CHRIST OR COLENSO? OR, A FULL RBFL TO THE OBJECTIONS OF THE RIGHT REV. JOHN WILLIAM COLENSO, D.D. BISHOP OF NATAL, TO THE PENTATEUCH. MICAIAH HILL, SON OF A MISSIONAEY IN THE EAST. Us/. "^- LONDON : HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO., PATERNOSTER ROW. BIEMINGHAM : HUDSON AND SON, BULL STEEET. MrCCCLXIII. :^ Pi'ice Eigkteenpence. SS1Z2.5 ,1, C7H(2> REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO. CHRIST OR C0LENS(12 B.BFL TO THE OBJECTIONS OF THE RIGHT REV. JOHN WILLIAM COLENSO, D.D. BISHOP OF NATAL, TO THE PENTATEUCH. MICAIAH HILL, SON OF A MISSIONARY IN THE EAST. LONDON : HAJVIILTON, ADAMS, AND CO., PATERNOSTER ROAV BIEMINGIIAM : HUDSON AND SON, BULL STREET. PREFACE, The Editor of a periodical circulating extensively among young men, requested the Author to review Dr. Colenso's work on the Pentateuch. On the same day he was urged, as Superintendent of a Society employing Town Missionaries and Bible Women, to lecture on the subject, as extracts and jubilant reviews in low infidel j)^^blications were injuriously affecting mission- ary visitation. A glance at the work convinced him that neither a review nor lectures would be adequate to the emergency ; he determined, therefore, to enter into a full refutation. As Dr. Colenso has studiously closed his eyes to all moral and historical evidence of the authenticity and genuineness of the Pentateuch, making it simply a question of arithmetic, it is enough for the present, to meet the objector on his own chosen gi'ound, to show that even here the attempt to throw discredit upon the first five books of the Bible has signally failed. The reader is requested to notice that two figures in lines 14 and 15, on page 15, Imve been transposed in printing, and should be corrected as follows : — 581,013, instead of 580,113, and 1,162,026, instead of 1,160,226. The probable increase during the last 15 of the 215 yeai's (p. 15), has been obtained simply by doubling the population at the end of the second century, as an approximation sufficient for illustrative purposes. M. HILL. Birmingbara, December, 1862. CONTENTS, CHAPTER I. Popular Statistics Or, a Review of Dr, Colenso^s Ohap. 2 & 3. The Family of Judah . ,, 15. The 215 years' Sojourn in Egypt 17. The 603,550 at the Exodus ,, 16. The Fourth Generation . ,, 18 & 19. The Danites and Levites 14. The First-borns . ,, 7. The Census and the Atonement Money CHAPTER II. The Exodus and its Difficulties ; Or, a Revieio of Dr. Colenao's Chap. 10. The Institution of the Passover . . 26 11. The March out of Egypt , . .28 „ 9. The Israelites Armed . . . .32 ,, 8. The Israelites dwelling in Tents . . 38 ,, 12. The Sheep and Cattle in the Desert . . 42 CHAPTER III. The Camp and its Difficulties ; Or, a Revieio of Dr. Colenso's Cliap. 4. The 603,550 at the Door of the Tabernacle . 50 5. Moses and Joshua Addressing all Israel . 55 6. The Camp— its Extent, Priests, Fuel, &c. . 61 20. Priests — their Number, Duties, and Perquisites 69 21. The Passover and its Difficulties . . 71 22. The War on Midian . . . .73 13. Canaan and Wild Beasts . . .79 CHAPTER I. POPULAR STATISTICS. The introductory and closing remarks, forming the first and last chapters of Dr. Colenso's work on the Pentateuch, demand but a casual notice. His ob- jections in the body of the work we shall examine one by one. The arrangement of subjects appears to us arbitrary, and we shall take up the chapters in the order suggested by their respective contents. The second chapter is on Judah's family, and the third on the explanations of expositors. It " appears to him certain that the writer," in Gen. xlvi. 12, "means to say that Hezron and Hamul were horn in the land of Canaan, and were among the 70 per- sons, including Jacob himself, and Joseph and his two sons, who came into Egypt with Jacob" (p. 17). This is ''vouched so positively by the many passages . . . which sum up the ' 70 souls,' that to give up this point, is to give up an essential part of the story" (p. 19). Now the expression, "came into Egypt," is simply equivalent to settled in Egypt. That this is the mean- ing of the writer, is shown from the fact -that Joseph, who did not go with Jacob, and his two sons, who were not born in Canaan, are included in the list of persons so described. Dr. Colenso, notwithstanding the above "certainty" and "positiveness," himself admits this "meaning " to be "obvious enough" (p. 27). Having B written the second, lie ought, therefore, to have ex- }>ungecl half of the first chapter. Having made this exception in favour of three persons in the list, we are at a loss to conceive on what principle Dr. Colenso insists on believing that Hezron and Hamul were born ill Canaan. We learn that Er and Onan died in Canaan; but if from this obituary notice of two we cannot assume that two others — Hezron and Hamul — were natives of Canaan, what is there in the family register to prove it ? Nothing, unless it be the ex- })ression which confessedly is equivalent to settled in Egypt. Yet Dr. Colenso persists in maintaining an inadmissible view of the whole passage, in order to demonstrate that a number of events, stated to have occurred in a given term of years, could not possibly have occurred. Even with such help, a case cannot be made out against the Pentateuch without an assumption. In a note to page 18 we are told, that Judah was " about three years older than Joseph." If this can be proved, all the impossibilities attributed to " the story " will necessarily follow ; if not, Dr. Colenso will have to look nearer home for " literal inaccuracies." Jacob bound himself to serve Laban fourteen years, at the expiration of which Joseph is born, and Jacob asks permission to return to his native land, (Gen. xxx. 25,) but consents to remain six years longer (Gen. xxxi. 38, 41). Joseph was therefore six, and Judah nine years old, at their departure from Padan Aram. After Judah's birth, his mother Leah had Issachar, Zebulon, and Dinah (Gen. xxix., 32-3-5; xxx., 17-21). Allowing but twelve months between the births of Judah and Issa- char, which is much too short a period (Gen. xxx. 9-13, 17), and allowing the same interval between tlie birtlis of Issachar, Zebulon, and Dinali, which is also a very moderate estimate, it follows that Dinah was three years younger than Judah, and therefore six years old at the departure from Padan Aram. Now in this journey home, Dinah was old enough to be dis- honoured by Shechem, and to be the subject of marriage proposals ; that is, on Dr. Colenso's hy- pothesis, a girl of some six years of age was old enough to excite the passions of Shechem. And further, Simeon and Levi, made out by him to be, the one ten and the other eleven years old — mere lads, not in their teens — were able to entrap, and slay with the sword, all the male members of Shechem's family ! On a misconstruction of v/ords, whose '' mean- ing is obvious enough," Dr. Colenso builds imaginary impossibilities, and then arbitrarily determines the age of Judah, which the whole narrative shows is too low. Dr. Colenso again assumes " that it is absolutely undeniable that the narrative of the exodus distinctly involves the statement that the 66 persons, out of the loins of Jacob, mentioned in Gen. xlvi, and no others, went down with him into Egypt" (p. 18). Let the reader examine each of the texts cited, (Gen. xlvi., 2, 26, 27; Ex. i., 1, 5; Deut. x., 22) and see if there is in them, or any where else in the whole Bible, the slightest authority for interpolating the clause, "and no others." As a family register, it contains only the names of the lineal descendants ; and if, as is perfectly natural, there appears in it no reference to servants, this silence of history cannot, on any known principles of criticism, be converted into a statement that " no s others " went down into Egypt. But there is no such absolute silence as Dr. Colenso's arguments suppose. For I. we read in one passage that Joseph's *' father's house," (Gen. xlvi., 31) in another that his "father's household," (Gen. xlvii. 12) as well as his brethren, their flocks, and their herds, and all that they had, (Gen. xlvi., 32) came down into Egypt. As distinguished from " brethren," what does house and household mean 1 Such a phrase by itself sig- nifies something; in antithesis to ''brethren" it is decisively against him; yet the whole question is begged both here and on page 114, by restricting the word "household" to only those that were lineally descended from Jacob. That a nomad prince should have no body of retainers with him is so contrary to all we know of ancient Patriarchal, and modern Bedouin life, that it is preposterous to take it for gi'anted. II. Abraham had but a few sons of his body begotten, yet his household consisted of 318 armed and trained retainers. All of these "were born in his house," (Gen. xiv., 14) and all incorporated into the tribe by circumcision (Gen. xvii., 13, 14). To say that " there is no word or indication," or " sign," that "any such cortege accompanied Jacob into Egypt," (p. 114) is begging the whole point in dispute. In relation to Abraham, house (Gen. xv., 2) and house- hold (Gen. xviii. 19) include Isaac, Ishmael, and not less than 318 armed men; that is, a whole tribe of some 1270, and not merely a family of about twenty. On what principle of criticism are the same words in relation to Abraham's grandsons, to mean a family and not a tribe ? We are not contending about mere D Words and phrases; for on a correct understanding of these Dr. Colenso's calculations altogether turn. But III. It is incumbent upon him to show why Isaac succeeded to "all that Abraham had," (Gen. XXV., 5) and, therefore, to his father's bought and born servants ; and yet that Jacob did not succeed to all that his father Isaac had. There is no sign, no indication, not a word, to show that the laws of in- heritance and the natural course of things, were set aside in Jacob's case ; and we cannot allow it to be assumed that they were set aside. We want evidence that either Jacob did not inherit a large body of re- tainers ; or that, having inherited, he subsequently dis- missed them. We are told, on the contrary, that when Jacob returned from Padan Aram to his father, he brought ''much cattle, and maid servants and men servants" (Gen. xxx., 43; xxxii., 5). Generous Abraham had 318 men servants; esisy and yielding Isaac succeeded to all Abraham had; and yet the crafty and grasping Jacob is to be assumed as going down to Egypt with a family of wives and children only. A Bishop in Natal, who could, when neces- sary, call in the aid of English soldiers, yet had " a small household of 30 or 40 persons ;" (p. 61) a nomad prince, with herds and flocks to tend and protect, goes down into a foreign country, with no guard on the way, and no servants when at his destination. We repeat, these are assumptions, and nothing more. IV. Dr. Colenso, in defending his position, fre- quently supplies the very facts he denies when at- tacking the Pentateuch. Take the following example : He assumes that the eleven sons of Jacob went and returned from Egypt with corn, unattended by ser- 10 vaiits. Why ? Because " their eleven sacks would have held but a very scanty supply of food for so many starving thousands" (p. 114). Here is adverse evidence which he does not see. For, would eleven sacks of corn have sufficed for some sixty souls, in Canaan, during twelve months l Assuredly not ; and therefore, if these men knew what they were about, they had, on the journey, a much larger number of asses and sacks with them. The eleven only are mentioned, but the object of their journey, and the extent of twelve months' consumption show that many more were with them. We must judge from the known necessities of the case, and not from the silence of a condensed account. V. Seventy lineally descended persons went down into Egypt, and in some two centuries, two millions and a half left it. Where is the impossibility, where the contradiction ? In Dr. Colenso's book, not in the Pentateuch. Notice how a natural result can be turned into a most startling improbability. His proved premises are, seventy lineal descendants at the immigration ; his inference is, two millions and a half lineal descendants at the exodus. Keep the word " lineal" in the premiss, for that is granted ; strike out the word " lineal" from the conclusion, and where is the difficulty ? There is not a word, not a sign, in the Pentateuch, that the two millions and a half were lineal descendants of Jacob. We learn, that in Egypt the seventy "grew and multiplied exceedingly" (Gen. xlvii. 27) ; but we do not learn that they did not increase as Jacob did in Padan Aram, or Abraham did in Cannan, and we cannot allow of any such assumption. 11 YI. Dr. Colenso gets 4,923 souls at the exodus from the seventy at the immigration, by limiting, as we have shown, the meaning of the word household in defiance of all known facts. Let us put this fallacy out of sight and out of knowledge, and take the number, 4,923, as the extent of the population at the exodus. He also quotes, without objection, an estimate of the Egyptian population, shewing that it could not have been less than seven millions (p. 121). His proportion, again, of men capable of bearing arms, to the rest of the population, is as one is to four ; therefore the Egyptians of this class must have numbered 1,750,000 ; and the number of Hebrews of the same class, about 1,230. If, going eighty years backward, we reduce the slaves to 273, we must, in the same proportion, reduce the masters to 388,414. Now, Pharaoh puts the Hebrews under task masters on the ground that '^ the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we*' (Exod. i. 9). That is, 273 Hebrew shepherds, on Dr. Colenso's view of matters, were more numerous and more powerful than 388,414 Egyptians. The rulers were so alarmed at the growth and prosperity of their guests and neighbours in Goshen, that they proscribe every male infant, the infants of a people (as inferred from p. 103) 1,094 in number, while they themselves were counted by the million. YII. We have called attention to the distinction at the immigration, between brethren and household. Let us see if a similar distinction does not exist at the exodus. In Numbers ii. 2-33, we have the stations to be taken up by 600,000 able-bodied men. '' His host and them that were numbered of them," 12 are words repeated twelve times in one chapter. Each tribal head had a '' host," and others counted as belonging to his tribe. This distinction between "his" and those that were regarded as his, is thrust upon us with studious care and wearisome reitera- tion. The total of 603,550 is shown to be not all of the same class, and we cannot allow Dr. Colenso to assume that they were. Unless he can show that this total was lineally descended from the seventy lineal descendants of Jacob, chapter after chapter must be torn into pieces and put into the waste-paper basket. We will now go to his fifteenth chapter, where it is shown that the length of the sojourn in Egypt was only 215 years. This, we believe, has for some time been the established opinion of theologians, and might have been accepted by Dr. Colenso without devoting a printed chapter to its proof. His seventeenth chapter is written to demonstrate that as Jacob had twelve sons, and fifty-three gi*and- sons (p. 103), and as this gives the average of four and a half to each of the twelve patriarchs, the ratio of progression must be taken at four and a half to a generation. It then follows that in 215 years, if this period represents only four generations, the population at the exodus could not have been more than 4,923. Hence it is concluded that the 603,550 of the Penta- teuch are fictitious numbers. We have shown that the fallacy lies in taking the seventy as his premiss, and comparing his 4,923 lineal descendants with the 603,550 of the Pentateuch, which include lineal de- scendants and others. But how does Dr. Colenso arrive at the conclusion 13 that 215 years represent only four generations ? The process we have in the sixteenth chapter. The ge- nealogical tables of Levi, Keuben, Zarah, and Pharez are tabulated, and to it the genealogy of Joseph is appended. Now, as it is said in Genesis xv. 16, that '' in the fourth generation they shall come hither again," and r.s Moses was the son of Amram, and Amram the son of Kohath, and Kohath of Levi, and as these four stages are assumed to apply to all of the given cases, therefore, he finds in the genealogical tables a proof of the meaning of the phrase, "the fourth generation." This he concludes to be one of his "indisputable" facts (p. 100). These genealogies, we are told, " show distinctly what is meant by the fourth generation" (p. 115). Now, out of the four cases, his own showing makes a descendant of Pharez only belong to the fourth generation, and this appears in only one of the three. One of the three gives only a third generation, and the other a fifth (pp. 96, 97). The last is