stones, timber, mortar, of a house stricken with leprosy) out of the city unto an unclean place '—and, therefore, I have thought it right to modify the expression which I used with reference to this point in Part I. But the stress of my argument is not laid upon the necessity of the Priest himself in person doing this, but upon the fact that it had to be done by somebody,—that all the ashes, offal, and filth of every kind, for a vast city as large as LONDON, without any kind of sewage arrangements, had to be carried out daily through the crowded streets, and, in the case of the central camp of Levites, 44,000 persons, male and female, for a distance of six miles.

So again, several of my Reviewers have charged me with negligence, at least, in not observing that many of the laws in the Pentateuch were never meant to be carried out in the wilderness. And this is the way in which the difficulty about 'pigeons or turtle-doves' is usually disposed of. Here also it is not generally noticed that I have distinctly drawn attention to the fact that in L.xiv.22 'two turtle-doves or two young pigeons' are expressly ordered, as the story states, by Jehovah Himself, as an easy offering for a poor man to bring, with express reference in v.3,8, to their life in the wilderness.

The greater number of my opponents have had recourse to some vague suggestion about the inaccuracy of Hebrew numerals. The writers, however, never go minutely into the question, so as to consider carefully, (1) what numbers are to be corrected, (2) what alteration must be made in them, (3) how the change of these will affect other numbers of equal importance, (4) whether the main difficulties of the story will really be got rid of by any such reduction. But, in truth, the notion of any mere inaccuracy existing in the main numbers of

the narrative is simply a delusion. Whatever may be the case in other parts of the Bible, the numbers are not inaccurate here. They are carefully checked and counterchecked in so many ways, as I have shown in Chap. I of this Part, that it is impossible to dispense with the 600,000 fighting men, and retain, as historically true, the main facts of the story of the Exodus. It is, of course, possible and, in our view, in the highest degree probable, that a veritable movement of a considerable body of Hebrews out of Egypt, in some previous age, of which the legendary recollections were still retained among them, may have lain at the basis of the narrative. But then no reliance whatever can be placed on the historical accuracy of the details of the story. It will be found that they are inextricably bound up with the numbers.

Very grave censure has been passed by some upon the language which I have used, with reference to the manner in which the books of Moses' are referred to in the New Testament. On this point I shall say no more at present than that I believe that, in presence of the plain facts of the case, I have supported the orthodox faith by those suggestions, which I have made in the Preface to Part I, in the only way in which it can be supported, as far as this particular question is concerned. And I shall content myself with quoting the following words of Dr. DAVIDSON, which are the more to my purpose, as he adduces also the opinions of the late Dr. HEY, Norrisian Professor of Divinity for many years in the University of Cambridge, whose work was the text-book set before me, as one of the subjects of examination, by the late Bishop of Ely, who ordained me Deacon and Priest, and remains still, I presume, a standard work for Divinity students, as it was very recently sent out to me in Natal,

a

as one among a grant of books, made to my Diocesan Library by the University at my request.

.

Christ and his apostles did not come into the world to instruct the Jews in criticism. In some things both adopted a wise accommodation to popular views. When confuting the Jews, they generally reasoned with them on their own principles. Employing the argumentum ad hominem, they simply accepted the acknowledged sentiments of the people, without vouching for their truth. Let it be carefully observed that they did not urge that as truth, which they thought to be falsehood. To impute such a thing to the Saviour is impious. It is scarcely less so to ascribe it to the apostles and evangelists . . . Dr. HEY says, Lectures on Divinity, i.p.189, 'We have now reason to think that no text, or scarcely any, was ever cited or alluded to by our Saviour, but according to the notions of the Jews then present Now, if it is the duty of those, who teach religion, to 'become all things to all men, that they may by all means save some,' how could anyone better become a Jew to the Jews than by entering into their favourite mode of persuasion? It gave no authority to any sense of a passage in Scripture, because it was not understood to do so; it implied no error, no falsehood; and it made the affinity between the two dispensations, the harmony of the divine counsels, to be more strongly perceived.' Agreeing as we do with this theologian in the sentiment, that our Saviour and his apostles accommodated their mode of reasoning to the habitual notions of the Jews, no authority can be attributed to that reasoning, except where it takes the form of an independent declaration or statement, and so rests on the speaker's credit. It should also be observed that historical and critical questions could only belong to the sphere of his human culture

