iSiMllx^lS«^^ 
 
Stom f 9e i.i^xM'^ of 
 
 Q$equeaf^eb 6^ 0im to 
 f ^e feifitati? of 
 
 (ptincefon C^eofogtcaf ^emiMtg 
 .4-. CL7E3 
 
 L' 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
THE 
 
 BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 A REFUTATION 
 
 OF 
 
 BISHOP COLENSO'S CEITICAL EXAMINATION 0^ 
 THE PENTATEUCH AND BOOK OF JOSHUA. 
 
 BY TWO WOUKINa MEN, 
 
 A JEW AND A aENTILE. 
 SECOND EDITION, REVISED. 
 
 A" - -: J* • : - v: v\. 
 
 P8ALM CXVI. 
 
 Tprjyop€iT€, (TTrJKeTC kv rfj Trio-rei, avSpt^eaOe, KparaLOvaOe. 
 
 Paiti.. 
 
 LONDON : 
 W. KENT & CO., PATEENOSTER ROW. 
 
^% 
 
 HAEBILD, •^'Vm. "» LONDON, 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 Two Journeymen Mechanics, working for London Firms 
 at their respective trades of Printing and Bookbinding, 
 borrowed a copy of Dr. Colenso^s work on the Pentateucli 
 from a City Missionary, and sat down together for a few 
 evenings, after their day^s work was done, in order to 
 study carefully what the Bishop had advanced. They have 
 made the following notes of their investigation. 
 
 We take the opportunity afforded by a Second Edition to 
 add : — ^We appreciate the compHment imphed in the doubt 
 so often expressed, that this Eefutation has been written by 
 Journeymen Mechanics ; but neither the Pubhshers nor our- 
 selves would consent to any deception. Every word has 
 been written by one workman ; mth the advice and assis- 
 tance of the other, in all matters concerning Jewish customs 
 and the Hebrew language. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The first circumstance that forced itself upon our attention 
 ■was the strange position in which we were placed. AYe had 
 been accustomed to look upon Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, 
 as well as Dissenting Ministers, as, professionally, strenuous 
 and constant advocates of the truth and authority of the Holj 
 Scriptures. It had never happened within our experience 
 that a Bishop of the Church of England had " written a book" 
 coolly avowing his belief that the Scriptures were "fables," not 
 even " cunningly devised." We had both repeatedly heard such 
 assertions at Infidel Lectures, where, of course, we had expected 
 nothing else; but to find ourselves in companionship with a 
 volume written by a Bishop, containing the same arguments we 
 had often listened to at the Infidel Lecture Hall, was a new 
 and very unpleasant experience. It was not less unpleasant to 
 read on the placards of the same Infidel Lecture Hall, thafc 
 extracts from the Bishop's Book were to be read on Sunday 
 Evening before the usual Lecture, when the favourite orator 
 being absent, it was feared that the funds would sufier, and the 
 Bishop's work was selected to make up for the usual amount of 
 blasphemous ribaldry. Thus to have a Bishop of the English 
 Church claimed as an exponent of infidelity was as new as it was 
 disagreeable, and we will here thank the Bishop of jS'atal for 
 making Christian men in workshops the jibe and sport of the 
 profane and unbelieving ; for strengthening the hands of infidels 
 and atheists in a manner and to a degree that the most sanguine 
 
VIU PEEFACE. 
 
 amongst their number "had scarcely dared to hope for, and for 
 weakening the efforts and discouraging the minds of earnest 
 Christian working men in exactly the same proportion. 
 
 And with what design ? we have wonderingly asked our^^elves 
 since attentively reading the Bishop's volume. What purpose of 
 truth or usefulness could the Bishop hope to serve by issuing 
 such a compilation ? He is supposed to be a minister of Christ. 
 Did he expect to advance our Lord's kingdom by, at least, insinuat- 
 ing that He was liable to human error ? He is supposed to exer- 
 cise himself in the Holy Scriptures ; but the Bishop says one thing 
 and the Book of Psalms asserts the contrary as plainly as it is 
 possible to do so — as we have shown (p. 45) ; and to ** build us up 
 in the comfort of our most holy faith," by doing his best to under- 
 mine and destroy our belief in the Mosaic Narrative upon which 
 all that faith is completely dependent, is a new and most uncom- 
 fortable way for a chief shepherd to feed the Master's sheep. 
 
 There is, however, no lack of avowal on the part of the 
 Bishop of what he intends to do if he is able. There is no 
 attempt to disguise the uncompromising hostility of his cri- 
 ticism upon the first six books of the Holy Scriptures. He 
 does not leave the slightest doubt upon the mind of the reader 
 that he intends to prove, if he can, the untruthfulness of the 
 Pentateuch, or, as he himself terms it, the unhistorical character 
 of those books. But why not speak out plainly ? If they are 
 unhistorical, they are but a collection of fables, pure and simple, 
 and the sooner they become the companions of " Jack, the 
 Giant-killer," the better. There can be no positive teaching 
 drawn from a book, in which it requires a close study to detect 
 the hidden fable from the hidden truth; and the whole history is 
 either one of gross imposture, unworthy the notice of men living 
 in earnest, or it is part of the oracles of the living God. 
 
 But the Bishop will not endorse this view of the subject ; he 
 
PEEFACE. IX 
 
 tells US the boots are uDbistorical, but written without any 
 culpable intention to deceive — see Colenso's Preface, p. xvii., note, 
 where we read the followiug rich sentence : — " It is ive who do 
 him (the writer of the story of the Exodus) wrong, and do 
 wrong to the excellence of the Scripture story by maintaining 
 thafc it must be historically true, and that the writer meant it to 
 be received and believed as such." So that while the writer of 
 the Pentateuch endeavours to give every possible proof of truth- 
 fulness, and has succeeded so well as to make thousands of 
 clear and powerful minds believe not only that he meant to 
 write truth, but that he really accomplished his object ; the 
 Bishop of IS'atal informs us that it is all a mistake, and that the 
 Pentateuch to be in its right place, must be classed with the 
 " Pilgrim's Progress," the " Death of Abel," and other works of 
 the same character. But Bunyan and Gesuer own that their 
 works are allegories. Why is not the author of the " Penta- 
 teuch" equally candid and open ? To prove the unhistorical 
 character of the Pentateuch, and so inevitably destroy the influ- 
 ence of the Bible on the minds and hearts of Christian men, is the 
 strange employment the Bishop of Natal has proposed to himself, 
 and has done his best to accomplish ; and we, two plain working 
 men, beg to ask if this is fitting employment for a Bishop of the 
 Church of England as such ? He replies that it is in one place 
 (Introductory remarks, page 5), and that it is not in another 
 (Preface, page 12), and having thus given us an idea of his own 
 consistency, and the authoritative weight we ought to attach to 
 his teachings, he leaves us to settle the question for ourselves. 
 
 In his Preface the Bishop fears he will have to leave the Church. 
 In the Introductory E-emarks which follow he rejoices to find 
 the necessity removed by the recent decision of the Court of 
 Arches. His retaining his position may be perfectly legal ; there 
 are many other le^al acts which a good and true man would hesi- 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 tate to perform ; but the question to be considered is, not the 
 legality but the honesty of any course of conduct. 
 
 Through an oversight or laxity in ecclesiastical law it may be 
 possible for Dr. Colenso to retain his Bishopric in the Church of 
 England without teaching the doctrines he personally accepted 
 when he was allowed to enter upon his duties and enjoy his 
 emoluments and privileges. But suppose a case : That either 
 of us two working men went to the Bishop and informed him that 
 our employers, having contracted to pay us for our time, had 
 asked us to perform work for which we were disinclined, and 
 which we could not see it right to do. What would the Bishop 
 advise ?- " If you cannot agree with your employers and work in 
 harmony with them, you had far better leave their establishment." 
 Surely he has voluntarily placed himself in a precisely similar 
 position. If his disagreement with the Establishment he is con- 
 nected with, is of such a thorough and fundamental character as 
 it appears to be, is he not bound, as an honest straightforward 
 man, to leave it, and seek some other employment ? He took 
 office as a Christian Minister on the express, plainly stated con- 
 tract of his unfeigned belief in the Canonical Scriptures of the Old 
 and New Testament : on no other terms whatever could he have 
 been admitted to the ministry of the church ; and if (from exceed- 
 ingly weak and insufficient reasons, as they appear to us) he no 
 longer holds the belief he once assuredly professed, he can no 
 longer conscientiously enjoy the rights, privileges, and emoluments 
 depending thereupon. Inasmuch as, no longer believing in the 
 truth and authority of the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testa- 
 ment, he cannot expound them and enforce their belief on other 
 persons ; neither can he honestly withhold the privileges and emo- 
 luments from some other person, who is in a condition to fulfil 
 the contract, upon which they were, and are still, granted from 
 the Church Establishment. 
 
PREFACE. XI 
 
 "What can tlie Bishop of Natal do or teacJi now ? He cannot 
 teacb that the Bible is the Truth of Grod ; he cannot avouch that 
 the Pentateuch is historically correct. He must, to be consistent, 
 own that he believes the Lord Jesus Christ was liable to human 
 error, and inasmuch as Our Blessed Lord repeatedly (in more than 
 a dozen instances) stakes His character and His knowledge on the 
 truth of the Books which the' Bishop declares to be untrue, the 
 Bishop can no longer consistently teach the doctrine of the 
 Divinity of our Lord and Saviour. What, then, remains for him 
 to teach that the church to which he is attached, can and will 
 accept as quid pro quo ? 
 
 If no satisfactory answer be given to these plain and straight- 
 forward questions, however legal the Bishop's position may be, 
 common honesty appears to us to demand that he should at once 
 resign a position where all the advantage is on one side ; to retain 
 the salary with the duties unperformed, or to receive emoluments 
 while refusing to render the services stipulated for in return, 
 are not the acts of an honest man. 
 
 The Bishop can still teach the doctrine of Intuitive Eeligion ; 
 but surely this does not exist amongst the Formularies of the 
 Church of England. He can teach that mankind are independent 
 alike of Inspiration and Kevelation ; but if such doctrines are 
 truths, — if the innate religion of the Sikh Grooroo whom the Bishop 
 has taken for his Model, is as valuable and authoritative as Chris- 
 tianity, then also the intuition of the Zulu heathen must be as 
 truthful and beneficial as that of his Christian Bishop (whatever 
 that may be) ; all necessity for bishops and bishoprics is at once 
 at an end, and Bishop Colenso's ministrations in his diocese are 
 unnecessary and impertinent. 
 
 Nor need it be considered strange, if while at the end of his first 
 part the Bishop becomes enthusiastic in praise oT his new Gooroo 
 religion, he never once mentions " the Name that is above every 
 
Xll PEEFACE. ♦ 
 
 name ;" that he utterly ignores the teaching, and person, and 
 work of the Lord Jesus Christ. He mentions a God of Truth, 
 and avers Him revealed to us in an untruthful revelation. "We 
 are to be Christians without Christ, saved without a Saviour, 
 redeemed from our lost and ruined condition without a Redeemer, 
 taught by a mistaken Teacher, instead of a Leader, authorized, 
 truthful, and divine ; we are to be relegated to the dominion of a 
 seared conscience, and a deceitful and desperately wicked heart, 
 and to have such a chance of getting to heaven at last as these 
 will leave us ; our only warrant for believing in the existence 
 of such a place at all being contained in a book stigmatized as 
 untruthful, and consequently not to be trusted. 
 
 Kor is this all, the Bishop in depriving us of our support and 
 stay, forces back upon us the sorrowful doubt of the existence of 
 our loved and lost ; for certainly (if Christ could be the mistaken 
 one of the Bishop's wild, illogical, cruel, and blasphemous dream- 
 ings), "they that are fallen asleep in Christ are perished," and 
 " we are of all men most miserable." Deluded and mistaken in 
 our most sacred and cherished hopes, it were better to be the 
 Bishop's paraded and praised Gooroo than an earnest, striving, 
 Christian Englishman. 
 
 For the question is not, as the Bishop falteringly hints it, 
 " "Why should it be thought that He (Jesus) would speak with 
 certain divine knowledge on this matter ?" The question raised is 
 of far more momentous and terrible significance to all that truly 
 believe in Christ. If Jesus Christ could be mistaken in his 
 estimate of the Pentateuch, what warrant have we for trusting 
 any portion of His teaching as authoritative and divine ? what 
 security have we in accepting as trustworthy anything that He 
 said ? Our most glorious hope, our highest aspiration, to stand 
 " complete in Him," cannot possibly be fulfilled if He were incom- 
 plete in Himself. We humbly but reverently thank our God that 
 
PREFACE. XIU 
 
 the Scriptures (in fhe "belief of which the Bishop's book has not 
 the least disturbed us) expressly declare that " in Him dwelleth all 
 the fulness of the Grodhead bodily," and (matchless declaration 
 of goodness and truth),. that " we are complete in Him." 
 
 The Bishop asks concerning Jesus, "At what period then, of his 
 life on earth is it to be supposed that He had granted to Him, as the 
 Son of Man, supernaturally, full and accurate information on these 
 points, so that He should be expected to speak about the Penta- 
 teuch in other terms than any devout Jew of that day would have 
 employed ?" The fact being, that the testimony of Our Lord in 
 favour of the Pentateuch is so emphatic, so utterly irreconcileable 
 with the Bishop's theory, that as the testimony cannot, the value 
 of it must be destroyed. We will simply answer the Bishop's 
 question by reverently pointing out to him, that all the Lord 
 Jesus Christ is now, is responsible for our belief in the truth of 
 the Pentateuch, because after He had risen from the dead. He 
 emphatically repeated the truths He had before asserted on this 
 subject, i.e., that Moses was a prophet, and that the books were 
 his writing, when, " beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He 
 expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning 
 Himself," Luke xxiv. 27. So that the Bishop's supposition in- 
 volves the awful consequence, that the teaching of our Lord on 
 the most important of all subjects, his own divinity, after He rose 
 from the dead, was erroneous and mistaken. 
 
 One other point and we quit this saddening subject. The 
 Bishop says the Pentateuch is unhistorical, consequently untrue : 
 and we will, therefore, draw attention to the fact that in our 
 Lord's Temptations in the "Wilderness all three of the quotations 
 He used to baffle the Evil One, are taken from the Pentateuch ; so 
 that our Lord achieved a victory over the Eather of Lies by quoting 
 a book that was, itself, untruthful. We feel that we need only 
 point out the circumstances, and that any comment is unnecessary. 
 
XIV PEEFACE. 
 
 Now in passing to the consideration of every difficulty the 
 Bishop has put forth, we intend simply to accept the invitation 
 of the Bishop, and, as far as possible, enter into the most minute 
 detail. "We shall confine ourselves to the subjects the Bishop 
 has chosen, leaving aside the vast mass of affirmative evidence 
 which true and honest criticism would have stated and weighed ; 
 and we shall try, in our own plain vernacular, to point out the 
 Bishop's weaknesses and errors ; and — though we should utterly 
 fail in answering any of his objections — yet decline to follow 
 him into unbelief, until the affirmative evidence has been subjected 
 to the process the Bishop has employed upon the texts upon 
 which his learning and ability have been so misplaced ; for (thus 
 writes a great and good man belonging to the same ecclesiastical 
 corporation as the Bishop of Natal himself) , " he that with an 
 honest and sincere desire to find out the truth or falsehood of a 
 revelation, inquires into it, should first consider impartially ivTiat 
 can he alleged for it, and afterwaeds consider the ohjections raised 
 against it, that so he may compare the arguments in proof of it, 
 and the objections together ; to insist upon particular objections 
 collected out of difficult places of Scripture, without attending 
 to the inner grounds and motions which induce a belief of the 
 truth of the Scripture, is a very fallacious mode of arguing, 
 because it is not in the least improbable that there may be a true 
 revelation which may have great difficulties in it." And if this 
 is the proper course to be taken to arrive at truth, it is also an 
 exact description of that which the Bishop of Natal has certainly 
 not done. 
 
 The plan we shall adopt in dealing with the Bishop's objec- 
 tions will be, to take his own chapters one after the other, quote 
 the texts upon which the objections are founded, state the objec- 
 tions in the Bishop's own words, and answer them to the best of 
 our ability and research. 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 15 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Of the Bishop's Book is headed Inteodtjctoet Eemaeks, many 
 of which have been noticed in our preface ; we shall therefore 
 pass on to consider the first objection in the book. 
 
 "CHAPTER II. 
 
 " The Family or Judah." And the quotation made as fol- 
 lows : — '^ And the sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelali, and 
 PTiarez, and Zarah : hut Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan ; 
 and the sons of Pharez ivere Hezron and J3.amul^^ Gen, xlvi. 12. 
 
 This is the first text the Bishop wishes to subject to exami- 
 nation, and in the quotation, as above, the word " were" is 
 omitted in the Bishop's book. It may appear ungenerous 
 to say that this was done designedly, and not giving Dr. Co- 
 lenso credit for the common sense of supposing that the error 
 would be immediately pointed out ; but the word "were," there 
 omitted, has been often used to point out the probability that 
 Hezron and Hamul were born after the families of Israel came 
 into Egypt ; while the Bishop proceeds to say, " 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 amongst 
 the seventy persons (including Jacob himself and Joseph and 
 his two sons) who came into Egypt with Jacob." Here is the 
 Bishop's objection : '' Judah was forty-two years old when Jacob 
 went down into Egypt." *' Judah was twenty ye^rs of age when 
 he married ; he has separately three sons, the oldest grows up, is 
 married, and dies ; the second grows up (suppose in another 
 year), marries his brother's widow, and dies ; the third grows up 
 (suppose in another year still), but declines to take his brother's 
 
16 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 widow to wife." [If this is criticism, it is of a very loose cha- 
 racter, there is no mention of anything of the kind in G-enesis.] 
 ** She then deceives Judah himself, conceives by him, and in due 
 time bears him twins, Pharez and Zarah. One of these twins 
 also grows to maturity and has two sons, Hezron and Hamul, 
 born to him before Jacob goes dpwn into Egypt." And the 
 Bishop sums up concerning the whole — " Certainly incredible !" 
 
 "We copy the following from Eogers's " Eeason and Faith," 
 thinking that 'it very ably sets forth a principle here required : — 
 *' If an objection be founded on the alleged absohite contradiction 
 of two statements, it is quite sufficient to show any (not the 
 real, but only a hypothetical and possible,) medium of recon- 
 ciling them, and the objection in all fairness is dissolved, and this 
 would be felt by the honest logician, even if we did not know of 
 such instances ; we do, however, know of many." 
 
 Acting on this principle, we suggest the following hypothesis 
 as sufficiently meeting the difficulty. 
 
 Genesis xxxviii. 1, says in the Hebrew ^"^nn TOS " in that 
 time," translated in the English version, " at that time," and 
 understood by the Bishop to mean at the time of the events 
 of the preceding chapter, but taken by the Eabbins in very 
 ancient times to include the whole of the time between the 
 return of Jacob to Canaan and the descent into Egypt, so that 
 it is at least possible, the marriage of Judah took place when he 
 was fourteen years of age. Let us simply suppose he did marry 
 at that age, and then continue our hypothesis from that starting 
 point. 
 
 Judah mai*ried at fourteen ; Er born, Judah fifteen ; Onan 
 born, Judah sixteen. Er married at the same age as Ahaz the 
 father of Hezekiah (i. e., ten years of age) or allow one year 
 more, eleven, Judah twenty-six. Er died, Onan married and 
 died, and Tamar, deceiving her father-in-law, but legal hus- 
 
THE BIBLE IN" THE WOEKSHOP. 17 
 
 band (say two years), Judah twenty-eight. Pharez and 
 Zarah (twins) born, Judah twenty-nine. Pharez grew up 
 and married at eleven years of age, Judah forty. Hezron 
 born first year, Judah forty-one; Hamul in the second year, 
 Judah forty-two years of age ; and yet the Bishop has the har- 
 dihood to assert, " certainly incredible." It may with truth be 
 said that we have taken the shortest possible dates ; and this is 
 admitted; but to invalidate them it must be shown, not that 
 they are the sJiortesi possible, but that they are impossihle ; and 
 until this is done, our hypothesis is a complete and sufficient 
 solution of this first difficulty of Dr. Colenso. 
 
 But we could easily have obtaiDed more time had it been 
 needed, for Dr. Colenso falls into a second error at the end of 
 his calculation of the age of Judah, as he fell into the first at 
 his commencement. He says that Jacob came into Egypt in 
 the second year of the famine. This can hardly be possible ; it 
 was in that year that Joseph made himself known to his brethren, 
 but it is asserting too much to say that Jacob came into Egypt 
 the same year; the second year of the famine was Joseph's 
 thirty-ninth year, the forty-second of Judah, and we may well 
 allow one year, or even two, for the preparations and actual 
 journey of Jacob and all his household into Egypt. 
 
 Thus, then, for the Bishop's first difficulty there are two 
 independent and satisfactory modes of solution, neither of which 
 are " incredible" or impossible, or even improbable. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 Is devoted to the Explanations of Commentators, respecting the 
 subject of the previous chapter, and the Bishop's opinions upon 
 them, with which we have nothing to do. 
 
18 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 "CHAPTER IT. 
 
 *' The size or the Couet of the Tabeenacle compaeei> 
 WITH the numbee OF THE CoxGEEGATioN." Quotation:— 
 *' Jehovah spahe unto Moses, saying, Gather tliou the congregation 
 together unto the door of the talernacJe of the congregation. And 
 Moses did as Jehovah commanded him, and tlie assembly teas 
 gathered at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation'' — Lev. 
 viii. 14. (This second scripture is also wrongly quoted, these are 
 parts of the first, third, and fourth verses.) 
 
 The Bishop's objection follows : — " The whole congregation must 
 have consisted of at least 600,000 persons, probably many more^ 
 and they were to be gathered unto the door of the Tabernacle, or 
 in a width of 18 feet, where there would be room for nine men 
 only to stand in each row, and where, when so standing, they 
 would have formed the commencement of a line 20 miles in 
 length." Such a length being certainly impossible for all practical 
 purposes, the Eishop takes as proof of the unhistorical character 
 of the narrative. The Bishop then quotes a number of texts to 
 prove that the whole congregation meant every man, woman, and 
 child among the " thousands of Israel." There is no doubt that 
 ''all the congregation," included every man, woman, and child in 
 it ; but it is singular that the word " all" in English, and bs in 
 Hebrew is the very word that is omitted in the text the Bishop 
 has chosen, to prove they were all commanded to meet there; nor 
 has the Bishop cited a single text where all the congregation are 
 commanded to assemble at the same time. But the Bishop 
 insists on the literal reading that all the congregation shall in- 
 clude nothing less than every man, woman, and child in Israel. 
 "We will take two of the instances he has quoted, and see what 
 his literal rendering will make of them. 
 
THE BIBLE TS THE WOEKSHOP. 19 
 
 The first is the stoning of the blasphemer, Lev. xxiv, 14. 
 " Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp, .... and 
 let all the congregation stone him." So every one of the 
 two millions of the congregation, men and women and little 
 children took each of them a separate stone, and one after 
 the other cast it upon him until he died ! Again, in the case 
 of the Sabbath-breaker (Num. xv. 36), "all the congregation 
 brought him without the camp, and stoned him witb stones until 
 he died ;" that is, reading literally, the man had from two to four 
 millions of hands laid upon bim, dragging or pushing him along, 
 and then two millions of stones cast separately upon him until 
 he died. This is reading literally ; the plain simple meaning in 
 this case, as in all the others, being, a general assembly acting in 
 the name of, and considered as, the whole congregation. But if 
 we are to read literally, let us take a literal reading from Bishop 
 Colenso's own book, p. 40, lines 13, 14 : — " "We have to imagine 
 the priest having himself to carry on his hach (the italics are 
 ours) on foot, from St. Paul's to the outskirts of the metropolis." 
 Making the usual allowance, and finishing the quotation, the 
 bishop's meaning is perfectly plain, but in the example we have 
 quoted, we have only acted toward the Bishop, as he has toward 
 the Bible, taking what suited our purpose, and leaving out the 
 remainder of the paragraph as he has left out the second part of 
 a verse. (See p. 28.) 
 
 « CHAPTER Y. 
 
 " Moses and Joshua abdeessing all Iseael." Quotation : 
 '* Tliese he the words lohich Moses spalce unto all Israel^^ Deut. i. 1. 
 ^''And Moses called all Israel and said unto them^'' Deut. v. 1. ''^And 
 afterward he read all the words of the laWj the hlessings and the 
 cursings, according to all lohich is turitten in the looh of the Jaw, 
 
20 THE BIBLE IN" THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 There toas not a tvord of all that Moses commanded loMcJi Josliua 
 read not hefore all the congregation of Israel, uith the women, and 
 the little ones, and the strangers that iverejconversant among themT 
 — Josh. viii. 34, 35. 
 
 The Bishop's ohjection follows. " The Israelites numbered 
 certainly over two millions ; how, then, is it conceivable that a man 
 should do what Joshua is here said to have done. We must suppose 
 that at least the great body of the congregation was present, and 
 not only present, but able to hear the words of awful moment 
 which Joshua addressed to them. Nor can it be supposed that 
 he read them, first to one party, and then to another, till all the 
 congregation had heard them. The day would not have sufficed 
 to read in this way all the blessings and all the cursings in Deut. 
 xxvii. and xxviii., much less all the words of the law many times 
 over, especially as he had been already engaged, as the story 
 implies, on the very same day, in writing a copy of the law of 
 Moses upon the stones set up in Mount Ebal." 
 
 We can find nothing whatever in the Narrative upon which to 
 base these several objections to its truthfulness. We have seen 
 in the cliapter immediately foregoing, that the whole congregation 
 could and would, for all practical purposes, have met together 
 when a general promiscuous body of them were in public meeting 
 assembled, with power to act in the name of those present and 
 absent. The statement that Joshua could not be heard by all 
 the people at once, is simply a repetition of the literal reading 
 of the former passage, and it is nowhere asserted that he spoke 
 to all the children of Israel, strangers, etc., at one time! The 
 Bishop says, " it cannot be supposed he addressed them in difife- 
 rent divisions ;" but he should have given us some proof, for 
 the assertion to carry any weight. Nor would, says the Bishop, 
 one day have sufficed to write the law, and afterwards read 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 21 
 
 it many times over. This may be very freely admitted, for there 
 is not the slightest hint in the Narrative whether these transac- 
 tions occupied a day, a week, or a month. The objections in 
 these two last chapters are worse than trivial, they are wasteful 
 alike of time and patience. The Bishop should have remembered, 
 that an objection to carry convincing weight, should be founded 
 on a clear assertion of the Scripture Narrative, not have its sole 
 origin in the imagination of the objector. The statement that all 
 this is said or even implied to have taken place on one day, is 
 either a gross and unpardonably careless blunder, disgraceful 
 and fatal to any pretensions to critical examination, or it is some- 
 thing inconceivably worse. 
 
 ♦'CHAPTER yi. 
 
 " The Extent of the Camp compaeed with the Peiests' 
 DUTIES AND the Dailt NECESSITIES OF THE People." Quota- 
 tion : — " The shin of the lidlocJc and all his flesh, tvith Ms head, 
 and with his legs, and his imvards, and his dung, even the ivhole 
 lullocJc shall he (the p7'iest) carry forth luithout the camp unto a 
 clean place, lohere the ashes are poured out, and hum him on the 
 loood with fire, where the ashes are poured oict shall he le hurnt.^* 
 —Lev. iv. 11, 12. 
 
 In this chapter of a book he entitles a " Critical Examination," 
 the Eishop has committed himself to the following passage : — 
 " 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, head and legs, inwards and dung, even the 
 whole bullock ;" and, by way of climax, the Bishop adds, " Fur- 
 ther, we have to imagine half a million of men going out daily — 
 
22 THE EIBLE IN THE W0EK8H0P. 
 
 the 22,000 Levites for a distance of sia; miles — to the suburbs 
 for the common necessities of nature." 
 
 We now must see what all this is founded on, and it is as 
 follows. " The whole population at the Exodus m as 2,000,000, 
 four square yards allowed for each, 8,000,000 yards, or more than 
 1652 acres of ground. We must imagine a vast encampment of 
 this extent, swarming with people, more than a mile and a-half 
 across in each direction, with the tabernacle in the centre. They 
 could not surely have all gone outside the camp for the neces- 
 sities of nature." 
 
 In answer to this, we assert, " there is no command anywhere 
 in the Bible for any man, woman, or child, to leave the Camp in 
 the Wilderness for any such purpose." There is a direction as to 
 what is to be done by warriors, when campaigning, after the 
 entrance of the Israelites into Canaan, and this one occurs 
 among them. (Comp. Deut. xix. 1, with xxiii. 12 — 14.) 
 
 The Bishop's next objection is, that there would be no wood 
 for fuel ; he surely cannot be ignorant of the custom in the 
 desert of using animal dung for that purpose. 
 
 But the main objections of this chapter are, that the extent 
 of the camp rendered it impossible for the priest to perform the 
 duties required of him, and for the scavengers of the camp to 
 perform theirs. The Bishop says, '' the camp was more than a 
 mile and a half across in each direction, or three square miles in 
 the whole ;" and then proceeds to argue his point as though the 
 outside of the camp was beyond this distance, and that the 
 priest had to carry the bullock accordingly. It is difficult to 
 imagine that this is anything else but culpable dishonesty and 
 misrepresentation when we find the Bishop saying, on p. 41, 
 there was one camp, and on p. 43 (one single leaf of his book 
 only turned over), that there ^evefour camps, and not even then 
 including the central camp of the Levites. In p. 41 it suits the 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOBKSHOP. 23 
 
 Bishop's purpose to speak of it as one camp ; on p. 43 tlie 
 numbers inhabiting the east, west, north, and south camps are 
 expressly stated. If, then, there were (including the camp of 
 the Levites) five separate and distinct camps within three square 
 miles, as we have it on the Bishop's own authority, what becomes 
 of his imaginary picture of the priest carrying the bullock six 
 miles, and of his other imagining, of the Levites travelling the 
 same distance for the common necessities of nature ? Cheerfully 
 allowing the twelve square miles of Scott for the whole congre- 
 gation of 2,000,000, the census of the Levites being only in 
 round numbers 20,000, their camp would only occupy the hun- 
 dredth part of the twelve miles ; or, to put it in other words, 
 instead of the priests and Levites having to walk six miles with 
 the ofierings, about one hundred yards would be the distance 
 they were required to traverse in carrying the sacrifices. 
 
 As to the priest carrying the bullock on his back on foot, it 
 will be quite time enough to occupy ourselves with such a ques- 
 tion when we find anything of the kind stated anywhere else 
 than in the Bishop's " Critical Examination." There is not a 
 single word in the ^N'arrative to show that one priest might not 
 carry the skin (upon a cart or otherwise), another priest the 
 head, another the legs, and so on, for as many journeys or persons 
 as might be required ; indeed, it appears to us that the bullock 
 must have been cut up, or why mention first, particulars, as 
 head, legs, inwards, etc., and afterwards state the whole bullock ? 
 The Bishop takes this to mean that the bullock was to be in one 
 piece ; to us it appears simply to intimate that no portion was to 
 be left behind for the priests' use as food, which was allowed in the 
 case of other offerings. " The supposition" (concludes the Bishop) 
 ^^ involves, of course, an absurdity. But it is our duty to look 
 plain facts in the face." Doubtless the supposition involves an 
 absurdity, and one of the plain facts we have to look in the face 
 
24 THE BIBLE IX THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 is, that of the Bishop inventing such an absurdit}^, and then 
 attempting to fasten it upon the Holy Scriptures ; and a second 
 plain fact to be looked in the face is, the fitness of such occupa- 
 tion for a Bishop of the Church of Eugland. 
 
 « CHAPTEE yil. 
 " The ISTuMBEE op the People at the Tiest Mustee, com- 
 
 PAEED with the PoLL-TAX EAISED SIX MO]S"THS PEEYIOUSLT." 
 
 Quotation : — -'' And JeJiovaJi sjKtJce unto Moses, saying, When tlwu 
 takest tlie sum of tlie cMlclren of Israel, after tlieir oiumler, then 
 shall they give every onan a ransom for his soul unto Jehovah when 
 thou mimherest them. This they shall give every one that ]oasseth 
 among them that are numbered, half a sheJcel, after the shekel of 
 the sanctuary^ an half shekel shall lie the offering of Jehovah^ — 
 Exod. XXX. 11—13. 
 
 " We may first notice," says the Bishop, "that the expression 
 * shekel of the sanctuary/ in the above passage, could hardly have 
 been used in this way until there was a sanctuary, here it is used 
 six or seven months before the tabernacle was made. The LXX., 
 indeed, render the Hebrew phrase by to SiSpaxfJicv to aytov, the- 
 sacred shekel. But this can hardly be the true meaning of the 
 original, ^'7)^n vp.l^^ ; and if it were, the difficulty would still 
 remain, to explain what the * sacred shekel' could mean before any 
 sacred system was established." 
 
 In answering this objection we may simply say that if the 
 Bishop had looked in Gesenius, he would have seen the true 
 rendering of the above Hebrew words (shekel hakkodesh), the 
 holy shekel, and that it is thus distinguished from the royal 
 shekel afterwards mentioned in 2 Sam. xiv. 26. Any Jewish 
 (jhild Qould have told him the root word ^'i"fi; meant " holy,"' 
 
THJE BIELE IN THE "WOEKSHOP. 25- 
 
 and might very possibly have asked him if he had never heard of 
 nDilpn Dl'btt?.')-!^ (Jerusalem the holy). 
 
 Passing from the shekel to the numbering of the people, the 
 direction is that every one that is numbered shall pay half a shekel. 
 In Ex. xxxviii. 26 the money is paid, but no census taken. In 
 Num. i., 1 — 40 the census is taken, but no money mentioned ; but 
 the reckoning of the money at one time and the number of persons- 
 at another proves that the numbers at the different periods were 
 identical; and, says the Bishop, "It is surprising that the number 
 of adult males should have been identically the same (603, 556) 
 on the first occasion as it was half-a-year afterwards." 
 
 As in the Bishop's first difficulty, so in this ; there are two se- 
 parate and independent ways of meeting and dissolving it. Mi- 
 chaelis says that the money and numbers are two parts of a whole,, 
 recorded in different places. In Exodus, he says, there is no account 
 of a numbering, but every one who was more than twenty years- 
 old, paid his tax, and was registered accordingly, but in Numbers- 
 Moses received instructions to arrange the lists and sum them up. 
 "We may add to this that the translation in the margin (Ex. 
 XXX. 12) points very distinctly to a numbering in connection with 
 the atonement money. But it is evident that this answer is not 
 entirely satisfactory, inasmuch as the atonement money had been, 
 collected and appropriated to the building of the tabernacle, and 
 it was in the tabernacle itself that the second commandment was- 
 given, so that we must allow the very great probability of the 
 two different numberings, in fact, that there were two entirely 
 different numberings, and that the results were identical. What, 
 in that case, are we required to believe ? Simply that, during that 
 period of six months ^'ws^ as many Israelites readied twenty yearst 
 of age as died beyond that period. In other words, that at the- 
 end of six months the number of the population remained 
 stationary. "Surprising!" is the comment of the Christian 
 
26 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 Bishop ; but, as he neither adds nor asserts anything more, we 
 may safely follow the same course, only pointing out that, though 
 it may be a very singular coincidence, it is neither impossible or 
 incredible. 
 
 "CHAPTER VIII. 
 " The Iseaelites dwelling in Tents." Quotation : " Take 
 ye every man for tliem wliicli are in Ids tents ^ — Ex. xvi. 16. 
 
 The Bishop remarks : " Here we find that immediately after 
 their coming out of Egypt, the people were provided with tents 
 — cumbrous articles to have carried when they fled out in haste, 
 taking their dough before it was leavened, their kneading troughs 
 being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders. It is true 
 this statement conflicts strangely with that in Lev. xxiii. 42, 43, 
 where it is assigned as a reason for their ' dwelling in booths ' 
 for seven days at the Feast of Tabernacles, that ' your genera- 
 tions may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in 
 lootJis when I brought them out of the land of Egypt.' It cannot 
 be said that the word ' booths ' here means ' tents '; because the 
 Hebrew word for a looth made of houghs and bushes HSp, which 
 is the word here used,* is quite difterent from that for a tent, 
 ^lI'W used in Ex. xvi. 16. And besides, in the context of the 
 passage in Leviticus, we have a description of the way in which 
 these booths were to be made, Ye shall take you the boughs of 
 goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees 
 and willows of the brook (ver. 40) . This seems to fix the mean- 
 ing of the Hebrew word in this particular passage, and to show that 
 
 * Will the Bishop kindly inform us in what edition of the Hebrew Bible 
 this word occurs in the passage quoted ? We have searched Van der Hooglit, 
 Simonis, Boothroyd, Bagster, the American, the Jews' Society, and the 
 Unpointed Hebrew, and it is not in any one of them. 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOBKSHOP. 27 
 
 it is used in its proper sense of booths ; though in 2 Sam. xi. 11, 
 and one or two other places, it is also used improperly for tents." 
 
 We have quoted this long passage with the intention of ex- 
 hibiting the remarkable depth and profundity of the criticism here 
 applied to the Holy Scriptures. In this one paragraph the Bishop 
 first asserts that the statement that they had tents conflicts 
 strangely with the statement that they dwelt in hooths, and then 
 proceeds to show that the words can be used interchangeably, and 
 actually points out instances where they are placed the one for 
 the other. But we will look further at the contrast stated by the 
 Bishop to exist between tents and booths. In Amos ix. 11, the 
 tabernacle or house of David, is described as "^^ij ^"^^'^^ ; in 
 Isa. xvi. 5, the tabernacle or "house" of David, is described as 
 "^1"^ ^r?'^ ; again, bcj'^ is used to describe the tabernacle, 1 Kings 
 i. 39 ; the temple, Ezek. xli. 1 ; and also a house or habitation of 
 any kind, as in Jer. iv. 20 ; Lam. ii. 4 ; so that ^k}'^ may mean 
 any kind of human habitation, from the glorious Temple, to the 
 meanest rag spread over a pole, beneath which humanity has ever 
 crawled to die ; and HSD is used to describe a tent hung with 
 curtains. Lev. xxiii. 43 (Ges. Lex. p. 585) ; a small ruined house, 
 Amos ix. 11 : and ^'^^.'20 (Sukkiim), 2 Chron. xii. 3, is translated 
 by Gesenius, '' dwellers in tejits." Moreover, Jonah constructed 
 nSD for himself of such a slight and fragile description, that 
 it needed the added shelter of the gourd to keep him from 
 being exposed to the rays of the sun as he sat watching for the 
 fulfilment of the doom he had pronounced upon the devoted city. 
 
 But the Bishop says that nSD means booths only, as shown 
 in Lev. xxiii. 40, where the command to take boughs of goodly 
 trees, etc., is given, and, as the Bishop expressly states, these 
 boughs were to make booths with ; in the JS'arrative quoted, there is 
 not one word of the kind, but expressly the contrary, for instead 
 of the boughs being to build booths with, according to the Bishop, 
 
28 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 we are told in the same verse qfivMch the Bisliop lias quoted part , 
 and omitted the remainder, which tells against him, that the boughs- 
 were to be used in " rejoicing before the Lord." Not only so, but 
 as will be seen by referring to any English Bible with marginal 
 references, the word translated " houghs " in the text (Lev. xxiii. 
 40), is also translated ''fruit,'' and thus it is commonly under- 
 stood by the Jews also, so that while we can well imagine the 
 Jews offering their fruits before the Lord, and rejoicing therein, 
 we are not acquainted with any sort of fruit that would serve 
 to build a house with, as the Bishop would render the passage. 
 Surely the Bishop knew the word could be so translated ; might 
 he not have had feeling enough for the grand Old Book to have 
 suggested this simple solution of his own difficulty ! 
 
 But all this in passing ; the strength of the Bishop's objection 
 lies in the fact of the tents themselves, called by what name 
 soever they may be. He says, in short, that a tent with poles 
 and cords was a load for a bullock, that only ten could decently 
 live in a tent ; therefore, 200,000 tents, with 200,000 oxen to 
 carry them were needed. To expose this absurdity it is only ne- 
 cessary to ask the Bishop, how many slaves have escaped by the 
 Underground Eailway from the South of America to the North 
 and Canada, and to inquire whether he will not believe that 
 any have escaped, unless we can show that each one had all the 
 comforts of a wealthy and civilized traveller, on every mile of his 
 long and dangerous pilgrimage from Slavery to Freedom. 
 
 Where is the assertion found in Exodus that the Israelites 
 had 200,000 tents with poles and cords, each a load for a bullock ? 
 Before quitting this subject, however, we will set forth at length 
 one of the translations of the word bns, which the Bishop will! 
 have was a tent with poles and cords. In 1 Kings viii. QQ, there 
 are these words : On the eighth day he sent the people away, and 
 they blessed the king and went unto Crn^'^nS^ t^^^ir tents — " with. 
 
THE BIBLE IN^ THE WORKSHOP. 29 
 
 poles and cords, a load for a bullock" — joyful. It need scarcely be 
 added that as this scene took place after the dedication of the 
 temple, that y^f^ here, means the common dwelling houses in- 
 habited by the Israelites after they had obtained possession of the 
 Promised Land. 
 
 « CHAPTER IX. 
 
 **The Israelites armed." Quotation: — ^' The children of 
 Israel went up harnessed out of the land of 'Egy])tr — Ex. xiii. 18. 
 
 The Bishop states his case as follows : " The word C3'^tpttnj 
 which is here rendered 'harnessed,' appears to mean ' armed,' or 
 ' in battle array,' in all the other passages where it occurs. Thus 
 Josh. i. 14, * But ye shall pass before your brethren armed, all the 
 mighty men of valour, and help them.' So Josh. iv. 12, * And the 
 <3hildren of Eeuben, and the children of Gad, and the half tribe 
 of Manasseh, passed over armed before the children of Israel, as 
 Moses spake unto them.' And, Jud. vii. 11, * Then went he down, 
 with Phurah his servant, unto the outside of the armed men that 
 were in the host.' It is possible, also, that the Hebrew word 
 Ctpn, which occurs in Num. xxxii. 17, and is rendered ' armed * 
 in the English Version, but which Gesenius derives from tZ^^n, 
 * to make haste,'^and renders ' hastening ' or in ' haste,' may be also 
 a corruption from D'^tS'IDn, by the accidental omission of a letter. 
 *' It is, however, inconceivable that these down-trodden, op- 
 pressed people should have been allowed by Pharaoh to possess 
 arms, so as to turn out at a moment's notice 600,000 armed men. 
 But if even 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 
 prime of life would have cried out in '"panic ^terror, ' sore afraid ' 
 .(Ex. xiv. 10), when they saw that they were being pursued ? 
 
30 THE BIBLE IX THE WOKKSHOP. 
 
 " The difficulty of believing this has led many commentators 
 to endeavour to explain otherwise, if possible, the meaning of the 
 word. Accordingly in the margin of the English Bible, we find 
 suggested instead of 'harnessed' or 'armed,' in all the above 
 passages except Josh.iv. 12, ' by five in a rank,' because the Hebrew 
 word D'^ti^^n, has a resemblance to ^^n? 'five.' And others 
 again explain it to mean ' by fifties,' as the five thousand were 
 arranged in the wilderness of Bethsaida, Mark vi. 40." 
 