dismissed by a " perhaps," making a con- jecture a link in the " indisputable ;" and by a repe- tition of the assertion that Pharez was horn in Canaan. There is, then, in his tabulated list only one clear case to support his indisputable facts, and that is clear from one passage, but dark enough from two others. To this we have to add the case of Joseph. Had the genealogy of this patriarch been tabulated with the others, the table would have looked too ridiculous for inspection. Tt lies con- cealed in a paragraph by itself, where we shall not let it lie. Look at that genealogy j Joseph's son was Manasseh, Manasseh's Machir, Machir's Gilead, Gilead's Hepher, and Hepher's Zelophehad \ and this 14 Zelopliehad had, at the exodus, several daughters. This list makes that the sixth which Dr. Colenso calls the fourth. Is this fair criticism 1 Are we, on such premises, to allow an argument to be built which is to sweep away the first six books in the Bible ? In Gen, xv. 13, four hundred years are mentioned, and in verse 16, the expression, "the fourth genera- tion." Why did not Dr. Colenso take the two passages together, and learn, as others do, that in Abraham's time, a hundred years represented one generation ] Why did he not go to Deut. i. 35, where he would have seen that, at the end of the life of Moses, thirty-eight years represented one generation 1 Why did he not here, as he can elsewhere, quote from Herodotus, who shows that the Greeks counted three generations to a century *? Why not here, as he can elsewhere, quote modern and well-established statistics which prove that the Grecian estimate is exactly that of Europeans 1 Why does he so perpetually take things by the w^^ong handle 1 A generation now re- presents thirty-three years and one third ; some five centuries l^efore Christ, the same number of years ; in the time of Moses, thirty-eight years ; in the time of Abraham, one hundred years ; and before the flood, if we may take antediluvian statistics, hundreds of years. Do not these facts show how loose is the foundation upon which Dr. Colenso chooses to con- struct 1 When God fixed upon the fourth generation as the time of the exodus. He defined the period at which it should take place as four centuries off ; but in so doing He df)es not inform iis that there would be only four generations of men becween the immigration 15 of tlie seventy and the exodus of the two millions and a half. Moses used a period near enough to the best ascer- tained standard, and the one tested by the largest number of centuries, to allow us to take three genera- tions to a century, and therefore to assume that six generations and a half succeeded one another during the 215 years of the sojourn in Egypt. Let us take the seventy who went down into Egypt, and four and a half the ratio of progression, and six generations to two centuries — the result will be that seventy in the first generation will become 315 by the second, and so on, till fifteen years before the exodus we shall, omitting fractional parts, have a population of 580,1 13 ; which, at the exodus, would have increased to 1, 1 60,226. This is only the number of lineal descendants, whereas the two and a half millions of the Pentateuch include 'Hhose that were numbered with them." Is there then, anything incredible in the statistics of the Pentateuch 1 Dr. Colenso's 18th chapter is on the Danites and Levites. Moses in Num. ii. 26, gives ''the host" of Dan, and "those that were numbered of them," as 62,700. Dr. Colenso gets the lineal descendants of Dan as only twenty-seven warriors. What then 1 Moses and Colenso are not calculating on the same basis — hence the difference ; and we are not going to doubt the veracity of Moses because he and Colenso do not pull together. We are told that the Levites, " during thirty- eight years in the wilderness, had only increased in number by 1,000 upon 22,000." This, Dr. Colenso says, ** involves a great inconsistency" (p. 109). How does he discover this 1 By assuming that Eleazer 16 was above twenty, which was the proscribed agei But why does he assume this, in the face of the declaration that Caleb and Joshua were the only two in all Israel above twenty that should be exempt from the general doom 1 He refers to Ex. xxviii. 1, to show that Eleazer "was a full-grown priest." We have looked at the passage again and again, and can see nothing of this full growth. His words are, " Eleazer was a full-grown priest at Sinai (Ex. xxviii. 1), and was therefore, we must suppose, above the age of twenty, or even that of thirty, at which the Levites were first allowed to do service in the sanctuary, Numb. iv. 47" (p. 110). What has this age of Levites to do with the age oi priests .? Not a word is said in the Pentateuch, and we do not know where else to look, about the age wlien priests were to enter upon their ministrations. The work which Levites in future times would have to perform was so laborious that they were to be exempt under thirty and over fifty years of age (Num. iv. 47) ; but how does this show that Eleazer the priest did not enter upon his priestly, and not Levitical, functions before he was twenty ? From this confusion of orders that difier. Dr. Colenso concludes that "the Levites were not involved in the general doom ;" and supports his statement upon another confusion of ideas. He says, " In fact it is repeatedly stated (Num. ii. 33, xxvi. 62) that they were not numbered among Hhe children of Israel,' and the doom in question is evidently confined to the 'children of Israel' except Joshua and Caleb (Num. xiv. 2, 10, 36, 62-65" (p. 110). Dr. Colenso's "evidently" always rouses our suspicions of some 17 lurking fallacy. Tlie reasons given in the Pentateuch why they were not numbered are these — '' because there was no inheritance given to them among the children of Israel" (Num. xxvi. 62) ; and be- cause their services were required for the tabernacle (Num. i. 49, 50). Is it not a singular inference that because the Levites should not share in the divi- sion of land in Palestine, therefore they were exempt from the doom of death in the wilderness 1 We have before remarked, that instead of taking the established results of modern statistics. Dr. Colenso invented an imaginary standard by which to compute the population at the exodus. Here, however, he prefers "the certain historical datum" showing the ratio of increase in London, in order to prove that the Levites in thirty-eight years ought to have increased from 22,000 to 48,471. He takes the statistics of a city whose rapidity of growth exceeds that of almost any other European city, and the period between 1851 and 1861, by no means remarkable for mortality or other circumstances unfavourable to an increase of population, and applies the ratio of 23 per cent, in ten years as a test of the recorded increase of Levites during the thirty-eight years spent in the wildernesses of Arabia under the curse of the Almighty. We need say no more upon that comparison ; but we will add, that under such circumstances the 1,000 increase given in the Pentateuch is far more credible than the 2G,471 given in Dr. Colenso's book. Moses assigns various duties to the Kohathites, Gershonites, and the Merarites, numbering in all a body of 8,580 men (Num. iv. 48). Dr. Colenso takes the Mosaic total as the number required for a vast IS amount of duties, but liis owu estimate of tlie number of men that could be found to perform it ; and then asks this question — "How were the twenty Kohathites, the twelve Gershonites, and the twelve Merarites to discharge the offices assigned to them in Num. iv. 4-16, in carrying the tabernacle and its vessels — to do, in short, the work of 8,580 men?" (p. Ill, 112.) This of course is intensely absurd, but we do not find the absurdity in the Pentateuch. The 19th chapter consists of "Replies to Kurtz, Hengstenberg, and others." When the Bishop has replied to me, I will give him every respectful consider- ation due to one who holds so high a position as a scholar in the Church of England. The design of the 14th chapter is by a comparison of the first-borns with the male adults, to fasten a monstrous inconsistency on the Pentateuch. Kurtz, taking 600,000 male adults and the 22,273 first-borns, concludes that the number of boys in every family must have been on the average forty-two. The fallacy of this reasoning we shall expose ; but Dr. Colenso adds another assumption to magnify the extravagance, and observes — "So that, according to the story in the Pentateuch, every another of Israel inust have had on the average forty-tioo sons" (p. 84). Kurtz's fallacy consists in taking for granted that the number of the fii'st-born is to be compared with the whole body of people constituting the tribes of Israel. Abraham had 318 armed retainers, born in his house ; therefore there were many first-borns in the tribe : but the son of Sarah was the only first- born of the family of Abraham. He had Ishmael, who was the first-born of Hagar, but it is written 19 **tliat the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free" (Gal. iv. 30). He had first- borns also by Keturah and his concubines (Gen. xxv. 1-5). But in his family Isaac was the only first-born. Now, supposing that the history of Abraham was as condensed as that of the 600,000 in the wilderness, and all that we should have would be this — a family register, giving only the names of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah ; the names of Isaac, Ishmael, and the sixteen sons and grandsons of Keturah. Some- where else in history there turns up this fact, that the tribe of Abraham could muster 318 armed men. Down comes Dr. Colenso with a host of assumptions and his arithmetic to show that 318 armed men must be multiplied by four to give 1,272 as the number of souls, and this must be divided by two to give the number of females as 636. He has now a splendid field to work in, the result of which will be proofs that a Sikh gooro in Hindostan was in some sense of the word insjDired, and Christ was not inspired at all by God when he spoke of Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. It appears, he would say, that according to the fiimily register, which is indisputable, Abraham had only three wives : it is also said that he had con- cubines ; how many we are not told, but by my knowledge of arithmetic and the help of an intelligent Zulu, I have come to the conclusion that his concu- bines may have been 633. And now mark the un- historical nature of the Pentateuch. According to the story, Abraham had eighteen sons in all by 633 concubines and three wives ; that is, if we are to believe the story, there were on the average 35^ mothers to each son ! Of course this would be mon- 20 strously absurd, but it is just by assumptions of this kind that Kurtz gets at an average of 42 boys in every family, and Dr. Colenso at 42 sons to every mother in Israel. Michaelis offers some help to mitigate the diffi- culties of the Bishop — but he will not have it. The German divine, with his suggestion, that polygamy must be taken into account, is pushed aside by a few strokes of the pen. For the first-born " are expressly stated to have been on the mothers side" (p. 84). But does it also expressly say that the fii^st-born, whose census was taken, were lineally descended first-borns ? This all-important fact is innocently assumed ; and to ask for proof is to shake the structure he has built upon it to its very foundations. It was polygamy that implicated the whole question of birthright, and it is polygamy that Dr. Colenso will not allow to be taken into consideration. Jacob, by craft, supplanted Esau, and though not the first-born that opened the womb, became the fii'st- born by enforced adoption. Manasseh, Joseph's first- born, xvas displaced by Jacob; aiid Ephraim (Gen. xlviii. 13-20) was made the first-born by his gi-and- father (Jer. xxxi. 9). Simri was not the first-born, but his father Hosah, gave him the birthright (1 Chronicles, xxvi. 10). In addition to polygamy this power of Jewish fathers to settle arbitrarily the rights of primogeniture, further complicated the question of the first-born, and with it the laws of inheritance. To prevent utter confusion and endless litigation, a law of birthrights is laid down in the Pentateuch. A case was supposed of two first-borns on the mother's side, and the question is raised by anticipation whicli 21 is to be the first-born in law ? The answer was, the one who was the first-born on tlie father's as well as on the mother's side. The reason assigned is — he is " the beginning of his strength" (Deut. xxi, 15-17) ; which was the ground on which Jacob, who had four first- borns on the mother's side, yet made Keuben the first-born in law (Gen. xlix. 33). ISTow the first-born in the passage, on which Dr. Colenso bases his calcula- tions, is in relation to the inheritance of land. The Levites, as a whole tribe, were by a divine arrange- ment cut ofi* from all landed possessions in Palestine. Each Levite of a given age was taken in lieu of each male of a certain age in the other tribes. Now is it not natural and just to assume that, as it was in con- nexion with a question of property, the first-borns, wdiose census was taken, were only those who in Palestine would share in the division of the land '? The retainers of each head of the tribes, and of the heads of families lineally descended, had no claim upon the lands to be divided. Their first-borns were the first-borns of servants, and in taking a census based on agi'arian laws, is it not wrong to assume that the 22,273 included the first-borns of retainers who had notliing to do with the question at issue 1 The 7 til chapter is full of captious and frivolous ob- jections. We are told " that the expression, 'shekel of the sanctuary,' in Ex. xxx. 11-13, could hardly have been used in this way, until there was a sanctuary in existence; or rather, until the sanctuary had been some time in existence, and such a phrase had become familiar in the mouths of the people. Whereas, here it is put into the mouth of Jehovah, speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, six or seven months before the taber- C 22 nacle was made" (p. 41). Why does tlie Bishop con- fine the cavil to this one instance, when scores of the same kind exist, without creating the slightest sense of discrepancy 1 Was it necessary that the thing called the sanctuary must be finished and set up, before the Qiame could be applied to the materials of which it was to be constructed '? On this principle, how could God say to Moses, ''speak unto the chil- dren of Israel that . . . they 7nake me a sanctu- ary ]"' (Ex. XXV. 1-8). It seems hardly credible that two such mutually destructive clauses should have been put into one objection. First, it is objected that the phrase is " put into the mouth of Jehovah ;'' secondly, that this could hardly have been the case until the name of the coin '' had become familiar in the mouth of the people." Does this require refuta- tion 1 It has been suggested that the Septuagint ren- dering is " the sacred shekel :" to this Dr. Colenso replies — the difficulty still remains to " explain what the sacred shekel could mean, before any sacred system was established" (p. 41). Now Abraham used money "current with the merchants" (Gen. xxiii. 16), and coins in use among Hebrews were current in Egypt (Gen. xliii. 21). The shekel in the wilderness was brought from Egypt; and the explanation is that there was a sacred shekel among Egyptians. For political and religious reasons, various Egyptian cus- toms were modified as savouring of idolatry; and where is the improbability of the supposition that, to destroy idolatrous vestiges and associations, God chose to call the sacred shekel, the shekel of the sanctuary '^ '* In Ex. xxxviii. 26, we read of such a tribute" 23 (as required in Ex. xxx. 13-16) " being paid ... for every one that went to be numbered . . . tliat is, the atonement money is collected ; but nothing is there said of any census being taken. On the other hand, in Num. i. 1-46, more than six months after the former occasion, we have an account of a very formal numbering of the people . . . here the census is made, but there is no indication of any atonement money being paid" (p. 42). Now, for what does the reader suppose that the above sentence was written ? To have the pleasure of adding that, — " the omission in each case might be considered, of course, as accidental, it being supposed that in the first instance the num- bering really took place, and in the second the tribute was paid, though neither circumstance is mentioned. But, then, it is surprising that the number of adult males should have been identically the sarue (603,550) on the first occasion as it was half a year afterwards' (p. 42). Now, we ask, first. Is it impossible that, under any circumstances, the losses by deaths after a first census, should have been filled up by an equal number of persons who had become twenty years old at the second census 1 It may be " surprising," but surprise is the child of ignorance ; and a historian is not to be doubted because, true to his facts, he relates what may surprise. Ought Moses to have falsified numbers to save Dr. Colenso the pain of a surprise ? But, II. how does the Bishop come to separate the two occasions by an interval of six months, so as to get two censuses ? The tabernacle was not com- menced till some six or seven months after the exodus from Egypt (see Scott's notes on Ex. xl. 2) ; it was set 24 up on the fii'st day of the first month of the second year (Ex. xl. 17) ; and the census was ordered on the first day of the second month of the same year (Num. i. 1). The account of the atonement money in Ex. xxxviii. 