OLIN 
 BS 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 1225 
 .C65 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 ^w^Wti^ 
 
 
 SBx 
 1863 
 
 H 
 
 
sex 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 1924 084 424 062 
 
The original of tliis book is in 
 tlie Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924084424062 
 
REPLY 
 
 — TO — 
 
 BISHOP COLENSO'S 
 
 m 
 
 BY THE HEBREW WOOD CHOPPER. 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO: 
 
 BELL & LAMPMAN, BOOK AND JOB PEINTERS, 410 CLAY STBEET. 
 
 1803. 
 
v> ' S--\ 
 
 
 %. 
 
 
 V.'fi;^^ V4-}" 
 
PIIEFA.CE. 
 
 I have undertaken to write a reply to a book, which viewed merely 
 with reference to its intrinsic merits, neither deserves nor requires 
 any reply at all. Regarded in the light of a contribution to scripto- 
 rial criticism, I do not hesitate to say that the recent work of Bishop 
 Colonso, exhibits neither the ability, originality, nor scholarship requi- 
 site to give it importance. Its reasoning is remarkably shallow and 
 inconclusive, and of such a character as would, if employed in legal 
 political, or scientific discussion, be answered only with ridicule. But 
 strange to say, in Scriptural and Theological debates, arguments are 
 gravely advanced and gravely responded to, which would not be tole- 
 rated or considered at all respectable in any other field of controversy. 
 As to the originality of the Bishop's views, I will undertake to affirm 
 that none of his " objections " to the veracity of the Pentateuch are 
 novel to the student of the Old Testament, and that all of them have 
 appeared in the works of the German Rationaliste writers of the last 
 generation. To scholarship Bishop Colenso can assuredly make no 
 pretensions. His blunders are of the grossest description ; and his 
 ignorance both of Biblical literature, of the correct principles of inter- 
 pretation, of Hebrew antiquities, Hebrew literature, and even of the 
 Hebrew language, is manifested continually, in almost every chapter 
 of his book. 
 
 Nevertheless, in spite of all this, the work is very justly to be 
 regarded as a mischievous and dangerous one, especially to unsettled 
 minds, and to half-educated persons, sufficiently well informed to 
 appreciate and magnify the force of scriptural arguments, but destitute 
 of the learning or the penetration necessary to enable them to perceive 
 their inconclusiveness. 
 
 It presents in a popular form objections which though not new, 
 seem formidable enough to those to whom they are suggested for the 
 first time, — objections to which the answers are not always directly 
 obvious. To raise difficulties of this sort is an easy task. There 
 are many things in Scripture hard to be understood, which the 
 unlearned and the unstable wrest to their own destruction. These 
 difficulties exist not only in Scripture, but in all the histories 
 
4 PREFACE. 
 
 that have ever been written. They exist also in Science and in 
 Nature. We know that the seed cast in the ground germinates 
 and expands into leaves ; that the mind is active in dreams while 
 the body sleeps; that the earth revolves; that the planets hang 
 poised in empty space ; that the ocean remains salt century after 
 century. We know these things as facts ; but if any ignorant person 
 disputes or questions them, it is no easy task to prove them in such a 
 way that the objector shall understand the explanation or the proof, 
 and be rationally convinced. If Bishop Colenso's "native" had raised 
 objections to the being of a God who had no beginning of existence, or 
 to the possibility of the motion of the earth through the realms of 
 space faster than the flight of an arrow, or to the reasonableness of the 
 resurrection of the body, — could the Bishop have explained and proved 
 these things to the satisfaction of the savage any better than he could 
 the wonders of the Bible history ? No, we all believe and know 
 much that we cannot bring home to the apprehension of the unlearned, 
 and much that the wisest philosopher admits his inability to explain at 
 all. Any child can propound difficulties which will puzzle a sage ; and 
 only ignorance and folly dream that all the mysteries of Nature and 
 Revelation can be rendered clear to every apprehension. In regard 
 to Scripture, the objection is often more obvious and intelligible than 
 the reply ; and frequently where the reply is in reality complete and 
 satisfactory, fad the objection shallow and unsound, it requires consid- 
 erable vigor of intellect and habit of thought, to be capable of perceiv- 
 ing this. In science the same thing is true. No one now pretends to 
 question the doctrine of the " atomic constitution of matter." No 
 chemical theory is more firmly established. Yet if you state that 
 theory to an unlearned person, — if you tell him that the block of 
 granite, the ball of iron, the most solid substances in nature, consist of 
 parr.ioles which do not actually touch each other, — that the spaces 
 between those particles are really greater than the particles them 
 selves, — that when you heat an iron ball the particles which compose 
 it are forced farther apart so that the ball becomes larger, and that 
 cold causes them to approach closer to each other ; — if you tell him all 
 this, he may believe you but he will not clearly conceive how it can be 
 so. He will probably make objections to the theory, which to the 
 great mass of mankind would seem quite as plausible and unreasonable 
 as the keenest infidel arguments against the truth of scripture. And 
 after you have answered his objections, and proved the truth of the 
 theory, — no matter how able your answer, nor how clear (to a philos- 
 
PREFACE. 6 
 
 opher) your proof, he will still understand and appreciate the force of 
 the objections much better than that of your explanations. So much 
 easier is it always, to object than to reply, — to raise doubts than to 
 satisfy them. 
 
 But Bishop Colenso's book is important and dangerous, and ought 
 to be answered for still another reason, entirely independent of its 
 intrinsic merits or demerits. It is the work of a high dignitary in the 
 Christian Church — of one whose position implies learning and ability, 
 — whose duty and business would seem to be to defend what he assails. 
 An attack upon the veracity of the Bible emanating from a Bishop of 
 the Church of England, must attract attention, however feeble the 
 attack. Thousands will read this book, who would never have opened 
 its pages had it been the work of an avowed infidel ; and thousands 
 will give a weight to its careless statements, slip-shod logic, and flimsy 
 reasoning, which would not have been conceded to the subtlest and 
 most scholarly criticisms of the ablest known rationalistic opponent of 
 inspiration. 
 
 For these reasons I have undertaken a detailed answer to this much 
 talked of book. I have thought it best to reply in detail to all the 
 objections raised, however absurd and unworthy of serious refutation 
 some of them might seem. Consequently I fear that my answer will 
 be but dull reading, and will require much patience in the perusal. 
 The details Into which I have been compelled to go, are not, and can- 
 not be made interresting, if the examination is thorough. 
 
 It will also be seen that I have limited myself to replying to Bishop 
 Colenso. I have not undertaken to prove that the Pentateuch is his- 
 torically (rue, — but simply that Bishop Colenso has not shown that it 
 is false. In many places I could have removed other difficulties than 
 those suggested by him, which might occur to the reader. But I con- 
 sidered this as being aside from my present purpose. JTor thousands 
 of years the Pentateuch has been received as true by many of the 
 greatest and wisest and best men of every generation. Statesmen and 
 scholars, warriors and poets, great authors renowned for genius and 
 learning, illustrious discoverers in science, profound philosophers. 
 Rabbis and doctors of the most enormous erudition, and who knew all 
 the " objections " of the atheists by heart, have century after century 
 attested their belief in " Moses and the Prophets," Newton and Bacon, 
 Paschal and Fenelon, Kant and Locke, Milton and Shakespeare, 
 Arnold and Woodsworth, Agassiz and Bulwer, may all be regarded 
 as men not inferior in the gifts of intellect, to Bishop Colenso and his 
 
6 PREFACE. 
 
 allies. Most of them too, are no less eminent in scholarship than in 
 genius, and I enumerate them as the representatives of the classes who 
 have not disdained to accept the truth of the Old Testament. Such 
 then are the liind of intellects (neither feeble, nor inactive, nor disposed 
 to blind credulity) that dozon to the time of Bishop Colenso's book 
 acquiesced in the truth of Scripture. They were not of course igno- 
 rant of the general objections before that time, urged against it, and 
 they must have had some satisfactory mode (satisfactory to themselves) 
 of disposing of those objections. Therefore upon authority, I have 
 taken the Pentateuch as authentic, so far as the light existing on the 
 subject down to the time of Bishop Colenso is concerned. I have not 
 undertaken to prove that to be true, which was generally received as true 
 by the wise and learned, until the appearance of this book. Such an 
 attempt would have seemed gratuitous, and even impertinent, — as it 
 would to come out with a pamphlet to prove the good character of a 
 citizen of received good standing in the community. Bishop Colenso 
 however assails the Pentateuch, and I reply to his assault. If I succeed 
 in refuting his arguments, the Pentateuch stands in the like position as 
 before the attack. As to silencing objectors, and putting an end to 
 deistic doubts, that is a quixotic task which I have no idea of attempt- 
 ing. Cavilers and doubtei-s and objectors have always existed, and 
 will continue to exist to the end of the world. If I can prevent good, 
 and healthy- minded men, who do not by constitution and temperament 
 belong to that unfortunate and wretched class of intellectual cripples 
 and invalids, from being drawn among them, I shall be content. 
 Chronic diseases are difficult of cure, while attacks of acute disorders 
 may often be warded off with a little care ; and to prevent the spread 
 of contagion rather than to relieve those already infected is my aim 
 and hope. 
 
— TO — 
 
 BY J. L. STONE. 
 
 • 
 
 The much talked of volume, which derives its chief, I might say 
 its sole importance from the official position of its author, embraces 
 some eighteen distinct objections against the historical veracity of 
 the Pentateuch. These eighteen objections, based upon as many 
 separate passages or portions of the Books whose authority is sought 
 to be invalidated, constitute the whole 0/ Bishop Colenso's volume of 
 over 200 poffes. They might all have been stated, with q nte as 
 much clearness aud force, (indeed with a material gain in these 
 qualities) without occupying twenty pages. 
 
 I propose very briefly to examine these objections or difficulties in 
 their order. In performing this task in the manner which I have 
 thought best to adopt, I fear I shall often be uninteresting, aud 
 sometimes even tedious. I might indeed, by treating the subject 
 superficially, and avoiding all dry details, by selecting the weak 
 points of the argument I am about to deal with, and handling them 
 in a popular manner, employing ridicule rather than reason, and 
 adopting generally the style of an advocate or a stump speaker, who 
 aims at making telling "points," rather than at producing sober 
 conviction, I might perhaps, by these means, have been much more 
 entertaining, than I can possibly expect to be, where my sole aim 
 has been to furnish a thorough but sober refutation of a pernicious 
 and dangerous, though shallow book. With this end steadily in 
 view, I could not avoid going into details which must seem dry, and 
 calculations which must seem tiresome to the ordinary reader. For 
 my own opinion is, that if Bishop Colenso's argument is worthy to 
 be answered at all (and I do not affirm that intrinsically it is) it 
 should be answered with a thoroughness and gravity, worthy of the 
 momentous questions involved. 
 
 The first of the eighteen weighty objections which have induced 
 the Bishop to throw the Old Testament overboard, relates to the 
 
' 8 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 supposed amazing increase of the family of Judah, the fourth son of 
 Jacob, in the course of a few generations. Our author declares that 
 Judah is represented in the sacred record as having greaUjrand chil- 
 dren within twenty-two years after his marriage; "this" says the 
 learned Bishop, "is a natural impossibility," wherefore he concludes 
 against the reliability of the record. And the conclusion would be 
 quite justifiable, if the statement were that Hezrom and Hamul, the 
 sons of Pharez were bom within twenty-two years after their grand- 
 father Judah married the daughter of Shuah. But unfortunately 
 for the Bishop's argument, the Pentateuch states nothing of the kind. 
 
 After quoting the 12th verse of the 46th chapter of Genesis,Hhe 
 Bishop says : " It appears to me to be certain that the writer here 
 means to say that Hezrom and Hamul were born in the land of 
 Canaan, and were among the seventy persons who came into Egypt 
 with Jacob. Now Judah was 42 years old when he went down with 
 Jacob into Egypt." 
 
 For the purpose of establishing the conclusion that Hezrom and 
 Hamul were born within 22 years after Judah's first marriage, our 
 author assumes the following false hypotheses : 
 
 First, that Judah was but 42 years old when he came with his 
 father into Egypt. 
 
 Second, that Judah was but three years older than Joseph. 
 
 Third, that Joseph was born in- the seventh year after Jacob's 
 marriage. 
 
 Fourth, that Judah married the daughter of Shuah, after the time 
 when Joseph was sold by his brethren. 
 
 Now it is a fact strongly illustrative of Bishop Colenso's loose 
 and careless style of reasoning, that not one of these four hypotheses, 
 is based upon any scriptural authority. On the contrary, the first 
 three of these assumptions, ai e not only intrinsic impossibilities, but 
 they are inferentially contradicted by the very authority to which 
 the Bishop appeals. The last, would hardly have been assumed we 
 should suppose, by any reasonable man, certainly not by any reason- 
 able man who had carefully examined the scriptural authority bear- 
 ing upon it. 
 
 But let us attend for a moment to the Bishop's argument. 
 
 "Joseph," he proceeds to say, "was 39 years old when Jacob 
 came down into Egypt." 
 
 Here at the very outset is another characteristic assumption of a 
 doubtful matter as an indisputable fact. It may indeed be true, but 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 9 
 
 its truth cannot be established; and therefore it constitutes an unsafe 
 foundation for an argument. In reality, the language of the record, 
 and all the circumstances tending to throw any light on the subject, 
 afford very reasonable grounds for doubting the fact as stated by 
 the Bishop. This, I shall advert to more particularly by and by. 
 Our author thus proceeds : 
 
 " But Judah was about three years older than Joseph, for Judah 
 was born in the fourth year of Jacob's double marriage (Gen. xxxix 
 35,) and Joseph in the seventh (Gen. xxx 24-26.) Hence Judah 
 was 42 years old when Jacob went down to Egypt." 
 
 Let us now see what the record says, to justifj' this statement. 
 
 In the first place, I undertake to affirm that the age of Judah is 
 nowhere stated either directly or inferentially^ in the Scriptures. 
 Nor. is it anywhere said either in form or substance, that Judah was 
 born in the fourth year after Jacob's marriage. I think that the 
 most careful examination will result in the discovery of no passage 
 affecting these questions, except the following : 
 
 " And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated he opened her 
 womb ; but Rachael was barren. And Leah conceived and bare a 
 son, and called his name Reuben. And she conceived again and 
 bare a son, and she called his name Simeon. And she conceived 
 again and bare a son, and his name was cal ed Levi. And she con- 
 ceived again and bare a son, and said, 'Now I will praise the Lord;' 
 therefore she called his name Judah, and left bearing." Gen. xxix 35. 
 
 The next succeeding chapter commences thus : 
 
 " And Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children. And Rachel 
 envied her sister, and said unto Jacob, ' Give me children, or else I 
 die.'" 
 
