THE PENTATEUCH AND ITS 
 
 AUTHORITY/^ '''"''^^^ 
 
 APR 1 1 •:::! 
 A EEVIEW ^^%£fOAL8^ '^^ 
 
 OP 
 
 "THE PENTATEUCH AND BOOK OF JOSHUA 
 
 CRITICALLY EXAMINED 
 
 BY THE RIGHT REV. JOHN WILLIAM COLENSO, 
 
 D.D., BISHOP OF NATAL." 
 
 REPRINTED PROM THE «' RECORD" NEWSPAPER. 
 
 .SccontJ ^ition^ 
 
 LONDON s 
 PUBLISHED AT THE "RECORD" OFFICE, 
 
 169, FLEET-STREET; 
 
 AND AT SEELEY AND CO.'S, FLEET-STREET ; 
 
 NISBET'S, BERNERS-STREET; 
 
 WERTHEIM, MACINTOSH, AND HUNT'S, 24, PATERNOSTER-ROW, 
 
 AND 23, HOLLES-STREET ; 
 
 AND SHAW'S, SOUTHAMPTON-ROW. 
 
 1863. 
 PRICE SIXPENCE. 
 
THE PENTATEUCH AND ITS 
 
 AUTHORITY/^^^*^^^"'" 
 
 A EEVIEW ^^efCALSt^ 
 
 OP 
 
 "THE PENTATEUCH AND BOOK OF JOSHUA 
 
 CEITICALLY EXAMINED 
 
 BY THE RIGHT REV. JOHN WILLIAM COLENSO, 
 
 D.D., BISHOP OF NATAL." 
 
 REPRINTED FROM THE ''RECORD" NEWSPAPER. 
 
 S^mnti <Biition* 
 
 LONDON } 
 PUBLISHED AT THE "RECORD" OFFICE, 
 
 169, FLEET-STREET; 
 
 AND AT SEELEY AND CO.'S, FLEET-STREET; 
 
 NISBET'S, BERNERS-STREET; 
 
 WERTHEIM, MACINTOSH, AND HUNT'S, 24, PATERNOSTER-ROW, 
 
 AND 23, HOLLES-STREET ; 
 
 AND SHAW'S, SOUTHAMPTON-ROW. 
 
 1863. 
 
 PRICE SIXPENCE. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The Author; his history and position 1 
 
 No. II. 
 Bishop Colenso's opinions irreconcilable either with 
 History or with Christianity 15 
 
 No. III. 
 The Difficulties in detail 29 
 
 No. IV. 
 Scriptural Difficulties ; their nature and logical value 53 
 
REVIEW. 
 
 The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, Critically Examined. 
 By the Eight Eeverend John William Colenso, D.D., 
 Bishop of Natal. London : Longman and Co. 1862, 
 
 No. I. 
 THE AUTHOE ; HIS HISTOEY AND POSITION. 
 
 Accidental circumstances have compelled us to delay our 
 Eeview of this book longer than we intended. Among 
 these circumstances the difficulty of replying to it has had 
 no place. Half an hour's attentive study \\\\l enable any 
 diligent student to become master of its substance ; and a 
 very moderate amount of patient examination into its 
 details suffices to suggest the nature of the mistakes into 
 which the Bishop has fallen, and to indicate to a consider- 
 able degree the moral causes in which they have had their 
 origin. The fact that the greater part of the objections 
 alleged in this melancholy volume against the authority of 
 the Pentateuch are familiar to all well-furnished students 
 of the Old Testament, the impossibility of searching at all 
 into the literature which bears upon it without becoming 
 acquainted with them, the care with which they have been 
 sifted and weighed by earlier generations of the Chm-ch of 
 Christ, and, we may add, the character of the alleged 
 difficulties themselves— all j^oint to some cause operating 
 on the mind of the writer within, rather than to the 
 sudden discovery of critical difficulties in the books them- 
 
selves without, as tlie source from which this publicatiou 
 has taken its rise. In so speaking, we do not in the least 
 conceal from ourselves the dangerous character of the 
 book, and the extensive mischief it is calculated to work 
 upon the thoughtless and ill-informed. But we are confi- 
 dent that every student who has carefully studied it will 
 bear us out in saying that this danger is likely to arise 
 much less from the nature of its contents, than from the 
 character and position of its author. 
 
 We fully admit, that the form into which the Bishop's 
 arguments are thrown is in itself calculated to impress the 
 minds of many men, inasmuch as they are, almost without 
 exception, directly or indirectly arithmetical. Calculations 
 of this kind do not apparently lend themselves to the 
 influence of personal and moral causes, and the results 
 consequently bear a more plausible appearance of candour 
 and impartiality than can be borne by arguments which 
 depend on moral considerations and the variable concep- 
 tions of the mind. In forming an estimate, for instance, 
 of the general characteristics of the Mosaic law, and its 
 tendencies as a disciplinary system, preconceived opinions 
 and partialities are likely to sway the judgment, however 
 unconsciously ; but in calculations of numbers, such as the 
 multiplication sum, by which we get the total of a certain 
 given number of generations, or by which we estimate the 
 possible succession of life within a defined period of time, 
 there is no room for such sources of mistake to enter. 
 Hence, the apparent simplicity and irresistible force of 
 the arithmetical sum is calculated to draw men's attention 
 away from closely analyzing each step of the previous 
 process on which the elements of the sum are founded. In 
 this point of view the statement of the difficulties is very 
 skilfully made, inasmuch as the alternative is thrown on 
 the calculation, and not on its preceding data. It is pre- 
 sented as if the reader were put into this dilemma,— either 
 to reject the historical character of the Pentateuch, or to , 
 admit what is simply and naturally impossible. For 
 instance, the first objection relative to the age of Judah 
 and his descendants is so put, as if the choice lay between 
 
denying the inspiration of Scripture or admitting the 
 possibility that Judah may have had sons, grandsons, and 
 gi-eat-grandsons all within the space of twenty-two years. 
 We do not presume to say — we scarcely venture even to 
 conjecture — whether this mode of stating the case has 
 arisen from argumentative eagerness and the mind's 
 natural tendency to place its views in the best possible 
 light ; or whether it is the aspect in which the case has 
 really presented itself before the mind of the author. We 
 can readily understand that this may have been the case. 
 Every line of study has its own peculiar danger, and the 
 habitude of mind produced by exclusive addiction to 
 mathematical pursuits is singularly unfavourable to theo- 
 logical inquiry and the broad grasj) of Divine truth. For 
 the mathematician builds all his reasoning on fixed and 
 indubitable axioms, and depends throughout upon their 
 certainty. He dismisses them from further inquiry, and 
 concentrates all his attention on the deductive reasoning 
 which he rests upon them. The unfavourable tendency of 
 deductive as compared Avith inductive jDursuits, to prepare 
 the mind for the reception of religious truth, has been 
 pointed out with great force by Dr. Whewell, in his 
 Bridgwater Treatise. It is, therefore, natural, that the 
 habits of Dr. Colenso's mind should lead him to rely too 
 much on the subsequent reasoning, and too little on the 
 premises which support it. Accordingly, we find him 
 describing these premises, thoroughly unsafe as they are, 
 as " facts " (p. xx), and speaking of the certainty of the 
 grounds on which he rests his conclusions (p. xviii). But, 
 be this as it may, the effect is the same. Undeniably, the 
 mode pursued tends to divert attention from the jorelimi- 
 nary statement, and to place the alternative falsely before 
 the mind. As this volume puts it, the question is. Which 
 is most probable, the uninspired character of the narrative, 
 or the occurrence of a natural impossibility ? whereas the 
 question really is. Which is most probable, palpable and 
 transparent contradictions in the documents of Christi- 
 anity, or a mistake in the arguments of the critic who 
 professes to f ni them there ? We strongly feel that the 
 
subtle mode in which the case is stated is likely to entangle 
 many minds which are deficient either in the ability or the 
 time to sift the case to the bottom. 
 
 Nevertheless, the principal power of the book for evil 
 lies in the j^rofessed character and position of its author. 
 There are many men whose minds are already unfavourable 
 to Christianity, either because they fret under its moral 
 restraints, or are provoked by its solemn warnings against 
 sin, or oflfended by its humbling and self-denying doctrines. 
 Such persons will never think of examining an argument, 
 but, colouring it with their own prejudices, will accejDt it 
 at once as conclusive. Here will be an excuse for wilful 
 blindness, and a ready retort to the expostulations of 
 others, put into their hands, viz., that a Bishop of the 
 Church of England, a man of distinguished mathematical 
 talent, of amiable character and spotless morals, has pub- 
 licly declared the Pentateuch to be un-historical, and the 
 belief in its Divine inspiration a delusion ; and if he thinks 
 so, why may not they do so likewise ? There is another 
 class to whom this same strange j^henomenon will be a 
 source of real perplexity and disquietude. They have, 
 hitherto, accepted the ordinary faith of their Church, and 
 have pushed away from their minds — though not, perhaps, 
 without some occasional feelings of secret uneasiness — all 
 doubts as to the soundness of this belief. But now that a 
 Bishop, a man bound by the most solemn vows, alike to 
 the Divine Master he professes to serve, and to the Chm^ch 
 of which he is a member, and whose dignities if not 
 whose emoluments he enjoys, has declared this belief to 
 be untrue, the latent fear becomes too prominent to be 
 mastered. Such persons picture to themselves a man 
 filled with a devoted missionary spirit, and going forth 
 with the Bible in his hand and heart to preach the Gospel 
 to the heathen, and then they see him all at once led by a 
 casual occurrence to examine the grounds of a faith he had 
 previously accepted ; they imagine him suddenly over- 
 whelmed against his will by the discovery of irresistible 
 proofs, that the faith of his youth and manhood will not 
 bear investigation; and lastly, they throw about him 
 
almost a kind of romance, as apparently under the mere 
 force of truth he comes forward in the face of reproach, 
 and against all the vested interests of a traditional Christi- 
 anity, to proclaim, at any risk, the convictions to which he 
 has been brought. And then, having thus filled up with 
 a romantic colouring the outlines of the case, they ask 
 themselves whether there must not be iiTesistible truth in 
 the reasons which compel a man so to act; and hence 
 their faith receives a shock, rude in proportion to the 
 confidence with which they had previously believed. There 
 is also anothe'r class, to whose feelings the utmost con- 
 sideration is due at the present time — we mean the godly 
 and intelligent laymen of the Church of England— who 
 are confounded at the strange spectacle presented to them, 
 and begin to ask whether there is no law wdthin the 
 Church, and no conscience in the breasts of her ministers. 
 Themselves scrupulously observant of all their engage- 
 ments, they regard with mingled horror and detestation 
 all subtle evasions of a plain obligation, all quibbling 
 interpretation of those solemn declarations which bind 
 every clergyman, and might be supposed to bind with 
 more than ordinary force the sensitive consciences of their 
 spiritual rulers. Amid all these classes the mischief 
 ^T;ought will be great indeed ; and inasmuch as it is easier 
 to shake confidence than to restore it, easier to insinuate 
 doubts than to induce persons to examine their refutation,^ 
 it will be, we fear, in some cases irreparable. 
 
 In proceeding to notice Bishop Colenso's book at gi'eater 
 length than we ordinarily devote to the review of single 
 books, it is to these classes that we must mainly direct our 
 argiunents. Where the som^ce of the mischief is personal, 
 the refutation must be in a great degree personal likewise. 
 We do not intend by using the phrase to have recourse to 
 what are ordinarily called " personalities." We trust in 
 these articles not to speak one bitter word or to go one 
 step beyond those sources of information which are public 
 and open to all men. We shall endeavour even to check 
 that burning indignation, which we acknowledge to feel 
 at what appears treachery against our beloved Church, 
 
6 
 
 and nnfaitlifulric?3 towards our Master, But we mean by 
 "personal," that Ave are unable to combat the opinions of 
 the book without touching the position and character of 
 the writer. In all cases inferior considerations must yield 
 to the interests of truth, so long as we spei.k in love, and 
 never forget that "the wrath of man worketh not the 
 righteousness of God," In fact, however, Bishop Colenso 
 himself has not only justified, but challenged the discussion 
 of these topics; for, in the preface to this volume, he 
 speaks very largely of himself, and labours to conciliate 
 confidence and sympathy by explaining the circumstances 
 and mental difficulties out of which the i3resent publica- 
 tion took its origin. We are therefore compelled to follow 
 him into these topics, and to lay all the peculiarities of the 
 case before our readers. 
 
 In the year 1853 Dr, Colenso was appointed to the 
 Bishopric of Natal. He was at that time not very widely 
 known, except as an arithmetician ; the only publication 
 from which an estimate could be formed of his theological 
 opinions being a small volume, containing nine sermons, 
 eight of which had been preached at the small agricultural 
 parish of St. Mary Forncett, Norfolk. It was about this 
 period that the Bev. F. D. Maiu-ice had found himself 
 compelled to resign his Professorshijj of King's College, in 
 consequence of the strong feeling excited by his unsound 
 and unscriptural teaching, especially on the subject of 
 eternal pimishment. At this time Dr, Colenso expressed, 
 in the preface to his sermons, his jDrofound admiration of 
 Mr, Mam'ice, and the obligations he ow^ed to him for his 
 doctrinal teaching. In the sermons themselves he proved 
 himseK to be an apt disciple of his master. They were 
 characterized, in the first place, by that absence of dis- 
 tinctive and dogmatic teaching which so singularly marks 
 the school. Throughout them the doctrine of human 
 depravity was systematically ignored, the nature of sin 
 being definitely limited to outward acts, and it being not 
 indistinctly averred that all mankind, without exception, 
 were brought into immediate covenant with God in Christ, 
 and were partakers of the Divine grace, a well-known 
 
tenet of the Maurician school. But what was especially 
 interesting under the circumstances of his appointment as 
 a missionary bishop, were his views in regard to the con- 
 dition of the heathen, and the mode in which they should 
 be treated by the Christian preacher. He declared that 
 the heathen ought not to be regarded as fallen, miserable, 
 guilty creatures, children of wrath, but as already in pos- 
 session of their Lord and Saviour, and enjoying even now, 
 for the soul as well as for the body, the coming of the 
 only-begotten Son of God. Their bloody superstitions and 
 vices were described as sins of mere ignorance ; and it was 
 declared that to speak of them as outcasts from God 
 would be a rash presumption, taking into our own hands 
 the work of the just and righteous Judge. And lastly, it 
 was boldly announced that the white man, coming into 
 contact with the heathen, had much to learn, but nothing 
 to give in retm-n but his own abominable and loathsome 
 vices. Such was Dr. Colenso's conception of the relative 
 position of the heathen and the Christian, such his trust 
 in the Christianity he was commissioned to preach, such 
 the feeble grasp which he even then held on the 
 great vital truths of the Christian faith. He was clearly 
 imbued at that time with those jDrinciples of the Mau- 
 rician school, of which Essayism is the legitimate de- 
 velopment, and full-blown Infidelity the only consistent 
 and logical issue ; and we take some credit to ourselves 
 for having protested against his appointment to Natal on 
 this ground. 
 