25 - 28, is that of money used up in the construction of the sockets of the pillars, their hooks for vails, their " chapiters," and '' fillets." When the census, of which this tribute is supposed to be the result, was taken. Dr. Colenso does not know, and yet he fixes the interval between the known and unknown time of two censuses, as six months. But, III., we have very strong indications that there was but one census after all. We gi'ound this opinion, I., on the fact that God solemnly threatened a plague if the census was not accompanied with the tribute, or atonement money (Ex. xxx. 12). Dr. Colenso at least cannot assume that the divine threat was not fulfilled, since, on the threat of Moses, (Ex. X. 26) he argues that not " a single hoof was left behind in Egypt" (p. 62). II. We gi'ound it on the very identity of the number, 603,550, which occurs in the two passages assumed by him to contain the account of different censuses. In Ex. xxxviii. 26, this number occurs as the sum of the money resulting from a census, no where intimated, unless it be that formally given in Num. i. 1-46. We deny the im- possibility of this coincidence between statistics ob- tained on two diff'erent occa.sions, but we admit its improbability, and therefore assume that the number of shekels and the number of the population were found on one and the same occasion. But, III., we gromid tliis opinion on the use made of the tribute money. Only the unessential parts of the tabernacle :o were made out of the silver shekels given at the census ; namely, the hooks for suspending the cur- tains, the sockets, the chapiters, and the fillets of the pillars (Ex. xxxviii. 25 - 28). When the tabernacle was set up, the pillars, as appears on this view, were fixed in the ground till silver sockets could be pro- vided, and they could serve their purpose with or without silver " chapiters and fillets" (Ex. xxxviii. 27 - 2S). The curtains could be suspended by tem- porary cords, till hooks could be made, as required (Ex. xxvii. 10), of silver. Now the reason why the tribute money appears in Exodus xxxviii. 25-28, before the account of the census in Numb. i. 1 - 46, is this : — Moses is reckon- ing up all the gold, silver, and brass consumed in the construction of the sanctuary, and not unnaturally places the total of the poll-tax with the total of the free-will offerings (Ex. xxv. 1-8) for convenience of arrangement. But it does not follow that because the statement is divided the things stated did not happen at one and the same time. Moses, in writing or re- vising the history of his times, saw reasons for placing the proceeds of the poll-tax with the proceeds of free- will offerings, in a passage which completes his account of the building and furnishing of the tabernacle ; but this does not prove, as it is assumed by Dr. Colenso, that a census was taken without a tribute, or a tribute raised without a census. In the worst possible view the passage in Exodus xxxviii. 25-28, is iwolepticcdy and the objections of the seventh chapter are founded on a misconception. 20 CHAPTEE IL THE EXODUS AND ITS DIFFICULTIES. In Ex. xii. 3-G, we Lave the arrangements for the coming Passover. In verse 3 we have the words, " in the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb." The reference to the tenth day is itself a reference to the future ; and the fourteenth day is still further removed from the day on which the direction was first issued : yet Dr. Colenso denies that '* notice several days beforehand" was given (p. 54). How is this inferred ? In the 21st verse we have the statement — " Moses called all the elders of Israel and said unto them, Draw out now and take you a lamb," &c., showing that the fourteenth day, once future, is now present. Hence verse 12, which stands after the announcement (ver. 3-6), is, as to time, the same as verse 21, in which we have God's words — " I will pass through the land this night." "This," the Bishop remarks, "does not mean that." Of course not : but can "this" of verse 21, and of the fourteenth day, mean ^Hlutt" of the tenth ? A pas- sage so plain and self-consistent is described as "per- plexing and conti-adictory" (p. o5). The tenth chapter (p. 54-60) is devoted to sitch contradictions. We have in Ex. x. 22-23, the statement that " there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three 27 days ; but all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings." The following is Dr. Colenso's comment — "Several of the miracles, especially that of the thick darkness, imply that the abodes of the Hebrews were wholly apart from those of the Egyptians" (p. 57). Had the statement been in their land or district, it would have justified the inference ; light in their dwellings does not. The darkness, if it existed at all, was miraculous ; and its miraculous nature is shown in the fact, that while an EgyjDtian house sufi'ered from the general obscuration, a neighbouring Hebrew dwelling had light. Dr. Colenso, again, " imagines the time that would be required for the poorer half of London going hur- riedly to borrow from the richer half" (p. 57), and then of course the absurdity of the whole story. But a man who has been abroad ought not to have imagined any such thing. The Pentateuch does not speak of Europeans, and does not place Hebrews in London, which makes all the difference. We must conceive of Eastern and Asiatic cities if we want analogies to explain the position and circumstances of Asiatic Hebrews in Egyj)tian Rameses. We shall then be able to conceive of the poor — yes, the poorest — having jewellery, but not jewellery such as 'Hlie richer half of London" wear ; and of wealth hoarded up in ward- robes, but not such wardrobes as even in Natal we can conceive of as existing in the Bishop's "small household of thirty or forty persons" (p. 61). We must dismiss all idea of modern and European bank- ing systems, savings banks, &c,, and remember how to this day the earnings of the poor in Asia and Africa are converted into jewellery and finery. The collec- 28 tion of gold and silver jewellery and raiments (Ex. iii. 22, xii. 35) was a process so easy and exfteditioiis that a reference to London is the most extravagant ima- ginable. But why should the poorer half go borrow- ing from the richer half ? The poor Hebrews would go to the poor Egyptians — that is, to the class most accessible to them ; and the richer to those of equal station. There was, again, no necessity for the He- brews to go hurriedly : it was, on the contrary, the terror-struck Egyj^tians, anticipating instant and uni- versal death, who went hurriedly to urge the Hebrews to depart and take whatever they chose to ask (Ex. xii. 33). Dr. Colenso first turns the tables, and then writes his tenth chapter full of difficulties of his own creation. The march of more than two millions out of Egypt is suggestive of grave difficulties, but diiiiculties not greater than in feeding such a multitude for forty years in Arabian deserts. Had they had Xerxes for their leader, instead of Moses under Jehovah, the exodus of 2,500,000 would have been as disastrous as the invasion of Greece by 5,283,220 Asiatics. But it is not on thaumaturgic but arithmetical grounds that we have to meet the Bishop, and there we will join issue. ''What," he asks, ''what of the sick and infirm, or the women in recent and imminent child-birth, in a population like that of London, where the births are 264 a day, or about one every Jive minutes T (p. 02) One better informed than Dr. Colenso, guessing thirty- three centuries after date, tells us "there was not one feeble person among their tribes" (Ps. cv. 37). If there had been, there were waggons and conveyances which the S^v 29 people, with no lack of wealth, could buy or hire, and camels and horses and asses and oxen to any extent to meet the demand for such as 'niust he conveyed. One great assumption runs through the whole of this and similar arithmetical chapters. It is assumed, but not an attempt made to prove, that this mass of people all started from the same spot at the same moment. Thus, "infants and children" are made to go "on foot twenty rniles a day as the story implies" (p. 47). This implication is founded upon the expression " The children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth" (Ex. xii. 37), because "Nothing whatever is said or implied about these days of rest" (suggested by Kurtz) " in the Scrij^ture. There would surely have been some reference made to them, if they really occurred." (p. 63.) In Num. xxxiii. chap., we have a list of stations from Rameses to Jericho, during the 40 years' journeys, and yet only 43 are named. The very fact that but three more than one station to each year is given, is a clear indication that hundreds of intermediate halting places are omitted from the list. In verse 8 we have Piha- hiroth and Marah as the extremes of one of these "journeys," and the declaration that it took three days to travel from one to the other. Does not this imply that there were three halting j)laces for three night's sleep 1 Again, in verse 44, we have the station called Tje-abarim, (or lim, as in verse 45,) from which they " departed and pitched in Dibon-gad." Therefore, we must, with Dr. Colenso, conclude that they travelled some 80 miles in one day, because " nothing is said" of intermediate and minor stations. If we turn to Num. xxi. 11-20, we find, however, that after leaving Ije-abarim, they halted at seven different places, not 30 named in Num. xxxiii. ch. From these instances it is clear no one can assume that " from Rameses to Succoth," means a journey of 20 miles in one day. There was no reason for hurry after such a paralysing blow to their tyi'ants as the death of the first-born ; and attention is called by Moses to this fact (Num. xxxiii. 4), to show how it facilitated their departure. While the Egyptians were burying their dead, the Hebrews were leisurely pursuing their march from Rameses to Succoth, and may have been a week on the road for aught that appears to the contrary. We will not object to the number of births in Lon- don taken as an estimate of the possible number among Hebrews ; but we do most strongly protest against a comparison full of false suggestions. " The mid wives said unto Pharaoh the Hebrew women are not like the Egyj^tian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them." (Ex. i. 19.) If this had been a false excuse the midwives would not have escaped the tyrant's wrath. If not like Egyptian women, were they like Londoners 1 A resident in the colony of Natal ought to have re- called that African women while on a march, will stop, be delivered, and overtake the company at their next halting place. Be it that the births had been one to every five minutes, and what then % For a while they were unpursued, and never cU'eamed of a pursuit — hence the subsequent panic ; and the Egyptians were, under a terrible alarm, forcing assistance upon the departing Hebrews. The worst result of the number of births was a great and serious incon- venience to a large number of women ; but does the 31 Pentateuch say tliat the exodus was accomplished without any inconvenience 1 " But this is," Dr. Colenso says, '^ a very small part of the difficulty. We are required to believe that in one single day the order to start was commu- nicated suddenly at midnight, to every single family, of every town and village, through a tract of country as large as Hertfordshire, but ten times as thickly peopled" (p. ■ 62). The thicker the population the easier the communication; — how, then, does density of j)opulation aggravate the difficulty 1 When the Pentateuch comes out in Zulu language we will ask some missionary to tell us if Dr. Colenso's version contains all the interpolations indicated in the above excerpt ; meanwhile, we shall be content with making one verbal change in an old proverb, and say, E'piscojms vult deciiJi. Lastly, '' we are required to believe . . . that since receiving the summons, they had sent out to gather in all their flocks and herds, spread over so wide a district, and had driven them also to Pameses ; and lastly, that having done all this, since they were roused at midnight, they were started again from Pameses that very same day, on to Succoth ; not leaving a single sick or infirm person, a single woman in child-birth, or even *a single hoof behind them" (p. 62). In support of all these amazing assumptions we have one reference to Ex. x. 26, not to a record, that all this was done, but to a defiant answer of Moses to Pharaoh, " Our cattle also shall go with us ; there shall not a hoof be left behind." There is appended the sentence, ''This is undoubtedly what the story in the book of Exodus 32 requires us to believe." We have another reference to Ex. xii. 31-41, 51, which contain simply Pharaoh's midnight permission to go, and a statement that the exodus did take place " in the self-same day ;" but not a word of the summons at midnight sent by Moses, nothing of the driving of cattle to and fro, all of which is assumed and forced into "the story," which in Dr. Colenso's book differs as much from that in the Pentateuch as falsehood does from truth. Take one of his sta^te- ments, ''roused at midnight I" That the unbelieving Egyptians were terribly taken by surprise by the sudden death of their first-born, appears clearly enough in "the story;" but that the Hebrews, who, with the sprinkled blood upon their door-posts were antici- pating a blow the most awful conceivable, were asleep and required to be "roused," appears as plainly in the Bishop's book of misrepresentations. The word "harnessed" is of such doubtful ety- mology, that both German and English divines cannot fix its precise meaning. Gesenius derives it from a root, which would suggest battle array, besides other things. On a })hrase so equivocal, no sound controver- sialist would build an argument ; but to Dr. Colenso, it " appears to mean armed or battle array in all other passages where it occurs" (p. 48). Hence it seems " inconceivable that these doAvn-trodden, oppressed people, should have been allowed by Pharaoh to possess arms, so as to turn out at a moment's notice 600,000 armed men" (p. 48). Now we ask if it be conceivable that men, who went out with a high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians, (Ex. xiv. 8 ; Num. xxxiii. 