firm rejection of the Colenso hypothesis. The Dean gives, as the theories "of what may be called the critical school,"

"1. That the Pentateuch in its present form is of very late date, the reign of Hezekiah, Manasseh, Josiah, or even subsequent to these.

2. That the Pentateuch, even in its present form, is of very high antiquity, as high as the time of Moses, but that it has undergone many interpolations, some additions, and much modification."

And he adds, "If I am to choose, I am most decidedly for the second."

"If I am to choose," says Dean Milman,-implying, surely, that he does not quite like either. But, if he is to choose, "most decidedly" he is for the authorship of Moses. In other words, he deems all Bishop Colenso's time thrown away, and his "certain conclusions" worse than uncertain.

But does not the Bishop himself reject, with just as little ceremony, the conclusions of the greatest critics in Germany? Thus, in p. 585 of the present volume, he tells us that "Knobel seems to have been led astray by his theory of the early origin of this poem." At 589, he says, that "Knobel's account of the matter is not at all satisfactory." At p. 594, he remarks, that "the very ground on which Knobel's opinion rests, is gone from under him." And at p. 596, he shows that "Bleek has been obliged to abandon this view," and has now taken up another, which Dr. Colenso holds to be equally incorrect. Thus, in the course of a dozen pages, we find the Bishop quarrelling with German criticism some three or four times, and handling its "certain conclusions" as if they were most uncertain guesses. In the same manner, in the last chapter of his 2nd Part, after a quotation from Hupfeldt, in which Bishop Colenso entirely concurs, we have a reference to Hupfeldt's latest conclusions, of which, the Bishop tells us, "a single glance" will satisfy us of the total falsity. Thus "criticism,' when it falls in with Dr. Colenso's preconceived ideas, is "certain" and infallible; but when it differs from him, then it is worth nothing.

But perhaps some one may ask, Has not the Bishop, then, selected from the whole field of “biblical criticism" its sound and solid portions; and given us, as a general result, no more to be questioned, the view of the Pentateuch supplied to us in these three volumes? Is this so? Who is of that opinion? Where shall we meet with the individual (except his newfound supporter, Mr. Houghton) who, with any reputation to give weight to his support, will place himself by Bishop Colenso's side, and boldly aver his belief in the theories of these three volumes? We have seen and heard of some seventy oppugners of the Bishop; as to his defenders, as far

as we know, Mr. Houghton is alone. The main hypothesis of the present volume (Jeremiah's authorship of Deuteronomy) was considered long ago by De Wette and Ewald, and rejected by both of them; and Dr. Davidson treats it as too improbable to need any refutation.

But the Bishop evidently thinks nothing of his opponents. As we have already said, he is morally blind and deaf. Still, although he can lightly pass over Bishop Ollivant, Dr. McCaul, and Professor Browne, there is a class of writers to whose opinions he cannot be so indifferent. We mean that class who substantially agree with him, that while the Bible contains God's Word, it is not, in every part, actually His Word. There is so much sympathy and fellow-feeling with the Bishop in this class of writers, that he can hardly be, or profess to be, indifferent to their views. And what, then, do these writers say of his attacks on the authenticity of the Pentateuch?

Foremost of them all is Dean Milman. This experienced writer shows his willingness to go a certain length with Bishop Colenso, by proposing to alter the numbers in the book of Exodus, and by admitting that it is probable that the Pentateuch has undergone interpolations. But what says he to the main question? Bishop Colenso, in a dozen places, declares that he has proved that the Pentateuch cannot have been written in the days of Moses, nor until some hundreds of years after. But Dean Milman, after having had the matter under his consideration for a quarter of a century, and after having studied those German critics who have furnished Bishop Colenso with his facts and arguments,-Dean Milman comes at last to the conclusion, "most decidedly," that the Pentateuch is of the days of Moses. His verdict, therefore, is, that the Bishop, in his main position, is "most decidedly" wrong.

Another writer of the same class is Canon Stanley. He is reputed to be the author of the article in the Edinburgh Review, in which the "Layman's" work is commended, as "effectually disposing of the main part of Dr. Colenso's objections." He is also reputed to be the writer of a notice of Dr. Colenso's book in "The Reader"; in which the following passages occur:-"The argument in favour of Samuel's authorship (of the Pentateuch) is much less convincing. It is an attractive hypothesis. But there is much against it." "The second position, with regard to the late introduction of the name of Jehovah, seems to us improbable in the highest degree.... There are early instances of the use of the name which, though few, are decisive in favour of its ante-Davidic existence."*

Canon Stanley, then, if he be the writer of these articles, like Dean Milman, holds Dr. Colenso to be wrong in his main fact and leading argument.

*Reader, Feb. 14, 1863.

A third witness of the same class is the Rev. J. Llewellyn Davies, one of the most advanced of the "Broad Church" school. In the same periodical from which we have just quoted, Mr. Davies writes,-"We think that the Bishop is generally worsted in the warfare which he has himself chosen." And in a still later article, Mr. Davies remarks of two of Dr. Colenso's foremost difficulties, "That he should be capable of entertaining and presenting such objections, is enough to excite distrust in his judgment."

These quotations are wrung from us by the singular complacency with which the Bishop reasons throughout this Part III., as if his former acquirements had been both unassailable and unassailed, and as if he were in triumphant possession of the field. The fact is doubly otherwise. His former volumes have been beaten to morsels, or rather ground to powder, by the blows of a multitude of assailants; and even those who in many respects sympathize with him, are obliged to give their voices in condemnation of his main position, as utterly false and untenable.