 But it now appears, from his o^^^l statement, that the 
 sceptical tendency was already actively at work. He 
 doubted, even then, the historical truth of the Scriptural 
 narrative, and this in regard to so primal a point as the 
 Creation. These doubts he silenced at the time "by 
 means of the specious explanations which are given in 
 most commentaries;" "I found so much of Divine life 
 and light in these and other parts of the Sacred Book, that 
 I was content to take all this for granted as true in the 
 main." Dr. Colenso assumes that, in so acting, he fol- 
 lowed the example of "many other clergymen," an asser- 
 
8 
 
 tion in which we believe that he has deeply, however 
 unintentionally, calumniated his brethren. However, we 
 acknowledge that, supposing these doubts to have arisen 
 after ordination, v/hen the decisive step of the ministry 
 with all its tremendous obligations was already taken and 
 could not be recalled, the act of putting them by, instead 
 of at once facing them like a man conscious that the dis- 
 charge of his office was dependent on the result, was not to 
 be too severely condemned, however far short it may fall 
 of lofty principle and a sensitive integrity. But suppose 
 that these difficulties had occurred before ordination, 
 would it have been possible thus to ignore the subject 
 consistently with an honest acceptance of a minister's 
 sacred obligations? In the Ordination Service Dr. Co- 
 lenso was asked, " Will you then give your faithful dili- 
 gence always so to minister the doctrine, and sacraments, 
 and discipline of tlie Church as the Lord hath commanded, 
 and as this Church and realm hath received the sained* 
 Now, be it observed, that whatever view men may form 
 as to the authority of Scripture, there can be little ques- 
 tion that it is the doctrine of the Church of England that 
 all the books of the Old Testament are canonical ; in other 
 words, they may be used — any and every part of them, 
 without exception or limitation — to establish doctrine ; 
 "not merely to draw" practical lessons of daily life, "but 
 to establish doctrine." We have no reason whatever to 
 suppose that at the time of his ordination Dr. Colenso was 
 troubled with those misgivings relative to the historical 
 truth of Scripture which he acknowledges to have subse- 
 quently entertained ; but, suppose it had been so, could 
 he as an honest man have answered in the afiirmative, 
 " I will do so by the help of the Lord," if these doubts 
 had been upon his mind ? We answer decisively that he 
 could not. The only course open to a high-minded man 
 would have been to delay his ordination till he had 
 thoroughly sifted these questions, and brought them to a 
 decision. Yet these doubts were in his mind at the time 
 of his consecration to the Bishopric of Natal ; and at that 
 solemn service, accompanied by special invocation to the 
 
9 
 
 Holy Ghost, questions of very similar import, though we 
 freely acknowledge somewhat less full and definite, were 
 put and answered. We do not lay stress either on the 
 first or the second of these questions, because it is an 
 avowed tenet of the Maurician school, of which Dr. Co- 
 lenso professed himself to be at that time a disciple, that 
 the Bible contains the Word of God, though the Bible 
 and the Word of God are not equivalent expressions. 
 This distinction is, we believe, wholly iiTeconcilable with 
 any fair interpretation of our formularies ; but we cannot 
 deny that the mere language of the second question might 
 grammatically admit of it, and we do not wish, therefore, 
 to impugn the honesty of Dr. Colenso's reply. But the 
 third question is different, and definitely precludes that 
 very state of mental hesitation in which Dr. Colenso 
 declares himself to have been at the time. "Will you 
 then faithfully exercise yom^self in the same holy Scripture, 
 and call upon God by prayer for the trae understanding of 
 the same?" And Dr. Colenso, conscious of doubts in his 
 own mind — doubts which he was deliberately putting on 
 one side— relative to the truth of this holy Scripture; 
 doubts, moreover, which he must have known, or ought to 
 have known, to affect the entire authority of Scripture 
 altogether— Dr. Colenso answered before the Church, " I 
 will so do by the help of God." 
 
 In such a state of mind, crushing out of memory secret 
 misgivings as to the truth of Scripture, and with all his 
 great responsibilities upon his shoulders, the new Bishop 
 went to his distant heathen diocese. How long that state 
 of mind continued we are" not told, though we are made 
 accj[uainted with the circumstances which again roused the 
 old difficulties to the surface. We take the account given 
 in the preface :—" While translating the story of the 
 Flood, I have had a simple-minded but inteUigent native 
 —one with the docility of a child, but the reasoning 
 powers of matui-e age— look up and ask, ' Is all that true ? 
 Do you really believe that all this happened thus, that all 
 the beasts and birds and creeping things upon the earth, 
 large and small, from hot coimtries and cold, came thus by 
 B 3 
 
10 
 
 pairs, and entered into the ark with Noah ? '" &c. We 
 will not dwell on the transparent fact that the Bible says 
 no such thing as this Zulu supposed it to say, and that, 
 consequently, the Bishop might have been expected to 
 correct so pali3able a mistake ; but we observe that the 
 Zulu assigned no reason for his scepticism, and that the 
 influence exercised by his words arose simply from an 
 appeal to the conscience. How this appeal was met is one 
 of the most remarkable featm^es in this mental analysis. 
 The natural feeling would have been one of self-reproach, 
 for not having used the proper means to settle his faith be- 
 fore undertaking the responsibility of teaching others. 
 But, no ; the idea of taking fault to himself never appears 
 to have occurred to the Bishof)'s mind. The appeal only 
 brought to his consciousness the existence of what must 
 evidently have been a preconceived conviction against the 
 Bible. He says, " My heart answered in the words of the 
 prophet, ^ Shall a man si3eak lies in the name of the 
 Lord?'" (words which, in the form quoted, do not occur.) 
 The conviction against the historical truth of the Bible 
 was, we repeat, already formed, whether it had been pre- 
 viously present to consciousness or not ; and the Bishop 
 proceeds to explain how this was. His increased know- 
 ledge of some branches of science had enabled him to 
 hnow for certain (the italics are ours) that the Scriptural 
 narrative was not true. He had, therefore, decided the 
 question beforehand, and then he proceeded to inquire 
 afterwards. He sent to England for books, the range of 
 his authorities being mainly confined to Hengstenberg, 
 Havernick, and Kurtz, and began that course of study of 
 which the publication of the i:)resent volume is the issue — 
 study, be it observed, after he acknowledges himself to 
 have decided the question, and to have known for certain 
 that the ScriiDtural narrative was not true. 
 
 But we must carry this strange history another step. 
 The state of mind in which a ]:»erson in Bishop Colenso's 
 circumstances might have been expected to be was surely 
 one of doubt and anxiety. Was there not, many wUl say, 
 some misgiving, — some struggle, before the historical truth 
 
11 
 
 of Scripture was given up ? God and the Bishop himself 
 alone can tell. We only know that there was not the 
 slightest evidence in his acts of that humble, stricken 
 frame of mind which the anguish of a great mental 
 struggle would naturally have produced. For it is to 
 some part of this period that the complaint of the Nor- 
 wegian missionaries against his conduct must refer. First, 
 he appears to have taken the strong step of justifying 
 polygamy ; not only, be it observed, permitting it where it 
 existed before conversion— a question surrounded, we 
 freely acknowledge, with some natural diihculty — but 
 encouraging natives to form connexion with a plurality of 
 wives after they had professed Christianity. We are told 
 that his next step was to instruct the natives that " there 
 is no hell," and this, not only within his own Mission sta- 
 tion, but actually sending emissaries to other stations for 
 the purpose. There is a strange mixture of vanity and 
 ambition in the pretensions with which these efforts were 
 accompanied. He proclaimed himself to be " the gi'eat 
 Teacher," and the missionaries of other Societies to be 
 only " shadow teachers." He styled himself " the Father 
 of the people," and his station '' the home of light,"— pro- 
 ceedings not very accordant with the spirit of our Lord 
 and his apostles. We give these facts on the authority of 
 the Secretary of the Norwegian Missionary Society ; and 
 in such proceedings we look in vam for any evidence of 
 that deep mental struggle which a Christian Bishop might 
 have been supposed to undergo, when conducting an exa- 
 mination on the issue of which hung belief or unbelief in 
 the authority of God's blessed Word. But, this examina- 
 tion over, we would follow the Bishop's steps to this coun- 
 try. We must bear in mind that the materials for his 
 examination of this great question had been ridiculously 
 scanty, and the time occupied in it equally insufficient for 
 so great a question. He might, therefore, have been ex- 
 pected to come still hesitating, still clinging fondly to the 
 faith, before, down the slippery precipice, he fell into the 
 sceptical deep below. He might have been expected to 
 have sought the Archbishop, his Metropolitan, and the 
 
12 
 
 other Bishops at whose hands he received consecration, 
 and, sorrowfully explaining his difficulties, to have re- 
 quested their counsel and assistance, placing himself and 
 his office in their hands ; but such an expectation would 
 manifestly have rested on a total misapprehension of 
 Bishop Colenso's character. Advice he doubtless sought, 
 but not from those to whose hands was intrusted the 
 administration of the Church of England, and who were 
 both qualified by character to assist, and entitled by office 
 to advise, even under ^circumstances so difficult and deli- 
 cate as these. So far as we know, his advisers appear to 
 have been persons w^hose own views coincided more or less 
 with those which he had himself unhappily adopted. No 
 time was taken for fresh study and deeper research, and 
 mutual prayer and communication, but only a pause in 
 order to polish and temper, as it were, the w^eapon which 
 with ungenerous hands he was eager to fling against the 
 truth he had professed and the Church whose office he 
 carried. How deeply is any one mistaken who supposes 
 these views of the Bishop of Natal to be the result of long 
 and anxious thought and deep research, or anything but 
 the crude, hasty, ill-considered conclusions of prejudice ! 
 
 Now, the argument we rest on this singular narrative is 
 this. So far from it being wonderful that Bishop Colenso 
 should, under the circumstances narrated, have adopted 
 this unhappy conclusion, the wonder would have been if 
 he had not done so. Tainted from the first with the fatal 
 principles of the Maurician school, trifling unhappily with 
 his own convictions, with no adequate sense of the great 
 responsibility of his office both before the Church and 
 before the Church's Master, with no confidence in his own 
 faith or trust in his own lofty calling, with doubts hardly 
 put out of sight, and a conviction of the human character 
 of the Bible, ever deepening silently and perhaps uncon- 
 sciously, his subsequent examination was an empty form, 
 an unreal trial when the cause was already decided, and 
 his conclusion not the result of irresistible reason, but the 
 utterance of a foregone unbelief. 
 
13 
 
 The following cappeared in the Record of Jan. 2, 1863 : - 
 THE PENTATEUCH AND BISHOP COLENSO. 
 
 TO THE EDITOR OP THE EEC^TID. 
 
 Sir, — In writing upon the subject of Dr. Colenso's recent work 
 on the Pentateuch, I quoted from the review which appeared 
 in the Record a statement to the effect that the Bishop "had 
 not only permitted polygamy in his diocese when it existed 
 before conversion, but had also encouraged natives to form 
 connexion with a plurahty of wives after they had professed 
 Christianity." 
 
 I have received a communication from the Bishop, referring to 
 this quotation, in which he tells me the statement is " absolutely 
 and entirely false." I am quite sure you will regret as sincerely 
 as I do that the error has been committed, and gladly publish 
 the counter-statement. At the same time, I certainly feel that 
 Dr. Colenso would have taken a more satisfactory course if he 
 had corrected the Reviewer's mistake immediately, by addressing 
 a line to yourself, and so prevented any further unintentional 
 misapprehension. 
 
 I am, Sir, yours faithfully. 
 
 The Authoe op "Bible Inspiration: What 
 IT Is, and What it is Not," etc. 
 
 St. Nicholas' Eectory, Worcester, 
 Dec. 31, 1862. 
 
 [The foregoing letter has reached us this morning, and we 
 hasten to give it publicity. The words used in our Eeview of 
 November 21, 1862, were these :—'• Fhst, he (the Bishop of 
 Natal) appears to have taken the strong step of justifying poly- 
 gamy ; not only, be it observed, permitting it where it existed 
 before conversion, — a question surrounded, we freely acknow- 
 ledge, with some natural difSculty, — but encouraging natives to 
 form connexion with a plurality of wives after they had pro- 
 fessed Christianity." In order to avoid all misapprehension as to 
 the source whence this information was derived, we added at the 
 close of the statement of which the foregoing formed a part, only 
 eleven lines further on, " We give these facts on the authority of 
 the Secretary of the Norwegian Missionary Society." The 
 
14 
 
 information was conveyed to us in a letter published in the 
 Record of Monday, February 3, 1862, and bearing the following 
 subscription : — " For the Committee of the Norwegian Missionary 
 Society. (Signed) O. L. Sinding, Blessing, Secretary." The 
 exact words of this communication bearing on the subject are as 
 follow : — 
 
 " Bishop Coleuso is making; progress with respect to his pernicious 
 opinions, and he has now taken a natural step forwards in connexion 
 with the question of polygamj^, and now no longer regards a plurality 
 of wives sinful in itself. The effects of these errors, which, moreover, 
 he is at great pains to spread abroad and to publish, have already 
 become apparent, for already have the converted natives connected 
 with his Mission, and the Missions of other parties, succumbed 
 before the temptation thus thrown in their way, and have taken more 
 than one wife." 
 
 It thus appears that in making the statement of November 21, 
 we gave at the same time our authority for it, and carefully 
 stated that the fact did not fall within our own knowledge. The 
 statement rested on the official document of a public Society. 
 On what facts it was itself based we know not. Being now 
 informed by Bishop Colenso that it is " absolutely and entirely 
 false^'' we will forward this denial by the first post to the 
 Secretary of the Norwegian Missionary Society, and will give 
 immediate publicity to his reply. If any misstatement has been 
 made it will be a matter of sincere regret, we doubt not, to the 
 authors of it, and likewise to ourselves and all others who may 
 have given it currency. — Ed.] 
 
15 
 
 No. II. 
 
 BISHOP COLENSO'S OPINIONS IREECONCIL- 
 ABLE EITHER WITH HISTORY OR WITH 
 CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Having reviewed in our preceding- article the mental 
 history of the writer as gathered from his own words and 
 elucidated by his own explanations, the way has been 
 opened for an examination of the book itself. The mind 
 will now have been cleared from partialities and a mistaken 
 apprehension of the circumstances of the case, and so be 
 prepared to put on one side all merely personal topics, and 
 to judge calmly and on broader grounds the true aspects 
 of the controversy to which we are anew invited. We 
 propose in our present article to confine ourselves to a 
 statement of the conclusions advocated by Bishop Colenso, 
 to measure their logical worth, and the results to which 
 they must inevitably lead. We then propose to examine 
 seriatim, and at such length as the importance of the 
 various topics may seem to demand, the argimients by 
 which they are supported, and then finally to compare the 
 conclusions at which his Lordship on the one side, and the 
 believing portion of the Christian public on the other, will 
 have severally arrived. 
 
 Now the sum and substance of these conclusions is con- 
 tained in the statement that '' the narrative of the Penta- 
 teuch, whatever may be its value and meaning, cannot be 
 historically true." (P. xx.) The assertion may not seem 
 at first very formidable, so gentle is the euphemism ; but 
 the longer it is examined, the more is the mind impressed 
 alike with the extent and with the fatal character of its 
 results, till, as we trace them out to their sequences, we 
 perceive it to be one of the most sweeping and alarming 
 propositions which it is possible for human lips to affirm. 
 For if that which professes to be a histoiy, and the accept- 
 
16 
 
 ance of which as a history is incorporated into the entire 
 teaching of Scripture, is not historically true, it is not true 
 at all. Dr. Colenso is apparently fully aware of the effect 
 of the statement ; we say apparently, because in some parts 
 of his volume he writes as if he were himself alarmed at 
 the ultimate consequences of his own views, and in other 
 parts as if he were totally unconscious of them. He ex- 
 plains, in a footnote (p. xvii), that he employs the word 
 " unhistorical," not to conceal the strength of the meaning, 
 but simply to avoid misapprehension, inasmuch as '^ the 
 word fiction is frequently understood to imply a cmiscious 
 dishonesty [the italics are his own] on the part of the waiter, 
 an intention to deceive. Yet in writing the story of the 
 Exodus from the ancient legends of his people, the Scrip- 
 ture \\T'iter may have had no more consciousness of doing 
 wrong, or of perpetrating historical deception, than Homer 
 had, or any of the early Eoman annalists." So that it is 
 asserted in the broadest manner, that the effect of the 
 scriptural history is to deceive^ though the writers may not 
 have been conscious of the deception. 
 
 Now we maintain that, alike in relation to the doctrinal 
 statements of the Church in which the Bishop holds his 
 office, and alike in relation to the religious wants of man, 
 it is perfectly immaterial whether the " deception " prac- 
 tised by the Old Testament writer was intentional or un- 
 intentional. All turns on the fact or otherwise of the 
 " deception," not on the mode in which it may have been 
 brought about. The Church includes the books of the 
 Pentateuch in those Canonical Scriptures to which she 
 affixes the apf)ellation of " God's Word written." Man- 
 kind, from the days of Ezra downwards, have accepted 
 them as Divinely inspired, and as therefore containing 
 certain snd indubitable truth. Whether we call the 
 writers of them impostors, or only say that they were 
 ignorant of the truth, is merely a matter of taste ; for in 
 either case they cannot have been Divinely inspired men, 
 their productions must be wholly human, and their state- 
 ments can be invested with no more profound meaning, 
 and no higher certainty than belong to the statements of 
 
17 
 
 other men. And this, it will be observed, Dr, Colenso 
 states in the apologetic passage we have quoted ; for he 
 defends the Scriptural writers on the same footing, and no 
 other, on which he would defend Homer, and the early 
 Eoman annalists. He identifies with the poetry of the 
 one and the mythical stories of the other, not merely the 
 original legends out of which he conceives the Pentateuch 
 to have been composed, but the labours and character of 
 the man who composed it. To affirm that these books are 
 " unhistorical," is to affirm that they are not what they 
 profess to be, and what the creeds of the Church and the 
 religious convictions of mankind have ever considered 
 them to be. It is to deny their religious character, and 
 reduce them to the level of the most w^orthless j)ortion of 
 all human literature. If they are not historical, they are 
 not true ; the events they narrate with every appearance 
 of circumstantiality never took place, and the books them- 
 selves deserve no more credence than the " old wives' 
 fables " which are told in the nursery, and supply the food 
 of popular superstition. 
 