 It would seem that Bishop Coleuso must have arrived at the con- 
 clusion that Judah was born in the fourth year after Jacob's mar- 
 riage, by supposing that Leah conceived immediately after her 
 marriage, and then bore a child every year. Now at best this is one 
 of those unauthorized asumptions or "guesses," to which the Bishop 
 is so singularly addicted. If we are to " guess " at all upon the 
 subject, might we not as reasonably assume that an interval of 
 eighteen months, or even of two years occurred between each birth ? 
 In regard to the other point, the language of the record is clearly 
 against our author's hypothesis. Leah we are told, did not conceive 
 until " the Lord saw that she was hated," implying that some time 
 elapsed after the marriage before the Lord "opened the womb" of 
 
10 A EEPLT TO BISHOP COLENSo's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 the despised wife. I dwell upon matters of this sort, not so much 
 on account of their intrinsic importance, as to illustrate the reckless 
 style of argument in which Bishop Colenso habitually indulges on 
 the gravest and most momentous of all the subjects that can engage 
 the attention of thoughtful men. 
 
 And now let us glance for a moment, at the evidence bearing 
 upon the assumption that Joseph was born within three years after 
 the birth of Judah. 
 
 " And Jacob's anger was kindled against Kachael ; and he said : 
 'Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the 
 womb V And she said : ' Behold my maid Billah, go in unto her ; 
 and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by 
 her.' And Billah conceived, and bare Jacob a son. And Rachel 
 therefore called his name Dan. And Billah conceived again and 
 bare a son, and she called his name Naphtali. And when Leah saw 
 that she stopped bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her to 
 Jacob to wife. And she bare Jacob a son ; and she called his name 
 Gad. And Zilpah bare a second son, and she called his name Asher. 
 And God hearkened unto Leah, and she conceived and bare a fifth 
 son; and she called his name Issachar. And Leah conceived again, 
 and bare a sixth son ; and she called his name Zebulon. And after- 
 wards she bare a daughter, and called her name Dinah. And God 
 remembered Eachel, and God hearkened to her, and opened her 
 womb ; and she conceived and bare a son ; and she called his name 
 Joseph." 
 
 Here it plainly appears that Joseph was the eighth child that was 
 born to Jacob after Judah ; and under the circumstances set forth 
 in the narrative, these eight children could not have been born in 
 three years. Even the " simple minded native," to whom the Bishop 
 seems to have been in a large measure indebted for his "new views," 
 might, one would suppose, have enlightened him on this point. 
 
 I am aware that it may be said, that inasmuch as these eight chil- 
 di'en were born by four different and contemporaneous wives, (so to 
 speak) three or four of them might have been borne a year. But the 
 record shows that Leah did not give her maid to Jacob to wife, 
 until Rachel's maid had already borne two sons ; and it farther 
 appears that Leah did not conceive her fifth son till her maid had 
 brought forth two sons. It is equally clear that Rachel did not 
 conceive Joseph until Leah had borne her sixth and seventh children, 
 — the last being a daughter. Hence the time covered by this series 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 11 
 
 of births is necessarily about the same, as if all the eight children 
 had been born by the same mother, and only one at a birth. 
 
 But further than this, — what authority is there for assuming that 
 these children were born to Jacob even as often as one each year ? 
 None is adduced or even hinted at. In fact there is no such author- 
 ity. It is merely another of our author's loose assumptions, not only 
 without suflScient grounds, but in the very teeth of such inferential 
 authority as exists on the point. According to the Bishop's theory, 
 twelve children must have been born to Jacob in seven years. On 
 this point he refers to Genesis xxxi. 41, where Jacob says to Laban : 
 " Thus I have been twenty years in thy house ; I have served thee 
 fourteen years for thy two daughters, and six years for thy cattle, and 
 thou hast changed my wages ten times.'' Let us see how much reason 
 the Bishop has for basing the conclusion he does upon this passage. 
 
 It will not be claimed (certainly not upon Scriptural authority) 
 that any child was born unto Jacob before his marriage. ()ut of 
 the twenty years that he served Laban, he served seven years before 
 he was married, and consequently seven years before any child was 
 born to him. This would leave thirteen years of service after his 
 marriage From these thirteen years, must be deducted the six 
 years that Jacob served Laban for his cattle, because Joseph, the 
 twelfth child of Jacob, was born before Jacob commenced the term 
 of service for the cattle ; Gen. xxx. 24-29. Hence but seven years 
 are left as the period in which the twelve children were born. But 
 twelve children cannot be born in seven years, under the circum- 
 stances recorded in reference to these children of Jacob. These 
 circumstances I have sufficiently commented upon above, and shall 
 not now dwell upon them. It is sufiSciently clear, however, from 
 the details of the sacred narrative, that a longer period than seven 
 years must, beyond all question, have elapsed between the date of 
 Jacob's marriage, and that of Joseph's birth. 
 
 But it may be said, that the Scripture statement is distinct, that 
 Jacob served Laban twenty year^ and that it would seem that all 
 his children except Benjamin must have been born during the time 
 that he was in Padan Aram, and during the second seven years' 
 service that he served for Kachel. To this I reply, that while the 
 record does indeed state that twenty years was the period of Jacob's 
 service, it makes no statement whatever in reference to the time during 
 which he lived in Paden Aram. He may have been in Paden fifty 
 years, for all that appears to the contrary, and out of that time have 
 
12 A KEPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 served Laban but twenty years. On this point we have no positive 
 knowledge, and no conclusive evidence. But I have as good a right 
 to make an "assumption," or hazard a "guess," in the interests of 
 Inspiration, as the learned Bishop has to use that privilege in the 
 interests of Infidelity. Still, I am unable to conquer my aversion to 
 arguments which rest upon the flimsy foundation of unwarranted 
 assumptions ; and I shall accordingly waive my privilege. Nor, 
 indeed, is there any necessity of resorting to it in the present case. 
 For when we consider the language of the record, and the age of 
 Jacob, we may arrive in a perfectly legitimate and logical manner 
 at the conclusion that Jacob did, as a matter of fact, reside in Paden 
 Aram at least forty-three years. Instead, therefore, of proposing a 
 "guess" of my own to the "guess" of the Bishop, I propose to 
 show the rash and ill considered character of his conjecture, by an 
 appeal to the "testimony" — such as it is. And I shall confidently 
 submit to the candid and intelligent reader, that it is at least suflS- 
 cient to show that the great preponderance of probabilities is direct- 
 ly against Bishop Colenso's theory. In mathematics and physical 
 science, propositions may be rigidly demonstrated, so that none but 
 an idiot can question their truth. But in matters such as we are now 
 considering, demonstrative proof is seldom attainable ; and a wise 
 man will not demand it as a necessary preliminary to conviction. 
 
 It appears clearly enough that Jacob served Laban seven years 
 before his marriage. When the first period of service had expired, 
 he went to Laben and said : " Give me my wife, for my days are 
 fulfilled." Gen. 29 : 21. Here the time of the expiration of the 
 first period of seven years is distinctly indicated ; but we are not 
 told when the second seven years expired. The Bishop, proceeding 
 suo more, assumes the birth of Joseph as the date of the termination 
 of this second period. In Genesis xxx. 25, we find it written : "And 
 it came to pass when Rachael had born Joseph, that Jacob said unto 
 Laban, ' Send me away, that I may go into my own place, and to 
 my own country.' " Thus it woi;^ld seem as if the birth of Joseph 
 were the cause of Jacob's wish to go home. Now if Joseph was born 
 before the seven years were fulfilled, Laban would not (we should 
 reasonably infer from all that we know of his character and his past 
 dealings with his servant) have consented to his departure. But if, 
 on the other hand, the seven years were then just fulfilled, Jacob 
 would have said, (one would naturally suppose,) "My time is up; 
 my contract is fulfilled, and I am going home to my own country." 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 13 
 
 This is the kind of language which would have been natural under 
 those circumstances ; and is, as we have seen, the language he did 
 employ at the expiration of his Jirst term of service. " Let me go 
 home," he said on that occasion, ''/or my days are fulfilled." 
 
 Now there are good reasons why Jacob did not express himself in 
 this way at the second of the two intervals referred to. In the first 
 place, the second seven years had expired long before the interview 
 in question, and long before Joseph was born. But until the latter 
 event Jacob was not ready to return home. He had entered Laban's 
 service with a double object — to obtain a wife, and to avoid the 
 danger with which he was threatened at the hands of his brother 
 Esau. The former object was attained at the end of his first seven 
 years' service ; the latter was not accomplished until the birth of 
 Joseph. After that event Jacob's fears of Esau were at an end. 
 He knew what, in later days the prophet has said: — "And the 
 house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame ; and 
 the house of Esau for stubble ; and they shall kindle in them and 
 devour them, and there shall not be any remaining in the house of 
 Esau." (Obadiah I 10.) He therefore feared no longer for himself 
 or his house, and was ready to return home. 
 
 That the birth of Joseph took place after the fourteen years of his 
 father's service had expired, will appear from a brief investigation 
 as to the age of Jacob himself. 
 
 When Jacob came into Egypt he was one hundred and thirty 
 years old, and Joseph was (at the same time) thirty-nine or forty 
 years of age. Deducting the age of Joseph from that of his father, 
 we have ninety-one years as the age of Jacob when Joseph was 
 born. And deducting the fourteen years of service before Joseph's 
 birth, from ninety-one years, we have seventy-seven years as the age 
 of Jacob (that is according to Bishop Colenso's calculation) at the 
 time when his parents sent him away to Laban. 
 
 Now is it not a little improbable that Jacob should have remained 
 at home unmarried, to the age of seventy-seven years, and then at 
 his mature age, hare agreed to serve seven yeara for a wife, before 
 marriage ? This would make him eighty-four at the time of his 
 marriage, while both his brother and his father married at forty. I 
 submit that this does not in itself appear quite reasonable ; and no 
 reason is given or suggested by Bishop Colenso. To say the least, 
 the probabilities (if we are left to probabilities) are against it. , 
 
 Having already ascertained that at the time of the birth of Joseph, 
 
14 A REPRY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Jacob was ninety-one years of age, let us see what data there are for 
 an estimate of his age at the time of his leaving his parents to enter 
 the service of Laban. 
 
 We find, Genesis xxv. 36, that Esau vs^hen forty years of age, had 
 married two wives. There is no reason to doubt that these marriages 
 took place before Jacob was sent to Laban. No events are recorded 
 as having taken place during the interval between Esau's marriage 
 and Jabob's departure, except the proceedings by which the latter 
 obtained from his father the blessings designed by him to be be- 
 stovs^ed on Esau. All that is narrated with reference to this trans- 
 action occurred in a iew days' time. The clear probability is, 
 therefore, that the interval alluded to was a brief one. For the 
 purpose of our present calculation however, let us be liberal, and 
 allow five years as the time covered by that interval. The proba- 
 bilities are that it was not nearly so long, and it could not well have 
 been more. But as the greater the interval, the better it is for the 
 Bishop's argument, I will give. him the benefit of the longest period 
 that even he could reasonably claim. 
 
 Esau then, being forty years of age at the time of his marriage, 
 we will call Jacob, his twin brother, forty-five at the time of his 
 departure to Laban, in search of a wife, for that was in fact the 
 main purpose of his mission. Gen. xxviii 2. From Esau there was 
 no immediate danger ; his violence was restrained from 'any open 
 manifestation, until the death of Isaac should take place, for what 
 he is recorded to have " said in his heart," after Jacob had obtained 
 the blessing, is, "When the days of mourning for my father shall be 
 at hand, then will I slay my brother Jacob." Hence, I feel author- 
 ized in concluding that Jacob was forty-five years of age when he 
 was sent to Laban. Now if he only remained there twenty years, 
 he would have been sixty-five years old when he departed. Joseph 
 was seven years of age at the same time. But we have an implied 
 statement that he was thirty-nine years old when Jacob came to 
 Egypt, and thirty-two years must therefore have elapsed between 
 that date, and the time of leaving Laban. Adding this thirty-two 
 years to sixty-five, and we have ninety-seven years as the age of 
 Jacob on his arrival in Egypt. But the age of Jacob at the date 
 last mentioned, is not left to inference or conjecture. It is expressly 
 stated, in the record at one hundred and thirty years, showing a dis- 
 crepancy of thirty-three years between his true age, and that which 
 results from the foregoing calculations. All this leads to one inevi- 
 
A EEPLT TO BISHOP COLENSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 15 
 
 table conclusion, as the sole mode of reconciling the apparent con- 
 tradiction ; and that conclusion is, that Jacob was fifty-three years in 
 Paden Aram, and serving Laban twenty years of that time. 
 
 If the reader has had sufficient patience to follow me closely and 
 understandingly through these tedious calculations, he will perceive 
 that Bishop Colenso's assertion that Judah was but three years older 
 than Joseph, has been pretty eflfectually demolished. As the whole 
 weight and force of the " First Objection " to the veracity of the 
 Pentateuch, rests upon this assertion, objection and assertion must 
 share the same fate. The first chapter of the Bishop's book, is 
 wholly occupied with the " first objection," and contains nothing 
 else. I think I may therefore consider that I have now performed 
 my undertaking, so far as that chapter is concerned. 
 
 The fact that the marriage of Judah stands recorded in Scripture 
 after the sale of Joseph into Egypt, together with the fact that 
 Joseph had been but about twenty-two years in Egypt when his 
 father arrived there accompanied by Hezrom and Hamul (who were 
 in the same position in point of time, to Judah, as if they were his 
 grand-children,) these two facts might perhaps be made the basis of 
 an argument in support of the Bishop's theory. But the argument 
 would be entirely worthless, unless it be admitted, that the order of 
 narration is necessary to be taken as the order of occurrence of the 
 events narrated ; and we all know that this is not the case, either in 
 sacred or profane history. The strict chronological order never is in 
 fact pursued by any historian. If engaged in narrating one set or 
 series of connected occurrences, he follows it out to its proper con- 
 clusion, and then goes bach (in point of time) to take up another 
 series, and bring that down in due order to its final issue. 
 
 It is so with the narrative in question, and to infer that Joseph 
 was sold before Judah was married, because of the simple position 
 in the narrative which the two events occupy, is entirely unwarrant- 
 able, and evinces an utter ignorance of the manner in which history 
 has always been written, and the only rational manner in which it 
 can be written. Lord Macauly narrates the great naval battle of La 
 Hogue, by the issue of which the English people were relieved 
 from their dread of an impending foreign invasion, in the eighteenth 
 chapter of his History. In the nineteenth chapter, he describes King 
 William's arrival in Holland, and his preparations for the campaign 
 against the French ; yet the events last narrated, were prior in point 
 of time. But I have already dwelt too long upon a point so obvious. 
 
A Eeply to Bishop Oolenso's Attack Upon the PentateucL 
 
 BISHOP COLENSO'S SECOND OBJECTION TO THE TEBACITT 
 OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Formerly I experienced some difficulty in understanding the 4th 
 verse of the 26th chapter of Proverbs ; " Answer not a fool 
 according to his folly," in connection with the succeeding verse ; 
 'Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his 
 own conceit." But since commencing the task of reviewing 
 Bishop Colenso's book, I have gained some light touching these 
 apparently conflicting passages. If a foolish difficulty is raised, 
 through ignorance merely, and with no evil intention, the ob- 
 jector, and others who share his ignorance may be enlightened 
 and benefitted by a wise answer, to the exl^nt at any rate of 
 becoming sensible of his folly, and losing his " conceit "of his own 
 ■wisdom. If on the other hand the foolish objector, is animated 
 by sinister motives, and mingles malice with his folly, it is idle 
 and undignified to waste time in disputing with him. 
 
