"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?" This implies (a) That Moses "wrote." (b) That "his writings" were in the hands of the Jews. But the writings ascribed to Moses then are the same which are ascribed now. Consequently, it is undeniable that our Lord ascribed the Law as we have it to Moses. See Allegation V, pp. 99–109. (d) The Evangelists and Apostles do the same thing, from the defence of St. Stephen to the close of the New Testament. And the Authority of the Holy Ghost is claimed for their teaching. St. Paul dates the delivery of the Law 430 years after Abraham, and asserts, like St. Stephen, that it was delivered B through Angels, and in the hand of a mediator, who can only be Moses. He makes this assertion regarding the Law as he knew it, which Professor Driver treats as subsequent to Moses. The Epistle to the Hebrews agrees with St. Paul in these points, and dates the Law before the time of David, in its exposition of Psalm cx. (Heb. vii. 11-17). See Allegation VI, pp. 110-122. Secondly, Professor Driver's view of the authorship of "the Law given from God by Moses" is contradictory to Holy Scripture, because it rejects the whole foundation of the Authority of Holy Scripture as stated by the Scripture itself, more particularly in the Book of Deuteronomy, and provides nothing definite in its place. The testimony of the Book of Deuteronomy declares directly the authorship of Moses, and the basis of the Authority of all Holy Scriptures, regarded as "Moses and the Prophets" (including "The Prophet" and "His Apostles," who gave us the New Testament). See Allegation VII, pp. 123–175; VIII and IX, pp. 176–198. I submit some particular proofs of the futility of Professor Driver's method: I. It is calculated to destroy the Authority of Holy Scripture, because he constantly "expounds one place of Scripture so as to be repugnant to another," both in legal and historical passages. If his notions were followed, and it became necessary to enforce the Law, it would be impossible to obey it with any certainty; for instance, in the matter of the "second tithe" in Deuteronomy xiv. Yet there is reason to believe this Law was actually obeyed by Samuel's father and mother. See 1 Samuel i. and ii. II. The alleged discrepancies between the several passages of Scripture on which Professor Driver's theory of different narratives is based are such as will not bear examination, and cannot be sustained. I have examined one or two instances of this in the story of Joseph under Allegation X, pp. 199-216. III. The linguistic considerations which he puts forward as proof of diversity of authorship are no proof of it, and he has ignored one distinction between the Pentateuch and Joshua which destroys the theory of a Hexateuch absolutely. Allegation XI, pp. 217-228. IV. His analysis of Genesis will not bear examination. He has shown by his misplacement of the first clause of Genesis ii. 4 that he has not properly considered the original plan of the Book. Allegation XII, pp. 229–256. V. His idea of the late date of the Law of Moses is built on a theory that law is a result of evolution, which is contrary to reason and fact. Allegation XIII, pp. 257-278. The above considerations are sufficient to show that his book, which bases most of its arguments upon considerations of language, accessible to Hebrew "scholars" but not to ordinary persons, is unworthy of the deference that has been shown to it, and that, as an authority, neither he nor the German writers from whom he has borrowed so very largely can be accepted as worthy of credit. This completes my proof of the second proposition on the first page of my letter. My last point-that the denial of the Divine Authority of Holy Scripture, if proved as it is here charged against Professor Driver, might render him legally incapable of any office of trust in the Church of England, rests upon an Act of Parliament passed in the reign of William III., very shortly after the English Press was relieved from the liability to official censure, and thus became free. The subsequent abuse of its liberty led to the passing of an Act in restraint. 9 WILLIAM 3, c. 35 (in some Editions 32). "Whereas many persons have of late years openly avowed or published many blasphemous and impious |