would throw not a single ray of light upon the critical difficulties, which have arisen in this controversy. But, as it had been publicly asserted, on very high authority, that my objections to the accuracy of the Pentateuch, in historical and scientific matters,

have been again and again refuted, two hundred years ago by Archbishop USSHER, more recently by Bishop WATSON and others,

I took for granted that upon the points, most likely to be discussed in the last chapters of this Part,-leaving out of consideration the critical analysis,-I should certainly find some important observations in these works, some remarks which I should be bound to consider well, and either to allow or to refute.

To my great surprise, after the distinct and pointed reference made to them, I find in these writers nothing, or next to nothing, of this kind. Archbishop USSHER deals almost entirely with matters of chronology, with which my books are very little concerned. Bishop WATSON scarcely discusses at length a single important point of those, which I have raised in my different volumes. And the most decisive of all his attempts to clear up a difficulty is with reference to the introduction of the name of the town Dan, which I have dwelt upon in (II. 230-233.) He first suggests that the passages in question, G.xiv.14, D.xxxiv.1, as well as G.xxxvi.31, may be 'interpolations,' and he then adds, p.205 :—

But if this solution does not please you, I desire it may be proved that the Dan mentioned in Genesis was the same town as that mentioned in Judges. [This is admitted by such strong defenders of the traditionary view as KURTZ and DELITZSCH, -by the former, after having maintained at one time the contrary.] I desire further to have it proved, that the Dan mentioned in Genesis was the name of a town, and not of a river. It is merely said, Abraham pursued them, the enemies of Lot, to Dan. Now a river was full as likely as a town to stop a pursuit. Lot, we know, was settled in the plain of Jordan; and Jordan, we know (!), was composed of the united streams of two rivers, called Jor and Dan.

I need hardly say that such reasoning, which might be allowed to pass in the days of Bishop WATSON, would not be accepted, as of any value whatever, in our own days. The rivers 'Jor' and 'Dan' are not mentioned in the Bible, and their existence is not, I believe, recognised in the geography of Palestine. Mr. Ffoulkes writes,—

It has been well observed that the Hebrew word Yarden,=' Jordan,'-has no relation whatever to the name Dan,' and also that the river had borne that name from the days of Abraham, and from the days of Job, at least five centuries before the name of Dan' was given to the city at its source.-SMITH'S Dict. of the Bible, p. 1129.

But, having been referred in this manner to the works of Bishop WATSON, as writings of great authority,—and, indeed, since, for more than a quarter of a century, he was Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, he may be considered to have spoken, in ecclesiastical matters, with the weight of professorial learning, as well as with that of episcopal authority,—I have consulted those works, and have found some passages, which deserve, I think, consideration under present circumstances. For instance, the following extracts, from his 'Life,' will show what views he

held on one particular point, to which attention is strongly drawn at the present time, namely, the liberty of private judgment, as asserted by our Protestant Church, and secured to every Minister in the very terms of the Ordination Service. It will be seen that, in reference to the Creeds, Bishop WATSON held that they were 'all of human fabrication,' and might be used or disused at pleasure in public worship, being merely venerable documents, which expressed the ancient belief of the Church, but were not binding on the conscience of any clergymen, notwithstanding subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles,' except so far as he is 'persuaded,' in his own private judgment, that their statements may be concluded and proved by the Scriptures':

I never troubled myself with answering any arguments, which the opponents in the Divinity-Schools brought against the Articles of the Church, nor ever admitted their authority as decisive of a difficulty. But I used on such occasions to say to them, holding the New Testament in my hand, En sacrum codicem! Behold the sacred text! Here is the fountain of truth. Why do you follow the streams derived from it by the sophistry, or polluted by the passions, of man? Articles of Churches are not of divine authority. Have done with them, for they may be true, they may be false,-and appeal to the Book itself.'-i.p.63.

