that any material departure from it involved the perdition. of the soul. Yet we say not, that Calvin or Augustine meant wrong in this; nor that their error severed them from the body of Christ, though it was a gigantic and overwhelming error.

What harm would follow from the kind and liberal principle, did we say? Nay, what good would it not do! Then would Christian controversy have some chance of being calm and patient and enlightening. Then would a blessed candor and charity breathe through the Church. Then would the bitter pain of our divisions be done away. Then would the prayer of Christ be fulfilled, that his followers might "all be one."

And let us add, that it has been fulfilled to an extent that is a wonder and glory amidst the ages. We do not consider perhaps, how great was that petition. It was a sublime prayer, in a world which every mountain and river had separated into hostile tribes and nations, that one great brotherhood might arise which should bind nations and tribes and families into unity. None but the Son of God, none but he who felt in himself the power of an unbounded love, ever conceived such a design, ever uttered such a prayer. And the love that bore that prayer to Heaven, has penetrated the heart of the world. Do we not feel something of its gracious presence around us and among us? Does it not appear in speech and form and faith? One name, one covenant, one altar, one worship—are not these strong bonds? The name of Christian, Christian brother does it not thrill in hearts unnumbered throughout Christendom? The name of Christ does it not rise

in the prayers of innumerable households, far round the world? As amidst all our political divisions still we love our country, and nothing can break the magic spell of native sky and home; so amidst all our religious divisions, still our hearts turn with filial veneration to Bethlehem and Gethsemane, to the holy hill of Olives and the sacred mount of Calvary. And Jerusalem, waste and desolate though she be- who of us would not rather set foot within her mournful gates, than on any other spot of earth? Is there not a bond then; a bond of union to Christ? Let it be acknowledged, and not denied. Let it be cherished, and not rent asunder. Let us think more of our agree

1846.]

Stuart on the Old Testament.

69

ment than of our differences. Let us think of Christ more than of Paul or Apollos, more than of Calvin or Arminius or Socinus, more than of our creed or church or sect.

Union! Is not the Church sighing for it? Is not the world weary of its conflicts? Is not a cry coming, amidst all our sad divisions, from the East and the West, from the North and from the South, for Christian union? Are not many minds tending to this point? Is not that great, last prayer of Christ for his disciples more manifestly to be accomplished: "that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they all may be one in us?"

0. D.

ART. VI.—STUART ON THE OLD TESTAMENT.*

THIS work of Professor Stuart is chiefly directed against Mr. Norton's Note on the Old Testament, which is appended to the second volume of his very able and learned work on the Genuineness of the Gospels. For a book having this. object in view, it appears to us a very singular production. The greater part of it, that is, about three hundred out of the four hundred and fifty of its pages, is taken up, or at least professes to be taken up, in the proof of what Mr. Norton has never denied, and of which, as we suppose, he entertains no doubt; viz: that in the time of our Saviour, and for a considerable time previous, all the books now regarded by Protestants as forming the Old Testament were recognised by the Jews as sacred books. There may be a difference of opinion as to the exact time when the Jewish canon closed, whether it was about two hundred, or four hundred years before the Christian era. But there is no doubt, of which we are aware, among those whose opinion Mr. Stuart opposes, that the same books, which Protestants now regard as exclusively belonging to the Jewish canon, were so regarded by the Jews between one and two hundred years before the Christian era. How happens it then, that, of a work professing to answer Mr. Norton's

* Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon. By M. STUART, Professor of Sac. Literature in the Theol. Seminary, Andover, Mass. Andover. 1845. 12mo. pp. 452,

views, the writer has devoted the greater part to the proving of what Mr. Norton and the critics who agree with him have neither denied, nor doubted? How is it, that he has avoided nearly all the difficult questions belonging to the subject, by referring them to what he calls "the department of Theology, specially of apologetic and polemic theology?" Surely this is neither reasonable, nor kind to those whom Mr. Stuart supposes to be in error. To us it seems to betray a considerable lack of courage in a Professor of Sacred Literature, to choose the easy task of proving what is not only admitted, but proved by De Wette and others, who agree with Mr. Norton on the character and authorship of the Pentateuch, and to leave the task of refuting the arguments, on which his opponents chiefly rely, to the Professors of Dogmatics. With quite as much reason, we think, may the Professors of Dogmatics refer it back to a Professor of Biblical Literature. Of the one hundred and fifty pages of Mr. Norton's Note on the Old Testament, Mr. Stuart has attempted an answer on critical principles to not more than four or five, namely, those which relate to the use of alphabetic writing and the diction of the Pentateuch; the argument from which, as stated by Mr. Norton, is by no means material to the decision of the main question.