 "We have thus quoted at length the Bishop's argument, because 
 the sequel will show, either that the Bishop's studies in Hebrew 
 are defective, or that he has designedly kept back the truth on 
 this occasion. He has mentioned four instances in which C^tZ^Drj 
 occurs, but has not told us that no other instances occur through- 
 out the Bible, as he might have done ; of these four instances 
 one is translated "harnessed," and three "armed"; but two out 
 of these three are marked as of doubtful rendering, in the English 
 Version by the addition of " five in a rank " in the margin. 
 Thus then, the whole of this argument must necessarily be built 
 upon a single unchallenged translation of a word. Of the word 
 in Hebrew itself, it may truthfully be said, there is not a more 
 doubtful word in the Old Testament ; Gesenius says of it, " The 
 etymology of this word has long been sought for." So that upon 
 a Hebrew word, the etymology of which is unknown, and which, 
 occurring in only four instances, is translated in three different 
 ways, we are to found an argument for the rejection of the Holy 
 Scriptures. This is the state of the case as far as the pointed 
 Hebrew Bible is concerned ; but if we take up a Hebrew Bible 
 ivitJiout iioints, or in other words, a much more ancient copy of 
 the Holy Scriptures, we find that the word occurs one hundred 
 and fifty times, thus, Q*'ti7S2n, of which, in the English version, 
 the translation is o?zce "harnessed," three times "armed," and 
 one hundred and forty-six times the common numeral ''^ fifty P 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 31 
 
 If the passages where "harnessed'* and "armed" occur, are 
 carefully studied, it will be seen that in these four instances there 
 would be no difficulty, nor any violation of the sense of the con- 
 text, in substituting " fifty " for either " armed " or " harnessed," 
 at least this rendering would be quite as good, inasmuch as, in 
 one of the instances quoted by the Bishop (Jud. vii. 11), the men 
 said to be " armecV^ are fast asleep and one of them at least 
 dreaming. Not only so, but if Bishop Colon so had to write down 
 the tvordin Hebrew representing the number "fifty," he must 
 write Cti^^n, for in no other way could he accomplish that 
 object. Is it not, to say the least, very strange, that the Bishop 
 should utterly ignore these 146 repetitions of the word in dis- 
 pute, never mentioning it as occurring in the Old Testament at 
 all, never writing it in the Hebrew character, and only incidentally 
 mentioning a translation of it as occurring in the New Testament, 
 Mark vi. 40 ? 
 
 It will not, therefore, be denied, that the foundation for the 
 -word, pointed, C'^D^n is of such a slender description as to be 
 actually worthless for any practical or disputed purpose, and yet 
 the Bishop founds a whole chapter upon it. "While, looked upon 
 in that light, it constitutes one-twenty-third portion of the 
 whole of the arguments upon which we are to resign our title 
 of Christians and become disciples of a Gooroo. 
 
 But the Bishop avers "the people had arms," and he "wants to 
 know" whence they were procured ; for, he continues, " they must 
 have had arms to have fought the Amalekites with, a month after- 
 wards." The Bishop quotes, but dissents from, the explanation of 
 Josephus, i. e., that the Israelites gathered them from the cast-up 
 spoils of the Egyptian warriors who were drowned in the Bed Sea ; 
 and Josephus conjectured '* that this also happened by Divine Pro- 
 yideuce, that so they might not have been destitute of weapons.*" 
 But it is not even improbable that, from what they had concealed,. 
 
*32 THE EIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 what they recovered from the sea, and what few they might rudely 
 fabricate, they became possessed of a small number of arms. Nor 
 must we forget the formidable ox-goad commonly in use among 
 ^Eastern herdmen, — described by Maundrell as of an extraordinary 
 size. He measured several, and "found them about eight feet 
 long, and at the bigger end about six inches in circumference. 
 They were armed at the lesser end with a sharp prickle for 
 driving the oxen, and at the other end with a small paddle of 
 iron, strong and massj^, for cleansing the plough from the clay." 
 In the hand of a powerful man accustomed to its use, such an 
 instrument must be more dangerous and fatal than a sword, and 
 how many thousands of these weapons they bad among them we 
 are left to conjecture. But would the Bishop venture to call an 
 enemy furnished with such an instrument an unarmed man? 
 "But," says the Bishop, " we must suppose that the wfiole locly of 
 600,000 warriors were armed when they were numbered (Num. 
 3) under Sinai." We do not see the slightest necessity for the 
 •supposition, — there is no foundation for it in the Narrative, and 
 with all the advantages of civilization and warlike appliances in 
 the greatest profusion, we do not think it is true of Englishmen 
 in the present day. The Bishop in concluding this chapter 
 points out the cowardice of the Israelites, and contrasts it with 
 their bravery in the battle with Amalek as a further reason for 
 rejecting the Narrative. Leaving out of the question the strong 
 intimation of miraculous interposition, typified in the held-up 
 hands of Moses : it seems to us, an exquisite touch of nature and 
 of truth, that the released slave should first feel a panic of terror 
 at the hostile appearance of his late tyrant and master, and from 
 the very fact of seeing the only one of whom he had reason to be 
 afraid, rendered powerless to harm him, gather courage to present 
 -a brave front before an enemy and a stranger. 
 
THE BIBLE IK THE WOEKSHOP. 33 
 
 " CHAPTEE X. 
 " The Institution of the Passotee." QLiotation : — '' Then 
 Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Braw 
 out now, and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill 
 the Fassover. And ye shall take a hunch of hyssop, and dip it in 
 the hlood that is in the hason, and strike the lintel and the two side 
 posts with the blood that is in the bason, and none of you shall go 
 out at the door of his house until the morning. . . And the 
 children of Israel went away, and did as Jehovah had commanded 
 Moses and Aaron, so did they.'" — Ex. xii. 21 — 28. 
 
 In the first quotation from Scripture the Eishop left out a 
 word that told against him, here, the Bishop puts one in to help 
 him; the word now in the above quotation is not in the Narrative. 
 
 The objections are stated by the Bishop in the folio wiug para- 
 graphs: — " That is to say, in one single day the whole immense popu- 
 lation 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 (v. ] 2), ' I will pass through 
 the land of Egypt this night, 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 before- 
 hand, for they were to ' take' the lamb on the tenth day of the 
 month, and ' kill' it on the fourteenth, vv. 3, 6 ; and so v. 12 only 
 means to say 'on that night' — the night of the fourteenth — I 
 will pass through the land of Egypt. Eor the expression in v. 12 
 is distinctly Tl-IJl, ' this,' not S-inn, ' that,' as in xiii. 8, and so 
 V. 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 
 
 c 
 
34 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 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." 
 
 In order that we may thoroughly comprehend and appreciate 
 the mystification in which the Bishop has here either involved 
 himself, or wishes to involve his readers, we will take his asser- 
 tions on this subject separately, and copied in his own words : — 
 Assertion 1. "In one single day the whole immense popu- 
 lation of Israel was instructed to keep the Passover, and actually 
 did keep it." 
 
 Assertion 2. " It cannot be said that they had notice several 
 days beforehand." 
 
 Assertion 3. "It was absolutely necessary that the notice to keep 
 the Passover should be distinctly given to each separate family." 
 Assertion 4. "When suddenly summoned to depart, they 
 hastened at a moment's notice to borrow in all directions from 
 the Egyptians." 
 
 Assertion 5. " They required 150,000 lambs for the Passover." 
 Assertion 6. " "We are to believe that every single household 
 was warned again at midnight to start at once in hurried flight 
 for the wilderness." 
 
 Such are the assertions of the Bishop, stated in his own words ; 
 our task is now to ascertain how far they agree with the narrative 
 in Exodus. 
 
 Assertion 1. " In one single day" (expressly limited by the 
 Bishop afterward to twelve hours) " the Israelites were instructed 
 to keep the Passover, and actually did keep it." 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 85 
 
 The most convincing and complete refutation of this reckless 
 and unfounded assertion will be to simply quote the English 
 printed text from Ex. xii. 1 — 6. ''And the Loeb spake unto 
 Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall 
 be unto you the beginning of months ; it shall be the first month 
 of the year to you. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, 
 saying, In the tenth day of this month 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 lamb, 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. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a 
 male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or 
 from the goats. And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day 
 of the same month, and the whole assembly of the congregation ot 
 Israel shall kill it in the evening" (Heb., as in margin, between 
 the two evenings). 
 
 The distinct statement here (as it appears to us) is, that God 
 spake to Moses and Aaron on the first day of the month 
 (this is the Jewish tradition, upon which the present Jewish 
 ecclesiastical year is also founded — a strength of proof that no 
 mere assertion will invalidate, let it be made by whom it may), 
 telling them to take the lamb on the tenth day of the month, and 
 " keep it up" " separate by itself" until the fourteenth day of the 
 month. These previous arrangements being undeniable, are 
 stigmatized by the Bishop as " perplexing" and " contradictory :" 
 which they most undoubtedly are to the theory he is advocating, 
 and not only perplexing and contradictory, but utterly destructive 
 also. To make good this first assertion, the Bishop has to over- 
 come this formidable difficulty, i. e., to tell whence the fourteenth 
 of Abib is dated from^ or, in other words, what is the origin of 
 the present Jewish sacred year, distinguished from the first day 
 
Sb THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 of Tisri, the beginning of tlie Jewish civil year. Until he has 
 done this, we shall take the liberty to say that the Narrative and 
 the commencement of the Jewish sacred year confirm each other 
 in the statement, that, instead oi twelve hours, at least thirteen days' 
 notice of the Passover was given to all the children of Israel. 
 
 Assertion 2. " It cannot be said they had notice several days 
 beforehand." 
 
 "What, then, is the " perplexing" and " contradictory" 
 order to " keep it up" from the tenth to the fourteenth day of the 
 month, quoted by the Bishop himself from the Narrative ? The 
 Bishop has ventured upon one quotation from Josephus in 
 reference to this subject of the Passover (concerning which 
 quotation we have a remark to make), and we will here, make a 
 quotation from the same author which possibly the Bishop over- 
 looked: — "But when God had signified that with one more 
 plague he would compel the Egyptians to let the Hebrews go, he 
 commanded Moses to tell the people, that they should have a 
 sacrifice ready, and that they should prepare themselves on the 
 tenth day of the month Xanthicus against the fourteenth ;" so that 
 Bishop Colenso and Josephus flatly contradict each other. 
 
 Assertion 3. " It was absolutely necessary that the notice to 
 keep the Passover should be distinctly given to each separate 
 family." 
 
 Doubtless it was necessary, and there was a sufficient 
 time allowed beforehand for every notice to be given, and for all 
 needed preparation to be made ; though, how much of the interval 
 'between the first, and tenth of Abib, elapsed before Moses and 
 Aaron made known the commandments they had received, is not 
 stated in the narrative : but that several days' notice were given is 
 proved by Ex. xii. 21, " Then Moses called for all the elders of 
 Israel, and said unto them, Draw out, and take you a lamb accor- 
 ding to your families, and kill the Passover." In order that the 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 37 
 
 commandment to "keep up" the lamb should be obeyed, it must 
 have been issued, at the very latest, early on the morning of the 
 tenth of Abib. 
 
 Assertion 4. " When suddenly summoned to depart, they has- 
 tened at a moment's notice to borrow in all directions from the 
 Egyptians." 
 
 If the Bishop had ever read attentively and consecutively the 
 Narrative he is commenting on, it seems to us, that he could not 
 have written such a reckless assertion as this. Before there is 
 the slightest hint of the nature of the final plague, before a single 
 word is uttered relative to the Passover that was to accompany it ; 
 in the interval between the Darkness and the death of the first- 
 born this commandment is given (Ex. xi. 2, 3), *' Speak now in 
 the ears of the people, and let every man borrow of his neighbour, 
 and every woman of her neighbour, jewels of silver and jewels of 
 gold. And the Loed gave the people favour in the sight of the 
 Egyptians." The Septuagint has a word here which is neither in 
 the Hebrew or the English — LaX-qcrov ovv ' Kpvcfyrj' ek to, wra'Toi) Xaov, 
 "Speak now 'secretly' in the ears of the people," though the 
 Hebrew used D^ljn ^p.tJjS ^.r""?."^ will certainly bear the same 
 construction. So that the commandment was given and obeyed, 
 and its success recorded, before the slightest hint of the coming 
 Passover is given; and, indeed, the very fact that they would 
 be thrust out hastily is made known, and assigned as a reason 
 whv the borrowing should previously take place. This fact of 
 the borrowing is repeated in Ex. xii. 35, 36, and it appears to be 
 this reiteration that has led the Bishop to make the assertion that 
 he has done,— but it ought to have been observed by him that, in 
 the twelfth chapter, only the ohedience to tlie command is recorded, 
 we have no account of the giving of the commandment, to the 
 children of Israel in that chapter. 
 
 Assertion 5. " They required 150,000 lambs for the Passover^' 
 
38 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 As a very large number of the Bishop's after objections are 
 founded on this statement, it will be necessary to examine the 
 authority upon which it is given. " Josephus, Be Bell. Jud.^ 
 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 fifteen 
 or twenty. Taking ten as the average number, two millions of 
 people would require about 200,000 lambs, taking twenty, they 
 would require 100,000." This is the Bishop's own statement of 
 an objection often reiterated throughout his volume, and we see 
 that it has not the shadoio of a foundation in the narrative in 
 Exodus ; no chapter or verse is quoted in support of it, hut it is 
 founded on a statement in Josephus, and a mere conjecture of 
 Kurtz. This very slight and shadowy foundation is all the Bishop 
 can show in support of his statement. Agaiust what he has 
 adduced we venture to place the following. Eashi says that " he 
 who has eaten a piece of lamb as large as half an egg has properly 
 observed the Passover," and in the PIDD mDlbn cmns pX2 
 the same regulation is laid down. We will here point out also 
 the unfair mode of dealing with Josephus that is practised in the 
 extract of the Bishop, who saya that Josephus reckons ten 
 persons on an average for each lamb, and many of us, he says, are 
 twenty in a company. The words of Josephus are "not less than 
 ten to a lamb, and many of us are twenty in a company," and the 
 Jewish High Priest is speaking of his own time, then present, — 
 more than 1500 years after the time of the narrative in Exodus. 
 In the account he gives of the Passover in Exodus there is not a 
 single word to indicate whether ten persons, or a hundred, or a 
 thousand shared in a Passover lamb. In short, we do not hesi- 
 tate to assert that the foundation for the Bishop's calculation of 
 the number of lambs required, exists only in his own imagination — 
 neither in the narrative, nor in the parallel passage in Josephus is 
 there the slightest indication upon which such a calculation 
 
THE BIBLE i:tf THE WOEKSHOP. 39 
 
 could be made. There is also another consideration, which must 
 be entered into, before even the most remote approximation to the 
 number of lambs required can be ascertained. The command- 
 ment is — a lamb for an house ; but a house of what size ? How 
 many persons composed the house of David, for instance? — as 
 large as the house known as Knightsbridge Barracks, or as small 
 as the one-roomed cottages down the courts in Clerkenwell. If 
 neither as small as the one or as large as the other, what precise 
 data have we upon which we can rely for certainty ? 
 Absolutely none. We have not the remotest idea how many 
 could eat from a single lamb in Egypt, — the number of persons 
 composing the houses is to us equally unknown. It is certain 
 that a very large number of persons could have partaken of one 
 lamb ; it is equally certain that provision was specially made that 
 a considerable number should do so, inasmuch as, if the household 
 were too small for the lamb, the next household was to join in 
 the consumption. The whole of this is the merest generalization-: 
 data upon which to make such a calculation as the Bishop has 
 ventured upon, and upon the faith of which he has asserted the 
 untruthfulness of Grod's Holy Word, is in that Word nowhere to 
 be found. Upon the sole authority of a quotation from Josephus 
 which has not the slightest reference to the time of the Exodus, 
 the Bishop of Natal has dared to impugn the authority of the 
 Holy Scriptures, and to exhibit the mournful spectacle he has 
 thus placed before his indignant, yet sorrowful Christian country- 
 men. 
 
 Assertion 6. " We are to believe that every single household 
 was warned again [the second time during twelve hours] at mid- 
 night, to start in hurried flight for the wilderness." 
 
 The people were met in solemn conclave (Ex. xii. 11) ; they 
 knew their long and bitter slavery approached its end, and that 
 their departure should be exceedingly hasty (Ex. xi. 1). They 
 
4iO THE BIBLE I3f THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 were dressed and ready for flight (Ex. xii. 11), listening intently 
 for the first wild wail of awful and despairing sorrow, that should 
 be at once the signal of deliverance, and the tidings of retributive 
 justice for -their own savagely murdered little children (Ex. xi. 5) 
 they waited in intense expectation, for the coming of the angel of 
 Jehovah, every mind wrought to its highest pitch, for they knew 
 that the messenger of the great I AM was commissioned, and 
 ready to execute unquestioningly the awful will of his Master, 
 and that death and desolation would follow swiftly in his train. 
 They were not disappointed ; suddenly rang out the hoarse shout 
 of man's unbearable anguish, mingling with the wail of woman's 
 despairing sorrow, and the shrill cry of the terrified Egyptian 
 children — all proclaiming that the promised awful work was done. 
 There was a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, " for 
 there was not a house where there was not one dead" (Ex. xii. 30). 
 That wild cry was the signal of departure (Ex. xi. 6, 8), and 
 ready dressed, staff" in hand, shoes on feet, all things needed 
 obtained beforehand from their oppressors (Ex. xi. 3), in haste, 
 indeed, but jubilant and defiant, from hundreds of years of bitter 
 slavery went forth the people of Him who cannot lie, — they 
 trusted and were not confounded, — Grod had said it hundreds of 
 years before, and He had done it. Well for us if we also trust in 
 the Lord Jehovah, until from the hard bondage of sin and death 
 He shall bring his redeemed ones into the light and splendour of 
 everlasting life, to be with their Father and our Eather, and their 
 God and our Grod, through the death and merit of the Angel of 
 the Everlasting Covenant, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 
 
THE BIBLE IS THE WOEKSHOP. 41 
 
 "CHAPTEE XL 
 "The March out or Egypt." Quotation: — ^^ And the cJiil- 
 dren of Israel journeyed from Barneses to Succoth, about six hun- 
 dred thousand on foot that were men, besides children. And a 
 mixed multitude went up also with them, and flocks and herds, even 
 very much cattle.'" — Ex. xii. 37, 88. 
 
 Thus the Bishop states his case : — 
 
 " It appears from Num. i. 3, ii. 32, that these 600,000 were the 
 men in the prime of life, from twenty years old and upward, all that 
 were able to go forth to war in Israel. And as we have seen, this 
 large number of able-bodied warriors, implies a total population 
 of at least two millions. Here, then, we have this vast body of 
 people of all ages, summoned to start, according to the story, at a 
 moment's notice, aud actually started, not one being left behind, 
 together with all their multitudinous flocks and herds, which 
 must have been spread out over a district as large as a good-sized 
 English county. . . . And what of the sick and infirm, or the 
 women in recent and imminent childbirth, in a population like 
 that of London, where the births are 264 a-day, or about one in 
 every five minutes ? But this is a very small part of the difficulty. 
 AYe are required to believe that, in one single day, the order to 
 start was communicated suddenly, at midnight, to every single 
 family of every town and village ; that in obedience to such order 
 having first ' borrowed' very largely from their Egyptian neigh- 
 bours in all directions, they then came in from all parts of the 
 land of Goshen to Eameses, 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 ; and lastly, that having done all this since they were 
 
42 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 roused at midnight, tbey were started again from Eameses to Suc- 
 coth, not leaving a single sick or infirm person, a single woman in 
 childbirth, or even a ' single hoof (Ex. x. 26) behind them." 
 
 Having thus stated his case, the Bishop proceeds to narrate a 
 personal incident, of having, with his household, been roused from 
 bed by a false alarm, and he says: " Remembering, as I do, the 
 confusion in my own small household of thirty or forty persons, I 
 do not hesitate to declare this statement to be utterly incredible 
 and impossible." "While we may express our cordial sympathy 
 with the Bishop and his suffering household upon their sorrowful 
 march at midnight, there can be no lack of feeling in pointing 
 out that there is not the slightest analogy between the cases, and 
 that such a reminiscence is entirely out of place in a Critical 
 Examination, tending only to enlist tbe sympathy of the reader at 
 the expense of his judgment. Thus, the Bishop's family were 
 slumbering; every Jew was up and dressed. The Bishop and 
 liis household were at liome ; the Jews were in the country of 
 their enemies and oppressors, and were quite ready and willing 
 to depart. The Bishop's family apparently knew not where to 
 go for shelter ; the Jews had a military organization and a leader, 
 who held frequent communion with Jehovah. Many other dif- 
 ferences might be pointed out, but these will suffice. There is, 
 however, another remark which appears to be called for. When 
 the Bishop is natural, and not critical, he speaks quietly of his 
 own small household of thirty or forty persons. The most he 
 will allow for a Jewish household in Egypt is fifteen, but surely 
 we may suppose that a household in a crowded Egyptian Treasure 
 City was as large as one in the wilds of South Africa, without 
 incurring any imputation of extravagance in our supposition. 
 
 In order to do justice to the subject under discussion, we shall 
 divide the Bishop's statements into diff'erent assertions, as in the 
 previous chapter, using in all cases the Bishop's own words : — 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE "WOEKSHOP. 43 
 
 Assertion 1. " We are required to believe that in one single 
 day tlie order to start was communicated suddenly, at midnight, 
 to every single family." 
 
 Assertion 2. " The people to whom this order was to be given 
 must have occupied a tract of land as large as Hertfordshire, but 
 ten times as thickly peopled." 
 
 Assertion 3. " They occupied part of the night in ' borrowing' 
 from the Egyptians." 
 
 Assertion 4. "They then came in from all parts of the land of 
 Goshen to Eameses." 
 
 Assertion 5. " They brought with them all the sick and the 
 infirm." 
 
 Assertion 6. " Since receiving the summons, they had sent out 
 to gather in all their flocks and herds, and had driven them also 
 to Eameses." 
 
 Assertion 7. " Having done all this since they were roused at 
 midnight, they were started again from Eameses that very same 
 day, and marched on to Succoth, not leaving a single sick or infirm 
 person, a single woman in childbirth, or even a single hoof behind 
 them." 
 
 " This is undoubtedly what the story in Exodus requires us 
 to believe," asserts the Bishop. Before accepting the necessity, 
 and arguing from the Bishop's assertions, we will carefully examine 
 his representations, and ascertain how far they are warranted by 
 a perusal of the narrative. 
 
 Assertion 1. " We are required to believe that the order to start 
 was communicated suddenly, at midnight, to every single family." 
 
 To this we answer, the order and time of starting had been 
 arranged, they knew they were going, they had prepared every- 
 thing in readiness to start, they were warned beforehand that 
 they should be thrust out, and they were thrust out, by the 
 stricken and maddened Egyptians. 
 
44 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 Assertion 2. " The people to whom this order was given must 
 have occupied a tract of land as large as Hertfordshire, but ten 
 times as thickly peopled." 
 
 When it suits the Bishop's purpose, he can quote passages from 
 Josephus. As it suits ours now in demurring to this assertion, 
 we shall follow his example, and offer the following for the Bishop's 
 consideration in solving this objection : — " Accordingly he (Moses) 
 having got the Hebrews ready for their departure, and having 
 sorted the people into tribes, Tie Icept them together in one place.'' 
 Be Bell. Jud., book ii., chap, xiv. fi. 
 
 We do not know the Bishop's authority for this assertion, 
 there is none given in his book. We have no statistical informa- 
 tion concerning the district they occupied, but certainly the 
 warned people would gather as closely together as possible in 
 readiness to depart, and not only the Hebrews, but the Egyp- 
 tians also, must have known that the death of the first-born was 
 connected with the departure of the Israelites, or why should they 
 connect such dissimilar things ? What but a revelation and know- 
 ledge of the true cause of their sorrow should cause the masters 
 to thrust out their slaves, as the narrative informs us they did ? 
 
 Assertion 3. " They occupied part of the night in ' borrowing' 
 from the Egyptians." 
 
 This assertion is simply a repetition of what the Bishop evi- 
 dently considers a strong objection, and as we have shown in the 
 previous chapter that it is utterly opposed to the plain statement 
 in the narrative in Exodus, we need not waste time in repeating 
 our refutation. 
 
 Assertion 4, " They came in from all parts of the land of 
 Goshen to Eameses." 
 
 Will the Bishop kindly inform us what distance in miles, or 
 furlongs, or even yards, they had to travel to accomplish this 
 wonderful feat, for surely a Bishop of the Church of England, 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 45 
 
 thinking himself competent to enter upon a Critical Examination, 
 should be able easily to answer the question. To enable him to do so 
 we will ask him to read the following Scriptures : — " Pharaoh spake 
 unto Joseph, saying, Thy father and thy brethren are come unto 
 thee, the land of Egypt is before thee, in the best of the land make 
 thy father and brethren to dwell, in the land of Groshen let them 
 dwell," Glen, xlvii. 6; compared with ver. 11 in the same chapter, 
 " And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a 
 possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the 
 land of Kameses, as Pharaoh had commanded." So Groshen and 
 Barneses were identical, and they went out from the same 
 place where Joseph had installed them 215 years before. 
 
 DDX25?"), Eameses, is either the land of Goshen, or the district 
 in which Groshen is laid. It must not be confounded with the 
 towns bearing the same name, which the Israelites either built or 
 fortified, Ex. i. 1.1, for, as Aben Ezra points out, the city is 
 PP^^I? Eaamses, whereas the land is Dpp37"i Eaameses. Accord- 
 ing to Tablonsky, this name is composed of the Cophtic words, 
 Bern (romi) man, and ScJios, shepherd. The name E-em-Schos, 
 Eamses would, therefore, like the Greek BovKoXtd, signify the 
 land of Sheep-herdsmen, and would then appear as perfectly iden- 
 tical with Goshen. This derivation is still further confirmed by 
 I. Eossi, who derives SXQC, Shepherd, from ^XOCX, shame, or 
 disgrace. The Septuagint, who wrote Vafjicaay, always considered 
 the land of Eaamses as identical with Goshen. All other ancient 
 versions, except Jonathan, and the Arabic version of E. Saadias 
 Gaon, retain the name Eaamses when speaking of Goshen. 
 
 Assertion 5. " They brought with them the sick and the 
 infirm," so says the Bishop. 
 
 " There was not one feeble person among their tribes," so says 
 the Bible, Psalm, cv. 37. 
 
 Assertion 6. " Since receiving the summons they had sent out 
 
46 THE BIBLE Ilf THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 to gather in all their flocks and herds, and had driven them also to 
 Eameses." 
 
 This is a perfectly disgraceful example of manufacturing a 
 difficulty, for which the very best excuse that we can possibly 
 make is, that it is founded on the ignorance of the objector. We 
 have shown clearly, in answer to Assertion 5, that Eameses and 
 Groshen were identical, and yet here the Bishop calls upon us to 
 allow time for gathering and driving the sheep and cattle from 
 one place to another. It need hardly be said that there is no 
 warrant for this statement in Exodus. It may be characterised 
 as an invention coolly put forward as truth, in order to bolster 
 up a hopelessly bad case, a very saddening specimen of a " made" 
 fact. 
 
 Assertion 7. " Having done all this since they were roused at 
 midnight, they were started again from Eameses that very same 
 day, and marched on to Succoth, not leaving a single sick or 
 infirm person, a single woman in childbirth, or even a single hoof 
 behind them." 
 
 Having done all this, driven their cattle from Goshen to 
 Eameses, two names for one place ; they were not roused at mid- 
 night ; we have shown they were watching and waiting, and there 
 were no sick or infirm persons to care for, Ps. cv. 37. Nor can 
 it be shown that even women in childbirth would be such hin- 
 drances as to detract at all from the probability of this Exodus 
 when we remember the little pain or trouble some women expe- 
 rience during parturition. That this was pre-eminently the case 
 amongst the Hebrews, is shown in the ISarrative, and a very late 
 traveller has asserted, " that the women in the fields at work are 
 accustomed to go behind a hedge, deliver themselves, and resume 
 their labour." There is also no reason whatever to suppose that 
 the women in such a case had to perform the journey by walking. 
 They came down into Egypt 215 years before in wagons, which 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 47 
 
 had been expressly sent for them, Gren. xIy. 19 : there were at 
 least three different kinds of chariots in common use in Egypt at 
 this time and long before, i. e., the chariot of state, the war 
 chariots, and the transport wagons for goods. This being the 
 case, it is perfectly natural to suppose that a sufficient number of 
 conveyances for any women who might be in childbirth, and 
 for the young children, would be williDgly provided by the Egyp- 
 tians, in their anxiety to get rid of the Israelites, and there is 
 even a hint of some conveyance in the narrative itself, where it 
 states, "the children of Israel journeyed from Eameses to Succoth, 
 about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside chil- 
 dren," Ex. xii. 37 ; and if the able-bodied thus marched on foot, 
 while conveyance was providetl for the women in childbirth, and 
 the little children, there is not the slightest difficulty in believing 
 that the travellers accomplished the different journeys as they are 
 stated in the narrative. 
 
 "And now," says the Bishop, "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 allowing an 
 interval of a yard between each rank, the able-bodied warriors 
 alone would have filled up the road for about seven miles, and the 
 whole multitude would have formed a dense column more than 
 twenty -two miles long." 
 
 The Bishop here says we may imagine one long line of twenty- 
 two miles ; we prefer to imagine something more business-like and 
 real, founded on knowledge of the statement of the circumstances 
 put forth in the narrative, and what little is known of contem- 
 porary history. Caravans on a large scale, to and from Egypt, 
 could not have been unknown to Moses, who was formerly a 
 prince of that land, nor could he have been ignorant of their 
 management. (See Calmet, Erag. 1). "We may here also 
 
4S THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSFOP. 
 
 remember the assertion of Josephus, that Moses had previously 
 sorted the people into tribes ; and consequently very reasonably 
 imagine that from the land of Groshen or Eameses, divided 
 into as many parties, starting from as many centres, by as 
 many roads as seemed right to their skilful and heaven-directed 
 leader, the people, high in heart and hope, went up from 
 bondage. We may reasonably imagine the Egyptians giving 
 every possible assistance, sedulously supplying every want, in 
 order to rid themselves of their former slaves with greater speed, 
 and in their sorrow and fear bowing abjectly before Moses, 
 begging him with heartfelt entreaty to depart at once ; employing 
 themselves in any and every way that could expedite the object 
 in view, so much so as to justify the remark of a friend of ours, 
 that without doubt there were two Egyptians ready and willing 
 to carry the luggage of every single Jew, to help him drive 
 flocks and herds, assist the women and children, and in short, 
 do all that was in their power to get them out of the land; 
 until the very latest straggler had departed towards the common 
 rendezvous at Succoth. Where that may have been, whether 
 it was a city, a station in the desert, or simply the booths 
 of the cattle on the edge of the wilderness, we are not informed. 
 Upon the minutiae of this journey ; what the Israelites and their 
 cattle had to eat and to drink, the narrative is perfectly silent. 
 It is allowable to suggest that it might have been wiser in the 
 Bishop if he had followed the reticent example. 
 
 " CHAPTER XII. 
 
 " The Sheep and Cattle of the Iseaelites in the De- 
 
 SEET." Quotation : — ^'And the children of Israel did eat manna for 
 
 forty years, until they came to a land inhabited ; they did eat manna 
 
 until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan,"" — Ex. xvi.35. 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 49 
 
 This is the Bishop's statement : " The people, we are told, were 
 supplied with manna. But there was no miraculous provision of 
 food for the herds and flocks. They were left to gather sus- 
 tenance as they could in that inhospitable wilderness. We will 
 now go on to consider the possibility of such a multitude of 
 cattle finding any means of support, for forty years, under these 
 circumstances. And first it is certain that the story represents 
 them as possessing these flocks and herds during the whole of the 
 forty years which they spent in the wilderness. Thus in the 
 second year, Moses asks, ' Shall the flocks and the herds be slain 
 for them to suffice them ?' Num. xi. 22. And in the fortieth 
 year we read, 'The children of Eeuben and the children of Gad 
 had a very great multitude of cattle,' Num. xxxii. 1. We find 
 that, at the end of the first year, they kept the second Passover 
 under Sinai, Num. ix. 5, and therefore, we may presume, had at 
 that time, as before, 200,000 male lambs of the first year at their 
 command, and two millions of sheep and oxen close at hand." 
 
 Bishop Colenso quotes passages from Canon Stanley's " Sinai 
 and Palestine," passages which no one will be inclined to dispute, 
 showing the present sterility of the desert through which the 
 Israelites passed on their journey, and in which they spent nearly 
 forty years. Then he assumes from the fact of present sterility 
 that the desert was in the time of the Israelites in the same con- 
 dition, and joining the facts of sterility and the numerous flocks 
 of the Israelites, he declares that the two halves produce a whole 
 which is incredible. The Bishop's objections being divided into 
 two parts : the lack of green food for the cattle, and of water for 
 man and beast. 
 
 Let us consider the tack of water first. To support his asser- 
 tion, the Bishop quotes Num. xx. 4, 5, " ' Why have ye brought 
 up the congregation of Jehovah into this wilderness, that we and 
 our cattle should die there ? Wherefore have ye made us to 
 
 D 
 
50 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 come up out of Egypt, to bring us unto this evil place ? It is 
 no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates, neither 
 is there any water to drink.' From this passage it appears also 
 that the water from the rock did not follow them, as some have 
 supposed." There is no doubt that. the Bishop in this last asser- 
 tion trusted to a misty remembrance that some one had asserted 
 the water from the rock did follow them, and as it did not suit 
 his purpose to admit that assertion, he thus puts it on one side. 
 But as the assertion happens to be made by a man before w^hose 
 human learning even, that of the Bishop of Natal is less than 
 nothing, not to speak of his inspiration, we shall here place his testi- 
 mony in opposition to that of Dr. Colenso. It is Paul who says, 
 " They did all drink of that spiritual rock that followed (marg., 
 went with) them, and that rock was Christ." Here the apostle of 
 the living God distinctly asserts the very position which the 
 Bishop denies ; and as we have not a shadow of doubt which it is 
 most reasonable to believe, we shall leave the controversy there. 
 
 But we will examine the passages quoted by the Bishop a little 
 more closely. The Israelites are murmuriug, and declaring their 
 wants, and no man in his senses will doubt they made the case as 
 bad as it was possible to make it. And what are their require- 
 ments ? Luxuries for themselves, and water for selves and cattle ; 
 seed, figs, vines, pomegranates, for themselves, and water for them- 
 selves and the cattle. Not a word or a hint about lack of fodder 
 for the cattle. And when the water was miraculously given, even 
 then not a hint of scarcity of food for flock or herd. 
 
 The Bishop quotes the Israelitish complaint of that great and 
 terrible wilderness w'herein w^ere fiery serpents, scorpions, and 
 drought, but not a word of complaint respecting hungry cattle, 
 starving sheep, fainting and famished flock and lierd, surely this 
 would have been mentioned had the scarcity existed. Again, com- 
 plaints of the wilderness, of deserts, and of pits, but not a word 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 51 
 
 of the awful scourge of hungry cattle. On the supposition of the 
 truth of the narrative, we must therefore assume that there was 
 sufficient food for the cattle ; on the supposition of its falsehood, 
 we arrive at the following highly original and satisfactory con- 
 clusion, — that the narrator knew that cattle might be thirsty, 
 but was ignorant that they ever wanted any thing to eat ; for to 
 assume that the chronicler was ignorant of the characteristics of 
 the desert he has so minutely pictured, is simply ridiculous. 
 Even the Bishop himself assumes, and strives hard to prove (which 
 is a perfectly needless task) that the vivid picture of the desert 
 in the narrative is truthful in its every detail. It must not be 
 forgotten that the cattle are mentioned repeatedly; that when the 
 lack of water occurs, that lack is loudly proclaimed ; but through- 
 out the narrative there is not one hint that even scarcity of food 
 was during all the forty years experienced by flock or herd. 
 
 There are some other considerations which must here be 
 mentioned ; the first is— That at least some parts of the desert 
 were fitted to sustain cattle ; this is shown in Ex. iii. 1, " I^ow 
 Moses kept the flock of Jethro, his father-in-law, the priest of 
 Midian, and he led the flock to the back side of the desert, and 
 came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb." It is plain from 
 this passage that Moses, having a choice of pasturages, led his 
 flocks into one of the very places where, the Bishop declares, there 
 was nothing for them to eat. The second consideration is, That 
 large and fertile oases may have existed at the period of the nar- 
 rative which have since become like the rest of the desert. That 
 this is not impossible is shown by the present desert condition of 
 large portions of Palestine itself, where whole tracts of land 
 which once supported large numbers in luxury, are now pictures 
 of sterility and barrenness ; and the Bishop himself points out an 
 agency by which this could easily have been accompKshed when 
 he alludes to the frequent sand-storms, by which that region is 
 
52 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 characterized. The third consideration is, that as the Israelites 
 themselves were supported by miraculous provision, their sheep 
 and cattle may have been cared for in the same manner ; but we 
 have no right to assume such a miracle, and therefore lay no 
 stress upon the old Jewish tradition that this really was the 
 case ; but If we have no right to assume a miracle, the Bishop 
 has no right to assume the negation of all means of support for 
 cattle that are frequently mentioned, and therefore constantly in 
 the mind of the narrator. The last consideration is, the frequent 
 removal of the camp of the Israelites might be occasioned by 
 this necessity of the food for the cattle ; there were above forty 
 different encampments during the stay in the desert, and while this 
 assumption supplies a probable and natural reason for change, 
 we are not aware that any other has ever been given. The agency 
 for the direction of removals, the pillar of cloud and fire, is well 
 known, but the necessity for removals is not mentioned. 
 
 It should also be remembered that the complaints of 
 the Israelites were comparative, they went from one land of 
 absolute profusion to another of still greater abundance, and this 
 very fact of remembered plenty with clearly promised profusion 
 would render the intermediate barrenness still more apparent, 
 and hard to bear. In concluding this subject, we would observe 
 that the immense number of the flocks and herds is simply assumed 
 by the Bishop ; there is no foundation whatever for believing that 
 200,000 lambs were ever required for the Passover in Egypt or 
 in the Wilderness, and it is upon this grounclworlc of imagination 
 alone that all the Bishop's suppositions upon this subject are 
 reared. That the flocks and herds were there, and that they 
 were fed, is negatively proved by the prohibition the Bishop has 
 quoted : " Neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount," 
 Ex. xxxiv. 3. If there were no flocks there, nor anything for 
 them to eat, the prohibition is simply ridiculous ; and with all his 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSflOP. 53 
 
 striving, the Bishop has not yet succeeded in casting ridicule 
 upon the Pentateuch, and it needs no gift of prophecy to foresee 
 he never will. 
 
 « CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 " The ^'timber of the Israelites compared with the Ex- 
 tent OF THE Land of Canaan." Quotation: — " I icill send my 
 fear hefore thee, and will destroy all th^ people to loJiom thou shalt 
 come, and I ivill make all thine enemies turn their hacks unto thee. 
 And I ivill send hornets hefore thee, ivhich shall drive out the 
 Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from hefore thee. I icill 
 not drive them out from hefore thee in one year, lest the land 
 hecome desolate, and the heast of the field multiply against thee. 
 By little and little I will drive them out from hefore thee, until 
 thou he increased and inherit the land.''' — Ex. xxiii. 27 — 30. 
 
 The Bishop's objection here is, that the danger spoken of in the 
 29th verse — the land becoming desolate, and the beast of the field 
 multiplying against the people — could not possibly exist. He 
 states that the land to be divided among the tribes in the time of 
 Joshua was about 7,000,000 acres, while Bagster's Comprehensive 
 Bible gives more than double that quantity, 14,976,000 acres, as 
 the area of the land of Canaan. He instances the population 
 and extent of the English counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, 
 as a case in point, and his argument is, that there could be no 
 more danger of desolation or overrunning in one case than in 
 the other. We venture to characterize the comparison as inac- 
 curate and unfair, if it be not especially designed to mislead. 
 To hold good, it must be shown that there is no more danger of 
 desolation and overrunning in unsettled times and places than 
 in settled ; that the desolation well known to be produced by war 
 in the countries afflicted with that curse is simply a myth ; that 
 
54 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 even a war of conquest amounting to extermination would have 
 no effect upon the agricultural condition of a country. The 
 Bishop's supposition carries with it the exceedingly improbable 
 assumption of the old inhabitants keeping the land in " high 
 heart," as it is termed, and handing it over in splendid condition 
 to the new occupants, who slew them by way of recompense. 
 Of course the Narrative is in no way responsible for such absurd 
 suppositions, nor does it anywhere state that this desolation or 
 overrunning really occurred ; the prevention that was adopted 
 succeeded to perfection, and the whole passage quoted by the 
 Bishop is a beautiful illustration of the minute care of Jehovah 
 for his chosen people, and corroboration of another passage, 
 Deut. xxxii. 10 — ^12 : "He found him 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. 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." 
 
 "CHAPTER XIY. 
 " The Ntjmbee or the Fiest-boen compaeed with the 
 Number of Male Adults." Quotation: — '' All the jirst-lorn 
 males, from a month old and itjpward, of those that were numbered, 
 icere ticenty and two thousand two hundred and three score and 
 iliirteenP—^Vim, iii. 43. 
 
 The Bishop states his objection as follows : — " Lotus see what 
 this statement implies when treated as a simple matter of fact. 
 For this purpose I quote the words of Kurtz (iii. 209). If there 
 were 600,000 males of twenty years and upwards, the whole num- 
 ber of males may be reckoned at 900,000 (he elsewhere reckons 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. i>5 
 
 1,000 000), in whicli case there would be only one first-born to 
 42 (44) males. In other words, the number of boys in every 
 family must have been, on the average, forty-two. This will be 
 seen at once if we consider that the rest of the 900,000 males 
 were not first-borns ; and, therefore, each of these must have had 
 one or the other of the 22,273 as the first-born of his own family, 
 except, of course, in any case where the first-born of any family 
 was a daughter or was dead." 
 
 That the Bishop of Natal considers this a very strong, if not 
 perfectly insoluble objection, is proved by some remarks made at 
 the end of this chapter, which will be quoted and commented on 
 in their proper place. "We must, therefore, proceed cautiously in 
 our endeavour to discover and show the real weight and character 
 of the objection ; and for this purpose we shall seek out and state 
 the Bishop's assertions in his own words :— 
 
 Assertion 1. " According to the story of the Pentateuch every 
 mother of Israel must have had forty-two sons." 
 
 Assertion 2. " We have no reason whatever to suppose from 
 the data which we find in the Pentateuch, that the mothers of 
 Israel were prolific in any unusual degree." 
 
 Assertion 3. " It is a pure assumption, and unwarranted by 
 anything that is found in Scripture, that such of the first-born as 
 were themselves heads of families, were not reckoned at all as 
 first-born." 
 
 Assertion 4. " The number of mothers must have been the 
 same as that of the first-born, male and female ; hence there would 
 liave been ouly 60,000 women to 600,000 men, so that only one 
 man in ten had a wife or children." 
 
 So asserts the Bishop. It is evident that there is a gross and 
 ridiculous error somewhere ; we shall ncnv endeavour to discover 
 .where this error lies. 
 
 Upon the Bishop's showing, Kurtz, Michaelis, Havernick, and 
 
56 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 Bunsen, take the statement as it stands for granted, and endeavour 
 to explain it ; but Scott appears to us to give an outline of 
 a true and satisfactory solution which we fehall endeavour to fill 
 up and enlarge upon. To do this, we will first look closely into 
 the passages concerned, in order to ascertain step by step the intent 
 and extent of the commandment concerning the first-born. 
 
 The Israelites had been released from slavery ; and from all 
 external dictation they were as free as the air of the wilderness 
 in which they were sojourning. In order to their enjoyment of 
 complete freedom combined with the advantages of civilization, 
 long, laborious, and incessant training was absolutely necessary. 
 A form of government was instituted — that form was Theocratic, 
 and there can be no Theocracy without worship ; for convenience 
 of worship, one central sanctuary was decreed, and a very minute, 
 intricate, and laborious series of services were commanded to be 
 established ; to perform these services a large number of ahJe- 
 hodied men were required ; and the manner in which these were 
 supplied forms the true and proper groundwork of the inquiry 
 now before us. 
 
