entirely * The Connection of Natural and Divine Truth. overthrows the supposed historical character of Parker. 1838. See pp. 256–269.

in

deed, to imply that the Divine Being may the first readers and writers of the Old have said what is untrue, or done what Testament. Abraham and Jephthah are was unjust, or at variance with benevo- instanced; and the various cases lence, provided that the people with whom which persons were put to death by dihe was dealing were too debased morally vine command, (as the idolatrous Israelto perceive any inconsistency with the di- ites, the sons of Saul, the priests of Baal, vine holiness in those declarations or deal- etc.,) are regarded as "of a sacrificial naings. We should be very sorry to mis- ture." Next, the remonstrances of the represent Mr. Powell, above all on so mo- prophet Ezekiel against idolatry are conmentous a point; but we can make nothing sidered as implying that, even in his time, else of his remarks on "adaptation." He Israel "knew nothing of a better worship;" has elsewhere spoken of systems being and the earlier history is referred to as built upon "literalism," which assail the supporting a similar view, "notwithstandvery foundations of morality. We can ing the obscurity and confusion in which think of no system more deserving this so many parts of it are involved." "The description than one which would repre- remarkable declaration of the prophet sent divine truth and morality as chang- Jeremiah, (7: 22,) that God did not oring from age to age, and regulated by the dain the sacrifices at the time of the delimoral standard of those to whom God's very of Israel out of Egypt," is appealed word was spoken. If this be "rational to as a proof that "the law was really a interpretation," give us rather honest infi- compilation of later date"-a pious forgedelity. Rather tell us that the Penta- ry, in fact, of Ezra and his fellow-reformteuch is a forgery, and that Moses never ers. The learned Oxford Professor does existed, than that God is not true! When not avowedly adopt these sweeping views. we find a Christian minister advancing We should almost think better of him if such sentiments as these, and that from he did. He merely suggests them to his the pulpit, we confess we feel difficulty in readers in a manner which leads one to restraining our indignation; and we are conclude that they contain nothing which not sure that there is any virtue in re- greatly shocks either his understanding or straining it. his feelings. But, in propriâ personâ, he adds the following remarks, which we extract, offensive as they are, because they will show how far the Rev. Baden Powell is a competent judge of the spirit of the ancient dispensation, and on what ground he is willing to rest its claims to divine authority:

The reverend satirist of the simple faith of Puritanism does not indeed, expressly assert that the Pentateuch, as a whole, is "not historical." He repeats, more than once, that he is careful to base his argument on the generally admitted view that the Old Testament Scriptures contain an authentic record of the dispensation to which they belong. But he does this in a tone which seems to render his own sentiments on that point doubtful. More than this, he at least suggests this loophole of escape for those to whom his "principle of adaptation" may appear immoral. He quotes without censure, and even with a half-approval, the views of writers who deny in toto the authenticity of the Mosaic records, and would reduce Judaism to the rank which Goethe assigned it as one among the multitude of Gentile religions. The passage to which we especially refer is the note to § 2 of Essay III., (pp. 114-116:) "Some views have been broached by critical writers," we are told, "which throw light on the subject of the legal sacrifices and the whole nature of the law." What are the views thus referred to? First, that human sacrifice was an idea familiar to

6

"Without reference to any such theories of the origin or composition of the early Jewish history, it is at all events sufficiently evident, raelites were, even to a late period, in a state on the very face of the narartives, that the Islittle removed from absolute barbarism, and were as a nation, in the lowest and most puerile state of intellectual and moral enlightenmenta hard-hearted and stiff-necked generation.' Individual exceptions there doubtless were, but the whole series of deeds of violence and bloody their national existence, as well as the equally atrocities which distinguish the narrative of sanguinary character of their laws and religious rites, and the fearful enormities and cruelties, all described as sanctioned by divine authority, sufficiently prove one thing-how utterly inapplicable is the whole system, or any part of it, to a more advanced state of things or to the general acceptance of the world, even were it liar to the Jews, and even with them, having not expressly declared to be exclusively pecuserved its purpose, to have come to its end.

"It is beyond the scope of the present re

marks to go into the discussion of another point | perfluous labor, based on a dishonest supwhich many raise out of the facts just referred position, and aiming at a false issue. If to, namely, the difficulty of believing that such Judaism was founded in imposture, then, a system is of divine appointment. It will suf- whatever fragments of religious truth and fice here merely to observe that the whole state moral wisdom have been incorporated of things (the barbarism and savage ignorance) to which it applied, it will hardly be denied, if with it, Christianity can have nothing to a Providence be admitted at all, were matters of do with it, if Christianity be true, but to divine appointment or permission; and such a explode and condemn it. But Christianity people were incapable of any better or more did nothing of the kind. It superseded spiritual system. The objections to the system Judaism not as a rightful monarch deenjoined, apply equally to the condition of the thrones a false usurper, but as the heir, on people, and the whole course of the divine government."-Pp. 115, 116. coming of age, supersedes the counsel of regency, whose temporary authority rested on the same basis with his own, and whose acts he ratifies, while he brings their reign to an end. Our Lord himself, and after him his apostles, perpetually acknowledged in the strongest terms both the historic truth and the divine authority of the law of Moses. We can not here adduce and examine this testimony; but it is patent to every intelligent reader of the New Testament. To reduce it to a mere argumentum ad hominem, or e concessis-a mere adaptation of the spiritual truth of Christianity to the obstinate prepossessions and low mental capacity of the first converts, being Jews-is to introduce an element not only of uncertainty but of dishonesty into the New Testament, fatal to its worth. In a word, Christianity stands so committed to the fact of the writings of Moses being in the most literal sense the word of God, that if Judaism can be shown to be the pious forgery of Ezra and his fellow-reformers, it brings down Christianity with it in its fall.

