AS CONTAINED IN DR. SUNDAY’S LECTURES ON ''THE ORACLES OF GOD."

I. The Present Contention.-Continued.

Dr. SUNDAY next calls to witness the Babylonian versions of Creation and the Flood:-

"With all their uniformity," he says, "the resemblance of these to the corresponding biblical stories was striking, and needed to be accounted for"!

In a note he adds,-

"It would seem that traditions in respect to the Creation and the Flood were originally the common property of the Semitic races, developed by each in accordance with the genius of its religion. We shall see later (Lect. 5:) that they were not of a kind to be referred directly to revelation; at the same time, in the Hebrew version, the Spirit of revelation is clearly visible, not on the side which belongs of right to science (!.'), but in all that concerns the nature and relations of God and man. Even from the point of view of science, when allowance is made for the simple mode of presentation which alone was possible when the early chapters of Genesis were written, we may see an approximation to the truth which the believer in Providence (!) will easily refer to its origin; but we must be careful not to exaggerate the extent of this approximation. The history of science reveals plainly that God has permitted the evolution of true ideas on scientific subjects to be entangled in a mass of fantastic error. In the biblical account, this appears to be reduced to something like a minimum. More than this we cannot safely say."

This argument, if one can call it such, derives all its force from the unbelief which it expresses. That the Babylonians, dwelling at the original center of dispersion, as we see from Scripture that they did, should have traditions both of Creation and the Flood nearer the truth than others of the nations round is in no wise wonderful. The few generations between these two events would render a tradition of the former coming down from Adam easily preservable, and it is not strange that God should at the beginning have instructed His creatures in the important matter of their own origin. Moses may have even used this under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and in that economy of miracle to which Scripture itself testifies, without the least derogation to his being in the fullest way inspired. Luke speaks expressly of his own accurate knowledge as qualifying him to write his gospel, and was none the less, and needed none the less to be, inspired for his work. There is not the slightest difficulty in all this; and it is hard to know why Dr. SUNDAY should make any. It is well that he yet sees "in the Hebrew version the influence of the Spirit of revelation," although it be "not on the side that belongs of right to science"-does he mean over which the Spirit of revelation has not right ? If so, will he tell us how, or why ?

"Even from the point of view of science," however, "we may see an approximation" to the truth which "the believer in Providence will easily refer to its origin," and the "fantastic error" in which other accounts have been allowed to be entangled, in the biblical one "appears to be reduced to something like a minimum." Then God did not leave Moses to himself even in this respect! Why should this " minimum " be necessary in that case? If the rights of science are not infringed by this, why should they be by the preservation of absolute truth ? Surely no reason can be given. Would not the interests of man- would not the glory of God-be better served by truth than by error? Why, I ask again, should this minimum of error be necessary ? The history of science it is, no doubt, that "plainly reveals"-to our author-"that God permits" it to be so! Which only amounts to this, that there the mistakes are, as he supposes. But will Dr. SUNDAY show us this ?

We must not expect it. General assertions are easier to make and harder to repel. It would need a volume to go over this well-tracked ground, and show the truth of the Scripture account; and it is usually thought very hard to prove the negative to which Dr. SUNDAY would compel us. We deny that any mistake can be shown ; and we deny it after careful and prolonged and open-eyed examination. According to our author, perhaps, as we have no claim to be specialists, and none else can speak with authority, our opinion will be of no value. But it will stand until something has been produced against it,- until that has been done, indeed, which lips that spake like no other have pronounced impossible.

"The critical investigation of the Bible itself" is the last thing to which the author refers at the close of his first lecture; and he thinks that the "results obtained- or at least thought to be obtained" are "of more far-reaching significance " than any thing of which he has yet spoken. But here we are merely given the results that have been reached on the continent of Europe, and among that class of specialists evidently who have committed themselves to those theories of inspiration which naturally bear such fruit.

