had no existence; and if he did, his appeal would be
met only by derision. Mohammed needed not the help of miracles, for his
appeal was to the sword and to the corrupt passions of the human heart;
and he never attempted to rest his pretended divine mission on the
evidence of miracles. He knew that to do so would be to overthrow at
once his authority as the prophet of God. But the Mosaic economy needed
and received the seal of miracles, to which Moses continually appeals as
to undeniable realities. But if the miracles recorded in the Pentateuch
are real, then it contains a revelation from God, and is entitled to our
unwavering faith. Then too we can explain how, in the providence of God,
the Mosaic institutions prepared the way for the advent of "Him of whom
Moses in the law and the prophets did write." Thus we connect the old
dispensation with the new, and see both together as one whole.

Other arguments might be adduced; but upon these two great pillars--the
authority, on the one side, of the New Testament, and, on the other, the
fact that the Pentateuch contains the entire body of laws by which the
Jewish nation was moulded and formed, and that its character and history
can be explained only upon the assumption of its truth--on these two
great pillars the authenticity and credibility of the Pentateuch rest,
as upon an immovable basis.

3. The _difficulties_ connected with the Pentateuch, so far as its
contents are concerned, rest mainly on two grounds, _scientific_ and
_historical_, or _moral_. The nature of the scientific difficulties
forbids their discussion within the restricted limits of the present
work. It may be said, however, generally, that so far as they are real,
they relate not so much to the truth of the Mosaic record, as to the
manner in which certain parts of it should be understood.

How long, for example, that state of things continued which is
described in Gen. 1:2, or what particular results were produced
by the operation of the divine Spirit there recorded, we do not
know. What extent of meaning should be assigned to the six days
of creation--whether they should be understood literally or in a
symbolical way, like the prophetical days of Daniel and
Revelation--Dan. 7:25; 9:24-27; Rev. 9:15; 11:3, etc.--is a
question on which devout believers have differed ever since the
days of Augustine. See Prof. Tayler Lewis' Six Days of Creation,
ch. 14. But all who rec