answer, as to a statement of the Bible being true on one particular point of natural history, he immediately, while maintaining his position in words, abandons it in point of fact, and retreats behind the assertion that—

'every line of Scripture will amply bear the pressure of any test applied to it, if viewed with relation to the subject it really refers to, the state, mentally and morally, of those to whom it was addressed, and the effect it was intended to convey'

a statement, which, whatever may be its precise meaning, at all events allows of the recognition of the results of my own critical enquiries. The other inhibiting Bishops, as I have said, with the single exception of the Bishop of LLANDAFF, have contented themselves with simply condemning my book.*

But what do my Episcopal Brethren mean by this proceeding? Do they really suppose that, by the obstructions of Church censures and anathemas, or the mere exercise of authority, they can bar out the entrance of that light of Critical Science, which God Himself has given us, as one of the special blessings bestowed upon us by His Goodness in this day? May it not be that the Science of Biblical Criticism is as needful to our true

The venerable Bishop of EXETER has surprised me, as much as any of my Brethren, by the course which he has taken. In a letter to his Clergy, he has very justly condemned the practice of 'prejudging matters which must be the subject of Judicial consideration before our Archbishop,' and not 'adhering' to the very proper resolution of a meeting of the Bishops,' viz. 'to avoid any extra-judicial declaration' on this subject. And his language bears with special force upon those who may be called to sit hereafter as judges, but who, by distinct expression of their sentiments beforehand, in public official documents, have surely gone far to ́endanger the impartiality and purity of the tribunal of justice.' In a further address to his Clergy the Bishop of EXETER is reported to have said that he 'has not read the book which has occasioned so much alarm,' and 'cannot, therefore, speak of its real contents,' and that, 'not having examined the book, he will not condemn it.' Yet he is thankful that it has called forth so strong a feeling of indignation against me,' and he, too, 'inhibits' me from ministering in his diocese.

progress and highest happiness as any other of the Sciences— as Geology, Astronomy, Chemistry, Natural History, &c.—all which have been aroused into new life in this very age, and many of which—like that of which the most recent results are exhibited in the works of DAVIDSON, KALISCH, &c., and in the Parts already published of this work-were almost wholly unknown to our forefathers? May it not be true that each one of these Sciences is as truly intended by the Wisdom and Grace of God for the present stage of human development, as any other of the sisterhood, that we cannot despise or refuse the help of any one of them, without rejecting the counsel of God against ourselves,'—that, if this work be of God, we cannot overthrow it, lest haply we be found fighting against God'? In short, may it not be true that this light of Criticism may be but one of the many-coloured rays of modern Science, which come to us all from the Father of Lights,' in this our own age of wonderful Illumination, and which are meant to blend together into the pure, white, Light of Truth, that Light which our spirits need, and which His Wisdom and His Love at this time impart to us?

Must we, then, English Christians, live on, as men did in former ages, under strict ecclesiastical restraints, as if there was a 'dark chamber' in the house, into which we have once looked, but have shut to the door, and dare not look again, lest we should see something to frighten us out of our hopes for eternity,' and cause us the loss of all our nearest and dearest consolations'? How much better to open wide the door, and let in the blessed light and air of day, into every part of our spiritual dwelling! That light, indeed, may show us that the stories of the six days' Creation, the Noachian Deluge, the

slaughter of 68,000 Midianitish women and children, are no longer to be spoken of as historical facts. We may perceive that it is no longer possible to confound the early legends of the Hebrew people, and statements contrary to reason and the facts of nature, or condemned by our moral sense, and by the Voice which witnesses for God within us, with the Eternal Word of God.' But we shall find in the Pentateuch, notwithstanding, precious things without number, of which little or no use is made at present in the instruction of the people,-unquestionable facts of ancient history, mixed up, no doubt, with much of uncertain or unreal tradition, and, above all, rich lessons of spiritual Truth, by which our souls may be cheered and strengthened for the work of life. What a day of regenerated life will it be for the Church of England, when these things shall be spoken of, plainly and freely, in every pulpit of the land,-when the Bible shall be opened, and the story of its origin explained, and the real value of its histories discussed, as the records of living men, like ourselves, written down by living men,— with the reverence due to a Book so venerable, and endeared to the inmost heart of every Christian, but yet without fear of treading with irreligious feet upon holy ground,—rather, with the deepest and most sincere conviction that we can only thus serve God acceptably, and discharge our duty before Him, as Christian men and Ministers, by such free enquiry after Truth, and such free utterance of it.

6

But another cry has been raised against my work, and, indeed, the loudest and most terrible of all, the cry of Heresy!' Blasphemy! To my utter amazement, the two Archbishops have swelled this cry,-not to speak of the language used by others

6

of my Episcopal brethren, as that of the Bishop of CHICHESTER, already quoted. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY has spoken of my works as derogatory to the person, the attributes, and the work, of our Divine Redeemer,' and as 'charging Him, who knew what was in man, with ignorance and imposture.' And, in like manner, the Archbishop of YORK reproaches me with 'having imputed to the Lord of glory ignorance of holy things,' and having described our Lord as a blind guide, quoting, for the very Word of Life, the baseless fables of men.'

I say that I have been amazed at such language being used by these eminent Prelates; because I could not have believed that persons so high in office and judicial position would, in statements like these, have branded me publicly, before the whole Church, with charges of 'heresy' and 'blasphemy,' for the expressions which I have used in my books on this point. Whatever they might have thought of the soundness of my criticism, or however they might have differed from my views of Inspiration, yet I could not have imagined that they would either have been unaware of the fact, that, in using such expressions with respect to our 'Lord's ignorance as the Son of Man,' . I was perfectly justified by the practice of the most eminent theologians, both ancient and modern, or that, being aware of this, they would have allowed me to be covered with reproach and censure on this account,-nay, with their own hands would have flung some of the hardest stones against me. So assured, however, did I feel of the soundness of my views on this point, and that here, at all events, I had the authority of the Church itself on my side, that I did not care to defend myself at length from such charges in my former volumes. But, as some remarks had been made upon the subject, with reference

to what I said in my Preface to Part I, I was content to repeat my words, and refer in support of them to the language of an eminent professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, Dr. HEY. I thought that, of course, the Bishops and Doctors of the Church,-more especially those who, like Archbishop THOMSON and Bishop ELLICOTT, have gained a reputation for theological learning, or who, like Dean ALFORD and Prof. BROWNE, (as will be seen below,) have expressed the very same view in substance as my own,-would protect me, at all events, from such accusations. Otherwise, I should have produced further evidence in my Second Part, to justify my use of the language so much condemned. In support of my position I now produce it, in the contents of the following communication, which has been sent to me by a clergyman, unknown to me personally at present, though well-known as the writer of various zoological papers in scientific journals, and the chief contributor on the Natural History of the Bible to the second volume of Dr. SMITH'S Dictionary. I will only add that I am deeply sensible of the courage and sincerity which he has shown, amidst the violent excitement of these times, in thus coming forward, unsolicited, to bear this testimony in the service of the Truth.

MY LORD,

If there is one passage in your recently published work on the Pentateuch, which more than another has subjected you to very severe condemnation, it is that which contains the following statement, (Part II, p.xvii) :—

'This only I repeat once more. The recognition of the gradual growth of JESUS, as the Son of Man, in human knowledge and science of all kinds, such as that which concerns the question of the age and authorship of the Pentateuch, is perfectly compatible with—rather, is absolutely required by-the most orthodox faith in His Divinity, as the Eternal Son of God.'

Very hard words, my Lord, have been uttered against you for maintaining this

b