 This charge of untruth the author applies, without re- 
 serve, to the whole five Books of Moses. It is true that 
 in one place he speaks more cautiously, and records his 
 conviction of the " unhistorical character of very consider- 
 able portions of the Mosaic narrative " (p. xvii) ; but in 
 other i:)laces he speaks generally in the same relation of 
 " the Exodus " (p. xix), " the Pentateuch " (p. xx), " the 
 Mosaic narrative " (p. xxv). Hence, he rejects not certain 
 portions, but the whole of these books; and indeed the 
 various parts of the Sacred history are so mutually inter- 
 woven with each other, that we do not see how he could 
 di-aw any distinction between them, or save any detached 
 portions from the general wreck. Consequently, the truth 
 of every portion of the narrative is denied, beyond those 
 broken traditions of real events which might possibly be 
 hid in the general mass of the legends. No such creation 
 as Moses records ever took place. There was no paradise, 
 no temptation, no fall ; — no foundation, therefore, for all 
 the doctrines founded on these events. There w\as no 
 
18 
 
 deluge, no dispersion, no patriarchs, no descent into 
 Egyi^t, no Exodus, no Moses, no law given on Sinai, no 
 wanderings in the wilderness, no settlement in Canaan. 
 It still remains, no doubt, that some critical genius might 
 frame a nev/ history for the Tsraelitish people out of frag- 
 ments of the ancient myths, as Niebuhr did for the early 
 history of Eome ; but such a history would not jirofess to 
 be either a revelation or a religion, but would remain a 
 conjectural matter of opinion, and no more. The religious 
 character and authority of all the Books of Moses, without 
 exception, is therefore denied. In this assertion the author 
 outstrips a very large portion of German critics ; for 
 whereas they have conceived the Pentateuch to consist of 
 an uncertain number of early fragments or documents, to 
 which, up to a certain extent, an historical authority 
 might yet belong, Dr. Colenso conceives it to be legendary 
 altogether, and thus places himself, at a single step, in the 
 very van of modern unbelief. The document-hypothesis 
 of Astruc and Eichhorn, the fragment-hypothesis of Vater, 
 the complement-hypothesis of Tuch, and the crystalliza- 
 tion-h3^othesis of Ewald, are seen in many material points 
 to be outstripped by the apparently gentle, but really 
 sweeping conclusion of Dr. Colenso, that the Pentateuch is 
 simply " unhistorical." 
 
 We can scarcely believe that the BishoiD understood the 
 full consequences of his own statement. But it is essen- 
 tial that they should be clearly recognised. The great 
 danger of his position, both as regards himself and others, 
 lies in the assumed possibility that the rejection of the 
 Pentateuch is consistent with the retention of Chi-istianity, 
 not indeed the Christianity embodied in the Formularies 
 of the Church of England, but still a true doctrmal Chris- 
 tianity. For example, the Bisho]) argues that his views 
 do not involve any denial of the divinity of our Lord, and 
 therefore we presume that he is not prepared to deny this 
 article of the faith. Now we are all familiar with the 
 argument called " reductio ad ahsurdumP It consists in 
 tracing the conclusions derived from certain premises, and 
 then placing them side by side with certain other recog- 
 
19 
 
 iiised conclusions, which are accepted as ascertained and 
 indisputable truth. And the argument is this, that as the 
 conclusions under immediate survey plainly contradict the 
 principles previously formed, and cannot coexist side by 
 side with them, they must be false, even though we may 
 be unable at the time clearly to point out tli.e fallacy which 
 vitiates the reasoning. To this argument we desire, in 
 the first place, to apjieal, and to call the attention of the 
 Bishop and his advisers to the fact, that the rejection of 
 the Pentateuch is consistent neither with a belief in 
 history, nor with a belief in Christianity. 
 
 It is not consistent with a belief in history. For God 
 has so ordered it, that the Jewish people still survive, re- 
 taining all the same national characteristics which have 
 belonged to them during the whole course of known 
 history. These characteristics are peculiar to themselves, 
 and none of the records of mankind afford a jDarallel to 
 them. They spring from events comprised within that 
 very period of Jewish history which Dr. Colenso declares 
 to be " unhistorical." We do not waste time in proving 
 that the Jewish nation, at the time of our Lord, bore the 
 distinctive features which still remain, because the testi- 
 mony of profane history at that jDcriod is too full and dis- 
 tinct to admit of the possibility of a denial. But in the 
 very nature of things these peculiarities w^ould be utterly 
 inexplicable, unless they could be traced backwards, step 
 by step, and link by link, to some extraordinary and un- 
 paralleled events in which they took their rise. We do 
 not dwell on the physical features which survive the lapse 
 of so many generations, nor on the mere streng-th of that 
 national conviction of their supernatural calling which lies 
 at the very heart of the race, but rather refer to the posi- 
 tive outward institutions which still exist, and which are 
 declared in the books they hold sacred to have existed 
 among them, uninterruptedly from the days of Moses. 
 These are circumcision, the Sabbath on the last day of the 
 week, the passover, the feast of tabernacles, and the other 
 still surviving ordinances of their religion. 
 
 For the full explanation of the terse but conclusive 
 
20 
 
 argument which may be founded upon them, we refer the 
 Bishop to a little book, which possibly he has never con- 
 descended to read, or which, at all events, he must 
 certainly have forgotten — Leslie's " Short and Easy 
 Method with the Deists," Little could the author have 
 ever dreamed that the reasons which he has urged with so 
 much force against the avowed enemies of Christianity 
 would ever need to be used against a Bishop of the Church 
 of England ; and the fact is itself no feeble j^roof of the 
 Antichristian position which his Lordship has taken up. 
 The existence of this Jewish nation, with its mysterious 
 isolation from all other peoples, and of these ineradicable 
 peculiarities, which neither the destruction of their Temple, 
 nor their banishment from their land, nor their exiled 
 dispersion of two thousand years, have sufficed to remove, 
 or even materially to weaken, stand among the familiar 
 facts of our day. Yet the Pentateuch is untrue, and, con- 
 sequently, the events commemorated in these national 
 institutions never took place, and the whole history 
 gathered round them is a legendary fiction and nothing 
 more. Here we are landed into a labyrinth of paradoxes ; 
 for it happens strangely enough that, though the nation of 
 the Jews has ever been isolated from all others, yet their 
 history has necessarily had points of contact with the 
 current of profane history in general, and at these very 
 points the most si^ecific testimony exists of the reality of 
 the events narrated in the inspired record. The sequence 
 and interconnexion of human history is so close that to 
 tear out one thread is frequently to destroy the whole ; and 
 let it be once affirmed that Jewish history, perpetuated in 
 still survivioig institutions, is nevertheless an unhistorical 
 legend, and, in destroying the Pentateuch, you destroy no 
 small 23ortion even of profane history itself. The results 
 must stretch so far and wide as to make it a very curious 
 exercise to trace them, but an exercise far beyond the 
 possible limits of om- space. But surely we ought to see 
 the providence of God in the provision of this undying 
 testimony from the undying people. Here is a nation of 
 witnesses to protest against Dr. Colenso's conclusion as 
 
21 
 
 with one voice ; not a nation of Christians, but rejecting 
 Christianity; and yet so firmly grasping the historical 
 truth of this portion of the Christian Bible that they would 
 rather die than lose their inheritance in a portion of its 
 grand traditions. 
 
 But we must briefly add one more remark on this sub- 
 ject, before we pass on ; for appeal will, no doubt, be made 
 against this argument of ours to the assumed analogy of 
 early Grecian or Eoman history. It w^ill be said, for 
 instance, that we do not give up the true history of Cicero 
 and Cgesar because we give up the fables of Eomulus 
 and Eemus ; and, if so, why may we not maintain the 
 same position towards the Jewish as towards the Eoman 
 records, and retain the later history, though we reject the 
 earlier ? The reply cannot be given in full, but is simply 
 this,— that, as a matter of fact, you cannot treat the one 
 as you treat the other ; and the fact that you cannot do 
 so marks the strong distinction between the two cases. 
 We pass over the details of Eoman history, because of 
 the extreme uncertainty which still attaches to them. 
 Some of our readers will be aware that, in the last few 
 years, a German work of great erudition has been pub- 
 lished at Basle, in which all Niebuhr's conclusions are 
 decisively rejected, and the ancient outlines reinstated in 
 their old authority. But, making allowance for this, it is 
 sufficient to point out this indisputable distinction be- 
 tween the two cases;— that by rejecting the stories of 
 Eomulus and Eemus we make subsequent Eoman history, 
 including Cicero and his times, more credible and con- 
 sistent ; while, by rejecting the Pentateuch, we do the very 
 reverse, and convert the whole later history of the Jewish 
 race, down to the present day, into one monstrous and 
 inexplicable paradox. 
 
 But the difficulty touches higher and dearer interests 
 when we pass from the sphere of history into the sphere 
 of religion. We repeat what we have already said, that, 
 as concerns the interests of Christianity and the religious 
 and authoritative character of all the Scriptural books, the 
 only vital question at issue is, whether they are true or 
 
22 
 
 untrue ; and that, supposing them to be untrue, the mode 
 in which the deception may have arisen,, whether from 
 the conscious or the unconscious action of the writers, is 
 absohitely immaterial. This remark holds good not only 
 with reference to Moses, or to the compiler of the Penta- 
 teuch, whoever he may have been, but to our Lord and 
 his Apostles likewise, and must be constantly borne in 
 mind. Whether the '' decej^tion " is ascribed to ignor- 
 ance or to fraud, so far as concerns the persons deceived 
 the effect is the same. The foundation is declared to be 
 false, and, therefore, the superstructure reared upon it 
 must be false likevv^ise. 
 
 If the Pentateuch be not " historically true," then no 
 books which are constructed on the hypothesis of its 
 truth can themselves be credible, especially where the 
 professed object of the books is at once to supi3ly intellec- 
 tual enlightenment and moral and religious instruction. 
 The mistake on the one supposition and the fraud upon 
 the other is so complete, that books containing it can be 
 worthy of no respect whatever. Let it be asked, then, 
 which of the Old Testament Scriptures can stand this 
 test, and the reply will be-, " Not one." In the historical 
 books subsequent to the Pentateuch, the existence of the 
 Mosaic Law and the reality of the historical events con- 
 nected with it is everywhere assumed, and these must 
 consequently be rejected, the times of Ezra and Nehemiah 
 included. The miraculous incidents of the captivity and 
 the exodus constitute the subject of many of the Psalms, 
 and suspicion is therefore thrown not only on these par- 
 ticular compositions, but on the whole compilation of 
 which they form a part. Even the Books of Proverbs and 
 Ecclesiastes must be regarded as the mere utterances of 
 superstition, since they contain references to that Mosaic 
 creation which Dr. Colenso declares to be " unhistorical." 
 The same objection^ applies to the four major prophets 
 ivithout exception. Of the minor prophets there are direct 
 assertions of the same kind in Hosea, Amos, Obadiah, 
 Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Zechariah, and Malachi ; 
 while in the four others not only are there single terms 
 
23 
 
 and expressions of the same import, but they are them- 
 selves so closely connected with the other accompanying 
 prophecies that it is scarcely possible to separate them. 
 Thus, consequently, a man who denies the inspired 
 authority of the Pentateuch cannot stop there, but must 
 make a clean sweep of the whole Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures from one end of them to the other. 
 
 The same necessity extends to the New Testament like- 
 wise, the same alternative of ignorance or fraud in its 
 writers, and the same result, whichever of the two may be 
 selected. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke, the teach- 
 ing of Mark relative to Sodom and Gomorrah, and to the 
 regulations of Moses in regard to marriage and divorce, 
 the reference of St. John to Moses and the events of the 
 wanderings in the wilderness, the arguments drawn in the 
 Acts of the Apostles from the promises to the fathers and 
 which occur in every apostolic sermon without exception, 
 the statements which actually pervade the Epistles of St, 
 Paul, and v/hich form the subject of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, the positive assertions of St, James, St. Peter, 
 and St, Jude, and the symbols of the aj)ocalyptic vision of 
 St. John, involve all these books in the same condemna- 
 tion ; so that the whole Bible in any true sense of an 
 authoritative guide is absolutely gone, and our positive 
 knowledge of God's A\dll resolved into one terrible and 
 universal blank. 
 
 We almost shrink from referring in this relation to the 
 l^erson and teaching of our Master, God l^lessed for ever- 
 more. The very statement of the conclusion seems to 
 verge upon a jDrofanity, from the very contact with which 
 the devout mind recoils. But still BishoiD Colenso has 
 not shrunk from intruding even here, and we must needs 
 follow him. Separating the person of our Lord from the 
 authority of the winters through whose works alone we 
 are acquainted with his office and teaching, it is seen 
 that He bound up in the most positive manner his own 
 credibility with the historical reality of Moses and the 
 inspired character of his writings. In fourteen j^ositive 
 texts our Master bears such direct witness to both of 
 
24 
 
 these, that the question to any Christian mind ought at 
 once to be closed, for it really comes to this, that it is a 
 comparison of authority between our blessed Master on 
 the one side, and the Bishop of Natal upon the other. Dr. 
 Colenso, though not putting it in this aspect, and probably 
 never viewing it thus, substantially accepts the issue, for 
 he ado23ts the inevitable conclusion that Christ was 
 ignorant of the truth which he has himself discovered. 
 He is conscious of the abyss on which he thus has placed 
 his feet, and hurriedly endeavours to escape from it by 
 such a palpable misstatement of the theological question 
 involved, as implies either considerable confusion of intel- 
 lect or great perturbation of heart. He says : — 
 
 " It is perfectly consistent with the most entire and sincere belief 
 in our Lord's divinity to hold, as many do, that when He vouchsafed 
 to become a ' Son of man,' He took our nature fully and voluntarily, 
 entered into all the conditions of humanity, and, among others, into 
 that which makes our growth in all ordinary knowledge gradual and 
 limited." 
 
 Most true ! But this is not the alternative. When we 
 speak of Christ do we speak of the human nature only, 
 separately from the Divine ? Will the Bishop venture to 
 deny that our Lord possessed a perfect Godhead as well as 
 a i^erfect manhood, or that the two were united in one 
 indivisible person ? Has he forgotten or never considered 
 the " communicatio idiomatum," and those passages of 
 God's Word which refer every part of Christ's work so 
 absolutely to the one person, that even his sufferings are 
 spoken of in connexion with his Godhead ? The subject 
 is so profound and so far above the possibilities of human 
 thought, that we are never safe in speaking of it if we 
 vary one hair's breadth from the Scriptural statements. 
 Does Dr. Colenso mean to say that om- Lord's human 
 nature bore attestation to the truth of Moses and not his 
 Divine ? If he does, he necessarily divides the one person 
 of Christ. Does he mean to say that the limited knowledge 
 of his human ]iature extended to his Divine nature like- 
 wise ? If he does, he confounds the two natures of Christ. 
 We believe that he is here in a dilemma, from which 
 extrication is impossible. The question is not as he puts 
 
25 
 
 it, whether a gradual and limited knowledge be consistent 
 with the true humanity which our Lord took into union 
 with his divinity, in which most persons would agree 
 with him. But it is, whether the positive statement of 
 historical untruths by Christ is consistent with the Deity 
 which was so united to his humanity, that not the one nor 
 the other, but the two together constituted the one indi- 
 visible person who bore testimony to the authority of 
 Moses and of the Prophets. This Christ it was in whose 
 omniscience the Apostles expressed their faith. "Now 
 are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not 
 that any man should ask thee ; by this we believe that 
 thou earnest forth from God." (John xvi. 30.) 
 
 This question is pregnant with topics for anxious 
 thought, and with the gravest conceivable consequences 
 in regard to every person concerned in it. Eesults and 
 arguments flash upon us as we write, but we forbear for 
 the moment to give full expression to them. It is enough 
 that on the question of our Lord's true divinity hangs 
 every distinctive doctrine of Christianity and every con- 
 solation it is calculated to supply to the sinner. Take it 
 away, and the heart and life of Christianity are gone. 
 
