SCRIPTURE CONTROVERSY.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3732, 10 December 1880, Page 2

SCRIPTURE CONTROVERSY.

(To the Editor of the Evening Star.) Sib,—For more than 2000 years the world was held in thrall by the imperfect, if not entirely false system of logic, instituted and taught by Aristotle. Since the time of Lord Bacon his system of inductive reasoning has! given a mighty impetus to all science and learning, except theology. That fossilized old system of creeds, dogmas and doctrines of heaven, hell, spirits, devijs and demons; has fondly and tenaciously*clung to; the antiquated syllogistic system of ascertaining truth. Such, however, is the irrisistible power and influence of reason guided by induction that even the old barriers of theology are being slowly but surely broken down, and in the time' present scarcely a month passes without bringing from some parts of the world startling discoveries and disclosures, most of which are far from creditable to so large, learned, and powerfully organised an army as the clergy and Church militant here on earth. Europe, Asia, Afrioa, America, and even Australia and flew Zealand teem with unbelievers, sceptics and enemies to established beliefs and superstitions. Sometimes the heavy and discouraging blow is levelled by science. Law commits sad havoc with dogma and doctrine. The deist and atheist occasionally cause a flutter in the dove-cots of the righteous, but for a crushing and , deadly destruction of cherished beliefs, the ',Bishops and high dignitaries of churches must themselves be held responsible. The latest discovery made public from Scotland is that the Book of Deuteronomy, hitherto and believed to be oneof the five bopks of Moses, and writ- j ten under inspirationlby him, and therefore the very infallible word of God? was not written by him. This has been known and* asserted for many .< years by freethought witness, but denied by the orthodozy, and the publication of suoh opinions has been visited with pains and penalties. It has been reserved (I presume Providentially) for a pious, well-beloved, and learned son of the Presbyterian Church to deal this deadly blow into the vital con* stitution of his parent. The views and opinions of this learned professor are sustained by thousands of devoted followers. He says:—" That immediately the laws, of grammatioo-historical exegesis are fairly applied to (test the Hebrew Scriptures), it will be found that their religious ideas were in a state of growth or progression during the whole prophetic period," but that subjection to variation of sacred ordinances was less readily admitted, " because the admission I involved a change of view as to the author- [ ship of the Pentateuch: but, that in this respect, the facts were decisive." He maintains that "no doctrine of finality with respect to ritual law prevailed during the prophetic inspiration period, any more than with respect to religious ideas, laying in with the concluding chapters of Ezekiel, which at the very era of the captivity sketches an outline of sacred ceremonies for the future restoration." From these and other surrounding circumstances he says that, "It is indisputable that the

then worship of Jehovah was a growing not a settled system, not finally embodied in authoritive documents. Jeremiah, but no earlier prophet, refers to or was so familiar with the Deuteronomic law, the whole theological standpoint of the book agreeing precisely with the prophetic literary period, and the placing of which at the beginning of the theocratic development making the whole history unintelligible. The book is without doubt a prQphetic legislative programme, the author of which, instead of giving it with Ezekiel a directly prophetic form, puts it into the mouth of Moses, not for a pious fraud, but to expound and develop Mosaic principles in connection with new needs. Its presentation in Moses' mouth ia dramatic form is naturally the consequence of the confusion of historical data and deduction common to ancient authors. Deuteronomic legislation is not earlier than . the prophetic period of the seventh and eighth centuries, and of course subsequent to the elements of Feutateuchal history known to Moses." A book is genuine when it is really written by the person from whom it is said to have originated, otherwise it is spurious. Divesting the foregoing statements of their copious verbosity, without which it seems impossible for any theologian to write, even upon the simplest subject, and having regard to the definition of genuineness, the following conclusions are inevitable: —First—That Moses, who is said to have written under inspiration the hftflt of Deuteronomy, died 600 or 700 before it was written, and that therefore , he could not possibly be its author. Secondly—Tha^ as he did not write it, the book ttitherto maintained to be the sacred, inspired, infallible Word of God is de facto spurious.-—Yours, Ac., Scxptic.