 At the time of the Exodus from Egypt the commandment is 
 given to Moses in the words following, Ex. xiii. 2 : '' Whatsoever 
 openeth the womb .... of man and of beast, it (is) mine." It is 
 to be noticed that this is simply the preliminary announcement to 
 Moses ; not stated at that time to be even made known to the 
 children of Israel generally. "When the commandments and the 
 law were given at Sinai, the subject is again mentioned with the 
 plain direction that the commandment should only apply to those 
 born subsequently. "We shall quote this direction as it com- 
 pletely destroys the theory on which the Bishop's objection is 
 founded, and destroys it so completely that it is diflBcult to con- 
 ceive he had ever read the passage : " The first-born of thy sons 
 sbalt thou give unto Me ; likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE -WOEKSHOP. 57 
 
 and with thy sheep : seven days it shall be with his dam ; on the 
 eighth day thou shalt give it ilfe," Ex. xxii. 29, 30. It is evident 
 that this passage could only apply to the first-born of man and beast 
 thereafter to be born, for if the commandment had a retrospective 
 effect, this last direction concerning the eighth day would have 
 rendered obedience out of the question, a retrospective law must 
 have stultified itself. The next mention of the law provides for 
 the redemption of the first-born by money or substitution, Ex. 
 xxxiv. 20; the following enactment provides against any man 
 sanctifying that which is already sanctified. Lev. xxvii. 26, 27 ; 
 and then follows the setting apart and numbering of the first- 
 born. Num. iii. 40 ; and the number of individuals thus obtained, 
 we are told in the verse quoted by the Bishop was 22,273 ; but 
 these being only children of from one to thirteen months old at 
 the utmost (i.e., born between the Exodus and the completion of 
 the Tabernacle), would have been utterly useless for the very pur- 
 pose for which they were separated. They could not have accom- 
 plished the work of the sanctuary, and therefore the families of 
 the tribe of Levi are taken in the place of the first-born, and by 
 them all the service of the sanctuary is performed. 
 
 Looking thus at the subject as a whole, gathered from the 
 narrative, it is perfectly inconceivable how the Bishop could have 
 fallen into the foolish error he has magnified into a formidable 
 objection. Indeed it requires a large amount of charity to believe 
 that the misrepresentation here is not wilful, inasmuch as there 
 is so clear an intimation of reservation in the text on which the 
 Bishop founds his objection, that it cannot be passed over if read 
 with ordinary attention, and certainly indicates the necessity of 
 further research. The Bishop quotes Num. iii. 43, " all the first- 
 born males, from a month old and upward, of those that were 
 numbered;'' and if this reservation has any meaning at all, it 
 implies that there were first-born, who, for some reason not there 
 
05 THE BIBLE IN THE WOBKSHOP. 
 
 stated, were not included in the census, and in the 13th verse 
 (precedent to that quoted by the Bishop from the narrative) we 
 are distinctly told the reason of the reservation : " All the first-born 
 are mine ; for on the day that I smote all the first-bom of the land 
 of Egypt, I hallowed unto me all the first-born in Israel, both 
 man and beast." 
 
 To sum up this somewhat lengthy statement in a few words : 
 — The Lord sanctified all the first-born of Israel, man and beast, 
 from the day of the Exodus. In about one year the first-born 
 male children numbered 22,273, and the families of the tribe of 
 Levi were taken in their stead. 
 
 We will now contrast this clear and consistent statement of 
 the Narrative respecting the first-born, with the assertions of the 
 Bishop, and ascertain the answers that are therein given : — 
 
 Assertion 1. " According to the story of the Pentateuch, every 
 mother in Israel must have had forty-two sons." 
 
 This assertion is founded on the assumption that all the first- 
 born, of what age soever, were included in the census, which 
 cannot be shown. It assumes, in fact, that there was only as 
 many mothers in all Israel as first-born male children in one year, 
 or thirteen months at the farthest. 
 
 Assertion 2. " We have no reason whatever to suppose from 
 the data which we find in the Pentateuch, that the mothers of 
 Israel were prolific in any unusual degree." 
 
 It is not at all necessary to our present argument to prove 
 that they were ; but the fact is directly contrary to the statement 
 of the Bishop : for, if from the numerical data — i.e., from the 
 number of children named and specified — this assertion may pos- 
 sibly be regarded as true, the Bible contains other data beside 
 numbers ; and in contrast with the Bishop's assertion we simply 
 place the following passages : " And Israel dwelt in the land of 
 Egypt, in the country of Goshen ; and they had possessions 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE -WORKSHOP. 59 
 
 therein, and grew, and multiplied exceedingly'' Gen. xlvii. 27. 
 " And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abun- 
 dantly, and waxed exceeding mighty, and the land was filled with 
 them,'' Ex. i. 7. " The more they afflicted them, the more they 
 multiplied and grew," Ex. i. 12. 
 
 Assertion 3. "It is pure assumption, and unwarranted by any- 
 thing that is found in Scripture, that such of the first-born as 
 were themselves heads of families were not reckoned at all as 
 first-born." 
 
 The assumption in this assertion is, that first-born heads of 
 families having ofi"spring, were to be reckoned among the first-born 
 and redeemed ; but unless it can be shown that a difierent law 
 applied to man and beast, which nowhere appears, the assertion 
 is at once seen to be absurd when applied to the cattle and sheep, 
 the direction being that they were to be killed on the eighth day ; 
 therefore, the supposition of the Bishop as to retrospective action 
 of the law is simply an absurdity. 
 
 Assertion 4. " The number of the mothers must have been the 
 same as that of the first-born, male and female, and dead — so that 
 allowing 60,000 mothers, only one man in ten had a wife or 
 children." 
 
 There can be no question as to the number of mothers being 
 identical with that of the first-bom ; but the gross total of the 
 number of the first-born is nowhere stated or even hinted at, and 
 consequently there is not the slightest data from which to ascer- 
 tain the number of mothers. Any question about their number 
 is idle, and can only tend to distract from the true issue, or to 
 prejudice the minds of the readers of the Bishop's book. 
 
 But, objects the Bishop to this solution of his pet difficulty, 
 it is stated all the first-born were to be taken. This all is, of 
 course, subject to the provisions of the law itself, and that it could 
 not possibly apply as the Bishop would have us believe, is clearly 
 
CO THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 shown in the direction concerning the cattle on the eighth day ; it 
 is indisputable that if the law were retrospective, it could not be 
 obeyed. 
 
 Thus, the whole of the Bishop's carefully-reared " card castle" 
 falls to the ground ; his elaborate calculations, his foolish idea of 
 60,000 wives amongst 600,000 men, his sapient imagining of 42 
 children in every family, is shown to be simply unnecessary and 
 ridiculous. The gross number of the first-born in Israel being 
 unknown, any argument raised upon mere supposition is un- 
 worthy of notice beyond pointing out the fallacy upon which it is 
 erected. 
 
 But upon this foundation of elaborate folly, the Bishop rears 
 a superstructure of awful wickedness, for here for the first time 
 he claims his reader for a brother infidel. On the faith of this 
 nonsensical calculation he proceeds to assume that we must give 
 up our belief in the historical truth of the Pentateuch. "We 
 write awful wickedness, and we write as we think and feel, that 
 it is awful wickedness for one in high station, living by the gospel, 
 himself a recipient of the shekel hakkodesh, to ask ignorant and 
 unlearned men to follow him into infidelity, on the faith of a few 
 objections unfairly stated in every case ; with the vast mass of 
 affirmative evidence utterly ignored ; asked to become infidels on 
 the ex parte statements of a mere unscrupulous advocate, and 
 that advocacy itself the blackest treason to the cause he had 
 solemnly sworn to defend. We make these remarks because here 
 the Bishop stops his criticism for a time and thus writes : — '' By 
 this time surel}^ great doubt must have arisen in the mind of 
 most readers as to the historical veracity of sundry portions of 
 the Pentateuch." And this is our reply to the insinuated ques- 
 tion — " Bishop of the Church of England, we, two working men, 
 having carefully read and jj)ondered every sentence you have written 
 up to this point, answer you emphatically, and with all our 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 61 
 
 souls, ^o ; but that an exactly contrary effect has been produced 
 upon our minds, by the very small amount of study of G-od's Truth 
 (God's Truth, a thousand times, Bishop) necessary to answer 
 you hitherto. We are more thoroughly convinced than ever, that 
 every word of G-od is true ; that all Scripture, historical and other- 
 wise, is given by inspiration of God, and that any man of average 
 capacity, though he never eaw anything else but an English Bible, 
 with the references in the margin, may, by an attentive study 
 and comparison of one passage of Scripture with others, dissolve 
 all your objections, by proving that they are utterly destitute of 
 foundation in the narrative from which they are falsely professed 
 to have been taken. 
 
 When you are lying upon your deathbed, and your spent life 
 is passing in rapid rpview before you, it may be some small satis- 
 faction to you to know that at least two of the class to whom your 
 book is calculated to be most dangerous, after careful examina- 
 tion, are convinced of its utter groundlessness and folly. Alas 
 for you ! that so many of our brethren of the working classes will 
 accept your conclusions, never troubling themselves with any 
 inquiry as to the mode by which you have arrived at them. Alas 
 for you and them ! that your book was offered and accepted as a 
 fitting and sufficient substitute, in an Infidel Hall on the Evening 
 of the holy Sabbath, for the blasphemous rant of their most un- 
 scrupulous advocate. " It must needs be that offences come, 
 but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh," Matt. 
 xviii. 7. We will only add, in reference to your appeal, that 
 there is one subject on which your book has left no shadow of a 
 doubt on our minds, and that is as to your own personal fitness 
 to occupy the position and do the work you have undertaken, as 
 a faithful minister of the Church of England. ^ 
 
62 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 " CHAPTERS XY., XYI., XYII. 
 
 "The SojouRNiNa oe the Iseaelites. The Exodus in 
 THE Fourth Generation. The Number of Israelites 
 AT THE Time of the Exodus." — There is but one quotation 
 to these three chapters — " JVow the sojourning of the children of 
 Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty yearsj'^ 
 Ex. xii. 40, — and as the first and second are simply introductory 
 to the third, it will be more convenient to regard these chapters 
 as a complete subject. The Bishop thus remarks : — '' It is plain 
 that the 430 years are meant, as St. Paul understood, to be 
 reckoned from the time of the call of Abraham ; thus, reckoning 
 25 years from his leaving Haran to the birth of Isaac, 60 years 
 to the birth of Jacob, 130 years to the migration into Egypt, we 
 have 215 years' sojourning in the land of Canaan, leaving just the 
 same length of time, 215 years, for the sojourn in the land of 
 Egypt. We must conclude, then, that the translation in the 
 English Bible of Ex. xii. 40, however awkwardly it reads, is correct 
 as it stands, if the Hebrew words themselves are correct, as they 
 appear in all manuscript and printed copies of the Pentateuch. 
 
 " Again, when it is said, Gren. 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 go down into Egypt. Thus we find Moses 
 and Aaron in the fourth generation from the time of the migra- 
 tion, 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 Egypt in the prime of life, and then the generation of 
 Joshua, Eleazar, etc., in the prime of life, will be the fourth 
 generation. "We conclude, then, that it is an indisputable fact, 
 that the story as it is told in the Pentateuch intends it to be 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOKKSHOP. 63 
 
 understood — 1. That the children of Israel came out of Egypt 
 about 215 years after they went down thither, in the time of 
 Jacob. 2. 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 former. From this it can be shown, 
 beyond a doubt, that it is quite impossible that there should have 
 been such a number of the people of Israel in Egypt, at the time 
 of the Exodus, as to have furnished 600,000 warriors in the prime 
 of life, representing at least two millions of persons of all ages 
 and sexes, that is to say, it is impossible if ive luill take the data, 
 to he derived from the Pentateuch itself'' 
 
 We have thus summarized the arguments and statements of 
 the Bishop which are contained in his Chapters xv. and xvi., the 
 whole of which lead up to the statement which the Bishop thus 
 makes : — " It is quite impossible that there should have been such 
 a number of the people of Israel in Egypt at the time of the 
 Exodus, as to have furnished 600,000 warriors in the prime of 
 life, representing at least two millions of persons." 
 
 IS'ow as the Bible distinctly and unmistakably declares that such 
 was the fact, the Bishop and the Bible are at plain issue ; for the 
 Bible states plainly there were 600,000 men in the prime of life, 
 and the Bishop rejoins, " Quite impossible." 
 
 This being the plain and clear question raised, we shall first 
 consider what the Bishop has to say to prove the case he has 
 brought forward, and then ascertain what reply can be given from 
 a plain common-sense study of God's Holy Word. 
 
 The assertions of the Bishop are as follows : — 
 
 Assertion 1. '' We nowhere read of any very large families 
 among the children of Jacob, or their descendants, to the time of 
 the Exodus." 
 
 Assertion 2. " The wonderful preponderance of males in the 
 
64 THE BIBLE IN THE WOKKSHOP. 
 
 family of Jacob is another indication of the unhistorical character 
 of the whole account." 
 
 Assertion 3. "The twelve sons of Jacob had between them 53 
 sons, average four and a-half each." 
 
 Assertion 4. "If the number of all the males in the four 
 generations be added together, they would only amount to 6611. 
 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 their data, have exceeded 
 28,465, instead of being 1,000,000." 
 
 We may fairly take the above as the Bishop's assertions on 
 this large subject, and we now proceed to see how far they agree 
 with the Scripture narrative. 
 
 Assertion 1. " We nowhere read of any very large families 
 among the children of Jacob or their descendants, to the time of 
 the Exodus." 
 
 We shall simply compare the following Scriptures (some of 
 which have been before quoted) with the Bishop's remarkably 
 cool assertion. " And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the 
 country of Goshen ; and they had possessions therein, and grew, and 
 multi]olied exceedingly,'^ Gren. xlvii. 27. " The children of Israel 
 were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed 
 exceeding mighty; and the land was Jilled with them,''' Ex. i. 7. 
 " The more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew," 
 Ex. i. 12. " 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. " A Syrian ready 
 to perish was my father ; and he went down into Egypt, and 
 sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, 
 mighty, and populous," Deut. xxvi. 5. It will be seen that these 
 texts constitute a direct contradiction to the first assertion of the 
 Bishop, and any comment is superfluous. 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 65 
 
 Assertion 2. "The wonderful preponderance of males in 
 Jacob's family is another indication of the unhistorical character 
 of the whole account." 
 
 This objection is so exceedingly trivial that it is scarcely worthy 
 of notice, for when analyzed it amounts to neither more nor less 
 than this — The Bishop's objection to the narrative is, that it 
 asserts that one woman had six sons and a daughter, and three 
 other women had two sons each ; that is to say, that any docu- 
 ment that asserts that a woman had six sons and one daughter 
 cannot be true. To show the fallacy of the Bishop's argument it 
 is sufficient to state, that one of our fellow- workmen has by one 
 wife a family of nine sons and one daughter. "Would the Bishop 
 venture to tell our fellow-workman that the register in his Family 
 Bible is "historically untrue?" We think it right to add that 
 this paragraph of the Bishop's book was read in our shop and 
 received with a shout of derisive laughter. 
 
 Assertion 3. " The twelve sons of Jacob had between them 
 fifty-three sons, average four and a-half each." 
 
 It appears to us that in this assertion lies the fallacy of all 
 the figures the Bishop has so industriously gathered on this sub- 
 ject, and this we hope very clearly to show. The Bishop tells us 
 in the course of the foregoing chapters that Judah was 42 years 
 of age when he went down to Egypt (we think he was a few 
 years older) ; Joseph was then 39, and Benjamin younger, so that 
 at the time of the descent into Egypt, Eeuben would be certainly 
 under 50, and Benjamin a little more than 40, at the utmost. 
 jS'ow, Abraham had a son when he was 100 years old ; Isaac was 
 60 when Esau and Jacob were born, and Jacob must have been 
 more than 80 before the birth of his eldest son ; and yet the 
 Bisliop's assumption upon wJiich all his arguments and figures are 
 hased is, that these twelve sons of Jacob, though in the full 
 strength and prime of manhood, had no more sons horn to tliem 
 
€6 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 after they went down into Egypt ; that is, that Levi lived 57 years 
 in Egypt without having a child, then had one daughter born 
 to him, but no sons, during 70 or 80 years ; that no one among 
 his eleven brethren had any more sons ; that Benjamin had ten 
 sons before he was forty years of age, but none afterwards ; that 
 Joseph had two sons within seven years, but no more during 
 70 years of after life ; that Jacob himself had twelve sons 
 after he was 80 years old, but none of his sons had offspring after 
 50, with one exception, and some of them, not after half the age 
 of their father at the birth of his eldest son ; that the wives of 
 Jacob's sons, up to this time, had been exceedingly fruitful, but 
 after they went into Egypt they suddenly and unaccountably 
 ceased to bear children. All these anomalies, and many more, we 
 must believe, in order to endorse the Bishop's assum'ption. 
 
 On the positive side of this question there are the following 
 
 facts. "We are expressly told in Genesis that Joseph had other 
 
 sons ; these are the words (chap, xlviii. 5, 6), Jacob speaks : — 
 
 *'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 Keuben and Simeon, they shall be mine. And thy 
 
 issue which thou begettest [Heb. wliicli tlioii liast hegottenl after 
 
 them shall be thine, and shall be called by the name of their 
 
 brethren after them in their inheritance." After Jacob's death, 
 
 the youngest of his grandchildren that came loith Mm into Egypt 
 
 must have been more than seventeen years of age. Joseph's 
 
 brethren came to him fearing he would remember and revenge 
 
 former injuries, and tliey gave him a touching message from lips 
 
 then silent for ever ; from their father, whose darling Joseph had 
 
 been. They said (Gen. 1. 17, 21), Our father said before he died, 
 
 " Eorgive, I pray thee, the trespass of thy brethren and their sin, 
 
 for they did unto thee evil ; and now we pray thee, forgive the 
 
 trespass of the servants of the God of thy father." And Joseph 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE TTOBKSHOP. 67 
 
 replied, " Now, therefore, fear ye not ; I will nourish jou and your 
 little ones" (Heb. Q5?^"^^1 little children, as opposed to young 
 men and virgins). It will be seen that here is at least an intimation 
 of an indefinite number of children, little children, who were the 
 children of Joseph's brethren, and who must have been born in 
 Egypt, because their parents had been at least seventeen years in 
 Egypt at this time. 
 
 But, it is open to the Bishop to object, there are no more 
 names given. This, of course, we admit, and we point to the 
 reason assigned by Jacob himself why no more are given : " Thy 
 issue which thou begettest [Heb., hast begotten] after them, 
 shall be called by the name of their brethren after them in their 
 inheritance." Again, if only those who are mentioned by name 
 are to be counted, then the Bishop's numbers are equally at fault 
 with those, as he asserts, of the Bible. Eor the Bishop allows 
 there might have been 25,000, and it is quite certain that 
 nothing like that number of names appears anywhere in the 
 Narrative. In fact, there is not the shadow of foundation for any 
 numerical data whatever, and the fatal error of the Bishop is very 
 easily pointed out. He has submitted to the test of ordinary 
 averages, a case which as plain as words can state the fact, is 
 expressly removed from their action. He says, average four and 
 a-half sons each ; the Bible says, " fruitful exceedingly." He says, 
 in another place, three sons each ; the Bible says, " They filled 
 the land." So that the data upon which the calculations are 
 founded are thus proved thoroughly inapplicable ; and, conse- 
 quently, any result arrived at must be idle and worthless. 
 
 It appears to us, that by thus pointing out the absence of all 
 reliable data upon which any calculation can be authoritatively 
 founded, the Bishop's objection founded upon his calculations is 
 completely dissolved. 
 
 There are, however, other ways of meeting and overcoming 
 
68 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 the difficulty ; as, in supposing that Jacob brought down many- 
 servants with him into Egypt, who are not mentioned by name, 
 but who became incorporated into his family, mixing with, and 
 taking the name of one or the other of the families of Jacob and 
 Joseph's sons, who afterwards became heads of tribes. That such 
 cases of adoption really occurred, we are told in the Narrative 
 (1 Chron. ii. 84, 35), though we have no especial mention of them 
 at the period of the history of which we are now speaking. It 
 is also open to suppose that the sons and grandsons of Jacob 
 themselves took other wives, and had many more children while 
 they dwelt in the land of Egypt, favourites of the king, and cared 
 for and protected by his powerful minister, their own brother ; 
 indeed, it must have been a very desirable thing to have been 
 associated with them during the first sixty years of their sojourn 
 in Egypt. The Narrative expressly records that before they were 
 afflicted they multiplied exceedingly, and the more they were 
 afflicted the more they multiplied and grew. It is, therefore, 
 plain that no doctrine of ordinary averages can be applied to 
 such an exceedingly exceptionable case as the one before us. 
 
 Assertion 4. "If the number of all the males in the four 
 generations be added together, they would only amount to 6311 ;" 
 with this we must join the assertion that they came out in the 
 fourth generation from the adults in the prime of life. 
 
 To answer this assertion we must first ascertain what is meant 
 by a generation in the Hebrew sense of the term, and then which 
 was the fourth of those generations during some period of which 
 the Israelites were again to leave the land of Egypt. Our first 
 question is, "What would a Jew understand by the term gene- 
 ration ? and his answer would necessarily be determined by the 
 period of history to which it was to be applied, inasmuch as the 
 generations of Adam, Jacob, and David were essentially different 
 things, though they are all included in the same general term. Of 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 69 
 
 the time in question, the patriarchal age, the Jew would certainly 
 understand a period of one hundred years, and so says Gesenius 
 ('* Heb. and Chal. Lex.," p. 194.) : " The Hebrews, like our- 
 selves, appear to have reckoned a generation at from thirty to 
 forty years (see Job xlii. 16), but from the longevity of the 
 patriarchs, in their time it was reckoned at a hundred, G-en. xv. 16, 
 compare v. 14, and Exod. xv. 40." It is worthy of remark, that 
 Gesenius quotes the passage in question to prove that the meaning 
 of the term is one hundred years of time ; while the Bishop of 
 IS'atal uses it to signify the number of men born in about half the 
 same period ; so that the foundation upon which the Bishop builds 
 his argument is questionable on a very slight examination. 
 
 But to have something like authority to build on, we will 
 take the mean average of Gesenius, and state the generation of 
 men at thirty-five years ; thus we shall see it is perfectly pos- 
 sible that there should be six generations of grown men during 
 the 215 years, with five years to spare ; nor does it at all follow that 
 all, or nearly all the fourth generation should be dead when the 
 sixth were, men grown ; for it must not be forgotten, that thou- 
 sands of the sixth generation might have been thirty years of 
 age ; while those of the fourth, their grandfathers, were still of 
 even marriageable age, as Jacob himself was married at certainly 
 nearly eighty years of age, having twelve sons afterward. We 
 shall, therefore, take a generation of men at thirty -five years, 
 adopting the average time stated by Gesenius. We now need 
 another element in the calculation ; which is, how many children 
 may fairly be reckoned as constituting a fruitful family. The 
 writer's father had twelve, his brother had ten, himself nine, and 
 is not yet forty years of age ; but as we wish to be strictly within 
 the mark, we shall take six healthy children as the result of an 
 exceedingly fruitful marriage ; a number to which no reasonable 
 objection can be raised. We shall now take the Bishop's own 
 
70 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 lowest number as a starting point, 51 grandsons, and we will then 
 see the result, as follows : — 
 
 51 f 
 6 c 
 
 grandsons 
 liildren ej 
 
 t the end 
 
 5J 
 9> 
 5> 
 
 ii 
 
 went into Egypt, 
 ach. 
 
 306 a 
 6 
 
 of 35 years. 
 
 1836 
 6 
 
 70 „ 
 
 11,016 
 6 
 
 105 „ 
 
 66,096 
 6 
 
 140 „ 
 
 396,576 
 6 
 
 175 „ 
 
 2,379,456 „ 210 „ 
 
 We thus see that if we reckon the sixth generation living, with 
 half the fifth, and a quarter of the fourth, there will be 16,000 of 
 the fourth generation living, and more than two and a-half 
 millions in all. Now let us see what all this vast aggregate 
 requires us to believe in individual cases. It is simply this, that 
 in a land of plenty, and among a people especially and exception- 
 ably fruitful, thei/ married at tweniy-one years of age, and had six 
 Jiealthy children each in the following fourteen years. "We have 
 only to give credence to this simple and rational assumption, to 
 be able to believe all that is stated in the narrative, and all that 
 is implied in such statement as set forth by the Bishop himself. 
 Further, we have only to imagine a number of living grand- 
 
THE BIBLE llf THE WOEKSHOP. 71 
 
 fathers and grandmothers going up out of Egypt to fulfil everv 
 requirement of the narrative, " In the fourth generation they shall 
 come hither again.^' Nor should it be forgotten that we have the 
 first five years of the seventh generation, to bring into the calcula- 
 tion if still higher numbers were required, but as it is unnecessary 
 even on the Bishop^s own showing, we need do no more than point 
 out the fact. We have also only allowed two generations in 
 seventy years, but it is expressly recorded that Joseph saw 
 Ephraim's children of the third generation during that period. So 
 that some of the fourth generation to which the Bishop restricts 
 his calculation, were born within 80 years of the going down 
 into Egypt, and 135 years before the Exodus ; that is to say, that 
 there were certainly four generations during the first 100 years, but 
 no more during 135 years afterward ; for it must not be forgotten, 
 that the Bishop ends his calculations with Levi's children of the 
 third generation, while it is distinctly asserted that his younger 
 brother's children of the fourth generation were living 135 years 
 before the departure out of Egypt. 
 
 We have made these simple and reasonable calculations to 
 show the probability of the numbers in the Narrative being strictly 
 true ; but there is not the least foundation in the Narrative upon 
 which such questions of numbers can be satisfactorily based. 
 Any calculation founded upon the mere names given, must be 
 erroneous, inasmuch as they are distinctly stated to be given only 
 in the cases of heads of tribes and families. Names are given 
 only where it was necessary in order to settle questions of descent 
 •or genealogy, though there are interspersed here and there notices 
 of celebrities among the children of Israel. It must not be for- 
 gotten, that it is nowhere mentioned in the Narrative that com- 
 plete lists are given ; indeed, to have done so, would have defeated 
 the object in view ; for the Pentateuch is a historic sketchy not a 
 census paper. We will only say by way of summary, that 
 
72 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 while the Bishop confines himself to four generations, and only 
 grudgingly allows a fifth, the Bible speaks of six, and even seven 
 generations in the lists given in the Chronicles, and there can be 
 no reason to doubt that the statement is correct, when we re- 
 member that men commonly lived more than a hundred years, and 
 were certainly in possession of all the powers of manhood for 
 ninety years of that time ; or, in other words, that vigorous men 
 of the fourth, and children of the seventh generation went up 
 out of Egypt in company. 
 
 "CHAPTEE XYIII. 
 " The Danites and Leyites at the time of the Exodus." 
 There is no quotation to this chapter ; but the Bishop's objection is 
 as follows : " When 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 land of 
 Egypt, and therefore had only one son appears from Num. xxvi. 42, 
 when the sons of Dan consist of only one family ; hence we may 
 reckon that in the fourth generation he would have had 27 war- 
 riors descended from him, instead of 62,700 as they are numbered 
 in Num. ii. 26, increased to 64,000 in Num. xxvi. 43. In order 
 to have had this number born to him, we must suppose that Dan's 
 one son and each of his sons and grandsons must have had about 
 80 children of both sexes. We may observe also that the offspring 
 of the one son of Dan is represented as nearly double that of the 
 ten sons of Benjamiu, 35,400, Num. ii. 23. Again we have in 
 Ex. vi. the genealogy before quoted of the three sons of Levi who 
 came with Jacob into Egypt, Gershon, Kohath, Merari; these 
 three increased in the second (Amram's) generation to eight, not 
 to nine as it would have been if they had each three sons on the 
 
THE BIBIE IN THE TTOEKSHOP. 73f 
 
 average, viz., the sons of Kohath four, of Gershon two, of Merari 
 two, Ex. vi. 17, 19. The four sons of Kohath increased in the 
 third generation to eight. ... The two sons of Amram increased 
 in the fourth generation to six, and assuming these proportions to 
 continue, the whole number of Levites who would be numbered 
 at the first census would be only 44, viz., 20 Kohathites 12 Ger- 
 shonites, 12 Merarites, instead of 8580 as thsy are numbered in 
 Num. iv. 48, viz., 2750 Kohathites, 2630 Gershonites, 3200 Me- 
 rarites, vv. 36, 40, 44. The Kohathites of Eleazar's generation must 
 have been made up of the descendants of Ishar and Uzziel, each of 
 whom had three sons, consequently since all the Kohathites of 
 Eleazar's generation were numbered at 2750, Num. iv. 36, it follows 
 that these siv men must have had between them according to 
 the Scripture story 2748 sons, and we must suppose about the 
 same number of daughters." 
 
 We have failed in our object if we have not shown in the pre- 
 ceding chapter that there is no reliance whatever to be placed in 
 Bishop Colenso's figures, inasmuch as there is no data upon which 
 they can be founded. The Bishop says that Dan had 07ie son 
 and only one, the sole foundation for which assertion is, that the 
 families of the tribe of Dan were reckoned from him (Hushim) 
 only, as having been one of the seventy who went down into 
 Egypt. In order to show the fallacy of the Bishop's figures we 
 will simply state his argument, and contrast it with an exactly 
 parallel case; thus— Dan in the first generation had one son, 
 Hushim, and that he had only one son is proved by Numbers 
 xxvi. 42. We now set forth the case of his brother Joseph, who 
 had in the first generation two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, 
 and that he had only two is proved by Num. xxvi. 28, where only 
 these two are mentioned ; but in this latter case a clear and simple 
 explanation is given in the Narrative itself, an explanation which 
 there can be no difficulty whatever in applying to the cases 
 
74r THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 of the Danites and the Levites also. In Gen. xlviii. 5, 6 (before 
 quoted), we have this sufficient elucidation of all the circumstances, 
 *' 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 Eeuben and Simeon they shall be mine. And thy 
 issue which thou begettest (Heb. i?7 - '^""'?^^' tt^o^ tast be- 
 gotten) after them, shall be thine, and shall he called after the 
 name of their brethren in their inheritance.''^ So that here we 
 have the rule clearly laid down as to all questions of their future 
 genealogies, and a full and sufficient reason why no more names 
 are mentioned. The objection that no other sons of Joseph are 
 ever mentioned in Scripture, is met by Ahen Ezra, who says that 
 " as they took their heritage under their elder brethren, there was 
 no necessity to name them;" and by Nachmanides, who maintains 
 that " the words of the prophet (Jacob) would not be uttered in 
 vain." Mashham is still stronger in favour of the view that Joseph 
 had other sons when these words were spoken, for he says 
 " those thou hast begotten during my seventeen years in Egypt." 
 "We see also from the above passage that every one of the sons 
 of Jacob 7nay have had many more sons after they went down 
 into Egypt, and we see also a reason why there are no names 
 mentioned, if such were the case. Eor the cases of Joseph, and 
 of Dan and Levi are exactly parallel, there is no reasoning that 
 can be applied to one case that cannot be equally applied to the 
 others. And the reason given for the suppression of the 
 names of Joseph's other children is sufficient to show us why 
 the names of those of Dan may have been suppressed also. 
 "We may also recall to remembrance the further proof of the birth 
 of more children to Joseph's brethren in Egypt, which is con- 
 tained in Joseph's promise to his brethren : — " I will nourish you 
 and your little ones," (Heb., little children.) Gen. 1. 21. In order 
 that the Bishop's figures should carry any weight with them, he 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 75 
 
 must show that there were no children of Dan or Levi included in 
 this promise ; failing to do this, his figures are utterly worthless, a 
 mere schoolboy amusement of working an entirely supposititious 
 case. To render them of any practical value, he must prove, not 
 assume, that Dan had no more sons after Hushim, or Levi after 
 GershoD, Kohath or Merari. He must prove, not assume, that 
 the known custom of adoption into the tribes was not practised 
 by the families of Dan or Levi during the whole period of their 
 residence in Egypt. He must also prove, that neither Dan or 
 Levi had any daughters who were given in marriage to Egyptians 
 during the same period, and as proof in these cases is simply 
 impossible, the whole of the Bishop's elaborate calculations must 
 fall to the ground. 
 
 To show the fallacy of the Bishop's arguing from the assumption 
 that all the names are given we will simply state a case as it occurs 
 in the Bible. The tribe of Zebulon consists genealogically of his 
 three sons, in Genesis and Numbers ; but in the account in 1 Chron. 
 the tribe is not mentioned, therefore, upon the Bishop's mode of 
 reasoning, it had become extinct. In strict parity of reasoning, the 
 Bishop must argue the non-existence of three tribes, Zebulon, Dan, 
 and Judah, that are unmentioned in the genealogical list in the 
 Chronicles. Nor are these cases the only variations in the account 
 of the genealogies in Genesis, Numbers, and Chronicles. In fact 
 to understand the repetitions and changes, the additions and omis- 
 sions that occur in these three accounts, an amount of knowledge is 
 necessary that no known means exist of attaining to ; but we are 
 not therefore justified in assuming the falsehood of the accounts ; 
 since to do so would be to act upon the monstrous proposition, that 
 our ignorance is to be the guage of truth or falsehood. The great 
 purpose of the Holy Spirit having been accomplished in the pre- 
 servation of the record of the genealogy of the Messiah ben David, 
 subordinate matters have been allowed to occupy their relatiye 
 
76> THE BIBLE IN THE "WOEKSHOP. 
 
 positions, or to sink into complete oblivion, and, now, the curiosity 
 of the neophyte and the patient study of the scholar are alike 
 exercised in vain. 
 
 It is utterly useless and even misleading to endeavour to apply 
 figures in the partially known cases before us in this chapter ; in 
 fact they are inadmissible as a test ; they are out of court, having 
 no locus standi, inasmuch as there is no ascertained basis upon 
 which they can be applied. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 Consists of the remarks of Commentators on the foregoing 
 subject. 
 
 "CHAPTER XX. 
 " The Numbee of Peiests at the Exodus compaeed with 
 THEiE Duties, and with the Peoyision made eoe them.'* 
 There is no quotation to this chapter, but the Bishop's statement 
 runs as follows : — " The Book of Leviticus is chiefly occupied in 
 giving directions to the Priests for the proper discharge of the diffe- 
 rent duties of their office, and further directions are given in the 
 Eook of Numbers. And now let us ask, for all the multifarious 
 duties during the forty years' sojourn in the wilderness, for all the 
 burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, peace-offerings, sin-offerings, tres- 
 pass offerings, thank-offerings, etc., of a population like that of the 
 city of London, besides the daily and extraordinary sacrifices — how 
 many priests were there ? And the answer is very simple. There 
 were only tliree ; 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 on 
 the priest's office, and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put 
 to death.' So again, v. 38, * Aaron and his sons, keeping charge 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 77 
 
 of the sanctuary, and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put 
 to death.' Yet how was it possible that these two or three men 
 should have discharged all these duties for such a vast multitude ? 
 
 " The single work of offering the double sacrifice for women 
 after childbirth must have utterly overpowered three Priests, 
 though engaged without cessation from morning to night." 
 
 Our duty in this case is very simple, being merely to ascer- 
 tain whether the Scriptures will allow the statement of the case 
 as the Bishop has thus put it before us. "We believe, and shall 
 endeavour to show, that the Bishop has fallen into two radical 
 errors (to use an exceedingly charitable phrase). He does not 
 even mention the work of the Levites throughout the chapter, and 
 only incidentally alludes even to their existence, the allusion being 
 confined to the circumstance that they had forty-eight cities 
 assigned to them, but not a single word respecting the services 
 they were to perform in return for this liberal provision; nor 
 does he say one word of the existence of the ordinary priests of 
 the tabernacle. But in order systematically to set aside the 
 Bishop's objections, we shall divide them into two statements ; — 
 
 I. There were only three priests to do all the work. 
 
 II. It was impossible they could accomplish it. 
 
 I. There were only three priests to do aU the work. 
 
 All through this chapter it is plainly implied that the three 
 whose names are mentioned were the only persons allowed to do any 
 portion of the work of the sanctuary. The Bishop quotes, ''And the 
 stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death." But he wisely 
 declines attempting to prove that this phrase was applicable to 
 the Levites. But we will first see how much of the work thus 
 confined to the three priests by the Bishop, was in reality per- 
 formed by the 8500 helpmates they had from the very com- 
 mencement of the tabernacle service ; and here we must remark 
 that while all the work was done by the direction and on the 
 
78 THE BIBLE I^ THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 responsibility of the priesthood, a very large portion of it was 
 performed by the Levites, under tlie supervision of the priests. 
 
 The whole tribe of the Levites was specially set apart for 
 the external and internal service of the sanctuary, Num. iii. 41. 
 They were to be supported upon the offerings to the tabernacle, 
 Num. xviii. 24. They were given to Aaron to be his servants, 
 Num. iii. 9. They were to do the service in the tabernacle before 
 Aaron, and before his sons. Num. viii. 22. They had charge of 
 the dedicated things, offerings, and tithes, 2 Chron. xxxi. 12, 14. 
 What was the precise nature of this service of the tabernacle, we 
 are not informed, but it is evident from many parts of Scrip- 
 ture that it was of a description to lighten the burden of the 
 priesthood as much as possible, inasmuch as they were empowered 
 to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the Lord on the Sabbaths, on the 
 new moons, and on the set feasts, 1 Chron. xxiii. 31. Rashi 
 says that the duty of the Levites was to kill the animal, take tlie 
 blood to the priest, and to bring such part of the ofFeriug as was 
 to be burned to the priest at the altar. (Comment on Num. xviii.) 
 
 This being the efficient aid the Levites might render, let 
 us see how many priests there were they could thus assist. 
 " Three " at first, answers the Bishop, " and after Aaron's death 
 only two." But let us hear Calmet: *' Next to the Levites, but 
 superior to them in dignity, were the ordinary priests, who were 
 chosen from the family of Aaron exclusively. They served imme- 
 diately at the altar, prepared the victims [it will be seen above 
 that Eashi says the Levites might do this also], and offered the 
 sacrifices. They kept up a perpetual fire on the altar of the burnt 
 sacrifices, and also in the lamps of the golden candlesticks in the 
 sanctuary ; they kneaded the loaves of shew-bread, which they 
 baked and ofi*ered on the golden altar iu the sanctuary, and 
 changed them every Sabbath day. Every day, morning and even- 
 ing, a priest (who was appointed at the beginning of the week by 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 7^ 
 
 lot) brought into the sanctuary a smoking censer of incense, 
 which he set upon the golden table ; and which on no account 
 was to be kindled with strange fire, that is, with any fire but that 
 which was taken from the altar of burnt-sacrifice, Lev. x. 1 2. 
 And as the number and variety of their functions required them 
 to be well read in their law, in order that they might be able ta 
 judge of the various legcd uncleannesses, etc., this circumstance 
 caused them to be consulted as interpreters of the law, Hos. iv. 6 ; 
 Mai. ii. 7; Lev. xiii. 2 ; JSTum.v. 14, 15 ; as weU as judges of con- 
 troversies, Deut. sxi. 5 ; xvii. 8—13. In the time of war their 
 business was to carry the Ark of the Covenant, to sound the holy 
 trumpets, and animate the army to the performance of its duties. 
 To them also it belonged publicly to bless the people in the name 
 of the Lord." 
 
 It will be seen from this quotation that the work specially 
 assigned by the Bishop, to two or three priests, is stated by 
 Calmet to have been performed by an indefinite number of 
 the ordinary priests of the tabernacle in their usual course of 
 service. But, the Bishop may object, this is not showing from 
 the Narrative that there really existed more than two or three 
 priests ; we shall now, therefore, proceed to quote a passage from 
 the Book of Joshua, which settles the whole question. 
 
 The Bishop says, after the death of Aaron there were only two 
 priests; the Narrative says, "And Joshua rose early in the morn- 
 ing, and the priests took up the ark of the Lord, and seven 
 priests bearing seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark 
 of the Lord, went on continually," Josh. vi. 12, 13. This one 
 passage completely dissolves the Bishop's objection founded on 
 his assertion that there were only two priests at this time, for the 
 narrative says the priests " bore the ark ;" we cannot allow less 
 than four priests for this office, and beside these four, other seven 
 are specially mentioned as blowing rams' horns. Nor is it open. 
 
80 THE BIBLE I'S THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 to tlie Bishop to object that these were not the priests who 
 offered the sacrifices, for both the Hebrew and the English version 
 use the same word translated, '' priest " in both cases. The 
 Bishop quotes to show who offered the sacrifices, Lev. i. 5. "And 
 the priests, Aaron's sons," where the Hebrew is C^pnbn X^iJ^S ^h?} 
 and the same word is used in Josh. vi. 13, C^Pn^p '^j??^^ 
 *' and seven priests." In this passage of Joshua, there are then at 
 the very least eleve?i priests especially mentioned instead of the 
 tivo, asserted by the Bishop, to constitute the whole number exist- 
 ing at this time. How many more there were at the time we can- 
 not find stated, but that there were a great many is shown by the 
 provision that is specially made for them. It may be remarked 
 that this convincing and complete refutation is taken from the 
 Book of Joshua, which the Bishop announces himself as having 
 critically examined. 
 
 The second point for our consideration is, It was impossible 
 the two or three priests could perform the work. 
 
 "We will first consider the offerings of the women in childbirth, 
 as on this point the Bishop is exceedingly precise, and absurd in 
 proportion. He avers that the offering of the young pigeons 
 must have been 500 a day, 250 burnt-offerings, and 250 sin-offer- 
 ings, and afterwards, more particularly states, " they would have 
 averaged 264 a day, and each priest would have had to eat daily 
 more than 88 for his own portion ' in the most holy place.' " 
 
 Though it is not easy to see how 264 divided between 3, 
 would give onore than 88 each, yet this is certainly an astound- 
 ing statement, and if it were in the Narrative, or could be fairly 
 deduced from it, might be quoted as quite sufficient of itself to 
 condemn it. But it is not there. The whole law for women in 
 childbirth is contained in Lev. xii., and is thus stated. The woman 
 is to be unclean for seven days, the child (if a son) ia to be circum- 
 cised the eighth day ; then after thirty-three days, the mother is to 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 81 
 
 come before tlie priest, and bring two young pigeons, one for a 
 burnt-offering raid one for a sin-offering. Now, we are expressly- 
 told that as a whole, this law was never observed, during the 
 sojourn in the "Wilderness, for the chief provision in it, that of 
 circumcision, was utterly neglected during the entire term. 
 
 We have therefore no right to assume, that even one single 
 pigeon was ever offered by a woman in the "Wilderness, and to in- 
 sist that one part of the law was scrupulously observed, and the 
 other systematically neglected, would be equally as absurd as the 
 Bishop's imagining, of the three priests eating the proceeds of 
 this law, which we are expressly informed, was never enforced 
 during the whole of the sojourn of forty years. 
 
 That there were doves in the Wilderness is shown by the re- 
 peated references to the fact, not only in the Pentateuch, but in 
 several of the other boohs of Scripture. 
 