 Now the objection to the Old Testament in reference to the 
 "family of Judah," whether it was possible for Hezron and Hamul 
 to have been born before the time that Jacob came down into Egypt, 
 might perhaps appear to be a reasonable one to a person destitute 
 of Biblical learning. I accordingly made a serious, and I think a 
 complete answer to that objection, since it seemed to me to be such 
 an one as might have originated in the sincerity of ignorance. 
 
 But the second and third points made by the Bishop are of alto- 
 gether a different character, and I am utterly unable to conceive 
 how they could ever have been propounded in good faith, by any 
 person of ordinary intelligence. Indeed they imply a degree of 
 stupidity so enormous, that I am constrained to attribute them to 
 something more, than simple ignorance. I might therefore pass 
 these objections without condescending to offer a serious reply to 
 them, yet as they may be very briefly refuted, I prefer to devote a 
 little time to their consideration. 
 
 The second objection raised by the Bishop against the veracity of 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. It 
 
 the Pentateuch is founded upon the question whether the whole of 
 the Israelites could go inside of the court of the tabernacle to wit- 
 ness the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priestly office ? 
 This, says the Bishop, was an impossibility, because the court was 
 but one hundred cubits in length, ind fifty cubits in breadth, and 
 deducting therefrom the space that the tabernacle itself, which stood 
 in the centre of the court, occupied, but fifty-four feet are left. 
 
 For a million of men to go into a space of fifty-four feet, argues 
 the Bishop, is an impossibility, or according to the statement, as 
 made concerning " all the Israelites," and leaving their number an 
 open question, it is a proof that the Israelites were no more in num- 
 ber than could go into an enclosure of fifty-four feet. Hence he 
 concludes that this contradicts the statement, which is repeatedly 
 made in the Pentateuch, that the Israelites had over six hundred 
 thousand warriors, or men that were over twenty years of age. 
 
 In answer to this difSculty, I will simply ask the Bishop why, if 
 he is certain that six hundred thousand men could not go into a 
 space of fifty-four feet, he chooses without any reasonable motive, to 
 so understand the record as to compel them to go in there ? 
 
 The Bishop is by no means forced to this interpretation ; and it 
 really seems to be with him a matter of preference. Indeed, where 
 there are two modes of understanding any passage of Scripture, one 
 of which tends to make the sacred writings inconsistent or ridiculous, 
 the learned prelate seems invariably to choose it in preference to the 
 other. This is rather singular, and if the same characteristic were 
 equally manifested by a scoffing scriptical writer, I should be com- 
 pelled to attribute it to the wilful perversity and malice, of one who 
 hated the truth, and desired to assail and ridicule it by every possible 
 means, — even by falsehood if necessary. But of course I cannot 
 judge in this way of Bishop Colenso, and I must accordingly account 
 for the peculiarity referred to on some other ground — difficult as 
 that may seem. 
 
 But the undoubted fact is, that we are nowhere told in the Bible 
 that the Israelites were to go inside the court of the tabernacle ; 
 neither does the passage quoted by the Bishop say so. It reads as 
 follows — " And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying : Gather thou 
 the congregation together unto the door of the tabernacle of the 
 congregation. And Moses did as the Lord commanded him, and the 
 assembly was gathered unto the door of the tabernacle of the con- 
 2 
 
18 A REPDY TO BISHOP COLONSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 gregation." — (Leviticus 8 : 1-3-4.) This does not say that they 
 had to go inside the court of the tabernacle. 
 
 The Bishop, in the preface of his work, speaks of his companion, 
 " a simple-minded but intelligent native, who had the docility of a 
 child but the reasoning power of mature age." As I have no other 
 knowledge of the reasoning powers of that native except the 
 Bishop's word — and his judgment — I am incapable of saying what 
 the intelligence and reasoning faculties of the native were. But I 
 am quite confident that even a person belonging to one of the infe- 
 rior races of savages, if gifted with the ordinary capacity of a 
 savage could have suggested to the learned objector, a very natural 
 and obvious solution of this particular difficulty. If the said savage 
 should be informed that the tabernacle was 30 feet high on the inside; 
 that the "court" that surrounded it, was not made of stone, or brick, 
 or wood, but simply of linen curtains; that the command was that 
 all the Israelites should witness the ceremony of Aaron's consecra- 
 tion ; — I really think that if these particulars were stated to even a 
 Hottentot of average sagacity, he might have suggested to the 
 perplexed prelate, that it would be the easiest thing in the world to 
 remove the curtains temporarily, erect a staging inside, and thus enable 
 all the Israelites to be spectators of the ceremony. 
 
 The next, (the third) difficulty is of the same character as the 
 foregoing. It is thus stated : 
 
 How could Moses or Joshua address all the people or congregation 
 of Israel if they were so many as the Bible tells us they were ? 
 
 The Bishop thinks that it was impossible for all of them (at least 
 two milllions) to hear what either Moses or Joshua said. Here the 
 question raised by the objector is not whether Moses or Joshua could 
 speak before the whole congregation ; but whether the multitude 
 heard what the speakers said. And inasmuch as the Bible does not 
 say that they all heard, but simply that Moses or Joshua had spoken 
 before the whole congregation, {women and children.) If there is a 
 question at all, it answers itself, that the speaker spoke as loud as 
 he could, and was heard by as many as could hear him. I think this 
 a sufficient answer ; at least I shall hold it is, nntil he refers me to 
 any place in the Bible where it says that every one who was present 
 heard what the speaker said. 
 
 Bishop Colenso must often have heard and read such expressions 
 as,— "I affirm before the whole world,"— or "before all mankind," 
 or "in the face of the world," — I wonder if he ever undertook to 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSo'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 19 
 
 interpret them in the same spirit which he evinces in his Biblical 
 criticisms ? History gives us many accounts of generals having 
 "addressed," or "harangued" their armies, where those armies could 
 not by any possibility have heard at one time the voice of any man_ 
 How does the Bishop understand such statements ? The President 
 of the United States, " addresses," his fellow citizens, the people of 
 the United States from the steps of the Capitol at Washington every 
 fourth year on the 4th of March : do all th? people, of all the States 
 hear him ? And yet if I should say ; "the President addressed all 
 the people, from the Capitol steps," would Bishop Colenso be justi- 
 fied in impeaching my personal veracity ? If not, why is it that he 
 criticises the Pentateuch in a spirit so different from that applied to 
 other works, or to other similar statements and modes of expression ? 
 It cannot be of course because he hates the Bible more than other 
 books, and wishes to make it out to be false, by any reasons and at 
 all hazards. This supposition is inadmissible in the case of a 
 dignitary of the Church, like Bishop Colenso, who has devoted 
 himself to the work of carrying to foreign lands and heathen 
 people, the religion whose foundation and corner stone, he labors so 
 hard to overturn. 
 
 The next objection, (the fourth) relates to, " The extent of the 
 camp compared with the priest's duties and the daily necessities of' 
 the people." After quoting the 11th and 12th verses of the 4tk 
 chapter of Leviticus, the Bishop says, " We have seen that the whole 
 population of Israel at the exodus may be reckoned at two millions." 
 
 Now we cannot well allow a living man, with room for his cook- 
 ing, sleeping, or other necessaries of life, less than three or four 
 times the space of a dead one in his grave. Let us allow, however,, 
 for each person on the average three times six feet by two feet, the 
 size of a coffin for a full-growd man ; that is, let us allow for each 
 person thirty-six feet. Then it follows that for two millions of peo- 
 ple the camp must have covered "one thousand six hundred and 
 fifty-two acres of ground." "Thus the refuse of these sacrifices 
 would have to be carried by the priest himself, Aaron, Eleazer, or 
 Ithamar — there were no others," — (This is another assertion of the 
 author without proof or reason,) — "a distance of three-quarters of a 
 mile frond the outside of the great camp, wood and water would 
 have to be brought for all purposes, and indeed the command itself 
 supposes the person to have a ' paddle upon his weapon,' and there- 
 fore must be understood to apply only to the six hundred thousand 
 
20 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSo's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 warriors. But the very fact that this direction for ensuring cleanli- 
 ness, ' for Jehova thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, there- 
 fore shaJl thy camp be holy ; that he see no unclean thing in thee, 
 and turn away from thee,' would have been so limited in its appli- 
 cation, is in itself a very convincing proof of the unhistorical char- 
 acter of the whole narrative." 
 
 So far as I am able to understand the drift and force of this 
 reasoning, it tends to establish no conclusion, except the dense igno- 
 rance of its author. 
 
 The Bishop concludes that the camp of the Israelites occupied a 
 space of "one thousand six hundred and fifty acres of ground." 
 What proof has he shown that they all camped in one body ? None 
 other than his own assertion. Had he been as learned as we might 
 reasonably expect one occupying his position to be he would have 
 known that there were three camps, one within the other, namely : 
 the Camp of Priests in the centre ; around that, the Camp of the 
 Levites, and on the outside of them the Camp of the Israelites, which 
 was subdivided into four parts. 
 
 "And the Lord spake unto Moses, and unto Aaron, saying, 
 " Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own stand- 
 ard with the ensign of their father's house ; FAR OFF about the 
 Tabernacle of the congregation, shall they pitch. And on the east 
 side, towards the rising of the sun, shall they of the standard. of the 
 Camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies." All that were 
 numbered in the Camp of Judah, a hundred and sixty'six thousand 
 and four hundred. 
 
 " On the south side shall be the standard of the Camp of Reuben." 
 All that were numbered in the Camp of Reuben were a hundred 
 and fifty-one thousand, four hundred and fifty. Then the Tabernacle 
 of the congregation shall set forward, with the Camp of the Levites 
 in their midst of the Camp. As they encamped so shall they set 
 forward every man in his place by their standard. On the west side 
 shall be the standard of the Camp of Ephraim." All that were 
 numbered of the Camp of Ephraim were a hundred and eight thou- 
 sand and one hundred. 
 
 " The standard of the Camp of Dan shall be on the north side of 
 their armies." All that were numbered in the Camp of Dan were, 
 one hundred and fifty-seven thousand and six hundred. Num. 
 Chap. II. 
 
 Here we have a plain statement that they had five different and 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO'S ATTACK UPOK THE PENTATEUCH. 21 
 
 separate Camps, each one " Far off from the Tabernacle,'' and the 
 Priests whose Camp was in the Tabernacle necessarily constituted a 
 sixth Camp. I ask again, where does the Bishop derive his authority 
 for congregating them all in one Camp ? 
 
 If his calculation: that the w'ole of them together occupied a 
 space of but 1652 acres is right ( which I do not affirm, and it is not 
 worth while to dispute) an aveiage of them would occupy one-sixth 
 part of 1652 acres, which is 275 acres, hence the Bishop may with 
 as much reason and with the same force of argumen say : " It is 
 impossible for a man who has a farm of 275 acres of land and a 
 dwelling house in the midst of it, to come home to his dinner every 
 day when he is at work anywhere on the line of his farm," as it 
 was impossible for the Israelites to get ouiside of their Camps. 
 
 The Bishop in this connection, quotes a passage from Josephus, 
 as follows : 
 
 Ant. Ill, 12, V : — " It was like an appointed market, and every- 
 thing was there ready for sale in due order, and all sorts of artificers 
 were in the shops, and it resembled nothing so much as a city, that 
 was sometimes moveable and sometimes fixed." 
 
 Hence they could not have congregated together, as the Bishop 
 supposes them to have been. Consequently, if what he has quoted 
 from Josephus proves anything it proves what the Bible says (above 
 quoted) that the Israelites were divided into several Camps, and 
 each Camp subdivided into Tribes, and probably each tribe again 
 subdivided into families. This did indeed represent the shape of a 
 city with streets ; and thus it was no more for one man to go out of 
 his camp than for one who lives in a city to go out in the street. 
 
 The Bishop goes on to say that from the outside of this great camp 
 "wood and water would have to be fetched." Why would they have 
 to bring wood and water from outside the camp ? Could they not 
 have pitched their different camps around or near some woodland ? 
 What proof has the Bishop produced that this camp did not occupy 
 (that is all the camps together,) ten or twelve miles, or even more, 
 and this would give them space enough to fell trees directly in front 
 of their tents. And as for water they could have encamped around 
 some spring, and if there was no spring they had a stone that used 
 to supply them with water, and which could be carried about from 
 one camp to another and supply each with water. 
 
 From the learned Bishop's style of criticism on this point, one 
 would suppose that he had never heard of the " watering stone " 
 
22 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSo's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 which the Israelites had in the wilderness, though the Bible makes 
 distinct mention of it in several places. 
 
 But the objector continues : — '• Thus the refuse of the sacrifice 
 would have had to be carried by the priest himself, Aaron, Eleazer, 
 or Ithamar, for there were no others, a distance of three-quarters of 
 a mile out of the camp." I ask again what proof has he given that 
 there was even one of these sacrifices, to which he refers, and of 
 which he has quoted a part, and placed at the heading of the 6th 
 chapter of his book, or the chapter now under review? Or what 
 proof has he shown that it was intended that the Israelites should 
 keep and observe any of the laws which we find in the Bible, with 
 the exception of keeping the Sabbath, during the time that they 
 were in the wilderness ? He has shown none, and we find none in 
 the Bible. The only proof that they kept the Sabbath during that 
 time is the fact that they went out to seek for manna on that day, 
 and were rebuked for it ; and that a certain man was stoned to 
 death for gathering wood on that day. All the rest, or nearly so, 
 they were commanded to do, and observe, from and after the time 
 that they came to the land of their inheritance. They have not 
 even kept circumcision, which they retained in Egypt. 
 
 "And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children 
 of Israel at the hill of the foreskins." "And this is the reason why 
 Joshua did circumcise. All the people that came out of Egypt that 
 ■H ere males. All the men of war died in the wilderness by the way, 
 after they came out of Egypt." " Now all the people that came 
 out were circumcised, but all the people that were born in the wil- 
 derness, them they had not circumcised." — (Joshua 5th chapter, 
 verses 4 and 5.) 
 
 "These are the statutes and the judgments which ye shall observe 
 to do in the land, which the Lord God of thy fathers giveth thee to 
 possess it." " Ye shall not do so unto the Lord thy God but unto 
 the place which the Lord thy God shall choose out of all your tribes 
 to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and 
 thither thou shalt come." " And thither shall ye bring your burnt 
 offerings and your sacrifices tithes and heave offerings." "Ye shall 
 not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man 
 whatsoever is right in his own eyes." "For ye are not as yet come 
 to the rest and to the inheritance which the Lord your God giveth 
 i!ou." " But when you go over Jordan and dwell in the land which 
 the Lord thy God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLONSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 23 
 
 rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety. 
 Then there shall be a place which the Lord thy God shall choose, to 
 cause his name to dwell there, thither shall you bring all that I 
 command you. But in the place which the Lord shall choose in 
 one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and 
 there shalt thou do all that I command thee." — (Deuteronomy 
 Chapter 12th.) 
 