I certainly dislike the imposition of all Creeds formed by human authority; though I do not dislike them as useful summaries of what their compilers believe to be true, either in natural or revealed religion. As to revealed religion, though all its doctrines are expressed in one book, yet such a diversity of interpretations has been given to the same passages of Scripture, that not only individuals, but whole Churches, have formed to themselves different Creeds, and introduced them into their forms of worship. The Greek Church admits not into its ritual either the Apostles' Creed or the Athanasian, but only the Nicene. The Episcopal Church in America admits the Nicene and the Apostles' Creed, but rejects the Athanasian. The Church of England admits the whole three into its Liturgy; and some of the foreign Protestant Churches admit none but the Apostles'. These and other Creeds, which might be mentioned, are all of human fabrication. They oblige conscience as far as they are conformable to Scripture, and of that conformity every man must judge for himself. This liberty of private judgment is recognised by our Church (notwithstanding the Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles), when in the service of the Ordering of Priests, it proposes this question,' Are you determined, out of the said Scriptures, to instruct the people committed to your charge, and to teach nothing, as required of necessity to eternal salvation, but that which YOU SHALL BE PERSUADED may be concluded and proved by the Scriptures?'-i.p.395-97.

What are the catechisms of the Romish Church, of the English Church, of the Scotch Church, and of all other Churches, but a set of propositions, which men of different natural capacities, educations, prejudices, have fabricated, (sometimes on the anvil of sincerity, oftener on that of ignorance, interest, or hypocrisy,) from the Divine materials furnished by the Bible? And can any man of an enlarged charity believe that his salvation will ultimately depend on a concurrence in opinion with any of these niceties, which the several sects of Christians have assumed, as essentially necessary for a Christian man's belief? Oh! no: Christianity is not a speculative business. One good act, performed from a principle of obedience to the declared Will of God, will be of more service to every individual Christian than all the speculative theology of AUGUSTINE.-ii.p.215.

Nay, he goes even so far as to say, ii.p.217,—

I am disposed to accede to your remark that whatever doctrine is not contained in the form prescribed by Christ, for receiving disciples by baptism into His Church, cannot be necessary to be believed by Christians. And you have excited a reasonable doubt, whether the doctrine of the Trinity be positively contained in the baptismal form.

The following passage also, from one of Bishop WATSON'S Charges (Apologies, &c. p.449), is worthy to be commended, at least for the sake of the facts which it mentions, to the notice of some modern defenders of the traditionary theology:

The time, I think, is approaching,-or is already come,-when Christianity will undergo a more severe investigation than it has ever yet done. My expectation as to the issue is this,-that Catholic countries will become Protestant, and that Protestant countries will admit a further Reformation. In expressing this expectation, which I am far from having the vanity to propose with oracular confidence, I may possibly incur the censure of some, who think that Protestantism, as established in Germany, in Scotland, in England, is in all these, and in other countries, so perfect a system of Christianity, that it is incapable of any amendment in any of them. If this should be the case, I must console myself by reflecting that the greatest men could not, in their day, escape unmerited calumny. Every age has had its Sacheverels, its Hickeses, and its Chenellses, who, with the bitterness of theological odium, sharpened with party rancour, have not scrupled to break the bonds of Christian charity. HOADLEY was called a Dissenter, CHILLINGWORTH a Socinian, and TILLOTSON both Socinian and Atheist. And all of them experienced this obloquy from contemporary zealots, on account of the liberality of their sentiments,-on account of their endeavouring to render Christianity more rational, than it was in certain points generally esteemed to be.

Meanwhile, as far as my own justification is concerned, it will, I believe, in the opinion of many, be considered to be complete, when they peruse the following recently-expressed judgments of others, in reference to the main facts of these criticisms.

I shall first quote extracts from communications which I have received from Prof. KUENEN of Leyden, one of the most eminent critics of the present day in Holland, and especially distinguished. in this department of Biblical Criticism. Prof. KUENEN writes, with reference to Part I and Part II of my work:

'I see, in your critical labours, more than a mere important episode of the Churchconflict of our days. It appears to me that through you already, in Part I. the attention has been fixed upon a series of facts, which, in the latest time, have been too much neglected, with great damage to the truth. You have entered upon the enquiry, as to the value and origin of the narratives about the Mosaic time, from a side to which by many scarcely any attention has been paid. This I say in the first instance with reference to myself. While writing my Introduction to the Pentateuch and to the Book of Joshua, I was, it is true, aware of the unhistorical character of many narratives: but I had not hitherto given to myself proper account of the extent of these difficulties. They could only be fully and plainly brought into the light through the method followed by you; and they now lie bare before everyone who is willing to see. When I take into consideration in how unsatisfactory a way even some of the very best writers indicate and clear out of the way these difficulties, I consider your endeavour to treat them entirely apart, and exhibit them visibly, as equally opportune and useful. As far as I am concerned, should the opportunity arise for me to treat again expressly of the Pentateuch, either in my lectures, or in writing, I shall not neglect thereby to make use of the light kindled by you.

