Srom f^e feifirari? of 
 
 (J)rofe66or ^i^iam ^tnxi^ <E>reen 
 
 QBcqueaf^b 6g ^im fo 
 t^c £i6rari> of 
 
 (Iprtnceton C^eofogtcaf ^eminatj^ 
 
A PLAIN EEPLY 
 
 BISHOP COLENSO. 
 
 RESPECTFULLY ADDRESSED TO THE LAYMEN OF ENGLAND. 
 
 BY 
 
 WALTER ""chamberlain, MA. 
 
 INCUMBENT OF ST. JOHN'S, BOLTON, LANCASHIEE, 
 AUTHOR OF " THE CHRISTIAN TEBITT STATED," ETC., ETC. 
 
 LONDON : 
 WERTHEIM, MACINTOSH, AND HUNT, 
 
 24, PATEHNOSTER-EOW, 
 AND 23, HOllES-STBEET, CATENDISH-SQUAEE. 
 
 1863. 
 
" FOR THE priest's LIPS SHOtTLD KEEP KNOWLEDGE, AND THEY SHOULD 
 SEEK THE LAW AT HIS MOUTH ; FOR HE IS THE MESSENGER OF THE LORD 
 OF HOSTS." — MaL. II. 7. 
 
TO THE LAYMEN OF ENGLAND. 
 
 My Brethken, 
 
 A Bishop of our beloved, National, Church has published a 
 dreadful book. It denies the historical veracity of the first six books 
 of the Holy Bible ; those which we are wont to call the Pentateuch, 
 or Five Books of Moses, and the Book of Joshua. 
 
 Hfc has especially commended his work to your attention ; and, 
 certainly, by an ostentatious use of figures, it has a practical and 
 business-like appearance, very well fitted to win your confidence. 
 
 I have had occasion, in the discharge of public duty, to read it, 
 and must say that, though not neglectful of its figures, my attention 
 was rivetted by its Hebrew words, and its principles. Upon a close 
 examination, I find it full of errors ; which this book (to which I 
 invite your kind attention) professes to expose. 
 
 To you, men of law, and men of commerce, I especially appeal ; 
 and am content to abide by your decision. If the arguments in this 
 book be sound, as I submit they are, then Bishop Colenso becomes 
 utterly unworthy of any future attention, on similar subjects. 
 
 Allow me the honour of remaining. 
 My Brethren, 
 Your respectful, humble Servant, 
 
 WALTER CHAMBERLAIN. 
 
 Bolton, Lancashire, January 13, 1863. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Soon after Dr. Colenso's book was published it was suggested to the 
 writer of the following pages that, owing to a particular course of 
 reading, he might possibly be able to say a word or two in reply. 
 By return of post he had become painfully conscious how it was he 
 had so soon parted with six bright silver shillings ; and, in the course 
 of the day, he had ascertained the value of the production he had 
 received for his money. 
 
 One was tempted to conclude that the book itself deserved 
 no answer; but others seemed to think that it did. And if Dr. 
 Colenso has done no other kind of good by its publication, he has 
 certainly contributed very handsomely to the entertainments of the 
 past Christmas season.. Editors of periodical journals are especially 
 indebted to him ; they have been provided with leading articles 
 for weeks. Till, at last, it is impossible not to feel a sort of pity 
 for this erring Bishop ; he has dropped, like a kid, into a 
 herd of peccaries, who, naturally, enjoy the exhilaration of tearing 
 him to pieces. One newspaper attacks him on the left, another 
 shakes him cruelly (but cleverly) on the right, a third comes 
 down with a ponderous article on his front, and a host of other 
 papers administer much-deserved discipline behind. One gentle- 
 man takes up the Bishop upon his Hebrew. It is publicly 
 stated, that a precise Irishman will conduct an assault (very despe- 
 rate) upon Dr. Colenso's arithmetic. And now the author of these 
 pages has arrested him for inaccuracy in the larder ; a mere matter, 
 among other questions, of sheep and pigeons. Indeed, whole com- 
 munities of clergymen have been grievously* moved. Rochester 
 has burst into one universal groan, not unmixed with tears, on the 
 attractive banks of Thames ; and the sunny diocese of Winchester, 
 with a haziness of view, like that which lends enchantment to 
 the fields of Hampshire, has expressed a conviction, promiscuously, 
 that the Bishop of Natal is sure to be refuted everywhere. 
 
Yet, amid all this clamour, one thing is very noticeable — all these 
 defences of the truth are ad clerum. And what need of them ? The 
 author will undertake to show, in the course of any one year, just 150 
 solid reasons, stamped with the Queen's authority, for believing 
 that nothing can be right which assails those doctrines, for preaching 
 which, the revenues of the Church of England are " dispersed 
 abroad, and given to the poor" (clergy?). And he has such implicit 
 confidence in the acquisitions of the Right Reverend Bench, that 
 he is convinced every gentleman among them could produce, in the 
 same short time, several thousands of reasons, equally good, for 
 believing that Dr. Colenso must be wrong. The clergy do not 
 require conviction ; and we may all take comfort in the assurance, 
 that, notwithstanding the Bishop of Natal's considerate and soothing 
 appeal on behalf of his brethren, at p. xxxvi of his naughty book, not 
 six among them all will there be, without sense enough to see the 
 hollowness, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, of Dr. Colenso's 
 attack upon the Pentateuch. 
 
 Under this conviction, the Author has prepared this "Plain Reply," 
 not for the clergy, but for the laity — especially for tlie laity. Indeed, 
 he understands, that two eminent divines (to the Hebrew learning of 
 one of whom, all will pay respect) have announced their intention of 
 replying to, and, no doubt, of refuting, Bishop Colenso. It is well, 
 that, at least, one Bishop, should show himself quite a match for 
 another, to the edification of all the clergy. So, stepping gently 
 aside, and leaving these eminent men to those mutual amenities 
 which characterize the aflTectionate little differences of distinguished 
 clerics, the Author commends the pages of his " Plain Reply" to the 
 consideration of laymen. 
 
 It will be found very plain. And " is there not a cause ? " 
 There are among the laity those who entertain, as they ought, sincere 
 and profound respect for the name, and character, and position, and 
 ^attainments, of an English Bishop. Whatever comes from the pen 
 of any one such is likely to produce a serious, and lasting, impres- 
 sion upon their minds. They are prepared to give it implicit 
 credence, because it was written by a Bishop. Or else, upon the 
 assumption that even a bishop may be wrong, they begin to entertain 
 in their minds certain deep questions, touching the strength and 
 solidity of the bench upon which the prelates sit, to which it may, 
 perhaps, be as well to make no further allusion. For this class of 
 
laymen a plain reply is wanted. There is another class, which 
 entertains such incorrect ideas concerning the state of the Church of 
 England, that it verily believes the clergy generally are not com- 
 petent to refute notions so unscriptural as those which have lately 
 been published among them; or that, if they can, motives of self- 
 interest, or the trammels of a complicated ecclesiastical system, 
 prevent their doing so. For these a still plainer reply, to Dr. 
 Colenso, is desirable. 
 
 The squabblings of Ecclesiastical Courts over matters of religious 
 doctrine are much too tedious to retain the interest of stirring men 
 of the world; and are notoriously distasteful, as well they may 
 be, to all laymen. 
 
 Thus, addressing himself to laymen, the Author has been careful 
 to frame his reply in such a way as seems most likely to induce them 
 to read it ; which reading he apprehends to be necessary to the 
 utility of his undertaking. He hopes it will be found accurate, 
 and critical enough, without being too laboured ; and he trusts also, 
 that it will prove to be so matter-of-fact, and homely, as to be felt 
 convincing. It will, possibly, be thought that, in some places, his 
 style is not becoming the gravity of the occasion. The Author 
 protests that he is not able to regard Dr. Colenso's, 'as a serious 
 attack upon the Pentateuch. Nor does he think it should be treated 
 as such. It is desirable the laity should know this, and feel it. 
 Such an attack proceeding from any one but a bishop, and an 
 arithmetical bishop, would have been laughed to scorn. It would 
 have been passed round slyly behind people's backs at evening 
 parties ; and when the unhappy delinquent made his bow, there 
 would have been an universal titter. If any unfortunate " working " 
 curate had sent out such a book, it would have made him ridiculous 
 in his diocese ; have laid heavily on his publisher's shelves ; and, 
 perhaps, have introduced him to what Lancashire lads call "the 
 " stone jug," videlicet, a gaol. In this'case, for debt. 
 
 Now, "the Rule of Three" is an excellent domestic apparatus; and 
 Dr. Colenso knows that as well as any man, but not better than most. 
 Yet, before you can apply the Rule of Three to any author's state- 
 ments, you must first be sure j'ou quite understand him. Dr. 
 Colenso has applied the Rule of Three to the Books of Moses. His 
 misfortune is that he does not understand what Moses has said ; so 
 that, while his sums are all right, his calculations are all wrong. 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 When the Author first received Dr. Colenso's book, he trembled ; 
 for he supposed that the Bishop must have brought mathematical 
 science (to which, unhappily ! the Author must make no pretensions) 
 to bear upon the Pentateuch, in such a way that a reply would be 
 beyond the powers of any ordinary reader. How great was his 
 relief when he discovered that a comprehensive view of the first four 
 rulesof arithmetic, a little Rule of Three, and a small taste of Fractions, 
 was all that was required to enable any one to do the Bishop's sums 
 over again. Let not laymen be deceived on this matter, nor dazzled 
 by a name. This is all that is necessary ; and the Author doubts 
 not that many promising young infidels, in certain counties, have 
 been marking down Bishop Colenso's sums upon the tavern-table ! 
 This, no doubt, is serious, and the business is serious, also, as regards 
 Dr. Colenso ; but, as an assault upon the Holy Bible, and upon the 
 Pentateuch in particular, the Author denies that Dr. Colenso's book 
 is serious at all. The Bishop has been simply, to the horror of his 
 brethren, dashing the favoured casket of his brains against that holy 
 stone of which it has been said, '* He that falls upon this stone shall 
 ** be broken ; but upon whomsoever it shall fall it shall grind him to 
 " powder." May a gracious Saviour turn, and look upon Peter ! 
 
 But. supposing that, now and then, the Author has been a little 
 jocose, it is not easy to laugh, just now, in Lancashire; and surely 
 no one, of common humanity, will grudge the Author a little 
 pleasantness, after undergoing the painful discipline of minutely 
 examining Dr. Colenso's book. Besides, there is a little some- 
 thing else to be said on this matter. Doctors of Divinity must 
 really discover some means of disguising their physic, or their 
 patients will rather die than take it. It is notorious that laymen 
 never read books of deep divinity; and they are right. Those 
 books are, generally, not readable. It may be questioned how 
 much most of the clergy read them, after they have been dragged 
 through the usual examinations. Is there no style on which the 
 laity may rest between the flowery, but deceptive, meadows of the 
 religious novel, and the woody productions of standard divines ? 
 
 The Author confesses for himself that he scarcely ever read a book 
 of divinity, but he put it down, convinced that he would have been a 
 happier, and possibly a wiser, man if he had let it alone. One con- 
 sequence, no doubt, is, that he cannot come up to the height of any 
 great argument in the style usually adopted, and supposed to be 
 
approved. He can only hope that, if here and there he falls short 
 of the dignity of the subject, some of his readers will be able 
 to perceive there is some eiFect, and very much method, in his 
 indiscretion. 
 
 The subject is, however, very serious as regards Dr. Colenso, who 
 has cast a passing shadow of disgrace upon the episcopal benches. 
 Yet the Author, while publishing this reply, would take the oppor- 
 tunity of assuring the Bishop of Natal, that he yields to none in the 
 sincere and earnest respect which he feels for all those distinguished 
 in the schools. It is such a man as Dr. Colenso that he, like other 
 clergymen, loves to see made a Bishop, when his heart is right towards 
 God, and his powerful, and well-disciplined mind kept straight in 
 the intricate passages of theology. Oh ! what a blessing, what a 
 triumph for Christians, it will be ! when that day comes (as come we 
 hope it will, by the grace of Jesus), when Dr. Colenso publicly avows 
 his error, and resumes that place at the head, and in the hearts, of 
 numbers of his brethren to which he is so well entitled ! 
 
 It is desirable that laymen should not draw any false conclusions 
 from the fact that such a book has been published by a Bishop. They 
 may rely upon it this passing shadow will soon be dispelled. The 
 clergy, as a body, have confidence in the truth, and are able to 
 defend it. If the suppressed utterances which careful listeners may 
 hear in some quarters' indicate what may be heard in all, the Bishop 
 of Natal will find very little encouragement among the working 
 clergy. They feel that the dishonour is not theirs ; but they are not 
 the less sensible of the dishonour. The laity may be assured with 
 truth that the clergy, as a body, are deeply attached to their Church 
 and to its doctrines ; as also to its order, and to its discipline ; they 
 are jealous of its honour ; and seldom have occasion to feel ashamed 
 of its prelates. The Church stands too well in the hearts of the 
 people, and the learning and the character of her clergy and her 
 bishops are too correctly, and too- thoroughly, appreciated by the 
 laity, for her to suffer more than temporary vexation from the 
 WTetched publication of Bishop Colenso. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 1, line 17, for John vi., read John v, 
 „ 60, note, for Nolden read Noldius. 
 „ 55, line 20, for April — May, read March — April. 
 „ 61, line 33, /or aspect, read its aspect. 
 „ 184, line 6, for caps, read cups. 
 
SECTIONS. 
 
 No. PAGE 
 
 1. The Object of Dr. Colenso's Book 2 
 
 2. The Saviour's Opinion of Moses' Wiitings 6 
 
 3. The Evidence of Apostles and Prophets 9 
 
 4. Hezi'on and Hamul 10 
 
 5. The Whole Assembly ... *. 16 
 
 6. Moses and Joshua addressing all Israel ... ... ... ... 20 
 
 7. The Extent of the Camp. The Priests' Duties 22 
 
 8. On Eeading Holy Scriptiu-e 27 
 
 9. Israel " Ai-med," and Dwelling " in Tents " ... 29 
 
 10. The Israelites " borrowed " 35 
 
 11. The Israelites in Tents 37 
 
 12. The Israelites Polled 42 
 
 13. The Institution of the Passover 47 
 
 14. Bishop Colenso as Chief Pastor of a Flock 52 
 
 15. The March out of Egypt 56 
 
 16. " Between the Two Evenings " 68 
 
 17. The Number of the Priests, and their Perquisites 79 
 
 18. The Clergy Eeserves 89 
 
 19. The Exodus in the " Fourth Generation " 90 
 
 20. The Number of Israelites at the Exodus 100 
 
 21. The Number of the Danites 113 
 
 22. The Number of Levites at the Exodus 115 
 
 23. The Number of the Firstborn 132 
 
 24. The Number of the People, and the Extent of Canaan 145 
 
 25. The War on Midian 148 
 
 26. Israel in the Desert 162 
 
 27. The Scriptm-al Accoimt of the Desert 164 
 
 28. The Desei-t of El Tyh 168 
 
 29. Dr. Colenso's Authorities on the Desert 172 
 
 30. His strange Mistake about the Desert 175 
 
 31. The Route of European Travellers ' .179 
 
 32. Scripture Allusions to the Eoute in the Desert ..,. ... ... 181 
 
 33. The Eesources of Mount Sinai 188 
 
 34. Israel's Intercoixrse with Inhabitants of the Desert 191 
 
 35. General Aspect of the Desert 194 
 
 36. Mode of Living in the Desert 199 
 
 37. Conclusion 201 
 

 
 ^ — 
 
 T 
 
 " * * ^ 
 
 ; 1 4i^%^^^' 
 
 
 ^l 
 
 ) // 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ''''/^K'l 1--. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 'A 
 
 4 ° 
 
 w 
 
 
 s 
 
 \\ , 
 
 
 »r 
 
 r - 
 
 j'f. 
 
 Pi 
 
 ■n 
 
 
 L'::| 
 
 
 
 1 ' 
 
 ^ 
 
 ISRAEUTCS 
 
 
 
 ..,:7T<(^,..,, 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 i 1 1 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PLAIN REPLY 
 
 TO 
 
 BISHOP COLENSO, 
 
 ETC., ETC. 
 
 HEN public servants, of established reputation, who have 
 also conferred great benefits upon their employers, are 
 accused of such confusion and inaccuracy in their accounts 
 as indicate either incompetency or dishonesty, it is no 
 wonder if people are surprised and alarmed. It is hard 
 to believe the charges made against such men ; and yet 
 the temerity or the wickedness of those who make them, if 
 false, seems incredible. In such cases they, who undertake the 
 defence of the accused, are accustomed to publish as soon as possible 
 a brief request, joined to some reasons for complying with it, that 
 the public would not too hastily conclude that there are substantial 
 grounds for the accusation. This is all the writer of the present 
 pages undertakes to do. And he would remind all those to 
 whom he appeals, but especially the conductors, of certain portions 
 of the daily press, that in the commonest affairs of even secular 
 business it is considered unhandsome, or something worse, to join in 
 open reproaches, or in ridicule or scorn, as if the suspected parties 
 had already been proved guilty. 
 
 Dr. Colenso, Bishop of Natal, having previously reposed implicit 
 confidence in the writers of the Pentateuch, and of the book called 
 
2 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 Joshua's, has at last detected them either in gross stupidity or in 
 fraud. Whoever those writers were, they have for a short space 
 of three thousand years, at the least, enjoyed a handsome reputation. 
 Though often assailed before, they have hitherto kept their situations 
 with characters unblemished ; and have, indeed, obtained to an 
 extraordinary degree the esteem and confidence of most learned and 
 cultivated people. The blessings, too, which they have brought 
 upon all who trusted them are incalculable. But now the Doctor 
 has caught them ! By an adroit application of the first four rules 
 of Arithmetic (with a terrible reference, at p. Ill, to logs) he has 
 entangled them beyond escape. To be sure, that pitiless science 
 of Arithmetic has been understood, far enough for Dr. Colenso's 
 purpose, ever since Adam had teeth and lost them ; but then it was 
 never brought to bear, in such a searching way, upon these suspicious 
 and questionable books ! 
 
 Yet, if the writers of these books have been guilty of the 
 enormous blunders charged against them, they were very clumsy 
 rogues indeed; or, if not rogues, must have belonged to that 
 unhappy class whom most people consider more troublesome, though 
 not so guilty. If they have really made these shocking arithmetical 
 mistakes, it is strange they were not found out long ago ; for any 
 one, knowing little more than the figures, might do Dr. Colenso's 
 sums with a piece of chalk on the back of a door. Every layman of 
 common sense (and, like ' the Bishop, " I commend this subject 
 " more especially to the laity ") will feel that the grossness of the 
 errors, of which the authors of these books are accused, is the best 
 reason we could have for suspecting that the Bishop's calculations are 
 made upon incorrect assumptions. Moreover, divinity cannot be 
 learned by figures ; and there may be considerations touching the 
 Hebrew language, (of which the Bishop is, evidently, all but 
 ignorant) which vitiate his arithmetical reasoning, by putting him 
 wrong at the commencement. 
 
 § T. THE OBJECT OF DR. COLENSO'S BOOK. 
 
 What result does the Bishop seek by this unmasked attack upon 
 the first six books of the Holy Bible ? He * has *' decided that it 
 ' Dr. Colenso's Preface, p. xxxv. * Ibid p. xx. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. O 
 
 " was his duty to give no * uncertain sound,' but to set down openly at 
 " the outset the nature of the issue involved." There is no doubt that 
 he will shock the faith, in Christianity itself, of all those who listen 
 to him with approbation ; if they understand the real character of his 
 work. But it is far from being his intention to do so. He only 
 wishes to convince us that, as to supposed historical facts, we none of 
 us rightly understand the Pentateuch ; and are altogether mistaken as 
 to its author's name. He suggests that neither Jews nor Christians, 
 neither Prophets nor Apostles, nor (as we shall see) even the Son of 
 God, ever have understood that Pentateuch ; nor have they had the 
 slightest just idea who its author was. And he is extremely anxious 
 to give us information. It is on his conscience to do so. 
 
 Dr. Colenso has ^ become " convinced of the unhistorical character 
 " of very considerable portions of the Mosaic narrative." He uses 
 " the expression * unhistorical,' or ' not historically true,' throughout, 
 *' rather than ' fictitious,' since the word fiction is frequently under- 
 " stood to imply a conscious dishonesty on the part of the writer, an 
 " intention to deceive. Yet, in writing the story of the Exodus, from 
 " the ancient legends of his people, the Scripture writer may have had 
 " no more consciousness of doing wrong, or of practising historical 
 " deception, than Homer had, or any of the early Roman annalists; " 
 i.e., the Exodus is a story, or tale; a tale, too, very likely to 
 deceive, but its author was not guilty of any intended deception. 
 Hence, with an offensive pertinacity, he habitually all through his ^ 
 book speaks of " the story," " according to the story," " what the 
 story requires," &c., &c. Not that he denies either the Divine 
 authority, or the inspiration, of the Pentateuch. On the contrary, 
 his conclusion is' only "that the Pentateuch, as a whole, cannot 
 " possibly have been written by Moses, or by any one acquainted 
 " personally with the facts which it professes to describe, and further 
 " that the (so called) Mosaic narrative, by whomsoever written, and 
 " though imparting to us, as I fully believe it does, revelations of the 
 *' Divine will and character, cannot be regarded as historically true ; " 
 but that " it does not, therefore, cease to ' contain the true Word of 
 " ' God,' with ' all things necessary to salvation,' to be ' profitable for 
 
 ' Dr. Colenso's Preface, p. xvii. 
 
 * See pp. 13, 17, 19, 24, 25, 37, 51, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 
 
 72, 86, 88, 97, &c., &c. 
 
 » See pp. 8, 13. 
 
 B 2 
 
4> A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 ** doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.' It still 
 " remains an integral portion of that book, which, whatever intermix- 
 *' ture it may show of human elements — of error, infirmity, passion, 
 " and ignorance — has yet, through God's providence, and the special 
 *' working of His Spirit on the minds of its writers, been the means 
 " of revealing to us His true name." 
 
 The last extract, it will be noticed, expresses Dr. Colenso's 
 opinion of the Holy Bible at large ; but, keeping our attention fixed 
 upon the Pentateuch, we may ask, * How could the God of all 
 truth inspire, by the Holy Ghost, in any degree any man to put 
 together "a story" which He knew to be false, but knew also that 
 men would believe to be true ; and which, as matter of fact, they 
 have believed to be true ? ' 
 
 Of coui'se the entire theory of " Scripture inspiration " is thus 
 shivered to pieces at a blow. And writers, who express such 
 sentiments, know this, and intend this ; and also feel that the 
 whole question of Scripture-Inspiration must be reconsidered and 
 remodelled — to suit their purpose. Accordingly Dr. Colenso be- 
 lieves' that " There are others, doubtless, in the Christian ministry, 
 " who have attained to wider views of Scripture-Inspiration, and who 
 " do not suppose that those narratives are historically true, and yet 
 " ' believe unfeignedly ' in the Divine authority of the Scriptures." 
 Under this conviction he proposes to inculcate new ideas of the 
 nature of Inspiration ; for, says he, " in order that we may give due 
 " honour to the Bible, as containing a message of God to our souls, 
 *' it is surely necessary that we take, ourselves, in the first place, and 
 " teach others to take, a right and true view both of the contents of 
 " the Book and the nature of Inspiration." 
 
 " Of the contents of the Book," as well as of " the nature of 
 " Inspiration." For a new theory of Inspiration is, in eflTect, a new 
 mode of Interpretation. To discover, and publish, which the Bishop 
 thinks "maybe the step, which God in His providence calls us to 
 '* take in the present age, in advance of the past generation." 
 
 Unfortunately, however, for us working clergymen, and for our 
 congregations, the laity, this new mode of interpretation has not yet 
 been fixed on, nor is it likely to be. Men like Dr. Colenso have long 
 and often tried to invent one, but, in the opinion of able judges, have 
 as often failed. What are we poor souls to do meanwhile ? We are 
 ■ ' See pp. 150, 151, 152. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 5 
 
 panting for instruction. Are people to forsake their churches, 
 clergymen their pulpits, pastors their flocks ? Is the distant mission- 
 field to be left to the lion and the bear until all obscurities in 
 the books of Moses are cleared away ? Are we to take our hands 
 off the plough every moment some nervous, or eccentric, or wicked 
 shepherd boy cries, Wolf? Are the operations of the Christian 
 Churcli, and our laymen's confidence in its doctrines and teaching, to 
 be suspended, until a score or two of wrong-headed gentlemen have 
 agreed upon a new mode of interpretation ? They have been trying 
 long enough, and are farther from agreeing than ever. Besides, if 
 their precious theory, for which they give us paper, were really 
 reduced to a system, and published, perhaps it might not prove 
 convincing to the rest of their brethren. And, if not, are we all to 
 bate breath, and gaze eagerly for another ? These gentlemen wish 
 to shatter the Portland vase, and, like greedy jobbers, blandly tell us 
 they can make it stronger and more elegant than it was before. But 
 the strong sense of our laity, sustained by the grace of God, will 
 enable them to see through the folly of such pretensions. Men of 
 business will hold fast the currency of gold until a more precious 
 metal has been proved fit for practical circulation. They will feel 
 instinctively how unlikely it is that the oldest national history in the 
 world, which inspired Apostles ' numbered among "the oracles 
 of God," should be proved full of contradictions, absurdities, and 
 impossibilities," by a few little sums in addition and subtraction. 
 
 No new theory of Interpretation can be received, unless it submit 
 to two conditions— ;^r5^, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch ; second, 
 that its miracles are '* historically true." For, ' in several places, 
 itself claims to have had Moses for its author, and itself maintains 
 that certain recorded events were miraculous. Dr. Colenso cannot 
 help us in the least. There is an irreconcilable enmity between the 
 Pentateuch and him. For he emphatically denies that Moses wrote 
 the Pentateuch ; and if he admit one miracle, he may as well admit 
 all, and then his book falls to pieces. We have but one alternative. 
 If we believe Dr. Colenso, we must utterly reject the Pentateuch. 
 
 * Acts vii. 38; Rom. iii, 2, 9; iv. 5. 
 ^ Dr. Colenso's book, pp. 61, 90, 113, 138, 143. 
 * Exod. xvii. 14; xxiv. 4; Num. xxxiii, 2, &c., &c. For the whole argument see 
 Macdonald's Pentateuch, vol. i., pp. 347—359. Clarks, Edinburgh. 1861. 
 
A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 § II. THE SAVIOUR'S OPINION OF MOSES' WRITINGS. 
 
 The Bishop has correctly apprehended the serious nature of his 
 undertaking, and has not failed to anticipate some of its possible 
 consequences. He thinks it probable that some persons may be of 
 opinion that the truth of Christianity depends, in a considerable 
 degree, upon the historical truth of the Pentateuch. They may feel 
 convinced that Christ, as the Son of God, and the apostles (at 
 moments when their fullest inspiration cannot safely be denied), did 
 say, in various ways, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and that its 
 narratives are historically true. If so, what becomes of the Christian, 
 religion, supposing Dr. Colenso's book to be sound ? 
 
 He has not lost sight of this argument ; but does it no real 
 justice ; apparently, through the faintness of his perception, as to how 
 great an extent the New Testament depends, for correct interpreta- 
 tion, upon the Old. Take, for example, that remarkable passage 
 (John v. 46, 47), to which Dr. Colenso himself alludes, " For had 
 ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me : for he wrote of me. 
 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" 
 The Saviour speaks in this place, not merely as man, but as God. 
 It was on this occasion that the Jews sought to kill Him, " because 
 he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was 
 his Father, making himself equal with God." Let that discourse 
 be read carefully, from ver. 17 to ver. 47, and none can fail to per- 
 ceive that, throughout it, Jesus professes to speak in His Divine 
 character, as the Son of God. He speaks there on doctrines 
 pertaining to everlasting life ; of the resurrection of the dead, and 
 of eternal judgment. And being such a discourse, and referring (as 
 it repeatedly does) to His Divine nature, He concludes it with the 
 solemn words referred to by Bishop Colenso. He had warned them 
 to " search the Scriptures," for they testified of Him in His Divine 
 character ; and, in the same sense, He adds of Moses, *' for he wrote 
 of me." When Jesus said, in that discourse, " that all men should 
 honour the Son, even as they honour the Father," or that " the dead 
 shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live," 
 he spake avowedly as the Son of God. How can we separate His 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 7 
 
 declaration concerning Moses, " he wrote of me," from that Divine 
 character, as the Son of God, in which all along he had professed to 
 be speaking ? 
 
 Similar remarks might be made on our Lord's discourse with 
 Nicodemus (John iii. 1 — 2\), in which He refers to Moses lifting up 
 the serpent in the wilderness, and the Jews being miraculously 
 healed in consequence. And to that other beautiful discourse 
 (John vi. 30 — 58), in which He calls Himself the true bread from 
 heaven, and refers to the miraculous supply of manna. In these two 
 cases, also, he speaks as the Son of God, and bears his own testimony 
 to two of the greatest miracles in the Pentateuch, as to " historical 
 fact." 
 
 Dr. Colenso has attempted (Preface, p. xxx.) to set aside such 
 Scriptures by hinting that we can scarcely tell when our Saviour 
 speaks merely in his human character, and when in his Divine. 
 This is an old Unitarian device, but cannot avail in the instances 
 referred to. Our Saviour speaks, in John vi. 45, 47, avowedly 
 as the Son of God ; and his hearers felt that he did. So, 
 too, He did to Nicodemus, as the verses John iii. 16, 17, testify. 
 And so, also. He did- when discoursing on the manna. Moreover, 
 the attempt made by the Bishop to mix up, with this discussion, a 
 question of the knowledge possessed by Jesus, in his humanity, of 
 matters of a scientific, psychological (or philological) character is 
 nothing to the purpose. The blessed Saviour is solemnly discoursing 
 to the Jews of salvation, and as solemnly, and openly, speaks as the 
 Son of God, on the occasions above mentioned. 
 
 No doubt, our Saviour- did accommodate Himself to the popular 
 ideas of the Jews on various occasions ; but not evilly or falsely so. 
 Nor do I venture to suppose that Dr. Colenso would adopt the idea 
 of such ' accommodation ' in the bad sense intended by certain 
 writers of the present day. Our Saviour, as the Son of God 
 spake of Moses' writings, in the Jewish popular sense ; as 
 though He had said, " You know what books you call Moses' 
 writings — read them — he wrote of Me ; " — where the Son of God 
 assures the Jews, and us, that Moses wrote those books they thought 
 were his — viz., The Law, contained in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, 
 Numbers, and Deuteronomy — and that, in such books, Moses wrote 
 of Him. So, too, on other occasions, ' the Son of God was wont to 
 ' Matt xxii. 40; Luke xvi. 16; xxix. 31, &c., &c. 
 
8 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 speak of " the law and the prophets," or " Moses and the prophets," 
 in the Jewish popular sense ; — thus ascribing, as we just now said, 
 the five books of the law to Moses, and also ascribing the book of 
 Joshua to him whose name it bears. For the Jews imputed the 
 various books of the prophets to those persons whose names they 
 severally bear ; and among those prophets they reckoned Joshua, and 
 assigned to him that book which we call his. 
 
 But where did Moses write of Christ? In the Pentateuch, nearly 
 everywhere ; as the places referred to below will prove.* Surely, the 
 promise in Eden was of Christ ; Abel's sacrifice had reference to 
 Christ; the promise to Abraham was concerning Christ; so also was 
 Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac ; the promises to Isaac and to 
 Jacob were of Christ ; the Angel in the bush, and in the fiery-cloudy 
 pillar, " the Angel of the Covenant," was Christ ; the paschal sacri- 
 fice in Egypt, and the Levitical sacrifices, and High Priesthood, had 
 reference to Christ; the manna for forty years typified Christ; so did 
 the lifting up of the serpent; so did the rock from which the water 
 flowed miraculously : what can we exclude ? If we take these 
 references, which the New Testament abundantly sanctions; and 
 if we take also those contexts, which the construction of the books 
 shows to be inseparable from them ; we shall have, undoubtedly, 
 the great mass of the first four books of the Pentateuch. And 
 as for Deuteronomy, Dr. Colenso will not care to dispute about 
 that, seeing it is but a republication of the leading parts of the law 
 contained in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. 
 
 Also let it be particularly noticed that our Saviour, as the Son 
 of God, does bear His personal testimony to the literal " historical 
 truth" of two of the most astounding miracles recorded by Moses, 
 viz., the miraculous healing of the people, who looked to the serpent 
 which Moses lifted up ; and to the forty years' fall of manna. 
 Having the Son of God's testimony to these, as to historical facts, 
 what else is there in the Pentateuch we need hesitate to believe ? 
 Nor is this the whole case ; for when the Son of God i-efers, 
 generally, to Moses' writings, in the popular Jewish sense. He not 
 only asserts them to have been written by Moses, but also to be, 
 
 ' Gen. iii. 15; iv. 4; xxii. 10—18; xxvi. 2—5; xxviii. 13 — 15; and xlix. 10. 
 Exod. iii. 2; xii. 5; xiv. 19; xvii. 5; xxiii. 20; xxviii. 30 — 36. Le\it., passi7n, 
 as to the sacrifices and High-priesthood ; Numb. ix. 15; xx. 11 ; xxi. 9. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 
 
 what the Jews thought them, viz., narratives ** historically true." 
 Admitting possible miscopies in manuscripts; admitting difficulties, 
 or obscurities, of construction ; the broad, general fact must also be 
 admitted — viz., that we possess the Pentateuch now, in the main, as 
 the Jews possessed it in our Saviour's days ; and that, as such. He 
 gave Divine testimony, as the Son of God, that Moses wrote it, and 
 that it is historically true. 
 
 § III. THE EVIDENCE OF APOSTLES AND PROPHETS. 
 
 After the above, it is of little consequence to observe that the 
 Prophets, the Evangelists, and the Apostles, at moments when their 
 inspiration by the Holy Ghost cannot be rationally doubted, bore to 
 Moses the same testimony as their Master. But the places, referred 
 to below,' may be consulted, as especially adapted to fix this argument 
 upon our minds. For the allusions to Moses, and the books which 
 he wrote, are all through the rest of Holy Scripture so habitual, 
 multitudinous, and minute, that only a very small selection of such 
 places can be permitted us. 
 
 If these places, and others which the reader can select for 
 himself, be reflected on, it must become apparent, beyond reason- 
 able contradiction, that the sacred writers habitually recoo-nise 
 the five books, the Pentateuch, as having been written by Moses ; 
 and constantly refer to the most wonderful events, recorded by him, 
 as to well-known and fully accredited "historical facts." So that it 
 may be truly said, we have not only the testimony of the Son of 
 God, but also of the prophets and the apostles, whom He inspired, in 
 direct contradiction to Dr. Colenso's book. 
 
 And the contexts of Holy Scripture, thus appealed to, are so 
 extensive that no theories as to the nature, or degree, of Scripture- 
 Inspiration, can possibly shake the testimony they bring. Surely, if 
 ever man were inspired, Ezekiel was so, in a mysterious degree ; 
 surely Stephen was so, when " full of the Holy Ghost," speaking 
 before the Sanhedrim. But let Scripture-Inspiration be admitted, in 
 * Ps. Ixviii.; cvi.; cxxxv.; cxxxvi.; Isa. xi. 11; Jer. ii. 6; xi. 4, 5; xxxi. 32- 
 Ezek. XX. 5 — 26; Dan. ix. 10—15; Amos vi. 5; Mark xii. 19; John i. 45; 
 Acts vii. 2—51 ; xv. 21 ; 1 Cor. x. 1—13; Heb. iii. to xi. 
 
10 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 ever so faint a degree, it is conclusive for our present purpose. Let 
 it, for instance, be acknowledged (and probably Dr. Colenso does not 
 deny this) that the Epistle to the Hebrews is a part of canonical 
 Scripture, and that its writer was inspired, in ever so general a 
 sense, to write it, then it follows that his testimony to the Pentateuch, 
 and indeed to the book of Joshua also, as to books narrating 
 ** historical fact," is conclusive. So, too, as regards Stephen's speech, 
 and St. Paul's admonition to the Corinthians, in 1 Cor. x. 1 — lo. 
 And such testimony becomes, in fact, the testimony of the Holy 
 Ghost to the historical truth of the books in question. 
 
 § IV. HEZRON AND HAMUL. 
 
 However, let me proceed to the refutation of ihose specific 
 charges which Dr. Colenso has brought against the Pentateuch ; and, 
 in doing so, let me exhibit his unfitness to be a translator of, or a 
 commentator on, these Hebrew books. 
 
 It is several times ^ affirmed in Holy Scripture, that all the souls, 
 out of Jacob's loins, which went down into Egypt, were threescore 
 and ten. St. Stephen, indeed, " full of the Holy Ghost,'' does, for 
 some reason or other, prefer to quote from'' the Septuagint, and gives 
 them as threescore and fifteen. The Septuagint itself gives to 
 Joseph nine sons, and not only two, Ephraim and Manasseh. This 
 variation in number, acceded to by Stephen, under such extraordinary 
 circumstances, suggests at once some important considerations 
 concerning the increase of the Israelites in Egypt, and Dr. 
 Colenso's assumptions thereon, to be noticed at a future page. 
 It also suggests to us that the computation of seventy souls, as 
 all that were to be reckoned to Jacob, when he went down into 
 Egypt, is made upon some principle, and from some unexplained 
 motive, which (as understood by the Jewish translators 300 
 years B.C.) did not require that literally all should be included ; as 
 to the biblical use of which word all, we shall have a few remarks to 
 make presently. 
 
 I am aware that commentators have professed to consider inaccurate 
 
 ' Gen. xlvi. 8, 26, 27; Exod. i. 1, 5; Deut. x. 22. 
 • Acts vii. 14 ; Septuagint, Gen. xlvi. 27 ; Exod. i. 5. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 11 
 
 the place of the Septuagint thus referred to. But there is the fact 
 that Stephen, at such a moment, was permitted so to quote, and that, 
 to many minds, will be of more weight than the doubtful criticisms 
 of certain commentators. 
 
 However, Bishop Colenso states his first objection thus: — • 
 
 "19. ' And the sons of Judah, Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Pharez, and 
 Zarah ; but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan ; and the sons of 
 Pharez, Hezron, and Hamul.' (Gen, xlvi. 12.) It appears to me to be 
 certain that the writer here means to say that Hezron and Hamul were born 
 in the land of Canaan, and were among the seventy persons (including Jacob 
 himself and Joseph and his two sons) who came into Egypt with Jacob. He 
 repeats the words again and again :• — 'These are the names of the children 
 of Israel, which came into Egypt.' (Ver. 8.) ' All the souls that came with 
 Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, 
 were threescore and six ' (ver. 26), which they would not be without Hezron 
 and Hamul. * And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were 
 two souls ; and all the souls of the house of Jacob, which catne into Egypt, 
 were threescore and ten.' (Ver. 27.) So, again, we read : — ' These are the 
 names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his 
 household came with Jacob.'' ' And all the souls, that came out of the loins of 
 Jacob, were seventy souls ; for Joseph was in Egypt already.' (Ex. i. 1, 5.) 
 ' Thy fathers went down into Egypt, with threescore and ten persons ; and now 
 the Lord thy God hath made thee as the stars of heaven for multitude.' 
 (Deut. X. 22.) I assume, then, that it is absolutely undeniable that the 
 narrative of the Exodus distinctly involves the statement, that the sixty-six 
 persons, ' out of the loins of Jacob,' mentioned in Gen. xlvi., and no others, 
 went down with him into Egypt." — Pp. 17 — 19. 
 
 He then proceeds to show, what we are not concerned to deny, that 
 since Judah was forty-two years old, when he went into Egypt, and 
 was married when about twenty ; since, also, he had three sons (Er, 
 Onan, and Shelah), who each had grown to maturity before Pharez 
 was born of Tamar, by Judah himself; therefore, the sons of Pharez, 
 Hezron, and Hamul, could not have been born in Canaan. And he 
 adds : — " Yet the statement that Hezron and Hamul were born in the 
 *' land of Canaan is vouched so positively by the many passages 
 " above quoted, which sum up the seventy souls, that, to give up 
 " this point, is to give up an essential point of the whole story." 
 
 The question is. Does the writer say that Hezron and Hamul were 
 born in Canaan ? He does not. 
 
 1. Dr. Colenso has misquoted in a most singular way. The 
 verse, with its punctuation, in the English Bible, is : — *' And the 
 
12 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 sons of Judah ; Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Pharez, and Zarah : 
 but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of 
 Pharez were Hezron and Hamul." The Bishop leaves out " were ; " 
 unintentionally, no doubt. And he seems quite innocent of knowing, 
 that all depends upon that word '* were," with its conjunction : 
 i.e., all depends upon the presence of Vn''1, in the Hebrew text. It 
 is, also, remarkable that the Bishop^s punctuation of the verse is 
 accurate, according to the Hebrew ; only, when copying that, he 
 did not see the word VH''") • The Bishop puts a semicolon after 
 the word " Canaan," which is right ; the Authorized Version has a 
 full-stop, that is wrong. 
 
 2. If we take only the verse. Gen. xlvi. 12, the writer does not 
 state, that Hezron and Hamul were born in Canaan. He says that 
 they were sons of Pharez, and intimates something else, which the 
 Bishop could not perceive. 
 
 3. If we take the other passages, referred to by Dr. Colenso, it is 
 plain that the expression, " out of Jacob's loins," includes Jacob's 
 grandsons. It includes Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born in 
 Egypt, and may, therefore, include Hezron and Hamul, even though 
 they were born there. 
 
 4. Similarly the expressions, " went down into Egypt," " came 
 into Egypt," give us no reason to suppose that Hezron and Hamul 
 were born in Canaan, for the same expressions are (at Gen. xlvi. 27, 
 and Exod. i. 1, 5) used also of Joseph's two sons, who were born in 
 that land, and never "went" or "came" into it, literally speaking, 
 any more than Hezron and Hamul, who were born there too. 
 
 5. Ephraim and Manasseh may be said, metaphorically, to have 
 gone or come into Egypt, because they were " in the loins " of their 
 father Joseph, who literally did so. In the same sense, Hezron and 
 Hamul went, or came,, down thither; being "in the loins" of 
 Pharez, when he went down there. But, if so, asks ^ Dr. Colenso, 
 V Why not also the great-great-grandsons, and so on, ad wjinitum ? " 
 The reason is, that Hezron and Hamul were" selected to be heads of 
 families, as we see in Num. xxvi. 21 ; their names it was, therefore, 
 necessary to specify, and especially because they were put in the 
 place of Er and Onan ; the names of other grandsons born in Egypt, 
 it was not. Besides, the question itself is absurd, as the ad infinitum 
 plainly shows. 
 
 ' Page 22, Ans. (i.) (vi.). 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 13 
 
 6. The expression, " came with Jacob," gives us no reason to 
 suppose that Hezron and Hamul were born in Canaan ; for it is used 
 of Joseph, in passages above referred to, and we are sure that he did 
 not go down to Egypt '' with Jacob." The Bishop seems unaware 
 that the phrases, npvb, Gen. xlvi. 26, and 3pV*' DW, Exod. i. 1, mean 
 not necessarily, nor exactly, tvith, in the English sense. They would 
 be as well, or better, translated, '* as Jacob's," or " for Jacob," or " as 
 to Jacob," or " in relation to Jacob ; " in fact, " counted with Jacob," 
 or "reckoned to him;" and, therefore, might include, not only 
 Jacob himself, but also all souls to be reckoned to his house, as at 
 that time. 
 
 The Bishop should be careful how he, who appears to know little, 
 or nothing, of Hebrew, charges with inaccuracy (pp. 22, 23,) the 
 writer of such a lucid book as the Pentateuch, who, to say the least, 
 was a first-rate Hebrew scholar. 
 
 7. We cannot reasonably suppose the sacred writer to have been 
 guilty of so gross an absurdity as to say that Hezron and Hamul were 
 born to Pharez before the descent into Egypt, when that person would 
 have been about four or five years old. Commentators suggest, as 
 Dr. Colenso observes, that Hezron and Hamul are counted among the 
 seventy souls, because they were placed in the stead of Er and Onan, 
 sons of Judah who died in Canaan. In reply, the Bishop asks (p. 24) 
 two questions : First, " How is it that Hezron and Hamul, the sons 
 ** of Pharez, are mentioned ; and Zabdi, and the other sons of 
 *' Zarah, are not mentioned ? " Second, " If Hezron and Hamul are 
 ** substituted for Er and Onan, for whom are Heber and Malchiel, 
 " the sons of Beriah, Asher's son (ver. 17), supposed to be sub- 
 " stituted ? " 
 
 The reader can reply to the first of these questions by referring to 
 Num. xxvi. 19 — 22, where he will find that Zarah reckons for one 
 family, "of Zerah, the family of the Zarhites ; " but that Pharez 
 reckons for three, " of Pharez, the family of the Pharzites,^' " of 
 Hezron, the family of the Hezronites ; of Hamul, the family of the 
 Hamulites." In fact, this passage plainly intimates the substitu- 
 tion of Hezron and Hamul for Er and Onan. I am afraid that 
 Dr. Colenso included the Hezronites and Hamulites among the 
 Pharzites; whereas the writer's meaning is to separate the Hezronites 
 and Hamulites, as distinct families; and to leave other sons of Pharez, 
 
14 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 under the title of Pliarzites. Two of Pharez' sons, Hezron and 
 Hamul, are thus registered as heads of houses : no son of Zarah is. 
 Probably this was done by Jacob's direction, to fill up tlie number of 
 Judah's sons, to whom he had given the royalties of the firstborn, 
 which he had taken from Reuben. (Gen. xlviii. 5, 22 ; xlix. 4.) 
 That Jacob did exercise the power, under Divine direction, of 
 bestowing peculiar family and (therefore) national privileges, upon 
 certain sons, to the exclusion of others, we are sure. " And now 
 thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born unto thee in 
 the land of Egypt, before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine ; 
 as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine." (Gen. xlviii. 5, 6.) 
 The Bishop says, this is nothing to the purpose, because Ephraim and 
 Manasseh were adopted as heads of tribes ; Hezron and Hamul were 
 not. True ; Ephraim and Manasseh were, under Divine direction, 
 taken as heads of tribes, for Joseph, and for Levi ; .Joseph thus 
 having the property -rights of the firstborn, viz., a double portion, 
 which Jacob had taken from Reuben. The royalties of the firstborn 
 were, as I have said, taken from Reuben, because he foully sinned, 
 and were given to Judah. And (is it unlikely?) to make up, in his 
 posterity, that part of the birthright to Judah, Jacob did for him the 
 same thing, in principle, as he did for Joseph. Two sons of Joseph 
 he took as heads of tribes; two grandsons of Judah he took as heads 
 of houses, to make up for the loss of Er and Onan. The principle of 
 action is the same in each case. Reuben's birthright was shared 
 between Judah and Joseph, and extraordinary means taken to secure 
 to each his part. 
 
 Is it nothing that Hezron is that particular grandson of Judah, 
 through whom the Son of God assumed the human nature ? (Matt. 
 i. 3 ; Luke iii. 33.) There is the royalty : Hezron progenited the 
 true King of Israel. 
 
 By referring to Ruth iv. 12, Dr. Colenso will learn that the 
 blessing of Pharez' family was proverbial in Judah: "Let thy house 
 be like the house of Pharez," &c. See also Ruth iv. 18 — 22. 
 
 8. To answer Dr. Colenso's second question, " For whom are 
 •* Heber and Malchiel, Asher's grandsons, substituted?" brings 
 us to the pith of the matter. For no one : and that makes all the 
 difference. And if Dr. Colenso will take his Hebrew Bible, he will 
 see, that the writer introduces the names of Hezron and Hamul, as 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 15 
 
 he does not introduce those of Heber and Malchiel ; nor, indeed, any 
 other names mentioned at Gen. xlvi. 8 — ^7. 
 
 The following is a possible, and (I believe) is the correct translation 
 of ver. 12 : — " And the sons of Judah, Er, and Onan, and Shelah, 
 and Pharez, and Zarah : but Er and Onan died in the land of 
 Canaan ; therefore, there were the sons of Pharez, Hezron and 
 Hamul." 
 
 Let me make this plain. The punctuation of the English version 
 is certainly wrong. There should be only a semicolon after the word 
 " Canaan." The one sentence, having two clauses, is as follows ; 
 " but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan ; therefore there were 
 Pharez' sons, Hezron and Hamul : " viz., to Judah for sons. The 
 ellipsis is of mvb D"'33b. The use of the substantive verb, and its 
 prefix, here fixes its sense. Any one can see, by looking at an 
 English Bible, that it is not usual in Hebrew genealogies to use the 
 words " was," " were," &:c., &c. Thus, Gen. xlvi. 8 — 24, it is written, 
 ** And the sons of Reuben," " And the sons of Levi," " And the sons 
 of Asher," &c., Sec. And in this particular genealogy the writer 
 never once uses the substantive verb, in introducing the names, except 
 those of Hezron and Hamul. "Why does he there ? Just criticism 
 says he has a special object; and that object is expressed by the 
 peculiar use of the prefix 1 . It is to throw back the statement of 
 Hezron and Hamul's birth, as consequent to the statement of Er 
 and Onan's death : — Er and Onan died in Canaan ; therefore there 
 lived, as sons to Judah, Hezron and Hamul. 
 
 Let the reader examine all other genealogies in Genesis. There 
 is no similar use of VH"''! in one of them. The seeming cases are 
 Gen. XXXV. 22; xxxvi. 11, 22. But neither of these is really like 
 the one before us, Gen. xlvi. 12. The forms Tf^T, l^iT^I, &c., are 
 properly used to introduce a new fact or narrative, naturally sug- 
 gested by what precedes, but not necessarily connected with it : 
 e.g.i " Now it came to pass," &c., &c. " Now the sons of Jacob 
 were twelve," &c. (Gen. xxxv. 22.) In Gen. xxxvi. 11, 22, the 
 writer's purpose is formally to carry on the genealogy, of which he 
 had just mentioned the root, " These are the names of the sons of 
 Esau," &c. *' Moreover the sons of Eliphaz were," &c., &c. " These 
 are the dukes of the Horite," &c. "Moreover the children of 
 Lotaji were," &c., &c. He had introduced no fresh fact: in Gen. 
 
16 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 xlvi. V2 he does introduce a fresh fact, viz., " Er and Onan died in 
 the land of Canaan ; " and to that fresh fact the Vn'«1 carries the 
 statement of Hezron and Hamul's birth. 
 
 All depends upon the rendering of 1 as the conjunction. However, 
 but, therefore, 8cc., &c. I give abundant examples below,' out of the 
 book of Genesis. 
 
 Should it be thought that this is a case of mere pointing, I beg to 
 say it is not so. The situation alone of Vn"»1 determines its force. 
 But if it were only a case of pointing, this is precisely a case of that 
 kind in which the pointing should be held in serious regard. That 
 the effect of the pointing, as it stands, will justify the rendering 
 proposed may be seen from the authorities.'^ Dr. Colenso limps 
 along, disregarding the text and the pointing equally. 
 
 " Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan ; therefore there were 
 the sons of Pharez, Hezron, and Hamul." If Dr. Colenso can prove 
 this translation to be inadmissible, we shall be glad to see him do so. 
 If he feels that it may be, even possibly, correct, all he has said about 
 Hezron and Hamul comes to nothing. 
 
 § V. THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 Dr. Colenso's next objection is so extraordinary that, were we not 
 compelled to believe him serious, we should decline to notice it. One 
 feels really ashamed to think so ; but, with this fancied objection 
 before us, it is difficult to suppose that the Bishop of Natal is com- 
 petent to read critically, or to explain, the easiest chapter in the 
 Hebrew Bible. If not, then he is one of the last men who should 
 have ventured a hostile attack on the Pentateuch. It is really neces- 
 sary to warn the laity not to be led away by the pretentious appear- 
 ance of the Bishop^s publication. 
 
 Continually in the Pentateuch, as elsewhere, we read of " The 
 Congregation," " The Assembly," " The whole Assembly," " All 
 the Congregation," of the children of Israel. Dr. Colenso cites the 
 
 ' Gen. iii. 23; vii. 21 ; viii. 9; xii. 10 ; xx. 9; xxix. 33 ; xxxix. 4, 6; xlviii. 17. 
 See also Nold. Concord., Heb. Par., p. 289, 297, sub vocibus, qunre and ideo. 
 
 2 Glassius' Philolog. Sacra., i., p. 602; Gesen. Heb. Gram., p. 191, 231 ; Lee's 
 Heb. Gram. p. 156. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 17 
 
 places referred to below/ of which we take the following, as effectually- 
 raising the question to be answered: — "And Jehovah spake unto 
 Moses. . . . Gather thou the Congregation together unto the door 
 of the Tabernacle of the Congregation." ..." And the assembly 
 was gathered unto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation." 
 (Lev. viii. 4.) And " There was not a word of all which Moses 
 commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of 
 Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that 
 were conversant among them." (Josh. viii. 35.) 
 
 But, reasons Bishop Colenso, though some of the passages may 
 well include, as Joshua viii. 35 does, the women and the children 
 and the old men, suppose we take only the 603,550 warriors. (Num. 
 ii. 32.) They were to assemble " at the door of the tabernacle of the 
 congregation," and, therefore, must have come within the court. 
 
 " 34. This vast body of people, tlien, received on this occasion, and on 
 other similar occasions, as we are told, an express command from Jehovah 
 Himself, to assemble 'at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation.' 
 We need not press the word ' all,' so as to include every individual man of 
 this number. Still the expression, 'all the Congregation,' the 'whole 
 Assembly,' must be surely understood to imply the mam body of those who 
 were able to attend, especially when summoned thus solemnly by the direct 
 voice of Jehovah Himself. The mass of these 603,550 men ought, we must 
 believe, to have obeyed such a command, and hastened to present themselves 
 at the ' door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation.' 
 
 " 35. As the text says distinctly, ' at the door of the Tabernacle,' they 
 must have come within the Court. And this, indeed, was necessary for the 
 purpose for which they were summoned on this occasion, namely, to witness 
 the ceremony of the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priestly office. 
 This was to be performed inside the Tabernacle itself, and could only, there- 
 fore, be seen by those standing at the door. 
 
 " 36. Now the whole width of the Tabernacle was ten cubits, or eighteen 
 feet, reckoning the cubit at 1-824 feet (see Bagster's Bible), and its length 
 was thirty cubits or fifty-fovir feet, as may be gathered from E. xxvi. 
 (Horne's Introd., iii. p. 232.) Allowing two feet in width for each fuU- 
 gro-wn man, nine men could just have stood in front of it. Supposing, then, 
 that ' all the Congregation' of adult males in the pritue of life had given due 
 heed to the Divine summons, and had hastened to take their stand, side by 
 side, as closely as possible, in front, not merely of the door, but of the whole 
 end of the Tabernacle, in which the door was, they would have reached, 
 allowing eighteen inches between each rank of nine men, for a distance of 
 more than 100,000 feet, — in fact, nearly twenty miles ! 
 
 ' Lev. viii. 14; Exod. xii. 6; xvi. 2, 3; Num. i. 18; x. 3, 4; xiv. 5; xv. 36; 
 xvi. 19, 25, 47 ; Josh. viii. 35. 
 c 
 
18 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 " 37. Further, the Coiirt was one hundred cubits in length and fifty cubits 
 in breadth (E. xxvii. 18) ; that is, it was about 180 feet long and ninety feet 
 broad. And, since the length of the Tabernacle, as above, was fifty-four 
 feet, we have, for the space left between the Tabernacle and the hangings of 
 the Court, before and behind, 126 feet, that is, sixty- three feet in front and 
 sixty-three feet behind, or, perhaps, we may say, eighty-four feet in front 
 and forty-two feet behind. Thus, then, eighty-four feet would represent that 
 portion of the men in the prime of life, who could by any possibility have 
 been crowded inside the Court in front of the Tabernacle, while the whole 
 body would be represented by 100,000 feet ! Or, if we suj^pose them to fill 
 the whole width of the Court, ninety feet, instead of merely the space directly 
 in front of the Tabernacle, eighteen feet, still the whole body would extend 
 to a distance of 6,706 yards, nearly four miles; whereas that portion of 
 them who could find any room to stand in front of the Tabernacle, filling up 
 the whole width of the Court, would be represented by eighty-foiu* feet, or 
 twenty-eight yards ! 
 
 *' 38. But how many would the ivhole Court have contained ? Its area 
 (sixty yards by thirty yards) was 1,800 square yards, and the area of the 
 Tabernacle itself (eighteen yards by six yards) was 108 sqiiare yards. 
 Hence the area of the Court outside the Tabernacle was 1,692 square yards. 
 But the ' whole Congregation ' would have made a body of people, nearly 
 twenty miles — or, more accurately, 33,530 yards — long, and eighteen feet or six 
 yards wide ; that is to say, packed closely together, they would have covered 
 an area of 201,180 square yards. In fact, the Court, when thronged, could 
 only have held 5,000 people ; whereas the able-bodied men alone exceeded 
 600,000. Even the ministering Levites, ' from thirty to fifty years old,' were 
 8,580 in number (N. iv. 48) ; only 504 of these could have stood within the 
 Court in front of the Tabernacle, and not two-thirds of them could have 
 entered the Court, if they had filled it from one end to the other. It is 
 inconceivable how, under such circumstances, ' all the Assembly,' ' the whole 
 Congi'egation,' could have been summoned to attend ' at the door of the 
 Tabernacle,' by the express command of Almighty God." 
 
 " We need not," says the Bishop, " press the word ' all ' so as to 
 *' include every individual man of this number." A remark indicative 
 of one of two bad things, either great ignorance of Holy Scripture, 
 or a sad want of candour. The mode of speech employed is one of 
 •commonest occurrence in the Hebrew Bible ; and the expressions, 
 " all the congregation," "the whole assembly," &c., &c., may mean 
 either certain selected persons representing all, or as many as could 
 possibly be accommodated, or could conveniently attend. Take one 
 of the Doctor's selected examples.' So " all the congregation " stoned 
 the blasphemer. Does he suppose that the G03,549 remaining 
 ' Lev. xxiv, 10—14; Deut. xvil. 6, 7 ; Acts vii. 58. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 
 
 19 
 
 «' warriors " were, each of them, engaged in stoning this poor 
 wretch ? The fourteenth verse might have given the Bishop a hint, 
 " Let all that heard lay their hands upon his head " ; the witnesses 
 commenced the execution, which was completed by persons deputed 
 for all the congregation. But since it was a public, judicial, and 
 therefore national act, "all the congregation" are said to do it. 
 So, as will be seen, on other public and national matters certain 
 selected persons represented " all the congregation," who were on 
 that account spoken of as summoned, and attending. So, again, the 
 people were scattered " throughout all the land of Egypt " (Exod. v. 
 12) to gather stubble instead of straw. Does the Bishop suppose 
 that the people wandered all over Egypt, from the waters of the 
 Mediterranean to the Cataracts of Syene, to gather stubble? 
 " All " is here put, generally, for a great distance. So, all the dust 
 of Egypt became lice. (Exod. viii. 17.) Does the Bishop suppose 
 that literally all the dusty surface of Egypt, every particle of it, one 
 hundred and fifty leagues long and from three to seven wide 
 (" Volney's Travels," vol. i., p. 11) became lice ? 
 
 But there are passages which teach us plainly that " all the 
 congregation," or " the. whole assembly," &c., are spoken of as being 
 summoned, and present, when only certain persons, representing 
 them, e.g., the elders, heads of tribes, priests, &c., were intended. 
 Thus Moses is told to' speak " unto all the congregation " about 
 the Passover ; and he, consequently, called " for all the elders of 
 Israel, and said unto them." To instruct the elders was to 
 instruct the people ; and, on various public occasions, to summon 
 the elders was to summon " all the congregation." So Moses 
 said (Deut. xxxi. 28—30), "Gather unto me all the elders 
 of your tribes, and your ofiicers, that I may speak these words 
 in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them." 
 And yet it is added, "And Moses spake in the ears of all 
 the congregation of Israel the words 'of this song, until they were 
 ended." To speak " in the ears of the elders, and officers," was to 
 speak " in the ears of all the congregation " whom they represented. 
 Dr. Colenso, to be consistent, ought to require, in a passage like 
 this, that Moses should speak all the song referred to close into the 
 ear of every man, woman, and child of Israel. So, in later times, 
 " David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, and 
 with every leader " ; and then it is added, " And David said unto all 
 
 c 2 
 
20 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 the congregation of Israel." (1 Chron. xiii. 1, 2.) Again, the man- 
 slayer was to " stand before the congregation in judgment," i.e., 
 before the judges deputed, for that purpose, by *' the congregation " ; 
 and " the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the 
 revenger of blood," "and the congregation shall deliver the slayer 
 out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation 
 shall restore him," &c. (Num. xxxv. 12 — 25.) In which cases, 
 ** all the congregation " means certain persons, deputed to act for it. 
 
 Take one more example : " The children of Israel shall put their 
 hands upon the Levites." (Num. viii. 10.) It means certain elders, 
 or officers, representing the people for that occasion. 
 
 § VI. MOSES, AND JOSHUA, ADDRESSING ALL ISRAEL. 
 
 It is true, as Dr. Colenso observes (p. 32) that, sometimes, ** the 
 '* elders are plainly distinguished from all the congregation" ; the elders, 
 and other officers, were sometimes assembled, as distinct from the 
 congregation. Thus, (Numb. x. 1), when one trumpet was blown, 
 ** the princes, heads of thousands, of Israel " were to assemble ; when 
 two, " all the assembly shall assemble themselves together at the door 
 of the tabernacle of the congregation." Also it is true that Joshua's 
 language, (ch. viii. S5), is as inclusive as it can be. Yet common 
 sense explains the passage, even were there no other means of doing 
 so. Does the Bishop imagine that poor Joshua sat down, in the 
 open, to write with a million or two of people about him ; to write, 
 (ver. 32), " in the presence of the children of Israel," or to read, 
 (ver. 35), " before all the congregation ? " To write *' in the pre- 
 sence," or to read " before," are phrases which imply that the reading 
 and writing, referred to, were carried on, and known, as public, 
 national acts ; and that all the people were consenting parties to the 
 law, so written and read by Joshua. His mode of speaking, on such 
 matters, is sometimes peculiarly distinct. Thus " Joshua called for 
 all Israel ; and for their elders, and for their heads, and for their 
 judges, and for their officers, and said unto them." (Josh, xxiii. 2.) 
 The first and ought to be omitted. Josliua called Tl'pi^ bs-ia7"'-b3S 
 ** for all Israel ; for their elders, and " &c,, the omission of 1 a7id 
 before " elders," and its careful insertion before heads, judges, and 
 officers, decides his meaning. Joshua called for all Israel ; viz., for 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 21 
 
 their elders, &c., Sec. So again,' " Joshua gathered all the tribes of 
 Israel to Shechem ; and called for the elders of Israel, and for their 
 heads," &c., &c., (as before). This explains how the business of the 
 " whole assembly," when summoned, was conducted. All were 
 welcome to come, but not all were obliged to come. Only their 
 heads, and their judges, and their officers, went " before God " into 
 the tabernacle, whether in Moses' time, or in Joshua's. Public 
 business^ was proclaimed, "Moses gave commandment, and they 
 caused it to be proclaimed throughout the camp." And the persons 
 so employed were the elders, the priests, and the Levites. " Moses 
 with the priests, and Levites, spake unto all Israel ; " and yet it 
 is said, " Moses charged the people the same day." To charge the 
 elders, and the priests, was to charge the people. And so,^ lastly, 
 " the children of Israel " repented for Benjamin, and asked, " How 
 shall we do for wives for them ? " when it is meant, and afterwards 
 said, " Then the elders of the congregation said. How shall we do for 
 wives for them ? " 
 
 A lively picture of reading the law " in the ears of all the 
 people " is found, at Neh. viii. 1—8. " Nehemiah the Tirshatha, 
 and Ezra the priest, the scribe, and all the Levites that taught the 
 people, said," &e. On this occasion, the reader was Ezra the scribe ; 
 on Dr. Colenso's, he was Joshua. Ezra stood "upon a pulpit of 
 wood and read" assisted by " Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, 
 Jamin, Akkub," and others. 
 
 We can now do without the Doctor's arithmetic, at least on this 
 subject, and without the following remarks as well. See pp. 36, 37. 
 
 " How then is it conceivable that a man should do what Joshua is here 
 said to have done, unless, indeed, the reading of every word of ' all that 
 Moses commanded ' ' with the blessings and cursings, according to all that is 
 written in the book of the Law,' was a mere dumb show, without the least 
 idea of those most solemn words being heard by those to whom they 
 were addressed ? For, surely, no human voice, unless strengthened by a 
 miracle, of which the Scripture tells us nothing, could have reached the 
 ears of a crowded mass of people, as large as the whole population of 
 London. The very crying of the ' little ones,' who are expressly stated to 
 have been present, must have sufficed to drown the sounds at a few yards' 
 distance. 
 
 " 42. It may be said, indeed, that only a portion of this great host was 
 
 ' Josh. xxiv. 1. ■ Exod. xxxvi. 6; Deut. xxvii. 1—14. * Judges xxi. 7—16. 
 
22 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 really present, though ' all Israel ' is sjioken of. And this might have been 
 allowed without derogating from the general historical value of the book, 
 though, of course, not withovit impeaching the literal accuracy of the 
 Scripture narrative, which by some is so strenuously maintained. But the 
 words above quoted from Joshua are so com^ireheusive, that they will not 
 allow of this. We must suppose that, at least, the gi^eat body of the Con- 
 gregation was present, and not only present, but able to hear the words 
 of awful moment which Joshua addressed to them. Nor can it be suj^posed 
 that he read them first to one party, and then to another, &c., till ' all the 
 Congregation ' had heard them. The day would not have sufficed for reading 
 in this way 'all the blessings and the cursings' in Deut. xxvii., xxviii. — 
 much less ' all the words of the Law,'— many times over, especially after 
 that he had been ah-eady engaged, as the stoiy implies, on the very same 
 day, in -wTitiug ' a copy of the Law of Moses ' upon the stones set up in 
 Mount Ebal (Josh. viii. 32, 33)." 
 
