phecies fulfilled, and miracles performed. But let us take him where we first find him in connection with his mission,-as "in a corner,"―at the bush in the wilderness. Unquestionably, the tradition of that initial revelation has come down from his time. Let us suppose that he was naturally religious; that would not make him lie, in the name of God, inventing a miracle for deception of the people. If he was not naturally idiotic, he could not believe in the reality of that wonder if it was not a reality. A similar wonder was alleged by Peter, James, and John, bearing witness to the transfiguration of Jesus; and another by Paul, in so often telling about the appearance to him, of the glorified Christ, near Damascus. All the three appearances are one in this respect, that if there was any reality in so much as one of them, then the Bible supernaturalism is a fact, and the Bible religion is true and divine. In all the three cases, what took place was away from public view, and for the reality of it we have the evidence only of those persons. But in all the three cases, there are circumstances fully warranting and cogently demanding our belief.

(1.) The men are thoroughly good witnesses. Peter, James, and John, it afterwards appeared, were men of very extraordinary ability. It is more to the present purpose, that they were earnestly conscientious about religion, who would not conspire to lie about God, but showed themselves ready to die for the truth. In Paul, the same features, of ability, earnestness, truthfulness unshrinking, are gloriously conspicuous. As for Moses: he is another name for morality. His intellectual power must have been of the highest quality given to mankind. And he was a superlatively able man of business, far the greatest administrator, in a combination of circumstances supremely testing practical sense, that the world has ever seen. No one can seriously doubt the truth of what is said by any one of these men, about a plain matter, within his personal knowledge, which he has really observed with attention.

(2.) In all the three cases the story is credible, and antecedently probable, supposing the being of God. While the Almighty could produce the appearances supernaturally, there was a manifest occasion of calling for the intervention of extraordinary providence. Paul, a murderous persecutor, had to be turned (Act. ix. 15) into the great Apostle of the Gentiles. The Original Apostles (Mk. viii. 27-38), immediately before the Transfiguration of Jesus, had been startled and shaken by His clear prediction of His approaching death. In the supreme crisis, now at hand, there was a peril to the faith of

those men, upon whose faith was (Mat. xix. 28), under God, to depend the future true life of the world. And the great career of Moses, and all its great issues for mankind, hinged upon his effectual calling at that point; while the effectual calling depended, as on a fulcrum, on the reality of that burning which did not consume, and of that articulate speaking voice out of the bush.

(3.) It is specially important, in connexion with the whole question as to Bible supernaturalism, that in all the three cases the manifestation, of supernatural reality, was to the natural senses of men, in the ordinary use of their bodily eyes and ears (1 Jn. i. 1-3 and cp. Jn. i. 1, 14, ii. 11). In these three cases, what took place was a "vision" (to Paul, Act. xxvi. 19; to the three disciples, Mat. xvii. 9 ; and so in effect to Moses, Act. vii. 30). But not the less it was manifested to their bodily senses; they clearly saw, and distinctly heard, so as to recognise, understand, remember, and repeat. Paul distinctly remembered what he had heard the persecuted Jesus say near Damascus ; and saw the risen Lord (1 Co. xv. 8, where, mark the "seen" in vers. 5, 6, 7, and cp. the "infallible proofs" in Act. i. 3). Peter very strongly insists upon this point (2 Pe. i. 16-18) when (ver. 15) he is soon to have at bottom nothing else to trust in (for what else at bottom is vers. 19-21) as a stay in death. And Moses, all through his life, had no more doubt of his having seen that flame, and heard that voice, than if it had been the fire on his own hearth, and a fireside conversation with Jethro about the flocks. Thus at bottom, the testimony is that of human sight and hearing. The point which we have been looking at in those three cases is, that, even for the sort of private view of wonder, which in a sense was "done in a corner" (Act. xxvi. 26), there comes to us the very best kind of evidence that could be imagined in such a case. No one can really doubt the personal truthfulness, regarding such a matter, of Moses, Paul, Peter, James, John. They were in the full possession of excellent faculties of mind. The matter in question was not a mere startling prodigy, but an appearance of God, on the gravest business that He has ever done on earth. And what they bear witness to is a plain matter of fact, addressing itself to their eyes and ears. Their inference from what they saw and heard, their theology of the manifestation, depended upon their judgment; and we can reason about it. But the thing on which it hinges, the plain matter of fact, addressed itself simply to their bodily senses,―e.g., to those eyes which were clear (De. xxxiv. 7) so long! There never

were in the world men better qualified to know, whether they really saw, and really heard, that thing. We might wish we had been there to see and hear. They were there to see and hear. Their eyes and ears were just as good as ours can be. And they have a right to claim our acceptance of the testimony of their senses:" "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us" (1 Jn. i. 3); "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory" (Jn. i. 14).