 We thus see, that the chief offering to which the Bishop ob- 
 jects, was in all probabilitj^ never offered at all ; and now we will 
 turn to the other parts of the provision to which the Bishop offers 
 objection. In Lev. vii. 7, 10, 34, it is said, That the priest 
 should have the sin and trespass offerings, and the skin of the burnt- 
 offerings, with the meat-offerings, and the wave breast and heave 
 shoulder of the peace-offerings. And the Bishop objects, " What 
 an enormous provision vras this for Aaron and his four, afterward 
 two, sons and their families. They were to have the skins of the 
 burnt-offerings, and the shoulder and breast, that is double breast 
 of the peace-offerings of a congregation of two millions of people 
 for the general use of their three families !" 
 
 Let us see how many persons were comprised in the term 
 *' families." There was, instead of three, an indefinite number of 
 priests, as we have shown, having an equally indefinite number of 
 wives amongst them, with their sons and their daughters, their 
 servants and their wives, and their servants' children, every one of 
 
 E 
 
82 THE BIBLE ITf THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 ■whom is specially mentioned as entitled to eat of the portion of 
 the priesthood, Lev. xxii. 10, 13. So that if there was a very 
 large provision (which need not be denied), it is clear that there 
 must have heen also a large number of persons who were abso- 
 lutely dependent upon it. And, finally, instead of the special 
 provision for the males of the priesthood being confined to three, 
 and afterwards two persons, it is not stated, and consequently not 
 known, how many men were entitled, by birth, position, and 
 labour, to eat of the food that had been graciously set apart for 
 them by the Lord their God. 
 
 « CHAPTEE XXI. 
 
 " The Peiests akd theie Duties at the Celebeation op 
 THE Passoyee." There is no quotation, but continuing the 
 subject of the previous chapter, the Bishop asks : — " How did 
 these three priests manage at the celebration of the Passover ? 
 "\Ye are told, 2 Chron. xxx. 16, xxxv. 11, that the people killed 
 the Passover, but the priests sprinMecl tlie Hood from tlieir 
 liancls, 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 ' between the two eveninofs,' Ex. 
 xii. (>, for the 2,000,000 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 yb?;r liundred Jmnls every minute for tico liours 
 togeilier. 
 
 " Beside which, in the time of Hezekiah and Josiah, when it 
 was desired to keep the Passover strictly 'in such sort as it was 
 written,' 2 Chron. 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 the Court of the Tabernacle, 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 83 
 
 in accordance, in fact, with the strict injunctions of the Levitical 
 law, that all burnt -offerings, peace-offerings, sin-offerings, and 
 trespass-offerings should be killed before Jehovah at the door of 
 the Tabernacle of the Congregation. 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 only 1692 square yards, and 
 could only have held, when thronged, about 5000 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 1250 lamhs a oninuteP^^ 
 
 It will be noticed in reading over the above statement of the 
 Eishop, that the whole of it is founded upon supposition. " We 
 must suppose,^' says the Bishop, and he proceeds to carry out this 
 very necessary proceeding, and build up the chapter upon it. 
 But in order to render full justice, we must gather the Bishop's 
 thoughts, surmises and suppositions, and shall state them in his 
 own words. 
 
 Question. " How did these three priests manage at the celebra- 
 tion of the Passover ?" 
 
 Assertion 1. *' There were 150,000 lambs required." 
 
 Assertion 2. " The priests had to sprinkle the blood." 
 
 Assertion 3. " The lambs were killed in the Court of the 
 Tabernacle." 
 
 Assertion 4. " There were only two hours in which they might 
 be killed." 
 
 Question. " How did these three priests manage at the cele- 
 bration of the Passover ?" 
 
 The answer to this is as brief and concise as possible : — There 
 is not a single word or even a hint in the Narrative that they had 
 anything tohatever to do ivith it ; neither in the directions for the 
 first Passover in Egypt, or in the accounts of the second under 
 
84 THE BIBLE IN" THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 Sinai, is there the slightest authorization for the priest, as sucli, to 
 interfere with it, to assume any authority, or to take upon himself 
 any responsibility as to the management. And this the Bishop 
 evidently knew, but having to make out a ease, if possible, in a 
 Critical Examination of the Pentateuch, he has selected the record 
 of an observance of the Passover, hundreds of years after the 
 date of those books, and has assumed, without the slightest war- 
 rant for so doing, against the plain meaning of the text, that the 
 circumstances of the two occasions were identical. The plain law 
 of the Passover in Egypt, and also in the Wilderness under Sinai, 
 was that it should be a separate household ordinance, in which 
 the head of the family (if large enough, and if another family 
 joined, a chosen deputy) should act as priest on the occasion. 
 There is no priest named in either case ; there are no duties indi- 
 cated for him to perform, and the law that the Passover was to 
 be offered in '' the place that the Lord their God should choose," 
 was not promulgated for maiiy years after the second Passover 
 had been observed ; nor is there the slighest hint of the knowledge 
 or practice of such a centralizing law with regard to the Passover 
 in any part of the narrative, co-incident with the times of either the 
 first or second Passover ; so that the whole of the objection insinu- 
 ated under the form of this first question is completely dissolved. 
 Assertion 1. ''There were 150,000. lambs required." 
 We have examined this assertion before, but as it is a pet 
 point of the Bishop's, reiterated again and again, we will here 
 devote a little more attention to it. The lamb was to be " a male 
 of the first year without blemish." The carcase of such a lamb, 
 " with his head and his legs, and the purtenance thereof," will 
 weigh about thirty -five pounds. The Bishop's calculation is 
 founded upon the supposition of fifteen persons to one lamb, 
 therefore each person in a feast eaten in haste, was to have, 
 according to the Bishop's estimate, two pounds and five ounces 
 
THE BIBLE IK THE "WORKSHOP. 85 
 
 of meat (with the bone included), beside unleavened bread and 
 bitter herbs ; and it must not be forgotten, that the same amount 
 is calculated for even the little children ; that is, a meal for a 
 little child was to be, according to the Bishop, two pounds weight 
 of solid meat, with bread and vegetables, and it was to be eaten 
 in haste, and ready prepared for an immediate journey. The 
 Bishop uses the w^ord "preposterous" in the course of his objec- 
 tions to the Bible, we venture to offer it for consideration as fitly 
 describing his own estimate. 
 
 The Bishop may object, " This estimate is founded on the 
 average of Josephus ;" but Josephus does not speak in reference 
 to the observances in Egypt, or under Sinai, but of a time many 
 hundreds of years afterward, when the long enjoyment of the 
 possession of a " land flowing with milk and honey," might render 
 such a liberal provision perfectly easy. The Bishop takes the 
 estimate given for a special purpose just before the destruction 
 of Jerusalem, and without, by a single word, pointing out the 
 diflerence of the times and circumstances, uses the estimate of 
 Josephus for both Egypt and Sinai, and leaves his reader to 
 believe that Josephus spoke of those times also. 
 
 Again, the most notable observance of the Passover that is 
 related, occurred in the days of King Josiah, when it is stated, 
 2 Chron. xxxv. 18, "There was no Passover like to that, kept 
 in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet, neither did all 
 the kings of Israel keep such a passover as Josiah kept, and the 
 priests and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel that were 
 present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem." 
 
 The number of lambs required for this Passover is expressly 
 stated, as they were given by the king himself, and the 
 princes, priests, and Levites. The king gave thirty thousand, 
 the princes gave two thousand six hundred, and the priests and 
 Levites five thousand ; so that for the grandest passover celebra- 
 
86 THE BIBLE IN THE TVOEKSHOP. 
 
 tion that was ever known, after the people had come into their 
 inheritance, and when they had greatly multiplied in number, 
 the number of passover lambs was 37,600, 2 Chrou. xxxv. instead 
 of the 150,000 said to be required by Bishop Colenso. 
 
 Assertion 2. " The priests had to sprinkle the blood." 
 
 This also is simple assumption, and it is assumed in order to 
 raise an objection afterward, but there is not a word in the 
 ^N'arrative that will warrant such a statement. The law of the 
 Passover would be fully and properly observed, though no priest 
 ever saw the lamb, though it was killed in any part of the Camp ; 
 nor need any of the blood be sprinkled by any priest whatever. 
 
 "We have only to quote the words of the Bishop's own 
 volume, to show that he has not a shadow of authority for his 
 statement, for the Bishop writes, quoting from Kurtz, " It is 
 noioliere stated that on the occasion of the first festival in com- 
 memoration of the Exodus tlie lamls tcere slauglitered at the 
 sanctuary^ or that the blood either was, or was to be, sprinkled 
 upon the altar, nor is there any notice of the services of the 
 priests being required." " It is nowJiere exiiressly commanded in 
 the Pentateuch that the blood of the paschal lambs was (to be) 
 sprinkled on the altar by the priests." And in reply to the 
 Bishop's assertion that it was necessary to sprinkle the blood of 
 400 lambs a minute for two hours together, we may simply ask 
 for any passage of God's Word to show that even one single 
 Passover lamb was ever brought to the door of the Tabernacle of 
 the Congregation. If then it is nowhere expressly commanded 
 that the priests should sprinkle the blood of the paschal lambs, 
 and nowhere stated that they did so, why does the Bishop 
 assert that each priest must have had to sprinkle the blood of 
 50,000 lambs in about two hours ? 
 
 "Writing such as this is the very mockery of criticism, 
 resulting from deep-seated determination to destroy, by any 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 87 
 
 means, however questionable, our confidence in the truth and 
 authority of the Scriptures of the living Grod. 
 
 Assertion 3. " The lambs were killed in the Court of the 
 Tabernacle." 
 
 It is nowhere stated that this was done ; but the Bishop cites 
 the cases of the burnt-offering, Lev. i. 3, 5, and the sin-oftering. 
 Lev. iii. 2, and he argues that because these were oflered at the 
 door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, therefore the passover 
 lambs must have been slain in the same place ; but there is no 
 parallelism in the cases to warrant the assumption ; the burnt- 
 offering and the sin-offering were commanded to be offered 
 at the door of the tabernacle, it was an essential part of the 
 Bacrifice that they should be offered at that particular place; 
 there was no other place where they could legitimately be offered. 
 But it formed no part of the law of the Passover in Exodus that 
 the lambs should be slain in any particular spot, nor is there (as 
 before mentioned) any indication of any place of offering in the 
 account of the second Passover. Moreover, in the cases of the 
 burnt-offering and the peace-offering the first was to be wholly, 
 and the second partially disposed of, by burning before the Lord. 
 But no part of the Passover was consecrated for any such pur- 
 pose, even the sprinkling of the blood was to be a " toJceii,^' not 
 an offering. The priest must sprinkle the blood of the burnt 
 ofierine:, " and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to 
 death ;" but of the Passover lamb it is said, " The whole assembly 
 of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening ; and they 
 shall take of the blood and strike it on the two side posts." Thus 
 while in the one case, the most solemn portion of the service was 
 restricted to the priests, with the penalty of death for dis- 
 obedience, in the other the head of the family was authorized 
 and directed to perform it in person. It is almost incredible 
 that these simple but wide distinctions should have escaped the 
 
88 THE EIELE IIS" THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 notice of the Bishop -when professedly engaged in a Critical 
 Examination : but the}- either did so, or they did not ; if they 
 did escape his notice, they settle the question of his ability to 
 enter into a critical examination ; if they did not, but "were sup- 
 pressed ; they equally decide the question of the honesty of his 
 intention in writing his so-called criticism. 
 
 There is neither assertion, nor proof, nor probability in the 
 I^arrative which the Bishop can bring forward to warrant the 
 conclusion to which he comes, or to support the assertion that 
 lie has made, that the lambs were killed in the Court of the 
 Tabernacle. 
 
 The confused jumbling together of different times and 
 places in the first paragraph of this chapter, is good evidence 
 how hard the Bishop was put to it to obtain the merest sem- 
 blance of authority for the absurd calculations which follow 
 after. He says : " AYe are told in 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." (How 
 many priests, how many courses of priests were present at the 
 time mentioned ?) The Bishop gives no answer to such questions, 
 but jumps back without any notice to Num. ix. 5, and the three 
 priests of his own imagination, and proceeds to imagine that 
 these three were to do the same work as all the indefinite number 
 of priests employed at the grand Passover in the time of Josiah 
 the king, and he admits afterwards, It is noicJiere stated that 
 the priests were to lay even so much as a finger upon the work. 
 
 Assertion 4. " There were only two hours in which the Pass- 
 over lambs might be killed." 
 
 This assertion is several times repeated in difierent parts of the 
 book, and we shall here therefore clearly state the real time that was 
 allowed. The Narrative in Exodus says, — " Kill it in the evening," 
 (translated in the margin, Heb., letween the tivo evenings). When 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 89 
 
 this time was according to hours of the day, is cot stated either 
 there or elsewhere that we have been able to find. We shall there- 
 fore seek out Jewish authority as carrying the most weight with it. 
 The Jewish day consisted of only two parts, morning and evening ; 
 till the sun passed the meridian all was morning, after that, 
 evening. The first evening with the Jews began just after twelve 
 o'clock and continued till sunset ; their second evening began at 
 sunset and continued through the whole of tLj twilight. Be- 
 tween twelve o'clock, therefore, and the end of twilight, the 
 Passover Lamb was to be slaiu. Dr. Cox, in his " Biblical An- 
 tiquities" (Ency. Met.), p. 180, says : " They distinguished also 
 between the two evenings, the first beginning at noon, and reach- 
 ing to the setting of the sun, the second commencing at sunset, 
 and the space from noon to sunset they called Been liaarabeem ; 
 i.e., between the two evenings." !N"ow, at the very earliest com- 
 putation, it would not be the end of twilight at the close of 
 March in Judea before six o'clock ; and as the whole of this time 
 is between the two evenings, it follows that there were six instead 
 of two hours in which the Passover might be killed, or in other 
 words, just three times as long as the Bishop has allowed. 
 
 In leaving the Bishop's assertions, assumptions, and supposi- 
 tions in this chapter with the foregoing answers, we would merely 
 remark ; if this is to be the method by which men of any sense who 
 love the Scriptures are to have their belief in the Bible destroyed, 
 it is a task beyond the Bishop's well known powers of calcula- 
 tion, to set forth the time that will be occupied in carrying out 
 such a purpose. 
 
 « CHAPTEE XXII. 
 
 "The Wae in Midian." There is no quotation, but the 
 Bishop states his case as follows : " We have now concluded our 
 
^0 THE BIBLE IN THE TVOEKSHOP. 
 
 preliminary work of pointing out some of the most prominent 
 inconsistencies and impossibilities which exist in the story of 
 the Exodus as it lies before us in the Pentateuch ; and we have 
 surely exhibited enough to relieve the mind from any supersti- 
 tious dread in pursuing further the consideration of the question. 
 I believe that to the great majority of my readers many of the 
 above facts will be as new as I freely admit they were to myself 
 till within a comparatively recent period." The Bishop proceeds 
 to fall foul of " Aids to Faith" and '^Eeplies to Essays and 
 [Reviews," and especially of Professor Eawlinson ; but as we have 
 not yet discovered the relation those volumes bear to the truth 
 of the Pentateuch, we shall pass his remarks. He next attacks 
 the veracity of the Hebrew numerals in the books of Judges and 
 Chronicles, a proceeding which is rather out of place, in our 
 opinion, in a Critical Examination of the Pentateuch, and we shall 
 therefore decline to follow him. But he returns again to the 
 600,000 on foot, and insists (which nobody denies) that this num- 
 ber is so completely interwoven in the narrative that it cannot be 
 taken out or touched without destroying it. As we fully believe 
 the number to be correct, and consequently have no wish to alter 
 it, we may pass on to the Bishop's remarks. "These things we 
 have all along been looking at, as it were, from a distant point of 
 view, through a misty atmosphere, dreading, it may be, some of 
 us, to approach and gaze more closely on the truth itself." We 
 will only say in passing that this strikes us as consummately 
 cool. The Bishop owns that he has never hitherto given his Bible 
 a thoughtful and attentive study, and claims an indefinite number 
 of companions in carelessness. But while we admit the candour 
 of the Bishop's confession of his own shortcomings, we must pro- 
 test against being included in the listless number. We love our 
 Bible history, we have passed many years of close and happy 
 Btudy as pupils and teachers in Working Men's Bible Classes, aud 
 
THE BIBLE 1^ THE WORKSHOP. 91 
 
 SO far from dreading to look into the Bible, we will relate our ex- 
 perience while writing this refutation. We liave found that the 
 lest ivmj to ansicer the Bishofs objections is to search out the 
 minute information contained in the Booh itself We have 
 gathered some small portion of the information, as will, we hope, 
 be seen : but our time is very limited ; we have, however, discov- 
 ered enough to convince us, that if any man of average capacity 
 and sufficient leisure will give his mind to the task, he will be 
 able to dissolve all the Bishop's objections by the simple quota- 
 tion of appropriate scriptures, without adding a word of his own. 
 
 In short, tlie Bible icill defend itself against any number of 
 such attacks as those in the puerile criticism before us. 
 
 "We pass now to consider the main incident of this chapter — 
 the war in Midian— which is thus stated by the Bishop : " 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 ]S"umb. 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, without the loss of a 
 single man ; and then, by the command of Moses, butchered in 
 cold blood all the women and children, ' except all the women 
 children who Lave 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 (v. 35), mostly, we must suppose, under 
 the age of sixteen or eigbteen. 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, accord- 
 ing to the story, Moses ordered 48,000 to be killed, besides (say) 
 20,000 young boys. The tragedy of Cawnpore, where 300 were 
 butchered, would sink into nothing when compared with such a 
 
92 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 massacre, if indeed we were required 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 pro- 
 perty pillaged, their castles demolished, and towns destroyed, by 
 12,000 Israelites, who, in addition, must have carried 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 pos- 
 sible to quote the Bible as in any way condemning slavery when 
 we read here, v. 40, of ' Jehovah's tribute ' of slaves, ' thirty-two 
 persons ?' " 
 
 Gathering up, first, the incidents of the war itself from the 
 Bishop's statements, they are as follows : that 12,000 men attacked 
 and conquered 48,000 others, and that they slew them and took 
 a vast amount of spoil — and that this account is incredible, un- 
 historical, and untrue. 
 
 To show the futility of the Bishop's objection we shall 
 simply quote a passage from the history of our own land — 
 a record of the battle of Plassey, which we find in Lord 
 Macaulay's " Lord Clive," Trav. Lib., part ii. pp. 47, 48. " The 
 day broke, the day which was to decide the fate of India. At 
 sunrise the army of the nabob, pouring through many open- 
 ings of the camp, began to move towards the grove where the 
 English lay. Forty thousand infantry armed with firelocks, pikes, 
 swords, bows and arrows, covered the plain. They were accom- 
 panied by fifty pieces of ordnance of the largest size, each tugged 
 by a long team of white oxen, and each pushed on from behind 
 by an elephant. Some smaller guns, under the direction of a few 
 Trench auxiliaries, were perhaps more formidable. The cavalry 
 y^evejlfteen thousand, drawn, not from the effeminate population 
 of Bengal, but from the bolder race which inhabits the northern 
 provinces, and the practised eye of Clive could perceive that both 
 
THE BIBLE IN" THE WOEKSHOP. 93 
 
 the men and tlie horses were more powerful than those of the 
 Carnatic. The force which he had to oppose to this great multitude 
 consisted oiovi[j three tJiousandmen. But of these nearly a thousand 
 were English, and all were led by English officers, and trained in 
 the English discipline. Conspicuous in the ranks of the little 
 army were the men of the 39th Eegiment, which still bears on its 
 colours, amidst many honourable additions won under "Welling- 
 ton in Spain and Grascony, the name of Plassey, and the proud 
 motto, Frirmis in Inclis. 
 
 " The battle commenced with a cannonade. In an hour the 
 forces of Surajah Dowlah were dispersed, never to reassemble. 
 Only five hundred of the vanquished were slain. But their camp, 
 their guns, their baggage, innumerable waggons, innumerable 
 cattle, remained in the power of the conquerors. "With the loss of 
 twenty-two soldiers killed and fifty wounded, Clive had scattered 
 an army of near sixty thousand men, and subdued an empire 
 lajger and more populous than Great Britain." 
 
 It will be seen from the above quotation that while Bishop 
 Colenso asserts it to be incredible that 12,000 attacked and con- 
 quered 48,000 ; Lord Macaulay distinctly states that Olive's force 
 consisted of only 3000 against nearly 60,000. In the " incredible" 
 instance, the proportion is 1 against 4, in the "historical" in- 
 stance, 1 against 20. So also of the spoil. It is " incredible" that 
 12,000 should capture 100,000 ; it is "historical" that 3000 sub- 
 •dued as large a population as that of Grreat Britain, consisting of 
 many millions. It is " incredible " that 808,000 cattle were part 
 of the prey. It is "historical" that innumei^ahle waggons and 
 inmimeraole cattle remained in the power of the conquerors. Will 
 the Bishop assert that Macaulay's statement (so much more won- 
 derful than the Bifele narrative) is unhistorical ? "Will he say that 
 ■the inscription on the colours of the 39th Eegiment commemo- 
 rates an action that never took place ? 
 
94 THE BIBLE IN THE WOKKSHOP. 
 
 "We miglit instance, also, the battle of Morgarten in Switzer- 
 land, when the cantons of Uri, Schwytz, and Unterwalden, 
 mustering only 1000 men in all, defeated and drove out of their 
 country an Austrian force of 20,000 men. Here, again, instead 
 of 1 to 4 is 1 to 10 ; will the Bishop declare it uuhistorical and 
 untrue ? 
 
 It is apparent that these battles far exceed the Bible narrative 
 of the war in Midian in results proportioned to means, and the 
 Bishop must disprove all the circumstances related of both these 
 battles before he can hope to establish his assertion of the " incre- 
 dibility" of the Scripture Narrative. 
 
 But another of the Bishop's objections is the impossibility of 
 driving away the spoil ; to which the answer is simple and easy. 
 When the Midianite men were slain there would be no obstacle 
 to the victors employing the women and lads to drive away the 
 cattle, the women in Eastern countries being accustomed to 
 tending on flocks and herds. 
 
 The third objection is to the wholesale slaughter in cold blood 
 after the battle. 
 
 The purpose of this war was national extermination ; this 
 nation had filled up the measure of its iniquity, sentence had gone 
 forth, the swords of the Israelites were the appointed means of 
 vengeance ; and however terrible the slaughter outside the camp 
 may have been, it is idle to say that it is incredible or that we 
 have no right to imagine Our Pather as ordering or sanctioning 
 it, when every generation a thousand millions perish. 
 
 But these Midianites died in a manner so horrible ! 
 
 AVas this manner of death more horrible than that of the 
 victims of the Black Death in Europe in 1350 a.d., which destroyed 
 millions of human beings — 100,000 persons iying in the city of 
 Elorence alone ; and which in every place it visited carried off, in 
 seven or eight months, one third of the population ? 
 
THE BIBLE IK" THE W0EE:SH0P. 95 
 
 "Was this visitation of war more terrible than the destructions 
 and slaughters of the earthquake and the volcano have been? Think 
 of the destruction of Antioch by an earthquake in 526 a.d. That 
 great city, crowded with inhabitants and strangers gathered on a 
 festive occasion, was suddenly startled on a calm day, by the earth 
 rocking and heaving beneath their feet, and in a few moments 
 250,000 of them are buried by falling houses, or the earth opening 
 and swallowing them up. In the year 17 a.d. no less than thir- 
 teen cities in Asia Minor were, in like manner, overwhelmed in 
 a single night. The sun had just dissipated the fog on a warm 
 calm morning in Lisbon, in 1755, when suddenly subterranean 
 heaving and thundering began ; and in six minutes the city was 
 a heap of ruins, and 60,000 of the inhabitants were numbered 
 among the dead. Kircher has also left us a thrilling account of 
 the destruction of the city of Euphemia in Calabria, in 1638, when 
 5000 persons perished. " After some time," he says, " the violent 
 paroxysm of the earthquake ceasing, I looked for Euphemia, and 
 saw only a frightful black cloud. "When this had cleared away 
 nothing but a dismal and putrid lake was to be seen where the 
 city had once stood." In like manner did Port Eoyal, in the 
 West Indies, sink beneath the waters, with nearly all its inhabi- 
 tants in less than one minute, in the year 1692. 
 
 In the presence of natural destruction on so vast, sudden, and 
 terrific a scale as the foregoing instances record, it is idle to object 
 that Grod would not employ even exterminating war to accomplish 
 purposes which He saw to be righteous and just. These Midian- 
 ites were idolaters; they had nearly ruined Israel by drawing 
 them into the same awful snare. This was Jehovah's quarrel,, 
 and it was at His express command this unsparing destruction 
 took place. He had created them, they had sinned horribly 
 against Him ; and the lives He had given He had a perfect right 
 to dispose of in any way that seemed to Him best. 
 
96 THE BIBLE ITT THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 The Eisliop concludes this last chapter of objections ^vith some 
 chronological notices of the transactions of six months whicli he 
 says are incredible, and which we will now rapidly pass in review. 
 
 I. "We are told " that Aaron died on the first day of the fifth 
 month of the fortieth year of the wanderings, and they mourned 
 for him a months And, as the Bishop concludes, without a 
 shadow of authority in the Narrative, they did nothing hut mourn 
 during this first month of the six. 
 
 II. "After this, 'Arad the Canaanite fought against Israel and 
 took some of them prisoners ; whereupon the Israelites attacked 
 these Canaanites and utterly destroyed them and their cities,' for 
 which two transactions we may allow another month.'" 
 
 It is not stated in the Heb. or Sept. that the destruction, though 
 denounced, was consummated at this time; the Heb. is ^ji^lTl!! 
 " devoted to destruction," and the LXX have Kai aveOcfxarLo-ev, 
 " anathematized," or " devoted to destruction ;" but the destruc- 
 tion did not take place till some time afterward, see Josh. xv. 14 ; 
 so that this month may be struck out altogether. 
 
 III. " They then 'journeyed from Mount Hor, by way of the 
 Ked Sea, to compass the land of Edom, and the people murmured 
 and were plagued with fiery serpents,' etc. ; for all which we 
 must allow ^fortnirjlit.'" 
 
 IV. " They now marched and made nine encampments, jSTum. 
 xxi. 10 — 20 ; for which we cannot well allow less than a month 
 (with three days' rest between each encampment)." 
 
 The Bishop here falls into an error, fatal to any pretension 
 to careful examination. There are only four encampments men- 
 tioned in the verses indicated — i.e., Oboth, Ije-abarim, Zared, and 
 Arnon, v. 10 — 13 ; the remainder of the verses, 14 — 20, are simply 
 an extract from the " Book of the Wars of the Lord," and the 
 Bishop has mistaken the end of the extract for the continuation 
 of the JN'arrative, which recommences in v. 21. A simple exami- 
 
THE BIBLE Ilf THE WOEKSHOP. 97 
 
 nation of the parallel passage in cliap. xxxiii. would have saved 
 him from this mis-statement. We must, however, subtract the 
 largest half of the month the Bishop claims in this case also. 
 
 y. " They then ' sent messengers to Sihon, king of the Amo- 
 rites, who gathered all his people together and fought against 
 Israel,' etc. ; for which we must allow another month.'' 
 
 YI. " After that ' Moses sent to spy out Jaazer, and they took 
 the villages thereof, and drove out the Amorites that were there,' 
 say in another fort ni^ Jit.'' 
 
 YII. '• Then they ' turned up by way of Bashan ; and Og, the 
 king of Bashan, went out against them, and they smote him . . . 
 and possessed his land ;' for all this we must allow at the very 
 least a month." 
 
 The order here stated belongs to the Bishop, who has manu- 
 factur3d it for his purpose. The words in Y. " They then ;" in YI. 
 ''After that ;" and in YII. " Thenthej turned"— all belong to the 
 Bishop, there is nothing of the sort in the Narrative. "We shall not 
 strain the text in the least by assuming that all these last three 
 were cotemporaneous, and instead of occupying ten weeks might 
 have been done in a third of that time ; and thus, instead of 
 six months being required, half the time would have sufficed. 
 Thus leaving ample time for the events detailed in the con- 
 clusion of the Book of Numbers, some of which may have been 
 cotemporaneous also — viz., the march to the plains of Moab ; 
 Balak's intercourse with Balaam ; Israel abiding in Shittim and 
 committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab ; the conse- 
 quent plague ; the numbering of the people and the Midianite 
 war ; the first and second, the third and fourth, and the fifth and 
 sixth of these, may very possibly have in each case taken place 
 together ; and thus considered, in the absence of a word to the 
 contrary in the Narrative, the Bishop's last objection is as unte- 
 nable, as easily set aside, as his first and all that have followed ; 
 for we think we have fairly answered them all. 
 
98 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 « CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 " CoNCLUDiNa Eemaeks." jSTo quotation. The Bishop writes : 
 " Having thus been impelled to take an active part in showing 
 the groundlessness of that notion of Scripture Inspiration, which 
 so many have long regarded as the very foundation of their faith 
 and hope, a demand may be made upon me for something to 
 supply the loss — for something to fill up the aching void which 
 will undoubtedly be felt at first, when that faith which has been 
 built wholly or mainly upon the basis of the historical truth of 
 the Pentateuch, must be in danger of collapsing together with 
 its support. In the present stage of the discussion it is impos- 
 sible for me to answer fully, as I would to such a demand, though 
 I trust to be enabled to do so before my work is brought to its 
 close." 
 
 The Bishop proceeds to offer his own Commentary on the 
 Epistle to the Romans as the best stop-gap he has to propose, 
 and says he has there "rightly explained the apostle's own 
 meaning, and have expressed truly, as it seems to me, the manner 
 in which he himself would have adapted his teaching to the 
 circumstances, social and intellectual, of the present day. The 
 main essence of that teaching is, that our righteousness is wholly 
 of faith, a living trust in Grod's love ; that we onust all, and we 
 may all depend entirely on our Father's mercy, and come as 
 children to his footstool continually for light and life, for help 
 and glory, for counsel and guidance, and, if need be, for that 
 * loving correction' which shall ' make us great.' That essential 
 principle of St. Paul's teaching remains still an eternal truth for 
 our strength and consolation, whatever may be the eflect of the 
 view taken of the Mosaic history upon other parts of the current 
 belief of Christendom." The Bishop then reviews the difficulties 
 of missionaries, and suggests that his new theory will allow them 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 99 
 
 to cut and carve the Scriptures so as to meet the early prejudices of 
 the heathen they go forth to instruct. He also sketches the mode 
 in which we are to teach our children in the future : " Let us teach 
 them at once to know that they are not to look for the inspiration 
 of the Holy One, which breathes through its pages, in respect 
 of any such matters of these which the writers wrote as men, 
 with the same liability to error from any cause as other men. 
 Let us rather teach them to look for the sign of God's Spirit 
 speaking to them in the Bible . . to the reason and con- 
 science. Thus, for instance, we may lead them to recognize 
 the fact, that the third and sixth chapters of Exodus, which 
 declare to us the name of Grod — I AM — whether written by 
 Moses or any other fellow-man, were written by one who was 
 specially inspired, first, to conceive himself the transcendent, 
 
 divine thought, and then express it to others It 
 
 matters not that the writer may have exhibited the living truth 
 in the clothing of human imagery, and embodied the divine 
 lesson which his own mind had received, and which he felt him- 
 self commissioned to impart to his fellow-men, in the story of 
 the flaming bush and the audible voice. This circumstance would 
 not at all affect the nature of the truth itself, which remains still 
 eternally true, whatever be the form in which it is announced to 
 us ; just as the truths which our Lord himself teaches are not 
 the less true because clothed in the imagery of a parable or of a 
 narrative (like that of Dives and Lazarus, or of the good Sama- 
 ritan), which we do not suppose to be historically true. 
 
 " But then, too, they must be taught to recognize the voice 
 of God's Spirit in whatever way, by whatever ministry, he vouch- 
 safes to speak to the children of men, and to realize the solid 
 comfort of the thought, that not in the Bible only, but also out 
 of the Bible ; not to us Christians only, but to our fellow-men of 
 all climes and countries, ages and religions, the same gracious 
 
100 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 Teacher is revealing, in different measures, according to his own 
 good pleasure, the hidden things of Grod." 
 
 It is very plain, judging from these concluding remarks, that 
 the Bishop has written himself into the belief of the inviacible 
 nature of his objections, and that they will be sufficient to over- 
 throw in others, all laith in the truth and authority of God's 
 "Word. That, on the faith of his assertions and assumptions, on 
 the strength of a few mere objections, without allowing any 
 weight to the incalculable mass of affirmative evidence, we shall 
 at once abandon our old and tried mode of belief. That on an 
 ex parte statement of one side of a very minute portion of an 
 almost infinite question, we are ready to give up our Bible, and 
 trust ourselves to — what ? Clearly the Bishop does not know 
 himself, or so distrusts his purposed substitute, that he is afraid 
 to let it see the light. We are to trust to a vague and misty 
 promise of a substitute at the end of Bishop Colenso's work, 
 which is to consist of an indefinite number of parts, to be pub- 
 lished at an indefinite period. 
 
 The consummate folly of the expectation is equalled by the 
 consummate self-conceit of the promise. Here is a man pro- 
 mising to reconstruct our Bibles, every chapter in whose short 
 book is full of errors, who leaves out an important word in the 
 very first text he touches ; who tells us gravely that 264 divided 
 amongst three gives more than eighty-eight for each ; who says 
 there were oiine encampments where there were onXj four, and 
 who quotes one half of a verse that can be made to appear to 
 favour his theory, and who leaves out the other half, which 
 utterly destroys it. This is the man who comes forward and tells 
 us that all our great English scholars have been in error in 
 believing the inspiration of the Bible ; that Newton, and Locke, 
 and Clarke, and Lightfoot, Van Mildert, and Walton, and a 
 glorious army of others, have all been mistaken, and their mistake 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOBKSHOP. 101 
 
 has been detected by a very cursory examination of about a dozen 
 texts of Scripture. We are to give up our Bibles at the bidding 
 of one who evidently does not know what he himself believes — 
 who did not foresee the mass of contradictions and absurdities the 
 first onset of really competent and hostile criticism has exposed 
 in his ridiculous theory. A man who never once could have 
 looked fairly into the bases upon which his calculations arefoundedy 
 or he onust have discovered they were not trustworthy. 
 
 But there is another supposition. Suppose us willing to give 
 up our view of the Bible, and accept the Bishop's promised substi- 
 tute, and he dies or changes his mind again, where shall we be then ? 
 with our old hope gone, and in its place nothing but a Commentary 
 on a part of the Bible, which part has gone in the common wreck ; 
 for with very strange logic, or the inconsistency of madness, 
 the Bishop earnestly recommends his Commentary, after having 
 (in imagination at least) destroyed the authority of the Text upon 
 which it is founded. In the name of common-sense, why recom- 
 mend the Commentary when the Text is gone ? surely there can 
 be no wild expectation that the Commentary will do very well in 
 the place of the Text itself. 
 
 After these samples we may well believe the Bishop is a wise 
 man, thoroughly competent to re-edit St. Paul's Epistles, and 
 to tell us what St. Paul would have taught if he were now living 
 amongst us. Pirstly, according to the Bishop, he would not teach 
 what he did teach most emphatically when (fortunately for us) 
 he was allowed to speak for himself — that " all Scripture is 
 given by inspiration of Grod" — for his new expositor asserts, 
 " that is a mistaken view that must be done away with, and my 
 book shall do it." Secondly, he would leave out this denuncia- 
 tion, " There be some that would trouble you, and would pervert 
 the gospel of Christ. But though we or an angel from heaven 
 preach any other gospel unto you than that we have preached 
 
102 THE BIELE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 unto you, let liim be accursed." Since if this be not omitted, 
 some of us might think it a very severe personality on the Com- 
 mentator himself, and his mode of dealing with the Bible. But 
 on what authority does the Bishop state that Paul would adapt 
 his teaching, when the Spirit of Him who spake through Paul is 
 '' the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever ?" There is one thing 
 we may say with certainty that Paul would not do, he would 
 neither ignore nor keep back the name of Him who was ever fore- 
 most in Paul's thoughts and words ; for whom he had '' suffered 
 the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may 
 win Christ and be found in Him." If Paul were now living, he 
 would trumpet forth, " Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom 
 of Grod ;" not, as the Bishop has done, broadly insinuate that the 
 Lord of glory might be mistaken even after He rose from the 
 dead. Paul would teach now as of old, and, thank God, there 
 are thousands of us who would welcome the teacher and the teach- 
 ing with assenting hearts, that " Christ Jesus, of God, is made 
 unto us wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification and redemp- 
 tion." "Who ever hardened himself against Him and prospered" ? 
 
 But not only would Paul teach differently, according to the 
 Bishop ; we pass to something worse, something which, coming 
 from a Christian minister, is horrible and infamous ; our Lord 
 taught that " which we do not suppose to be historically true." 
 
 Speaking for yourself. Bishop, you have a right to suppose what 
 you please, but pause before thrusting yourself forward, unasked 
 and most unwelcome, as the expositor of the ideas of your Chris- 
 tian countrymen. "We believe that our Lord never uttered a 
 single word that was not strictly true in every sense of the word. 
 We know that He spake in Parables, it is yet to be shown that 
 every one of the incidents therein mentioned were not the strictly 
 truthful record of actual facts. Where is the proof that the 
 incident of the good Samaritan never took place exactly as it is 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 103 
 
 recorded ? We believe that it did really occur, and that our 
 Lord narrated a fact, not imagined a fable : so also with the rich 
 man and Lazarus, we believe that there also our Lord is recording 
 facts in the eternal life-history of both men, that the state of 
 felicity spoken of by our Lord as Abraham's bosom, really existed 
 then if it does not now, and we know that so the Jews understood 
 his speecb, from the fact that Josephus has left us a full exposi- 
 tion of what the Jews understood of, and characterized as, being 
 in Abraham's bosom. 
 
 But not only our Lord, and his loved and faithful servant 
 Paul, but the writer of the Pentateuch is also to be set right, and 
 re-introduced to us in an entirely new character ; in which no one 
 would be more astonished and dismayed to see hitn than he would 
 be to find himself; for we are told that some of his words are true, 
 others are not true. That the revelation of the I AM, is a grand and 
 solemn truth set between two falsehoods ; first, a falsehood, the 
 burning bush; second, a truth, the revelation of Grod; then another 
 falsehood, the audible voice. And this contemptible trash is sub- 
 mitted for the consideration and adoption of men who have 
 learned to read and to think ! Where is the authority to tell us 
 which is which, to point out to us why we should believe the cen- 
 tral and hardest part of the whole, and reject the far easier first 
 and last. Our reason is to be our guide ? We have only to see 
 where reason, untaught and unaided, guides savages and cannibals,^ 
 to reject the offer with contempt and scorn. But conscience 
 will help ! No, we are warned against trusting to that which is 
 itself unsound ; for conscience is seared; in short, " the natural 
 man," to which the Bishop would relegate us, " understandeth 
 not the things that be of God, neither can he know them, because 
 they are spiritually discerned ;" but " God hath revealed them 
 unto us by his Spirit," in his Holy Word. 
 
 If we are to judge of the Bishop's new religion by the outline 
 
104 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 of what it may perhaps be, he has given us in this last chapter, 
 it appears to be ; that we are to draw nigh to God, confident in 
 our own merits, and accepted through them ; for there is not a 
 word or a hint of coming to Grod through Jesus Christ, in all the 
 shameful and deistical pages. 
 
 "We, sinners, are to come into the presence of the holy 
 Almighty God, and to find acceptance and blessing in Our 
 Father's love ; when God is angry with the wicked every day. 
 He is a consuming fire ; of too pure eyes to behold iniquity, shall 
 we, born in it, and ruined by it, dare of ourselves and by our- 
 selves, to come before Him ? Nay, but in the loved name of the 
 spotless Lamb of God, the beloved and only begotten of the 
 Eather, full of grace and truth, the Daysman between God and 
 sinning men ; so must we come, to appear acceptably before Our 
 Father who is in heaven. 
 
 Not with the Pantheism of the Bishop of Natal ; not with 
 the words, however noble, of the man who trained his own son 
 so badly that he became the greatest drunkard in Eome ; not 
 with the dim natural religion of the Gooroo, who knew nothing 
 of God in Christ forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin ; nor 
 with the depressing and awful fatalism of the Bishop's last 
 recommendation, but in Christ and like Him ; " standing fast 
 in the liberty wherewith He has made us free ;" proving all 
 things, holding fast that which is good — the good Word of God ; 
 knowing that in us, that is in our flesh, dw^lleth no good thing ; 
 trusting wholly and alone upon Jesus ; passing from faith to fiiith, 
 strength to strength, glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the 
 Lord, till we all come, in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel 
 of the grace of God in Christ, to our true place in the universe 
 of God, our eternal home with Him in heaven, through the death 
 and passion of Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 Habrilt), Printer, London, 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEISHOP. 
 PART 11. 
 
THE 
 
 BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 PART 11. 
 A REFUTATION 
 
 THE SECOND PAET OF BISHOP COLENSO'S CEITICAL 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THE PENTATEUCH 
 
 AND BOOK OF JOSHUA. 
 
 THE AGE AND AUTHORSHIP OP THE PENTATEUCH CONSIDERED. 
 
 BY TWO WOEKING MEN, 
 
 A JEW AND A GENTILE. 
 
 Tt yap, et rjTTLcrTrja-av Ttves ; 
 
 M:^ rj aindTLo. avrcor T-qv TricrrLv 70v 0eov KaTapyrjcrci. 
 
 Paul. (Rom. iii. 3.) 
 
 LONDON: 
 W. KENT & CO., PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
HAEEILD, p^' 
 
 i 
 
 .;^.p, 
 
ADVEETISEMENT. 
 
 The favour wliicli lias been accorded to tlie First Part of 
 this Refutation lias emboldened tlie writers to proceed witli 
 this review of the Second Part of the Bishop of Natal' s 
 work. 
 
 They cannot but feel the compHment implied in. the doubt 
 that has been so often expressed as to the former Part having 
 been written by Mechanics. But they wish to add^ that 
 neither the Pubhshers nor themselves would be parties to 
 any deception. They have neither sought nor received help 
 from any one in writing this Refutation. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The Bishop of Natal, in commencing tlie preface of his Second 
 Part, states : — " Mj former book has had, I believe, the effect 
 which I desired." 
 
 If a storm of reprobation, like that which has greeted the 
 Bishop's volume from every possible quarter— from Jews and 
 Christians, Churchmen and Dissenters^ Scholars and Mechanics, 
 Citj-missionaries, and Scripture-readers — be a desirable thing 
 from the Bishop's point of view ; it is indisputable that his desire 
 has been gratified, for we do not remember such remarkable 
 unanimity of feeling, such perfect accord of reprobation and con- 
 demnation on any subject that has ever occupied the a,ttention of 
 the religious public. 
 
 Eabbins have mocked, in written letters to newspapers, at the 
 Bishop's transparent assumption of Hebrew scholarship. Church- 
 men have pointed out the errors in his reasoning, and have 
 animadverted upon the Bishop's proceedings abroad, in order to 
 account for his conduct at home. Dissenters have flouted his 
 absurd claims to infallibility of judgment, asking whether Dr. 
 Colenso had not better proclaim himself Pope in England at once ; 
 and Mechanics have laughed while at their work at the ridiculous 
 nature of some of the arguments he has set forth. 
 
 . We shall, therefore, venture to assert, that such perfect 
 unanimity of condemnatory judgment has never previously been 
 displayed upon any public question in the history of the modern 
 religious world. 
 
 The Bishop says, also, that he asked, and has obtained, attention 
 on the part of the " thoughtful and intelligent among the Laity."^ 
 
Vm PEEFACE. 
 
