Truth. It is not sufficient merely to make general statements, or to refer to this or that writer, as having irrefragably proved the truth of certain results. I have wished to enable the reader to satisfy his own mind on each point as it arises, precisely as I have satisfied mine, by a thorough discussion of all that can be said on both sides of the question.

I have here confined my enquiries chiefly to the Pentateuch and book of Joshua, though, in so doing, I have found myself compelled to take more or less into consideration the other books of the Old Testament also. Should God in his Providence call me to the work, I shall not shrink from the duty of examining on behalf of others into the question, in what way the doctrines, usually drawn from the New Testament, are affected by the unhistorical character of the Pentateuch. Of course, for the satisfaction of my own mind, and in the discharge of my duties to those more immediately dependent on me, I cannot avoid doing so, if health and strength are granted me, as soon as I have completed the present work, and ascertained that the ground is sure, on which I here take my stand. For the present, I have desired to follow the leading of the truth itself, and not to distract my attention, or incur the temptation of falsifying the conclusions, to which the argument would honestly lead me, by taking account à priori of the consequences; and I would gladly leave to other hands the work of conducting the above enquiry at greater length for the general reader.

On one point, however, it may be well to make here a few observations. There may be some, who will say that such words as those in John vi.46,47, 'For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. But, if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words ?'-or in Luke xx.37, 'Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, [i.e. in the passage about the 'bush,'] when he called the LORD, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,' —or in Luke xvi.29, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them,' and v. 31, 'If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead,'—are at once decisive upon the point of Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch, since they imply that our Lord Himself believed in it, and, consequently, to assert that Moses did not write these books, would be to contradict the words of Christ, and to impugn His veracity.

To make use of such an argument is, indeed, to bring the Sacred Ark itself into the battle-field, and to make belief in Christianity itself depend entirely upon the question whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or not. There is, however, no force

in this particular objection, as will appear from the following considerations.

(i) First, such words as the above, if understood in their most literal sense, can only be supposed, at all events, to apply to certain parts of the Pentateuch; since most devout Christians will admit that the last chapter of Deuteronomy, which records the death of Moses, could not have been written by his hand, and the most orthodox commentators are obliged also to concede the probability of some other interpolations having been made in the original story. It would become, therefore, even thus, a question for a reverent criticism to determine what passages give signs of not having been written by Moses.

*

(ii) But, secondly, and more generally, it may be said that, in making use of such expressions, our Lord did but accommodate His words to the current popular language of the day, as when

*Note to People's Edition, 1864.-Thus in a book recently published, and dedicated by permission to the Archbishop of YORK, we find the following statements:

We entered the discussion unbiassed by any theory, but prepared to adopt whatever conclusions the facts of the case, fairly considered, might seem to require. . And it must be confessed that the results we have thus arrived at do differ very materially from the views commonly held. The pre-Mosaic origin of large portions of Genesis, the existence of two records of the Exodus, one certainly, therefore, non-Mosaic,—the incorporation of narratives of foreign origin, the numerous additions and occasional alterations made by a later writer after the Conquest, these are facts very strongly at variance with the notions generally entertained. Facts they are, however—not mere theoretic fancies or unfounded assumptions; and in accordance with them must we frame our final view of the true origin of the Pentateuch.

'Much of it is certainly un-Mosaic, some earlier, some contemporary, some later than Moses. Many portions of the Pentateuch COULD NOT have proceeded from his pen, or even have been written under his direction.

The materials, of which the first four books are composed, appear thus to be of very various dates and characters, the larger portion, however, being almost certainly Mosaic. They may be arranged as follows:

(i) A series of Annals,' embracing the chief features of primeval and patriarchal history down to the death of Joseph-date and authorship unknown, but some probably written in Egypt, and all certainly pre-Mosaic;

(ii) Additional matter referring to the same periods, from the pen of Moses, variously inserted among these, to enlarge, supplement, or replace, different portions of them;

(iii) An Elohistic narrative of the sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus-date and authorship unknown;

