compnrat.ively recent times. Many objections, however, have been advanced ngairn,t it of lat.e; and this renders it necessary thl\t the evidonco, both in ,support of the traditionary belief and against it, should be carefully ccillected and weighed. I. In favour of the Mosaio authorship of the book there ie- 1. The weight of traditional authority. In the Christian o.nd in the Jewish Chnrch, so far back &S we can trace, this book has been reputed the work of Moses. As to this there can be no legitimate question; the fa<'t is indubitable. The stream of testimony may be traced from the Chri1,tian Fathers of the second century after Christ, with hardly a break, up to the time of David (cf. 1 Kings ii. 3; viii. 53; 2 Kings xiv. 5, 6; x,iii. 6, 12, with eh. xxi:x:. 9; ix. 26; xxiv. 16; x. 20). Moses is thus, so to speak, in poi;,session, with a title which has been admitted for more than three thousand years. On those, therefore, who would dislodge him lies the burden of proving that this title is false ; and this can be done only by showing from internal evidence that the book cannot be the writing of Moses. It will be incumbent on them also to show how this title could have been acquired, if purely fictitious-how this universal belief could have arisen, if without foundation in fact. 2. The testimony of our Lord and his apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, giYes special weight to this tradition. Our Lord quotes from this book as part of the sacred writings, using the formula, "It is written," by which is indicated that the passages quoted are from the sacred canon ( comp. Matt. iv. 4; ix. 7, 10, with -eh. viii. 8; vi. 16 ; vi. 13), and 1·ecog- nizing it as the "Law" given by God to Israel (Matt. xxii. 24 compared with eh. vi. 5; x. 12). He expressly refers to and cites this book as the work of Moses (comp. Matt. xi.x. 7, 8; Mark x. 3, 4; John v. 46, 47; possibly also John vii 19) ; and he implicitly attests this by assenting to the assertion of it by others ( comp. Mark xii. 19 ; Luke xx. 28 ). St. Peter, in his addreBS to the people who were collected together after the healing of the lame man at the gate of the temple, cit.es a passage from this book as the saying of Moses (Acts iii. 22); St. Stephen docs the same in hie apology to the Sanhedrim ( Acts vii. 37) ; St. Paul quotes from this book as from Moses, in the same way as he quotes from the Book of Isaiah as from Isaiah (Rom. x. 19, 20), and at other times prefaces his citation with the words, "It is written" (Rom. xii. 19; Gal. iii. 10) ; and the apostles generally freely refer to the Law, i.e. the Thorah, or Pentateuch, includ- ing, of course, the fifth book, as of Moses. Now, the testimony of our Lord and his apostles cannot be regarded as a mere link in the chain of tradition on this point. It is that, but it is more than that; it is an authoritative declaration, from which it is maintained there is no appeal. Jesus, "the faithful and true Witness," and himself "the Truth," could utter only what is true; and knowing that his words, even the most minut.e and least weighty, were to endure for ever (Matt. xxiv. 35), and to guide the judgments and opinions of men to the latest generations, he TIIE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. vil
wonlcl be oarcful to order his speech so as in every cnse to express only what wns in nccordance with truth and fact. But it may he asked, "}light not our Lord ho.ve cited a passage from one of the Penfo,tcuchitl hnr,k, as a saying of Moses, merely because these books were commonly cnllcd hy the name of Moses, without meaning to affirm that they were actnnlly wr:tten by him; just as one who had adopted the Wolfian theory of the composition of the' Iliad' and 'Odyssey' might nevertheless continue to cite from these as the works of Homer, though he doubted if Homer ever existed, and felt sure that no one man composed these poems as they are now extant?" Bnt to this it may be replied that the cases are not parallel. When one quotes from the 'Iliad,' or the 'Odyssey,' or from any classic writing, it is for the sake of the sentiment or expression that the quotation is made, and it matters not how the source of the quotation is designated, provided the designation be such as shall direct the reader or hearer to where the passage qnoted is to be found. In our Lord's citations from the book of the Law, however, the important thing is not the mere words of the passage or the mere sentiment of it, but the authority of the utterance, and as that was derived entirely from its being part of the Law given by Moses in whom the Jews trusted (John i. 17; v. 45; vii. 19), it was essential to the validity of his argument that it should be from Moses and none other that his citation was made. When, therefore, our Lord adduced a passage as a saying of Moses, he must have meant that the saying adclucc.d was actually uttered by Moses-in other words, that it was found in a book which not only carried on it the name of Moses as a popular and convenient designation, but of which Moses was really the author. 3. The antiquity of the book favours the ascription of it to Moses as its author. That the book is of early date is shown partly by the allusions to it in books that come after it in the canon, partly by certain peculiarities of language by which it is marked, and partly by certain statements and references contained in it. (1) In the Book of Jeremiah there are so many expressions, phrases, utterances, coincident with such in Deuteronomy, that there can be no doubt that the author of the one book must have had tho other before his mind whilst composing his own. The only question that can be ~aisecl is whether Jeremiah cited from Deuteronomy or the author of Deuteronomy cited from Jeremiah, if indeed the same person were not the writer of both books. This point will come to be considered subsequently; at present it is suffi- cient to note that these coincidences afford certain evidence of the existence of the Book of Deuteronomy in the time of Jeremiah. That it, was known to Isaiah and used by him may be inferred from a comparison of the following passages :-Isa. i. 2 with eh, x=ii. 1 ; Isa. i. 10 with eh. xxxii. 32; Iso.. i. 17 with eh. xxviii. 27; Isa. xxvii. 11 with eh. xxxii. 28; Isa. xli. 8 with eh. vii. 6 and xiv. 2; Isa. xli. 10 with eh. :x:xxi. 6; Isa. xiii. 2 with eh. xxxii. 15; Isa. xlvi. 8 with eh. xxxii. 7; Isa. 1. 1 with eh. xxiv. 1; Isa. lviii. 14 with eh. xxxii. 13; Isa. lix. 10 and lxv. 21 with oh. xxviii. 29; Isa. lxii. 8, etc., with eh, xxviii, 31. viii INTRODUCTION TO