This is as much as to say, that a divine origin and authority can be ascribed to Judaism only in the same sense as we may ascribe them to Polytheism, or Fetishism, or to Popery, Mohammedism, or revolutionary Atheism. "If a Providence be admitted at all," these things must be allowed to have been "matters of divine appointment or permission." The question thus raised and coolly dismissed as "beyond the scope of the present remarks is in fact fundamental to the entire subject of this volume. As an honest man, Professor Powell was bound to discuss it, and not thus leave it enveloped in contemptuous or timid ambiguity. Either the entire law of Moses, with all its visible institutions, religious, civil, and military, was ordained by direct authority of the Most High, uttered in audible human speechor else the whole system and history constitute the most gigantic, impious, and successful imposture ever palmed upon the world. There is no middle ground between these alternatives. The claim to divine authority in the highest sense is every where made in the plainest and strongest terms which human language furnishes. The sanction of every law is: "I am Jehovah thy God." The utmost pains were taken to impress the people with the fact that they were under the immediate and absolute government of God, the Creator of the whole universe, and that Moses was merely his servant. If this central fact of the history, which is the basis of the entire Jewish polity, be a fiction, then the whole of the Old Testament is based upon a lie. The "critical writers," whose views, according to Mr. Powell, have thrown so much light on the Jewish law, do not shrink from this conclusion. The summary which he has given of their opinions plainly implies nothing less. Does Mr. Powell accept this conclusion? If so, his whole volume is a su

Professor Powell may protest against these conclusions, but can he prove them illogical? The only way in which he can legitimately disclaim them is by avowing his total disagreement with the "views" of the "critical writers" aforesaid, and his sincere conviction that the Mosaic books contain the true history of the foundation of the Jewish polity and worship; and that every law that Moses delivered was (as he declares) audibly dictated to him by the same divine voice which, in the hearing of the whole nation, uttered the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai. But if Professor Powell admits this, how is he not afraid to use the language we have quoted, which can scarcely be defended from the charge of blasphemy? WHO is it whom he dares to charge with a series of deeds of violence and bloody atrocities ;" and with

66

"the fearful enormities and cruelties all
described as sanctioned by divine authori-
ty"?
Were they so sanctioned, or were
they not? If they were not, the Mosaic
history is an impious untruth. If they
were, Professor Powell's language implies
what we can not contemplate without
shuddering.

This is by no means a singular instance in which the views of those who affect a higher morality than that of Scripture, are found if carried out to strike at the very basis of morals. We entreat the author, for his own credit, as an honest man on the one hand, or as a Christian minister on the other, seriously to reconsider what must surely have been very thoughtlessly written.

facts, which together constitute the Gospel. Secondly, what is the testimony of the New Testament to the divine authority, and to the design of the Jewish dispensation, and to the points of difference or of identity between the two. Accordingly, Professor Powell's argument, in this Essay, is generally directed, first to the depreciation of the ancient dispensation, and secondly, to the weakening of the testimony borne to it by our Lord and his apostles. In both which he has displayed very considerable acuteness and skill as an advocate, however scanty his claims may be to the accuracy and impartiality of a judge. We can only glance at a sentence or sentiment here and there. The first section treats of the "primeval dispensations" preceding the Mosaic law. In these, it is observed, the mode of divine revelation is that of the Creator entering into covenant with his creatures;

ther on) "specially adapted to a nation of the lowest moral capacity." So that Noah, the preacher of God's righteousness to a corrupt world, and Abraham, the friend of God, the favorite New Testament example of exalted faith and piety, are set down by their reverend critic on the same lowest form of "moral capacity" on which he afterwards places their descendants. Nevertheless, this idea of "a covenant" has found acceptance with minds of the loftiest "intellectual and moral capacity" that the Church can boast, who have seen in it nothing but what is most worthy of God. It pervades the New Testament, only losing what is national and earthly, as the Church assumes its perfect and mature form; and if Professor Powell and similar expounders of

The prime importance of honest and clear statements on these fundamental points must justify our having devoted so much space to a portion only-not much more than one third of the entire volume" an idea" (we are told a few pages fur-` under review. These points constitute the very ground of the entire discussion respecting the relation of Judaism to Christianity. To ignore this previous question, or treat it slightly, is to involve the whole subject in uncertainty. The argument is carried on in the dark, and can lead to only negative results of doubt, confusion, and denial. For this reason, even if our space allowed, we must decline following the author through his third Essay, on "The Law and the Gospel." More space than we have already occupied would be required to point out what we consider its fallacies, confusions, and inconsequences. And to what purpose? Where the very spirit in which the subject is approached the very atmosphere in which it is exhibited, forms a distorting medium, it is of little use to dwell upon erroneous representations of detail, irrelevant assertions, or misinterpretations of texts of Scripture. The writer does not appear to us to have any profound, complete, or correct idea of the two primary elements in the discussion-"The Law," and "The Gospel." It is therefore useless to inquire how far he has furnished a just account of their relation to each other.

The relation of Judaism to Christianity must be determined by two considerations. First, how far the ancient system, either in explicit statement, or in typical repre. sentation, actually embodied the spiritual truths, and foreshadowed the historical

a more advanced system" should succeed in expelling the idea from the theology of the Church of "the present enlightened age," it is probable that it will retain its place in the theology of the Church above: for the most blessed voice of hope which the ear of faith catches from the remote depths of the eternal future, is the very echo of the divine promise to the trembling fugitives in the wilds of Horeb "They shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God."

Of another leading element in these patriarchal revelations, Mr. Powell says: "In all these systems, the prominent feature was the practice of sacrifice, implying the idea of the propitiation of a wrathful