mistake, but he proceeds actually to use it as the basis of an argument, as follows, (Aids to Faith, p.193):—

'In order to make out the theory, that there are two authors, one of whom is known by the exclusive use of Elohim, and the other by the exclusive use of Jehovah, it is necessary to point out paragraphs in which those Divine Names are exclusively used, and also to prove that the Elohist does not refer to the Jehovistic document; for, if the Elohist plainly refers to what the Jehovist has related, the latter cannot be posterior to the former, and the theory fails.

'Unhappily for the theory, the word Jehovah does occur in the Elohistic passages, and the Elohist does refer to the Jehovistic narrative. Thus in G.ii.4 the names occur together, - These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day when Jehovah Elohim made the earth and the heavens.' Now if this verse belongs to what precedes, [which it does not,] then the following narrative, which has also the unusual union of the two names, was written by the Elohist, and the first three chapters are by one author. If it be written by the Jehovist, how comes it to have Elohim as well, and why does it differ both from Elohist and Jehovist documents by the union of the two names? Here is a difficulty, which has divided all Germany, and arrayed Rationalist against Rationalist, and Orthodox against Orthodox, and for which there seems no hope of solution, unless violence be offered to the text, and men be persuaded against the evidence of manuscripts and ancient versions, that the words, These are the generations of the heavens and the earth,' stood originally before i.1, and that the word Elohim in G.ii.4 is an interpolation of the Jehovist.'

Ans. It need hardly be said that Dr. M'CAUL has conjured up a difficulty, which has no real existence, though, from the way in which it is here stated, an unlearned reader would probably imagine that it was a formidable objection to the results of modern criticism.

483. But Dr. M'CAUL continues (p.190):

'This exclusive use of the one Divine Name in some portions, and of the other in other portions, it is said, characterises two different authors, living at different times; and, consequently, Genesis is composed of two different documents, the one Elohistic, the other Jehovistic, which, moreover, differ in statement; and [it follows] consequently, that this book was not written by Moses, and is neither inspired nor trustworthy.

Now, not to notice the defectiveness of this statement as to the names of God, who in Genesis is also called El, El Elyon, God Most High, El Shaddai, God Almighty, Adonai, Lord, nor the fact that in other books, as Jonah and the Psalms [some of the Psalms], the same exclusiveness is found, let us look at this statement as a supposed result of criticism.'

Ans. The defectiveness of statement' is only of Dr. M'CAUL'S own imagining. No critic would deny the occurrence of these other names, one of which, indeed, as we have said, El Shaddai, is peculiar to the Elohist. We have seen also that the

examination of the book of Psalms leads to very important results with reference to the present question.

'It is generally urged, as if on this point critics were all of one mind, agreed in the portions which are Elohistic or Jehovistic,-unanimous as to the characteristic differences of style in the separate portions, in fact, as if the theory came with the authority of universal consent. Were this the case, it would necessarily carry with it great weight. For, though the conclusions of criticism differ from the demonstrations of pure science and the inferences of induction, yet, when unanimously adopted by those competent to judge, they deservedly influence the minds of all reasonable persons.

'But this is not the case in the present theory. above, does not represent the true state of the case.

The popular statement, given
The fact is that there is here

the greatest variety of opinion, and the modifications of the above apparently simple theory are so widely divergent, as either to shake the value of the criticism, or throw a dark shade of doubt on the competence of the critics.'

Ans. I have never met with the above 'popular statement.' But it is not one, which would be made by any person well-informed upon the subject in question. No such person would assert that critics were all of one mind, agreed in the portions which are Elohistic or Jehovistic;' though he would say very confidently that they are all, - that is, such critics as are here referred to, of one mind as to the existence of Elohistic and Jehovistic portions in Genesis, and are agreed in respect of most of them. Even KURTZ, as we have seen (218), is obliged to admit this conclusion, which being so 'unanimously adopted by those competent to judge,' should, therefore, ‘deservedly influence the minds of all reasonable persons.'

-

(i) There is a difference as to the extent to which the theory is to be applied. Some confine it to the book of Genesis; others include Exodus to chap.vi; others assert that the Jehovistic and Elohistic differences can be recognised through the whole Pentateuch to the book of Joshua. Some regard Genesis as a loose and unsystematic stringing together of disjointed fragments.

(ii) But, passing these by, let us look at the state of the Elohistic and Jehovistic theory, as stated by BLEEK, in his Introduction.'

Dr. M'CAUL then gives an abstract from BLEEK of the history of modern critical researches, from ASTRUC's first suggestion in 1753 to the present time; as if differences of opinion of different critics with respect to the details,—viz. the ages of the different writers, and the extent to which their hands can be distinctly traced,―at all affected the main question, in which all are agreed, viz. that Elohistic and Jehovistic passages certainly exist in the book of Genesis, and as certainly are due to different authors of different ages.

"This enumeration is far from exhausting the varieties, but is sufficient to show the want of unity. The reader will perceive that some assert one Elohistic document,―others, two,—others, three. In like manner some make one Jehovist, some

more.

