his Commentary on Leviticus,* by Aug. Kayser,† by Bishop Colenso, and by Smend in his recent Commentary on Ezekiel. But among all its advocates the most famous at the § present time are probably Profs. Wellhausen and Reuss in Germany, and W. Robertson Smith in Scotland. According to Wellhausen, the Pentateuch is composed of three separate and independent works, which were wrought over, and, with additions from other sources, fashioned into one connected whole by Ezra or one of his contemporaries. The oldest document is the work of the Jehovist, compiled from previously existing Jehovistic and Elohistic records, and therefore by this critic designated by the letters J. E. This ancient composition was mainly historical, but contained the laws of Exod. xx-xxv. The second in order of the great documents was Deuteronomy, composed in the reign of Josiah, (designated D.) The third, called the Priest-Codex, (P. C.,) contained the laws of Exod. xxvi-xl, Leviticus, and Numbers i-x, and was accompanied by a historical introduction reflecting the spirit and opinions of the time of the exile when it was produced. This PriestCodex is also called the Book of the Four Covenants, (designated Q., from the Latin Quatuor.) After the exile Ezra or one of his generation constructed our present Pentateuch by a free use of all these documents, and also of other materials at his command.

Edward Reuss, of Strasburg, claims to have advanced this theory as early as the year 1834, and says that in many respects it was with him "a product of intuition." After slowly elaborating it in his university lectures for nearly half a century,

*Issued in two parts. London, 1867, 1872.

In his Vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels und seine Erweiterungen. Strasburg, 1874.

The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua Critically Examined. Seven parts. London, 1862-79. This series of publications from a Bishop of the Established Church, especially the first few parts, greatly stirred up the English theological world, and called out a library of replies.

Der Prophet Ezechiel. Leipzig, 1880.

Wellhausen's views appear in his essay on the Composition of the Hexateuch in the Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, (1876-77;) in his edition of Bleek's Einleitung in das A. T., (Berlin, 1878,) and in his Geschichte Israels, Erster Band. Berlin, 1878. New edition, entitled Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 1883.

Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften A. T., p. vii. Braunschweig, 1881.

he has recently published his matured critical analysis and arrangement of the whole body of Old Testament literature in a large octavo, entitled "The History of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament." He traces the composition of the Pentateuch through four distinct stages, the oldest portion of which was first compiled in the time of Jehoshaphat. This was subsequently revised and supplemented with important additions by the Jehovist. The third great contribution was made by the Deuteronomist in the time of Josiah, and the fourth, containing the Levitical legislation, was incorporated with the whole after the exile. W. R. Smith's position is not materially different from that of the school of Reuss, though he presents his views with greater moderation and caution. He distinguishes three separate groups of laws, which he calls the First Legislation, (Exod. xxi-xxiii,) the Deuteronomic Code, (especially Deut. xii-xxvi,) and the Levitical Legislation, which is scattered through Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. The exact date of Deuteronomy is not determined, but "the book became the programme of Josiah's reformation, because it gathered up in practical form the results of the great movement under Hezekiah and Isaiah, and the new divine teaching then given to Israel."* The distinctive features of the Levitical legislation were first sketched by Ezekiel, afterward developed in numerous details, incorporated with many ancient laws and traditions, and adapted "to the circumstances of the second temple, when Jerusalem was no longer a free State, but only the center of a religious community possessing certain municipal privileges of self-government."+ So far as these laws or writings are ascribed to Moses, they are to be understood merely as a legitimate continuation of a cultus which began with Moses. They were by conventional usage, or legal fiction, called ordinances of Moses, but every one would understand that they were not of Mosaic authorship.

The adverse criticism of the Pentateuch has called out numerous replies from scholars who have steadfastly defended the traditional belief. Among the most eminent of these we may name, of the older writers, Carpzov, Witsius, Vitringa, and Calmet; and, in later times, Hengstenberg, Hävernick, Keil,

*The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 363. Edinburgh, 1881.
Ibid, p. 382.

M'Donald, and Green. Not a few of the ablest and most satisfactory answers to the several theories above detailed are to be found in the higher periodicals of Germany, England, and America. These vary in their methods of defense, some admitting numerous documents and interpolations, while others. are slow to concede that any thing save the account of Moses's death is inconsistent with Mosaic authorship.

RESULTS OF CRITICISM.

What now, we may ask, are the results of all this critical study of the Pentateuch? It will be conceded, by every one competent to judge, that the researches and discussions of the Higher Criticism have developed a more thorough and scientific study of the Old Testament. Philological, archæological, and historical questions connected with Hebrew literature have been investigated with rich results to the cause of sacred learning. As to the origin and authorship of the Pentateuch, we regard the following propositions as fairly settled:

1. The Pentateuch contains a number of passages which cannot, without doing violence to sound critical principles, be attributed to Moses as their author.

