'ly of S('ii|ttur(.!. than oaitli," fl, but "///,' ■Iv, but also r! 's, in italics : inti .-o'lli' " of ■ill nary laws itiiur ancient if Mcripturc? >^^ri law and tluur uin'er- : 4")), lor lli.s w truths a!^ i;n the deep y tliu key uf ;m with our id criticising in a private) D trues o!U) ! .n," (-2 Puter f its lornial saying witli 1 hear what lid to sonic 10 sidi! like and try it is insanity, t it have a occlude that ' its human )has, ignor- itatorf To le side," is among the spirit from th the gar- Yon only 7Hnr>hr lli,-. imagp and remnant in yourself, and >iii suiridally against vour own soul ! 1'hnse errors arc plainly fundamental aiel fital. They are ililuted lialionalism. 'I'hcy open out widcs and wj.ler in I'lnf. Smith's earlier leetures, ami run through them all as a gaping cleft, yawning from fouielaiioii to summit, ol his theory, and foreboding the fill of his whole systiiu. \Vc trust he will live to repent and coiicet them ; liut alas ! ive fear many may pi'rish by them bd'oii' that liopri'ul time shall come and long after it too ! I'rof Smith niunrks : "A book that is reiilly old and valuable, lia.s nothing to fear from tln' eritics." J la I Say you so, in a world of sinners and blnmlcrers eager to j^et (]uit of the I'.iblc f ^fui'li rather might he Riy, " a ivally valuable I'rofcssor has nothing to fear from the (ieneial As.->embly." The clergy an not much less infdlible than tlie would-bo Omniscient Sceptical Critics 1 1 once knew a Professor who i)refended to be so great a judge of stylo as to be able to fell how many authors had a haml in writing the books of the liible, ami to point out th(! very verses written by each, and the nations and climates they came. from. Some of us were really alarmed at his bearing and his boMiiess, lest he should rob them of the little faith they had left. l!ut the happy thought occurred to us to try him by secretly exchanging our essays and rewriting them by the hands that gave them to him for examination. Well : the great Critic n(;ver detectc'd the rusu : iind we had a laugh among ourselves you may be sure, as one of US cried out; *' Urr / Unit! lie did lui, /,■> n ln>- niii Ktarnhmfs tftijh'S apidrt, fi'do 11^ iiiiid'i, (Ui' i/ef Iw /vz/.s' a^ lli.e sfiilc-'^ (i fira t/iootiaiid yctirs iujiiiif ! He'll iiiTcr hiiil: a /icM/'c o' v)'- P' Since then, we have never dreaded the " ( )mniscieiit ( 'ritics." AVe now look u[)on them as impudent pretenders, or radical blunderers. Thus far 1 havi given the I'.iblo view of our Protostant Theology, while correcting the opjiosite I'atioualistic ('rrors. I have not dwelt on the many good gifts of Prof Smith, bei'ause the far more needful work is to remove the tlire delusions that hav«! seduced so clear a mind ! If my words are severe, it is with tlm severity of love : and my jirayer is that (.J(kI will give him peifect light, and overrule all this for good ! In uiiother article I hope to solve bis ])rinci[ial dilliculties as to the Canon of Scriptui'e and its history ; incluis, and .seek tho newness of the spirit in the oldness uf the letter. 3. l^rotestant The(do<,'y .studies Seript\ire in its own li.t,dit, spiritual as well as natural ; and iv(jt merelv in the dubious li'dit of Catholic doi'Mia, or in the sombre shades of skeptical liationalisiu. Prot. (Jreen, of Princeton has so conclusively .shown that tin; historical objections to the " Middle liooks of the Pentateuch" are futile and fin- ciftd, that we shall ])roceed at once to solve tin; printnpal objections- which remain ; namely thi^se rej^'arding the standaiil lEebnnv Te.xt of the liible, its transmis.sion and its authorshi|) ^ including the fanioua problem of the alleged Jehovistic and Elohistic wrifer.s. (0- THE RTAXDAUD IlEliHKW TEXT. Near the middle of his third lecture, Prof. Smith asserts that theref were many and great variatit)ns of te.vt in dill'erent copi«s of the Old Testament some centuries before Christ came in the flesh ; but that ali the varying copies of the Hebrew text disippear about that time. So that we have but one .standard t(.'xt .since the iirst Christian century. Ite therefore charges the Jewish scribes with deliberately suppressing all the varying copies, as the Caliph Otbman destroyed every Koran that did'ered' from his favorite copy. I'rot. Smith says ])ositively : " There ciin be nf> question