 There can "be no doubt that thoughtful attention has been 
 given, — and with what result ? As far as we can ascertain, 
 the general opinion of all who have read the first book is 
 that it is an utter, complete failure ; that there is not in it a 
 single argument that need inflict a moment's uneasiness on any- 
 timid mind ; and that the absurd and wicked view of the know- 
 ledge possessed by the Lord Jesus, is an indelible disgrace to him 
 who placed it on record as his deliberate opinion, while retaining 
 his position in the English Church. 
 
 This appeal to the laity is followed by a declaration that the 
 mouths of the doctors and clergy of the Church of England are stop- 
 ped, and freedom of thought and utterance checked within her pale. 
 
 Leaving those who are thus represented to deal with this large 
 assertion, we pass on to notice some of the Bishop's answers to 
 his reviewers, who have complained that the Bishop has set forth 
 nothing new in his Eirst Part ; that his objections had all been 
 heard and answered before. "What follows is in Dr. Colenso's 
 words : — " I made, however, no pretence of bringing forward no- 
 velties. The very point indeed of my argument in Part I. was this, 
 that these difficulties were not new, though many of them were 
 new to me. A great part of this Second Part is liable to the same 
 imputation as the Eirst, as containing no facts which are novelties 
 to those who have already made acquaintance with the subject. 
 But there are portions of the argument, as here stated, in Chapters 
 XII. toXYIIL, which, as far as I am aware, are now, for the first 
 time, submitted to the judgment of the learned." 
 
 It is quite certain that many of the facts in the Eirst Part are 
 not new. It is as certainly the case with the Second, inasmuch 
 as some of the objections in the Eirst Part, and more in the Second, 
 are to be found in Paine's " Age of Eeason." We shall quote 
 from that work, placing Paine's writings side by side with Bishop 
 Colenso's words, in order to prove this assertion ; and further, 
 
PEEFACB. ix 
 
 we shall refute Bishop Colenso's objections hj quoting Bishop 
 "Watson's "Apology," addressed to Thomas Paine. 
 
 Not new, indeed, as far as the objections go ; but surely it is 
 new to find a Bishop of the English Church endorsing the opinions 
 of the vilest slanderer of Christianity that ever lived, and putting 
 them forward as his own ; indeed, as will be seen, following the 
 "Age of Eeason" so closely, as to justify a suspicion that the 
 objections have been taken from that work, and merely deprived 
 of their unbearable blackguardism, to make them presentable. 
 
 "We certainly confess ourselves unable to see any good reason 
 why these old objections, answered long since, should be raked 
 up from the decent obscurity into which they had passed. In- 
 deed, they seem to us to be brought forward again for the mere 
 purpose of gratifying an ambition for notoriety. If the argu- 
 ments adduced by Dr. Colenso are not new, if they have been 
 heard, as he admits they have been, and answered, what useful 
 purpose can be served by their revival, or what benefit can they 
 confer upon the Church of Christ in their present form, brought 
 forward by their present sponsor ? 
 
 The ve-plj our experience furnishes is very saddening; we 
 have reason to believe that Dr. Colenso's work has done mischief 
 he can never repair amongst our brethren of the working classes, 
 by giving rise to an undefined, but wide-spread doubt of the truth 
 and reality of all religion in their minds. There are tens of 
 thousands who will never even see the book itself, whose manner 
 of thought respecting it will be, — that a bishop of the English 
 Church having publicly stated, "the Bible is untruthful," he 
 ought to know best — and consequently they need not, and they 
 will not, trouble themselves further on the subject. 
 
 The latest examination into the religious condition of the work- 
 ing classes, brought to light the appalling fact that ninety-eight 
 out of every hundred of their number were living in the habitual 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 neglect of tlie public worship of God. This census was adopted 
 and repeated by the Earl of Shaftesbury, who publicly stated at 
 the last Annual Meeting of the Preachers of the Open Air 
 Mission that only two per cent, of the working classes attended 
 public worship. "We thought the shame and grief of this awful 
 statement hard enough to bear ; but now, if our brethren are 
 asked to attend the house of Grod, their reply will be more dis- 
 heartening than ever. Surely their religious condition was low 
 enough, without a bishop helping to confirm them in their fatal 
 negligence, their practical atheism in living, as they do, " without 
 God and without hope in the world !" 
 
 The next point in the Bishop's preface that we notice, is the 
 remarks he makes concerning an objection in the First Part, 
 which is partially abandoned in the Second. In reference to the 
 priest carrying the bullock, he states : — " The stress of my argu- 
 ment is not laid upon the necessity of the priest himself, in 
 person, doing this ; but upon the fact that it had to he done hy 
 somelody.'^ 
 
 This is very cool ; these are the words in Part L, p. 40 : " We 
 have to imagine tlie priest liaving himself to carry on his had: 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." 
 
 The Bishop then passes to the consideration of his proposed 
 Substitute for the Bible as it is, by stating : — " Many of my re- 
 yiewers, as well as some private correspondents, have urged upon 
 me the desirableness of stating at once in what way the usual 
 elements of Christian doctrine appear to be affected by the un- 
 historical character of the Pentateuch. But, however I may 
 wish to satisfy this very natural impatience, it is impossible to do 
 80 till we know what is the residuum of real fact which is left 
 behind when the Pentateuch is thoroughly examined." 
 
PREFACE. XI 
 
 As the answer to this question is all that is apparently'required, 
 in order to bring out the Bishop's new theory, we are happy in 
 being able, and perfectly willing, to furnish it. How much of the 
 Pentateuch will be left ? The tvhole of it, just as it stands at 
 present ; for there is little fear of the effect the Bishop's objec- 
 tions will haye on the minds of those who will read them thought- 
 ftdly. Eather, the effect will be one of absolute relief, displayed 
 as follows : If this is the worst that can be said against the Pen- 
 tateuch by its proverbially bitterest foe — a friend turned into an 
 enemy — we need not have the slightest fear of the consequences. 
 As we have said, the mischief done will be to those ivJio 
 will not read the book, but will take the announced result as 
 sufficiently guaranteed by the character and position of the 
 writer. 
 
 But if the Bishop knoivs what the new theory is to he, why can 
 we not have it at once ? Let the Bishop assume the credibility of 
 the Pentateuch destroyed (which is unquestionably the only way in 
 which it ever will be), and so bring out to the light the new faith, 
 and let his private correspondents have what their impatient souls 
 are loDging for. But this may not be ; we are to wait in impa- 
 tience till — when ? It is utterly presumptuous even to think of 
 guessing. In Part I. we were promised Part II. ; in Part II. we 
 are promised Part III., which is to consist of a minute criticism 
 of the Book of Grenesis. Consequently, with Part III. in pos- 
 session, we shall apparently be as far off as ever from the promised 
 ^ew Bevelation. 
 
 We venture, however, to suggest that it might be as well to 
 give some positive idea (however dim it may be in the extreme 
 distance) as to when we may begin to expect it ; for if the mouths 
 of cavillers be not thus stopped, they will be apt to suggest that 
 after all there is nothing to give ; that it may be well enough for 
 Bishop Colenso to object to the Bible, but that he is too wise in 
 
XU PEEFACE. 
 
 his generation to set up anything of his own, that may fairly be 
 contrasted with what we have now in possession. 
 
 In this Second Part of his work the Bishop repeats the asser- 
 tion, that " the recognition of the gradual growth of Jesus, as the 
 Son of Man, in human knowledge and science of all kind, such 
 as that which concerns the question of the age and authorship of 
 the Pentateuch, is perfectly compatible with, rather is absolutely 
 required by, the most orthodox faith in his divinity as the eternal 
 Son of God." 
 
 This is simply repeating the former evasion of the true question 
 at issue, which is — " Had the Lord Jesus absolute and perfect 
 knowledge of who wrote the Pentateuch, or was He ignorant on 
 that subject ?" It is distinctly stated that He saw Moses when 
 he, with Elias, appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration. It is 
 evident that they were then personally known to each other, and 
 yet we are to suppose that our Lord was profoundly ignorant of 
 the former life of him who was privileged to talk with Him " ot 
 the decease He should accomplish at Jerusalem ?" Again, the 
 Bishop talks of our Lord's gradual growth in human knowledge ; 
 and we reply that if, even after He rose from the dead, his know- 
 ledge was perfected, then it is indisputable that Moses wrote the 
 Pentateuch ; for then, after He was risen, " Beginniug at Moses 
 and all the prophets. He expounded unto them in all the Scrip- 
 tures, the things concerning Himself," Luke xxiv. 27. 
 
 "Why evade or equivocate in a matter of such importance ? Por 
 the sake of our immortal souls. Christian Minister, if you possess 
 truth that we have not, let us share your advantage ; if we are 
 trusting our immortal destiny upon a lie, known and proved, show 
 us how it is so ; but beware, oh beware, as you shall stand with us 
 before Christ when He comes to judgment, how you pretend to 
 have knowledge that you have not; how you offend, without full 
 and proved necessity, even one of his little ones, remembering the 
 
PEEFACE. Xiii 
 
 awful reckoning that must come, when and where there will be 
 neither bishop nor working man. 
 
 The Bishop is ''naturally most anxious to see what the bishops 
 and doctors of the Church of England will say upon the subject of 
 my book, and how they will act in the present emergency." 
 
 He is not, by many thousands, the only one who is waiting and 
 watching for their course of action. "We, amongst others, shall be 
 glad to know how far the teaching contained in Parts I. and II. of 
 the Bishop's work, is to be received and recognized by the Heads of 
 the Establishment to which he belongs. "We shall be glad to know 
 whether the dictum— that pronounces all we have been taught and 
 believe to be most truthful, to be incredible and impossible— will 
 be received by the peers and superiors of the Bishop of Natal in 
 the Church of England. But will the Bishop voluntarily bind 
 himself to abide by their decision ? He is pathetic (by anticipa- 
 tion ?) upon what lie calls the ''penalties of thought." He tells 
 us they are heavy and hard to bear, instancing the cases of Mr. 
 Heath, who has lost, and paid £9,000; and Mr. Wilson and Dr. 
 Williams, the essayists, who have lost, or may lose, £5,000 more. 
 
 But there is certainly another side to this question. If these 
 gentlemen felt themselves aggrieved by the principles or practice 
 of the Church they were connected with, ought they not, as honest 
 men, to have left it, and publicly abandoned all connection with 
 it, before attacking any of the tenets they had sworn to defend ? 
 
 Eollowing the Bishop in his preface— which appears to include 
 a little of every thing— we next find him quoting a passage from the 
 Bishop of London's charge, and passing thence, hj easy transi- 
 tion, to JN-oah's Ark; and he informs us it ''was to be furnished 
 by one very small window, ' and a window [will the Bishop oblige 
 us with the meaning of the word, rendered window ? we have been 
 taught that pbn is the Hebrew for window, see Gen. xxvi. 
 8; while in the account of Noah's Ark the word is nni^] 
 
XIV PEEFACE. 
 
 shalt thou make to the ark, ia a cubit (22 inches) shalt thou 
 finish it above ;' which window, however, seems never to have been 
 opened till the end of the deluge, if indeed it could have been 
 opened during the fall of rain ; in which case, as they had no glass 
 in those days, the inmates of the ark could have had neither light 
 nor air.'* 
 
 What are we to say to writing like this ? It is better to own 
 the truth at once, we think the Bishop is making fun of us ! It 
 is quite impossible he can be writing seriously, for if he is, he 
 must certainly estimate the intellect of the readers of his work 
 as low as it is possible to do. But if this is not ridicule with a 
 grave face, we will ask — Did the Bishop ever see the plates to 
 Calmet ? If not, we will inform him that he will there find sug- 
 gested, that although the window might be only twenty -two inches 
 high, yet that it was possible to carry it at that Tieiglit all round 
 the ark, both sides and ends, and the projecting roof over the 
 opening might be a sufiicient protection from the rain of the 
 deluge, even though it were open day and night. 
 
 The Bishop thus continues : " I assert, however, without fear 
 of contradiction, that there are multitudes now of the more in- 
 telligent clergy who do not believe in the reality of the Noachian 
 deluge, as described in the Book of Genesis. Tet did ever a 
 layman hear his clergyman speak out distinctly what he thought, 
 and say plainly from the pulpit what he himself believed, and 
 what he would have them believe on this point ? . . . Have not 
 your clergy Jcei)t hack from you their thoughts hitherto, not only 
 about the deluge, but about a multitude of other matters such as 
 those treated of in Part I. of this book ? Let the laity answer 
 the above questions for themselves." 
 
 "We will endeavour to answer ; and would therefore ask : Does 
 the Bishop take Englishmen in 1863 for Zulus ? Does he think 
 for a moment we are dependent on our clergy for our geological 
 
PEEFACE. IT 
 
 knowledge ? or that they could, even if they ivould, keep back 
 geological or any other knowledge from us ? Did the Bishop of 
 Natal ever hear of " Cassell's Popular Educator," in penny num- 
 bers, circulated by hundreds of thousands ? Does he know that 
 in that publication there are articles written by a Clergyman, or 
 Dissenting minister (we do not know or care which just now), em- 
 bracing the whole science of Greology ? Did he never hear of Dr. 
 Hitchcock's " Eeligion of Greology," price Is. Qtd., or of " The 
 Course of Creation," by Rev. John Anderson, or of Dr. Buck- 
 land's works, or of " The Pre-Adamite Earth" of Dr. Harris ? 
 Evidently the Bishop of Natal has been so long amongst the 
 Zulus that he is totally ignorant of the position even of working 
 men at home. We will help him by informing him that the most 
 spirited discussion we have heard for some time took place in 
 our Working Hen's Discussion Class on the subject : '' "Was the 
 deluge partial or universal ?" and that it occupied us for three 
 evenings in succession. 
 
 But there is something deeper here. It is evident that the 
 Bishop does not believe in the fact of the deluge. We beg to ask 
 him why he does not ? Will he show us that Geology must neces- 
 sarily take cognizance of such a temporary matter as one year's 
 flood must have been, geologically speaking ? Will he point out 
 to us any nation on the face of the earth, whose traditions date 
 back anywhere near the time specified, where the tradition of a 
 deluge is not found ? Will he prove that these universal traditions 
 have no foundation in fact ; or will he, for instance, prove to us the 
 falsehood of Dr. Pye Smith's theory of the Noachian deluge ? It; 
 is easy to sneer, easier to treat such a subject with assumed con- 
 tempt ; but we may surely ask for proof of its being a myth, before 
 we cease to believe in the reality of the Noachian deluge ; and there 
 is not one word of such proof at present published by the Bishop 
 of Natal. 
 
Xfl PEErACE. 
 
 Our preface is already too long, and we must thereforf^ pass 
 over some matters we would willingly notice ; such as the Bisnop's 
 promise to submit himself to the judgment of the Church when 
 proved to be wrong — in his own judgment of himself —a safe 
 promise ! The Bishop concludes his preface with an extract from 
 He]S'gste:n'beeg, as follows : — " The author thinks he has a right 
 to expect that, as he has employed arguments in this book, he 
 will be answered with arguments. If this righteous demand should 
 not be acceded to the loss will not fall upon him, but on those 
 who attempt to annihilate evidence with abuse." 
 
 Should not a man come into court with clean hands ? If so, 
 surely the Bishop does not. These are some of his words : " Let, 
 then, my Eight Eeverend Brother, who has judged and condemned 
 me, answer my arguments by a book . . . and not seek to put them 
 down by sneers, by mere declamation from the pulpit or platform, 
 or by sending a brief of excommunication to the Times^^ The 
 Bishop charges the whole body of the Church of England Clergy 
 {as sucli) with having deliberately, and of set purpose kept back 
 the truth they knew from their congregations. He stigmatizes 
 them also as follows — "I am saddened and humiliated, I blush 
 with shame for the Church of England." Surely no body of men 
 were ever in a better position to return the compliment. Again 
 he individualizes in imagination — " Is it not because the clergy, 
 bound by their ordination vows, da^^e not ' tliinlc^ at all on such 
 subjects, or, if they do, dare not express freely their tliouglits from 
 the pulpit, or by means of the press, without incurring the awful 
 charge of 'heresy,' and the danger of being dragged into the 
 Ecclesiastical Court by some clerical brother who has himself no 
 turn, perhaps no faculty, for thlnlcing, oj: who has ehe abandoned 
 his rights and duties as a reasoning man to become tlie mere 
 exponent of a ehurcJi-system or a creed, but who will, at least, 
 prevent otliers from exercising their powers of thought in the 
 
PEEPACE. XVll 
 
 inquiry after truth, and so disturbing the quiet repose of the 
 Church." 
 
 N'o abuse or wholesale misrepresentation here, of course ! And 
 once more, the Bishop says of his brother clergymen— ''Some 
 good^ easy hrother who never, perhaps, knew ichat it loas to have 
 a passionate yearning for the truth as truth, who never made a 
 sacrifice in the search, or for the maintenance of it, and never, in, 
 fact, gave himself an hour's hard ' thinking' in his life." 
 
 After these specimens of courtesy of language, we think the 
 man must be a proficient in abuse who can produce any thing 
 more unprovoked, uncalled for, and wantonly insulting. 
 
 But the Bishop has indisputably zeroised his "powers of 
 thought," and that with a most disastrous eifect upon his re- 
 putation. The utter folly of the conclusion to which he 
 comes, the efiective manner in which he demonstrates the truth 
 of his own theory to be impossible, we have set forth in Chap- 
 ter XX. There the reader will find Bishop Colenso asserting 
 that there are no Jehovistic names in the early chapters of 
 Samuel, and then quoting a Jehovistic name from the very first 
 verse in the looh. He also gravely states his belief that Samuel 
 first formed and invented the name Jehovah, after he has demon- 
 strated that to have invented the name, Samuel must have 
 invented the name oihis own great grandfather, JElihu. 
 
 The whole of this Second Part is founded upon the assumption 
 that Samuel was the Elohist, and invented the name Jehovah, 
 notwithstanding this name was, according to Dr. Colenso's own 
 showing, in use at least four generations before Samuel was born. 
 
 How Bishop Colenso could fall into such a ridiculous error, 
 and one of such magnitude as to ruin his whole theory, is, to us, 
 inconceivable ; but that he has so erred is indisputable. Through- 
 out his work, he again and again repeats his theory concerning 
 Samuel's authorship, and his first forming and inventing the name 
 
XVlll PEEFACE. 
 
 Jehovah — commencing by putting the case as a probability, he 
 advances by larger strides, though still doubtingly, until near the 
 end of the book, where Samuel's invention of the name of Jehovah 
 is boldly and repeatedly asserted. 
 
 And Bishop Colenso is evidently quite unconscious that the 
 name of Elihu, quoted hy himself, is utterly ruinous to his case. 
 Indeed, he quotes the first part of this name, JEl — God — to prove 
 the Elohistic names in the First Book of Samuel, but he does not 
 see that the last part consists of a contracted form of the name 
 Jehovah, which he has pointed out in Chap. XIX. 
 
 In one sentence of about two lines, Bishop Colenso says : — 
 " Here, throughout the first chapter, we do not meet with a single 
 name compounded with Jehovah, though we find ^Zkanah and 
 
 But this name, Elihu, interpreted, is God-Jehovah, and it 
 proves that the name (Jehovah) asserted to have been invented 
 by Samuel, had been known in his family at least a century 
 before he was born. 
 
 "We need add nothing to this exposure; it has only to be 
 made known to deprive Dr. Colenso of all claim to be regarded 
 -as an authority in matters of criticism. 
 
 "We add a few words concerning ourselves. In this Second 
 Part we shall somewhat widen our plan ; and while keeping 
 -ourselves solely to the subjects chosen by the Bishop, we shall 
 endeavour to set forth some small portion of the afiirmative 
 evidence of Scripture Inspiration. It has been pointed out to 
 us that in our anxiety to do justice to the Bishop, we have been 
 wanting in duty to our own cause, in neglecting to show, as occa- 
 sion served, the strength of the position of the believer. 
 
 But when stating the Bishop's objections we shall, as before, 
 always quote them in his own words. 
 
" CHAPTEE, I. 
 SIGHTS OF DirEEEENT AUTHORS IIT THE PENTATEUCH.'* 
 
 Such is tlie heading affixed by Bishop Colenso to the first chapter 
 of his Second Part. The chapter consists of twelve pages ; eight 
 of the twelve are taken up with repetitions of former objections ; 
 here, the Eishop refers again to the number of warriors being 
 600,000, and further shows that the figures are correct as they 
 stand. We perfectly agree with him in this matter, thinking 
 that it is impossible to touch these figures, which turn up so often 
 and in such various ways, without destroying the credibility of 
 the Narrative. We do not see any reason why they should be 
 altered, nor has any valid reason for alteration been shovni in 
 the Bishop's book, or in any comment upon it that we have seen. 
 The Bishop then passes on to reply to his Eeviewers respecting 
 the lack of firewood, water, and grass in the Wilderness ; but 
 merely reiterates what he has said before, and we have answered ; 
 and we may therefore proceed to the subject of the chapter, which 
 is thus stated by the Bishop : — 
 
 " Now, however, that we are able to feel that we stand on 
 sure ground, when we assert that these books, whatever be their 
 value, with whatever pious purpose they were written, and what- 
 ever excellent lessons they may teach, are not removed from the 
 sphere of critical inquiry, by possessing any such Divine infalli- 
 bility as has been usually ascribed to them, there is a multitude 
 of other difficulties, inconsistencies, and impossibilities, which 
 
20 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 will be at once apparent, if we examine carefully tlie Scripture 
 narrative, and no longer suffer our eyes to be blinded, by the 
 mere force of babit, to the actual meaning of the words which we 
 read. "Without, at present, stopping to consider those which 
 arise from examining the story of the Creation and the Tall, as 
 given in the first chapters of Genesis, by the light of modern 
 science, we will here notice the contradictions which exist between 
 the first account of the creation in Gen. i. 1, — ii. 3, and the second 
 
 account in Gen. ii. 4 — 25 The following are the most 
 
 noticeable points of difference between the two cosmogonies. 
 
 " (I.) In the first, the earth emerges from the waters, and is, 
 therefore, saturated with moisture, i. 9, 10. 
 
 "In the second the ' whole face of the ground' requires to be 
 moistened, ii. 6." 
 
 This is the first difficulty we are to examine, and it 
 will not occupy much time. It is not said in the !N"arrative in 
 chap. i. that the new earth was saturated with moisture. The 
 Eishop has tacked on that supposition in order to create his diffi- 
 culty ; and it is not said in chap. ii. that the whole face of the 
 ground reqidred to be moistened ; this circumstance, also, the 
 Bishop has supposed and thrust into the Narrative, in order to 
 complete the statement of the difficulty; which is of his own 
 invention from first to last. These are the two statements run 
 into one : — " And God said. Let the waters under the heaven be 
 gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear, 
 and it was so. And God called the dry land, earth, and the 
 gathering together of the waters called He seas ; and God saw 
 that it was good ; . . . But there went up a mist from the earth 
 and watered the whole face of the ground." 
 
 We need only notice that the Narrative says expressly, that 
 the land was Jry, and the Bishop's theory malies it necessary for 
 him to say it was saturated luitli moisture. Doubtless the surface 
 
THE BIBLE IX THE WOEKSHOP. 2l 
 
 of the newly emerged earth was wet, but if upheaved by volcanic 
 agency accompanied by the emission of intense heat from the 
 interior, it would not be long before mist or rain would be needed. 
 
 " (IL) In the first, the birds and beasts are created before 
 man, i. 20, 24, 26. 
 
 " In the second, man is created before the birds and beasts, 
 ii. 7, 19." 
 
 It is stated that man was the last creation in the first chapter 
 of Genesis, and all the records of geology yet known and verified 
 confirm the truth of the statement. Any geologist will readily 
 affirm from his science, that the last appearances are those of the 
 human frame, and the work of the human hands. The Bishop 
 has not yet asserted the contrary, and therefore we may take it 
 for granted. In the second chapter, there is no statement of the 
 time or order of the creation of bird, or beast, or man. The fact 
 of the creation mentioned in chapter i. as regards birds and 
 beasts is reiterated in chapter ii., and this further information is 
 given, that they were brought to Adam to be named. By reading 
 the two passages it will be clearly seen that there is no contra- 
 diction or even discrepancy. 
 
 " (III.) In the first ' all fowls that fly' are made out of the 
 loaters, i. 20. 
 
 " In the second the fowls of the air are made out of the ground, 
 ii. 19." 
 
 This trashy objection is founded upon a word expressly marled, 
 as added ly the translators in the English version. Take away 
 the added word, and the objection instantly disappears. There is 
 also in the margin of the English Bible the true translation of 
 the Hebrew, and when thus corrected and read, the verse does 
 not state from whence the fowls were created. "We subjoin the 
 corrected verse, G-en. i. 20— ''And God said. Let the waters 
 bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life. And 
 
22 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 let fowl fly in the open firmament of heaven." To prove our 
 case we subjoin the verse taken from the Hebrew Eeading 
 Lessons, published by Bagster, with the literal translation be- 
 neath it. 
 
 n\'kn •'i?1t?7'! D'^nb^ -i^^Jl 
 
 waters-tlie abundantly-fortli-bring-Let , God said- And 
 
 y^^K^ '^V np.'i^'. n"^2?i n>n wpj?, v:.^ 
 
 earth-tlie upon fly -let fowl-and ; life of soul , things-creeping 
 
 •IT T - - 0' : "•' ' 
 
 .heaven-the of-expanse-tlie of-faee-the upon 
 
 "We ask if there is here a single word stating that the fowls 
 were created out of the tvaters, as the Bishop has asserted. That 
 they were created from the ground was no doubt true ; are not 
 both man and beast thus created in our time out of the ground ? 
 though, it may be, through the via media of ordinary parentage ; 
 and if thus still created out of the ground and sustained solely 
 from it, then the announcement that man was created out of the 
 ground, " Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return," is 
 not " unhistorical," but historically, physiologically, and literally 
 true. And this is the testimony of science, not against,, but in 
 favour of the Bible. 
 
 " (lY.) In the first, man is created in the image of God, i. 27. 
 *' In the second, man is made of the dust of the ground, and 
 merely animated ^Yith the breath of life, and it is only after his 
 eating the forbidden fruit that the Lobd God said, ' Behold the 
 man has become as one of us, to know good and evil,' ii. 7 ; 
 iii. 22." 
 
 The general statement of the creation of the human race on 
 the sixth day is made in i. 27. How they were created is not 
 mentioned ; the broad general facts of creation in the image of 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 23 
 
 God, distinction of sex, of God's blessing and man's sovereignty, 
 are distinctly stated, but nothing more. In the second the modus 
 operandi of man's creation is revealed : the accounts are comple- 
 mentary not contradictory, and some time afterward (as we think 
 in great mercy), the fallen and therefore miserable man is pre- 
 vented from perpetuating his misery by taking an immortality of 
 sin and sorrow upon himself. There is no contradiction through- 
 out ; the word merely on which the Bishop's objection rests, i» 
 introduced by him, to make the objection, which exists in hi& 
 statement of the case only ; it is not found in the Narrative. 
 
 " (Y.) In the first, the man is made the lord of the whole 
 earth, i. 28. 
 
 " In the second, he is merely placed in the garden of Eden to 
 dress it and to keep it, ii. 8, 15." 
 
 The first is the commission given to Adam as the represent- 
 ative of his race, the second is the commencement of his indi- 
 vidual history, as any intelligent Sunday-school scholar could in- 
 form the Bishop ; tlie same word — merely — is here again intro- 
 duced to make the objection. 
 
 " (YI.) In the first, man and woman are created together, as the- 
 closing and completing work of the whole creation, created also, as- 
 is evidently implied, in the same kind of way, to be the complement 
 of one another ; and, thus created, they are blessed together, i. 28. 
 
 " In the second, the beasts and birds are created hetween the • 
 man and the woman. First, the man is made of the dust of the 
 ground, he is placed by himself in the garden, charged with a 
 solemn command, and threatened with a curse if he breaks it, 
 then the beasts and the birds are made, and the man gives 
 names to them ; and, lastly, after all this, the woman is made 
 out of one of his ribs, but merely as a helpmate for the man, 
 ii. 7, 8, 15, 22." 
 
 It will be seen by reading the texts that the statement '' ere- 
 
21k THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 ated together''* italicised bj the Bishop above, is merely slu addition 
 of his own to make his point ; if it were in the Narrative it would 
 be a different matter. We have shown that the birds and beasts 
 were not created between the man and the woman, as the time of 
 their creation is not stated in chapter ii. at all, and we do not 
 think there is anything else here needing notice. 
 
 "We now pause to point out that from such utter nonsense as 
 these six manufactured objections exhibit, through the results 
 arrived at by such unscrupulous dealing with the Holy Scriptures, 
 we are to be brought to doubt the knowledge and the wisdom of 
 the Lord of glory. "Well may Bishop Colenso shrink, as he does, 
 from publishing his ideas as concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 for what must be tlie end of that theory, which in Us very com- 
 mencement finds degrading insinuations concerning our Lord's 
 knowledge absolutely necessary ? 
 
 "CHAPTEE IL 
 
 THE ELOHISTIC AND JEHOVISTIC WEITEES." 
 
 "We take the first statement from the end of chapter I. of the 
 Bishop's book, where he has thus written : — *' The fact is that the 
 second account of the creation (ii. 4 — 25), together with the 
 story of the Pall (iii.). is manifestly composed by a different 
 writer altogether from him who wrote the first (i. 1, — ii. 3). 
 
 This is suggested at once by the circumstance that, through- 
 out the first narrative, the Creator is always spoken of by the name 
 D'^ribs Elohim, God ; whereas throughout the second account, 
 as well as \hQ story of the Fall, He is always called D''Jib« nln": 
 Jehovah Elohim, Lord God, except in iii. 1, 3, 5, where the 
 writer seems to abstain, for some reason, from placing the name 
 * Jehovah' in the mouth of the serpent. This accounts naturally 
 for the above contradictions. It woiJd appear that, for some 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 25: 
 
 reason, tlie productions of two pens have been liere united, without 
 reference to their inconsistencies." 
 
 And the Bishop continues in Chapter II. : — " One of these two 
 writers, it will be found, is distinguished by the constant use of 
 the word Elohiin ; the other by the intermixtui'e with it of the word 
 Jehovah, which two words appear in the English "Version as God 
 and Lord. Hence these two parts of the book are generally known 
 as the Elohistic and Jehovistic portions. The Jehovistic passages 
 taken by themselves are mere disjointed fragments, and require 
 the Elohistic story to connect them with each other. This im- 
 plies at once that the Elohist was the oldest of the two writers, 
 and that his narrative may have been used by the other, as the 
 groundworh upon which he framed his own additions. The Jeho- 
 vist, in fact, may have revised what the Elohist had written, 
 making his own insertions here and there, sometimes in long pas- 
 sages (as in the second account of the creation), sometimes in 
 shorter ones (as in the small section about the Deluge), some- 
 times interpolating two or three verses only, or even a single verse 
 or part of a verse, which makes its appearance in the midst of the 
 older writings, and now and then in such a way as to make it 
 difficult to assign precisely to each writer his own particular por- 
 tion. In most cases, however, the distinction of the two hands 
 is so plain that it cannot be mistaken by any attentive reader. 
 But this circumstance, viz., that such unmistakeable differences of 
 expression distinguish, throughout the book of Genesis, the parts 
 which are due to these separate writers, may, almost, with reference 
 to the momentous questions involved, be called providential, since 
 it enables us to speak positively on some points, which might 
 otherwise have been still subject to doubt, and will be found 
 greatly to relieve the difficulty of determining, with some approach 
 to probability, the age of the different portions of the Pentateuch." 
 
 There is a confident coolness of assertion throughout this 
 
26 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 quotation that is almost enougli to make any one (not accustomed 
 to Dr. Colenso) believe it ; but we think it will come upon many 
 educated Englishmen with something like surprise. Where are 
 our English works on this subject ? "What English scholars have 
 added to the development of this new theory ? Who amongst those 
 we know and respect have given in their adhesion to it ? "What 
 books by English authors have been published on this subject ? 
 The answer is very simple ; we do not know of a single English 
 author who has written and published any work specially devoted 
 to this interesting subject. There may be such, but we can 
 assert that all our time is passed amongst printing and book- 
 binding, and we have not heard of a single one. 
 
 As far as we know, the whole question is almost exclusively 
 confined to German authors ; but some of their works have been 
 translated into English, and the result is not quite a mystery. 
 But if one-hundredth part of the Bishop's large assertions be truth- 
 ful, there must be some recognized standard adopted by Elohistic 
 and Jehovistic writers ; some one amongst the German writers on 
 this subject who, having mastered it in all its details, is looked up 
 to by other writers as an authority ? The answer to this question 
 is an exposure of the utter hollowness of the Bishop's theory, and 
 of the audacity of his method of writing ; but as an infinitely more 
 competent hand than ours has dealt with this subject — has 
 exposed the Bishop's argument hy anticipation in a way to make 
 any one laugh that will compare the crushing ei^'^o^iue, pulUslied 
 lefore the theory^ with the Bishop's statement ; we shall venture 
 to show the real position of this question, as it is stated by a 
 clergyman, who both Jews and Christians unite in affirming to be 
 one of the best living Hebrew scholars — Dr. A. McCaul writing 
 in"AidstoEaith." 
 
 " To discuss all the details of criticism would require volumes, 
 hut one alleged result, often stated in an off-hand, popular way — 
 
 V 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 27 
 
 asserted with unhesitating confidence, and repeated as absolutely- 
 certain, requires notice. It is said that in the book of Genesis 
 there are some portions in which God is spoken of exclusively as 
 Elohim — in others exclusively as Jehovah [the Lord in the autho- 
 rized version]. This exclusive use of the one Divine name in some 
 portions, and of the other in other portions, it is said, character- 
 izes two difierent authors living at different times ; and, conse- 
 quently, Genesis is composed of two different documents, the one 
 Elohistic, the other Jehovistic, which, moreover, differ in state- 
 ment; and, consequently, that this book was not written by 
 Moses, and is neither inspired nor trustworthy. 
 
 " Now, let us look at this statement as a supposed result of cri- 
 ticism. It is generally urged as if on this point critics were all of 
 one mind, agreed in the portions which are Elohistic or Jeho- 
 vistic — unanimous as to the characteristic differences of style in 
 the separate portion ; in fact, as if the theory came with universal 
 consent. [Did Dr. McCaul know what Bishop Colenso intended 
 to write and publish, and anticipate it ?] This is not the case in 
 the present theory ; the popular statement given above does not 
 represent the true state of the case, — the fact is, that there is 
 here the greatest variety of opinion, and the modifications of the 
 above apparently simple theory are so widely divergent as either 
 to shake the value of the criticism, or throiu a dark shade of doubt 
 on the competence of the critics. 
 
 " In the first place, there is a difference as to the extent to 
 which the theory is to be applied. Some confine it to the book of 
 Genesis, others include Exodus to chapter vi. ; others, as Knobel, 
 Bleek, and Ewald, assert, that the Jehovistic and Elohistic differ- 
 ences can be recognized through the whole Pentateuch to the end 
 of Joshua. Some, as J. D. Michaelis, Jahn, Vater, Hartmann, re- 
 gard Genesis as a loose and unsystematic stringing together of 
 disjointed fragments. But passing these by, let us look at the 
 
28 THE BIBLE IIS" THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 state of the Elohistic and Jehovistic theory as stated by Bleek in 
 his Introduction. 
 
 " In the year 1753 Astruc, a Trench physician, taught that the 
 book of Genesis is made up of twelve memoirs or documents, of 
 which the two principal are the Elohistic and the Jehovistic. 
 
 **Eichhorn asserted that the present book of Genesis is based 
 upon two pre-Mosaic documents, distinguished by Elohim and 
 
 Jehovah Sometimes the accounts are mixed 
 
 together. Some other documents were consulted. 
 
 " Ilgen supposes seventeen documents, but only three authors, 
 one Jehovist, two Elohists ; and is so acute in his scent as some- 
 times to divide even single verses between the three, and give to 
 each his own. 
 
 ^' De Wette's theory in the first edition of his Introduction is, 
 that a continuous Elohistic document pervades and forms the 
 basis of the whole book, and extends to Exodus vi. In this the 
 author inserted what he found in one ; or, probably, in several 
 Jehovistic documents. 
 
 ''Yon Bohlen believes in the same Elohistic basis, but denies 
 the existence of Jehovistic documents. The author of the book 
 in its present state is the Jehovist, so that only two persons are 
 concerned. 
 
 " Gramberg makes three authors — the Elohist, the Jehovist, 
 and the compiler, who does not scruple sometimes to substitute 
 one divine name for the other. 
 
 *' Ewald exhibits a variety of opinions ; he began by holding the 
 unity of Genesis, and proving it against both the document and the 
 fragment hypothesis. His arguments have not yet been refuted 
 
 either by himself or others He ascribes Genesis in 
 
 its present form to that writer whom, in his first edition, he calls 
 the fourth narrator, and, in his second edition, the fifth narrator 
 of the primitive histories, who lived in the time of Jotham. This 
 
THE BIBLE IN" THE WOEKSHOP. 2^9 
 
 work had several predecessors, according to the first' edition, 
 three ; according to the second, six. Three of these are Elohistic. 
 
 " Hupfeldt takes as the basis of our Genesis three independent 
 historic works — two Elohistic, one Jehovistic, and makes in addi- 
 tion a compiler. 
 
 "Knobelbelievesintwo documents — first, the Elohistic, forming 
 the basis of the Pentateuch and of Joshua ; second, the Jehovistic ; 
 which again has two previous sources. There are, besides, free 
 Jehovistic developments, in which the compiler sometimes fol- 
 lowed hints in the two documents, sometimes popular tradition, 
 and sometimes his own conceptions." 
 
 This enumeration is far from exhausting the varieties, but it is 
 sufficient to show the want of unity. The reader will perceive 
 that some assert one Elohistic document ; others two ; others 
 three. In like manner, some make one Jehovist, some more. 
 Some make the Jehovist identical with the compiler ; others make 
 him a difierent person. Some make two, others three, others 
 four, Ewald seven documents by difierent authors, the materials 
 
 of Genesis And thus the most celebrated critics 
 
 convict each other of false criticism. Hupfeldt condemns Kjiobel ; 
 Ewald condemns Hupfeldt and Knobel ; Knobel condemns Ewald 
 and Hupfeldt. If Knobel's criticism is correct, Hupfeldt is 
 worthless. If Ewald be right, the others must be deficient in 
 critical acumen. They may all be wrong, but only one of the 
 three can be right. 
 
 "But take into the account all the other difi'erences enumerated 
 above, one supposing that the documents are pre-Mosaic, another 
 that they were written in the times of Joshua or the Judges ; 
 another in the time of David [this is the theory adopted by 
 Bishop Colenso] ; another some centuries later ; and how uncer- 
 tain must the principles of their criticism appear ; how valueless 
 their conclusions ! "With such facts, can any sane person talk of 
 
30 
 
 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 the results of modem criticism as regards the Book of Genesis ? 
 or be willing to give up the belief of centuries for such criticism as 
 this? 
 
 " It is self-evident that criticism leading to such inconsistent 
 conclusions must be in a high degree imaginative. A little exa- 
 mination shows that it is also unreasonably arbitrary. In order 
 to make out the theory that there are two authors, one of whom 
 is known by the exclusive use of Elohim, and the other by the 
 exclusive use of Jehovah, and that the former is more ancient 
 than the latter, it is necessary to point out paragraphs in which 
 those divine names are exclusively used, aud also to prove that the 
 Elobist does not refer to the Jehovistic document, for if the Elo- 
 hist plainly refers to what the Jeh ovist has related, the latter 
 cannot be posterior to the former, and the theory fails. Now, 
 unhappily for the theory, the word Jehovah does occur in the 
 Elohistic passages, and the Elohist does refer to the Jehovistic 
 narrative. Thus, in Gen. xi. 4, the two names occur together — 
 
 * These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when 
 they were created, in the day when Jehovah Elohim made the 
 earth and the heavens.' 'Now, if this verse belongs to what pre- 
 cedes, then the following narrative, which has also the unusual 
 union of the two names, was written by the Elohist, and the first 
 three chapters are by one author. If it be written by the Jeho- 
 vist, how comes it to have Elohim as well, and why does it differ 
 both from Elohist and Jehovist documents by the union of the 
 names ? Here is a difficulty which has divided all Germany, and 
 arrayed Eationalist against Eationalist, and Orthodox against 
 Orthodox, and for which there seems no hope of solution, unless 
 violence be offered to the text, and men be persuaded against the 
 evidence of manuscripts and ancient versions, that the words, 
 
 * These are the generations of the heaven and the earth,' stood 
 originally as the heading before the first verse of the first chapter, 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 31 
 
 and that the word Elohim, in ii. 4, is an interpolation of the Jeho- 
 vist. Take another example. Genesis v. is said to he Elohistic, 
 and it is certain that MoJiim, God, occurs five times, but in verse 
 29 appears the word JeJiovah to disturb the theorist ; and not only 
 is this word there, but the verse refers to the Jehovistic chapter 
 iii. 17. What is to be done ? The verse stands in all the manu- 
 scripts and ancient versions. But if the Elohistic theory is 
 to stand, it must be got rid of somehow. It is an interpolation, 
 says the theorist; it was put in by the compiler. In like manner, 
 the theorists cut off chapter vii. 9—24, from its context, and say,' 
 it is Elohistic. But, lo ! in verse 16 stands ' Jehovah.' The 
 same canon of the old Socinian criticism is again applied ; the 
 unwelcome word is an interpolation. One instance more. The 
 forty-ninth chapter is said to belong to a long Elohistic portion. 
 But in the 18th verse occur these words of Jacob, 'I have waited 
 for thy salvation, O Jehovah.' Again the same violence is re- 
 peated. The disturbing verse is an interpolation. Is this criti- 
 cism ? Is it a fair and legitimate proceeding to alter the text, 
 and that not once but frequently, in order to make it suit one's 
 theory ?-to discard the consent of manuscripts, ancient versions, 
 all printed editions, and cry out, 'Interpolation! Interpolation'' 
 without any authority at all ? There is no more certain sign of 
 helpless prejudice, or critical incompetence, than to have frequent 
 resource to violent and unauthorized alteration of the text ; and 
 yet, without this, the theory of the Elohistic and Jehovistic docu- 
 ments, even if it were unanimously received by modern critics, 
 could not be made out. Arbitrary separations of what evidently 
 belongs together, and unwarranted assertions of interpolation, 
 prove its unsoundness. The variety of its modifications, one 
 neutralizing the other, as has been shown above, demonstrates 
 the uncertainty and untrustworthiness of the results." 
 
 It would be altogether out of place for us to add a single 
 
32 THE BIBLE IS" THE "WOEKSHOP. 
 
 word to this annihilating exposure of the theory Bishop Colenso 
 has adopted. It is certain that the Bishop has seen it, inasmuch 
 as he makes a quotation from the very same page whence the 
 conclusion of our extract is taken. The only wonder is that after 
 seeing it, he should think of foisting the conclusions of such critics 
 upon men who have read Dr. McCaul's Essay. 
 
 That Bishop Colenso feels acutely the great strength of Dr. 
 McCaul's position is evident, from the following extract from 
 the Bishop's writing: — " G-en. xvii. 1. * The Loed appeared 
 to Abraham, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God.' " 
 And he adds in a foot-note, " The occurrence of the name 
 Jehovah in this verse (N.B,, in this verse onli/ of the whole 
 chapter) will be considered when we review the whole book of 
 Genesis in Part III." 
 
 Why not enter into it where it is most needed ? "Why leave 
 or evade the consideration of an utterly destructive verse to an 
 indefinite period ? Until we get the explanation, we must hold 
 the Bishop's Elohistic theory entirely unproven, even upon his 
 own showing. 
 
 "CHAPTER in. 
 
 THE EAKLIER HISTOEICAL BOOKS OE THE OLD TESTAMENT." 
 