 §Vn. THE EXTENT OF THE CAMP— THE PRIEST'S* DUTIES. 
 
 At Levit. iv. 11, \2, it is written, " And the skin of the bullock, 
 and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, 
 and his dung, even the whole bullock shall he carry forth, without 
 the camp, unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and 
 burn him on the wood with fire." It pleases the Bishop to interpret 
 literally of the priest the words " he shall carry forth." And imme- 
 diately he falls on with his arithmetic. Indeed one is tempted 
 to think that, so far as the Holy Bible is concerned, the Bishop 
 knows nothing but arithmetic. He reckons the people Israel, fairly 
 enough at about 2,000,000 ; and, very handsomely, proposes to 
 allow each living person three times as much room as a dead man's 
 coffin. Indeed, he is unpleasantly minute : — 
 
 " Let us allow, however, for each person on the average three times six 
 feet by two feet, the size of a coffin for a full grown man." " Let us allow for 
 each person thirty-six square feet, or fom- square yards. Then it follows 
 that for 2,000,000 of jjeople (without making any allowance for the taber- 
 ♦ nacle itself, and its court, and the 44,000 Levites,) male and female (Num. 
 iii. 39), 'who pitched round about it' (Num. i". 53), the camp must have 
 covered, the people being crowded as thickly as possible, an area of 8,000,000 
 square,yards, or more than 1,652 acres of gi'ound." 
 
 " Thus the refuse of these sacrifices would have had to be carried by the 
 priest himself (Aaron, Eleazar, or Ithamar, — there were no others) a distance 
 of three-quarters of a mile. From the outside of this great camp, wood and 
 water would have had to be fetched for all purposes, if, indeed, such supplies 
 of wood and water, for the wants of such a multitude as this, coidd have 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 23 
 
 been found at all in tie wilderness — under Sinai, for instance, where they 
 are said to have encamped for nearly twelve months together. How much 
 would remain in such a neighbourhood, after a month's consumption of the 
 city of London, even at Midsummer ? And the ' ashes ' of the whole camp, 
 with the rubbish and filth of every kind, for a population like that of 
 London, would have had to be carried out in like manner, through the 
 midst of the crowded mass of people. They could not surely all have gone 
 outside the camp for the necessities of nature, as commanded in Deut. xxiii. 
 12 — 14. There were the aged and infirm, women in childbirth, sick persons, 
 and young children, who could not have done this. And, indeed, the com- 
 mand itself supposes the person to have a ' paddle ' upon his ' weapon,' and, 
 therefore, must be understood to aj^ply only to the males, or, rather, only to 
 the 600,000 warriors. But the very fact, that this direction for ensuring 
 cleanliness — ' for Jehovah thy God. walk eth in the midst of thy camp ; there- 
 - fore shall thy camp be holy ; that He see no unclean thing in thee, and turn 
 away from thee ' — would have been so limited in its application, is itself a 
 very convincing proof of the unhistorical character of the whole narrative. 
 
 " 45. But how huge does this difficulty become, if, instead of taking the 
 excessively cramped area of 1 ,652 acres, less than three square miles, for such 
 a camp as this, we take the more reasonable allowance of Scott, who says, 
 * this encampment is computed to have formed a moveable city of twelve 
 miles square,' that is, about the size of London itself— as it might well be, 
 considering that the population was as large as that of London, and that in 
 the Hebrew tents thete were no first, second, thii-d, and fourth stories, no 
 crowded garrets and underground cellars. In that case, the offal of these 
 sacrifices would have had to be carried by Aaron himself, or one of his sons, 
 a distance of six miles ; and the same difficulty would have attended each of 
 the other transactions above mentioned. In fact, we have to imagine the 
 priest having himself to carry, on his back on foot, from St. Paul's to the 
 outskirts of the metropolis, the ' skin, and flesh, and, head, and legs, and 
 inwards, and dung, even the whole bullock,' and the people having to carry 
 out their rubbish in like manner, and bring in their daily sujiplies of water 
 and fuel, after first cutting down the latter where they could find it ! 
 Further, we have to imagine half a million of men going out daily— the 
 22,000 Levites for a distance of six miles — to the suburbs for the common 
 necessities of nature ! The supposition involves, of course, an absurdity. 
 But it is our duty to look plain facts in the face." 
 
 It is, indeed, a frightful picture — a priest of any Church, whether 
 in his robes or out of them, " having to carry, on his back on foot, 
 " from St. Paul's to the outskirts of the metropolis, the skin, and 
 " flesh, and head, and legs, and inwards, and dung," of a whole bullock. 
 How much worse in the heats of the Arabian desert, where all 
 gentlemen, but especially all priests, wore fine white linen breeches. 
 Even at Natal it would be horrible. May we venture to hope that 
 
24 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 Dr. Colenso did not, with all his judicious zeal, practically illustrate 
 
 us f 
 
 this difficulty before the Zul 
 
 It is a pity the Bishop could not have been personally acquainted 
 with Ezra. That great man, and accomplished priest, resided a long 
 time with those skilful calculators the Chaldeans, and was well 
 prepared to sympathize with Dr. Colenso in the power of numbers. 
 They might have passed an hour or two together, over the pages 
 of the Pentateuch, with much profit to the Bishop of Natal. Ezra 
 was inspired of God to explain the law of Moses, and to readjust the 
 Levitical services, at a time when the Jews had fallen into com- 
 parative ignorance during seventy years' disuse of them in Babylon. 
 In his book we have much valuable information as to the relative 
 duties of the priests, and their attendant Levites. This is the par- 
 ticular information which, at the moment, we require. 
 
 What occupation does Dr. Colenso find for the 8,-580 Levites, 
 mentioned at Num. iv. 48 ? Might not the passage from Chronicles, 
 which he has quoted, at p. 131, have suggested to him the explana- 
 tion he requires, " the people killed the Passover, but the priests 
 sprinkled the blood from their hands, and the Levites flayed them." 
 (2 Chron. xxx. 16; xxxv. 11.) Those who might kill, and those 
 who might flay — in short, who prepared the sacrifices for the priests 
 — is it too much to suppose that they might also carry away the 
 dung, &c. ? Was it quite impossible for 8,580 men, trained to out- 
 door labour in the heat of Egypt, to organize a continuous service 
 of hand-carriage, or of ambulances, in the sands of the desert ? Dr. 
 Colenso, who can think so exactly about coffins, and dead bodies — 
 why has he not also thought about biers ? 
 
 The duties of the Levites were clearly enjoined in the Pentateuch 
 — viz., to do everything relating to the service of the Tabernacle, 
 except the priestly duties of immediately sprinkling the blood, and 
 offering up the sacrifices. Ezra tells us (ch. vi. 16 — 19) that, when the 
 second temple was dedicated, under his superintendence, " they set 
 the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the 
 service of God, which is at Jerusalem ; as it is written in the book of 
 Moses." From which assertion two things follow: — 1. That Ezra 
 knew the duties of the Levites were defined in the book of Moses ; 
 and, 2. That these duties being spoken of in Exodus, Leviticus, and 
 Numbers, we have the three chief parts of the Pentateuch spoken of 
 as one book at the time of Ezra, and ascribed to Moses as its author. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 25 
 
 The writer in the Chronicles is even more distinct. Says Hezekiah, 
 when effecting- the reformation at Jerusalem ('2 Chron. xxix. 5, 16, 34), 
 " Hear me, ye Levites, sanctify now yourselves, and sanctify the 
 house of the Lord God of your fathers, and carry forth the filthiness 
 out of the Holy Place." All impurities were carried out, whether 
 from Temple or Tabernacle, not by the priests (as Dr. Colenso sup- 
 poses), but by the Levites. Also it was part of their duty to help 
 prepare the sacrifices, when the priests were too few ; as Dr. Colenso 
 says correctly they were in the wilderness. " But the priests were 
 " too few, so that they could not flay all the burnt-ofi'erings ; where- 
 *' fore their brethren the Levites did help them, till the work 
 " was ended." So, too, when Hezekiah celebrates the Passover 
 (2 Chron. xxx. 13 — 21), " The priests and the Levites were ashamed, 
 and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt offerings into the 
 house of the Lord. And they stood in their place after their 
 manner, according to the law of Moses the man of God : the priests 
 sprinkled the blood, which they received at the hands of the 
 Levites." The work of the Levites, of whom there were 8,580 
 at the Exodus, in assisting the priests, was to be learned out of the 
 law of Moses, the man of God. Moreover, at the 17th verse, we 
 learn a most important fact, easily to be gathered also from the books 
 of Exodus and Leviticus ; his Passover lamb, and other offerings, 
 each man, who brought them, was expected to kill for himself — *' For 
 there were many in the congregation that were not sanctified ; there- 
 fore the Levites had the charge of the killing of the Passovers for 
 every one that was not clean, to sanctify them unto the Lord." Had 
 they been clean, they would have killed for themselves. 
 
 Similarly, in reference to Josiah's great passover. (2 Chron. xxxv. 
 10 — 14.) Now where such abundant provision was made for the 
 killing, we need feel no uneasiness about the removal of the refuse. 
 
 If we turn to the passages referred to below \ we shall perceive to 
 what effect the duties of the Levites were defined. Every one, not a 
 Levite, was, in regard to all the duties of the Tabernacle, " a 
 stranger ; " and, if he " came near," should be put to death (Num. 
 i. 51). And every Levite, not a Priest, was, in regard to " the charge 
 of the sanctuary, and the charge of the altar," counted also as " a 
 stranger," and if he " came near " was to be put to death. (Num. 
 iii. 10 and xviii. 5.) But all other " service of the tabernacle " they 
 • Num. i. 49—51 ; iii. 6—9; \iii. 13—26 ; and xviii. 1—7. 
 
%0 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 were competent to do " before Aaron and before his sons " (Num. iii. 
 7, 8, and viii. 22). They were given to Aaron and his sons, as 
 servants, not only to set up and take down and carry the tabernacle 
 in the wilderness ; but also to do, and assist in, all duties of the 
 tabernacle, save the priestly in the sanctuary and at the altar, as long 
 as the Levitical dispensation lasted. Hence their title, D'*3in3 D"'3"in3 
 Nethunim, Nethunim, " wholly given " as servants to the priests for 
 the Lord. (Num. iii. 9, and viii. 16.) 
 
 Besides, it is important to remember, when considering the number 
 of priests and their duties, at any time, that some of the offices con- 
 nected with them were originally, and could still be, performed by 
 laymen. The person who offered was continuall}^ required to kill his 
 own, sacrifice.' The "first-born," as we shall elsewhere explain, 
 were originally told off to do this duty for their brethren. And, 
 before the Levitical priesthood was established, Moses- " sent young 
 men " (laymen first-born) " of the children of Israel, which offered 
 burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the 
 Lord." (Exod. xxiv. 5.) And, in far later times, if we refer to 
 Ezra vii. 24 and viii. 17, 20; and to Neh. x. 28 and xi. 21; we shall 
 see that some of the duties of the Levites, as Nethunim, probably 
 those which did not involve immediate attendance on the priests, 
 could be deputed to others, of whom it is by no means clear that 
 they belonged to the tribe of Levi. In fact, Dr. Colenso continually 
 loses sight of one great principle, affecting the law of Moses and 
 sanctioned by the Saviour, viz., that in many particulars it admitted 
 of variation and adjustment, according to local circumstances. (Matt, 
 xii. 5. See also, 1 Chron. xxiv. 3, and Nehem. xii. 44 — 47.) 
 
 We may truly say of such writers as the Bishop of Natal, " Ye do err, 
 not knowing the Scriptures." And I appeal to every layman, who 
 reads this page, not to suffer his mind to be disturbed by Dr. Colenso's 
 present exhibition of ignorance, nor by any other which he may publish 
 p,fter it. Far froin being overburdened, as Dr. Colenso supposes, with 
 the duties of the sacrifice, the priest was furnished witli abundant 
 means of assistance. (1 Chron. xxiii. 27 — 32.) 
 
 Every layman may trust his Bible, and look to that as its own 
 
 best expositor. Hence I preferred replying from Scripture as above. 
 
 But we may just add that, in the passage Lev. iv. 11, 12, referred to 
 
 by the Bishop, " he shall carry forth " — it is by no means certain the 
 
 ' Lev. i. 5 ; iii. 2 ; iv. 29. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 27 
 
 he does mean tlie priest. It might better, perhaps, be rendered, as 
 at Lev. xvi. 27 and elsewhere, " one shall carry forth." Dr. Colenso 
 ought to have known this simple Hebrew idiom ; that the third 
 person of the verb is often thus used indefinitely, as of some one, any 
 one, not specified in the contexts. The truth is, the Doctor did not 
 know the meaning of W"^!Jin, he shall canse to go forth; i.e., to be 
 removed. Scholarly instinct will base this criticism entirely upon 
 the Hiphil, or causative, form of the word used. But since, from 
 frequent use, the word obtains the desired meaning,' carry forth, i.e., 
 personally, it may be as well to refer to a few examples to show how 
 the context must determine its force. Joseph says, "Cause (lS"'!J'in) 
 every man to go out from me" (Gen. xlv. 1); does Dr. Colenso suppose 
 that the attendants were lifted out bodily ? " Moses said unto God, 
 Who am I that I should go unto Pharoah, and that I should bring 
 forth " (the same word) " the children of Israel out of Egypt ? " 
 Does the Bishop suppose that Moses thought he was to carry 
 2,000,000 of people in his pocket, or on his shoulders ? This 
 supposition would be about as reasonable, as that the priest was 
 to carry the whole bullock, with his skin, and inwards, and dung, 
 all through the camp to the ash-pit. It is useless to multiply 
 examples.' 
 
 The Bishop's uneasiness at page 40, in reference to the "daily 
 necessities" of the people, is explained by reference to Deut. 
 xxiii. 12 — 24. This paddling difficulty has reference only to 
 persons on war service. And as to its "limited application" proving 
 the " unhistorical character of the whole narrative" (see p. 23, above), 
 its application was just as wide as the camp. The injunction involved 
 a general principle of cleanliness. 
 
 § VIII. ON READING HOLY SCRIPTURE. 
 
 In reading any books, but especially those which claim to have 
 been inspired, we are bound to give the authors credit for common- 
 sense, at least ; until they have been clearly proved devoid of it. 
 Whenever we find statements in Holy Scripture, and in the books of 
 Moses as a part of it, which seem to violate the principles of plain 
 understanding, we may be sure that, in some way or other, we labour 
 ' Exod, xiii. 9; xxix. 46; Lev. xxv. 42 ; Num. xx. 10. 
 
/JO A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 under misapprehension. And a little more attention will, probably, dis- 
 cover the explanation we require. It is unreasonable to believe that 
 any writers, whether original authors or mere compilers, have been 
 guilty of the enormous and ridiculous mistakes, of the absurdities, 
 inconsistencies, and contradictions, boldly charged against them by 
 Bishop Colenso. Supposing he had proved anything, we should say 
 he had fallen into the disastrous error of proving too much. When, 
 e.g., he supposes ' that the Levitical law required '^ each priest " in 
 the wilderness " to eat daily eighty-eight pigeons for his own portion, 
 *' ' in the most holy place,' " we cannot help reading on. Not that, 
 after this, we expect to find any solid arguments against the Penta- 
 teuch ; but only to see what other curious things he is going to tell 
 us. More than four pigeons an hour, with just a little spare time ! 
 This is even worse than other difficulties already touched upon. 
 
 A careful study of God's Word will soon convince US' that in most 
 parts of it, but especially in the historical, a reader is expected to 
 supply many necessary particulars from his own general knowledge, 
 and sometimes from his imagination. Dr. Colenso has ostentatiously 
 refused to admit this element of interpretation ; and quotes an in- 
 correct remark by Canon Stanley — " and if we have no warrant to 
 take away, we have no warrant to add " (p. 70). True ; we have no 
 warrant to add to the doctrines of the Holy Bible, nor to its esta- 
 blished text. But we are continually required to supply many 
 rational particulars, which tend to explain, and to harmonize, the sacred 
 writings. This warrant is found in the nature of all writings, espe- 
 cially of ancient history. And it is arbitrarily enjoined by common- 
 sense. The particulars required may have reference to the characters, 
 and lives, of persons ; the climate, geographical features, and natural 
 phenomena of countries; the times of the year, or seasons ; solar and 
 lunar considerations, &c, in reference to particular parts of any 
 narrative ; the social, and political, arrangements of States ; the con- 
 stitutional, and national, characteristics of their people ; the mutual 
 relations, and comparative strength, of co-existent governments ; the 
 extraction, descent, and even the physiological peculiarities, of diflFe- 
 rent races of men ; all these, and a multitude of other matters, appeal 
 to the general information, or research, or even to the imagination, of 
 the reader. In studying books, like the Pentateuch, these cannot 
 be ignored. It is impossible to read, e.g., the books of Samuel, or of 
 ' See p. 128. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 29 
 
 Kings, (to say nothing of some of the finest parts of the Prophets) 
 without becoming unavoidably conscious that we have just described 
 a fixed necessity of interpretation. Or, take another illustration. 
 Dr. Colenso (p. 114) can see no signs in the Pentateuch that Jacob 
 had a large " body of servants " — " If he had had so many at his com- 
 " mand, it is hardly likely that he would have sent his darling Joseph, 
 " at seventeen years of age, to go, all alone and unattended, wander- 
 " ing about upon the veldt in search of his brethren ? " Yet Jacob, ad- 
 dressing Joseph, incidentally asserts an important fact (Gen. xlviii. 22), 
 " Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, 
 which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with 
 my bow." \'-|tCp31 "^^nns. There is no mistake about it ; this was a 
 serious act of war. When did he this ? and how, unless he had many 
 trained servants, like Abraham's ? (Gen. xiv. 14.) We are left to 
 supply both the time, the agents, and other matters necessary to the 
 truth of this statement. And, similarly, when (Gen. xxxiv. 25) 
 Simeon and Levi " took each man his sword, and came upon the city 
 boldly, and slew all the males." Did they do so single-handed ? 
 
 § IX. ISRAEL " ARMED," AND DWELLING « IN TENTS." 
 
 " The children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of 
 Egypt." (Exod. xiii. 18.) 
 
 Dr. Colenso observes that the word Ctran , here rendered harnessed, 
 appears to mean " armed," or " in battle array," in all the other 
 passages where it occurs. And he refers, in proof, to Josh. i. 14 ; 
 iv. 1^; and Judges vii. 11. And he then proceeds to argue as 
 follows : — 
 
 " It is, however, inconceivable that these down-trodden, oppressed people 
 should have been allowed by Pharaoh to, possess arms, so as to turn out, at 
 a moment's notice, 600,000 armed men. If such a mighty host — nearly nine 
 times as great as the whole of Wellington's army at-Waterloo (69,686 men, 
 Alison's History of Europe, xix., p. 401) — had had arms in their hands, 
 would they not have risen long ago for their liberty, or, at all events, would 
 there have been no danger of their rising ? Besides, the warriors formed a 
 distinct caste in Egypt, as Herodotus tells us (ii. 165), ' being in number, 
 when they are most numerous, 160,000, none of whom learn any mechanical 
 art, but apply themselves wholly to military afiatrs.' Are we to suppose, then, 
 that the Israelites acquired their ax'ms by 'borrowing,' on the night of the 
 
80 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 Exodus ? Nothing whatever is said of this, and the idea itself is an extrava- 
 gant one. But, even if in this, or any other, way, they had come to be pos- 
 sessed of arms, is it conceivable that 600,000 armed men, in the pride of 
 life, would have cried out in panic terror, * sore afraid ' (Ex. xiv. 10), when 
 they saw that they were being pursued ? " 
 
 " Besides, we must suppose that the whole body of 600,000 warriors were 
 armed, when they were numbered (Num. i. 3), under Sinai. They pos- 
 sessed arms surely, at that time, according to the story. How did they get 
 them, unless they took them out of Egyj^t ? " 
 
 The Bishop is aware that several explanations of this seeming 
 clifRculty have been attempted ; but he does not recount them 
 fairly; and, probably, because he did not fully comprehend their 
 force. 
 
 Let us first take that rendering, to which he, not quite justly, 
 persists in adhering, as if no other could possibly be correct ; and of 
 which he strangely magnifies the difficulty. Let us- suppose the 
 word, D^irjisn, means armed. How could these 600,000 men have 
 obtained the arms ? Could they have obtained them, by any means, 
 in Egypt ? It is true, as explained above, at p. 19, that the language 
 does not require us to believe that all the men who went out of 
 Egypt were armed. When Moses says, " the children of Israel/' 
 inclusively, we may here, if we please, understand him to mean, a 
 very large number, or even the greater part, of the 600,000 men, 
 were armed. Nor is it correct, in the Bishop to say, that at the 
 " numbering " under Sinai, " we must suppose " that all the men 
 " numbered " were in actual possession of arms at that time. 
 
 Yet, even supposing we included every man of the 600,000, 
 there is nothing impossible, nor perhaps improbable, in the assertion 
 that they were literally armed. The Bishop assumes, but without 
 authority, that, if they "borrowed^' arms of the Egyptians, they 
 must have done so " at a moment's notice." Whoever reads attentively 
 the first chapters of Exodus, viz., all that narrate the plagues, and 
 the interviews of Moses and Aaron with Pharaoh, will perceive that 
 we cannot certainly determine what length of. time intervened 
 between Moses' first speaking to the elders of Israel (Exod. iv. 29), 
 and the 14th of Abib, the night of the Passover, on which they left 
 Egypt. We are sure that one week elapsed between the first and 
 second plagues ; that at least two days were occupied in the plague 
 of the frogs ; and that the darkness lasted three days. But no state- 
 ment is made concerning the duration of, or the intervals between. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 31 
 
 the other plagues. Perhaps we should not be extravagant, if we 
 concluded that the ten plagues occupied fully ten weeks. 
 
 It is also certain that, from Moses' first appearance to his brethren, 
 a large number of them, and those the better informed, and more 
 influential, of the people, would be convinced that the time of their 
 deliverance was at hand. Whatever might be the case with the 
 majority of the common people, who, at one moment (but before the 
 plagues began), "hearkened not unto Moses, for anguish of spirit, 
 and for cruel bondage " (Exod. vi. 9, 12), it is certain that some 
 believed from the first (Exod. iv. 31) ; and we cannot doubt but that 
 many would know that the end of the period of bondage, named by 
 the Lord to Abraham (Gen. xv. 13), was close at hand. Many would 
 retain their faith in Jacob's prophecy of their rescue (Gen. xlviii. 21) ; 
 many more, it may be, in Joseph's (Gen. 1. 24; Exod. xiii. 19). So 
 that, from the first appearance of Moses and Aaron, with the 
 announcement of their approaching liberty, a large part of the people 
 would be convinced that their departure from Egypt could not be 
 delayed much longer. However, we may conclude, with certainty 
 conclude, that, from the fourth plague, viz., that of the flies, when 
 Pharaoh first showed a. disposition somewhat to yield (Exod. viii. 28), 
 the people would be convinced of the ultimate success of Moses and 
 Aaron. From the time the hail was threatened, we are sure they 
 did ; and that many of the Egyptians thought so too (Exod. ix. 20) ; 
 and more particularly from the time the locusts were threatened, 
 when " Pharaoh's servants " entreated him to " let the men go." 
 Of the exact time which elapsed between the plague of the flies, 
 and the night of the Exodus, we are not informed. But, there 
 is no unfairness in asserting, that we may reasonably feel assured 
 that for several weeks the Israelites felt certain they were about 
 to quit Egypt. And it is important to observe that the hint 
 for their "borrowing" would have been given from the first; for it 
 pleased the Almighty to direct Moses to this object, when he was at 
 Horeb, and, in fact, before he had consented to undertake the mission 
 to Pharaoh. (Exod. iii. 22.) The words amount to a specific direction, 
 given to Moses that they were to do so. It was part of his first 
 business to tell them to do so. And, to this very end, there may 
 have been a providence that "the people were scattered abroad 
 throughout all the land of Egypt, to gather stubble instead of 
 straw," so soon. One of the first thoughts of the men would be, 
 
32 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 arms ! of vvliicl), too, they probably possessed some already. For, 
 as to Dr. Colenso's question, If they had had arms, "would there 
 " have been no danger of their rising ? " it was that very thing 
 which Pharaoh is said (Exod. i. 9, 10,) to have feared they would 
 do. 
 
 Is it possible that when Dr. Colenso wrote this part of his 
 wretched little book, he was thinking of Whitworths and Arm- 
 strongs, of the largest size, and most improved manufacture ? 
 But it is for us to observe that the Egyptians used, for war, spears 
 and javelins, bows and arrows, daggers, slings, and the throw-stick, or 
 (in Australia) the boomerang. These were the Egyptian arms.' All of 
 them, light of carriage, and easy of concealment. And any old 
 wom.an, sharp boy, or smiling gii'l, could both " borrow,^' and 
 carry, and hide them. Who shall say how many thousands of 
 these " small arms" were so obtained, and so concealed, by 
 thousands of women and children, studiously set upon the task of 
 getting them ? We may accept Herodotus' statement, that the armed 
 caste, Anglice, standing army, of Egypt, was, at the highest, 160,000; 
 but that does not contradict the fact, for which Wilkinson is authority, 
 that the Egyptian people were naturally fond of field sports, and 
 used in them bows and arrows, spears and javelins, slings and throw- 
 sticks; and that, in fact, archery was a common pastime. The book 
 of Genesis assures us (xlv, 5 ; xxvii. 3 ; xxxiv. 25 ; xlviii. 22), that 
 the Hebrews were a martial people, fierce enough, and sometimes too 
 fierce, and that their traditional weapons were the sword and the bow; 
 and this character they retained, till Jerusalem was destroyed. 
 Besides, we all know how easily arms can be extemporized by an 
 earnest people, craving for their hberty. One stick of the Calamus 
 Magrostes, of which I shall have to speak, which covered the banks of 
 the Nile, and abounded in Goshen, would be long enough for three 
 spears ; and one of them, with a common Egyptian knife at the end 
 ,of it, would make a weapon which Dr. Colenso would be anxious to 
 avoid, like any other sensible man. As for. his remarks, about the 
 people crying out, in " panic fear," when they were caught in a trap 
 at Pi-hahiroth, encumbered with their wives, their children, and their 
 cattle ; what men of mettle would not have done the same ? Depend 
 upon it, there was more trembling in the Khyber Pass, than the 
 brave Englishmen who fought there cared to acknowledge. And 
 ' Wilkinson's " Anc. Egypt," vol. iii., pp. 38, 60, 253. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 33 
 
 there would have been much more, if all had had wives and children 
 there to feel for. To fight at Pi-hahiroth, was death ; to surrender, 
 was life, without liberty; and that, the Greek proverb says, is 
 worse. 
 
 I conclude, then, that it is extremely probable that a very large 
 number of the 600,000 Israelites were literally armed, after the 
 fashion of their day. 
 
 But Bishop Colenso knows very well that the word need not mean 
 armed. It may mean " marshalled," or " arrayed," in any order, 
 under any system. ("Kept in hand'' — V^l^U , Jive.') Or, as he 
 remarks, it may possibly be taken, and has been taken by some in 
 this place, to mean "by fifties." And then he feebly adds, p. 49, 
 " It will be seen, however, that these meanings of the word will not 
 *' suit the other passages quoted." And is Dr. Colenso so little 
 acquainted with Hebrew (though he professes " critically " to ex- 
 amine the Pentateuch) as not to know that there is, perhaps, no 
 other language in the world, which admits finer shades of meaning, in 
 the use of the same word, in diflferent passages ; having regard to the 
 sense of the root, from which it is derived ? I have already referred 
 to one instance in which the Bishop has manifested either great 
 ignorance or sad want of candour. Here is a worse. He observes, 
 p. 49, that the word CC^an has been thought by some to mean by 
 "fives " (Dathe,' in quinque partes divisum) or by "fifties," because 
 it " has a resemblance to tt7an , five.'' Has a resemblance ! Why, 
 without the points, it is the very plural of the word itself; and has the 
 same " resemblance " to it that Cherubim has to Cherub : and, with 
 the points, it is that same plural, excepting two dots. From the 
 Doctor's mode of speaking, a plain reader would suppose anything, 
 but this, to be the case. We have no reason to believe that the 
 Hebrew Bible contains every form of any particular word which 
 correct idiom could bring into actual use. And they, who read 
 Hebrew without the points, are perfectly justified in saying that 
 n''27an may be a participial noun, meaning fived, i.e., divided into 
 five bodies, as Dathe, and others, have concluded. They would 
 hardly, however, be justified in saying it means "by fifties," or " by 
 fifty in a rank," as correct idiom would then demand a repetition of 
 the word, which the verse does not supply. Besides, the division 
 ' Pentateuch, vol. i., p. 269. 
 D 
 
34 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 into thousands, and hundreds, and fifties, and tens, does not appear 
 to have been made, until some time after, at Jethro^s suggestion. 
 (Exod. xviii. 21.) 
 
 Dr. Colenso's argument requires that we should take this word as 
 a passive armed, and that makes all he says depend upon the pointing; 
 had two dots been left out, the word could not have been taken in 
 the sense he insists on. Now this is vicious reasoning on Dr. Colenso's 
 part, supposing him, that is, to be acquainted with Hebrew. The 
 word □'^tl^an is one of those particular words in which the pointing 
 ought not to be relied on. It is true the defective mode of writing 
 passive participial plurals, e.g., •■■ for ^, is found rather frequently in 
 the earlier books of Scripture: but still it is defective pointing; 
 and, moreover, it so happens that though the best Spanish copies read, 
 as our Bible has it, Q^IJ^an, other editions and MSS. read D^t^^Q^ 
 which is more strictly regular. All I wish to impress upon my 
 readers is, that the Bishop^s argument is vicious at the root ; and 
 shows either that he was ignorant of the bearing of the points on this 
 part of the argument, or else, knowingly, passed it over, and made the 
 groundless assumption, that the word D''t£'X3n must be a passive 
 participial form. 
 
 However, supposing we admit it to be such a form, it then 
 means not necessarily armed, but " kept in hand," drawn well toge- 
 ther, marshalled skilfully, systematically, and cleverly, for their exit ; 
 not a " rabble rout," not a mob, but decently and in order, in system, 
 ready at call, known in their divisions, under recognised '* officers." 
 But by no means " in battle array." Gesenius tells us. Gram., 
 p. 179, that Wl^n,Jive, means, as a root, to draw together, to contract; 
 and our word n"^tcan would, therefore, mean kept ivell together, not 
 straggling. It seems to me that, in speaking of the Exodus, people have 
 not taken account enough of the fact that the Israelites were D^'Cl^n , 
 organized, long before they left Egypt. They did not labour on the 
 public buildings of Egypt, as a mob. No doubt they worked in 
 parties, and gangs. And, we know, they had their own officers. For 
 the D'^'iratt? , or " officers of the children of Israel " mentioned, at 
 Exod. V. 14, were evidently Hebrews. The men of these several gangs, 
 appointed to make brick, &c., would probably reside near one another 
 with their families, and their foremen or officers. It is even possible 
 they might have been organized in gangs of fifties ; but, casting that 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 35 
 
 aside as not needed by my argument, I conceive that the word had 
 been passed along that, whenever they left Egypt, they were to keep 
 together in their gangs, under the same foremen, with their families, 
 and their cattle, and travel by such and such a road, and in such 
 and such an order. There was by no means the confusion on the 
 night of the Exodus, which Dr. Colenso supposes. But, as we shall 
 have to speak of the institution of the Passover, and the people's 
 departure from Egypt, I shall content myself here with con- 
 cluding — 
 
 1. That the people Israel may have been armed; and that Dr. 
 Colenso's argument is not worth a handful of Egyptian stubble ; 
 
 2. That the word Cirxan means /' kept in hand," or " organized; " 
 and does not mean " by fifties," nor '* in battle array." 
 
 §X. THE ISRAELITES "BORROWED." 
 
 Much has been said sneeringly about the Israelites having " bor- 
 rowed " of the Egyptians. (Exod. iii. 22 ; xi. 2 ; xii. S5, 36.) 
 And Dr. Colenso cannot deny himself the pleasure of joining in the 
 sneer (p. 25). It would be folly to undertake to convince the reader 
 that one of the commonest words in the Hebrew Bible, bSK7 , which 
 habitually stands for pray, means strictly ask, and not horroiv. I 
 cannot believe but that Dr. Colenso must have known this. Still, 
 there is no doubt that, from the peculiar circumstances referred to 
 in the context, and also from the force of b23 , to draw out, to spoil, 
 which immediately follows, it has acquired, in the places referred to, 
 the sense of " borrow ; " and that most commentators have agreed in 
 that. What then ? Jews horroived, Egyptians lent. 
 
 Does a commercial people, like ours, need to be informed that 
 often enough,, too often, sanguine persons borrow in perfectly good 
 faith, and with clear consciences, what they intepd and expect, but 
 afterwards fail, to repay ? Do people never lend in entire, yet too 
 sanguine, confidence in the chances that the borrowers can, or will 
 be able to, pay ? In the afiairs of life do lenders and borrowers 
 never wittingly join in a doubtful transaction, believing that, upon 
 the whole, there are probabilities of not losing in the end? Do 
 
 D 2 
 
3G A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 people, who have the means, never at moments of anxiety, or pit}', 
 or generosity, lend others, what they ask for, hearing their assevera- 
 tions that they will pay, but never expecting to see the money again ? 
 •* Take it, and God be with you. If you can pay, I know you will, 
 
 but if not ." Is this feeling not likely to have moved the 
 
 Egyptians, during the plagues ? Lend as much as they could, might 
 they not have thought they were getting rid of a Jewish nuisance, 
 very cheaply ? Might they not have even desired, and expected, to 
 buy the goodwill of Israel, by lending with facility what they 
 asked for ? 
 
 As for the Israelites, why should they not have expected, and 
 have intended to pay ? Canaan was their land, and they knew it. 
 It was but a short way from Egypt. They had no reason then to 
 anticipate forty years of wandering in a desert. It was a land flowing 
 with milk and honey, and they knew it. Had they .no traditions 
 of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ? Had they never heard of Isaac's 
 parental blessing upon their father Jacob ? Or had they no confi- 
 dence that the peculiar blessing of God would be with them ? They 
 might well expect to be able to pay ; and, doubtless, designed to 
 do so. 
 
 Does an act of war never cancel national debt ? And did not the 
 Egyptians wantonly levy war against Israel, by attacking them after 
 they had consented to their departure ? We will not ask, how the 
 Egyptians would have acted under similar circumstances. But, at 
 least, we may venture to hint, in the most delicate way, what might 
 possibly be the opinion of Americans. Do objectors to the Pen- 
 tateuch fancy that the Israelites must needs have been tied down 
 to payment by the private bonds of an elaborate commercial system, 
 which recognises the claims of stocks, and shares, and bills of 
 exchange ? 
 
 Did not the Israelites " borrow " by the express command of God? 
 And could the foreknowledge of God, as to their ultimate incapacity to 
 pay, impair the purity of conscience, with which they would borrow ? 
 If so, then — but we had better stop there. 
 
 And, lastly, is there any evidence that the Israelites did never 
 pay ? We are not aware that they pleaded any " Statute of Limi- 
 tations." 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 37 
 
 § XL THE ISRAELITES IN TENTS. 
 
 Dr. Colenso's remarkable book Lad scarcely been publislied, when 
 certain members of the daily press began to shout as if in triumph 
 that Holy Scripture had been, as they imagined, successfully charged 
 with unveracity. Among them a leading literary journal observed, 
 with many other particulars equally correct, that Dr. Colenso 
 " analyses grammar and style — traces the changes in languages and 
 the variations in the sense of words," &c. And there is no doubt 
 but that Dr. Colenso's book has attracted greater attention, even 
 from the clergy, because he has, here and there, spangled his pages 
 with Hebrew letters. But if our laity are thus to be deceived by 
 journals, professing literature, it is time that somebody should tell 
 them that Dr. Colenso does not analyse grammar and style, does 
 not " trace the changes of languages, and variations in the sense of 
 words" — because he cannot. Dr. Colenso knows nothing of Hebrew ; 
 and scarcely ever introduces a Hebrew word, but to make some mis- 
 take about it. He is utterly incompetent to examine the Pentateuch 
 " critically." 
 
 Thus, at p. 45, he is shocked to find it said, " Take ye every man 
 for them which are in his tents." (Exod. xvi. 16.) He cannot 
 understand, nor believe, how the Israelites could have been so soon 
 provided with tents — an inquiry to which we shall come presently. 
 But, observing that,' at Levit. xxiii. 42, 43, the Feast of Tabernacles 
 was established, " that your generations may know tliat I made the 
 children of Israel to dwell iii booths, when I brought them out of the 
 land of Egypt," Dr. Colenso reflects upon the strange conflict which, 
 he supposes, lies between the two statements ; and proceeds to give 
 us the important information that the word PTDD , booth, is not the 
 word bnS, tent. But that is all he knows about it ; and, venturing 
 only one step further, he falls instantly into error. 
 
 Dr. Colenso is too hasty in charging the authors of Holy Scripture 
 with not knowing their native language. Had a Zulu accused 
 him of not understanding English, we can well imagine what 
 amusement the anecdote would have created at Natal. What shall 
 we say when the Bishop charges the writers in Genesis and Samuel 
 with ignorance of Hebrew ? At pp. 22, 23, the Bishop says that the 
 
38 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 author of Genesis writes " inaccurately ; " at p. 45, that the author 
 of the second book of Samuel uses the word HDD " improperly." 
 
 This is because, at 2 Sam. xi. 11, and, as the Bishop says, "one 
 " or tw^o other places," he uses m^D for tents; which, says the 
 Bishop, can only mean booths, as a shelter made of boughs. Now, 
 the actual plural, niDD, occurs in foicr places, viz., 2 Sam. xi. 11, and 
 xxii. 12, and 1 Kings xx. 12, 16, for tents ; but the singular, n3D, 
 five times for a tent, for a booth three times, and once for a covert ; 
 while its kindred word, "fD, never means booth, but always either 
 tent, or covert ; so that the general force of "ID, nDD, mDD, is 
 covering, whether by thicket, booth, or tent. This might be 
 expected from its root, which means to cover. And, as a cover- 
 ing, • nDD, is sometimes synonymous with bns, a tent, and even 
 with TV'2, a house. When Dr. Colenso says, that booths is the 
 "proper meaning" of niDD, Succoth, he is probably following 
 the commentators, who intimate as much, because "the feast of 
 Tabernacles," when Israel dwelt in booths, is habitually termed,' 
 niSDn Hn, or "feast of Succoth;" all of which instances of the 
 use of the word ought to be considered as one. The word is also 
 used for booths, or rather fences, made for cattle. (Gen. xxxiii. 17.) 
 Yet the Bishop should have known that one proper, and one of 
 the earliest uses, of the word, is for covert, or thicket. Job 
 says (ch. xxxviii. 40), speaking of the lions, "When they couch 
 in their dens, and abide in the covert" (n^on), "to lie in wait." 
 And, hence, the word may mean, a covert, or thicket, of canes, or 
 what not. 
 
 But the Bishop's great difficulty is. How could they have been so 
 early provided with tents in the wilderness? And, "further, if they 
 " had had these tents, how could they have carried them ? They 
 " could not have borne them on their shoulders, since these were 
 " already occupied with other burdens. And these burdens them- 
 ," selves were by no means insignificant." 
 
 " For, besides their ' kneading-trouglis,' with the dough unleavened, 
 * bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders,' as well as all other ne- 
 cessaries for daily domestic use, for sleeping, cooking, &c., there were the 
 infants and young children, who could scarcely have gone twenty miles 
 a-day, as the story requires ; there were the aged and iufii-m persons, who 
 
 ' Levit. xxiii. 34 ; Deut. xvi. 13; Ezra iii. 4, &c., &c. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 39 
 
 must have likewise needed assistance ; they must have carried also those 
 goods of various kinds, which they brought out of their treasures so 
 plentifully for the making of the Tabernacle ; and, above all this, they must 
 have taken with them grain or flour enough for at least a month's use, since 
 they had no manna given to them till th^ came into the wilderness of Sin, 
 * on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the 
 land of Egypt.' (Exod. xvi. 1.) 
 
 '' 57. There were the cattle, certainly, which might have been turned to 
 some account for this purpose, if trained to act as pack-oxen. But then, 
 what a prodigious number of trained oxen would have been needed to 
 carry these 200,000 tents! One ox will carry 120 lbs., and a canvas tent, 
 ' that will hold two people and a fan- quantity of luggage,' weighs from 25 
 lbs. to 40 lbs. (Galton's 'Art of Travel,' pp. 33, 177). Of such tents as the 
 above, with poles, pegs, &c., a single ox might, possibly, carry four, and 
 even this would require 50,000 oxen. But these would be of the lightest 
 modern material, whereas the Hebrew tents, we must suppose, were made of 
 skins, and were, therefore much heavier. Besides this, these latter were 
 family tents, not made merely for soldiers or travellers, and required to be 
 very much larger for pui-poses of common decency and convenience One ox, 
 perhaps, might have carried one such tent, large enough to accommodate ten 
 persons, with its apparatus of poles and cords ; and thus they would have 
 needed for this purpose 200,000 oxen. But oxen are not usually trained to 
 cany goods upon their backs as pack-oxen, and will by no means do so, if 
 untrained." 
 
 It might be very fairly questioned whether the language at 
 Exod. xvi. 16, *' for them which are in his tents," does require us to 
 believe that they were literally furnished with tents. Long after 
 this, when the people dwelt in towns of houses,- the phrase was, 
 " To your tents, O Israel." (1 Kings xii. 16.) " So all Israel went 
 to their tents" (2 Chron. x. 16); i.e., every man to his home. 
 But, letting that pass, nothing can be clearer than the way in which 
 Israel at the Exodus may have been supplied with tents. When 
 •' they journeyed from Rameses to Succoth'" (Exod. xii. 13), they 
 probably arrived at a place where they made themselves booths, 
 and at a place remarkably ivooded. Not necessarily with trees, 
 for few sorts of trees grow, or ever grew, * in Egypt and its 
 neighbourhood ; and yet groves of palms, and of acacias, and 
 of sycamores, abounded. Thickets of cane, of various kinds, but 
 especially of one kind, crowded the banks of the Nile, and 
 the marshes of the Delta, and were especially abundant on 
 
 ' Wilkinson's Anc. Egypt, vol. iii., p. 167. 
 
40 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 the route which the Israelites took. Let us assume, ' as we 
 may with safety, that Robinson's view of that route is probably 
 correct. " Goshen lay along the Pelusiac arm of the Nile, 
 " on the east of the Delta, and was the part of Egypt nearest 
 " to Palestine." The Israelites broke up from Rameses, and pro- 
 ceeded by Succoth and Etham to the Red Sea; from Etham they 
 turned more to the right and '' marched down the western side of the 
 " arm of the gulf to the vicinity of Suez." The word Succoth properly 
 means, as I have said^ not only booths, but thickets. At Succoth they 
 tarried, we know not exactly how long. For, although Dr. Colenso 
 observes (p. Go), in reply to Kurtz, that " nothing whatever is said, or 
 " implied, about these 'days of rest,' in the Scripture;" and that " there 
 " would surely have been some reference made to them, if they really 
 " occurred," we must observe that, at Succoth, they are implied, and 
 reference is made to them ; for at Succoth " they baked unleavened 
 cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt." 
 (Exod. xii. 39). In short, they halted, camped, made booths, and 
 cooked ; how long they stopped, we are not told. I shall speak 
 about this again ; meanwhile, Succoth may mean, thickets ; and the 
 reed, or cane,* "grows in immense numbers on the banks, and in the 
 *' streams, of the Nile. Extensive woods " {Succoth) " of the canes 
 *' Phragviit and Calamus Magrostes, which rise to the height of 
 *' twelve yards, cover the marshes in the neighbourhood of Suez. 
 " The stems are conveyed all over Egypt and Arabia, and are 
 " employed by the Orientals in constructing the flat terraces of their 
 " habitations," &c., &c. Here, then, are the materials for supporting 
 tents, or making spear and javelin handles, of which they probably 
 had (as I have shown) a large number already. Is it unreasonable to 
 think that Succoth was a town, in a wooded country, and in the 
 neighbourhood of these thickets, where the canes were prepared 
 for export into Arabia, whither the Israelites were going (though 
 they knew not by what road), and that here they were furnished 
 with facilities for supporting tents, and " for carrying burdens ? 
 In fact, that as Pi-hahirotli, the mouth of Hiroth, is descriptive of 
 the physical aspect of one spot, on which Israel encamped ; so 
 Succoth is, of another? 
 
 ' Robinson's Bib. Res., vol. i., pp. 77—80. 
 ^ Paxton's Illus. Scr. Nat. Hist., p. 16. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 41 
 
 As for Dr. Colenso's questions, Of what the tents could be made ? 
 and how would they carry them ? — is he quite ignorant of the 
 abundant manufacture ' of cotton, and linen, and woollen cloths 
 in Egypt ? And of woollen stuff the Egyptian tents were made, 
 like those of some Arabs at the present day. Is he quite unaware 
 of the large, loose, flowing robes, in which the Egyptians, like 
 other Orientals, delighted ? Does he not know that the Israelites 
 entered the desert in the height of spring-time; in the "month of 
 flowers, when first most welcome spring appears ; " ^ on April 9, 
 B.C. 1560?' Does he not know that people might safely sleep, 
 even as early as the end of March, in the open air, as no doubt many 
 of the Israelites did ? Does he not know that it very rarely rains in 
 svmimer,* in Egypt, or in the desert of Arabia; and that, therefore, 
 very light tents would have done for the time ? Two or three of the 
 external robes of the men or women, supported on spears, or sticks 
 of cane, would have done for a family. Does he not know that the 
 Arabs, to this day, weave excellent tents of goats' and camels' hair, 
 and that Egyptian women w^ere excellent weavers with small hand- 
 looms ? And so were the women of Israel. (Exod. xxxv. 25, 26.) 
 Does he not know that each of such tents, stretched upon pickets 
 only three or four feet high, and divided into two compartments, one 
 for the men, the other for the women, accommodates a whole family, 
 even in the severity of winter, of which Dr. Colenso says so much 
 (p. 79), in reference to Israel's residence at Sinai. In short, is it, or 
 is it not, a fact, that; thousands of Arabs do make such tents, and 
 keep alive in them also, during summer and winter, in the desert ? 
 
 Now as to the means of carriage, the Israelites had plenty. There 
 were asses in Egypt, as elsewhere. There were camels. And, to 
 Dr. Colenso's especial purpose, the Egyptian oxen were * trained to 
 draught. Is Dr. Colenso not aware that Egyptian women, and why 
 not Jewish, were wont to be carried in small waggons, each of them 
 drawn by two trained oxen ? These were such waggons as Joseph 
 sent for Jacob and his family. (Gen. xlv. 19.) Or is he prepared 
 to show that the sons of Israel, when they left Egypt, did not possess 
 
 ' Wilkinson's Anc. Egypt, vol. ii., p. 59 ; vol. iil., pp. 113—145 ; and Lane's 
 
 Mod. Egypt, vol. i., pp. 34—56. 
 
 '^ Bochart's Hieroz., p. 55G. ' Gresswell's Three Witnesses, p. 84. 
 
 * Volney's Travels, vol. i., pp. 313, 368. 
 
 * Wilkinson's Anc. Egypt, vol. iii., p. 178. 
 
42 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 camels, and oxen, and asses, as well as sheep and goats ? Abraham's 
 herds consisted of sheep and oxen, and goats, and camels and asses 
 (Gen. xxiv. 35) ; so doubtless did Isaac's ; so JacoVs, before he left 
 Padan-Aram (Gen. xxx. 43) ; and afterwards (Gen. xxxii. 14, 15) ; 
 so when he went down to Egypt, for he took " their goods, which 
 they had gotten in the land of Canaan" (Gen, xlvi. 6) ; and when the 
 people came out of Egypt, they took " their flocks and herds, even 
 very much cattle " (Exod. xii. 38) — "rsa 123 n:ip'D, where, though 
 sheep and oxen alone seem specified, it is scarcely reasonable to 
 exclude camels and asses. Job's substance {^n^pTZi) was sheep, 
 camels, oxen, and asses. (Job i. 3.) It is more correct to suppose 
 that sheep and oxen having been mentioned as the chief of their 
 wealth, the possession of the rest is implied. 
 
 The means of carriage were plentiful ; and the means of making 
 tents more so. But we may have occasion to say more on this 
 subject, when speaking of the actual departure from Egypt. 
 
 § XII. THE ISRAELITES POLLED. 
 
 There is, however, a difficulty suggested by Dr. Colenso, to which 
 I now invite special attention. The Israelites are supposed to have 
 been polled, and taxed, at Exod. xxxviii. 25 ; they were certainly 
 polled at Num. i. 1,2, about six months afterwards. Two strange, 
 but perhaps imagined, difficulties are started: viz., 1. That the 
 number of men, above twenty years old, polled is the same on both 
 occasions ; 2. That, in each tribe, the number comes out neatly in 
 tens ; Anglice, in round numbers. 
 
 But, perhaps, the Bishop had better state the matter in his own 
 words : — 
 
 " 46. 'And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, When tho2t, tahest the sum of 
 the children of Israel, after their number, then shall they give every man a 
 ransom for his sotd unto Jehovah, xchen thou numberest them, that there be no 
 plague among them when thou numberest them. This tkey shall give, every 
 one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the 
 shekel of the Sanctxiary ; an half shekel shall be the offering of Jehovah.^ 
 (Ex. xxx. 11—13.) 
 
 " We may first notice, iu passing, that the expression, ' shekel of the 
 Sauctuaiy,' in the above passage, could hardly have been used in this way, 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 43 
 
 until there was a Sanctuaxy in existence, or, rather, until the Sanctuary had 
 been so7ne time in existence, and such a phrase had become familiar in the 
 mouths of the peojjle. Wliereas here it is put into the mouth of Jehovah, 
 speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, six or seven months before the Taber- 
 nacle was made. And in Ex. xxxviii. 24, 25, 26, we have the same phrase 
 used again, of the actual contributions of the people towards the building oj 
 tlie Sanctuary. 
 
 " The LXX, indeed, render the Hebrew phrase by to 8i8paxfJ-ov to ayiov, 
 ' the sacred shekel.' But this can hardly be the true meaning of the original, 
 iDipn Vo3 ; aiid, if it were, the difficulty would stdl remain, to explain 
 what the ' sacred shekel ' could mean, before any sacred system was esta- 
 blished. 
 
 " 47. But these words direct that, whenever a numbering of the people 
 shall take place, each one that is numbered shall pay a ' ransom for his 
 soul,' of half a shekel. Now, in Ex. xxxviii. 26, we read of such a tribute 
 being paid, ' a bekah for every man, that is, half a shekel after the shekel 
 of the Sanctuary, for every one that went to be numbered, from twenty 
 years old and upward,' that is, the atonement-money is ' collected ; but 
 nothing is there said of any cetisus being taken. On the other hand, in 
 Num. i. 1 — 46, more than six months after the date of the former occasion, 
 we have an account of a very formal numbering of the people ; the result 
 being given for each particular tribe, and the total number summed up at 
 the end ; here the census is made, but there is no indication of any atonement- 
 money being paid. The omission, in each case, might be considered, of 
 course, as accidental ; it being supposed that, in the &st instance, the num- 
 bering really took place, and in the second the tribute was paid, though 
 neither circimistance is mentioned. 
 
 " But then it is surprising that the number of adult males should have 
 been identically the same (603,550) on the first occasion as it was half a year 
 aftenoards''' 
 
 I crave the reader's serious attention, because the answer now 
 maintained will be: 1. That there was neither polling nor taxing 
 at Exod. xxxviii. 25 ; 2. That the Commentators have fallen 
 into the error of making the number of men polled determine the 
 silver used about the tabernacle, whereas the silver used deter- 
 mined the number of men; J3. That the Commentators have incor- 
 rectly assumed that all the men, above twenty years old, in each 
 tribe, were polled ; whereas they only were polled who were in 
 fighting condition. It will be seen that the observations, 2 and 3, 
 instantly strike away the supposed difficulty about the round 
 numbers. 
 
 Now I feel delicacy in entering upon this matter ; and must really 
 crave the reader's patience and pardon. Dr. Colenso would shut us 
 
44 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 out by quoting such dreadful names as Michaelis, Hengstenberg, 
 Kurtz, Havernick, Kalisch, &c., &e. (Pp. 42 — 44 ; and all through 
 his book.) Such names are, indeed, enough to frighten any 
 plain English curate. Why are Englishmen always going down 
 to Egypt, i.e., Germany ? Is there no corn (as BuxtorfF calls 
 religious instruction) in England ? One great scholar overwhelms us 
 with the exegesis of the Greek Testament, and plenty of references to 
 German, but no Hebrew. Another sends out an awful volume on 
 " The Inspiration of Scripture " — about two-thirds of it being made 
 up of references to Germans. What will the Germans say of Dr. 
 Colenso? I see he has " reserved the right of translation," and hope, 
 for the honour of the country, that he will never part with it. But 
 who is to speak in the face of such authorities as these ? 
 
 However, just one word. The places which concern the question 
 before us are Exod. xxx. 11 — 16; xxxviii. 25 — 28; and Num. i. 
 1 — 46. Let the reader carefully examine the first: he will find that 
 Moses is told. When — no time is there fixed — When Jie takes the 
 sum of the people, from twenty years old and above, each man is to 
 give half-a-shekel for the service of the tabernacle, as atonement 
 money. It is not said ivhen they are to be numbered ; nor for ivhat 
 purpose : but it is intimated in the expression " every one that 
 passeth " "isrrrbs, that not every male would be numbered, even 
 though he were above twenty years old. Now at Exod. xxxviii. 
 %\ — 31, the sum is given of all the gold, silver, and brazen work, 
 about the tabernacle. And the reader will observe that, at v. 25 — 28, 
 all the silver, and its particular application, is carefully mentioned. 
 It is described as the contributions of half-a-shekel each (about 
 fifteenpence) from the men who were numbered. The number- 
 ing is spoken of as a thing past. And the fact is that the book 
 of Exodus was written some time after the numbering carefully 
 recorded at Num. i. 1. Hence the writer speaks of it as an event 
 well known to have occurred, not at the time to which he is referring 
 at Exod. xxxviii. 21, &c., when the tabernacle had just been com- 
 pleted, but at a time to which he would afterwards refer, and did refer, 
 and when the tabernacle had been set up. . The tabernacle was 
 set up on the first day of the first month of the second year in the 
 wilderness : the first numbering took place just one month afterwards. 
 (Exod. xl. 2; Num. i. 1.) The book of Exodus was written after 
 both events: thouQ;h before the entrance into Canaan. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 45 
 
 Now I said that the amount of silver used fixed the number of 
 the men to be polled. A general order was given Moses that, 
 whenever he polled the men, he should tax them half-a-shekel each. 
 (Exod. XXX. 12.) The next thing done was to give general directions 
 to all to contribute what they pleased. And the people poured in their 
 gifts every morning (Exod. xxxv. 5; xxi.; xxix.), until Bezaleel 
 asked Moses to stop them, for they had more than they wanted. 
 (Exod. xxxvi. 3, 5.) In this general contribution the poorest man 
 knew he need not bring more than half-a-shekel ; it is even con- 
 ceivable that some had it not to give ; but all might bring as much 
 as they pleased : gold, or silver, or precious stones, &c., &;c. (Exod. 
 xxxv. 22 — 29.) The work was done out of hand ; and when the 
 silver parts (Exod. xxxviii. 25) were finished, Bezaleel knew that he 
 had used 100 talents, and 1,775 shekels of silver; and Moses knew that 
 he would have to enrol 603,550 men, in fighting condition, above 
 twenty years of age. About six months after, viz., when ordered, 
 he did that very thing. (Num. i. 1 — 46.) No wonder the numbers came 
 out "neat." Moses and the elders took very good care they should. 
 And Dr.Colenso, knowing (as we all are proud to admit) so thoroughly 
 the power of numbers, would have done the same. Moses had 603,550 
 men to apportion among twelve tribes, and he did so in round tens ; 
 the distribution bemg made according to the size of the tribes, the 
 number in each, incapacitate for war, and other considerations easily 
 to be conceived as affecting the selection of men for such a purpose. 
 One might be fit for Avar at sixty, another not at fifty. At that 
 numbering, the individual taxation was adjusted. All paid half-a- 
 shekel each. And, if any were too poor, doubtless, their richer 
 brethren paid for them. 
 
 Some one may ask. Why do you levy the tax of the militia upon 
 the silver, and not upon the gold, or even upon the brass ? The 
 answer is, because the half-shekel, or bekah, was the smallest coin 
 used, and it was silver. The twenty gerahs, which made the shekel, 
 were weights ; probably beans} So that a silver hekah was silver 
 weighing ten beans, and the silver shekel, twenty. 
 
 Moreover, that the men numbered paid in silver ; and, therefore^ 
 
 whether they first paid, or were first numbered, were told according 
 
 to the silver, and no other metal, is clear from Exod. xxxviii. 
 
 25, "And the silver of them that were numbered was," &c., &c. To 
 
 ' Gesen. Thesaur., pp. 305, 1475. 
 
46 
 
 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 show whicli arrangement also, the directions about taxing are put 
 between the golden work and the brazen work, in Exod. xxx. 
 11—16. 
 
 Now, Dr. Colenso says, in his innocence, — " The expression, 
 " ' shekel of the Sanctuary,' could hardly have been used in this 
 " way, until there was a Sanctuary in existence, or rather, until 
 " the Sanctuary had been some time in existence, and such a phrase 
 " had become familiar in the mouths of the people." Of course 
 not ; and this is one place that proves the Book of Exodus was 
 written some time after the putting up of the Sanctuary, &c., &c. ; 
 and Moses uses the expression, l»"rpn bplZ72, as expressive of the 
 measure by which he had been previously told in the Mount to make 
 all the estimations of the Sanctuary (Levit. xxvii. 25) ; and, among 
 others, the war-ransom of the militia. The silver shekel was the 
 standard. 
 
 I say — 'the amount of silver required for the tabernacle fixed the 
 number of fighting men to be enrolled in the wilderness ; and not 
 the number of such men, the amount of the silver. 
 
 The prevalent idea is that the number of men, given to each tribe, 
 in the first chapter of Numbers, represents all the men, in each 
 tribe, above twenty years of age. But nothing of the sort is said in 
 the context. They were all those, of whom each was S22 NS"^ , 
 ready, as a mode of living, to go into war ; i.e., fit for war, as a hahit 
 of life. That is the force of the participle used. And the English 
 version has caught the idea ; "all that are able to go forth to war." 
 (Num. i. 3.) A similar idea is expressed at Exod. xxx. 14, when 
 the intended numbering was first mentioned to Moses ; " every 
 one that passeth among them that are numbered " "i337n bD , every 
 one that " passes muster." The inner limit of age, viz., twenty 
 years, is fixed ; but the outer, I believe, nowhere ; and for manifest 
 reasons. But Josephus tells us that, in subsequent times, none were 
 expected to pay the war-ransom after fifty years of age. This hints 
 that the Jews knew that all men, above twenty years, were not 
 included in the numbering. I do not suppose that any outside limit 
 of age was fixed in the wilderness. But it is certain that many men 
 above twenty years of age would be unfit for war at the first number- 
 ing by Moses. It is true that none were so frail at the Exodus as not 
 to be able successfully to undertake the journey ; which (we shall 
 have to see) was not over hurried. But there must have been many 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 47 
 
 old men, the contemporaries of Moses and of Aaron, unfit for war. 
 Probably many accidentally maimed by labour in Egypt. Probably 
 some, though in health, naturally deformed ; and many, who though 
 living in comparative strength and likely to live, were nevertheless 
 the subjects of chronic disease, which would unfit them for active 
 service. 
 
 I conclude, then, 1. That the numbers in Num. i. 1 — 46, are 
 indices to the size of the tribes ; but do not include all the men 
 above twenty years of age. ^. That no numbering took place at 
 Exod. xxxviii. 25 where the amount is given of silver used in 
 certain parts of the tabernacle. 3. That the amount of that silver, 
 at half-a-shekel a man, fixed the number of men to be enrolled ; and 
 not the men enrolled the amount of the silver. And that, thus, 
 the round numbers are accounted for. 
 
 Also, note this — Even if the last suggestion be wrong, the mere 
 fact that Moses was to enrol only men, who were fit for habitual 
 war, would of itself account for the round numbers. For, when we 
 consider the various duties of active service, nothing could be easier 
 than for Moses and the elders to arrange for round numbers, as mere 
 matter of convenience, by taking in each case a few men, more or 
 less, capable of sundry military duties, though not for the crash of 
 close battle. An English Colonel who had to reduce his regiment 
 from any odd number, say 1,187, to a peace standard, would have 
 no difficulty in closing with a round number, say 850 ; yet, perhaps, 
 he would get rid of some sturdy rogues, and prefer retaining old 
 and tried respectable privates, though not in such robust condition. 
 
 As for Dr. Colenso's introduction, at p. 44, of the odd number, 
 22,273, of the first-born, that has nothing to do' with the present 
 business. We shall touch upon that subject by-and-by. 
 
 § XIII. THE INSTITUTION OF THE PASSOVER. 
 
 " 65. ' Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, 
 Draw out now, and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the 
 Passover. And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is 
 in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two side-posts with the blood that is 
 in the basin; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house till the 
 morning. . . . And the children of Israel went away, and did as Jehovah 
 had commanded Moses and Aaron; so did they.'' (Exod. xii. 21 — 28.)" 
 
48 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 " That is to say, in one single day, the whole immense population of Israel, 
 as large as that of London, was instructed to keep the Passover, and actually 
 did keep it. I have said, ' in one single day ; ' for the first notice of any such 
 feast to be kept is given in this very chapter, where we find it written 
 (ver. 12), ' I will pass through the land of Egypt thisnight, and will smite all 
 the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast.' 
 
 " It cannot be said that they had notice several days beforehand, for they 
 were to Hake'' the lamb on the tenth day of the month, and '■kilV it on the 
 fourteenth (vers. 3, 6), and so ver. 12 only means to say, ' On that night — the 
 night of the fourteenth — I will pass through the laud of Egyj)t.' For the 
 expression in ver. 12 is distinctly '^\'r\, ^this,' not vf^'^rt, 'that,' as in xiii. 8 ; and 
 so (ver. 14), ' This day shall be unto you for a memorial ; ' and, besides, in the 
 chapter preceding (xi. 4), we read, 'And Moses said [to Pharaoh], Thus saith 
 Jehovah, about midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt, and all the 
 firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die,' where there can be no doubt that 
 the ' midnight ' then next at hand is intended. It is true that the story, as 
 it now stands, with the directions about ' taking' the lamb on the tenth day, 
 and ' keeping ' it till the fourteenth, are perplexing and contradictory. But 
 this is only one of many similar phenomena, which will have to be considered 
 more closely hereafter.' 
 
 It is really difficult to gather together, in any moderate space, the 
 wonderful mistakes, and miscalculations, into which Bishop Colenso 
 has fallen. To do him justice, one feels almost compelled to copy 
 the very words he uses. Yet his errors are so numerous, and so 
 wrought into the entire book, that if one were to do so, he must 
 copy nearly the whole of it, as well as write one of his own in 
 reply. 
 
 The Bishop's first difficulty is how " in one single day the whole 
 " immense population of Israel, as large as that of London, was 
 " instructed to keep the Passover, and actually did keep it." " And 
 ** how could the order, to keep the Passover, have been conveyed, 
 *' with its minutest particulars, to each i?idividual household in this 
 " vast community, in one day — rather, i?i twelve hours — since Moses 
 " received the command on the very same day, on which they were 
 " to kill the Passover at even. (Exod. xii. 6.) ? " 
 
 There is a verse in the Holy Bible to which I will not allude 
 particularly ; but it is very apposite to this inquiry. Suppose we 
 answered Dr. Colenso, " They used carrier-pigeons." For they did 
 use carrier-pigeons. And as the Bishop has had occasion to speak of 
 pigeons further on in his book, I shall, in the proper place, give him 
 some information about those interesting birds. However, at pre- 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 49 
 
 sent, assuming the Bishop to be right, and that the information 
 had to be conveyed throughout a populous place, as large as 
 London, in twelve hours — were there no horses in Egypt ? no 
 Nile-streams in Egypt, bearing " swift messengers," in the shape of 
 light boats ? Was there not in ' Egypt, the ** swift dromedary, 
 traversing her ways"? All these means of rapid communication 
 existed in the land of Goshen, where Israel dwelt. The Tawara, or 
 Arabs of Tor,'' viz., the Arabs of the desert close by Goshen, " on 
 the eastern side of the branch of Suez," rear a particular sort of 
 camel, now called Hedjina; in shape like the common camel, but 
 more slender, and much fleeter. " He is made use of by couriers," 
 and " if he has once got the start by four hours, the swiftest Arabian 
 mare can never overtake him." For, he will trot easily six miles an 
 hour, for thirty or forty hours successively. The " swift dromedary " 
 is peculiarly a native of the desert El Tih, close by Goshen where 
 Israel dwelt. But no matter, how long would a twopeniny post-boy 
 take to worm his way through London, with the promise of roast 
 lamb (and a holiday) at the end of it ? How long would a light- 
 dragoon orderly take to dash, from the Horse-guards, a distance of 
 six miles with the intelligence that the French had landed at Dover ? 
 How long would all London take to learn it ? The departure from 
 Egypt was of equal moment to the sons of Israel. 
 
 But here too, as usual. Bishop Colenso is wrong, because he will 
 dabble in criticism. He says that " in one single day," *' rather in 
 *' twelve hours," Moses received the command to keep the Passover, 
 transmitted it to the people, and that it was kept ; in this short time, 
 " For the expression in ver. 12 is distinctly ntn this, not Sinn that, 
 ** as in xiii. 8; and'so (ver. 14) ' this day shall be unto you for a 
 *' ' memorial ; ' and, besides, in the chapter preceding (xi. 4), we read, 
 " * And Moses said. Thus saith Jehovah, about midnight will I go out 
 " ' into the midst of Egypt,' " &c., &c. 
 
