them. Without any dangerous shock to their faith, a superstitious reverence for the letter of the Bible would then give way to a right and intelligent appreciation of the true value of the Scriptures, as containing God's Word, a blessed and glorious Revelation of His Eternal Truth to Man.

23, SUSSEX PLACE, KENSINGTON, W.

J. W. NATAL.

Since the above was written, the recent Charge of the Bishop of St. DAVID'S has been published. I commend the following extracts from it to the reader's careful consideration, not on account of the bearing which they have on that part of the controversy which is personal to myself, but for the sake of the judicial clearness, with which Bishop THIRLWALL has described the proper limits of the action of Convocation in respect of books, and for the sake also of his distinct recognition of the ample latitude allowed to the clergy, by the law of our Church, in their enquiries into the genuineness and authenticity of the Biblical writings :

"The Church has not attempted to fence the study of the Scripture, either for Clergy or Laity, with any restrictions as to the subject of enquiry, but has rather taught them to consider every kind of information, which throws light on any part of the Sacred Volume, as precious, either for present or possible use. If the enquiry is

to be free, it is impossible consistently to prescribe its results.'-p. 91.

"The Resolution [of Convocation], by which the Bishop of NATAL's book was condemned, assumes a paternal authority, which rather suits an earlier period in the education of the world; and it presupposes a childlike docility and obedience, in those over whom it is exercised, which are now very rarely to be found. It also suggests the question, what practical purpose it was designed to answer. Two were indicated in the Committee's Report,-"the effectual vindication of the truth of God's Word before men," and "the warning and comfort of Christ's People." But it is not clear how either of these objects could be attained by a declaration, that "the book involves errors of the gravest and most dangerous character." Both seem to require that the censure should have pointed out the errors involved, or have stated the doctrine which the book had at least indirectly impugned, so as to make it clear that the alleged errors affected, not merely prevalent opinions, but truths universally recognised as part of the Church's creed.'-p. 101.

'According to the view which I have ventured to take of the proper limits of synodical action in the cognisance of books, the Committee overstept those limits. They were appointed to examine the Parts which had then appeared of the Bishop's work, and to report "whether any--and if any, what-opinions, heretical or erroneous in doctrine, were contained in it." They extracted three propositions, which they have characterised as we have seen.

It may seem, indeed, as if the Committee, in their mode of dealing with the first of the propositions, which they cite or extract for censure, had shown that they were aware of the precise nature of the function they had to perform, and meant to confine themselves to it. That proposition is,-"The Bible is not itself God's Word." The author himself immediately adds, "But assuredly God's Word' will be heard in the Bible, by all who will humbly and devoutly listen for it." Of this qualification, the Committee, in their remarks on the proposition, take no notice whatever. But they first observe that the proposition, as they cite it, "is contrary to the faith of the Universal Church, which has always taught that Holy Scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost.' They seem to have overlooked that this statement, however true, was irrelevant; but they then proceed to refer to the Articles and Formularies of our own Church, which are, indeed, the only authority binding on her ministers. But, unfortunately, not one of the passages, to which they refer, applies to the proposition condemned. Many, indeed, among them do clearly describe the Bible as the "Word of God." But not one affirms that "the Bible is itself God's Word." No doubt, the expression indicated that the author made a distinction between the Bible and the Word of God, and considered the two terms as not precisely equivalent or absolutely interchangeable. And there is cer

tainly high authority for the distinction. Among the numerous passages of the New Testament, in which the phrase, the Word of God, occurs, there is not one in which it signifies the Bible, or in which that word could be substituted for it without manifest absurdity. But, even in our Articles and Formularies, there are several, in which the two terms do not appear to be treated as synonymous. If the Word of

God is to be found nowhere but in Holy Writ, not only would no other Christian Literature be properly called sacred, but the Bible itself would be degraded to a dead and barren letter, and would not be a living spring of Divine Truth. On the whole, the Report first attaches an arbitrary meaning to an ambiguous expression, and then charges it with contradicting authorities, which are either wholly silent upon it, or seem to countenance and warrant it.