 The Bishop says : "We must next endeavour to arrive at some clearer 
 notion, from an examination of the Books of the Pentateuch them- 
 selves, as to the time when, the persons by whom, and the circum- 
 stances under which, they were most probably written. Here, first, 
 it should be noticed that the Books of the Pentateuch are never 
 ascribed to Moses in the inscriptions of Hebrew manuscripts, or 
 in printed copies of the Hebrew Bible. !N'or are they styled the 
 Books of Moses in the Septuagint or Vulgate, but only in our 
 modern translations, after the example of many eminent fathers 
 of the Church, who, with the exception of Jbeome, and, perhaps, 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 33 
 
 Origen, were one and all of them very little acquainted with the 
 Hebrew language, and still less with its criticism." 
 
 This is a choice specimen, either of gross ignorance or of the 
 most disgraceful quibbling. "We are to notice that " the Books 
 of the Pentateuch are never ascribed to Moses in the inscriptions 
 of Hebrew manuscripts, or in printed copies of the Hebrew 
 Bible." "We admit this, but they are ascribed to him, in a place 
 of far higher authority, that is, in tlie text itself^ as follows : — 
 " "When Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law 
 in a book until they were finished, .... Moses commanded the 
 Levites which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying. 
 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of 
 the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a 
 witness against thee," Deut. xxxi. 24—26. Here, in the original, 
 the identical words are inserted rr^inn IGD (book of the law), 
 
 T - 
 
 which has been the Hebrew name of the Pentateuch from the 
 time of Moses to the present day. 
 
 There is nothing in this chapter that needs any further remark. 
 There are no objections stated ; and if the chapter has any mean- 
 ing at all, it must be in connection with arguments in more 
 advanced chapters in the Book. 
 
 "CHAPTER lY. 
 
 THE LATER HISTORICAL BOOKS OE THE OLD TESTAMENT." 
 
 This chapter contains an analytical account of the Books of 
 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah ; and enters into some genealo- 
 gical questions to be found therein ; but as these questions lie far 
 apart from the main subject, the Pentateuch, we shall pass them 
 over. Indeed, we have failed to discover the intention of Dr. 
 
 c 
 
34 THE BIBLE IK THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 Colenso in writing these Chapters III. and TV. Eor all prac- 
 tical purposes they might as well have been omitted; their only 
 use being, as far as we can see, to make up the book. There is, 
 however, a specimen, at the end of Chapter lY., of the Bishop's 
 mode of argument that may be worth pointing out. Dr. Colenso 
 states : — " In 1 Chron. xxix. 7, we find the Persian coin, daric, 
 referred to familiarly, as if it had been long in use among the 
 Jews. This coin, however, could not have been freely employed 
 among tlie Jews till some time after its first introduction, which 
 is supposed to have been in the reign of Darius Hystaspes, e.g. 
 521 — 486. It appears, therefore, that these Jews must have been 
 for some time under Persian government before these books could 
 have been written." 
 
 It will be seen that the large assertion which closes the 
 quotation is founded solely upon the supposed, not the known 
 date of a Persian coin. Again, the Eishop writes : " The Book of 
 Esther refers to events in the reign of Ahasuerus, supposed by 
 some to have been the same Artaxerxes by whom Ezra was sent 
 to Jerusalem, but more prohahly his father Xerxes, who reigned in 
 Persia from B.C. 486 to B.C. 465 ; from which we see the earliest 
 date at which this book could have been written." 
 
 It will be noticed that the Bishop settles this question upon 
 the authorities of a siqyposition, and a ^;ro&«&^7% which contradict 
 each other : but he does not venture to assert the truth of either 
 one or the other, though founding his argument upon them ; nor 
 does he assign any reason why we should not reject both. To 
 attempt to refute arguments confessedly founded upon " it is sup- 
 posed'^ and ^^ more prolabhf is mere waste of time. 
 
THE BIBLE IX THE "VYOEKSHOP. 35 
 
 " CHAPTERS V. AND VI. 
 
 SIGNS or LATEE, DATE IIST THE PENTATEUCH." 
 
 The Biabop writes tlius : — " Eeturning now to the considera- 
 tion of the Pentateuch, we have already seen reason to conclude 
 that the account of the Exodus generally, as there narrated, could 
 not have been written by Moses, or by any one of liis contem- 
 poraries. The following instances will tend still further to con- 
 firm the above conclusion, by showing, as we might expect, that 
 the Pentateuch as a whole, taking with it also the book of Joshua, 
 was written at a much later date than the age of Moses and the 
 Exodus." 
 
 Beading over these "signs of later date," we instantly re- 
 cognized many of them as old acquaintances at Infidel Lectures, 
 and the thought came into our minds, surely the greater part 
 of these are taken, without acknowledgment, from Tom Paine's 
 "Age of Beason." Determined to verify our thoughts, we pro- 
 cured a copy of that delectable work, edited and published by 
 Ilolyoake, inEleet Street, and occupied half-an-hour in comparing 
 Dr. Colenso's " Critical Examination of the Pentateuch " with 
 Thomas Paine's " Age of Beason." "We nowplace the result of our 
 comparison before our readers. It next occurred to us, that if the 
 objections were found in Paine's work, the replies thereunto would 
 appear in Bishop Watson's " Apology for Beligiou," written in 
 reply, and personally addressed to Paine. Pinding this to be the 
 case, that Bishop "Watson's arguments, addressed to Paine, the 
 Infidel, were equally available in refutation of his " Bight Be- 
 verend Brother" the Bishop of Isatal, we have appended Bishop 
 Watson's answers to both the assailants of the Bible, the Infidel 
 {seniores priores) and the Bishop, who are, indisputably, fitting 
 companions for each other. 
 
30 
 
 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 PAIXE's " AGE OF REASON. 
 
 " ' And that be pursued them 
 unto Dan, ver. 14.' There was 
 no sucli place as Dan till many 
 years after the death of Moses, 
 and consequently that Moses 
 could not be the writer of the 
 Book of Genesis where this ac- 
 count of pursuing them unto 
 Dan is given." (P. 38.) 
 
 BISHOP COLENSO S "EXAMINATION. 
 
 " ' And pursued them unto 
 Dan, Gen. xiv. 14.' But the 
 place was not named Dan till 
 long after the death of Moses ; 
 for we read, Josh. xix. 47, ' Dan 
 went up to fight against Leshem, 
 and took it, and smote it with 
 the edge of the sword, and pos- 
 sessed it, and dwelt therein, 
 and called Lesliem, Dan, after 
 the name of Dan, tlicir father y 
 (P. 201.) 
 
 " I desire it may be proved that the Da:s" mentioned in Genesis 
 was the same town as Dan mentioned in Judges. I desire 
 further to have it proved that tlie Dan mentioned in Genesis was 
 the name of a town, and not of a river. It is merely said that 
 Abraham pursued them to Dan. Now a river was full as likely 
 as a town to stop a pursuit. Lot we know was settled in the 
 plain of Jordan, and Jordan, we know, was composed of the 
 united streams of two rivers, Jor and Dan." (Watson, p. 29.) 
 
 "The passage, therefore, that "'And these are the kings 
 
 these are the kings that reigned that reigned in the land of Edom 
 
 in the land of Edom before there 
 reigned any king over the chil- 
 dren of Israel, could only have 
 been written after the first king 
 began to reign over them, and 
 consequently the Book of Ge- 
 nesis, so far from having been 
 written by Moses, could not 
 
 before there reigned any king 
 over the children of Israel,' Gen. 
 xxxvi. 31. The phrase ' before 
 there reigned anj^ king over the 
 children of Israel' is here used 
 in such a way as to imply that 
 one king at least had reigned, 
 or was reigning, over the chil- 
 
 V 
 
TFE BIBLE IN" THE WOEKSHOP. 37 
 
 have been written till tlie time dren of Israel ; that is, appa- 
 ofSaulatleast, andiftaken in rentty, not over oDe of the 
 a general sense, it carries itself separate kingdoms of Judah or 
 through all the times of the Israel, but over the united 
 Jewish monarchj." (P. 39.) people ; in other words, it could 
 
 not have been written lefore 
 the time of Samuel." (P. 202.) 
 
 '' A small addition to a book does not destroy either the genuine- 
 ness or the authenticity of the whole book. I am not ignorant 
 of the manner in which commentators have answered this objec- 
 tion of Spinoza Interpolations have happened to other 
 
 books, but these interpolations by other hands have never been 
 considered as invalidating the authority of those books." (Wat- 
 son, p. 29.) 
 
 We do not see any necessity to consider this passage an 
 interpolation. Moses is here simply relating the fulfilment of 
 the first part of the prediction to Sarah, that ''kings of people 
 shall be of her," Gen. xvii. 16. Moses Imew from acquaintance 
 with the prophecy that kings should eventually reign over Israel, 
 and he therefore speaks of the fact as certain of accomplishment 
 concerning the Israelites. And by thus pointing out kings from 
 Esau, and thereby bringing the accomplishment of the prediction, 
 concerning these descendants of Sarah, to the minds of the children 
 of Jacob ; Moses was enabled to appease a people so mistrustful 
 and discontented as that which he brought up from Egypt, and 
 to assure them that they also should ultimately be under royal 
 government in their own promised land. 
 
 " This tale of the sun stand- " ' And the sun stood still, 
 
 ing still upon Mount Gibeon, and the moon stayed, until the 
 and the moon in the vaUey of people had avenged themselves 
 
38 
 
 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 Ajalon, is one of those fables 
 that detects itself." 
 
 " Such a circumstance could 
 not have happened without 
 being known all over the world, 
 whereas there is not a nation 
 in the world that knows any- 
 thing about it. But why must 
 the moon stand still ? What 
 occasion could there be for 
 moonlight in the daytime, and 
 that too %vhilst the sun shined? 
 The account shows the igno- 
 rance of Joshua, for he should 
 have commanded the earth to 
 have stood still." 
 
 upon their enemies. Is not this 
 written in the book of Jasher ?' " 
 (Josh. X. 13.) 
 
 "It is inconceivable that if 
 Joshua really wrote this book 
 he should have referred, for the 
 details of such an extraordinary 
 miracle in which he himself was 
 primarily concerned, to another 
 book as the book of Jasher" (p. 
 205). "The arresting of the 
 earth's motion, while it might 
 cause the appearance of the sun 
 standing still, would not ac- 
 count for the moon staying." 
 (Preface, Part I., p. 11.) 
 
 '^ You are probably mistaken as to the fact of this miracle being 
 unknown; a confused tradition concerning this miracle, and a 
 similar one in the time of Ahaz is reported in Belce's Herodotus. 
 .... The machine of the universe is in the hands of God ; He 
 can stop the motion of any part of it, or of the whole of it, with 
 less trouble and less danger of injuring it than you can stop your 
 watch. In testimony of the reality of the miracle, the author of 
 the book says, Is not this written in the Book of Jasher ? jN'o 
 author in his senses would have appealed in proof of his veracity 
 to a book that did not exist." (Watson, p. 38.J 
 
 " The writer lived long after "The frequent occurrence 
 
 the time of Moses, as is evident of the expression, ' unto this 
 from the expression, ' unto this day.' * No man knoweth of his 
 day.'" [Moses'] sepulchre unto this 
 
 day.' Deu. xxxiv. 6." (p. 209.) 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 "A distant, but general '"And Joshua burnt Ai, and 
 
 term is also expressed in the made it an heap for ever, even 
 
 eighth chapter : ' And Joshua a desolation unta tJiis day.'' Josh, 
 
 burnt Ai, and made it an heap viii. 28." (P. 209.) 
 for ever, even a desolation unto 
 this day: » (P. 43.) 
 
 '' Joshua lived twentj-four years after the burning of Ai, and 
 if he wrote his history in the latter part of his life, what absurdity 
 is there in saying, Ai is in ruins, to this very day ?" (AVatson, 
 p. 39.) It is also well known to every Jew, and every Hebrew 
 Bible shows it, that the Hebrew Torah (Pentateuch) originally 
 ended with Deut. xxxi. ; and if Joshua wrote the last chapter 
 of Deuteronomy, there could be no difficulty in believing that he 
 said, " No man knoweth of his sepulchre ' unto this day.' " 
 
 " The length of the bed was 
 16 feet 4 inches, and the breadth 
 7 feet 4 inches. The writer 
 
 says, Is it not in Eabbath, of 
 the children of Ammon ?" 
 
 " But it could not be Moses 
 that said this, because Moses 
 could know nothing about E,ab- 
 bah nor of what was in it. The 
 knowledge, therefore, that this 
 bed was at Eabbah and of the 
 particulars of its dimensions 
 must be referred to the time 
 
 " Eor only Og, Xing of 
 Bashan, remained of the rem- 
 nants of the giants ; behold his 
 bedstead was a bedstead of iron. 
 Is it not in Eabbath of the 
 children of Ammon ? nine cubits 
 (16i feet) was the length 
 thereof, and four cubits (7i 
 feet) the breadth of it." 
 
 " But only a very short time, 
 according to the story,could have 
 elapsed since the conquest of 
 Og. How then could his bed- 
 stead have been removed in the 
 interval to Eabbath- Ammon, 
 or how could Moses so soon 
 after the event have spoken of 
 
40 
 
 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 when Eabbali was taken, and Og at all in terms sucli as 
 this was not till 400 years after these ?" (P. 215.) 
 the death of Moses, for which 
 see 2 Sam. xii. 26." (P. 41.) 
 
 " You calculate the length of the iron bed of Og the king of 
 Bashan, but you do not prove the bed was too big for the body ; 
 YOU make no allowance for the size of a royal bed, nor even suspect 
 that King Og might have been possessed with the same kind of 
 vanity as Alexander, when he ordered his soldiers to enlarge the 
 size of their beds, that they might give to the Indians in after 
 ages a great idea of the prodigious size of a Macedonian." (Wat- 
 son, p. 34.) As to its being there unto this day, Moses in his old 
 age made use of a similar expression, when he put the Israelites 
 in mind of what the Lord had done in the Eed Sea : " The Lord 
 hath destroyed them ?Y;i/o this claij^ (Deut. xi. 4; "Watson, p. 39.) 
 (How is it that both Infidel and Bishop refrain from quoting tliis 
 instance of the phrase ?) 
 
 " Among the detestable vil- 
 lains that in any period of the 
 world have disgraced the name 
 of man, it is impossible to find 
 a greater than Moses, if this 
 account he true. 
 
 . *' Here is an order to hutched' 
 the boys, to massacre the 
 mothers, and to debauch the 
 daughters. After this order 
 follows an account of the plun- 
 der taken, and the manner of 
 dividing it." (P. 40.) 
 
 (The remainder of Paine's 
 blackguardism is unquotable ; 
 
 " How thankful we must be, 
 that we are no longer olliged to 
 helieve as a matter of fact, of 
 vital consequence to our eternal 
 hope, the story related in Num. 
 xxxi., where we are told tl^at a 
 force of 12,000 Israelites slew 
 all the males of the Midianites, 
 and then, by command of Moses, 
 hiitcheredj 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 
 
THE BIBLE ITT THE WORKSHOP. 41 
 
 the commencement of this ex- themselves.' .... The tragedy 
 tract is the least objectionable of Cawnpore, where 300 were 
 we could find.) hutdiered, would sink into no- 
 
 thing compared with such a mas- 
 sacre, if, indeed,ice were required 
 to helieve itr (Pp. 143, 144.) 
 " You think it repugnant to his (God's) moral justice that ho 
 should doom to destruction the crying or smiling infants of the 
 Canaanites. "Why do you not maintain it to be repugnant to his 
 moral justice that he should suffer crying or smiling infants to 
 be swallowed up by an earthquake, drowned by an inundation, 
 consumed by a fire, starved by a famine, or destroyed by a pes- 
 tilence ? The Canaanites in the time of Moses were idolaters, 
 sacrificers of their own crying or smiling infants, devourers oi 
 human flesh ; addicted to unnatural lust ; immersed in the filthi- 
 ness of all manner of vice." (Watson, p. 8.) You may as reason- 
 ably attribute cruelty and murder to the judge of the land ui 
 condemning criminals to death, as butchery and massacre to 
 Moses in executing the command of God (p. 32). The women 
 children were not reserved for purposes of debauchery but of 
 slavery (p. 33). 
 
 "The writer has nowhere told "That, however, the hitcr 
 
 us how he came by the speeches Deuteronomist had no very 
 which he has put into the strong sense of the unspeakable 
 mouth of Moses to speak ; and sacredness of the earlier docii- 
 therefore we have a right to ment, is sufficiently plain by 
 conclude that he either com- the liberties he has taken with 
 posed them himself, or wrote its contents. . . The latter part 
 them from oral tradition. ... of the fourth commandment is 
 He has given in the fifth chap- completely altered, and a totally 
 ter a table of commandments, different reason is assigned in 
 in which that called the fourth the passage in Deuteronomy, 
 
42 
 
 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 commandment is different from 
 the fourth commandment in 
 Exod. XX. This makes no men- 
 tion of the creation; nor that 
 of the coming out of Egypt." 
 (P. 37.) 
 
 for sanctifying the Sabbath from 
 that laid down in the Book of 
 Exodus, and what is still more 
 remarkable, without any refer- 
 ence to the latter reason as ever 
 existing, Exod. xx, 8 — 11; Deut. 
 T. 12—15." (P. 361.) 
 
 It will be seen by referring to Deut. v. 12, that all that is 
 stated in the passage to have been said by the Lord is " Keep the 
 Sabbath-day to sanctify it." The remainder of the passage is an 
 amplification by Moses, who, knowing that the persons to whom 
 he spoke were abeady aware of the primary reason for keeping 
 the Sabbath, now urges upon them the fact that they themselves 
 had been slaves, as an additional reason for obeying the law, in 
 their treatment of their servants. 
 
 "As the writer of the Book of 
 Samuel relates these questions 
 and answers in the language 
 and manner of speaking used in 
 the time they are said to have 
 been spoken, and as that man- 
 ner of speaking was out of use 
 when this author wrote, he 
 found it necessary, in order 
 to make the story understood, 
 to explain the terms in which 
 the question and answer are 
 spoken, and he does this in the 
 ninth verse, where he says, 
 'Beforetime in Israel, when a 
 man went to inquire of God, 
 
 '' Beforetime in Israel when 
 a man went to inquire of God, 
 thus he spake, Come, and let 
 us go to the seer, for he that is 
 now called a prophet ("*53 Nabi.) 
 was beforetime called a seer" 
 (}-|^"i, Eoeh,) 1 Sam. ix. 9. 
 
 " This being the case, it is 
 remarkable that throughout the 
 Pentateuch, and the books of 
 Joshua and Judges the word 
 Eoeh is never once used, but 
 Nabi. Prom this it follows that 
 those portions of these books 
 which contain this later word, 
 as Gen. xx. 7, etc., can hardly 
 
THE BIBLE Ilf THE WOEFSHOP. 43 
 
 thus lie spake, Come, and let have been written before the 
 us go to the seer: for he that is days of Samuel. In that age 
 now called a prophet was be- the word Nabi may have been 
 foretime called a seer.' This known and employed by some, 
 proves, as I have before said, though Eoeh was, it seems, the 
 that this story of Saul, Samuel, word in popular use. (P. 204.) 
 and the asses was an ancient 
 story at the time the book of 
 Samuel was written, and con- 
 sequently that Samuel did not 
 write it." (P. 45.) 
 
 " If the blind lead the blind, shall they not both fall into the 
 ditch ?" Eoth writers take the sentence, but to serve different 
 purposes ; and both have fallen into the same stupid error. The 
 fact, as we no^ show, is, that the whole verse in question refers 
 exclusively to Samuel himself, who had been a prophet from his 
 early days ; but though a prophet in reality, on account of his 
 youth he had been known by the inferior title of a seer. It 
 must be remembered that Samuel, young as he was, when Eli 
 died, was the only man of God we know of, and we therefore thus 
 read the passage : " Beforetime in Israel when a man went to 
 inquire of Grod (through young Samuel) thus he spake : Come 
 and let us go to the seer (Samuel), for he (Samuel) that is now 
 called a prophet was beforetime called a'seer." During his youth 
 men said of him, Let us go to the Seer, but from the time men- 
 tioned in 1 Sam. iii. 20, "All Israel knew that Samuel was 
 established to be vl prophet of the Lord." 
 
 " Though it is impossible for " From this it follows that 
 
 us to know identically who the those portions of these books 
 
 writer of Deuteronomy was, it which contain this later word, 
 
 is not difficult to discover here can hardly have been written 
 
44) THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 professionally that he was some before the time of Samuel." 
 Jewish priest who lived at least (P. 204.) 
 350 years after the time of 
 Moses." (P. 37.) (This is the 
 date of Samuel's life.) 
 
 " The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from 
 the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me." " For had ye 
 believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me." 
 "This is, of a truth, that prophet that should come into the 
 world," Deut. xviii. 15 ; John v. 46, vi. 14. 
 
 But though any Christian would hold that these texts settle 
 the question beyond all dispute, it is not so with Bishop Colenso. 
 We shall, therefore, take one of his own objections next, and in 
 answering it show, as we think certainly, when and where the 
 Pentateuch was written. 
 
 " These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel, on 
 the otlier side "1^^? (the English version has, erroneously, ' on 
 this side') Jordan in the wilderness," Deut. i. 1. 
 
 " On the other side Jordan, in the land of Moab, began Moses 
 to declare the law," Deut. i. 5. 
 
 It must first be noticed that Bishop Colenso is kind 
 enough to re-translate this passage in i. 1, and print it as, 
 he thinks it ought to be, in i. 5, and in so doing to charge 
 the English Version with error. AVe shall show that the 
 English translation is right, by very sufficient reasons. Gesenius 
 says the phrase used M^^^J? ^^V " means the region of Palestine 
 beyond Jordan, /. e., situated to the east of Jordan:' The English 
 version says first on this side Jordan, and then more explicitly on 
 this side Jordan, in the jilains of Moah. We also find the same 
 phrase, both in Hebrew and English, used of the place where the 
 tribes of Eeuben and Gad asked to have their inheritance fixed, 
 in Num. xxxii. 19, 32, and xxxiv. 15. These previous references 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 45 
 
 indisputably prove that tlie place spoken of was eastward of 
 Jordan, in the after-inheritance of Reuben and Gad. Here, then, 
 the book of Deuteronomy — confessedly the last written of the 
 Pentateuch, even by Dr. Colenso himself— was first spoken, and 
 afterwards written by Moses (Deat. xxxi. 24), and then delivered 
 Xjuhliclij to tlie Levites in the land of Moah. Consequently it 
 must have been written for, and known to the Israelites, lefore 
 they passed over Jordan to possess the promised land. 
 
 This one fact completely destroys all Bishop Colenso's theory, 
 for it proves by stating the place tvhere, the time tvhen, and ly 
 icliom this last book of the Pentateuch was Avritten. 
 
 We have thus gone through the main points in these two 
 chapters of Bishop Colenso's Second Part, and w^e see a shameful 
 similarity between the objections of the Infidel of the last, and 
 the Bishop of the present century. We do not assert that 
 Colenso has knowingly borrowed from Paine, both may be in- 
 debted to older Infidels ; but we will leave tlie sul)ject to the 
 judgment of tlie reader, quoting only a few words of Bishoj) 
 Watson, p. 50, addressed to Paine, which cover the whole ground 
 taken up by Bishop Colenso in these two chapters : — 
 
 " A few verses in the book of Genesis could not be written 
 by Moses, therefore no part of Genesis could be written by 
 Moses. A child would deny your therefore.''' 
 
 " CHAPTER yir. 
 
 Was Samuel the Elohistic Weitee of the Penta- 
 teuch ?" 
 
 Ik this chapter of the Bishop's book we arrive [at the first 
 portion of positive teaching we have been favoured with. Hitherto 
 the whole of the Pirst and Second Parts have been confined 
 to objections to the truth of the Scripture :N'arrative ; and 
 
46 THE BIBLE IK THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 the setting forth of the theory of Elohistic and Jehoyistic writers. 
 Now we have set before us the positive truth to which all the 
 objections hitherto urged have led us, and we must, therefore, 
 consider carefully the extent and value of the theory now fully 
 displayed in this chapter, i.e., that Moses did not, because Samuel 
 cZic? write the Pentateuch. 
 
 And we ask especial notice of the fact, that the whole theory is 
 first propounded in the form of supposition ; there is no positive 
 assertion, accompanied by evidence, that the Bishop's statement 
 is correct. In order more fully to display the method used, we 
 shall give the Bishop's theory in his own words, taking the liberty 
 to mark (in italics) the strength of assertion and proof therein 
 displayed. He thus states his case : — " The greater portion of the 
 Pentateuch, at all events, if not, indeed, the ivhole of it (a point 
 which we shall consider more at length hereafter), must have 
 been written at a time later than the age of Moses or Joshua ; 
 but, if so, there is no one mentioned in the whole history, before 
 ilietime of Samuel, who could be supposed to have written any 
 part of it. "We have no sign of any other great prophet in that 
 age, except Deborah, nor of any ' school of the prophets,' existing 
 before his time. That Samuel did occupy himself with historical 
 labours we are expressly told in 1 Chron. xxix. 29. In this 
 mention by the Chronicler of the book of Samuel the seer we 
 have, it may he, a sign of the activity of Samuel in this direction. 
 This maT/ also seem to he confrmed by that other fact recorded 
 about him in 1 Sam. x. 25. And it is very conceivable that when 
 he gave up to Saul the reins of government, and during the last 
 thirty-five years of his life, he may have devoted himself to such 
 labours as these for the instruction and advancement of his people. 
 In this point of view there may he a peculiar significance in the 
 language of the prophet Jeremiah xv. 1, where he closely couples 
 Samuel with Ifoses — ' Then said Jehovah unto me, Though Moses 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 47 
 
 and Samuel stood before Me, yet my mind could not be toward 
 this people." 
 
 " In such a work as this Samuel may liave heen aided by the sons 
 of the prophets, who clearly mustTiave had some sort of occupation 
 besides that of merely prophesying, i.e., prolally chanting psalms 
 and joining in religious processions. 
 
 *' It is very 'possible that Samuel may have gathered in those 
 schools some of the more promising young men of his time, and 
 may have endeavoured to train them, to the best of his power, in 
 such knowledge of every kind as he himself had acquired — the 
 art of vjriting it may le, among the rest. In short, these schools 
 may have resembled a modern college. Eor their use, in the first 
 instance, he may have composed, from whatever resources he had 
 at command, either from the traditions of the people, or it may le, 
 as far as tve hiow at present, with the help of written documents 
 handed down from an earlier time, some account of the earlier 
 history of Israel. It is possible, in fact, that at the time when 
 his sons, set up by himself as judges in Beersheba, turned aside 
 after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment (1 Sam. 
 viii. 3), Samuel may have been too closely engaged, and bis atten- 
 tion too much absorbed, in such matters as these, to correct such 
 disorders. Among his pupils, probably, as we have just said, were 
 Kathan and Gad themselves, who thus may have had their first 
 lessons in the writing of history. 
 
 " Hitherto we have been advancing upon certain ground." 
 " But we are now entering on the field of conjecture." ^' For 
 myself, at all events, it would be a sinful shutting of my eyes to 
 the plain light of Truth, if I ventured any longer to maintain 
 the usual opinions as to the origin and composition of the Penta- 
 teuch." 
 
 The reader is referred to Chapter XX. to see into what 
 a ridiculous snare Dr. Colenso deliberately asserts he has walked 
 
4S TUE BIBLE IK THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 with his eyes open. But, meanwhile, here, " provisionally and 
 tentatively," as the Bishop words it, borrowing from Holyoake's 
 description of Secularism, we have the Primary Instalment of the 
 jN'ew Eeligion. We know exactly what we are called upon to give 
 up, and to receive instead, in this first stage of New Development. 
 
 The assertion is, that Samuel wrote the Pentateuch, in part at 
 least ; and the proof of the assertion, as Bishop Cclenso has offered 
 it, we have given above. Throughout, there is nothing but the 
 mere suggestion of probability ; every sentence, every suggestion, 
 is guarded with a may he ; every door is left open for a retreat 
 when necessary. The fact of who is not the writer of the Penta- 
 teuch has been very loudly proclaimed ; but who did write it is, at 
 first, suggested in the merest and most uncertain whisperings of 
 probability, the most timid suggestions of what may have been. 
 
 There is not one fact of history, not one legend, not one tra- 
 dition brought forward in support of Bishop Colenso's view. He 
 has said Samuel wrote the Pentateuch, and the proof he oft'ers is 
 tliese suggestions of Ms own ; — that Moses did not write it ; that it 
 must have been written about the time of Samuel ; that there 
 was no one else living about that time, that we know of, who could 
 have written it ; therefore, it must have been written by Samuel ! 
 
 There is, then, not a scintilla of evidence ofiered by Bishop 
 Colenso in support of his theory that Samuel wrote the Penta- 
 teuch. It must be received on the bare assertion of the Bishop, 
 or not received at all. 
 
 '\Yc shall now proceed to give a rapid summary of the evidence 
 that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and, in so doing, shall have to 
 show what Dr. Colenso rejects as a " sinful shutting of his eyes 
 to the truth." For convenience of illustration, we shall divide 
 our summary into three parts ("a threefold cord is not easily 
 broken"):— I. The Heathen ; II. The Jewish ; III. The Chris- 
 •:ian Testimonies in favour of Moses as the writer of the Pentateuch. 
 
 V 
 
THE BIBLB IN THE WOEKSHOP. 49 
 
 I. The Heathen testimony that Moses was the writer of the 
 Pentateuch. — Juvenal, Justin the abbreviator of Trogus, Strabo, 
 Diodorus Siculus, Tacitus, Artapanus, Eupolemus, Manetho, beside 
 many other writers of antiquity, all testify that Moses was the 
 leader of the Jews and the founder of their laws. The Egyp- 
 tians, as Josephus asserts, esteemed him to be a wonderful and 
 divine man, aud were willing to have him thought a priest of their 
 own, which certainly was a proof of their high opinion of him, 
 though mixed with other fabulous relations. The great critic 
 Longinus, extolling those who represent the Deity as he really is — 
 pure, grea*, and unmixed — testifies that thus did the legislator of 
 the Jews, who, he says, was no ordinarj^ man, but as he conceived 
 so he spoke worthily of the power of God. The same writer ex- 
 pressly commends the words in G-en. i., " Let there be light." 
 JS'umenius, the Pythagorean philosopher, of Apamea, in Syria, 
 called Moses a man most powerful in prayer to God, and said, 
 "What is Plato but Moses speaking in the Attic dialect?" 
 this sentiment, whether just or not, is a proof of this philoso- 
 pher's high opinion of Moses. 
 
 Purther, Porphyry, one of the most acute and learned enemies 
 of Christianity, admitted the genuineness of the Pentateuch, and 
 acknowledged that Moses was prior to the Phoenician historian 
 Sanconiathon, who lived before the Trojan War. He even con- 
 tended for the truth of Sanconiathon's account of the Jews, from 
 its coincidence with the Mosaic history. Nor was the genuineness 
 of the Pentateuch denied by any of the numerous writers against 
 the Gospel during the first four centuries of the Christian era, 
 although the fathers constantly appealed to the histories and pro- 
 phecies of the Old Testament in support of the divine origin of 
 the doctrines which they taught. The power of historical truth 
 compelled the Emperor Julian, whose favour to the Jews appears 
 to have proceeded solely from his hostility to the Christians, to 
 
50 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 acknowledge that persons instructed "by the Spirit of Grod once 
 lived among the Israelites ; and to confess that the books which 
 bore the name of Moses were genuine, and that the facts they 
 contained were worthy of credit. Mahomet maintained the 
 inspiration of lloses, and revered the sanctity of the Jewish laws. 
 Manetho, Berosus, and many others, give accounts confirming, 
 and according with, the Mosaic history. 
 
 II. The Jewish testimony that Moses was the writer of the 
 Pentateuch. — " Is there any value in their testimony?" may be 
 inquired. '" Are they not certain to bear witness to anything 
 that may appear to enhance the antiquity of their race, and their 
 consequent importance in the history of the world ?" The answer 
 is simple and convincing. The Jews, in preserving the Penta- 
 teuch, have, through all the dull gray mists of the hoary centuries 
 during which it has existed, preserved a stern and unswerving 
 witness against themselves and their idolatries in the first instance, 
 and their rejection of the true Messiah in the last. Thoroughly 
 to appreciate the value of the evidence we now submit, it must 
 be remembered how hard the Mosaic law bore upon the personal 
 freedom of the Jew. Three times in the year, at whatever incon- 
 venience, they were to appear in a certain place ; every seventh 
 year they were to keep as a Sabbath ; they must not employ 
 cavalry in their wars. And as the whole Jewish people were made 
 the depositories and keepers of their laws, it is therefore impos- 
 sible to conceive that any nation, with such motives to reject, and 
 such opportunities of detecting forged documents, should receive 
 them, and submit to the heavy yoke contained in them. 
 
 The first evidence we take from the Jewish Confession of 
 Paith, commonly used in the present day, which carries us back 
 at one step to the thirteenth century. "We quote the 7th and 8th 
 articles only ; — 
 
 " I firmly believe, that all the prophecies of Moses our Haster 
 
THE BIBLE IN^ THE WOEKSHOP. 51 
 
 (God rest his soul in peace !) are true, and that he is the father 
 of all the sages, whether they went before or follow after him, 
 
 " I firmly helieve, that the Laiv [Pentateuch] which we have now 
 in our hands was given hj Moses ; G-od rest his soul in peace !" 
 
 The next backward step, to the first century of the Christian 
 era, is attested by two witnesses. Philo, an Egyptian Jew, who 
 then lived, quoted^ as having canonical authority, no other books 
 than those which are contained in the Hebrew Bible. And we 
 have also the writings of Josephus, himself a Jewish priest, con- 
 temporary with the apostles. To understand his testimony, the 
 reader must be acquainted with the fact, that the thirty-nine 
 books of the English Eible are all (neither more nor less) com- 
 pressed into twenty-two books of the Hebrew Scriptures. Jose- 
 phus says, in his treatise against Apion, " "We have not thousands 
 of books, discordant, and contradicting each other ; but we have 
 only twenty-two, which comprehend the history of all ages, and 
 are justly regarded as divine. Five of them proceed from Moses ; 
 they include as well the Laws, as an account of the creation of 
 man, extending to the time of his death." 
 
 Before passing the Christian era, it is necessary to mention 
 the Talmud and the Mishna. From the second century and 
 onward an increasing number of Jewish writers busied them- 
 selves with oral explanations of the Torah, or law of Moses, and 
 the systematic collection of them afterwards called Mishna. 
 Fearing that the oral law which they held so sacred should be 
 lost or impaired, the Jews during the second century thought of 
 committing it to writing. Rabbi Judah, surnamed the Holy, 
 made the permanent record of it. It will be seen from an extract 
 from the Mishna at the end of this section, that it is clearly stated 
 therein that Moses wrote the law. A twofold conimentary, or 
 series of commentaries, was subsequently appended to it ; one 
 called the Babylonian Gemara, the other the Jerusalem Gemara, 
 
52 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 The former was begun by Eabbi Ascbe, and was completed by 
 Rabbi Jose, who died a.d. 475. The portions, committed to 
 writing after the Mishna, constitute 7iotes on that text, and make 
 up together with it the Babylonian Talmud. The Gemara of the 
 Jerusalem Talmud proceeded from the academy at Tiberias, and 
 embodied the notes of the Palestinian Jews. It is attributed to 
 Rabbi Jochanan, who died in a.d. 279. This Gemara with the 
 same Mishna as before makes up the Jerusalem Talmud. 
 
 The next step brings us to the time and into the very presence 
 of our Lord. The Sadducees of his time received as canonical 
 \X\efive hooks of Moses only ; they appealed to them in every dis- 
 pute, they bowed only to decisions that could be thereby esta- 
 blished, they were then' peculiar study, the source of their doc- 
 trines, and the only authoritative guide they acknowledged. 
 Yet amongst this sect the question was never mooted as to the 
 authorship of the Pentateuch ; one and all, without exception, 
 ascribed it to Moses. 
 
 About fifty years before the time of Christ were written the 
 Targums of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, and of Jonathan ben 
 Uzziel on the Prophets ; in both these works the Pentateuch is 
 said to be ^\T:'itten by Moses. 
 
 The Book of Ecclesiasticus was written in the Syro-Chaldaic 
 dialect, about 232 years before Christ, and was translated by 
 the grandson of Jesus, the author, into Greek, for the use of the 
 Alexandrian Jews. The translator says, that (Torah) the Law 
 and the Prophetfi were studied by his gi-andfather, and they were 
 therefore certainly extant at that time. 
 
 Pifty years before the age of the author of Ecclesiasticus, 
 about B.C. 282, the Greek version of the Old Testament (com- 
 monly known as the Septuagint) was executed at Alexandria, 
 the books of which are the same as in our Bible, and consequently 
 in their text they join with our Version and the Hebrew in tes- 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 53 
 
 tifying that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. From this point it is im- 
 possible to ascend higher, except by appeal to the Old Testament 
 and Jewish tradition, as no authentic books whatever are extant. 
 The completion of the Canon of the Old Testament denotes 
 the next step in historic retrogression, and we ask especial notice 
 of the completeness, step by step, of the Jewish testimony in 
 favour of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. 
 
 The Canon of the Old Testament was completed by Ezra, 
 who, with the assistance of the members of the Great Synagogue, 
 (among whom were the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi) 
 collected as many copies of the sacred writings as he could, and 
 from them set forth a correct edition of the canon of the Old 
 Testament ; with the exception of his own writings, the book of 
 Nehemiah, and the prophecy of Malachi ; which were subse- 
 quently annexed to the canon by Simon the Just, who is said to 
 have been the last of the Great Synagogue. In the Esdrine text 
 the errors of the former copyists were corrected, and Ezra 
 (being himself an inspired writer) added in several places 
 throughout the books of this edition what was necessary to 
 illustrate, connect, or complete them. Whether Ezra's own copy 
 of the Jewish Scriptures perished in the pillage of the temple by 
 Antiochus Epiphanes is a question that cannot now be ascer- 
 tained, nor is it material, since we know that Judas Maccabeus 
 repaired the temple, and replaced everything requisite for the 
 performance of divine worship, which included a correct, if not 
 Ezra's own, copy of the Scriptures. It is not improbable that 
 in this latter temple an ark was constructed, in which the sacred 
 books of the Jews were preserved until the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem, and the subversion of the Jewish pohty by the Romans 
 under Titus, before whom the volume of the law teas carried in 
 triumph among the other spoils which had been taken at Jeru- 
 salem. 
 
54 THE BIBLE IS THE TVOEKSHOP. 
 
 The remainder of the Jewish testimony must now be gathered 
 from the text itself. 
 
 Ezra, who has often been set forward as the writer of the 
 Pentateuch, expressly ascribes the book of the law to Moses, 
 vi. 18 ; he lived B.C. 537 or 538. Long before that event it was 
 extant in the time of Josiah, B.C. 624, and was then of such ac- 
 knowledged authority that the perusal of it occasioned an imme- 
 diate reformation in the religious usages. It was extant in the 
 time of Hoshea, King of Israel, B.C. 678, since a captive priest 
 was sent back from Babylon to instruct the new colonists of 
 Samaria in the religion which it teaches. By these Samaritans 
 it was preserved and handed down to their posterity, as it also 
 was by the Jews, as the basis of the civil and religious institu- 
 tions of both nations. It was extant in the time of Jehoshaphat, 
 King of Judah, B.C. 912, who employed public instructors for its 
 promulgation. And since the Pentateuch was received as the 
 law by the ten tribes, and also by the two tribes, it follows 
 as a necessary consequence that they each received it before they 
 became divided into two kingdoms ; for if it had been forged 
 in a later age among the Jews, the perpetual enmity that sub- 
 sisted between them and the Israelites would have utterly pre- 
 vented it from being adopted by the Samaritans, and had it been 
 a spurious production of the Samaritans it would never have 
 been received by the Jews. There remains, therefore, only one 
 resource to those who contend tliat Moses ivas not tlie author ; namely, 
 that it was written in the joeriod which elajpsed hetween the age of 
 Joshua and that of Solomon. 
 
 But the whole Jewish history, from the time of this settle- 
 ment in Canaan to the building of the temple at Jerusalem, 
 pre-supposes that the book of the law was written by Moses. 
 The whole of the temple service and worship was regulated by 
 Solomon, B.C. 1004, according to the law contained in the Pen- 
 
THE BIBLE IIS" THE WOEKSHOP. 55 
 
 tateuch, as the Tabernacle service and worsMp liad previously 
 been by David, B.C. 1042. Conld Solomon indeed have persuaded 
 his subjects that for more than five hundred years the worship 
 and polity prescribed in the Pentateuch had been religiously ob- 
 served by their ancestors, if it had not been observed ? Could 
 he have imposed upon them concerning the antiquity of the 
 Sabbath, of circumcision, and of their three great festivals ? In 
 fact, it is morally impossible that any forgery could have been 
 executed by or in the time of Solomon. Moreover, that the Pen- 
 tateuch was extant in the time of David is evident from the very 
 numerous allusions made in his psalms to its contents. But it 
 could not have been drawn up by him, since the law contained in 
 the Pentateuch, forbids many practices of which David was guilty. 
 
 Samuel (who judged Israel about the years, B.C. 1100 — 
 1060) could not have acquired the hioiuledge of JS^ypt which the 
 Tentateuch im/plies ; for Herodotus tells us that Egyptian learn- 
 ing was carefully concealed from foreigners. The priests alone, 
 and the royal family, who were reckoned as priests, had access 
 to it. To this clasSj therefore, the loriter must have helonged, and 
 every child knows that Moses was for many years the adopted 
 son of Pharaoh's daughter. 
 
 In the Book of Joshua (which, though reduced to its present 
 form in later times, was undoubtedly composed in respect to its 
 essential parts at a very early period) ^frequent references may be 
 found to the book of the law in Josh. i. 7, 8, xxiii. 6, xxiv. 6. 
 The Pentateuch, therefore, was extant in the time of Joshua. 
 
 To Moses alone, indeed, can the Pentateuch be attributed, 
 and this indirect evidence from tradition is strono^er than a 
 more direct and positive ascription, which would have been the 
 obvious resource of fraud. 
 
 We will conclude this second branch of the testimony by 
 placing before the readers a copy of the Jewish record of the 
 
56 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 actual persons to whom the copies of the Book of the Law 
 (Torah — Pentateuch) have been officially entrusted from the time 
 of Moses himself to the close of the canon by the members of the 
 Great Synagogue, of whom the last was Simon the Just, and 
 from thence onward to the completion of the Talmud. 
 