who were the instruments in this work. The scribes alone posses.sed the necessary influence to give one text or one standard MS. a position of such supreme authority." Also, '^' There is no other explanation which will account for the facts." Now is this .so ? Not at all I There was quite another power both able and willing to suppress and df.'stroy Hebrew IJibles. And he did .so to his uttermost I History is plain and positive,, that Antiochus Ei)iphanes , King of Sj'ria and Palestine, I> C. 168, utterly massacred the men of Jerusalem and destroyed all copies of the Hiibrew Bible he could find in his dominions, under penalty of death ! Surely this is enough to account for the disappearance of many varying copies, without laying the blame on the poor Jewish Scribes, who peri.sh- ed in heaps in temple and city, trying to save their Bibles, even to the very direst deaths, on the sad sabbath of their massacre ! f Is it not most astouisliing that Pro£ Smith did not see this even whil?k \ ^ft3«^f.»i«1«Mte'*«!a»««^;^.'^'^t*M'*^u<»!K^''' j-"' T< .'• I tlifficiilfics, s anil " iiif^' ii')li! to tlicir is- Htuiiil)Iiiig iciiltics iirisij itifisiii, aiitl It! CUlllll l)llt CO a hiiin.'iu iiul setk tho , spiritual as lolic tlo^'iiia^ the historical :ilt! and I'lri- oljjcclion* row Text oi the tiUiU)U» I'ts that tlicrer s of tlu' Ukl but that ali it tiino. So ontiiry. He ssiiif,' all the that clillered' fu eiin ho nr> ^crihi'S alone ndard i\I.S. a s no other power both nd he did so t Antiochus y massacred Bw Bible he lany varying , who perish- even to the s cveu wkUft lie was stutnblinj,' over it in the doso of thi.-* very ler-lure ! There he says, " Antiocliim !''|iiplian<'H einsid all (;p|ii('H of tlic I,aw, and scmiinLjly of tlu- otliir .sacred books, to )i«> torn np and linrnt. and made it a capital otl'ence to possess a iVntateuch." If we take his owH wonls literally and ri.;idly (as lie ho oi'*en treats the llclirew scrilics) not one copy n|' tlio I,aw escaped, to '.eep up eviiii one standard text I He says Air, were burnt ! Such a jilarinj,' tlouble lilundcr on ho very important a ipicstioii shonlil lie remendicred as tlie " stanilaid einir." lint although not a s|iarrow can I'dl willmnt ('ind's providence, yet nii|;lil not all trusty copies of ( 'kmI's Wnrd have pt rislied tlieii 1 Never! Heaven and earth must perish first ! Mat. 5:18, iiiul 2t : 35 ; Isa. 40 : 6, and 55 : 1 1. (2). TRANSMISSION OF THK HK.ItHKW CANON. 1 ]'rof. Smith also observes in his third lecture that we have no MS. of the Hebrew text niiicli older than one thousand years, and that all the copies aj^ree so well as to be esst-ntially one text, the same as Jerome used 4(K) A.I)., and indeed the same as tlit! Jewish Ifabbins used in the first centuries A I). Iiut he brinj,'s forward three witncs.ses to prove that then! were many variou.s readin^js, additions and oniission.s, .soino cputuries H.(J. Let us see what tlii.s amounts to. 1. That by f,'eniiiiie MSS. it can Vie [)rovcd that the .Jews have been most scrupulously correct scribes for the, last thousand years ; vi/., as far as MSS. can go. 2. iSy Jerome, the Targumist.s, Afpiila, &(:., we can prove the unvarying accuracy of the scribes for seven or eight centuries further l)ack ; viz., as far as those witnesses can go ; even to the verge of the apostles' days ! Well : Is not that delight luH The Christian scribes of the New Testament must yield the palm of victory to the Jewish scribes of the (Jld. Now let us examine the three witnes.ses which say the scribes were not so careful some centuries before the Incarnation. 1. The Samaritan Pentateuch, I'.C. 430, is well l:nown to be delib- erately corrupted in order to tmike Blount (lerizim the .site of the temple. Surely a scribe who could do that, is nijt to be trusted ! This witness therefore fails and goes out of court. 2. The Greek Septuagint translation was made by order of Ptolemy Philadel])hu.