'(iv) A Jehovistic narrative of the Exodus and passage through the wilderness, up to the erection of the Tabernacle, including the earlier portion of the Sinaitic laws,also a list of the journeyings in the wilderness,-written by Moses;

'(v) A series of laws delivered during the last thirty-nine years of the journey through the wilderness, recorded probably by Moses;

' (vi) A narrative of the events of the second and fortieth years, with which these laws have been incorporated, written shortly after the conquest of Canaan;

' (vii) Three isolated narratives, concerning Abraham's war with the four Kings, Jethro's visit to Moses, and Balaam's prophecies-probably (in part at least) of foreign origin;

'(viii) A variety of explanatory notes, additions, and occasional alterations, with a few passages of greater length, chiefly from other ancient narratives, introduced by a writer of much later date-very probably in the days of Saul.

'Out of these diverse materials we believe the first four books of the Pentateuch to have been compiled. The proportion in which they are to be found may be roughly expressed as follows:

If these four books were divided into 1,000 equal parts, then (i), the pre-Mosaic annals would make up 164 of them; (ii), (iv), and (v), the Mosaic portions, 576; (vi), the later narrative, 214; (vii), the foreign records, 26; (iii) and (viii), the Elohistic Exodus, and the last revision, 10 each.'-The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuch considered, pp. 141–151.

I do not agree with many of the critical conclusions above stated. But the reader will observe what very important admissions are here made, in a book published under Euch auspices, though His Grace has since said that he does not concur' in them.

He speaks of God 'making His sun to rise,' Matt.v.45, or of the 'stars falling from heaven,' Matt.xxiv.29, or of Lazarus being 'carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom,' Luke xvi.22, or of the woman 'with a spirit of infirmity,' whom 'Satan had bound eighteen years,' Luke xiii.16, &c., without our being at all authorised in drawing from them scientific or psychological conclusions.

(iii) Lastly, it is perfectly consistent with the most entire and sincere belief in our Lord's Divinity, to hold, as many do, that, when He vouchsafed to become a 'Son of Man,' He took our nature fully, and voluntarily entered into all the conditions of humanity, and, among others, into that which makes our growth in all ordinary knowledge gradual and limited. We are expressly told, in Luke ii.52, that 'Jesus increased in wisdom,' as well as in 'stature.' It is not supposed that, in His human nature, He was acquainted, more than any educated Jew of the age, with the mysteries of all modern sciences; nor, with the above statement of St. Luke before us, can it be seriously maintained that, as an infant or young child, He possessed a knowledge, surpassing that of the most pious and learned adults of His nation, upon the subject of the authorship and age of the different portions of the Pentateuch. At what period, then, of His life upon earth, is it to be supposed that He had granted to Him, as the Son of Man, supernaturally, full and accurate information on these points, so that He should be expected to speak about the Pentateuch in other terms, than any other devout Jew of that day would have employed? Why should it be thought that He would speak with certain Divine knowledge on this matter, more than upon other matters of ordinary science or history?

Finally, I am not aware of any breach of the Law of the Church of England, as declared by the recent judgment in the Court of Arches, which is involved in this publication. It is now ruled that the words in the Ordination Service for Deacons, 'I do unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures,' must be understood to mean simply the expression of a boná fide belief, that the Holy Scriptures contain everything necessary to salvation,' and 'to that extent they have the direct sanction of the Almighty.'

I am not conscious of having said anything here, which contravenes this decision. Should it be otherwise, and should the strange phenomenon be witnessed, of a Bishop of the Protestant Church of England,―more especially one, who has been expressly occupied in translating the Scriptures into a foreign tongue,―being. precluded by the Law of that Church from entering upon a close, critical, examination of them, and from bringing before the great body of the Church, (not the Clergy only, but the Clergy and

Laity,) the plain, honest, results of such criticism, I must, of course, bear the consequences of my act.