 How then is such a conviction, as the Bishop of Natal 
 has expressed, compatible with subscrijDtion to the Articles 
 of the Church of England, and to the maintenance of 
 office within her pale ? The whole shifty and ambiguous 
 declamation about liberty of thought in which many per- 
 sons have indulged on this subject, is unworthy of con- 
 sideration by any candid mind. Men are free to think as 
 they like, but they are not free, at the same time, to 
 enjoy dignity and emolument in a Church which is 
 founded on a definite doctrinal basis, and which de- 
 mands subscription to this basis as the very condition of 
 her ministry. Let people talk how they will about the 
 days of the Church of England being numbered unless 
 greater latitude for thought is allowed within her pale, 
 such persons forget that this latitude would necessarily 
 destroy the Church of England at once. For the Church 
 of England is a Church with a history and a Creed, and to 
 c 
 
26 
 
 constitute a new Churcli broken off from this history, and 
 disavowing this Creed, would at once be to destroy her, 
 and to substitute another and a very different Church in 
 her place. It must be remembered that the formularies 
 of the Church of England are not the exclusive possession 
 of ordained ministers, but belong to all her body. They 
 constitute on their civil side the compact on which the 
 union of the Church with the State is founded ; and the 
 Church, even if she wished to do so, has neither the right 
 nor the power to break it. If the clergy desired to sweep 
 away the Articles, would the laity consent to such a step, 
 and allow themselves to be transferred from a Church 
 with a scriptural basis and a definite Creed, to a Church 
 with no surer basis than the lights of modern criticism, 
 with no definite Creed, and with neither Scriptures, dis- 
 ciplme, nor authority ? 
 
 It appears that at one time the Bishop of Natal was 
 conscious of the magnitude and solemnity of the step 
 involved in thus separating himself from the faith of the 
 Catholic Church of all ages, and regarded it with a 
 becoming spirit. There is something positively refreshing 
 in turning from the later parts of his preface to the letter 
 written by him, but not sent, in the beginning of 1861. 
 There we seem to come into contact with the real man 
 and with the language of frankness and honesty. Had 
 this spirit been maintained there would still have been 
 hope. " O si sic omnia ! " The change to the coldhearted 
 and ungenerous appeal to merely legal rights and the 
 letter of legal judgments constitutes a melancholy exhibi- 
 tion of human weakness. Suppose that the laity of the 
 Church of England adopted for themselves this standard, 
 and confounded conscience with law, and moral right mth 
 legal permission, squaring not only opinion but action to 
 such a standard, how just an outcry would not be raised ! 
 It is profoundly melancholy to see such a mode of 
 feeling and thinking adopted by ordained men, and, if 
 there can be a lower depth in such a deep, by consecrated 
 Bishops. " Israel thy prophets have become like foxes 
 in the desert." Is it still hopeless to appeal from Dr. 
 
27 
 
 Colenso, moulded by the advice of friends in England 
 after this bad model, to Dr. Colenso as in the truer 
 instincts of his nature and under the influence of doubts, 
 which unhappily soon grew into infidel conviction, he 
 wrote this letter of 1861. There, at all events, he has 
 admitted that his new creed is irreconcilably separated 
 from the clear teaching of the Church of England, and 
 that inforo co7iscientice one holding his opinion is no longer 
 fit to minister within her pale or to enjoy her dignities. 
 
 But to this latter phase of Bishop Colenso' s mental self 
 his own language compels us once more to revert. He 
 protests against the argument, that the apjiarent con- 
 sequence of the course he is pursuing will necessarily lead 
 to infidelity or Atheism, and therefore ^ro^Jes^ we presume, 
 against the charge of infidelity or Atheism. We revert to 
 this, because the two are not to be confounded in the first 
 place. Infidelity may coexist with Pantheism as well as 
 with Atheism. And, in the second place, because the 
 controversy has come to that j^ass, that it is essential to 
 define the true meaning of the words we use. There is a 
 sense, we acknowledge, in which the term infidelity may 
 be applied to some of the old heathen by contrast with 
 other portions of them, as expressing belief in opposition 
 to universal religious scepticism. Thus, for instance, 
 Neander, in his " Church History," describing the vari- 
 ations of opinion among the ancient heathen, speaks 
 familiarly of "religion," "faith," "superstition," "un- 
 belief," &c. But the sense of "infidelity" in which the 
 word occiu-s in this relation is not the sense in which it 
 has ever been used by the Christian Chiurch in the contro- 
 versies of later times. By "infidelity" we mean disbelief 
 in the authority of the infallible Scriptures and of the 
 infallible Christ, who is their Sun and centre. In this 
 sense of the word, supposing that we are right in declaring 
 the distinction between ignorance and fraud in relation to 
 the Scriptiu-al wa-iters to be immaterial to the real question, 
 no argument is needed upon consequences, for the avowed 
 position of Dr. Colenso is the position of the infidel. 
 
 We earnestly repudiate all thought or intention of 
 c 2 
 
28 
 
 judging the man, for we are fully conscious of that most 
 happy inconsistency which frequently makes men better 
 than their opinions. To God alone, and not to us, he must 
 stand or fall. We speak of him only as a kind of abstract 
 man, identified with a certain book, and certain avowed 
 opinions ; and deal with him so far only as his case is 
 bound up with the cause of Christ's truth. But in this 
 sense we are bound to expose the hoUowness of the argu- 
 ments on which he rests his case. When he disavows the 
 binding authority of the Articles he has signed, because 
 they are " human prescriptions," we are compelled to 
 remind him, that, so far as concerns ecclesiastical and 
 civil relations, the Church of England is a human Society ; 
 that is, a Society composed of human beings with mutual 
 duties and obligations, and that no human being whatever 
 has a right to violate obligations into which he has volun- 
 tarily entered. When he says that ''the foundations of 
 our National Church are laid upon the truth itself," and 
 then declares it to be his duty, in the pro^^dence of God, 
 to declare " the truth," we must point out to him, as we 
 trust we have done in this article, that between the truth 
 on which the National Church is founded and the truth 
 which he conceives himself to be declaring there lies an 
 abyss of difference. The two are not only irreconcilable, 
 but absolutely and avowedly antagonistic. What he calls 
 truth, is not the truth of the saints of old time, not the 
 truth of our Lord and his apostles, not the truth of the 
 primitive ages, not the truth of the Martyred Church of 
 the middle centuries, not the truth of the Keformation, 
 not the truth of the Church of England, but its open 
 antagonist and foe. 
 
29 
 
 No. III. 
 
 THE DIFFICULTIES IN DETAIL. 
 
 The difficulties alleged in this volume against the historical 
 character of the Pentateuch appear to have been selected 
 by the author as the most convincing which occurred to his 
 mind. His language implies that he considers them to be 
 unanswerable. He declares the result of his examination 
 into the authority of the Mosaic books to be " not a doubt- 
 ful matter of speculation at all ; it is a simple question of 
 facts" (p. xx). He explains that he does not regard them 
 " as petty variations and contradictions " (p. 8), " but as 
 absolute, palpable, self-contradictions" (p. 10). He pro- 
 nounces them to be " absolute impossibilities," and a few 
 lines further on " manifest contradictions and inconsisten- 
 cies." We are therefore justified in believing that we find 
 here the most formidable weapons in the Bishop's quiver, 
 the strongest arguments which modern criticism can allege 
 against the authority of the Mosaic books. He guards 
 himself indeed, against being supposed to be insensible to 
 diflaculties of another class — those, namely, which rest on 
 moral objections ; but still he leaves these comparatively 
 on one side, as less weighty than the absolute impossibili- 
 ties which he conceives himself to have discovered in the 
 narrative. We heartily rejoice at the selection thus made 
 of the battle-ground on which the conflict is to be fought. 
 For the difiiculty of removing objections which depend for 
 theii' force on the peculiarities of individual minds is pro- 
 portioned to their variable and arbitrary character. But 
 alleged contradictions, such as constitute the substance of 
 this volume, rest on such definite grounds that they admit 
 of equally definite explanations, and leave much less room 
 open for the variations of personal judgment. If, therefore, 
 we can show that the absolute impossibilities alleged are 
 either no part of the Mosaic narrative, but only belong to 
 
30 
 
 the Bishop's criticism upon it, or that they admit of natural 
 and consistent explanations, we may fairly claim on behaK 
 of the Pentateuch that it is beyond attack, and unassail- 
 able by any just criticism. 
 
 There are two observations only which it is important 
 for us to make before proceeding to this task. The fii^st 
 is that the objections urged by Dr. Colenso are j^recisely of 
 that class which, if they could be substantiated, would of 
 all others carry the least argmnentative value ; for they 
 lie so ostensibly upon the very surface of the narrative 
 that it is imjDossible they should have escaped the notice 
 of any person of tolerable sense, especially of one living 
 nearer than ourselves, by some three thousand years, to 
 the times of the asserted history, and proportionably better 
 acquainted with the habits and peculiarities both of the 
 country and period. For, whatever may be the sources 
 of information out of which, upon the hypothesis of 
 Bishop Colenso, the Pentateuch was compiled, it is 
 palpable on the surface of them that some later hand has 
 put them into consistent order and given them the outward 
 shape of actual history. This is accordingly the conclusion 
 to which the higher criticism of Germany has been forced 
 in the complement-hypothesis of Tuch, by proofs of unity 
 and design about the books which it was impossible to 
 ignore. Now, ostensible arithmetical contradictions are 
 just the very things which such a compiler would have 
 been likely to avoid. It has been freely allowed by the 
 Christian advocate that sujjerficial coincidences do not 
 constitute so conclusive an argument for the authority of 
 Scriptm^e as those which are more recondite, and lie so far 
 beneath the sm^face that a refined criticism could alone 
 discover them. Hence the "Horae Paulinse" of Dr. Paley, 
 the " Horse Evangelicse " of Mr. Birks, and other similar 
 works. But the assertion is equally true on its reverse 
 side. Superficial difficulties which lie on the surface are 
 no valid argument against it for the same reason. A 
 compiler laboriously putting together ancient legends, 
 which is the Author's supposition and not om^s, would 
 almost as a matter of course reconcile apparent contra- 
 
31 
 
 dictions ; and, if they still lie palpably on the face of the 
 history, it is no weak argument for the true historical 
 character of the narrative, as a narrative that needed no 
 patching, but carried, in the very fact of its truth, the 
 elements of its own vindication. 
 
 The second observation is that we are not bound to 
 agree upon any one mode of reconciliation in such in- 
 stances, or tie ourselves and our cause to any one explana- 
 tion as the true and only one. The language employed by 
 the Bishop is well calculated to elucidate this, for he afiirms 
 that the scriptural narrative contains '^ absolute impossi- 
 bilities," "self-contradictious," "manifest inconsistencies." 
 All, therefore, we need to do to rebut these attacks, is to 
 show that there are no such impossibilities, and that the 
 various statements are so far from being contradictory and 
 inconsistent, that they admit of easy reconciliation. If 
 this reconciliation can be made in more ways than one, so 
 much the better for om- argimient. This is a point to 
 which sufficient attention has not been paid, and more 
 than one Christian advocate has involved his cause in 
 difficulty from not recognising it. It is thus briefly ex- 
 plained in the Boyle Lecture for 1861 : — 
 
 "When objections are urged against any given portion of the 
 evangelical histories on the gronud of discrepancies between them, it 
 must be proved that these discrepancies forbid the possibility of both 
 accounts being equally true. If the objection does not prove this, it 
 
 proves nothing Against this ' cannot ' of the infidel stands 
 
 the ' may ' of the Christian. We need nothing more than this for the 
 necessities of our position. The assertion of the evidences is that 
 revelatioia ' is ' true ; the objection of the infidel is that it ' cannot ' be 
 true, the rejoinder of the Christian that it ' can ' or ' may.' Thus a 
 hundi-ed different modes may be suggested of reconciling the Mosaic 
 account of the creation with the results of science. It is immaterial 
 to the Christian position, to decide which of these is true; it is 
 enough that they are possible. The very number and variety of the 
 proffered explanations only increases the emphatic disproof of the 
 infidel negative, since thej'- represent so many different channels of 
 possible reconciliation." — The Bible and its Critics, p. 128. 
 
 Bearing these observations in mind, we now proceed to 
 the examination of the "absolute impossibilities" mar- 
 shalled with so much confidence in this volume. 
 
32 
 
 I.— The Family of Judali. 
 Genesis xlvi. 12. 
 
 The author assumes the following : — 1. That the writer 
 means to say that Hezron and Hamul were horn in the land 
 of Canaan, and were among the seventy persons who came 
 into Egypt with Jacob. 2. That sixty-six persons " out of 
 the loins of Jacob, and no others, went down with him 
 into Egypt." 3. That Judah was forty- two years old 
 when he went down into Egypt, Upon these premises he 
 argues thus : — 
 
 "If we turn to Gen. xxxviii. we shall find that in the 
 course of these forty-two years of Judah's life the following 
 events are recorded to have happened : — 
 
 " (I.) Judah grows up — marries a wife — ' at that time,' 
 ver, 1, that is, after Joseph's being sold into Egypt, when 
 he was seventeen years old (Gen. xxxvii. 2), and when 
 Judah consequently was twenty years old, — and has sepa- 
 rately three sons by her. 
 
 " (II.) The eldest of these sons grows up, is married, 
 and dies. The second grows to maturity (supj^ose in 
 another year), marries his brother's widow, and dies. 
 
 " The third grows to maturity (suppose in another year 
 still), but declines to take his brother's widow to wife. 
 
 " She then deceives Judah himself, conceives by him, 
 and in due time bears him twins, Pharez and Zarah. 
 
 " (III.) One of these twins also gi'ows to maturity, and 
 has two sons, Hezron and Hamul, born to him, before 
 Jacob goes down into Egypt. 
 
 " The above being certainly incredible, we are obliged 
 to conclude that one of the two accounts must be untrue." 
 
 Not so fast, Dr. Colenso ! there is another alternative ; 
 namely, that the statement out of which the asserted 
 impossibility is framed, may be untrue. There are three 
 points in these preliminary conditions to which attention 
 must be called. One of these we must just note, and then 
 dismiss for the present as having no immediate reference to 
 the immediate question. This is the assei-tion that sixty- 
 six persons "out of the loins of Jacob" and no others went 
 down with him into Egypt. On reading this assertion, we 
 
33 
 
 were at a loss to perceive its bearing upon the family of 
 Judah, but in reading further soon discovered its relevancy 
 to another subsequent problem. The supposition itself is 
 in the highest degree improbable. But the points which 
 bear on our present question are — 1. The positive assertion 
 that Hezron and Hamul were born at the time of Jacob's 
 descent into Egypt. 2. The assumption that Judah was 
 twenty years old at the time of his marriage to the daughter 
 of Shuah. 
 
 The fii'st of these points needed to be argued, not 
 assumed, for it is the explanation adopted in fonner times 
 by Augustine, and advocated in our own days by Haver- 
 nick, Hengstenberg, and Kiu-tz. We confess that it does 
 not altogether commend itself to our mind, and yet it has 
 a great appearance of consistency about it, and certainly 
 can only be overthrown by much stronger arguments than 
 Dr. Colenso has advanced. The supposition is that Hezron 
 and Hamul are mentioned as the representatives of Er and 
 Onan who were dead, and as founders of the families to 
 which the hereditary rights of Er and Onan descended. 
 For otherwise, why are Er and Onan mentioned at all in 
 the narrative which proceeds to specify their decease, and 
 has for its object to identify the tribes and families which 
 settled in Egypt and from which were descended the 
 Hebrews of the Exodus and of Canaan. Dr. Colenso 
 devotes nearly ten pages to a refutation of the arguments 
 of Havernick, Hengstenberg, and Kurtz ; into the details 
 of which it is manifestly impossible for us to follow him. 
 The Bishop's argimients mainly turn upon the question, 
 why other grandsons of the patriarchs born in Egypt are 
 not mentioned if the grandsons of Judah are. We have 
 already assigned the reason - namely , that the sons were 
 alive and had not perished out of Israel. A more plau- 
 sible argument is founded on the fact that, of the two sons 
 born of Judah' s incestuous intercourse with Tamar, the 
 children of Pharez only are mentioned and not the children 
 of Zarah. But this difficulty is explained by numbers 
 xxvi. 21 ; from which it appears that Hezron and Hamul 
 were heads of families in Israel, whereas of the five sons 
 c 3 
 
34 
 
 of Zarah two only appear to have had descendants 
 (1 Chron. ii. 6, 7), Zimri or Zabdi, — whose grandson 
 Achan (Joshua vii. 1) took of the accursed thing, and was 
 cut oflf from Israel, he and all that he had — and Ethan, 
 whose son Azariah appears to have been without posterity. 
 So that when we bear in mind the great importance 
 placed in the whole Jewish economy on the hereditary 
 descent of the tribes and their families, there are consistent 
 reasons why the sons of Pliarez only should be mentioned 
 as representatives of the deceased Er and Onan, without 
 laying stress upon the fact that it was in the line of Pharez 
 and not in that of Zarah that the Saviour of mankind was 
 born. This one objection may be taken as a samj)le of the 
 rest, and we are led to conclude that the explanation adopted 
 both by fathers of the ancient Church and masters in 
 modern German criticism, and which supposes Hezron and 
 Hamul to have been born in Egypt, and only enumerated 
 in the place of the deceased Er and Onan, has not been 
 shaken by the adverse arguments of Dr. Colenso. 
 
