THE SILENCES OF SCRIPTURE. 



93 



of Princeton, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, of April, 1890 (which is 

 introduced in Dr. G. F. Wright's The Origin and Antiquity of 

 Man), goes fully into this subject, and shows that this abbreviation 

 of genealogies is characteristic of the Old Testament. We may, 

 therefore, conclude that the list of the post-diluvian patriarchs, 

 at all events, is probably only a list of the most prominent men 

 who were in the line of succession between Noah and Abraham. 

 And certainly the peopling of the world by the descendants of Noah, 

 and the rise of the kingdoms of Babylon and Egypt, with their 

 advanced civilization, seems to require a much longer time than 

 Usher's Chronology would allow. 



The Kev. A. Craig Robinson sends the following : — I am very 

 glad to have been, through the courtesy of the author, afiorded 

 an opportunity of perusing his most interesting and able paper, 

 with every word of which, I may say, I am in perfect accord. The 

 author has, I think, given a most lucid and graphic unravelling of 

 what seems to have been the thread of purpose — high — holy — and 

 Divine — which runs through the Scriptures of both the Old and 

 New Testaments. But he very naturally says, " If, however, 

 modern critics are right, the whole of this account is utterly 

 misleading." To my mind it seems to be capable of absolute 

 demonstration that the true order of the Scriptures of the Old 

 Testament is " The Law and the Prophets " — and not, as the 

 German critics would have it, " The Prophets and the Law." On 

 occasions too numerous to mention, I have called attention to three 

 remarkable features of the Pentateuch, viz. : — (1) The absence 

 from the Pentateuch of the name " Jerusalem " ; (2) the absence 

 from the ritual of the Pentateuch of any mention of Sacred Song ; 

 and (3) the absence from the Pentateuch of the Divine title " Lord 

 of Hosts," so much in vogue in those later times in which the critics 

 assert that the Pentateuch was pieced together. 



These features in the Pentateuch are facts absolutely undeniable. 

 No one can say that the name " Jerusalem " does occur in the 

 Pentateuch : no one can say that any mention of Sacred Song 

 does occur in the ritual of the Pentateuch : and no one can say 

 that the Divine title " Lord of Hosts " does occur in the Pentateuch. 

 What is the explanation of this complete absence from the Pentateuch 

 of the name " Jerusalem " ? Is it not this ? That at the time the 

 Pentateuch was written Jerusalem with all her sacred glories had 