'But, in their treatment of the next proposition, the Committee seem almost entirely to have lost sight of the principle, which, although misapplied, appeared to guide them in their examination of the first. For, with a single insignificant exception, they confront it, not with our Articles and Formularies, but with passages of Scripture. Quotations from Scripture may add great weight to a theological argument; they are essential for the establishment of any doctrine of a Church, which professes to ground its teaching on Scripture; but they are entirely out of place where the question is, not whether a doctrine is true or false, but whether it is the doctrine of the Church of England. This is no legal refinement, but a plain dictate of common sense; and it does not at all depend on the composition of the tribunal before which such questions are tried, so as to be less applicable if the Court consisted entirely of ecclesiastics. I should think it a great misfortune to the Church, if Convocation, sitting in judgment on the orthodoxy of a theological work, though without any view to proceedings against the author, should ignore and practically reject that principle. And, if in this respect the Report betrays the influence of a personal prepossession, which, however natural, ought not to be allowed to sway the decisions of a grave assembly,-above all, so as to bring them into conflict with the highest legal authorities of the Realm,-we have the more reason to rejoice that it did not obtain the sanction of the Upper House.

'When I look at the Scriptural arguments adduced in the Report against the second proposition extracted for condemnation, they do not seem to me of such a quality as to deserve to form an exception, if any could be admitted, to the rule which would exclude them from such an investigation. The Committee observe that "Moses is spoken of, by our Blessed Lord in the Gospel, as the writer of the Pentateuch." I suspect that even a layman, little acquainted with the manifold aspects of the question, and the almost infinite number of surmises which have been or may be formed concerning it, would be somewhat disappointed, when he found that the proof of this statement consists of three passages, in which our Lord speaks of "Moses and the Prophets," of the "law of Moses," and of "writings of Moses." It is true that it would not be a fatal objection to the argument, that the word "Pentateuch" does not occur in the Bible. It might have been so described, as to connect every part of its contents with the hand of Moses, as distinctly as if the observation of the Committee had been literally true. But in fact this is not the case; and still less is any such distinct appropriation to be found in any of the passages cited by the Committee in support of their assertion, that "Moses is recognised as the writer of the Pentateuch in other passages of Holy Scripture." They are neither more nor less conclusive than the language of the Seventh Article, to which the Committee confine all the reference they have made to the judgment of the Church on this question,-though this was the only matter into which it was their proper business to enquire. The Article alludes to "the law given from God by Moses,"-a slender foundation for any inference as to the record of that law, much more as to the authorship of other parts of the Pentateuch, especially as the name of Moses does not occur in the enumeration of the canonical books in the Sixth Article. If the question had been as to the authorship of the Book of Psalms, few persons probably would think that it had been dogmatically decided by the Church, because in the Prayer-Book the Psalter is described as the "Psalms of David." "The third proposition, "variously stated in the book," relates to the historical truth of the Pentateuch, which the author denies, not in the sense that everything in it is pure fiction, but that all is not historically true. But it is to be regretted that the Committee should again have lost sight of the object for which they were appointed, and have omitted to refer to any doctrine of the Church, which the author has contradicted. This was the more incumbent on them, since a recent judgment has formally sanctioned a very wide latitude in this respect. It is clear that, in such things, there cannot be two weights and two measures for different persons, and also that it does not belong to any but legal authority to draw the line, by which the freedom, absolutely granted in theory, is to be limited in practice.

'These are the propositions which they extract as the "main propositions of the book,' which, though not pretending to "pronounce definitively whether they are or are not heretical," they denounce as "involving errors of the gravest and most dangerous character." But they proceed to cite a further proposition, which the author states in the form of a question, to meet an objection which had been raised against his main conclusion, as virtually rejecting Our Lord's authority, by which, as the Committee state, "the genuineness and the authenticity of the Pentateuch have been guaranteed to all men." Whether the passages, in which Our Lord quotes or alludes to the Pentateuch, amount to such a guarantee, is a point which they do not discuss. They only observe that the proposition "questions our Blessed Lord's Divine knowledge," and with that remark they drop the subject.