 But we confess that the ancient Rabbinical explanation 
 which the Bishop passes over without a word of notice — 
 whether because he was ignorant of its existence, or unable 
 to refute it, we do not venture to determine — appears to 
 us the most satisfactory. This turns upon the age of 
 Judah at the time of his marriage, which Dr. Colenso, 
 without further proof, and on the apparent authority of 
 Genesis xxxviii. 1, decides to have been twenty years. 
 But the language of the Hebrew is not " at that time," but 
 " about that time." The Hebrew word translated *•' time," 
 moreover, does not denote a definite date, but an epoch, 
 or period. The time specified, therefore, is not the time 
 of the selling of Joseph by his brethren, but the period 
 which elapsed between the return of Jacob to Canaan and 
 the descent into Egypt, or perhaps that portion of it during 
 which Jacob dwelt at Shechem. If it is questioned 
 whether this interpretation of the phrase is a fair one, we 
 refer to Deut. x. 7, where the same exact phrase occurs. 
 It is there stated that the Lord separated the tribe of Levi 
 " at that time " when the people of Israel departed from 
 
35 
 
 Gudgodah, whereas Levi was separated the second year 
 after their departure out of Egypt, thirty-eight years 
 before. It follows that Judah's marriage may have taken 
 place six, or even eight years earlier than the date which 
 Dr. Colenso fixes. It must be remembered that, even at 
 the present day, few things are more common in the East 
 than for men to be parents at thirteen or fourteen, and we 
 cannot suppose it to have been otherwise in Judah's days, 
 when human life was longer, and the human constitution 
 still more vigorous. Thus long afterwards, it appears 
 (2 Kings xvi. 2 ; xvii. 1 ; xviii. 1, 2) that Ahaz was only 
 eleven years old when his son Hezekiah was born. Sup- 
 pose, therefore, that Judah was married at fourteen, his 
 incest with Tamar may have taken place at twenty-eight ; 
 he would then have been — say forty-one, at the marriage 
 of his son Pharez, and forty-two at the birth of his grand- 
 children, Hezron and Hamul, who may have been twins. 
 Thus Dr. Colenso's insuperable difficulty altogether dis- 
 appears. 
 
 II. The size of the court of the Tabernacle compared 
 with the number of the congregation. 
 
 III. Moses and Joshua addressing all Israel. 
 
 We put these two difficulties together because they rest 
 on the same misapprehension. The objection raised is so 
 unreasonable on the face of it as to requii^e but a very few 
 words of notice. To argue the unhistorical character of 
 the Pentateuch, because 600,000 men could not be got into 
 a space of eighty-four feet by forty-two, or because it was 
 impossible for the single voice of Moses or Joshua to 
 reach the ears of upwards of two millions of people, bears 
 absurdity on the face of it. To suppose that the asserted 
 comjDiler of these books would leave such a mistake un- 
 corrected, is to suppose him actually devoid of common 
 sense ; a supposition contradictory to the other part of the 
 Bishop's supposition ; for, according to the theoiy of this 
 book, this senseless compiler must yet have had genius 
 enough to impress upon a compilation of old legends the 
 consistent historical form, the unity of plan, the sublime 
 dignity of matter and manner, and the matchless beauty 
 
36 
 
 of narration, which even the most hostile critics ai-e com- 
 pelled to recognise in the Mosaic books. We should, there- 
 fore, dismiss these objections without further remark, did 
 they not involve a misapj)rehension of what is meant by a 
 Divine inspiration, from which even waiters such as Dean 
 Alford are not exempt, and which it is veiy important to 
 correct. The true statement includes both the elements 
 which enter into Scripture, — the perfect human element, 
 and the perfect Divine element, — not confused together, 
 or weakening each other, but each entire, each distinct, 
 yet both blended into one whole work, so closely that it is 
 no more possible for us accurately to separate them, than 
 it is possible to detect the exact jjoints of contact between 
 mind and matter, or the mode of the h3q30statical union of 
 the two natures of our Lord. To the Divine side belongs 
 the infallibility of Scriptiu-e. To the human side belong 
 the peculiarities of style, genius, thought, feeling, and in- 
 dividuality which distinguish the various books, and more 
 generally all the laws and usages of language, including 
 figures of speech and grammatical constructions. Now, 
 the language used in Deut. i. 1, Josh. viii. 34, 35, is pre- 
 cisely analogous with that which occurs in the records of 
 current events among ourselves. A thousand familiar in- 
 stances present themselves. The House of Commons, nay, 
 the Commons of the United Kingdom, attend at the bar 
 of the House of Lords ; the inhabitants of a parish meet to 
 pass Resolutions and adopt action on some point which 
 interests them ; Wellington addresses a few words of en- 
 couragement to his army at the crisis of Waterloo, amidst 
 the roar of the cannon ; a Royal Commissioner addresses 
 the exhibitors of the National Exhibition in the building 
 at Kensington. What would be thought of a man calling 
 into question the historical truth and accuracy of these 
 statements, because the 600 Members of the House of 
 Commons could not possibly stand together at the bar; or 
 because it is incredible that all the inhabitants of a large 
 parish, women, children, old and sick, should meet together 
 in one room, or find one room large enough to contain 
 them ; or because no human voice could reach an army all 
 
37 
 
 at once, or the thousands of exhibitors who would be 
 gathered together at Kensington ? To urge objections of 
 this kind against the Pentateuch is the very wantonness 
 of scepticism. 
 
 IV. The extent of the camp, compared with the priest's 
 duties and the daily necessities of the people. 
 
 V. The Israelites dwelling in tents. 
 
 It is not easy to perceive the precise object and point 
 of these objections, which are of such a kind, that it is im- 
 possible for a public journalist to discuss them in detail. 
 Does Dr. Colenso mean to say that sanitary arrangements 
 for an encampment of two millions and a half of persons 
 lie beyond the range of possibility, or ^vill he affirm that 
 arrangements entii'ely within the reach of human prudence 
 are beyond the possible powers of Divine wisdom ? Yet, 
 unless one of these is affirmed, there can be no weight 
 in the arguments on the above subjects. The sanitary 
 arrangement commanded in Deut. xxiii. 12, is precisely 
 what is adopted at the present day in the East, and which 
 is declared by the English Commissioner in the Punjaub 
 to avoid all inconvenience. The Punjaub Sanitary Report 
 for 1862, quoted by a correspondent of the Morning Post, 
 actually refers to the enactments of the Pentateuch in 
 elucidation of this habit of the East. The objection rela- 
 tive to the tents of the Israelites is equally futile ; for it 
 apparently goes upon the supposition that these tents were 
 of the most approved modern style and construction, 
 patented, we presume, by some Edgington of other days, 
 instead of the comj)aratively rude tent of the Arab, and 
 the black horsehair shelter of the oriental traveller. In 
 suggesting the impossibility of providing fuel for the camp, 
 the Bishop has apparently forgotten, for we can scarcely 
 suppose him ignorant of the fact, that fuel in the East is 
 made out of the dung of animals, though we certainly 
 wonder that no one of his critical friends in England 
 should have saved him from so gross a blunder. The 
 abundance of the flocks, u23on the niunber of which he 
 lays so much stress, Avould prevent all possible want in 
 
38 
 
 this direction. But there is one mistake incident to both. 
 these objections, which is scarcely less remarkable. Dr. 
 Colenso assumes that the camp of the Israelites was a vast 
 compact square of twelve miles in diameter, and lays much 
 stress on the supposed fact that the priest would have to 
 travel six miles before he reached the space without the 
 camp. Now a cm-sory examination of Numbers i. and ii. 
 will show the absurdity of such a supposition. In the 
 centre of all was to be placed the tabernacle, and the 
 Levites were commanded to pitch their tents round about 
 it. This, therefore, constituted the central camp. On the 
 four sides of this central camp were to be jDitched four 
 other camps, each camp containing three tribes. Now, if 
 we place these four camps round the one central one, 
 enlarged as it necessarily w^as by all the adjuncts of the 
 tabernacle, and the waggons, &c. (Numb. vii. 3), supplied 
 for the use of the priests, the residt is not a solid square, 
 but a total space of irregular shape, with intervening spots 
 of open ground, more or less extensive, between the camps. 
 Accordingly, we find various texts where the camps are 
 spoken of separately ; thus in Numbers v, 3, the words are, 
 " their camps," and in Numbers x. 2, "the camps;" so 
 that the regulation in Deuteronomy xxiii. 12, clearly refers 
 to the open space of ground round the individual camps to 
 which the i3eople might severally belong ; the same thing 
 is true of the sacrifices and their remains, which were to 
 be buried outside the camp, 
 
 VI. The number of the people at the first muster, com- 
 pared with the poll-tax raised six months afterwards. 
 
 In Exodus XXX. we have a regulation relative to the 
 ransom which every man should pay for his soul unto the 
 Lord when they were numbered. In Exodus xxxviii. the 
 numbers thus ransomed of male jDersons from twenty years 
 old and upwards is stated to have been 603,550, and the 
 amount raised exactly agi^ees with this number. In 
 Numbers i, we find the account of a formal census giving 
 the same number of adult persons as before by 603,550. 
 Dr. Colenso thus states the difficultv : — 
 
39 
 
 " It is surprising that the number of adult males should have been 
 identically the same on the first occasion as it was half a year after- 
 wards." (P. 42.) 
 
 In other words, lie argues that the comparison of the 
 two statements involves the absm'dity of supposing that 
 no person had attained the age of twenty years within this 
 period of six months. Now the natural explanation is 
 that the census, constituting as it evidently did, a formal 
 document, was taken in round numbers. But to this Dr. 
 Colenso objects. Why, it is not easy to imderstand. The 
 matter is a question of fact, not of opinion. Supposing 
 that Moses, under Divine instruction, did not enter the 
 number of the people with that minute accuracy which 
 the Bishop thinks that he ought to have used, this is only 
 a matter of opinion ; and what then ? Is it reasonable to 
 condemn the historical truth of the narrative because 
 a census, taken three thousand years ago, was not tabu- 
 lated with the minute accuracy of modern statistical 
 science ? We take down a volmne of Gibbon : it is a 
 graphic j^icture of the state of the Empire after the death 
 of Aiu-elian, and we read that the Empire had an army of 
 fom- hundred thousand mercenaries. We tm-n to another 
 page : it is the history of the war with the Persians, and 
 we read that the first army of Chosroes amounted to fifty 
 thousand men. We take down Hume, and read that 
 Cromwell maintained order in Scotland by an army of ten 
 thousand men. We take down Macaulay, and read that 
 William before the battle of Landen found himself with 
 only fifty thousand men. Are we to pronounce the his- 
 tories of Gibbon, Hume, and Macaulay to be untrue, 
 because they give round numbers, and do not specify pre- 
 cise numbers ? for no one, we presume, will contend that 
 the foregoing numbers could be exactly correct ; and if we 
 do not reject these histories on such a ground, why reject 
 that of Moses? Doubtless it was literally and exactly 
 true that the people numbered amounted to 603,550. And 
 yet there is another supposition altogether. The numbers 
 given are those of the men recognised as the adult 
 
40 
 
 members of the Jewish commonwealth. Why may we 
 not suppose that the rights of citizens were only formally 
 attained and recognised at certain official periods fixed for 
 that purpose ? and if no period of the sort had occurred 
 during these six months, the numbers enrolled on both 
 occasions would necessarily remain the same. 
 
 VII. The Israelites Armed. 
 VIII. The Institution of the Passover. 
 IX. The March out of EgyiDt. 
 
 We again class these together, because the objections 
 urged rest on the same general assumption. Dr. Colenso 
 pronounces the whole story of the Exodus to be in- 
 credible. He fii'st interprets Exodus xiii. 18, "The 
 children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of 
 Egypt," as declaring that all the 600,000 adult men were 
 " armed'' He then, with a similar exercise of ingenuity, 
 forces the narrative of the institution of the Passover, 
 contained in Exodus xii,, into the assertion, that " in one 
 single day [the italics are the author's] the whole immense 
 population of Israel, as large as that of London, was in- 
 structed to keep the Passover, and actually did keep it;" 
 and then, passing on to the latter portion of the same 
 chapter, subjects it to the same violence : — 
 
 " It appears, from Numbers i. 3, ii. 32, that these six hundred thou- 
 sand were the men in the prime of life, from ' twenty years old and 
 upward, all that were able to go forth to war in Israel ; ' and (as we 
 have seen) this large number of able-bodied warriors implies a total 
 population of at least two millions. Here, then, we have this vast 
 body of people, of all ages, summoned to start, according to the story, 
 at a moment's notice, and actually started, not one being left behind, 
 together with all their multitudinous flocks and herds, which must 
 have been spread out over a district as large as a good-sized English 
 county, liemembering, as I do, the confusion in my own small 
 household of thirty or forty persons, when once we were obliged to fly 
 at dead of night, ... I do not hesitate to declare this statement to 
 be utterly incredible and impossible." 
 
 The asserted difficulty rests, it must be observed, on two 
 
 points : first, the armed state of the people ; secondly, the 
 
 unexpected and brief notice — only a single day — given for 
 
 their march. As regards the first, the term " harnessed," 
 
 which is used in Exodus xiii. 18, denotes that the people 
 
41 
 
 did not go up as a confused, disorderly multitude, but in a 
 regulated order of march, and in methodical and partially 
 disciplined bodies, the armed men being doubtless dis- 
 tributed in military fashion up and down the vast moving 
 multitude. That the Hebrew word translated " harnessed" 
 will naturally bear this meaning, even the Bishop does 
 not venture to deny ; he only adduces other passages, 
 such as Josh. i. 14; iv. 12; Judges vii. 11; which un- 
 doubtedly involve the idea of regular military weapons. 
 He is pleased to ridicule the idea that the whole body of 
 Hebrew men could have supplied themselves with wea- 
 pons either from the Egyptians, who gave them such 
 things as they required, or from the spoils of Pharaoh's 
 army after their destruction in the sea ; but the supposi- 
 tion that none of them were armed from these sources, 
 which the Bishop apparently adopts, is at least' as absurd 
 as the supposition that all of them were, which the Bishop 
 ridicules. There is no passage which involves the state- 
 ment that the whole body of adult men were, without any 
 exception, supplied with military accoutrements and wea- 
 pons. Nor is there anything contradictory in the terror 
 which they are described as feeling when they found 
 themselves hemmed in by the waters on the one side and 
 the army of Pharaoh upon the other, and the courage with 
 which they appear no long time afterwards to have fought 
 with Amalek. For, in the first instance, the natural fear 
 of their ancient masters was upon them ; and they were, 
 moreover, hampered by the helpless company of women 
 and children who accompanied them, and unmanned them 
 by their tears and cries. In the second case, it was the 
 picked men of the host who fought with Amalek, and of 
 the number of the Amalekitish forces we have no informa- 
 tion whatever : " Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out 
 men, and go fight with Amalek." (Exod. xvii. 9.) And 
 even thus it was by God's special help alone that they 
 prevailed : " When Moses held up his hand, then Israel 
 prevailed." 
 