=;, an Kgy])tian King who wished to have a great lilirarj-, about '2W Vt.C The Seventy interpreters did their work very roughly, and added a lot of ajiocryiihai books, to enlarge the volume As their king desired it for recreation, not for salvation, it is probable he laid down rules for them, very dillierent from those which our own King Jame.s gave to his translators. Indeed their work shows that on the one hand they wished to preserve many old Hebrew tales and songs and proverbs, and on the other to modify or hide some esoteric doctrines from the heathen king and people, as Jerome also declares. This witness there- fore is also unreliable. '^'M.,,::ff^: 8 3. The P)i)ok of JuLilcos rfinains, hy some uiikiin-wn antlior, of vory uncortaiii (late, and still more iiiu'crtaiii trmsmis.sioii. AViio can tell how oltc.'ii it has been redacted or interpolated? It varies ot't'Mi from tlie Hebrew text, but so does Josephus, and so he often intended to do, as we cm trace his motives in many cases. This witness is the least reliable of all tlie three. Joseplms and Thilo are immensely preferable. Such witn(?sscs are merely as the dust of the balance, when wei;:;heil aj^ainst the Hebrew lUbh;, presiTvcd w irh such amazing scrupulosity since the days of the ajiostles, and as far back as evidence can go. Tiiey simply ])rove that in the dim past wlien books were few, some sdiolars copied the lUble for themselves very im[)errectly, and added other little songs and stories to thuir private copies and Gentile translations. Surely this was to be ex])ected, and by no means can it discredit the standard text uf the sanctuary. People will examine such witnesses for amusement ; Lut sane peo[i]e will scarcely dream of changing the Hebrew Canon to suit them, or to suit the Koran either ! In his fourth lecture Prof. Smith quotes some difTicult passages in Samuel, to show the Septuagint text as }n'eierable. Now, is not this r.ither odd, since it is an established ride of criticism that " the more di.Ticult reading is a prion the more probable !" (3). AUTIIonSITlP (JF THE SACIIED SCRIPTURES. In the latter part of his fourth lecture Prof. Smith urges the theory of several authors or editors moilidling or remodidling the same book in Scri])ture. }le refers to Isai di for instance, whose book the critics liave so often sawn asunder at the liegining of chapter 40, ascribing the parts to two prophets, as Manasseh sawed Isaiali himself asunder. It is due to Prof. Smith to say that he s[)eaks modestly and reverently in this matter, and does not pretend to be wise above what is written. But his strongest argument lor editorial nnlaction is based on the extraordinary variati-n of readings between the Hebrew and the Septua- gint text of Jeremiah 27th chapter. Hence he very triumphantly argues, near the end of Lecture 4, that the additions in the Hebn-w are the " spurious insertions of a thoughtless copyist," making tlie whole prophecy absui'd and false; since the brazen pillars, &c., c(juld not' be carrieil unbroken to Pabylon or back again, with the other vessels of the temple. To this I reply that the Hebrew text does 7iot say that they were to bo carried to llabylon iinhrohni, nor does it say that "all" the vessels were to be brought back. This is a mere figment of the Professor him- self, who DID put in the icord " all" in the memorable "standard error," ab()V(i, where it really was absurd and false, though innocently so. Put Jeremiah's words are general and so neither false nor absurd. Put l^rof Smith makes a still greater oversight on this very passage. Why can he not notice wiiat is staring him in the face 1 Tliere was indeed a recension of Jeremiah's prophecy, and afterwards a rijdaction too ; but both the editor and the redactor were Jeremiah himself, thougli ^aV IW« hi iiiHiy inUior, of very Wiio cim tell : oft'Mi fnuii the iided to do, as he least reliable irable. when wei.^hed ig scrupulosity 1 can go. They some scholars led other little atiotis. Surely it the standard int sane peojdo lit them, or to ;ult passages in snot this rather ) more difficult rges the theory ?. same book in ;he critics liave •ibing the parts ler. It is due erently in this •itteii. i based on the md the Septiia- iphantly argues, J^ebrew are the viug the whole could not' be ;r vessels of the that tliey v/ere all" the vessels Professor hi in- standard error," cently so. liut ird. is very passage, ie ■? There was irds a redaction himself, thou;^h 9 Ijaruch wrote it at bis dictation. Head Jeremiah 3Gth chapter, verses 2, 4 and 9, for tb(! recension or copying ; vers(> 1'3 for its destruction, and verses l'8 and 32 for tlie later redaction with " many like words addetl." The next verst^ (37 : \) seeins to