a culture stamped with the characteristics of his age and country. The developement of Jesus is distinctly recognised in the New Testament, and is not incompatible with his Divine nature, Lu.ii.52. Considering, therefore, the human limitations, to which the Son of God was subjected on earth, we are not irreverent in supposing that he shared the common views of the Jews in his day in regard to points ethically or doctrinally unimportant. DAVIDSON's Int. to the O. T. i.p.126.

I am, of course, very well aware that serious questions are raised, with respect to the popular views of Christianity, by the consideration of some of the facts, which are here, as I believe, proved in reference to the Pentateuch; and many of my Reviewers, as well as some private correspondents, have urged upon me the desirableness of stating at once in what way the usual elements of Christian doctrine appear to be affected by

the unhistorical character of the Pentateuch. But, however I may wish to satisfy this very natural impatience, it is impossible to do so, till we know what is the residuum of real fact which is left behind, when the Pentateuch is thoroughly examined. 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. And I believe that this view of the case is far more reverent and becoming than that which Dr. HEY seems most to favour, and which is so very commonly adopted, viz. that, knowing how the case really stood, He yet adopted the popular language of the day, and so left His countrymen and disciples in total ignorance of the facts of history and criticism, of which He Himself was fully cognisant, and by His silence, at all events, or even by direct statements, -confirmed their mistaken notions on so important a question.

But leaving these Replies and Reviews, most of which are by anonymous authors, I am naturally most anxious to see what the Bishops and Doctors of the Church of England will say upon the subject of my book, and how they will act in the present emergency. At the time when I write, only one of the English Bench of Bishops, the Bishop of ROCHESTER, has, as far as I am aware, expressed himself at any length with reference to the present question. And he has stated, in his published letter to the clergy of his Diocese, that he is 'no Hebrew or German scholar,' and, therefore, being necessarily ignorant, at present, of the real facts of the case, he can scarcely be regarded as a fair and competent judge in the matter. In the present Part,

however, I hope that I have put the main points of the argument within the grasp of any one, whether clerk or layman, though unacquainted with Hebrew or German, if only he will give the needful attention, free from prejudice, to the consideration of the points at issue.

The Bishop of LONDON in his recent Charge,-admirable as it is in respect of the liberal and charitable spirit which it breathes throughout, while saying that—

it would never do to lay down that a clergyman is bound not to inquire,

and that

we cannot for a moment admit any theory, which, teaching that as clergymen they were bound to an unquestioning adherence to the Church's standards, removes the Clergy out of the category of inquiring honest men, thus robbing the Church of all that weight of testimony in favour of its doctrines, which is derived from the heartfelt free adherence of so many of the most intelligent and best men of each generation, who have found their highest happiness as its ministers, —

and while further saying that

a Clergyman cannot altogether avoid such questions, he is called every day, in his common occupations, to announce that he has an opinion on one side or the other of, at least, some of them.- he cannot, therefore, shut his eyes to them,

yet adds that

if such inquiry leads to doubt,—and if the doubt ends in disbelief of the Church's doctrines, of course he will resign his office as one of the Church's authorised teachers.

Now let us consider what this leads to. Let us suppose a clergyman to begin to inquire,' having a difficulty about the Deluge put before him by some intelligent layman of his flock. If he does this, he will assuredly soon learn that the results of geological science absolutely forbid the possibility of our believing in an Universal Deluge, such as the Bible manifestly speaks of. He will find also that mathematical and physical science, as well as the plain texts of Scripture, equally forbid