Some make the Jehovist identical with the compiler; others make him a different person. Some make two, others three, others four, EwALD seven, documents by different authors the materials of Genesis. Now every one can understand that there is a great difference whether the Elohistic and Jehovistic portions be assigned to one, or be divided amongst two, three, or more persons. He, who says that there is only one Elobist, must believe that in the whole Elohistic portion there is unity of style, tone, spirit, language. If there be two Elohists, then the former is mistaken as to the unity, and there must be two diversities of style; but, if there be three Elohists, then both first and second critics are mistaken, and there must be three different styles. The portions assigned to each must also be smaller. And thus the most celebrated critics convict each other of false criticism. HUPFELD condemns KNOBEL; EWALD condemns HUPFELD and KNOBEL; KNOBEL condemns EWALD and HUPFELD. If KNOBEL'S criticism is correct, HUPFELD is worthless. If EWALD be right, the others must be deficient in critical acumen. They may all be wrong, but only one of the three can be right.' Ans. Dr. M'CAUL has omitted to draw attention to the fact that HUPFELD, EWALD, and KNOBEL, are all agreed as to the main points, and differ only in respect to details. The fact that they do so differ, and differ decidedly, is a strong proof of their independence of each other, and of the truth of that judgment in which they are all agreed. Of course, in respect to details, one critic may be expected to be more rash and hasty, or more deficient in critical acumen, than another. Dr. M'CAUL'S argument might be just as easily turned against the defenders of the ordinary view: thus, it may be said, KURTZ condemns HENGSTENBERG, and HENGSTENBERG condemns KURTZ.

'But take into account the other differences enumerated above, one [supposing that the documents are pre-Mosaic, another that they were written in the times of Joshua or the Judges, another in the time of David, another some centuries later; and how uncertain must the principles of their criticism appear! how valueless their conclusions! With such facts, can any sane person talk of the results of modern criticism as regards the Book of Genesis, or be willing to give up the belief of centuries for such criticism as this?'

Ans. The reader will now be able to judge for himself by what kind of arguments the ordinary view is maintained in the present day by one of its most prominent English champions. All that can be said is, that the conclusions of criticism on some of the very difficult questions, which are raised by the closer examination of the Pentateuch, are not yet so thoroughly worked out as to command universal assent, and take their place among the positive results of science.

484. But still more amazing than the above extract is the following assertion, from one who has undertaken to give a crushing reply to Essays and Reviews,' (BURGON, Inspiration and Revelation, p.33): —

Long since has the theory that Genesis is composed of distinguishable fragments been exploded (!) The test of Elohim and Jehovah has been, by the Germans themselves, given up (!)

It cannot for a moment be believed that the writer has intentionally misrepresented the true state of the case, or that he would wish to mislead the young students of the University of Oxford, to whom he addresses himself, by representing that the entire theory of 'distinguishable fragments' is exploded, because critics are not unanimous in their judgments as to the composition of some particular passages. The only inference which can be drawn from such a statement as the above is, that he cannot have had any direct personal acquaintance with the subject, with reference to which he writes so positively, and passes such severe judgment upon others. He must have taken his opinions upon trust, and from writers of a bygone age, as is indicated by his supporting the above assertion by reference to the Rev. H. J. Rose's Hulsean Lectures for 1833, written thirty years ago! Yet this is the same writer, who has allowed himself to say of Prof. JOWETT (p.clxxxvii):

Common regard for the facts of the case ought to have preserved him from putting forth so monstrous a falsehood as the following: 'Among German commentators there is, for the first time in the history of the world, an approach to agreement and certainty.'

When the quotations, which we have made in this work from German critics of our own age and of very different schools, such as the admissions of KURTZ and BLEEK, are considered, it is evident that there is, at least, more truth in Prof. Jowett's statement of an approach to agreement and certainty' among them, than in BURGON's own assertion above considered.

368

CHAPTER XXII.

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

485. THE preceding investigations have led us to the conclusion that the Pentateuch most probably originated in a noble effort of one illustrious man, in an early age of the Hebrew history, to train his people in the fear and faith of the Living God. For this purpose he appears to have adopted the form of a history, based upon the floating legends and traditions of the time, filling up the narrative, we may believe,—perhaps, to a large extent, out of his own imagination, where those traditions failed him. In a yet later day, though still, probably, in the same age, and within the same circle of writers, the work thus begun, which was, perhaps, left in a very unfinished state, was taken up, as we suppose, and carried on in a similar spirit, by other prophetical or priestly writers. To SAMUEL, however, we ascribe the Elohistic story, which forms the groundwork of the whole, though comprising, as we shall show hereafter, but a small portion of the present Pentateuch and book of Joshuain fact, little besides about half of the book of Genesis and a small part of Exodus.

486. But, in order to realise to ourselves in some measure the nature of such a work, as that which we here ascribe to Samuel, we may imagine such a man as Asser, in the time of King Alfred, sitting down to write an accurate account of events, which had happened four centuries before, when different tribes of Saxons, under Hengist and Horsa, and other famous leaders,