There is a piece of adroitness, in the posture of the Bishop in the present volume, which borders on the ludicrous. In his Preface he seems, for a moment, as if he were about to grapple with his chief opponents. But then he suddenly turns away, with this ingenious excuse for declining to notice them :

"There are some replies, such as those by the Rev. W. H. Hoare, Rev. E. Greswell, &c. &c., which, from their general fairness and their tone of courtesy and Christian feeling, demand, and have received, my respectful attention. It is obvious, however, that if the arguments produced in this Part shall appear to be valid, the objections to my reasonings in Part I. may, for the most part, be dismissed at once, as merely ingenious attempts to build up a theory which has no real foundation." (p. viii.)

Thus, it is needless to reply to the refutations of Part I., because Part III. is about to make it quite clear and certain, that the Pentateuch was written long after the days of Moses.

But, unquestionably, this evasion, or silence, as to the objections to Part I., ought to bind Bishop Colenso not to argue from the positions of Part I. as unassailed or unassailable. Yet this is what he instantly does. In his very first chapter he begins by arguing, that "if it be true that the other parts of the Pentateuch are of far later date than the time of the Exodus, there can be no reason for supposing that this book forms an exception to the general rule." (p. 391.) In his second chapter, he similarly argues, that "if we are right in supposing that the Elohistic and Jehovistic portions of the Pentateuch were written not earlier than the times of Samuel, David, and Solomon, it is plain, without further inquiry, that

66

the Deuteronomist must have lived not earlier, and probably later, than the age of Solomon." (p. 407.) And in his twentyfirst chapter he reasons thus:- Deuteronomy was written after the Elohistic and Jehovistic portions of the other four books,"" hence it was written after the times of Samuel and David." (p. 612.)

Thus throughout the present volume he always argues as if the Samuel-date of the book of Exodus had been proved. And when we remind him that this point is resolutely contested, and demand his serious reply to the many weighty arguments brought against his position, he slips away, observing, that it is not worth while to reply to his antagonists, inasmuch as in this Part III. he shall make the case impregnable. We then turn back to Part III., and immediately find him arguing that, "As it has been proved that the former books were written in the days of Samuel or David, therefore it is clear that the Deuteronomist must have lived in a still later day!" To this sort of logic it cannot be necessary for us to apply any descriptive epithets; our readers will characterize it as they think fit.

Nor can we afford any more time or space to this very useless and unimportant volume. Others, we perceive, from the Bishop's pen, are announced to follow. In all probability, we shall trouble our readers with no further remarks on Dr. Colenso's writings. It becomes daily more evident, that no controversial opponent can disgust the public with the Bishop's criticisms half so effectually as he is doing it himself. We trust also that he is conferring a benefit on us, of which probably he little thought. The infidel criticism of Germany has been stored up until now, silently threatening the faith of England, but still in a great measure unknown; and Christians have often wonderingly asked each other, whether this pestilence would ever be let loose upon us, or whether it would waste itself, and "die out," in lands far distant from our own. The Bishop has solved, or rather is now solving, this question. He has made himself the "conductor" of these lurid thunder-clouds. By his means, England will learn the real character and value of German criticism. And we thankfully perceive, from the character of, and the reception given to, these three volumes, that the danger is less than we should have imagined it to be. The Bishop is injuring and destroying the reputations, such as they were, of others beside himself. He seems likely to leave wrecked on the shore, not his own vessel only, but the whole Rationalistic flotilla. We gladly anticipate, that, when this irruption is over, and the danger has passed away, the very mention of a certain class of German critics will excite a general feeling of disgust among the great bulk of our reading population.

STANLEY'S LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE

JEWISH CHURCH.

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church. By Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, D.D., Regius Professor of History in the University of Oxford, and Canon of Christ Church. London: John Murray.

Was there ever such a nation in existence as the Jews? Has that nation left a history? Is that history, like those of other ancient nations, a mixture of myth and fact, the result of human misconception; or is it a divinely-guarded narrative of events, recorded for the warning and the guidance of other nations to the end of time?

The first two of these questions admit not of a shadow of doubt; for if ever there was a nation that asserted for itself a place among the nations of the earth, and left an indelible impression upon the world, it was that of the Jews. It is the last question only that is open to an ambiguous or an adverse answer. Here the subtilties of doubt have room to insinuate themselves, and Speculation can take wing over the wilderness of the ages, in order to discover, among the mouldering ruins of Time, breaks and fissures which had perhaps no existence in the original structure, or which were purposely left to bewilder and confound those who will presume to be wise above what is written.

Scepticism, when it clothes itself in Scripture, is far more dangerous than when it presents itself in its native nudity. It can then deceive itself quite as easily as it can deceive others. Of this we see a striking proof and an instance in the Sadducees of old; they gave credence only to the five books of Moses, and yet from these it was they gathered the grounds of their unbelief. "Yea, hath God said?" is no new question.

There is a singular parallel to be observed between our modern sceptics, in their treatment of the facts of Scripture, and the method of ascertaining truth adopted by geologists. These assume that the earth has been brought into its present material condition by a succession of layers of varying nature, which it required an indefinite number of ages to form; and to these formations they give the supposed appropriate names of the Azoic, the Paleozoic, the Mesozoic, and the Tertiary, while to this latter they add the Post-Tertiary, which some further divide into the Post-Pliocene and the Recent. All this looks very learned, no doubt; though it occurs to ignorant persons like