As an illustration of the folly of the results of the so-called " Higher Criticism " as applied to the writings of Moses, we insert the following from "The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch," a sober and sound work upon the subject, by Dr. Greene of Princeton Theological Seminary. It shows that the same methods of criticism by which it is sought to prove that the books of Moses are composed of two or more contradictory accounts, blended together by a redactor (R), can with equal ease and apparent truth be applied to documents of whose unity there is not the slightest question, with like results.

THE GOOD SAMARITAN. (Luke 10:29-37.)

A.

29 But he (the lawyer, ver. 25.) desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor?

30 Jesus made answer and said, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and they
beat him, . . . leaving him half dead.

31 And by chance a certain priest was going down that way:and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. . . .

33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was ; . . . .

34 And came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, . . , and took care of him.

36 Which of these [three] (inserted by R) thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him ? . . . And he said, He that showed mercy on him.

B.

30 b. And (a certain man) (omitted by R) fell among robbers, which both stripped him and departed.

32 And [in like manner] (inserted by R) a Levite, [also] (inserted by R) when he came to the place, [and saw him, passed by on the other side] (inserted by R).

33 b. And when he saw him, was moved with compassion. . . .

34 b. And he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn . . .

35 And on the morrow he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee.

37 b. And Jesus said unto him, . . . that fell among the robbers, . . . Go, and do thou likewise.

"Both these narratives are complete; only a subject in B. (ver. 30 b.) the omission of which was rendered necessary by its being combined with A. ' Three ' is substituted for ' two' in A. ver. 36, for a like reason. R has tampered with the text and materially altered the sense in ver. 32, from his desire to put the Levite on the same plane with the priest in ver. 31, the language of which he has borrowed; the genuine text of B. will be restored by omitting the insertions by R, which are included in brackets. He has likewise transposed a brief clause of B, in ver. 37 b, and added it at the end of ver. 36. These changes naturally resulted from his making A. the basis, and modifying what he has inserted in B into accordance with it. Hence the necessity of making it appear that it was not the Levite, but the Samaritan, who befriended the injured traveler, and that Jesus spoke not to the traveler, but to the lawyer. In all other respects the original texts of the two narratives remain unaltered.

Both narratives agree that a man grievously abused by certain parties was treated with generous kindness by a stranger; and that Jesus deduced a practical lesson from it. But they differ materially in details.

A. relates his story as a parable of Jesus in answer to a lawyer's question. B. makes no mention of the lawyer or his question, but seems to be relating a real occurrence.

The spirit of the two is quite different. A. is anti-Jewish, B. pro-Jewish. In A. the aggressors are Jews, people of Jerusalem or Jericho, or both, and a priest pitilessly leaves the sufferer to his fate; while it is a Samaritan, with whom the Jews were in perpetual feud, who takes pity on him. In B. the aggressors are robbers, outlaws, whose nationality is not defined, and it is a Levite who shows mercy.

Both the maltreatment and the act of generosity are different. In A. the sufferer is beaten and half killed, and needs to have his wounds bound up and liniments applied, which is done by his benefactor on the spot. In B. he was stripped of all he had, and left destitute, but no personal injury was inflicted ; accordingly he was taken to an inn, and his wants there provided for at the expense of the Levite who befriended him.

The lesson inculcated is different. In A. it is that the duty of loving one's neighbor is not limited to those of the same nation, nor annulled by national antipathies. In B. it is that he who has been befriended himself should befriend others.

It is not worth while to multiply illustrations. Those now adduced are sufficient to give an idea of the method by which the critics undertake to effect the partition of the Pentateuch; and to show how they succeed in creating discrepancies and contradictions, where none really exist, by simply sundering what properly belongs together. The ease with which these results can be accomplished, where obviously they have no possible significance, shows how fallacious and inconclusive this style of argument is. No dependence can be placed upon a process that leads to palpably erroneous conclusions in other cases. An argument that will prove everything proves nothing. And a style of critical analysis which can be made to prove everything composite, is not to be trusted.

The readiness with which a brief, simple narrative yields to critical methods has been sufficiently shown above. That extended didactic composition is not proof against it is shown in ' Romans Dissected.' The result of this ingenious and scholarly discussion is to demonstrate that as plausible an argument can be made from diction, style, and doctrinal contents for the fourfold division of the epistle to the Romans as for the composite character of the Pentateuch."