The

(1.) BIOGRAPHY OF MOSES - the only mere man who is a "mediator” (Ga. iii. 19). He is so completely one with the movement, that history of Israel's origin is the only true biography of Moses. And in his case, to dwell upon personal details about him would be, false reading of the Book of Israel's exodus. The Gospel History makes us look on the person of Jesus even when it is something else that is spoken of. Exodus, even when speaking about Moses, bids us think of something else: puts a veil on his face. Hebrews, like the other masculine races, had a reverence for personal excellence of their heroes, even in respect of bodily form. It may have been on this account, for prevention of a hero-worship of him after his death, that the grave of Moses was concealed from them. Probably his bodily aspect was heroic in its nobleness. He seems to have had in highest degree that powerful vitality which was characteristic of his family and tribe. But his wonderful personality, with a seemingly immortal vigour as of a demigod, was not obtruded for men's admiration in his lifetime. It was not a thing allowed to dwell upon their minds. On the face of his greatness, there is a strange aspect of almost abjectness; seemingly deliberate self-effacement. Even in this respect not only "he wist not that his face shone; his own hand put a veil upon its glory."

(2.) Did Moses write Exodus? This is a branch of the general question of the human authorship of the Pentateuch. If it be supposed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, there can hardly be any question about the authorship of Exodus. For this Book has not in it, like Deuteronomy, any such distinctness from the Pentateuch generally as would leave room for a reasonable suggestion of a possible difference in authorship. At present we will not attempt anything like a real discussion of that general question, on which the special question is thus far a pendant; but will make some observation which may serve the present interest, of intelligent study of the Book in hand.

Ordinarily the question of the human authorship of Scripture does not affect religion. The question of religion is about the truth of the Book, and its divinity of authorship. But in some cases the impression that is made by a book is dependent on its authorship. It does not matter who invented the Multiplication Table. But Cæsar's Commentaries would to our feeling be a different book if we had not known that the author is the great general; as also would Knox's History, if we did not understand that "a certain minister" is I.C. Moses is the hero of this great movement. His being the author of

the history would further make it to be, what otherwise can never be in human literature, in considerable measure the autobiography of a "mediator" between God and man. And both for believers and for sceptics the matter has a certain theological interest on this account, that the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch may be held to be implied in certain utterances of the other Scriptures and of Christ ; and that, if Moses be supposed to be the author of Exodus, then no man of sense will doubt the historical truth of this Book in the substance of it-a Book which really is all substance only.

In dealing with this particular question at present, we will assume that generally the Scriptures are true, and the religion is divine. Until recently, those who are of this mind were unanimously of opinion, that the Pentateuchal Scriptures are all the work of Moses. But now the Mosaic authorship is denied or doubted by some who profess to believe that Christianity is of God, and that the Bible is true. The question, therefore, is to be regarded as not only between infidels and Christians. It is one as to which Christians may profitably confer among themselves. In any case, it is a fact, that there are Christians who, not denying the divinity of either the Scriptures or Christianity, nevertheless do not believe in a Mosaic authorship of either Exodus in particular or the Pentateuch in general.

The circumstance, that some believers in the Bible and the Bible religion do not believe in the Mosaic authorship of this Book, only shows that there is a question as to its human authorship, to be considered as among believers. And relatively to that question, there are some aspects of the matter which, though affecting the whole Pentateuch, have a peculiar vividness in connection with Exodus. Its Egyptism and archaism. In the Pentateuchal Scriptures there is, along with archaic Hebrew, an infusion of Egyptian elements of language, stronger than is to be found in the other Scriptures; such as to suggest a primæval authorship. The Egyptism of the language,

which has been investigated with peculiar mastery by Canon Cook (Appendix to Exodus in The Speaker's Commentary), is naturally (why?) most manifest in Exodus. Still more, in Exodus there appears with peculiar vividness that face (see above, p. 29, etc.) of a manifestly unstudied exact likeness of Egypt and Sinai, which, presenting itself on the background of the Book, is presumptive proof of a writing within living memory of the events, or at least of information derived from such memory.

Now looking at this Book by itself, we observe in it the following characters. 1. Great importance attached to monuments of the history for future times: such as, the Passover, erected at the beginning of the wonder year, and the Tabernacle at the close of it. Exodus is the Bible Book of monuments, as Egypt is the world's land of monuments. No one thinks of the Pyramids as rising under the Greek Egyptian empire. And in Egypt the Israelites had learned the art of constructing the best of all monuments of history, namely, a carefully-written record. Careful written record, of everything, great and small, worth remembering, had for many generations been the custom of that land, from which, after centuries of education there, God called His Son. We know how unsparing the Israelites were, in lavishing expense on such monuments as the Tabernacle and the Temple. The far more valuable monument, of a simple record like Exodus, would cost almost nothing. It would endure forever. And

it could be prepared in a few days, where there were thousands of men at leisure well able to write. Why should not such a record be prepared? The Israelites had surely learned this much of "the wisdom of the Egyptians" (Act. vii. 22). Though they had been "mostly fools," some of them must have had some sense.

2. That character of the “Egyptian" portion of the Pentateuch (Ge. xxxix.-Ex. xv.) which (above, p. 32, etc.) has led expert Egyptologists to regard it as equivalent to an authentic monument of ancient Egypt. This, so reasons Mr. Poole, shows that Ex. i.-xv. must have originated in the Mosaic period. Let us consider what that implies. (1) It destroys the old infidel cavil, that writing was not known so early; as if individual men had to be babies—not “heroes"—in the childhood of the peoples. (2) It destroys an imagination which more recently has traded under the name of "scholarship ;”—namely, that language must have changed, so that no book can have been written in the Mosaic period whose Hebrew is so like that of Jeremiah as the Hebrew of the Pentateuch is. We might say, the language could be