 This extract was copied by one of the authors of this work 
 from the Mishna in a Jewish synagogue in London, on Sun- 
 day, February 8, 1863, and an English translation is appended 
 made by the same workman who took the copy. 
 
 p^i^n )^v12Wy nbnnn no::: "^tr^asb n^snsT , G\S23b n-^sspTi 
 
 > DHD bnp 1D1D »^^w DiDn^toDM * nbiinn nD3D ^i^W72 n^n 
 
 * Dnrs bnp n^n-i2 p ritr'n^i * cnrj bnp pnv ]2 id^i 
 
 bnp bbn » Dnn bnp r^vi^w ♦ nr\J2 bnp '^snt:: p m^n^^ 
 
 ^nn * DHD b^p iDn '{^'272W > cn:a bnp b'^s^bn^ nn » dhd 
 
 : ann bnp s^n p min"^ > onrj bnp 
 
 : DHD b2p i^Dbnss '^t:;s m 
 
 .n*)n« piD ppn3 -no : nv2t:?^a 
 
 Moses received the law from Sinai, he gave it to Joshua, who 
 gave it to the elders, the elders to the prophets, the prophets to 
 the great men of the congregation, of whom Simon the Just was 
 the last remaining. Simon the Just gave it to Antigonus, the 
 man of Soko ; Josa, the son of Jochanan, received it from Anti- 
 gonus ; Joshua, the son of Parachiah, received it from Josu ; 
 Judah, the son of Taba, received it from Joshua ; Shemaiah re- 
 ceived it from Judah ; Hillel received it from Shemaiah ; Rab. 
 Gamaliel received it from Hillel ; Simon, the son of Gamaliel^ 
 received it from Gamaliel ; Rabbi received it from Simon ; Judah 
 the son of Thama, received it from Rabbi ; (Judah was the last 
 of the men who wrote the Mishna), and Rabbi Asche was the 
 compiler of the Talmud. — Taken from " Mishna ; Pii-ke Aboth." 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 57 
 
 It must be noticed that in the above the names from Anti- 
 gomis downward are in the plural, because each man mentioned 
 was at the head of a school. 
 
 Before leaving this unbroken chain of evidence, it may be 
 well to point out the exceedingly small number of persons 
 through whom tradition would have to be passed from Adam to 
 Moses, as follows — Adam, Methuselah, Shem, Isaac, Levi, Am- 
 ram, Moses. Through the agency of six men, therefore, Moses 
 might, and most probably did, receive all the accounts needed 
 by him for the preparation of the history of the world from the 
 creation to his own days. 
 
 III. It would be utterly impossible for us to mention the 
 Christian writers w^ho during eighteen centm^ies have expressed 
 their belief that the Pentateuch was written by Moses ; we shall, 
 therefore, simply summai'ize the New Testament testimony to 
 the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. There are in the dif- 
 ferent books of the New Testament ninety quotations from the 
 Pentateuch. Every one of the writers, without exception, makes 
 one or more quotations from it, appealiug to it as law, unques- 
 tionable and divine. John the beloved disciple, and Paul, who 
 last saw Jesus, declare positively that Moses was the writer of 
 the Pentateuch ; and, best of all, our Lord Himself, whose 
 lightest word should settle such a question for ever, declares iu 
 fourteen different instances that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. 
 
 Thus the Heathen and the Jew, the Christian, the Apostles, 
 and the Lord of Glory, — the power and wisdom of God — all bear 
 unvarying and harmonious testimony to the fact that Moses wrote 
 the books of the Pentateuch. 
 
 That Samuel wrote them we have the unsupported assertion 
 of the Bishop of Natal, who has in Chap. XX. demonstrated the 
 absolute impossibility of the truth of his oivn assertion. 
 
58 THE BIBLE IN" THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 « CHAPTER Vni. 
 
 INTRODUCTION OF THE NAME JEHOVAH." 
 
 The Bishop tlins states this subject — " In the story of the Exodus 
 we read as follows : ' And God spake unto Moses, and said unto 
 him, I am Jehoyah. And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, 
 and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty (El Shaddai), 
 but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them. And I 
 have also established my covenant with them, to give them the 
 land of Canaan, the land of their pilgi'image, wherein they were 
 strangers,' etc., Ex. vi. 2 — 8. The above passage cannot, as it 
 seems to me, without a perversion of its obvious meaning — the 
 meaning which would be ascribed to it by the great body of 
 simple-minded readers, who have never had their attention 
 awakened to the difficulties in which the whole nan^ative becomes 
 involved thereby — be explained to say anything else than this, 
 that the name Jehovah was not known at all to the patriarchs, 
 but was now for the first time revealed as the name by which the 
 God of Israel would be henceforth distinguished from all other 
 gods." 
 
 " So Professor Lee admits, who in his Hebrew Lexicon explains 
 the word Jehovah to " be the most sacred and inalienable name of 
 God, unknown, however, to the patriarchs; it is not tlierefore 
 more ancient in all prohalility tTian the time of Moses.'' And so 
 Josephus wvHqb, Ant. ii. 12— 4,— "Wherefore God declared to, 
 him (Moses) his holy name, which had never been discovered to 
 men before." But then we come at once upon the contradictory 
 fact, that the name Jehovah is repeatedly used in the earlier 
 parts of the story, throughout the whole book of Genesis. And 
 it is not merely employed by the writer, when relating simply, as 
 an historian, in his own person, events of a more ancient date, 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 59 
 
 in wMcli case he might be supposed to have introduced the word, 
 as having become, in his own day, after having been thus re- 
 vealed, familiar to himself and his readers ; but it is put into the 
 mouths of the patriarchs themselves, as Abraham, Gen. xiv. 22 ; 
 Isaac, xxvi. 22 ; Jacob, xxviii. 16. !N'ay, according to the story, 
 it was not only known to these, but to a multitude of others. 
 So, too, in all the Elohistic portions of the book of Genesis, in 
 some of which a multitude of names occur, and many of them 
 compounded with the Divine name El, there is not a single one 
 compounded with the name Jehovah, in the form either of the 
 prefix Jeho or Jo, or the termination Jah^ both of which are so 
 commonly employed in later times. Thus there are thirteen 
 names in Gen. v., sixteen in Gen. xi., fifteen in Gen. xxii., thirty- 
 three in Gen. xxv., seventy in Gen. xlvi., in all one hundred and 
 forty-seven names, and in the last of these passages we have 
 Israel, Jemuel, Jahliel, Machiel, Jahzeel ; but in not a single in- 
 stance is amj of these names compounded^ with the word Jehovah.^'' 
 The Bishop evidently thinks he has a strong point in this asser- 
 tion, for he repeats it many times under different forms, as for 
 instance : — " If so many names were formed, before the times 
 of Moses compounded with Tll^ how is it that not one, through- 
 cut the whole book of Genesis, is compounded with Jehovah, on 
 the supposition that this name was known and used so freely 
 from the first ?" 
 
 "We have therefore to take into consideration, first, the intro- 
 duction of the name Jehovah, and next the Bishop's clear asser- 
 tion, that in not a single instance in Genesis is any of these names 
 compounded with the word Jehovah, The formidable difficulty, 
 as the Bishop puts it, must be first considered, and as it is spe- 
 cially commended to " simple-minded readers," we are the very 
 persons, of all others, to say a few words upon it. 
 
 Here is the difficulty in few words. God speaking of Abraham, 
 
60 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 Isaac, and Jacob, says, "By my name Jehovali was I not known 
 to them," while, in fact, to almost every person in Genesis the 
 name seems commonly known. We do not think this objection 
 is to be found in Paine' s work, but we have heard it propounded as 
 a knotty point at Infidel Lectures, years ago, and we shall there- 
 fore repeat here the explanation we have, in part, given there. 
 
 There are two ways of dissolving it ; the first is to suppose 
 that Moses was speaking proleptically throughout the narrative 
 in Genesis ; but as this explanation found no favour in oui' simple 
 minds, we have abandoned it for one more simple and satis- 
 factory. 
 
 Let us now see the exact words used ; and be it observed 
 that no Hebrew is needed here, nor is any violence to the text 
 required : — " And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I 
 am the Lord. And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and 
 unto Jacob by God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was 
 I not known to them." 
 
 First we observe that in this verse there are two very distinct 
 things mentioned — the appearance of God under one name, and 
 the Jcnowledge of Him under another. There is the appearance 
 of El Shaddai, the Almighty Creator, who at various times and 
 in divers manners was pleased personally to manifest Himself to 
 those whom He had formed in his own image, and there is the 
 knowledge of Him in his more abstract being as the Uncreated 
 Lord God, from Everlasting to Everlasting, as the Hebrew ori- 
 ginal of the words translated " I Am that I Am," so grandly but 
 simjDly expresses. 
 
 Noting these difierences brings us to the second thought, 
 that instead of the verse being one continued declaration thi'ough- 
 out, as the Bishop has put it, it really consists of two parts — 
 a declaration followed by a question. The declaration is first 
 made, " I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP.' 61 
 
 by God Almighty ;" and then the question follows : " But by my 
 name Jehovah was I not hnoivn to them ?" Simply to place the 
 words thus in an interrogative form, dissolves entirely the 
 Bishop's difficulty, and destroys the theory founded thereupon. 
 And that the word " not," here used, will bear the interpretation 
 we have thus given, can be proved by multitudes of instances in 
 God's Holy Word, of which we now quote a few examples : "If 
 thou doest well shalt thou not be accepted ?" Gen. iv. 7 ; " Said 
 he not unto me, she is my sister?" Gen. xx. 5; "Told not I 
 thee saying all that the Lord speaketh ?" Num. xxiii. 26 ; " Have 
 not I commanded thee ?" Josh. i. 9 ; " Is it not written in the 
 book of Joshua ?" Josh. x. 14 ; " Hearest thou not, my daughter?" 
 Ruth ii. 8 ; " Hast thou not there with thee Zadok and Abiathar?" 
 2 Sam. XV. 35 ; "Are they not ^vritten in the book?" 2 Kings 
 XX. 20 ; " Dost thou not watch over my sin ?" Job xiv. 16 ; " Is 
 not God in the height of heaven ?" Job xxii. 12 ; " Doth not 
 wisdom cry ?" Prov. viii. 1 ; "Do they not err that devise evil ?" 
 Prov. xiv. 22; "Have not I written?" Prov. xxii. 20. In all 
 these instances the word " not" is used in precisely the same 
 manner as in the words we are considering, " By my name 
 Jehovah was I not known to them ?" 
 
 The construction of the whole verse shows that these words 
 do not form the completion of the previous declaration ; but that 
 the question is simply and naturally led up to by the considera- 
 tion of the facts previously recorded. 
 
 It is also to be remarked, carefully, that the Bishop has not 
 quoted any one text to show that the view he has taken is correct. 
 It is an old and valuable canon of Scripture criticism, that no 
 great principle or doctrine is left upon a single Scripture ; that 
 whenever anything of importance is mentioned, it is always 
 reiterated in some form or other. This being the well-known 
 fact, we are entitled to ask for the corroborating Scripture that 
 
62 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 confirms the Bishop's view. We are bold to assert that it can- 
 not be found. We have quoted thirteen Scriptures to support our 
 view of the subject, and might easily have trebled the number. 
 
 Thus viewed, this question forms a part of a great and har- 
 monious whole — the peculiar name of the Lord God Almighty, 
 that by which He had been known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
 is to form the credentials of the former Egyptian prince to his 
 oppressed and suffering countrymen. Especially known to their 
 fathers by that name, which was and is. His alone, Jehovah 
 Elohim would come to their rescue, and for their release do 
 battle with the false gods of Egypt. 
 
 Having thus shown that there is nothing in this text to mili- 
 tate against the statement of the early knowledge of the name 
 Jehovah, and by so doing dissolved the Bishop's objection, we 
 now pass to consider his assertion : " There are seventy names 
 in Gen. xlvi." " but in not a single instance is any of these names 
 compounded loith the word Jehovah.^' 
 
 To show the untruthfulness of this audacious assertion, we 
 must return to the Hebrew text ; and it is to be noticed that 
 the Bishop's objection is gone, and his assertion proved untrue, 
 if only one instance is produced, one single name in Gen. xlvi. 
 proved to be compounded with Jehovah. It must first be re- 
 marked that the Bishop has taken for granted that the syllables 
 which in our English version form the name Jehovah, are identi- 
 cal with those of the Hebrew text. This is as far as possible fi'om 
 being the case. To form syllables vowels are necessary. The 
 vowels that form the name Jehovah in the Hebrew are unknown. 
 The vowels to the words Elohim, or Adonai, are commonly used 
 where necessary; but every Jewish child is aware that there are 
 no vowels known, as belonging to the peculiar name — Jehovah. 
 
 It will thus be seen in the outset that any statement founded 
 upon such unknown vowels, must be received with the greatest 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOBKSHOr. 63 
 
 caution. But tlie consonants of the name are fixed, known, and 
 unalterable ; and it is to these we must look for the identification 
 of any name with that of Jehovah. In one minute their form 
 may be learned, as here subjoined (nirf^J j and we ask our 
 reader to learn them before proceeding further — remembering 
 that they read from right to left. 
 
 The Bishop states, and repeats, and founds his objection upon 
 this — that we cannot find any name in Gen. xlvi. that is com- 
 jpounded with these letters. In reply, short and simple, we point 
 out one name that contains them all, Judah ('^"^"^'T^), where any 
 one may see and understand, that by taking away the fourth of 
 these letters (reading in the Hebrew manner, from right to left) 
 the whole name of Jehovah CnirT^) stands revealed ; and that 
 every letter is in its proper place, without even a transposition. 
 By looking to the margin of the English version (Gen. xxix. 35) 
 it will be seen that this word Judah is translated " praise ;" but 
 the full meaning of the name is as Leah gives it in the same 
 verse — Jehovah praised. With this one fact known, we may well 
 wonder at the audacity of the assertion the Bishop has ventured 
 upon, and reiterated again and again ; and we may ask what is 
 the critical value of the book that contains such an assertion. 
 
 But this is not the only instance. There is also the name 
 Joseph, which is thus written, in Hebrew, in Gen. xlvi., the 
 chapter in question (^^'1*') j and is composed of the same number 
 of letters as niH''. It will be seen that the first and second of 
 Joseph are the first and third of Jehovah. The full meaning 
 and translation of this name Joseph is quoted in the words of his 
 mother, Bachel, at the time of his bu'th — i. e., " Jehovah shaU 
 add," translated in the English Bible, Gen. xxx. 24, margin, 
 " adding." 
 
 We come now to the third instance, where the Bishop asserts 
 ihere are none. In Gen. xlvi. 13, the name of Job is mentioned, 
 
64 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 written thus (^T^) . This case is exactly parallel with that of 
 Joseph, in connection with the name nin"^* Job consisting of 
 three letters, of which the first and second are the same as the 
 first and third of the Divine name. 
 
 The fourth instance is in the name in the tenth verse, 
 Jemuel, vSID''? which contains the first and third letters as 
 before. 
 
 There are also fifth and sixth instances of the compounding 
 in the same verse in the names Jamin (I'^js'^), and Jachin (]''^''), 
 both of which contain the whole of the Divine name written with 
 the double ^ (thus ^^), which is the common way of contracting 
 the name in use amongst the Jews, and which any Jew would 
 instantly recognize. 
 
 "We suppose that tJiese six instances thus quoted from the chapter 
 lohere the Bishop asserts there is not one, will be sufficient to prove 
 the absolute untruthfulness of his assertion, and consequently to 
 overthrow the theory he has founded upon it. 
 
 It is, also, easy to discover the snare into which he has fallen 
 headlong, and to point it out, by stating, that in the Lexicon of 
 Gesenius the translations in full, as above given, are not inserted ; 
 consequently any person ignorant of the minutiae of the Hebrew 
 language, and trusting to Gesenius, must fa,ll into exactly the 
 same pit as Dr. Colenso has fallen into. 
 
 It must also be further noticed that the Bishop's theory is 
 founded upon syllables ivhich are not in existence, since no living 
 man can prove avy syllable whatever as forming part of the Divine 
 name known amongst us as Jehovah. 
 
 Thus, at one sweep, the whole argument founded upon the 
 late adoption of the syllables of the name Jehovah is set aside 
 by stating the fact that such syllables ai'e not now, and never 
 were, known to be in existence. 
 
 Indeed, before Bishop Colenso, or any one else, is in a position 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. G5 
 
 to prove any argument fonnded upon the syllables of this divine 
 name, he must be able to say what the syllables are, which we 
 take to be an insuperable difficulty. The English Version has 
 Jehovah ; the Hebrew Bible has the name confessedly compounded 
 with the vowels of other words — Elohim or Adonai. All the 
 Hebrew commentators agree that there are no vowels known to 
 be connected with the name of Jehovah ; and we end our chapter 
 by asking Dr. Colenso, before adopting any argument founded 
 upon the syllables of the divine name, to tell us whether there 
 are two, or three, or four syllables in the name n*in^- 
 
 « CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The Derivation of the Name Moriah." 
 
 This chapter is a continuation of the previous subject. — The 
 introduction of the name Jehovah, and finding the syllables com- 
 posing that name in the names of places and persons of that 
 time. 
 
 • We shall therefore place one statement from the previous 
 chapter in company with the instance — the name Moriah — to 
 which the Bishop has devoted the whole of this chapter of his 
 work. 
 
 In the course of our remarks upon these subjects, we hope 
 to prove that the foundation upon which the Bishop builds is 
 not trustworthy, that his statements are unreliable, and that he 
 has fallen into a snare through deficient acquaintance with the 
 minutiae of the Hebrew language : we therefore quote as follows 
 from Chapter VIH. : — " There are only two names of persons 
 throughout the whole Pentateuch and Book of Joshua which 
 are compounded with Jehovah — viz., that of Joshua himself, and 
 
 £ 
 
66 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 probably tbat of Jocbebed tbe motber of Moses ;" and continiiiEg 
 tbis tbeme in Cbapter IX., tbe Bisbop proceeds : " Tbere is bow- 
 ever one word in Genesis, tbe name of a place, H^'nlD, Moriab, 
 Gen. xxii. 2, wbicb appears at first sigbt to be compounded witb 
 Jebovab. HenCxSteneerg, i,, 274 — 277, insists very strongly on 
 tbis point, and for tbe sake of tbe Hebrew student and critic, 
 we must consider bis arguments at lengtb. For tbe ordinary 
 reader, bowever, it will be sufficient to observe as follows : — 
 
 " (I.) This is the only instance in iJie whole hooh of Genesis where 
 any name of place or jperson is {apparently') compounded ivith the 
 7iame Jehovah. 
 
 " (II.) It is most unlihely tbat tbis place was generally known 
 (as tbe Divine command in verse 2 — ' Get tbee into tbe land of 
 Moriab' — evidently implies), known, tberefore, to tbe idolatrous 
 Canaanites, by a name compounded witb Jebovab, wben tbere is 
 not a single otber instance, in tbe wbole Bible, of tbe existence 
 of anotber name so compounded in tbat age. 
 
 ■ " (III.) It is impossible tbat tbe place could bavebeen already 
 known familiarly as ' Moriab,' wbicb means, according to Heng- 
 STENBERG, ' appearance of Jebovab,' hefore tbat very ' appearance 
 of Jebovab ' took place, described in tbe story, Gen. xxii., to 
 wbicb tbe giving of tbe name itself is ascribed. 
 
 " (TV.) It is sbo^vn below, on critical grounds, tbat tbe word 
 in question, n^n*iD^ cannot be formed as Hengstenberg sup- 
 poses." 
 
 In entering upon tbe consideration of tbese various topics, 
 we call attention to tbe utter lack of trutb in tbe assertion, 
 " Tbere are only tivo names of persons compounded witb Jebovab 
 tbrougbout tbe wbole Pentateucb and Book of Josbua — viz., 
 Josbua and Jocbebed." 
 
 In tbe previous cbapter we bave sbown six instances of com- 
 pounding witb Jebovab in Genesis, wbere tbe Bisbop says tbere 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 67 
 
 are none — i. e., Judali, Joseph, Job, Jemuel, Jamin, and JacMn. 
 But these last two are founded upon an usage of the Hebrew, 
 of which the Bishop is evidently ignorant, and which we may 
 therefore consider (in fairness to him) is not to be found amongst 
 his German-Hebrew fellow critics. It will consequently be ne- 
 cessary for us, if we would be believed, to explain and to prove 
 the position we have taken, in asserting them to contain the 
 name Jehovah. 
 
 We assert, then, that the syllcibles Jo, Jeho, Jah, though com- 
 monly used, have no known authorized foundation, as forming 
 part of the word Jehovah, and this we show beyond dispute, by 
 stating the fact, that no living man will undertake to prove, how 
 many syllables are contained in the divine name of the four letters 
 
 (mn^). 
 
 If this statement is true, and every lexicon we can find, every 
 authority, Jewish and Christian, we can trace, bear concurrent 
 witness to its truth, then any system founded upon the syllables 
 must, necessarily, fall to the gTOund, as having no foundation to 
 rest upon. 
 
 But this statement concerns the syllables only ; and though 
 it disposes at once of the case submitted in this chapter, does not 
 touch the name as a whole. We now come, therefore, to the 
 name as a whole, and shall add one or two more instances to the 
 six already produced, to further establish the want of truth in 
 the Bishop's assertion, and to prove authoritatively the position 
 we are now taking. 
 
 We have said in the previous chapter that by the usage of 
 the Hebrew language, the letter "^ twice written or printed is a 
 contraction of the name Jehovah ; thus "''' is i^'^Tl'^ contracted ; 
 and we have given tico instances where it is so used. We now 
 give a tliird instance from the Book of Genesis, and prove the 
 whole usage by a fourth instance taken from the Book of Numbers. 
 
68 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 The name now given is utterly subversive of the whole theory 
 of the late date of the formation of the name Jehovah, in- 
 asmuch as in the present instance it is in the name of Cain's 
 great grandson, viJ^Tl^ (Mehujael), w^ho lived long before 
 the Flood, that the contracted name of rT^rT^ is found. In this 
 very ancient name it will be seen that the two central "^'s form 
 the name Jehovah, and therefore the whole of this magnificent 
 name signifies, " proclaiming Jehovah God." 
 
 The fourth instance of this contraction is found in the name 
 of Jau% the son of Manasseh, mentioned in Numb, xxxii. 41, and 
 thus spelt in Hebrew P'^^j)^ and by quoting this instance we 
 shall be able to show authority in support of this usage of 
 double "^ that the Bishop will not, we think, venture to dispute. 
 
 In the translation of this name in Gesenius's Hebrew and 
 Chaldee Lexicon, p. 326, it is thus explained : "^""i^.J? "whom He 
 (i.e., God) enlightens;" and it must be remarked that in this 
 name, there is no other trace of the divine name than the use of 
 the *• here doubled ; but many writers say that a single "^ at the 
 commencement of a proper name is a contraction of Jehovah. 
 (See Jones's "Hebrew Names," art. Jehovah.) 
 
 In Bagster's Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 102, it is thus given, 
 "1"*^'' (the Lord enlightens, laeipos). 
 
 In the Jewish Commentaries "^"^ is commonly used in the notes 
 as a contraction of il^rT^, see (for instance) De Sola on Genesis, 
 xxii. 14, note, where nS"!*^ '''^ is used for nS*T^ nirT^ (Jehovah 
 Jireh) . 
 
 We have thus particularized eight distinct instances of the 
 compounding of the name Jehovah, where the Bishop asserts 
 and reiterates again and again, that there are none ; and those 
 instances extend upward from the time of Moses to the date of 
 Adam's existence upon the earth ; further, the name of Mehujael 
 and the compounding of Jehovah therein manifest, proves that 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 69 
 
 this divine name was known to, and nsed by the Patriarchs hefore 
 the Flood. 
 
 Having thus conclusively shown the untruthfulness of the 
 Bishop's assertion, we now proceed to the main subject of this 
 chapter : the derivation of the name Moriah— of which the 
 Bishop remarks : — 
 
 (I.) " This is the only instance in the whole Book of Genesis 
 where any name of place or person is apparently compounded 
 with Jehovah." 
 
 We reply that we have shown seven other instances, as above, 
 consequently that the assertion is an untruth, originating, as we 
 believe, in ignorance. 
 
 (II.) " It is most unlihelij that this place was generally known 
 unto the idolatrous Canaanites by a name compounded with 
 Jehovah, when there is not a single other instance in the whole 
 Bible, of the existence of another name "so compounded in that 
 age." 
 
 It does not follow because Abraham knew the place called 
 the land of Moriah by that name, that therefore it was known as 
 such by the idolatrous Canaanites ; neither is it asserted in the 
 Narrative that they did know anything about it. The name by 
 which the land of Moriah appears to have been known among the 
 Canaanites was " Jebus, which is Jerusalem."— See Jud. xix. 10. 
 
 The command is from God to Abraham, and no one else is 
 apparently concerned in the matter. This is a sample of the 
 Bishop's mode of proceeding ; where he wishes to have a diffi- 
 culty, and cannot find it, he makes it for the occasion. 
 
 (III.) " It is impossible that the place could have been already 
 famiHarly known as Moriah, which means, according to Heng- 
 stenberg, ' appearance of Jehovah,' before that Yerj appearance 
 of Jehovah took place described in the story. Gen. xxii., ta 
 which the giving of the name itself is ascribed." 
 
?0 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 This brings us to tlie real purpose of tliis chapter, whicli 
 consists of two parts : the first, that the name Moriah cannot 
 have been known at the time it w^as spoken ; the second, tha,t 
 the name Moriah could not be formed so as to be compounded 
 with Jehovah. 
 
 The real questions at issue are : Was this place called Moriah 
 at all at this time ? and. Can the name Moriah be shown to be 
 compounded with Jehovah ? It is distinctly stated in Gen. xxii., 
 that the Lord said unto Abraham, Get thee into the land of 
 Moriah ; then, that Abraham journeyed for two days, and on the 
 third saw the place that had been akeady named, and which was 
 known to him, or was then made known to him, as the place 
 indicated ; so that it would appear impossible that the j)lace was 
 called Moriah in ecrnsequence of this transaction. Nor does the 
 Narrative, either here or elsevv^here, state that it was so. "Was 
 there, then, any former transaction which could have obtained 
 this name for the land in question ? The Narrative upon this 
 point is silent ; but Jewish tradition states, " Moriah was also 
 the place on which Adam, Hebel (Abel), and Noach (Noah) 
 offered sacrifices." This tradition sufficiently accounts for the 
 name of Moriah being well known to Abraham, previous to the 
 issuing of the commandment to offer up Isaac there. We are, 
 consequently, quite at liberty to believe that the name Moriah 
 may have been commonly known as the designation of the 
 mountain region, upon one of the peaks of which the Temple of 
 Solomon was afterwards built. Indeed, the only reason why we 
 should not fuUy believe it, is, the Bishop's theory will not allow 
 of it ; but we think we have utterly destroyed that theory on 
 very different grounds. 
 
 The second question is. Can the name Moriah be shown to be 
 compounded with the syllables of Jehovah ? 
 
 Our answer to this is, The syllables have no authority what- 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 71 
 
 ever, and consequently no argument worth holding can be caiTied 
 on concerning them ; we will therefore simply point out that the 
 Hebrew word nsed is not Moriah merely, as in the English 
 Version, but Mori-yah, or Mori-jah, having certainly in its final 
 syllable the first two letters of nirf*, namely H''. 'We refraui 
 from pursuing this part of the inquiry, because Bishop Colenso 
 says, " We do not profess to be able to give with certainty the 
 true origin and meaning of the word," to which, notwithstanding 
 this admission, a chapter of eight pages is entu-ely devoted. 
 
 ISTot only so, but the Bishop admits that " ver. 14 does not 
 expressly state that the name 'Moriah' was formed on this occa- 
 sion. It says, Abraham called the name of that place, not Mo- 
 riah, but Jehovah Jireh, with express reference to the proverb. 
 As it is said, In the Mount of Jehovah it {or He) shall be seen." 
 
 We quote this passage in order emphatically to point out 
 the glorious realization of the prophecy herein set forth. In this 
 mount — ran the saying — He shall be seen; "And when the 
 fulness of the time was come," " When Solomon had made an 
 end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed 
 the burnt- offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of Jehovah 
 filled the house. And the priests could not enter into the house 
 of Jehovah, because the glory of Jehovah had filled Jehovah's 
 house," 2 Chron. vii. 1, 2. 
 
 Later still, "A greater than Solomon is here," Matt. xii. 42. 
 " It was revealed unto him (Simeon) by the Holy Ghost, that 
 he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 
 And he came by the Spirit into the Temple, and when the 
 parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for Him after the custom 
 of the law, then took he Him up in his arms, and blessed God, 
 and said. Lord, now lettest Thou thy servant depart in peace, 
 according to thy word, for mine eyes have^ seen thy s?Jvation," 
 Luke ii. 26—30. 
 
11 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 « CHAPTER X. 
 
 MOUNT GERIZIM THE MOUNT OF ABRAHAM'S SACRIFICE." 
 
 This chapter, being a continuation of the subject contained 
 in the two previous chapters, need not occupy much time. The 
 Bishop says : — " Hengstenberg's argument rests mainly on the 
 assumption that the Mount Moriah which he supposes to be 
 indicated in Gen. xxii. 2, is the same as that actually men- 
 tioned in the Hebrew text of 2 Chron. iii. 1, yiz., the hill at 
 Jerusalem on which the Temple was built, and where, as he 
 imagines, the second appearance of Jehovah took place. But the 
 fact is, that in only one single place of the Old Testament, viz., in 
 the above passage in the Chronicles, wiitten two hundred years 
 after the captivit}^, is the name rT^TIDrTj whatever may be its 
 meaning, applied to the Temple hill at all. 
 
 " The following are some of the passages which prove, beyond 
 a doubt, that the Temple, as well as the Tabernacle, was built on 
 Mount Zion, Joel ii. 1, iii. 17; Obad. 17 ; Isa.viii. 8. In the fol- 
 lowing passages, Mount Zion is expressly distinguished from the 
 v/hole city of Jerusalem, Joel ii. 32 ; Isa. x. 12, xxiv. 33. If the 
 place of Abraham's sacrifice was really meant to point to Mount 
 Moriah, on which the Temple was afterwards built, our con- 
 fidence in the conjecture we have put forward, that Samuel was 
 the Elohistic author of Genesis, would be shaken." 
 
 We are thus to consider two subjects — I. Was the Temple 
 of Solomon built on Mount Moriah ? II. Was Mount Gerizim 
 the scene of Abraham's trial ? 
 
 I. Was the Temple built on Mount Moriah ? 
 
 As far as we know, there is but a single statement to this 
 efi'ect in God's Word ; but in the absence of 2^'^'oof to the con- 
 trary, that must be held decisive. 2 Chron. iii. 1, thus states — 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 73 
 
 " Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Mount 
 Moriah, where the Lord appeared unto David his father, in the 
 place that David had prepared in the threshing-floor of Oman 
 the Jebusite." We will now seek corroborative evidence. 
 
 At the very commencement of David's reign as king over all 
 Israel, he resolved to make Jerusalem his capital ; but the Upper 
 City, or stronghold, was still held by the Jebusites ; the Lower 
 City occupying that portion of the holy site Josephus calls Acra. 
 On Mount Zion stood the Jebusite fortress, which David needs 
 must take; and Joab, his nephew, was the first Israelitish 
 soldier to scale the defences of Zion. After the fortress was 
 taken, great improvements were made upon the site, and it 
 became known as the City of David. Josephus calls it the 
 Upper City, to distinguish it from the Lower City, which covered 
 a separate and lower hill (Acra), and was separated from that 
 of Zion by a valley called in Scripture, Millo, but by Josephus, 
 the Tyropceon. East of Acra, and north-east of Zion, was the 
 Mount Moriah, on which the Temple was eventually built. 
 
 ISTow, we are told that David rebuilt the citadel upon Mount 
 Zion, and erected thereon, by the assistance of Hiram, King of 
 Tyre, a palace for his own residence ; thus, with the dwelling- 
 places around, and the tent for the Ark, wholly filling up the site 
 of Zion. For David "stretched a tabernacle" for the Ark to 
 rest upon Mount Zion, although the Tabernacle of Moses and 
 the Levites remained at Gibeon. We thus see that Zion was 
 fully occupied at the time Moriah was the threshing-floor of 
 Oman, or Araunah, the Jebusite. Further, when the Temple of 
 Solomon was ready, we are informed, 1 Kings viii. 1, " Solomon 
 assembled the elders of Israel and aU the heads of the tribes, 
 the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto King 
 Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the Ark of the 
 covenant of the Lord out of the City of David , which is Zion.'' 
 
74 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 TMs is decisive, as, if tlie Temple had been built on Zion, 
 there would have been no occasion to fetch the Ark out of the 
 city of David, which is called Zion ; and w^e thus have the state- 
 ment of the Chronicler, that the Temple Avas built on Moriah, cor- 
 roborated by the writer in 1 Kings, who states that it was not 
 on Mount Zion. The Temple was indisputably built on the site 
 of the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, which could not 
 have occupied Mount Zion, because the Citadel, David's Palace, 
 and the Tabernacle David had stretched for the Ark, were there ; 
 and concerning this threshing-floor, Josephus says : " Now it 
 happened that Abraham came and ofiered his son Isaac for a 
 bumt-ofi'ering at that very place,''^ Ant., b. vii. ch. xiii. 4. 
 
 We have thus a complete chain of evidence. The temple 
 was built upon Mount Moriah, affirms the Chronicler ; it was 7iot 
 built on Zion, witnesses the writer in the 1st book of Kings ; 
 that it was built on the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, 
 all the witnesses agree ; and at that very place, adds Josephus, 
 Abraham came to offer his son Isaac. 
 
 We may also find the reason of so many references in the 
 Psalms and Prophets to Zion, in the facts that the Ark was for 
 a time located there ; that the house of David was there ; that the 
 stronghold, which was the heart of the city, as the Temple was 
 the glory of it, was there ; and that for many years of its earlier 
 history, " Jerusalem the holy" was built upon Mount Zion alone. 
 
 There is one error in the Bishop's statement that needs only 
 pointing out, i.e., that tTie Tabernacle was built upon Mount 
 Zion. This appears to be a mistake through ignorance or care- 
 lessness. The Tabernacle was at Gibeon through all the reign 
 of David, and until it was fetched from thence, and placed in 
 the Temple by Solomon, 1 Kings viii. 3. 
 
 II. Was Mount Gerizim the scene of Abraham's trial ? 
 
 Except it can be shown that the threshing-floor of Araunah 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 75 
 
 the Jelusite, was on Mount Gerizim, Joseplius, as far as lie can 
 be considered an antliority, settles tlie question in the negative, 
 l^or do we know of a scintilla of evidence on the affirmative 
 side of the question, except an assertion of Canon Stanley, as 
 quoted bj the Bishop ; and the Samaritan tradition. 
 
 We give, here, the Samaritan tradition, quoted by Stanley, 
 respecting Gerizim :—" Beyond arf doubt (this is the form hi 
 which the story is told amongst the Samaritans themselves), 
 Isaac was offered on Ai^-Gerizim." Against this Samaritan tra- 
 dition we may fairly balance the assertion of Josephus concemmg 
 the threshing-floor of Ai^aunah, and thus far considering the 
 external testimony equal, we have the Word of God asserting 
 
 that Abraham's faith was tried, not on Mount Gerizim there is 
 
 no hint of the kind from beginning to end of the Holy Book— but 
 on a mountain in the land of Moriah. 
 
 But as it may be thought that Canon Stanley's opinion, 
 having been formed on the spot, is entitled to great weight, we 
 shall quote on the opposite side the testimony of the Deputation 
 from the Chm-ch of Scotland to the Jews in Palestine, in 1839 :— 
 " Turning to the west [they were standing on Mount OHvet], we 
 looked down upon Jerusalem. We obtained a complete view of 
 Mount Moriah, the hill nearest us, occupied by theHaram Sherif, 
 or ' noble sanctuary,' with its Mahometan mosques. Here, pro- 
 bably, is the very hiU where Abraham's uplifted hand was 
 arrested when about to slay his son Isaac. Here the cry of 
 David stayed the hand of the destroying angel. Here Solomon 
 buHt the house of the Lord, where God dwelt between the 
 cherubim." 
 
 So that McCheyne and Bonar arrived at a conclusion directly 
 opposite to that of Canon Stanley ; both opinions appearing to be 
 formed on the spot itself 
 
 We need not spend more time upon the matter. Bishop 
 
76 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 Colenso's only reason for dwelling upon it is, that lie imagines 
 Moriah to be the only word in Genesis compounded with 
 Jehovah ; and we have demonstrated seven other instances of 
 such compounding, and have shown also that the syllables 
 forming the name T^*^"!^"^ are utterly unknown. 
 
 « CHAPTER XI. 
 
 The names Elohim and Jehovah." 
 
 The Bishop thus writes: — "The ^YOvd Elohim Q'^'?^.^ is a 
 plui'al noun ; it is the general name for deity in the Hebrew 
 language, and may be used accordingly for a heathen god. It 
 is therefore quite a mistake to think of proving the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, as some do, from the fact that Elohim is b. plural 
 name. Jehovah, however, is never used of a heathen god ; it is 
 the proper personal name of Him who is declared to be em- 
 phatically the covenant God of the Hebrew people. In Ex. iii. 14, 
 •^v*? V ""^'^ '^v'7'v ' ' I -^^^ THAT I Am,' we find explained, ap. 
 parently, the derivation of the name, nln"'? Jehovah,' according 
 to the writer's view, from the Hebrew word HTf? haijali, or 
 nin, havah, ' to be,' as if H^nS or HinS^ ' I Am,' were closely 
 connected with ilin'') having at all events the same root 
 with it. The proper vowel sounds of the word T\^'^^ are 
 indeed now unknown. It is difficult, however, to say what part 
 of the verb mn it can be, unless it be, as Gesenius and most 
 German critics suppose (and so Hengstenberg, Fent. i. 247), a 
 particular form of the future third pers. sing. ^!).D! JahveJi, 
 
 or n}n>. 
 
 " This would agree with the Samaritan pronunciation as given 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. ^7 
 
 by Theodoret, Qucest. 15 ad Exod. vi., KaXovm 8e avro ^aixapdrai, 
 lABE, lovSarot 8e AIA, which last seems to point to H'^ns. But 
 the ordinary form of the ftitiire of Hln is njH'), as given in 
 1 Kings xiii. 32. The name lAfi, Diod. Sic. or lAOY, Clem. 
 Alex., is evidently formed from the abbreviated Hebrew ^IH^ or 
 n^. Porphyry represents it by lEYfi." 
 
 " Thus derived the name 7^^T^> may be considered to mean 
 HE IS, in opposition to the gods of the Gentiles, 'which are not,' 
 which are ' no D^nbs,' Isa. xxxvii. 19, but mere D^b-^bw ' vanities'; 
 and to represent in the mouths of men, the ' self-existent Being,' 
 the 'Eternal,' 'the living God,' 'Who was, and is, and is to 
 come,' 6 tov koX 6 ^v koX 6 ipx6fj^evo<s, Rev. i. 8 ; whereas ' I Am' 
 could only be properly used, as in Exod. iii. 14, by the Divine 
 Being himself. Then, after this preparation in Exod. iii. 14, the 
 word ' Jehovah' is used by the Elohist, as we believe for the 'first 
 time, in v. 15." 
 
 Before entering into the consideration of the subject of this 
 chapter, the names Elohim and Jehovah, it is only fair to point 
 out— that BisJio^ Colenso lias taken the ivhole of the statement as 
 above (without acknowledgment) from the Lexicon of Gesenius. It is 
 slightly, and very slightly, altered in the wording and arrange- 
 ment, but it is so carelessly copied that in the cojDying from 
 Theodoret (quoted by Gesenius) the word AIA should be lAQ. 
 (See Ges. Lex., p. 337.) We now pass to the consideration of 
 the subject. 
 
 As the theory concerning the names Elohim and Jehovah is 
 the basis of the whole argument contained in this Second Part, 
 we shall at once enter into an extended consideration of it ; and 
 m order to do so systematically we must first inquire— If any 
 reasons can be assigned why, in the inspired account of the 
 creation of our world, in the introdaction to the history of the 
 intercourse between God and his human children, the word 
 
7S THE BIBLE IN THE TVOEKSHOP. 
 
 D'nbw (Elohim: translated God in tlie Englisli Bibles) sHould 
 alone be used? And we answer — 
 
 I. That t])is name of tlie Deifcj is fittingly used as being tbe 
 appellation of tlie One God most widely known amongst tbe 
 nations of antiquity. 
 
 II. That this name of the Deity, from the ideas it conveyed 
 to the minds of those acqaainted with it, was the only appropriate 
 one that conld be used. 
 
 III. That in it is conveyed a germ of truth respecting the 
 creation of the world, that no other name of the Deity known to 
 a Hebrew could possibly convey. 
 
 I. That this name of the Deifcy is fittingly used as being the 
 appellation of the One God most widely known amongst the 
 nations of antiquity. 
 
 The Egyptians were a learned people for the times in which 
 they lived ; they were acquainted with many of the arts of our 
 present civilization, e. g., weaving, smelting, refining, music, and 
 astronomy. Moses was learned in all the knowledge of the 
 •'^gyP^i^^^j "^^o were in constant commercial intercourse with the 
 nations that dwelt around them ; consequently, many of them 
 must have been acquainted with other languages beside their 
 own ; and, as Moses was learned in all their knowledge, doubt- 
 less the knowledge of languages was not neglected by him ; 
 if so, he would be competent to choose the name most appro- 
 priate for the occasion. Let us endeavour to ascertain if he 
 did BO. 
 
 The word used is ^'^nb^, derived from bw prop, pai't. of 
 the verb ^^^j signifying strong, mighty; and throughout the 
 Hebrew scriptures it is applied (though not solely) to GOD 
 himself. This Hebrew word bw is to be traced ia other Shemitic 
 dialects. Sanconiatho says : " Kara tovtov<: ytVerat ns lEiXiovv 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 79 
 
 (p""^?) x^^ovfMevo? '"Yi/^io-TOs/ vapaXa/Swu Se 6 Ovpavo<s r^v rov 
 7raT/)os apxrjv—TroieLTaL iraiSag 8' ''Uov (^W ^^|) tov Kat KpoVov." 
 Damascius (in Bocliart) says also: " ^olvlkoI Kal :^vpoL rov Kpovov 
 "HA Kat BrjA Kal BoXa^T^v {^^^^ b^) eVoj/oyLta^ovcriv," to which may 
 be added, that in the apocryphal Sanconiatho, the allies of II 
 (b^), "'EXoet/x, eVcKATJ^T^o-ai/," were called Eloim. From " II," or 
 " iLus," Cumberland (Orig. Gent. y. i., pp. 29 and 473) derives 
 Ilium. The radical "El" plays also a conspicuous part in 
 Faber's " Cabiri," and in his " Pagan Idolatry," as also in 
 Bryant's "Ancient Mythology " throughout, see especially v. i., 
 p. 16 sec[. : and p. 297, where bs-^Q-ch " Hom-pi-el," the Oracle 
 of Ham (the sun), is given as the etymology of '0/x^aAw 
 ipi/3phfiov xOov6<; while the same radicals, transposed, become 
 \Q-ch-b« » El-Hom-pi," "OXvfx^os. In bw, too, we may probably 
 look for the root of ''UXlos, or 'He'Atos, the first god worshipped 
 by the heathen, Dius or Agni, the Sun. Sickler, (Cadmus, pp. 65, 
 104) derives "UXtos from t3?-"^bn, and 'mXio<s ^^"''b^S, which he 
 translates, " the Power that gives light," and "the greatest 
 Power." But the Syriac "Lib. Adami" says: 
 
 OlLCQA ^.*] ^^) (Tl^OA *^0ji2 C\h£lQ,A 
 
 " Do not worship the Sun, whose name is Adonai (or Adoni), 
 whose name is Kadusch (ti^li?, holy), whose name is El El ' (or 
 II, II !)." 
 
 We find bw also preserved in Phoenician names, e. y., " Cad- 
 milus," the fourth Cabirus, who was of Phoenician extraction, is 
 bw^??7)'2 "who stands before God." 
 
 We find it also amongst the Sab^ans, Lib. Adami, pp. 294, 
 309, seq. : Hamam-il Hathm-il, and Nothr-il, and Zurz-il, and 
 Pashr-il and Haltz-il. 
 
 It is in Ethiopia writings also. Lib. Enoch, c. vii. 9. And 
 
80 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 tliese are tlie names of their angels : Samyaza, who is the chief 
 of them, Urfikibarme-el, Thami-el, Ramu-el, Dan-el, etc. 
 