 The second supposition, that the whole institution of 
 the Passover and all the preparations of the Exodus were 
 
42 
 
 crowded into a single day, is not only gratuitous, but is 
 positively at variance with the direct statement of the 
 narrative. The very lamb was to be " taken on the tenth 
 day of the month," and kept " till the fourteenth," and 
 Josephus confirms this, which is the only fair interpreta- 
 tion of the words. There is no ground for forcing upon 
 them any other meaning than the use of the expression, 
 "at midnight," and this denotes the hour, but does not 
 specify the day. There was, therefore, ample time for 
 Moses to communicate with the elders and princes of the 
 people, ample time for selecting and procuring the lamb 
 to be eaten in each household or group of households, 
 ample time to make preparations for their coming de- 
 parture. Nor does the narrative involve the assertion 
 that the whole people scattered throughout Goshen were 
 collected together that night, and actually proceeded at 
 once upon their journey. Calmet states the distinction 
 traceable in the narrative between Mizr, the land of 
 Egypt in general, and Mizr, the city in which Pharaoh 
 dwelt. The city was the scene of the communications 
 between Moses and Pharaoh, and there is no positive 
 proof to identify it with Eameses, from which rendezvous 
 the whole united people started on their journey. It is 
 enough that they were thrust out the same night from the 
 city where Pharaoh dwelt and the localities immediately 
 suiTounding it, and it is perfectly consistent — nay, ne- 
 cessary — to believe that some interval more or less inter- 
 vened before the journey from Eameses began; for the 
 eager haste with which the terror-stricken Egyptians 
 thrust them out, and the fact of their supplying them, not 
 only with jewels, but with necessaries for their route, as is 
 implied in Exod. xii. 36, involves the idea of an interval 
 of delay, which the Egyptians were anxious to shorten. 
 Then, from the rendezvous at Eameses, we may conceive 
 them to have journeyed to Succoth, and to have spent 
 a further interval there, dwelling in booths, as the name 
 Succoth denotes, while they completed theii' organiza- 
 tion, and supplied themselves with the requisites for their 
 journey. That a considerable time elapsed is rendered 
 
43 
 
 more probable from the fact that Pharaoh had recovered 
 from the panic into which he was thrown by the slaughter 
 of the firstborn. What is there incomprehensible or 
 impossible in the narrative when it is thus fairly inter- 
 preted ? 
 
 X. The nimiber of Israelites compared with the extent 
 of the land of Canaan. 
 
 The Bishop's argument is, that the dimensions of the 
 land made it impossible that it should contain the popu- 
 lation, swollen as it was by the Canaanites, who still 
 remained in the country among their conquerors. The 
 objection is a very old one, and we reply to it by a 
 simple quotation from a modern work of authority on 
 Palestine : — 
 
 " I had sometimes turned to my atlas, where I found the whole of 
 Bashan dehneated, and not larger than an ordinary English county. 
 I was surprised : and, though my faith in the Divine record was not 
 shaken, yet I thought some strange statistical mystery hung over the 
 passage. That one city, nurtured by the commerce of a mighty 
 empire, might grow till her people could he numbered by millions,! 
 could well beiieve. That two, or even three, might spring up in 
 favoured spots, clustered together, I could also believe. But that 
 sixty walled cities, besides unwalled towns a great many, should be 
 found at such a remote age, far from the sea, with no rivers and little 
 commerce, appeared quite inexplicable. Inexplicable and mysterious 
 though it appeared, it was strictly true. On the spot, with my own 
 eyes, I had now verified it. Lists of more than a Jmndred ruined 
 cities and villages on these moimtains alone I had tested and found 
 correct, though not complete. More than thirty of these I had 
 myself either visited or observed, so as to fix their positions on the 
 map. Of the high antiquity of these ruins scarcely a doubt can be 
 entertained, and the extent of the more important among them has 
 already been estimated. Here, then, we have a venerable record, 
 more than three thousand years old, containing incidental statements 
 and statistics, which few would be inclined to receive or trust, and 
 not a few to cast aside as glaring absurdities, yet tohicJi close exa- 
 mination shotvs to be minutely accurate." — Porter s "Five Years in 
 Damascus," vol. ii,, pp. 206, 207. 
 
 XI, The sheep and cattle of the Israelites in the 
 desert. 
 
 Here, again, we do not stay to examine all the ques- 
 tions raised by Dr. Colenso's statement, but adopt as far as 
 possible the conditions of the case as stated by himself. 
 He argues that it is incredible that such vast flocks as the 
 Israelites must have possessed in order to fui-nish the 
 
4i 
 
 legal sacrifices, could have found food and water in the 
 wilderness. The whole case contained in this portion of 
 the book, not only will not hold water, but leaks at every 
 pore. In endeavouring to depict as strongly as possible 
 the desolation in the wilderness, he quotes Deut. viii. 15, 
 He even ventures to say that " the water from the rock 
 did not follow them as some have supposed," and adduces 
 this text in proof of it : " Beware that thou [forget not 
 Jehovah, thy God, who led thee through that great and 
 terrible wilderness, wherein gwere fiery serpents, and 
 scorpions, and drought, where \there was 7io water. ^^ Here 
 he stops ; whereas the very next w^ords assert the fact 
 which the Bishop denies, " who brought thee forth water 
 out of the rock of flint." So glaring a case of misquotation 
 we do not remember to have met with. And yet we do 
 not for a moment believe that the Bishop has been guilty 
 of intentionally garbling the text ; for it is inconceivable 
 that any man would be silly enough to be guilty of an 
 evasion, so certain to be discovered, and to be charged 
 upon him as dishonest. We believe that the quotation has 
 been taken second-hand, and never verified. But what 
 an illustration does not this afibrd, not simply of the inac- 
 curacy, but of the carelessness, with which this matter has 
 been examined, and of that deep-seated and foregone pre- 
 judice, which has left its indelible brand upon every page 
 of this book ! 
 
 As to the alleged difficulty itself, our correspondent 
 " Clavis," writing from personal knowledge of the country, 
 pointed out, in our number of Wednesday, Nov. 19, those 
 natural features of the country which indicate the deep 
 torrents which must have existed during some previous 
 period, and from which water was miraculously supplied 
 to the people during their wanderings. In the same letter 
 attention was called to the inclination of the ground over 
 which Israel passed during the earlier part of their wan- 
 derings, and the altered circumstances which subsequently 
 rendered , the second miraculous supply of water neces- 
 sary. [As regards herbage. Dr. Stanley himself only 
 speaks of the case as furnishing a difficulty, though one 
 
45 
 
 not insuperable, and of which many considerations '' miti- 
 gate the force." The author of " Sinai and Palestine " 
 points out the natural remains which prove that a far 
 more abundant vegetation must have existed in other 
 days. There are two ' other considerations which have 
 not been sufficiently recognised. Suppose that the general 
 encampment occupied an irregular space of twelve miles 
 on its outside circumference : such a circuit would com- 
 mand the resources of a vast extent of country on every 
 side, over which the flocks might roam, to say nothing of 
 the fmther and very considerable distance over which the 
 Arab flocks are still accustomed to move in search of more 
 abundant pastures. There is nothing to justify the no- 
 tion that the flocks and herds w^ere always retained in 
 immediate proximity to the camp. But further, it would 
 be a mistake to assume that the camp itself was kept con- 
 tinuously during the forty years in the heart of this deso- 
 late region, and was not moved from time to time into the 
 more fruitful and fertile tracts which surrounded it on all 
 sides. Yet this is the argument on which Bishop Colenso 
 relies. The history of Balak and Balaam clearly inti- 
 mates that the reverse was the case. '' The Hebrews were 
 encamped in the plains of Moab " (Numb. xxii. 1), so 
 close to the inhabited portions that they could be clearly 
 seen from the hill-tops, and yet at the same time were 
 scattered so widely that neither of the three places to 
 which Balak took the prophet appear to have commanded 
 an entire view of the whole encampment. The very 
 motive by which the King of Moab was actuated was the 
 fear that theirlown^pastm-es would be exhausted by the 
 Israelitish multitude. " Now shall this company lick up 
 all that are round about us, as the ox licketh up the grass 
 of the field."^_(Numb. xxii. 4.) The notion, therefore, 
 that the camp of Israel was pitched continuously in the 
 more desolate parts of the country is contradicted by the 
 direct statements of the naiTative. 
 
 But even thus the fair probabilities of the case are not 
 exhausted. The immense extent of the Hebrew flocks is 
 deduced solely from the number required for the service 
 
46 
 
 of the tabernacle ; for we are directly told that they were 
 not used for food. (Numb. xi. 22.) It is true that in the 
 fortieth year Eeuben and Gad are said to have possessed 
 "a very great multitude of cattle." (Numb, xxxii. 1.) 
 But the Bishop himself apparently admits the possibility 
 that they may have been the spoils of the Midianites. 
 The extent of the flocks during the forty years depends 
 entirely on the necessities of the tabernacle service. But 
 what if these sacrifices were not maintained during this 
 period on account of the exceptional circumstances of the 
 nation ? No ordinance will appear to be so vital as cir- 
 cumcision, and yet we are expressly told that the new 
 generation who grew up during the forty years' wander- 
 ings were not circumcised till they came to the borders of 
 Canaan. (Josh. v. 5.) The language of Deut. xii. 8, 9, 
 justifies this conclusion, ''Ye shall not do after all the 
 things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is 
 right in his own eyes. For ye are not as yet come to the 
 rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God 
 giveth you." This conclusion is confirmed by the fact 
 that in at least ten passages interspersed up and down the 
 law, the enactment is specifically referred to the period of 
 their settlement in Canaan, as in Lev. xiv. 34, xix. 23, 
 xxiii. 10, XXV. 2; Numb. xv. 2—8; Deut. v. 33, vi. 1, 
 xii. 1, xxi. 1, xxvi. 1. There are likewise a large number 
 of passages where the nature of the ordinance necessarily 
 limits it to the same period, though the limitation is not 
 expressed, as for instance, Exod. xxiii. 11 ; Lev. xiv. 34, 
 xix. 9, 34, XX. 23, xxv., xxvi., passim; Deut. xvi., xvii., 
 xxiii., xxiv., passim. But on this supposition the whole 
 difficulty from end to end is absolutely removed. 
 
 But, lastly, it must be remembered that the events of 
 this period are avowedly marked by supernatural inter- 
 ference all through. Once admit of such interference at 
 all, and the amount of it, more or less, can present no 
 conceivable difficulty. And as to Dr. Colenso's argument, 
 that so gi-eat a change between the outward condition of 
 the wilderness since the time of the Exodus, as is required 
 by the supposition that adequate herbage was then sup- 
 
47 
 
 plied for the Hebrew flocks, is incredible, it may be 
 answered at once by the undoubted facts of Palestine 
 itself. Many parts which were once fruitful as a garden 
 are now barren and desolate. All travellers bear testi- 
 mony to the fulfilment of the Divine declaration, "A 
 fruitful land maketh he barren ; for the wickedness of 
 them that dwell therein." (Ps. cvii. 34.) A change which 
 has confessedly taken place in Palestine itself cannot be 
 incredible in the regions adjoining to Palestine. 
 
 XII. The number of the firstborn compared with the 
 number of male adults. 
 
 " All the firstborn males from a month old and upwards, 
 of those that were numbered, were twenty and two thou- 
 sand two hundred and three score and thii'teen." (Numb. 
 iii. 43.) The Bishop then quotes the words of Kurtz : — 
 
 " If tliere were 600,000 males of twenty years and upwards, the 
 whole number of males may he reckoned at 900,000, in which case 
 there would be only one firstborn to forty-two (forty-four) males. 
 In other woids, the number of boys to every family must have been 
 on the average forty-two." 
 
 This constitutes the alleged incredibility of the narra- 
 tive. The Bishop argues that the solution of this difficulty 
 is not to be satisfactorily found in taking into account 
 the cases where the firstborn was a female, because this 
 would bring the female population into the calculation as 
 well as the male, and leave the figures very much where 
 they were before. But this does not appear to follow, by 
 any means. It would only lessen the average on which 
 the births are to be calculated, thougli it would still leave 
 the number of children extraordinarily large, even taking 
 into account that the cruel edict of Pharaoh had neces- 
 sarily diminished the number of sur^^ving male children. 
 But the whole objection appears to us, and appeared to us 
 on the perusal of the narrative itself, and before we turned 
 to an3^ other source of information, to turn upon a pal- 
 pable misapprehension, which, if we were not aware that 
 so many have fallen into it, would appear to us almost 
 absurd. The object of numbering the firstborn had 
 reference to the adoption of the tribe of Levi, as the 
 
48 
 
 sacred tribe. We find, in Exodus xiii., that God claimed 
 to Himself the firstborn of man and beast in Israel, at 
 the time of the deliverance from Egypt, not before, 
 but in consequence of that deliverance, and with formal 
 reference to the slaughter of the firstborn in Egypt, by 
 which it was finally accomplished. (Numb. iii. 13, 
 viii. 17.) "Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, what- 
 soever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, 
 both of man and beast : it is mine." But this right 
 was commuted into the service of the tribe of Levi : 
 " Take the Levites, instead of all the firstborn among the 
 children of Israel." (Numbers iii. 45.) The right thus 
 commuted, was only asserted at the time of the Exodus, 
 and rested on the accomplishment of that event. By what 
 possible reasoning can the claim be arbitrarily made 
 retrospective ; retrospective both of the command and 
 of the cause on which it was founded. In the nature of 
 things, it was prospective only, and could, at very furthest, 
 have had reference only to those who were born at or 
 subsequent to the time of the enactment. Accordingly, 
 it is in this apposition that the statement of the number 
 of the firstborn is made in Numb. iii. In verse 40 we 
 find the command to number them ; in verse 41 the 
 children to be numbered are distinguished as those in 
 whose place the Levites were to be taken; in verses 
 42, 43, we have the result. In comparing, therefore, 
 the number of the firstborn with the number of males 
 from among whom they were taken, the 600,000 adult 
 men must at once be left out of the calculation. It 
 would be, not 22,273 out of 900,000, but 22,273 out of 
 300,000, which would give an average of thirteen male 
 children, not forty-two, to a family. If we now except 
 the cases where the firstborn may have died, or have 
 been a female, we find the average reduced into ordi- 
 nary and credible dimensions. To adopt the other sup- 
 position, that the firstborn thus redeemed included men 
 bom long before the ordinance, or the occasion of it — 
 men from sixty to one hundred years old, men whose 
 parents must, in a great number of cases, have been dead, 
 
49 
 
 and who would therefore stand in the position of redeem- 
 ing themselves, appears to be little short of ridiculous. 
 
 XIII. The Exodus in the fourth generation. 
 
 On this point the Bishop first repels the notion that the 
 time of the sojourn from the descent of Jacob to the 
 period of the Exodus could have been 430 years instead 
 of the 215 commonly allotted to it. The reviewer in 
 the Daily Telegraph, in his eagerness to pat the author on 
 the back, makes him say what he nowhere asserts, and 
 represents him as having proved that according to the 
 Scriptural narrative Jochebed must have been 250 years 
 old when she gave birth to Moses. He really says no 
 such thing; but only that such would have been the 
 result if the period between Jacob's descent into Egypt 
 and the Exodus had been 430 years. The real argument 
 of the Bishop, to which the chapter on the sojourning 
 in Egypt is only jDreliminary, is that the numbers of the 
 adults at the Exodus, instead of 600,000, could not con- 
 ceivably have exceeded 5,000. Here it is that the statement 
 made beforehand, that sixty-six descendants of Jacob, and 
 no others, went down with him into Egypt, comes into the 
 question. When we remember that the household of 
 Abraham two hundred years earlier consisted of 318 
 pei-sons " born in his own house " (Gen. xiv. 14), we 
 perceive how monstrous and improbable this supposition 
 is. There must have been a large number of dependants 
 who went down with Jacob and settled with him in 
 Goshen. As these partook of the labours of their master's 
 pastoral occupations, and were, therefore, abominable in 
 the eyes of the Egyptians, the whole effect of the captivity 
 would be to di-aw them still more closely together and 
 weld them into one nation. There is no improbability in 
 the supposition that their descendants are included in the 
 600,000 adults of the Exodus. 
 
 But in truth we do not need to fall back on this supposi- 
 tion or to discuss the hypothesis suggested by our intelli- 
 gent correspondent "Cla\'is"; for, taking the Bishop's 
 own statement, the blunder into which he has fallen head- 
 long lies palpably on the sm-face. It is rather a series of 
 
50 
 
 blunders ; and these so strange, that we have read and 
 re-read and read over again these passages of the book 
 before we could assure ourselves that we had not mistaken 
 his meaning. His words are : — 
 
 " The twelve sons of Jacob then, as appears from the above, had 
 between them fifty-three sons, that is, on the average four and a-half . 
 Let us suppose that they increased in this way from generation to 
 generation. Then in the first generation, that of Kohath, there would 
 
 be fifty-four males In the second, that of Amram, 243, in the 
 
 third, that of Moses and Aaron, 1,094, and in the fourth, that of 
 Joshua and Eleazar, 4,923 ; that is to say, instead of 600,000 war- 
 riors in the prime of life, there could not have been 5,000 
 
 " Further, if the number of all the males in the four generations 
 be added together (which supposes that they were all living at the 
 time of the Exodus), they would only amount to 6,311. If we even 
 add to these the number of the fifth generation, 22,154, who would 
 be mostly children, the sura total of males of all generations could 
 not, according to these data, have exceeded 28,465, instead of being 
 600,000."— P. 103. 
 
