tion-some popular novelist plans a great work of fiction, and instead of giving it to the world at once, he divides it into parts, extending the process of publication over a couple of years, perhaps. The substance of these periodical issues is open to the same objections which might be urged against the great mass of novels. Take Charles Dickens as an example-and we mention him because of the dangerous influence he wields over the people of England. In his periodical works of fiction, and indeed in all his works, there is not only no recognition of the distinguishing truths of Christianity, but principles are advocated antagonistic to those truths. The capital fault of Dickens-a fault running through the whole of his writings-consists in making virtue appear to be something constitutional, something that grows spontaneously as from a genial soil, without effort or struggle on the part of the virtuous individual. There is no account given why a man happens to be virtuous rather than vicious-the man himself has obviously had nothing to do in the matter. There would seem to be no deeper philosophy in that fact than in the beautiful tints of the mountain daisy, or the voluptuous fragrance of the rose. Ah! there is a philosophy of human character which Dickens has never learned, and which can only be learned at the feet of the Divine Teacher. But it is not so much my design to criticise the substance and texture of these writings, as to protest against their periodical issue. If people will read works of fiction let them have the opportunity of swallowing such a quantity at once that the intellect will be surfeited and turn with pleasure to sober literature. By the new method of publishing novels, the excitement which ought never to last more than a few days at once, is kept up and perpetuated over a couple of years, the imagination is tantalized at the end of every monthly number with painful anxiety as to the future development of the plot, a feverish desire gnaws the mind as the day approaches for the next issue; and thus the reader is afflicted with a long continuance and repetition of mental agitation seriously detrimental to intellectual and spiritual health.

ART. VII.-COLENSO versus MOSES.*

SEVERAL years ago the religious sensibilities of the country were rudely shocked by the publication of a volume of "Essays and Reviews," in which a covert attack was made upon the authority and doctrines of the Holy Scriptures. All classes of the religious public regarded that book with mingled indignation and disgust, not because of its attacking their most precious and deeply cherished beliefs, for attacks of that kind are too common to produce unusual emotion; nor because the attack was conducted with

* Substance of an Address.-ED.

more than ordinary ability, for undoubtedly much more talented works had previously appeared in the interest of infidelity without producing one-hundredth part of the excitement. The real and only cause is to be found in the fact, that the authors of the "Essays and Reviews" were clergymen of the Church of England; and that, though avowing opinions manifestly subversive of the religion they had sworn and were paid to defend, they remained in quiet possession of their clerical emoluments, and turned a deaf ear to the reproaches of inconsistency with which they were assailed by an indignant public. The excitement produced by that book, after subsiding for a while, was renewed and raised to a higher pitch by Bishop Colenso's work on the Pentateuch, the direct and avowed object of which is to prove that the writings of Moses have no historical value; that, in fact, they are for the most part a bundle of contradictions and absurdities, and that henceforth all men pretending to common sense must dismiss the idea of their divine authority, and class them with the mythologies of heathenism. But it is only of late, some four or five years since at most, that the bishop has been led to adopt this gross infidel theory. Some eleven years ago he was appointed to the missionary bishopric of Natal in South Africa, and went forth, as he himself informs us, strong in his attachment to the orthodox faith, and glowing with zeal to extend the empire of the cross on the African continent. He had not, however, been there long before displaying a perversity of mind which caused no small scandal at the time, and which has ultimately led him to take an unblushing stand among the avowed enemies of the Bible. Finding that the native Zulus were addicted to polygamy, and that the custom of having more wives than one was not to be easily broken, he addressed a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury arguing in favour of polygamy, and pleading for its toleration among the native converts. That erratic and anti-Christian proposal met with the reprobation it deserved, and the bishop was obliged, in appearance at least, to discountenance the practice of polygamy. After a while he undertook what ought certainly to be regarded as the truly missionary work of translating the Scriptures into the Zulu tongue; but, alas! it would seem he had neither the mental nor moral qualifications requisite for such an undertaking; and the work which he commenced with the view of christianising the heathen, issued in the unchristianising of himself. To aid him in rendering the Scriptures into the Zulu speech he secured the services of an intelligent, sharp-witted, but withal sceptical native, who, as was meet, had the liberty of asking questions and starting doubts as the work of translation proceeded. Unfortunately the scepticism of the Zulu infected the bishop's own soul, his faith staggered under the sly thrusts of his dusky companion; some awkward questions respecting the dimensions of

Noah's ark posed him quite; doubts, difficulties, disbeliefs, multiplied at every step; in short, although he read up all the works he could lay hands on likely to bring relief, he could find no relief, and at length he succumbed to the enemy; his faith was vanquished, the writings of Moses were stripped of all historical value, the Zulu remained master of the field, and the bishop was an infidel. A new mission now opened before him. Christian England appeared to him in a much more woeful plight than heathen Africa. From time immemorial England had stupidly believed that the Pentateuch is the writing of Moses; that it is a veritable record of facts; that it is an inspired revelation of divine truth, and that it is the primary historical basis of the Christian religion. This belief as the bishop thought had wrought and was still working enormous evil. Could nothing be done for the emancipation of England from the delusion of centuries? Yes, he will undertake to grapple with the giant evil, he will beard the lion in his den, and so leaving the Zulus to take care of themselves he hurries over the seas to mission England with his new gospel. He has no thought however of abandoning his episcopal position, and relinquishing the emoluments accruing from it. On the contrary, before publicly avowing his infidel creed he is assured by Dr. Lushington's decision in the Court of Arches in the case of the Oxford essayists, that he may be an infidel, an avowed infidel, and an English bishop at the same time. Therefore in spite of the public indignation with which he has been overwhelmed, and in spite of all sorts of expostulation, rebuke, and protestation addressed to him by the authorities of the church with which he is connected, he is still, and is likely to continue, the Right Reverend John William Colenso, D.D., Bishop of Natal.

