ing by Ezekiel.

We do not confuse

St. John with St. Matthew;-for instance in Matthew xxv. and John xvii. Yet the words are those of the Lord, and the Holy Ghost is the real reporter. I cannot pursue the subject here. But I think a little more distinction might be made when the Word of the Lord is in question; and I doubt the right of criticism to deal with such a passage as the Song of the LORD in Deuteronomy xxxii. in the same sort of way that would be suitable to a question between the writings of Bacon and Shakespeare.

The other side of the dilemma will not occupy us long. If the statement in Deuteronomy as to the origin of this Song is false, then we have no record of the origin of the Song at all. It is, according to Driver, "a presentation of prophetical thoughts in a poetical dress, which is unique in the Old Testament." I do not

understand this. Do not the Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel present "prophetical thoughts in a poetical dress"? Or does

he mean here predictive thoughts, or what does he mean? But the record of this Song, of its delivery by Moses on a given day, and its predictive character, foretelling the apostasy of Israel in Canaan and its consequences-all this stands part of Holy Scripture. What becomes of the Divine Authority of Holy Scripture if the record of these facts is untrue?

Let me call attention here to the remarkable absence of any word about inspiration from the story of the "Song." We have no information whatsoever as to the manner in which it came to Moses. It does not say that "the LORD spake it unto Moses, saying But we are left without any author for it in the narrative, unless the author is JHVH. He first tells Moses what Israel will do after Moses is dead. The whole introduction to it is full of Divine foresight in regard to human action. The words, "It shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed," are no slight instance of this. What man can venture to say that a par

ticular poem, now delivered for the first time, will hold immortal memory? The publication of this sentence alone is enough to test the real origin of the Song. Supposing it to have appeared in Israel for the first time in the days of King Manasseh or of Josiah, or of Ezra the priest the scribe, would not the fact of its being remembered or forgotten settle the question of the veracity of Deuteronomy at the first glance? Either the Song had been forgotten, or it had not. If it had, then here at once is evidence of an attempt to impose on the people. If not, then the setting of the story becomes a confirmation of the story itself. And it is so bound up with the origin of the Deuteronomy, with the end of Moses and the beginning of "Hoshea the son of Nun" (Deut. xxxii. 34), who signs himself here by his original name, I verily believe, to mark his first appearance as a writer in the pages of Holy Writ, that it is not easy to accept the Song without also accepting this conclusion of Moses'

writings. Deuteronomy at least will claim acceptance as his. And the unity of all that precedes with this closing portion will create a prejudicium in favour of the Pentateuch, which it will take a stronger critic than the author of the extraordinary sentiments I have cited in regard to the Song in Deuteronomy (chapter xxxii.) to impugn or destroy. Let any thoughtful man read what is written in Deuteronomy xxxi. as to the origin of the Song in Deuteronomy xxxii. together with the Song itself, and then read what is said in Driver's "Introduction" at page 96, and if his estimate of Driver's powers as a critic of history remains unshaken, or if a conviction of the truth of Deuteronomy does not force itself on his mind, I think there can be very little use in appealing to human reason or judgment.

At least we must admit that the method of criticism here employed proceeds upon the assumption that the whole thing is of human origin. As I write, my eye falls upon another sentence of Driver's, at

page 97: "The blessing of Moses offers even fewer points of contact with the discourses of Deuteronomy than the Song. It was probably handed down independently, and inserted here when Deuteronomy as a whole was incorporated into the Pentateuch." What is the point of the criticism that the discourses of Moses and the Song and the blessing of Moses differ in this sort of way? If the story is true, why should they not differ? The discourses are suitable to one in the position of Moses as the dying law-giver and leader of Israel-not dying of decay, but knowing that his work was done. The Song has an entirely different origin, being given as the direct utterance of JHVH. Why should it be given in the style of the discourses of Moses, or have points of contact with them? The final blessing in chapter xxxiii. stands on a different footing altogether. Driver, like the Jewish commentators, finds the fount of it in Jacob's blessing delivered on his deathbed. This again falls into the same category with the words of Isaac to