'Considering that this proposition is incomparably the most important of all that they cite, one is surprised that it should have been dismissed with so very cursory and imperfect a notice. For it is not even clear that it correctly expresses the author's meaning. The question which he raises does not properly concern Our Lord's Divine knowledge, that is, the knowledge belonging to His Divine Nature. It

is whether His human knowledge was coextensive with the Divine Omniscience. It is obvious, at the first glance, what a vast field of speculation, theological and metaphysical, is opened by this suggestion. Bishop JEREMY TAYLOR observes: "They, that love to serve God in hard questions, use to dispute whether Christ did truly, or in appearance only, increase in wisdom. Others apprehend no inconvenience in affirming it to belong to the verity of human nature, to have degrees of understanding as well as of other perfections; and although the humanity of Christ made up the same person with His Divinity, yet they think the Divinity still to be free, even in those communications which were imparted to His inferior nature. ." It is clear to which side TAYLOR inclines. But I must own I should be sorry to see these hard questions revived. Still more should I deprecate any attempt of the Church of England to promulge a new dogma for the settlement of this controversy. And I lament that the Committee of the Lower House should have expressed themselves, as if either there was no "dispute" on the subject, or it belonged to them to end it by a word. But, at least, as their remark indicated that the Bishop had, in their judgment, fallen into some grave error, it was due, not only to him, but the readers of their Report, and to the Church at large, that they should have pointed out what the error was, by a comparison with the doctrine of the Church which it was supposed to contradict.'-p.103-115.

I add also the following from a Lecture on Science and Theology,' lately delivered by Chief-Justice HANSON, of South Australia.

'The uniform course of opinion during the last half century among all competent enquirers has been in a direction adverse to the historical character, at least of the early part, of the Book of Genesis. Geology has, I believe I may say, utterly exploded the notion of Creation in six days as given in the first chapter, as well as the idea of a universal Deluge; and it is gradually throwing back the date of the first appearance of man upon the globe to an antiquity which, according to present appearances, will ultimately be measured by hundreds of thousands of years. The Science of Language and Ethnology both tend to show that the separation of the human family, if, as is probable, it was one family originally, must be thrown back for tens of thousands of years, and that the people of Canaan, whom the Israelites drove out, belonged, no less than the Israelites themselves, to the Semitic race, instead of being Hamites, while the Persians belonged to the Indo-European family, instead of being, as the author of the tenth chapter of Genesis makes them, Semitic. And, at the same time, critical investigations, as to the age and authorship of the Book, are leading unmistakably to the belief that, whoever its compiler might be, and whatever ancient documents might be embodied in it, there were, at any rate, more than two persons concerned in its authorship, the earliest of whom could not have lived much before, and probably did not live after, the time of David. I do not now put forward these conclusions as true, though personally I consider the evidence such as to warrant our belief of their truth; but I mention them as those conclusions, to which the current of opinion is now leading, and which the majority of independent thinkers, who devote themselves to these enquiries, will be likely to adopt. In fact, but for the theological interests supposed to be at stake, and the theological passions therefore aroused, I believe that there would at this time be no more doubt, as to the general truth of the conclusions which Bishop Colenso is enouncing, with regard to the uncertainty of the early history of the world and of the Jews, than there is with regard to those put forth by Niebuhr, as to the uncertainty of the early history of the Romans. But, however this may be, it cannot be denied that among independent thinkers, who have directed their enquiries to this subject, the tendency is towards the conclusions which I have indicated, in spite of strong early prepossessions, and of no slight present inducements to maintain the contrary views. Now, is it to be supposed,-will anyone venture to assert,-that these views, if adopted, can affect the relation of man to God, or the purposes of God to man ?-that the inducements to virtue or piety will be diminished, or that virtue and piety will be less acceptable to God?-or even that these opinions, if honestly formed and manfully proclaimed, will be less pleasing in the eyes of the God of Truth, than the contrary opinions, taken at second hand without enquiry, or obtained as the result of an enquiry whose conclusion was foredetermined? No doubt it is true that many opinions, which we have been accustomed to hold, rather, though, upon the authority of the school-men and of Milton than of the Bible,—will fall if these views ultimately prevail; and those, who insist upon having their Theology in a systematic form, may have to remodel their systems. But these are the necessary consequences, in every branch of enquiry, of the discovery of new truths, whenever systems have been prematurely formed. Still, whatever may be their results, unless we are prepared to prohibit all scientific investigation, these enquiries are demanded by the very importance and sacredness of the subject; and, if instituted, they must be carried on with no other purpose than that of following Truth, whithersoever it may lead us.'