It is worthy of preliminary remark that in the book which Bishop Colenso has written there is no attempt made to invalidate the miracles of the Pentateuch. So far from doing this he avows a readiness to swallow any amount of the miraculous element. What he sets himself to battle against, and what has destroyed his faith in the historical credibility of the writings ascribed to Moses, is the incongruities, inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities inwrought with the texture of those writings. It is not to be thought that I can follow the track of destructive criticism pursued by the bishop, and examine one by one the list of discrepancies he has found or fancied. But as it is necessary you should know what sort of stuff his book is made of, I shall describe with as much explicitness as possible two cases which he prefers against the historic validity of the Pentateuch, and which may be taken as fair specimens of all the rest. In Leviticus viii. we read that the Lord commanded Moses to "gather all the congregation together unto the door of the tabernacle. And Moses did as the Lord commanded him, and the assembly was gathered together unto the door

of the tabernacle." But, says the bishop, in his criticism on the passage, "the whole width of the tabernacle was 10 cubits or 18 feet. Allowing two feet for each full grown man, nine men could just have stood in front of it." Now according to the bishop's reckoning there could not be less than 600,000 adult men in the Hebrew congregation; and therefore he reasons that if "all the congregation of adult males in the prime of life had given due heed to the divine summons, and had hastened to take their stand side by side, as closely as possible in front not merely of the door, but of the whole end of the tabernacle in which the door was, they would have reached nearly twenty miles." As the case according to the bishop's showing is absurd and impossible, the account of it must be pronounced false and unhistorical.

Now I scarcely know how to treat this specimen of criticism with even the appearance of gravity. Had I heard it from the lips of an itinerating infidel lecturer, or had I read it in the flimsy publications of an infidel press, I should have treated it as all irreligious pertnesses and puerilities should be treated--with contempt. But the author is a bishop, and we must show respect to his ermine if not to his brains. The congregation of Israel was very large, the tabernacle was very small; the whole of the congregation is ordered at a certain time to appear before the door of the tabernacle; to do so the assembled host would have had to stretch away to a distance of twenty miles; this could not be, therefore the account must be discredited. But in discrediting this we will in consistency have to discredit a good deal more of the same kind of writing both in the Bible and elsewhere. For instance, we read that all the congregation stoned the blasphemer; the language is just as unqualified in this case as in the one which the bishop speaks of, but as it would be preposterous to suppose that some two millions of people, each and every one, threw stones at the guilty wretch, the account of it is to be rejected as unhistorical. In the Gospel of Matthew we read that there went out to John the Baptist, "Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the country round about Jordan, and were baptised of him in Jordan, confessing their sins" and in John's Gospel it is stated of Christ that "the world had gone after him." Upon the bishop's principle of interpretation, these accounts respecting both Christ and the Baptist must be rejected as unhistorical, inasmuch as the absolutely literal sense of the passages is untenable. But are we obliged in reading history to adhere tenaciously and with inflexible rigour to the strictly literal signification of every word and of every form of speech? If so, then there is not a history in the world, nor indeed any other kind of book, including even the bishop's own book, which may not be made to appear replete with nonsense and absurdity. A man of candour and good sense in reading the

account of the gathering of the congregation to the door of the tabernacle, would, if he had made the subject a matter of reflection, conclude that Moses meant to say a large number of the congregation was gathered, or more properly that the heads of the principal families representing the congregation were gathered. The idea of there being anything incongruous or absurd in the language employed by the historian would be altogether inadmissible.

I shall mention one other case. In Leviticus iv. we read that "the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head and legs, and his inwards, and his dung, even the whole bullock, shall he (the priest) carry forth without the camp into a clean place." Now after calculating that the Israelitish camp must have been about twelve miles square, the tabernacle occupying the centre of it; the bishop goes on to draw a ludicrous picture of Aaron or one of his sons carrying on his back the mangled carcase of a slaughtered bullock six weary miles to the outside of the camp. Of course no man, unless he were a very giant, could do what is here required of the priest, and even a giant would have found it slavish work. Therefore as the thing is altogether improbable, if not quite impossible, the account must be false. Now I have just two simple considerations to offer upon the bishop's criticism. First, nothing whatever is said in the text of the priest carrying the slain bullock on his back, or of any particular mode of carrying it, and as mention is made in another part of the Pentateuch of "waggons" set apart for the service of the sanctuary, the probability is that these were used in the case before us. Second, although the priest is commanded to carry the slain bullock to the outside of the camp it does not by any means follow that he had to do it personally. He was to see that it was done; he was responsible for the doing of it, but deputies might be employed. In Exodus xxx. we read that the Lord spake unto Moses saying, "Thou shalt make an altar;" "Thou shalt overlay it with pure gold;""Thou shalt make a laver of brass;" but it does not follow that Moses actually exercised the handicrafts of a carpenter, a goldsmith, and a brazier.

The whole of the bishop's reasonings against the historical validity of the writings of Moses, are of a piece with the specimens I have given, and serve to reveal three things:-1. His total incapacity for weighing moral evidence. In the mathematics he may be and undoubtedly is an adept. Numerous and competent judges testify to this; but within the sphere of moral truth, where the varying shades and degrees of probability require to be accurately noted and balanced, he flounders in helpless confusion. 2. He is grossly ignorant of those Eastern customs which reflect greatest light upon that part of the sacred volume, which he has had the temerity to make the subject of his destructive criticism,