It is true that Mr. Stuart may say, that if his principal argument is valid, there is no need of attempting to remove difficulties relating to the Old Testament on principles of historical and critical investigation. This argument is, that Jesus Christ and his Apostles have recognised not only the authority, but the inspiration of every part of the Old Testament, and therefore we must receive it, or reject Christianity. The story of the exploits of Samson, and the fortunes of Jonah, with that of the express command of God to exterminate the Canaanites, rests on the same authority, as the sermon on the Mount. Was it wise, in one who wishes to convince those who differ from him, thus to take the subject out of the province of critical and historical investigation? Suppose that Mr. Stuart has succeeded in proving to the satisfaction of those, who doubt the divine inspiration and the prophetic authorship of some parts of the Old Testament, that in order to be consistent they must reject Christianity, as a divine revelation? What good has he effected? He has not removed a single

1846.]

Mr. Stuart's Argument.

71

difficulty from any mind. All the difficulties of the Old Testament, which have perplexed the minds of thinking Christians from the time of Origen to the present day, still remain in all their force. Those upon whose minds they have been forced by the progress of inquiry are turned over by Mr. Stuart to the Professors of Dogmatics, perhaps to be sent back by them to the Biblical critics. The evident tendency, then, of Mr. Stuart's argument is, to induce those who have doubts relating to the inspiration and authorship of some parts of the Old Testament to reject the authority of Jesus Christ. The language of many such persons would naturally be of the following import:-'We have had faith, resting on historical and moral evidence, in the divine authority of Jesus Christ. But we have faith also in other things. We believe in certain truths relating to astronomical and geological science, which appear to us to rest on as good evidence as that for the divine authority of Jesus Christ. We believe also in certain truths relating to the moral character of the Deity, and his dealings with the children of men. Now, having found in the Old Testament some statements which appear to us to conflict with the truths of natural and moral science, and even with the teachings and precepts of Christ, we have publicly stated our difficulties, and suggested a mode in which they may be reconciled with the truth of the Christian revelation. Our hypothesis is, that some parts of the Old Testament are not the production of infallible inspiration, and some books of it not the genuine production of inspired prophets, though in general we acknowledge those books to be the records of a revelation from God to the Jews. what you have to say to us is, that we must take the whole of the Old Testament or none; nay, that we must receive the whole of it as inspired by God, or reject Christianity. If you are right, then, we must reject Christianity. For we cannot help believing the established truths of natural and moral science.'

But

Such, we think, must be the train of thought in the minds of some of those who may be convinced that Mr. Stuart has established his main point. The effect of his argument on others of more timid character will be, to stop inquiry; to make them give up attention to the critical study of the Old Testament, lest the result should be unfavorable to their Christian faith.

We regret, therefore, that Mr. Stuart has pursued such. a course of argument, though we do not regard it as valid. The subject of the character and claims of the Old Testament is one, on which all serious minds are open to conviction. It is not a question of sect or party. Unitarians are not more concerned in it as such, than Trinitarians. All that the friends of divine revelation seek on this subject is the truth, let who will maintain it. When such men as Mr. Norton, in a course of serious and scientific inquiry, questions the genuineness of the Pentateuch, or such men as Doederlein and Tholuck, not to mention the anti-supernaturalists, deny the genuineness of the last twenty-six chapters of Isaiah, or such men as Dr. Arnold avow their belief in the spuriousness of the book of Daniel, all professing to be guided by the principles of critical and historical investigation, and all firm and devoted friends to the Christian revelation, it is not enough to say to them, If you continue to hold your opinions, you must renounce your Christian faith. You are inconsistent men. You must, to be consistent, go farther, and deny Christ; and we really wish you would, and then we should know where to find you.'* No! those who think such opinions erroneous, ought to endeavor to refute them by other means than those which Mr. Stuart has used. It affords no pleasure to such men as we have named, to call in question received views. It would be far more pleasant, if regard to truth would allow it, to sail smoothly in the wake of popular opinion. Their views are entitled to respect. If they are unsound, undoubtedly they can be shown to be so, on the principles of critical and historical investigation. A refutation of those views on such principles can alone give satisfaction to an earnest and thorough inquirer. To undertake it on any other principles betrays a secret, though it may be an unconscious, skepticism in regard to the possibility of refuting them.

But we are far from thinking, that Mr. Stuart has established his point. We may doubt the genuineness of some books, and the inspiration of some parts, of the Old Testament, and yet hold fast our faith in the Christian revelation.

* Mr. Stuart has not used this language, but on page 421 occur expressions which sound very much like it.