3) would trouble tliemselves about what Pliaraoh allowed or did not allow ? Is it not con- 33 ceivable that a king, so liumbled as to ask their leaders parting blessing, (Ex. xii. 32) would give whatever was demanded 1 Is it not conceivable that a people, who parted with theii' jewellery and contents of their wardrobe, would empty their quivers also, if asked '? The " moment's notice " we have before shown, extended over weeks ; and the idea of being "allowed," is not to be entertained. Strike out these words from the question, and remembering that, at the exodus, it was to the Egyptians and not to the Hebrews, that the words " down-trodden and oppressed" properly apply, these words too must be transferred from one clause to another in the sen- tence— and what becomes of the difficulty '? But let the sentence stand as ic is put, and we will show there is no extravagance in the idea that "harnessed" may mean armed. We must, however, first of all explode a great fallacy. Before Dr. Colenso thought it fair to infer the extent of the Hebrew camp from the area covered by the British metro- polis; and now we have the most preposterous sug- gestions awakened by placing an undisciplined rabble, 600,000 strong, by the side of Wellington's army, and Wellington's army at Waterloo ! (p. 48). This compa- rison may be keyjt in mind, however, to see the contrast. Hebrew shepherds and brick-makers must be looked at as they were, and not as British veterans. We may assume that a people with " very much cattle," (Ex. xii. 38) could not do without many ox goads ; and it was with one ox goad, that a Hebrew leader, with a handful of men, slew 600 Philistines (Judg. iii. 31). Hebrew shepherds were wont to use the horn of an oryx, or gazelle, which is above 3 feet in 34 length, and which, shai'pened and fixed on a staff of thorn wood, would transfix the hide of a bull. It was light to handle, and yet capable of warding off the stroke of a battle axe. They had flocks and herds to supply them with sinews for plaited thongs, and Egypt or Arabian deserts to furnish as many stones as 600,000 men would be likely to require. Slings made of the sinews of their sheej^ and oxen, would throw stones to the distance of 400 feet; and it was with a pebble that a Hebrew shepherd lad slew the renowned giant of Gath. Elastic reeds, which Egypt supplied in abundance, backed with horn, which their cattle furnished, bent with sinews, with reeds for arrows tipped with flint, all at hand and in abundance — where is the incredibility that the Hebrews left Egypt harnessed ? We have heard of an old engraving of murdered Abel, and by him a deal table, with a pair of Cain's pistols lying upon it. Dr. Colenso's idea of Hebrew weapons might have been taken from this picture. Let us see how pastoral and agricultural people can arm themselves at a moment's notice. We will not go to Sir Walter Scott's '' Life of Napoleon," or Sir Archibald Alison's '' History of Europe," to take an example from the Royalist peasantry of La Vende. We will here keep to the Bible for Bible illustrations. The Philistines had so completely disarmed Israel, that '' in the day of battle there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of the j^eople that were with Saul and Jonathan." The king and his son only had such weapons (1 Sam. xiii. 23). Yet under the leadership of one man, a skirmish ended in a universal panic. The armed foe, in the madness 35 of their terror, trod one another down, and in the in- describable confusion, " every man's sword was against his fellow" (1 Sam. xiv. 12-20). The policy of the Philistine was so rigorously carried out, that "there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel ; for the Philistine said — Lest the Hebrews make them swords and spears." Even under this repressive policy, "the down -trodden and oppressed" had, every man " his share, his coulter, his axe, his mattock, forks and goads and a file to sharpen" them with (1 Sa. xiii. 20-21). Now the Egy^^tians forced some of the Hebrews to make bricks without straw ; but we have yet to learn that Egyptians forced them to tend oxen without goads, and to perform agricul- tural operations without agricultural implements. We have yet to learn that there was no smith found in all the land of Goshen. Under the most unfavourable cii'cumstances, oppressed people manage either to conceal arms for a day of hope, or to turn the implements of peace into the weapons of war, "at a moment's notice." Where then is the "incon- ceivable " in the expression — the Hebrews went out "harnessed ?" It appears also "inconceivable" that 600,000 armed men, in the prime of life, would have cried out in panic terror, 'sore afraid,' (Ex. xiv. 10) when they saw that they were being pursued " (p. 49). The mysterious manner in which panics seize large bodies of well disciplined and veteran troops, is one ot the inexplicable phenomena presented in ancient and modern history. Scripture contains several ex- amples of unaccountable panics. Garibaldi's expedition to Sicily and N'aples and its effects, and Bull Puns in 36 America, are modern examples of panics among disci- plined troops. The land forces of Xerxes amounted to 2,100,000; his fleet of galleys and transports — 4207 vessels in number — contained a naval force of 541,610. These, with camp sutlers, made a total of 5,283,220, by the time that Xerxes arrived at Thermopylae, where 4000 Grecian troops awaited this immense rabble. The battles of Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataeae and Mycale overthrew and dispersed this im- mense host. (Roll. Anc. His., bk. 6, c. 2, § 3 &^5.) This is related by Herodotus, and therefore passes for truth ; but that 600,000, at best ill-armed and undisciplined shepherds and brick makers, having to protect four times their number of non-combatants, women and children and immense flocks and herds, should be seized with panic is inconceivable — only because Moses is the historian. We have a quotation from Herodotus, to the efiect that the warriors formed a distinct caste in Egypt, '' being in number, when they are most numerous, 160,000, none of whom learn any mechanical a,i% but apply themselves wholly to military afiairs " (p. 49). This, Dr. Colenso quotes, to show that the 600,000 Hebrews could not have been armed, and then Moses is quoted to show that a panic among them, when most unexpectedly pursued by cavalry and chariots, was impossible. He asserts they could not carry tents, because they were burdened with unleavened dough and kneading troughs; and yet so burdened and un- armed, when , attacked, it is inconceivable that they should have become panic stricken. Should such con- tradictions appear in a work written to "impeach the literal accuracy " of the Pentateuch I 37 On the supposition that '^ harnessed " means five in a rank, Dr. Colenso gets a column of people 68 miles in length. The fallacies involved even here we need not expose, since the view giving such a result is not insisted upon. On the supposition, however, that " they did not take it with them out of Egypt, where did they get the armour with which, a month after- wards, they fought the Amalekites, (Ex. xvii. 8-17) and discomfited them with the edge of the sword '' (p. 50). We do not charge Dr. Colenso with an intentional suggestio falsi ; but here there is the sug- gestion of the false, however unintentional. He has been arguing on the difficulty of arming not a few, but 600,000 men; and it is suggested that it was this host that discomfited Amalek with the sword. Now it is only in connexion with a select band that the sword is introduced (Ex. xvii. 9). The " edge of the sword " is a proverbial expression, shown in this very passage. While Moses was praying on a neigh- bouring cliff, Joshua was fighting in the valley below. When Moses " held up his hand, then Israel prevailed ; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed." The Pentateuch puts the sword in Joshua's hand, and the rod in the hand of Moses ; and shows that it was faith, not valour, the wonder-working, plague-inflicting rod of Moses, and not Joshua's sword, which won the victory. More faith and less arithmetic can alone explain this — one of the grandest moral scenes of the many disclosed in the Pentateuch. We shall have noticed every argument in Dr. Colenso's ninth chapter when we have placed two texts and his comments side by side, and this is all the answer required. ^^ Able to go forth to war" occurs in D 38 the account of the census, in Num. i. 3. The com- ment on this expression is, '' They possessed arms, sui-ely, at that time." Able-bodied and armed men, are not the same thing. Again, the text is, '' When Moses lifted up his hand, Israel prevailed ; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed." The comment is, " They fought bravely enough with Amalek" (p. 51). Facility in figures will never qualify a man for writing commentaries on Scripture. The exodus took place on the fifteenth of the first month (Num. xxxiii. 3), and on that day month, the people entered the wilderness of Sin (Ex. xvi. 1). In Ex. xvi. 16, we have these words — "take ye every man" manna " for them which are in his tents." On this text, Dr. Colenso makes the following observa- tions : " Here we find that, immediately after their coming out of Egypt, the people were provided with tents — cumbrous articles to have been carried, when they fled out in haste, taking their dough before it was leavened, their kneading troughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders (Ex. xii. 34)" (p. 45.) The interval of a month is destroyed by a stroke of the pen — " immediately" is made to stand as the equivalent for a month, in order to show that one of the first things which the emancipated race would set about making, could not have existed. This reference to "tents," Dr. Colenso says "con- flicts strangely with" the reference to " booths" in Lev. xxiii. 42-43. Can determination be stronger than this to see through sceptical eye glasses '? During a month, men, living for the most part in booths, had time to construct something better for a night cover than slender booths. One of their first halting 39 places was called Siiccotli (Ex. xii. 37), that is, Bootlis ; just as their ancestor Jacob, having constructed booths for his cattle, called the station by the name of Booths (Gen. xxxiii. 17). Yet to Dr. Colenso it is as ^' inconceivable" that they lived at one time in booths, as that they lived at another in tents. How, then, did it enter into his mind that the camp of a people with neither booths nor tents covered an area equal to that of London '? But look at the reasons : — " it cannot surely be supposed that, in the hurry and confusion of the flight, they had time to cut down 'boughs and bushes' to make booths of, even if there were trees from which to cut them." The objection amounts to this — that what in starting they could not do, was impossible at halting. Does this require any refutation 1 For two millions of people. Dr. Colenso's estimate is 200,000 tents ; we shall show in our next chapter that a tenth of that number may be too high an estimate for aught we know. There is no reason to believe that the word te7it is used with the same strict accuracy which the critic wishes to force upon the speaker. The manna left on the ground melted away under the sun's rays (Ex. xvi. 21) ; and, taking this fact into consideration, all that Moses was under- stood by the people to say may have been this, take the manna and put it under cover. Those who had tents would take it to their tents; those who had nothing but their poles, with a few skins or woollen garments thrown over the horizontal beam, and those who slept under their richer neighbours' waggons, and those who slept under bowers of branches, would understand Moses better than Dr. Colenso can, guessing 40 tliirty-tliree centuries after date. It is as absurd to suppose that every man among the Hebrews was a tent owner, as to suppose that every Londoner is his own landlord. The Pentateuch gives a month's time for the con- struction of tents before Moses speaks of them. But is this all ? For weeks, at least, before their de- partui-e, the three days' journey in the wilderness, atid therefore the three days' journey back to Goshen and Barneses, were in anticipation. How long they •>ve.re to remain we are not informed, but this interval, and the journeys to and fro, were in contemplation ; yet Dr. Colenso wishes us to believe that the whole Hebrew people were so regardless of their anticipated wants and comforts that no tents were provided. We have, however, another impossibility presented in the question — " If they had tents how could they liave carried them 1 They could not have borne them on their shoulders, since they were already occupied with other burdens. For, besides their kneading troughs with the dough unleavened, bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders, as well as other necessaries for daily domestic use, for sleeping, cooking, &c., there were their infants," and the etceteras mentioned on p. 47. Now, in our simplicity, we should suggest that, as it was a Sarah's place to knead and make cakes (Gen. xviii. 6) ; it would be the ])lace of a Hagar, or of the ''maid servant's behind the mill" (Ex. xi. 5), to carry the troughs; and the class representing Abraham's 318 trained men to see to the tents. And we should further suppose, that as a mixed multitude followed them (Ex. xii. 38), there was a coolie class that, for a few shekels a month, 41 Would be as glad to carry the tents as there were men poor enough and glad enough to be "their hewers of wood and their drawers of water" (Dent xxis. 11). Another difficulty yet before Dr, Colenso will let this business of the tents settle itself He exclaims — " What a prodigious number of trained oxen would have been needed to carry these 200,000 tents !" Having decided upon the fact that 200,000 oxen, at least, were required for the purpose, he adds — " but oxen are not usually trained to carry goods upon their backs." Well, Moses does not say that they were. Again, we are told by Dr. Colenso that " oxen will not do so if trained." Well, Moses does not say that he tried to train them. But why talk of pack oxen only, when oxen are known readily to take to the yoke, and to draw waggons as well as to plough ; and we know that the Hebrews had not only waggons, but waggons of a superior class with them (Num. vii. 3). Why talk of oxen at all 1 There were such things as horses, camels, and asses, in Egyj)t (Ex. ix. 3). There were asses, which some at Sinai were in danger of coveting (Ex. xx. 17). The word cattle, as used by Moses, is shown by comparing pas- sages, to include "horses and asses and camels^" (Ex. ix. 3, 19; X. 2Q) and we cannot allow Dr. Colenso to assume that the Hebrew word "cattle" means only sheep and oxen. They had gold and silver in great abun- dance; (Ex. xxxviii. 23-29) and before they were out of the reach of Egyptian traders and wheelwrights, they could hire or buy what they could not manufac- ture. Is it, then, a breach of courtesy, as a man and as a Christian, to say that chapter after chapter is full 42 of such pervei-se ingenuity as all this ? Especially if their result, if not their aim, is to prove that the first six books in the Bible are nothing better than old wives' fables ; and that the Lord's Clirist, in reasoning after the resurrection, on ' ' all the things written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning him," (Luke xxiv. 44) was either deceived, or was himself a deceiver ? The 12th chapter is based npon a clear fact and a clear assumption. " There was no miracu- lous provision for the herds and the flocks." As far as we know, this is a fact. *' It is certain that the story represents" the Hebrews, ''as pos- sessing these flocks and herds during the whole of the forty years," &c. (p. Q5) The assumption consists in regarding these flocks and herds, as extensive during the whole forty years. If it is meant that some could not live in Arabian deserts, we should refer to any travel he chooses to take up for a refuta- tion. It is only on the assumption, tliat large num- bers were possessed throughout the forty years' wander- ing, that the question of food creates a difficulty : this "the story" neither states nor implies. It is only during the first year, and during the last months of this period, that we hear of much cattle. They started with very much cattle (Ex. xii. 38). At Sinai they were frohahly not without large flocks and herds (Ex. xvii. 3 ; xxxiv. 3 ; N. iii. 45). If Dr. Colenso's view of the Passover requirements be correct (p. 58) their number was not only reduced, but their power to multiply materially diminished. If his view of the impossibility of supporting immense herds and flocks be correct, (p. (jo-GG) he proves 48 nothing more than that they must have died away, and Moses does not say they continued to exist in large numbers. After leaving Sinai, we have a period of thirty-eight years ; and until we come to read of Miriam's death, in the first month of the fortieth year, (N. xx. 1) we are told nothing of their flocks. After her death the people murmur — " why have ye brought up the congregation of the Lord into this wil- derness, that we and our cattle should die there " (ver. 4). First, we find that they had at this time some cattle; but nothing is said, as was at starting, that they were numerous; and secondly, the wish they had died before they came into this wilderness, shows that they and their cattle had till now been in better circumstances. The next mention of cattle is in con- nexion with the offer to pay the Edomites for water drunk by their cattle, which does not show their number to have been immense (N. xx. 19). From the first months of the fortieth year, we begin to hear of immense flocks and herds (N. xxxii. 