'When engaged upon the Third Part of my "Hist. Crit. Enquiry," in which I shall have to speak about the Psalms, I shall have an opportunity of studying expressly the Elohistic and Jehovistic Psalms, with an eye to your enquiry about them in Part II. I wish to do so with all the calmness and impartiality, with which so thorough a demonstration as yours deserves to be treated.

'But I may not detain you longer with my remarks. Regard them only as a proof that I have read your important work with care, and that I hope still further to do so, when the course of my studies shall give me occasion for it. The question as to the composition of the Pentateuch and the age of its portions is so intricate, that it may well be that at first no unanimous agreement will be arrived at respecting it. But the difference of feeling that remains is small in comparison with the great main-point, and with the important consequences which follow from it. It is to me a cause of great joy that the main-point also, through your work, is put anew clearly into the light, and will certainly be recognised in a continually widening circle.'-June 23, 1863.

'I gladly give you the desired permission to insert in your Preface the portion of my former letter translated by you. It not only expressed then, but it expresses also now, so entirely my feeling, that I allow it to be published without any hesitation.' -Nov. 23, 1863.

The next quotation is from the pen of Prof. HUPFELD of Halle, who ranks as a veteran among the first of Hebrew scholars in

Germany, and who was chosen, indeed, to fill the chair which was vacated by the death of GENSENIUS. Prof. HUPFELD writes thus, with reference to Part III:

"It would be far too late to acknowledge the receipt of the Third Part of your work. But it is not too late, I hope, to express the great satisfaction which this part has given me. I would have done so earlier, but I was interrupted by other duties in the perusal of the volume, before having finished which I disliked to utter a judgment.

'At the first view, I was favourably impressed by the long series and accurate enumeration of words and phrases peculiar to Deuteronomy, in comparison with the former books of the Pentateuch, and common with the later historical and prophetical books of the Old Testament, by which the demonstration of the later origin of Deuteronomy is supported. This matter-of-fact evidence is begun by DE WETTE in the first product of his pen (1805), and augmented by KNOBEL; but yours is far the most complete and accurate or discriminating. At the same time,

this manner of demonstration from the language would be the fittest means of shaming your opponents, who, conscious of their own Hebrew ignorance, are so loud and busy in decrying your Hebrew scholarship. There are some, not important, particulars in which I am not of the same mind with you, and, in my opinion,

you are too positive and eager in pointing out Jeremiah as the author of this Book (Deuteronomy), which is only certain to be of his time, phrases and notions being common to that period. But, upon the whole, I am satisfied with the proofs of your sound critical feeling in this volume.

'The Preface to the volume contains very curious evidences of the dishonesty of your judges, in striking contrast with the honesty of one clergyman, who was at first among your opponents. These documents, like those in the former volumes, will not be lost upon the great body of thinking and impartial bystanders, which will be increasing the more as the opposite cause is so miserably pleaded. They are not wanting in zeal and industry; in one number of the "Athenæum," I read the titles of more than twenty pamphlets against you. But, if I may infer from the specimens which I have seen, (M'CAUL, ROGERS, the Author of the "Eclipse of Faith," and BIRKS' "Exodus of Israel," sent to me a few days ago,) they will not make any impression on the public mind. It was some consolation that at least two of your eminent Bishops, TAIT and THIRLWALL, had the courage and regard for their character to withhold from partaking in these measures.'-July 30, 1863.

For many the names of HUPFELD and KUENEN will have their due weight. But the next witness comes recommended as an English clergyman, filling more than one office of distinction,the Rev. J. J. S. PEROWNE, B.D., Vice-Principal of St. David's College, Lampeter, Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Norwich, and late Hebrew Lecturer of King's College, London, and Assistant Preacher of Lincoln's Inn.