show that this ri'daction was maile in Zedckiah's rejgu ; and we read of still later recensions. Compare .Jer. 3G : 32, and 37 : 1, with 28 : 1, and 30 : 1, Sec. Of course the pcrfcrf copy having the "many like words added," would be preserved for the sanctuary ; as we lind it is. And the Septuagint copy being brief and int^riuplcd, shows that they got some of the nnlinished (^([lies to translate! In like manner the Septuagint changes the order of the chaitters against the (ientiles ; but the text of der. 25 : 17 corrects this. S spi-'Val sacrifices, acceptable to (Jod by Jesus ('hristf' Why should a ("hristian scholar be lynx-eyed for natural dilliculties, but mole- eyed to s[iiritual interpretati(jn '? In the early part of his tiflh l(>cti:re Prof. Smith thiidcs he detects various authors in the same book of Scripture. But in 1 Sam 17, especially, he is haunted by the old vision of itco (ti(fhor.s Iih'iiiliiKj toni'ther their narratives and styles, most unreasonaljly as he thinks. "Who aic they ? lie has often seen the like before. Can they be the old Jeliovist and tiie old i'Johist who stick tog<;ther like Siamese twins in the most ancient records of Cit'iiesis'? Obviously they seem the same old personages, or else their ghosts ! Prof. Smith would like to \n\t one of them down, as the Septuagint has done. Still tlie Hebrew will not go down, but gravely re])ukes him, saying, like David to Eliab : " What have I now done 1 Is there not a cause 1" The Critics stand agha.st ! They know of no sufficient cause or reason. It was bad eiuaigb to hnd the Jeliovist and the Elohist so unaccountably interwoven in (b-nesis ; worse still to lind them inexplicably combined throughout all the- I'l'ntateuch ; still more distressing to lind them united through the book of Joshua; and ev( n dreadful to lind them or else their apparitions rea|)pearing through the Judges and Samuel, th(.' Kings aini i'salins and Prophets. Put a still greater horror awaits the .sceptical critics when (like .Macbeth) they must behold these sag(! yt't childlike forms (which they thought they had killc'd long ago) seated at table, unhurt, througii all the ^'ew TestiimiMit as well, even to the close of the Jo'vclation ! They have stootl every liery trial ; and already the sceptical snei I becomes a crv : " Lo ! 1 see four men luose ; and the fourth is like the ;;on of (Jo'd !" It • high time now, therefore, to turn fr(Un the guerilla warfare of desulLni\ riticism and hast(Mi to this gr(!at and decisive liattlelield, where their Iiid cau.'-(! must win or die ! Already they liehold t'.ie diref'd handwriting on the wall, which none of them can read ! Tor many years Pationalism has been constantly fluctuating in futile guesswork on this theme ; ever changing its theory like I'aris lashious •"^i^W^^mmi^ l'"K: 10 (from which city tlie discovery is wrorifjly diitetl.) Once, the Eluhist in Gen. 1 was considered an Antediluvian, t'roni whom Moses oi>i»ied, amow^othern, mosdicaUi/. Anon, Deuteronomy Wiis held to hi^ far too modern for the other bt)oI':-'i'*-'t03f,,>i0»m^:M(rmie\^?^f;^m»^w ••!» i^' r^%:':'^-^^ cp, the Elfiliist Mo.«o3 copicil, il to bo. far ton is (.k'clared the (lus ; iiuil " the s seou that the i him into two ', older, and that hat to make of and judged or fitics and makes ire, says on this could so divide lame of (rod." s, but it is not Y ! For cannot lod's names are His creatures 1 on to Tlini, Ho But when He i another Divine , in every case, pj'sons aihlreitbed nes the form of ible onler. For 3 words are not irlasting (1 Peter lat each idea is us style exactly an : (O As the ^)d of universal ed Ji'liocah, the 'ir.\t Cause ; but for man," wlien I Eve call Him comes again as r>ad (Critics may d many mistakes )ok will always will only expose what they tried 's stvle but the race. "'" 11 His essential characteristics : For " the "Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, full of (JuACEaml Thith." These are His "two witnesses"' all thriMigh the J'.ible, proving irrefragaldy that He is its one Author^ whoever its writers may or may not have been I AUTICLK III. — iJlULE rNTEOnATlOX. " To the wise a hint is snfHcicnt." Such trust have I in the evidency of the truths J state, and in the sagacity of my attentive trulh-loving readers, that I have given little else than hints and outlines, which