 There is not a word in the narrative to justify the Bishop's 
 conclusion; there is not a word to warrant our thinking that the 
 directions for the Passover were given to Moses on the 14th Abib, 
 at the second evening of which it was to be kept ; there is not a word 
 to forbid our thinking they were given on the 10th, or 9th, or, 
 indeed, any other day of that month. The first mention of the 
 subject is at Exod. xii. 1,2. " And the Lord spake unto Moses and 
 ' Jer. ii. 23. "^ Volney's Travels, vol. ii,, p, 293. 
 
 E 
 
50 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall be unto you the 
 Leginning of months," &c. And, as there is no previous allusion to the 
 month, the word nt, as here used, must mean this " month in which I 
 am speaking; " and the communication may have been made on the first 
 day of it. Bishop Colenso has fallen into the error of supposing 
 that riT must mean this, day or time, at or on which one is speaking ; 
 and cannot mean this, day or time, of which one is speaking. That 
 is his mistake exactly. But it often means the time, thing, or 
 circumstance, of which one is speaking. I give examples ' from 
 the Pentateuch, Gen. vii. 11 ; xix. 21 ; Exod. iii. 15; xxx. 31 ; and 
 Levit. xi. 4 ; i.e., this day, this name, this oil, these animals, of 
 which I am, or have been, speaking ; or am about to speak. So the 
 Lord, at Exod. xii., this month, in which I am speaking, shall be 
 unto you the beginning of months, (ver. 1) ; thus, having introduced 
 the month, " In the tenth of this month, of which I speak, they 
 shair take to them every man a lamb," (ver. 3) " and the whole 
 assembly shall kill it in the evening " (ver. 6) ; and, having thus 
 introduced " the evening " as the commencement of nigh't, " For I will 
 pass through the land of Egypt this night," o/ which I am speaking, 
 (ver. 12). God spake nothing on, or during, the night of Passover ; 
 He only slew the firstborn. " And this day," o/ which I am speaking, 
 not on which, " shall be unto you for a memorial." (Ver. 14.) Is the 
 Bishop's mistake clear? The 12th verse proves it. And what will 
 he say when we inform him that this nt sometimes means that ? 
 (Deut. iii. 25, and Judges v. 5.) " T pray thee let me go over, and 
 see the good land that is beyond Jordan, that goodly mountain, 
 even Lebanon," mn mton "inn ; Moses had not ascended Pisgah, 
 when he uttered this prayer, of which I am speaking. *(Deut. iii. 
 27.) " The mountains melted from before the Lord, that Sinai from 
 before the Lord God of Israel," mn^ ^32X3 ^2^D nt ; when Deborah 
 sang that song, she was far away from Sinai, near Megiddo in the 
 valley of Jezreel. ^ 
 
 I trust this error, of which we are speaking, in reply to the Bishop, 
 has been clearly exposed. 
 
 • The Bishop is altogether wrong in supposing that the directions about 
 the Passover must have been given on Passover-day, the 14th of Abib. 
 They may have been given, and probably were, before the 10th. 
 
 Another great error, into which Dr. Colenso has fallen, is that of 
 ' Nolden's Concord., Heb. Part, p. 332. .- Glassius' Philolog. Sacr., vol. i.,p. 160. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO, 51 
 
 supposing that, because the Israelites were " thrust out " of Egypt, 
 and left " in haste," on the morning of the 15th Abib (Exod. xii. 31 
 — 33, 39 ; Num. xxxiii. 3), they, therefore, left unprepared. They 
 had not, indeed, " prepared for themselves any victual " — though 
 they had made their " dough " (Exod. xii. 34, 39), and the word 
 '* prepared " must be interpreted accordingly. They had not pre- 
 pared any sufficient or proper quantity of victual, with especial 
 regard to thoir journey. They knew not the exact moment they 
 would be allowed to start, and reckoned upon a short time for 
 baking — which short time was not allowed them, until they arrived 
 at Succoth (ver. 37). It was ordered providentially so, that they 
 might not be tempted to leaven their dough. In other respects they 
 had had abundant time to get ready. To start in a great hurry 
 implies no lack of preparation ; every dilatory traveller, whose carpet- 
 bag his cheerful wife has packed for a month, knows what it is to be 
 all but too late for the train. The Israelites left in a hurry, but were 
 well prepared. Let us remember that the plague of three days' 
 " darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may be felt," 
 was the ninth ; and immediately preceded the smiting of the first- 
 born. (Exod. X. 22.) What were the Israelites doing during these 
 three days ? At this time they were perfectly sure their departure 
 was at hand. (Exod. x. 29, and xi. 8.) And the reasonable answer 
 to such a question is that, during these three days, when the Egyp- 
 tians could not see an inch before them, " neither rose any from his 
 place for three days " (Exod. x. 23), all the children of Israel who 
 "had light in their dwellings," were busily engaged in preparing for 
 their journey. During those three days they, doubtless, concentrated 
 their flocks; prepared their camels and their asses ;'made comfortable 
 arrangements for the little children, and the women with child, for 
 whom Dr. Colenso is so properly concerned, at p. 62 ; passed the neces- 
 sary commands through their D''"ii:)t2;, or officers, to the several sections 
 into which they had been divided, for purposes of labour, and became 
 n''tC!:n , i.e., organized for the route. The very direction, "none of 
 you shall go out of his door until the morning " (Exod. xii. 22), and 
 the warning of Moses contained, in ver. 23, indeed the plain assurances 
 of immediate rescue, given in ver. 11 — 17, must have kept the 
 Israelites in earnest expectation all the Passover night, with the con- 
 viction that they would be permitted to leave in the morning. And 
 
 E 2 
 
52 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 yet Dr. Colenso can write thus : — " Not one was * to go out at the 
 *' ' door of his house until the morning.' (Exod. xii. 22.) Conse- 
 " quently, they could not have known anything of what had happened 
 *' in Pharaoh's house and city, as also among his people throughout 
 " the * whole land of Egypt ' (Exod. xii. 22), until the summons from 
 •* Moses, or at least, the news of the event, reached each individual 
 " house." (P. 60.) Could not have known ! Why were they told 
 to keep in doors so, except to avoid being smitten in their firstborn? 
 And had they not been clearly told what was to happen to the Egyp- 
 tians on that dreadful night? (Exod. xi. 5; xii. 12, 23, 27.) In 
 fact, what did the whole business of the slaughtered lamb, in every 
 house, portend ? But such are Dr. Colenso's extraordinary errors in 
 the presence of the plainest assertions of Holy Scripture. And here 
 is another : — " And this appears to be confirmed by the statement, 
 *' (Exod. xii. 35, 36,) that, when suddenly summoned to depart, they 
 •' hastened, at a moment's notice, to ' borrow ' in all directions 
 *' from the Egyptians, and collected such a vast amount of treasure, 
 " in a very short space of time, that they spoiled the Egyptians." 
 (P. 56.) Whereas, we before explained, at p. 31, that the signal to 
 borrow had been given long before (Exod. xi. 2, and iii. 22) ; for the 
 reader must carefully observe that we are not informed what time 
 elapsed between the Lord's having spoken to Moses at Exod. xi. 2, and 
 Moses addressing Pharaoh so terribly at ver. 8 of the same chapter : 
 nor between his having done so, and the Lord's again speaking to him, 
 at Exod. xii. I. Moses, when threatening Pharaoh, merely said, as to 
 time, " about midnight," without specifying the midnight of what day. 
 Wliile if, as is more than probable, the Lord's speaking to Moses 
 (Exod. xii. 1, 2) was on the first day of Abib, there were twelve 
 clear days during which the " borrowing " could be proceeded with. 
 
 § XIV. BISHOP COLENSO AS CHIEF PASTOR OF A FLOCK. 
 
 These remarks about the borrowing, viz., that it had been going 
 on some twelve days, and probably as many weeks (Exod. iii. 22), 
 p. 31, above, will show how unreasonable are the observations quoted 
 below from Dr. Colenso's book. And let us now consider, somewhat 
 attentively, what he says about the flocks of Israel. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 53 
 
 "69. But the supposition of their bori'owing in this way, even if they 
 lived in such a city, involves prodigious difficulties. For the city, in that 
 case, could have been no other than Eameses itself, from which they started, 
 (Exod. xii. 37,) a ' treasure- city,' which they had ' built for Pharaoh,' (Exod. 
 i. 11) — doubtless, therefore, a well-built city, not a mere collection of mud- 
 hovels. And so the story, in Exod. ii. 5, of the daughter of Pharaoh going 
 down to bathe in the Nile, in the immediate proximity of the place where 
 Moses was born, implies that his parents, at all events, lived not far from 
 the royal residence. But, if the Israelites lived in such a city together with 
 the Egyjjtians, it must have been even larger than London, and the difficulty 
 of communication would have been thereby greatly increased. For we 
 cannot suppose that the humble dwellings of these despised slaves wei'e in 
 closest contiguity with the mansions of their masters. And, in fact, 
 several of the miracles, especially that of the ' thick darkness,' imply that 
 the abodes of the Hebrews were wholly aj^art from those of the Egyptians, 
 however difficult it may be to conceive how, under such circumstances, each 
 woman could have borrowed from her that ' sojourned in her house.' Thus 
 we shall have now to imagine the time that would be required for the poorer 
 half of London going hurriedly to borrow from the richer half, in addition 
 to their other anxieties in starting upon such a sudden and momentous 
 expedition. 
 
 " 70. The story, however, will not allow us to suppose that they were 
 living in any such city at all. Having so large flocks and herds, ' even very 
 much cattle ' (Exod. xii. 38), many of them must have lived scattered over 
 the large extent of grazing gi-ound required under their cii-cumstances ; 
 and, accordingly, they are represented as still li^dng in ' the land of 
 Goshen.' (Exod. ix. 26.) But how large must have been the extent of this 
 land 1 We can form some judgment on this point by considering the 
 number of lambs, which (according to the story) must have been killed for 
 the Passover. The command was, 'They shall take to them every man 
 a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house : and, 
 if the household be too little for the Iamb, let him and his neighbour, next 
 unto his house, take it according to the number of the souls ; every man, 
 according to his eating, shall make your count for the lamb." (Exod. xii. 
 3, 4.) Josephus (de Bell. Jucl. vi. 9, 3) reckons ten persons on an average 
 for each lamb ; but, he says, 'many of us are twenty in a company.' Kurtz 
 allows _^i!;ee?i or twenty. Taking ten as the average number, two millions of 
 people would require about 200,000 lambs ; taking tioenty, they would 
 require 100,000. Let us take the mean of these, and suppose that they 
 required 150,000. And these were to be all ^ male lambs of the first year.' 
 (Exod. xii. 5.) We may assume that there were ^s many female lambs 
 of the first year, making 300,000 lambs of the first year altogether. 
 
 " 71. But these were not all. For, if the 150,000 lambs that were killed 
 for the Passover comprised all the males of that year, there would have been 
 no rams or wethers left of that year for the increase of the flock. And, as 
 the same thing would take place in each successive year, there would never 
 
54" A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 be any rams or wethers, but ewe-slieep innumerable. Instead, then, of 
 150,000, we may suppose 200,000 male lambs of the first year, and 200,000 
 female lambs, making 400,000 lambs of the first year altogether. Now 
 a sheepmaster, experienced in Australia and Natal, informs me that the total 
 niimbei- of sheeji, in an average flock of all ages, will be about five times 
 that of the increase in one season of lambing. So that 400,000 lambs of the 
 first year implies a flock of 2,000,000 sheep and lambs of all ages. Taking, 
 then, into account the fact that they had also large herds, ' even very much 
 cattle,' we may fairly reckon that the Hebrews, though so much oppressed, 
 must have possessed at this time, according to the story, more than two 
 millions of sheep and oxen." 
 
 It is dangerous to approach Dr. Colenso on matters of arithmetic ; 
 but, on the present occasion, I hope we shall be safe. There is not 
 the least error in the Bishop's arithmetic, only he is about 1,000,000 
 out in his calculation ; because he starts with a false assumption. 
 
 This is a summary of what he says, as to the number of the flocks 
 of Israel : 
 
 Male lambs, of the first year - 2C0,000 
 
 Female do. do 200,000 
 
 Remaining flock, of all ages 1,600,000 
 
 Total .... 2,000,000 
 Apparently the Bishop is not aware that the ewes of Egypt lambed 
 twice a year ; ' " Their sheep were twice shorn, and twice brought 
 forth lambs in the course of one year." So that 400,000 lambs, of 
 the first year, imply only 200,000 ewes. Moreover, Buffbn tells us ^ 
 (we must really be plain on this matter) " that one ram will serve 25 
 or oO ewes " — let us say 25 — so that 200,000 ewes required only 
 8,000 rams. Therefore the Israelitish flocks, when they left Egypt, 
 need not have been more than 
 
 Rams 8,000 
 
 Ewes 200,000 
 
 First year lambs . . . 400,000 
 
 that is to say, they needed only 608,000 sheep of all ages to enable 
 them to keep the Passover ; even accepting Dr. Colenso's allowance 
 for stock. Now, suppose we still add 392,000, for the sake of 
 
 ' Wilk. Anc. Egypt, vol. ii., p. 17. Diodorus, Sic. i. 36. 
 ' Bufl'on's Nat. Hist., vol. v., pp. 251—254, &c., &c. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 55 
 
 stock, we shall then have 1,000,000 for the whole flocks of Israel, 
 instead of 2,000,000 as Bishop Colenso supposes. So that he is 
 more than 100 per cent, wrong (aye 1 far more than that) as a sheep- 
 master. 
 
 For, we need not such addition for stock. Let us go more into 
 particulars. BufFon tells us that sheep begin to procreate at about 
 eighteen months ; but should not be allowed to do so until the ram is 
 three years old, and the ewe two. He also says that ewes, " if they 
 are well taken care of," will continue to produce " through life," 
 viz., for ten or twelve years ; though they commonly begin to grow 
 old at " seven or eight." The rams, he adds, continue to propagate 
 until they are eight years old ; and prefer the older ewes. Moreover 
 he adds, that though ewes commonly produce but one lamb, they 
 often have two at a birth. Now Jacob, and his sons, were clever 
 sheepmasters (Gen. xxx. 37 — 43) ; and I think, therefore, that con- 
 sidering ewes would lamb, as BufFon says, in October or November 
 or December or January or February, we may venture to say that 
 there is no absolute necessity so to enlarge the number of the flock for 
 the sake of stock. In fact, there were five lambing months, between 
 the first 14th Abib (April — May), when Israel left Egypt, and the 
 second 14th Abib, when they kept the next Passover at Sinai. 
 (Num. ix. 1.) And we may notice, from the age above given 
 during which sheep are prolific, that we are allowed a period of at 
 least five years for stock, from the same rams and ewes. 
 
 It appears, then, to be certain that the flocks of Israel, at 
 the Exodus, need not have counted more than 608,000 head; 
 but, for sake of stock, let us say 1,000,000 ; and then the Bishop 
 is 1,000,000 wrong in his calculation. Dr. -Colenso may be 
 a good Bishop ; but he is certainly a bad Pastor. Moreover 
 his calculation is made entirely for sheep,- but the word 7S2, for 
 
 Jlocks (Exod. xii. 38), would include also goats. Of which it is 
 important to observe (again taking Buffbn for authority), that, in 
 breeding, the ratio of he-goats to their consorts is as 1 to 150 ; while 
 of sheep it is as 1 to 25. This again diminishes, for goats, the amount 
 of stock necessary for propagation. 
 
 Now, the Bishop being thus vi^rong in his estimation of stock, it 
 follows that he is also wrong in his calculation of room for them. 
 For he proceeds to ask (p. 59), *' What extent of land, then, 
 
 ." would all these have required for pasturage?" and "having made 
 
56 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 " enquiries on the subject from experienced sheepm asters " — viz., of 
 Natal, New Zealand, and Australia — he comes to the following 
 conclusion, — 
 
 " Let us allow fve sheep to an acre. Then the sheep alone of the Israelites 
 would have required 400,000 acres of grazing land — an extent of country 
 considerably larger than the whole county of Hertfordshire or Bedfordshire, 
 and more than twice the size of Middlesex — besides that which would have 
 been required for the oxen. We must, then, abandon altogether the idea of 
 the people living together in one city, and must suppose a great body of them 
 to have been scattered about in towns and villages, throughout the whole land 
 of Goshen, in a district of 400,000 acres, that is twenty-five miles squai-e, 
 larger than Hertfordshire (391,141 acres)." 
 
 I fear that when Dr. Colenso consulted the sheepmasters of 
 Australia, and other colonies, he forgot that those gentlemen trade 
 extensively in wool, and keep up their stocks accordingly. We 
 are hot informed that the Israelites did so. However, being 
 wrong as he is, in assuming that the flocks of Israel must liave 
 been 2,000,000, when they may have been less than 1,000,000, he 
 is also wrong in concluding that they would require 400,000 acres 
 of grazing land, when half the quantity, 200,000, would have done 
 for them. But this question of room is of no importance whatever ; 
 we are content to allow Dr. Colenso the utmost he requires ; nor 
 have we the slightest wish to reduce his estimate of the extent of the 
 Israelitish flocks. Our object was, merely, to show that his calcula- 
 tion is based upon unjustifiable assumptions. 
 
 § XV. THE MARCH OUT OF EGYPT. 
 
 Attention has been already called to the error of supposing that, 
 because the Israelites left Rameses on the morning of the 15th 
 Abib in haste, were " thrust out," they could not have made pre- 
 paration for the journey.' On the contrary, there is good reason to 
 believe they had been warned to hold themselves in readiness many 
 •Weeks before ; and that especially during the, three days of Egyptian 
 darkness, which immediately preceded the last plague, and during 
 which all Israelites had light in their dwellings, they were engaged 
 in concentrating their flocks and herds, in arrangmg the order of 
 their march, and, in short, in making all necessary preparations. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 57 
 
 Hence all that Dr. Colenso has said, in his Chapter XI., about 
 " 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," (p. 61) &c., &c., is really nothing to the purpose. 
 Neither is there the slightest reason to suppose that " they then 
 *' came in from all parts of the land of Goshen to Rameses, bringing 
 " with them the sick and infirm, the young and the aged ; further, 
 " that, since receiving the summons, they had sent out to gather in 
 " all their flocks and herds, spread over so wide a district, and had 
 " driven them also to Rameses." (P. 62.) The fact being that we 
 have cause to believe that, during the Egyptian persecution, the 
 Israelites were confined to two cities with their suburbs, viz., to 
 Rameses and Pythom (Exod. i. 11). And the fact also being that, 
 as we have observed, the three days of darkness on Egypt had given 
 them ample time to collect their flocks together. 
 
 That they possessed great flocks there is small reason to doubt ; 
 although Dr. Colenso's estimate of 2,000,000 of sheep, and goats, 
 was based upon incorrect assumptions. The Egyptians themselves, 
 sometimes, possessed immense flocks. "Wilkinson mentions the tomb 
 of one who appears to have had no fewer than 974 rams, implying, 
 as he observes, *' an equal number of ewes, independent of lambs, 
 which in the benign climate of Egypt were twice produced within 
 the space of one year." The}^ probably, kept them chiefly for their 
 wool, inasmuch as the Egyptians (at least in the Thebaid) did not 
 eat mutton ; but modestly contented themselves with roast beef, and 
 goose and onions.^ Now if we remember that the Israelites were sheep- 
 masters of the highest skill; that the Egyptians regarded shepherds in 
 much the same light as slaves ; that the Israelites were slaves, and 
 had originally been intrusted with Pharaoh's flocks (Gen. xlvii. 6) ; 
 that, in Egypt, the social, or rather unsocial, system of " caste " 
 prevailed ; and trades and other occupations of life descended from 
 father to son ; that the land of Goshen, where Israel dwelt, was 
 peculiarly fitted for the maintenance of flocks and herds ; that the 
 hair of the goats, and the wool of the sheep, had an instant money- 
 value to the Egyptian Government ; if we consider these things, 
 there can be no doubt that the Israelites were permitted to possess, 
 and did possess, very large flocks indeed. 
 
 If you draw a line, due north, from Grand Cairo, to the Mediter- 
 ' Wilkinson, vol. ii., p. 368. 
 
58 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 ranean Sea ; and another line, due east, from tlie same place to iha 
 Ked Sea ; you have the land Goshen, cut off by these two lines from 
 the rest of Egypt, on the west and on the south. There have been 
 many disputes as to the exact spot, on which the Israelites dwelt, but 
 all the disputants are agreed that Goshen was the district north and 
 east from Memphis ; and Memphis stood near the place where now 
 stands Cairo. This part of Egypt was the richest of all ; " the land 
 of Egypt is before thee ; in the best of the land make thy father 
 and thy brethren to dwell." (Gen. xlvii. 6.) And Israel did dwell 
 in Goshen. (Gen. xlvi. 28 ; xxxiv. ; xlvii. 4, 6, 27.) Moreover, 
 this land of Goshen was anciently filled with great, and teeming, 
 cities.' Where Damietta now stands, there once stood Sin, the key 
 of Egypt on the side of Palestine, 130 miles only from Jerusalem, on 
 the Pelusiac branch of the Nile. On the same branch of the Nile, a 
 little south of Pelusium, was Bubastis ; and near it Pythom, one of 
 those two cities, to which the Israelites were assigned. There, too, was 
 On, or Aven, of which Potiphar, Joseph's father-in-law was priest, 
 and prince ; which, also, was the chief residence of the priests, and 
 other wise men, of Egypt. There, again, was Taphanes, or Taphne, 
 sixteen miles south of Pelusium, the emporium of commerce with 
 the Mediterranean and Red seas ; in which town stood, so Jeremiah 
 tells us, one of the Egyptian king's palaces. (Jer. xliii. 9.) There, 
 also, was Zoan, on one of the eastern branches of the Nile ; perhaps 
 the oldest city in Egypt, but, certainly, one of the royal residences 
 of Pharaoh, and the place in which, the Psalmist tells us, Moses 
 wrought his miracles. (Ps. Ixxviii. 12.) 
 
 And the existence, within the land of Goshen, of these large, rich, 
 and influential, cities, implies a corresponding richness in the popula- 
 tion, cultivation, and resources, of all the neighbouring territory. 
 In fact, Goshen, from the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, to the desert, 
 and Red Sea, was formerly the richest, best cultivated, and best 
 watered, territory of Egypt. 
 
 'Through this territory the Israelites marched. Hence to suppose 
 them, as Dr. Colenso does, " to have travelled through the open 
 desert," (p. 63), is at once a fatal mistake. But I must not 
 anticipate. There is no reason to suppose that they all started from 
 Rameses. The head-quarters were there ; the elders and other 
 principal people ; there, too, no doubt Moses and Aaron met, and 
 ' Paxton's Sacr. Geog., p. 203, &c. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 59 
 
 consulted with, the chiefs of the people ; from that place necessary 
 directions for the march were issued. And when the elders, and 
 other chief men, led the way from Rameses towards Succoth, and all 
 the people tended from Pythom, and the suburbs of both towns, in 
 the same direction, it could be said with truth, and is said, " the 
 children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about 600,000 
 on foot that were men, besides children." (Exod. xii. 37, 38.) 
 
 "And now," says Bishop Colenso, "let us see them on the march itself. 
 If we imagine the people to have travelled through the open desert, in*a wide 
 body, fifty men abreast, as some suppose to have been the practice in the 
 Hebrew armies, then allov^^ing an interval of a yard between each rank, the 
 able-bodied waniors alone would have filled up the road for about seven miles, 
 and the whole multitude would have formed a dense column niore than twenty- 
 two miles long, so that the last of the body could not have been started till 
 the front had advanced that distance, more than two days' journey for such 
 a mixed company as this." 
 
 But, why make this absurd supposition at all ? Elsewhere, viz., at 
 pp. 47, 48, Dr. Colenso will not admit, on any accotmt, that the people 
 went out in this way fifty-abreast, or abreast at all ; D''Ii?ttn, when it 
 suits him, means armed and nothing else. And now it suits him to 
 conceive of the peojple, fifty-abreast, and to make a ridiculous tail, 
 twenty-two miles long. But it will not suit me. As explained, 
 (see above p. 34), C^tcxsn means "kept in hand" in pre-arranged 
 order, under recognised leaders. They did not walk abreast; nor did 
 they all follow along the same road. Though they did all move in one 
 direction, viz., that towards Palestine, from their different localities. 
 A clever writer has said it seems that " after the immemorial arrange- 
 ment of caravans in the east," the march was " consigned to the 
 management of five presiding officers," thus giving a certain meaning 
 to CECan ; but, as he gives no authorities for this "immemorial 
 arrangement," we need not depend upon him. Let us understand 
 that the people went out of Egypt, not by fifty in a rank, nor under 
 five leaders, in five divisions, but simply kept well in hand, under 
 many leaders, with a pre-arranged order of march. 
 
 Now, if Dr. Colenso^s book had any value at all, that value would 
 be found in its calculations. But others have brought this subject 
 to the test of arithmetical calculation, as well as Dr. Colenso, and 
 have proved, not only from arithmetic, but also from personal 
 
60 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 measurement and observation on the spot, that the "march out of 
 Egypt" was quite practicable. Three routes have been selected, and 
 disputed over. Sicard takes the people, from Memphis (Cairo), a 
 little south, then east by south, through the plains of Gendeli, to a 
 point about seventy miles south of Suez, where (according to him) 
 Pi-hahiroth lay, half a mile from the shore of the Red Sea. Niebuhr 
 and Burckhardt, first-class travellers, fix the passage at a point about 
 twenty miles south of Suez; having taken the people first almost due 
 east from Memphis (Cairo), through a country similar to the plains of 
 Gendeli. And, lastly, Robinson has taken the people from Rameses, 
 south-east, to Suez; and maintains, probably with truth, that the 
 people crossed the Red Sea there. All agree that the "march out" 
 was practicable, so far as the physical characteristics of either route 
 were concerned. Let us hear Sicard, a man after Dr. Colenso's own 
 heart: — "I have myself made the calculation on the spot" (this, I 
 fear. Dr. Colenso has not done), " and the following is the result of 
 *' my observations : — From Mount Diouchi to the Nile, the plain is 
 " 6,000 common paces wide, and 12,011 long. Now, if a rank of 
 *' 2,000 men were drawn up in a space of this length, there would be 
 " precisely six clear paces between man and man ; and if, in its width, 
 " there were 1,200 files, each of which consisted of 2,000 men, 
 " having five paces from file to file, it is evident that 2,500,000, at 
 " least, could be commodiously encamped ; and each man being 
 " distant six paces one way, and five the other, from his neighbour, 
 " the intervening space would be amply sufficient for their flocks and 
 " camels. . . . From Rameses, the route of the Hebrews was 
 " directly east, through the spacious valley formed by the continuous 
 " range of Diouchi and Jorah, which join their extremities at the 
 *' western shore of the Red Sea, opposite Sinai. The valley is 
 " so wide that, even in the narrowest part of it, several thousand 
 " persons could walk abreast ; and, with regard to forage, the whole 
 " length of the valley, although, like the vast, grassy steppes, which 
 " are not inhabited by a fixed population, it is called, in the Hebrew 
 " idiom, a wilderness, abounding with tamarisk, clover, and sanfoin, 
 " of which camels are passionately fond, as well as with a variety of 
 " brushwood, for kindling fires." 
 
 This is very pretty figuring ; and we may venture to say tliat 
 Abbe Sicard would have made a better Quartermaster-General than 
 Bishop Colenso. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 61 
 
 However, let us hear Robinson (Biblical Researches, vol. i., 
 p. 84):- 
 
 '* As the Israelites numbered more than two millions of persons, 
 " besides flocks and herds, they would, of course, be able to pass but 
 " slowly. If the part left dry were broad enough to enable them to 
 " cross in a body one thousand abreast, which would require a space 
 " of more than half-a-mile in breadth (and is, perhaps, the largest 
 " supposition admissible), still the column would be more than two 
 *' thousand persons in depth; and, in all probability, could not have 
 *' extended less than two miles." 
 
 I merely give these extracts to show that painstaking enquirers, 
 in modern times, have, like Dr. Colenso, reduced the question of 
 " the March out of Egypt" to figures; and have concluded, unlike 
 him, that, so far as the physical conformation of the country is 
 concerned, that march-out was possible for more than two millions of 
 people, with their flocks and with their herds. 
 
 But what did these last do for provender ? Now, 'tis ten thousand 
 pities to see how Christian commentators, following, one behind 
 another, some bad leader, will mar, will daub, a grand, sublime, majestic 
 picture ! Says one, " There were two routes to Canaan ; the one 
 " northward by the coast of the Mediterranean, which was the 
 " nearest and most common ; the other along the western arm of the 
 " Red Sea, through the wild and inhospitable desert that divides 
 " Egypt from Arabia Petra." And Kitto (to whom Dr. Colenso 
 betakes himself ) :7-'* The journey to this point," viz., where they 
 encamped by the sea, " had been, for the most part, over a desert, 
 " the surface of which is composed of hard gravel, often strewed 
 " with pebbles." {Hist, of Jews, p. 177.) Is Kitto a safe 
 compiler for an earnest, spiritually-minded Bishop ? However, in 
 what way has Kitto learned that ? From personal observation, hoiv ? 
 Alas ! alas ! Egypt has become " the basest of kingdoms," under the 
 curse of God. (Ezek. xxix. 15.) An'd it is never safe, from its appear- 
 ance now, to draw adverse conclusions as to aspect or capabilities 
 then, when Israel left Rameses. Listen to an Infidel. Volney ' says, 
 speaking of the neighbourhood of Suez (not far from which Israel 
 crossed the Red Sea) : — ** Formerly these districts were covered with 
 *' towns, which have disappeared with the waters of the Nile. The 
 ' Volney's Travels, vol. i., pp. 196—200. 
 
G2 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 " canals which conveyed them are destroyed ; for in this shifting soil, 
 " they are presently filled up, both by the sands driven by the winds, 
 " and by the cavalry of the Bedouin Arabs." Volney has just been 
 speaking of the impossibility, " amid these shifting sands," of success- 
 fully making and keeping open a canal through the Isthmus of Suez; 
 and takes note that the only safe route, for this purpose, to Suez, is 
 that which the ancients selected for their canal, viz., from Memphis 
 (Cairo), thi'ough "a continued plain from the banks of the Nile" to 
 the Red Sea. This is the route by which Dr. Robinson supposes the 
 Israelites to have gone; "the direct and only route was along the 
 " valley of the ancient canal," in which valley, imagination not very 
 strong may picture water and provender to have abounded before the 
 canal was formed, by Sesostris as is supposed. All this region was 
 formerly well irrigated, and studded, as we mentioned, with cities, of 
 which scarcely a trace remains. Of Memphis, Lord Lindsay says 
 (Travels, vol. i., p. 189): — "We rode for miles through groves of 
 *' palms and acacias, cultivated fields, and wastes of sand, over what 
 " we knew must be the site of Memphis, but Noph is indeed waste 
 " and desolate." And Dr. Robinson {Researches, vol. i. p. 40), that 
 two large " mounds of rubbish, a colossal statue sunk deep in the 
 " ground, and a few fragments of granite, are all that remain to attest 
 " the existence of this renowned capital." Zoan, the mighty Zoan, 
 is now Zaan, " a small fishing village in the neighbourhood of the 
 " ruins of this ancient place of renown, all of which, with a few 
 " fragments of obelisks, are nearly invisible, from the mounds of 
 *' rubbish in which they are buried. But, among those that are open 
 " to observation, many large blocks present a vitrified appearance ; 
 " thus affording clear and strong evidence that ' the Lord hath set 
 " ' fire in Zoan ' (Ezek. xxx. 14)." — Paxtons Saor. Geog., p. 203. 
 Taphanes is no more; but, "like the baseless fabric of a vision, 
 leaves not a wrack behind." On, that proud City of the Sun, the 
 great college of tlie priests of Egypt, to which Herodotus, Plato, and 
 others, repaired to investigate her science and institutions, has 
 perished. " Its site," says Robinson, *'is still marked by low mounds, 
 " inclosing a space about three quarters of a mile in length, by half 
 " a mile in breadth ; which was once occupied, partly by houses, and 
 " partly by a celebrated temple of the sun. This area is now a 
 ** ploughed field, and the solitary obelisk of red granite, covered 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 63 
 
 " with hieroglyphics, which still rises in the midst, is the sole 
 " remnant of the ancient worshippers of that luminary." While 
 Volney, standing on the terraces of Suez, says, " From the tops of 
 " the terraces the eye, surveying the sandy plain to the north-west, 
 *' the white rocks of Arabia to the east, or the sea and the mountain 
 " Mokattam to the south, cannot discern even a single tree, or the 
 " smallest spot of verdure." {Travels, vol. i., p. 201.) Mokattam, 
 or the Brown Mountain, is the range that terminates close by Cairo, 
 so that Volney at Suez looked right across Goshen. Yet it is 
 from the present state of a country thus cursed of God that Bishop 
 Colenso, backed up by poor Kitto, would draw a most fallacious 
 conclusion concerning Israel's " march out of Egypt." 
 
 Still, the present state of some parts of Goshen, or Lower Egypt, 
 may give us some faint idea what it was \vhen in high prosperity. 
 " No flat region," says Dr. DuiF, " can be more beautiful. The 
 " waters of the annual inundation had not wholly withdrawn from 
 " the land, but half subsided on the channel of the river. Vast level 
 " plains spread out on all sides, having their carefully-cultivated soil 
 " clad in the living green which distinguishes the first fresh blades of 
 " vegetation in the month of May in the British climes ; and their 
 " borders fringed with rows, and their points of junction garnished 
 *' with clumps and groves, of date trees, palmyras, sycamores, and 
 " other evergreens. Thus, for miles together, it presented the aspect 
 " of a well-dressed garden. The numberless branches and canals for 
 " distributing the redundant waters of the river, and the many 
 *' pieces of mechanism in busy play to supply the deficiencies, or 
 " perpetuate the effects of the inundation, were conspicuous objects 
 " in the landscape." And Jablonsky, speaking of Rameses, whence 
 Israel commenced their march, says the name " signifies the land of 
 " shepherds. On the low and marshy meadows with which that 
 " district abounded, pasturage was so abundant that Maillet describes 
 " the grass as equal to the stature of a man, and so luxuriant that an 
 " ox may browse a whole day lying on the ground." In short, the 
 Bible intimates distinctly that the Israelites saw nothing of 
 wilderness until the end of their second day's march, when 
 " they encamped in Etham, in the edge of the wilderness." (Exod. 
 xiii. 20.) The site of Succoth is not known ; Etham lay on the 
 edge of the eastern desert, probably not far from the head of the 
 
64 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 gulf; and ** the position of Migdol, Pi-hahiroth, and Baal Zephon, 
 *' cannot be determined, except that they probably were on or near 
 " the great plain back of Suez." (Robinson, vol. i., p. 81.) 
 
 I know not wherefore, but most commentators have thought 
 proper to conclude that the Israelites spent only three days between 
 Rameses and Pi-hahiroth. The Bible says nothing of the sort ; but 
 intimates a very different fact indeed. It is true they occupied three 
 days in the journey ; or rather made three marches of it. And even 
 in late days, as Volney testifies {Travels, vol. i., p. 200), the caravan 
 which left Cairo (Memphis) on the 27th of July did not reach Suez 
 until the 29th. But there is much to lead us to think that the Israelites 
 spent more, and probably a great many more, than three days 
 between their leaving Rameses and crossing the bed of the Red Sea. 
 They encamped at Succoth, baked, and spent we know not what 
 time there ; they encamped at Etham, how long they stopped we 
 know not ; they encamped at Pi-hahiroth, and the very command, 
 given them to do so, seems to imply that the onslaught of Pharaoh 
 and his army did not take place immediately. 
 
 The Israelites broke up from Rameses about half-past three o'clock 
 on the morning of April 9, in the year ^ B.C. 1560 ; and they occupied 
 exactly one month in reaching the wilderness of Sin (Exod. xvi. 1) ; 
 and more than two months before they came to Sinai (Exod. 
 xix. 1, 2.) But the journey from Suez to Sinai is a journey of only 
 eight days, at an easy rate of travel. Robinson occupied in it just 
 that time, viz., from March 16 to March 24, 1838, having rested on 
 the intervening Sabbath day. {Researches, vol. i., pp. 87, 135.) 
 Robinson gives, as the camel's pace, 2'019 miles to the hour 
 (vol. i., p. 545) ; and all the host of Israel may fairly be supposed, 
 with their flocks and herds, to have travelled at least at so slow 
 a rate. Be that as it may, the Israelites did occupy just ten journeys 
 in travelling from Shur, where they landed, after passing through the 
 Red Sea (Exod. xv. 22) to Sinai (Numb, xxxiii. 8—15). It is 
 Evident, therefore, that they travelled at a most leisurely pace, and that 
 of the more than two months' time consumed, between Rameses and 
 Sinai, a very small portion of it was taken up with actual travelling ; 
 for the rest, they remained stationary at the places of their several 
 encampments. The Egyptians were accustomed to mourn for their 
 ' Gresswell's Three Witnesses, ch. i., sec. 10, p. 84. 1862. Parker, Oxford. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 65 
 
 kings seventy-two days. ' Is it unreasonable to believe that several 
 days were passed in the grief and consternation caused by the 
 slaughter of the firstborn, of whom Pharaoh's eldest son was one ? 
 Suppose we allow ten days to transpire for this purpose, before 
 Pharaoh's grief and fear subsided, and rage and revenge occupied 
 their places, and prompted him and his people to follow after Israel ? 
 Then the three days' journey, between Rameses and Pi-hahiroth, 
 must be stretched over a period of ten, and allow an encampment of 
 three days each to two of the three stations, Succoth, Etham, and 
 Pi-hahiroth ; with an encampment of four days for the remaining 
 one. Here was ample time for a gentle passage, between station and 
 station, for all the people, old and young, and women with child ; 
 with abundant leisure for attention to casualties. And I should 
 think that all the multitude, with their flocks, and with their herds, 
 did concentrate, not at Rameses, but from Rameses and Pythom, 
 their suburbs, and the intervening country, first towards Succoth, 
 and next towards Etham, the recognised common route to Palestine 
 and Syria, by various roads well known to lead thereto. So that 
 they browsed as they passed along ; and without now waiting to 
 speak of the dates,- and the drees (or prepared dried food) with 
 which the Egyptians fed their cattle, there was no such danger as the 
 Bishop supposes, that. "such grass as there was, if not eaten down 
 " by the first ranks, must have been trodden under foot at once and 
 *' destroyed, by those that followed them mile after mile " (p. 64). 
 One would think that the Doctor was thinking of the croppy growth 
 on the Southdowns ; he certainly could not have had in view such 
 grass as Jablonsky describes, which grew as high as a man's head, and 
 would provender an ox from one spot, if he chose to lie in it, all day. 
 (See above, p. QS.) With such facts before us, the question 
 becomes idle, "What, then, did those 2,000,000 of sheep and 
 " oxen live upon during the journey from Rameses to Succoth, 
 " and from Succoth to Etham, and from Etham to the Red Sea ? '* 
 (P. 61.) 
 
 But Dr. Colenso is uneasy about " the sick and infirm, or the women 
 " in recent or imminent childbirth, in a population like that of London, 
 " where the births are 264 a-day, or about one every Jive mim/fes" 
 (P. 62.) But why so ? At p. 88 above, we have seen him assume 
 that the Israelites must have travelled " twenty miles a-day." I know 
 ' Wilkinson's Anc. T^gypt, vol. ii., p. 69. 
 F 
 
66 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 not by what route he takes them. But the distance " from Rameses 
 ** to the head of the Gulf, according to the preceding data,^ would be 
 " a distance of some thirty or thirty -five miles ; which might easily 
 " have been passed over by the Israelites in three days," i.e., at the 
 rate of, at the most, twelve miles a-day. A camel's average pace is, 
 as we have said, little more than two miles an hour. The Israelites, 
 therefore, travelled about six hours each day; that is to say, they 
 were halted three-fourths of each day, or about eighteen hours, to 
 say nothing of the intervening days, which, I believe, they passed at 
 Succoth, Etham, and Pi-hahiroth. Now, these family affiiirs, I am 
 told, usually come off at night ; but, at any rate, six hours is no 
 very lengthy period to be passed between a mother's " imminent 
 " childbirth," and the actual encampment of a little stranger. As 
 for the allusion to London, and one birth about " every five minutes," 
 I am surprised that Dr. Colenso, who is so good a ready reckoner, did 
 not tell us fairly the ratio of these births, at night, and various other 
 periods of the day; that was necessary to his argument. For, 
 assuming that the Israelites set out every morning about six o'clock, 
 and travelled until noon. Dr. Colenso ought to have told us how 
 many of the births, at one every five minutes, would have taken 
 place during the six hours while they travelled, and how many during 
 the eighteen hours they were halted. I will dare to say that, in due 
 course of nature, nearly all of them took place between the hours of 
 twelve at noon and six a.m. of the following day; and that few, very 
 few of them, occurred between the hours, six a.m. and twelve at noon, 
 during which they were travelling. Even according to the Doctor's 
 own showing, there would be but seventy -two births in the six hours; 
 and what are these among so many? Now, the Egyptians used 
 palanquins, waggons, litters, and other modes of gentle carriage; and, 
 we may be sure, that men inured to making bricks, in the burning 
 clime of Egypt, were at no loss for wit how to carry a tender woman, 
 great with child. 
 
 Once upon a time, a friend of mine was out of a ship that 
 foundered at sea. He had scarcely stepped into the boat, when the 
 ship went to the bottom. Not many hours elapsed before the 
 captain's wife took to the " stern-sheets " of the boat, and there, 
 attended by one other lady, and covered by my friend's top-coat, 
 brought forth a splendid boy. After beating about on the open 
 ' Robinson's Bibl. Research., vol. i., p. 80. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 67 
 
 sea, for twenty-eight days, tliey reached land; both mother and baby 
 doing well. 
 
 These twenty-eight days' pitching up and down, in a jolly-boat at 
 sea, could hardly have been as snug, nor as warm, as three days' 
 journeying in Egypt, at the rate of two miles an hour, for six hours 
 a-day. But Dr. Colenso will understand very well that what took 
 place in an English boat at sea, might be better managed in an 
 Egyptian waggon on land. And much better by an Egyptian road- 
 side, such as Jablonsky describes. See p. 65, above. 
 
 I conclude, then, that the Israelites, though "thrust out" of 
 Egypt, and leaving hurriedly, at a moment's notice, did travel at the 
 rate of about two miles an hour, for six hours, during three days, 
 between Rameses, Succoth, Etham, and Pi-hahiroth ; that they 
 encamped at each of the three last-mentioned places, probably for 
 several days; that they had abundant means of providing for the 
 aged, and sick, and women with child; that they journeyed through 
 a rich country, by various routes, along known roads, tending to the 
 well-known wilderness between Egypt and Palestine, and that this 
 route of three days was through a country which was then fertile, and 
 abounded with water and with pasture, though noio it is desert. And, 
 indeed, for this last conclusion — viz., that the country, now desert, 
 was once fertile — Robinson affords us direct authority : — 
 
 " On another day we rode out to the site of ancient Heliopolis, 
 *' about two hours N.N.E. from Cairo. The way thither passes 
 '* along the edge* of the desert, which is continually making its 
 " encroachments, so soon as there ceases to be a supply of water 
 " for the surface of the ground. The water of the Nile soaks 
 " through the earth, for some distance, under this sandy tract ; and 
 " is everywhere found on digging wells, eighteen, or twenty, feet 
 " deep. Such wells are very frequent in parts where the inundation 
 " does not reach. The water is raised from them by wheels turned 
 " by oxen, and applied to the irrigation of the fields. Wherever 
 " this takes place, the desert is quickly converted into a fruitful 
 " field. In passing to Heliopolis, we saw several such fields, in the 
 " different stages of being reclaimed from the desert ; some just laid 
 " out, others already fertile. In returning by another way, more 
 *' eastward, we passed a succession of beautiful plantations, wholly 
 " dependent on this mode of irrigation. The site of Heliopolis is 
 " marked by low mounds, inclosing a space about three quarters of a 
 
 F 2 
 
68 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 " mile in length, by half a mile in breadth, which was once occupied 
 " partly by houses, and partly by the celebrated Temple of the Sun. 
 " This area is now a ploughed field, a garden of herbs; and the 
 " solitary obelisk, which still rises in the midst, is the sole remnant 
 *• of the former splendours of the place. This was the On of the 
 " Egyptians, where the father of Joseph's wife was Priest. (Gen. 
 " xli. 45.) " — Bih. Research., vol. i. p. ^Q. 
 
 Nor let the reader suppose that Exod. xiv. 3, " The wilderness 
 hath shut them in," is opposed to this conclusion. It is probable 
 the " wilderness " here has reference to the eastern desert, which 
 commenced at Etham (Exod. xiii. 20), and from which Israel "turned 
 southward, and encamped at Pi-hahiroth." Pharaoh would naturally 
 suppose that the sight of that wilderness had caused them to do 
 so. But, even if we suppose that the country immediately round 
 Pi-hahiroth, close on the shores of the Red Sea, was thus called a 
 wilderness, Abbe Sicard has hinted to us in what sense it was so ; 
 the Hebrew word, -Qia, meaning, not only a stony desert, but any 
 uninhabited tract of country, as a steppe, or moor, or down ; though 
 found, nevertheless, with pasture ; or, as Abbe Sicard would say, 
 even abounding with " tamarisk, clover, and sanfoin." For -12*1X5, 
 means properly, a sterile, even sandy, region, unfit for tillage, 
 through which nomad tribes fed their sheep (Exod. iii. 1 ; 1 Sam. 
 xvii. 28, &c., &c. ; Simonis, Heb. Lex., p. 370) ; and by no means a 
 country unfit for pasture. This I perceive Dr. Colenso, ' by reference ' 
 to Gesenius, knows. See p. 88, below. 
 
 § XVI. BETWEEN THE TWO EVENINGS. 
 
 Among other subjects connected with the narrative of the 
 Exodus, Dr. Colenso has striven to throw doubt and ridicule over 
 t'he account (found in Num. ix. 5) of the celebration of the second 
 Passover at Mount Sinai. He exclaims, at p. 131 : — 
 
 " Again, — How did these priests manage at the celebration of the 
 Passover ? 
 
 "We are told (2 Chron. xxx. 16; xxxv. 11), that the people killed the 
 Passover, but ' the priests sprinkled the blood from their hands, and the 
 Levites flayed them.' Hence, when they kept the second Passover, under 
 Sinai (Num. ix. 5), where we must suppose that 150,000 lambs were killed 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 69 
 
 at one time ' between the two evenings ' (Exod. xii. 6), for the two millions 
 of people, each priest must have had to sprinkle the blood of 50,000 lambs, 
 in about two hours ; that is, at the rate of about four hundred lambs every 
 minute, for two hours together. 
 
 " Besides which, in the time of Hezekiah and Josiah, when it was desii*ed 
 to keejj the Passover, strictly in such sort as it was written, 2 Chi*on. xxx. 5, 
 the lambs were manifestly killed in the court of the Temple. We must suppose, 
 then, that the Paschal lambs, in the wilderness, were killed in tlie court of the 
 Tabernacle; in accordance, in fact, with the strict injunctions of the Levitical 
 law." 
 
 So also, at p. 132, " How, in fact, could the priests have sprinkled 
 " the blood at all, if this were not the case, that the animals were 
 " killed in the court of the Tabernacle ? 
 
 *' But the area of that court contained, as we have seen, only 
 " 1,692 square yards, and could only have held, when thronged, 
 " about 5,000 people. How, then, are we to conceive of 150,000 
 "lambs being killed within it, by at least 150,000 people, in the 
 ** space of two hours — that is, at the rate of 1,250 lamhs a minute "i " 
 
 Such are Dr. Colenso's objections. Let the reader note that the 
 following points are essential to his argument: — 1. That the time 
 meant by the phrase ''between the two evenings" must be a period 
 of only two hours. 2. That the Passover at Sinai must have been 
 kept exactly as it was afterwards kept at Jerusalem both by Heze- 
 kiah and Josiah. 3. That 150,000 lambs had to be killed by 150,000 
 people. 4. That they had to be killed within " the court of the 
 Tabernacle." 5. That the priests had literally to, sprinkle the blood 
 in the same two hours. An error in any one of these five positions, 
 but especially in either of the first three, may be fatal to his whole 
 argument. He ought, indeed, to have been sure of the ground he 
 was moving on ; but he is as innocent as a baby new-born on the road 
 from Rameses. 
 
 His first error proceeds from his not fairly treating, or not under- 
 standing the meaning of, the phrase, D"'ni37n )"*2 , betzveen the two 
 evenings. The original command, respecting the Paschal lamb, was, 
 " And the whole assembly shall kill it in the evening ; " where the 
 expression, rightly translated " in the evening," or " at even," may 
 be literally rendered " between the two evenings," as the margin of 
 the English Bible shows. The Bishop hazards no remarks of his 
 own respecting this most singular Hebrew phrase. Why ? Other 
 matters he minutely examines for himself, and ventures (often 
 
70 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 rashly) to treat them on his own authority. Why not this? He 
 does, however, at p. 13^->, refer, in a note, to the opinion of Kurtz, 
 that " the Caraites and Samaritans are right "" in their explanation of 
 the phrase ; and proceeds to reason upon Kurtz' admission, as if it 
 must needs be sound. Indeed, we may here remark that this English 
 Bishop's mode of mixing up the commentaries, sometimes sound, 
 sometimes otherwise, of German divines with his own objections is 
 extremely undignified, and equally unsatisfactory. Why has the 
 Bishop no original views of his own respecting these nice points of 
 Hebrew criticism and construction ? If he really knows Hebrew, he 
 ought to have them ; and, if he do not know Hebrew, why has he 
 so ostentatiously sprinkled his pages with Hebrew letters ? It is to 
 the deep discredit of the English Church that her authors are per- 
 petually referring to dreamy Germans ; and books are published, 
 in the present day, full of references to such foreign writers, 
 which young clergymen are expected to receive almost as they 
 would the Gospel. 
 
 I have to complain, — 1. That Dr. Colenso has ventured to bring 
 the solemn institution of the Passover, which typified the atoning 
 death of Christ, into doubt and ridicule ; and that by basing his 
 argument upon a most disputed, and disputable, Hebrew phrase, — 
 a phrase which even ancient Jews themselves could hardly be certain 
 they correctly understood. 2. That Dr. Colenso has done this 
 apparently, without being himself personally acquainted with the 
 various authorities on the subject. In fact, it would seem, without 
 really knowing anything of the matter. The reader will judge for 
 himself. But, I submit, that, if Dr. Colenso had knowledge of the 
 facts I am about to explain, he would never have been so unfair, 
 or so irrational, as to base his argument upon the notion that 
 *' between the two evenings " could only be a space of tico hours 
 at even. 
 
 , The various opinions entertained on this curious question may be 
 learned from the authorities referred to below.' The best of which 
 authorities is Bochart. And the following is a brief summaiy of the 
 
 ' The Targum of Onkelos, or the Rabbinical Comments, of Jarchi, and Kimchi, 
 and Aben Ezra, or as referred to by Fugius in " Critici Sacri," on Exod. xii. 6 ; 
 Bochart's " Hierozoicon," L)e Agno Paschali, pp. 631 — 636 ; R. Moses ben Maimon., 
 De Sacrificio Paschali, chap. i. ; Simonis' Heb. Lex., p. 1213; Gesenius' Thesaur., 
 p. 1065; and Lee's Heb. Lex., p. 476, b. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 71 
 
 various opinions entertained as to the meaning of this peculiar phrase, 
 C"':}")^?!! "|"'3 , between the two evenings. 
 
 1. That of Aben Ezra, to which Dr. Colenso (quoting Kurtz) 
 alludes, but not correctly. Aben Ezra's words may be thus trans- 
 lated : — "We have two evenings. One, the evening of the sun, i.e., 
 the time at which he sets and disappears under the earth. The 
 second is that light, or irradiation, which still appears on the clouds 
 after his setting. This time, which is included in the setting of 
 the sun, and his irradiation on the clouds, lasts one hour and the 
 third part of an hour." The language is itself indistinct and 
 incorrect, for such a time is, in no sense, hetween two evenings, 
 but is between sunset and actual night. This seems at once a fatal 
 objection. 
 
 2. Accordingly, the Jerusalem Talmud says, Berachoth, cap. i. : — 
 " All that time, when the face of the sun shines bright, is called 
 day ; when he begins to pale, it is called ' between the suns ; ' when 
 it becomes dark, then is night." The Talmuds and the Targum say 
 *' between the suns," as their explanation of " between the two even- 
 ings." And the Babylonian Talmud, De Sabbat/w, cap. ii., fol. 34, 
 "The two suns are" two times, in which the sun shines from the 
 meridian, of which one is near to noon, the other to sunset." This 
 introduces an important difference of opinion, for it makes " the 
 two evenings " to be the whole afternoon from midday to sunset. 
 And these Talmuds are among the highest Hebrew authorities. 
 
 3. Similarly, Jarchi and Kimchi, than whom,- on such subjects, 
 two higher authorities can scarcely be quoted, say : — " Between the 
 ttco evenings, i.e., the time in which the sun goes down to set. For 
 there are two evenings. One is ' when the sun begins to go down ; 
 and the other is when he sets. And the two evenings include the 
 time between." Or, as Bochart gives Jarchi, Kimchi, and Fomerius, 
 " they understand ' between the two evenings ' to be the whole after- 
 noon, with the first part of night, as if the sun divided two even- 
 ings." Now if we take, according to Aben Ezra, the time between 
 sunset and night to be one hour and twefitg minutes, and remember 
 that on the 1 4th of Abib, or April 9th (according to Gresswell, 
 see p. 64, above), the sun would set about 6.20, then the opinion 
 
 ' So the Greeks. " Hesychio erain BeCXr] irpcola, fj fier' apiarov S>pa, vespera 
 matina tempiis est a pi'andio (proximum) ; et beiXr) 6-<\n.d rj nepl 8valv rjXlov, vef2^era 
 sera, quae circa soils occasum." 
 
irC A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 of the Talmuds, and of Jarchi and Kimchi, comes to this : that the 
 time between the two evenings on the 14th Abib was the whole time 
 from 12 o'clock at noon to 7.40 in the evening, viz., a period of 
 nearly eight hours instead of two ; that unfair assumption upon which 
 Dr. Colenso has thought proper to reason. 
 
 4. Bochart alludes to the opinion of some {sunt, qui) who think 
 " between the two evenings " to mean both evenings of the 14th 
 Abib, viz., the first evening, when it begins at about 6.20 p.m. 
 (after the 13th Abib) ; and the second evening, when it ended, viz., 
 about 6.20 p.m. (immediately preceding the 15th Abib). Bochart 
 himself calls this " most absurd." But wherefore ? If the Passover 
 could be killed only at the end of the 14th Abib, how could it have 
 been roasted, and eaten too, on the 14th ? That some good Hebraists 
 may think this opinion not absurd, the following extract from Pro- 
 fessor Lee will prove : — " The evening, a term apparently as indefi- 
 nite as among ourselves. According to the Samaritan and Caraite 
 Jews, its duration was of two parts; first, beginning with the setting 
 sun ; the second at the end of the twilight. But, according to the 
 Rabbins, first, when the sun began to decline towards the west ; the 
 second, when it had set, — which has been had recourse to purely for 
 the purpose, in each case, of attaching a favourite interpretation to 
 the dual form, viz., D^^n^; . Others have, for the same reason, had 
 recourse to the Greek SelXr] Trpana, and Betkr] oyjna. See Bochart, 
 Hieroz., i., p. 559, and Rosenmiiller, on Exod. xvi. 12, &c. ; all of 
 which, according to my notions, is groundless and wrong. See my 
 sermon on the Sabbath, with the notes ; where it is shown that the 
 phrase, D*'2"n3;n "l"':^ , behvee?i the two evenings, means between the 
 period termed evening, 2-137 , on one day, and the same period of the 
 next, including one whole day ; so that the Paschal lamb was to be 
 eaten some time between ,six o'clock on the 14th of Nisan (or Abib) 
 and six o'clock on the next day, comprehending the whole day, viz., 
 the 14th of Nisan, the day commencing with the Hebrews about six 
 o'clock in the afternoon. Our blessed Lord, according to this, both 
 ate the Paschal lamb at the due time appointed for that rite, and also 
 sufi'ered on that day so appointed. And hence also it is that w^e read 
 of some who would not enter the Judgment-hall of Pilate, about day- 
 break on the same day, because they had not yet eaten the Passover. 
 (John xviii. 18.)" This opinion, which Bochart calls " most absurd," 
 is nevertheless probable. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 73 
 
 5. I shall mention the interpretation which some have put upon 
 the Targum's expression " between the suns," as equivalent to the 
 phrase "between the two evenings." " Onkelos calls it S'^tt7X::tt? , 
 which some interpret suns, others evenings. Between * the suns, 
 viz., the setting and the rising. A double evening, that of the day, 
 and of the morning. The first is termed, Hehraically, * the evening 
 of the day,' DT* 3"i37 , but the second ' the evening of morn,* 
 "ipn S~)3; , and is a space of twenty hours, as if you should say 
 oy^Lirpwtov, or ' the commencement of the civil day,' being reckoned 
 from the time next to sunset. The Greeks call it vvKOTJfMepov." 
 {Drusius on Num. ix. 3, in Critici Sacri.) 
 
 6. I shall give the opinion of Maimonides, with whom I imagine 
 we may understand Abarbanel to agree,' seeing that he so habitually 
 refers to him, and lauds him as that " most learned Maimonides," 
 ** a man of the highest authority," " Maimonides most skilful in the 
 sacred writings," — let us hear the opinion of Maimonides : *' The 
 ** Passover is slain at any time after noon (mijn inS a meridie) ; for 
 *' to slay it before noon is profane. Nor is it slain except after the 
 ** evening continual sacrifice, which ought to be offered 'between 
 " the two evenings,' after the burning of incense." Maimonides' 
 exact words may be seen in Bochart's Hieroz., p. 634 ; or in his 
 Treatise on the Passover, cap. 1, §§ 1 — 20: he also says, — which 
 Bochart does not quote, — that the slaying of the Passover, thus com- 
 menced " after the slaying of the evening continual sacrifice," "is 
 " carried on, without ceasing, through the whole remaining portion 
 *' of the day. But if the Paschal Lamb were slain after the noon, 
 " and before the evening $acrijlce, it was well: for then one of the 
 " priests carried the blood taken from the Paschal victim within, 
 " while the blood of the evening continual sacrifice was sprinkled 
 " on the altar ; although if the altar were sprinkled with the blood 
 *' of the Paschal Lamb, before that of the continual evening sacrifice, 
 " it was well." These last words of Maimonides are of great import- 
 ance, as we shall see. 
 
 7. There is, lastly, the statement of Josephus, quoted by 
 Dr. Colenso at p. 133, *' They slay their sacrifices from the 
 " ninth hour to the eleventh," Wars, vi., ix. 3 ; upon which 
 it is important to remark that Josephus intends to give no critical 
 explanation of the phrase D'^a~>37n ^2 ; but merely to assert, as an 
 
 ' Abarbantl's Exodium, Comment. Levit. cap. 4. 
 
74 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 historical fact, that at that time, viz., when Cestius took the census 
 of Jerusalem for Nero, they found it practicable to kill the passover 
 within those two hours, the ninth and the eleventh, which were 
 undoubtedly a part of the afternoon, viz., from three to five o'clock ; 
 and not the part of time chosen by the Samaritans, Caraites, and 
 Aben Ezra, which was from about 6 p.m. to about 7.20 p.m. Still, 
 if Dr. Colenso is willing to receive Josephus as convincing evidence 
 of the fact that the time of killing the passover was two hours only, 
 he must also receive his evidence, as to the historical fact, that it cer- 
 tainly could be, and was actually, killed in that space of time ; at the 
 period he mentions, viz., when 256,500 lambs had, he says, to be 
 killed for all the people of Jerusalem. 
 
 Thus have I collated six different opinions (Josephus gives no 
 opinion) as to the meaning of the phrase " between the two even- 
 ings." First, Aben Ezra's, who makes it to be one hour- and twenty 
 minutes, from 6 p.m. to 7.20 p.m. ; and not one hour and a-half, as 
 Dr. Colenso incorrectly states : second, the Talmudists, which say it 
 means six hours and twenty minutes, from 12 o'clock at noon to 6.20 
 p.m.: third, that of Jarclii and Kimchi, who understand it to be 
 about seven hours and forty minutes, viz., all the afternoon and the 
 first part of the night, i.e., from 12 o'clock at noon to about 7.40 
 p.m. ; allowing, according to Aben Ezra, one hour and twenty 
 minutes between sunset and night: fourth, that of some who 
 took it to be the whole time between the rising and the setting- 
 sun, explaining it (see p. 73) as, in their sense, a space of 
 about twenty hours : fifth, some in Bochart's time, — also represented 
 by Professor Lee in these, — who understand the phrase to include all 
 the tioenty-fuur hours of the 14th Abib, one whole day : and, sixth, 
 that of Maimonides, who says it means all the afternoon, from the 
 meridian to the end of the day, viz., six whole hours and twenty 
 minutes, from 12 o'clock at noon to 6.20 p.m., which ended the 
 14th Abib, or Passover-day. The Talmudists and Maimonides, in 
 fact, agreeing. 
 
 Now I appeal to every candid reader to say whether with these 
 diverse, these widely different, opinions as to the meaning of the 
 phrase, *' between the two evenings," Dr. Colenso can possibly be 
 justified in taking it for granted it must mean a pei'iod of only tivo 
 hours, and on that account in throwing ridicule over the account of 
 the Passover mentioned in the book of Numbers ? 
 
 Having thus exposed Dr. Colenso's unfairness, if he was acquainted 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 75 
 
 •w ith these opinions ; his ignorance, if he was not ; I proceed to make a 
 remark or two more upon the meaning of this phrase C^n~i37n ^"'S 
 hetiveen the two evenings. One may venture to say that Aben Ezra, 
 and the Caraites and Samaritans, are manifestly wrong. He may 
 venture to say so because he is supported by the Talmuds, by 
 Jarchi, by Kimchi, and Maimonides; in short, by the great mass 
 of the very highest authority. And lie may also venture to say so 
 for this simple reason, viz., that the Passover must be killed on the 
 14th Abib ; but if Aben Ezra's opinion be taken, we could never be 
 sure that it was not killed on the 15th. The natural visible termina- 
 tion of the 14th Abib would be sunset; but Aben Ezra's opinion 
 carries us on into black night, viz., into the 15th Abib. Secondly, 
 if force is really to be given to the dual form, D'^inp , two evenings; 
 one evening, or limit of the time intended, must have some sort of 
 resemblance to the other; the word must mean two p/iases, or powers, 
 of the sun ; but Aben Ezra's limits are sunset on the one hand, and 
 black night on the other ; and it is hard to see in what sense black 
 night represents any phase of the sun, i.e., daylight, to those who had 
 to be guided by it in slaying the Paschal Lamb. 
 
 Further, I would observe that, in regard to time, the Hebrews 
 used three beautiful, but singular, duals : D^nntt? means full morning ; 
 n^~in2 means full noon ; and D''n~i37 means (I say) full sunset. So 
 that as □'^-ins meant the noon, or middle point between dawn and 
 sunset, when the sun is in his meridian, so D"'~iniZ? meant the time 
 when the full disc of the sun is first visible, in rising, above the 
 horizon; and □"':n~i3; means the time when his full disc is last visible, 
 in setting, above the horizon. The force of the dual must, at the 
 very least, be to separate the two spaces of time, as to the morning 
 between dawn and noon, and as to the evening between noon and 
 night. So that taking Aben Ezra as a fair judge, if one hour and 
 twenty minutes must elapse before sunset becomes night, then to 
 give the force of D''3"i3? we must take another hour and twenty 
 minutes before afternoon becomes sunset. I maintain that, whatever 
 time would elapse between sunset and night on the 14th Abib, at 
 least double that time must be allowed to the phrase " between the 
 evenings." This, even according to Aben Ezra, would make the period 
 to be two hours and forty minutes ; and not two hours, as Dr. Colenso 
 supposes. 
 
 I conclude, therefore, 1. That Dr. Colenso has misrepresented 
 Aben Ezra ; 2, That Aben Ezra is plainly wrong ; 3. That all pro- 
 
76 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 bahilities are that the Tahnudists, and Rs. Jarchi, Kimchi, and 
 Mainionides (who, in effect, agree) are right ; 4. That it is possible 
 that the Passover might have been lawfully killed at any time of the 
 day of the 14th Abib, provided the feast was not kept until the 
 second evening, which terminated that day, and immediately pre- 
 ceded the 15th Abib; and that, consequently, all that Dr. Colenso 
 has said is worth nothing so far as it depends, and it does entirely 
 depend, upon his limitation of the sacrifice and sprinkling of the 
 blood of the Passover in the wilderness to the period of two hours. 
 
 This proof that Dr. Colenso has no good authority for limiting the 
 slaying of the Passover to the short space of ttuo hours is utterly fatal 
 to all he has said as to the impossibility of the three priests' 
 sacrificing 150,000 lambs, for all the congregation, in the court 
 of the tabernacle, during that brief time. Instead of having 
 only two hours, they probably had all the time from earliest 
 dawn to latest evening — about twenty hours ; but I believe 
 we may say, with confidence, they had at least half that time, 
 viz., all that intervened between noon and latest evening. And if 
 we grant to Dr. Colenso that 150,000 lambs had to be killed, then 
 taking the first space of time, viz., twenty hours, and admitting the 
 people into the court only 2,000 at a time (it would hold 5,000), then 
 150,000 lambs could be comfortably killed in seventy -five lots, at 
 sixteen minutes to a lot. Taking the second space of time, viz., ten 
 hours, then, admitting the people 3,000 at a time, the same could 
 be done in fifty lots, at twelve minutes to a lot ; easily enough, 
 too, if each man killed his own. But this was not necessary. Levite, 
 and lay, butcher's, could be deputed for the purpose ; and the 
 business be so done more quickly. The killing, so Maimonides 
 tells us, was managed by passing a bright, sharp knife once through 
 the jugular, and back ; this would kill any lamb in the world in 
 a far less space of time than twelve minutes. But supposing we 
 took the shortest space of time allowed by the Talmudists and 
 Rabbins, say even six hours, which is less than they allowed, then 
 admitting the people at the same rate, each man, in each lot, would 
 have to kill his lamb in three-fifths of twelve minutes, viz., in seven 
 minutes and twelve seconds. And it could be done. 
 
