believes to be the surest and the best, and which may by itself bear the whole weight of the argument. This he follows out in all its bearings upon the question. Its cumulative weight and strength become so great, that it seems to be after all much more than an hypothesis-much more than a possible or probable solution. It approaches to certainty; it may be wielded not only for defence, but as an instrument of attack against the enemy." "The most careful and studious reader will find nothing superficial here; no hasty assumptions,—no imperfectly examined theories. It is the reply of the Wrangler of Trinity, to his fellow Wrangler of St. John's; and there can be no question at all about the thoroughness of the investigation, or the triumphant success of the argument. It is not so much the novelty or originality of the proposed solutions which characterizes the volume, rather it is the laborious minuteness of the details, and the almost merciless pursuit of the adversary into every corner and cranny of his defences. It is an answer in full to Dr. Colenso's objections; in many cases it is an utter demolition of them."

3. But besides the demolition of objections, there is the positive evidence adduced in demonstration of the Truth which defies objections. Dr. Mc. Caul shews a continuous stream of evidence (from the latest page of the New Testament, traced backward to its source, in the time of Joshua) for the existence of a book called "The Law of the Lord." He demands a refutation of this evidence. Mr. Birks, though adducing his evidence from the English Version only, yet accumulates an amount so overwhelming and conclusive, that ten thousand difficulties such as those of Dr. Colenso, could not only never outweigh it, but never even greatly diminish its force. He shows that the whole Bible is full of the Law. The spirit of these five Books informs the Old Testament and the New. The authenticity and inspiration of the Psalms, the Prophets, and the Gospels depend on the same proofs as those which establish the Books of Moses to be the Word and Will of God.

4. The Bishop of Ely's work' has a peculiar value. He

7 The Pentateuch and The Elohistic Psalms. By the Norrisian

Professor of Divinity. (Parker and
Son, 1863.)

HIS PREMISES UNTRUE; HIS CONCLUSIONS ILLOGICAL. 439

has clearly shewn that Dr. Colenso's conclusions would not follow, even on the admission of all his premises. All the great facts of Bible history remain firm and immoveable, though the arithmetical puzzle and the apparent interpolations and anachronisms of the text be found incapable of solution. He shews that the three facts, for instance, of the residence of the Jews in Egypt, their long wanderings in the Desert, and their conquest of Canaan, could no more be disputed than the invasion of England by the Saxons or the Danes. These three facts have given a strongly marked character to all their literature, and to the life of the whole people to this day. These facts must not only be admitted, they must be accounted for, and the Bible history is not only the best, it is the only conceivable way of accounting for them. "Besides a number of solutions of minor difficulties, the carefully elaborated argument of Dr. Colenso on the Elohistic and Jehovistic Psalms is met, and utterly demolished, in the most simple and intelligible manner. The principle of Dr. Colenso's argument is this, that the use of the word 'Elohim' for God is a proof that such a chapter or psalm is of earlier date than one in which 'Jehovah' is freely and commonly used. Professor Browne has shewn that the Psalms when examined by their language, and even by their titles, prove the very reverse of what is contended for; the more ancient ones being precisely those in which the name Jehovah is most frequently used. This whole theory of determining the age and character of a document by the use of the Divine name is completely overthrown, and the argument neutralized by the fact that there are the same unaccountable, and apparently capricious changes from the use of one name to another, in later portions of Scripture, where the document-theory and the age and authorship of the composition can offer no solution. In the book of Proverbs only Jehovah' is found, in the book of Ecclesiastes only 'God.' In the book of Job, 'God' is found in all the verse and Jehovah' in all the prose. In short, the evidence is clear as the sun, that whatever determined the choice of the writers in the use of the Divine names, it certainly was a free choice. The use of one name does not prove ignorance of the other, nor does it even prove what was the usage of the time, for

strange to say, in the prophet Daniel the name 'Jehovah' only occurs in the 9th chapter, and in that chapter no less than six times! . . . We can truly say we have read no book which has given us such a feeling of conscious safety from even partial and temporary harm. It strengthens our convictions that the foundations of the truth are laid deep and secure, and that the whole superstructure is worthy of that kingdom which 'cannot be shaken,' but which must for ever and ever remain."

III. After the curiosities of Colenso comes the romance of Renan. But after what has been said above, is there any need to say more in proof of its utter inutility and fallacy as an apology for scepticism? Surely not. It is in all respects A TRIUMPH FOR THE TRUTH!

