THE UNITY OP GENESIS. 



357 



Discussion. 



The President said, I feel a great sympathy with one position of 

 the writer of the paper to which we have just listened. I fear that 

 I may be treading on the corns of some of my hearers, but I wish to 

 make a general protest against the notion that a gentleman who calls 

 himself a "professor," without any sufficient qualification, is thereby 

 placed in a position of authority, and can make statements without a 

 ] (article of evidence to prove them. I may be prejudiced in my 

 view by my experience as a lawyer, but in court we are expected to 

 give full proof in support of every assertion, and if we do not 

 it is naturally assumed that it is because we cannot do so. A 

 " professor," on the other hand, appears to consider himself relieved 

 from any such anxiety. He seems to think that all that he has to do 

 is to say that such and such is the case, and as he is a professor he 

 cannot be contradicted or brought to book. If anyone brings for- 

 ward an argument on the other side, the " professor " says that his 

 opponent has made a mistake ; but being a " professor," he does not 

 consider himself obliged to substantiate even this assertion. 



Our case is entirely different from that. Thus in the present 

 instance, M. Xaville finds himself obliged to answer statements which 

 rested on no direct evidence : — certain portions of Scripture have been 

 assigned to writers, the Jahvist, theElohist, etc., of whose existence 

 as men there is no proof at all. M. Naville might have made his 

 position more clear if he had pointed out that the Jahvist, the 

 Elohist, and so forth, are themselves merely the creations of certain 

 " professors," rather than by assuming what the " prof essors " have 

 chosen to lay down as if it were a fully established fact. 



For my own part, I consider this assignment of different fragments 

 of Genesis to a number of wholly imaginary authors, great rubbish. I 

 do not understand the attitude of those men who base a whole theory 

 of this kind on hypotheses for which there is no evidence whatsoever, 

 and I am very glad that M. Naville began his paper by objecting to 

 statements which were made without support. 



I am glad to have relieved my own soul by this protest, but hope 

 that it will not have hurt the feelings of any who are present. 



I feel sure that all here will warmly support me in proposing a 

 hearty vote of thanks to the author of the admirable paper to 

 which you have listened, and to our Secretary for having read it. 



