sufficient evidence in the belief that Joshua and Ezra introduced many additions or alterations into the Pentateuch, but that Moses wrote the greatest part of that sacred volume? The only evidence to support that belief is the vaguest Jewish tradition of a comparatively recent date. But, again, the question recurs, how could the author of the Pentateuch, whoever he was, have known such mysteries as the history of creation without a distinct revelation from heaven? To this we reply that, from whatever source the various histories in Genesis may have been originally derived, it is quite clear that the author of the Pentateuch compiled his narrative from sundry older manuscripts of which he had gained possession. A tolerably unquestionable proof of this point, which rests on grounds as strong as can support any result of critical investigation, may be seen by the reader in Theodore Parker's English version of De Wette's Introduction to the Bible.

At present we can only suggest to our reader the mode in which this point is established. It is observed that although the names Jehovah (translated "Lord"), and Elohim (translated "God"), and Jehovah Elohim (translated "Lord God"), are sometimes used, to all appearance, promiscuously in the Pentateuch; yet there are to be found, especially in Genesis, long paragraphs in which the Deity is designated throughout by one, and only one, of these names. Thus there are whole chapters where Elohim ("God") is spoken of, and Jehovah ("Lord") is not mentioned. And again, there are whole chapters where the Deity is named as Jehovah ("Lord"), and is not once styled Elohim ("God"). Passages of the former kind are described by Hebrew scholars as "Elohistic," to distinguish them from the writings of the latter kind, which are known as "Jehovistic."

It is remarkable that the Elohistic passages by themselves form a tolerably connected narrative, and the Jehovistic likewise by themselves. And, moreover, it is found that there are often, in Genesis, duplicate narratives of the same event, of which one narrative is Jehovistic and the other Elohistic. The English reader may readily test this matter for himself in such cases as the following:

He will observe that one account of the creation is contained in the first chapter and in the first three verses of the second chapter of Genesis. Throughout all this passage he will find that "God" (in the Hebrew, Elohim) is the name for the Deity.

But from the fourth verse of Gen. ii. down to the end of the chapter, the term "Lord God" (in the Hebrew Jehovah Elohim) is uniformly employed to denote the Creator; and in all this passage we are furnished with an account of the creation, in many respects widely different from that contained in the first thirty-four verses of the book of Genesis.

Similarly, a great part of the history of the Deluge is written in duplicate, with discrepancies between the two narratives. Let the reader compare, for instance, the Elohistic section in Gen. vi. 9-22, with the parallel Jehovistic section in Gen. vii. 1-5.

Now, we put it to the English reader whether it is not highly probable-to the careful and candid Hebrew scholar whether it is not convincingly apparent-that the Pentateuch, instead of being written under the miraculous dictation of God, was compiled by some unknown author during the times of the Jewish monarchy, out of materials Jehovistic, Elohistic, JehovElohistic, and Mosaic. How these materials originated, except to a slight extent in the case of Moses, we have no information; but that the mysterious account of the creation was derived directly from God is now as improbable as any thing can be, when we see that it is given in duplicate, with variations, in the first four chapters of Genesis; and that, instead of both coming from Moses, these two narratives have all the appearance of having been originally written by unknown authors at different periods, and of having been ultimately compiled, five hundred years after the epoch of Moses, by some third writer, whose name is wholly unknown

to us.

Thus, then, for the Gospels and for the Old Testament, there is every probability that the current traditions and literature of the several periods supplied the sacred penmen with those portions of their histories which seem, at the first glance, the least within reach of human inquiry or ingenuity. So little must we rely on the absence of all natural sources of information as a proof of inspirational infallibility.

G

CHAPTER V.

ARGUMENT FOR INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY FROM THE EXCELLENCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF HOLY WRIT.

WE pass on to consider a fifth argument which is employed to prove the inspiration and so the infallibility of the Bible. The Scriptures, it is truly urged, have shown themselves of great excellence and power. They have made modern civilisation what Athens and the ancient world could never make it. On the revival of literature they purified society wherever the progress of the Reformation caused men to possess and read an open Bible; while the re-discovered lore of Greece and Rome did not succeed in giving holiness, or even peace and virtue, to Florence, Rome, and Spain, because in those countries priestcraft succeeded in withholding the Bible from the people. The Scriptures, lovingly preached, have converted New Zealand from a haunt of cannibalism into a land of bounteous and intelligent industry. In these, and many other instances which cannot be gainsaid, the power and excellence of the Bible are abundantly shown; and then it is argued that the book, which has done and is doing so much good, must be from God, and therefore infallible.

Now, that the Bible is (like every other good and perfect gift) from the Father of lights, we readily and most thankfully acknowledge-yea, we hope presently to show reasons for believing that the Bible is pre-eminently God's gift; but we cannot see how this and its power and excellence show it to be infallible.

A well-written treatise on vaccination would be a blessed boon from heaven to a people afflicted with the smallpox; but, surely, neither its being God's gift, nor its excellence and power, would prove such a book to be infallible, or free from all error. Or, again, the force and excellence of an hydraulic engine are undeniable; and no pious mind will refuse to acknowledge that it was by God's gift to man that such an agency was invented; but who would dream of saying that the inventor of that agency, or any treatise in which he set

forth-God helping him-his powerful and beneficent secret, was infallible? So, in the case of the Bible, thankfully do we acknowledge its divine origin, its excellence, and its power; but we are not prepared to say that its infallibility is thereby proved. Infallible it may be; but, surely, excellence and power, which show that their possessor is from God, do not show that their possessor is infallible. Indeed, this argument for inspirational infallibility is so transparently worthless, that an intelligent man would only resort to it in defence of a hopeless cause.

But it may be said that the excellence of the Bible is moral and religious, and that this kind of excellence, being loftier and more akin to the goodness which our minds compel us to attribute to the Deity, proves that its originator, and, in a sense, the book which inculcates it, are divinely and emphatically inspired. To this argument, fairly applied to all teachers and books which inculcate a surpassingly pure morality and purifying religion, we are so far from objecting that we recognise and glory in its cogency. But, if it be urged that the morality and religion of the Bible contrast so wonderfully with the degraded condition of morality and religion in all men except the writers of Scripture; and, if on this ground it be argued that the sacred penmen could only have known and written such morality and such religion by the aid of an inspiration which made them or their books infallible, then we wholly deny the force of such an argument for inspirational infallibility; and, in support of our denial, we point to the case of Socrates. Look at the morality and religion of that heathen man. See the confidence the dying Socrates had in God, in the Divine goodness, and in the purity and bliss of the future world, where, in the presence of the same gods whom he had adored on earth, he hoped to meet and again enjoy the society of all the departed souls of the good. We are far from saying that this morality and this religion are equal in degree to that of the Gospel. But, we say, look at the purity of this teaching, and contrast it with the hideously base immorality, and with the degrading superstitions of the society in which Plato wrote and Socrates lived, and then tell us, if comparative moral excellence prove the Bible inspired so as to be infallible, why the same consideration should not prove the writings of Plato or of Socrates also infallibly inspired. Until we are better informed on this subject, we shall

persist in holding it most true that excellence in any particular-physical, moral, or religious-is an effect of God's mercy and goodness, and a proof of his beneficent presence and cooperation; but, at the same time, we shall continue to believe that excellence and power are wholly different from, and of themselves by no means imply, the presence of infallibility.