 Let us observe, in the first place, the exceedingly low 
 average of increase on which this calculation is founded, 
 only 4^ sons to a family. This is assumed to have been 
 the case, because these were the number stated to be 
 alive when the patriarchs went down from Canaan. But, 
 according to the author's own showing, the patriarchs 
 were all at this time young men ; Judah, for instance, was 
 only forty-two years old, and the oldest of his brethren 
 could not have exceeded fifty ; and these ages must be 
 calculated with reference to an average duration of life of 
 more than one hundred years. Is it credible that no 
 more sons were born to the patriarchs after their settle- 
 ment in Egypt ? — that in the first fifty years of life 
 they should have had an average of 4^ sons apiece, and 
 that this number underwent no increase whatever during 
 the second fifty years? We are bound, therefore, to 
 assume that 4^ is too low a rate of increase to be adopted 
 for four consecutive generations. We, therefore, slightly 
 enlarge it, and will take only 6 as the multiplier, instead 
 of 4^. 
 
 But how many generations are we to calculate? The 
 Bishop adopts four or five at the outside. His calculation 
 
51 
 
 of the adult males is founded on four. Does he mean to 
 say that because the Exodus was to take place during the 
 lifetime of the fourth generation, that therefore there were 
 no other males above twenty alive at that time ? We be- 
 lieve that the fourth generation was the generation of 
 Moses — an interpretation allowed to be valid ; though, 
 with a great appearance of fairness, the author assumes 
 the fourth to have been the generation of Joshua and 
 Eleazar, We say, ajDpearance of fairness, because the 
 probable impression on the mind of a reader would be 
 that the latter supposition would be more favourable to 
 the Scriptural narrative than the other ; whereas, in fact, 
 it is less favourable, because it lessens the number of 
 descents which may have existed between the fourth 
 generation to which the promise was made, and the limit 
 of twenty years and upwards on which the number of the 
 people is calculated. The point, however, is not vitally 
 important, for, even on this supposition, there is margin 
 enough for the literal truth of the Mosaic narrative. On 
 the lowest possible comi3utation, there not only may have 
 been, but, in all probability, there must have been, six 
 generations of adult males alive at the Exodus. Moses at 
 this time was eighty years old ; the generation of Joshua 
 and Eleazar may have been sixty-five ; the fifth genera- 
 tion, or the one next below them, fifty ; and the sixth, at 
 least thirty-five. Accordingly, we are told (Gen. 1.) that 
 Joseph lived one huncb-ed and ten years, thirty of which 
 must manifestly have been passed before his marriage to 
 the daughter of Potipherah, This leaves eighty years 
 only subsequent to his marriage; and yet, during this 
 period, we are expressly informed that he " saw Ephraim's 
 chikb-en of the third generation ; that is, four generations 
 below himself in the period of eighty years, which allows 
 twenty years to a generation. This calculation, if extended 
 over the 135 years which at least elapsed between the death 
 of Joseph and the Exodus, would allow of a total number 
 of nine generations of adults above twenty at that time, 
 instead of the foitr which Bishop Colenso will alone admit, 
 or of the six which we propose ourselves to adopt. Now, 
 D 2 
 
52 
 
 taking six generations of adults as alive at the Exodus, 
 and taking six as the ratio of increase, — both figures far 
 within the truth, — how will the sum stand on the Bishop's 
 own data? Why, the first generation will give a total 
 of 324, the second of 1,944, the third of 11,664, the fourth 
 of 69,984, the fifth of 419,904, and the sixth of 2,519,424 ; 
 a number, within the limits of which all the conceivable 
 casualties of life at a time when the young must have far 
 exceeded the old in their proportionate numbers, may in- 
 disputably be included. Where, then, is the contradic- 
 tion of the inspired narrative ? 
 
 Here we must stop. Two or three minor points re- 
 main which we pass over without further specific notice, 
 though in what we have said we believe ourselves to have 
 furnished the clue to every one of them without exception. 
 It is time to pause and rest after this chase after shadows ; 
 and, now that we have seen how dreamy and unreal they 
 are, we may do so without a fear for the result of thig 
 controversy. Truly, the inspired declaration of God's 
 Word is fulfilled, " He taketh the wise in their own crafti- 
 ness.' 
 
63 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 SCRIPTUEAL DIFFICULTIES: THEIR NATURE 
 AND LOGICAL VALUE. 
 
 Having considered in detail all the principal objections 
 urged in this book against the historical character and 
 authority of the Pentateuch, we now proceed to compare 
 them with the conclusions they are adduced to support. 
 In doing this, we take the opportunity of saying a few 
 words relative to Scrij)tural "difficulties" in general. So 
 much has been written and said about them during the 
 last few years, that there is no small danger lest their 
 very nature should be misunderstood, and a position 
 assigned to them which, at the utmost, they cannot claim 
 to occupy. It will be seen, we believe, that they are 
 "difficulties" only inasmuch as it is difficult to explain 
 them ; not difficulties inasmuch as it is difficult to recon- 
 cile their existence wdth an entire and implicit faith in the 
 Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. They may be divided 
 into two classes : — I. Moral difficulties ; II. Historical 
 difficulties ; and in regard to them both we desire to say a 
 few words, in order to put our readers into the full pos- 
 session of all the bearings of the case. 
 
 Moral difficulties consist of objections urged against 
 portions of the Scriptural books on the groimd that they 
 are offensive to moral consciousness, and irreconcilable 
 with what the human mind conceives to be becoming, 
 both in relation to God himself, and in relation to God's 
 acts. They may be derived from two som-ces — ^namely, 
 the historical narratives, or the didactic declarations of 
 the Word. From the first, for instance, is derived the ob- 
 jection reiterated by successive generations of unbelievers, 
 usque ad nauseam, against the destruction of the Canaan- 
 itish nations. From the second is derived the objection, 
 to which the teaching of the Rev. F. D. Maurice has 
 given peculiar prominence in modem times, against the 
 punitive wi^ath of God, and the doctrine of eternal punish- 
 
54 
 
 rneuts. We are prepared to maintain that none of these 
 objections, taken singly and argued one by one, have any 
 solidity ; in other words, that those parts of Scripture 
 alleged to be offensive to the moral consciousness, are not 
 really offensive to it, but, when rightly apprehended in 
 all their bearings, are in accordance with the highest con- 
 clusions even of the natiu-al reason and conscience. But to 
 enter upon such a discussion now lies manifestly beyond 
 the scope of our present object, and we shall therefore 
 content ourselves with pointing out, as briefly as jDossible, 
 some general considerations in regard to them. 
 
 It must, in the first place, be remembered that the power 
 of fallen man to judge of the moral suitability or unsuita- 
 bility of actions is exceedingly imjDcrfect, even when exer- 
 cised in regard to his fellow-men. This imperfection arises, 
 not from any doubtfulness of the principles of morality, 
 but from the infirmities of the mind, which applies the 
 general principle to the particular case. Our acquaint- 
 ance with the facts may be only partial, and it is a matter 
 of familiar experience that the omission of an apparently 
 small and trivial circumstance may change the whole 
 moral aspect of a transaction. How frequently in common 
 life do we hear an account from one party by which we 
 are led to pass a very decided condemnation on the con- 
 duct of another ; and yet subsequently, on comparing 
 notes with this other party to the transaction, some addi- 
 tional information is procured which alters all our previous 
 opinion, and leads us to aj)prove as strongly as we had 
 before condemned. Nor is this all. Even if our know- 
 ledge of the facts was complete, the imperfection of our 
 judgment would not be removed. The motives and 
 objects of the actor would have to be taken into account. 
 For instance, the conduct of a father towards his child 
 might be very severely, and yet very unjustly, condemned 
 by a person who judged of one detached act, and of that 
 act T\nthout any knowledge of the principle by which the 
 conduct of the father was directed. And when everything 
 has been taken into the reckoning, a perfect judgment 
 could, after all, only be formed by a perfect moral con- 
 
55 
 
 sciousness, the verdict of a superior nature upon the acts 
 of an inferior ; otherwise, in cases of complexity we never 
 could be sure of the conclusion at which we have our- 
 selves arrived. In so speaking, we suppose, of course, that 
 the clear teaching of the BIIdIc is put out of the question ; 
 for this is the very hypothesis to which our remarks are 
 directed. Now, if these sources of error affect our judg- 
 ment of the actions of men like ourselves, to how much 
 greater a degree must they affect our judgment of the 
 actions of God. The enormous difference which separates 
 a finite and created nature from an infinite and self- 
 existent Being ; the immensity of the empire over which 
 God rules, and the vast complexity of the relations with 
 which He deals ; our absolute ignorance of the facts 
 of the case apart from what God himself is pleased to tell 
 us, and the partial knowledge of the details which alone it 
 is possible for us to possess, even with a Divine revelation 
 to instruct us ; the corruption of our own moral nature, 
 and the proved inability of the human understanding 
 to deal with questions so great and yet so remote, — must 
 render an appeal to the human consciousness in the high- 
 est degree variable and uncertain. A mind which calmly 
 surveys all these considerations will come to the conclusion 
 that the existence of things in the Bible, not only beyond 
 our measurement, but even contrary to our natural expec- 
 tations, is no more than what might naturally be expected 
 in a revelation which has God for its author, and God's 
 dealings with the world for its subject. 
 
 The second class of "difficulties" are historical, and 
 consist of apparent discrepancies between different parts 
 of the same narrative, or different narratives of the same 
 event. As regards the Pentateuch, the extreme antiquity 
 of the periods must be remembered, and the consequent 
 brevity with which the events of years are crowded into 
 verses, and those of centuries into chapters. To look back 
 to such a history is like looking back on a distant land- 
 scape, which is foreshortened in the distance till the most 
 prominent features of the scenery alone meet the eye, and 
 he intermediate ground is almost entirely lost. Very false 
 
56 
 
 notions would be gained of the conformation of a country 
 which was seen only from the distance, if there was no 
 minute and closer inspection to correct these first impres- 
 sions. Thus it naturally arises with a history where the 
 record is brief and the jDeriod very far distant, that 
 the secondary facts, on which the more prominent 
 events turn, are necessarily out of view, and in their 
 absence the power of explaining the exact details 
 of the events must be limited to conjectural explana- 
 tions. This follows from the very conditions of the 
 case, and cannot be avoided while they continue. "What 
 wonder is it that, when a minute and laborious criti- 
 cism analyzes such a history with an unfriendly pur- 
 pose, it can succeed in suggesting " difficulties " for 
 which our present knowledge can supply no means of 
 explanation ? It is with the lines of the history as with 
 the lines of the distant landscape: they cross and inter- 
 sect each other with such complexity, that, without an 
 exact acquaintance with what lies between, it is impos- 
 sible with any absolute certainty either to determine the 
 nature of each separate part, or to trace the harmony of 
 the whole. 
 
 Let it be supposed, therefore, that " difficulties " really 
 exist in Scripture, either moral or historical, or blended 
 both together, — are these difficulties to unsettle faith ? 
 We turn our glance first to human history, where difficul- 
 ties of the same kind undeniably exist in records which 
 are yet accepted as genuine and credible ; we look to 
 human science, and find in every branch of it perplexing 
 questions which remain imsolved, and which, never- 
 theless, are never supposed to unsettle those fixed 
 principles which have been already ascertained ; we 
 turn to the Bible, and though we find a few difficulties 
 there (for this is our supjDosition), we find them over- 
 shadowed by the dignity of its history, the grandeui- of 
 its doctrines, and its unexampled sublimity of thought 
 and language. We find clustered in it and round it the 
 testimony of miracle and prophecy, and, throned in the 
 midst of it, the person of our Master; confessedly, the 
 
57 
 
 most matchless conception the world has ever known. We 
 turn to Christianity itself as a power in the world,— the 
 spring of human liberty, the instrument of human civi- 
 lization, the only efficient soiu'ce of virtue, purity, and 
 peace. Lastly, we look into our own hearts, and find the 
 truths of this Christianity exactly adapted to give ease to 
 the conscience and satisfaction to the heart. And having 
 thus glanced at the whole field of thought concerned, 
 we unhesitatingly answer that these difficulties do not 
 in the least unsettle faith, and ought not to do so. 
 In point of fact, we do not admit the existence of these 
 difficulties, unless in two or three very minute points of 
 history; but, supposing them to have existed, we reply 
 that they would be perfectly consistent with an undoubt- 
 ing faith in the inspired authority of the whole of the 
 Scriptm^al Books. It would be, beyond aU comparison, 
 more reasonable to accept Christianity with them, than to 
 reject it on account of them; for, in the place of one 
 difficulty which would beset faith, there would spring up 
 a thousand to harass with their bristling paradoxes the 
 steps of unbelief. 
 
 With this conclusion to guide us, we turn back to the 
 Bishop of Natal and the objections which he has urged 
 against the "historical" character of the Pentateuch— 
 these choicest weapons of criticism, these " absolute im- 
 possibilities " which are pleaded to prove the Bible to be 
 false, and Christianity a fraud, and the faith of the 
 Church of Christ, from the beginning, an ig-norant fanati- 
 cism, and all its genius, learning, and piety a world-wide 
 folly. We have now examined the principal topics one 
 by one, and have not found among them all a single solid 
 argument. They are a series of false assumptions, mis- 
 taken premises, and inconsequent conclusions, mingled 
 with some blunders of a very egregious description. 
 Singularly, indeed, must that mind be constituted which 
 could balance such imaginary difficulties against the solid 
 and coherent evidences of the faith. We believe that 
 never in the history of controversy have such strong con- 
 clusions been rested on such feeble proofs. It is like 
 D 3 
 
58 
 
 balancing a mountain upon a pin's point. The result is 
 eitlier the haste of ignorance, or the blindness of preju- 
 dice. The haste of ignorance, for a mind which finds 
 itself for the first time face to face Avith questions with 
 which it was previously unacquainted, is always apt to 
 believe that to be new which is new to itself, and to be 
 upset from its moral balance accordingly. Or it is the 
 blindness of prejudice, the foregone conclusion of a mind 
 so wholly occupied with one mode of viewing the question, 
 as to have lost its power of looking at the other side. We 
 say this with the most sincere desire to maintain the 
 courtesy due to the office which Dr. Colenso holds ; we 
 say it, not as the utterance of passion, but as the result of 
 deliberate conviction. 
 
 But, whatever may be the explanation of all this, there 
 is one grave complaint which the advocate of the truth is 
 forced to bring against the controversial honesty of this 
 book ; and here, indeed, if the book is to be regarded as 
 the true reflex of Dr. Colenso' s mind, must undoubtedly 
 be found the spring of his unbelief. We complain that in 
 this book the whole positive evidences of Christianity are 
 absolutely ignored. There is not, so far as we have found, 
 a statement even of their existence. Should this book 
 fall into the hands of a man possessed of no previous 
 acquaintance with the subject, as it may not improbably 
 do, he would naturally conclude that the entire question 
 hinged on the results of critical investigation into the 
 contents of Scripture, and could never guess what a pre- 
 ponderating mass of positive evidence, external and in- 
 ternal, exists for the truth of Christianity. We most 
 readily admit that, in a book written with the express 
 object of urging objections against the Pentateuch, any 
 formal enumeration of the evidences could not be ex- 
 pected; but, if the question was to be fairly stated, 
 they should not have been altogether ignored. It is a 
 remarkable thing that, in the sketch which the Bishop 
 gives us of the operations of his own mind, there does 
 not occur the slightest reference to them. We acknow- 
 ledge that no evidences could make a contradiction 
 
69 
 
 credible; but they might well weigh, and in all just 
 reason ought to have weighed, so far at least as to throw 
 doubt upon a criticism. How are we to explain this 
 extraordinary silence as to all the great apologies Avhich 
 the learning and piety of the Church of England, and 
 eminent divines of other churches, have produced, and 
 that elaborate array of proof which discomfited the Deists 
 of the seventeenth century, the men who pleaded the 
 very arguments which Dr. Colenso has, perhaps uncon- 
 sciously, repeated ? Has the Bishop been ignorant of 
 their existence? Having a general knowledge of their 
 existence, has he never studied them, but put them care- 
 lessly out of the calculation with that supercilious con- 
 tempt for the labours and learning of the past by which 
 modern Eationalism is so singularly characterized ? That 
 any man should form a decision on this most momen- 
 tous of all subjects without first mastering all that could 
 be said on both sides ; still more, that a man of accom- 
 plishments and academic standing ; still more, that an 
 ordained man ; still more yet, that a consecrated Bishop 
 of the Church of England should either form his own 
 judgment, or try to guide the judgment of others, without 
 a single word of allusion to the Christian evidences, is a 
 strange spectacle, from which those who are disposed to 
 think very highly of the science and erudition of modern 
 scepticism will do well to learn. 
 