 But, says Dr. Colenso, there were only three priests, and they had 
 to sprinkle the blood of all the 150,000 lambs in tijco hours. Of 
 course, as we have showed, he is wrong as to the ttco hours ; but he 
 is wrong also in two other respects. The (so-called) sprinkling was 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 77 
 
 part of the sacrificial service ; and, even if the lambs had to be killed 
 in tiuo hours, the sprinkling (so called) might continue all night until 
 the morning, a period not of two hours, but of tzvehe, allowing full 
 sunrise to be about four a.m. And, as I remarked, Maimonides^ 
 observation about this " sprinkling " of the blood is most important. 
 It might be collected in bowls, carried within, and left until, bowl 
 after bowl, the priest dashed it, not sprinkled it, at the foot of the 
 altar. And three priests thus engaged for twenty, or ten, hours 
 could pour out the blood of 150,000 lambs with ease, being 50,000 
 each, at the rate of 2,500 an hour if in twenty hours, or twice the 
 number if in ten. Ten hours would be the shortest time by which 
 to limit them, seeing that the (so-called) sprinkling would go on all 
 night until sunrise on the 15th Abib, i.e., from about 6 p.m. on the 
 14th to about 4 a.m. on the 15th. And, indeed, it may be questioned, 
 v/hether they would be limited to a7ii/ time, seeing that Passover was 
 only the commencement of the feast of " unleavened bread " which 
 lasted seven days. 
 
 Maimonides^ description of killing the Passover, at subsequent 
 times, is as follows : — " Each man killed his own lamb, in the court 
 of the temple." " Here the priests were arranged, in many rows, some 
 holding silver, some golden, bowls." " A priest received the blood 
 in a bowl, gave it to the next, he to the next, that as many as possible 
 might be engaged in the holy work, until that priest was reached who 
 stood next the altar. He poured it out at the foot of the altar." 
 
 Dashed it, or spilled it, or poured it, not sprinkled, in the English 
 sense. Maimonides says, again and again, that the proper way was 
 to pour it out all at once, "receiving the bowl full, and returning it 
 empty." And the word pit will bear this sense, viz., to throw out 
 of the bowl loosely, widely. Dr. Colenso says, at p. 134, that " the 
 " sprinkling of the blood is enjoined in the case of any sacrifice of any 
 " kind (Lev. xvii. 6) ; " and so it is in this sense. But when more 
 caiitious sprinkling was required, it seems to have been expressly 
 enjoined. (Lev. iv. 6, 17, 20, 35, &c.) In the -case of the Passover, 
 to dash tlie blood on the doorposts was the first directed mode — 
 "jns , to place it there, in any way ; and to throw it loosely at the 
 altar will meet the force of p"iT for subsequent times. For which 
 sprinkling, a pecuhar vessel pnta was provided. Of which each 
 Priest might take two, one in either hand, and thus double the rate 
 of sprinkling. 
 
 I trust it has become very evident that Dr. Colenso is quite wrong. 
 
78 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 as to the time he has assumed for the saciihcing of the Passover ; also 
 wrong, as to the time to which he has limited the three priests, for the 
 sprinkling ; and even wrong, in the arbitrary sense which he has 
 assumed for the word sprinkling. A man does, in one sense, sprinkle 
 when he casts water, or blood, loosely from a bowl. He does also 
 sprinkle when he takes a bit of broom, or hyssop, or even his five 
 fingers, and dips them, or either of them, into the liquid first, and 
 then scatters it. 
 
 However, we have granted Dr. Colenso that, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, to which he is in no way entitled. He has assumed that the 
 Passover at Sinai was kept like subsequent Passovers, e.g., those by 
 Hezekiah and Josiah (2 Chron. xxx. 16, and xxxv. 11), but if the 
 reader will refer to Num. ix. 1 — 5, he will see that there is no manner 
 of reason for this assumption. The places referred to by the chroni- 
 cler, as above, have regard to directions contained at Exod. xxiii. 17, 
 and Deut. xvi. 2, 5; and there is the best reason for denying that 
 those places had been written when the Passover was kept at Sinai. 
 So that the " rites and ceremonies " of it, spoken of at Num. ix. 3, 
 are those which had been delivered to Moses and the Israelites in 
 Egypt. Moreover, if Dr. Colenso will take it for granted that the 
 Passover at Sinai must have been a rehearsal, or model, Passover for 
 subsequent times, he gets into another difficulty. For, at such Pass- 
 overs, only the males had to appear (Exod. xxiii. 14 — 17 ; Deut. xvi. 
 16) ; and it would almost seem as if, to be consistent. Dr. Colenso ought 
 to limit the number of those who would thus have to keep the Pass- 
 over at Sinai, in a manner to correspond: and, if so, the number of 
 lambs to be killed would be very seriously diminished, and all difficulty 
 is, consequently, removed. 
 
 If, on the other hand, they kept the Passover at Sinai, in the same 
 way as that in Egypt (which seems probable), then, again, all difficulty 
 is swept out of the way ; each man killed for his own party, and 
 dashed the blood above, and on either side of, the entrance to the 
 tent. For I cannot believe that the Bishop is serious when, at p. 
 136, he intimates that, because the people had no door-posts in the 
 desert, the injunction of smearing the blood on the entrances to their 
 dwellings could not be observed. Must there needs be door-posts ? 
 Had all the people door-ways when in Egypt ? Or has Dr. Colenso 
 any authentic pattern to exhibit ? To dash the blood above, and on 
 either side of, any entrance to any kind of residence, kept the spirit 
 of the command. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 79 
 
 I do not doubt myself but that all the Israelites kept the Pass- 
 over at Sinai, and therefore I have replied to Dr. Colenso on that 
 assumption. Whether they killed the lambs in the court of the Taber- 
 nacle may be questioned. But if they did, Dr. Colenso's error about 
 the times for killing and for sprinkling, is fatal to his argument. 
 
 After all, the observance of the Passover, whether in the desert, or 
 in Canaan, is matter for historical evidence rather than for arithmetical 
 calculation. "Was the Passover ever kept by the Jews ? Did the 
 Lord Jesus ever keep it ? Is Josephus to be believed when he says 
 that Cestius took the census of Jerusalem for Nero, at the time of 
 Passover, and that then 256,500 lambs had to be killed, in the 
 court of the temple, within two hours ? Is there any truth in 
 the accounts, contained in the Chronicles, of the Passovers kept 
 by Josiah and by Hezekiah ? Is there any truth in Ezra's account 
 of the Passover kept, and sacrifices offered, at the rebuilding of 
 the temple ? In one word, when Israel numbered many, many- 
 millions, and " all their males " went up to Jerusalem to keep 
 the Passover, was or was not that Passover ever killed in sufficient 
 quantities, and at proper times, and with the necessary rites, so as 
 to be accepted of the Lord ? It may be hard for us, in these days, to 
 realize the process ; but there can be no doubt of the matter as mere 
 subject of history. And if we are forced to admit that the Passover' 
 was wont to be kept acceptably for many milKons of people after the 
 temple was built, and before, when the Tabernacle was at Shiloh, we 
 may as well admit .it could be, and was, kept acceptably for 2,000,000 
 of people when theTabernacle was at Sinai, although the exact process 
 may be beyond our powers to ascertain. 
 
 § XVII. THE NUiMBER OF PRIESTS, AND THEIR PERQUISITES. 
 
 • The Bishop proceeds, in his chap", xx., to discourse upon " the 
 " number of priests at the Exodus compared with their duties, and 
 " with the provision made for them." He finds the priests far too few 
 for the duties, and the perquisites far too many for the priests ; and 
 he states his objection thus : — 
 
 " 146. The book of Leviticus is chiefly occupied in giving dii-ections to the 
 priests for the proper discharge of the difierent duties of their office, and 
 further directions ai-e given in the book of Numbers. 
 
 "(i.) In the case of 'every burnt-offering, which any man shall offer,' 
 
80 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 whether bullock, or sheep, or goat, or turtle-dove, ' the Priests, Aaron^s sons, 
 shall sjirinkle the blood upon the altar, and put fire upon the altar, and lay 
 the wood in order on the fii'e, and lay the parts, the head and the fat, in 
 order upon the wood; ' and 'the Priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a 
 bm-nt-sacrifice.' (Lev. i.) 
 
 " (ii.). So in the case of a meat-offering (Lev. ii.), peace-offering (Lev. iii.), 
 sin-offering (Lev. iv.), or trespass-offering (Lev. v., vi.), the Priest has special 
 duties assigned to him, as before. 
 
 " (iii.) Every woman after childbirth is to bring a lamb for a burnt- 
 offering, and a pigeon or turtle-dove for a sin-offering, or two young pigeons 
 for the two offerings, and the Priest is to ofiiciate, as before. (Lev. xii.) 
 
 " (iv.) Every case of leprosy is to be brought again and again to the 
 Priest, and carefully inspected by him till it is cured. (Lev. xiii.) 
 
 " (v.) Any one, cured of leprosy, is to bring a burnt-offering and a sin- 
 offering, and the Priest is to ofiiciate, as before. (Lev. xiv.) 
 " " (vi.) For certain ceremonial pollutions, which are specified, the Priest is 
 to offer sacrifice. (Lev. xv. 15, 30.) 
 
 " (vii.) For a male or female Nazarite, when the days of 'separation are 
 fulfilled, the Priest is to offer a bui-nt-offering, a sin-offering, and a peace- 
 offering. (Num. vi.) 
 
 " (viii.) Eveiy day, morning and evening, the Priest is to offer a lamb for 
 a continual burnt-offering, besides additional sacrifices on the Sabbath, the 
 New Moon, at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and at the Feast of the 
 First-fruits. (Num. xxviii.) 
 
 " (ix.) In the seventh month, for several days together, besides the daily 
 sacrifice, there were to be extraordinary additional sacrifices, so that on the 
 fifteenth day of the month the Priest was to offer thirteen bullocks, two 
 rams, and fourteen lambs, and in the seven days, from the fifteenth to 
 the twenty-first, seventy bullocks, fourteen rams, and ninety-eight lambs. 
 (Num. xxix.) 
 
 " (x.) Lastly, if it should be thought that the above sacrificial system was 
 not meant to be in full operation in the wilderness, we may call attention to 
 the frequent references made, in the enunciation of these laws, to the Camp, 
 (Lev. iv. 12, 21 ; vi. 11 ; xiii. 46 ; xiv. 3, 8,) as well as to the words of the 
 prophet Amos, (ver. 25,) — * Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings 
 in the wilderness forty years, O House of Israel ? ' — which show that, in the 
 Prophet's view, at all events, such sacrifices were required and expected of 
 them. 
 
 " 147. And now let us ask, for all these multifarious duties, during the 
 forty years' sojourn in the wUderness,— for all the burnt-offerings, meat- 
 offerings, peace-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, thank-offerings, 
 &c., of a population like that of the city of London, besides the daily and 
 exti'aordinary sacrifices, — how many Priests were there ? 
 
 " The answer is very simple. There were only three, — Aaron, (till his 
 death,) and his two sons, Eleazar and Ithamar. 
 
 " And it is laid down very solemnly in Num. iii. 10, ' Thou shalt appoint 
 Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait in the Priest's office ; and the 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 81 
 
 Stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to deaths So again, (ver. 38,) ' Aaron 
 and his sons, keeping the charge of the Sanctuary, for the charge of the 
 children of Israel ; and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to deaths " 
 
 Before we reply particularly to these objections, it may be 
 observed, — First, that if, at any time during the forty years' 
 wandering in the wilderness, the Israelites found themselves, 
 from local circumstances, literally unable to observe the Levitical 
 rites, they would be unquestionably absolved from the duty of 
 doing so. For instance, if (as Dr. Colenso maintains at p. 1^4) 
 the poor women after childbirth could not possibly obtain the 
 pigeons required for their offering, because there were none in 
 the wilderness, then beyond doubt they were held guiltless for 
 not offering them. A Christian man is expected to avail himself 
 of the use of the sacraments for himself, and his children ; but if, 
 in a distant colony, it so happens that he cannot obtain them, he is 
 not guilty before God of neglecting them. This remark, when applied 
 to Dr. Colenso's difficulty about the pigeons (to be noticed more 
 particularly) at once destroys all his arguments on that head ; for if, 
 as he says, the pigeons could not have been had " at all under 
 Sinai ; " why, then^ of course there were none offered ; nor had the 
 unhappy priests to eat eighty-eight pigeons, each, every day, " in the 
 most holy place," as he supposes. Second, that it is important for 
 us to distinguish between public sacrifices which, (the conditions 
 of their wandering life permitting,) were to be offered by the priests, 
 as a necessary part of their public, daily, duty ; and those sacrifices 
 which were private, and optional. For it would be the case, with 
 the Israelites, as with other nations, that the really devout persons 
 among them were few ; and such persons alone would attend strictly 
 to their private religious obligations ; the offering of certain sacrifices 
 included. As matter of fact, we know that the sacrifices were 
 so neglected in the wilderness, and that is the sin of which Amos 
 indignantly reminds the people, in the passage quoted by Dr. 
 Colenso. For instance, the Passover (that chief of sacrifices) was 
 kept in the wilderness but once ; and, as it has been said, " the 
 Israelites were forty years in the wilderness, and kept the Passover 
 only once, viz., at Sinai. This Amos indicates when he says, 
 * Have ye offered,' &c., &c. For that which was done only once, ia 
 held as if not done at all. * One swallow does not make spring.' 
 The Hebrews assign as the reason for this neglect that in the 
 
b.4 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 desert none of their sons were circumcised." {Brus'ms on Num. 
 ix. ^, in Critici Sacri.) It is no argument against either the wisdom, 
 or the holiness, of the Levitical institutions, or of its priesthood, if 
 they were arranged in tlie foreknowledge of this neglect on the part 
 of the people, or with a regard to this inaptness of local circum- 
 stances. While we have a perfect right to conclude that the com- 
 pletest provision would have been made at any subsequent time to 
 meet the necessities of the people ; if, indeed, those which were 
 first arranged, had proved insufficient. 
 
 Dr. Colenso makes an unwarrantable assumption, viz., that 
 "during the forty years' sojourn in the wilderness" there were 
 but three priests. It is true there were but three priests at the 
 first — Aaron, as the high priest ; and his two sons as the chief priests, 
 upon one of whom his high office would devolve. But it may be 
 questioned how far this gives us a right to assume, as Dr. Colenso 
 does, that no other priests were afterwards consecrated, and did not 
 actually officiate in the desert. "When Aaron came out of Egypt he 
 was eighty-three years old. The narrative tells us nothing of the 
 ages of Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar, his four sons. They 
 may have been near fifty years of age, or even older, at the Exodus ; 
 and may have had, each of them, sons nearly thirty years old at the 
 time of the consecration under Sinai. These things may have been, 
 and Dr. Colenso has no right to assume they were not. But he has 
 so assumed, and bases a great deal of his argument upon the assump- 
 tion, that there were but three priests during the forty years' sojourn 
 in the wilderness. The account given of Aaron's family at Exod. vi. 
 2o — 26, makes nothing against these observations ; for the book of 
 Exodus having been written shortly before the entry into Canaan, 
 its author is only desirous, in that passage, to give the genealogy of 
 Phinehas, upon whom the high-priesthood was destined to descend. 
 There may have been, therefore, during part, a great part, of the 
 forty years' sojourning in the wilderness, many more than three 
 priests. It is useless to say none are mentioned. Many Israelites 
 must have played important parts among their people, at that time, 
 whose names are not mentioned. Moses' two sons are never men- 
 tioned ; except in the briefest way, at Exod. xviii. 3 — 5. And 
 probably Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, would 
 never have been mentioned but for his distinguished conduct at 
 Shittim (Num. xxv. 7) ; in acknowledgment of which he inherited 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 83 
 
 the high-priesthood. It is also evident that, in the number- 
 ing in the plains of Moab (Num. xxvi. 57 — 62), the family of 
 Kohath or Aaron is studiously included among the whole number 
 of Levites, the object of that numbering having been only to take 
 the sum-total of the males of the tribe. 
 
 If, however, there were, or could possibly have been during a 
 great part of the forty years in the wilderness, more and many more 
 than three priests, a large division of Dr. Colenso's objections, on 
 the score of the priestly services, is struck away. 
 
 Further, in his ostentatious exhibition of the onerous duties 
 entailed upon the priests, Dr. Colenso has omitted, scarcely with 
 fairness, to observe how many important offices, connected with 
 attendance upon the priests, might legally be discharged for them by 
 the Levites, who numbered 8,560, from thirty years old to fifty, at 
 Sinai. (Num. iv. 48.) On this subject 1 have spoken above at 
 p. 26. They might kill, they might flay, they might receive into 
 bowls, and pass, the blood, they might and did cleanse away the traces 
 of sacrifice — in short, a multitude of duties, and those the most 
 laborious, were left to the Levites ; all, indeed, but actual service at 
 the altar. The priest's office was " for everything of the altar, and 
 within the vail." (Num. xviii. 7.) 
 
 Now a great difficulty with Bishop Colenso is as to the disposal 
 of the sacrifices. There were some, of which parts had to be eaten 
 by the priests in the most holy place ; some were given as food to the 
 priests and their entire families ; and, we may add, to the whole tribe 
 of Levites also, as servants of the priests; and some were given as 
 property to the priests, though of such a character, e.g., the skin of 
 the burnt-oflTerings, that they could not be eaten. And Dr. Colenso 
 states the matter thus, pp. 126 — 128 : — 
 
 "Again we have in Numbers xviii. 9 — 11, the following commands 
 addressed to Aaron by Jehovah himself :— ' Every oblation of their' s, every 
 meat offering of their' s, and every sin offering of their's, and every trespass 
 offering of their's, which they shall render unto me, shall be most holy for 
 thee and for thy sons. In the most holy place shalt thou eat it ; it shall be 
 holy unto thee. 
 
 " ' This also is thine ; the heave offering of their gift, with all the wave 
 offerings of the children of Israel : I have given them unto thee, and to thy 
 sons and to thy daughters with thee, by a statute for ever : every one that is 
 clean in thy house shall eat of it.' 
 
 *' Then follow other directions, by which it is provided that the priest 
 g2 
 
84' A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 should have also ' the best of the oil, and all the Lest of the wine, and of the 
 wheat, the first-fruits of them, which they shall offer unto Jehovah,' and 
 ' whatsoever is first ripe in the land ; ' which laws we may suppose were 
 intended only to be applied, when the people had become settled on their 
 farms in the land of Canaan, as also the law, ver. 25 — 29, for their receiving 
 also a tenth of the tithes of corn and wine and oil, which were to be given 
 for the support of the Levites. 
 
 " But in ver. 14 — 18 we have again these provisions : — 
 
 " ' Every thing devoted in Israel shall be thine. Every thing that openeth 
 the matrix in all flesh, which they bring unto Jehovah, whether it be of men 
 or beasts, shall be thine : nevertheless, the firstborn of man shalt thou surely 
 redeem, and the fij-stliug of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem. 
 
 " ' But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of 
 a goat, thou shalt not redeem : they are holy ; thou shalt sprinkle theii- blood 
 upon the altiu", and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a 
 sweet savour unto Jehovah. 
 
 " ^ And the flesh of them shall he thine, as the loave-hreast and as the right 
 shoulder are thine.'' 
 
 " Similar directions are also laid down in Lev. vii. : — 
 
 " ' As the siH-offering is, so is the trespass-o^QYvag ; there is one law for 
 them : the priest, that maketh atonement therewith, shall have it. And the 
 priest, which offereth any man's burnt-offering, even the priest shall have to 
 himself the skin of the hcrnt-oK&viug, which he hath off'ered. And all the 
 wiea^offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is dressed in the frying- 
 pan and in the pan, shall be the priest's that offereth it. And every meat- 
 offering, mingled with oil, and dry, shall all the sous of Aai'on have, one as 
 much as another.' Ver. 7 — 10. 
 
 " ' For the wave-breast and the heave-shoulder have I taken of the 
 children of Israel from off the sacrifices of their joeace-offerings, and have 
 given them unto Aaron the Priest and unto his sons, by a statute for ever, 
 from among the children of Israel.' Ver. 34. 
 
 " 155. These last directions are given in the story before Aaron and his 
 sons were consecrated. Hence they must be considered as intended to apply to 
 them, while the camp was in the wilderness, as well as to the 'sous of 
 Aaron ' in f utui-e generations. But what an enormous provision was this for 
 Aaron and his four, afterwards two, sons, and their families ! They were 
 to have the skins of the biirnt-o&&c'm.gs., and the shoulder and breast (tliat is, 
 double-breast) of the joeace-offerings, of a congregation of two millions of 
 people, for the general use of their three families ! . But, besides these, they 
 were to have the whole of the -sui-offerings and trespass-o^Qvmgs, except the 
 suet, which was to be bm-nt upon the altar (Lev. iv. 31, 35 ; v. 6), and the 
 whole of the «^ea^otferings, except a handful, to be burnt as a memorial 
 (Lev. ii. 2) ; and all this was to be eaten only by the three males, in the most 
 holy place! (Num. xviii. 10.) 
 
 " 156. And it would seem that they were not at liberty to hum the sin- 
 off"erings, or consume them in some other way than by eating : they must be 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSsG. 85 
 
 * eaten in the holy place.' At all events, we find it recorded that Moses, on 
 one occasion, ' diligently sought the goat of the sin-offering, and, behold, it 
 was bui-nt ! and he was angiy with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, 
 saying, Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin-otFering in the holy place, seeing 
 it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the 
 congregation, to make atonement for them before Jehovah ? Ye should indeed 
 have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded.' (Lev. x. 16 —20.) 
 
 " The very pigeons, to be brought as 5ui-offerings for the birth of children^ 
 would have averaged, according to the story, 264 a-day ; and each priest would 
 have had to eat daily eighty-eight for his own portion, ' in the most holy 
 place'!" 
 
 But there are several important considerations, under the effect of 
 which the supposed difficulties vanish away. This grouping together 
 of very different matters must not be allowed to deceive the reader. 
 It becomes important to notice what portion of the sacrifices must 
 necessarily be eaten, in the holy place, by the priests ; what might be 
 given out generally to the families of the priests, and to the Levites, 
 their servants ; and what offerings might be, if they chose, turned 
 into money for their benefit. It is also even desirable to notice the 
 extremely early age, viz., eight days (Lev. xxii. 27), at which the 
 animals might be sacrificed, as materially affecting the size of them. 
 And, lastly, there was one great principle, causing frequent exception 
 to the prescribed dutyof eating the sacrifice in the holy place; it 
 was this — '* no sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into 
 the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy 
 place, shall be eaten ; it shall be burnt in the fire." (Lev. vi. 30.) 
 I am at a loss to account for it ; but it is, indeed, a very important, 
 and extraordinary fact, that Dr. Colenso has omitted to quote a 
 statement to this effect, in the passage he cites (at p. 128), from 
 Lev. X. 16—20. He gives it thus—" Wherefore have ye not eaten 
 the sin-offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God 
 hath given it you to bear the iniquity 'of the congregation, to make 
 atonement for them before Jehovah ? Ye should indeed have eaten it 
 in the holy place, as I commanded." Whereas the passage is, 
 *' Behold the blood of it was 7iot brought in loith'm the holy place : ye 
 should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded." 
 How came the Bishop to omit these most important words ? They 
 indicate a general principle affecting the sin-offerings. Whenever 
 the atoning blood was brought into the holy place, the sacrifice had not 
 to be eaten; but to be burned outside the camp ! Says Abarbanel — 
 
8o A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 " There are two sorts of sin-offering in public sacrifices ; one, that 
 which is all burned with fire ; and another, that of which the 
 greatest part was given to the priests to be eaten." {Exod. Comm. in 
 Lev., cap. 3.) 
 
 Yet, even as regards what the priests had to eat, there was one 
 important principle, affecting all such sacrifices, clearly enjoined 
 — what the priests could not eat they were to burn. Thus, at the 
 Passover, "Ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; 
 and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with 
 fire." (Exod. xii. 10.) This principle is distinctly laid down, for 
 Aaron and his sons, at Exod. xxix. 34, and Lev. viii. 31, 32, " That 
 which remaineth of the flesh, and of the head, shall ye burn with 
 fire ; '^ and for the people's peace-offerings generally, at Lev. 
 vii. 15, 17. 
 
 It seems to me that the difficulty, suggested by Dr. Colenso, as to 
 the disposal of the sacrifices, is done away with if we bear these 
 several principles in mind. 1. That the great mass of the sacrifices 
 alluded to were optional, not compulsory (Lev. i. to iv., &c., &c.), 
 and, as matter of fact, were much neglected in the wilderness. 
 " These offerings," says Maimonides, " were, nevertheless, all volun- 
 " tary ; for it is observed, respecting them, that, although they should 
 " not be offered, no guilt should be incurred ; as it is said (Deut. 
 " xxiii. 9,2), * If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no' sin in thee.' " 
 
 2. That only of two sorts, viz., the sin-offering, and the trespass- 
 offerings, was the priest bound to eat in the holy place. For the 
 burnt-oflferings were holocausts, and the peace-oflTerings (certain parts 
 having been burned) were carried away by the master of the sacrifice. 
 
 3. No sin-offering was to be eaten, whose blood had been brought into 
 the holy place for atonement; it was to be burned. 4. Boiled or 
 roast, whatever the priest could not eat, he was to burn. 5. By ffir 
 the largest part of the sacrifices were given, not only to the priests, 
 buf to their families, and attendant Levites (Num. xviii. 11 — 19). 
 6. The compulsory duties of the priests (as national officers), were 
 comparatively small, viz., the continual sacrifice of a lamb, morning 
 and evening ; with those for the Sabbath, the new month, and the 
 feast of first-fruits. Of the duties of the Passover we have spoken 
 before. 
 
 ' Maimon. Mor. Nev. " Reasons of the Law of Moses," ch. xxii. of precepts of 
 the eleventh class. 
 
TO BISHOP COLKKSO. 87 
 
 Abarbanel sums up the matter as follows, [Exod. Comment, in Levit., 
 cap. 2, de formis sacrijiciorum) : — " From which it appears that these 
 sacrifices dififered in mode, thus: — The burnt- offering was all con- 
 sumed by fire ; the sin-offering was partly burned by fire, partly 
 eaten by the priests alone ; and similarly, as regards the trespass- 
 offering ; but of the peace-offering some was burned, viz., the 
 intestines ; it was tasted by the priest, and then handed back to its 
 owner. In these forms, you have the partition and disposal of 
 victims to be burned on the altars." 
 
 There is one part of Dr. Colenso's objections so good that we have 
 kept it to the last. I refer to his difficulty about the turtle-doves or 
 young pigeons, to be offered in the desert ; and have already noticed 
 that, if, as Dr. Colenso erroneously asserts, they could not have 
 possibly been obtained in the wilderness, then the poor women, and 
 others, were absolved from offering them. And we may now add, 
 that if they proved scarce, and their cost was great in proportion, 
 then only those who could pay for them, need offer them ; and the 
 number of such offerings would be diminished accordingly. But let 
 us have the Bishop's own words : — 
 
 " In fact, we have one of these commands, manifestly referring to their life 
 in the wilderness (Lev. xiv.), where, after it has been ordered that the priest 
 shall go out of the camp to look at the leper (ver. 3), and that the leper duly 
 cleansed shall ' after that come into the camp, and shall tarry abroad out of his 
 tent seven days' (ver. 8), and on the eighth day shall offer 'two he-lambs 
 and one ewe-lamb,' &c. (ver. 10), it is added (ver. 2JL), 'And if he be 2^00^) 
 and cannot get so much, then he shall take one lamb, &c., and two turtle-doves 
 or two young pigeons, such as he is able to get.' Here the 'turtle-doves or 
 young pigeons ' are prescribed as a lighter and easier offering for the poor 
 to bring ; they are spoken of, therefore, as being in abundance, as being 
 within the reach of eveiy one, in the wilderness, under Sinai ! It would seem 
 to follow that such laws as these could not have been written by Moses, but 
 must have been composed at a later age, when the people were already settled 
 in Canaan, and the poor, who could not afford a lamb, could easUy provide 
 themselves with pigeons. In the desert, it would have been equally impos- 
 sible for rich or poor to procure them. 
 
 " 152. It may be said, indeed, that the njv >:3, 'young jjigeons,' were birds 
 of the wilderness. Thus, we read, in Ps. Iv. 6, 7, 'And I said, Oh that I 
 had wings like a dove (njv) ; for then would I fly away, and be at rest. Lo, 
 then would I wander far off, and remain in the wdderness (""^lo) ; so Jer. 
 • xlviii. 28, ' O ye, that dwell in Moab, leave the cities, and dwell in the rock, 
 and be like the dove, that maketh her nest in the sides of the hole's mouth; ' 
 and Ez. vii. 1 6, ' They that escape of them shall escape, and shall be on the 
 
88 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 mountaius like doves of the valleys, all of them moumiug, every one for his 
 iniquity.' Yet the Psalmist, in Ps. Iv. 6, 7, was hardly thinking of the 'great 
 and dreadful ' desert of Sinai. He had, probably, in view the wilderness of 
 Judah, or some other wide extent of 'uncultivated, and comparatively barren, 
 country, into which cattle are driven to feed ' [Ges. Lex., "'iT^), far from the 
 common haunts of men ; and the n^v might be found dwelling in the rocks 
 or valleys of such a solitude as this. 
 
 " 153. The desert of Sinai, indeed, is also called "lam, as in Num. xx. 4 ; 
 Deut. viii. 15 ; xxxii. 10 ; Jer. ii. 6. But, in each of the above passages, some 
 expression is added to show the terrific character of the Sinaitic waste ; thus, 
 in Num. xx. 4, ' Why have ye brought up the Congregation of Jehovah into 
 this wilderness, that we and our cattle should die there? . . . neither is 
 there any water to drink ;' in Deut. viii. 15, ' that great and terrible wilder- 
 ness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought ; where there 
 waB no water ;' in Deut. xxxii. 10, ' He found him in a desert land ("ino r"^^)j 
 in the waste, howling wilderness ( ]'a^) ; ' in Jer. ii. 6, ' Where is Jehovah, 
 that led us through the wilderness, through a land of desert* and of pits, 
 through a land of drought and of the shadow of death?' It can scarcely be 
 believed that the n:v ':ij even if they could have been found here at all, 
 would have been so numerous, that they could be spoken of as common birds, 
 within the reach of the poorest of the Congregation, and be offered at the 
 rate of 90,000 a-year." 
 
 Why this trifling with Hebrew words ? The question is simply, 
 Could or could not the Israelites get pigeons in Arabia Petraea? 
 If they could, they were to offer them, on certain occasions, to the 
 extent to which they were procurable. If pigeons were not 
 procurable, then the people were absolved. 
 
 Dr. Colenso ought to have known that pigeons could be procured 
 at Sinai ; and that they are birds of the wilderness, even of such a 
 wilderness as Arabia Petrsea. Does he not know that one particular 
 breed of pigeon is called •• Mahomet," and is a native of the Arabian 
 Peninsula ? Is he not aware that " the Laugher " is a native of 
 Palestine, not very far from Sinai ; that " the Runt " is a native of 
 Smyrna; and that "the Carrier" was originally bred at Bassora, and 
 propagated throughout Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and the East ? Is 
 he not aware that the Assyrians worshipped pigeons, and that the 
 people of Ascalon, in Philistia, would not kill or eat them, lest they 
 should eat their gods ? Does he not know that pigeons " are very 
 fond of heat, and prefer the burning climates of the tropics to the 
 temperate countries"? Is he not aware that "pigeons delight in 
 open, mountainous, and sandy countries," like Arabia Petra;a ? Does 
 lie not know that the stock-dove, the parent of all the breeds, breeds 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 89 
 
 in the holes of rocks, as well as in the hollows of trees ; and that 
 long before the captivity in Egypt, Abraham offered his two D"*bw, 
 probably stock-doves, but certainly pigeons of some kind? Is the 
 Bishop unaware that the stock-dove is easily induced to breed 
 in artificial cavities, and loves the society of man ; so that some 
 Israelites may have kept, and trained, and carried them, even in the 
 desert ? 
 
 At p. 54, I had occasion to remark that Bishop Colenso knew very 
 little about sheep : I now regret to observe that he knows less about 
 pigeons. 
 
 Is the Bishop not aware that pigeons are wonderfully prolific, and 
 that Stillingfleet (not the prelate of that name) says that 14,7G0 
 were produced from a single pair, in the course of four years ? 
 Dr. Colenso himself can reckon how many birds could have been 
 produced from one pair, in forty years. It is perfectly conceivable 
 that, even in the desert of Arabia, tame pigeons were plentiful 
 among the Israelites, and could have been procured easily by the 
 poor women. 
 
 Does the Bishop not know that " tam in Syria, quam in Graecia, 
 columbas ab onlni svo nidificasse " ? Is he not aware that Bochart 
 says of the n3V, or domestic pigeon (which the Israelites had to offer), 
 that they had their habitat in places desert and rocky ? And that 
 the Arabs tell us the name Semiramis was compounded of two words, 
 which mean either dove of the wood, or dove of the mountain, or 
 dove of the desert ? 
 
 There is* no difficulty in conceiving how these pigeons were 
 caught, or bred, or kept (at least, to some extent), by the Israelites 
 in the desert. 
 
 § XVIII. THE CLERGY RESERVES. 
 
 Dr. Colenso's next objection I really cannot understand ; nor am 
 I able to answer it seriously. 
 
 " 158. Fiu-ther, in Josh, xxi., we have an account of the forty-eight 
 Levitical cities ; and we read (ver. 19), * All the cities of the children of 
 Aaron, the priests, were thirteen cities, with their subui'bs.' 
 
 ' See BufFon's Nat. Hist., vol. xii., p. 197, &c., &c. ; also Bocharl's Hieroz., 
 vol. ii., pp. 530, 545, &c., &c. 
 
00 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 "At this time, according to the story, there was certainly one son of 
 Aaron, Eleazar, and one grandson, Phinehas, and his family. Ithamar, 
 Aaron's other son, may have been alive ; but no mention whatever is made of 
 him. "We may suppose, however, that he had sons and daughters. For this 
 small number of j^ersons, then, there are provided here thirteen cities and 
 their suburbs, and all, let it be observed, in the immediate neighbourhood of 
 Jerusalem, where the Temple was built, and where the presence of the priests 
 was especially required, but in a later age. Scott notes as follows : — 
 
 " ' The family of Aaron could not at this time have been very numerous (I), 
 though it had increased considerably (!) since his appointment to the 
 priesthood. Yet thirteen cities were allotted to it as a patrimony, in the 
 Divine knowledge of its future enlargement. For we have reason to think 
 that no other family increased so much in proportion, after Israel's departuie 
 from Egypt, as that of Aaron.' 
 
 " The only conceivable reason for so thinking is the fact now before us, 
 viz., 'that thirteen cities were assigned to them. We do not find the sons of 
 Aaron numerous in the time of the Judges, or in Eli's time, or Samuel's, or 
 David's, or Solomon's (except, indeed, in the record of the Chronicler). 
 Aaron himself had at most only two sons living, and one of these had only 
 one son." 
 
 I should have thought that any Bishop alive knew how to let a 
 good and tenantable estate, until required for the exigencies of his 
 own family. Besides, to support Dr. Colenso's objection, or indeed 
 to reply to it, we need a Surveyor's Report of the number of houses 
 in these thirteen cities, their state of repair when the Canaanites 
 received, and were forced to comply with, their notice to quit ; 
 also, the extent and condition of the suburbs ; also, the exact 
 number of those Levites, and their families, who were in personal 
 attendance on the priests. Also, we need to be informed, whether 
 it was not lawful for other Levites to be put in possession, for a 
 time, on behalf of the priests. When Dr. Colenso has obtained for 
 us these few particulars, we will reply to him more seriousl}'. 
 
 § XIX. THE EXODUS IN THE FOURTH GENERATION. 
 
 When Bishop Colenso proceeds to dispute about the number of the 
 Israelites at the Exodus, and the number of the Levites and the Danites 
 at the same time, as he does in chapters xvii. and xviii., pp. 10'^ — 
 112, two positions are necessary to the soundness of his argument. 
 One of these has reference to the time during which the Israelites 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 91 
 
 were actually captive in Egypt ; the other, to the meaning of the 
 promise made to Abraham (Gen. xv. 13), that they should leave 
 Egypt in the fourth generation, after their going down there. 
 
 To the first of these subjects, viz., the time during which Israel 
 really lived in Egypt, he devotes chap, xv., pp. 91 — 95, and arrives 
 at the conclusion that the whole time passed by the Israelites under 
 the rule of the Egyptians was 215 years. It is quite unnecessary to 
 trouble ourselves with any remarks upon that particular chapter. It 
 professes to prove what most persons, in these days, are prepared to 
 admit, viz., that St. Paul stated, under inspiration, that the covenant 
 made at Sinai was 430 years afjer the promise first made to Abraham 
 (Gen. XV. 9; Gal. iii. 17) ; and that, therefore, the whole period of 
 time elapsing between Jacob's going down to Egypt and Moses bring- 
 ing Israel out, on the loth Abib, B.C. 1560, was about 215 years. 
 
 Be it granted, then, that the Sons of Israel sojourned in Egypt 
 only 215 years. 
 
 The Bishop's object in thus clearly limiting, and fixing, the 
 shortest possible time for Israel's sojourning in Egypt, is to show 
 that the people could not have multiplied, in so short a period, to the 
 extent in which Holy Scripture says they did. Of course, such an 
 argument boldly, and entirely, rejects the claim of Scripture to any 
 miraculous increase of the people. The writer, in Exod. i. 7, 
 dwells peculiarly upon the wonderful increase of the people, and 
 plainly asserts that God's special power and providence were exer- 
 cised to promote it. This Dr. Colenso's argument altogether ignores ; 
 but that is nothing extraordinary for him ; since all his book pro- 
 fesses to bring down the Pentateuchal narratives to the test of mere 
 arithmetic, and implies throughout it a denial of all miraculous inter- 
 vention, or agency. This reflection will certainly be fatal to Dr. 
 Colenso's book in the opinion of every serious Christian ; and, besides 
 that, we proceed to prove that all his calculations about the numbers 
 of Israel fall to pieces, because he has entirely mistaken the meaning 
 of the expression, ''the fourth generation." 
 
 The Bishop takes the word Tn , (Gen. xv. 13) in the sense oi natural, 
 individual, generation ; and that is, certainly, one of its meanings in 
 the Hebrew Bible, but that is not its meaning in the place before us. 
 The word has several correct meanings as used in various places, and 
 it will be my duty to show what its meaning is in the passage re- 
 ferred to. When Dr. Colenso divides 215 years into only four 
 
92 
 
 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 natural, individual generations, it is plain that he allows fifty-three 
 years and three-fourths to each generation. And, if he should be 
 wrong in doing so, — if, for instance, a natural generation should be 
 twenty or thirty years, instead ©f fifty-three and three-fourths, — it 
 will be manifest that, instead of four natural, individual generations 
 in 215 years, we may have seven, or even ten, with some few years to 
 spare. If the case should be so, it must necessarily prove the Bishop 
 to be wrong to some considerable extent, and it may prove him to be 
 so to an extent utterly destructive of his views concerning the number 
 of the Israelites, Danites, and Levites at the Exodus. 
 
 Let us state Dr. Colenso's argument in his own words : — 
 
 " 108. Again, when it is said, Gen. xv .16, 'in the. fourth generation they shall 
 come hither again,' this can only mean ' in the fourth generation ' reckoning 
 from the time when they should leave the land of Canaan, and g© down into 
 Egypt. Thus we find Moses and Aaron in the fourth generation from the 
 time of the migi'ation, viz., Jacob — Levi — Kohath — Amram — Aaron. Or, 
 as Jacob was so aged, and Moses and Aaron also were advanced in life 
 beyond the military age, we may reckon from those, as Levi, who went down 
 into Egyjat in the prime of life, and then the generation of Joshua, Eleazar, 
 &c., in the prime of life, will be the fourth generation. 
 
 " 109. Accordingly, if we examine the different genealogies of remarkable 
 men, which are given in various places of the Pentateuch, we shall find that, 
 as a rule, the contemporaries of Moses and Aaron are descendants in the third, 
 and those of Joshua and Eleazar in the fourth generation, from some one of 
 the som, or adult grandsons, of Jacob, who went down with him into Egypt. 
 Thus we have : — 
 
 
 1st Gen. 
 
 2nd Gen. 
 
 3rd Gen. 
 
 4th 
 
 Gen. 5th Gen. 
 
 
 Levi ... 
 
 . Kohath 
 
 Amram 
 
 Moses 
 
 
 
 E. vi. 10, 18, 20. 
 
 Levi . . . 
 
 , Kohath 
 
 Ami-am 
 
 Aaron 
 
 
 
 E. vi. l(j, 18, 20. 
 
 Levi .. 
 
 , Kohath 
 
 Uzziel 
 
 Mishael 
 
 
 
 L. X. 4. 
 
 Levi . . . 
 
 , Kohath 
 
 Uzziel 
 
 Elzaphan 
 
 
 
 L. X. 4. 
 
 Levi . . 
 
 . Kohath 
 
 Izhar ' 
 
 Korah 
 
 
 
 N. xvi. 1. 
 
 Reuben , 
 
 , Pallu 
 
 Eliab 
 
 Dathan 
 
 
 
 N. xx\^. 7—9. 
 
 Reuben , 
 
 , Pallu 
 
 Eliab 
 
 Abiram 
 
 
 
 N. xxvi. 7—9. 
 
 Zarah ... 
 
 Zabdi 
 
 Carmi 
 
 Achan 
 
 
 
 Jo. vli. 1. 
 
 Pharez , 
 
 , Hezron 
 
 Ram 
 
 Amminadab 
 
 Nahshon... 
 
 Ruth iv. 18, 19. 
 
 Pharez , 
 
 . Hezron 
 
 Segub 
 
 Jail- 
 
 
 
 1 Ch. ii. 21, 22. 
 
 Pharez , 
 
 , Hezi-ou 
 
 Caleb 
 
 Hur 
 
 
 Uri Bezaleel 
 
 1 Ch. ii. 18—20. 
 
 " In the last instance, Bezaleel is in the fifth generation from Pharez. 
 Perhaps he was a young man, and was reckoned in the generation next to 
 that of Joshua : and, in fact, Josephus, Ant. iii. 6. 1, calls him the * gi-andson 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 93 
 
 of Miriam,' who is regarded by Jewish tradition as the wife of Hur. Thus 
 he would have been a contemporary of Fhmehas, the grandson of Aaron, — 
 not of his sou, Eleazar. Besides, Hezron, as well as his father, Pharez, was 
 born, according to the story, in the land of Canaan ; so that Bezaleel was 
 actually still in the fourth generation from one who went down into Egypt. 
 
 " 114. "We conclude, then, that it is an indisputable fact, that the story, as 
 told in the Pentateuch, intends it to be understood — (i.) that the children of 
 Israel came out of Egj^pt about 215 years after they went down thither in the 
 time of Jacob, — (ii.) that they came out in the fourth generation from the 
 adults in the prime of life, who went down with Jacob. 
 
 " And it should be observed that the second of these conclusions does not 
 in any way depend upon the correctness of the former. 
 
 " Upon this point Josephus writes, Ant. ii. 9. 1 : — 
 
 " ' Four hundred years did they spend under these afflictions ; for they 
 strove one against the other which shoidd get the mastery, the Egyptians 
 desiring to destroy the Israelites by their labours, and the Israelites desiring 
 to hold out to the end under them.' 
 
 " But of course, the last words of the above can only refer to the last 
 portion of their sojourn in Egypt, since they were not stiiiggling with the 
 Egyptians till after Joseph's death, at all events. And so writes Josephua 
 again, Ant. ii. 15. 2 : — 
 
 " ' They left Eg}^t four hundred and thirty years after om- forefather 
 Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after 
 Jacob removed into Egypt.' 
 
 " And he wi'ites of Moses, Ant. ii. 9. 6 : — 
 
 " ' Abraham was his ancestor of the seventh generation.* 
 
 "And so he says of Joseph, Against Apion, i. 33 : — 
 
 "'He died foiu* generations before Moses, which four generations make 
 almost 170 years.' 
 
 " And Archd. Pratt observes, ' Science and Scriptui-e,' p. 78 : — ■ 
 
 " ' It was to be in the fourth generation that his seed were to return to 
 Canaan. But 430, or even 400, years is very much longer than four genera- 
 tions, and therefore must include something besides the bondage in Egypt, 
 viz., the sojourning in Canaan. His prediction regarding the " fourth gene- 
 ration" was literally fulfilled. Moses and Aaron were sons of Jochebed, 
 who was the daughter of Le\T (Num. xxvi. 59), a text which incidentally 
 confirms the coirectness of our general outline. Eleazar, the Priest, the son 
 of Aaron, was, therefore, of the f oiu'th generation from Jacob [ ? Levi]. He 
 returned to Canaan and died there, his father, Aaron, and that generation, 
 having died in the wilderness.' 
 
 " 115. From this it can be shown, beyond a doubt, that it is quite im- 
 possible that there should have been such a number of the people of Israel in 
 Eg}' pt, at the time of the Exodus, as to have furnished 600,000 warriors in 
 the jirime of life, representing, at least, two millions of persons, of all ages 
 and sexes, — that is to say, it is impossible, if ice will take the data to be derived 
 from the Pentateuch itself." 
 
94 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 The Bishop has entangled the question with two whole pages 
 of little print upon the pedigree of Joshua, the son of Nun, as given 
 at 1 Chron. viii. 22, 27 ; his object being to show that the account 
 in Chronicles cannot be relied on. On this point, it is sufficient to 
 observe that we have nothing, at present, to do with the book 
 of Chronicles. • But, as to the question before us, we admit that it is 
 said distinctly by the Almighty to Abraham, at Gen. xv. 13, 
 '• Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that 
 is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four 
 hundred years ; and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will 
 I judge ; and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 
 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace ; thou shalt be buried in a 
 good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither 
 again ; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." But the 
 Bishop is mistaken in thinking that the word " generation " here 
 means a natural generation or begetment; and in so giving, to each of 
 the four " generations " spoken of, the long and irrational period of 
 fifty-three years and three-fourths. 
 
 Common sense says at once, the Bishop must, in this case, be 
 wrong. Who will believe that, among a people whose males married 
 at twenty years, in a country — Egypt — where girls were married at 
 sixteen years, the proper time to assign to one natural generation is 
 fifty-three years and tliree-quarters ? It would, perhaps, be correct 
 to set apart only twenty years to one generation ; and to say that 215 
 years' sojourning in Egypt ought to count for ten natural generations, 
 with fifteen years to spare. 
 
 This, too, is a subject upon which Holy Scripture has not left us 
 without information for this particular occasion. We have an 
 example suggested, by which to reckon natural, individual genera- 
 tions in Egypt, at the very time in question. Dr. Colenso has, for 
 a purpose of his own, noted, at p. 97, that *' we are told that the 
 " children of Machir, the son of Manasseh, were brought up upon 
 ** Joseph's knees." But he has forgotten to say, also, that in the very 
 same verses (Gen. 1. 22, 23), it is added, that " Joseph saw Ephraim's 
 children of the third generation." Now Joseph was " thirty years 
 old, when he stood before Pharaoh, King of Egypt " (Gen. xli. 
 46), and he married soon after (Gen. xli. 50, 51); also he lived 
 110 years (Gen. 1. 22). So that, taking thirty-two years as the 
 age at which Joseph married, it follows that in seventy-eight 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 95 
 
 years he had seen four generations of his own children, viz., 
 Ephraim, his sons, grand, and great-grand sons. Leavino- out 
 the last of these as being, probably, but infants when Joseph died, 
 and taking only married, or marriageable children, to mark a natural, 
 individual generation, we have then seventy-eight years to divide into 
 three such generations ; i.e., we have exactly twenty-six years to one 
 natural generation. The Bishop has not the same right, when 
 questioning the space which ought to be allotted to one natural 
 generation, to reason upon the case of Machir, or others, who 
 married later, or had fewer children, as we have to reason upon 
 a case like Ephraim's. If we show, as we do, that seventy-eight 
 years may fairly be reckoned as three natural generations, and 215 
 years, therefore, fairly as more than eight, we have shown that Dr. 
 Colenso's presumption that 215 years counts only for four generations 
 is on no account to be permitted ; and all his reasoning built upon 
 that presumption becomes untrustworthy. More than this, we have 
 on our side the natural probability, we may say, indeed, the natural 
 certainty, that twenty-six years is time enough, and to spare, for one 
 natural, individual generation. 
 
 This, the Bishop's false assumption, viz., that 215 years counts 
 only for four natural generations, lies at the root of all his calcula- 
 tions respecting the numbers of the people at the Exodus ; and, in 
 effect, destroys all that part of his book, which withers away like 
 Jonah's gourd. 
 
 Again, it is certain, not only that Jacob's eldest sons were in the very 
 prime of life, when they went down into Egypt (the age of all was, 
 as we shall see, about forty years), but that some of them might be 
 considered even young. Benjamin was only twenty-two years old. 
 Also some of the grandsons were fully at marriageable age, one of 
 them, at least, viz., Beriah, was already married. There can be no 
 doubt that the work of procreation went actively on, from the time 
 of their arrival in Egypt. Biit, according to Dr. Colenso, we are 
 to wait, in the burning clime of Egypt, for- fifty-three years and 
 three-fourths, before we can count on a second generation. Is that 
 reasonable ? 
 
 I beg the reader to be here especially on his guard against a 
 misapprehension, so easily fallen into, through two, very different, 
 meanings of the word generation. The first meaning is that of a 
 period to be determined by the average life of men in any country ; 
 
96 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 the second is that to be measured by their procreating powers. For 
 this second I use the word hegetment. "We might say with truth 
 that, in one point of view a generation of the first kind is seventy 
 years ; a generation of the second, viz., power of begetment, as few 
 as twenty. It is with the power of hegetment that we have to do. 
 
 Any reader may convince himself, by examining the English 
 Bible, that the word " generation " is used in Holy Scripture in 
 several different senses: — 1. It means the "headship" of a whole 
 family, or people ; 2. Closely allied to this, it stands for a " nation ; " 
 3. It stands for the whole mass of any people at particular, suc- 
 cessive periods in their existence ; 4. In a similar sense, it seems to 
 be often equivalent with " history ; " 5. It means a natural, indi- 
 vidual procreation, or begetment; and, 6. It sometimes stands for a 
 seculum, or age. Dr. Colenso's fatal error, as to the numbers of 
 Israel, has been in assuming arbitrarily the fifth of these senses for 
 the word "generation" in Gen. xv. 16, when it will not bear it 
 there. For when the Almighty says to Abraham, " In the fourth 
 generation they shall come hither again," He is speaking of the 
 whole family, or seed, as one people under one head or patriarchate, 
 and uses no word which will justify Dr. Colenso's limitation of it to 
 a natural, individual begetment ; it is as if it had been said, " In the 
 fourth generation of the patriarchate, after they go down, without 
 limiting the multiplication of thy seed." 
 
 For, of the two words used in Hebrew Scripture to express 
 " generation," we have to do with in , which means properly an 
 undefined cycle of time, and is, accordingly, used for various periods 
 in different places of Scripture. Nothing could be more opposite to 
 the character of this word than to use it, as Dr. Colenso does, 
 to express four equal periods of time, as for natural generations, in a 
 space of a given number of years. Even when used in express 
 reference to individual generations, it is employed, for varying 
 periods of time, and for periods varying for different individuals, 
 under • precisely the same condition. Thus, of Job it is said 
 (chap. xlii. 16), " After this Job lived a hundred and forty years, 
 and saw his sons and his sons' sons, even four generations." In this 
 case one natural generation would be about thirty-five years. This 
 is one of the earliest uses of the word. So in Ephraim's case (Gen. 
 1. 23), Joseph in eighty years (Gen. xli. 45, 46, and Gen. 1. 23), saw 
 four generations of his children ; i.e., the same number of genera- 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 97 
 
 tions as Job, in not much more than half the time. Yet, during the 
 same eighty years, there were but two generations of Machir, the 
 son of Joseph's firstborn, Manasses, or one generation in about 
 twenty-six years and eight months. These two are, also among the 
 earliest use of the word. So that no fixed limit, even according to a 
 Hebrew average, can be given to the word "ni, when used, as Dr. 
 Colenso supposes it to be used, at Gen. xv. IG, of natural, individual 
 pi-ocreation. But, in fact, the word very early stood for a much 
 larger period of time, in the sense of a race of people, or a protracted 
 acje of time. Gesenius ' (who is indebted to Simonis) explains the 
 word more fully than other lexicographers. And it is strange that 
 Dr. Colenso, who sometimes refers to Gesenius (p. 88, above), did not 
 consult him on this important subject; and note the following remark, 
 in relation to our present question : — " But the Hebrews, like our- 
 " selves, seem to have counted the life of man commonly thirty or 
 " forty years (see Job xlii. 16), but at the time of the long-lived 
 " patriarchs, a hundred (Gen. xv. 16; comp. Comni. 14, and Exod. 
 " xii. 40) ; and, similarly, among the Romans, the word seculum 
 " anciently signified the life of man ; afterward, Censorinus teaches 
 *' us {De Die Natali, cap. 17), it came to mean a space of 100 years." 
 Here was a guiding line for Dr. Colenso. Two meanings of the 
 word, "generation," are mentioned; one, between thirty and forty 
 years, viz., for people generally; another, of 100 years, with especial 
 reference to the patriarchs, and to Gen. xv. 16, the passage in 
 question ; but neither of them anything like Dr. Colenso's fifty-three 
 years and three-fourths, or four arbitrary divisions of 215 years. 
 Of the very early use of the word ~m, in the sense of race and an 
 age, examples may be found, at the places mentioned below.* Thus, 
 " Inquire, I pray thee, of the former age ; " " the generation to come 
 of your children, that shall rise up after you ; " "a very froward 
 generation, children in whom is no faith." It is certain, then, 
 that -)^^, even in its earliest uses, always means an undefined 
 and varying cycle of time ; and sometimes the period of a whole 
 race of people, or determination of an age. 
 
 Here I shall call attention to a curious fact, not as an argument, 
 but as a hint, to men with Scriptural instinct, men who feel (by 
 God's grace) implicit confidence in the Holy Bible. One of the 
 
 ' Gesenius' Thesaur., p, 330; Simonis' Lex., p. 383; Furst's Concord., pp. 275, 276. 
 * Job viii. 8; Exod. i. 6; Num. xsxii. 13; Deut. ii. 14; xxix. 22; xxxii. 5, 24. 
 
 H 
 
y» A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 passages referred to above (Exod. i. 6), is as follows, " And Joseph 
 died, and all his brethren, and all that generation." Supposing we 
 took this as an inspired intimation how to determine " the fourth 
 generation " of Gen. xv. 10. Joseph died seventy-one years after Jacob 
 and his other sons went down to Egypt, in the second year of the 
 famine (Gen. xlvi. t); let us amuse ourselves, therefore, by taking 
 seventy-one years as the limit of the first generation of the captivity, 
 then three such generations would be 213 years of the 215; and it 
 would be true, in this sense, that Israel left Egypt, in the " fourth 
 generation " of the captivity. This takes the word generation, in 
 the first sense, viz., limit of life; and not in the second, viz., power of 
 begetment. 
 
 However, to proceed, "m stands for any undeterminate cycle of 
 time. Yet, to test the fulfilment of a particular promise, depending 
 upon its meaning, it must be referred to some selected standard, for 
 measurement. Now, the promise to Abraham was (Gen. xv. 16), 
 " in the fourth generation, they" (viz., thy seed) "shall come hither 
 again." And the selected standard, by which to prove the fulfilment 
 of this prophecy, or promise, was, the Patriarchate ; the headship of 
 the whole family ; the generations of the whole family being thus 
 parcelled into fours, by the Patriarchate. " In the fourth generation 
 of the Patriarchate, after going down, they shall come up again." 
 In other words, the head of the whole house, filling the place of 
 Abraham, was to be, at the time of the Exodus, in the " fourth 
 generation," fi'om Jacob, under whose Patriarchate they went down 
 there. And this without limitation of the natural procreations of 
 other branches of the family. The promise, thus made to Abraham, 
 would be literally fulfilled if Israel were brought out of Egypt, 
 during the fourth generation of the patriarchal family, reckoning 
 from Jacob. And to prove such fulfilment we have the genealogy of 
 Moses and Aaron given us at Exod. vi. 16 — 27. To that genealogy 
 Dr. Colenso refers ; but seems not to understand its use. 
 
 Moses and Aaron were fourth in descent, from Jacob, through 
 Levi: — Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Aaron-with-Moses. And 
 we know, as matter of fact, that, so it pleased God, the Patriarchate, 
 or headship, over all Israel was, by special appointment, vested 
 in Moses and Aaron. Moreover, we may trace (in Exod. vi.) 
 certain providential circumstances which all tended to the same end 
 of giving the tribe of Levi this Patriarchate. The Jews say, and 
 
TO BISHOP COLRA'SO. 99 
 
 Exod. vi. 16, seems to justify the idea, that Levi outlived all the 
 other Patriarchs. Clearly he outlived Joseph ; and all the others 
 seem to have been dead when Joseph died. (Exod. i. 6.) Of Levi 
 and his sons alone^ patriarchal ages are there recorded. Levi, 137 
 years ; Kohath, 133 years ; Amram, 137 years (Exod. vi. 16, 18, 20) ; 
 and Aaron dying in the fortieth year of the Exodus, lived about 123 
 years. Further, Levi was Jacob's third son ; and if anything had 
 happened to displace Reuben and Simeon, his two elder brothers, 
 the Patriarchate devolved on him by right. Now Reuben had 
 been formally forbidden the Patriarchate by Jacob, for his crime 
 mentioned at Gen. xlix. 4, " Unstable as water, thou shalt not 
 excel," i.e., " ungovernable in thy passions, as seething water, thou 
 shalt not have rule over thy brethren." Simeon and Levi were both 
 to be divided in Jacob, and scattered in Israel. (Gen. xlix. 5 — 7.) 
 But, whatever prevented Simeon's obtaining the Patriarchate, whether 
 early death or any other cause, is of little moment to the subject, 
 seeing that we know, as matter of fact, it was given by the Almighty 
 to the family of Kohath, the son of Levi. The genealogist carefully 
 mentions the children of Reuben and Simeon, and then proceeds to 
 trace the patria.rchate of Levi, in the sons of Kohath ; no doubt, that 
 it may be distinctly observed he does so in the consciousness, except 
 for intervening circumstances, of the naturally prior claims of Reuben 
 and of Simeon. What those circumstances were, in the case of 
 Simeon, we are not informed ; neither are we informed why Kohath, 
 Levi's second son, was preferred to Gershon, the eldest. Neither 
 are we instructed why Moses, Amram 's second son, was chosen as 
 leader and lawgiver to Israel ; while Aaron, the eldest, in a sub- 
 ordinate position himself, received, in his sons, the high-priest- 
 hood, as a Patriarchate, through many successive generations. In 
 the genealogy of Exod. vi. 16 — 27, as in other genealogies, which 
 Dr. Colenso so little understands, the annalist has a particular 
 business before him, viz., to detail the Patriarchate of Levi, and his 
 sons to the third generation ; and he does so, not concerning himself 
 with collateral matter. 
 
 Yet, it is curious to observe that, as to Levi's having acquired the 
 Patriarchate, there are additional considerations glanced at in the 
 narrative. The Israelitish blood of Levi seems to have been kept 
 pure (Exod. vi. 20) ; and, besides the long lives, already referred to, 
 of Levi's sons, Gershon and Amram, the fact of the adoption of 
 
 H 2 
 
100 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 Moses, by a person so great and influential as Pharaoh's danglitcr, 
 suggests reasons why the Patriarchate which had devolved upon Levi, 
 the last survivor of Jacob's sons, was continued to his posterity. 
 
 Should it be observed that the royalties of the firstborn, the 
 kingship, had been given to Judah (Gen. xlix. 10), it may be justly 
 answered, they had been given predictively, but Israel would know, 
 and Judah's sons also, that it was no part of their duty to anticipate 
 the providential fulfilment of that prediction. The headship of the 
 house was ostensibly Levi's, as Judah's elder (and, probabl}', sur- 
 viving) brother ; and circumstances, at the time, pointed to the 
 perpetuation of that headship in his family. Yet, in connection with 
 this part of the inquiry, we may note that Aaron married the sister 
 of Naashon, the head of the house of Judah, (Exod. vi. 2o) ; so that, 
 already, the house of Judah had some personal interest in supporting 
 the claims of Aaron. The sacerdotal, and royal, tribes were at the 
 moment united. Nor is it unreasonable to infer, considering that 
 the family of Levi was eventually destined for the service of the 
 tabernacle, and that of Aaron for the government in the high- 
 priesthood, that it had pleased the Almighty to impart to Israel some 
 traditional influences tending in that direction. 
 
 I conclude, then — 
 
 1. That, critically. Dr. Colenso has no manner of right to limit the 
 word "generation," in Gen. xv. 16, to the meaning of natural, indi- 
 vidual, begetment. 
 
 2. That common sense says 215 years must count for more than 
 four natural generations, as begetments ; and that it is absurd to give 
 fifty-three years and three-fourths, to one such. 
 
 3. That the case of Ephraim's children (Gen. 1. 23), is itself a sufli- 
 cient refutation of the idea. 
 
 4. That " the fourth generation " intended, in Gen. xv. 16, is the 
 *' fourth generation " of the Patriarchate ; reckoning from Jacob, in 
 whose Patriarchate the descent into Egypt took place ; and that the 
 four steps were these — Levi, Kohath, Amrani, and Moses-with- 
 Aaron. 
 
 § XX. THE NUMBER OF ISRAELITES AT THE EXODUS. 
 
 This important conclusion breaks up all that Dr. Colenso has said 
 about the numbers of Israel, and their several tribes, at the Exodus ; 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 101 
 
 the chapters concerning which form, perhaps, the most serious part 
 of his book ; or, at least, the part most likely to mislead the general 
 reader. Besides, it should be observed, that the Bishop has made a 
 serious mistake in venturing to base any part of his calculations as to 
 the number of the people upon the pedigrees given in Holy Scripture. 
 They contain no sufficient data for such a purpose. Nor, having regard 
 to the object of revelation, was it likely that they would. They are 
 given for specific purposes, suffi.ciently exhibited. But, to meet the 
 Bishop's ideas, we should have needed a minute record of births, 
 deaths, and marriages. Now, Moses does not profess to be a registrar- 
 general. We are not acquainted with the principle upon which tribes 
 were divided into families ; nor whether they were so, upon any 
 fixed principle whatever. That unrecorded circumstances affected 
 this matter, we are sure, from Num. xxvi. 19, S8, where the full five 
 families are given to Judah, for his five sons, by including Hezron 
 and Hamul ; and only seven families given to Benjamin, for his ten 
 sons ; and that by the inclusion of two grandsons, the sons of Bela ; 
 so that three whole families were reckoned to Bela, one of Benjamin's 
 sons, and four of his other sons were entirely excluded. "We are not 
 informed as to the principle upon which families were selected to be 
 heads of tribes ; nor from how many, or what, causes the first-born 
 (like Reuben) might be set aside for the elevation of a younger. 
 We are not told how" this other was determined on; nor, generally, 
 what extraneous influences might have affected, or even have sus- 
 pended, the laws of descent. In Jewish pedigrees, it was customary 
 not to include the women ; and yet, it is manifest, the deaths, and 
 births, and ages, and numbers, and degrees of relationship, of the 
 women must have had the greatest influence upon the pedigree. To 
 proceed, howevei', to the 7iumbers, the Bishop observes : — 
 
 '' In the first place, it must be observed, as aLready noted, that we nowhere 
 read of any very large families among the children of Jacob, or their 
 descendants, to the time of the Exodus. We may suppose, in order that we 
 may have the po2:)ulation as large as possible, thatvery few died prematurely, 
 and that those, who were born, almost all lived and multiplied. But we 
 have no reason whatever, from the data furnished by the Sacred Books 
 themselves, to assume that they had families materially larger than those of 
 the present day. Thus we are told in Gen. xlvi. that Eeubeu had 4 sous, 
 Simeon 6, Levi 3, Judah 5, Issachar 4, Zebulun 3, Gad 7, Asher 4, Joseph 2, 
 Benjamin 10, Dan 1, Naphtali 4. It is certainly strange that, among all 
 the 69 children and grandchildren and great-gi-andchildren of Jacob, who 
 
102 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 went down with him into Egypt, there should be only one daughter men- 
 tioned, and one granddaughter. The very numbering of these two among 
 the ' seventy souls ' shows that the females ' out of the loins of Jacob ' were 
 not omitted intentionally. 
 
 "117. Some, indeed, have suggested that these two only were inserted, 
 because they were either notorious already, as Dinah, or may have become 
 notorious in after days, as may possibly have been the case with Asher's 
 daughter, Serah, ver. 17, though the Bible says nothing about it. But it 
 is plain that this is only perverting the obvious meaning of the Scripture in 
 Gen. xlvi. It is certain that the writer intends it to be understood that 
 these seventy were the only persons, and these two the only females, who 
 had at that time been born in the family of Jacob. And, though the fact 
 itself, of this wonderful preponderance of males, may seem very strange, and 
 would be so indeed in actual history, it is only another indication of the 
 unhistoiical character of the whole account. For the jDresent, however, we 
 may admit it as possible in the nature of things, that there should have been, 
 at first at all events, such a preponderance of males, and even probable, if 
 the house of Israel was to increase with extraordinary rapidity. - 
 
 "118. The twelve sons of Jacob, then, as appears from the above, had 
 between them 53 sons, that is, on the average 4| each. Let us suppose that 
 they increased in this way from generation to generation. Then in the first 
 generation, that of Kohath, there would be 54 males (according to the story, 
 53, or rather only 51, since Er and Ouan died in the land of Canaan, A^er. 12, 
 without issue) — in the second, that of Amrani, 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 wairiors in the prime of life, there 
 could not have been 5,000. 
 