1-4 ; Deut. iii. 19), but we see how these were acquired — by capture of almost untold numbers (N. xxxi. 32-50; Deut. ii. 35). Thus their large possessions, at the outset and the close, are both declared and accounted for. In the region of their first journeys the nomadic or pastoral Amalekites found fodder for their cattle, therefore there is no impossibility in the supposition that Hebrew sheep could eat what Amalekite sheep lived upon (Ex. xvii. 8). The Amalekites, we are told by one living 33 centuries after date, were nothing more '' than a powerful Arabian tribe" (p. 74), but by one much better informed, that they were ''the first 44 of nations" (N. xxiv. 20). How does Dr. Colenso meet this conclusive fact 1 By one of the most damaging arguments that a man can ever use in self-defence. It is the following : — " If the Pentateuch be mainly un- historical, we can take no account of the power of the Amalekitea, as described in it" (p. 74). But this is what he has to prove by his figures and not by apetitio principii. To take, again, one part as historical to prove another unhistorical, is according to the rules of neither logic nor candour. Take the whole as false and we will meet the charge, but this " hide and seek" is a game that should be left to children. To evade this stubborli fact, that where the sheep of the Amalekite pastured there the flocks of Hebrews could, Dr, Colenso says again: "Besides, did the Amalekites live in the desert ? On the contrary, we have the express statement of the prophet that it was a land that no man passed through, and where no man dwelt." Jer. ii. 6 (p. 74). True; but the license of poets is universally granted to Hebrew prophets, not to enable Dr. Colenso to turn poetical expressions into the language of historians. But why does he quote a part of the verse to show that that could not take place, which in another part of the same verse the prophet, with gratitude and to awaken gratitude, says did take place ? These are the words of Jeremiah — " Neither say they, where is the Lord that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, that led us through the wilderness, through a land of deserts and of pits ; through a land of drought, and of the shadow of death, through a land that no man passed through, and where no man dwelt." O Colenso ! Colenso ! believe me that I transcribe this passage with tears in my eyes. 45 If, however, we are asked to go out of the Penta- teuch, we will not refuse to be led. ^' In the story of Saul's dealings with " the Amalekites (1 Sam. xv.), "and David's (1 Sara, xxx.), there is nothing to show that they were any other than a powerful Arabian tribe, between whom and Israel there was a deadly feud" (p. 74). Turning to the first passage, we find Saul thought them so powerful that he summoned 210,000 men to invade their territories ; and this, as one gathers from various passages, with great reluc- tance after all. The second passage might be put out of court, for after Saul's exterminating attack we could not expect to find many left among them. But even this passage gives Queen's evidence, for if they were but a 230werful Arab tribe, how, after great slaughter under Saul, were they again in a position to face his still more powerful successor? We meet with the Amalekites at the beginning and the Midianites at the end of the 40 years' wanderings. The probable number of these two confederate forces in the time of Moses may be judged of better in that of Gideon, who was much nearer Moses, than either Saul or David. Why go four centuries off, when two centuries nearer furnish more conclusive evidence 1 We read in Judges, vii. 12, that "The Midianites and the Amalekites, and all the children of the East, lay along in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude, and their camels without number, as the sand by the sea shore for multitude.'' Here the way in which " the children of the East" are named shows that they were simply allies of or auxili- aries to the Midianites and Amalekites ; hence here, as well as under Saul, the Amalekites are not to?be 46 reduced in numbers for the purpose of sliowing that the Hebrew flocks and herds could not find pasturage where their flocks and herds lived and multiplied. The difficulty of supply is then confined to the period of twelve months' encampment under Mount Sinai, and thenceforward to the beginning of the last year. But as to the thirty-eight years spent after leaving Sinai, and before arriving at the wilderness of Zin (N. XX. 1), the difficulty depends upon the pos- session of numerous herds and flocks ; and this diffi- culty we will explain when Dr. Colenso shows that we are required to explain it. Nothing is said of great numbers to be fed, and why then ask us hoio they loere fed ? That during this long interval they had some cattle is shown in N. xx. 4 ; but if this passage is to be taken at all, it must be taken as a whole ; and then it is clear that during thirty-eight years before Miriam's death their cattle had not wanted necessities. There remains then but one difficulty — How their flocks were sustained during the encampment at Sinai ? Dr. Colenso puts the case thus : — "We find that at the end of the^rs^ year they kept the second Passover under Sinai (N. ix. 5), and therefore we may presume had at that time, as before, 200,000 male lambs of the first year" (as to age) "at their command, and two millions of sheep and oxen close at hand" (p. 66). His estimate we see no reason for granting, but as little depends upon it, we will assume its accuracy. But it should be observed that, having on page 58 shown that if siich large numbers of rams were slain at one time, the productive power of the flock is nearly annihilated, he yet speaks (p. 74) of the " two millions " as ]-etaining their full power to maintain their num- 47 bers. This very Passover, before the commencement of the thirty-eight years' journeys, so reduced the power to propagate, if his estimates be correct, that the flock Avould gradually diminish, through old age and scarcity of food and water. Thus his numerous quotations on pp. 68 — 81, to show how sterile and arid the deserts were, prove nothing against the Pen- tateuch, while they betray a very limited knowledge of travels. To aggravate a natural difiiculty, Dr. Colenso puts in a petitio principii — The two millions, &c., were " close at hand." Why ? Because '^ the Mosaic nar- rative says nothing of such a dispersion of the people " (p. 70), as he thinks implied if the flocks and herds were not cooped around their encampment. But Moses says nothing of the dispersion of the people, simply because it was not necessary. Oxen and sheep were the property of a comparatively few. Abraham's tribe consisted of some 1,280 souls, but of this large number the flocks belonged to only one man — the head of the tribe. It would be as absurd to suppose that every Englishman had millions in gold and silver, as to suppose that every Hebrew was a millionaire after the pastoral fashion. On page 1 1 4 he wishes us to believe that Jacob on his return from Padan Aram had no very large "body of servants." Let us grant this, still he had "increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maid servants, and men ser- vants, and camels and asses" (Gen. xxx. 43). HLs immense flocks and herds, including camels and asses, were, then, managed by a few servants. A few ser- vants, therefore, could manage the flocks and herds of each head of the twelve tribes wherever pasture could 48 be found ; therefore Moses may describe Israel "living in one body together" (p. 76); and for all that the Hebrew flocks may have, as they certainly must have, been dispersed over large tracts round the camp, and at great distances from it. Every history that we ever read speaks of the English as " living in a body together," in their sea-girt island ; and yet no one supposes in his simjDlicity that English sailors and merchants do not plough every sea, and scour every quarter of the globe, in search of luxuries and necessa- ries for those " living together " at home. And are we then to conclude that because the Hebrew people always lived together, that therefore their sheep and oxen were confined to the same locality 1 We can conceive of no more preposterous inference than this. There were social, political, and moral reasons why the one should be together ; there were physical reasons why the other should be dispersed whenever and wherever necessary. To show that there was no fodder for the cattle, Dr. Colenso quotes Jeremiah, as a witness that the Amalekites did not "live in the desert" (p. 74) ; and now to demonstrate that the people could not have been dispersed, he brings the Amalekites into it :— "they would surely have required to be guarded by large bodies of armed men from the Amalekites, Mid- ianites, and others" (p. 6G). To show that they could not exist in the desert, he quotes Jer. ii. 6, and various travels. To prove they could not have been dispersed, he quotes the following passage, "neither let the flocks nor herds feed before the mount" Ex. xxxiv. 3, (p. QG). We are told again that soon after leaving Egypt, they " discomfited Amalek with 49 the edge of the sword " (p. 50) ; and now we are re- quired to believe that after such a castigation, the Amalekites would pounce upon their cattle. The Midianites, again, gave them no trouble till the close of the forty years, and therefore we leave them out of the question. We have seen from one of his own selected passages that at first coming to Sinai there was food for the flocks in that sterile region. After a few days or weeks they would have to search for fresh pasture ground, and they would find it on the north-east of Mount Sinai, where Moses for 40 years fed the flocks of his father-in-law (Ex. iii. 1). On the south-west, again, was Rephidim, through which they passed on to Sinai, which Dr. Kitto says "Appears to be just one day's journey short of their destination. The entrance into this mountain wilderness is generally supposed to have been through the Wady Feiran, a broad valley, which is overspread with vegeta- tion and tamarisk trees, and occupied with gar- dens and date plantations. It is now much fre- quented by the Bedouins for pasturage." (D. B. Illust. Moses, p. 125). Awful as parts of Arabia may be, there are, to this day, valleys sufficient for a limited number of cattle, and after leaving Sinai and before coming near to Canaan, nothing is said to show that the Hebrew cattle were illimitable. We have, then, dismissed this much-ado about nothing, without availing ourselves of the suggestion, originating, we believe, from the Irish friends of the Pentateuch, that Moses turned every acre on its end and allowed the sheep to graze on both sides. 50 CHAPTER III. THE HEBREW CAMP AND ITS DIFFICULTIES. The fourth chapter in the Doctor's series is "written to show that 600,000 men, each two feet, measured at the shoulders, and in ranks eighteen inches apart^ could not possibly have stood on an area of 1692 square yards. The wonder is, that if Moses had ever made a statement to such effect, his critic should wi'ite a chapter to refute it. He should have taken three sentences to point out the absurdity, and then left it. Who now endeavours to refute seriously the argu- ments of the schoolmen, when discussing how many spirits could dance together upon the point of a needle? And if Moses tells us that 600,000 such sturdy and corpulent fellows, fresh from the garlic, the onions, and the flesh pots of Egypt, really stood on 1692 square yards, is a chapter necessary to dis- prove it "? Is it not as Quixotic as to mistake a windmill for a man 1 But let us see how Dr. Colenso made the discovery. His words are, ''as the text says distinctly 'at the door of the tabernacle', they must have come ivithin the court'' (p. 33). At the door may mean within or without, so long as it is at the door. When a person speaks at the door of his house to a stranger, does this " distinctly " mean within ? Mothers after child birth, (Lev. xii. 4) lepers and Nazarites, (Lev. xiv. 11; 51 Num. vi. 10) "appeared at the door" to be cere- monially purified ; and, therefore, till purification at least, did not enter within the court. The altar of burnt offering was near the entrance ; between it and the door was the laver expressly provided for ablu- tions before entering. Not even Moses, Aaron and his sons, could enter without washing their feet (Ex. xl. 30-32). Could 600,000 people wash their feet on one occasion V A few minutes may be allowed for each man ; but take only one minute, and before the last man had performed his ablutions, 416 days, of 24 hours each, would have passed away ; and unless the first to enter had remained there for one year, one month, and three weeks, without food and without sleep, and as the crowd increased, without change of position, he would, on re-entering, have after such an interval, to wash again. Thus an eternal round for no purpose, would have been going on. But was this washing necessary ] All but jDriests, and some of the Levites, under a special exception, were treated as "strangers," who entered under the certain penalty of death (Num. iii. 10; iv. 18-19). To burden priests with impossible duties. Dr. Colenso shuts out Levites (p. 123). To fix an absurdity upon the Pentateuch, he thrusts in the whole congregation. Take a similar instance to see how words are forced. Eight days after the consecration, "all the congrega- tion drew near and stood before the Lord " (Lev. ix. 5). Compare verses 4, 5, to see that " before the Lord" is here before the tabernacle; and verses 22-24, to see that the people were without and not within. Outside, but at the door, was the usual place of concourse (Num. XXV. 6 ; xxvii. 2) ; and not an instance is on record 52 of any but priests and Levites having gone within the enclosure in the lifetime of Moses. But Dr. Colenso has another proof — ''it was necessary for the purpose for which they were sum- moned on this occasion, namely, to witness the cere- mony of the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priestly office. This was to be performed inside the tabernacle itself, and could only, therefore, be seen by those standing at the door" (p. 33). Does Moses say that it was seen by all ? If it was necessary for every one to witness the ceremony a platform at least could have been raised to elevate the performers ; but to assume the necessity is to beg the question. Eight days after, and on a similar occasion, Aaron while on the steps of the altar, "lifted up his hands towards the people." Did they all see this action 1 With up-lifted hands, he " blessed the people." Was the blessinsr worthless unless each man heard the words pronounced'? After the ceremony "fire came out from before the Lord and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat ; which when all the people saw, they shouted and fell on tlieu' faces." (Lev. ix. 22-24). The descent of the fire was as visible as a flash of lightning would have been. This was the only thing they all could see, and it is only when a thing was possible to be seen or heard that we find Moses saying it was seen or heard. On the former occasion it is Dr. Colenso, and not the author of the Pentateuch, who asserts that it was necessary for all to see the ceremony. On two most gratuitous assumptions it has been shown the Pentateuch declares that the whole congre- gation crowded into the court of the Sanctuary ; and 53 then Dr. Coleuso brings out his rule and figures. The whole front was 18 feet, and only nine men are allowed to stand shoulder to shoulder. In licensed vehicles the Government allowance used to be an average of 16 inches ; but let this pass. Taking "18 inches between each rank of nine men " (p. 33), the column is made to stretch away twenty miles. Now 12 inches from chest to back is all that is required and all that is given by a crowd of sight-seers. He places nine where twelve could have stood, and sets them 18 inches apart when 12 are enough from chest to back. Taking only what was necessary, we get 50,000 feet, instead of his 100,000. This is still an absurdity, but we point it out to show how Dr. Colenso exaggerates. But again, the front of the Tabernacle had cui^tains which could be drawn up, exposing the whole area, so that if there was space enough in front for the 603,550, the mass of the people could witness the ceremony going on within the line of curtains. It is not neces- sary, if it were possible, to have placed the men like drilled soldiers in a straight column of nine a-breast. The crowd close to the curtains would be nine a-breast on his calculation, but twelve as was possible ; while the crowd would at every row be widening to any extent necessary for a view of the scene near the door and midway between the side curtains. We have placed six working men on one square yard without any such inconvenience as sight-seers are put to on great occasions. The open space round the tabernacle contained 1,359,556 square yards. A fourth of this may be allowed in front of the door, that is, an area of 339,889 square yards. We do not take into account E 54 a few tents pitched in front, which belonged to Moses and Aaron (Num. iii. 38) ; for, as we are told by Dr. Colenso, that it was necessary for the whole crowd to witness the ceremony, they would be removed for the occasion. We have, then, room for more than two millions of persons, whereas space was wanted only for 603,550 if the adult male population were assem- bled. That is, without forcing words to mean what they never can be shown to mean, without crushing the i^eople ; the 603,550 persons could have witnessed the ceremony and left verge enough for a crowd twice as large to assist in sight-seeing. Dr. Colenso's diffi- culty here is as serious as that imagined by the scep- tical friends of Columbus, when he assured them he could make an egg stand on end. The size of the camp has to come up again in the 6th chapter, we