Roman or English, of attacks upon the received meaning of Scripture. We have said that the Church has not defined, for the most part, the interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. We are far from saying that the history is not literally true, still less that Scripture has not an ascertainable sense, but it is certain that the Church has never pronounced an interpretation on every particular of it. In fact, it is manifest that many parts-as, for instance, poetical or metaphorical expressions, and the like-would never be supposed by anybody to be taken literally. The alarm, therefore, that pervades the Protestant mind, which has nothing to fall back upon when its own interpretation of Scripture is impugned, scarcely reaches the Catholic, who has never laid so much stress on any particular method of exposition. Add to this the fact, that the one class of people are accustomed to disbelieve everything, unless they can see, or fancy they see it, proved from Scripture, and that the others take all doctrine upon the authority of the Church, and it is at once seen that the state of mind with which either comes to the perusal of such a book as Dr. Colenso's is quite different.

Now, we shall not surprise readers of the Christian Remembrancer if we say that we give our entire adhesion to the Catholic view on this point as opposed to the Protestant. We explained, in our last article on this subject, the meaning of the Sixth Article of Religion, and we challenge any one to give any other explanation of this Article which shall be at once consistent with common sense and the notorious facts of the case. And we say that the attitude of English Churchmen towards such questions ought to be quite as calm and serene as that of members of the Roman Communion is indifferent. It will at once be seen that we are preparing the way for the admission of unsolved difficulties in the text of Scripture. As regards the Old Testament, these are almost innumerable. Some of the difficulties of reconciling the accounts of the Kings and Chronicles appear to us to be very great or even insuperable. We gladly recognise attempts, whether by the aid of critical acumen or modern discoveries, to make an entirely consistent account of this period of Jewish history; but we fully believe that many of the difficulties will remain to the end of time. Many of them are known to the most superficial readers; many more make their way to the surface, as people become better acquainted with the subject. We need not repeat Bishop Butler's argument, that difficulties are to be expected in Revelation, if only on the very ground that there are difficulties in Nature. In Nature, Grace, and Revelation we may expect the same difficulties, and the same difficulty, or even impossibility in solving them. The point at present for considera

tion is, that everybody has been familiar with many such difficulties, and that people in general do not seem to have minded them. Of course not. They have been content to think that they are not possessed of all knowledge or all science, and have left explanations to others who are wiser than themselves. The only real difference between the state of things now and that of fifty years ago is this, that a very few more difficulties have been dragged to light by modern critical researches, and that they have been thrown into a popular form, and published in the compass of a small volume, by a colonial Bishop, who has, moreover, unfortunately for himself, vastly overstated his case, and represented his argument as much stronger than even his friends, the Sceptics and Rationalists of Germany, will be able to admit.

And now, perhaps, we have said enough on the general bearing of the subject, and may proceed to give an account of the second part of the Bishop of Natal's book, the title of which is at the head of this article. We do not suppose that many of our readers will have been induced by our account of the first part of this work to read the work itself for themselves. And, probably, few readers of any kind will have followed the author through his weary details of arithmetical calculations. Suffice it, therefore, here to repeat, that Dr. Colenso occupied himself in the first part entirely in the work of destruction. We did not profess to follow each argument and to refute his conclusions seriatim; we gave what we supposed was a fair description of the book, and left it to tell its own story, only interspersing with our description of it such observations as might tend to elucidate the absurdity of the magnificent conclusion which the author professes to have deduced from the premises.

That conclusion was, that the whole story of the Exodus was unhistorical, neither written by Moses nor any other contemporary, but an entire fiction from beginning to end. We think we are not misrepresenting Dr. Colenso in saying this, because, whatever earlier stories the history of the Exodus may have been developed out of, it is plain that he considers the main story, and nearly every detail, to be pure invention.

However, before we proceed any further, the author shall recapitulate his first volume for himself.

He proceeds as follows:

'Thus it is obvious that large portions of the Pentateuch, including the account of the Exodus itself (see E. x. 19, where the word "sea" is used for "west"), must have been composed long after the times of Moses and Joshua.'

'Further, it cannot be supposed that any later writers would have presumed to mix up, without distinction, large and important sections of history of their own composition, with writings so venerable and sacred, as any

must have been, which had been handed down from the time of Moses, and were really believed to have been written by his hands, and, chiefly, from the very mouth of Jehovah Himself. It is inconceivable that any pious Israelite, much less a Prophet or Priest, would have dared to commit an act of such profanity, under any circumstances. But, certainly, he could not have done so, without distinguishing in some way the Divine words, as written down by Moses, from his own.

"There is not, however, a single instance of any such distinction being drawn throughout the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers; though in one or two places of Deuteronomy, xxxi. 30, xxxiii. 1, xxxiv., the expressions imply that a later writer is professedly setting forth the words or acts of Moses. And many of the signs of a later date, which we have just been considering, occur in passages, which must, if any, have been written by Moses himself, recording the words which Jehovah had spoken to him. We are compelled, therefore, it would seem, to the conclusion, that the later writer or writers did not believe in the unspeakably sacred character of any older documents, which may have come down to them-that they did not receive them, as really written by the hand of Moses, and conveying, on his own authority, the astonishing facts of his awful communion with God.