 We find it impossible to believe that the Bishop of 
 Natal can consciously and intentionally have omitted 
 all reference to this branch of the question ; for the daring 
 independence which could venture calmly to discard so 
 great a mass of proof would stand in singular contrast to 
 the faith which he still continues to profess. It is 
 evident that the Bishop recognises, as a possible result of 
 modern thought, the destruction, not only of the Penta- 
 teuch, but of the entire Scriptures, for he labours to prove 
 that the Scriptures are unnecessary for religion, and that 
 religion would survive them. Thus he protests against 
 the notion that a " living faith in God is shaken, because 
 belief in the Pentateuch is shaken." He says : — 
 
60 
 
 " It is not so ; our belief in the living God remains as sure as ever, 
 though not the Pentateuch only, but the whole Bible, were removed. 
 It is written on our hearts by God's own finger as sure as it is by the 
 hand of the Apostle in the Bible, that ' God is, and is a rewarder of 
 them that diligently seek Him.' It is written there also, as plainly 
 as in the Bible, that ' God is not mocked' — that ' whatsoever a man 
 soweth that shall he also reap,' — and that ' he that soweth to the flesh 
 shall of the flesh reap corruption.' " (P. 12.) 
 
 Again : — 
 
 " It is not really so ; the light of God's love did not shine less truly 
 on pious minds, when Enoch ' walked with God ' of old, though there 
 was then no Bible in existence, than it does now. And it is, perhaps, 
 God's wiU that we shall be taught in this our day, among other 
 precious lessons, not to build up our faith upon a book, though it be 
 the Bible itself, but to realize more truly the blessedness of kno vying 
 that He himself, the living God, our Father and Friend, is nearer and 
 closer to us than any book can be — that his voice within the heart 
 may be heard continually by the obedient child that listens for it, and 
 that shall be our Teacher and Guide in the path of duty, which is the 
 path of life, when all other helpers, even the words of the best of 
 books, may fail us." (P. 12.) 
 
 We are thankful that Dr. Colenso is inconsistent enough 
 to hold fast with an implicit faith the being and the love 
 of God, and a moral retribution of some kind, at the time 
 that he rejects the only indubitable ground on which they 
 can be believed. If, indeed, he will cling resolutely to 
 that belief, it may possibly, through the teaching of the 
 Spirit, lead him back into the clearer light again. It is 
 not in order to drive him onward into a deeper depth than 
 he has yet fathomed, that we would point out the utter 
 inconsistency of his position ; God forbid the thought ! but 
 it is that by showing him the untenable nature of his 
 position, we may induce him to reconsider the grounds on 
 which he has adopted it, and to retrace his footsteps. The 
 man who has courage enough to pronoimce himself an un- 
 believer in the infallible authority of the Bible, while 
 holding office as a Bishop within a Church which has laid 
 this doctrine deep at the very foundations of her system, 
 will not lack corn-age to retract his unbelief, should God 
 in his merciful goodness convince him of his error. But 
 surely here is a religion without an authority, a super- 
 structure without a foundation. " A belief in the living 
 God" and a retribution of some kind constitute the 
 
61 
 
 Bishop's faith. We say " of some kind," because the lan- 
 guage in the first of the foregoing extracts is very vague, 
 and by no means involves a belief either in the resurrec- 
 tion, or in the judgment, or in the heaven and hell of 
 Scripture. We hope that his faith may embrace these 
 articles, but certainly his language does not necessarily 
 involve them. Nor is it easy to reconcile them with 
 another passage in the last chapter of this book, which is 
 at once one of the most obscure and the most melancholy 
 of them all. He says :— 
 
 "Let us ratlier teacli them to look from the sign of God's spirit, 
 speakino- to them in the Bible, to that of which their own hearts alone 
 can be the judges, of which the heart of the simple child can judge as 
 well as— often, alas, better than— that of the self-willed philosopher, 
 critic, or sage,— and that which speaks to the witness from God within 
 them, to which alone, under God himself, whose voice it utters ot the 
 secrets of his inner being, each man is ultimately responsible,— to tne 
 reason and conscience." (P. 152.) 
 
 With the Scriptural doctrine of the future judgment, 
 and of the law by which men's actions will be measured, 
 this passage is utterly irreconcilable. How different the 
 language of our Lord :—" He that rejecteth me, and re- 
 ceiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him : the 
 word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him at the 
 last day." (John xii. 48.) But this passage, no doubt, 
 the Bishop regards as containing only the accents of human 
 passion, not of a Divine sentence ; for he not only repu- 
 diates the infallible authority of Scripture, but ventm-es 
 to assert that this repudiation is the only means of secur- 
 ing for the Bible " its due honour and authority," and 
 saving " its devout readers from ascribing to it attributes 
 of perfection and infallibility which belong to God only, 
 and which the Bible never claims for itself" (p. xxxiv),— 
 a sentence in which it is difficult to know whether most to 
 wonder at the monstrous misrepresentation which places 
 the infallibility of God and of God's Word in opposition 
 to each other, or at the rashness of the assertion with 
 which it closes. But in any case, these two articles, of a 
 living God, and a moral retribution of some sort upon sin, 
 appear to make up the Bishop's belief, which he considers 
 to be as sure as ever, after the Bible is destroyed. It may 
 
m 
 
 be said, indeed, that this certainty does not appear to 
 amount to much, if it is only known as surely as " it is 
 written by the hand of the Apostle in the Bible." We 
 are wholly in the dark whether the Bishop means to say 
 that the doctrine is as sure as the fact that the Apostle 
 wrote the words he quotes, or, that the evidence of the 
 doctrine is equal to the authority of the Apostle's declara- 
 tion. In this case it certainly does not amount to much, 
 for the authority of St. Paul's words is, on Dr. Colenso's 
 hypothesis, no more than the authority of a fallible man, 
 nay, of a man to whose words no great credit must be due, 
 since he must have been either one of the greatest of im- 
 postors, or of the wildest of fanatics. But this creed Dr. 
 Colenso apparently asserts to be sure, plain, and adequate 
 to be " the teacher and guide of man in the path of duty." 
 Yet on what does it rest ? On the writing in the heart, 
 " the witness of God within " (p. 152), that is the light of 
 nature, and no more! And is this light of nature so 
 very clear and sufficient? Does the history of the 
 world during all ages attest its power as a teacher and 
 guide, and bear witness to the dutiful willingness of man- 
 kind to listen to it ? We ask of antiquity, and ancient 
 history in reply depicts to our eyes a world profligate and 
 wretched beyond all conception. Old philosophers con- 
 sulted this "writing in the heart," and spoke of it as 
 eloquently as Dr. Colenso, nay, far more so; and yet 
 themselves found neither strength nor comfort in it. Their 
 plaintive lamentations still thrill sadly down the lapse of 
 ages. A few minds longing for more light than they could 
 find in their own hearts, and around them a race stained 
 by every incredible vice, and deifying into Divine things 
 all that true reason and virtue hold to be most detestable, 
 — this is the picture of the world such as it was when no 
 Bible existed, and no God gave his revelation as He did to 
 Enoch, and the " writing in men's hearts " remained the 
 only witness of the Unseen. We turn to the Jewish 
 Scriptm-e, and there we find the portraiture confirmed in 
 that most graphic and touching description contained in 
 the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. We turn 
 
63 
 
 to modern times, and what a wild Babel of voices meets 
 the ear instead of the clear teaching of this sufficient 
 witness of the heart ! The Atheist tells us angrily that he 
 cannot form even the very conception of a God, and 
 teaches that right and wrong are simply human fictions, 
 and have no real ground in truth. The materialist not 
 only cannot perceive the witness of the heart, but denies 
 the veiy existence of the soul, whose yearnings should 
 testify of the Unseen, regarding man as no more than a 
 mass of organization. The Pantheist denies the personality 
 of the Supreme Being, and argues that God is all things, 
 and all things are God, and that the " living God " is only 
 human thought made seK-conscious. Where, then, is this 
 sure, plain, sufficient guide, which the Bishop of Natal 
 adopts as a religion of his own, and thinks an adequate 
 substitute for God's Bible? It is nowhere, and on such 
 a blank it is inconceivable that any thinking man should 
 long find a resting-place for the sole of his foot. No ; if 
 there is any truth in human experience, and any force in 
 logic, the author of this book cannot permanently stand 
 where he is. He must either retrace his steps— and may 
 a merciful God enable him to do so! — or he will find 
 before him a gulf deeper and blacker than aught he has 
 yet fathomed, and beneath his feet a fatal incline on which 
 it will be impossible for him to stop. 
 
 We again repeat, even at the risk of wearying by this 
 frequent repetition of the same sentiment, that with the 
 purely spiritual aspect of this matter we have nothing t^ 
 do. Judgment belongeth to God, and not to man. We 
 dare not breathe aught beyond a prayer. But with the 
 civil and ecclesiastical side of this matter it is very 
 different. Here we not only may speak, but it is our duty 
 to speak, and that with no faltering and uncertain tones. 
 The cause of the truth itself, and of the Church of Eng- 
 land, which is founded upon it, demands the most em- 
 phatic protest against the continuance of such a scandal, 
 as a Bishop who avows himself an unbeliever in the 
 authority of the Bible. The question goes far beyond a 
 mere legal right; it is a question, — we dare not say of 
 
64 
 
 Christian duty, for Christian duty is founded on Christian 
 obligation, and can no longer survive when the Bible has 
 lost its authority, — but it is a question of honour, justice, 
 and truthfulness. We aj^peal to the Bishop of Natal 
 whether in the depth of his heart he really thinks his 
 oi3inions compatible with his office ? Let him stand apart 
 from evil advisers, whoever they may be, and consult his 
 own convictions and conscience. The question may be 
 put into a very simple form. Does he think that he would 
 ever have received consecration as a Bishop of the Church 
 of England, if he had held and avowed at that time the 
 opinions he has now given to the world ? No man will 
 doubt for a moment that it would have been impossible. 
 The expressions of such views would have prevented for 
 ever his admission into the office he holds. But on no 
 possible ground of reason can the inconsistency between 
 his opinions and his office have been greater then, than it 
 is now. If an understanding, however tacit and un- 
 expressed, — for we put it on the lowest ground, — has been 
 violated by his opinions, can he hesitate, in honour, to 
 give up an office which he can no longer fulfil, and retire 
 from a trust which he publicly proclaims himself in- 
 competent to discharge. We fully acknowledge and can 
 symjDathize with the struggles demanded by such a sacri- 
 fice ; but on a matter such as this, and with such momen- 
 tous interests at stake, there is no other alternative than 
 this, and there should be no hesitation in adopting it. 
 
 But leaving this personal question to be decided either 
 by the conscience of the Bishop or by an appeal to the 
 ecclesiastical law, we would briefly point out the lessons 
 which this unhappy controversy is calculated to suggest. 
 The fii'st feeling present on the mind of a man who has 
 taken the trouble to study Bishop Colenso's volume must 
 be one of admiring thankfulness to God ; for the more 
 closely we are led to search into the foundations of the 
 faith, and that marvellous array of evidences by which 
 Scripture is attested, the more we must be astonished at 
 their depth and strength and coherence. The controversy 
 against infidelity has already been of invaluable service 
 
65 
 
 to the Church in this respect. To the stimukis supplied 
 by the Deism of the seventeenth century, we are indebted, 
 under God, for the masterly investigation of the external 
 evidences of Christianity, and the proof, even to demon- 
 stration, which their vast variety on the one side, and 
 yet their consentaneous witness upon the other, have 
 furnished for the Divine authority of the Word. It would 
 have been impossible for human ingenuity to construct by 
 antecedent theory such a scheme of consilient testimony 
 as is actually found to exist. The same result is already 
 beginning to follow from the rationalistic objections of our 
 own day. The Divine wisdom which framed into so 
 admirable a perfection the scheme of external evidence 
 has not been less exercised in framing the scheme of the 
 internal. Many devoted men have been misled, by the 
 loud and confident assertion of our adversaries, into the 
 belief that the contents of the Bible will not in all points 
 bear investigation, and that it is wiser to fall back on some 
 loose general theory of inspiration than to analyze too 
 closely its applicability to every part of the Word. Hence 
 they have been rather disposed to pass all curious inquiiy 
 by, in a feeling of mistaken reverence, than to submit the 
 assertion of the rationalist to any rigorous investigation. 
 But the publication of this volume by Bishop Colenso has 
 made this reserve impossible in regard to the Pentateuch, 
 and has dragged, the Bishop would say its hidden weak- 
 nesses, we say its hidden stores of strength and harmony, 
 into the full light of controversy. It is probable that 
 during'^the last three weeks many minds have been engaged 
 in a more searching . and independent examination of its 
 contents than they have ever made before. And what is 
 the issue, ah'eady prominent, and growing day by day 
 intojncreasing prominence, but the irresistible confirma- 
 tion of its truth. Objections urged with the utmost 
 confidence are found to be as harmless, as is the dash of 
 the ocean waves against the rock. A more minute and 
 rigid investigation has only revealed the more recondite 
 correspondences, and the more perfect hai'mony, of the 
 history. We need not fear the publication of Bishop 
 
66 
 
 Colenso's second volume, or dread lest the blows which 
 have fallen harmlessly back from the Divine authority of 
 the Pentateuch will be more formidable to the authority 
 of other parts of the sacred volume. It would be traitorous 
 disbelief, as much as it would be an um-easonable timidity, 
 to doubt, after all the experience of the past, the wisdom 
 and truth of the God of the Bible, or to distrust the firm 
 rock on which He has built his Church. Her foundations 
 are upon the holy hills. To her belongs the promise, 
 " No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper, and 
 every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou 
 shalt condemn." It is not knowledge that the truth has 
 to fear, but ignorance. 
 
 But while we learn to exercise a more reverent confi- 
 dence in God's truth from the issue of the controversy, 
 even in its present stage, we are taught likewise the 
 necessity of standing to our principles in all their length 
 and breadth. Either under the influence of timid mis- 
 givings, or the dread of being thought to oppose the 
 intellectual progress of the day, the advocates of Christi- 
 anity have given up too much to their opponents, and have 
 thus cut away the solid ground of defence from beneath 
 their own feet. It is written as with a sunbeam on the 
 experience of the past, that no theories of a j)artial inspira- 
 tion, no scheme of a Bible liaK fallible and half infallible, 
 can possibly stand in the conflict. Once give place within 
 the walls of our temple for the admission of the Rational- 
 istic wedge into one crevice of the sacred structure, and, 
 sooner or later, it must be driven home and shatter the 
 whole into ruins. Once admit error in the inspired 
 autographs as they came from the hands of the sacred 
 penmen, whether it be in their historical or doctrinal 
 portions, and that admission ine\dtably destroys the 
 authority of the entire book. A mutilated Bible is not 
 God's Word ; a mutilated Christianity* not Christ's king- 
 dom. " They become human, not Divine things, and cannot 
 stand the shock of the tempest. Hold to them in their 
 completeness, and we are safe ; for they are God's, and He 
 will defend his own. He has compacted the whole scheme 
 
67 
 
 of revealed truth together into so indissokible an unity 
 that to destroy a part is to destroy the whole. Take away 
 the authority of the Bible, and you take away the authority 
 of Christianity; take away Christianity, and you take 
 away religion, and substitute, instead of a Divine reality, 
 an idle dream, the fiction of human opinion, the utterance 
 of a human sentiment, and — no more. 
 
 Hence we believe that the result of this controversy 
 will be for good. It is well that the conflict should come 
 to a decided issue. We entertain no fear in regard to the 
 future, for, in the best and highest sense, ^' magna est 
 Veritas et 'prcevalehitr Let it be the effort of Christ's 
 Church to do her Master's work in her Master's spirit and 
 all will yet be well. For ourselves, if in these reviews, 
 writing on topics which stir the heart to its depths, we 
 have put on record one discourteous and uncharitable 
 thought or word, one offensive sentence, we sincerely 
 regret it and freely ask that it may be forgiven. Let the 
 controversy be boldly waged, but let the combatants never 
 forget the himian infirmities which may mar the best 
 advocacy of the truth. On the one hand, let our motto 
 be, " Stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong." 
 On the other, " The servant of the Lord must not strive ; 
 but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in 
 meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God, 
 peradventure, will give them repentance to the acknow- 
 ledging of the truth." 
 
 Macintosh, Piinter. Great New-street, Londou.