"A well-meaning, clear-headed, scholar-like man has come forward to show how Jesus might have founded the Christian religion by His own unaided genius, apart from any supernatural qualification, personal or relative. Most reluctantly

he has been obliged to pourtray him as an enthusiast and an impostor. He has used every artifice to soften down the charge. He has lavished upon him, what, coming from him, must be called unmeaning adulation. He has apologised for his falsehood, till he is in danger of charging him with lunacy. He has made him yield to the persuasion of others, till he becomes chargeable with irresolution and imbecility. He allows him to confuse the imaginary with the real, till he becomes a visionary, looking forward to a perfectly utopian kingdom; so that after all, the characters drawn by this new apologist is expressed by St. Paul in two single words, not complimentary to mortals even of ordinary standing, πλανῶν και πλανώμενος, 'Deceiving and being deceived.' The Vie de Jesus is in fact a reductio ad absurdum. It shows that the Founder of the Christian religion could have been none other than THE SON OF GOD; and that the history of His birth and life, and ministry and death, cannot but be ALL TRUE."'

IV. There is a large class of persons however, who in the romance of Renan and the calculations of Colenso can see

'The Christian Advocate and Review, vol. iii. p. 466.

9 Ibid. p. 510.

M. RENAN'S FAILURE.

441

nothing more than an exercise of the characteristic ingenuity of those gentlemen, but who think it is from the progress of scientific discovery that the old faith in the Bible has most to fear. They are well assured that the principal difficulties of the Bishop of Natal exist only in his own imagination; and that the fanciful portraiture drawn by M. Renan, so far from reflecting the actual Christ of the Gospels, is merely the visionary ideal of the most skilful of all romancers. But while they rightly regard these as idle speculations, they turn to the facts of Science as solid truths.

"TO THE FACTS of Science": yes; and so do we. But not to the supposed facts; not to mere presumptions or probable conjectures; but to facts that have been proved. Let theologians only beware of making Scripture responsible for what may after all be only some hasty assumptions of their own; and let philosophers be no less cautious in obtruding their fancied discoveries as proving the erroneousness of Scripture; and we shall soon cease to be told that Scripture and Science are at variance. Meantime it is important to note the fact that Science properly so called-while it has done very much to establish-has done absolutely nothing whatever to overthrow" the old faith in the Bible." We have seen in the preceding pages" the professors of different sciences, the partisans of different schools, arrayed not only against each other but against themselves, on all those points which involve the correctness (and consequent Inspiration) of Scripture. The votaries of Science must settle their own controversies-must ascertain to their mutual satisfaction what IS fact-before they can presume to assert that the declarations of the Bible are contrary to fact. And this, often as it has been attempted, has yet never been achieved. Not all the unquestionable ability of Sir Charles Lyell, Prof. Huxley, and Mr. Darwin, has availed to discover one solitary indisputable fact at variance with the plain declarations of the Bible.

Nor is this all. He who undertakes to set up Science in opposition to Scripture must needs find all the Certainty on one side and all the Uncertainty on the other. The Certainties

10 Vide supra, pp. 198–273.

of Science are corroborative of the Certainty of Scripture: that which admits of being represented as antagonistic to Scripture is merely a tissue of Uncertainties. How many of the alleged discoveries adduced to prove the high Antiquity of Man might we have been spared, if their originators had but showed the caution displayed by Professor Owen at Jarrow!" How very few admit of satisfactory verification! And then besides the original uncertainty as to the actual facts, there is the further uncertainty of doubtful computations based on the data which those (supposed) facts (are supposed to) furnish. Thus, to take a recent instance, we are informed (in the Report of the Proceedings of the British Association at Bath) that "A careful computation by Professor W. Thompson, on selected data, which determines the rate of cooling of earthy masses, assigns

"The lesson taught by the inci- | declared that the tree pointed out dent here referred to is one which calls for such frequent reiteration in these days of rash and positive speculation, as to justify the insertion, in this place, of the account given by Professor Owen himself, at the Meeting of the British Association in 1858;

"Professor Owen said that some time ago he was sent for to the North, to examine a fossilized tree, which had been found in digging the Jarrow dock, which bore undoubted evidence of having been cut by human hands. It was supposed to be a most important discovery, as showing the antiquity of the human race; and at first every thing appeared satisfactory. On prosecuting his enquiries, however, he learnt that one of the navvies, not then on the works, was said to have discovered a similar tree, in another part of the dock, which he cut to lay down a sleeper. The man was sent for, and on his arrival he

was the one he had cut. It was endeavoured to be explained that this was impossible, as the place had not been excavated before; but, looking with supreme contempt on the assembly of geologists and engineers, the man persisted in the identification of his own work, and exclaimed, 'The top of the tree must be somewhere.' Upon which he (Professor Owen) offered half-a-crown to the first navvy who produced it. Away ran half-a-dozen of them, and in a few minutes they returned with the top. This explained the mystery. The man had cut off the top with his spade; the stump afterwards got covered up with silt, and on being again uncovered, it was supposed a great discovery. Never had he so narrow an escape from introducing 'a new discovery' into science, and never had he a more fortunate escape."