PART IV.

THE FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTERS OF GENESIS.

It is very possible that ii.4a— 'These are the generations of the Heaven and the Earth in their creation'— may also be Elohistic, for the following reasons:—

(i) It contains the Heaven and the Earth,' as in i.1,ii.1, the words being used with the articles; whereas in ii.4b we find the words without the articles, and in different order,

(ii) The expression in their creation,' corresponds to the Elohistic language in v.2, in the day of their creation;'

reader will find that nothing has been
taken for granted beforehand; but each
passage, as it passes under review, is
traced to its writer by means of distinct
internal evidence, which shows that it
belongs to that particular writer, and
not to the other. It will be found that
the sections, marked as 'Elohistic,' are
all linked together, each being con-Earth and Heaven;'
nected, by its modes of thought or
forms of expression, with other
Elohistic passages, and having no such
relation to the Jehovistic sections,
while these latter not only exhibit
among themselves a corresponding
family resemblance, very distinct from
that which marks the style of the
Elohist, but also contain expressions,
which appear to indicate that they were
composed at a time, when the Elohistic
narrative was already existing, and
known to the Jehovistic writer.

906. In this analysis, intended for the use of the English reader not acquainted with Hebrew, we shall be obliged, of course, to omit a great number of the details, which form such a complete and convincing mass of evidence in the larger edition. Still we trust to be able to produce enough of these details to satisfy the mind of any candid and attentive student, as to the general truth of our conclusions. We shall adopt throughout our own translation of the original, as given below, which differs slightly in some places from the English version in consequence of being more literal and accurate.

CHAPTER II.

(iii) These words suit best the first account of the Creation in which alone the actual creation of the Heaven,' i.8, and the Earth,' i.10, is described; whereas chap.ii mentions only the formation of man, ii.7, plants, ii.9, animals, ii.19, and woman, ii.22.

908. We shall retain i.4a, however, as the first clause of the Jehovistic narrative, without deciding to whom it really belongs. In any case, the involved construction in v.4, when compared with the verses which precede and follow it, is a sign that it does not proceed in an independent, original form from the pen of either of the principal writers, but contains expressions of both fused together, to form the connecting link between two distinct narratives.

909. ii.4-25 (J.E.11) is Jehovistic, the writer using throughout-not Flohim, as the writer of i.1-ii.3, but-JehovahElohim, and showing himself to be a different writer by the following variations, which exist between his account

of the creation and that of the former writer:

(i) v.6, 'a mist rose from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground': contr. i.9,10, where the earth is described as emerging from the waters, and as being, therefore, already saturated with moisture;

ANALYSIS OF GEN.I.1-IV.26. 907. i.1-ii.3 (E.35*) is manifestly Elohistic, the work of one hand through-contr.i.26, where he is created last of all, after

out.

(ii) v.7, man is created first of all living creatures, before the birds and beasts, v.19:

the birds and beasts, i.21,25;

(iii) v.7, man is 'formed of the dust of the ground': contr.i.27, where man is created in the image of God,' and, apparently, by a direct act of creative power;

(iv) v.7, the man is made by himself, withkind of afterthought, v.18: contr.i.27, out the woman, who is made last, v.22, by a where all created things; man and woman are created together, last of

(v) v.15, the man, after being made, is

It will be remembered that in the Eng. Vers. Elohim' is represented by GOD, 'Jeho. vah' by LORD, and ‘Adonai' by Lord.