unite in adopting the Apostolic Protestant Confession, and an of union, and join in calling a minister of any one of the nfederated churches.

V. Let each of the confederated denominations and missiony societies both voluntary and denominational resolve not to nd a minister into any village or neighborhood already adeuately supplied by a minister from another branch of the union, ut advise their members to unite with their confederated brethen in supporting the minister already stationed among them, or some other one of good standing in either of the confederated lenominations, in whose support they can agree.

VI. Whenever the confederated population of a district is nable to support a minister, let application be made to the roper officers of the missionary society of their choice, for such id as they may need.

VII. Let the education and missionary societies of the conederated churches confer with each other, adopt rules of coperation, and resolve with renewed ardor by the help of God o supply every destitute place in our land with faithful minisers, and labor with re-doubled zeal in the definite enterprise of ending the Gospel to every rational creature throughout "the ield of the world."

This plan would tend to produce unity of spirit first, whilst it will prepare the way for greater unity in external forms; if the Lord designs to effect it. If its prominent features were faithfully carried out, the Protestant church would present as much external unity of organization, as that of the apostolic age, and therefore in all probability as much as is desirable; whilst, happy consummation! the members of the Saviour's body would again have the same care one for another; and whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it, or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it! and the intellect of the christian church would no longer be expended in internal contentions, but all her energies be directed to the conversion of the world.

In conclusion, we would commend this humble, well-meant effort to the blessing of that divine Saviour, who has watched over his church amidst all the vicissitudes of her history. If this plan is accordant with his will, may he graciously accept and prosper it; and if not, may he defeat it, and at the day of final account, regard with favor the upright intention from which it has ema

nated!

ARTICLE IV.

CAUSES OF THE DENIAL OF THE MOSAIC ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH.

Translated from the German of Prof. Hengstenberg of Berlin, by Rev. E. Ballantine, Assis tant Instructor in the Union Theol. Sem., l'rince Edward, Virginia.

Introductory Notice, by the Translator.

[THE following article is a translation of the greater portion of the Prolegomena to the last work published by Hengstenberg, entitled Authentie des Pentateuchs, Bd. I. (Authenticity of the Pentateuch, Vol. I.) This work is another step in prosecution of the author's design of giving to the world a complete work on Introduction to the Old Testament. The general title of that work is Beyträge zur Einleitung ins Alte Testament (Contributions to Introduction to the Old Testament), of which this is the first part of the second volume. The first volume was upon the Authenticity of Daniel and the Integrity of Zechariah. The author takes up his topics not in regular order, but as he judges them to be called for by the state of things. He thus gives the course and order which he has chosen for the discussion of his subjects (Vorwort zur Authentie des Daniel und der Integrität des Sacharjah): "the antiquity of Job, the age and credibility of the books of Chronicles and Esther, the sources of the historical books, the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Solomon, etc., and afterwards, if the Lord give life and health, all other topics of Introduction; so that these Bey träge when completed, may, with the help of copious synopses and indexes, serve as a Manual of Introduction." May the Lord speed his work. Those who are acquainted with the fundamental investigations of Hengstenberg are prepared to expect in the work before us one worthy of the subject. The call for such a work may be inferred from the author's statement of the different opinions on the authorship of the Pentateuch, infra pp. 31-38. Its design is, to vindicate the Mosaic origin, and so the historic truth, of the Pentateuch. This volume refutes the objection made to its Mosaic origin from the supposed later discovery and use of the art of writing; proves the existence of the Pentateuch in the kingdom of Israel by the Samaritan Pentateuch, and quotations of and allusions to the

Pentateuch in the books of Kings, Hosea, and Amos; and by a fundamental investigation into the signification and mutual relation of the different names of God, and the use of them in the Pentateuch, shows that that book is the connected work of one author. The chapters on the Samaritan Pentateuch, on the Names of God, and on the history of the Art of Writing, would if translated, be interesting and useful Articles for the Reposi

tory.

The course of the whole discussion on the authenticity of the Pentateuch is thus indicated by the author (S. LXXXII): "After the settlement of the preliminary question on the relation of the genuineness of the book to the history of writing, it must be proved from the unity of object and plan, of circumstances and of language, that the Pentateuch is a closely connected whole, which could have been produced only by one author. (Here belongs our investigation on the Divine names.) Then it is to be shown that in the work itself, Moses is designated as the author. Then we must inquire how the whole after development of the people, and their literature, stands related to the Pentateuch. For if the Pentateuch is from Moses, it must have formed the basis not only of the civil but also of the religious life of the people. (Here belongs the chapter on the relation of the Pentateuch to the kingdom of Israel.) Then it is to be shown that the internal character of the Pentateuch is not opposed to the genuineness, but rather necessarily supposes it. Here are to be examined the philological, the historical, and finally the theological character of the Pentateuch. As Appendix, it is to be shown that the testimony of Christ and his apostles, as well as the relation of the Pentateuch to Divine revelation as a whole, is all in favor of its genuineness. This appendix is of course designed only for those who on the subjects of revelation and inspiration agree with the author."