But, meanwhile, I cannot but believe that our Church, representing, as it is supposed to do, the religious feeling of a free, Protestant, nation, requires us now, as in the days of the Reformation, to protest against all perversion of the Truth, and all suppression of it, for the sake of Peace, or by mere Authority. As a Bishop of that Church, I dissent entirely from the principle laid down by some, that such a question, as that which is here discussed, is not even an open question for an English clergyman,-that we are bound by solemn obligations to maintain certain views, on the points here involved, to our lives' end, or, at least, to resign our sacred office in the Church, as soon as ever we feel it impossible any longer to hold them.

men.

On the contrary, I hold that the foundations of our National Church are laid upon the Truth itself, and not upon mere human prescriptions, and that the spirit of our Church, as declared in the days of the Reformation, fully recognises my right to use all the weight of that office, with which the Providence of God has invested me, in declaring the Truth, and recommending the subject of this work to the thoughtful consideration of English ChurchNine years ago, I was deemed not unworthy to be called to this high office. I trust that the labours of those years may be accepted as an evidence that, to the best of my power, I have striven to discharge faithfully the duties entrusted to me, and may serve also as a guarantee, that, in putting forward this book, I am acting in no light spirit, but with the serious earnestness of one, who believes that he owes it as a duty to the Church itself, of which he is a minister, to do his part to secure for the Bible its due honour and authority, and save its devout readers from ascribing to it attributes of perfection and infallibility, which belong to God only, and which the Bible never claims for itself. More than all others, I believe, is a Bishop bound to do this, if his conscience impels him to it,-inasmuch as he, above others, is bound to be an example to the Flock of that walking in the Light, without which there cannot be true Life in a Church, any more than in an individual soul,—' renouncing the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but, by manifestation of the Truth, commending himself to every man's conscience in the sight of God.'

If the arguments, on which the conclusions of these first chapters rest, shall be found, upon a thorough examination, to be substantially well-grounded and true, I trust that we shall not rest until the system of our Church be reformed, and her boundaries at the same time enlarged, to make her what a National Church should be, the Mother of spiritual life to all within the realm, embracing, as far as possible, all the piety, and learning,

and earnestness, and goodness, of the nation. Then, at last, would a stop be put to that internecine war between the servants of one God and the professed followers of the same religion, which now is a reproach to our Christian name, and seriously impedes the progress of truth and charity, both at home and abroad. Should the reception of this book, by the more thoughtful portion of the community, indicate that such a Reform is possible and probable, and will be but a question of time, so that, being able meanwhile to speak out plainly the truth, we shall have only to bear with the inconveniences and inconsistencies, which must attend a state of transition, it would not be necessary for me, or for those who think with me, to leave the Church of England voluntarily, and abandon the work to which we have devoted ourselves for life.

In conclusion, I commend this subject more especially to the attention of the Laity. They are happy enough to be able to lay aside such questions as these, if they will, while still continuing members of the National Church. I implore them to consider the position, in which the Clergy will be placed, if the facts, brought forward in this book, are found to be substantially true. Let them examine their own hearts solemnly, in the sight of God, on these points. Would they have the Clergy bound by Subscriptions and Declarations, to which they would not on any account commit themselves? Are they willing that their own sons, who may feel the Divine call to devote themselves to the ministry of souls, should be entangled in these trammels, so galling to the conscience, so injurious to their sense of truth and honesty, so impeding to the freedom and heartiness of their ministrations? We, indeed, who are already under the yoke, may have for a time to bear it, however painful it may be, while we struggle and hope on for deliverance. But what youth of noble mind, with a deep yearning for truth, and an ardent desire to tell out the love of God to man, will consent to put himself voluntarily into such fetters? It may be possible to represent some of the arguments in this book as invalid, others as unimportant. But, if the main result of it be true, as I believe it will be found to be, it seems to me impossible that, five years hence, unless liberty of speech on these matters be frankly acknowledged to belong to the Clergy as well as to the Laity, any of the more hopeful and intelligent of our young men will be able, with clear consciences, to enter the ministry of the Church of England.

I now commit this First Part of my work into the Hands of Almighty God, beseeching Him mercifully to accept and bless it, as a feeble effort to advance the knowledge of His Truth in the world.

LONDON: Oct. 4, 1862.

J. W. NATAL.