 This, though impliedly, is nevertheless certain proof that, till they 
 came to the land of their inheritance, they were not commanded to 
 do anything. I now ask what has become of the Bishop's objections 
 or arguments ; does he or they prove anything else than his own 
 folly and ignorance ? 
 
 Let us now see whether the women and children, as well as the 
 600,000 warriors, were compelled or commanded to have a 
 " Paddle upon their weapons," during the time that they were in 
 the wilderness ? 
 
 The Bishop concludes, from the fact that it says they shall have 
 the "paddle upon their weapons," it must be understood to apply 
 only to the warriors. 
 
 But (say^ he) the very fact that that direction for ensuring 
 cleanliness "must necessarily imply women and children as well" — 
 therefore, the two facts being contradictory to each other, is conclu- 
 sive of the unhistorical character of the whole narrative ; this igno- 
 rance is inexcusable. 
 
 The command that each one shall have a "paddle upon his 
 weapon," is found in no place but in the 23d Chapter of the Book 
 of Deuteronomy. And that book was not begun until the first day 
 of the eleventh month, of the fortieth year after the Israelites came 
 out of Egypt ; as we are plainly told in the first chapter, and but 
 one month before the Israelites crossed the Jordan ; yet the learned 
 Bishop is so ignorantly blind as not to perceive that the command 
 could not apply to the time that they were in the wilderness, because 
 they knew nothing of it till after the forty years had passed and 
 they were already out of the wilderness, and were in possession of 
 the land of Moab ; and all the rest of the country which they had 
 taken on the east side of the river Jordan. 
 
 I now proceed to review the tth and 8th chapters of Colenso's 
 book embracing the 5th and 6th objections against the Pentateuch. 
 
A Eeply to Bishop Oolenso's Attack Upon the Pentateuch, 
 
 The fifth objection that Bishop Colenso has raised agaist the 
 historical veracity of the Pentateuch, is based upon " The number^ 
 of the people (the Israelites) at the first muster, compared with the 
 poll tax raised six months previously." After quoting the 11th, 
 12th, and 13th verses of the 30th chapter of Exodus, (which he has 
 altered to suit his purpose, and to which I shall hereafter refer,) he 
 says : " We may first notice in passing that the expression. Shekel 
 of the Sanctuary, in the passage above, could hardly have been 
 used in this way until there was a sanctuary ; or rather until the 
 sanctuary had been some time in existence, and such a phrase had 
 become familiar in the mouths of the people. Whereas, here it is 
 put into the mouth of Jehova, speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, 
 six or seven months before the tabernacle was made. And in 
 Exodus, 38th chapter, we have the same phrase used again, of the 
 actual contribution of the people towards the building of the 
 sanctuary." 
 
 If this is one of the insoluble questions which the learned Bishop 
 has found in the Bible, and which have so sadly disturbed his 
 conscience, I will, for his own sake, and the sake of humanity, solve 
 it for him, and hope it will tend to the settlement of his mind. 
 
 If he had referred to the 30th verse of the 26th chapter of Exodus, 
 he could have found why that objectionable phrase was used, or 
 how at least Moses came to know what a " Shekel of the Sanctuary" 
 was before a sanctuary was built. It reads thus : "And thou shalt 
 rear up the tabernacle according to the fashion thereof which was 
 shown thee in the Mount." 
 
 Thus he may have seen the Shekel of the Sanctuary in the taber- 
 nacle that he saw in the Mount. The same as he saw the candle- 
 stick ; in speaking of it, it says, " And look that you make them 
 after the same pattern which was shown you In the Mount." 
 Besides this it was clearly expressed what the value of a " Shekel of 
 the Sanctuary" was. The Bishop is too anxious to make his readers 
 swallow his crude theories and illogical conclusions. He has omitted 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 25 
 
 the language which explains what a Shekel is, in the three verses 
 quoted from the 30th chapter of Exodus. 
 
 I will here insert the 13th verse of that chapter, as it stands in 
 the Bible, and also the same verse, as the Bishop has made it read 
 in his book : 
 
 COLENSO's COPT. 
 
 " This they shall give every one that 
 passeth among thein that are numbered. 
 
 An half shekel shall be the offering of 
 Jehovah." 
 
 ORIGINAL. 
 
 "This they shall give every one that 
 passeth among them that are numbered, 
 half a shekel, after the shekel of the 
 sanctuary; A Shekel is Twenty Gebahs; 
 half a shekel shall be the offering of the 
 Lord." 
 
 A comparison of the above passage is calculated to shed much 
 light upon the spirit in ■\\'hich the Bishop conducts his argument. 
 
 It was as easy for the Israelites to knovsr what or how much a 
 Shekel of the Sanctuary was, when they were told that twenty 
 " Gerahs" made a shekel, as it is for any one who never saw the 
 coin of any nation, when ho is told what its value is in weight or 
 other designation with which he is familiar, or explained in the 
 simple manner that is done in the instance in question. 
 
 The Bishop appears to know that " Shekel of the Sanctuary" is a 
 mistranslation from the Hebrew word " Baishkel Hacondish," which 
 means the Sacred or Holy Shekel. But he says (in that case,) 
 " The difficulty would still remain, to explain what the Sacred 
 Shekel could mean, before any sacred system was established." 
 There could be no diflSculty in their knowing what a Sacred Shekel 
 was, even before a sacred system was established, as the explanation 
 given to them shows ; besides which the sacred system was shown 
 unto Moses in the Mount, before it was established amongst the 
 Israelites, and before the Lord spake unto Moses about it. 
 
 "But," says the Bishop, "these words direct that whenever a 
 numbering of the people shall take place, each one shall pay a 
 ransom for his soul. Now we read in Exodus, chapter 38th, of a 
 tribute being paid, but nothing of a census being taken. On the 
 other hand, in Numbers, chapter 1st, more than six months after the 
 date of the former occasion, we have an account of a very formal 
 numbering of the people, the result being given for each particular 
 tribe. Here the census is made, but there is no indication of any 
 atonement money being paid. The omission in each case might be 
 considered as accidental, it being supposed in the first instance the 
 numbering really took place, and in the second the tribute was paid, 
 
26 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 though neither circumstance is mentioned. But then it is surprising 
 that the number of adult males should have been identically the 
 same on the first occasion as it was half a year after." 
 
 Here are involved what the Bishop calls two questions. First — 
 Why the ransom money was not paid at the second numeration, and 
 secondly— Why the males had not increased during the interval 
 which had elapsed from the time they (the Israelites) were first 
 numbered, to the time they were subsequently numbered, which the 
 Bishop says was six months. 
 
 We will glance at the first question, namely ; " Why was the 
 ransom money not paid at the second numeration ? It is only nec- 
 essary to say that the Bishop has adduced no proof to establish that 
 fact, so coolly assumed ; the only reason assigned by him, and upon 
 which he has based his conclusion, is, that the second census was 
 taken by counting each individual, and not by each one giving a 
 half shekel, as they were commanded to do ; and we do not find it 
 mentioned in the first chapter of Numbers, where it relates to the 
 second census being taken, that they paid in the half shekel as we 
 do in Exodus. 
 
 The Bishop shall have the benefit of the whole weight of his 
 reasoning, and we will, for the sake of argument, admit as a fact 
 that there is no proof that a poll tax was levied and collected from 
 each one at the second census. But does this make the Bishop's 
 case any better ? 
 
 Now the burden of proof h^ it observed is by all rules of logic and 
 common sense, upon the Bishop. He is bound to make out his case 
 against Moses in the matter aflSrmatively, for he charges the great 
 law — give of the Israelites with having himself violated the law by 
 counting the persons of the people, and not the half shekels or 
 bekah which he was commanded to collect. Hence the Bishop is 
 in the position of an accuser, and Moses in that of the accused, who 
 is presumed innocent until proved guilty. The Eight Rev. prosecu- 
 tor however, seeks to reverse this condition of things, and calls upon 
 us to presume Moses guilty, because his innocense is not afiirma- 
 tively established ! There were two ways of taking the account ; 
 one right and the other wrong. The Bishop charges Moses with 
 having adopted the wrong mode, and undertakes to prove it by the 
 alleged fact that he does not expressly state lohich mode he did really 
 adopt. Can there be a greater outrage on candor and fair dealing 
 than this ? 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 27 
 
 But we have no need to avail ourselves of this just and wise 
 principal of the law in the present argument. Let Moses be placed 
 in the position the Christian Bishop assigns him, — adjudged guilty 
 in advance without proof and required to " prove his innocense." 
 He can do even this triumphantly. The " fact " which we have 
 above admitted for the sake of the argument, is in truth and reality 
 no fact, but a falsehood. The Bishop is (as we have so often found 
 him before) utterly mistaken in his assertion that we find nothing 
 in the first chapter of Numbers about the ransom money, etc. I 
 wonder how the learned critic of the Pentateuch understood the 
 following passage, of which we cannot certainly suppose him 
 ignorant : 
 
 " Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of 
 Israel after their families, by the house of their fathers with the 
 number of their names, every male by their Polls." — Numbers, 
 chapter 1 : 2. 
 
 We ask what does the word Polls mean if not " The Poll Tax" 
 which they paid and by which their numbers were ascertained ? 
 
 We will now consider the second question, namely ; "Why the 
 adult males had not increased during the six months which (the 
 Bishop says) had elapsed from the first to the second counting." 
 This is a question which is capable of being answered in more ways 
 than one. It may be answered by saying that the second counting 
 was made out from the "Eansom" money which they paid in six 
 months before. Or, that the second counting was only ordered for 
 the purpose of ascertaining the exact number of each family as it 
 appears from the first chapter of Numbers. This would account for 
 no increase being shown. Second — ^That the two reports alluded to 
 are one and the same counting, namely : In Exodus it gives the total 
 amount of the money that was paid in by the whole nation, and in 
 Numbers it gives the separate number of each family which was 
 made out from the records of the money they paid in. Also by 
 saying that they were counted by tens or by fifties, as Kurtz has 
 solved that question. Thus any number less than ten, in any family, 
 was not counted. 
 
 These answers are not mine, neither do I give them as answers 
 to the question, but mention ^e fact for the purpose of showing 
 that a question that may be answered in so many different ways is 
 not worth answering at all. 
 
 I will admit they were counted twice, and that six months elapsed 
 
28 A REPRY EO BISHOP COLENSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 between the first and second counting, and that the number of 
 males of twenty years and upwards was the same, but then, what 
 conclusion can be drawn from that ? Why, simply that during the 
 six months as many have died that were over twenty years old, as 
 have arrived at the age of twenty, by the time the second count 
 took place. 
 
 For our own part, we must confess that in all this we are utterly 
 unable to discern those "impossibilities" and "improbabilities," 
 which loom up in such gigantic proportions before the Bishop's 
 perturbed imagination. Perhaps this is because we do not look at 
 Scripture through the same sort of spectacles, or with the same en- 
 terprising determination to make frightful discoveries. In fact the 
 Bishop seems to enjoy his "impossibilities" and "improbabilities" 
 so much when he finds them, that we ought not to be surprised at 
 the number which he detects. When a critic sets out to examine 
 any book, on any subject, whether sacred or profane, in prose or 
 verse, with the ivish to discover either defects or merits, things to 
 praise or things to swear at, — he will be tolerably sure to find 
 abundance of what he is in search of. 
 
 The next " difficulty " with which the Bishop grapples, is based 
 upon the " impossibility " that the Israelites could have had tents 
 with them when they left Egypt. He quotes from the 26th chapter 
 of Exodus, " Take ye every man for them which are in his tents," 
 and then proceeds as follows : " Here we find that immediately after 
 their coming out of Egypt the people were provided with tents, 
 cumbrous articles to have been carried when they fled out in haste." 
 
 They may have fled in haste, but nevertheless they were not un- 
 prepared for this march ; they had received orders to prepare them- 
 selves at a moment's notice to go, long before they went, as we are 
 told in the 1st verse of the 6th chapter of Exodus, and other places. 
 
 In fact, the Israelites were preparing themselves, and were in 
 expectation of leaving Egypt from the time that Moses first came 
 and spoke to Pharaoh to the time when they left. See the Book of 
 Exodus, chapter 6 to 12. 
 
 They were ordered to borrow all they could from the Egyptians. 
 This proves that they had time to prepare themselves for the journey; 
 and the promise that Pharaoh made, each time a plague came upon 
 him, to let them go, is another strong proof that they were all the' 
 time preparing to leave ; consequently they had plenty of time to 
 make up tents. 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSo's ATTACK DPON THE PENTATEUCH, 29 
 
 The Bishop goes on to say, "Now allowing ten persons for cacti 
 tent, two millions of people would require two hundred thousand 
 tents. How did they acquire these ? Had they provided this enor- 
 mous number in expectation of their marching, when all their 
 request was to be allowed to go for three days in the wilderness ?" 
 
 Here again the Bishop makes one of those careless statements 
 which I have already had such frequent occasion to correct. I say 
 careless, because in the present instance at least, the mistake really 
 seems to have arisen from lack of that proper discrimination which 
 should characterize the language and statements of every person 
 who pret nds to make an argument, rather than from intention. 
 When we see how frequently the Bishop falls into errors of this 
 species, confounding things which an acute reasoner would readily 
 discriminate, and allowing himself to be needlessly perplexed by 
 "diflSculties," which any child with ingenuity enough to guess a 
 child's riddle, or see through a child's "puzzle'' could solve, — when 
 we note his elephantive floundering in the midst of subtleties which 
 his intellect v^as never framed to grapple with, we cannot but regret 
 the unhappy concatenation of circumstances by which such a man 
 was placed in so false a position, and by which a person who might 
 have been a useful and worthy member of society in some humbler 
 sphere, was converted into a stumbling-block for fools, and an 
 object of commiseration to the wise, by his attempt to meddle with 
 theology. 
 
 I regret that the statement upon which the "objection" last 
 mentioned is based, involves an entire mistake, and exceedingly 
 stupidore. The Israelites did not ask for three days leave of absence, 
 as the Bishop tells us they did ; what they did ask for, was to be 
 allowed to go a distance of three days^ journey into the wilderness. 
 The " three days " are mentioned not as the time of their absence, 
 but merely as the measure of the distance of their journey ; and 
 distances were often expressed in the same way, — ^by the measure of 
 the time of travel, rather than of the space traveled. The Bishop's 
 blunder in this respect is undoubtedly an honest one ; it may not 
 have struck him that there was any important difference between 
 "going three days' journey into the wilderness," and "going 
 into the wilderness to be gone three days," — but minds incapable 
 of noting the importance of such distances as these, should und ;ubt- 
 edly find some other sphere of activity than the field of Biblical 
 criticism. 
 