will, therefore, enter into details on which the calculations are founded. The camp was arranged in the form of a square; on the eastern face of which there stood tents or their sub- stitutes for 186,400 souls; on the north for 157,600; on the west for 108,100; and on the south for 151,450 (Num. ii. 9, 16, 24, 31). The extent of the square formed by the inner line of tents cannot be exactly determined, but if one will take the trouble to calculate, he will see that the space enclosed must have been extensive. The distance from the sanctuary to the inner line of tents is prescribed as *'afar off," which some translate "over against" (Num. ii. 2). The Jewish tradition, founded upon Joshua iii. 4, makes the "far off" 1000 cubits. Taking 21 inches as the received representative of a cubit, we have, on all sides, a distance of 583 yards. Putting out of 55 considei'ation the length and width of the tabernacle, we have 1166 yards as the distance from one inner line of tents to another. This distance gives the 1,359,556 square yards above quoted. Dr. Colenso's own estimate is three-quarters of a mile from the centre to the outside of the camp (p. 39), which is much too small. He therefore takes, as he supposes, Scott the commentator's quoted estimate. Mr. Scott's words are these : — " The encampment is computed to have formed a moveable city of twelve miles square" (p. 40). This is the Jewish traditional estimate, but these twelve miles are the length of the perimeter, which gives three miles as the length of each side of the square. Dr. Colenso mistakes the meaning of Scott, and makes the length of the perimeter the length of the side, thus the square becomes 48 miles round I He then gets six miles as the distance from the tabernacle to the confines of the camp, and depicts most distressing scenes, which we shall hereafter have to examine. We read in Deut. i. 1, '* That Moses spake unto all Israel;" and in Deut. v. 1, that he "called all Israel and said unto them." Dr. Colenso writes his fifth chapter to " impeach the literal accui'acy of the Scrip- ture narrative" (p. 37), because it was impossible for two millions and a half of people to have heard Moses. Gibbon solemnly assures us that " A fanatic monk precipitated Europe on Asia" (Dec. and Fall, 12, 149; 11, 53). Pshaw, will fall from the lips of some descendant of Dr. Colenso — " Europe" means millions, and so many millions represent so many pregnant women, children, sick, infirm, and dying. Did that sceptic mean to say that every one of these went to 56 fight the Turks in Palestine ? Believe it who may, I cannot. This is just the style in which the existing Dr. Colenso treats the declaration that Moses " called all Israel and said unto them." Moses tells us that " all Israel" were round about the tents of three men (Num. xvi. 26-34), and yet no one believes this to be either literally true, or that the Pentateuch is a fable. Until such cavilling was put into print every one understood Moses as he would understand Dr. Colenso if he said "all the world knows that." Literally, this is absurd, but no man's ♦ veracity is impeached because he uses general phrases and hyperboles. Moses brought out the twelye testing rods, representing the twelve tribes, and laid them before "all the children of Israel, and they looked and took every man his rod" (Num. xvii. 9). " Absurd, utterly absurd," says a servile imitator of Dr. Colenso, "how could all Israel, that is 2,500,000 men, take up twelve sticks *?" He would not be content with this ; he would begin to calculate and give us the following results :— -Twelve rods to two millions and half, that is, 208,333 persons must have taken up one rod. If we only remember that in such a scuffle each one would be likely to use both hands, we have 416,666 hands laid on one rod. Now, allowing so many square inches to the palm of one hand, the rod must have been such a tree as the earth could not possibly have produced. Besides, how could Moses have taken up twelve such rods 1 Moses again laid down a law that before a criminal should be put to death his sentence should be confirmed by the laying on of the hands of "all the people" of his city (Deut. xvii. 7). Dr. Colenso's way of dealing with this passage would be to take tlie possible number of cities in Palestine, and strike an average ; so many people must have included women and children, as it is expressly said all the people; the crown of a head presents a superficies of so many inches ; two or three hands alone could be placed upon it ; then his figures would have brought out an immense pile of hands, and ladders would have been necessary. But as we read nothing about ladders, and nothing about a miracle at every public execution, the whole thing is an absurdity, and the conclusion is, away with the Pentateuch ! Another law required that " all the men of a city" should stone the criminal to death (Deut. xxi. 21). In Joshua we have an example ; Achan was stoned to death by "■ all Israel" (Josh. vii. '^5). Therefore, some two millions of stones were used. In pursuance of his style we have to calculate that, taking the average weight at eight ounces, 1,000,000 lbs., or 446 tons of solid matter were required to kill one man. Therefore, the whole history of Joshua is a myth. Again, "all Israel" stoned Adoram to death (1 Kings, xii. 18). The literal accuracy of this book also is thus impeached, and the book of Kings must go with Joshua and the Penta- teuch. Coming back to the passage attacked, we find it stated, " These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel." Dr. Colenso tells us that no miracle was performed to strengthen the human voice of Moses (p. 37), and either this '' was a mere dumb show," or the story is an absurdity. If we look at page 11 of his preface, we shall see he would not have believed the miracle if it had been recorded. The alternative is, that it was all a dumb show. What then ? If 5R Moses and his people could put up with a dumb show, is the record false that states they did ? In 2 Chron. xiii. 4, we read of Abijah standing upon Mount Zeraaraim and saying — "Hear me thou Jero- boam and all Israel." Surely the man was insane to suppose either that all Israel could or would leave their homes and occupations, scattered as they were over three-fourths of Palestine, to come and hear him, or that they could have heard the human voice of one person, if they had come to the meeting. Dr. Colenso again takes the more startling case of Joshua (viii. 30-35), and observes — " We must suppose that at least the great body of the congregation was present, and not only present, but able to hear the words of aw^ul moment which Joshua addressed to them" (p. 37). The supposition is gratuitous: the historian does not say that the people heard him. Neither has Dr. Colenso the right to say that it is implied, for impossibilities are never implied in the Scripture. We are told that Joshua ''read all the words of the law ;" this is perfectly credibla We are not told that the great body of the congregation heard him. There is, therefore, nothing incredible in all this. Let us take the command of Moses, and compare it with its execution by Joshua. Moses charged the people, that upon entering Canaan a pai*t of them should stand on mount Gerizim, and a part on mount Ebal ; and the Levites stationed by the ark in the valley (Jos. viii. 33) were to rehearse the law '* unto all the men of Israel with a loud voice," and "all the people were to say amen " (Deut. xxvii. 14-15). The response required, implies that all the peojile heard 59 something ; but tlien, it was not one man's voice, but the united voices of a body of Levites, of whom thou- sands were at hand. After this imposing ceremony, the grandest spectacle on record except one, Joshua read the law. It is not said of him, as it is of the Levites, that it was with a loud voice. It is not shown of his voice, as it is of that of the Levites, that all the people heard it. The people, with their elders, officers, and judges, stood round the ark in all direc- tions on the declivities of the two mountains. If their leaders and heads of families heard Joshua, that is enough; and it matters not if this part of the cere- mony " was a mere dumb show." Dr. Colenso adds further — "nor can it be sup- posed that he read them first to one party and then to another, &c., till 'all the congregation' had heard them. The day would not have sufficed for reading in this way ' all the blessings and cursings ' in Deut. xxvii. xxviii. — much less *all the words of the law' — many times over; especially after that he had been already engaged — as the story implies — on the very same day, in writing * a copy of the law of Moses,' upon the stones set up in mount Ebal, Jos. viii. 32, 33" (p. 37). That the two operations were performed on the same day, we find in Dr. Colenso's book, but not in Joshua. The idea of successive parties is also his own, and may be dismissed. He has also transposed two clauses of the text in such a manner, as makes the benediction and the commination one thing, and the Law of Moses another. The passage stands thus — Joshua " read all the words of the Law, the blessings and the cursings." The law read was the blessings and the cursings. Moses directed that the curses should be uttered 60 aloud; (Deut. xxvii. 14-20) and this Joshua attended to as commanded (Jos. viii. 35). Afterwards he read both the cursings and the blessings. The people could not bless themselves; this, in God's name, Joshua pro- nounced. The people could imprecate the curses upon themselves by a loud amen ; and this thej did by their responses. To enable them to know what they were about, a body of Levites was employed with a loud voice, to make the curses heard. What was necessary for them to hear, they did hear ; wha,t it was not necessary that each and all should hear, was uttered by one man; and ''the story" does not imply that that single voice was audible to the great body of the congregation. And yet this perfectly credible and intelligible narrative of a most imjDosing ceremony, is "impeached" as not " literally accurate." In July, 1790, from 150,000 to 250,000 persons helped to excavate a grand amphitheatre in the suburbs of Paris. Its area was some 300,000 square feet, within a circuit of about three miles. Carlyle says — " Paris, male and female, precipitated itself" in this Champ de Mars. Pshaw, in Dr. Colenso's style, " Paris, male and female," imi^lies " infants, young children, pregnant women, aged persons, invalids " (p. 36). !N"ui\series, hospitals, schools; in short, everything is included in " Paris ;" therefore, gone for ever is the literal accuracy of " Carlyle's French Revolution 1" This amphitheatre, again, was 1000 yards in length, and 1000 feet in breadth. In the centre stood a Imge Fatherland's altar, and on its steps, profane Talleyrand and his 200 priests, to bless the national banners, and administer the oath of the constitution. Multitudes must have been nearly one-third of a mile off from the 61 altar; to sucli it was all a '' mere dumb show." But yet it had a significance to twenty-five millions of people in France notwithstanding. All over the country cannons were placed on eminences, to be fired at a moment's notice. Wherever the boom of the first cannon fired in the field of Mars was heard, there a number of cannons took up and forwarded the signal to all the confines of the country, and men everywhere began swearing the oath of Federation. Here was an imposing though a dumb show; but twenty-five millions of Frenchmen understood it and liked it. Three thousand two hundred and forty-one years before Talleyi^and's time, a ceremony as grand, but infinitely superior in morality and religion, was per- formed by Joshua, and Dr. Colenso calls it a mere dumb show. Accept his description, and what then ? The sixth chapter is on " the extent of the camp compared with the priest's duties and the daily neces- sities of the people." We are told that the " refuse of the sacrifices would have to be carried by the priest himself, Aaron, Eleazar, or Ithamar — there were no others — a dis- tance of three quarters of a mile" on his own, or six miles on what he supposes to be Scott's compu- tation; and then Dr. Colenso pictures to himself ''the priest having himself to carry, on his back, on foot, from St. Paul's to the outskii'ts of the metropolis, . . . even the whole bullock" (pp. 39, 40). First of all, the six miles must be reduced to one and a half; and then why Aaron could not help his sons, or his sons help Aaron, has to be shown. As there is nothing in Lev. iv. 11, 12 to indicate that it was necessary that the priest should be on foot, or 62 tliat the bullock should be on his back, but as there is in Num. vii, 1-9, the mention of six covered waggons expressly presented for the use of the sanctuary on the day it was set uj^, we want to know again, why the more obvious should give way to a preposterous as- sumption ! Again : as a scholar, he is aware of a Hiphil conjugation in Hebrew, and ought to have known that the word ''carry" means ''shall cause to carry." There were thousands of Levites expressly appointed to do the heavy work of the sanctuary ; (Num. iii. 9 ; iv. 15) and by them the priest could cause to be carried, not one, but a hundred bullocks — not a mile and a half, which was the distance to be traversed, but the six miles he assumes on a mistake of Scott's mean- ing. "The last straw breaks a camel's back" is an Ara- bian saying ; but before we can let Dr. Colenso break the priest's back by putting a bullock upon it, we want a few mistakes corrected, and ask where were the Levites — if it was to be done on foot — and where the waggons, if Levites might not help those whom they were appointed to assist ? His own computation of three-quarters of a mile is, however, abandoned for Scott's twelve miles square, and his misconception is supported in the following manner : — " Twelve miles square, that is about the size of London itsell, as it might well be, considering that the population was as large as that of London, and that in the Hebrew tents there were no first, second, third, and fourth stories, no crowded garrets and underground cellars" (p. 40). On the other hand, the Bishop ought to have known that Hebrew tents contained no chairs, tables, massive bedsteads, china closets, lai'ders and pantries, and extensive kitchen 63 ranges for large dinner parties, no piano-fortes and liljra- ries ; they had therefore no parlours, breakfast-rooms, drawing-rooms, dining-rooms, libraries, and entrance- halls. As they wanted no winter stock of coals, knew nothing of Allsopp and Bass, hock and champagne, their tents had no underground cellars. Sweep away European furniture, luxuries and necessities, and what becomes of this preposterous analogy ? Again, the Hebrew camp had no Thames and canals running through it, no Oxford-streets and railways for a world's commerce and traf&c ; with one square, but no parks with zoological and botanical gardens, museums, and colosseums, no palaces and palatial clubs and hotels ; no banks, exchanges, warehouses, custom-house, and docks ; no colleges, schools, hospitals ; and no theatres and gaols ; but it had one public structure, the taber- nacle, 18 feet by 54, in place of three cathedrals and innumerable churches, chapels and synagogues. Again, we ask, is not the comparison most extravagant between the metropolis of the world, and a Bedouin camp, consisting of a collection of tents and booths 1 We may judge of the tents in use by the one in which Bachel lived. It had but one compart- ment, or else her sitting-room would not have contained the camel's furniture without exciting Laban's sus- picions (Gen. xxxi. 34). Her tent belonged to the favourite wife of a nomad prince, and contained what Londoners would put into their stables. Tents of any size would belong to the wealthy, and their servants would be the only class of the poor that would have tents for shelter (Gen. xxxi. 33). A large portion of the poor would have to- content themselves with booths, as the mass of the people had to do during the first days 64i of the exodus (Lev. xxiii. 42, 43) ; and some of them, as in Job's time, and in the same or similar regions, would have to " embrace the rock for want of a shelter" (Job xxiv. 8). They were all pilgrims, and some of them, like their ancestor, probably, had nothing better than stones for a pillow and the clouds for a covering (Gen. xxviii. 11). They were all in a foreign land, and some of them, like Jonah, would run up a booth made of branches whenever possible (Jonah iv. 5). The poor would have to shift for themselves in the Hebrew camp, as they have to do in every age and country. But, lastly; the chief use of tents was for sleeping at night, the accommodation of women and children and the infirm, and for their scanty stores of food and furniture. All the cooking would be done outside, and if Abraham's guests could dine in the open air (Gen. xviii. 