 Lastly, in Ai'abic we find also " Ilun," as a name for 
 " God." 
 
 II. That this name of the Deity, from the ideas it conveyed to 
 the minds of those acquainted with it, was the only appropriate 
 one that could be used. 
 
 The one leading idea in ''^^ is that of poicer, and therefore of 
 'pre-eminence. God is called vS El, as being the Mighty, the 
 ONE ABOVE ALL, THE FiRST. From that idea of power and ex- 
 cellence grows, as a matter of course, the feeling of awe, which 
 power inspires, and which leads men to respect and to ivorship it. 
 Thus from '^5 " God," comes "^ 4^' to swear by God, and pro- 
 bably, also, rrbs which, although not found in Hebrew as a root, 
 
 is of frequent occurrence in Arabic j^^j^ and es^jljj to " worship," 
 
 to " serve," whence Ki&^)l and 'iA\\ " worship" ; and »]] to 
 ^ ^^ 
 
 "stand in awe"; from whence some derive x'i)\ "Ilahoun," 
 
 ribs, " Eloah," " God." He is called thus, they say^ j JU »3^5 
 because " He is feared and worshipped." 
 
 The same idea of power and supremacy are conveyed in the 
 Chaldee nbs " Elah," from whence ''nbs "divine," etc. In 
 Syriac and Sabasan, " Aloho," "God," from whence "alah," to 
 "reckon as God." In Samar. "Alah," "God." In Arabic, 
 "Ilahoun," or " Ilah," " God." 
 
 Thus in every one of these ancient languages, the idea of the 
 power or supremacy necessary to create a world is found in the 
 word ^W (which, as Gesenius remarks, is a primitive word also), 
 and in no other word that we are aware of. 
 
 III. That in the word D"*rT7S!^ a germ of truth is conveyed 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 81 
 
 respecting the creation of the world ; that no other name known 
 to a Hebrew could possibly convey. 
 
 The word Q*'n v.^ is jphimlj though often used in a singular 
 sense for the One God— God. The Jewish rabbins say of it in 
 this sense that it is the " pluralis majestaticus vel excel] entiae," 
 the plural of powers or virtues, which is used in expressions of 
 sovereignty. Aben Ezra is of this opinion, when he says : "After 
 that we have found ^!i7^J ^ye know that W^Tl /S is the plural 
 thereof, and the origin of the use of it, is according to the genius 
 of the language ; for every tongue has it own honorific terms ; — 
 and, in the ' holy tongue' the way to express ' honour,' as, for 
 instance, to a superior, is to use the plural, as in Lords for Lord, 
 Masters for Master, etc." 
 
 But the Christian who believes in the Divinity of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and the Personality of the Holy Spirit, will not fail 
 to see in this word — dimly shadowed from the very foundation of 
 the world, expressed in the very commencement of Revelation — 
 the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He will re- 
 member the testimony of the beloved disciple, *' There are three 
 that bear record in heaven." He will remember the witness of 
 the Apostle Paul, " God . . hath in these last days spoken unto 
 us by his Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, hj 
 ivhom also He made the worldsy^ and he will thankfully recognize 
 the reason why, — and exult in the knowledge that, in the very 
 first verse of the first chapter of the Holy Book, there is a sha- 
 dowing out of the Lord Jesus in the name of the One God ; and 
 from this first dim glimpse of Him, He is revealed more and more, 
 in brighter and clearer light, until " the Desire of all nations" 
 came. And this name, Q'^Jib^ will remain an unalterable witness 
 to all nations, until He shall " appear the second time without sin 
 unto salvation." 
 
 We thus see that the word which has been chosen to intro- 
 
82 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 duce the idea of the Almighty God in the Revelation of his will 
 to the creatm-es He has made, is the one best known to the 
 ancient Heathen world, that it is satisfactory to the Jew, and full 
 of hope and promise to the Christian ; and if our eyes are opened 
 thus to see Him '^ whom to know is life eternal," and we rejoice 
 in his Hght, let us praise Him for so great a benefit, and say with 
 Djelal-ed-din (Diwan, p. 210, ed E-osenzw.) : — 
 
 " Through Thee alone I have attained to Truth, Thou 
 Truth itself ! Thou hast imparted it to me ! And here I stand 
 to thank Thee, Lord ! mine only Sun and my God !" 
 
 Having thus seen at length the meaning of the word D^'lib.^ 
 (ELOHni), supposed by the Bishop to indicate the writer called the 
 Elohist, we shall now endeavour to ascertain the meaning of the 
 name TTyi\ (Jehovah), supposed by the Bishop to indicate a 
 second writer, called the Jehovist. In doing tliis, we shall endea- 
 vour to show that there is good reason why these different names 
 should be used as they are used by Moses in the Pentateuch, and 
 by other writers in the later portions of God's Word. 
 
 We shall first gather up from Jewish sources of high authority, 
 the recognized meaning of the word, as set forth by Jewish 
 writers of acknowledged eminence ; and secondly, present the 
 explanation of the word as it is given by Chidstian authors. 
 
 In the TaLnud, tr. n'l^int:? ch. nMVJl HV^nW we read, " The 
 names (of the Deity) which it is forbidden to erase, are, the 
 most holy name of the four letters, Tl^Tl"*^ El, Elohim, Eloha, 
 Adonai, Ehyeh, Shaddai, Tsebaoth." Although there are thus 
 several names assigned to the Deity, there are two particularly 
 distinguished, and of more frequent occurrence in the Holy 
 Scriptures, than any of the others. These are Jehovah, the 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 8S 
 
 Lord, and Elohim, God. Their particular distinction consists in 
 the following points : — 
 
 1. Whenever the Deity reveals Himself to a prophet, or when 
 any prophet addresses the Deity, we never find, throughont the 
 whole of the scriptures, an}^ other name used than one of these 
 two, or both. 
 
 2. These two names, when joined, often change places ; as 
 sometimes the expression is, l^e Lord God, and sometimes God 
 the Lord. Of the first, out of many instances, we quote Deut. 
 iii. 24, " Lord God thou hast begun to shew thy servant thy 
 greatness," &c. ; and of the second, Hab. iii. 19, " God the Lord 
 is my strength.'' Such transpositions do not occur in any other 
 name of the Deity. 
 
 3. No adjective or other designation ever precedes these 
 two names ; thus, for instance, we never in the Scriptures find 
 " Tsebaoth the Lord," but always find The Lord Tsebaoth ; nor 
 merciful Lord, but the Lord, merciful, &c. 
 
 • 4. The name Jehovah is never in regimen except by means 
 of the names Elohim or El, God, joined to it, as, the Lord God 
 of hosts, the Lord God of Israel, etc. 
 
 5. Jehovah is sometimes punctuated with the same vowel- 
 points as Elohim, and is read accordingly ; but Elohim is never 
 punctuated with the vowel-points proper to Jehovah, which, in 
 fact, are not known to us. 
 
 To understand these peculiarities, it is necessary to know the 
 following points : — Jehovah denotes God in the abstract idea, as 
 He cannot be understood by the human mind ; and applies solely 
 to his own Being, without any relative connection whatever. 
 Accordingly the Kabbins expound the text, " They shall pro- 
 nounce my name over the children of Israel," Num. vi. 27. " My 
 name^ihQ name which relates solely to Me;" consequently this 
 name has no relation to any being, but to Himself alone. 
 
^4 
 
 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 Elohim denotes the emanation of every good whicli brings 
 the Deity into any relation with his creatures and his creative 
 power, which gave existence to all that is. 
 
 Accordingly, this name only (Elohim) is used in the history of 
 the creation ; and whenever the powers of creation, as evinced in 
 nature, are mentioned by any of the sacred writers, this n?^me 
 only is used, from its being in direct connection with the act of 
 creation. Consequently, whenever the prevailing idea of the 
 Sacred Writer is the Deity in the abstract, Jehovah is placed 
 before Elohim ; but when the prevailing idea refers to the powers 
 of creation, Elohim precedes Jehovah. 
 
 For these reasons no adjective can ever precede these names, 
 because such cannot be applied to the Deity in the abstract ; nor 
 can an adjective follow Jehovah, except by means of Elohim, as 
 it is only in consequence of the creation that God's creatures can 
 append any attribute to his name. 
 
 Thence, likewise, Jehovah is sometimes punctuated with the 
 vowel points of Elohim, but the reverse can never be; for 
 although we may, from the emanations of his Omni2:)otence, be- 
 come conscious of his abstract Being, yet we cannot conceive 
 how the creative jDOwers could emanate from that Being, who is 
 altogether abstract and above our comprehension. 
 
 As the name Elohim thus expresses the relation between the 
 creative power that bestows and the creatures that receive, it is 
 in the Hebrew, applied to those created beings also, who, in 
 virtue of theii' official situation, bestow on others w^ho receive. 
 Thence angels are called Elohim, as they are the Divine instru- 
 ments to bestow God's bounties on the w^orld. Thence, too, was 
 that name applied to idols, as their worshippers held them to be 
 the dispensers of everything. This designation is also extended 
 io judges or rulers who dispense justice to their inferiors. But 
 whenever thus apphed, the word Elohim is always plural ; 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 85 
 
 whereas, wlien limited to its original purpose, that of expressing 
 the proper name of the Deity, it is always singular, (Though, as 
 we have shown previously, there is also an intimation of the 
 Three in One in this name.) 
 
 We now quote two well-known writers in support of this 
 view. 
 
 Abarbanel says : " The plui-al termination, OS im, does not 
 affect this noun proper any more than it does Ephra-im or 
 Mitzra-im, proper names, which, though terminating in i7}i, are 
 nevertheless singular" (but may we not add, "There are Tliree 
 that bear record in heaven, and these Three are One ?"). And Sir 
 Isaac Newton says : " The Most High God is a Being, eternal, 
 infinite, absolutely perfect (•^ij'^'!) ; but a being, however perfect^ 
 without dominion, is not God the Ruler. The tvorcl God ahuaj/3 
 signifies Ruler (D'/ib^J) ; but every Ruler is not God. The rule 
 of a spiritual being makes him God ; true rule, a true God ; the 
 highest rule, the highest God ; feigned rule, feigned God." 
 
 Having thus shown the Jewish idea of the name Jehovah, we 
 shall conclude this subject by appending some thoughts from the 
 Hebrew Lexicon that are attributed to Professor Lee, appertaiQino- 
 to the word ^Y^], as concerning the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 That, n;i7^ nt£5s n^^rw, " i Am that I Am," has reference to this 
 term, I think there can be no doubt ; and that Rev. i. 4 — 8, 6 wi/ 
 Kttt 6 rjv Koi 6 epxpfxevos, refers to it likewise, is perhaps equally 
 certain. But these relate to its interpretation, not to its form, 
 nor to its pronunciation ; and as this is manifestly the most im- 
 portant part of the inquiry, let us see what can be deduced from it. 
 
 "It is quite certain, then, that the latter place in the Apoca- 
 lypse apphes to Christ; comp. vers. 7, 8, 17, 18. A similar 
 passage occurs Heb. xiii. 8. Both these, therefore, cannot but 
 refer to Christ. Again, reference — Rev. i. 17 — is certainly made 
 to Isa. xli. 4 ; and there TT\n) is the person designated the First, 
 
86 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 etc. ; and in tnitli tlie theology of the Hebrews will admit of this 
 term being applied to no other. From an extended inquiry, 
 instituted on comparisons of this sort, the most irrefragable 
 proofs of the divinity of Christ might be collected ; and it will 
 be found eventually that it is quite impossible to understand 
 innumerable passages of the Old Testament on any other 
 view. 
 
 " Now, the spirit of the Scriptures goes principally to the point 
 of a revealed, manifested, and hnown God ; not to a mere theo- 
 retical or metaphysically-imagined deity ; and as the term, 
 n'^n^.^ (Elohim), had, before the time of Moses (Gen. xxxi. 30, 
 etc.), been applied to idols, the representatives of these meta- 
 physical nonentities, it seems to me that the terms n*;nS! and 
 n^n% more particularly the latter, were chosen in order to keep 
 ap this marked and very important distinction -, and, above all, 
 to keep up the memorial of his promised manifestation in the 
 flesh. Comp. Isa. vii. 14, with Obad. ix. 5, 6, and Mic. v. 2 — 4, 
 which was apparently had in view in the passages cited above 
 from the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Revelation of St. John, 
 etc. ; and to show that in Jesus of Nazareth the person named 
 ^^'^'] in the Old Testament was manifested to the world." — Heb. 
 and Chal. Lex. p. 249. 
 
 Thus seen in the various lights in which we have endeavoured 
 to place them, these names of the Deit}?- — Elohim and Jehovah — 
 are full of instruction and strength, and comfort and hope. 
 While in the Jewish teaching there is the dim outreach after 
 Him " whom no man hath seen nor can see," " the Father of an 
 Infinite Majesty," " God over all, blessed for evermore ;" there is 
 in the Christian thought, " God manifest in the flesh." 
 
 " Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness ;" 
 " Now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face," 
 with "Him who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE . WORKSHOP. 87 
 
 whicli no man can approacli unto, wliom no man hath, seen 
 nor can see, to whom be honour and power everlasting. 
 Amen." 
 
 "CHAPTEES XII.— XYIII. 
 
 THE ELOHISTIC AND JEHOYISTIC PSALMS COXSIDERED." 
 
 With a very few general remarks, we may pass the whole of 
 this part of the Bishop's book, the value of the theme being 
 plainly exhibited in the following quotation from the Bishop's 
 Introduction to it : — " Let us examine, then, for this [Elohistic 
 and Jehovistic] pui'pose, the Book of Psalms, and those Psalms 
 especially, in the first instance, which appear by their titles to 
 have been written in the earlier part of David's life. And let 
 us see if David makes use of the name Jehovah, as freely as 
 we should expect him to use it from what we find in the Penta- 
 teuch, — as freely as he must have used^it, if the word was in 
 common use in his days, and believed to have had set upon it 
 the seal, as it were, of Jehovah Himself, as the name by which 
 He would be known as the Covenant God of Israel." 
 
 We do not see that we can touch this without spoiling it 
 altogether ; for a specimen of conceited arrogance, it is surely 
 unexampled in the history of criticism. It makes our expecta- 
 tion the arbiter, our sense of fitness the test, of what Divine 
 Truth ought to be ; and unless the Psalm reaches that standard, 
 it must be rejected. 
 
 But this is a world wherein there are such things as dif- 
 ferences of opinion; one man may be satisfied ^vith one hun- 
 dredth part of that which is required to satisfy another ; and, 
 consequently, if we &re to have a standard at all, we needs 
 must elect some one to whom all other men shall bow, some one 
 whose expectations and sense of fitness shall be final. Bat inasmuch 
 
88 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 as there may be some little difficulty and delay in obtaining the 
 universal and concurrent opinion as to who this shall be ; we may 
 be excused from spending more time on the question at present. 
 
 Our next extract is a specimen of the manner in which 
 critics agree on the question of the date of the Psalms, which, 
 be it remembered, is a necessary preliminary to entering into 
 Elohistic and Jehovistic theories. Thus, Bishop Colenso wi'ites 
 concerning the 51st Psalm : "Dr. Davidson says the heginnmg of 
 the Babylonish captivity is the probable date." " Hengstenberg 
 writes that the Psalm was composed by David on the occasion 
 of his sin with Bathsheba." " Ewald assigns this Psalm to some 
 time after the destruction of the Temple." " Olshausen to the 
 times of the Maccabees." Hupfeld writes, " The Psalm must 
 belong to the time after the Babylonish captivity ;" and the 
 Bishop sums up by gravely adding, " The above reasoning, how- 
 ever, does not appear to me to be convincing." 
 
 There is a i^oint worth notice in the remarks on the sixty- 
 eighth Psalm. The Bishop states : " We may recur ynih. con- 
 fidence to the usual supposition which connects it with the 
 removal of the Ark, in David's time, to Mount Zion." 
 
 Here, then, the Bishop allows we have a distinct and truthful 
 bistorical allusion, freely admitted to be correct in date and detail \ 
 so that we may start from this point as one of mutual agreement. 
 The removal of the Ark from Kirjath-Jearim to Zion took place 
 about ten years after David became king. It had remained at 
 Kirjath-Jearim twenty years, had been one year in the hands of 
 the Philistines, and was previously under the care of EH, in the 
 Tabernacle at Shiloh, for many years. This brings us to a 
 period before Samuel was born, and it is certain that when 
 Samuel was brought — a little child — to be with Eli at Shiloh,, 
 the Ark was there before him ; consequently, its origin and 
 presence there have to be accounted for. Upon the supjjosition 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 89 
 
 of the historical truth of the Mosaic Narrative, we are perfectly 
 acquainted with both. But taking up the other question, upon 
 the supposition that Samuel -svrote the Pentateuch, we ask for 
 an account of the origin of the Ark that shall explain the joy of 
 the people at its removal, and shall harmonize with the Narrative 
 that the Bishop allows to be historically true. 
 
 It being also certain that both the Ark and the Tabernacle 
 were made before Samuel was born, we call upon the Bishop to 
 account for their origin and connection with each other on the 
 supposition that Samuel wrote the Pentateuch. 
 
 '* CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 THE JEHOVISTIC NAMES IN THE BOOK OF JUDGES." 
 
 The Bishop thus states his case : — " From the doubt which 
 exists as to the proper vowel-sounds, with which this Name 
 (Jehovah) should be enunciated, it has been suggested that it 
 may be, perhaps, a word of foreign origin ; cognate, perhaps, 
 with the Sanscrit Dyaus, from which is derived the Greek, Zcuj, 
 Aios, and the Latin, Ju, which appears in Ju-piter, Jov-is ; and 
 that this word may have been adopted among the Hebrews, being 
 first corrupted into the form ^rT^, yehu, and so referred to the 
 Hebrew root, HM- In fact, one very common form of the name 
 is ^T) y^^5 ^ ^"^T' J^^^' 0^® strong objection to this theory 
 appears to be in the fact that the Sanscrit word, and its deriva- 
 tions, have all an initial sound of cZ, which the Hebrew has not. 
 But however this may be, whether the word Jehovah be a cor- 
 ruption of a foreign word, or originated by some great authority 
 among the Hebrews themselves, it must have been gradually 
 brought into popular use, doubtless in a great measure by means 
 of such Psalms as these." 
 
90 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 The Bishop then quotes from Hengstenberg as follows : — 
 " Unless persons pronounce (which few will venture to do) the 
 Pentateuch in all its parts to he spurious, so that no inference can be 
 be drawn from it respecting the state of the langniage in the time 
 of Moses, they will he forced to carry hach the formation and intro- 
 duction of the name beyond the Mosaic age, from which another 
 important consequence will follow, that the idea of the Israehtish 
 national God cannot be the fundamental idea." 
 
 Before proceeding further with the Bishop's ideas, we will 
 remark upon those above quoted, the last first. 
 
 We have never seen Hengstenberg' s book, and were utterly in 
 ignorance of his words as above quoted ; but to compare great 
 things with small, it will be seen how strikingly the view of the 
 great critic has been confirmed by the independent researches of 
 two mechanics. It ^vill be remembered that we have shown first 
 that there is no reason why we should not carry back the forma- 
 tion of the name beyond the Mosaic age, by showing that the 
 passage in Exod. vi. 3, " By my name Jehovah was I not known 
 to them," is not a statement made, but a question put to Moses ; 
 and, secondly, by exhibiting eight instances of actual compound- 
 ing with Jehovah in names taken from the pre-Mosaic period ; in 
 one of these from before the Flood. 
 
 And farther, in the name of the first created woman nin 
 (Eve), the last half of the name nin'' is identical with the termi- 
 nation of her name. Whether these simple facts have escaped 
 the notice of all the German critics, we do not know, but there 
 are the names as plain (to any one accustomed to the use of 
 Hebrew as a language) as any simple word of English letters to 
 an educated Englishman. We now pass backward to the Bishop's 
 own words, — that is to say, as far as they are his, and not bor- 
 rowed without aclvnowledgment from previous authors. The ideas 
 concernini^ the name of Jehovah beino^ taken fi'om the Latin 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 91 
 
 Ju-piterand Jov-is are found in the Lexicon of Gesenius (p. 337), 
 where the statement is thus printed : — " I suppose the word to 
 be one, of the most remote antiquity, perhaps of the same origin 
 as Jovis /iwpiter." 
 
 It is to be remarked that Bishop Colenso adopts these 
 opinions; and, for the present, abides by them; but Gesenius 
 afterward thoroughly retracted them, see Thes. and Amer. 
 trans, in voc, where he calls such comparisons and derivations 
 " waste of time and labour." 
 
 That Bishop Colenso has copied these remarks from other 
 authors, without being aware of the utterly destructive manner 
 in which they can be brought to bear upon the Jehovistic 
 theory he is advocating, we shall prove to demonstration in the 
 commencement of the next chapter, to which we now refer our 
 readers. 
 
 One other remark and we pass on. The Bishop states: 
 " From the clouht tvMch pxists as to the proijer vowel sounds, with 
 which this name should be enunciated, it has been suggested 
 that it may be perhaps a word of foreign origin." 
 
 When it has been necessary to show by syllabic forms of 
 names the non-compounding with the name Jehovah, the Bishop 
 carefully kept back this knowledge (if he had it) from the 
 reader, and with good reason, for his whole theory, from hegin- 
 ning to end, is based iqjon votvel-sounds, which he here confesses 
 are unknown; and. even after this admission he continues to 
 harp upon the syUahic compounds with the name Jehovah, while 
 the whole name in its contracted forms, as compounded with names 
 of persons, has entirely escaped his notice, though it is fatal as 
 regards his theory. 
 
 We have now to consider the Jehovistic names in the book 
 of Judges, which Bishop Colenso has pointed out as being there, 
 and has endeavoured to account for. We shall afterward point 
 
.92 ' THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 out two that lie has not mentioned, through evident ignorance 
 of their existence as Jehovistic names. The names quoted by 
 the Bishop are Joash, Jotham, Micah, and Jonathan ; with 
 Joshua and Jochebed introduced from the Pentateuch ; and we 
 will now see the manner in which he disposes of these six 
 instances. 
 
 " If Joash here be the same as Jehoash, it would of course 
 be compounded with Jehovah. But the name ^"'^'T', Joash, may 
 have been derived from ttJs'^j as ^5*''', Joseph, from HP^. In like 
 manner CnV, Jotham, may be derived from the old form, cnj 
 =u2ttn." (Gesen. Lex.) " So too, Micah, which is considered by 
 some to be an abridged form of Micaiah, 'Who is like Jehovah/ 
 is by others distinguished fi^om the latter name, and explained to 
 mean 'poor,' or ' smitten,' or ' who is here ?' " 
 
 It cannot surely be possible that Bishop Colenso ever thought 
 of having enemies of his theory to convert into friends, or he 
 surely would not have exhibited such weakness as he has thus 
 displayed. Put into plain language, the case stands thus: To 
 support Bishop Colenso's theory, there should be no Jehovistic 
 names in the Book of Judges : but here are thi'ee indisputable 
 names which break up the theory, therefore something must be 
 done to get rid of them. Consequently the Bishop suggests 
 that they Diaij mean something else. It is true they may, but do 
 they ? They are in all copies, there is no charge of interpolation 
 brought ; the weak suggestion is made that they may not he what 
 theij are, and they are first quietly shelved, and afterward ignored. 
 But is it unreasonable to ask for something stronger than a 
 suggestion that what is one thing may be another, before we part 
 with our Bibles ? 
 
 " There can be no doubt," continues the Bishop, " that 
 Jonathan is compounded with Jehovah, and means, * Jehovah 
 gives.' If we could be reasonably certain that this was a lona 
 
THE BIBLE 1^ THE WORKSHOP. 93 
 
 fide historical name, and tliat a man, called Jonathan, was 
 actually priest to the tribe of Dan (Jud. xviii. 30), before the 
 time of Samuel, it would follow, of course, that the name Je- 
 hovah was not first introduced by Samuel. But then we are 
 met by the fact that this is the onhj name in the whole history 
 of the Judges, with respect to which it can be confidently main- 
 tained that it is compounded with Jehovah." " In the English 
 Version, Jud. xviii. 30, he is said to be the son of Gershom, the 
 son of Manasseh. This is the reading of the text in the Hebrew 
 Bible, but the more approved marginal reading has ^?^5j Moses, 
 instead of nt£^3p, and the vidgate adopts this reading, which, says 
 Bleek, is ' certainly correct,' and, according to Kuenen, ' is now 
 generally adopted.' According to this, Jonathan was appa- 
 rently the grandson of Moses." 
 
 !N'ow let us see what answer the Bishop gives to this strong 
 argument as stated by himself His reply to it is simply a 
 charge of interpolation. Since the name cannot be expunged, it 
 is said to be interpolated. But a more unfortunate word against 
 which to bring a charge of interpolation could scarcely be found. 
 The Bishop says the text in the Hebrew Bible reads Manasseh, 
 but this is simply untrue. We have examined many different 
 editions of the Hebrew Bible, mid in every one of them the inter- 
 polation of the 3 is distinctly marked by being placed in a diffe- 
 rent position from the letters of the text. If the Jews, then, 
 would not alter the text so much as by a letter, even to remove 
 so deep a stain from the family of Moses, as that of his grandson 
 being the first idolatrous priest ; it is not conceivable that, unless 
 for the same strong reason, they would have allowed the name of 
 Jonathan to remain at all. In fact it must be seen at a glance 
 that no other reason than the integrity of the text can be assigned 
 for the retention of the name of Jonathan. If ancient Jews 
 had believed the passage in which it occurs to be an interpolation, 
 
94 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 they wo aid have removed it many centuries since. And the very 
 fact of the name being found in the text (with such pressing 
 reasons for its excision in existence) is proof of its integrity as 
 strong as need be desired. 
 
 Having thus disposed of these foui' troublesome names, the 
 Bishop proceeds : " Upon the whole, then, we conclude that there 
 is no single instance in the authentic history, from the time of 
 Moses downward to that of Samuel, which can be appealed to 
 as distinctly showing that the name Jehovah was used in the 
 formation of proper names in those days, except, as before, the 
 cases of Joshua and Jochebed." " The Elohist himself makes the 
 change of Hoshea to Jehoshua in a very marked manner, and 
 (concerning Jochebed) it seems very strange that if the names 
 of the father and mother of Moses were known to the writer of 
 the account of his bu'th in Ex. ii., they should not have been 
 mentioned at the first, instead of its being stated quite vaguely ; 
 ' There went a man of the house of Levi and took to wife 
 a daughter of Levi.' " 
 
 And this is the jproof we are offered concerning the Jehovistic 
 names of Joshua and Jochebed ; in the one case, the name was 
 changed sucldenhj, in the other, if it ivas hnown it tvas strange it was 
 not mentioned hefore! To comment upon this would be more 
 time lost in addition to that already wasted in reading and 
 copying it. 
 
 And now, how stands the case of the six names mentioned 
 by the Bishop ? Three, he informs us, may he something else, 
 and three are said to be interpolated. But not an atom of proof 
 is given in any one case against the integrity of the text. But 
 since these names do not please the Bishop as Jehovistic, we 
 will offer two more for his consideration. The first is the name 
 Jair (before mentioned), which occurs again, Jud. x. 3 — 5, in 
 which case the name of Jehovah is represented by the •> being 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 95 
 
 doubled; the second is that of Jabin, king of Hazor, the meaning 
 of whose name is "whom Jehovah considered" (see Ges. Lex. 
 p. 327). How this name came into the possession of a heathen 
 prince, we do not;pretend to explain ; but it is found in Josh. xi. 
 1 and Jud. iv. 2. And that it is there found is sufficient to over- 
 throw Bishop Colenso's assertion, even allowing (which it is 
 seen we do not) that he has explained away those instances 
 quoted bj himself. 
 
 There is one other remark before quitting this chapter. We 
 have seen that the principal part of the Jehovistic ideas in this 
 second portion of Dr. Colenso's work are taken from the articles 
 on that subject in the lexicon of Gesenius. We shall now see 
 that Gesenius is responsible for some part of Dr. Colenso's new 
 behef. The Bishop writes as foUows :— " My own conviction, 
 however, from the accumulated evidence (!) of various kinds 
 before us is, that Samuel was the first to form and introduce 
 the name, perhaps in imitation of some Egyptian name of the 
 Deity loliich may liave reached his ears:' Gesenius wrote before 
 him : "I suppose this word to be one of the most remote anti- 
 quity, perhaps of the same origin as /oris, /^tpiter, and transferred 
 from the Ugijjjtiaiis to the Hebrews'' (see Lex. p. 337). 
 
 This opinion, as we have shown, Gesenius afterward thoroughly 
 retracted, probably through having become convinced that the 
 Egyptian Gems on which it was founded were the work of 
 heretics of the second and third centuries. Bishop Colenso 
 however, adopts the discarded opinion of Gesenius, and parades 
 it as his own. We think he might at least have had the candour 
 to acknowledge from whence it was obtained. 
 
96 THE BIBLE IN THE WORKSHOP. 
 
 "CHAPTEE XX. 
 
 The Jehovistic Names in the Book of Samuel." 
 
 The Bishop thus writes : — " We now pass on to the First Book 
 of Samnel. Here, throughout the first chapters, we do not meet 
 with a single name compounded with Jehovah, though we find 
 J^Zkanah and JElihu, i. 1; Eli, i. 9; Samue?, ii. 18; Elesizar, vii. 1." 
 
 From this brief extract we will take 07ie single word, and with 
 it prove — 
 
 I. That Bishop Colenso does not understand Hebrew. 
 
 II. That it completely explodes the Elohistic and Jehovistic 
 theory. 
 
 III. That Samuel did not first form and introduce the name 
 Jehovah. 
 
 The word that will do all this is the name Elihu, 
 
 I. The name Elihu will prove that Bishop Colenso does not 
 understand Hebrew. 
 
 The meaning of the name Elihu, in Hebrew, is exactly the 
 same as Elijah, Jehovah — He is God ; or to transpose it in He- 
 brew as it stands in English, God — He is Jehovah. With this 
 word, ivritten hij himself in tJie same sentence, nothing but gross 
 ignorance of the Hebrew language could have made Dr. Colenso 
 fall into the mistake of asserting "throughout the first chapters 
 we do not meet with a single name compounded with Jehovah." 
 
 Further, it proves ignorance of the meaning of the words 
 he lias copied from the lexicon, and inserted in the commencement 
 of Chapter XIX., for there the reader will find quoted, the He- 
 brew word that forms the last and largest portion of the name 
 Elihu (^i^^), and this Hebrew word is there expressly stated to 
 be a contraction of the name Jehovah. 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOBKSHOP. 97 
 
 In his page 331 Bishop Colenso copies: "In fact one very 
 common form of the name Jehovah is ^^, yah, or ^'i^'^, yahu.*' 
 
 In p. 344 he asserts : " We do not meet with a single name 
 compounded with Jehovah, though we find Elkanah and Elihu." 
 
 Now, Elihu in Hebrew is written thus, MJin^bb;!, ^^^ i* ^^ 
 be seen at a glance that the Bishop's own copying of the con- 
 traction for Jehovah, '^n^, yahu, is there. "We think this is 
 certain proof that the Bishop does not understand Hebrew, for it 
 seems impossible to believe that any one, who understood what he 
 was writing, would have penned two sentences diametrically 
 opposed to each other, such as those above quoted. 
 
 But there is another proof of the Bishop's ignorance of 
 Hebrew in the same sentence, shown in his asserting the name of 
 ^li to be compounded with Elohim : because it has El in English, 
 he has taken for granted that it is the same in Hebrew, but it is 
 not so ; the name of the high priest, Eli ^/IJ means " going up," 
 perhaps "height," (Ges. Lex., p. 632), whereas the word that is 
 compounded with JElohim. is ^<^., "my God!" (Ges. Lex., p. 45). 
 If the Bishop has any knowledge of Hebrew, he must be aware 
 that the letter 57 which commences the name of EH in Hebrew is 
 never used to form part of the Divine name, the letter that is in- 
 variably employed for that purpose is ^, the first letter of the 
 Hebrew alphabet. 
 
 II. This word — Elihu — completely explodes the Elohistic and 
 Jehovistic theoiy ; it is indisputable that this name, written in 
 full, would be ^Z- Jehovah, therefore it contains within itself both 
 the Elohistic and Jehovistic names of the Deitj. The Jewish 
 authorities assert that this name rightly spelled in the Hebrew 
 contains the whole of the Divine name, thus mrT^'vS ; but inas- 
 much as this name is never, as a whole, conferred upon any 
 human being, they take away the final ^, and substitute the *^ J 
 so, indeed, destroying the full identity, yet leaving in the name 
 
 G 
 
98 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 the contracted form of Jehovali set forth by Dr. Colenso. Now 
 Bishop Colenso asserts, and the whole theory of his book is 
 founded upon the assertion, that the Elohist, Samuel, was the 
 older writer, and that the Jehovistic writer came afterward. 
 Here, then, is a word containing both Elohim and Jehovah, indis- 
 putably in existence for four generations before the oldest of these 
 two writers was born. 
 
 III. This name, Elihu, will prove that Samuel did not " first 
 form and introduce the name" Jehovah. 
 
 Ehhu was Samuel's great-grandfather, and as the name of 
 Elihu contains the whole of the name Jehovah, it was absolutely 
 impossible that his great-grandson, Samuel, could have "first 
 formed and introduced the name." 
 
 To make good Ms assertion that Samuel ''^ first formed and 
 introduced the name" Jehovah; Bishop Colenso must prove that 
 Samuel ^^ first formed and introduced the name^^ of his own 
 great grandfather I 
 
 Here, then, is Bishop Colenso 's whole theory, laid by him- 
 self in utter and irremediable ruin. That Samuel " first formed 
 and introduced the name Jehovah" is shown to be ridiculously 
 impossible, as it was the name conferred upon and commonly 
 used by his own great grandfather. The fact that he had it, 
 indisputably carries us back to his parents; and, so far, back 
 into the times of the judges of Israel ; and this instance, coupled 
 with the others that have been mentioned, form an unbroken 
 chain of Jehovistic names from Eve down to the times of Samuel 
 himself. 
 
 With this chapter the Bishop ends, for the present, his 
 Criticism on the Word of God, and to have more signally failed 
 in proving his case, or to have concluded with an argument more 
 disgracefully and glaringly absurd, would have been impossible. 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 99 
 
 " CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 Summary of Results in Part II." 
 
 We have but Httle space left, and therefore must very rapidly- 
 pass over this and the concluding chapter of the Bishop's pre- 
 sent Part. He promises, however, to make Part III. as intel- 
 ligible as possible to the reader who does not understand 
 Hebrew — thereby at least insinuating that he himself is a pro- 
 found Hebraist. If so, he has a most unhappy way of convinc- 
 ing Jews that he understands their form of speech ; for they 
 assert that any intelligent lad with a knowledge of the Alphabet, 
 a Hebrew Lexicon, Grammar, and a copy of the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures, would be able to detect the Bishop's palpable blunders. 
 But we must hasten to notice the more prominent points of the 
 summary in question. 
 
 I. " There are different authors concerned in the composition 
 of the Book of Genesis, whose accounts, in some respects, con- 
 tradict each other." 
 
 So Tom Paine asserted before Bishop Colenso. We have 
 seen that Bishop Watson has succesfully defended the Bible 
 against both attacks. 
 
 y. " If the name Jehovah ivas first revealed to Moses (in 
 Exod. vi.) then the Jehovistic story which puts it in the mouths 
 of persons of all classes from the days of Eve downwards, can- 
 not be historically true." 
 
 We have shown that it is not asserted in Ex. vi. 3, that the 
 name Jehovah was then first revealed on the earth — the words 
 form a question, not a statement of a fact ; and there is good 
 reason to believe that the name of Eve herself is in the last por- 
 tion compounded with the name Jehovah. 
 
 YI. " In the Book of Genesis, down to the age of Joseph, 
 
100 THE BIBLE IS THE TrOEKSHOP. 
 
 though there are nnmerons names compotmded with Elohim, 
 there is not a single one compounded luith Jehovah^ 
 
 No one acquainted with the Hebrew language would venture 
 upon the assertion. There is Eve, Mehujael, Judah, Joseph, 
 Jemuel, Jamin, and Jachin — all compounded with Jehovah, though 
 Bishop Colenso's critical ability has failed to detect the facts. 
 
 VIII., IX., X., and XI. " We must return, then, to the other 
 supposition, viz., that the Elohist had some special reason for 
 commending the name to the regard and veneration of the people. 
 The most natural reason would be that he himself was intro- 
 ducing it, as a new name for the God of Israel. "We find an 
 indication of the fact that the name did not exist before the time of 
 Samuel, in the circumstance that throngJiout tlie history in the hooh 
 of Judges there is no single name ivMch can he appealed to vjith con' 
 fidence as compounded with Jehovali, while there are names com- 
 pounded with the divine name in the form of El During 
 
 and after the time of Samuel we observe a gradually increasing 
 partiality for the use of names compounded with Jehovah, while 
 not one name of this kind occurs at such an age as is inconsistent 
 with the supposition that this name may have been introduced 
 by Samuel." 
 
 In the book of Judges there are the Jehovistic names of 
 Joash, Jotham, Micah, Joshua, Jonathan, Jair, and Jabin, and if 
 " not one name of this kind occurs at such an age as is incon- 
 sistent with the supposition that this name may have been intro- 
 duced by Samuel," it is indisputable that Samuel must have 
 *' introduced the name of his ovm great grandfather, Elihn." 
 
 XTV. " We conclude, then, with some degree of confidence, 
 that Samuel was the Elohistic writer of the Pentateuch." 
 
 And, therefore, that he invented the name of his own great 
 grandfather, the history of the Ark of the Covenant, and of the 
 Tabernacle of the Congregation that were in Shiloh before he urns 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 101 
 
 horn. And it is certain that the Tabernacle and its accessories 
 were worth about two hundred and fifty thousand pounds, but 
 we must suppose, in order to accept Bishop Colenso's theory, 
 that the Israelites were in actual possession of this valuable 
 property, without having the least idea how they came by it. 
 
 XV. " Since the Jehovistic writer makes free use of the name 
 Jehovah, he must have written later than the early days of 
 David." 
 
 It remains to be shown that the name was not known in 
 Paradise, and that the name of Eve is not compounded with it, 
 and we have shown that in the name of Mehujael the com- 
 pounding with the name Jehovah certainly occurred in ante- 
 diluvian periods. 
 
 XVI. " This is confirmed by finding that one Jehovistic pas- 
 sage, Num. X. 35, is manifestly copied from a Psalm of David." 
 
 This is begging the whole question ; there is not any vahd 
 reason given to prove that the portion of the Psalm has not been 
 Copied from Numbers. 
 
 XX. " The book of Deuteronomy was written about the time 
 of Josiah, and, as some supposed, by the hand of the Prophet 
 Jeremiah." 
 
 If so, Jeremiah wrote the book of Deuteronomy on the plains 
 of Moab, and delivered it to the Levites to keep, before the 
 Israelites passed over Jordan, about eight hundred years before he 
 was born. (See Deut. xxxi. 24 — 26.) 
 
102 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 "CHAPTEE XXII. 
 
 CoxcLUDiNG Remarks." 
 
 The Bishop thus writes : — " I must now, in conclusion, take 
 account of two classes of objections, which will undoubtedly be 
 made to the above result. First, it will be said, ' You will have 
 us, then, believe that Samuel, Nathan, etc., were after all deceivGrs, 
 who palmed upon their own countrymen in the first instance a 
 gross fraud, which from that time to this has been beHeved to be 
 the true word of the living God.' As one of my ow^n friends 
 has observed, I would rather beheve that two and two make five, 
 than that such a man as Samuel could possibly have been guilty 
 of so foul an offence against the laws of religious truth and 
 common morality. I answer in the first place, that for any one 
 who is ready to believe that two and two make five, if he finds it 
 written down in the Bible, there is, as it seems to me, no alter- 
 native but to comply with this demand of a merely superstitious 
 reverence for the outward letter, the husk of the Bible, and abro- 
 gate the rights and duties of a reasoning being ; for, undoubtedly, 
 as I have shown, I believe sufficiently in Part I., an unquestioning 
 and implicit faith in all the details of the story of the Exodus, 
 as recorded in the Pentateuch, involves, again and again, assent 
 to propositions as monstrous and absurd as the above statement 
 would be in arithmetic." 
 
 Let us see what this verbiage amounts to. " Any one who is 
 ready to believe that two and two make five, if he finds it in the 
 Bible, must abrogate the rights and duties of a reasoning being." 
 Exactly so, we fully admit the inference drawn ; but does the 
 Bible anywhere state that two and two make five ? If not, why 
 introduce such stuff to distract the reader's attention ? Or does 
 the Bible an^-wliere state or hint that Samuel wrote the Penta- 
 
THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 103 
 
 tencli, or even a single line, or a word of it ? If not, how is the Bible 
 concerned, in any way, on either side of the question at issue ? 
 
 But a man who believes that two and two make five must 
 "abrogate the rights and duties of a reasoning being." We do not 
 think more faith is required to swallow "this monstrous and 
 absurd proposition," than to believe Dr. Colenso's theory; for it 
 is as easy to believe that two and two make five as to believe that 
 Samuel '■^ first formed the name of — his own great-grandfather .'" 
 
 " To others," Bishop Colenso continues, " I reply — It is not I 
 who require you to abandon the ordinary notion of the Mosaic 
 authorship and antiquity of the Pentateuch. It is the Teuth 
 itself which does so." 
 
 To this we reply by pointing out that we have demonstrated 
 the untruths upon which Dr. Colenso's whole theory is founded. 
 And, farther, it is impossible that the Teuth can require us to 
 believe that any man ever wrote a book eight hundred years 
 before he was bom ; but it is absolutely necessary to believe this 
 in order to receive the theory propounded by the Bishop of iN'atal. 
 
 We may mention three more theories we must receive in 
 order to agree with Dr. Colenso. 
 
 Without a shadow of evidence of any kind, we must believe 
 the prophet Samuel to be the most blasphemous and successful 
 forger and liar the world ever saw. 
 
 We must believe the Jews of all ages to have been such 
 monstrous fools as to have insisted upon retaining a forged book 
 in their midst, which they had every opportunity of proving to be 
 false, but which has, through all time, held them under burdens 
 heavy and grievous to be borne. 
 
 We must believe, also, that the modem Jews do not under- 
 stand their own language, for it is unquestionable, that if Dr. 
 Colenso understands Hebrew, the Jews do not. (See Dr. Adler's 
 letter to the "Athenaeum.") 
 
104 THE BIBLE IN THE WOEKSHOP. 
 
 Of the whole matter, here is the sum : — 
 
 Jesus Christ the Son of God bore emphatic witness, many 
 times repeated, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. 
 
 This witness the Bishop of N'atal declares to be false, when 
 he asserts the Pentateuch to have been written by Samuel and 
 later writers. 
 
 But in endeavouring to prove his assertion of the falsehood 
 of our Lord's testimony, the Bishop of Natal has put forward 
 some of the most monstrous and palpable absurdities, that ever 
 rendered a man — who wished to be thought wise and learned— 
 a common laughing stock. 
 
 Alas for us, to whom the revelation of the will of God has 
 been given — 
 
 * * ?i»7P77/?__7 O 
 
 " The "Word of our God is the source of peace, and brings peace 
 to all. But we make war with it ; with it we think of strife ; 
 with it we hate one another; and, again, with it we prepare 
 destruction for ourselves." 
 
 THE END. 
 
 EABBILD, PBIHIEB, SHOE LANS, LOIfDOlT. 
 
• ^,51225.4 .C7E3 
 ^ The B.ble in the workshop: a refutation 
 
 m;r^^^r.n^^?:°^'^^,':Sem,nary-Speer L,brary