"It is agreed on all hands that the Pentateuch is formed by the dove-tailing together of different documents; it is agreed by the great mass of inquirers that nearly all of these documents in their present shape are not earlier than the time of the Kings." " Similar problems arise in respect to the historical books. The other most prominent questions are, the assignment of large parts of Isaiah and of the last six chapters of Zechariah to writers other than the authors of the main body of the book-in the case of Isaiah later, and in the case of Zechariah earlier; and the dates of the composition of many parts of the Psalter and the books of Joel, Jonah, Job, Ecclesiastes, and Daniel."

How many questions more are involved in these questions of date and authorship the lecturer does not at present inform us. That will be made plain as we go on. Meanwhile, Dr. SUNDAY sees no cause for alarm in all this; and the best sign of which he is aware is the prevalence of so calm a spirit in that younger generation that is coming to the front in these matters. Faith is stronger than it was. It will not be disturbed by the fact of "laws of the Levitical code" being "presented as ordinances of Moses, though when they were first promulgated every one knew that they were not so," or to learn that "what is quite certain is, that, according to the prophets, the Torah (Law) of Moses did not embrace a law of ritual:worship, by sacrifice, and all that belongs to it, is no part of the divine Torah to Israel." "According to the prophets, Jehovah asks only a penitent heart and no sacrifice. According to the ritual law, He desires a penitent heart approaching Him in certain sacrificial sacraments." These are some of the statements of a well-known "higher critic" (Prof. Robertson Smith). If they be true, what about the atonement of Christ?

Faith may be strong enough to look calmly at such " far-reaching results " of modern criticism. On the other hand, Dr. SUNDAY may refuse such extremes. Yet they must be contemplated, for who will bid this sea to know its bound ? But believers need not be afraid :the pyramid has been long firm upon its base :what matter if it be stood now upon its apex? A more recent writer of the same school has told us that " there is no passage in the Old Testament that refers directly and predictively to Jesus Christ." "The literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy is an assumption that has been transmitted to us from the early ages of the Christian Church."

Why should we stop there? why any where? Who has any right to say how deep, how fundamental, may be the mistakes discovered ? On the other hand-for all is uncertain here :the view shifts as the stream carries us on- they may not be discovered. Says Dr. SUNDAY once more,-

"I propose . . . to do what I can to estimate the effect upon a Christian's faith of the changes which seem to be in progress. There must be in this an element of anticipation. I do not say that all that I regard as possible is as yet completely proved. It may perhaps never be proved. If that is so, our course is plain. We only have to keep where we are. But it is right for us to keep in view contingencies which will seem to some, at least, more or less probable."

And of course it will be always right; and as the future may be conceived to have multitudinous " contingencies more or less probable," our faith must hold loosely much -how much, who can tell?-that by and by we, or our descendants after us, may have to give up as error. Dr. SUNDAY, in a note, quoting the Dean of Peterborough, refers to "an authority no less unprejudiced than Haeckel, as affirming that 'from Moses, who died about 1480 B.C., down to Linnaeus, who was born 1707 A. D., there has been no history of creation to be compared to the biblical.' " Yet the biblical is now exploded, and Prof. Haeckel himself has written another ! Must we not have the long vision of prophets in order to know, then, how much of the New Testament, not yet two thousand years old, will remain for another millennium ?

Unfortunately the higher criticism is getting less and less to accredit the prophets ; and it would seem that the principal thing left for us to believe in is just that infinite possibility of the future, which somehow seems to be so disastrous to the present. Under these circumstances, Dr. SUNDAY will certainly find that there are many unprepared to invest their capital in that terribly uncertain bank of the future, and, seeing that even he, after all, like others, " must be content to take a great deal upon trust," will trust Moses still. For over three thousand years he was more trustworthy (Haeckel himself being witness,) than any body else. Many think him worthy of credit yet, and that all real discoveries, even in this day of scientific victories over nature, have only the more proved him to be so.

But above all this, though blending with it in a blessed . harmony, there is One Voice which, as long as there are Christians, will have authority over them, and which says, "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, HOW SHALL YE BELIEVE MY WORDS?" F. W. G.