30 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 In this case, the distance was expressed, not the time. The time 
 they were to stay away was not indefinite. We gather this from 
 the fact that Moses told Pharaoh that they did not know what they 
 would have to do when they arrived there. " We will go three 
 days' journey into the wilderness and sacrifice to tlie Lord our God 
 as he shall command us." — Exodus 8th chapter, 27th. Also, 
 chapter 10, verses 24 and 25, "And Pharaoh called unto Moses and 
 said. Go ye servo the Lord ; only let your flocks and your liords be 
 stayed ; let your little ones go with you. And Moses said. Thou 
 must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacri- 
 fice unto the Lord our God ; our cattle also shall go with us ; there 
 shall not a hoof be left behind ; for thereof we must take to serve 
 the Lord our God, and we know not with what wo must serve the 
 Lord until we come thither.'' 
 
 From the above passages it is clear that they were preparing 
 themselves to stay sometime in the wilderness, and provided them- 
 selves with tents. 
 
 The learned critic next insists that if the Israelites did have tents, 
 it was a matter of impossibility for them to have carried them. lie 
 says : " But further, if they had these tents, how could they carry 
 them ? Certainly not on their shoulders, as they had other burdens, 
 such as infants and young children, who were unable to walk twenty 
 miles a day, as they were required to do ; the aged and infirm also 
 needed assistance ; their goods and treasures, which they brought 
 away so plentifully for the making of the tabernacle, added to which 
 they must have taken with them supplies of grain and flour, suffi- 
 cient for at least a month, as we find no manna was given them till 
 they came into the wilderness of Sin, ' on the fifteenth day of the 
 second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt.' '' 
 
 He then enters into a calculation that 200,000 oxen would be 
 necessary to "pack" these tents. Now why in the name of common 
 sense, should we calculate how much these oxen could "pack,'' 
 when it was so much easier for them to draw ? In the 7th chapter 
 of Numbers we learn that they had wagons, even covered wagons, 
 and that the princes of Israel, of which there was one in every tribe, 
 had donated six covered wagons, and two oxen to each wagon, to 
 the service of the tabernacle. We also find that they had camels, 
 and the capability of camels, as beasts of burthen, is equal to four 
 times the weight that an ox can carry. Wo can find nothing in the 
 Bible that the Israelites had packed oxen in the wilderness, there- 
 
31 
 
 fore we conclude that they used wagons drawn by oxen to carry 
 their tents and luggage. And if the weight of a tent was one 
 hundred and twenty pounds, (as the Bishop says) two oxen 
 could easily draw sixteen tents which weighed but nineteen 
 hundred and twenty pounds. In that case it would only require 
 twelve thousand five hundred wagons, and twenty-five thousand 
 oxen ; and it cannot be supposed that that number is too great for 
 two millions of people. 
 
 Let us see whether we ought to concede that each tent weighed 
 as much as the Bishop says it did. He says — "The Hebrew tents 
 we must suppose were made of skins." Has he any Biblical authority 
 for this supposition ? Has he directly or indirectly referred to any 
 passage in the Bible upon which he based his idea that the tents 
 were made of skins? He simply says, "We must suppose" so; 
 and he has so concluded because it best answers his purpose. 
 
 We have as much right to suppose that the tents were made of 
 very fine linen, as he has to suppose they were made of skins. If we 
 consider the amount of linen used for the Tabernacle, which was all 
 donated by the people, we shall be compelled to come to the con- 
 clusion that the tents were made out of linen. If so, this is equal 
 to the lightest modern materials, and as the Bishop says, that tents, 
 made of light modern materials weigh about forty pounds, a yoke 
 of oxen that could draw sixteen tents, each weighing one hundred 
 and twenty pounds, as we have before stated, could draw three 
 times as many that weighed but forty pounds each ; consequently 
 only one-third the number of oxen and wagons would be required, 
 hence instead of twelve thousand five hundred wagons, as men- 
 tioned above, three thousand one hundred wagons and twice as 
 many oxen would accomplish all, and no reasonable being will 
 suppose this an Impossibility or unhistorical, as the Bishop con- 
 cludes it is. 
 
A Eeply to Bishop Oolenso's Attack Upon the Pentateuch. 
 
 The seventh objection urged by Bishop Colenso against the 
 historical veracity of the Pentateuch, is no less flimsy and far- 
 fetched than those which I have already considered. It is based 
 entirely upon the alleged statement of the record, that the Israelites 
 were armed when they made their exodus from Egypt. The Israelites, 
 says the Bishop, numbered over six hundred thousand ; now, if they 
 were all armed, where did such a multitude of bondmen procure their 
 weapons? But this keen querry does not exhaust the ingenuity of 
 the learned objector, for he immediately proceeds to propound 
 another, equally hard to answer, namely : If they were armed, why 
 did they not show fight, and resist the Egyptians, instead of submit- 
 ting to be taken back into bondage ? 
 
 The Bishop then quotes the 18th verse of the 13th chapter of 
 Exodus : " The children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land 
 of Egypt," and declares that the Hebrew word " chamushim," which 
 is here translated "harnessed," means "armed for battle." He next 
 cites Joshua 1 : 12, and Judges 7 : 9, where the same word occurs, 
 and is renderd "armed" in the English version; from which he 
 concludes that in Exodus, also, it means "armed." Now it is 
 undeniable that there is some very respectable authority for this 
 rendering, notwithstanding which I believe it to be incorrect. 
 
 The root of the word in question, is "chomish," (five.) From 
 chomish, meaning _y?i;e, to chamushim, armed, seems a derivation by 
 no means obvious ; and the reason assigned for attaching such a 
 significance to the derivative will strike most persons as being 
 rather far-fetched. It is as follows : The sword was usually girded 
 on so as to be worn under the fifth rib ; in the 10th verse of the 26th 
 chapter of Second Samuel, "So he smote him therewith in thejlfth 
 rib," the Hebrew word rendered fifth rib, is "chomish." Such seems 
 to be the best ground for considering chamushum as equivalent to 
 armed. The Bishop quotes Josephus in support of his view ; but 
 that writer is clearly an authority on the other side, as the Bishop 
 would have perceived had he been more familiar with his writings. 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 33 
 
 For the Jewish historian declares that on the occasion of the Exo- 
 dus the Israelites had no arms till they possessed themselves of those 
 of the Egytians who were drowned. I also find, upon examination, 
 that Moses does not anywhere in all his five books employ the word 
 " Camushum," where he speaks of being armed, nor in any con- 
 nection where it admits of such a meaning. On the contrary he 
 uniformly uses the word "challootzim" (plural of "choUootz," ) in 
 such connections. Joshua uses both words in such a manner as 
 might seem to favor the idea that they had such a meaning as the 
 Bishop claims. But in all cases where the former word occurs, it 
 may quite as well be rendered "prepared," while the latter word is 
 more distinct and unequivocal in its significance. And the result 
 of a very careful examination has satisfied me that "prepared" is 
 the true force of "chamushum," in the passages referred to by 
 Bishop Oolenso, and that where the idea of being literally armed is 
 meant to be conveyed, the other word is employed. To go into the 
 philological question at length, would, I fear, be very dry business 
 to the majority of my readers, and I shall therefore forbear to elab- 
 orate it. I am confident, however, that the best Hebrew schollars 
 will, upon consideration, agree with me in the opinion that the 
 rendering " prepared," will in every case answer the requirements 
 of the context where the word "chamushum" occurs, and will, in 
 many instances, meet them much better than the rendering for 
 which the Bishop contends. 
 
 But waiving the verbal argument altogether, and accepting 
 Bishop Colenso's rendering of "chamushum," let us see whether it 
 is really as impossible as he supposes, for the Israelites to have been 
 supplied with arms. And first, it is desirable to consider what kind 
 of arms were used in those days, which inquiry may throw much 
 light on the point of the comparative difficulty of obtaining them. 
 There was a time when the population of almost every country in 
 the world were much more generally armed than at the present day. 
 The simpler and cheaper the weapons in use at any period, the more 
 easy it is for a whole people to supply themselves with arms. At 
 the period when long-bows and pikes were the weapons used by in- 
 fantry, the entire yeomanry of England were much better "armed" 
 than they are in these days of revolvers and minie rifles. And to 
 look at the question before us in the light of the nineteenth cen- 
 tury, is no less absurd than it would be to measure the learning of 
 Josephus and Aristotle by the number of books they had read, and 
 
34 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSo's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 by that test to pronounce them inferior to the barber's apprentice 
 of the present day, who has access to the shelves of a circulating 
 library, and reads all the new novels and books of travel. 
 
 Now, according to be best information we can obtain on the sub- 
 ject, bows and arrows, spears, swords and slings, were about all the 
 weapons in use at the time alluded to ; and all these were probably 
 of an exceedingly simple and primitive description, made of mate- 
 rials neither costly nor difficult to be procured, and requiring little 
 time or skill for their manufacture. Even the Bishop's "simple 
 minded native " might, one would suppose, have suggested to him 
 the ease with which, under such cii cumstances, a people could supply 
 themselves with "arms." If the learned prelate had inquired of his 
 savage mentor, "how long it would take him to manufacture a bow 
 and arrows, or a serviceable spear, such as were in use among the 
 native tribes," and had then reflected that, three days of darkness to 
 the Egyptians which were light to the Israelites, preceded the exodus, 
 during which the latter had an opportunity to provide themselves 
 with weapons, I think that the particular objection under considera- 
 tion would have lost much of its force, and would perhaps have 
 seemed to him scarcely sufficient to overthrow the Pentateuch. At 
 any rate there appears to be no improbability in the way. of their 
 having provided themselves with bows and arrows at least during 
 these three days of darkness ; as to the swords with which they slew 
 the Amalekites a month afterwards, there seems to be nothing un- 
 reasonable in the suggestion of Josephus, that they procured them 
 from the host of Egyptians drowned in the Bed Sea, whose bodies 
 were cast upon the shore. And Josephus is not the only authority 
 for this notion. Several of the most eminent Hebrew commentators 
 advanced the same idea, long before Bishop Colenso's "objection" 
 was ever dreamed of. The 22d verse of the 15th chapter of Exodus, 
 "So Moses BRoueHT Israel from the Red Sea," has been considered to 
 imply that the Israelites were inclined to linger there, and the com- 
 mentators alluded to have explained this reluctance to depart, upon 
 the ground that the people were engaged in gathering the spoil of 
 the Egyptian host, among which they would not be likely to forget 
 their arms. Without wearying the patience of the reader by an 
 examination of the other ways in which it was possible for the Isra- 
 elites to have procured arms, (of which there are several,) I will at 
 once pass to the remaining objection, namely : that if the Israelites 
 were armed, they would have defended themselves when pursued 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 36 
 
 and overtaken by the Egyptians. On this point Bishop Colenso 
 says : "If, then, the historical veracity of this part of the Penta- 
 teuch is to be maintained, we must believe that six hundred thousand 
 armed men had, by reason of their long servitude, become so debased 
 and inhuman in their cowardice, (and yet they fought bravely 
 enough with Amalek, a month afterwards,) that they could not strike 
 a single blow for their wives and children, if not for their own lives 
 and liberties, but could only weakly wail and murmur against 
 Moses, saying, 'it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians than 
 that we should die in the wilderness.' " 
 
 This bitter sneer at the courage of the Israelites, proves the Af- 
 rican Bishop to be as little of a philosopher as he is of a theologian. 
 The noblest and sturdiest races become depressed, despondent, and, 
 in a certain sense, even cowardly, by generations of oppression. 
 Human nature cannot after all rise above the limitations of human- 
 ity, and is not indomitable. Had the Bible narrative represented 
 the Israelite s fresh from their Egyptian bondage, and just escaped 
 from servile toil and the whip of their masters — had it represented 
 such a people as evincing at once the courage, self-confidence, and 
 high spirit of an unconqaered race which had never bowed to the 
 yoke — it would have furnished a stronger argument against its own 
 veracity than any which Bishop Colensd's ingenuity has constructed, 
 and I triumphantly point to the fact that a Jewish historian hat re- 
 corded this humiliating fact concerning his own people, as one of the 
 most convincing proofs of the candid and veracious spirit which per- 
 vades the Mosaic Boohs. 
 
 Nevertheless, it is not difBcult to assign other reasons than the 
 broken spirit of a long subjected people, for the apparent "coward- 
 ice" of the Israelites on this occasion. In the 13th chapter of Exo- 
 dus it is written : "And it came to pass when Pharaoh had let the- 
 people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of 
 the Philistines, although that was near. But God led the people 
 about through the way of the wilderness of the Ked Sea." In the 
 14th chapter we find the following : " And the Lord spake unto 
 Moses, saying, speak unto the children of Israel that they turn and 
 encamp before Pihahiroth ; before it shall ye encamp by the Red 
 Sea. For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, they are 
 entangled in the land ; the wilderness has shut them in." From 
 this it will be seen that there was a nearer way for the Israelites to 
 go out from Egypt and reach their destination, than that by which 
 
36 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSo's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 they were led. Let us no glance at the condition of the people at 
 the time spoken of. They were a nation of two millions of souls, and 
 had, at the bidding of one man, left their homes, taking with them 
 their wives and children into the wilderness. This man, Moses, had 
 indeed assured them that he acted by the direction of God, and that 
 he would bring them to a fertile land promised to their fathers hun- 
 dreds of years before,*as the heritage of their children. But after 
 all what proof, or surety, had they for the truth of all this, beyond 
 the word of Moses ? True, they found themselves for the time freed 
 from their bondage, but what must have seemed to them the prospect 
 of reaching the promised land ? At the very outset, their guide and 
 leader, instead of conducting them by the best and nearest way, had 
 brought them through a desert region, until they found their course 
 arrested by the waters of the sea, stretching directly across their 
 path and barring their further progress. Under such circumstan- 
 ces, they might well exclaim with Pharaoh, — "We are entangled in 
 the land, and the wilderness has shut us in." It was while they 
 were thus situated, that the pursuing Egyptians came upon them. 
 What were they to do ? If they should fight, and prove victorious, 
 how would t'cey be benefitted? The wilderness stretched its bar- 
 ren expanse around and behind them ; the waves of the sea rolled 
 in front ; they were bewildered, disheartened, and had lost confi- 
 dence in their leader ; and to return might naturally have seemed 
 the only practicable course, even if left to their own free choice, 
 with nothing to fear from the Egyptian host. Thus desponding 
 and uncertain, surrounded by nearly a million and a half of women 
 and children, themselves imperfectly armed at least, confronted by 
 the trained and well appointed hosts of Pharaoh, having nothing to 
 gain by victory, it would seem to be no disparagement to their 
 courage that they declined a useless contest. On the contrary, it 
 would seem to a reas9nable man, capable of understanding the dif- 
 ference between cowardice and prudence, that the course which 
 they actually adopted was, under the circumstances, the wisest and 
 most humane that they could have adopted. The first arrow dis- 
 charged by them into the camp of the Egyptians, would have been 
 the signal for a bloody conflict, which could not benefit them how- 
 ever it might terminate. If they should prove victorious, they 
 would still be in the midst of the wilderness, with no assured pros- 
 pect of subsistence, and no apparent means of extricating them- 
 selves from the perils and diffictlties that surrounded them. If, on 
 
31 
 
 the other hand, the battle should be decided against them, their de- 
 fenceless wives and children would be left to the cruel mercies of 
 the infuriated Egyptian. 
 