2. The Pentateuch, especially the Book of Genesis, contains documents of various dates and authorship, which have been worked over into an orderly and homogeneous whole.

3. The laws of the Pentateuch were either unknown or else very largely neglected and violated during most of the period between the conquest of Canaan and the Babylonian captivity. 4. The Books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers show dif ferent stages of legislation, and Leviticus contains a noticeably fuller and more elaborate priestly code and ritual than appear in Deuteronomy.

We are frank to say that we regard the above propositions. as simple statements of fact. But the divergent and conflicting opinions detailed in the foregoing pages admonish us that many unsound and illogical conclusions may be drawn from well-established facts. It is one thing to recognize positive results of criticism; quite another to accept theories which the critics build, or assume to build, upon such results. The discussion of the four propositions stated above must be reserved for another article.

ART. II.-THE OPIUM TRAFFIC IN CHINA.

[SECOND ARTICLE.]

THE previous article on this subject having treated of the history of the traffic, it is proposed in the present article to consider its results, to show what has been and is the Chinese opinion in regard to it, to discuss the relation of the United States to the trade, to trace the efforts that have been made for its suppression, and to indicate what ought to be done to accomplish that result.

II. THE RESULTS OF THE TRAFFIC.

If the opium trade were in itself devoid of all evil qualities, there would still be no justification for the methods by which it has been imposed upon the Chinese nation; but its iniquity appears in still more hideous proportions when we survey its results.

1. The results to the victims of the traffic.-Occasionally some one has been found with hardihood enough to deny that any evil result comes from opium-smoking in general, and even to affirm that it is rather a harmless indulgence. Probably the most notable instance of this sort is to be found in a letter addressed by Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, & Co., of Hong-Kong, to the governor of that colony in 1867. The British Treaty with China was about to be revised, and this mercantile firm, well known as the most extensive dealers in opium of all the merchants in China, solicited the governor to bring their views in regard to the revision before the British government. In this letter they say:

Since 1860 it has been rendered abundantly clear that the use of opium is not a curse, but a comfort and a benefit, to the hardworking Chinese. As well say that malt is a curse to the English laborer, or tobacco one to the world at large! Misuse is one thing; use, another. If to a few the opium pipe has proved a fatal snare, to many scores of thousands, on the other hand, has it been productive of healthful sustentation and enjoyment. Were we not well assured that these statements are true, we should not press this matter as we are now doing; but after the evidence of the past we feel justified in claiming that those who deal in opium shall be permitted to supply the inland Chinese with the drug as freely as are the dwellers at the ports.

It is not difficult to detect in this extract the special pleading of an interested party, or to trace the similarity of its arguments to those of the liquor-seller; but it seems, passing strange that a firm of reputable merchants would dare put forth such a statement where it must necessarily be scrutinized by intelligent people. Once in a while a physician, whose handsome support was derived from opium-dealing firms, has uttered like opinions; and from time to time such views have been expressed by defenders of the traffic in the halls of Parliament. But the unvarying and overwhelming testimony of Chinese statesmen and people, of British officials, of travelers, of medical inen, and of missionaries, shows, beyond all question, the terrible effect of the death-dealing drug.

Prince Kung and his colleagues, in a dispatch to the British Minister in 1869, say:

That opium is like a deadly poison, that it is most injurious to mankind, and a most serious provocative of ill feeling, is, the writers think, perfectly well known to his Excellency, and it is therefore needless for them to enlarge further on these points.

The K'euen Keae Shay, a Chinese society for the promotion of abstinence from opium, embracing many mandarins and gentlemen of high rank in Canton and its vicinity, in reply to an address of the Anglo-Oriental Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade, in 1876, say of the effects of opium-smoking that,

1. It squanders wealth. 2. It interrupts industry. 3. It destroys life. 4. It cramps talent. 5. It disorganizes government. 6. It enfeebles the defenders of the country. 7. It loosens the bonds of society. 8. It corrupts the morals of the people.

In an address issued by the same society to their countrymen, they say:

Opium-smoking ruins family estates, destroys bodies and souls of men more than can be reckoned; and in recent times there is nothing which can compare with this in injuring the people. Yellow gold is given in exchange for this black dirt; fertile fields are planted with this poisonous thing. Every day, every month, its votaries increase. Those who were well off are reduced to rags; their fine houses and rich lands all quickly transmuted into a cloud of smoke. How terrible it is!

Sir Thomas Wade, the British Minister, in a dispatch to his own government, says:

It is to me vain to think otherwise of the use of the drug in China than as of a habit many times more pernicious, nationally 28-FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXXVI.