the people', he also gave them a statute and an ordinance' (xxiv.25); and when he had declared the words before them, he wrote them in the book of the law of God' (v.26). From this sacred document it was, then, doubtless, that both Moses' words and his were culled by their surviving followers, and put into the form in which they have come down to us. Other documents also these writers had, as for example the record of the final survey of the land, with all its minutiæ of names and boundaries (xviii.9), from which the descriptions in the central chapters of Joshua were derived. What more was wanting the personal knowledge of the writers themselves would readily supply. And thus it came to pass, that histories, the most authentic and reliable, records of never-dying words, the most precise and accurate conceivable, were composed; through troublous times preserved; by many successive scribes, on many diverse parchments, copied out; and so at last handed down to us, fresh from a hoar antiquity, a precious treasure to the people of God for countless ages.

CHAPTER XI.

THE PENTATEUCH AND ITS OBSERVANCE.

(BISHOP COLENSO, PART III., CHAP. III., VII.-X. (IN PART))

IF Scripture History made mention of all things, whose absence is advanced by critics as an objection to its veracity, it would be, verily, one of the most complicated and elaborate records in existence. Multitudes of minute particulars concerning things utterly foreign to its true purpose, detailed disquisitions on trifling points of history, geography, and literature, full and complete information as to the precise causes, manner of occurrence, and consequences, of every event narrated, must be inserted. No hint dropped in one part of the history, that is not expanded at length elsewhere; no allusions to customs, things, or places, of which full details are not given; no law recorded, whose observance is not also related, with every circumstantial belonging to it; but every statement clear, explicit and precise, fitting in and according with every other with mathematical exactness. Such, in plain language, is the sort of history, which many modern critics of the Bible seem to think it ought to contain.

Whether, if such a history existed, it would satisfy their demands, may be reasonably doubted. Its very fulness and precision, its minutely-studied consistency, would probably become an objection to its genuineness. Since what should lead a writer of those ancient days, when historical criticism was as yet unknown, to compose such a record? Much rather might it be the artful and ingenious fraud of some far later time, written

X

with the full expectation of searching scrutiny, the express intention to deceive. But however this might be, one thing at least is certain;-such is not the sort of history the Bible does contain. The narrative of Israel's fortunes from the conquest of Canaan to the captivity at Babylon, is not a minutely detailed record of their condition, their manners and customs, their laws and constitution, their religious observances, or even of their civil and political history. It is merely an account of some of the most remarkable and instructive events, connected with some of the most prominent characters, who lived and acted during that lengthened period. In its method it is chiefly biographical, in purpose didactic, in style simple and artless. Its allusions to previous history, to laws, to institutions, are incidental, not intentional. No doubt this makes its consistency, both with itself and with independent testimony, as an evidence of veracity, the more valuable and conclusive.* But it also renders our information on many points exceedingly scanty; and we are compelled to supply from other sources, or even from imagination, much of detail, which the history has omitted, just because it did not come within its proper scope to relate it. Instead, then, of carping at the absence of that, whose presence were contrary to the purpose of the Sacred narrative; and setting up our notions of what the Bible history ought to be, as the standard of comparison, and rejecting everything that differs from them; let us rather humbly take it as it is, and accept its own manifest aim and character as the best guide to a right understanding of its contents.

Many of the objections urged by Bishop Colenso against the Mosaic origin of Pentateuch are of the kind just referred to. His argument concerning them may be summed up as follows.

It was commanded in Deuteronomy, that all sacrifices were to be offered at the place which Jehovah should choose'; yet did Samuel,

* See Hist. Charact. Pent. p.184-5,196.

David, Solomon, and indeed all the pious kings, offer continually at 'high places', which do not seem to have been considered sinful until the reign of Hezekiah, and more especially of Josiah. So again, there is not the slightest indication in the history of these times, of the observance of the feasts, the reading of the law at the feast of tabernacles, the attendance of all the adult males at the sanctuary three times a year, the payment of tithes, the sabbatical years, the cities of refuge, the king's writing out a copy of the law, &c. &c. Had these laws really been laid down by Moses they would surely have been observed. Their non-observance shews them to have been of later date, and also of no great authority or reputation.

The greater number of the cases of non-observance thus alleged are set aside by the principle just enunciated. They rest exclusively upon the evidence of silence; silence upon points, which it did come within the scope of the history to allude to; a ground of evidence, therefore, according to the rules originally laid down,* utterly worthless. We do not know anything about the observance of these laws. To conclude from this, that they were not observed, or were not in existence, would be as wise and logical, as to conclude, that, because a modern history, say Alison's Europe, makes no mention of a vast number of laws and customs in force in the various countries treated of, therefore these laws and customs were not in force. The answer to any one who should urge such an objection as this, would plainly be, the mention of these laws and customs did not come within the scope of the history in question, and therefore was omitted. Just such is our answer to the bulk of Bishop Colenso's objections concerning the non-observance of the Mosaic laws.

One of the instances alleged is, however, of a different kind. The practice of sacrificing at high-places was undoubtedly much in vogue in the times referred to; yet was it contrary to the Pentateuch. But one point more is needed to make the argument, founded upon these facts by Bishop Colenso, complete, viz. the suppressed premiss of his first syllogism-it is

*See Hist. Charact. Pent. Introduct.p.xv.

incredible that a Mosaic law should have existed at these times without being strictly observed.* This is assumed throughout, and herein lies the fallacy of the whole line of reasoning. For the existence of a law of admittedly supreme authority, and its utter neglect in practice, irreconcilable as they may seem in theory, are found to be perfectly compatible in fact. Let us take a case by way of illustration.

The authority of the Bible, as the supreme standard of appeal both in faith and practice, was unquestionably recognised theoretically by all the great church-leaders during the middle ages. Its inspiration was a received article of belief, its words regarded with superstitious reverence, its meaning by many deeply studied. Yet were some of its plainest commands disregarded, its most characteristic doctrines ignored; itself, to the bulk of the people, a sealed, if not an unknown book. Surely, it might be argued, such antiscriptural practices as saint and image-worship, auricular confession, or communion in one kind; such antiscriptural doctrines as the papal supremacy, purgatory, or transubstantiation, could never have arisen, or been permitted, at a time when the Bible was known and honoured. The acceptance of such by the people might, indeed, be allowed as possible, on account of their ignorance and credulity; but how could their priests, their teachers, above all the heads of the church,-how could they give countenance to such, who knew the Bible and admitted its authority? Even if the bulk of these be excepted, as of too ordinary mind to deviate from the trodden path of custom, yet

* His argument, formally stated, would be as follows. 1. It is incredible that a Mosaic law should have existed in the times of Samuel, David and Solomon without being observed; but the practice of confining sacrifices to one place was not observed in those times; therefore no Mosaic law commanding this could have been in existence then. 2. No Mosaic law confining sacrifices to one place was in existence in the days of Samuel, David and Solomon; but the law in Denteronomy does thus confine them; therefore the law in Deuteronomy was not Mosaic, and (probably) of later date than these times.