they can till up, expand, and corroborate at leisure. This will be to them a most sweet and sacred study, replete with richest instruction and improve- ment, mentally and s|)iritually, throughout life. Without wasting W(jrcls on i>\\v\\ trilling objections as any wise Christian can easily answer, I have solved only the principal ditfieulties set forth. And now we shall consider briefly the true view of i\w Bil)le in its Integrity, as the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Annals. I. TIIK LAW, GIVEN BY M0SE3. The Moral Law of the Decalogue or Ten Commamlnients, is tlie centre and supporting pillar of all the Liws and Revelations given Ui Israel, whether civil, ritual, or otherwise. In Deuteronomy it is summed up in the two great commandments of Lo\e to (Io//v7, and rejected its Divine llfn. (Jon warm-d them oft, (as in Dent. 29, 30, 31 and 32 oh.,) but they would not learn. ISesides these laws, the whole Pentateuch is often called " The Law," in which ]\Ioses has inlaid "mosaic- ally 'if )iiany passages from older seers and sages, as Adam and Cain, Lanu'ch and Noah, Abraham and Melchizedt'k, ^c. Put we find the Divine style and spirit in the whole, and knowing God to be the Author, we qviibble not about the spokesmen or scribes. These are rr '^*'^^, 12 u, TiiK ruoniKis, karlier akd later. Ill tilt! Hebrew r.ililo, tlio books of Joshua, JucIl,'os, 8amacl, am] Kin:;'.?, are chIKmI " Kirly ri'o|)li(!ts ;" whiln Isaiah, Jeremiah, Iv.ekiel, and tliu twelve minor books, are called " Later Prei|)hets." Daniel, too, is called a proi)liet by our Sivinur. Mosi'S himself, a)id Joshua, with Samuel and other Jud,yes and Kind's, were prophets, besides their kinj.,dy ollice. Even the sceptical critics confess that -roshua corroborafi^s the PeTitat(>uch. To silence this witness, therefore, they join his book with the Pentateuch into a " Ilexateueh," ai;d impeach all the six, by tryinj,' to set the witness of the later buoks against them, chiefly in this, that the Lovitical Laws seem to be neglected or unknown in their time. Is it not amazing that those critics cannot see that this was the verv fate foretold by Moses to rebellicjus [svael. Lev. 20, Deut. 29-32, S:vJ And the books uf Joshua and his successors nicord how it came to i>ass (Joshua 24 : 31, Judges 2 : Cy-l'S) ; Isratd had utterly broken the Mosaic covenatit after the death of Joshua and his elders. The service of the tabernacle at Shiloh was dying out into a profane sham, till neither people nor [)riests knew the Lm-d, (Judges 2:10, and 1 8am. 2 : 12). The Leviti(!al .system failed, and its priesthood was changed, ni,'i;(\ssitating a change of Law, (Hidi. 7:11, 12). From that time its ritual is gen- erally iu abeyance, ami the patriarchal order of Judges returns (Judges 2 : 28) with its patriarchal prifsthooSaviiHir's sojourn and rejection. Now to say that the Lovitical books are therefore of later origin, is as absurd as to say that the Xew Testament was invented since the American War, because tlu; Churches tolerated " war," ami " lawsuits," as well as " laying up treasure on earth," and having " two coats.'' AVith the above explanation let any man examine the book of Judges verse by verse and chapter after chapter, and he will be sui'prised to hud hiiw perfectly it conlirms the books of Moses and Joshiui by continual incidents and allusions. So also do the books of Tlutli and Samuel, the Kings and the Proi)hets, the ]\silms anil the Annals throughout. They all agree with Isuah that moral obedience is fir better than ritual sacrilice, which l)ecomes vain and disgusting without the former. They all agree with Jeremiah that the Levitical Law, was made in vain for Isnud if they use it like a " (hui of robbers " into which they can escape from duty and justice (Jer. 7 all, and 8 : 8). David, Solomon, Hezekiah. and dosiih, fried indeed to restore the ^Insaii; ritual, in a modilied firm, witii one temple an^l ark, typifying one ^Mediator liy whom we can come to God. Hut their elforts were inwardly fiilures, for Israel's heart was fu- from (!od. Then canui their captivity as .Moses foretold. Afterwards lv/;ra, \eh(uniah, *^'c., tried to establish the entire Mosaic Law among the returned e.viles, in all its literality and iron 13 icl, aivl Kind's, I'kicl, and IIri I, t>}(\ i> calloil , witli Snimnjl