 " Further, if the numbers 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 sum-total of 
 males of all generations could not, according to these data, have exceeded 
 28,465, instead of being 1,000,000." 
 
 All of which becomes valueless when we remember that Dr. 
 Colenso is wrong in the' application he makes of the expression 
 " fourth generation " ; and that instead of four natural generations 
 in ^^15* yeai-s, there ouglit to be reckoned seven at the fewest. 
 Indeed, Gen. 1. 23, as written of Ephraim's children, gives us some 
 right to reckon one generation, or begetment, to every twenty-five 
 or twenty-six years. There might have been, therefore (as reason 
 suggests tliere were), eight, or at least seven, generations, in 215 
 years. Let us take thirty years as a generation, in the sense of a 
 sum of natural begetments. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 103 
 
 1. The Bishop observes that "we have no reason whatever, from 
 " the data furnished by the Sacred Books themselves, to assume that 
 ** they (the children of Jacob) had famiUes materially larger than 
 *' those of the present day. Thus we are told, in Gen. xlvi., that 
 " Reuben had 4 sons, Simeon 6, Levi 3, Judah 5, Issachar 4, 
 *' Zebulun 3, Gad 7, Asher 4, Joseph 2, Benjamin 10, Dan 1, 
 *' Napthali 4." But this takes no account of two elements of 
 calculation most important on this part of the subject, viz., 1. The 
 comparative youth of the Patriarchs when Jacob removed into Egypt; 
 2. That their social status was entirely changed by their going there. 
 We shall presently see that the average age of Jacob's twelve 
 sons, at the descent into Egypt, was not forty years ; while, as the 
 Bishop admits, Benjamin was a lad twenty-two years old. Are we 
 to suppose that these twelve men had no more children after they 
 settled in Goshen ? Dr. Colenso boldly replies, p. 23, " Certainly, if 
 " the plain meaning of the text of Scripture will not allow us to 
 " suppose the contrary." The text of Scripture will allow us to 
 suppose the contrary ; requiring us only to understand that the 
 seventy persons, who went down into Egypt, were those from whom 
 the multitude, that came out, was descended. The conclusion that 
 they had no more children born in Egypt would be unreasonable, 
 and contrary to all human probability. Let us remember the 
 recorded dispositions' of these sons of Jacob, as indicated by 
 Reuben's conduct (Gen. xxxv. 22), by Judah's (Gen. xxxviii. 15), 
 and by the fact that the possession of concubines is recorded in the 
 case of two of them, Simeon (Gen. xlvi. 10) and Benjamin, who 
 having ten sons when he was but twenty-two years of age, must have 
 had them by more than one woman ; or, as Dr. Colenso says, p. 24, 
 '* possibly by more than one wife." With such facts as these before 
 him, and with the example of Jacob, who had two wives and two 
 concubines, it is strange to find the Bishop asserting, pp. 117, 120, 
 that " there is no indication -that polygnmy did prevail among the 
 ** Hebrews of those days; " stranger still, when we remember that 
 polygamy and concubinage were expressly provided for by the 
 Levitical law at the time of the Exodus. (Exod. xxi. 7 — 11 ; 
 Deut. xxi. 15 — 17.) Which provision distinctly implies both that 
 polygamy and concubinage did then exist, and also were likely to be 
 continued. And we know that they were continued. Surely, if 
 Scripture is to guide us, there can be no doubt that polygamy and 
 
104 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 concubinage were general among the Hebrews, from the time of their 
 descent into Egypt to the time of their coming out. We cannot 
 rationally suppose that these twelve patriarchs had no more wives, 
 concubines, nor children, after they became settled, as brethren of 
 the Prime Minister, in a country where Potiphar's wife, and Mr. 
 Lane's recent researches,' may vouch for the normal character of 
 the ladies. Probably Joseph's conduct (Gen. xxxix. 8) is thrown 
 into bold contrast with his brethren's, in order to impress all readers 
 with a deep sense of his eminent piety towards God. Let us 
 remember, also, the laws of descent which obtained similarly among 
 Hebrews and Egyptians, viz., that the children of concubines in- 
 herited upon equal terms with those of lawful wives. And though 
 polygamy seems to have been rare among the Egyptians,* it was 
 permitted, as was also concubinage ; and divorce, to any extent. 
 The children of concubines and slaves, were treated as if the 
 children of wives. This is proved in Jacob's case, in Simeim^, Judah's, 
 and Benjamin's. And that such wives or concubines, with their 
 children, would be reckoned as Israelites, is clear from these cases ; 
 and the children of Egyptian women also as such, from Joseph's, 
 as well as from the direct testimony of Holy Scripture. Li regard 
 to the question whether the patriarchs had, individually, more 
 children born after their descent into Egypt, it is curious to notice 
 that the Septuagint gives Joseph nine children, viz., two already 
 born when Jacob arrived in Egypt, and seven more some time after- 
 wards. (See Sept., Gen. xlii. 21 ; Exod. i. 5.) 
 
 The average number of children in each family of Jacob's sons, 
 born before the residence in Egypt, is no fair test of the probable 
 size of the Hebrew families subsequently born in that country. 
 Tjieir social existence was entirely changed when they resided in 
 Egypt. In Canaan they had little inducement to extend their 
 alliance with the natives ;- in Egypt they had the greatest. They 
 knew that the Canaanites were doomed to be thrust out, to 
 make i;oom for them. (Gen. xv. 16 — 21.) Canaan was at that 
 time comparatively but thinly peopled ; Egypt was already 
 populous- In Canaan, they were known, though respected, merely 
 as most prosperous shepherds ; in Egypt, they were known as 
 the same, and also as brethren of the monarch's chief favourite. 
 
 ' Lane's Mod. Egypt, vol. i., p. 219, &c. 
 
 ' Wilkinson's Anc. Egypt., vol. ii., pp. 62 — 64. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. . 105 
 
 Temptation to sexual indulgence was, in Canaan, not unusually- 
 great ; in Egypt it became peculiarly so. Every probable considera- 
 tion suggests that the families of Hebrews would be in Egypt much 
 larger than they were before ; and Scripture asserts that they were 
 so to an extraordinary degree. (Exod. i. 7.) 
 
 Nor does Scripture furnish us with any numeration of the children 
 in Hebrew-Egyptian families such as to enable us to draw general 
 conclusions on the subject. Dr. Colenso has endeavoured, p. 105, to 
 establish the inference that the families in Egypt were even smaller, 
 on the average, than they were in Canaan. He does so, without 
 success, by appealing to Exod. vi., which records some particulars 
 concerning the families of Levi, Reuben, and Judah ; but none 
 which will justify any conclusion as to the size, generally, of 
 Hebrew-Egyptian families. Is it safe to draw a general infer- 
 ence, respecting a whole nation, from certain peculiarities affecting 
 one, or two, or three, families? 
 
 2. The Bishop says (p. lOt), that, as the object of the Egyptian 
 " King was to keep down their numbers, it is not to be supposed 
 *' that he would allow them to take wives freely from among his own 
 *' people, or that the women of Egypt (at least those of the genera- 
 " tions of Amram, which gave birth to Moses, and after it,) would be 
 *' willing, generally, to associate their lot with a people so abject and 
 " oppressed as the Hebrews. Besides, we are told expressly that, in 
 " childbirth, * the Hebrew women were not as the Egyptian women ' 
 " (Exod. i. 19), by which it is plainly implied that the wives of the 
 " Hebrews were also Hebrews." Which remark is erroneous in three 
 particulars. Doubtless, it was the object of Thotmes HI., who lived 
 when Moses was born, to destroy the male children (Exod. i. 16); 
 but only the males. The girls were to be spared, and might become 
 the wives of other Hebrews ; or even of Egyptians, who, casting in 
 their lot with Israel, would be esteemed as Hebrews; as, doubtless, 
 the husbands of Dinah and Zerah were ; and as, indeed. Scripture 
 gives us express reason to believe: Exod. xii. 48; Num. ix. 14; 
 Deut. xxiii. 8 ; 1 Chron. ii. 34, S5. Besides, there is no evidence 
 that the peculiar persecution, adopted against the male children, was 
 continued long, or very successful while continued. The answer of 
 the midwives shows that they concerted an evasion of the order they 
 had received ; and should be regarded as a reply, framed for the 
 express purpose of deceiving Pharaoh. It also proves, in direct 
 
106 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 opposition to Dr. Colenso, that certain Egyptians were, at that very 
 time, favourable to the Hebrews, and probably by no means so averse 
 to alliance with them, as the Bishop supposes. But, if they were, 
 the Isi-aelites had, at this time, flourished exceedingly for about 135 
 years; had, during all that time, intermarried, and cohabited with, 
 Egyptians ; had formed extensive connections among them ; and 
 marriages with pure Egyptians would be no longer necessary ; 
 though it is likely the persecution by Pharaoh would not have 
 prevented them, if they were. The supposed contrast, which Dr. 
 Colenso draws, between Hebrew women and Egyptian, as to their 
 parturition, is easily explained away, either by the fact that the 
 midwives meant simply to deceive Pharaoh; or by the fact, that 
 Hebrew wives descended from Egyptian marriages, were esteemed 
 Hebrews, and spoken of accordingly. 
 
 S. Dr. Colenso stubbornly refuses to believe in the singular 
 fruitfulness of the Hebrews, when in Egypt. He says (p. 106) : — 
 ** The Scripture implies no such fecundity among the Hebrews, 
 " either in Gen. xlvi., or in Exod. vi., or in Exod. i. 19, where 
 " the midwives say, of the Hebrew women, ' They are delivered 
 " * ere the midwives come in unto them,' which could hardly have 
 " been said, if three or four children were often born at a time." 
 I do not know that; for when Hebrew parents knew that their boy- 
 babies were likely to be murdered, they might not have been over- 
 hasty to send for a nurse, who was supposed to act in obedience 
 to the Egyptian King. Besides which, as just now explained, 
 the answer of the midwives was framed expressly to deceive ; 
 and, even when not friendly, if they failed to be in time, they would, 
 naturally, seek to screen themselves from suspected complicity. It 
 is not usual for unbelievers to contradict the testimony of heathen, 
 in matters affecting the Christian religion. Why does Dr. Colenso 
 refuse the testimony of Aristotle {Hist. Anam.., vii. 4), and of Pliny 
 {Nat. Hist., vii. 8), who (Kalisch, and others, have noted) expressly 
 say, that women, in Egypt, bore three, four, or even five, children at 
 a time ? And, (Dr. Colenso's attempted contrast, notwithstanding,) 
 Hebrew wives, after 135 years' residence of the people of Israel, in 
 Egypt, were, to all intents and purposes, Egyptian women. But 
 Scripture does speak specifically of tlie extraordinary fecundity of 
 the Hebrews in Egypt. (Exod. i. 7.) And, as to the Bishop's 
 references above. Gen. xlvi. is of the people in Canaan, and has 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 107 
 
 nothing to do with the question ; and Exod. vi. is, more particularly, 
 of the family of Amram ; and will be considered iij its proper place. 
 Meanwhile, it is enough to say, that Bishop Colenso is mistaken in 
 his reading of that genealogy; and that, if he were not, he cannot 
 safely venture to reason as to the condition of a whole people, from 
 that of two, or three, particular families. There is good reason to 
 believe that the family of Levi avoided, to a great extent, the 
 blandishments of the Egyptian women round them. And we may 
 close this part of the subject by observing, that Dr. Colenso's 
 reference to the small family of Zelophehad, p. 105 (Num. xxvii. 1), is 
 as little to the purpose, as that to Gen. xlvi. ; for it has regard to a 
 date nearly forty years after they had left Egypt. 
 
 On the whole, there is the express testimony of Holy Scripture ; 
 there is the testimony of heathen writers ; and there is every natural 
 probability ; to lead us to conclude that the Hebrews had much larger 
 families, in Egypt, than before. 
 
 4. Dr. Colenso, in reckoning the progenitors of Israelites in 
 Egypt, has excluded all the twelve Patriarchs, who, when they went 
 down thither, were in the prime of life. This is a serious mistake. 
 It appears that all Jacob's sons, except Benjamin, were born within 
 seven years of each other ; taking Reuben as the eldest, and Joseph 
 and Zebulun as the youngest two. For Jacob, after seven years' 
 service with Laban, obtained his two wives, Leah and Rachel 
 (Gen. xxix. 21 — 30) ; and, as soon as Joseph had been born, 
 viz., at the end of seven years' service for Rachel (Gen. xxx. 
 ^2 — 26, and xxxi. 41), and before his six years' service for cattle, 
 he desired to return home. All, therefore, but Benjamin, were born 
 within seven years of each other. Now, Joseph was thirty-nine 
 years old, when Jacob and his other sons went into Egypt (Gen. 
 xli. 46), for Jacob went down in the second year of famine ; and 
 Joseph was already thirty years old, " when he stood before 
 Pharaoh." (Gen. xli. 46.) ' And Judah was three years older 
 than Joseph, or forty-two years old, at the descent into Egypt. 
 Judah was Jacob's fourth son ; so that Reuben appears to have been, 
 at that time, about forty-five years old. (Gen. xxxix. 31 — 35.) 
 We cannot be quite certain of the relative ages of all the other 
 sons ; but it appears, that Jacob was, during these seven years, 
 cohabiting with his two wives, and their two handmaids ; and that 
 the ages of the several sons will be nearly as follows : — Reuben, 
 
108 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 forty-five years ; Simeon, forty-four ; Levi, forty-three ; Judah, 
 forty-two ; Dan, forty-one ; Gad, forty-one ; Naphtali, forty ; 
 Asher, forty ; Issachar, forty ; Zebulun, thirty-nine ; Joseph, 
 thirty-nine ; Benjamin, twenty-two ; at the going down into 
 Egypt. So that the average ages of the eldest eleven sons was 
 about thirty-eight years ; and the youngest was only twenty-two. 
 Surely it is a sad mistake of Dr. Colenso to have assumed that 
 these men had no more children born in Egypt. 
 
 Further, at the time of going into Egypt, these men had, among 
 them all, about twelve marriageable sons, one marriageable sister, 
 and one marriageable daughter. I say, twelve marriageable sons, 
 because I reckon three each to Reuben, Simeon, and Levi ; and 
 one each to Judah, Dan, and Gad. Judah's two elder sons had died 
 in Canaan. There were, altogether, then, twenty-six persons, 
 at the descent into Egypt, from whom the multiplication of 
 children might have commenced, at the very beginning of the 
 215 years. 
 
 I have already explained how unreasonable is Dr. Colenso's 
 first assumption, that the families of Israelites in Egypt averaged 
 only four and a-half. He seems to have felt so himself; for after- 
 wards, he does not object to take them at six, — viz., three sons and 
 three daughters. For he observes (p. 105): — 
 
 " If we take all the families given in Exod. vi. 14 — 25, together with the 
 two sons of Moses, we shall find that there are thirteen persons who have 
 born them thirty-nine sons, which gives an average of three sons each. 
 This average is a fairer one to take, for our purpose, than the former ; 
 because these persons lived at all different times in the interval, between 
 the migration into Egypt, and the Exodus. We may suppose, then, that 
 the average of children is still as large as before, or even larger ; so that 
 each man may have had, on the average, six children, \\z., three sons and 
 three daughters." 
 
 Such is Dr. Colenso's allowance, not admitting the existence 
 of polygamy, nor even of concubinage. That they did exist among 
 the Hebrews in Egypt, and out of it, from their descent into 
 Egypt, and at the Exodus, and long after, is a fact which Scripture 
 attests, and which cannot be rationally denied. 
 
 Even in this nipping climate of the North, the possession of two 
 wives would not be very injurious to the physical constitution of a 
 man ; and it might, in many cases, tend to the health and increased 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 109 
 
 fruitfulness, of both the women. Surely, in the sun of Egypt, the 
 supposition that each Hebrew may have had, on the average, the 
 society of two women, is not unreasonable ; nor that, of these two 
 women, ten children, on the average, or five each, may have been born. 
 For the Hebrew men married at about twenty years, and Egyptian 
 girls usually at sixteen : they were marriageable before.' I shall, 
 therefore, take a lower average than Dr. Colenso's highest, and 
 assume that every married woman, and every concubine, among the 
 Hebrews, had, on the average, five children, viz., one-half more than 
 Dr. Colenso^s lowest, and unfair, average, four and one-half. Here, 
 I would beg to inform my lay brethren that the cost of keeping 
 a family in Egypt, was extremely small ; * being about thirteen 
 English shillings a-year, for each child. Even in the cold and dreary 
 towns of England, ten children in one family, of one wife, are by no 
 means rare. The case would, doubtless, be much oftener so, were 
 we not crowded into unhealthy towns, in a bleak climate, and under 
 social conditions which render early marriages inadvisable, and super- 
 induce vices, which secure physical degeneration. I shall reckon, 
 therefore, ten children, on an average, to each man, by two women, 
 viz., five sons and five daughters. 
 
 Dr. Colenso has attacked the Pentateuch upon some hypotheses : 
 we may well be permitted to defend it upon others, of a far different 
 character. » 
 
 My object will be to put before the reader, one, only one, clear 
 and reasonable hypothesis, by which it may be seen that the Israelites 
 may, possibly, have increased naturally to the extent asserted in the 
 Pentateuch, but denied by Dr. Colenso. I have already shown that, 
 at the very day of the descent into Egypt, there were at least twenty- 
 six able-bodied adults, from whom the increase of the people might 
 have instantly proceeded ; but that Dr. Colenso studiously and unfairly 
 leaves out" the twelve patriarchs ; starting with fifty-four males, in the 
 first generation, Kohath's. (See p. 102, above.) For the sake of the 
 argument, I shall do, in effect, the same ; and also, for the sake of the 
 argument, I shall come very closely to Dr. Colenso's lowest, and 
 unfair, average of four and a-half children to each man. I shall 
 take five. 
 
 ' See Lane's Mod. Egypt., vol. i., p. 194. Whoever will compare Wilkinson's 
 Anc. Egypt., with Lane, may see how singularly they agree in their accounts of 
 the people. " See Wilkinson's Anc. Egypt., vol. ii., p. 53. 
 
110 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 We have 2\5 years to lay out in rearing families. And, since the 
 whole number of males, reckoned to Jacob at the going down to Egypt, 
 was 65, including Joseph and his two sons, but excluding Hezron 
 and Hamul, I shall take the stock, for procreation, at the low number 
 of 50. I shall throw off the first 15 years of the ^15, to allow the 
 lads to become men of ;^0 years old ; and shall assume that not one of 
 them was so bad as his Uncle Benjamin, who had 10 children when 
 he was only 22 years of age. Should it be objected that some of the 
 lads would scarcely be men by that time, I shall hope that this 
 possibility is allowed for, and fairly met, by leaving out the 12 
 patriarchs, and anj/ additional children they and their adult sons may 
 have had horn in Egypt during those 15 years. We have now 200 
 years .left. I shall tlirow off 20 years more, at the end of the 200, 
 in order that every male, to be reckoned at the Exodus, may be quite 
 20 years old. Lastly, instead of 53 descendants of Jacob, being the 
 whole number 65 without the 12 Patriarchs, I shall take 50 ; thus 
 leaving out Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, fathers of the Levites. 
 These 50 descendants, at 5 sons each, for 6 generations, of 30 years 
 each, are exactly equal to 781,250 men, above twenty years old, or 
 177,700 more than the fighting men given us at Num. ii. 32. Now, 
 if the reader will refer to p. 46, above, he will see that the 603,550 
 men mentioned, for all the twelve tribes, at Num. ii. 32, are only 
 \\\e fighting men ; men, that is, habitually fit for war. So that my 
 calculation, allowing 5 sons, on the average, to each man, for 6 
 generations of 30 years, produces the number of fighting men re- 
 quired ; and allows 20 years' produce for boys and girls under that 
 age ; also allows 177,700 men, not fit for fighting; and, lastly, reckons 
 the whole number of women as equal to the whole number of men. 
 In fact, it reckons all the people to have amounted to, at least, 
 1,562,500 adults, above 20 years of age. 
 
 Nor have I yet stated the case fully. Dr. Colenso will not admit 
 that the sons of Israel took any servants with them into Egypt. He 
 dares to affirm, p. 114, — 
 
 " (i.) There is no word or indication of any such cortege having accompa- 
 nied Jacob into Egypt. 
 
 " (ii.) There is no sign even in Gen. xxxii., xxxiii., to which Kurtz refers, 
 where Jacob meets with his brother Esau, of liis having any such a body of 
 servants. 
 
 " (iii.) If he had had so many at his command, it is hardly likely that he 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. Ill 
 
 would have sent his darling Joseph, at seventeen years of age, to go, all 
 alone and unattended, wandering about upon the veldt in search of his 
 brethren. 
 
 " (iv.) These also are sjDoken of as ' feeding their flocks,' and seem to have 
 had none of these ' thousands ' with them, to witness their ill-treatment of 
 their brother and report it to their father. 
 
 " (v.) Nothing is said about any of these servants coming down with the 
 sons of Jacob to buy corn in Egypt, on either of their expeditions. 
 
 " (vi.) Eather, the whole story implies the contrary, — ' they speedily took 
 down every man his sack to the ground, and opened every man his sack,' — 
 ' then they rent their clothes, and laded every man his ass, and returned to 
 the city,' — * we are brought in, that he may seek occasion against us, and 
 take us for bondmen, and our asses,'' not a word being said about servants. 
 
 " (vii.) In fact, their eleven sacks would have held but a very scanty supply 
 of food for one year's consumption of so many starving ' thousands' 
 
 " (viii.) The flocks and herds did not absolutely require any ' servants ' to 
 tend them, in the absence of Jacob's sons, since there remained at home, 
 with the patriarch himself, his thirty-nine children and grandchildren, as 
 well as his sons' wives." 
 
 All of which, if worth anything, might go to prove that Jacob 
 never had any great number of servants or retainers. How, then, 
 did he take from the Amorite, with his sword and his bow, that 
 extra portion which he gave to Joseph ? (Gen. xlviii. 22.) How, 
 then, did Simeon and Levi take each man his sword, and smite the 
 whole people of Shechem to a man ? (Gen. xxxiv. 26.) Dr. 
 Colenso ! it is clear, from Holy Scripture, that Jacob and his sons 
 must have had a, very large body of retainers. But let us agree, that 
 like ungrateful hinds, they deserted their masters in the famine ; or 
 else, that Jacob, unable to maintain them, gave them leave to go. Is 
 it too much to suppose that twenty-j&ve, only twenty-five, cast in 
 their lots with them, and went down to Egypt ? Only twenty-five 
 faithful retainers out of so large a body ! Jacob and his sons took 
 with them into Egypt their cattle and their goods (Gen. xlvi. 6) ; 
 and would, doubtless, keep in- view the business of breeding. But, 
 BufFon informs us that, under such conditions, not more than 100 
 sheep, nor more than ,00 goats, should be given to the charge of one 
 man.' Supposing that, to the eleven able-bodied patriarchs, we add 
 fourteen sons old enough to be trusted with sheep for such a purpose, 
 and twenty-five adult men-servants, similarly, with the goats ; then 
 the breeding flock of Jacob may be taken at 2,500 sheep, and 1,250 
 ' Bufi'on's Nat. Hist., vol. v., pp. 254, 274. 
 
112 • A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 goats ; or 3,750 altogether. A very small number to allow under 
 the circumstances. But some one will say, they had cattle, and 
 probably camels and asses. Aye ! to be sure ; and the greater the 
 probability, therefore, that they had servants, and more servants than 
 twenty-five. But let us be generous to Dr. Colenso, and take only 
 twenty-five. 
 
 Then, at the same rate of increase, those twenty-five servants will 
 make the whole number of people half as many again. In other words, 
 we can afford to give up one-third of all the people on the scores of 
 early death, comparative barrenness, wear and tear of work at the brick- 
 making, and Pharaoh's slaughter. Or, again, in other words, we can 
 afford to take an average family, by two women, at one-third of ten 
 fewerj or six children and two-thirds in a family. So that, Dr. Colenso 
 being willing to allow six to a familv, without polygamy or concu- 
 binage, we can afford to come to his own terms, two-thirds of a birth 
 in each family only excepted, and still have men enough and to spare. 
 Oh, Dr. Colenso ! Dr. Colenso ! no one blames you for not knowing 
 Hebrew ; but you ought to have been fairer at averages ! 
 
 Some of my believing brethren may say, ' If all be so natural, 
 wherein lies the miraculous nature of the people's increase, as plainly 
 stated in -Holy Scripture ?' (Gen. xlvi. 3, and Exod. i. 20.) It lies 
 in the fact, not that they could so increase, but that they did so 
 increase ; that, by. especial protection of Providence, they were 
 guarded, for so long a time, against the ravages of envy and hatred, 
 on the part of strange people ; that they were born so habitually in 
 full vigour, and grew to full maturity ; that they were preserved so 
 generally from the diseases of the climate ; that the more the iron 
 heel of oppression stamped them down, the fresher, and stronger, and 
 thicker they sprung up again ; that their appointed murderers proved 
 their friends ; that they grew in the hearts of the Egyptian common 
 people, notwithstanding they absorbed a great portion of wealth ; and 
 that, in the end, they came out with a strong hand, their proudest 
 lords entreating them to go, and gladly yielding up their choicest 
 treasures, in hopes of gaining, by that sacrifice, the favour of these 
 serfs, once so despised. The losses of Israel, in Egypt, may have 
 been great and natural ; the wonder is they were not greater, since 
 causes existed to make them supernatural. 
 
 For, I entreat Bishop Colenso to understand that, with all ni}' soul, 
 I believe in, and thank God for, the wonders of the Pentateuch. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 113 
 
 § XXI. THE NUMBER OF THE DANITES. 
 
 A very similar argument destroys all that Dr. Colenso has said 
 about the Danites at the time of the Exodus. But their case has 
 certain peculiar features, which will interest us. 
 
 " When, however, we go on further to examine into the details of this large 
 number of male adults, the results will be found yet more extravagant. Thus 
 Dan, in the first generation, has one son (Gen. xlvi. 23); and that he had no 
 more born to him in the laud of Egypt, and therefore had only one son, 
 appears from Num. xxvi. 42, where the sons of Dan consist of only one 
 family. Hence we may reckon that in the fourth generation he would have 
 had twenty-seven warriors descended from him, instead of 62,700, as they 
 are numbered in Num. ii. 26, increased to 64,400 in Num. xxvi. 43, 
 
 " In order to have had this number born to him, we mitst suppose that 
 Dan's one son, and each of his sons and grandsons, must have had about 
 eighty children of both sexes. We may observe, also, that the offspring of 
 the o7ie son of Dan, 62,700, is represented as nearly double that of the ten 
 sons of Benjamin, 35,400. (Num. ii. 23.) " 
 
 The Bishop's first mistake is in saying that it is certain Dan had 
 no sons born in Egypt, because at Num. xxvi. 42; there is only one 
 family reckoned to him. The Jews say that Joseph had nine 
 children, but only two heads of tribes were reckoned to him. 
 Benjamin had ten children, but only seven famihes are reckoned to 
 him. We are not acquainted with the principle which guided the 
 Israelites in numbering their families under heads. No doubt there 
 were various intervening, and contracting, causes ; as we are sure 
 (from the case of Pharez), that there were sofne extending causes. 
 Sometimes a tribe would gain an additional family and its head ; 
 sometimes lose one. Nothing is more probable than that Dan^s sons, 
 by Egyptian women, should be counted under the head of Hushim. 
 Be that as it may, we may venture to conclude, according to natural 
 probability, that Dan, who was only forty-one years old when he 
 went into Egypt, was not insensible to the attractions of its society ; 
 and had consequently sons born there. As, -no doubt, the other 
 patriarchs had ; though no families are reckoned except in reference 
 to Jacob's sons born in Canaan, as, e.g., Hezron and Hamul were to 
 Pharez (Num. xxvi. 1 — 51) ; and Ephraim and Manasseh, to Joseph. 
 
 Supposing, then, that Dan and Hushim were the only Danites 
 who came from Canaan into Egypt, then, at the same rate of 
 calculation as before, Dan being forty-one years old, and Hushim 
 
 I 
 
114 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 twenty, they are worth 31,250 fighting men at tlie time of the 
 Exodus. This is in six generations of thirty years each at five sons 
 a man, throwing off fifteen years at the commencement, and twenty 
 years at the end, of the 215 years of captivity. But, it is manifest, 
 there is no occasion for our throwing oflf these fifteen years, in the 
 present case. We may fairly reckon the Danites at six generations 
 and a-half, still giving up twenty years at the end. This half of a 
 generation, being the last fifteen years of the 195 immediately pre- 
 ceding the twenty years given up, would make the whole number of 
 fighting Danites, at the time of the Exodus, 78,125 ; somewhat in 
 excess of the number 62,700, given in Holy Scripture. (Num. iii. 26.) 
 
 The above is without servants ; whereas if we allow Dan and 
 Hushim each a servant, the number becomes 156,250; and, as in 
 other cases, we can afford to allow for casualties. 
 
 But there is a curious consideration connected with the Danites. 
 All, who are acquainted with Holy Scripture, know that Dan's was 
 peculiarly the idolatrous tribe. (Judg. xviii. 14.) Is it possible that 
 Dan and Hushim consorted, from the first, with the Egyptians, even 
 more thoroughly than their brethren ? Had they more Egyptian 
 consorts ? Or were they so easy and social, finding little obstacle in 
 religion, that Egyptian proselytes (who would be reckoned to the 
 tribe) joined them in more than ordinary numbers ? Such considera- 
 tions may account for the fact that Dan's was the largest tribe 
 (Num. i. 39). For Dan's was the largest, 62,700; and JNIanasseh's 
 was the smallest, 32,200 (Num. i. 35); excepting Levi's, 22,000 
 (Num. iii. 39), to be presently referred to. 
 
 The Bishop contrasts, with great effect, the number 62,700 of Dan, 
 who had one child, with the number, 35,400, of Benjamin, who had 
 ten. It is a remarkable fact. Do we see here the effect of Joseph's 
 piety ? Remember how young was Benjamin ; remember he was 
 Joseph's own and beloved brother; remember that, of all Jacob's 
 children, Joseph was distinguished for continence— is it unreasonable 
 to think that Joseph's advice, and example, .may have reformed his 
 brother ? How a§hamed, and disgusted, that good man must have 
 been, when he found that Benjamin has ten sons, when only twenty- 
 two years old ! May it not have been, of all, Joseph's deepest cause of 
 regret, when he remembered his mother's early death, and his own cruel 
 separation from the little brother, the ivi of the family ? Is it not 
 likely that Joseph kept him near his own person, and so powerfully 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 115 
 
 influenced his future principles, and the conduct of his descendants, 
 that they, courting Joseph's patronae^e (who lived more than two 
 generations after the arrival of Benjamin), may have specially 
 avoided those snares, which tended so extremely to multiply the sons 
 of Dan ? Is it unreasonable to think that this early bias in Egypt 
 may have generally influenced Benjamin's posterity all through the 
 215 years of captivity? 
 
 Excepting Levi's, the smallest tribe was Manasseh's, Joseph's eldest 
 son; the next smallest was Ephraim's, Joseph's second son, to whom, 
 however, peculiar fruitfulness had been promised (Gen. xlviii. 19) ; and 
 the next smallest was Benjamin's, Joseph's beloved brother. Was the 
 same influence at work in each case ? And the smallness of the tribes 
 of Joseph's sons is the more extraordinary if (as the Jews say) Joseph 
 had seven sons born after Jacob's blessing. 
 
 § XXII. THE NUMBER OF LEVITES AT THE EXODUS. 
 
 It will, probably, occur to the reader at once that if Dr. Colenso 
 has been so singularly mistaken as to the meaning of the term 
 " fourth generation," and so incorrect in his assumed averages for 
 the size of Hebrew families in Egypt, it follows, as matter of course, 
 tliat he is as much in error regarding the number of the Levites. 
 
 There is, however, ' one consideration which makes their case 
 peculiar, and which we ought carefully to bear in mind. I have 
 explained at p., 98, above, that the prophecy, or promise, of de- 
 liverance from Egypt, in the " fourth generation," had reference to 
 Abraham's descendants only in the patriarchal family. That family, 
 whichever it might be, whose head should occupy the place of 
 Abraham in the patriarchate of all Israel at the time of the Exodus, 
 and in the " fourth generation " from the patriarch Jacob, was to be 
 the test of the fulfilment of the prophecy, and the standard repre- 
 sentative, as chief, of the family of the whole house. That patri-^ 
 archal family was Levi's ; and among Levi's children, Kohath's ; and 
 among Kohath's children, Amram's ; and the promise, or prophecy, 
 was literally fulfilled in Moses and Aaron, who were the heads of the 
 whole house, and in the " fourth generation " from Jacob. 
 
 The question arises. Since Amram's family was in the " fourth 
 generation " from Jacob, ought we to conclude that all other Levites 
 were ? In other words, Ought we to conclude that, as of the patriarchal 
 
 1 2 
 
116 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 family so of all Levitical families, there were but four generations in 
 315 years ? 
 
 This is the assumption which Dr. Colenso has made for all the 
 children of Israel, but without reason. And this is the assumption 
 which he has made for the sons of Levi, with as little. 
 
 The case of the patriarchal family Kohath's, as a son of Levi, is 
 evidently treated as peculiar. And Dr. Colenso, when hunting up 
 pedigrees to establish, from the Holy Bible, his theory of the 
 " fourth generation," could only find (as we observed at p. 92 above) 
 eleven cases, although he called to his assistance the books of Joshua, 
 Ruth, and even Chronicles, besides the Pentateuch. These eleven 
 cases reduce themselves to two ; for five of the eleven concern the 
 tribe .of Levi, in the single family of Kohath ; two more are of 
 Reuben, through Pallu ; and of the others, not one is strictly to 
 the purpose. And, certainly, not at all to Dr. Colenso's purpose. 
 Besides which, three of the remaining four are of Pharez, whom he 
 incorrectly asserts to have been an * adult grandson ' of Jacob, when 
 he went down into Egypt. 
 
 Dr. Colenso appears, in a manner perfectly astounding, not to 
 understand the Levitical genealogy recorded in the sixth of Exodus. 
 I have read what he says again and again, and have put down the 
 book amazed that any clergyman could have written such stuff; and 
 more amazed still that one who could do so should have found his 
 way to the number of the Bishops. But let the objection he makes 
 be stated in his own words : — 
 
 " Again we have in Exod. vi. the genealogy, before quoted, of the three 
 sons of Levi, vv^ho came with Jacob into Egypt, — Gershon, Kohath, 
 Merari. 
 
 " (i.) These three increased in the second (Amram's) genei-ation to 8 (not 
 to 9, as it would have been if they had had each three sons on the average), 
 viz., the sons of Kohath 4, of Gershon 2, of Merari 2. (Exod. vi. 17 — 19.) 
 
 " (ii.) The 4 sons of Kohath increased in the third (Aaron's) generation 
 to,8 (not to 12), viz., the sons of Aniram (Moses and Aaron) 2, of Izhar 3, 
 of Uzziel 3. (Exod. vi. 20—22.) If we now assume that the 2 sons of 
 Gershon and the 2 sons of Merari increased in the same proportion, that is, 
 to 4 and 4 respectively, then all the male Levites of the third generation 
 would have been 16. 
 
 " (iii.) The two sons of Amram increased in t\\e fourth (Eleazar's) genera- 
 tion to 6, viz., the sons of Aaron 4 (of whom, however, 2 died, Num iii. 
 2, 4), and of Moses 2. Assuming that all the 16 of the third generation 
 increased in the same proportion, then all the male Levites of the generation 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 
 
 117 
 
 of Eleazar would have been 48, or rather 44, if we omit the 4 sons of Aaron 
 who were reckoned as priests. Thus the whole number of Levites who 
 would be numbered at the first census would be only 44, viz., 20 Kohathites, 
 12 Gershonites, 12 Merarites, instead of 8,580, as they are numbered in 
 Num. iv. 48, viz., 2,750 Kohathites, 2,630 Oershonites, and 3,200 Merarites, 
 vers. 36, 40, 44. 
 
 " 127. Or we may put the matter in another, and a yet stronger, light, 
 using only the express data of Scriptitre, and omitting all reference to the 
 215 years' sojourn in Egypt and to the four generations, — in fact, making no 
 assumptions of our own whatever. 
 
 " The Amramites, numbered as Levites in the fourth (Eleazar's) genera- 
 tion, were, as above, only two, viz., the two sons of Moses, the sons of 
 Aaron being reckoned as priests. Hence the rest of the Kohathites of this 
 generation must have been made up of the descendants of Izhar and Uzziel, 
 each of whom had three sons. (Exod. vi. 21, 22.) Consequently, since all 
 the Kohathites of Eleazar's genei-ation were numbered at 2,750 (Num. iv. 36), 
 it follows that these six men must have had between them, according to the 
 Scripture story, 2,748 sons, and we must suppose about the same number of 
 daughters. 
 
 " 128. There are some variations in the account given of the Levite 
 families in the book of Chronicles from that which we find in Exod. vi. We 
 have already had reason to see (113) that the statements of the Chronicler 
 are not always trustworthy. But it may be well to consider how far they 
 would oblige 'us to modify the results we have just arrived at. 
 
 "Thus, in Exod. vi., the sons of Libni and Shimi, ver. 17, are not men- 
 tioned. But in 1 Chron. xxiii. we are told that the sons of Laadan (Libni) 
 were three, ver. 8, and the sons of Shimei (Shimi) three, ver. 9, whose names 
 are given as ' Shelomith, Haziel, and Haran, three.' In the very next verse, 
 however, we read ' the sons of Shimei were Jahath, Zina (or rather Zizah, 
 ver. 11), Jeush', and Beriah ; these four were the sons of Shimei' ; and it is 
 obvious that their names are totally different from the three former names. 
 It is added, ver. 11, ' And. Jahath was the chief, and Zizah the second: but 
 Jeush and Beriah had not many sons ; therefore they were in one reckoning, 
 according to their father's house.' 
 
 " Again, in Exod. vi., while the sons of Amram, Izhar, and Uzziel are 
 mentioned, no sons are assigned to their brother Hebron. In Num. iii. 27, 
 however, we read of ' the family of the Hebronites'; and in 1 Chron. xxiii. 
 19, four sons of Hebron are mentioned. 
 
 " So in Exod. vi. 21, 22, the sons of Izhar are three, and the sons of Uzziel 
 three: but in 1 Chron xxiii. 18, 20, Izhar has only one son, and Uzziel two. 
 
 " Collecting, however, the Chronicler's statements, we find that, in the 
 third generation, the Gershonites were 7, viz., the sons of Laadan 3, of 
 Shimei 4,— the Kohathites 9, viz., the sons of Amram 2, of Izhar 1, of 
 Hebron 4, of Uzziel 2,— the Merarites 5, viz., the sons of Mahli 2, ver. 21 (but 
 one of these had no sons, ver. 22), of Mushi 3, ver. 23. 
 
 "Thus, according to the Chronicler, all the male Levites in the third 
 
118 ' A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 generation were 21, of whom one had no sons ; whereas in (126) we have 
 reckoned them as 16. It is plain, then, that the results of the fourth genera- 
 tion will not be materially different, if we take his data, from those which 
 we have already arrived at." 
 
 The errors of tlie above statement are so palpable, that I 
 cannot believe the reader has not already noticed them. Dr. Colenso 
 states that Gershon, Kohath, and Mei-ari had increased to eight 
 people in Amram's generation. And the eight persons are these — 
 Libni, Shimi, Amram, Izhar, Hebron, Uzziel, Mahali, and Mushi. 
 But they are mentioned as heads of whole families, without the 
 slightest indication that they were all the Levites to be reckoned to 
 that generation ; and with as little respecting the number of people 
 to be counted under each. We have no right to assume, in Hebrew 
 genealogies, that all the souls proceeding from the stock being 
 traced, in other words, the hegetmenfs, of the man referred to, are 
 included. For the reader should be apprized, that in Exod. vi. 16, 19, 
 the sacred writer uses for the word " generation," not ~m, but 
 rnbin, quite a different word, and having especial reference to actual 
 generation, or begetment, and not to any cycle of time expressive of 
 a race or generation, as a succession of men taken within certain 
 limits. When Libni and Shimei are mentioned as sons of Gershon, 
 or Mahali and Mushi, as sons of Merari, " according to their 
 families," we have no right to assume that they were Gershon's, and 
 Merari's, only children, or only sons ; they are mentioned as the 
 heads of their brethren, born by whomsoever, or whensoever, of 
 Gershon, and of Merari, as to whose number we have no information. 
 I have previously observed, at p. 113, that we are not acquainted 
 with the principles upon which the Hebrew tribes were divided into 
 families. Nor do we know certainly what sons, or how many in each 
 case, were taken as heads of their brethren. Here and there Scrip- 
 ture gives us a hint, but hot sufficient for a sure determination of the 
 inquiry. Of this, however, we may be convinced, viz., that all were 
 not iilcluded; as, e.g., the wives and daughters were habitually 
 omitted ; and sometimes some of the sons. The absence of names 
 is no proof of the non-existence of families. The line was traced 
 through certain persons for some definite purpose, as, for instance, to 
 mark the headship of families ; or, as in the case of Amram's family, 
 to point clearly along the line of the high priesthood. 
 
 Now, whoever will carefully examine Exod. vi. 14 — 27 (the Scrip- 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 119 
 
 ture in question), will be able to observe instantly that the limited 
 genealogy contained in it answers two purposes : — 1. It gives the heads 
 of the different families of the first three tribes, Reuben, Simeon, and 
 Levi; and, 2. It gives the pedigree of the high priest, down to Phi- 
 nehas, who was the high priest presumptive, when the people entered 
 into Canaan. The historian commences thus (ver. 14) — " These be the 
 heads of their fathers' houses." How many each house contained is 
 another matter. He then mentions four sons of Reuben, as heads of 
 all the families of Reuben, but without prejudice to the question 
 whether Reuben had more sons born in Egypt; as, doubtless, he had. 
 He then names, similarly, six sons of Simeon, as those sons which 
 were heads of all the families of Simeon. He then proceeds more 
 minutely to the Levites ; telling us (ver. 17) that all the sons 
 of Gershon, no matter how many there were, were reckoned under 
 two heads, viz., Libni and Shimei, and the sons of Merari (ver. 19), 
 under two heads, Mahali and Mushi. That is, the Gershonites and the 
 Merarites were each divided into two families, or clans, at the time of 
 the Exodus. He also enumerates the privileged family (Kohath's) 
 under four heads — Amram, and Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel. 
 Not that he means to say these were all the children, or even all the 
 sons, of Kohath, born to him in about 110 years (for he lived to be 
 133 years old), but that these were those sons of his under whom all 
 their brethren, and their sisters, and their children, were to be 
 reckoned, as the heads of the families of Kohath. Having done this, 
 he winds up that part of the subject with the observation, " These 
 are the families of Levi, according to their generations " (ver. 19); 
 i.e., 'inclusive of all the children begotten,' no matter how many 
 there were, or in what space of time begotten. Next, he proceeds 
 (Exod. vi. 20) more minutely with Amram's family ; his first object 
 being, apparently, to trace the patriarchate by age — for of Levi, 
 Kohath, and Amram, alone, are patriarchal ages there affirmed. Levi 
 lived 137 years (ver. 16) ; Kohath lived 133 years (ver. 18) ; Amram 
 lived 137 years (ver. 20); and, since Aaron. was eighty-three, and 
 Moses eighty years old at the Exodus, each of them must have been 
 about 120 years old when they died just before the entrance into 
 Canaan. Here you have carefully put on record " the fourth 
 generation," "^^^''i'l "ill, patriarchal. Four patriarchal cycles of time, 
 without reference to individual mibin hegetments, or procreations. 
 Having mentioned so carefully the sons of Amram, and having 
 
120 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 Specified also those of Korah, the leader in the rebellion, mentioned 
 at Num. xvi. 1 (which I believe to have taken place before the book 
 of Exodus was written), he leaves us no room for misapprehension, 
 by adding at ver. 25, " These are the heads of the fathers of the 
 Levites, according to their families." As though he would say, * Do 
 not suppose I have mentioned all the sons of Kohath, Gershon, and 
 Merari ; nor even all the fathers of divisional families ; for I have 
 mentioned only the heads, or chiefs, of the fathers,' m2S ''ti7W~i nbs. 
 In short, we cannot, for a moment, venture to draw a certain 
 inference as to the whole number of Kohathites in (what Dr. Colenso 
 calls) the second generation, viz., Amrani's, from the partial genealogy 
 given us in Exod. vi. 16 — 25. And it is great error in the Bishop 
 to have done so. 
 
 It is worthy of notice (see above, p. 92), that the only two pedi- 
 grees, out of Levi's family, found in the Pentateuch by Dr. Colenso, 
 are those of Dathan and Abiram ; two brothers, sons of Reuben, 
 through Pallu ; and in the fourth generation. Their pedigree is, in 
 effect, but one ; and is given, probably, because, being such sons of 
 the Jirsthorn Reuben, and in the fourth generation, they considered 
 they had a legal right to the government : hence their revolt, as 
 recorded at Num. xvi. 1 ; Korah joining w^ith them, with a view to 
 the High-priesthood. 
 
 One often notices that objectors to Holy Writ continually touch 
 upon Scriptures which refute their objections, without themselves 
 being aware of it. Every now and then Dr. Colenso runs away 
 from his subject, and dives into Chronicles — I regret to say with no 
 good feeling or intention. With what singular darkness, or unfairness, 
 he has done so in regard to the sons of Levi we cannot fail to 
 perceive, when we remark that the extract above given, which 
 contains his allusion to Chronicles, respecting sons of Levi, furnishes 
 us with two most important particulars concerning the divisions of 
 Hebrew tribes into families, and concerning the sons of Levi in 
 particular. 
 
 For, 1. We see that, sometimes, the sons of the same man, as, 
 e.g., Gershon or Merari, were shut up (so to speak) — telescopically 
 included — under their brethren as " heads of families." Thus, " the 
 sons of Shimei were Jahath, Zina, Jeush, and Beriah : these four 
 were the sons of Shimei. And Jahath was the chief, and Zizah the 
 second. But Jeush and Beriah had not many sons; therefore they 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 121 
 
 were in one reckoning according to their father's house." They had 
 sons, but we know not the number ; they niay have had very many 
 daughters — but inasmuch as neither of them had many sons, both 
 were included, with all their sons and all their daughters, under one 
 head. This, probably, is the reason that Benjamin's ten sons are 
 counted under only six heads at Num. xxvi. 88, and then one of 
 these six divided into two. Families seem to have been allotted 
 according to the number of sons, and, accordingly, sometimes they 
 were extended, sometimes contracted, in number. 
 
 2. It may be seen, from this reference to Chronicles, that we are 
 quite right in concluding that the sacred writer did not intend to 
 mention all the families of the Levites in Exod. vi. 16 — ^25. For all 
 the Hebronites, sons of Amram, are omitted in Exod. vi., but are 
 carefully mentioned both at Num. iii. 27, and at 1 Chron. xxiii. 19. 
 Also we notice, from 1 Chron. xxiii. 14 — 17, that the sons of Moses 
 were reckoned to the tribe of Levi ; and yet Moses says not a word 
 about them in Exod. vi. One reason of bis silence was, doubtless, 
 that Gershom and Eliezer were comparatively young, had not at 
 that time children to form a house, and, therefore, were reckoned 
 under one of Amram's sons. Afterwards the Chronicler tells us 
 that Gershom had several sons, but they were all reckoned under one 
 chief, Shebuel ; and that Eliezer had very many grandsons, but all 
 reckoned under Rehabiah as one chief. In short, we cannot venture 
 to reckon, from the names, or number, of the chiefs, how many 
 families, or sons, .there were. Exod. vi. 16 — 25 gives no certein data 
 from which to justify Bishop Colenso's reasoning. The heads of 
 families of Kohath's generation were eight ; but how many living 
 souls there were, of the same, is a question which we cannot answer. 
 
 Dr. Colenso's appeal to Chronicles, respecting the number of 
 Levites at the Exodus, was singularly perilous, and one is surprised 
 that it did not, at least in some degree, set him right in his interpre- 
 tation of Exod. vi. 16 — 25. Let us briefly compare the Levitical 
 pedigrees given in 1 Chron. xxiii. 6 — 23, with those to be found at 
 Exod. vi. 16 — 25, and Num. xxvi. 57 — 62. 
 
 At Exod. vi. 18, Hebron, the son of Kohath, is mentioned, but 
 no children are assigned to him, though the names of children of his 
 three brothers, Amram, and Izhar, and Uzziel, are carefully re- 
 corded. Are we to assume, as Dr. Colenso to be consistent ought to 
 have done, that Hebron had no children ? Were we to do so, we 
 
122 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 should be very wrong, for at Num. xxvi. 58 we find carefully given 
 " the family of the Hebronites ; " the explanation being, probably, this, 
 that at the time of the Exodus the children of Hebron, male and 
 female, were reckoned under one of his brethren, and not as a sepa- 
 rate house; but, at some time during the sojourning in the wilder- 
 ness, they were separated as a family by themselves, and recorded as 
 such, just before the entrance into Canaan. The absence of their 
 names from Exod. vi. 16 — 25 does not imply non-existence. 
 
 In Exod. vi. 17 the families of Gershon are carefully given as two, 
 under Libni and Shimi. In Num. xxvi. 58 the Gershonites are given 
 as only one family, " the family of the Libnites." Where are the 
 Shimites gone ? Are they all dead, because not mentioned ? No ; 
 for at 1 Chron. xxiii. 7 they are most carefully mentioned, and, as it 
 wouM appear, formed the grandest division of the Gershonites. It 
 would seem that while only three sons are reckoned to Laadan, i.e., 
 Libni, seven sons are reckoned to Shimei, i.e., Shimi; and that of 
 these seven sons, three were passed over to the chieftainship of Libni, 
 the elder brother; while the other four were counted under Shimi, their 
 progenitor. Perhaps, at Num. xxvi. 58, we may venture to conclude 
 that the absence of Shimi's name does not warrant us in inferring, as 
 Dr. Colenso would, the non-existence of children; perhaps, too, we 
 may conclude that, while at Num. xxvi. 58 they were, for some un- 
 explained reason, all included under the name of Libni, they were 
 afterwards opened out by the selection of four sons to make a sepa- 
 rate hou48e, with regard to which it is also distinctly added (1 Chron. 
 xxiii. 11) that the children of the four sons were reckoned under only 
 two heads of houses. 
 
 Now Dr. Colenso (see above, p. 117) takes the seven sons of 
 Shimei to be but three, or four, although he oddl}^ refers to the 
 diflference of their names. If he had translated, " these four were 
 sons (not the sons) of Shimei," he would have seen the meaning 
 more clearly. 
 
 Again, in Exod. vi. 18 — 24, children of Kohath are carefully given, 
 as Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel ; and children, with equal care, 
 of Amram, Izhar, and Uzziel. Also, for a reason already referred 
 to, heads of the families of Korah, the grandson of Kohath. But, 
 at Num. xxvi. 57, 58, where are all the Kohathites ? They are 
 mentioned, generally, as " the family of the Kohathites," but when 
 we seek for their divisions, under heads (of which no fewer than 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 123 
 
 eight are mentioned at Exod. vi. 21—24, besides the family of 
 Amram), we find them all classed under " Hebronites " and 
 " Korahites ; " Korah being only a grandson of Kohath, and Hebron 
 having had no children assigned him before. Where are the children 
 of Izhar,— where are those of Uzziel ? Does the absence of their 
 names imply non-existence, as Dr. Colenso would suppose ? And, if 
 so, what has become of the Kohathites as a grand division of the 
 tribe of Levi? Turn to 1 Chron. xxiii. 20, and you will find that no 
 such inference would be just. The four sons of Kohath are still to 
 be counted, with additional particulars, — viz., 1. That the Amramites 
 were much increased by the descendants of Moses (ver. 15 — 17.) 2. 
 That the sons of Izhar were reckoned under one chief, Shelomith. 
 3. That the sons of Hebron were counted under four heads. And 4. 
 That the sons of Uzziel were counted under two, — the heads being 
 given here, also, without special mention of the number of living 
 souls under each. 
 
 Observe, again, that the Chronicler intends to enumerate the heads 
 of the families of Levi, as they were numbered, for the service of the 
 tabernacle, two years after the Exodus (1 Chron. xxiii. 7 — 23); where 
 he says distinctly only "the chief of the fathers " were counted. And, 
 however it may suit Bishop Colenso to call in question the veracity of 
 the Chronicler, we may at least take him to have been a Jew competent 
 to express a Jew's idea of certain conventional arrangements, made 
 regarding the numbers of a section of his people. Dr. Colenso 
 would like las -to believe, at p. 108, that the whole number of 
 Levites at the first numbering was 44 instead of 8,580. But the 
 Jewish Chronicler says that the number of chief-heads, not of heads 
 of families only, but of chief-heads of families, was at the time of that 
 numbering 21 ; so that, putting the Jew Chronicler in opposition to 
 the Gentile Bishop, there would be just a little more than two living 
 souls to reckon under each chief-head. I think we need not hesitate 
 which explanation of Exod. vi. 16—25, and Num. xxvi. 57—62, to 
 take as the more reasonable : Dr. Colenso's, or the Chronicler's. 
 And Dr. Colenso has drawn his absurd conclusion, in the face of the 
 Chronicler, notwithstanding he uses such expressions as " the chief 
 of the fathers," " the sons of Rehabiah were very many," and others 
 which tend to indicate the numerous persons composing the tribe of 
 Levi at the numbering in the wilderness. I do not think the Bishop 
 
124 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 gained much advantage by his reference to Chronicles, and hope that 
 we have sufficiently proved — 
 
 1. That, in treating of Exod. vi. 16 — 23, Bishop Colenso has 
 erred in taking the number of fathers, as the exact number of living 
 souls. 
 
 2. That the absence of certain names, in such a pedigree, does not 
 imply the non-existence of other living descendants. 
 
 S. That the enumeration of persons, and even of whole families 
 of persons, varied in such pedigrees, according to the circumstances 
 of the time. 
 
 4. That such pedigrees afford us no data from which to reckon the 
 exact number of souls comprised in them. Dr. Colenso commits the 
 fatal error of assuming that they do. 
 
 Surely, it cannot be necessary to say more in exposure of the 
 Bishop's wonderful conclusion, that, in 215 years of Egyptian life- 
 time, Levi's three sons, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, had increased 
 to only sixteen souls ! The assertion is itself an exposure of its 
 absurdity; and affords one of the best proofs we could have that, all 
 through his argument, the Bishop misapprehends the meaning of the 
 expression, " fourth generation." There is no reason for doubting 
 that the sons of Levi increased in Egypt, as any otlier man's children 
 would. Nor, for thinking, that thirty yeai's is too short a time to 
 reckon as one natural generation ; having regard to individual beget- 
 ments. Probably, it is too long, by nearly ten years. 
 
 Now, I entirely demur to the Bishop's third assumption, at p. 108, 
 that the sons of Amram, in the times of Moses and Aaron, give a 
 fair average of increase for all the Levitcs. It is manifestly unfair. 
 For, not to reason on any special intervention of the Almighty, 
 which may be considered as probable, in the case of two men destined 
 for offices so high as theirs, we are sure that Moses and Aaron 
 abstained from polygamy and concubinage. And, perhaps, the 
 idea may not be unreasonable that, so soon as the Patriarchate was 
 knowft to be fixed on the family of Kohath, and in the person of 
 Amram, purity of race was studiously sought after in that family. 
 We are told, by the Jews, that one reason why so little is said by 
 Moses of his own sons, is, that they were born of an Ethiopian 
 woman. A dishonour with which his sister Miriam reproached him. 
 (Num. xii. I.) For this purpose of purity of race, it may be that 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 125 
 
 Amram married a Jewess, a daughter of Levi, who must, neverthe- 
 less, have been so many years his elder. And, if so, the patriarchal 
 family, Amram^s, can afford us no average from which to reason fairly 
 as to the generation, i.e., begetments, of Levi's other sons ; and, 
 particularly, not upon which to reckon the increase of the children of 
 Gershon and Merari, whose connection with the Patriarchate was so 
 remote. 
 
 But, supposing we were to assume that the sons of Levi multiplied 
 exactly at the same rate, as we believe may fairly be understood for all 
 Jacob's other sons, then the number of male Levites, at the Exodus, 
 might have been considerably more than as stated. For all other 
 descendants we reckon only six generations in 215 years ; one reason 
 for our doing so being that all the men of other tribes were to be 
 taken as at twenty years old, at the Exodus. But the Levites were 
 to be numbered from only one month old and upwards ; so that we 
 may count seven generations of thirty years each to the sons of Levi, 
 Kohath, Gershon, and Merari, who were of about marriageable age 
 when they went down to Egypt. 
 
 Supposing, then, that we left out Levi, and commenced the stock 
 with Gershon, Kohath, and Merari ; reckoning thirty years to one 
 generation ; and allowing, on the average, five sons to each man, the 
 male Levites above five years old, at the Exodus, would be in seven 
 generations 234,375. This is without reckoning any increase from 
 supposed servants, or additional sons of Levi, but confining the tribe 
 of Levi strictly to sons of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. 
 
 But at Num. iii. 39 the whole number of Levites given, from one 
 month old and upwards, is. only 22,000 ; which, when compared with 
 other tribes, even with'Manasseh's, indicates singular continency on 
 their parts ; and, probably, corresponding purity of race. What 
 influence was exerted, or when, so to influence the Levites, we are 
 not informed. But Amram lived to be 133 years old ; and if we 
 suppose that, during the last three natural generations, and when the 
 Patriarchate was known to be fixed in Kohath's family, this influence 
 to continency and purity of race was exercised among the Levites; 
 then, taking them for the last three generations of the seven, at an 
 average of five children in a family, or only two and a-half sons, the 
 number of Levites above five years old at the Exodus would be 
 seven-eighths above 29,296. In fact, very great continency is 
 indicated in the tribe of Levi ; though it is impossible to say at 
 
126 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 what period of the captivity it began to affect the nunibei's of their 
 tribe. 
 
 That the Levites miyht have increased to many, very many, more 
 than 22,000 sons, above one month old, at the nnmbering in Sinai, 
 i.e., in more than seven generations of thirty years, reckoning the 
 stock from only three fathers, viz., Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, we 
 are sure. 
 
 But really Dr. Colenso is hard to please. One tribe of Israel 
 increases too much, another too little ; and. the same tribe, at 
 different times, is found offending against the Bishop's notions of 
 propriety in very opposite ways. 
 
 Now here is the tribe of Levi. We have just seen how creditable 
 it is to it, that it numbered only 22,000, by its males of a month 
 old, at the numbering at Sinai. Dr. Colenso is quite out of patience 
 with these poor fellows that tliey only increased by 1,00.0 in about 
 thirty-eight years after. Surely it was no fault of theirs. 
 
 " The number of the Levites at the second census when compared with 
 that of the first, involves also a great inconsistency. "We are told, (Num. 
 xxvi. 62), that, at the secoiid census, 'those that were numbered of them 
 were 23,000 all males from a month old and upward.' And, at the Jirst 
 census, (Num. iii. 39), ' All that were numbered of the Levites, all the 
 males from a month old and upward, were 22,000. Hence during the 
 thirty-eight years in the wUderness, they had only increased in number 
 1,000 upon 22,000. 
 
 " Now either the Levites were included in the sentence passed upon the 
 congregation generally that they should die in the wilderness, or they were 
 not. The former supposition seems to be precluded by the fact that Eleazar, 
 the son of Aaron, at all events, M^as alive, according to the story, even after 
 the death of Joshua. (Josh. xxiv. 33.) And Eleazar was a full-grown 
 priest at Sinai (Exod. xxxviii. 1), and was therefore, we must suppose, 
 above the age of twenty, or even that of thirty, at which the Levites were 
 first allowed to do service in the Sanctuary. (Num. iv. 47.) We must 
 conclude, then, that the Levites were not involved in the general doom ; 
 and, in fact, it is repeatedly said (Num. ii. 33, and xxvi. 62), that they were 
 not numbered among the children of Israel, and the doom in question is 
 evidently confined to ' the children of Israel,' except Joshua and Caleb. 
 (Num. xiv. 2, 10 ; xxvi. 62—65.) 
 
 " 130. Now the population of England increases at the rate of about 
 23 per cent, in ten years. Upon the same scale, then,— that is to say, at 
 no gi'eater rate of increase than this, — the 22,000 Levites (since these were 
 all the males of all ages, ' from a month old and upward,' and therefore 
 may be reckoned as about half the whole mixed population of Levites, male 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO, 12T 
 
 and female) should have increased in ten years to 27,060, in the next ten 
 years to 33,284, in the next ten to 40,939, and in the last eight to 48,471 — 
 instead of which the number of this favoured tribe is given only as 23,000. 
 In other words, they should have increased by more than 26,000 ; but they 
 are represented as increased by only 1,000. 
 
 " On the other hand the tribe of Manasseh increased in the thirty-eight 
 years from 32,200 (Num. i. 35), to 52,700 (Num. xxvi. 34), and all these 
 were men in the prime of life, and not one of the 32,200 was numbered 
 among the 52,700. Whereas the 22,000 were males of all ages, 'from a 
 month old and upward,' and a large proportion of these, we may suppose, 
 sui'vived the thirty-eight years ; and yet these, with their children, were 
 only increased by 1,000 in the same interval." 
 
 " This favoured tribe ! " Is it a sneer? Yes, they were a favoured 
 tribe ; favoured by the very virtues which kept back their population. 
 I have already pointed out that great continency is intimated on the 
 part of the tribe of Levi ; suggested, probably, by the fact that they 
 knew, towards the end of the captivity in Egypt, that they were 
 selected as the patriarchal tribe ; suggested, therefore, by the desire 
 of keeping their Israeli tish blood as pure as they could. This, 
 probably, had checked their increase for several generations. 
 
 Moreover, there are certain causes hinted at, which would check 
 their increase in the desert. Priestly tribes are seldom popular ; 
 though they may be powerful. My lay brethren will -pardon me; 
 but, if the truth be told, they none of them like parsons. Now, 
 there can be little doubt, but that a similar prejudice extended to all 
 the tribe of Levi ; of which, some were ruling priests ; all were 
 devoted to the service of the Tabernacle, and pledged to support the 
 priesthood ; and all of them kept (some would say, like lazy fellows 
 — consumers, not producers,) at the public expense. What smart 
 man of business, or clever, professional gentleman, ever liked tithes, 
 or firstfruits, or Easter-offerings ; unless, indeed, he had to take 
 them ; or had got them into his family by wis- appropriation ? 
 We may rely upon it, that' the sons of Levi had to pay the 
 penalty, levied, by all mixed societies, against the privileged 
 caste ! 
 
 Besides which, the Levites were the public avengers of morality 
 and religion ; and at times exhibited a muscular piety, of which 
 certain Christian philosophers of the present day would scarcely 
 approye, notwithstanding all their boasted practical energy and 
 
128 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 vigour. An event had occurred, at tlie very commencement of 
 Israel's residence in the desert, for which the Levites could never 
 expect to be forgiven. When all Israel apostatized at Horeb, 
 the patriarchal tribe alone remained faithful. No doubt their 
 brethren accused them of doing so from interested motives ; still, 
 they did remain faithful. " Then Moses stood in the gate of the 
 camp, and said. Who is on the Lord's side ? let him come unto me. 
 And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him ; " 
 and then slew " about three thousand men." (Exod. xxxii. 
 25—29,) "Put ye on every man his sword by his side," was a 
 command which must have sounded terribly in the ears of Israel, 
 when addressed to the sons of Levi. In after-days, Phinehas, the 
 son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the High Priest, kept up the 
 tradition of his tribe. (Num. xxv. 7.) On such occasions, we can 
 easily imagine, a little personal severity for slights, real or imagined, 
 may have mingled itself with Levi's religious zeal ; but, at any rate, 
 the tribe was open to the suspicion ; and, we may fairly conclude, 
 suffered from having evil motives attributed to them; as well as 
 from the fact that they so actively, and unflinchingly, avenged the 
 law. 
 
 The natural effect of such circumstances would be, to isolate the 
 tribe of Levi ; and the consequence of such isolation would be, that 
 they would intermarry much among themselves. Which habit 
 would, probably, be confirmed, by a desire, on their parts, to insure 
 the tenure of their exclusive privileges, by seclusive alliances. And 
 the natural tendency of this marrying in and in, among themselves, 
 would be, to retard their marriages, and to diminish their rate of 
 increase. 
 
 Now, as regards the perishing in the wilderness of all the men, 
 above twenty years of age, that came out of Egypt, Dr. Colenso has 
 thought proper to say : — " Either the Levites were included in the 
 *' sentence passed upon the congregation generally, that they should 
 *' die in the wilderness, or they were not." 
 
 But, suppose we state the proposition for him thus: — "Either 
 " the Levites were entire/^ included in the sentence passed, or 
 " not at all." Does he not see the fallacy? At any rate, we do. 
 