While, therefore, it is possible, as far as we know at present, that laws, songs, &c. may be included in the Pentateuch, which are of very ancient date, and may have even been handed down from the times of Moses, we can scarcely suppose that they were written by his hand, any more than we can believe that the whole story of the Exodus, containing, as we have seen, such flagrant contradictions, could have had Moses for its author. In short, without anticipating here the result of closer inquiry, observing only that the instances above adduced occur in so many different places as to cover, so to speak, the whole ground of the Mosaic story, we are warranted already in asserting that the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, generally, must have been composed in a later age than that of Moses and Joshua, and some parts of them, at all events, not earlier than the time of Samuel (245) or of David (249).'

And now it is worth while, before we go on to describe the contents of the second volume, to expose the fallacy contained in the view that later writers who added to the text of inspired documents could never have ventured so to tamper with them if they had believed them inspired. We ask, Why not? Supposing a later writer had believed himself to be inspired for this special work, where is the absurdity in his inserting, ad libitum, passages in the books of Moses-nay, why should not such a writer have conceived himself commissioned even to alter words and phrases to make them more intelligible to a later generation than archaic usages would have been. It will be said we are touching upon dangerous ground. Be it so. We do not assert anything positively, but we really cannot see any absurdity in the idea of inspired writers accommodating their expressions to the language of the time in which they wrote. Nay, is it not palpable and undeniable that they did so? Professors of the orthodox creed are often twitted with the insinuation that they silently veer round towards a view which is forced upon them by criticism. Now, if this means that they are open to

conviction, and can alter their opinions upon non-essential points of belief, such as the Church has not defined, we are free to confess that this is just the point at which we welcome criticism. It would be ridiculous to suppose that all the critical and scientific knowledge we of this age possess, which was wholly unknown in the last century, should have no effect upon the orthodox believer. It must be a very dead and useless creed that does not admit of indefinite expansion in the heart of him who professes it, as he grows in intellect as well as in grace. There are many points on which we ought to have clearer views than our forefathers in the faith had; and it would be an evil day for this generation if the spread of criticism is not to be accompanied with a corresponding increase in the numbers of those who adhere to the Catholic faith.

We beg to call the reader's attention to the transparent fallacy involved in the argument of the passage which we have extracted from the second part of The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua critically examined.' Of course, the Bishop of Natal does not believe in any kind of inspiration, as he denies even the truth of the narrative; but it should be observed, that his argument is professedly addressed to believers in some theory of inspiration, and he considers that any theory is shown by the above argument to be self-contradicting. Now, it would not have been worth while to waste so many words upon so palpable and ridiculous a fallacy, if it were not that we wish to impress upon the reader the extremely illogical character of the Bishop's mind. We have before shown that the conclusion which he professes to produce from the premises of his first volume is far beyond the truth of what they will bear, if all his facts were ever so fully proved and established. We have now shown that his idea of inspiration is so entirely confused, that he has tacked on a conclusion to premises with which it has nothing at all to do. We have stated the argument in the general, but even the most ordinarily instructed reader of the Old Testament has a hundred times applied it unconsciouusly to particular instances. It does not require more than the ordinary intelligence of a child, who has read the Books of Moses and Joshua, and who has been told that they were written respectively by Moses and Joshua, to ask the question how it comes to pass that the deaths of their authors are recorded in these books. The answer is easily given, and as easily accepted as truth, that additions were made, and the books reduced into the form in which we have them, principally by Ezra. It does not occur to him to doubt either the inspiration of Moses or of Ezra, because the one has been employed in the task of arranging, possibly altering, and certainly adding to what the other composed.

And now we proceed to notice the volume itself. And in doing so, perhaps, the best plan is, to exhibit the conclusion at which the Bishop of Natal has arrived in this second and constructive part of his work. Part the First must be considered as destructive, being occupied with the proof that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, nor Joshua the book which bears his name, and that the contents of these books are not true accounts of what actually happened. Dr. Colenso does not claim absolute certainty for his conclusions. He is content to say, that the Pentateuch most probably originated in a noble effort of one illustrious man, in an early age of the Hebrew history (early, in this case, meaning four centuries after the time when the Exodus is usually supposed to have taken place), to train his people in the faith and fear of the Living God. This illustrious individual is represented as basing a fictitious history on floating legends and traditions, and drawing upon his own imagination for details when tradition failed him. The Book was left in an unfinished state, and completed by other prophetical or priestly writers. This illustrious individual was called Samuel, and to him we owe about half of the book of Genesis and a small part of Exodus. The greater part of the rest of the Pentateuch, exclusive of Deuteronomy, and such portions of the earlier books as are called by the author Elohistic, we owe to the pens of Nathan and Gad, or some other prophetical or priestly writers of that and the following age. The author does not tell us how these writers came to be priests and prophets; but let that pass. This may have been a pious fraud, similar to the composition of a history which the authors knew to be false, and which they must have known every person of common sense would have known to be false. The author continues: 'But though, as we believe, these portions of the Pentateuch 'were written, the history gives no sign of the Pentateuch itself being in existence in the age of Samuel, David, or Solomonmuch less of the Levitical laws being in full operation, known, honoured, revered, obeyed, even quoted or referred to as the 'contents of a book, believed to be Mosaic and Divine, would certainly have been, at least by the most pious persons of the day!'

6

6

Dr. Colenso is not so blind but what he can see that his theory seems to impute bad faith and falsehood to the great prophet. He introduces the objection with a pretty rhetorical artifice. A friend, it appears, observed to him, I would rather believe that two and two make five than that such a man as Samuel could possibly have been guilty of so foul an offence against the laws ' of religion, truth, and common morality.' Now, we are not concerned to defend the mode of expression, which, however, we will take the liberty of saying, we make no objection to. We