8), his descendants were not bound to have dining-rooms. How a man who has gone beyond the sound of Bow church bells can come back to London to compare with it a Bedouin camp, is as hard to believe as that the Pentateuch is an absurdity. Dr. Colenso's own estimate — whicli his love of exagge- ration has led him to abandon — is that the camp must have covered at least 1652 acres (p. 39). I^J"ow the three principal parks — St. James's, Hyde, and "Regent's ; with tlie six docks — the London, East and West India, St. Katherine's, the Commercial and Surrey, with their quays and warehouses, alone cover an area equal to that computed by Dr. Colenso for the Hebrew camp. Let us multiply this tenfold, and take London twenty years ago, and yet the Hebrew cimp would have occuj^ied but half of the 31,498 acres which the metropolis covered in 1841. Had Dr- 65 Coleuso read travels more impartially than lie has done, he wonld have found at Sinai a valley three miles wide and nine miles long, the only spot in the region for the Hebrew camp. This fact would have shown him that the Jewish estimate, which makes its sides three miles in length, is not an impos- sible one ; and then his mistaken notion of that given by Scott would never have slipped into print. We have heard of a Birmingham merchant who sent a number of ■ warming-pans to India on speculation, and we suppose that the native iTj^erchants sent them into the interior, on the supjDOsition that they were patent refrigerators. The Bishop's speculation about fuel in Arabian deserts is worse than sending coals to Newcastle. His words are — "from the outside of this great camp wood and water would have to be fetched for all purposes ; if, indeed, such supplies of wood or water, for the wants of such a multitude as this could have been found at all in the wilderness ; under Sinai, for instance, where they are said to have encamped for nearly twelve months together." To make a very natural difficulty as preposterous as pos- sible, the question is put, — " How much wood would remain in such a neighbourhood after a month's con- sumption of the city of London even at midsummer ?" (p. 39.) The mind is thus led away by thinking of the 3,094,398 tons of coal brought into London during the eleven months ending on the thirtieth of Novem- ber last. First, however, put out of consideration kitchen fires, burning some 16 hours out of 2-i, and put in the requirements of a fire lit for about 90 minutes in the 24 hours, all that even in eastern towns and cities would be requii^ed by the multitude for 66 cooking purposes. For fires lighted for the occasion, and left to smoulder away, 45 minutes were all that would be wanted once a day for the mass of the people under ordinary circumstances. Secondly, you must leave out the flesh pots of Egypt, as not found in the wilderness (Ex. xvi. 3), and put in manna. They had, early and late, in their 40 years' journeys, immense flocks and herds, but these, among Hebrews, as among all other nations, were the property of the few. Great flock-masters, and the few who could afibrd the luxury, might want large fires for large joints of meat, but the multitude were a species of vegetarians, if manna was a vegetable, and needed only the crackling of thorns under their pots, which, like the fool's laughter, did not last long. The manna did not require cooking six days out of the seven. To keep it for Sabbath use it was necessary to cook it (Ex. xvi. 23). The Hebrews, with manna fresh every morning save one at their doors, needed fuel only for one day in seven for cooking, and this only for some 90 minutes in that one day. Thus, the actual necessity is reduced to a minimum. Let us next look to their resources. Wood is the only fuel of which Dr. Colenso seems to have been aware. In the neighbourhood of large Eastern towns wood is so scarce that it cannot be used by the majority of the people ; and yet, with no Moses for a leader, and idols instead of Jehovah for their provider, they manage to cook and eat. The Irish can use peat, cut and dried ; the people who lead a pastoral life, the colonists in the interior of Cape Colony, and the inhabitants of Bengal, collect the di'oppings of sheep and oxen, dry them into cakes, and use them for their ordinary 67 fuel. Dr. Colenso tells us, when his object is to impeach the veracity of the Pentateuch, that the Hebrews'had immense herds and flocks ; he therefore shows us that, if no wood were at hand, the people still had an abundant supply. When he talks of London, the mind is led to Newcastle — but the Hebrew coal mines lay nearer the surface. They had cattle ; therefore they had fuel. It is related by a traveller, that a Greek woman, seeing an English lady in her cloak, remarked — '' She carries her oven with her." A bishop who has been abroad ought to have known that the Hebrew shepherds carried their fuel with them. Dr. Colenso makes his readers next plunge from the fuel into the water difficulty — a difficulty not con- cealed by Moses. His ungrateful and faithless followers were ready to stone him under the pangs of thirst (Num. XX. 2; xxxiii. 14; Deut. viii. 15; xxiii. 4). On one occasion the water was purified by the same God that gave them manna (Ex. xv. 22). On the second occasion a fountain was opened for them in a rock (Ex. xvii. 1), which followed them — a fact con- firmed by the Psalmist (Ps. Ixxviii. 15, 16; cv. 41), vouched for by the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. x., 4), and shown to have been probable by Dr. Kitto (D. B. lUus. Moses, pp. 125-130). The camp, under the guidance of the overhanging cloud, would not be pitched where there was no water to be had from nature or from Provi- dence ; and if there were a six miles' distance from the confines to the centre of the camp, the difficulty of water conveyance was, under their circumstances, materially mitigated. Exempt all Londoners from the necessity of labouring to get their daily bread, and 68 there would be more time on their hands to carry- water than would be required. Were the 600,000 able-bodied men who ate bread without working for it, to sit idle all day 1 Were there no indigent peoj^le among them who would be glad to turn into water carriers for a silver shekel or two ? Did the Bishop's eye never light upon Deut. xxix. 11, which shows that the Hebrews in the desert had both "hewers of wood and drawers of water?" Dr. Colenso suggests another still more imagii^ary difficulty. He observes, "they could not surely all have gone outside the camp for the necessities of nature, as commanded in Deut. xxiii. 12-14" (p. 39). In the very passage quoted there is an expression and an arrangement that show all loere not commanded to go outside the camp. He fixes his eyes on verses 12-14, till verses 10 and 11 become invisible. Chances of defilement at night show how unnecessary his suppo- sitions are. The words "thou shalt have a place also without the camp," suggest there were places within the camp for " the aged and infirm, women in child- birth, sick persons, and young children," who are not, as asserted, requii-ed to go any such distance. It is not every body that candied "weapons," and it is to those who were so armed, that the command was given, in order that, for the sake of decency and morality, the place within might be reserved exclusively for females, children, the aged and infirm. Beyond the camp there was a danger of neglecting cleanliness and decency which would not have been tolerated within. Hence, when the GOO, 000 armed men were directed to go l)eyond the line of tents, they were also directed to cover all nuisances out of sight. This sanitary and 69 moral aiTangement is, witli incredibly perverse inge- nuity, turned by a Christian Bishop, who in Natal must have seen the wisdom of such arrangement by contrasts, into "a very convincing proof of the unhistorical character of the whole narrative" (p. 39). We have in Num. iii. 10, 38, the regulation that Aaron and his sons "shall wait on the priest's office" and "keep the charge of the sanctuary." Each of these verses closes with the words — "and the stranger that Cometh nigh shall be put to death." This ex- clusion of all but priests, is not taken into consider- ation by Dr. Colenso, when to force 600,000 fighting men he explains "at the door" to mean inside the tabernacle. This rigorous law is, in his 20tli chapter quoted to deprive the priests of all aid from the Levites, although the Kohathites, under a special exemption from the general rule, were appointed to assist priests in their more laborious duties. Thus men are forced in where they could not go, and placed where they could not stand, while others are excluded from the tabernacle, to enter which their duties required and their privileges permitted (Num. iv. 17-20; 37). Having thus settled his premises in a most arbitrary manner, Dr. Colenso enters into calculations to demon- strate that by three priests "500 sacrifices . . . would have had to be offered daily" (p. 123). Allowing five minutes for each sacrifice, we have " nearly 42 hours" for duties to be performed in twelve, or at most twenty-four hours (p. 124). This, of course, is as absurd as Dr. Colenso wishes it to appear; but the absurdity lies nearer home than he imagines. It con- sists in treating instructions as if they were narratives. Moses laid down laws for all time to come, but Dr. F 70 Colenso gravely assumes that they all came into imme- diate operation. Moses was not legislating for pilgrims in the desert, but for a people on their way to Canaan. Hence, he speaks of houses and cities (Lev. xiv. 33-57), of harvests and vintages (Lev. xix. 9, 10). Such ex- amples prove that the operation of the Levitical laws was for the most pai't prospective. To say they came into instant operation is to tm^n precepts into accom- plished fcicts, and that against such direct evidence to the contrary as we have in Deut. iv, 14, and else- where. To assert they were all designed to come into immediate oj^eration is to beg the whole question, and that in face of evidence to the contrary (Lev. xiv. &c.) No rite was more rigorously enforced than circum- cision (Gen. xvii. 14). No man uncircumcised could eat the Passover (Ex. xii. 48). We know that this rite was not observed in the wilderness, (Jos. v. 2-8) and that even ordinances which could have been ob- served in traiisltu, were disregarded : — '' Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes ; . . . but when ye go over Jordan, . . . then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there ; thither shall ye bring all that I command you, your burnt offerings,'" &c. (Deut. xii. 8-14). The question, — '^ we must ask further, where could they have obtained these 250 turtle doves or young pigeons daily, that is, 90,000 annually, in the loilderness ?'' (p. 124,) is answered by a simple denial that they were ever wanted in the wilderness by a people who did as they liked, and not as they were commanded in a code designed for a settled state in Canaan. Thus the 20th chapter is built upon pure 71 assumptions, and its details need no refutation ; such as those on page 128, "each priest would have had to eat daily 88 pigeons for his own portion in the most jholy place." Gluttony, especially such impossible gluttony, was not prescribed by Moses, though some- thing like it may be found elsewhere. Brillat Savarin, on truffled turkey, says "there should never be more than two to a turkey — the turkey being always counted as one." Dr. Colenso might have studied his Essai sur le gout before writing on the Pentateuch. The 21st chapter is written to perplex the laity Ox the Church of England (Pref. p. 35) with the ques- tion,— " How did these three priests manage at the celebration of the Passover f (p, 131.) We say the laity, because the clergy, unless they are as ill-informed as the Bishop, would not require a moment's consider- ation to show the fallacy of his inferences. Ingenuity less perverse would have gone to Ex. xii. 21, 22, to learn that the heads of families slew the Paschal lamb and sprinkled its blood on the door-posts of houses in Egypt and of their substitutes in the desert. But Dr. Colenso goes to the age, circumstances, and practices of Hezekiah and Josiah, for what we must call his 'precedents! In the time of these kings it appears from 2 Chron. xxx. 16; xxxv. 11, "that the people killed the Passover, but the priests sprinkled the blood from their hands and the Levites flayed them" (p. 131). If from this passage it is allowable to learn what the priests did seven centuries before, it is equally allowable to learn how Levites helped the priest; and then, what becomes of the preceding chapter (p. 122-130), in which "multifarious" and imi^ossible duties are fastened upon three priests unaided by the Levites ? 72 If we turn to 2 Chron. xxx. 13-18, we find that the reason why the priests and Levites did the part assigned by the law of Moses (Ex. xii. 21, 22 ; Num. ix. 2-12) to the heads of families, was the exceptioncd state in which the people then were, and yet this exceptional case is selected to prove the rule. The expression " they had not done it of a long time in such sort as it was written" (2 Chron. xxx. 5), and which Dr. Colenso quotes (p. 131), shows how preposterous is his way of dealing with the subject. For where are "the rites" and "ceremonies" and "ordinances of the Passover" written? In Num. ix. 1-14, certain provisions are made for exceptional cases, but the laws of the Passover are in Ex. xii., and it is to these passages we must go to see how it was to be kept "in such sort as it was written," and not to 2 Chron. xxx. and xxxv., where we see that it was not observed as strictly as prescribed. Thus, the 21st chapter is based upon a hysteron 'p^oteron, and all its impossibilities and absurdities result from placing the cart before the horse. This, however, is not the only mistake committed ; it is one of several so extraordinary that one could not have supposed the veriest tyro in theology could have stumbled into them. His words are "we must suppose, then, that the Paschal lambs in the wilder- ness were killed in the court of the tabernacle in accord- ance, in fact, with the strict injunctions of the Levitical law, that all burnt offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, and trespass offerings should be killed *■ before Jehovah' at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation" (i). 131). I. At the door may mean within or without the court. II. As far as we can see iVom every passage quoted (p. 132), and many others 73 we have examined, the court was not converted into a slaughter house. The killing appears to have taken place outside the door way, but close to it. There is, however, no need to press this point. HI. *' Before Jehovah" does not help the case. Were the men hanged " before Jehovah," hanged in the court of the tahernacle ? (Num. xxv. 4). Was the wife suspected of infidelity taken into the court of the tabernacle, because she. was ''set before the Lord" at the door? (Num. V. 16.) IV. The Passover was neither a *' burnt offering, peace offering, sin offering, nor a trespass offering." It was a commemorative, and not a propitiatory observance. V. The Passover was regulated by its own rites, ceremonies, and ordinances (Num. ix. 3, 12, 14,) and not "in accord- ance with the strict injunctions of the Levitical law.'' VI. The Passover existed before " Leviticus" (Ex. xii.), and its regulations were confi.rmed before the tabernacle was set up (Num. ix. 15), and before its ordinances could come into operation. The 22nd chapter is on the war on Midian, and contains objections of which two have been so often answered that no well educated clergyman ought to have entertained them. First : Dr. Colenso asks — " How is it possible to quote the Bible as in any way condemning slavery, when we read here (Num. xxxi. 40) of ' Jehovah's tri- bute' of slaves, thirty-two persons 1 " (p. 144). Ans. L By quoting and not misinterpreting the Bible. *' Slaves," as now understood, is a misinterpretation of captives taken in war. 11. By quoting Ex. xxi. 16, Deut. xxiv, 7, to show that the Pentateuch made Death the penalty for man stealitig, man sellimj. 