 The Levites, as a tribe, were not included in the sentence 
 passed upon the whole of the congregation. They were, upon the 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 129 
 
 whole, a faithful tribe throughout. But this admission will not 
 negative the probability that many of them may have sympathized 
 with the rest of Israel, and have paid the penalty accordingl3% 
 
 Yet, after all, what was this penalty ? Merely this, that one 
 whole generation died ojff in about forty years ; when, we may add, 
 with reverence, it was time for them to die. The youngest of these, 
 who so died, would be about sixty years old : the majority of them, 
 very much older. Dr. Colenso alludes to the " doom," as he calls it, 
 as if it were something awful, and extraordinary, and must have had 
 some serious effect upon the procreating power of the tribes. He 
 misapprehends the case. The time of these men, for purposes of 
 multiplication, we believe to have been passed. What children they 
 were to have, they had had; and left behind them. Their "general 
 " doom " did not otherwise affect the numbers of Israel, than by the 
 withdrawal of themselves. And, when Dr. Colenso asks, with 
 affronting incredulity, at p. Ill, — What are we to say "of the 
 *' whole body of 600,000 fighting men being swept away, during 
 " the forty years' sojourning in the wilderness?" he forgets, what an 
 arithmetician ought to have remembered, that it was in the natural 
 course of things that tliey should die so. That forty years of 
 travelling and hardship in the wilderness, would wear down almost 
 any man, who started, at twenty years of age, from the cucumbers 
 and onions of Egypt. If it be asked, — In what, then, consisted their 
 punishment ? the answer is plain. Dr. Colenso misapprehends the 
 Scripture. Their punishment lay in the fact that they were not 
 permitted to enter Canaan on their first arrival at its borders 
 (Num. xiv. 23) ; and also bore a close parallel to that of Moses. 
 (Num. xxvii. 12 — 14.) God's peculiar blessing was withdrawn 
 from them. He would not protract the life of any one of them, 
 save Caleb and Joshua, to see "that good land;" but interfered 
 that all should perish in the desert. It was no marvel that the 
 majority of them died in the wilderness ; but it was a marvel that 
 not one of them survived to enter into Canaan. 
 
 Dr. Colenso thinks it an objection that the sons of Levi had in- 
 creased by only one thousand in thirty-eight years. Might not 
 physical causes so operate in the wilderness, as to diminish procrea- 
 tion ? Might not the withdrawal of Egyptian women have tended to 
 the chastity of the young men in all the tribes of Israel ? Might not 
 constant harassing and danger, alarm and hardship, with famine or 
 
 K 
 
130 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 drought threatened every now and then, have checked the amorous 
 propensities of the warmest ? Might not the adhesion of some 
 of the "mixed multitude," who went up with them out of Egypt 
 (Exod. xii. 38), have increased some tribes ; and the avoidance 
 of this very adhesion, have kept others nearly stationary ? It is 
 plain, a hundred questions may be raised, affecting the generation 
 of people in the desert, which Dr. Colenso would not be able 
 to answer. In other words, there is necessarily an absence of data 
 upon this subject, more than enough to prevent the Doctor from 
 attacking the Pentateuch, in respect to it, at least with any show of 
 reason. 
 
 But why has he not compared the numbers of all the tribes, at the 
 time they left Egypt, and at the time when they entered Canaan ? 
 He is so fond of averages ! Now some very useful hints may be 
 gathered by our doing so. 
 "When Israel left Egypt, the fighting men numbered, of 
 
 Reuben . . . 46,500 Simeon . . . 59,300 Gad . . . 45,650 
 Judah .... 74,600 Issachar . . . 54,400 Zebulun . 57,400 
 Ephraira . . . 40,500 Manasseh . . 32,200 Benjamin 35,400 
 
 Dan 62,700 Asher .... 41,500 Naphtali . 53,400 
 
 Total . . . 603,550. (Num. i. 1—46.) 
 
 And when Israel entered into Canaan, the fighting men numbered, of 
 
 Reuben . . . 43,730 Simeon . . . 22,200 Gad . . . 40,500 
 
 Judah .... 76,500 Issachar. . . 64,300 Zebulun. 60,500 
 
 Ephraim. . . 32,500 Manasseh. . 52,700 Benjamin 45,600 
 
 Dan 64,400 Asher .... 53,400 Naphtali . 45,400 
 
 Total . . . 601,730. (Num. xxvi. 1—51.) 
 Being, in the following tribes, increase for, 
 
 Issachar. . 9,900 
 Judah .... 1,900 Zebulun . . 3,100 Manasseh. 20,500 
 Benjamin . . 10,200 Dan .... 1,700 Asher. . . 11,900 
 Total Increase . . . 59,200. 
 But,' in the following tribes, decrease for 
 
 Reuben . . . 2,770 Simeon . . . 37,100 Gad ... . 5,150 
 
 Ephraim. . . 8,000 Naphtali . 8,000 
 
 Total Decrease . . . 61,020. 
 
 What does Dr. Colenso mean ? Is he prepared to quarrel 
 
 with the historian because he asserts that some tribes varied but 
 
 little in the number of their fighting men, some tribes increased 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 131 
 
 much, and some decreased more ? Would it be reasonable to make 
 each fact a cause of difference with the historian ? If not, on which 
 is Dr. Colenso prepared to take his stand ? Would it not be more 
 reasonable to conclude that the numbers, in twelve tribes, thus 
 arbitrarily intervaried, are stated truly ; and were severally deter- 
 mined by various causes, differently affecting the several tribes, 
 which the historian did not feel it needful, or had not the means 
 sufficiently, to explain ? For instance, in the case of Simeon, so 
 wonderfully reduced, might not Providence have been overruling 
 circumstances so as to fulfil his predicted punishment, " I will divide 
 them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel." ? (Gen. xlix. 5 — 7.) 
 Might not the diminution of the tribe have been preparatory to 
 this ? And, similarly, as to Levi's very small increase ; for he had 
 to share this punishment with Simeon. God's " favoured tribe " 
 was never exempt from chastisement. Or, again, as regards the 
 great decrease of Ephraim and Naphtali, is it quite inconceivable 
 that they might have been among the most unruly tribes ; and have 
 met, in the various plagues of the desert, chastisement in proportion ? 
 Or, again, as regards the great increase of Manasseh, Benjamin, and 
 Asher, is it too much to remember that Joseph's and Benjamin's 
 were favoured tribes, and that the increase which was perilled, through 
 the faults of Ephraim, may have been abundantly made up to the 
 fidelity of Manasseh? Or, again, as regards Manasseh, Benjamin, 
 and Asher, is it absolutely foolish to imagine that some of the 
 "mixed people "may have longed for the privileges of Israel, and 
 particularly in conjunction with a tribe upon whom were to fall the 
 blessings of Joseph ? (Gen. xlix. 22 — 26.) 
 
 In short, there are so many ways of rationally conceiving why the 
 tribes of Israel should have varied in the desert, by increase or 
 decrease among themselves, that I venture to say it is hopeless in 
 Dr. Colenso to expect to attack the Pentateuch, successfully, on 
 any such account. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the 
 statement of a gross total decrease on the number of fighting men of 
 only 1,820, is reasonable in itself, considering all the circumstances 
 of the people in the desert. Taking these fighting men as indices to 
 the numbers of the several tribes, it is manifest that the rate of 
 increase of all the people had been considerably diminished from 
 what it was in Egypt. The peculiar blessing of God upon them, to 
 that end, had now been withdrawn, because no longer needed ; the 
 
 K 2 
 
132 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 natural means, furnished in Egypt, had been removed ; and the 
 people now were generated only at a rate which indicated suffi- 
 ciently the hardships of the desert. Lastly, it should be remembered 
 that the numbers given are only of the men fit for habitual war 
 (Num. xxvi. 2 ; and see pp. 44 — 46, above) ; and may be, therefore, 
 but very imperfect indices, after all, to the relative sizes of the 
 tribes. 
 
 For all which reasons I conclude — 
 
 1. That the historian gives Dr. Colenso no sufficient data by which 
 to enable him, rationally, to assail the Pentateuch on the score of the 
 numbers at the second numbering. (Num. xxvi. 1.) 
 
 2. That we can easily conceive causes for the very limited number 
 of the Levitical tribe at the Exodus, and for their very limited 
 increase in the desert. 
 
 § XXIII. THE NUMBER OF THE FIRSTBORN. 
 
 In no part of Dr. Colenso's work does his one-sidedness in 
 argument, or the prejudiced and morbid state of his mind, appear 
 in a more lamentable degree than in that concerning " the number of 
 the firstborns compared with the number of male adults." Having 
 resolved to impugn the accuracy and veracity of the Pentateuch, 
 there is apparent, all through his book, a determination to magnify 
 its difficulties, and to see clearly nothing which deserves considera- 
 tion on the other side. 
 
 Let me select from this, his fourteenth chapter, a few illustrations 
 of such dangerous partiality. 
 
 1. Kurtz (in making a very unconvincing attempt to explain the dif- 
 ficulty connected with the firstborn) suggests that "polygamy was rare" 
 among the Hebrews ; on this Dr. Colenso observes, *' which, indeed, 
 " Kurtz assumes without proof." Yet in another part of his book 
 he will not, for one moment, allow that polygamy did prevail among 
 the Hebrews. He not only, at p. 117, confronts Kalisch (who 
 acknowledges the polygamy) with Kurtz (who denies it), but adds, 
 at p. 120, the determinate assertion of his own : *' There is no 
 *' indication that polygamy did prevail among the Hebrews of those 
 *' days; " and that (as we saw at pp. 103, 104, above) in contradiction 
 to the plain evidence of Scripture. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 133 
 
 2. Kurtz ventures to suggest that the Israelitish mothers gave 
 birth to an unusual number of children. " This, again," says the 
 Bishop, at p. 85, " is assumed without proof, or, rather, directly in 
 *' the face of all the facts which are given us, by which to judge of 
 " the size of«.'Hebrew families." And, as evidence, he recurs to 
 Jacob's families born in Canaan, before the time for fulfilling the 
 promise of special increase in Egypt ; and also to the family of Amram, 
 which we have already spoken of as peculiar. The truth is, as ex- 
 plained at pp. 103 — 106,above, Holy Scripture gives usnoc/a^asufficient 
 to enable us to estimate fairly the size of Hebrew -Egyptian families. 
 But the Christian Bishop steadily refuses to remember, or to confess 
 belief in, the miraculous increase which Holy Scripture distinctly 
 promises to the Jews in Egypt in the very name of God, " I will 
 make of thee there a great nation." (Gen. xlvi. 3 ; Exod. i. 7 — 12.) 
 And he as steadily refuses to see, or to admit, the testimony of 
 heathen to the mere historical, physical, fact that the native women 
 of Egypt (and Hebrew mothers there were native women) habitually 
 produced two, three, four, and sometimes five children at a birth. A 
 fact for which Kalisch has properly quoted Aristotle, Hist. Anam.y 
 vii. 4, and Pliny, Nat. Hist., vii. 3, as witnesses. 
 
 3. Kurtz ventures to suggest that the firstborn child in a family is 
 usually a girl. Dr. Colenso, without being able to deny this physical, 
 statistical, fact, stubbornly refers to the peculiar cases of " the children 
 of promise," through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Forgetting, or 
 refusing to remember, that the whole status and condition of the 
 Patriarchal family, before they went into Egypt, was very different 
 from what it afterwards became, and was intended by the Almighty 
 to be so. Forgetting, also, or refusing to remember, that, in order 
 to refute the argument of Kurtz, he ought to have shown, by tables 
 of statistics, that it was unsound. 
 
 4. The Bishop's prejudice and partiality are so resolute as, on one 
 occasion, to betray him into a remark literally absurd. Although we 
 ought to notice, in justice to him, that, since his reply touches on a 
 piece of Hebrew criticism, we have other means of accounting for 
 its absurdity, besides those of prejudice and partiality. What they 
 are, all his book has painfully displayed. Havernick, following 
 Michaelis, maintains that the word -)123 jirsthorn had, among the 
 Israelites, a very peculiar and limited meaning, which (if the fact 
 be so) utterly destroys Bishop Colenso's objection to the paucity of 
 
134 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 their iiuml)er. And, in support, he refers to Gen. xlix. 3, and other 
 passages. Exclaims Dr. Colenso, at p. 88, " What is the use of 
 "quoting such passages as Gen. xlix. 3, ' Reuben, thou art my first- 
 " born ; ' Num. i. 20, ' Reuben, Israel's eldest son ; ' Ps. cv. 36, ' He 
 "smote all the firstborn in the land; ' or Deut. xxi. 15 — 17, where 
 " the ma?i's firstborn is not to be disinherited upon private affection ? " 
 "Why, every use, if only Havernick's criticism be correct. And such 
 a question (if really believed by Dr. Colenso to be sensible) only 
 shows, like all his book, that he is utterly devoid of Hebraistic 
 instinct ; no feeling of sympathetic intelligence thrills through his 
 arithmetical mind as he reads, or tries to read, that language ; 
 he is all made up of roots, and squares, and logs, and decimals, 
 and powers to the n*'' ; but he has not a fraction of that power, 
 which we all need for reading the Hebrew Bible, viz., a natural 
 capacity to bow down before the genius of that mighty and 
 blessed language — the language of Eden and the language of heaven 
 (Acts xxvi. 14) ; nor has he even that intimate acquaintance with the 
 Hebrew Bible, the mere result of drudgery at reading, which can 
 make him competent to judge of a construction, or intuitively 
 to recognise a familiar idiom. 
 
 Yet, supposing it should be the case that "TJSD firstborn did mean 
 among the Hebrews— ;^r5^, the firstborn son both of the father and 
 the mother, and not merely the firstborn on the mother's side ; second, 
 the firstborn son of a whole family by the first virgin-wife, no matter 
 how many other wives, or concubines, the father had ; third, that the 
 word was used in a sense implying certain functional privileges, and 
 limiting the number of firstborn accordingly — then the natural pro- 
 portion between the firstborn and other male children, is instantly 
 and extensively changed ; and we see, at a glance, the folly of asking, 
 *' What is the use of quoting such passages as Gen. xlix. 3, ' Reuben, 
 *' thou art my firstborn,' " &c., &c. 
 
 The Bishop's objection is stated thus, at p. 84: — 
 
 " 93. All the firstborn males, from a month old and upwards, of those that 
 were numbered, were twenty and two thousand two hundred and threescore a)id 
 thirteen. (Num. iii. 43.) 
 
 " Let us see what this statement implies, when treated as a simple matter 
 of fact. For this j^urpose I quote the words of Kurtz, iii., p. 209 : — 
 
 " ' If there were 600,000 males of twenty years and ujjwards, the whole 
 number of males may be reckoned at 900,000 [he elsewhere reckons 1,000,000], 
 in which case there would be only one fii-stborn io forty-two [forty-fom-] males. 
 
 <;.,#p;^i«^. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 135 
 
 In other words, tlie number of boys in every family must have been on the 
 average forty-two J 
 
 " This will be seen at once if we consider that the rest of the 900,000 males 
 were not firstborns, and, therefore, each of these must have had one or other 
 of the 22,273 as the firstborn of his own family — excej^t, of course, any cases 
 where the firstborn of any family was a daughter, or was d^ad, of which we 
 shall speak presently. 
 
 " And these were not the firstborn on the father'' s side, as Michaelis sup- 
 poses, so that a man might have many wives and many children, but only 
 one firstborn, as was the case with Jacob himself. They are expressly stated 
 to have been the firstborn on the mothers side — ' all the firstborn that openeth 
 the matrix ' (Num. iii. 12). So that, according to the story in the Pentateuch, 
 every mother of Israel must have had on the average forty-two sons ! " 
 
 I shall, first, reply to this difliculty, taken just as stated by Dr. 
 Colenso. It amounts to a serious deficiency of firstborn sons, who 
 are given only as one to forty-two, taking the males alone, or as one 
 to eighty-four, taking the females also, and assuming the firstborn 
 daughters to be, in number, only just the same as the firstborn 
 sons. Or, in the Bishop's own words, "And 44,546 firstborn 
 " children" (males or females) "among a populaition of 1,800,000 
 ** souls, would imply that each mother had, on the average, 
 ** forty-two children as before, but twenty-one sons and twenty-one 
 " daughters." 
 
 The real difiiculty, therefore, lies in conceiving each family in 
 Israel to have numbered forty-two children ; taking their whole 
 number even as low as 1,800,000. But is there real cause for 
 forming such a conception. There is a great truth, admitted by Dr. 
 Colenso (indeed, it cannot be denied), viz., that all cases must be 
 allowed for, in which the firstborn was a girl, or was dead. Have we 
 any means of discovering how often either of these cases may have 
 occurred ? None whatever ; and, therefore, if we kick against the 
 numbers given, we must do so like men suspended in the air. 
 
 Now, Dr. Colenso has said, at p. 88, in reply to a remark by 
 Havernick, *' I am wholly at a loss to understand the meaning of the 
 " above paragraph." And I ask the Bishop's permission to quote 
 two remarks of his own, which seem to me deserving of similar 
 distinction. He says, at p. 85, " And the result is, as before, that 
 " there are reckoned only 22,273 firstborn sons of all the mothers of 
 " Israel, after one or other of whom the other males must all be 
 " ranged in their respective families (except, as before, cases where 
 
136 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 " the firstborn of a family was either a female or was dead), so that 
 " each mother must have had, on the average, forty-two sons." Yes, 
 no doubt, " except as before ; " but then the exception admits of 
 such extension as to neutralize the whole conclusion. Supposing, for 
 example, we selected 6,000 English families, containing 60,000 souls, 
 and from them all enrolled 18,000 militiamen, among whom we found 
 2,500 firstborn sons, where is the sense of saying that all the other 
 15,500 men must be ranged ^' after one or other" of these 2,500 "in 
 their respective families " ? Such a statement is ridiculous ; and when 
 every case in which the firstborn son had died, earlier or later, or 
 had been stillborn, and the cases in which the firstborn child was a 
 daughter, had been counted up, we should find the seeming deficiency 
 of firstborn sons made up ; and that only a part, and perhaps only a 
 small part, of the 15,500 men, not firstborns, had to be reckoned 
 " under one or other " of the 2,500 who were such ; but all the 
 others must be remitted to their several distinct families. 
 
 Again, Dr. Colenso says, at p. 85, " Besides which, the number of 
 *' mothers must have been the same as that of the firstborns, male and 
 " female, including also any that had died. Hence there would have 
 " been only 60,000. Hence there would have been only 60,000 child- 
 " bearing women to 600,000 men, so that only about one man in ten 
 " had a wife or children." Uijon the Bishop's hypothesis, which, as 
 we shall see, is very unfair. But, even then, how can the conclusion 
 be sound? Because, at any given time, a population of 1,800,000, 
 containing 600,000 fighting men, can reckon only 60,000 firstborns, 
 living or dead, above one month old ; therefore there are but 60,000 
 child-bearing women, and only one man in ten has a wife or children ? 
 Indeed ! how about those few men whose wives were barren ? How 
 about those many more, whose wives had not yet borne, though 
 married (it may be) a year or two ; but who, in all probability, 
 would bear ? How about the young men whose wives had borne their 
 first child, but not so long ago as thirty days ? Now, has Dr. 
 Colenso really foi-gotten what he told us so kindly, and accurately, at 
 p. 62 of his remarkable " Chronicles," that the births in such a popu- 
 lation would have been 264 a-day ; so that there may have been, at 
 the time the firstborn were numbered, 29 times 264, i.e., 7,656, 
 little children under one month old, of whom many would be, un- 
 doubtedly, firstborns ? And, lastly, how about the young men who 
 had been married, we must suppose, within the 9 months imme- 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 137 
 
 diately preceding the numeration of the firstborn, and whose wives 
 had not yet been confined, though that interesting event might hourly 
 be expected ? I wish the Bishop had given us the probable rate of 
 marriages per day, " in a population like that of London " (p. 62) ; so 
 that we might have multiplied them by about 8 months, or 240 days. 
 He has not done so; but the marriages in London in the year 1861 
 were 26,918, or 73 a day, and a little more. Let us take for Israel 
 the same rate, for 8 months of 30 days, or 240 days, and we are pro- 
 vided with just 17,520 young Jews, who have wives, but no children ; 
 though every prospect of being blessed with them. Surely, for once. 
 Dr. Colenso is wrong in his calculation, when he says that 60,000 
 firstborns to 600,000 men implies only 60,000 child-bearing women ; 
 or that only 1 man in 10 had a wife, or children. But there he was 
 wrong, too, when he calculated the families of goats and sheep : see 
 p. 54, above. 
 
 And, besides, I have not alluded to those older men, who, though 
 they had no wives, were widowers ; and, probably, had learned to bear 
 the loss with becoming resignation. 
 
 Again (just one little word more), Dr. Colenso says, at p. 87: — 
 " Still we cannot suppose any unusual mortality of this kind," viz., 
 of the firstborn, " without checking in the same degree the increase 
 " of the people." The loss of every child checks, of course, in its 
 degree, the increase of a people ; but not the loss of the firstborn in 
 particular. We can conceive, in a multitude of cases, the death of 
 the firstborn to have been followed by a very numerous progeny. 
 Indeed, were statistical tables prepared to that end, how frequent, 
 perhaps how general, would be the loss of the firstborn child, is a 
 matter to be glanced at more distinctly a little further on. 
 
 I said, at p. 135, above, that the real difficulty about these firstborn, 
 as stated by Dr. Colenso, lay in finding but 22,273 in an assumed 
 population of 900,000 males, i.e., 1 in 42. I believe the figures are 
 not quite accurate. But, accepting them as thus given, suppose we 
 admit, at once, that these 42 males, instead of being reckoned to 
 1 family, ought to be counted to 7. Then the firstborn sons are de- 
 ficient in 6 families out of every 7. Or, state the case in another 
 way, — A population of 1,870,932 souls, with only 22,273 firstborn 
 sons, gives 1 firstborn son to each 84 souls. Then, dividing these 
 84 souls into 12 families of about 7 each, the proportion of firstborn 
 sons is as 1 to 12 families. Now, Dr. Colenso is utterly unable to meet, 
 
138 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 or to refute, the statistical fact that the firstborn child is, usually, a 
 girl ; nor does he attempt to do so. Let us suppose that, out of the 
 12 families of 7 souls each, 8 of them, or two-thirds, have daughters 
 firstborn. The proportion is not unreasonable. Then the deficiency 
 of firstborn sons is 3 out of every 4. 
 
 It seems to me, I venture to repeat, that these two admissions, 
 which cannot be refused us, viz., 1. That, usually, the firstborn is a 
 girl ; and 2. That the firstborn child often dies ; dispose of all the 
 difiiculty, arising from an imagined deficiency of the firstborn sons 
 among Israel. And for this simple reason, that we have no means of 
 certainly determining to what extent each admitted reason for deduc- 
 tion will operate. If we allow, for instance, that 2 out of every 3 
 firstborns were girls, surely no very strong imagination is required for 
 perceiving that in a population of 1,870,932 people, circumstanced like 
 the Hebrews in Egypt, 3 out of every 4 firstborn sons werje violently 
 killed by Pharaoh, or had died naturally, or had perished in the birth. 
 
 For, as to this deficiency of firstborn sons, there is a little 
 consideration which I wish to suggest most delicately. If the 
 reader will refer to the places marked below, ' he will find that 
 the firstborn intended are Dm 11^5 bD , each an opening of the 
 womb. Have we any means of knowing how frequently the 
 womb of a virgin-wife is opened with a firstfruit born dead, or not 
 brought to perfection ? Will any medical man, who reads this 
 defence of Moses, consider what difficulties attend first-births ; and 
 how often they perish, when either partial, or complete ? Pardon 
 me ; Holy Scripture implies that the womb of the virgin mother 
 must have been opened for the very first time, and with a perfect 
 birth, having lived at least one month. There must have been no 
 miscarriage, no failure of any kind. The womb must never have 
 been opened with any birth. Will my readers consider whether this 
 reflection does not materially affect the supposed deficiency of first- 
 born in Israel ? The force, and soundness, of this argument is 
 seen iil a moment by asking ourselves the question^" Had a virgin 
 mother in Israel brought forth a first son, stillborn, could she ever 
 after have had a firstborn, in the scriptural sense of that term ? " 
 No ; then, neither could she, if she had failed in a similar, though 
 less, degree. 
 
 Lastly, as affecting the number of living firstborn sons, I shall 
 ' Exod. xiii. 2, 12, 15, and xxxiv. 19 ; Num. iii. 12, and xviii. 15. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 1^9 
 
 mention the fact that the numbering being from one month old, and 
 upwards, without the higher limit, there can be no doubt but that 
 many firstborn had died in the course of nature. 
 
 I venture to think that no necessity any longer remains for attempt- 
 ing to explain the seeming deficiency of firstborn sons in Israel at the 
 time of the numbering. These several reasons assist in accounting for 
 the fact : first, that the firstborn child, in a family, is usually a girl ; 
 second, that the firstborn, in a family, very often does not survive, and 
 that from various causes ; third, that in the case of Israel we have 
 reason to fear that some of the firstborn sons had been slain by 
 Pharaoh ; fourth, that, of the older firstborn males, some would 
 have^died in the course of nature. 
 
 And, what is most important, we have not, in reference to any one 
 of these four causes of diminution, any certain or statistical means 
 given us of determining to what extent each, and every, of them might 
 have operated. There is one question, which I would submit to Bishop 
 Colenso, because I believe it affects his whole book, — " Is it safe to 
 assail Holy Scripture by calculations based upon hypothetical num- 
 bers ? " 
 
 Yet I will, call attention to one more consideration, which would 
 tend very materially to affect the numbers of the firstborn. There is 
 no sound reason for doubting that Havernick is right when he suggests 
 that the firstborn intended must be the firstborn both of the father and 
 of the mother ; and that Michaelis and Havernick are right when they 
 agree that, agahi, the firstborn intended is the firstborn in a whole 
 family of the first virgin wife, as Reuben was,~ no matter how many 
 other virgin wives, or virgin concubines, a man might have. 
 
 The expression nm "lESS ^2, each an opening of the loonib, is 
 intended distinctly to intimate that the son intended by the sacred 
 writer must be the very first that passes through the portal of life ; 
 but it by no means justifies Bishop Colenso's inference, at p. 84, 
 " these were not the firstborn on the father s side, as Michaelis 
 " supposes, so that a man might have many wives, and many children, 
 " but only one firstborn, as was the case with Jacob himself. They 
 *' are expressly stated to have been the firstborn on the mothers 
 " side — ' all the firstborn that openeth the matrix.' (Num. iii. 12.) " 
 The cause of the Bishop's mistake is clear ; he drops, like a firstborn 
 baby, helplessly into the arms of the English translator, and supposes 
 the Hebrew words must mean " all that openeth the womb " inclu- 
 
140 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 sively of each firstborn male child, by every mother ; whereas the 
 words are more correctly rendered " each an opening of the womb," de- 
 scriptively of each to be numbered, but not inclusively of all, born as to 
 their mothers similarly. If the Bishop will consult the passages, already 
 referred to at p. 138, above, he will notice (and he is fond of points) 
 that the segholate noun is used and not the participle, in the word 
 ItaD. But, indeed, if he prefer the participle, the translation 
 will still be "each opening the womb." And also, to the same 
 effect, if we take the third person of the perfect verb. Or, at Exod. 
 xiii. 2, nm bs "itDD "1133 bD , each firstborn opening each womb ; 
 " each to each." That is, " each firstborn" the first produce of the 
 womb that bears it. 
 
 Why does Dr. Colenso venture so broadly to contradict men like 
 Havernick, when any one may tell that he does not possess the 
 information necessary for the purpose ? "Was he aware of what 
 Bochart says' on this subject? "Here we must inquire what 1123 
 " properly is, in these laws (Exod. xxxiv. 19) ; * every ~it03 of the 
 •' * womb is mine.' It is plain, indeed, that in this place, and 
 " similar" (as already referred to) " the word ni2D means firstborn; 
 " but it is not equally plain in what sense the firstborn is called 
 
 "-iras." 
 
 Nor is the idea that the firstborn means, in the scriptural sense, the 
 firstborn both of the father and of a virgin mothei', without probable 
 Scripture authority. It will never do to permit the Bishop to say, 
 as he does at p. 88, " The ' Hebrew usage ' has nothing to do with 
 " the question." It has everything to do with it. And such a 
 remark is of the very strangest kind to proceed from a Bishop, who 
 professes to know Hebrew. Nor can we allow him to add, without 
 calling attention to the error, " We are here only concerned with 
 " ' all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb ' (Exod. xiii. 2), 
 ** ' being males' (ver. 15)." Where, again, he falls into the super- 
 ficial sense of the English words, without venturing to consider 
 the possible force of the Hebrew, as above explained. " Each first- 
 " born opening each womb," i.e., " each firstborn opening each 
 *' a womb," " each to each." Nor can we help, again, referring to 
 his extraordinary question, " What is the use of quoting such 
 " passages as Gen. xlix. 3, ' Reuben, thou art my firstborn ' ? " 
 To which we now reply. 
 
 ' Bochart's Hieroz., vol. I., p. 298. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 141 
 
 At Deut. xxi. 15 — 17, are clearly suggested two great considera- 
 tions bearing upon this question of the Jirstborn, in direct refutation 
 of Bishop Colenso. There we learn, 1. That polygamy was per- 
 mitted, and provided for, as actually existing, which Dr. Colenso has 
 denied (see p. 103, above). 2. That the two, or more, families were 
 viewed as one, by the Levitical law, in respect of i\\e firstborn. " If the 
 *' firstborn son be hers that was hated " — " he may not make the son 
 ** of the beloved "iD^b {to have the rights of the) firstborn before the 
 *' son of the hated, the firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the son 
 " of the hated the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of 
 *' all that he hath ; for he is the beginning of his strength," 
 13S n''trW-i Sin "^D . Whence results clearly the doctrine that, 
 Levitically, in families of more than one wife, or of one wife 
 and more women (whether concubines or wives), there was but one 
 to be regarded, legally, as mD2 firstborn, and to that one all the 
 rights, and privileges, of the firstborn belonged. And, again, results the 
 conviction that Reuben's is the exact precedent to be followed, 
 though so despised by Bishop Colenso ; for Moses represents the 
 Almighty as here using part of the very words employed by Jacob, 
 "•aiS rvWi^1,'begi?mi?ig of my strength. (Gen. xlix. 3.) 
 
 Now, in addition to this legal injunction, (Deut. xxi. 15 — 17), the 
 words of Jacob's prophecy, here referred to, intimate to us the 
 peculiar sense in which the Hebrew law spake of firstborn sons. 
 They were regarded as the earnest, or firstfruits, of that worldly 
 power and wealth which all the family represented. So that as all 
 the family was regarded as ojie body of wealth and power, the first 
 son of the first virgin wife was regarded as the one, and only, first- 
 born of all that one family. The English translation, (Gen. xlix. 
 3) is sublime as a grand expression of high sentiment, " Reuben, 
 thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, 
 the excellence of dignity, and the excellence of power." But it 
 scarcely represents the Hebrew, nor conveys literally Jacob's mean- 
 ing. He intends to say that the birth of Reuben, by Leah, as the 
 first living proof of his own productiveness, was the earnest of other 
 children to be born of her, and of other women. And placing his 
 worldly power and prosperity in the number of his children, the size 
 of his household, and implied multiplication of his goods, he calls 
 Reuben, as his firstborn son, " his strength, the beginning of his 
 " substance, excess of dignity, excess of might." So that, in what- 
 
142 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 ever the Patriarch considered all his wealth, and all his power to 
 consist, of all that, Jacob saw but one "ilSi, ov Jirstbor7i, viz., 
 Reuben. 
 
 Also, the reader will not fail to notice that in the law, as laid 
 down in Deuteronomy, the firstborn is reckoned to the man, or 
 father ; as is also the case in Jacob's prophecy, to which the law in 
 Deuteronomy verbally refers. And, indeed, this was always the case 
 among the Hebrews ; their genealogies, as any one may see, are 
 reckoned by the fathers. And such a question as " Abner, whose 
 son is this youth ?" (1 Sam. xvii. 55 — 5S) could not be answered by 
 giving the mother's name. " Thy servant is the son of Jesse, the 
 Bethlehemite." So that Dr. Colenso is utterly at fault, and shows 
 he has no powers of digestion for Hebrew idioms, when he says tlie 
 firstborn " were not the firstborn on the father's side." He should have 
 said " not the firstborn only on the father's side." They were sure 
 to be reckoned to the father ; but the expression " each opening 
 a womb," added another condition, viz., that he must be the first- 
 born of the mother also, since he is said to open the womb, in 
 the sense of being emitted from it. To these two conditions, 
 necessary to Hebrew firstborn sonship, Havernick has directed Bishop 
 Colenso's attention. 
 
 If, then, polygamy and concubinage did prevail among Israel, in 
 the desert, as we know they did, we know that though a man 
 had several sons by several wives, he could have but one firstborn, 
 viz., that by his first wife, being a virgin. So that several families, 
 by different mothers, might be ranked under the head of only one 
 firstborn ; and Dr. Colenso's extraordinary idea that, according to 
 the scriptural statement, every mother in Israel must have had, upon 
 the average, forty-two children, comes to nothing, in this way also ; 
 as we have showed before, it does in another. 
 
 Now, as to the Bishop's reference to the slaughter of firstborn 
 sons in Egypt, it is nothing to the purpose. Does he mean to say 
 that there must have been a firstborn son in every house ? God's 
 threatened judgment was specifically against the firstborn sons 
 (Exod. xi. 4, 5) ; and the assertion of its fulfilment, " There 
 was a great cry in Egypt ; for not a house, where not one 
 dead ! " (Exod. xii. 30) must be read accordingly. Not a house, 
 where there was a firstborn, wliere that firstborn was not dead. 
 Then, again, the social life of Egyptians was, wonderfully, like 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 143 
 
 that of Hebrews. And we require, but have not given us, the 
 Egyptian sense of the word firstborn. It may have been, and 
 probably was, precisely that of Israel. 
 
 And, lastly, as to the marking of each Jewish residence with blood, 
 the sections, if any, of entire Jewish families by wives and concu- 
 bines, into separate residences, cannot be fairly held to change the 
 sense of the \yoxd firstborn. But, once more, the threat was against 
 the firstborn ; and Dr. Colenso himself admits that we must not sup- 
 pose there was a firstborn to everi/ family ; and, therefore, certainly 
 not to every house marked. So that the marking will scarcely touch 
 the question of the number of firstborn. 
 
 There is one more consideration, affecting this question of the 
 firstborn, which I shall place before the reader, as deserving of some 
 attention ; although it is not necessary to my argument, nor do I 
 attach any great weight to it. Indeed, there are difficulties, about 
 the interpretation of the v^oxd. firstborn, of which the Jews themselves 
 appear to have been not masters ; inasmuch as they say, traditionally, 
 that Holy Scripture recognises two sets of firstborns ; — one, those of 
 the father, to whom the property-rights appertained ; the other, 
 those of the mother, to whom belonged the rights of priesthood. I 
 can see no authority for this distinction; but, in reference to the 
 firstborn generally, it may be worth while inquiring, whether any 
 functional privileges limited their number. Had the word firstborriy 
 in the Levitical law, a meaning which limited its application only to 
 those, who had; for instance, priestly duties to discharge, for the 
 rest of the family to which they belonged ? 
 
 It is plain enough, from Moses' demand, " We will go three days* 
 journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice," &c., &c. (Exod. viii. 27), 
 that some sort of Divine worship, wdth religious rites, still continued 
 among the Israelites in Egypt. That worship, doubtless, which each 
 man discharged for his own family, in the days of Abraham, Isaac, 
 and Jacob ; that worship which would have devolved on Reuben, 
 but for his sins; and which, we have reason to believe, did, in fact, 
 devolve, through length of life, upon Levi, for all the house of 
 Israel ; then upon Kohath, probably through Gershon's early death ; 
 then upon Amram ; and, through him, by God's especial intervention, 
 upon Aaron, his firstborn, for the house of all Israel, through all 
 time. Now, it is manifest that, in Egypt, no public, general, worship 
 would be allowed to the Israelites, as a people, at least during the 
 
144 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 time of their persecution, or for about one hundred years before their 
 deliverance. The functions of the head of the nation could not be 
 publicly discharged ; only the tradition of his rights, and office, could 
 be held in memory. The people could not be generally assembled, 
 and no priesthood had yet been appointed to their tribes. It is 
 probable, therefore, that in sections, of various sizes, and not 
 defined in the Scripture narrative, they did carry out the ofiSce of 
 the firstborn, as the natural priest of the family ; in various sections 
 of families, including their own children, by wives, and concubines ; 
 and also the children of domestics. 
 
 We have a hint of this, at Exod. xix. 22, 24, where " priests " are 
 mentioned, before the tribe of Levi had been consecrated. The 
 Jews. tell us, with one voice, that these were the "firstborn." But 
 this is information, which, of course. Dr. Colenso despises. And 
 even Bishop Patrick rejects their testimony,' because - he thinks 
 proper to maintain, they were the heads of houses, and elders ! 
 No doubt they were so ; for these ante-Levitical priests were heads 
 of " houses of families ; " but all heads of tribes, or thousands, or 
 elders, were not among the ante-Levitical priests. In other words, 
 the " priests," thus mentioned, may have been heads of houses, and 
 elders (as Bishop Patrick supposes), and firstborn too. The heads of 
 houses (Num. ii. 1 — 31), the heads of thousands, hundreds, and tens, 
 according to Jethro's suggestion (Exod. xviii. 25); and the seventy 
 elders, who made the Sanhedrim ; and the judges; are known in the 
 Pentateuch, by their appropriate titles ; and are never called 
 ** priests." But, before the consecration of Levi's tribe, there was 
 a recognised number of men, heads of "houses of families," some 
 of whom, no doubt, were also heads of tribes, or thousands, or filling 
 various other offices ; who, at the Exodus, and before, discharged, in 
 various, but undefined, sections, the priestly, and patriarchal office. 
 These, the Jews say, were the firstborn. Were these the firstborn 
 numbered ; and, among them, those infants, above one month 
 old, who, by the death of others, were presumptively entitled to the 
 office ? 
 
 That some of these priests, as firstborn, were "young men" is 
 
 clear, from Exod. xxiv. 5 ; and the traditions of this priesthood 
 
 were never discontinued. On the contrary, it was perpetuated by the 
 
 Levitical law, in the fact that laymen might slay their own Passover, 
 
 ' Comment, on Exod. xix. 22 — 24. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 145 
 
 and other sacrifices ; and that, ages after, any number of laymen 
 might be deputed, in certain cases, to assist the Levites, and 
 the priests ; only, that none but a priest could minister in the 
 Sanctuary. 
 
 But, to conclude, without any such special limitation of the 
 word, firstborn, we may feel assured that the several probable 
 causes of the seeming deficiency — viz., those arising from death, 
 under various circumstances, and from the great number of cases in 
 which the firstborn would be a girl, — are sufficient to justify the 
 Scriptural statement, or at least to save it from any success- 
 ful assault, as to numbers. And, especially so, for two great 
 reasons : — 
 
 1. Because the whole number of people, and of males, is mere 
 matter of assumption ; 
 
 2. Because we have no certain means of telling to what extent 
 such preventing causes might interfere with the number of the 
 firstborns. 
 
 § XXIV. THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE.— THE EXTENT OF 
 CANAAN. 
 
 It is hard to see what cause of attack upon the Pentateuch 
 Bishop Colenso has found in the subject treated of in his thirteenth 
 chapter. 
 
 Let the matter be stated in his own words : — 
 
 " 91. ' / will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people 
 to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs 
 unto thee. And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the 
 Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. I will not drive 
 them out from before thee in one year, lest the land become desolate, and the 
 beast of the field multiply agahist thee. By little and little I will drive 
 them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land.' — 
 Ex. xxiii. 27—30. 
 
 " The whole land, which was divided among the tribes, in the time of 
 
 Joshua, including the countries beyond the Jordan, was in extent about 
 
 11,000 square miles, or 7,000,000 acres. (Kitto's Geoff, of the Holy Land, 
 
 . Knight's Series, p. 7.) And, according to the story, this was occupied by 
 
 more than two millions of people. Now, the following is the extent of the 
 
 L 
 
146 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 three English agricultural counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, with the 
 population, according to the census of 1851 : — 
 
 Acres. Pop. in. 1851. 
 
 Norfolk contains ... 1,354,301 442,714 
 
 Suffolk 947,681 337,215 
 
 Essex 1,060,549 369,318 
 
 3,362,531 1,149,247 
 
 " By doubling the above results, we find that these counties of 
 England are, at this very time, about as thickly peopled as the land 
 of Canaan would have been, with its population of Israelites only, 
 without reckoning the aboriginal Canaanites, who already filled the land, 
 — 'seven nations, greater and mightier'' than Israel itself. (Deut. iv. 38; 
 vii. 1 ; ix. 1 ; xi. 23.) And surely it cannot be said, that these three 
 Eastern Counties, with their flourishing towns of Norwich, Lynn, Yar- 
 inouth, Aylsham, Cromer, Thetford, Wisbeach, Bungay, Beccles, Lowestoft, 
 Ipswich, Southwold, Bury St. Edmunds, Sudbvuy, Woodbridge, Harwich, 
 Colchester, Chelmsford, Romford, Maldon, &c., and their innumerable 
 villages, are in any danger of lying ' desolate,' with the beasts of the field 
 multiplying against the human inhabitants." 
 
 The cause of the Bishop's annoyance appears to be that God, in 
 His goodness, made the gentlest possible provision for the settlement 
 in Canaan of a small nation of shepherd people, whose flocks would 
 necessarily be much exposed to the attacks of wild beasts ; and who 
 were utterly unused to, and therefore unprepared immediately to 
 commence, the cultivation of land, at least to any great extent. The 
 people, whom he chooses to select for comparison with Israel, being 
 among the best cultivators in the world. 
 
 What is the use of comparing Canaan to Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, 
 Hertford, or any other English counties ? But let us take up the 
 Bishop's own idea, and suppose that any six of these counties 
 lay on the borders of a vast continent, stretching away many 
 hundreds of miles to the east, and overlapping it vastly on the north, 
 and on the west. Let us suppose also that an extensive territory on 
 the east and south was a wilderness, known to be the haunt of lions 
 and other wild beasts, whose natural increase had been comparatively 
 unchecked for long successions of years. Let us suppose, further, 
 that there was a wild mountain range on the north, intersecting a 
 country at that early date comparatively unpeopled, and full of 
 fierce wild beasts ; affording the great pleasure of hunting, whenever 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 147 
 
 Nimiods required a little active exercise. Let us conceive, that is, 
 on the borders of any six English counties, vast preserves, not of 
 hares and of pheasants, but of lions and wolves, hroivn bears, 
 leopards, and hyaenas, — and then how would their peaceful people 
 feel if they had suddenly to colonise those counties, encumbered 
 with large flocks and herds ; being themselves utterly unused to the 
 tillage o^land, and all other people having been removed away? 
 That Palestine was notoriously disturbed by these wild beasts, and that 
 down to very late times, Holy Scripture assures Bishop Colenso.' 
 
 Or, again, let us imagine the inhabitants, of such six English 
 counties, to be comparatively ignorant of agriculture ; to be a small 
 nation of shepherds, possessed of large flocks ; and that the interior 
 of Australia were tenanted by the fiercest wild beasts of Asia, — and 
 then how would the inhabitants of these six counties like to be 
 established on a strip of the sea-coast of Australia (all other people 
 having been removed from that territory to which they went), with 
 their flocks, and their herds, and their families, to be protected from 
 the ravages of wild beasts ; and no weapons with which to meet 
 them but bows and arrows, unless they preferred hand-to-hand con- 
 flicts with sword and with spear? Let us suppose that, besides 
 attention to their flocks, these people, unused to tillage, had to bring 
 into cultivation, in one year, land enough to support themselves and all 
 their families, amounting to about ^,000,000 of people. We may 
 surely trust all the people of SuflTolk and Norfolk, or any other 
 English counties,' for crying out, with one loud voice, that they thank 
 God they are not likely to be exposed to any such danger. 
 
 Remembering how soon the sun withers up the lands of the East, 
 so that in a very short time (let Dr. Colenso consider this) a fruit- 
 ful land becomes a wilderness ; remembering, also, how unused to 
 agriculture the Israelites were, and how their flocks and herds had 
 multiplied, it was surely a gracious Providence which said, *' I will 
 not drive them out from before thee in one year, lest the land become 
 desolate, and the beast of tlie field multiply against thee. By little 
 and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be in- 
 creased, and inherit the land." 
 
 • Paxton's Nat. Hist., pp. 294, 352 ; Bochart's Hieroz , lib. iii., p. 829 ; Job 
 xxxviii. 39; Prov. xvii. 12; xxii. 13; xxviii. 15; Cant. iv. 8; Jer. v. 6. Tsehoua, 
 \he hyaena, Jer. iv. 7; xii. 8; Lam. iii. 10; Ezek. xxii. 27 ; Hos. v. 14; xiii. 17; 
 Amos V. 19; Nahum ii. 12; Zeph. iii. 3. 
 
 L 2 
 
148 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 I can see nothing in Bishop Colenso's objection, except this — that 
 a man who could find, or imagine he found, any fair cause of 
 objection against the Pentateuch, or its author, on this account, must 
 be in a most extraordinary frame of feeling towards Holy Scripture 
 — one from which we shall all pray that it may please the Almighty 
 to deliver him, and protect ourselves. 
 
 § XXV. THE WAR ON MIDIAN. 
 
 Before Dr. Colenso enters upon this subject, he takes a short and 
 self-congratulatory review of the one hundred and thirty-eight pages 
 he had previously written ; and, in reference to them, believes, at 
 p. 139, " that to the great majority of readers many of the above 
 " facts will be new," as, he freely admits, they were ,to himself, 
 " till within a comparatively recent period." Unfortunately for Dr. 
 Colenso, they are not facts, but imaginary difficulties, and mistaken 
 objections, proceeding, for the most part, from false assumptions, and 
 a serious lack of knowledge, with regard to the language in which 
 the history of the Exodus has been recorded. What a pity it is that 
 the Bishop did not take more time for reflection, and consult some of 
 his Right Reverend brethren, some of whom are as good mathemati- 
 cians, and most of them better scholars. Can there be any successful 
 excuse made for a hasty assault upon God's Word, the mere result 
 of views newly taken up " within a comparatively recent period ? " 
 
 The Bishop, whose proper subject is the Pentateuch, cannot 
 forbear insinuating objections against the books of Judges and of 
 Samuel, before he enters upon the subject in hand. He is quite 
 aware that these objections, at p. 141, turn chiefly, if not entirely, 
 upon the round numbers, given in tens of thousands, of the "foot- 
 men,'' " war-chariots,^' " horsemen," &c., &c., mentioned in various 
 places. He is also aware that "the ordinary supposition that there 
 may be something wrong in the Hebrew numerals'' (or, rather, in our 
 mode of reading them), may have a considerable effect in showing 
 the insolidity of such objection. But he carefully reminds us, that 
 this cannot be the case in regard to the number, 603,550, of fighting 
 men, continually alluded to, and " woven, as a kind of thread " 
 (p. 143), all through the Exodus. Of this number, we have spoken, 
 at p. 45, above ; and there is no reason for our shrinking from it. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 149 
 
 Yet, though that matter may not be affected by any misapprehension 
 by us of the force of Hebrew numerals, why has Dr. Colenso not 
 frankly acknowledged, that the brief account of the war on Midian 
 may be ? That was the question, on which he was about to enter. 
 And he states his difficulty thus : — 
 
 " But how thankful we must be, that we are no longer obliged to believe, 
 as a matter of fact, of vital consequence to our eternal hope, the story 
 related in Nimi. xxxi., where we are told that a force of 12,000 Israelites 
 slew all the males of the Midianites, took captive all the females and 
 children, seized all their cattle and flocks (72,000 oxen, 61,000 asses, 675,000 
 sheep), and all their goods, and burnt all their cities, and ^all their goodly 
 castles,' withovit the loss of a single man ; and then, by command of Moses, 
 butchered in cold blood all the women and children, 'except all the women- 
 children, who have not known a man by lying with him.' These last the 
 Israelites were to 'keep for themselves.' They amounted, we are told, to 
 32,000 (ver. 35), mostly, we must suppose, under the age of sixteen or 
 eighteen. We may fairly reckon that there were as many more under the 
 age of forty, and half as many more above forty, making altogether 80,000 
 females, of whom, according to the story, Moses ordered 48,000 to be killed, 
 besides (say) 20,000 young boys. The tragedy of Cawnix)re, where 300 were 
 butchered, would sink into nothiHg, compared with such a massacre, if, 
 indeed, we were requu-ed to believe it. And these 48,000 females must have 
 represented 48,000 men ; all of whom, in that case, we must also believe to 
 have been killed, their property pillaged, their castles demolished, and towns 
 destroyed, by 12,000 Israelites, who, in addition, must have can-ied off 
 100,000 captives (more than eight persons to each man), and driven before 
 them 808,000 head of cattle (more than sixty-seven, for each man), and all 
 without the loss of a single man ! How is it possible to quote the Bible as 
 in any way condemning slavery, when we read here (ver. 40) of ' Jehovah's 
 tribute ' of slaves, thirty- two persons ? 
 
 " 173. But it may be well at once to show that, besides involving the 
 above incredible statements, the narrative itself, as it now stands, is un- 
 historical here as elsewhere. 
 
 " (i.) We are told that Aaron died on ' the first day of the fifth month ' of 
 the fortieth year of the wanderings (Num. xxxiii. 38), and they mourned for 
 him a month (Num. xx. 29). 
 
 " (ii.) After this, ' King Ai-ad the Canaanite fought against Israel, and 
 took some of them prisoners;' whereupon the Israelites attacked these 
 Canaanites, and utterly destroyed them and their cities" (Num. xxi. 1—3) ; 
 for which two transactions we may allow another month. 
 
 " (iii.) Then they ' journeyed from Mount Hor, by the way of the Bed 
 Sea, to compass the land of Edom ' (Num. xxi. 4) ; and the people murmm-ed, 
 and were plagued with fiery serpents, and Moses set up the serpent of brass 
 (Num. xxi. 5—9) ; for all which we must allow, at least, a fortnight. 
 
150 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 " (iv.) They now marched, and made nine encampments (Nimi. xxi. 
 10 — 20) ; foi" which we cannot well allow less than a mc/tith. 
 
 " We believe that, at every station, at least three days' rest must have 
 been required. Kurtz, iii., p. 251. 
 
 " (v.) Then they sent messengers to Sihon, who ' gathered all his people 
 together, and fought against Israel,' and ' Israel smote him with the edge of 
 the sword,' and ' possessed his land from Arnon imto Jabbok,' and ' took all 
 these cities, and dwelt in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in 
 all the villages thereof (Num. xxi. 21— 25) ; for which we may allow 
 another month. 
 
 " (vi.) After that, ' Moses sent to spy out Jaazer, and they took the villages 
 thereof, and drove out the Amorites that were there' (Num. xxi. 32); say, in 
 another fortnigh t. 
 
 " (vii.) Then they ' turned up by the way of Bashan, and Og, the King of 
 Bashan, went out against them ; and they smote him, and his sons, and all 
 his people, until there was none left him alive; and they possessed his land.' 
 (Num. xxi. 33 — 35.) For all this work of capturing 'threescore cities, fenced 
 with high walls, gates, and bars, besides un walled towns, a great many ' 
 (Deut. iii. 4, 5), we must allow, at the very least, a month. 
 
 "174. Thus, then, from the 'Jirst day of the fifth month^ on which Aaron 
 died, to the completion of the conquest of Og, King of Bashan, we cannot 
 reckon less altogether than six months (and, indeed, even then, the events will 
 have been crowded one upon another, in a most astonishing, and really 
 impossible, manner), and are thus brought down to the first day of the 
 ehventh month — the very day on which Moses is stated to have addressed the 
 people in the plains of Moab. (Deut. i. 3.) 
 
 " And now what room is there for the other events, which are recorded in 
 the book of Numbers, as having occurred between the conquest of Bashan 
 and the address of Moses ? The chief of these were — 
 
 " (1.) The march forward to the plains of Moab (Num. xxii. 1) ; 
 
 " (2.) Balak's sending twice to Balaam ; his journey, and prophesyings 
 (Num. xxii. 2 ; xxiv.) ; 
 
 " (3.) Israel's abiding in Shittim, and committing whoredom with the 
 daughters of Moab (xxv. 1 — 3) ; 
 
 " (4.) The death of 24,000 by the plague (xxv. 9) ; 
 
 " (5.) The second numbering of the people (xxvi) ; 
 
 " (6.) The war upon Midian, above considered, diu-ing which they ' burnt 
 all their cities, and all their goodly castles,' &c., and surely must have 
 required a month, or six weeks, for such a transaction." 
 
 It is encouraging to observe, under iv., as quoted above, that 
 Dr. Colenso quite admits, in this place, the fairness of our calcula- 
 tion made at p. 67 above, of the time probably required for the 
 journey of Israel from Rameses to Pi-hahiroth. And he acutely 
 quotes Kurtz as having made such an admission : " We believe that. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 151 
 
 *' at every station, at least three days' rest must have been required." 
 "Why did not Bishop Colenso consider this when writing of *' the 
 " march out of Egypt " ? Was it because he really did not under- 
 stand, as he read it? or was it because his mind was so preoccupied, 
 and his judgment so prejudiced, that he could see no probability 
 which made against his theory ? For, as we proved, it is clear 
 enough from the narrative that Israel was not so " thrust out," nor so 
 instantly pursued, as to prevent necessary halts, and encampments. 
 
 However, as regards all the above objections, the reader will 
 perceive they naturally divide themselves into the following heads : — 
 
 1. The moral question, touching the fact that the Israelites did, as 
 it is said, slay all the men, women not virgins, and all the boys; but 
 "kept for themselves" "all the women-children who have not 
 " known a man by lying with him." 2. That they did all this, 
 " and took all the cattle," &c., &c., without the loss of a single 
 man. 3. That " Jehovah^s tribute of slaves " was thirty-two 
 persons; as to which the Bishop asks, " How is it possible to- quote 
 " the Bible as, in any way, condemning slavery when we read of 
 " this ? " And, 4. That according to the historian's own statement 
 there was really not time enough for the transaction of all the events, 
 as he has recorded them. This last is the only serious objection 
 made. 
 
 It is really astonishing to find one, whose mind has been disciplined 
 like Dr. Colenso's, asking so illogical a question as "How is it possible 
 " to quote the Bible as, in any way, condemning slavery," if Jehovah 
 had His own tribute of slaves? Mark these words, in any way. 
 Surely the Bible, or any book of law, may condemn slavery in some 
 ways, and approve of it, or at least permit it, in others. The 
 Gibeonites were slaves, (Josh. ix. 21) ; a Hebrew and his family 
 might be slaves, in effect, for a time (Exod. xxi. 2 — 1 1 ; Deut. 
 xxiii. 15, 16) ; in fact, the Bible does permit a certain kind of 
 slavery. But it does not sanction kidnapping men, women, or 
 children. (Deut. xxiv. 7.) It does not approve of bloody feuds for 
 that purpose. It does not permit the horrors of a " middle-passage." 
 Nor does it smile on lashing with cow-hides ; hunting down with 
 dogs ; and pistolling the refractory. Many good " domestic institu- 
 tions " may become intolerable by the certainty of abuse. All 
 Englishmen hate slavery, because most Englishmen are fit for self- 
 government and freedom, at least in these days. But there are 
 people, even in Europe, and many more elsewhere, whose entire 
 
153 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 national history sliows that they are not competent to self-government ; 
 nor ever so prosperous and happy ; so truly dancing and fiddling ; as 
 when under despots. Dr. Colenso is here guilty of two gross 
 fallacies : first, in the use of the words " in any way " ; second, in 
 using the word "slavery," with a latent peculiarity of meaning. 
 Hebrew slavery may be biblical, and good ; American may be sensual 
 and devilish ; though some will say that West Indian was not quite 
 so bad. 
 
 By the way, the Bishop told us, see p. 132 above, that polygamy 
 was not general among the Hebrews ; and in his calculation of 
 numbers he omitted any reckoning of concubinage. Will he now be 
 so good as to inform us what the Hebrew soldiers did with these 
 " women-children " whom they " kept for themselves " ? And will 
 he also be so good as to consider, what bearing Deut. xxi. 10 — 17 has 
 upon this fact ? 
 
 Now, with regard to the slaughter of the Midianites, irrespective 
 of their numbers, I do not know that the objection deserves an 
 answer. It is really so old, and threadbare. If the Midianites, and 
 other people, as Amorites, Hivites, Girgashites — or Canaanites gene- 
 rally — were under the judgment of the Most High, it is a small matter, 
 whether they were destroyed by fire and brimstone from heaven, or by 
 burning slime-pits upon earth, or by fiery serpents and scorpions, or 
 by wild beasts, or by famine, drought, or plague ; in all such ways it 
 has pleased the Most High to visit various people of the earth with 
 judgment; and, even still. He chastens them by cruel and desolating 
 wars. The sword of Israel was fierce and rapid, and was exercised 
 against the Midianites, by especial direction of God. And Israel 
 knew this. If the English people at Cawnpore had been a nest of 
 corruption, and Nana Sahib had been the most chosen servant of God, 
 and able to prove a Divine commission, the character of his act would 
 have been changed; and Tiinglishmen would have done well to submit 
 to it. 
 
 As' regards the round numbers, given in tens of thousands of 
 Midianites, at Num. xxxi., and of other people, elsewhere, it is not 
 that we suppose, as Dr. Colenso insinuates, at p. 142, only "an 
 *' error of the scribe," but that we suspect we do not rightly under- 
 stand the principle upon which the Hebrews made use of words 
 expressive of certain high numbers. This is quite a difierent matter. 
 An error of a scribe may be but occasional ; but a principle, or 
 habitual idiom of speech, is constant, and may affect the entire 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 153 
 
 current of a narrative, and is never likely to be more dangerous 
 than when applied to numbers. So that Dr. Colenso has no cause to 
 tell his lay readers, as if his fellow-clergymen were so guilty, that 
 " it is an idle, or rather it is a sinful, paltering with the truth, 
 " to attempt to explain away so many cases of this kind by 
 " supposing, on every such occasion, an error of the scribe." Nor is 
 he justified in charging "Hebrew writers," professing to be inspired 
 of God, and implicitly referred to by Jesus, with " a systematic 
 " habit of exaggeration with respect to Hebrew numbers." If Dr. 
 Colenso, or any other scholar, would but send out a convincing 
 treatise respecting the numerals, and some other matters of Hebrew 
 philology, there are many of us who would feel deeply tliankful ; his 
 time would be much better employed than it was at Natal, or has 
 been of late, and some of us would be, then, right proud to have him 
 for our Bishop. 
 
 Next, as regards the most serious objection made to the narrative 
 of Midian's destruction, viz., that there really was not, according to 
 the historian's own account, time for all the events recorded, it 
 is easily seen — first, that Dr. Colenso's allowed periods are all sup- 
 posititious, and may be all wrong ; second, that some of the events 
 alluded to may have been contemporaneous, or have overlapped each 
 other. 
 
 Let us take, for instance, the second list of events referred to at 
 p. 150 above, viz., those for which Dr. Colenso conceives there was, 
 according to the historian, too little, or no time; then we cannot 
 help noticing that three of them, viz., Balak's sending messengers to 
 Balaam, and Balaam's arrival at Moab ; Israel's abiding in Shittim, 
 and committing whoredom with the Midianites; and the plague 
 which slew 24,000, were, in part, contemporaneous ; and were 
 in other respects, very rapidly consecutive. Whilst Balak sent to 
 Balaam, and " brought him from Aram, out of the mountains of the 
 East," he was doubtless temporizing with Israel, then dwelling at 
 Shittim ; for Shittim lay to the west front of Pisgah (see map 
 above). And no great time need be allotted to the whoredom, 
 nor to the effectual working of the plague (Num. xxv. 9), nor to 
 the subsequent numbering of the people (Num. xxvi. 2). What 
 three days' pestilence, sent as a judgment from God, can do, we know 
 [2 Sam. xxiv. 13, 14). If 70,000 died under David in three days, 
 we can easily believe that 24,000 died under Moses in one. 
 
154 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 It is not easy to estimate the time, whicli would be required, for 
 Balak's two messages to Balaam, and his arrival at the camp of 
 Moab. But we may fairly suppose that Balak's messengers, to and 
 fro, and to again, for Balaam at Pethor in Mesopotamia, travelled at 
 speed ; and, instead of going north by way of Damascus, struck 
 straight across the desert, by the site of what was afterwards 
 Tadmor, or Palmyra. The swiftness of the best Arabian mares 
 (mares are preferred) is wonderful ; and the swiftness of the horses, 
 in those parts, is continually referred to in Holy Scripture.' Sir 
 John Malcolm, speaking of Turcoman horses, Hist, of Persia, vol. ii., 
 p. 517, says " they have been known to carry their riders five 
 " hundred miles within six days ; " and De la Roque, Voy. dans la 
 Palestine, cap. 11, p. 16 5, says that the Emir of Carmel had a mare 
 which, on an occasion when flying for his life, carried him into the 
 desert for three days and three nights without eating or drinking ; 
 and so saved him. 
 
 I submit to Dr. Colenso that, perhaps, Balaam travelled with 
 episcopal dignity and state ; but we must not suppose that, because, 
 " he was riding upon his ass," (Num. xxii. 22), he was therefore 
 travelling slowly. For, the ass thus used by Balaam, we have reason 
 to know/ was of a breed drawn from the onager, or wild ass, and 
 they were extremely swift and rapid. As to the speed of the onager, 
 Mr. Morier tells us, {Journey through Persia, pp. 200, 202), that, in 
 crossing the desert he and his friend chased two of them, but they 
 quite turned up their noses at the horses ; for " when they had got to 
 *' some distance," says Mr. Morier, smarting under the insult, " they 
 " stood still, and looked behind at us, snorting loudly with their 
 *' noses in the airT 
 
 I think, then, that, if we allow two months, or eight weeks, for 
 Balak's messages to Balaam, we shall have shown ourselves very 
 liberal to Dr. Colenso. 
 
 The journeys to Aram and back would occupy, say, fifty-six days. 
 So that, assuming that Balak did not send until the war with Sihon 
 was half over (Num. xxi. 23 — 26), and when Israel was settled at 
 Shittim, we need suppose only sixty-three days for Balak's mission, 
 Balaam's arrival, the spying out of Jaazer, (Num. xxi. 3r2), Israel's 
 whoredom, the plague, and the numbering ; i.e., nine weeks. 
 
 • Paxton's Nat. Hist., pp. 206—211 ; Isa. v. 28; Jer. iv. 13; Habak. i. 18. 
 ^ ]Ud, pp. 214—219; Gen. xvi. 12 ; Job xi. 12; xxiv. 5; Hos. viii. 9. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 155 
 
 Further, there is not the slightest reason, given, or implied, in the 
 narrative, why the conquest of Og, King of Bashan, (Num. xxi. 3S — 
 35), should not have been partly contemporaneous with that of the 
 Midianites, and partly antecedent to it. Dr. Colenso is neglectful of 
 localities. If, after defeating the Amorite, Moses with the Israelites 
 took possession of, and encamped in his land, then, looking towards 
 Jerusalem, Bashan, the territory of Og, would be on his right flank, in 
 the north ; and Midian and Moab, on his left, in the south. In short, 
 the Israelites took up a commanding position at Abarim, on the slopes 
 of Pisgah, (Num. xxi. 20), between two powerful foes. And we are 
 expressly told two things, viz., Jirst, that the Midianites were over- 
 thrown by a mere detachment of 12,000 men, (Num. xxxi. 5) ; and 
 that Balak sent for Balaam, because he had heard of the overthrow 
 of Sihon, the Amorite. (Num. xxii. 2.) 
 
 I infer, then, that while Balak was sending, and waiting for, 
 Balaam, and temporizing with Israel, a part of those people were 
 actively prosecuting the war against Og, King of Bashan; others 
 were encamped, and of these, a detachment was sent against the 
 Midianites, before the operations against Og were completed. The 
 advance of the main body against Og, and the loss of 20,000 men, 
 by the plague at Midian, may account for the fact that Moses was 
 allowed to detach only so small a body of men, as 12,000, against the 
 Midianites. 
 
 The historian clearly means to state, that the complete overthrow 
 of Midian, without the loss of a man — *' there lacketh not one man 
 of us" (Num. xxxi. 49) — was by the miraculous intervention of 
 God. The actual loss of the war on Midian ought to be reckoned, 
 against Israel, in the 24,000 smitten -by the plague. While, in the 
 salvation of every man of the 12,000 (no doubt, men pure of the 
 women of Midian), sent into the heat of battle, a deep moral lesson 
 was conveyed. 
 
 Now, to the war against Og, Dr. Colenso assigns a mojith,- and 
 to the war on Midian, another month, or six weeks (p. 150, above); 
 together, eight, or ten, w^eeks; whereas, I think it is clear, that one 
 month, of four weeks, would do for both events. But, the reader 
 will notice, we can afford to take Dr. Colenso's own time ; because we 
 believe the war with Og was partly over, when Balaam arrived at 
 Moab. 
 
 Moreover, the Doctor asks, "What time is left for the march 
 
156 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 " forward to the plains of Moab?" Answer: No time. Because all 
 the time they were defeating the Amorite, they were encamped on 
 the north, close by Moab ; see the map, above. The Bishop seems 
 ignorant of sacred geography, as he is of many other sacred matters. 
 For, to pass from Arnon (Num. xxi. 13), and conquer the territories 
 of Sihon, King of the Amorites, would take them on to the river 
 Jabbok, the border of the kingdom of Og, King of Bashan. So that, 
 as soon as they had got possession of Sihon's territory, they were 
 firmly fixed in a beautiful country, which intervened between the 
 land of Og, and that of Moab. 
 
 Really, Bishop Colenso is extremely ill-informed. Burckhardt 
 travelled the whole distance from Jabbok, the northern border of 
 Sihon's land, to Kerek, a town somewhat east of the lowest part 
 of, the Dead Sea, in four days, at a leisurely rate of six hours 
 a-day. The ground, thus passed over, includes all the land of the 
 Amorites, and of Moab. So, it appears, that the armies of Israel, 
 having occupied the land of Sihon, and having their head-quarters 
 at Nebo, (Num. xxi. 20) it was two days' march, from the centre of 
 that land to the territories of Og ; and less than that to the 
 land, and united forces, of Moab and of Midian. What, then, 
 does the Bishop mean by the imposing question, " What time was 
 " there left, for the march forward to the plains of Moab ? " It is 
 clear enough, that an army of 500,000 light armed troops, inured to 
 the toils of the desert, born and bred there, could, if stationed, 
 as Israel was stationed, on the north border of Moab — i.e., in the 
 inidst of Reuben's land — easily overrun all Palestine north, and all 
 Moab south, in less than two months' time. 
 
