Moses they had no Scriptures at all, and never received what are called in the New Testament the "living oracles" of God, until they were put together by Ezra the scribe, from no one knows what compilations of contradictory tradition?

Whatever Professor Driver may think, it is impossible to accept the result of his supposed compilation of J, E, P, &c., by anonymous writers as the "living oracles of God" received by Moses. The church of Israel had no right to take such results and give them such a place of authority. And when the declaration that they are God's living oracles comes to us backed by the direct authority of the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven, we are compelled to say the two views are not reconcilable. If the Holy Ghost is right, Professor Driver is wrong.

ALLEGATION VI

The Divine Authority of Scripture is denied by Professor Driver because the New Testament affirms, what he denies, the date of the Law to be that of Moses as a writer.

THERE are some places in the New Testament where the date of the Law as then received (by the Jews and the Apostles alike) enters into the argument of the Gospel. These are in the Epistle to the Galatians and the Epistle to the Hebrews.

In Galatians iii. 17 the argument is this: "I say, that the covenant ordained before of God with a view to Christ, the law which was 430 years after cannot disannul." The reference, as the argument shows, is to the distance of time between Abraham and the covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years St. Paul makes it. And this is right according to the reckoning of the Books of Genesis and

Exodus as the Hebrew has them now. It will not do to say, as Driver's argument would run, that the Law in some sense dates from Sinai, 430 years after Abraham. That will not suit St. Paul's argument. He is reasoning with the Galatians against their adoption of the Jewish system— Judaism as they and he knew it. Now, according to St. Paul's argument, the Law dates from Sinai, and the Gospel from Abraham, as a Covenant of Salvation. According to Driver, the Law as a system dates from Ezra, and is the outcome of a long development.

Nor will it avail to reply, "The germ of the Law no doubt is as old as Sinai, and that of the Gospel as old as Abraham. But the Law as a system begins with Ezra, just as the Gospel as a system begins with Christ." That the Law as a divinely enacted system is as old as Sinai, is separately proved by three distinct statements of the New Testament. One is in this very Epistle to the Galatians: "It (the Law) was ordained by angels in the hand of a

mediator" (Gal. iii. 19). The same thing was asserted by St. Stephen. You "received the law by the disposition of angels," and did not keep it" (Acts vii. 53). The same thing appears again in Hebrews ii. 2, 3 : "If the word spoken by angels was steadfast, &c., how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord?" The angels were just as much the promulgators of the Law, as our Lord was of the Gospel. The Law dates from their mission, as truly as the Gospel does from His. The Law in its authority dates from Sinai, and the Gospel in its authority from our Lord. "The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John i. 17). Now I submit that Professor Driver's contention, The traditions of the Law date from Sinai, but the Law as a code cannot be traced further back than Ezra, will not hold with this. The two views are not fairly reconcilable. And Professor Driver's view repudiates the authority of the New Testament.

I find it difficult to restrict myself to the point which I have undertaken to prove, that his way of putting the matter is contrary to the Scripture. The position he takes is so repugnant to me, that I am constantly tempted to refute it for its own sake. But I submit that, if I have shown the contradiction between his views and the Biblical account of the matter, I have really destroyed his position.

To this last argument it is no answer to say, "St. Paul and St. Stephen are merely reproducing the common belief of their own countrymen." They are indeed reproducing it, and this by the express teaching of "the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven" (1 Pet. i. 12). And thereby they bring, not only their own testimony, and that of their fellow-countrymen, to bear witness to the truth of the view which Driver and his friends reject as "Traditional," but the Witness of the Spirit of the Truth Himself, that what is taught in our Articles is true, and the view of the Higher Critics of to-day is false.

H