Plan Of This Work.

The natural order in which to discuss the authorship of a book is to begin with the claim set up in the book itself, and consider first the internal evidences for and against it This would have been the order of the present discussion but for the fact that certain prepossessions have taken hold of the minds of many, and until these are removed a favorable consideration of this evidence would be well-nigh impossible. It therefore seemed to the author wiser to begin with the arguments and evidence which have been arrayed on the negative side of the position, and to divide the discussion into two parts, of which Part I. is a consideration of the grounds on which the Mosaic authorship is denied, and Part II. a presentation of those on which it is affirmed.

Even with this beginning we might have been expected to consider first the internal evidence against the Mosaic authorship, but there stands in the forefront of the negative position the assumption mentioned in a previous section (3, p. vii ) as to the actual origin of the book, and this takes precedence of all other considerations. Our discussion begins, therefore, with what the adverse critics have said with reference to the book discovered by the priest Hilkiah, as recorded in the twenty-second chapter of II Kings.

In representing the positions and arguments which I controvert, I have not usually stated them in my own words, lest I might be suspected of misrepresenting them, and lest I should in some instances unwittingly do so; but I have quoted freely from representative authors. In pursuing this course, I have taken pains to follow on every leading issue the line of argumentation pursued by that scholar on the other side who seemed to present the case with the greatest force; and where it appeared important I have appended footnotes referring for clarification to other authors. If this method shall appear to any reader a more personal form of controversy than courtesy might suggest., I beg him to consider that it gives more directness and piquancy to discussion; and not to forget that when an author places himself before the public as an antagonist of established and cherished beliefs, he involuntarily exposes himself to direct attack. If, in this somewhat personal controversy, I have at any time overstepped the bounds of courtesy, I offer as my apology the indignation which must ever stir the breast of a friend of the Bible when lie sees it assailed by arguments so shallow and sophistical as to be unworthy of their authors. And if at any time I have indulged in lightness, it should be remembered that ridicule, when justly administered,. is a most proper and effective weapon in the defense of truth.