 More than this, it should be observed, that when we are told that 
 " Balak, the son of Zippor, saw all that Israel had done to the 
 Amorites" (Num. xxii. 2, 3), and then sent messengers to Balaam, 
 we are not required to suppose that Balak waited until the war with 
 Sihon was completely ended. The word all does not require 
 that. * (See p. 19, above). It is enough to suppose that Balak 
 waited until he saw that an irresistible tide of victory, against 
 Sihon, had set in ; and had thus become convinced that, since 
 Israel so easily conquered Sihon, his own army of Moabites could not 
 hope to stand against them. It is no wonder if the sons of Israel, 
 hardy traversers of the desert, proved easily far more than a match 
 for " the fat bulls of Bashan," as we may cfiH the people of such 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 157 
 
 favoured spots as the territories of Og, and of Silion, and of Balak, 
 kin<^ of Moab. 
 
 Dr. Colenso is content to allow one month, or four weeks, to 
 the conquest of Sihon. Let us suppose that at the end of one fort- 
 night Balak saw the necessity of sending to Balaam. Then the 
 conquest of the rest of Sihon's land during the other fortnight, the 
 mission to Balaam, the dwelling in the plain of Moab, at Shittim, 
 where " Israel began to commit whoredom with the daughters of 
 " Moab " (Num. xxv. 1), the smiting 24,000 people with the plague, 
 and the numbering of all survivors, may be considered a close chain 
 of events, not occupying more than nine weeks from the middle of 
 the war with Sihon. For the two journeys of Balak's messengers to 
 Balaam cannot be reckoned, reasonably, at more than eight weeks ; the 
 whoredom, and the plague, would require a very little time ; and the 
 making up of the regimental returns must have now become a mere 
 piece of routine ; give one week, to the three events. 
 
 When we are told, at Num. xx. 29, that "when all the con- 
 " gregation saw that Aaron was dead, they mourned for Aaron thirty 
 " days," we are not justified in assuming that no active duties were 
 carried on by " all the house of Israel " during that time. And, even 
 if we were, the narrative gives us reason to believe that very in- 
 teresting events may have been forced upon Israel. Por, although 
 Bishop Colenso writes, "" After this," viz., the mourning for Aaron, 
 " King Arad the Canaanite fought against Israel," it is important to 
 observe that therp is no "after this" in the Bible (Num. xxi. 1); and 
 also that Dr. Colenso leaves out the important, most important, 
 words, " who dwelt in the south " — most important, because Arad's 
 being quite to the south, throws him towards Mount Hor, and tends 
 to abridge the time needed for his being conquered. It is strange, but 
 the Bishop is always leaving out most important words (see pp. 12, 
 and 85 above). The Bible says (Num. xx. 1), " And when King Arad 
 " the Canaanite, who dwelt in the south, heard tell that Israel came 
 " by the way of the spies ; then he fought against Israel, and took 
 " some of them prisoners." That is, Arad marched to the attack, 
 and probably took them by surprise, when encamped. 
 
 Now, it was from Kadesh, in the wilderness. of Paran, and to which 
 the Israelites travelled through the ' long valley El-Araba, that 
 Moses sent out the spies ; and Mount Hor (where Aaron died), being 
 ' Paxlon's Sacr. Geog., p. 258. 
 
158 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 close to El-Araba, it is extremely probable that Arad attacked Israel 
 when encamped there ; and that, therefore, the attack made by Arad, 
 and the destructive counter-assault upon him, were completely con- 
 temporaneous with the mourning for Aaron ; and that, on that very 
 account, the historian proceeds (Num. xxi. 4), — "And they journeyed 
 *' from Mount Hor, by the way of the Red Sea, to compass the 
 *' land of Edom." Then the month allowed by Dr. Colenso for 
 the mourning over Aaron, and the other month allowed by him for 
 the defeat of Arad, resolve themselves into one and the same, or, 
 at any rate, but little more. We shall be liberal, and say five 
 weeks. 
 
 Again, I fear we must notice another serious mistake of Dr. 
 Colenso's. He allows (see p. 150, above) one fortnight for Israel's 
 compassing the land of Edom ; and another whole month for, what 
 he supposes are, nine other distinct encampments, before they reached 
 the valley of Moab, and the top of Pisgah, " which looketh towards 
 Jeshimon." (Num. xxi. 20.) Here we have the very central posi- 
 tion which the armies of Israel took up, having, when looking west, 
 much the larger part of the land of Sihon on their right, and all 
 the land of Balak, king of Moab, on their left. Now, Israel 
 journeyed from mount Hor to the head of the gulf of Akaba, and 
 on the eastern side of Akaba, at the head of the gulf, were smitten 
 with serpents, because they murmured at the way. When Burck- 
 hardt was on the western side of Akaba, at a place * called Wasta, 
 he noticed that " the sands on the shore everywhere bore the impres- 
 " sion of the passage of serpents, crossing each other in many direc- 
 " tions ; and some of them appeared to be the marks of animals 
 " two inches in diameter." And he adds, — " As serpents are so 
 *' numerous on this side, they are probably not deficient towards the 
 " head of the gulf on its opposite shore, where it appears that the 
 *' Israelites passed, when they journeyed from mount Hor, by the 
 *' way of the Red Sea, to compass the land of Edom,^' and where 
 " the'Lord sent fiery serpents among the people." The question is, 
 how long took they to reach the place where they were smitten with 
 serpents? Dr. Colenso says one fortnight ; but Burckhardt says ^ 
 that, from Hebron, north of Mount Hor, " Akaba, or Ezion-gaber, 
 " might be reached in eiglit days by the same road, by which the 
 " communication was anciently kept up between Jerusalem and 
 ' Burckhardt's Tour in Sinai, p. 499, ' Ibid, p. 443. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 159 
 
 *' her dependencies on the Red Sea." And the distance from 
 Hiibron to Akaba is to the distance from Mount Hor to Akaba as 
 about eleven to four, taking Burckhardt's map. If, then, the journey 
 from Hebron to Akaba required only eight days, as Burckhardt says, 
 the journey from Hor to Akaba took fow-elevenfJis of eight days, or 
 about seventeen hours and a-half, i.e., taking one day's journey to be 
 six hours, the Israelites reached Akaba, in t/iree days' journey, and 
 allowing for the halts, as usual, we require nine days, and not four- 
 teeti, as Bishop Colenso supposes. 
 
 The nine encampments to Pisgah, or Nebo, are not known. It is 
 at Wady-el-Araba that Burckhardt says, " I inquired in vain among 
 " the Arabs for the names of these places vvhere the Israelites had 
 " sojourned during their progress through the desert ; none of them 
 ** are known to the present inhabitants." But from Pisgah, or Nebo, 
 to Kerek, Burckhardt took only two days, at a leisure pace ; and 
 from Kerek to Akaba is about three times as far, again taking Burck- 
 hardt's map. So that, possibly, the Israelites may have required far 
 less time than the Bishop supposes. Since, however, there were nine 
 encampments, let us close with Kurtz' allowance (see p. 150 above), 
 and give three days to each encampment, or twenty-eight days, 
 as taken by Dr. Colenso. Then it results that instead of six weeks, 
 or forty-two days, from Hor, round Edom, to Nebo or Pisgah, as 
 reckoned by the Bishop, we require only thirty-seven days alto- 
 gether. 
 
 Or even less than this. For, at Num. xxxiii. 41 — 49, all the 
 encampments from Hor to their camp at Shitfim are given as eighty 
 viz., Zalmonah, Punon, Oboth, Ije-abarim, Dibon-gad, Almon- 
 Diblathaim, Abarim before Nebo, and Moab-by- Jordan. 
 
 And the actual site, or extent, of their camp as follows : — " And 
 they pitched by Jordan from Beth-jesimoth even unto Abel-shittim 
 in tlie plains of Moab." So that their camp on the slopes of Pisgah 
 rested on Beth-shemesh on the one side, and Shittim on the other, 
 with their faces towards the west. And, allowing three days' halt to 
 each encampment, as before, the march from Hor to Shittim and 
 Beth-shemesh may have occupied only twenty-four days, and not 
 forty-two days, as Dr. Colenso supposes. 
 
 ' Robinson {Researches, vol. ii. 679) makes them several more ; but, since the 
 places arfe not known, it is manifest that, in the various passages he refers to, the 
 same places may be called by different names. 
 
160 
 
 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 The result of our investigation, thus far, is as follows : — 
 
 1. The repulse of Arad, and the mourning for Aaron, to which 
 
 the Bishop assigns two months, may be included in little more than 
 
 one. 
 
 '2. The journey from Hor, round Edom, to Pisgah, must be 
 
 reckoned at thirty-seven days, instead of two months. 
 
 3. The attack on Sihon, the Amorite, had been made two weeks, 
 when Balak first sent to Balaam ; taking Dr. Colenso's allowance of 
 four weeks for the whole conquest. 
 
 4. The completion of the conquest of the Amorites, the spying 
 out of Jaazer, Balak's two messages to Balaam, Balaam's arrival, and 
 part of the war with Og, may be looked on as contemporaneous events, 
 occupying about eight weeks. 
 
 5; The whoredom at Shittim, with the Moabitish women, the 
 plague which killed 24,000, the numbering of the people, may be 
 considered rapidly consecutive events occupying one week. 
 
 6. The completion of the conquest of Og, King of Bashan, on the 
 north, and of the Moabites and Midianites, on the south, may be 
 considered contemporaneous events, occupying together not more 
 than one month. 
 
 Suppose we submit the following distinct time-table : — 
 
 1. Aaron's mourning, and Arad's destruction . . .5 weeks. 
 
 2. From Hor to the camp at Beth-shemesh and Shittim . 5^ „ 
 
 3. Half the war with Sihon . . . . . . 2 „ 
 
 4. Messages to, and arrival of, Balaam ; the spying out and 
 
 conquest of Jaazer, and other half of war with 
 Sihon, and part of the war with Og, being con- 
 temporaneous events . . . . . . 8 „ 
 
 5. Whoredom at Shittim, plague, and numbering ; war 
 
 with Og going on . . . . . . 1 „ 
 
 G. War with Og, to the end, and war on Midian, being 
 
 contemporaneous events . . . . .4 „ 
 
 And we find that we have a total of just . " . . 25^ weeks ; 
 bringing us very easily within the time allowed in Scripture. The 
 allowance in each case is ample ; for I believe that about three weeks 
 might be safely deducted from the allotted time, viz., one week 
 on the first item, Aaron and Arad; and two weeks on the fourth, 
 the messages to Balaam, &c. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 161 
 
 Thus, instead of requiring the whole six months — between Aaron's 
 death, on the first day of the fifth month (Num. xxxiii. 38), and 
 Moses addressing Israel, on the first day of the eleventh month 
 (Deut. i. 3), according to Dr. Colenso's hypothesis — we may require 
 only little more than, at the outside, ^ve months. And, thus, we 
 see that there was ample time not only for part, but for all, of the 
 events recorded. 
 
 But I object to these hypotheses, as altogether uncalled for, and, 
 in Dr. Colenso's case, unfair, and unscriptural. It is evident 
 that all through his history of the conquest of Eastern Pales- 
 tine, Moses professes to have been guided, and miraculously 
 assisted, by the Lord. He gives us no details, but, throughout 
 his narrative, implies that the conquest of the people of Og, 
 and of Sihon, of the Moabites, and of the Midianites, was made 
 with miraculous rapidity and success, under the immediate auspices 
 of the Most High. " All these cities fenced with high walls, gates, 
 and bars ; besides unwalled towns a great many " (Deut. iii. 5), fell 
 as if by magic ; and more rapidly than that. What panic fear seized 
 the people we are not informed ; but Bishop Colenso has forgotten 
 God's promise. (Exod. xxiii. 27 — 30.) What places were evacuated ? 
 what stormed ? Of these things we are not told. Nor does it 
 require military genius to understand that, in a field of operations 
 so limited as that part of the Holy Land, east of Jordan, the 
 onslaught of some thousands of light armed troops, quick and fierce, 
 conscious of their strength, and relying on the miraculous presence 
 of their God, would speedily drive headlong into Jordan, or over 
 it, such a depraved and doomed populace as then inhabited those 
 territories. 
 
 Indeed, none of these particulars are given us. That there was 
 time for the several operations, some of which were contempo- 
 raneous, we have seen. And the completeness of the result is 
 expressly stated to have been miraculous. If the Bishop of Natal 
 proposes to make a stand here, then we are at once carried away into 
 another question, viz., the credibility of miracles ; and that would 
 ill become him. If, on the other hand, he professes not to deny the 
 possibility, or credibility, of such miraculous success accorded Israel, 
 then all ground of opposition as to the war on Midian, &c., &c., is 
 cut from under him. 
 
162 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 § XXVI. ISRAEL IN THE DESERT. 
 
 It is straiij^e, indeed, that a Christian Bishop, who knows that his 
 God and Saviour conversed about the forty years' daily fall of manna 
 in the desert, as of a well-known historical fact (see p. 7 above), 
 referring to it in illustration of His own divine character, should call 
 in question, even for one moment, the miraculous nature of Israel's 
 sustenance in the desert. Of course, if Dr. Colenso does really 
 believe that manna fell from heaven for forty years, to feed all Israel 
 in Arabia Petrsea, it is mere trifling on his part to pretend to raise 
 a serious question about the maintenance of Israel's flocks and herds. 
 The Bishop, alluding to the manna, does indeed venture- to hint that 
 it could not have been employed in the nourishment of sheep and 
 goats. " The sheep and oxen could not live upon the manna " 
 (p. 78). No, we do not say they could. But we do say that 
 the Bishop lias no right to say they could not. Does he know 
 certainly what manna was? The Jews, who saw it, did not; 
 Win ^a, What is this? (Exod. xvi. 15) speaking to one another in 
 great surprise. Nor has it ever been satisfactorily ascertained what 
 it was. At any rate, it was mingled with dew, and if at all like that 
 which Burckhardt found at Wady-el-Sheikh' on the tamarisk trees, it 
 might be eaten at least by camels, who loved to feed on the shoots of 
 such trees. If, however, the Bishop really does believe in the mira- 
 culous fall of manna, and in the miraculous provision of water from 
 the rock (Exod. xvii. 6), for any number of the people, even for a few 
 thousands, then he is shut out from all argument as to the difiiculty 
 of finding support for Israels flocks and herds, under conditions of 
 life similar to those of their owners. For the same God, who by 
 miracle preserved the people, could also lead them, be3'ond all 
 expectation, to such pastures as were sufficient, and by providential 
 retention of the rains and moisture in various places, have caused such 
 pastures to grow. Only admit 07ie miracle in the narration of the 
 Exodus, and it becomes vain to call in question any other of its 
 particulars. 
 
 It is important for the reader to remember that the author of the 
 ' Tour in Sinai, p. 488. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 163 
 
 Pentateucli distinctly records the circumstances of Israel's journey- 
 ings, with the plain avowal that he is engaged in narrating his people's 
 history during one particular era, the daily experience of which was 
 characterized by the immediate intervention and providence of the 
 Almighty, miraculously applied. He does not wish any' reader to 
 accept his account, otherwise than as of a series of miraculous events. 
 The miracles recorded are an integral and necessary part of the 
 narrative. And to carry on arithmetical calculations, with entire 
 disregard of the historian's constant assertion of miraculous agency, 
 is, therefore, little to the purpose. The question between any objector 
 to the Pentateuch and its author, may be reduced, in its simplest form, 
 to this — Are you willing to admit the possibility of miracles ? 
 
 All through his' narrative the writer asserts, again and again, the 
 miraculous presence, and interposition, of the Most High. At the 
 passage of the Red Sea, in the fall of manna and of quails, at the 
 rock of Massah, at the giving of tlie law, by His appearance to Moses, 
 in the fiery-cloudy pillar, by the Shechinah in the Tabernacle, in the 
 journeys of the people, by the fire of Taberah, in the fall of Korah, 
 and the staying of the plague, by the budding of Aaron's rod, at the 
 waters of Meribah, and through the brazen serpent. 
 
 Perhaps we have no right to assume that the miracles recorded 
 are all those which it pleased the Almighty to exhibit by the hand of 
 Moses. This is the very question to which Canon Stanley's incor- 
 rect remark (referred to at p. 28, above), alluded; and which Dr. 
 Colenso records-as follows, at p. 70. "The question is asked, How 
 " could a tribe, so numerous and powerful, as on any hypothesis the 
 *' Israelites must have been, be maintained in this inhospitable desert? 
 " It is no answer to say that they were maintained by miracles. For, 
 ** except the manna, the quails, and the three interventions with 
 *' regard to water, none such are mentioned in the Mosaic history; 
 " and if we have no warrant to take away, we have no warrant to add." 
 What damage is done to the Bible by some who profess to be its 
 friends! How could Canon Stanley make -such an observation 
 as that? None such! Let the reader consult the list I have just 
 given him. None such ! Why the entire narrative professes to be 
 miraculous. The manna was a daily miracle. The presence of the 
 fiery-cloudy pillar, a daily miracle. The sudden emotion of the 
 
 ' Exod. xiv. 21; xvi. 4, 13; xvii. 6; xix. 18; xxxiv. 5; x). 35; Num. ix. 17; 
 xi. 3 ; xvi. 32, 48 ; xvii. 8; xx. 11 ; xxi. 9. 
 M 2 
 
164 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 Sanhedrim, by the Spirit, was a miracle. (Num. xi. 27.) And 
 Moses avowedly professes, all through, to have been in constant 
 supernatural, or miraculous, intercourse with the Lord. And it 
 is not possible for us to determine how far the journeys of 
 Israel to pastures, and to cotiseguent safety, were directed in that 
 intercourse, or by the guidance of the pillar. It would, possibly, 
 be more correct to believe that the princij)le applicable to the life 
 of Jesus, and recorded in St. John's Gospel (ch. xxi. 55); aj)plicable, 
 also, to the lives of the apostles ; should be applied also to the 
 life of Moses, viz., that the miracles recorded are not all those 
 which were wrought; but were sample miracles of the whole. But, 
 whether or not, it is plain that the miracles constitute the frame- 
 work of the Mosaic account of Israel's life in the desert. Israel is 
 preserved in the desert by an ark of miracles, as Moses in Egypt by 
 a basket among the flags. The account must be taken, if at all, as a 
 whole, modelled upon miracles ; or else, as a whole, must be rejected. 
 Bishop Colenso, and those who agree with him, have no other 
 alternative. Either Moses must be believed without cavilling, or 
 arithmetic ; or else the Pentateuch must be entirely rejected ; and we 
 must take all the dreadful consequences, which that rejection implies 
 to the religion of Jesus. For example, mere numerical embarrass- 
 ments, like that of the war on Midian (Num. xxxi. 2) are of small 
 consequence indeed, if we believe (as required of us) in the judicial 
 plague at Shittim, and its sudden and miraculous cessation ; with ex- 
 press intelligence from God that it was so surceased, in consequence of 
 the unprecedented vengeance of Phineas. (Num. xxxv. 11.) 
 
 Moses maintains, and implies by his narrative, that, all through 
 the desert, the support, and history, of Israel were miraculous. 
 And it is beside the business for Dr. Colenso, or any one else, to 
 write of it otherwise. 
 
 § XXVII. THE SCRIPTUItAL ACCOUNT OF. THE DESERT. 
 
 Yet Moses does full justice to the natural character of this 
 wilderness. And so do other sacred writers ; who, being inspired of 
 the Holy Ghost, believed in him. " For the Lord^s portion is his 
 *' people ; Jacob is the lot of His inheritance. He found him in a 
 " desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness. He led him 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 165 
 
 " about, He instructed him, He kept him as the apple of His eye. 
 " As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, 
 " spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her 
 " wings : so the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange 
 " god with him." (Deut. xxxii. 9 — 12.) This one passage is 
 enough to refute Canon Stanley's observation ; and to show that 
 Moses asserts that God's providence, and presence, with Israel were 
 miraculous, through all the journeys in the desert. Holy Scripture 
 does justice, no doubt, to the really terrible character of the desert; 
 and it behoves us all to bow, implicitly, to its statements. At the 
 same time we should be careful that we rightly understand them, 
 and should avoid drawing from them any conclusions which they will 
 not justify. The par-ticularly descriptive references to the desert are 
 wonderfully rare in the Holy Bible. Of general references, there 
 are very many. I believe it will be found that none of these references 
 justify our thinking of the desert as being otherwise than provided 
 with continual sources of sustenance for men, and for cattle ; and, 
 probably, with more such resources at that time than now. The 
 especial, daily, necessity plainly acknowledged in the Pentateuch, so 
 far as the desert is concerned, is that of bread; and that only. And 
 that, as we shall see, is its peculiar, characteristic, deficiency now. 
 
 It is wonderful how few are the particularly descriptive allusions to 
 the terrific character of the wilderness, of which Dr. Colenso has 
 been so carefully in search. I thought the Bishop was sure to be 
 right, on a matter 'of this kind, and sought information from his pages. 
 How surprised one may well be to find that all the places, cited by 
 him, at p. QQ, as descriptive of the horrors of the wilderness, are 
 exactly five; viz., Num. xx. 4, 5; Deut. viii. 15; xxxii. 10; and 
 Jer. ii. 6. And he has quoted nearly all. At least, I am able to 
 add only the following two: viz., Deut. i. 19, and Hosea xiii. 5. 
 
 The Bishop has quoted such passages, as if they were descriptive 
 of the route, fand tracks, of the Israelites, during all their forty 
 years' wandering in the desert. Close attention, however, will show 
 us, that several passages are not general descriptions of Israelitish 
 journeys and experience ; but have particular reference to certain 
 spots on which they sojourned, during particular and corresponding 
 times of their travels. Thus Num. xx. 4, 5: "And why have ye 
 brought up the congregation of the Lord into this wilderness, that 
 we and our cattle should die there ? " has particular reference to the 
 
166 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 desert of Zin, in which, at Kadesh, the people then were. So 
 Deut. i. 19 has reference to the specific route, which Israel took 
 from Horeb to Kadesh, " by the way of the mountain of the 
 Amorites," before the sentence of thirty-eight years'" additional 
 wandering, as a punishment for the mutiny of the people, after 
 the return of the spies. (Num. xiv. 33.) Though, even here, 
 we may notice, that they were in the immediate neighbourhood of 
 a numerous and settled people (ver. 43). So, Deut. viii. 15: "Who 
 led thee through that great, and tennble, wilderness ; wherein were 
 fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; 
 who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint," has especial 
 reference to the same desert of Zin ; to their being smitten with 
 serpents, on the borders of the Red Sea, at the very end of their 
 forty years' wandering ; and as previously referred to, by Num. xx. 
 4, 5. Deut. xxxii. 10 has been already quoted ; it is undoubtedly 
 general, in the terms of its description, as applicable to various parts 
 of Israel's wanderings, but not necessarily to all. And, as just now 
 noticed, it is remarkable for containing the plainest assurance, 
 conceived in most beautiful language, of God's daily, unceasing, 
 special, protection of the people. " He found him," Israel, " in 
 a desert land, and in the waste, howling wilderness. He led him 
 about; he instructed him. He kept him as the apple of his eye." It 
 seems strange that, when Dr. Colenso copied this passage, he did not 
 let fall his pen, and conclude it was equally wicked, and hopeless, to 
 attempt raising any prejudice against the Mosaical narrative; so far as 
 any terrors of the wilderness were concerned. The passages, .Jer. ii. 6, 
 and Hosea xiii. 5, may be classed together. They are, undoubtedly, 
 references to the frequent experiences of the Israelites, as of other 
 wanderers, in the desert ; that " land of great drought." But, even 
 here. Scripture leaves us not without good reason to look, with certainty 
 of success, for sources of hope, and safety, in the desert. Jeremiah's 
 language is significant. He describes the wilderness, as a "land of 
 deserts, and of pits," nnitt^l nn'^y y^i^n -I2ia3;plainly implying that 
 the "ima, or wilderness, though it might be comparatively fertile, 
 capable of culture, or furnished with water and pasturage, in many 
 parts, was a land, having its niny, or desert, i.e., chequered with spots 
 absolutely barren ; and, as a land of drought, overcast, in such places, 
 with the shadow of death. It was a land, too, through which few 
 men passed ; a land which, being so comparatively unpeopled, and 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 167 
 
 having so few to traverse it, is described as one, where " no man 
 passed through, and no man dwelt," DIN nW sbl W>)A nn inv Nb. 
 It is amusing to see the Bishop taking these words in the strictest, 
 most literal, sense possible : — " Besides, did the Amalekites live 
 " in Sinai ? On the contrary, we have the express statement of 
 *' the Prophet, that it was a land that ' no man passed through, and 
 " * where no man dwelt ' (Jer. ii. 6)." — P. 74. 
 
 Or, again, — " As to their march generally, during the forty years, 
 *' it is described, as a march, ' through a wilderness, through a land 
 " * of deserts and of pits, through a land of drought, and of the 
 " 'shadow of death; through a land that no man passed through.^ 
 " They met with no caravans, therefore ; and where * no man dwelt.^ 
 "(Jer. ii. 6)."— P. 77. 
 
 The italics are the Bishop's; and he takes the language thus, 
 in the most literal sense ; notwithstanding notorious historical facts ; 
 and the clearest intimations, from Holy Scripture, that, what with 
 Amalekites, and Midianites, and Edomites, and Ishmaelites, and the 
 sons of Sheba and Dedan, and the proximity of Egypt (then the most 
 attractive country in the world), the peninsula of Arabia has been, 
 daily, almost hourly, traversed, in all its parts ; and, in many parts, 
 numerously peopled, from the earliest dawn of history. And, parti- 
 cularly, was all that part traversed which lay between, and above, the 
 heads of the two gulfs of the Red Sea, containing the wildernesses of 
 Shui", and Etham, and Zin ; in which Israel wandered for the greater 
 part of their time. (See Map, above.) This mistake of the Bishop's, 
 concerning "a land that no man passed through," is the old misappre- 
 hension of readers of Isaiah, when speaking of Idumea (Isa. xxxiv. 10), 
 " None shall pass through it for ever and ever." In each case, the 
 language conveys a powerful image of loneliness, and desolation, com- 
 pared with other lands ; but, by no means, implies, that literally none 
 passed through. 
 
 There is nothing, in the references of Holy Scripture to parti- 
 cular spots in Israel's wanderings, to forbid our thinking that 
 the desert then, was — what, in fact, it is now — capable, in many 
 parts, of culture ; furnished with frequent valleys ; able to yield 
 waters, at a low depth, fit for drink ; and, in very many places, 
 affording pasturage for sheep and oxen. Its present state, we shall 
 proceed to exhibit; its past condition, was probably better still. 
 
168 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 § XXVIII. THE DESERT OF EL TYH. 
 
 All through his chapter on " Israel in the Desert," Dr. Colenso 
 unfairly assumes, that the desert of Sinai was, three thousand 
 years ago, exactly what we know it to be now ; and, to this 
 end, the accounts of Burckhardt, of Ruppell, Harmer, and others 
 — especially of Stanley — are studiously quoted. But, not only 
 is such an assumption opposed to all we know of the daily 
 occurring phenomena of Arabia and the East, but it is also 
 contrary to daily observation ; and to the accounts of the most cele- 
 brated travellers, when fairly interpreted. For, continually, it 
 may still be noticed, from the action of the elements in those 
 countries, that the desolation of Arabia, and the adjacent parts, is 
 even now increasing. The whole country between Euphrates and 
 Syria is called a desert, and comparatively is such ; yet in almost all 
 parts it is capable of cultivation, and we can easily conceive that by 
 neglect, arising from the want of a settled population, it may become 
 more sterile still, even as much so as Arabia Petraea. The assump- 
 tion that the desert of Sinai, or El Tyh, was as dreary and desolate 
 3,000 years ago, as now, is contrary to the expressed opinion of the 
 ablest travellers. Volney,' than whom there never has been a better 
 traveller, especially for Christian purposes (seeing that he was an 
 Infidel), Volney says: — " The desert of Tih, which I have just men- 
 " tioned, is that into which Moses conducted the Jews, and kept 
 " them for a whole generation, to initiate them in the art of war, and 
 " transform a multitude of shepherds into a nation of conquerors. 
 " The name El-tih seems to have a reference to their history, as it 
 " signifies the country of wandering; but we must not imagine this 
 " to be in consequence of tradition, since the present inhabitants are 
 *' foreigners, and men in all countries find it difficult to recur even to 
 " their grandfathers ; the name of El-tih has • been given to this 
 " tract by the Arabs from reading the Hebrew books and the 
 " Koran ; they also call it Barr-el-tour-S'ma, or the country of 
 " Mount Sinai. This desert, which is the boundary of Syria to the 
 
 ' Travels, Vol. ii., pp. 290, 292. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 
 
 169 
 
 ■ south, extends itself in the form of a peninsula between the two 
 gulfs of the Red Sea ; that of Suez to the west, and that of 
 
 • El-Akaba to the east. Its breadth is ordinarily thirty leagues, 
 
 • and its length seventy." (Note.— 18,900 square miles.) " This 
 
 ■ great space is almost entirely filled by barren mountains, which join 
 
 ■ those of Syria, on the north, and, like them, consist almost wholly 
 ' of calcareous stone ; but, as we advance to the southward, they 
 
 • become granitous, and Sinai and Horeb are only enormous masses 
 ' of that stone. Hence it was, the ancients called this country 
 ' Arabia Petrcea. The soil in general is a dry gravel, producing 
 ' nothing but thorny acacias, tamarisks, firs, and a few scattered 
 ' shrubs. Springs are very rare, and the few we meet with are some- 
 ' times sulphureous and chemical, as at Hanimam-Farouan, at others 
 ' brackish and disagreeable, as at El-Naba, opposite Suez ; this 
 ' saline quality prevails throughout the country, and there are mines 
 ' of fossil salt in the northern parts. In some of the valleys, how- 
 « ever, the soil becoming better, as it is formed of the earth washed 
 ' from the rocks, is cultivable after the winter rains, and may almost 
 ' be stated fertile. Such is the vale of Djirandel, in which there are 
 ' seven groves of trees. Such also is the vale of Faran, where the 
 ' Bedouins say there are ruins, which can be no other than those of 
 •' the ancient city of that name. Informer times every advantage teas 
 '•' made of this country that could be obtained from it. M. Niebuhr 
 " discovered on a mountain, some tombs with hieroglyphics, 
 " which may induce us to believe the Egyptians had made settle- 
 " ments in these countries. But, at present, abandoned to nature, 
 " or rather to barbarism, it produces nothing but ivild herbs. Yet, 
 " with such scanty provision, this desert subsists three tribes of 
 " Bedouins, consisting of about five, or six, thousand Arabs, 
 " dispersed in various parts. They are called by the general name 
 '' of Towara, or Arabs of Tor, the best known and most frequented 
 " place in the country. It is situated on the eastern side of the 
 " branch of Suez, in a sandy, and low, ground, as is all the coast. 
 " Its whole merit consists in a pretty good road for shipping, and 
 " water which may be drank ; the Arabs also bring some thither from 
 " Sinai ivhich is really good. The ships of Suez lay in their pro- 
 « visions here when they sail to Djedda. There is nothing further 
 " to notice except that we find here a few palm-trees, the ruins of a 
 " wretched fort without a garrison, a small Greek coiivent, and some 
 
170 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 " huts of poor Arabs, who live on fish, and serve as sailors for wages. 
 " There are also, to the southward, two small villages of Greeks, 
 ** who are equally poor and miserable. As for the subsistence of 
 " the three tribes, it is derived from their goats, camels, some acacia 
 ** gums sold in Egypt, and their robberies on the roads of Suez, 
 " Gaza, and Mecca." 
 
 Surely this is an admirable description, and does justice to the 
 barrenness of the Sinaitic peninsula, and yet we cannot help reflect- 
 ing upon the strange fact that the Infidel Volney, admits the past 
 capabilities of the land, and attempts not to insinuate even that the 
 sojourning of Israel for forty years in the desert was impossible; while 
 the Christian Colenso, refuses to admit the one, and dares confidently 
 to assert the other, in direct contradiction of Holy Scripture. 
 
 How curious, and. how beautiful, is also the fact, which Volney 
 plainly records in reference to his own times (1781 — «1786), that 
 even then the Arabs brought " really good " water from Sinai. 
 Elsewhere * he describes the aspect of the whole desert, " which 
 *' extends 600 leagues in length, and 300 in breadth, and stretches 
 " from Aleppo to the Arabian Sea, and from Egypt to the Persian 
 " gulf," including El-Tih, or the wilderness of Sinai, the Hedjaz, 
 or route to Mecca, and the Najd, or Great Desert. " If we 
 " examine," says he, p. 336, "the causes of the sterility and uncul- 
 *' tivated state of the desert, we shall find it is principally to be 
 *' attributed to the absence of fountains, and rivers, and, in general, 
 *' to the want of water. This want of water itself is occasioned by 
 ** the nature of the country, which being flat, and destitute of 
 *' mountains, the clouds glide over its heated surface, as I have 
 " already remarked is the case with Egypt. They never rest there 
 *' but in winter, when the coldness of the atmosphere hinders them 
 ** from rising, and condenses them into rain. The nakedness of this 
 " country is also another cause of drought, since the air is for that 
 ** reason more easily heated, and compels the clouds to rise. It is 
 ** probable that a change of climate might be effected, if the whole 
 " desert were planted with trees ; as, for example, with pine trees. 
 *' The consequence of the winter rains is, that in those parts where 
 *' the soil is good, as on the frontiers of Syria, a cultivation takes 
 " place very similar to that of even the interior parts of the province ; 
 " but as these rains neither produce springs nor constant rivulets, 
 ' Travels, Vol. i., pp. 355—359, 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 171 
 
 " the inhabitants are exposed to the inconvenience of wanting water 
 " the whole summer. 'To remedy this, it is necessary to have recourse 
 " to art, and to form wells, reservoirs, and cisterns, in ivhich they 
 " collect their annual supplies. Such works require money and 
 " labour, and are, after all, exposed to a variety of accidents. War 
 " may destroy, in one day, the labour of many months, and the 
 ** resources of the year. A drought, which is but too common, may 
 " cause the failure of a crop, and reduce the inhabitants even to a 
 " total want of water. It is true that, by digging, it is almost every- 
 " where to be found, at from six to twenty feet dej)th, but this water 
 " is brackish, as in all the desert of Arabia and Afiica. This saline 
 "quality is so inherent in the soil, that it impregnates even the 
 " plants. All those of the desert abound in alkali and Glauber's 
 " salts ; but it is remarkable that this salt diminishes as we approach 
 " the motmtains, where it is scarcely sensible. It also frequently 
 " dries up, when thirst and famine succeed ; and, if the Government 
 " does not lend its aid, the villages are deserted." . ..." In those 
 " districts where the soil is stony and sandy, as i?i the Tih, the Hedjoz, 
 " and the Najd, the rains make the seeds of the wild plants shoot, 
 " and revive the thickets, ranunculas, wormwood, and kali. They 
 " render the lower grounds marshy, which then produce reeds and 
 " grass ; and the plaiti assumes a tolerable degree of verdure. This is 
 *' the season of abundance for the herds and their masters ; but, on 
 " the return of the heats, everything is parched up, and the earth, 
 " converted into' a grey and fine dust, presents nothing but dry stems, 
 " as hard as wood, on which neither horses, nor oxen, nor even goats, 
 " can feed." 
 
 No doubt it was at such a place and time as this that the young 
 man went out to gather " sticks on the sabbath day. And they that 
 found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and 
 unto all the congregation " (viz., the elders), see p. HO, above. 
 (Num. XV. 32). Showing us not only the duty of keeping the Fourth 
 Commandment, but also that when Israel was' "in the wilderness," 
 they came in lointer upon places then covered with growth, which in 
 summer dried up into hard sticks, as Volney says. They must have 
 contained, when living, considerable substance, to have become so stout 
 and hard, when dead. 
 
172 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 § XXIX. DR. COLENSO'S AUTHORITIES ON THE DESERT. 
 
 Bishop Colenso's range of reading appears to have been extremely 
 limited ; as, indeed, is often the case with men eminent for mathe- 
 matical attainments. Yet the authorities which he cites as to the 
 nature of the Arabian desert, if he would but use them fairly, give 
 him abundant reason for believing that the desert of Sinai once 
 possessed much wider resources than at present. In reply, however, 
 to every suggestion of this kind, by whomsoever made. Dr. Colenso 
 has, as at p. 71, only one stolid answer, — "Whatever they may be, 
 " they cannot do away with the plain language of the Bible, already 
 " quoted, which shows that the general character of the desert was 
 " as desolate and barren as now." An observation in which, as we 
 explained, he misapprehends the meaning of Holy Scripture. 
 Fearful as the desert was then, and more fearful as it is now, 
 Scripture admits, in its most terrific account of it, that it was a 
 country chequered with parts not wholly perilous to life, nor 
 characterized by drought, and the consequent shadow of death. 
 The Bi.shop's reading on this subject appears to be almost confined to 
 Canon Stanley, one of the most recent, and, perhaps, not the most 
 statistical of travellers. " There is no doubt," says Stanley, " that 
 " the vegetation of the wadies " (or valleys of the desert) " has 
 " considerably decreased." And there is no doubt of this, though 
 Canon Stanley gives but a poor reason for believing it. No answer, 
 bearing closely against the asserted fact, is given by Dr. Colenso. 
 The reckless waste and destruction of the Bedouins is referred to ; 
 and we know that for many years the Towara, or Arabs of Sinai, 
 have traded with Egypt in nothing but charcoal, to get which they 
 have cut down all the wood and undergrowth they could lay hands 
 on. But Dr. Colenso gives neither answer nor denial ; he only 
 attempts a reply concluding with this weak observation (at p. 73) — 
 " Besides, the destruction of trees would not affect directly the 
 " growth of grass, on which the flocks and herds depended in the 
 " case of the Israelites : however (as Stanley suggests in the next 
 " passage), it might, perhaps, indirectly, but surely to a very slight 
 " and almost inappreciable degree, by diuiinishing the quantity of 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 173 
 
 " moisture attracted to the land." Which last observation, most 
 unfair in itself, does, in fact, admit the truth of Canon Stanley's 
 assertion. The plain statement of the case being that, under a 
 burning sun like Arabia's, the absence of trees does directly, and most 
 seriously, affect the growth of grass. Says Stanley, " Charcoal is, in 
 " fact, the chief — perhaps it might be said the only — traffic? of the 
 *' peninsula. Camels are constantly met, loaded with this wood on 
 " the way between Cairo and Su.z." The Bishop flies away to Natal, 
 as usual: — "It may be doubted if the 'probable' labours of the 
 " monks in burning charcoal during late years, are enough to account 
 " for the disappearance of the trees. In Natal, trees of this kind 
 " are cut down for firewood ; and, by wasteful or excessive cutting, a 
 " piece of good bush-land may be stripped of all the trees lohich are 
 '^ Jit for such a purpose. But there will still remain a multitude of 
 " young trees and small saplings, which have sprung up from the 
 " seed shed by the old ones, and have not been cut down, because 
 " utterly useless as firewood." The Bishop ought not to have said, 
 " probable labours of the monks," but " certain business of the Arabs 
 of Tor." And, I think, we shall presently see that he is not acquainted 
 with their mode of proceeding, for that they habitually use up the 
 undergrowth and saplings. However, there is no doubt that, in Arabia, 
 the destruction of the trees would materially reduce the quantity of 
 vegetation, by exposing the surface of the land to the fierce rays 
 of the sun, and by leaving whatever wells, or rivulets, or water- 
 springs, there might be, to be speedily dried up. To all which con- 
 siderations the Bishop can oppose only the same stolid answer, at 
 p. 73, " The Bible speaks of the desert in exactly the same terms as 
 " these, which would even now be used to describe it." An answer, 
 as to which we have already pointed out his misapprehension. 
 
 Then conies a most important suggestion. It is derived from the 
 fact that Shaw (quoted by Stanley) states that " Though nothing that 
 can he properly called soil is to be found in these parts of Arabia, these 
 " monks have, in a lo7ig process of time (N.B.), covered over with 
 " dung and the sweepings of their convent, near four acres of these 
 " naked rocks, which produce as good cabbages, salads, roots, and all 
 *' kinds of pot-herbs as any soil and climate whatsoever. They have, 
 *' likewise, raised apple, pear, plum, almond, and olive trees, not 
 .** only in great numbers, but also of excellent kinds. Their grasses. 
 
174 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 " also, are not inferior, either in size or flavour, to any whatsoever. 
 " Thus this little garden demonstrates how far an indefatigable 
 ** industry may prevail over nature." Yes ; and it demonstrates 
 something more, viz., that whenever, and wherever, soil is laid in 
 Arabia Petraea, that burning land is capable of finest cultivation. 
 Now, the fact is, that other travellers give us cause to deny the general 
 coj-rectness of Shaw's statement that nothing to be "properly called 
 " soil is to be found in these parts of Arabia;" but if it were literally so 
 now, it by no means follows it was so 3,000 years ago. Moreover, Dr. 
 Colenso, who marked the italics and the N.B. in the above extracts, 
 and dwells contentedly upon the " long process of time " required by 
 a few monks, forgets to calculate in how short a time the dung and 
 sweepings of the camp (to which the Bishop attended so minutely at 
 pp." 24, 25, above,) of 2,000,000 of people, with all their flocks and 
 herds, would produce fertility, in any spot of the desert of El Tyh; or 
 in that of Zin, or in that which Israel passed over, when compassing 
 the land of Edom. To this argument, it is necessary the reader should 
 remember, that we are absolutely ignorant of most of the encampments 
 of Israel, for thirty-eight years of the forty, during which they wan- 
 dered in the desert ; and that, for those thirty-eight years, only twenty- 
 eight journeys are recorded, viz., one to every year. (Num. xxxiii. 
 18 — 49.) They might, for aught we know, have hovered round spots 
 fertilized by themselves. 
 
 To a similar purpose Canon Stanley has said, "Even so late as 
 ** the seventeenth century, if we may trust the expression of 
 " Maconnys, the Wady-el-Rahah, in front of the convent, now 
 " entirely bare, was ' a vast green plain,' une gi'ande champagne 
 '" verte" Dr. Colenso has none but the same stolid answer, " The 
 " desert was then, as it is now, a 'great and terrible wilderness,' ' a 
 " land of drought and the shadow of death.' " So it was, on the 
 whole, and who denies it ? The question is whether there were not 
 parts, which were then, and might be even now, reclaimed to verdure 
 and' cultivation ? I verily beheve that, speaking generally, if you 
 put a bundle of mere mathematicians under Braiiiah^s press, you could 
 not squeeze ten bright thoughts out of them all. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 175 
 
 § XXX. DR. COLENSO'S STRANGE MISTAKE ABOUT THE DESERT. 
 
 Let us now give particular attention to the strange misapprehension 
 under which the Bishop labours respecting the desert; and we shall 
 then see that he is incompetent to give us correct information on this 
 subject, most important, as it is, to the narrative of the Pentateuch. 
 We will quote exactly his own words : — 
 
 " 87. But it may be well now to quote one or two passages from other 
 wi-iters, which yet more plainly develop the absolute barrenness of this wild 
 and desolate region, as it now appears, and as, we have every ground from 
 the Bible itself to believe, it must then have appeared also. 
 
 " In whiter, when the whole of the upper Sinai is deeply covered with snow, 
 and many of the parages are choked up, the mountains of Moses and Saint 
 Catherine are often inaccessible. Mr. Fazakerlt, who ascended them in 
 the month of February, found a great deal of snow, and the ascent was 
 severe. ' It is difficult,' he says, ' to imagine a scene more desolate and 
 terrific, than that which is discovered from the summit of Sinai. A haze 
 limited the prospect, and, except a glimpse of the sea in one direction, 
 nothing was within sight but snow, huge peaks, and crags of naked granite.' 
 Of the view from Mount Saint Catherine he says, ' The view from hence is 
 of the same kind, only much more extensive than from the top of Sinai. It 
 commands the two gulfs of Akaba and Suez ; the island of Tiraii and the 
 village of Tur were pointed out to us ; Sinai was far below us ; all the rest, 
 wherever the eye could reach, was a vast wilderness, and a confusion of granite 
 mountains and valleys destitute of verdure.'' — Conder's Modern Traveller, 
 Arabia, p. 159, 160. 
 
 " 88. We have here another question raised, which is not generally taken 
 into consideration at all. The Israelites, according to the story, were under 
 Sinai for nearly twelve months together, and they kept the second Passover 
 under the mountain before they left it. (Num. ix. 1.) As this was in the 
 first month of the Jewish ecclesiastical year, corresponding to the latter part 
 of March and beginning of -April, they must have passed the whole of the 
 winter months under Sinai, and must have found it bitterly cold. 
 
 " In the mountainous districts it is very cold in the winter nights. Some- 
 times the water in the garden of the monastery at Saint Catherine freezes 
 even in February. And, on the contrary, in the summer months, the sun 
 pours down his rays burning hot from heaven, and in reflection from the 
 naked rocky precipices, into the sandy valleys. Ruppell, quoted in Hengs- 
 tenberg's Balaam, Clark's Theol. Library, p. 338. 
 
 " Where, then, amidst the scanty vegetation of the neighbourhood, where 
 at the present time there seems not to grow a single tree fit for firewood, — 
 
176 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 and there is no reason to suppose that it was ever otherwise, — did the 
 Israelites obtain supplies of fuel, not only for the daily cooking necessities of 
 a population like that of London, but also for relief against the piercing cold 
 of the winter season, or when, as Josephus says, A7it. iii. 7, 4, • the weather 
 was inclined to snow ? ' And the cattle, — unless sui:)plied with artificial food, 
 must they not also have perished in multitudes from cold and starvation 
 under such circumstances ? We find this to be the case even in the fertile 
 colony of Natal, where in some winter seasons they die from these joint 
 causes in great numbers, when the grass, though abundant, is dried up, and 
 the cold happens to be more severe than usual, though not severe enough for 
 ice and snow, except in the higher districts, and then only for about a month 
 or six weeks in the year. 
 
 " 89. If the last quotations describe the state of things in the depth of 
 winter, the following (in addition to the words of Euppell, above quoted) 
 will convey some idea of the general aspect of the country in the height of 
 --the summer season. It would seem that travellers generally choose the 
 most favcmrahle season of the year for visiting these desert regions. We 
 must make due allowance for this fact also, in considering even their 
 accounts of the desolate barrenness of the whole district, with reference 
 to the story told in the Pentateuch. 
 
 " BuRCKHARDT visited Um Shaumer, the loftiest mountain in the peninsula, 
 and writes of the scene as follows : — 'The devastations of torrents are every- 
 where visible, the sides of the mountains being rent by them in numberless 
 directions. The sm-face of the sharp rocks is blackened by the sun ; all 
 vegetation is diy and withered ; and the whole scene presents nothing but 
 utter desolation and hopeless barrenness.' Conder's Arabia, p. 199. 
 
 " He afterwards travelled from the neighbourhood of Sinai eastward, across 
 the peninsula, to the gulf of Akaba. But, he says, 'the barrenness of this 
 district exceeded anything we had yet witnessed, except some parts of the 
 desert of El Tih [that is, the desert of Sinai]. The Nubian valleys might 
 be called pleasure-grounds in comparison. Not the smallest gi-eeu leaf could 
 be discovered. And the thorny mimosa, which retains its verdure in the 
 tropical deserts of Nubia with very little supplies of moisture, was here en- 
 tirely withered, and so dry that it caught fire from the lighted ashes which 
 fell from our pipes as we passed.' Ibid, p. 204." 
 
 Now, really, the Bishop is most unfortunate. When he ought not 
 to have alluded to refuse, and other unpleasant matters connected 
 with sacrifice, he did so ; and made a very ridiculous mistake, as we 
 saw at p. 23, above. Now, when he needs all that can be thought 
 of, it seems never to occur to him. Besides sticks (when they 
 can get any), the Arabs habitually burn dung, camel's dung, &c. 
 And so, no doubt, did the Israelites. Moreover, Dr. Colenso entirely 
 misapprehends the nature of the Arabian winter. This we shall pre- 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 177' 
 
 sently explain. Meanwhile, be it noticed that fire is never needed 
 there in the daytime, and only for a small part of the night. ' " The 
 " Arabs endui-e the inclemency of the rainy season in a wonderful 
 " manner. While every thing around them suffers from the cold, 
 " they sleep barefooted in an open tent, where the fire is not kept up 
 " beyond midnight. Yet in the middle of summer an Arab sleeps 
 " wrapt in his mantle upon the burning sand, and exposed to the 
 " rays of an intensely hot sun." Besides which, the tents are snug; 
 such tents as the Israelites would be able to obtain before winter 
 set in, after their leaving Egypt at springtide (see p. 6t, above). A 
 description of these tents may be found in Burckhardt, as referred to 
 below. The covering is of goats'-hair ; " this goats'-hair covering 
 "keeps off the heaviest rain, as I know from experience." The 
 sides of the tent, and the two divisions of it into men's and women^s 
 apartments, are partly of goats'-hair, partly of woollen stuff. Just 
 as I suggested for Israel, at p. 41, above, "pieces of old ahbas, 
 " or woollen cloaks, are stitched to the eight corners, where the poles 
 " are to be fastened ; these pieces are called Koum el beet.'' The 
 Arabic beet being the Hebrew n"'2, or house, a ^ew^ being an Arab's 
 house. See p. 38, above, on HDD, a booth. Again, — " The back 
 " part of the tent is closed by the rowdk, a piece of goats'-hair stuff 
 " from three to four feet high, to which a. portion of some old cloak, 
 " or abba, is stitched (called sefcile), and hangs down to the ground. 
 " The roicdk and sefdle keep out the wind." Now, when an Arab, 
 or Hebrew, family was shut into a tent like this, with a small fire of 
 dung, there was not mucti danger of their catching cold. 
 
 For, once more. Bishop Colenso entirely misapprehends the cha- 
 racter of winter in the desert. It is true that, at night, it is nearly 
 cold enough to freeze to death any man, if exposed. But, in the 
 daytime of that same winter, the sun glares on him all but enough 
 to drive him mad. Even the head of a man, who was not a mathe- 
 matician, might possibly permit of coup de soleil, if he ventured 
 out without his turban. Read the following dreadful anecdote from 
 Volney, invaluable Volney * : — 
 
 " In the year 1779, the Bedouin Arabs plundered an English 
 " caravan in the desert, between Suez and Cairo. Seven of the 
 " Europeans, stripped entirely naked by their inhuman spoilers, in 
 
 • Burckhardt's Bedouins and Wahabys, vol. i., pp. 37—50, 
 - Travels, vol. i., pp. 57, 58 ; or Paxlon's Geo;/., p. 403. 
 
 N 
 
178 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 ** the hope of reaching Cairo, pushed forward into the desert. 
 *' Fatigue, thirst, hunger, and the heat of the sun destroyed one 
 •* after another : one alone survived all these horrors* During 
 *' three days and two nights, he wandered in this parched and sandy 
 ** desert, frozen at night hrj the north wind (it being the month of 
 ** January), and burnt by the sun during the day, without any other 
 *' shade but a single bush, into which he thrust his head among 
 ** the thorns, or any drink but his own urine. At length, on the third 
 ** day, he was descried by an Arab, who conducted him to his tent, and 
 •* took care of him for three days, with the utmost humanity. At the 
 " expiration of that time, the merchants of Cairo, apprized of his situa- 
 ** tion, procured him a conveyance to that city, where he arrived in the 
 ** most deplorable condition." 
 
 This took place in the desert between Suez and Cairo. I do not 
 suppose that Dr. Colenso wall object to take it as an illustration of 
 what might happen in January, in a little lower latitude, in tlie desert 
 of Sinai. 
 
 Now for one more mistake, by Dr. Colenso, regarding the desert. 
 Most travellers choose to visit the desert of Sinai, as Robinson did, 
 about the same time as the people Israel, viz., at springtide, or at 
 early summer. The Bishop concludes that "travellers generally 
 " choose the most favourable season of the j^ear for visiting these 
 " regions." Why ! the winter is the most favourable season of the 
 year for residence in the ' desert. '* In spring and summer the Arabs 
 *' approach the cultivated parts of Syria, and quit them towards 
 ** winter." *' The Aenezes, who live in the northern part of Arabia, 
 *' generally take up their winter quarters in the Hamniad desert, or 
 *' the plain between Hauran and Heet, a position on the Euphrates. 
 " The Hammad is without any springs ; but in winter time the 
 *' water collects there in deep grounds, and the shrubs and plants of 
 *' the desert afford pasture to the Arab's cattle." " In these parts," 
 viz., near inhabited grounds, " they spend the whole summer seeking 
 " pasture and water, purchase in autumn their winter provision of 
 " wheat, and barley, and return after the first rains into the interior 
 *' of the desert." " In spring, and winter, it is more difficult to 
 " carry off the cattle, because in those seasons they find sufficient 
 *' food close to the tents, and are, therefore, easily protected." 
 Which last quotation enables us to dispose, at least to some extent, 
 ' Burckhardt's Bedouins and Wahahys, vol. i., pji. 1, 2, and 229. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 179 
 
 of Dr. Colenso's anxiety for Israel's herds and flocks, during winter 
 and spring. 
 
 In the above extracts, Burckhardt speaks more particularly of the 
 great desert between Syria and the Euphrates ; but, I shall have an 
 opportunity of showing, that he speaks similarly of Arabia Petrsea. 
 
 § XXXI. THE ROUTE OF EUROPEAN TRAVELLERS. 
 
 Since we have referred so much to European travellers, it is well 
 we should remember not only the time at which they visit the 
 desert, but also the route they take. Now it is notorious that, for 
 the most part, they follow a beaten track, and hurry through as fast 
 as they can. The consequence is that such travellers really know 
 very little, personally, about Arabia Petraea. Certainly not enough 
 to justify Dr. Colenso, or any one else, in drawing from their 
 accounts conclusions adverse to the credibility, or possibility, of 
 Israel's sojourning in the desert, as narrated by Moses. Also, it is 
 important for us to remember within how brief a period, say about 
 100 years, Europeans have travelled in the desert at all. How- 
 ever, of all modern travellers, the best, for statistical purposes, is, 
 probably, Burckhardt; as for " long vacation " tourists, or dilettante 
 divines, the less we refer to their ephemeral productions the 
 better. For 3,320 years, viz., from .B.C. 1560, the year of the 
 Exodus, to A.c'. 1760, Arabia Petraea was little known to any 
 Europeans ; and visiting it, as they do, in haste, and following, so 
 generally, in a beaten path, we have the best reason for doubting, 
 whether they give us all the information which might otherwise be 
 obtained for the elucidation of the Mosaic narrative. 
 
 It is only of late years, viz., in the year 1838, or twenty-four years 
 ago, that " The important- fact of a spacious plain at the foot of 
 " Sinai, which, from monkish traditions, leads the generality of 
 " travellers in one direction only, and which represses in many minds 
 " the exercise of independent observation and judgment, has lately 
 " come upon the world, with all the freshness of a new discovery'' 
 (Paxton, Geog., p. 254.) That discovery may be read in Robinson's 
 Bihl. Researches, vol. i., p. 130. So that, though Europeans have 
 been deliberately searching for "discoveries" and information 
 respecting the route of the Israelites in the desert, for about 100 
 
 N 2 
 
180 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 years, it is but within twenty-four years that an American has made 
 perhaps the most important *' discovery " of all, because he did 
 that which is so rare, viz., travelled out of the beaten track. With 
 such excellent cause to suspect the possibility of fresh " discoveries," 
 are we to reason about the desert, against the Bible, as if we were 
 quite svire we knew all that would represent its condition more than 
 3,000 years ago ? Dr. Colenso may trust such travellers' tales, but 
 I will not. 
 
 And, in defending the Mosaic narrative, we must remember we 
 have another sound motive for doubting the sufficiency of their 
 evidence. 
 
 For thirty-eight years out of forty, the Israelites wandered we 
 know not where. Soon after their being turned back from Kadesh- 
 Barnea, as a punishment for their mutiny (Num. xii. 16, and xiv. 3S), 
 we lose all traces of their route. If the reader will refer to Num. 
 xxxiii., and mark the verses 18 — 35, he will be able to note those 
 places of Israel's encampment which we are not able to trace.* 
 Burckhardt " inquired in vain among the Arabs for the names of 
 ** those places where the Israelites had sojourned during their 
 ** progress through the desert ; none of them are known to the 
 " present inhabitants." And, at that same time (1812), he says, " the 
 " existence of the valley of El Araba, the Kadesh Barnea, perhaps, 
 " of the Scriptures, appears to have been unknown both to ancient 
 *' and modern geographers, although it forms a prominent feature in 
 *' the topography of Syria and Arabia. It deserves to be thoroughly 
 *' investigated/' &c., &c. Here was another modern "discovery." 
 
 Now we have seen, at p. 169, above, that the Arabian desert of 
 El Tyh contains 18,900 square miles; and to these must be added 
 the whole extent of the desert north of El Tyh (see map above) ; 
 and we are utterly unable to trace out Israel's wanderings for thirty- 
 eight years. Surely until these specific encampments are ascertained, 
 we are in but a poor position to reason as to what were the probable 
 resources of the wilderness in which the Israelites were wandering. 
 Nor until that wilderness has been more thoroughly searched out, in all 
 its parts, can we be sure that, even now, there do not remain resources 
 of pasture and maintenance for man and beast, which indicate a more 
 favourable condition still, in times so long gone by. Oh ! that Dr. 
 Colenso would retire to some lone spot in this desert, and there, 
 ' Journey from Damascus to Cairo, in 1812, p. 443. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 181 
 
 by the importation of guano, or anything else he pleases, carried 
 on by the agency of others (see above, p. 23), see how green he 
 could make that spot, even in the short space of twelve months ! 
 
 § XXXII. SCRIPTURAL ALLUSIONS TO THE ROUTE IN 
 THE DESERT. 
 
 The journeys of the Israelites may be taken in three divisions 
 (Num. xxxiii. 1—15, 16, 17, and 18—49) :— 1. Those from Shur to 
 Sinai. 2. Those from Sinai to Hazeroth. 3. Those from Haze- 
 roth, for thirty-eight years, to places which cannot be identified. 
 To which last we have just alluded. 
 
 Of all these, the most interesting are, perhaps, those from Shur to 
 Sinai, being just ten journeys, of which I am about to speak. 
 There were three journeys from Etham to Marah ; at least one each 
 from Marah to Elim, from Elim to the Red Sea, from the Red Sea 
 to Sin, from Sin to Dophkah, from Dophkah to Alush, from Alush to 
 Rephidim, and from Rephidim to Sinai. Even of these incipient 
 journeys we know very little, except that which Scripture tells us; and 
 which will be found of the utmost importance to our subject. People 
 think they know where Marah is, think they know where Elim is, 
 of Dophkah and Alush they know nothing, think they know where 
 Rephidim is, and are sttre they know where Sinai is ; but, until the 
 last twenty -four years, were unable to say where room could have been 
 found for the people to encamp, and gather together into one plain 
 for the reception of the law. 
 
 If we turn to Exod. xv. 23, we shall notice that the people, and 
 their flocks, journeyed three whole days in the wilderness, before 
 they cried out for water ; and when they came to Marah, they could 
 not drink the water there, for it was bitter. Now, it is assumed 
 that, during those three days, many of the cattle must have died 
 of thirst. Even Kalisch is quoted by Dr. Colenso (at p. 78), as 
 making this assumption. But why so? It is most important to 
 remember that the time — viz., early spring, April 9th — when Israel 
 entered the desert, was the very most favourable for their cattle. 
 Then the effects of the winter rains were at their best; then the 
 herbage, and plants, and shrubs, which they found, were full of 
 
182 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 moisture. And we have it upon the' testimony of Burckhardt, that, 
 even "in summer, when rain water cannot be found in pools," the 
 Arabs encamp near wells, " while their flocks and herds pasture all 
 " around, at the distance of several hours, under the guard of slaves, 
 " or shepherds, who bring them, everi/ second, or third, day, to the 
 " well, for water," Now, if cattle and flocks can thus go without 
 water, for two, or three, days, in summer, in Arabia, Dr. Colenso 
 can, perhaps, tell us how much longer they can go without, in 
 spring. 
 
 Again : — " There are tribes which encamp in spring time, far 
 " from any streams or wells, in fertile plains, where they remain 
 **/or several weeks, without tasting ivater, living wholly upon 
 " milk ; and their cattle can dispense with water, as long as green 
 " and juicy herbage affords them nourishment.'^ 
 
 There is, therefore, no justification for the assumption, that 
 in three days, at spring time, many of Israel's cattle must have 
 died of thirst. And, as regards the people themselves, we ought to 
 bear in mind, the Egyptian mode of carrying water. The water- 
 skins, to which Wilkinson alludes,^ may be found particularly 
 described in Lane. A camel carries two ox-hides full ; an ass, or a 
 man, a goat's-skin full. And assuming, as we fairly may, that each 
 family of Israel was provided with the smallest means of carriage, 
 viz., that by one man in each family, we can account for their having 
 had, at least, a short allowance of water, enough for more than two 
 days. 
 
 At Marah they found the water so bitter that they could not drink 
 it. So bitter, because brackish water they could drink, as the Arabs 
 do now. They had been accustomed to Nile water ; and, like true 
 Egyptians, hated all that was brackish, for wells in the neighbour- 
 hood of Cairo are now, and probably were then, as brackish as those 
 in the desert. The water at Marah was so bitter that they could not 
 drink it, and the Lord showed Moses a tree (Exod. xv. 25), by 
 means' of which " the waters were made sweet." Whether Moses was 
 previously acquainted with this tree, but did not expect to find it 
 in that locality, and was, therefore, providentially led to it ; or 
 whether it was a new piece of knowledge, miraculously conveyed to 
 
 ' Burckhardt's Bedouins and Wahabys, vol. i., pp. 228, 229. 
 
 " Wilkinson's Ancient Egypt., vol. ii., pp. 141, 364. Lane's Modern Egypt, 
 
 vol. ii.. pp. 15 — 17. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. IbJ 
 
 him ; are questions. But for our present purpose we may, probably, 
 venture to infer that the presence of one tree indicated that of many 
 more ; and that there was pasture in the neighbourhood of Marah. 
 Also, it is far from improbable that the miracle thus wrought at 
 Marah was frequently repeated elsewhere. Though it matters not what 
 we think on that point. Water is found, almost anywhere in the 
 desert, by digging to a certain depth; "water, in fact, is' readily 
 "found by digging in ewery fertile valley in Arabia, and wells are 
 " thus easily found, which are c^vackXy filled up again by the sands." 
 This mention of the sands shows us in what sense we are to take 
 Burckhardt's words " every fertile valley." And the fact that such 
 water might be brackish does by no means imply that it is not 
 drinkable. Thus, in the desert between Cairo and Suez, " the water 
 is brackish, but it serves for drinking," says Burckhardt, and the 
 people fill their water-skins there rather than pay " a higher price 
 for the sweet water" of Suez. It is plain enough, the Israelites 
 might have filled their waterskins the very day before the night, on 
 which they passed through the Red Sea. Again, says Burckhardt, 
 when in the desert of Sinai, the ships lying in the harbour of Tor 
 " might fill their casks at the well Abou Szoueyra, about seven hours 
 " south of Ayoun Mousa, and about half-an-hour from the sea shore, 
 " where the ivater is good; but Arabs will seldom give themselves so 
 *' much trouble for water, and will rather drink what is at hand, 
 " though bad, than go to a distance for good." 
 
 Thus the present condition of the desert clearly intimates that the 
 Israelites might have habitually found water good enough for them- 
 selves and their cattle, though by no means like the water of the Nile, 
 to which they had been accustomed. When at Howarah, i.e., Marah, 
 Burckhardt says, " The complaints of the bitterness of the water by 
 " the children of Israel, who had been accustomed to the sweet water 
 " of the Nile, are such as may daily be heard from the Egyptian 
 " servants and peasants who travel in Arabia." 
 
 Their next station was at Elim, (Exod. xv. 21) ; " where were 
 " twelve wells of water, and threescore and ten palm trees ; and 
 " they encamped there by the waters." This station was of far more 
 importance to them, than even the twelve wells of water so plainly 
 indicated. The treasure of those seventy palm trees was invaluable. 
 Dates were given to camels, and other quadrupeds {etiam quadru- 
 ' Burckhardt's Tour in Sinai, pp. 465, 468, 473, 474. 
 
184 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 pedum cihus, PUn. 13, 4) in the East; and one tree can produce as 
 much as four cantars of dates, or 440 lbs., on about eight branches, 
 though generally it bears much less. And besides the food it pro- 
 vides, the tree is useful also, among other things, for every purpose 
 for which laths or any thin woodwoi'k is required ; for wicker baskets, 
 caps, mats, and brooms.' It is scarcely possible to magnify the 
 utility of the palm, thus found at Elim by the people. Now^ Burck- 
 hardt identifies Elim, in the end of Wady Gharendel ; and says it 
 contains date trees, tamarisks, acacias of different species, and the 
 thorny shrub Gharkad, which is extremely common in the peninsula 
 of Sinai, and bears a small red berry of which the Arabs make 
 a conserve, of which they are particularly fond. It seems, that the 
 Israelites may not only have had necessary food in the desert, but 
 jam' besides ! Burckhardt suggests that the berry of this tree may 
 have been used to sweeten the waters at Marah. However this 
 may be, it is certain that date trees, tamarisk, and acacias, abounded 
 in the desert of Sinai, and could furnish food both for man and for 
 flocks and herds. The Arabs told Burckhardt that Wady Gharendel 
 extended north-east, being one mile in breadth, through the whole 
 desert, as far as El Arysh on the Mediterranean ; and that it was full 
 of trees. He had no means of verifying this statement. But, 
 allowing for exaggeration, it is manifest enough that we can scarcely 
 magnify too much the importance, to Israel, of this encampment, as a 
 situation for pasturing the flocks and herds ; and also for providing 
 themselves with a multitude of articles conducive to their comfort in 
 the desert. Niebuhr, as well as Burckhardt, considers Gharendel to 
 be Elim ; and says expressly, that his companions obtained water by 
 digging to a very small depth. 
 