The Prolegomena to this work, the greater part of which is contained in the following Article, are designed to show the causes why the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch has been denied. The author shows convincingly that these causes have been any thing else than want of proof for the genuineness. In pointing out these causes, he has given us a striking and interesting history and character of Rationalism or rather of infidelity in Germany. He has pointed out the position occupied by many of the leading men of Germany of the last and the present century, and has shown the weakness and the dangerVOL. XI. No. 30. 53

ous tendencies of the reigning speculative philosophy of Germany. The interesting fact that all the historians of note maintain the historical character and credibility (at least in the main) of the Pentateuch-and the remarks upon internal and external evidence, are themselves of sufficient importance to claim the attention of our religious public, and afford to all interested in the state of religion in Germany, ground of cheering hope. And when God raises up such able and fearless defenders of the Bible as Hengstenberg, it may be inferred that he is designing good for his Israel there. The pledge which the author gives (p. 31, note), while it strikingly shows on what strong ground he feels himself to be, is well calculated to diminish our respect for the reigning opinions and learning of Germany. Can we in happy America behold this champion thus earnestly contending for the Bible, and not be interested—not pray for him.-TRANS

LATOR.

CAUSES OF THE DENIAL OF THE MOSAIC ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH.

Shallow and Skeptical Interpretation.

It is by no means our object to give a complete external history of investigations on the genuineness of the Pentateuch. A commencement has been made to such a work by Harttmann; and it would be of little use to correct and enlarge his collections of names, titles and short summaries of works. It is bet ter to pass over every work which has not had a strong influ ence on the course of the contest, and which was only a repe tition and a re-arrangement of what had been advanced by others, not the result of original and profound investigation. Otherwise we might be in danger of not seeing the forest on account of the multitude of trees.

We attend then only to the substance of the history. Our object is chiefly to show why it is that the genuineness of the Pentateuch, which had before been considered as scientifically established, has for the last sixty years had to suffer so many attacks, and has been contested and denied with so much boldness and so great success.

We designedly give to our inquiry these narrow limits. Scattering attacks upon the genuineness of the Pentateuch, it is well known, were made as early as the seventeenth century.

The

history of these attacks, in which Spinoza acts the principal part, may be seen in Carpzov, Introd. I. p. 38 seq., and in Witsius, An Moses auctor Pentat., in his Miscell. I. p. 102 seq. But if we succeed in accounting for the opposition to the Pentateuch as now fully developed and in well understanding its own character and bearings, it will be easy to show the causes of those first feeble attempts.

We will consider in the first place the character of commentation on the Pentateuch in the times preceding the crisis.A book such as the Pentateuch is, will be regarded as genuine and authentic no longer than it is expounded as an inspired one. If it is read as a profane work, if its depths are not fathomed, if its meaning is diluted and weakened, then the belief in its genuineness has also received a blow; and if that genuineness is not immediately denied, this is simply an inconsistency, which, since every tendency of things must in the long run arrive at its result, will in time give way. If the Pentateuch does not stand above all human productions in regard to its doctrines and its spirit, if these are not regarded as the greatest miracle it exhibits, if recourse is had to bold and forced apologies for gross violations of probability; then the miracles and prophecies which the Pentateuch records will no longer save its credit, but will serve to hasten its downfall. Defenders of the Bible upon merely external evidence have no right to demand that we examine the truth of miracles and prophecies just as we do that of any other fact. The pagan miracles would not be worthy of credit even if reported by those in whom otherwise we have every reason to place confidence. If we place the credibility of the Mosaic and of the heathen miracles upon the same ground (of external evidence) by leaving out of view the moral excellencies of that with which the former were connected, and thus overlook the finger of God in them, we can then no more complain of those who make these very miracles a reason for denying the genuineness of the Pentateuch.* This indeed would

* Even Hengstenberg then maintains the idea that the supernatural facts of the Bible history are not, considered aside from their connection with Bible doctrines, capable of being substantiated by historic evidence. Hume went only one step further, and denied their credibility even when thus connected. It is difficult not to feel that such an idea when held by one who believes as Hengstenberg does, that these supernatural events did actually happen, is perfectly absurd. The external evidence for the miracles of Moses and of Jesus is suf