and betrays a later and a different hand; and consequently the whole can never be ascribed to Moses as the author; we confess ourselves not to be much moved by allegations of this nature. De Wette, Vater, Gesenius, and other critics aver indeed, that the style of Deuteronomy is widely different from that of the other Mosaic books; but Eichhorn, Eckermann, Herder, and many others of those who are called the most liberal critics, aver that the same style is everywhere to be met with in the last book of Moses, as in the others. De gustibus non disputandum. We may add, A gustibus non argumentandum. The subjective feelings of men, in regard to matters of this kind, are exceedingly liable to be guided by their previous intellectual views. Such is actually the fact, in regard to a multitude of cases, which every one at all conversant with the history of literature and criticism knows. Most abundantly satisfied we are, that the mere judgment of a modern occidental man, depending on his taste and fine perception of oriental and Hebrew niceties of style, is not to come in competition with facts, such as have already been adduced.

One amusing instance of criticism of this sort we will stop to relate; as it may serve to aid what we are endeavoring to enforce in respect to our subject. Every tyro in criticism knows something of the celebrated Wolf, at Berlin; and that he published very long and learned Prolegomena upon Homer, in which he labored to show, that the Iliad and Odyssey are, to an extent even unknown, spurious productions. The whole classical world has been obscured, by the smoke and dust which he has raised. The same Wolf, in his edition of some of Cicero's orations, says, (p. 4 and 7 of the Introduction to the Oration for Marcellus,) Quatuor orationibus Ciceronianum nomen detraxi. . . . Adeo mihi in oratione pro Marcello certa et perspicua videbantur inesse indicia vías, et mirificus error, per tot sæcula propagatus, plane et evidenter convinci posse.' Just So De Wette and Vater speak respecting the Pentateuch. But Weiske, in his Commentarius perpetuus et plenus in Orationem pro Marcello, p. 5, seq. has taken the very same grounds, which Wolf has rested upon in order to impeach the genuineness of this oration, and applied them to prove that Wolf did not write the criticism which he has published; and with complete effect.

How much now can be made of such confident judgments, formed merely by subjective taste? Above all, can they be

ir grey are excluded. If all these In and the I would have made the catalogue Citate as he has now made a bras already done to put the ISHUC of the language of A in books. The labor of rs wach patient and long

VORDAN DANS, overthrow theories, & priori, or superficial in

Canself has not, in the the argument against from its language; but Hebrew Language, he

C& his main support; al* out the earlier and later sufficiently contradicts it. 1. ueller, who, in the early

I

Pentateuch, appeared as a has, in the Programma our judgment overed, he had broached. This mising, in respect to this ach led him to do this, one may satisfy himself, : wors of Jahm with what

fabjections against the

cs: run the general style and

relied on, when they overturn the established and uniform opinion of all preceding ages?

In our apprehension, there is a difference between the style of Deuteronomy and of the preceding books, like to that existing between the style of John's epistles and of his gospel. Old age is diffuse and affectionate. Both these traits are strongly marked in Deuteronomy, and in John's epistles. The case is different with the preceding books of the Pentateuch, and with the gospel of John. More than this cannot well be proved. Jahn has shown, that with the exception of a small portion at the end of the book, Deuteronomy has all the archaisms and peculiarities of the Mosaic writings.

3. The third class of objections it would take a moderate volume to discuss seriatim. We shall therefore choose only two or three topics, which exhibit a principle of reasoning that may be applied to all the particular cases.

The principal objections adduced by Gesenius, in the work which we are reviewing, against the antiquity of the Pentateuch, are founded on the principle, that many passages in it, particularly in the book of Deuteronomy, betray an exact knowledge of facts that happened in later ages. The argument is this; Moses could not have a definite knowledge of such facts, and consequently Moses did not write the passages in question, but some person who lived after the events described had taken place, or when they were apparently about to take place. He appeals for proof of this to Genesis xlix, as containing a graphic account of the fate and fortune of the twelve tribes; to Genesis xlviii. 8, seq. which exhibits similar matter, as also does Deuteronomy xxxiii. 1. He appeals to the threatenings in Leviticus xxvi, which, he says, are obviously such as the prophets were accustomed to utter in later ages, just before the events threatened took place. The same objection he makes to Deuteronomy xxxiii. The dispersion of the Jews, threatened in Deuteronomy iv. 27, 28, and xxviii. 25, 36, seq. he thinks must have been written after the event had commenced; and the law respecting false prophets, in Deuteronomy xiii. 1, and xviii. 20, must have been occasioned by the existence of them, which was long after the time of Moses.

All this, it is easy to perceive, turns on one single point, namely, whether Moses could and did possess a prophetic spirit, or the power of predicting events that were future. We believe that it is possible for the God who made men, to endow them

with such a spirit. On the testimony of Jesus and his apostles (not to mention other reasons which we have), we believe in the fact that Moses did possess this spirit. Now as it is plainly impossible to prove that he did not possess it, much more so that he could not possess it, any argument, built on the assumption that a knowledge of future events supernaturally communicated is an impossibility, can never be a valid argument against the early existence of a book which implies such a knowledge in the author. The question, whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch or not, is simply a historical one; and it cannot therefore depend on a philosophical maxim, which is founded on mere à priori principles of reasoning. The same argument which Gesenius here uses to disprove the antiquity of the Pentateuch, would disprove the existence of real prediction in any part of the Scriptures. We hesitate not to avow, that we can never be convinced by an argument which extends so far as this.

In the same strain of argument, our author alleges that Exodus xv. 13, 17, alludes to Jerusalem as a stated place of worship, and therefore the song in this chapter must have been composed after the events to which it alludes had taken place. This, if the nature of the argument were valid, depends on an interpretation of the passage which we regard as quite unnecessary, and in fact indefensible.

Such is the substance of the objections alleged by Gesenius against the antiquity of the Hebrew Pentateuch, and which go to prove, as he declares, that it must have been composed later at least than the time of Solomon.

Others have drawn out at great length all the particular passages, which necessarily imply, as they allege, a late composition of the books in question. For example; there are several passages where the ancient name of a town is mentioned, and then a later name is added. As an instance; in Genesis xiv. 7, the name Bela occurs, after which it is added, 'the same is Zoar.' So Genesis xiv. 7, 17. xxiii. 19. xxxv. 19. xlviii. 7. Deuteronomy iv. 48. There are some passages, too, where a more modern name occurs simply; as Hebron, in Genesis xiii. 18, compare Joshua xiv. 15. xv. 13. So Dan, in Genesis xiv. 14. Deuteronomy xxxiv. 1, compare Joshua xix. 47. Judges xviii. 29.

We very readily concede the point, that a few glosses of this nature, explanatory of more ancient geography, were added to the Pentateuch by later writers, in order to make it more intelligible to the men of their times. But the fact, that these glosses