 If the falsehood of the Pentateucli is ever to be established, it 
 will not be by such lame and suicidal logic as this. 
 
 A Reply to Bishop Oolenso's Attack Upon the Pentateuch, 
 
 The next question raised by Bishop Colons 3 to the veracity of 
 the Pentateuch, is embodied in the tenth chapter of his book, 
 •which is entitled, "The Institution of the Passover." 
 
 And this portion of the Bishop's argument seems to surpass (if 
 that indeed be possible) all that has preceded it in the stupendous 
 ignorance of Biblical criticism which it exhibits, and the absurdity 
 or disingeniousness of the reasonings which it contains. In fact, if 
 it were at all germain to my present purpose to enter upon any in- 
 quiry as to the motives of the writer, this chapter would furnish me 
 with abundant materials for establishing, that no theologian of 
 ordinary learning could have stated such premises, or drawn such 
 conclusions as here set forth, without the deliberate intention to de- 
 ceive and mislead the ignorant. But as I am at present engaged in 
 an examination of the Bishop's "argument," (such as it is,) and not 
 of his character or his motives, I shall strictly confine myself to a 
 discussion of the correctness of his facts, and the soundness of his 
 reasoning processes. 
 
 Bishop Colenso commences his attack upon the Mosaic account of 
 "The Institution of the Passover," by quoting from the 12th chap- 
 ter of Exodus : — "When Moses called for all the elders of Israel, 
 and said unto them. Draw out now, and take you a lamb, according 
 to your familes, and kill the Passover. And ye shall take a bunch 
 of hysop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the 
 lintel and the two side posts ; and none of you shall go out at the 
 door of his house till the morning. And the children of Israel 
 went away and did as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, 
 — so did they." 
 
38 A EEPDY TO BISHOP COLONSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Commenting upon this, with a microscopic logic not unworthy the 
 acuteness of that species of small attorneys who employ their tal- 
 ents chiefly in justices' courts, the Right Reverened critic thus ex- 
 patiates : "That is to say, in one single day the whole immense 
 population of Israel, as large as that of the city of London, was 
 instructed to keep the Passover, and actually did keep it ! ' 
 
 This — namely, that the directions for keeping the Passover, could 
 have been circulated among the whole population, in a single 
 day, — the Bishop considers a sheer impossibility But how does he 
 arrive at the conclusion that the directions were all given in one 
 day ? I beg the reader to observe upon what ground the learned 
 critic reaches this conclusion, which being reached, is immediately 
 assumed as the unquestionable meaning of the record, and then 
 made the entire basis of the "objection" that seems so formidable 
 and unanswerable to the astounded Bishop. As an example of the 
 rash and careless style of assertion and argument, in which this 
 Right-Reverend assailant of Scripture habitually indulges, it is 
 worthy of notice ; though intrinsically and logically of no weight 
 or importance whatever ! 
 
 "I have said," continues the Bishop, "in a single day; for the 
 first notice of any such feast to be kept is given in the very chapter 
 where we find it written, ' I will pass through the land of Egypt 
 this night and will smite all the first born in the land of Egypt, 
 both man and beast.' It cannot be said, (it is still the Bishop who 
 speaks,) that they had notice several days beforehand because they 
 were ordered to take the lamb on the tenth day of the month and kill 
 it on the fourteenth, thus meaning on that night (namely, the night 
 of the fourteenth) I will pass through the land of Egypt." This, 
 says the Bishop, cannot be claimed; "for the Hebrew expression 
 in this passage is distinctly "HAZEH" this, not "HAHOO" that. 
 
 Now the Bishop would have done much better by adhering to the 
 English version, and saying nothing about the original. In fact he 
 is exceedingly unhappy in almost every attempt he makes to display 
 his accomplishments as a Hebraist, and in nearly every instance of 
 the kind he evinces a degree of ignorance quite extraordinary in 
 a theologian. It is true that the English version reads "this 
 night ;" but it is equally true, and beyond all controversy, that it 
 ought to read " that night." I wonder if the Bishop ever read the 
 23d chapter of Leviticus in the original Hebrew ? If so, did he 
 observe how many times the word hazek occurs there? Did he 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 39 
 
 further notice how that word in the chapter referred to is rendered 
 in the English version ? I should be much gratified to learn on 
 what day, or even in what month, the Bishop considers the contents 
 of that chapter to have been spoken, upon the hypothesis that hazeh 
 ■ has no other meaning than "this." 
 
 Now we find in that chapter all the holy days of the whole year 
 spoken of ; and the word hazeh is employed in connection with each 
 one, so that if that word is to be rendered " this," then all the said 
 holy days must fall upon the same day, and that must be the day 
 upon which the contents of the chapter in question were uttered. 
 Such is the legitimate inference from Bishop Colenso's argument. 
 According to his reasoning, the chapter referred to must have been 
 announced or declared in the first month, (April,) and on the 14th 
 day of that month, because it speaks of the Passover feast, employ- 
 ing the word hazeh. And it must, for the same reason, have been 
 on the first day of the seventh month, because it speaks of the Feast 
 of Memorials and Trumpets, (which is commanded to be observed 
 on that day,) using the same word. It must, also, by the force of 
 the same reasoning, have been uttered on the tenth day of that 
 month — ^the day of atonement. But the feast of Tabernacles, which 
 falls on the fifteenth, is likewise spoken of in the same chapter, w.ith 
 the same magical word, " hazeh," and therefore it must have been 
 upon the fifteenth that the contents of said chapter were promul- 
 gated. 
 
 Such are the absurd results that legitimately flow from Bishop 
 Colenso's absurd premises — ^results which sufficiently demonstrate 
 the futility of his argument, and his own incredible ignorance. I 
 have under my instruction, in the Hebrew tongue, children of not 
 more than eight years of age, who would smile at such blunders as 
 this Eight-Reverend critic has been guilty of. And having shown 
 the absurdity of the point upon which the Bishop rests his argument 
 I might let the matter drop without further comment. But the 
 utter disingenuousness of the objection in question can be made 
 even still more apparent. The command is direct and explicit that 
 the lamb should be taken on the tenth day of the month, and kept till 
 the fourteenth. Consequently, the command must have been given at 
 least as early as the tenth day; and there is not a shadow of a foun- 
 dation for Bishop Colenso's preposterous notion that the people 
 knew nothing as to what they were required to do until the four- 
 teenth. 
 
40 A EEPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 With the same kind of hair-splitting attorney logic, the Bishop 
 argues that as the Israelites were not told to borrow what they 
 could from the Egyptians until the fourteenth day, (or the day 
 before the night of their departure from Egypt) they could not 
 ■possibly have had time to obey the command. As this exceedingly 
 paltry piece of reasoning, is based entirely upon the ridiculous 
 blunder as to the proper force and eifect of the word hazeh, which I 
 have already exposed, I shall pass it by without further comment. 
 
 But our critic has another shrewd "objection" in reference to the 
 borrowing of the jewels of the Egyptians by the Israelites. This 
 "borrowing" could not, he thinks, have been effected, unless the 
 latter lived altogether in one great city with the former. With 
 characteristic keenness he then proceeds to calculate the number of 
 sheep that the Israelites must have had, to enable them to make the 
 Passover, from which calculation he arrives at the conclusion that 
 they could not have lived in a city, but in the country, that is, in an 
 agricultural district, to enable them to pasture so many sheep. 
 The final result of the Bishop's reasoning on the "sheep objection" 
 is, that one sheep was needed for every ten men, and in that case 
 two million of sheep would be needed, in order to have one hundred 
 and fifty thousand males of a year old. This calculation being 
 triumphantly announced, the Bishop then proceeds : — " Taking 
 then into account the fact that they also had large herds of cattle, 
 we may fairly reckon that the Hebrews, then so much oppressed, 
 must have possessed at the time, according to the story, more 
 than two million of sheep and oxen. Let us allow five sheep to an 
 acre ; then the sheep alone of the Israelites would have required 
 four hundred thousand acres of grazing land — an extent of country 
 considerably larger than the whole country of Westfoi dshire. 
 We must therefore altogether abandon the idea of the people 
 living together in one city, and must suppose a great body of them 
 to have been scattered about in towns and villages through the 
 whole land of Goshen, in a district of over four hundred thousand 
 acres — that is twenty-five miles square." 
 
 Such, in brief, is the Bishop's "sheep argument," an argument 
 which evinces far higher qualifications on the part of its author as a 
 grazier and stock-grower, than as a theologian or Biblical critic. 
 That the Israelites possessed great herds of cattle, is beyond dispute, 
 and the Bishop might have spared himself the trouble of an elaborate 
 argument to prove an unquestioned fact. More than four hundred 
 
41 
 
 years before the Israelites left Egypt, the promise was made to 
 Abraham though they should be oppressed, yet they should go out 
 from the land of their oppressors with great riches. Gen. xv. 14. 
 Had they left the land destitute, the promise would have failed ; 
 the Bishop's argument, so far as it proves anything, proves that it 
 was fulfilled. 
 
 Having completed his calculations in cattle statistics, the Right- 
 Eeverend objector next indulges in a sneer at Scripture. "The 
 Hebrews," he says, "though much oppressed, must have possessed at 
 this time, according to the story, more than two millions of sheep and 
 oxen.'''' The Bishop seems to think that people who "possess sheep 
 and oxen," cannot be very badly oppressed ; as if oppression neces- 
 sarily implied starvation. I know there is a class of persons who 
 consider that a well-fed slave is not very badly off, and who would 
 be reconciled to almost any oppression that did not interfere with 
 their creature comforts. Does the Bishop share the sentiments of 
 these ? or is he ignorant of the fact, that in many (indeed in most) 
 countries where it has existed, even slavery has not been inconsistent 
 with the holding of property by the slave ? There have, in fact, 
 been slaves in Eussia within the last century, who have been worth 
 millions, and the Israelites, though in bondage, were not deprived 
 of all right to hold property. 
 
 But the Bishop declares that he has demonstrated that these Isra- 
 elite slaves were scattered by the necessities of their pastoral state, 
 over a district twenty-five miles square. If so, I would ask him, 
 how did they all manage to come every day to the city of Rameses, 
 the place where they worked ? But I would further ask, why does 
 it follow :^rom their possession of great flocks and herds, that their 
 entire population must have been thus scattered ? Why might not 
 the whole bulk of the population have been gathered in one great 
 city, with their flocks and cattle and herdsmen, and shepherds dis- 
 ' tribited throughout the land of Goshen ? Is there any impossibility 
 in this ? Is it not in fact far more probable than the Bishop's con- 
 clusion that a people must be scattered because their flocks are? In 
 fine is not the entire notion which our author has expended so much 
 labor and time and useless ingenuity in fortifying, — is it not alto- 
 gether ridiculous ? The inhabitants of San Joaquin county possess 
 vast herds of swine — more than any other county in the State — yet 
 the fact is not inconsistent with the great bulk of the population 
 being gathered into the city of Stockton. Sacramento county 
 
42 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 contains large flocks of sheep, and extensive herds of cattle ; yet the 
 majority of its inhabitants live in one city. And it might have 
 been the same with the Israelites in Goshen. 
 
 As to the difficulty raised by the Bishop in regard to the "borrow- 
 ing from the Egyptians," I cannot help saying that the manner in 
 wrich it is stated shows either the grossest ignorance, or the clear 
 intention to deceive and mislead the reader. He evidently means 
 to convey the idea that the direction in regard to the borrowing was 
 not given until the day preceding that on which the Israelites 
 actually left. Now is it possible that the Bishop was ignorant of 
 the fact that it is stated in the Scripture narrative that when the 
 Lord first appeared to Moses and directed him to go to Pharaoh, this 
 very matter was also spoken of? The language used on the occa- 
 sian referred to, may be found in Exodus iii, 21 ; 22, and is as 
 follows : " And I will give the people favor in the sight of the 
 Egyptians ; and it shall come to pass that when ye go, ye shall not 
 go empty, but every woman shall borrow of her neighbor, and of 
 her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, 
 and raiment." 
 
 The next "argument" of the Bishop against tHe truth of the 
 Pentateuch, is based upon the circumstances narrated in the account 
 of the march of the Israelites out of Egypt, and is embodied in the 
 11th chapter of his book. 
 
 The Bishop commences with the following quotation : "And the 
 children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about 600,000 
 men besides children, and a mixed multitude went up also with 
 them, and flocks and herds, even very much cattle." Exodus, 12 : 
 St, 38. Upon this he comments as follows : " We have seen that 
 this large number of able bodied warriors implies a total population 
 of at least 2,000,000. Here then we have this vast body of people 
 of all ages summoned to start according to the story of the Bible, at 
 a moments notice ; and they actually started, not one being left- 
 behind, with all their flocks and herds, which had been spread out 
 over a district as large as a good sized English county." 
 
 Now this entire notion of the unexpectedness of the departure of 
 the Israelites, is an unauthorized and gratuitious assumption on the 
 part of the Bishop — and it is an assumption unsupported by a single 
 particle of proof. I ask in all candor, what reliance can be placed 
 in the reasonings of a writer, or what respect can we have for his 
 conclusions, when he continnally assumes as true the very matters 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 43 
 
 in dispute, and deals habitually in a species of logic so loose and 
 rambling as would make even an intelligent sophist blush ? But 
 not only is the idea that the Israelites took their departure unexpectedly, 
 unsupported by proof ; — in fact all the proof that exists on the sub- 
 ject proves the other way, and it may be shown that they had for some 
 time expected their departure, and that there was nothing sudden 
 (to them) about it. That Moses knew the Lord's design respecting 
 the Exodus of Israel long before hand, can be shown to the satis- 
 faction of every unprejudiced mind by such passages as Exodus, 4 : 
 22, 23. And what person of ordinary common sense can doubt that 
 Moses who was to lead and superintend the movement, would apprise the 
 people as soon as was necessary to enable them to make the requisite 
 preparations ? But it is a waste of w ords and of time to reply in 
 detail to arguments of this description — made up of shallow soph- 
 istry, feeble sneers, childish cavils, and pettifogging quibbles. 
 
 But another feature in the Scripture narrative strikes the Bishop 
 as being incredible, from facts within his own personal experience. 
 B,emembering as I do, says he, the confusion in my own household 
 of 30 or 40 persons, when once we were obliged to fly at the dead 
 of night, having been roused from our beds with a false alarm that 
 an invading Zulu force had entered the Colony, and was making its 
 way direct for our station, killing right and left as it came along, 
 &c. — remembering all this, the unsophisticated prelate, from the 
 confusion, and tumult, and dire alarm that attended his own little 
 Exodus, finds it impossible to believe that the' great Exodus of the 
 Israelites could have been managed with the order and celerity 
 recorded in the Scripture. Undoubtedly the Bishop's incredulity on 
 this point is natural enough. There probably was a great deal of 
 disorder in his household on the occasion in question, and he was 
 himself, I can well believe, terribly frightened. I have no doubt 
 that the domestic Exodus of the worthy prelate was much less 
 systematic than that of the Israelites. But instead of drawing an 
 infidel conclusion from the circumstances I would offer a very simple 
 explanation of it — namely, that Moses conducted the one movement, 
 and Bishop Colenso the other. 
 