 The great want of the desert, the greatest known to Arabs, is that 
 of bread. Unleavened bread is the bread of Arabs, ^ and such bread 
 Israel had been taught to provide before they entered upon Arab 
 life ; probably, too, they had some " parched corn." But of all 
 wants to a person in the desert, the most certain, and most distress- 
 ing, is that of bread. " It is the want of corn that obliges all 
 " Bedouins to keep up any intercourse with those who cultivate the 
 " soil ; and it is a mistake to imagine that the Bedouins can ever 
 " be independent of the cultivators." This want the Israelites felt, 
 
 ' Wilkinson's Anc. Egypt., vol. ii., pp. 177, 178. - Tour in Sinai, pp. 472—475. 
 * Bui-ckhardl's Bedouins and Wahabjs, vol. i., pp. 57, 239, 210. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 185 
 
 (Exod. xvi. 1 — 4) ; and as soon as manna was provided for them, the 
 sustenance of the people in the desert, irrespective of any intercourse 
 with other people, was secure. Dr. Colenso thinks to raise a preju- 
 dice against the Mosaic narrative by persistent allusion to the flocks 
 and herds : " But even if the people were supported by miracles, yet 
 " there is no provision whatever made in the Scripture for the sup- 
 *' port of the cattle,'^ (p. 70) ; " the question is how were the flocks 
 "and herds themselves supported?" (p. 71) ; and he perseveres in 
 assuming, that they had to be " sustained in the desert without 
 " miraculous help." (p. 71.) I say assume ; for what proof has he 
 of that ? Nay ; we have proof to the very contrary. The drawing 
 of water from the rock of flint was a miraculous intervention not 
 only conducive to the sustenance of man, but also to that of the 
 flocks and herds. So, also, was the miraculous, providential, leading, 
 by Him who dwelt in the fiery-cloudy pillar, through their forty 
 years of wandering. He, doubtless, conducted them to those parti- 
 cular spots, best adapted for the support and encampment of them- 
 selves, and also for their cattle. I cannot doubt but that many 
 a rich wady, then existing, was pointed out by Him ; which, even 
 if now existing, European visitors would overlook, or prove incapable 
 of discovering. Besides, we know that both men, and cattle, would 
 feed on dates ; and, how often they happened upon these palm trees, 
 we are not told. Elim was, it seems, at the entrance of Gharendel, 
 a vast, and beautiful, wady abounding in trees ; how many such may 
 have existed, 'or do exist, on the route of Israel we cannot know ; 
 because in truth we are not certain of by far the larger part of that 
 route itself. The cattle would find some nourishment from palms, 
 and tamarisks, and acacias, which (Burckhardt is' authority) are still 
 plentiful in various parts of the desert. Says Burckhardt, when in 
 the desert of El Tyh (Dr. Colenso will be aware that this is our very 
 desert) " Wherever the rain collects in winter, vegetation of trees and 
 " shrubs is produced ; " and in Wady Rouak, in the same desert, 
 '* the rain water from the inequalities of the surface collects, and 
 " produces a vegetation of low shrubs and a few Talh trees ; 
 " the greater part of the wadys from hence to Egypt are of this 
 " description ; " and, again, when at Nakhel, a station on the north 
 of El Tyh, " the appellation Nakhel (i.e., date-tree) ^yas probably 
 " given to this castle at a time zvhen the adjacent country tvas covered. 
 *' with palm trees, none of which are 7iow to be seen. At Akaba " 
 ' Tour in Sinai, pp. 448, 449, 450. 
 
186 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 {i.e., close by the station of Israel, when they were bitten of serpents, 
 Num. xxi. 6) " on the contrary, are large forests of them, belong- 
 " ing for the greater part to the Arabs Heywat." Yes ! the Arabs 
 know their value, and make property of them. Yet " the ground 
 " about Nakhel is chalky, or sandy, and is covered with loose 
 " pebbles." And, while such information respecting the desert was 
 open to him as much as to others. Dr. Colenso can be capable 
 of writing thus, " That palm trees are found, washed up on the 
 '* shores of the Dead Sea, into which they found their way, no 
 " doubt, from the river Jordan, gives surely no shadow of ground for 
 " believing that such trees or any other (!) grew in the wilderness 
 " of Sinai." We have seen Dr. Colenso wrong about the Hebrew ; 
 we have seen him wrong about sheep ; wrong about pigeons ; and 
 now he is wrong about a question of physical geography. 
 
 Again, Dr. Colenso will assume that the flocks and herds- could not 
 have been fed on manna. " But the sheep and oxen could not live 
 " upon the manna, nor could the people drink it." (p. 78.) We 
 may admit, with perfect safety, that they did not. But, what right 
 has Dr. Colenso to assume this ? Can he tell us what that manna was ? 
 If so, he is the first person who ever decided the question. While, 
 if it were like that which is still to be gathered from tamarisk 
 trees, which camels love to nip, it is clear that they, at least, would 
 probably eat the manna too. It is extremely possible, that the 
 flocks and herds, as they sipped the dew, derived also much 
 nourishment from the manna, which lay with that dew upon the 
 ground : " And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon 
 the face of the wilderness, a small round thing, small as the hoar 
 frost on the ground. And when the children of Israel saw it, they 
 said one to another. It is manna ; for they wist not what it was." 
 (Exod. xvi. 14.) Now, in his considerations for the cattle, has 
 the Bishop calculated the value of that dew ? For forty years, 
 they had manna ; and, where manna was, there was dew ; and, 
 wherever dew was, there was moisture, which must have tended to 
 the refreshment of the cattle. This description of the appearance of 
 the manna, in the morning " when the dew that lay was gone up," 
 leads us to think that it settled in a liquid state, and hardened as it 
 lay ; and, if so, the cattle might well be nourished by it. 
 
 Volney speaks' of the "excessive dews of the Delta;" and, 
 though he adds, '* which are less considerable in the Thebaid and 
 ' Travels, vol. i., p. 323. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 187 
 
 *' the desert, as I am well assured ; " the phenomena of such dews did 
 not escape his notice. Nor should they ours, when speaking of 
 Israel's flocks in the desert. 
 
 Burckhardt informs us,' that, near Elim, or Wady Gharendel, 
 rock salt abounded. And Israel's first journey from this place 
 was along the shore of the Red Sea : " And they removed from 
 Elim, and encamped by the Red Sea." (Num. xxxiii. 10.) In 
 the Red Sea, there were fish ; that, at least. Dr. Colenso will 
 admit. Also, by the Red Sea, God covered the camp with quails : 
 " And it came to pass, that at even the quails came up." (Exod. 
 xvi. 11 — 15.) Now, in Egypt, the Israelites had learned, not 
 only how to catch fish and birds, but to salt them also." " The 
 " birds taken in nets, were principally geese, ducks, quails, and 
 '* some small kinds, which they were in the habit of salting, especially 
 " in Lower Egypt " {i.e., Goshen), " where Herodotus tells us, 
 *' they * ate quails, ducks, and small birds, undressed; having merely 
 " 'preserved them in salt,^ " It is interesting to observe, that the geese 
 were caught in nets ; and here is fair authority for what I said, at 
 p. -57, above, — viz., that the Egyptians were fond of goose and onions ; 
 and now, we have ducks and quails, with a new mode of cooking them. 
 Also, we see, why quails were wanted by Israel, just where salt was. 
 Fish, too, were salted ; " Salted, as well as fresh, fish, were much 
 " eaten in Egypt, both in the Thebaid and the lower country," 
 i.e., Goshen. And, as to catching them — for we must catch fish 
 and other things, before we cook them — they were skilful both with 
 rod and net. As for boats, or rafts, we have no reason to doubt 
 that, as now, so then, there were Arab fishers, tenanting the shores 
 of the Red Sea. To their getting fish, at some time, Moses seems to 
 allude, when he says, " Shall all the fish of the sea be gathered 
 together for them, to suffice them?" (Num. xi. 22.) But we 
 need not be anxious abou,t the fish. Probably, the people, when 
 they had fowl, cared not much about them. Yet, it is worth while 
 noticing, that, to this day, the Bedouins on the coast of the 
 Red Sea, are active fishermen,^ and " sell their dried fish to the 
 " crews of ships." 
 
 ' Tour in Sinai, p. 475. 
 
 ' Wilkinson's Ancient Egypt., vol. iii., pp. 47—58. 
 
 * Burckhardt's Bedouins and Wahabys, vol. ii., p. 21. 
 
188 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 § XXXIII. THE RESOURCES OF MOUNT SINAI. 
 
 When the people left the shores of the Red Sea, they entered 
 the desert of Sin (Num. xxxiii. 11); and pitched at Rephidim, in 
 Horeb. It was there that God, in His mercy, gave them water 
 from the rock to drink. And, at Rephidim, they fought with 
 Amalek. (Exod. xvii. 6, and Num. xx. 1 — 13.) Of which last 
 event, I shall take no notice, until presently speaking of Israel's 
 intercourse with other nations, when in the desert. It is now more 
 important to observe, that Sinai was part of Horeb ; that no limit 
 is set to this miraculous supply of water from the rock ; that it, 
 probably, continued all the year they dwelt at Sinai ; that the 
 Israelites, who had learned the mode of conducting the Nile water, 
 in rills, in all directions of Goshen, for purposes of pasture and 
 ealtivation, would do the same with water at Horeb ; and seeing 
 (as we do from abundant authorities) that wherever water is in the 
 desert, there is verdure, vegetation, pasture, and life; we also see, 
 that, as long as they stopped at Sinai, Israel, and their flocks and 
 herds, were abundantly found with all that they required. More- 
 over, as we told Dr. Colenso, at p. 54, above, every breeding ewe 
 would produce, at least, two lambs in that same year, so that 
 abundant provision was being made for holding the second grand 
 Passover — viz., that in the second year — at Sinai. Israel reached 
 Sinai in June — the very time when drought was setting in. 
 
 Nor must we suppose that half a million of men, under God's 
 chosen servant, remained long idle. One plan of securing water, 
 well understood by Arabs, is its lodgments in the ledges, and 
 cavities, of rocks ; and they continue residing in certain ' spots, 
 " as long as they can find rain water remaining in the rocks." 
 Dr. Colenso learns from Mr. Fazackerly, that the tops of Horeb 
 are covered with snow in winter ; and Burckhardt teaches us, 
 that heavy rain sometimes falls as early as autumn ; ^ so, the most 
 ordinary prudence would have suggested that, soon after their arrival 
 at Sinai, in June, the men of Israel should appoint some of their 
 
 ' Burckhardt's Bedouins and Wahabys, vol, ii., p. 19. 
 * Burckhardt's Tour in Arabia Petraea and El Tjh, p. 417. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 189 
 
 number to discover and examine the natural reservoirs in the 
 mountains ; and, by labour, to enlarge, or make perfect, any that 
 required it. Besides which, Moses was no stranger to this 
 locality. The rock at Horeb found them with water enough, 
 at a moment, to prevent fatal drought; but there is not the 
 slightest difficulty in conceiving how the people should have 
 been abundantly provided with water, in the winter, and suc- 
 ceeding spring. They quitted Sinai, early in the following summer, 
 B.C. 1561. 
 
 Still, as Bishop Colenso is incredulous, and rather derides Kalisch, 
 we shall explain this more at large. The Bishop quotes Kalisch in 
 the following manner, at p. 76, — " Nearly a whole year the Israelites 
 " encamped in the fertile (!) region around the Sinai, where the air 
 ** is pure and refreshing, where fountains abound (!), and a variety 
 " of game is found (!). See Num. xi. 31 [where we find an 
 account of the fm'racle of the gift of quails]." I proceed to show 
 that, in substance, Kalisch is correct ; and that Bishop Colenso's 
 notes of admiration are marks of ignorance. 
 
 On April 20, a.d. 1816, Burckhardt left Cairo for the desert of 
 El Tyh, and Sinai. The Israelites left Rameses on April 9, B.C. 
 1560 (see p. 64^, above) ; and the following are some of his observa- 
 tions ' : — He travelled over an unfrequented route to Suez, a route 
 now covered with petrified trees, and considers that he was upon the 
 ancient road between Clysma and Memphis ; and that the water 
 requisite to produce this great vegetation, of which such remarkable 
 remains are found, was procured " from deep wells, and from 
 " reservoirs of rain water, as is done in the equally barren desert 
 " between Djedda and Mecca." It was just at the end of this route 
 that he met with ostriches from the desert of El Tyh. This desert 
 of Suez, he says, is still " full of rich pasture and pools of water 
 " during winter and spring." The Israelites journeyed through it 
 in earli/ spring (see p. 64 — 66, above). As he draws near Suez, he 
 observes, — " Rains are much more frequent in this desert than in the 
 " valley of Egypt, and the same remark m.ay he made in, regard to all 
 " the mountains to the southivard" {e.g.. El Tyh, or Sinai), "where a 
 *^ regular though not uninterrupted rainy season sets in." He notes 
 the date trees, then still at Ayoun Mousa ; and the Wady Gharendel, 
 a great valley for them, as already mentioned (p. 184, above). He 
 ' Tour in Sinai and El Tyh, p. 460, &c , &c. 
 
190 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 remarks on the withered date, acacia, and tamarisk trees at Wady 
 Oswaita, yet nearer Sinai, showing what the site once had been. He 
 finds a well of "excellent water" at Wady Naszeh, farther on. 
 And now, having reached El Dhelel, a portion of the range of El 
 Tyh, he describes " these chains " as forming " the northern 
 ** boundaries of the Sinai mountains," and being " the pasturing 
 *' places of the Sinai Bedouins ; " and adds, " The valleys of these 
 " mountains are said to afford excellent pasturage, and Jine springs, 
 *' though not in great numbers." And at the southern foot of El Tyh 
 {i.e., towards Sinai), he finds " a broad sandy plain " continuing 
 " for two days' journey easfu-ard," i.e., right into the desert, " afford - 
 " ing good pasturage in spring," (Israel passed there in spring,) " but 
 " it has no water, and is therefore little frequented by Bedouins." 
 Burckhardt was there on April 28, — about the same time as the people 
 Israel. ■ 
 
 A little further on the road, and on April 29, he arrived at Djebel 
 Leboua, and in the Wady Genne, which he describes as " a fine valley, 
 " several miles in breadth, and covered with pasturage." Here it was 
 he found " Bedouins occupied in collecting brushwood, which they 
 ** burn into charcoal for the Cairo market;" and adds, "They 
 " prefer for this purpose the thick roots of the shrub Rethem, 
 " Genista Raetam of Forskal, which grows here in abundance ; " 
 giving us an opportunity of pointing out, by reference to p. 172, 
 above, that Dr. Colenso is quite mistaken as to his notions of making 
 charcoal ; and that brushwood, or broom, or saplings, or undergrowth 
 can be employed for that purpose, at least by Bedouins, contrary to 
 his expectations. It was here, also, that the Israelites got soap to 
 wash their linen with ; a lucky thing for the priest, if he had had to 
 do what Bishop Colenso supposes (see p. 23, above). For Burck- 
 hardt adds, " The Bedouins collect also the herb Adjrem, which they 
 " dry, break in pieces, and pound between stones, and then use as a 
 " substitute for soap to wash their linen with. I was told that very 
 " good water is found at almost two miles to the east of this valley ; " 
 of which, no doubt, the women were very glad. He ended this day 
 of useful discoveries at Wady Osh, looking towards Sinai, and 
 observes, " In the Wady Osh there is a well of siveet ivater. From 
 " hence upwards, and throughout the primitive chain of Mount Sinai, 
 " the water is generally excellent, while in the lower chalky moun- 
 " tains all round the peninsula, it is brackish, or bitter, except in one 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 191 
 
 " or two places." Yet, remember, brackish water could be drunk, 
 see p. 182, above. 
 
 On May the 1st he arrived near the central summits of Mount 
 Sinai, and " came to a thick wood of tamarisk trees, or Taifa, and 
 " found many camels feeding upon their thorny shoots ; " adding, 
 " it is from this evergreen tamarisk, which grows abundantly in no 
 " other part of the peninsula, that the manna is collected." Here, 
 again, I am happy to say, they found more soap. For there is a 
 substance there called Tafal, a feldspar of granite, which has all the 
 appearance of pipeclay. " The Arabs sell it at Cairo, where it is in 
 " request for taking stains out of cloth, and where it serves the poor 
 *' instead of soap for washing their hands." But, in connection with 
 this subject, our considerate traveller adds, " It is chiefly used to rub 
 *' the skins of asses during summer." 
 
 On this same day. May 1, he arrived in a broad valley, *' at the 
 " termination of which he was agreeably surprised by the beautiful 
 ** verdure of a garden of almond trees belonging to the convent. 
 " From thence, by another short turn to the left, he reached the con- 
 " vent in seven hours and a half." 
 
 There we shall leave him. He deserves his rest. He travelled 
 the route of Israel, just at Israelis time, from April to May. And I 
 leave the reader to consider whether there was not, even in A.c. 
 1816, water enough and pasture enough for Israel and their flocks 
 on their road to Sinai. And if so much in a.c. 1816, how much 
 more in b.c. 1560 ? 
 
 § XXXIV. ISRAEL'S INTERCOURSE WITH INHABITANTS OF THE 
 DESERT. 
 
 It is important to remember that Burckhardt's whole journey, 
 made quite leisurely and for purposes of careful observation, 
 occupied only ten days. In that time he journeyed from Cairo, 
 round the head of the Gulf of Suez, to Sinai. But the people 
 of Israel crossed the bed of the Red Sea, landed at Shur, and 
 had only about half the way to walk. Now the Amalekites dwelt 
 from Havilah unto Shur (1 Sam. xv. 7) ; that is, they occupied the 
 
192 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 country between the Dead and the Red Seas, skirting the borders 
 of Canaan. They were, in fact, people of the desert ; people of 
 that very desert of which Sinai is the south part. They attacked 
 Israel at Rephidim, by Horeb (Exod. xvii. 8), and were repulsed. 
 The cause of their attacking Israel is not mentioned. There 
 must have been some cause, and we are left by the historian to 
 imagine what it could be (see p. 27, above). Now, if we remember 
 that they dwelt between Canaan and Egypt, were extensive pastors 
 of cattle, and that it was the custom to drive cattle to the very 
 desert of Sinai for that pasture, which Dr. Colenso says was never to 
 be found there, we have instantly suggested three causes for their 
 attack : — 1. The probability that they were urged on by the 
 Egyptians, in hatred and revenge for the loss of their slaves, of 
 their firstborn, and of their king and his army ; 2. That they were 
 urged on by the Canaanites, who had heard that the people Israel were 
 bound for Canaan ; and 3. That they could not be reconciled to so 
 numeious a people, with their flocks, and herds, journeying into, and 
 on, the precious pastures so much needed by themselves. 
 
 This rapid attack by Amalek suggests to our reflection the speedy 
 communication which might be, at that time, established between 
 Sinai and Egypt ; and one reason, therefore, why Israel was detained, 
 by the will of the Almighty, so long at Sinai. 
 
 1 said, and at p. 178 above have shown, that it was the habit to 
 drive flocks and herds into the wilderness for pasture, especially in 
 winter. And, accordingly, if we refer to Exod. iii. 1, we shall see 
 that, in winter, the chief Midianitish flocks were pastured at Horeb, 
 where Bishop Colenso says pasturage was not to be had : — " Now 
 *' Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of 
 " Midian ; and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and 
 " came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb." This must have 
 been in winter — the depth of winter. For Israel left Egypt in 
 April, 1560 b.c. ; after the tenth plague, and, as we said at pp. 31,51, 
 above, we can scarcely allow less interval than one week between two 
 ])lagues, so that, allowing for Moses' journeying back to his father- 
 in-law, his arranging to leave him (Exod. iv. 18), and his then going 
 on to Egypt, Moses could not have arrived at Pharaoh's court much 
 before February, nor have left Horeb much before the middle of 
 January, 1560 B.C. In the depth of winter, therefore, Moses 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 193 
 
 pastured the principal flocks of Midian, round about Horeb, where 
 Dr. Colenso says no pasture was. But where Kalisch says, and 
 Burckhardt justifies him, that excellent pasture could be found. 
 
 Now ' the Amalekites dwelt in the desert between the Dead Sea 
 and the Red Sea, down to Shur, where Israel landed ; and the 
 Midianites dwelt in the desert from the Red Sea to Sinai ; two con- 
 siderable families of people living habitually, and pasturing their 
 cattle, in that very desert of which Dr. Colenso, misunderstanding 
 Scripture, says that, literally, no man passed through (see p. 167 
 above). On the west of the desert were Amalekites and Midianites ; 
 on the east of the same desert were Edomites ; and throughout the 
 desert Ishmaelites, or Hagarenes. 
 
 The whole journey between Cairo and Sinai can be done comfort- 
 ably, we have seen, in about ten days. Surely Jethro's visit to 
 Moses was not without significance. Exod. xviii. 1 — 6 : — " And 
 Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife unto 
 Moses into the wilderness, where he encamped at the mount of God." 
 Surely this event is recorded, because it was of the very greatest 
 importance, not only to Moses personally, but also to the whole 
 people whom he led. It is in reference to matters of this kind, that 
 we are justified in applying to Holy Scripture the principle of inter- 
 pretation, explained before at p. ^7. Conceive Moses and the 
 elders of Israel, soon after the battle with Amalek, noticing from a 
 distance the approach of a large cavalcade of men and of camels. 
 Who are here ? ' Are they friends or enemies ? And, behold, ^tis 
 Jethro ! The very man, of all others^ that Moses and his elders 
 would like to see; the very man, of all others, able and likely to be 
 of most service to them. " Now we can get good tents ! Now we 
 can get more camels ! Now we can obtain an infinite variety of 
 articles conducive to our safety in the desert ! Now we can send 
 away, sell, or otherwise dispose of, all useless encumbrances ! Now 
 we have a certain chain of intercourse established between ourselves 
 and Egypt, by which we may receive supplies of various commodities 
 once a fortnight, or oftener ! " And we may imagine this going on for 
 a whole twelvemonth. For the Midianites were travelling merchants, 
 who carried on a lucrative trade with Egypt, even in the days of 
 Joseph. (Gen. xxxvii. 28.) It is impossible to over-estimate the 
 importance of Jethro's visit to the camp of Israel. 
 ' Paxton's Sacr. Geog., p. 518. 
 o 
 
194 A PLAIN Rr.PLY 
 
 5 XXXV. GENERAL ASPECT OF THE DESERT. 
 
 After so clear a picture of the desert of Sinai, as that conveyed 
 in the foregoing extracts, I shall deem it unnecessary to allude par- 
 ticularly to those few other journeys which the Israelites took before 
 they arrived for the first time at Kadesh-Barnea, and sent out the 
 spies. (Num. xiii. 2.) I would merely observe, in regard to 
 them, that from Deut. i. 33, I infer, as already intimated at 
 p. 185, that Israel was conducted by an abiding miracle, through the 
 fiery-cloudy pillar, to those particular spots best suited for an 
 encampment ; as being most furnished with those various local 
 resources of the desert, conducive to the maintenance of them- 
 selves and their flocks and herds. *' And they departed from the 
 " mount of the Lord three days' journey ; and the ark of the 
 ** covenant of the Lord went before them in the three days' journey, 
 ** to search out a resting-place for them. And the cloud of the 
 " Lord was upon them by day, when they went out of the camp ; " 
 and whether it were " two days, or a month, or a year," (Num. 
 ix. 2i, 22, and x. 33), the pillar of cloud and of fire directed them to 
 move forward, or to halt, as was best adapted for their welfare at the 
 time. 
 
 But we are particularly interested in knowing the character of the 
 desert around the land of Edom, for Israel " compassed Mount Seir 
 " many days" (Deut. ii. 1) ; vphere the □"nn U^72^ , many days, may 
 mean, and probably does, many years : (a common use * of D'^D'', of 
 which Dr. Colenso seems perfectly unaware, see p. 76) ; and, though 
 we are quite unable tp discover the places of their encampment, we 
 are also concerned to know the general aspect of the desert more to the 
 west of Edom, and to the north of El Tyh (see map, above). 
 
 In 1812, Burckhardt travelled " through the mountains of Arabia 
 " Petraea, and desert of El Tyh to Cairo," and on August the 14th, 
 was passing through Wady Ghoeyr, or Little Ghor, along the 
 mountains of Shera. " These are the mountains called in the 
 " Scripture Mount Sin, the land of Edom." The traveller was, 
 
 ' Dies, pro anno, quando videlicet d'Q' dies, sine additd voce numerali ponitur 
 (Gen. xl. 4 ; Exod. xiii. 10; Lev. xxv. 29). Glassius, Philolog. Sacr., p. 1276. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 195 
 
 therefore, outside the land of Edom. The valley, through which he 
 was thus passing, he describes as *' intersected by numerous wadys of 
 '* winter torrents, and by three or four valleys tvatered hy rivulets 
 *' which unite below, and flow into the Ghor." And he adds, " The 
 " Ghoeyr is ftimous for the excellent pasturage, produced by its 
 " numerous springs, and has, in consequence, become a favourite 
 ** place of encampment for all the Bedouins of Djebal and Shera." 
 A little farther south, on the same route, he reached an encampment 
 of Fellahein Bedouins, i.e., Bedouins who were cultivators, and says, 
 " their herds of cows, sheep, and goats, are very numerous." And 
 from this place all through his route to Aaron's tomb, he speaks of 
 " vestiges of former cultivation," of the *' country hereabouts " as 
 " woody," and of springs and rivulets. " Ain Mousa is a copious 
 ** spring, rushing from under a rock at the eastern extremity of Wady 
 ** Mousa ; " or, again, in another place, " the rivulet joins with 
 ** another descending from the mountain to the southward." And, 
 when at Wady Mousa, examining ruins which he believed to be 
 those of Petra, " the river has worked a passage through them, and 
 " runs underground, as I was told, for about a quarter of an hour." 
 And, lastly, in reference to the plains round Aaron's tomb, " The 
 ** plain of Haroun, and the neighbouring mountains, have no springs ; 
 *' but the rain water collects in low grounds, and in natural hollows 
 ** in the rocks, where it partly remains the whole year round, even 
 ** on the top of the mountains." 
 
 With such a de'scription of the country around Edom, during the 
 hot month of August so recently as 181^, and when Idumea is com- 
 paratively desolate, and uninhabited, we need be at no loss to 
 imagine how Israel, and their flocks and herds, were sustained in the 
 desert, during the " many days," or years, that they " compassed the 
 land of Edom." 
 
 Let us trace the neighbourhood of their encampments, more 
 southward in the desert. That we are considering the state of a 
 country fairly representative of the worst parts of the desert, we may 
 be sure ; for when drawing towards " Maan " somewhat north of the 
 Red Sea, (we remember that Israel left Mount Hor to approach the 
 shores of the Red sea, p. 1 58, above) he observes, " We have thus a natural 
 " division of the country, which appears to have been well known to the 
 " ancients, for it is probably to a part of this upper plain, together 
 
 o 2 
 
196 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 *• with the mount lins of Shera, Djebal, Kerek, and Bilka, that tb.e 
 *' name of Arabia Petrcea was applied, the western limits of which 
 *• must have been the great valley, or Ghor. It might with truth be 
 " called PetrcBa, not only on account of its rocky mountains, but also 
 " of the elevated plain already described, which is so much covered 
 " with stones, especially flints, that it may with great propriety be 
 " called a stony desert, altiiough susceptible of culture. In many 
 ** places it is overgrown with wild herbs, and must once have been 
 " thickly inhabited, for traces of many ruined towns and villages 
 *' are met with on both sides of the Hadj road between Maan and 
 " Akaba." 
 
 It is not improbable that this Hadj road from Maan southward, to 
 Akaba, or Ezion-gabir, on the eastern gulf of the Red Sea, may 
 denote the very route which Israel followed from Mount Hor. 
 
 " At present all this country is a desert, and Maail is the only 
 " inhabited place in it." Yet although he states that " Ma<ui is 
 *' situated in the midst of a rocky country, not capable of cultiva- 
 *' tion," and that " the inhabitants therefore depend upon their 
 " neighbours of Djebal and Shera for their provisions of wheat and 
 " barley," he adds, that *' the pomegranates, apricots, and peaches, 
 " of Maan are of the finest quality." How rapid, too, is the com- 
 munication between Hebron (see p. 159, above) and this place on the 
 road to Akaba may be judged by the fact that the inhabitants buy 
 all sorts of provisions at Hebron, and even Gaza, to sell to the 
 pilgrims on their way to Mecca. 
 
 Take his description of a fearful wady, Wady Gharendel (an- 
 other than that referred to above, at p. 184), leading westward 
 into that of El Araba : — " At five hours the valley opens, 
 " and we found ourselves upon a sandy plain, interspersed with 
 •* rocks ; the bed of the wady was covered with white sand. A few 
 *' trees of the species called by the Arabs Talh, Tarfa, and Adha, 
 *' grow in the midst of the sand, but their withered leaves cannot 
 " divert the traveller's eye from the dreary, scene around him." 
 Could there be, indeed, a more dreary scene ? And yet six hours 
 and a-half, viz., one day's journey farther on, he says of the mouth 
 of this wady, " A few hundred paces above the issue of the wady 
 " are several springs, called Ayoun Gharendel, surrounded by a few 
 " date trees, and some verdant pasture ground. The water has a 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 197 
 
 " sulphureous taste, but these being the only springs on the borders 
 *' of the great valley, within one dai/'s journey to the north and south, 
 " the Bedouins are obliged to resort to them." 
 
 Verifying still the general character of this terrible desert, this 
 waste, howling wilderness, viz., that, even in its worst parts, there 
 are frequent springs of water drinkable, though bad; and verdant 
 pasture grounds. 
 
 This dreadful Wady Gharendel leads into Wady El Araba, which 
 Burckhardt believed to be the Kadesh-harnea of Holy Scripture. 
 Now it is a curious fact, quoted with great animation by Dr. Colenso, 
 at p. 74, that Stanley says of El Araba, " The first thing that 
 " struck me, in turning out of the Arabah, up the defiles that lead 
 " to Petra, was that we had suddenly left the desert. Instead of the 
 " absolute nakedness of the Sinaitic valleys, we found oui'selves 
 " walking on grass, sprinkled with flowers, and the level platforms on 
 " each side were filled with sprouting corn. And this continues 
 " through the whole descent to Petra, and in Petra itself." Yet of 
 this very El Araba, Burckhardt, though doing the fullest justice to 
 its horrors, as " in summer entirely without water,"" as " an expanse 
 " of shifting sands," adds, " Numerous Bedouin tribes encamp here 
 " in the winter, when the torrents produce a copious supply of water, 
 " and a few shrubs spring up from their banks, SiWoxdiing pasturage to 
 *' the sheep and goats.^' 
 
 Again verifying the general character of this terrible wilderness, 
 this waste, howling wilderness, " this land of deserts " ( nmj;, Araba) 
 " and of pits," viz., that spots of fearful desolation, terrific to Euro- 
 pean summer travellers, are. nevertheless in winter the chosen resting- 
 places of numerous tribes of Bedouins, because aflfbrding them a copious 
 supply of tvater, andi pasture for their sheep and goats. 
 
 So, too, of Wady el Lahyane, eight hours W.N.W. of El Araba, 
 he says-, " In this desert the water collects in a number of low bottoms 
 " and wadys, where it produces verdure in ivinter time ; and an 
 " abundance of trees with green leaves are found throughout the 
 " year. In the ivinter some of the Arabs of Ghaza, Khalyl, as well 
 " as those from the shores of the Red Sea, encamp here. The Wady 
 " Lahyane is several hours' in extent ; its bottom is full of gravel." 
 Now, from this spot it is eight days' journey to Gaza, in Palestine ; 
 and, in these eight days' journeys, there are three watering-places. 
 
198 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 Also tlie distance from Hebron to Akaba is nine days (see above, 
 p. 159); and, in these nine days' journeys, there are three springs. 
 This, again, gives us a clear and lively picture of the nature of the 
 desert in its worst parts; water every two or three days. Often 
 enough, for' the flocks and herds (see above, p. 18ii), and, remem- 
 bering their abundant means of transport, made perfect, probably, by 
 means of JetlnVs visit, not too dangerously infrequent for the people 
 Israel. 
 
 From Wady Lahyane the traveller entered El Tyh, and it is of that 
 desert, peculiarly the desert of which we wish to form correct ideas, he 
 says, '* Wherever the rain collects in winter, vegetation of trees and 
 *' shrubs is produced." 
 
 We need scarcely pursue this subject farther. Wherever 
 Burckhardt wanders in this desert, there he finds some sources 
 of encouragement, some resources for men and cattle. In one 
 place, " a level plain, consisting of rich red earth fit for culture, 
 " and similar to that of the northern Syrian desert." Agreeably 
 to what I have stated, at p. 178, above. At another, a wady, 
 " overgrown with green shrubs, but without trees." At a third, " in 
 " a valley of the Sheghar, we found an abundance of shrubs and 
 " trees." In the very midst of this terrible desert, " this land of 
 " drought, and of the shadow of death," " good water, but in small 
 " quantities, is found everywhere on digging to the depth of ten or 
 •' twelve feet. There were about half-a-dozen holes, five or six feet 
 " in circumference, with a foot of water in each ; on drawing up the 
 *' water, the holes fill again immediafelg." It was here he found a 
 tribe of Bedouins watering a large herd of camels. 
 
 Surely we have now ' a very clear idea of the general aspect of the 
 desert in which Israel wandered for forty years. We have taken it in 
 two divisions, — first, that which they lived in, and passed over, during 
 the first two years of their wanderings ; second, that about which, and 
 in the neighbourhood of which, they were wandering and encamping 
 for thirty-eight years ; and we see that, while the language of Holy 
 Scripture is exactly correct, and the wilderness was a land subject 
 to fearful drought, a land studded with terrific deserts (or Arabas) 
 and pits, it was also provided throughout with capabilities for verdant 
 pasture ; was furnished, very frequently, with water, sometimes 
 ' Burckhardt's Tour through Arabia Pclrea and Sinai, pp. 377 — 455. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 199 
 
 bad, sometimes good ; was, and is, in some spots even capable 
 of cultivation ; and, in fact, did, and does, supply very consider- 
 able natural resources for the support both of men and cattle. 
 
 So that, while we entirely acknowledge the wonderful hand of the 
 Almighty in preserving Israel miraculously, we do see that there were 
 also certain, and abundant, natural sources of maintenance, to which 
 God's kind providence led the people with surety at their times of 
 need; and which leave the infidel but small room to question the 
 possibility of a numerous people being kept alive for forty years in 
 the desert. 
 
 § XXXVI. MODE OF LIVING IN THE DESERT. 
 
 It may be of some service to notice, very briefly, the mode of 
 living in this desert, as enabling us to form a clearer idea of the 
 natural probabilities that a numerous people could be sustained 
 there. 
 
 The diet of the Arabs is, first, uf/leavefied bread, such as that 
 which Israel carried with them out of Egypt. On their journeys the 
 Bedouins live almost wholly upon unleavened bread baked in the 
 ashes, and mixed with butter. And they use butter to excess, — 
 showing no deficiency of pasturage for their sheep and goats, of 
 whose milk alone that butter is made. Throughout the desert there 
 is a great sameness in the Bedouin dishes, for they everywhere 
 consist chiefly of flour and butter. I have already observed, at 
 p. 184, that the great want of the Bedouins is corn. In the case of 
 Israel this deficiency was supplied by the forty years' fall of manna. 
 Their butter is made only of goats' and shec p's milk. The milk is 
 put in-to a goat-skin, and for one or two hours is constantly moved 
 backwards and forwards ; the buttery substance then coagulates, the 
 water is squeezed out, and the butter put into a skin. Some tribes 
 live almost wholly upon dates and milk. 
 
 There is also a kind of trufile, which grows in the desert. It is a 
 favourite dish with the Arabs. It has no appearance either of roots 
 or seeds ; consists of three sorts, red, black, and white ; and if the 
 rain has been abundant during winter, this food is found in the end 
 of March. It lies about four inches under ground, and is sometimes 
 
200 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 SO plentiful that each family in a tribe may gather four or Jive camel 
 loads of it. While this stock lasts the Arabs live exclusively on it, 
 without tasting bread in any shape. The Israelites were better off, 
 for whatever truffle there was, they had new bread every day. 
 
 Inhabitants of the desert require, and habitually take, but little 
 food. Their daily universal dish is flour made into a paste with 
 camel's milk, and boiled." Sometimes they eat a paste made of 
 bread, butter, and dates. An Arab rarely indulges in luxuries, and 
 that only upon the arrival of a stranger. Burckhardt says that 
 " wherever dates grow, that excellent fruit constitutes their chief 
 " diet. The quantity of butter they use is extraordinary, showing 
 " no fear of deficiency of milk from their goats and sheep ; " and 
 therefore, 1 suppose, no fear of deficiency of pasture for their sheep 
 and goats. Although Burckhardt notes, on August 16, " There was 
 " not a drop of milk to be got, for, at this time of the year, the ewes 
 " are dry." Whoever can get butter swallows every morning a 
 large cup full before breakfast, and snuffs up as much into his 
 nostrils. All their food swims in butter. From one hundred ewes 
 or goats (the milk of which is always mixed together), the Arabs 
 expect, in common years, about 8 lbs. of butter a-day, or about 
 7 cwt. in the three spring months. 
 
 It is a curious fact, worth noticing, in connection with the second 
 Passover, as held at Sinai (see p. 54, above), that the Arabs 
 habitually kill their male lambs and kids, except two or three, which 
 they keep for breeding. They are, of course, aware of the fact, to 
 which we called Dr. Colenso's attention, at p. 54, viz., how very few 
 male lambs or kids are required for that important purpose. They 
 kill the rams and he-goats (so habitually offered in Levitical sacrifices) 
 in order to economise pasture; and they keep the ewes for the purpose 
 of securing milk. 
 
 But enough on this subject. Having thus the general character of 
 the desert before us, and, particularly, the character of El Tyh ; having 
 noticed, also, the moderation of the people of the desert in their 
 diet; remembering that Israel was provided miraculously with daily 
 bread ; and directed miraculously by the fiery-cloudy pillar to their 
 encampments ; we need be at no loss to consider in what way God's 
 people Israel were kept alive, with their flocks and herds, for forty 
 years in the wilderness. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. ^01 
 
 XXXVII. CONCLUSION. 
 
 I have now done with Dr. Colenso's book, and hope that, in some 
 particulars, at least, it has been refuted to the reader's satisfaction. 
 Surely we are not mistaken ; but have found Dr. Colenso wrong in 
 his Hebrew; incorrect in the interpretation of separate phrases, some 
 of such a kind, as, e.g., " the fourth generation," and " between the 
 two evenings," that a large part of his book depends upon them ; 
 inaccurate in matters of natural history, as, for instance, such as refer 
 to sheep, and goats, and pigeons ; curiously unknowing on points 
 of physical geography, as, for example, upon the general physical 
 aspect, and resources, of the desert ; wonderfully misapprehensive of 
 the correct meaning of certain entire passages of Holy Scripture, to 
 wit, those which concern the institution of the Passover, the time 
 and mode of the Exodus, and the institution of Levitical Sacrifices, 
 and the numbering of Levitical families; and are laymen to have their 
 minds unsettled by a Bishop, who writes like this ? 
 
 We have even found him wrong on subjects pertaining to his own 
 peculiar department, viz., those which demand the application of 
 numbers, and require' the capacity to strike fair averages, and to tell 
 at a glance what acknowledged conditions are necessary to the solu- 
 tion of his pro,blem. And, extraordinary as such a fact may be, it 
 is one of the utmost consequence in determining our estimate of his 
 book. Dr. Colenso's strength is prostrated, when attacking the 
 Pentateuch, as if Samson had aimed a vile blow at the High Priest 
 of God, and dropped dead in doing so. After this, what confidence 
 can any reasonable man have in the value of what he has written, 
 and has, unhappily, published ; or in anything more, which he may 
 think proper to write upon a similar subject at some future day ? 
 
 Bishop Colenso proves himself strangely in<;ompetent to carry on 
 an argument, or to conduct an investigation. He assumes that the 
 Israel itish families, born in Canaan, can be taken as a fair average of 
 their families born in Egypt, in which country their social condition 
 had become entirely changed. He assumes that the facts recorded of 
 a particular family, Levi's, in Egypt, are a fair index to the probable 
 multiplication of a whole people. He hunts all through the Bible 
 
202 A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 for family pedigrees to justify his interpretation of the expression 
 *' fourth generation," and having found only eleven, which are, in 
 fact, reducihle to two (see p. 116, above), from these eleven, 
 or, rather, two, cases, he ventures to draw conclusions respecting 
 the procreations, in separate families, of a people, which he 'admits 
 to have numbered about two millions and a-half. 
 
 Surely, we cannot be wrong in thinking that, in conducting arith- 
 metical, or mathematical, calculations to anything like a certain and 
 satisfactory result, we ought to be quite safe as to the data upon 
 which these calculations are based ; and fully informed as to the 
 collateral influences which may nullify, or render inaccurate, those 
 calculations. Dr. Colenso proceeds in a very different way from this. 
 He finds the number of Israel's firstborns stated at, what he believes 
 to be, far too low a figure ; and proceeds to reason severely upon its in- 
 accuracy, without producing, or attempting to produce, any .statistical 
 estimate of four disturbing influences, which may seriously affect the 
 number of the firstborn; viz., the frequency of the cases in which 
 the firstborn child is a girl, the frequency of the cases in which the 
 firstborn perishes naturally, the frequency of the cases in which, (as 
 to the people Israel,) the firstborn boy may have been killed by 
 Pharaoh, and, lastly, the number of the firstborn who may, possibly, 
 have died in the course of nature. 
 
 Nor is it less remarkable how, sometimes, the Bishop states 
 propositions plainly illogical. Thus, as to the tribe of Levi, he 
 tells us, that either they were included in the sentence of death, 
 before entrance into Canaan, passed upon all the other tribes; or 
 tliey were not ; forgetting that they may have been included 
 partially, though not entirely. So, again, observing that the 
 Midianitish girls were to be reduced to a certain kind of slavery among 
 the Hebrews, he asks. How is it possible to quote the Bible, as 
 condemning slavery, "in any way," if such a statement be his- 
 torically true ? forgetting that the Bible migJit condemn slavery, in 
 some Ways ; and, yet, permit it in others. 
 
 Similar inaccuracy, or even unfairness, characterizes his refusal 
 to make certain admissions, which cannot rationally be denied to 
 those who difl*er from him. Thus, he will not believe that polygamy, 
 or concubinage, prevailed among the people Israel ; whereas, we 
 find, that they were specifically provided for in the Levitical law; 
 and such provision implies their existence at the time, and also 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 203 
 
 contemplates their permission in the future. He refuses to admit 
 thisj also, in direct opposition to the known character, and behaviour, 
 of Israel, before their descent into Ei^^ypt; and after their departure 
 from it; and, also, in direct opposition to all probability, gathered 
 from the known character of Egyptian women. Again, in reference 
 to the families of Israel, Dr. Colenso will not admit the probability 
 of Jacob's having had, in conjunction with his twelve sons, a large, 
 or indeed, any, number of servants. And, yet, it is certain, that 
 the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, must have had a consider- 
 able body of retainers, at various periods in their history. And it is 
 also certain, that, if, as stated, they took down a considerable 
 number of oxen, sheep, and goats; and, probably, of camels, and 
 esses ; it is difficult to understand how they could have done so, 
 without the aid of some number of servants. 
 
 Moreover, the Bishop is not only illiberal, in allowances to his 
 opponents ; but also, on, at least, three most important occasions, 
 misquotes the Scripture, by leaving out words of great consequence 
 to the argument. In the question concerning the native place of 
 Hezron and Hamul, he leaves out the word, ** were ; " upon which, 
 especially in the Hebrew, the whole argument turns ; in the inquiry 
 concerning the Levitical sacrifices, he' leaves out, in respect to one 
 serious class of sacrifices, the words, " Behold the blood of it 
 was not brought in within the holy place," and, in reference to the 
 attack, and overthrow, of the Canaanites of Arad, wliere everything, 
 as to the time.m question, depends upon their proximity to Israel 
 at Hor, he leaves out tlie all-important words, " which dwelt in the 
 south." 
 
 Also, the Bishop not only misquotes : he misinterprets Scripture ; 
 and, when doing so, manifests a very thorough ignorance of the 
 Hebrew language. Now, though the *' rule of three " is notoriously 
 of golden value, it is of no use to apply the "rule of three" to an 
 author's statements, until you are sure you understand what he 
 really says. Dr. Colenso's sums may be quite correct ; but the very 
 first necessity, in arithmetically computing the probability, or possi- 
 bility, of Moses' statements, was, that he should be certain he 
 quite understood the language in which Moses made them. Dr. 
 Colenso does not understand. He was, evidently, quite unaware, 
 what questions mi(/ht be raised upon the presence of the word, 
 *' were," in the historian's statement of Hezron and Hamul's 
 
^0\f A PLAIN REPLY 
 
 parentage. He strangely misapprehended the meaning of " all 
 the congregation," " the whole assembly," &c., &c. He seems to 
 have been quite unmindful of the mode in which the law was 
 read to the people. He made an extraordinary mistake in thinking 
 that the priest himself had to carry out of the camp the skin, and 
 inwards, &c., &c., of a whole bullock. He misrepresented (but 
 not intentionally) Aben Ezra, as to the meaning of " between the 
 two evenings." He seems riot to have known the varieties of inter- 
 pretation possible for that phrase. Or (and that would be worse), if 
 he knew them, he disingenuously passed them by. He entirely mis- 
 conceived the force of the little pronoun, translated, " this," in 
 the account of the institution of the Passover. He misapprehended 
 the whole statement regarding the periods intervening between the 
 plagues. He failed to see in what way Israel had abundant time to 
 ])repare for their departure. He misapprehended the then state of 
 Goshen, between Memphis and the Red Sea. He took the Israelites, 
 by a route of sixty miles, in three days, viz., twenty miles a-day ; 
 when, it has been demonstrated, it need be only thirty-six, or twelve 
 miles a-day. He omitted to say, or did not know, that, taking the 
 slowest rate of travelling, on camels, or, little more than two miles 
 an hour, the Israelites miglit be encamped eighteen hours, out of 
 twenty-four, and have abundant time for casualties. And he plainly 
 stated, that there were no indications of the people halting, given us 
 in Holy Scripture, when it is distinctly asserted, that they did 
 camp, make booths, and cook ; and, even by express order of 
 the Almighty, quietly encamped at Pi-hahiroth, as if they were 
 waiting for Pharaoh. 
 
 It is a fact, most destructive of Dr. Colenso's work, that he 
 does not give the writer of the Pentateuch credit for common-sense. 
 The " impossibilities, contradictions, and inconsistencies," which 
 the Bishop believes he has detected, are such as no writer, or 
 compiler, of average intelligence, could have been guilty of; and 
 such, as, if they really existed, must certainly have been detected, 
 and exposed, long ago. No one, for example, will believe, tliat 
 the historian meant to say, that Hezron and Hamul were born, 
 in Canaan, of Pharez, when that person must have been a child, 
 only four or five years old. Nor will any one believe, that the 
 lawgiver meant to say, that each priest had to eat eighty-four pigeons 
 a-day, besides other food, " in the holy place," or anywhere else. 
 
TO BISHOP COLENSO. 205 
 
 None could possibly imagine the sacred writer guilty of the absurdity 
 of saying, that, to hear the law, or for any other purpose, (100,000 
 men had to stand in a tail, nearly twenty miles long. Such ideas 
 cannot effect any serious assault upon the Pentateuch. 
 
 But, worse than all, is the fact, that a Christian Bishop ignores 
 the miraculous features, which the writer professedly imparts 
 to his history. He, again and again, asserts, that the increase of 
 the people, and their preservation, in Egypt, were peculiarly mira- 
 culous. The Bishop goes closely to work with his figures, and 
 thinks he proves that they could not have increased so. The writer 
 studiously records that the people were miraculously preserved in 
 the desert, and he there alludes particularly to their flocks and herds. 
 The Bishop at once proceeds, by reference to some half-dozen 
 modern travellers, to show that such a thing could not have been. 
 Assuming that the desert was, more than three thousand years 
 ago, much the same as it is now. Mistaking the statements of Holy 
 Scripture, upon the subject ; and, being apparently ill-informed as 
 to the actual character of that desert, as even now existing. 
 This character is clearly exhibited from the "writings of various 
 travellers, as likely to have furnished very considerable resources 
 for the maintenance of a numerous people, with large flocks and 
 herds ; even had no miraculous means been provided for their pre- 
 servation. Although the tenour of the whole narrative is, to the 
 effect that they were miraculously preserved. 
 
 Surely, we' have glanced at reasons enough for doubting the 
 solidity of Dr. Colenso s book; and^for concluding, that his method 
 of attack, and the way in which he has carried it out, are not 
 such as to give Christian Laymen any alarm concerning the his- 
 torical veracity of the Pentateuch ; nor, by having done so, to 
 shock their Christian faith, which, to a considerable extent, depends 
 upon it. 
 
207 
 
 A BRIEF GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 Abarbanel, his di\'ision of sacrifices 
 Levitical, 87 
 
 Aca:cia, aud other trees, withered, near 
 Sinai, 190 
 
 All Israel, Moses and Joshua address- 
 ing, 20 
 
 "AH the congi'egation," meaning of this 
 expression, 16, 19 
 
 Amalekites, where they dwelt, 189 
 
 Amram, his family, no fair test for all 
 Levitical families, 125 
 
 Apostles, testimony of the, to Penta- 
 teuch, 9 
 
 Ai'med, and dwelling in tents, Israel, 
 29 
 
 , Israel may have been so, at the 
 
 Exodus, 31 
 
 • , proper rendering of word so 
 
 translated, 33' 
 
 , Dr. Colenso's mistake in ar- 
 
 guing on, 34 
 Arms, how obtained by Israel at the 
 Exodus, 32 
 
 154 
 
 of 
 
 Balaam, Balak's messages to, 
 Benjamin, probable reason 
 
 number of his tribe, 114 
 " Between the two evenings," meaning 
 
 of this phrase, 68 
 , authorities 
 
 referred to, for, 69 
 
 explanations of, 71 — 74 
 Births, Israelitish, on the road to Pi-ha- 
 
 hiroth, 66 
 Bochart, his Hierozoicon referred to, 
 
 41, 140, 147 
 Booths, Dr. Colenso's limited knowledge 
 
 of word so translated, 38 
 
 Borrowed, the Israelites, explanation of 
 
 this fact, 35 
 Bread, the great want of people in the 
 
 desert, lb2 
 , unleavened, habitually eaten by 
 
 Arabs, 182 
 BufFon, his " Natural History" refeiTed 
 
 to, 54, 111 
 Burckhardt, his "Travels" referred to, 
 
 158, 177, 178, 180—186, 198 
 Butter, great quantity habitually eaten 
 
 by Arabs, 199 
 
 "Came with Jacob" into Egj'pt, 
 
 meaning of, 13 
 Camp, the extent of ; and the priest's 
 
 duties, 22 
 Canaan, extent of and number of the 
 
 , people, 145 
 Charcoal, Dr. Colenso knows not how 
 
 made by Arabs, 190 
 — -, brushwood, and saplings, 
 
 used in making, 172 
 Charges, Dr. Colenso's against the Pen- 
 tateuch, improbability of, 2 
 Chief pastor, of a flock, Dr. Colenso as, 
 
 52 
 1 Chron. xxiii. 6 — 23, compared with 
 
 Exod. vi. and Num. xxvi., pedigrees 
 
 in, 121 
 Concubinage, existing among Israel at 
 
 the Exodus, 103 
 Concubines, children of, how regarded, 
 
 104 
 Criticism, Dr. Colenso's mistakes in, 
 
 27, 34, 38, 50, 70, 77, &c., &c. 
 
 Danites, the number of, at the Exodus, 
 113 
 
Danites, probable reason for large 
 number of, 114 
 
 Darkness, important u.se of the three 
 days of, in Egypt, 51 
 
 Dates, and date-ti-ees, use of in the 
 desert, 184 
 
 Desert, Scripture allusions to Israel's 
 route in, 181 
 
 , Israel's intercourse with in- 
 habitants of, 191 
 
 , general aspect of, 194 
 
 , Israel led by miracles in, 185 
 
 -, general resources of, according 
 
 to Burckhardt, 195 
 
 , mode of living in, 199 
 
 , capable of cultivation, 174 
 
 , Dr. Colenso's mistakes con- 
 cerning, 175 — 178 
 ■, Dr. Colenso's authorities on, 
 
 172" 
 
 • , European travellers in, 179 
 
 , Scriptural account of the, 
 
 164 
 Deut. xxi. 15 — 17, explanation of, as 
 
 to firstborn, 141 
 Dew, value of in the desert, for svis- 
 
 taining flocks and herds, 186 
 , in the Delta, and in the desert, 
 
 186 
 Divorce, permitted by Egyptians, to 
 
 any extent, 104 
 
 " Each opening each womb," phrase 
 
 descriptive of firstborn, 138 
 Edom, or Seir, Israel compassed, many 
 days or ^ears, 194 
 
 , aspect of desert aroimd, 
 
 195 
 Egypt, what time Israel left, 64 
 
 , Israel's march out of, 56 
 
 , Israelites were prepared when 
 
 they left, 51 
 
 , time of Israel's sojourn in, 91 
 
 Egyptians, children of, by mariiage 
 
 with Hebrews, 104, 105 
 El Araba, terrific nature of, yet a 
 
 pasture ground in winter, 197 
 El Tyh; the desert of, 168 
 
 , Volney's description of, 169 
 
 , desert of, vegetation easily pro- 
 duced in, 185 
 Encampment, Israel's at Abel-Shittim, 
 
 159 
 European travellers in the desert, 179 
 Exodus vi., Hebrew families men- 
 tioned in, no fair standard for others, 
 105 
 
 Exod. vi., Dr. Colenso's strange mis- 
 apprehension of, 116 
 
 , explanation of pedigi'ees in, 
 
 119 
 
 Family, cost of keeping in Egy|:)t, 109 
 
 Families, principle of division of tribes 
 into, not known, 101 
 
 Fish and geese caught in nets and salted 
 in EgviJt, 187 
 
 Firstborn, Havei-nick and Michaelis 
 right concerning, 139 
 
 , question concerning, not af- 
 fected by the marking of doorposts 
 in Egypt, 143 
 
 , means first son, of first wife 
 
 a vii-gin, of whole family, 140 
 
 , number of the, 132, 138 
 
 probable priestly functions 
 
 of, 144 
 Flocks, possible size of, Israelitish, 
 
 at the Exodus, 54 
 ■ , Egyptian, and probably 
 
 Israelitish, very gi-eat, 57 
 Fourth Generation, the Exodus in the, 
 
 90 
 , patriarchal family 
 
 was to be the test of the, 98 
 
 Gen. xlvi. 12, word were most import- 
 ant in, 12 
 
 , translation proposed for, 
 
 15 
 
 Gen. xlix. 3, exjolanation of, as to first- 
 born, 141 
 
 Generation, natural, Scripture hints on, 
 94 
 
 , , in sense of beget- 
 
 ment, 95 
 
 , , as a cycle of time 
 
 limiting a life or race, 96 
 
 Gesenius, his Thesaurus referred to, 
 45 
 
 , his Heb. Gram, referred to, 
 
 16 
 
 Glassius, his Philolog. Sacr. referred 
 to, 16, 194 
 
 Goats, some particulars about breed- 
 ing, 55 
 
 Goshen, land of, where, 57 
 
 , ancient cities of, now a desert, 
 
 58 
 
 Grazing, extent of land required for 
 Israel's flocks in, 56 
 
 Gresswell, his " Three Witnesses " 
 quoted, 41, 64 
 
20.0 
 
 Halts and encampments of Israel, when 
 
 leavdng Egypt, 64 
 Hamul and Hezron, birth of, in Egypt, 
 
 10 
 Hebrew families in Canaan, no standard 
 
 for in Egj'jjt, 104 
 , Scrijjture fiu^nishes no 
 
 sufficient data concerning, 105 
 — numerals, difficulties concerning, 
 
 Hebrews, their fruitfulness in Egypt, 
 Scripture testimony to, 106 
 
 , their fruitfulness in Egypt, 
 
 heathen testimony to, 106 
 
 Holy Bible, Dr. Colenso's opinion con- 
 cerning, generally, 4 
 
 Horeb. how the Israelites probably 
 conducted water at, 185 
 
 , Israel did not live in idleness 
 
 at, 186 
 
 Hurry, in what sense Israel left Egypt 
 in a, 51 
 
 Israelites, their increase in Egj'^pt, 
 
 miraculous, 91, 112 
 -, then- number at the Exodus, 
 
 100 
 , possible number of, at the 
 
 Exodus, 110 
 • , variation in number of the 
 
 several tribes of, 130 
 , variation in number of the 
 
 several tribes of, various ways of 
 
 accounting for, 131 
 , number of, and extent of 
 
 Canaan, 145 
 
 ■ in the ' desert, miraculous 
 
 preservation of, 163 
 
 Jerem. ii. 6, explanation of, as to the 
 
 desert, 166 
 Jethro, what time Moses fed flocks of, 
 
 at Horeb, 193 
 , value of his visit to Israel, 
 
 in the desert, 193 
 John iii. 1 — 21, important reference 
 
 to, 7 
 John V. 46, 47, important reference 
 
 to, 6 
 John vi. 30 — 58, important reference 
 
 to, 7 
 Joseph, the Patriarch, his death as 
 
 marking a generation, 97 
 
 Kadesh-Barnea, or El-Araba, in 1812, 
 comjjju'atively unknown, 180 
 
 Kalisch, as quoted regarding Sinai, by 
 
 Dr. Colenso, 189 
 Kings, Egyptians mourned theii', 72 
 
 days, 65 
 
 Lane, his " Modem Egyptians " refen-ed 
 
 to, 41, 104, 109, 182 
 Law, the reading of the, by Ezra, 21 
 , giving of the, at Sinai — Robin- 
 son's discoveiy of the plain, 179 
 Laymen, important offices of, 26, 83 
 Lee, his Hebrew Grammar referred to, 
 
 16 
 Levi, family of, probably avoided 
 
 Egyptian concubinage, 107 
 Levites, great continency intimated on 
 
 the part of, 125 
 — ; may have increased much more 
 
 thfm stated, 126 - 
 , number of, at the Exodus, 
 
 115 
 , proper duties of the, according 
 
 to Ezra, 24 
 , according 
 
 to Chronicles, 25 
 , why not popular in Israel, 
 
 128 
 Leviticus iv. 11, 12, mistake by Dr, 
 
 Colenso on, 27 
 Lindsay, Lord, his "Travels" referred 
 
 to, 62 
 
 Maan, in the desert, between Araba 
 
 and Hor, 196 , 
 Macdonald, referred to on the Penta- 
 teuch, 5 
 Maimonides, his account of killing the 
 
 Passover, 77 
 Mana-seh and Ephraim, why number 
 
 small in each tribe, 114 
 Manna, the Saviour refers to fall of, as 
 
 to historical fact, 7 
 Marriage, at what age contracted, in 
 
 Egjq3t, 109 
 Married men, Dr. Colenso's mistake in 
 
 counting, at Sinai, 136 
 Messiah, or Christ, descended from 
 
 Hezron, l4 
 Midian, the overthrow of, was mh'a- 
 
 culous, 155 
 
 , the war on, 148 
 
 Midianites, where they dwelt, 193 
 , and others, slaiuy?<c/('ctaZ/y, 
 
 by command of God, 152 
 Midwives, their answer to Pharaoh a 
 
 concerted evasion, 105 
 
210 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Miracles, in the desert, continuous, 
 
 163 
 Misquotations, by Dr. Colenso, 11, 85, 
 
 157 
 Moses' writings, Christ, as Son of God, 
 
 testifies to, 6, 8 
 
 Nakhel, or date-tree, place so called in 
 the desert, 185 
 
 Noldius, his " Concord. Hebr. Partic." 
 referred to, 16, 50 
 
 Nmnbered, those, only men fit for war, 
 46 
 
 Numerals, Hebrew, difliculties con- 
 cerning, 153 
 
 Officers, Hebrews were provided with, 
 
 at the Exodus. 34 
 Og, King of Bashan, the conquest of, 
 
 155 
 
 Palm-trees, numerous in the desert now, 
 and more so formerly, 186 
 
 Passover, institution of the, 47 
 
 , celebration of, matter for his- 
 torical evidence, 79 
 
 , time for slaying, and sprink- 
 ling of the blood, 76 
 
 Patriarchs, the twelve, had probably 
 more sons born in Egyjit, 1 07 
 
 , relative ages of, 
 
 108 
 
 , sons of at the 
 
 Eisodus, 108 
 
 Patriarchate vested in Amram's family 
 at the Exodus, 99 
 
 Paxton, his " Scrip. Illustrations " re- 
 ferred to, 40, 58, 62, 147, 157, 177, 
 193 
 
 Pedigrees, no data for judging of, in 
 Holy Scripture, 101 
 
 , selected from the Bible, by 
 
 Dr. Colenso, 92 
 
 women not included by Scrip- 
 
 Pigeons, Dr. Colenso's ideas on sacrifice 
 of, 87 
 
 were birds of the Arabian 
 
 ture, in Jewish, 101 
 
 Penalty for Israel's rebellion, in refusing 
 to enter Canaan when told, 129 
 
 Pentateuch, references to Christ in, 8 
 
 , itself claims to have been 
 
 wT-itten by Moses, 5 
 
 , object of Dr. Colenso's 
 
 book against, 3 
 
 Petrified trees, mai-ks of former vege- 
 tation, between Cairo and Suez, 189 
 
 Pharzites, distinct from Hezronites and 
 Hamulites, 13 
 
 desert, 88 
 Polled, the Israelites, at Sinai, 42 
 Polling, and taxing, Exod. iii. 11 ; 
 
 xxxviii. 25 ; and Num. i. 1 — 46 ; ex- 
 plained, 44 
 Polygamy, did prevail among Israel at 
 
 the Exodus, 103 
 Prejudice in argument, proofs of Dr. 
 
 Colenso's, 133 
 Priests, their number and perquisites 
 
 at the Exodus, 79, 82 
 , and extent of the 
 
 camp, 22 
 
 Quails and other bii'ds salted in Egypt, 
 
 187 
 
 Eams, habitually killed by Arabs, 200 
 Regimental returns, Israelitish, matter 
 
 of routine, 157 
 Reserves, the clergy, 89 
 Reservou's, natiural in cavities of the 
 
 rocks, 189 
 Robinson, his "Biblical Researches" 
 
 refen-ed to, 40, 61—67, 179 
 
 Sacred Geography, Dr. Colenso's mis- 
 takes in, 156 
 
 Sacrifices, Levitical, not all observed 
 in the wilderness, 81 
 
 , how disposed of, 
 
 83 
 
 , optional, not 
 
 compulsory, 86 
 
 Scriptures, on reading the Holy, 27 
 
 Servants, Israelitish, Dr. Colenso re- 
 fuses to allow for, 110 
 
 , at least a few at 
 
 the Exodus, 111 
 
 Sheep, some hints on breeding, 55 
 
 Sicard, Abb6, his calculation at Pi-ha- 
 hiroth, 60 
 
 Sihou, war on, and war on Midian, 
 harmony of events between, 153, 160 
 
 Sinai, natural resources of Mount, 188 
 
 , period of Burckhai'dt's arrival at, 
 
 191 
 
 , still good water at, 169 
 
 , second passover kept at, 78 
 
 Slavery, difierence between scriptural 
 and other kinds of, 151 
 
 Story, an offensive title applied to the 
 Pentateuch by Bishop Colenso, 3 
 
INDEX. 
 
 211 
 
 Substance, Israel's, at the Exodus, 
 
 42 
 Succoth, probable reasons why place 
 
 so-called, 40 
 
 , journey from Rameses to, 59 
 
 Suez, desert of, its present condition, 
 
 189 
 
 Tents, the Israelites in, 37 
 Time-table of events between war on 
 Sihon and on Midian, 160 
 
 Volney, his "Travels" referred to, 41, 
 61, 63, 168, 170, 186 
 
 Wady"'el Lahyane, verdure of, 197 
 
 -Genne,Biirckhardt's description 
 
 of, 190 
 
 Wady Gharendel, near Sinai,[divers sorts 
 
 of trees in, 184 
 , at Araba, terrible 
 
 desert, 196 
 Water, cattle can go without, a 
 
 long time, under certain conditions, 
 
 182 
 , mode of carrying in Egypt, 
 
 182 
 
 brackish, may be drinkable, 
 
 , excellent at Sinai, 190 
 
 , found everywhere in the desert 
 
 at a low depth, 183 
 
 " Whole Assembly," the, meaning of 
 this expression, 16, 19 
 
 Wild beasts, Canaan peculiarly exposed 
 to attacks of, 147 
 
 Wilkinson, his "Ancient Egyptians" re- 
 ferred to, 39, 41, 54, 65, 104, 109, 182, 
 184, 187 
 
 182 
 
 loNDON : Wertheim, Macintosh, and Htrux, 
 24, Paternoster-row, and 23, Holies-street, Cavendish-square. 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOE. 
 
 NOTES on the RESTORATION and CONVERSION of 
 ISRAEL. One Vol. Demy 8vo. 14.9. 
 
 ISAIAH'S CALL to ENGLAND : a Critical Exposition of 
 Isaiah xviii. One Vol. Demy 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN VERITY STATED : being a Summary of 
 Trinitarian Doctrine, especially adapted for Present Times. 
 One Vol. Post 8vo. 5^. 
 
 N.B. — A Welsh Edition, by the Rev. Hugh Owen. Aubrey's, 
 Llanerchymedd, Anglesea. 
 

 Date Due 
 
 
 ^7 ^- 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 fflv '^ ; '41 
 
 
 
 '"/ '^ ^** 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^