74 and slave holding. III. By informing the Zulus that a Clarkson and a Wilberforce undei-stood Scripture better than the Bishop of Natal ; and that every man of the nation that expended twenty millions in one sum to liberate '^ slaves " does quote the Bible against slavery. Secondly : The comparison of the Cawnpore mas- sacre with the war on Midian is an offence against common sense and God's word, Avhich it will take some time to eifface from the minds of British Chris- tians. Butler says, '' There are some particular pre- cepts in Scripture given to particular persons" (such as in Num. xxxi. 1, 2), "requiring actions which wou.ld be immoral and vicious were it not for such precepts. But it is easy to see that all these are of such a kind as that the ineceiot changes the whole nature of the case and of the actioii ; and both consti- tutes and shows that not to be unjust or immoral which, prior to the precept, must have appeared and really have been so. If it were commanded to culti- vate the principles and act from the spirit of treachery, ingratitude, cruelty, the command would not alter the nature of the case or of the action, in any of these instances. But it is quite otherwise in precepts which require only the doing of an external action — for instance, taking away the property or life of any. For men have no right to either life or property, but what arises solely from the grant of God. When this grant is revoked, they cease to have any right at all in either ; and when this revocation is made known " (as in Num. xxxi. 1, 2), ''as surely it is possible it may be, it must cease to be unjust to deprive them of either." (Analogy, tfcc, i">art ii. c. 3). 75 Thirdly : Dr. Colenso refers to the narrative in Num. xxi. for which he " cannot reckon less alto- gether than six months," and then asks — "What room is there for the other events which are re- corded in the Book of Numbers as having occurred between the conquest of Bashan and the address of Moses 1" (p. 145). Nothing, of course, if a clergy- niaris ideas of military matters are to be a test of the time required. It is assumed that a month was expended in inactivity while Aaron's death was being mourned ; that the Canaanites were considerate enough not to disturb the mourners ; that an army of 600,000 men always fought in one body ; that detach- ments, such as we read of in Num. xxxii. 39-42, could not simultaneously achieve conquests in different directions. It is questionable whether there lives in Europe, and it is certain there exists not in America, a single general who can handle in the field of battle a mass of soldiers half the number v/hich Dr. Colenso assumes were led personally by Moses or Joshua. Thus, in total ignorance of military affairs, a clergyman presumes to denounce the narrative of military move- ments as ''un historical here as elsewhere." (p. 144). Fourthly : It is assumed that, because 12,000 fighting men were told off for the invasion of Midian, no friends, no volunteers, and no camp sutlers fol- lowed the army. Thus each soldier is made to take charge of eight captives and sixty-seven head of cattle ; and we need not write another word to expose the fallacy of the objection. Fifthly: We have "the statements of Hebrew writers" made "extravagant " by one of Dr. Colenso's preposterous comimrisons — the list of killed in the 7G battle of Waterloo ! The slaughter of a hand to hand combat is, then, to be judged of by the statistics^ of a battle won by modern artillery. This fallacy alone vitiates the argument ; but worse remains behind — the statistics of Jewish campaigns are compared with the list of killed in 07ie battle. Alison is quoted in ignorance of Alison — for he gives other statistics apparently unknown to Dr. Colenso. Sir Walter Scott describes the slaughter of the peasantry in La^Yende as ''something unheard of" (Life of Napoleon, p. 142), and Carlyle, a^ ''defying arithmetic." (French Revol 2, 358). Alison observes, " the extent to which blood was shed in France will be hardly credited by future ages." (Hist. Europe, 4, 288). Now it is not from the statistics of one battle, but of such an exter- minating war as the Revolutionists waged [against the Royalist peasantry in La Yende that we are to judge whether the statistics of the civil wars of the Jews, quoted by Dr. Colenso on p. 141, are or are not credible. He ranges over a period extending from the age of Jephtha to Pekah for the lists of slain, the total of which, as quoted, is 815,100. From 1790 to 1815 to the Battle of Waterloo is a period of twenty- five years ; from Jephtha to Pekah, 402 years. Dr. Colenso's total for 402 years is 815,100; Alison's total for twenty-five years is 1,027,000. Which of the two is "extravagant ? " Sixthly; that 12,000 Israelites should slay 48,000 Midiauitcs, " without the loss of a single man," (p. 144) is another of the things incredible. Now observe what Dr. Colenso leaves out of his calculations. The report of the passage of the Red Sea had appalled and i)aralyzed nations, even beyond the territories 77 of the Midianites (Jos. ii. 9-11, 24). The Midianites had special reasons for being powerless. They were the confederates of the Moabites, (Num. xxii. 4) from the mouth of whose hired soothsayer, they had learned that there "was no enchantment against Jacob, neither is there any divination against Israel : according to this time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, what hath God wrought ! " (Num. xxiii. 23, &c.) After describing the victorious destiny of the He- brews, and the certain doom of all opposing races, Balaam exclaims — "Alas, who shall live when God doeth this !" (Num. xxiv. 15-25.) All this is known to the Midianites, whose conscience was more heavily laden than that of all others of the depraved and doomed races, excepting their allies the Moabites, (Num. XXV. chap., &c.) and yet that 12,000 picked Israelites, under divine direction and protection, should slay 48,000 terror-struck Midianites, is in- credible to Dr. Colenso. Balaam recognised God in this matter ; the warriors themselves attributed their safety to God (Num. xxxi. 48-50); and we cannot allow any one to put out the element of their safety in order to make the Pentateuch contemptible. And yet we will take Dr. Colenso on his own chosen ground. We will put Providence out of question, and see how far the statements of Moses are extravagant. At the battle of Plassey, Lord Olive's forces consisted of 900 Europeans and 2,300 Sepoys; the army of Suraja Dowl a numbered 68,000, with five times the number of cannon. This host, thundering away from eight a.m. till five p.m., managed after all to kill aTul wound only 72 men; that is, each cannon took nine hours to kill a man 78 a-piece. The Hebrews to Midianites were as one to four; Olive's men to Suraja's, one to twenty-one — which of the two narratives is ^'extravagant T Well, cannons here may have made the difference, thongh Surajah had fifty cannon, and Olive eight six-pound- ers and two small howitzers only. Take then the battle of Marathon, where the Persians were 110,000 horse and foot, and Greeks only 10,000. Here Greeks to Persians were as one to eleven ; and yet the Persians lost GOOO, and the Greeks 200 only. One Greek fought eleven Persians, and yet twenty Persians are killed to one Greek; and one Hebrew slays four Midianites without being himself killed — wliich of the two statements is '' extravagant T Take another exam- ])le : by the time Xerxes arrived at Thermopylae, the Pei"sian camp consisted of 5,283,220 souLs. Excluding eunuchs, camp sutlers, &c., the fighting land and sea forces amounted to 2,641,610. This host was checked by 4000 Greeks at Thermopylae, and driven out of Greece by 11,200 men in ail. Had " Hebrew writers" told us that one Israelite had defeated 188 Midianites, what would Dr. Oolenso have said % And yet this is the proportion of 11,200 Greek to 2,100,000 Persian land forces (Roll. Anc. His., bk. 6, c. 2, § 3 & o). Which of the two narratives is " extravagant ?\ Xerxes in his pride lashed the Hellespont, when crossing on a bridge of boats with more than five million followers; in a few months Xerxes re-crossed the Holies] )ont in a cock-boat, with scarcely an attend- ant. Is thlx crediljle ? It is; because Herodotus and Pausanias were not inspired: Moses is not credible because he was inspired. Hence " the statements of Hebrew writers are extravagant" to a Ohristian 79 Bishop, educated in the renowned University of Cam- bridge, and sent to translate God's holy word into the Kaffir dialect of the Zulu. From the contest with men, we follow Dr. Colenso to see how the Hebrews could contend with wild beasts, and then we shall have examined every objection in every chapter of this extraordinaiy book on the Penta- teuch. With Palestine, having an area of seven millions of acres. Dr. Colenso compares three English counties covering about half that area, and the colony of Natal having one twentieth the density of the Hebrew popula- tion. His 13th chapter shows that Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, are in no ''danger of lying desolate with the beasts of the field multiplying against the human inhabitants;" and that even " the human inhabitants" of Natal ''are perfectly well able to maintain their ground against the beasts of the field " (p. 83). Here it is assumed that the whole of Palestine is aff'ected by the foretold contingency. The passage quoted is Ex. xxiii. 27-30, where the most likely parts to be endangered by the multiplication of wild beasts are alone indicated. God said, " I will not drive them out before thee in one year;" "^/^em," "the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite " before mentioned. It is to their dispossessed lands that the danger and its provision are expressly limited. Now the Hivites lived in the north, north-east, and north-west extre- mity of Palestine — the region subsequently assigned to the tribes of Asher, Dan and Naphtali. The Hittites lived in and about Hebron ; (Gen xxiii. 3-7 ; 10, 19) that is, south of Jerusalem. Canaanites is a name used in a wider sense, to denote the whole land 80 of Canaan ; but when as here, in distinction with any of the other six, it comprehends only one of the seven Canaanitish races. Tlie territory of this tribe is vaguely defined as by " the sea and by the coast of Jordan" (Num. xiii. 29), We can make nothing out of this description, unless by sea is meant the Dead Sea, into which the Jordan empties itself. On this view, the Canaanite inhabited the south-eastern extremity of Palestine, west of the Jordan. Apart from this, it is but natural to suppose that the reason of the association of these three tribes is that the part inhabited by the Canaanite was also a wild and dangerous region. Now look at the northern extremity of Palestine, with its mountains forming the southern ridges of the Lebanon range, which are even at the present day full of the haunts of the buffalo, jackal, wolf, hyena, the ounce, lion, bear, tiger, leopard, lynx, and serpents, vipers, scorpions, centipedes, the tarantulus, the hornet and the wasp. Look, again, at the southern part of Palestine, with its road from Jerusalem to Jericho — a road that enemies alone would wish the Bishop to travel. "Travellers unite in depicting in the most gloomy hues" this " wild and melancholy region." The ''aspect of the whole" of it is said to be ''peculiarly savage and dreary, vying in this respect with the wilds of Sinai." (Cyc. Bib. Lit. Palestine.) The wilderness of Judea is full of extensive caverns, in which David wandered about. It is the region of which, so late aa in tlie time of Christ, " wild beasts" are spoken of as inhabitants (Mark i. 13). Further to the south is Idumea, with the great eastern desert, to name which is enough for present purposes. Now can any thing be more preposterous than a comi)arison of Norfolk, 81 Suffolk, and Essex, with such three districts as were occupied by the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite 1 We may form some opinion of these wildest parts from what is known of them and some of the safer regions after the land was subjugated and settled. Samson, a Danite, met with a lion on his way, some three centuries after the time of Joshua (Judg. xiv. 8). Later still, David meets with lions and bears (1 Sam. xvii. 34). Later still, Benaiah kills a lion which in a snow-storm had taken shelter in a pit (2 Sam. xxiii, 20). In the time of Jeroboam a prophet is slain by a lion close to Bethel (1 Kings, xiii. 24). Five centuries after the death of Joshua, 42 mocking youths are torn to pieces by two she bears (2 Kings, ii. 24). Now, if five centuries after the people had settled down wild beasts still infested not the least populous districts, where is the absurdity of the contingency which God promised to prevent by a gracious arrangement 1 We have, however, a case more dii-ectly bearing upon the passage. Some seven centuries after the time of Joshua, the Assyrians carried off the inhabitants of Samaria, and sent colonists in their stead. " At the beginning of their dwelling there," lions grew so for- midable in numbers and daring, that the colonists sent to the Assyrian king for some protection (2 Kings, xvii. 24-28). Here, and at this time, occurred the very thing which God foresaw would occur under exactly the same circumstances under Joshua. We have entered into these particulars to show that on a mere historical view of the matter the Pentateuch is not to be undermined. But Dr. Colenso's analogy is most fallacious. One single word will show the dif- 82 ference between Natal under British rule and Palestine under Joshua. Tliat word is (junjmwder. With fire- arras men may — with bows and arrows, slings and stones, swords and spears, men cannot — soon acquire the mastery over the wild beasts of the earth. Dr. Colenso shows us that there are disciplined European soldiers in Natal (p. 61). Ivory has for ages given Africans the power of acquiring fire arms. In a country thus pro- tected, there exist, though the Bishoj) may never have met them, the buffalo, the hippo^^otamus, the leopard, the hyena, the elephant, alligators, snakes, and boa- constrictors, all dangerous and formidable animals and reptiles to men without fire-arms. The comparison of Palestine some three millenniums ago with Natal now, is absui'd enough, but the comparison of the three most dangerous districts of Canaan at the time of settlement with three English counties, is too sublime to be ridiculous. A grain of gunpowder blows his thirteenth chapter into smoke and a shower of atoms. Now that our proposed task has been comjjleted, we wish the reader to notice that on the one hand the *' increase of mental power and general knowledge" (p. 7) has enabled Dr. Colenso first to get rid of ex- treme views of inspiration, and, next, to arrive at the conviction "that the Pentateuch, as a whole, cannot ]»ossibly have been written by Moses," and " cannot be regarded as historically true" (p. 8) ; and on the other hand, Christ's growth " in wisdom" (Luke ii. 6T)j never reached to such a point as "that he should be expected to speak about the Pentateuch in other terms than any (ttlier devout Jew of that day would have employed." (l*ref pp. 31, 32.) We will not here say anything of 83 the modesty of a writer who can so set himself above the Son of Man; or of the imjDlied, though uncon- scious, blasphemy of such arrogated superiority over the Son of God ; but we simply ask the reader, who has accompanied us in the above review, to say which of the two was, after all, the better informed — Christ or Colenso % L HUDSON AND SON, PKINTKRS, BULL STKJJET, BIRMINGHAM. BY THE SAME AUTHOR. The late Lady Noel Byron's Prize Essay on Juvenile Delinquency. Adjudicators, the very Rev. the Dean of Salisbiiry; J. Shaw Lefevre, Esq., M.A. ; M. D. Hill, Esq., Recorder of Bimiingham ; and Miss Mary Carpenter. (Smithy Elder, and Co.) Prize Essay on Pastoral Functions. Adjudicators, the late Rev. J. Angell James, the Rev. Daniel "Walton, and Isaac Taylor, Esq. (Ward and Co.) The Sabbath made for Man. The Evangelical Alliance Prize Essay. Adjudicators, the Rev. J. Harper, D.D. ; the Rev. J. Jordan, Vicar of Enstone ; the late Rev. W. H. Stowell, LL.D. A library and a cheap Edition. (J. F. Shaw, London. ) The Typical Testimony to the Messiah; or, the Analogy of the Scriptures in Relation to Typical Persons. Price 10/6. (Hamilton, Adams, and Co.) OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. The Typical Testimony to the Messiah is a book of rare value. We commend it to the attention of the thoughtful. — Melbourne (hristian Times. In the field of Typolog}', the author has achieved a complete triumph, leading far behind the very best works that have appeared on the subject. — Chriniian World. This work enters thoroughly into all the typical relations mentioned in Scripture, and on this basis the gifted author has constructed a work which we do not hesitate to say was a desideratum in Christian literature. Most willingly do we bear our testimony to its transcendent worth. — Coleraine Chronicle. The Typical Testimony is able and critical, working out a grand evi- dential scheme from a few hints lying unobserved upon the sacred pages, and producing a finely constructed system of specific yet related analogies. It is among the first to proceed upon thorough-going though implicit rather than explicit logic. To honest and earnest students of Scripture, and to those enquiring for a guide through the labyrinth of conscientiously en- tertained doubt, we can truly recommend this book as rich in suggestion, elaborate and thoughtful, full of illustrations of the continuity and per- nmnoiice of God's providential dealings in relation to redemption.— £rt