 Now, in sober earnest, can any thing be more ridiculous than this ? 
 If the subject were not so grave a one, and the questions involved 
 so momentous, I think it would be difficult to find a more amusing 
 book than that in which this learned prelate of ^ Christian church 
 has attempted to subvert the foundations of the faith of ages. 
 
A Reply to Bisliop Oolenso's Attack Upon the Pentateuch. 
 
 ACCOUNT OP THE EXODUS. 
 
 The learned and Kight-Eeverend critic of the Pentateuch tells us 
 that he cannot believe that Moses could possibly have managed the 
 Exodus of so great a multitude of people, with the order and quiet 
 described in the Scripture narrative. He thinks there must have 
 been great confusion and alarm on the occasion of the sudden 
 departure of the whole body of the Israelites ; and he gives as a 
 reason for his incredulity the fact that he (Colenso) and his house- 
 hold of not more than forty persons were in a state of tremendous 
 excitement and perturbation when obliged to make a midnight 
 escape from the episcopal residence at Natal, when threatened with 
 an attack from savages. It seems to me that the Bishop has been 
 guilty of somewhat misstating the circumstances under which the 
 Israelites left Egypt. If a lawyer in pleading a case which he was 
 hired to win, and which he was determined to gain at all hazards, 
 should distort facts in this way, we should naturally charge him 
 with a wilful attempt at deception. But in the case of a Christian 
 prelate we feel bound to exercise a greater measure of charity, and 
 we will therefore attribute his misrepresentation of some facts in 
 the case, and his gross exaggeration of others, to that ignorance 
 which we have so often been obliged to invoke as a plea on his 
 behalf against graver accusations. 
 
 Now what are the facts as given in the Mosaic record ? Instead 
 of being roused from their beds in the dead of night, as the Bishop 
 represents, the Israelites were commanded not to go out of doors that 
 night but to remain in their houses ; and instead of their being in fear 
 of the Egyptians " hilling them right and left^'' the Egyptians them- 
 selves were in fear of being totally destroyed on account of the Israelites, 
 who were quietly eating the Passover lamb in their dwelliiigs.' Instead 
 of the Israelites being obliged to hurry away, from dread of Egyp- 
 tian pursuit and Egyptian vigilance, their oppressors were entreating 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSo's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 45 
 
 them to leave for fear of the doom impending over themselves. 
 " And Pharaoh fose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all 
 the Egyptians," (not the Israelites, as the Bishop represents,) "and 
 there was a great cry in Egypt," (not among the Israelites,) " for 
 there was not a house where there was not one dead. And he called 
 for Mosea and Aaron by night and said, ' Rise up and get you forth 
 from among my people, both ye and your flocks and your herds as 
 ye have said, and begone, and bless me also.' And the Egyptians 
 were urgent upon the people that they might send them out of the 
 land in haste ; for they said, 'We be all dead men.'" Exodus 12 : 
 29, 34. 
 
 Now I submit that it does not at all appear from this that the 
 Israelites started out of Egypt on that night. There was no occa- 
 sion for them to go secretly or under cover of darkness. The 
 Egyptians, far from hindering them, were anxious for their depart- 
 ure. Why then should they leave at night, or in the haste and 
 confusion of terror ? But the fact is, they did not leave by night. 
 The last verse of the chapter above referred to, expressly says that 
 "it came to pass that the self-same day the Lord did bring the 
 children of Israel out of the land of Egypt." 
 
 But this is by no means the end of the poor Bishop's troubles and 
 difficulties. Tlaere are other points in the narrative, touching which 
 his faith is sorely perplexed. 
 
 " We are required to believe," he says, " that in one single day 
 the order to start was commanicated suddenly at midnight" (the 
 Bible narrative requires us to believe nothing of the sort) "to every 
 single family of every town and village throughout a tract of 
 county as large as Hertfordshire, but ten times as thickly populated; 
 that they then came in from all parts of the land of Goshen to 
 Kameses, bringing with them the sick, the young, and the aged ; 
 farther, that since receiving the summons, they had sent out 
 together, 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 the time when they were roused at midnight" (for which 
 we have no other authority than that of Bishop Colenso, for the 
 Bible affirms nothing of the kind,) " they were started again from 
 Rameses on the same dayjand marched^^on to Succoth, not leaving 
 any thing behind them." 
 
 The above extract, presents two difficulties, or objections against 
 the truth of the Mosaic narrative ; first, how could the order for 
 
46 
 
 the Israelites to start be communicated throughout the entire land 
 of Goshen in one day ? and second, how could the whole population 
 assemble at Rameses with all their cattle, etc., and be ready to 
 march thence to Succoth the same day ? 
 
 N'ow in. regard to these " insoluble difficulties," I have simply to 
 say: first, that I have already shown that the Bishop's assumption 
 of the short notice which the Israelites had of the projected move- 
 ment, is purely gratuitous, unauthorized, and destitute of a particle 
 of proof ; and that it is moreover a false assumption, contrary to the 
 express letter of the narrative, and contradicted by all the facts of 
 the case and all logical inferences from the facts ; second, that it 
 was as easy for six hundred thousand men to be warned of the time 
 fixed for their departure, and to prepare at short notice to depart, 
 as it was for them to assemble every day for their enforced labor ; 
 third, that the Egyptians (as has already been shown) were them- 
 selves urging them to depart; fourth, that (as has also been hitherto 
 proved) either the whole of them lived in Rameses, or were accus- 
 tomed daily to assemble there to work, in which case it is reasonable 
 to suppose that said city occupied a central position in the land of 
 Goshen ; and that entire district being according to the Bishop's 
 own calculation only twenty-five miles square, it would not be 
 difficult on either supposition to communicate from the central 
 point to the extreme borders (only twelve and a half miles at the 
 very most) in a day; and it may further be observed that those who 
 lived on that side of the city which was on the road by which the 
 Israelites were to go, had no need to go to Rameses at all, for they 
 could join the rest as they came along. It has also been shown 
 that the Israelites possessed camels and wagons capable of carrying 
 the infirm or sick ; and shall we be told that it is " unhistorical " to 
 say that a family with a team, can travel twelve and a-half miles in 
 a day ? 
 
 I have suggested these replies, rather for the purpose of showing 
 how easy it is to destroy the force of the Bishop's microscopic 
 objections by an equally microscopic analysis of those objections, 
 than because such replies are at all necessary. In fact, the true 
 and proper salutation of the difficulties last propounded, is a simple 
 denial of the false assumptions upon which they are based. The cool- 
 ness, for instance, with which the Bishop (and also his German 
 friend Kurtz, whom he quotes,) assumes that the Israelites left 
 Egypt in one army or body — without so much as pretending to 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 41 
 
 offer any proof on the point — is quite refreshing to one accustomed 
 to at least the forms of logic. The famous Dr. Johnson once 
 said, that " a man who commenced a sentance with an ' if,' could 
 end it in any way he pleased ;" and it may be said with equal truth 
 that the man who is permitted to assume his premises, will find no 
 diflSculy in establishing any conclusion that suits him. To prove 
 that George Washington was a myth, that the Calaveras " Big 
 Trees" are merely a traveler's story, or even that the moon is made 
 of green cheese, would be easy enough, proceeding according to 
 the logical canons of Bishop Colenso. In fact, according to this 
 peculiar, and exceedingly convenient style of reasoning, the desired 
 conclusion is so effectually taken for granted, in some shape, that 
 it becomes as easy to prove one thing as another, the process being 
 identical in all cases. 
 
 As an amusing instance of the Bishop's peculiar style of ratioci- 
 nation, take the following, which I think will afford the appreciative 
 reader as much entertainment as " Prentiss' last." The learned 
 objector after setting out with the supposition that the Israelites 
 when departing from Egypt, marched along fifty men abreast, (and 
 it is nothing but the Bishop's own supposition,) proceeds to attack 
 the hypothesis with great vigor, and to prove that it could not have 
 been the fact — ^that is, that the Israelites did not march fifty abreast. 
 Having at length demolished his own windmill, he concludes com- 
 placently as if he had confuted Moses, whereas he had only confuted 
 Colenso, not an achievement to be very proud of. I beg the reader 
 to observe and note the detail and statement of the "argument ;" 
 here it is : "And now let us see them" (the Israelites) "on the 
 march itself. If we imagine the people to have traveled through the 
 open desert in a wide body, fifty men abreast, as some suppose to have 
 been the practice in the Hebrew armies, allowing an interval of a 
 yard between each rank, the able-bodied men alone would have 
 filled up the road," etc., etc. Having made this astounding com- 
 mencement, the excellent Bishop of course gets on swimmingly, 
 and shows with great elaboration, that what he "has imagined,"' 
 and what "some suppose," is in this particular case, an absurdity. 
 
 But is it after all, quite fair to hold Moses and the Pentateuch 
 responsible for all that Bishop Colenso may choose to "imagine," 
 and for aU that "some suppose?" Is it not rather a curious way 
 of proving the Bible to be untrue, to commence a ferocious assault 
 upon the crude "imaginations" of a crack-brained theologian, and 
 
48 A EEPKT TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 the absurd "suppositions" of hair-splitting Grerman rationalists? 
 Would it not have been the fairer and more logical course in the 
 Bishop — a course which most men of candor and good sence would 
 adopt in similar cases — would it not have been more natural, after 
 finding how absurd and impracticable his own notion, and the 
 "suppositions'' which he refers to were, to have abandoned them, 
 and search for a more reasonable hypothesis ? This seems to me to 
 be the course which any honest, sincere, unprejudiced, and truth- 
 loving man would have adopted ; but Bishop Colenso does not 
 adopt it. On the contrary, the more absurd the supposition seems, 
 the closer he clings to it, as the true meaning of the Pentateuch. 
 Whereas, had he felt any friendly solicitude to explain the matter 
 so as not to impeach the record, his task would not have been 
 difficult. 6ut no, the Bishop wasts no ingenuity on that side of 
 the question. All his special pleading and hair-splitting, and fine 
 spun, far-fetched quibbles are retained against Moses. To make the 
 Pentateuch contradict itself, he will travel from Dan to Beersheba, 
 quibble like a pettifogger, and split hairs like a strict construction- 
 ist or an apologist for slavery. But he will not lift a finger, or 
 make the most natural and obvious suggestion to explain an 
 apparent contradiction. 
 
 Alas 1 had he taken half the pains to reconcile difficulties which 
 he has expended to raise them, the religious world would have been 
 spared the scandal of a book as feeble in execution, as evil in design, 
 and in regard to which we stand in doubt whether to weep at the 
 spirit it manifests, or to laugh at the absurdities it contains. 
 
A Eeply to Bishop Oolenso's Attack Upon the Pentateuch, 
 
 THE SITUATION OP BAMESES — THE TIME OCCUPIED 
 BY THE JOURNEY TO THE RED SEA. 
 
 Not content with the "objections" and "difficulties" furnished 
 by the text of the Pentateuch itself, Bishop Colenso has a singular 
 habit of finding difficulties in the explantions of the text given by 
 various commentators, and then triumphantly refuting those expla- 
 nations as if they were a part of Scripture. In this way he holds 
 Moses responsible for all the absurdities of all the German writers 
 who have chosen to expound and comment upon his histories. Now 
 I have never offered myself as the champion and defender of Kurtz 
 or the other German scholars who have written concerning the Old 
 Testament, and I should be sorry to place myself in that position. 
 My task is the vindication of the veracity of Moses — not of Kurtz 
 and his brother rationalists. When, therefore, the Bishop chooses 
 to run a tilt against ihem, I am content to stand by as a mere spec- 
 tator, quite indifferent to the result. Whether the Bishop proves 
 Kurtz, etc., to be bad Biblical critics, or merely makes manifest his 
 own ignorance in the attempt, is no concern of mine. Sometimes 
 however, he chooses to treat these writers as friends and allies 
 adopting their views as his own ; and it is only in cases of this 
 kind (as a general rule) that I shall allude to them or their 
 reasonings. 
 
 Quoting from Kurtz, the Bishop says: "Rameses was the 
 capital of the province ; there is no doubt, Moses and Aaron were 
 residing there. The procession started from thence, and after the 
 main body had set out, smaller parties came from all directions and 
 joined it, at the point of the road nearest to their own dwellings." 
 Thus far I entirely coincide with the view of Mr. Kurtz, because 
 we find authority for it in the narrative itself. He then proceeds : 
 " It is true its site (that of Rameses) is not precisely known ; but it 
 is certain that it must have stood somewhere in the immediate 
 4 
 
50 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 neighborhood of the king's palace." This is by no means so certain 
 as the writer imagines it to be. In the 46th chapter of Genesis, 
 verses 33, 34, we find the following : " And it shall come to pass 
 when Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say, ' What is your occupa- 
 tion V that ye shall say, ' thy servants' trade hath been about cattle 
 from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers' : 
 that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen: — for shepherds are an 
 abomination to the Egyptians." Now this very clearly implies that 
 the land of Goshen was at some distance from the royal residence. 
 Shepherds and herdsmen, and those having charge of cattle, were 
 "an abomination" to the Egyptians, and would be removed as far 
 as possible from the precincts of the court, in order that aristocratic 
 nostrils might not be offended by the unsavory occupation ; the 
 Israelites were to claim this obnoxious calling, in order that they 
 might be sent to the land of Goshen, at a distance from the court. 
 But again ; in the 26th verse of the 9th chapter of Exodus we find 
 the following : " Only in the land of Goshen, where the children 
 of Israel lived, was there no hail." Hence if Pharaoh lived in the 
 city of Rameses, he would not have been troubled by the hail, (that 
 city being in Goshen,) as the narrative declares it to have been. 
 