The story of the article upon the Flood in Dr. SMITH'S 'Dictionary of the Bible' is well-known,-how when you turn to 'DELUGE,' you find '[FLOOD],' and, when you turn to 'FLOOD,' you are referred on to '[NOAH].' The delay is generally understood to have arisen from the conservative tendencies of the editor or publisher, and the difficulty of encountering the subject, in such a way as not to shock too strongly the popular religious notions of the day. However, the second and third volumes of this valuable work have now appeared; and Mr. PEROWNE, it seems, has contributed the articles on 'NOAH' and 'PENTATEUCH.' To what extent the writer's own opinions are in accordance with the traditionary view, may be judged from the following extracts, which I make from the first of these articles; though Mr. PEROWNE, it will be seen, has been obliged, in common with many

others, to abandon the notion of an Universal Deluge, which alone the Bible plainly speaks of :

It should be remembered that this huge structure was only intended to float on the water, and was not, in the proper sense of the word, a ship. It had neither mast, sail, nor rudder; it was, in fact, nothing but an enormous floating house or oblong box. Two objects only were aimed at in its construction: the one was that it should have ample stowage, and the other, that it should be able to keep steady upon the water.-SMITH'S Dict. of the Bible, ii.p.566.

It is not only the inadequate size of the ark to contain all, or anything like all the progenitors of our existing species of animals, which is conclusive against an universal Deluge. It is true that Noah is told to take two of every living thing of all flesh': but that could only mean two of every animal then known to him, unless we suppose him to have had supernatural information in zoology imparted,-a thing quite incredible. Again, how were the carnivorous animals supplied with food during their twelve months' abode in the ark? This would have been difficult even for the very limited number of wild animals in Noah's immediate neighbourhood. For the very large numbers, which the theory of a universal Deluge supposes, it would have been quite impossible, unless again we have recourse to miracle, and either maintain that they were miraculously supplied with food, or that, for the time being, the nature of their teeth and stomach was changed, so that they were able to live on vegetables. But these hypotheses are so extravagant, and so utterly unsupported by the narrative itself, that they may be safely dismissed without further comment. Indeed, it is out of the question to imagine that the ark rested on the top of a mountain (Ararat), which is covered for 4,000 feet from the summit with perpetual snow, and the descent from which would have been a very serious matter both to men and other animals.-ii.p.567–569.

Yet the statement in Gen.vii.5, that the tops of the mountains were not seen until seventy-three days after the Ark 'rested,' proves that, if it rested on Ararat at all, it must have been upon the summit. I have shown, however, in Chap. XIX of this Part, that a partial Deluge, of the kind here described, is quite as impossible as a general one. There is no use, therefore, in twisting the plain meaning of the Scripture, to make it say what to the 'wayfaring man' it certainly does not say. But I doubt if any article could be written upon the Deluge in this day,-by anyone who desired to maintain some character as a man of science or, indeed, of common sense,-more conservative than that which Mr. PEROWNE has written. He is therefore, I presume, a most unexceptionable witness.

Let us now, then, see what Mr. PEROWNE has to say about the Pentateuch. I must commend him for the candour and courage which he has shown, in speaking out plainly the truth as he sees it. But let my readers-my lay-readers especially-consider the force of the following admissions, coming from a writer who is still trammelled, it is plain,—as we see by his remarks on the Deluge, by the influence of his educational training and prepossessions:

If, without any theory casting its shadow upon us, and without any fear of consequences before our eyes, we read thoughtfully only the Book of Genesis, we can hardly escape the conviction, that it partakes of the nature of a compilation.

At the very opening of the book, peculiarities of style and manner are discernible, which can scarcely escape the notice of a careful reader even of a translation,— which certainly are no sooner pointed out, than we are compelled to admit their existence. The language of chap. i.1-ii.3 is totally unlike that of the section which follows, ii.4-iii.23. This last is not only distinguished by a peculiar use of the Divine Names, but also by a mode of expression peculiar to itself. It is also remarkable for preserving an account of the Creation, distinct from that contained in the first chapter. It may be said, indeed, that this account does not contradict the