 The location of Eameses is chiefly important in the eyes of Bishop 
 Colenso and Kurtz, for its bearing upon the question of the possi- 
 bility of the Israelites reaching the Red Sea, in three days after 
 leaving that city. Although admitting that the precise location 
 cannot be ascertained, Kurtz thinks it must have stood upon the 
 more modern site of one of three cities — Heliopolis, Bubastes, or 
 Zoar. He says : "We have certainly only those points to choose 
 from, and the shortest road to the sea, taking into account the cir- 
 cuitous route by which the Israelites went, (Exodus 14 : 2,) would 
 be so long that it would be necessary to travel seventeen or twenty 
 miles a day, in order to accomplish it in three days. Others may 
 believe it if they please ; but I:cannot believe that such a procession 
 as we have described could keep up a journey of seventeen or twenty 
 miles a day for three days running."g 
 
 Now here Kurtz does the very thing for which I have so often 
 been obliged to censure Colenso : he assumes, without any ground, 
 that Moses makes a statement which he never did make, and then 
 goes to work to prove said statement absurd or impossible. The 
 Bible says nothing directly as to the length of time or the number 
 of days that it took the Israelites to reach the Red Sea. Kurtz cites 
 
A REPLY. TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPOy THE PENTATEUCH. 51 
 
 no passage of Scripture as authority for his statement, and offers no 
 proof on the subject. In short, he proceeds in the true Colenso style 
 of reasoning, precisely as if he had been a disciple of that learned 
 but eccentric prelate. But the fad is that all the passages of Scrip- 
 ture that throw any light upon this question of time, tend to show 
 that more than three days elapsed from the setting out of the Israe- 
 lites until their arrival at the Red Sea. The reader will remember 
 that they asked leave of Pharaoh to go the distance of " three days' 
 journey" into the wilderness ; and this was what was granted them. 
 When informed that they had taken their final departure with no 
 intention of returning, he at once pursued them. "And it was told 
 the king of Egypt that the people had fled, and the heart of Pharaoh 
 and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, 
 ' Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving 
 us?'— Exodus 14: 5. 
 
 From the language here employed, " it was told the king that 
 the people had fled," it is supposed by Hebrew commentators that 
 Pharaoh had sent spies with the Israelites when they set out on 
 their journey, to watch their movements, and that these secret 
 agents having accompanied them three days, and found that instead 
 of halting to perform their acts of worship, they were still pushing 
 on into the wilderness, returned to Pharaoh on the fourth day with 
 the intelligence. If this supposition is correct, (and it is the view 
 universally taken by the Eabbis centuries before Kurtz or Colenso 
 or their "objections" were dreamed of,) the fugitives must have 
 been gone six days at least before Pharaoh started in pursuit ; for 
 we must allow two or three days for the return of the spies, and the 
 like time for the Egyptians to prepare the pursuing expedition. 
 Now supposing the pursuers to travel twice as fast as the pursued, 
 they would not overtake them in less than seven days from the 
 time of setting out, or fourteen or fifteen days from the departure of 
 the Israelites. Hence it must have taken the latter at least fourteen 
 days instead of three to reach the shores of the Red Sea. All this, 
 let the reader bear in mind, is upon Kurtz's hypothesis that they 
 traveled seventeen or twenty miles per day. 
 
 If Kurtz's assumption that the Israelites were three days in 
 reaching the Sea, is based upon the idea that that distance was 
 " three days' journey," he commits a blunder still more extraordi- 
 nary. The expression, "three days' journey," is employed as a me7-e 
 measure of distance, and of coiu'se does not mean or imply that any 
 
62 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSo's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 man or body of men could travel it in three days, for that would 
 make it an uncertain and not a fixed distance. It would mean such 
 a distance as an ordinary traveler, traveling under ordinary circum- 
 stances, could accomplish in three days. Of course it would take 
 the Israelites, with their families and property, their flocks and 
 herds, much longer than three days to make "a three days' journey." 
 One would suppose all this too obvious to require explanation, 
 But in arriving at the conclusion that the Israelites were fourteen 
 days making the journey to the Red Sea, I have been arguing upon 
 Kurtz's hypothesis, and as his hypothesis is false, the conclusion is 
 also false. As they did not, in fact, travel seventeen or tvventy 
 miles per day, but at a much slower rate, the spies of Pharaoh 
 would require less time than I have allowed to return with the 
 intelligence, and the Egyptian host would also require less time to 
 overtake them. In regard to the actual time of the journey we arc 
 not left to conjecture or to doubtful calculations. In fact, the day 
 on which the Israelites crossed the Red Sea is known and comme- 
 morated to the present time ; it has been observed as a solemn 
 anniversary by them and their descendants, generation after gene- 
 ration, from that day to the present, as has also the day on which 
 they left Egypt. Throughout the world, wherever the descendants 
 of the Hebrew race are found, those days arc observed, just as the 
 people of the TJuited States observe and celebrate the 4th day of 
 July as the anniversary of that day of the year 1716, when their 
 forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence. And have wc 
 any reason to suppose that that date will ever be lost or become 
 uncertain f If, a thousand years hence, the American people shall 
 still be in existence, preserving their identity as a race, their 
 language, their history, and their laws, (as the Israelites do at this 
 day retain theirs,) will not the date of the signing of the Declara- 
 tion be known ? 
 
 It was on the first day of the feast of the passover that they left 
 Egypt and commenced their journey into the wilderness ; they 
 traveled by night as well as by day, for we are told that a pillar of 
 cloud went before them and guided them by day in their journey, 
 and a pillar of fire by night. On the night of the sixth day of the 
 same feast, they ciossed the Rod Sea, and on the morning of the 
 seventh day they sung the triumphal hymn (the song of Moses) in 
 praise of their Deliverer. On every anniversary of that wonderful 
 deliverance, they celebrate the event, and the hymn of praise and 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLONSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 53 
 
 thanksgiving ascends to Heaven, just as on our great national 
 anniversary the Declaration of Independence is read in commemo- 
 ration of the first proclamation of political freedom. 
 
 Next in order, comes a difiSculty raised by the Bishop, as to the 
 sustenance of the cattle of the Israelites during the journey through 
 the wilderness. He states the point thus: "The people, we are 
 told, were supplied with manna ; but there was no miraculous 
 provision of food for the herds and flocks. They appear to have 
 been left to gather sustenance as they could, in that inhospitable 
 wilderness. We will now proceed to consider the possibility of such 
 a multitude of cattle finding any means of support for forty years, 
 under these circumstances. And it is certain that the story repre- 
 sents them as possessing this flock 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 ?" And in the fortieth year we read, ' The children of 
 Eeuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of 
 cattle.' Accordingly we find that at the end of the first year, they 
 kept the second passover under Sinai, and therefore we must 
 presume had at that time as before two hundred thousand male 
 lambs of the first year, at their command, and two million of sheep 
 and oxen also at hand." 
 
 I have given the Bishop's argument at length, that he may have 
 the whole benefit of it. It is really an astonishing argument — even 
 for Colenso. Let us look at it. The first quotation from Scripture 
 to support the idea that the Israelites still had such immense herds 
 of cattle, exhibits either a culpable attempt to deceive, or the most 
 amazing stupidity. The Bishop gives a part only of the quotation ; 
 I will give the whole of it: " Shall the flocks and the herds be slain 
 for them to suffice them, or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered 
 together for them to suffice them?'''' These words spoke Moses in the 
 bitterness of his heart ; their spirit of irony, and their true meaning 
 become plain enough when the latter part of the clause (omitted by 
 the Bishop) are supplied. The whole clause shows directly the 
 contrary of that which they were cited to prove. It shows that the 
 Israelites no more had the flocks spoken of, than they had the fishes 
 spoken of. Let any person of common intelligence look at the 
 entire passage as it stands in the 11th chapter of Numbers, and put 
 any other construction on it if he can. Moses, bitter and despairing, 
 almost losing his faith in God, bursts forth ; " Shall the flocks and 
 
54 A EEPRY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 the herds be slain for them to suffice them, or shall the fish of the 
 sea be gathered ? &c. And the Lord said unto Moses, ' Is the Lord's 
 hand waxed short ? Thou shalt see now whether my word shall 
 come to pass unto thee or not.' " 
 
 It is a sad think to think that the Bishop did not understand this 
 — but a sadder thing still — to think that understanding it, he could 
 have used it as he has. 
 
 So much for the first passage cited in proof ; let us now examine 
 the second, which states that the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the , 
 half tribe of Mannassah had a multitude of cattle in the fortieth 
 year of their sojourn in the wilderness. Upon this, Colenso himself 
 observes as follows : — ■" This it is true, is said immediately after the 
 capture of a great number of cattle and sheep from the Midianites. 
 But the spoil in that case was divided among all the people, and 
 therefore" (such is the Bishop's conclusion) " if the tribes of Keuben 
 and Gad could still be distinguished among the rest as having a 
 great multitude of cattle, they must have been so noted before the 
 plunder of the Midianites." 
 
 But the more probable explanation of the matter, and the one 
 generally adopted, is that the tribes in question having resolved to 
 settle on the east side of the Jordan, where the Midianites and other 
 tribes whom the Israelites had destroyed lived, bought up the cattle 
 (or a chief portion of them) that had fallen to the share of the 
 others. These others, who did not intend to remain on the east side 
 of the river, would be the more willing to sell, in order to save 
 themselves the trouble of getting their cattle across t' e river — a 
 matter of considerable diflfi.::ulty. It strikes me that this mode of 
 explaining the matter is both reasonable and probable. It certainly 
 is no more overstrained than the objection itself. 
 
 But the Bishop's third, and as he evidently imagines his most 
 formidable point, yet remains to be disposed of ; namely, that at 
 the end of the first year in the wilderness they kept the second 
 passover, for which they needed two hundred thousand male lambs, 
 etc. Now the proposition for the proof of which this is adduced, is, 
 that the Israelites had large flocks and during all the forty years they 
 were in the wilderness. I think that it can scarcely fail to strike the 
 reader that there is an enormous disparity here, between the proof 
 and the thing alleged to be proven. Does it follow that because 
 they kept the passover at the end of the first year, and must have 
 bad a large number of sheep at that time, that they continued to 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO'S ArTACK DPON THE PENTATEUCH. 55 
 
 have a large number all the forty years ? But it is a very singular 
 fact, and one worthy of the Bishop's attention, that after the first 
 passover in the wilderness, we do not find any other recorded or meru- 
 tioned until after they had crossed the Jordan, finished their wanderings 
 in the desert, and possessed themselves of the cattle of the Midianites and 
 others. Thus the passover at the end of the first year of their sojourn 
 in the wilderness, and another passover celebrated at the end of the 
 fortieth year, when they had obtained a supply of sheep from a con- 
 quered tribe, are all that we have any evidence of, or that we have 
 any right to assume to have been observed, or that we can base an 
 argument upon. There being then no proof at all of the observance 
 of the passover during the forty years in the wilderness, but infer- 
 ential evidence to the contrary, we may if we choose explain the 
 omission, on the ground of the lack of the necessary flocks and herds. 
 This course at any rate, is far more reasonable and more in accord- 
 ance with the rules of just interpretation, than to assume as Colenso 
 does, that Moses says what he does not say, and then after proving 
 the improbability of the thing assumed as the statement of Moses, 
 claiming that his veracity has been successfully impeached. 
 
 Among the numerous absurd notions adopted by the Bishop, not 
 the least glaring is that concerning the number of sheep requisite to 
 keep the passover. But so many of his statements and calculations 
 require correction that the task seems endless, and I often find 
 myself perplexed and in doubt where to begin, and in what order 
 to expose the errors and absurdities which come more frequently in 
 entangled groups than singly. But I have already gone beyond 
 the limits of a single article, and will therefore reserve what I have 
 to say further, concerning the passover, for a future occasion. 
 
A Eeply to Bishop Oolenso's Attack Upon tlie PentateucL 
 
 [ MOKE ON THE " SHEEP QUESTION" — THE BISHOP'S " STOCK" 
 ARGUMENT CONSIDERED — THE NUMBER OP LAMBS 
 NECESSARY FOR THE PASSOVER. 
 
 On all matters connected with grazing and stock-raising, the 
 Bishop seems to feel particularly at home, and he continues to harp 
 upon the "sheep qiiestion," through I don't know how many dull 
 and dreary pages. In order to follow him through all his statements 
 and calculations, with any degree of thoroughness, I shall have to 
 be as tedious as my leader into this dry and unprofitable field of 
 discussion ; I warn the reader accordingly, in advance. 
 
 " It cannot be supposed," says the Bishop, " as some have sug- 
 gested, that the flocks and herds were scattered far and wide, during 
 the sqiourn of the people in the wilderness, and so wei'c able the 
 more easily to find pasture. The story says nothing, and implies 
 nothing of this sort, since we find the whole body of the people 
 together, on all occasions specified in the history." Now although 
 this diflBculty has already been substantially disposed of on a prcvi- 
 our occasion, I will here add one or two observations to what has 
 been heretofore said. In the 2nd chapter of Numbers, we are told 
 that the Israelites were divided into four separate camps "far from 
 the tabernacle." In the 33d verse of the 10th chapter of the same 
 book, we find the following : "And they departed from the mount 
 of the Lord three days' journey ; and the Ark of the Covenant of 
 the Lord went before them three days' journey, to search out a 
 resting-place for them." And in the 2d verse of the 24th chapter 
 of the same book, we read, thus : — " And Balaam lifted up his eyes, 
 and saw Israel abiding (in his tents) according to their tribes." 
 (The words, "in his tents" are not in Hebrew copies of the Bible.) 
 Now I think we may very justly infer from this, (as has been infer- 
 red by many commentators who never heard of Bishop Golenso,) 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 5T 
 
 that the people were at times at least a good deal scattered or 
 marched in such a way as to cover a large extent of country ; we 
 may also infer that the camps were usually separated from one 
 another by a large interval. 
 
 The next and last of the Bishop's "stock" difficulties, is in regard 
 to the possibility of the Israelites celebrating the passover at Mount 
 Sinai, at the end of their first year's journeying. The Bishop thinks 
 this a clear impossibility. " They spuldn't observe the Passover 
 there (as Moses says they did) because they needed two hundred 
 thousand lambs ; and where could they get them all from ?" Such 
 is the substance of the Bishop's new stumbling-block — or rather his 
 old one, for the same difficulty has already been raised nearly half a 
 dozen times in the course of his book, in a slightly modified shape. 
 Now, however, it is brought more formally into the field, its author 
 clamoring to "have it answered satisfactorily." In fact, the Bishop 
 maneuvers his "objections" very much as a stage manager does a 
 scanty band of supernumeraries whom he wants to represent a 
 formidable army. As the manager marches and countermarches 
 his half-score of vagabonds — out on one side of the stage, round 
 behind the scenes, and in again at another entrance, just as if they 
 were new-comers ; and so keeps them passing before the audience 
 until the "army" seems big enough; — in precisely the same manner 
 does the Bishop maneuver and marshal his little hoard of " difficul- 
 ties," the same one appearing again and again, but at each appear- 
 ance claiming to be bran-new, and more "insoluble" than its 
 predecessor. 
 
 This time, the Bishop introduces it, with a new stage-wig as it 
 were, and puts it in the shape of an argument against the possibility 
 of the Israelites keeping and feeding so large a number of sheep 
 and cattle in the neighborhood of Mount Sinai for an entire year. 
 The Bishop quotes the account of certain modern travelers who 
 describe the Sinaitic peninsula as being an exceedingly barren spot. 
 But when so triumphantly adducing this testimony as quite conclu- 
 sive on this point, did the objector consider that it only applies to the 
 condition of the peninsula at the present day? Surely so learned a 
 man as the Bishop does not require to be told that it is no uncom- 
 mon thing for the physical character of a country, as regards its 
 fertility, to undergo a complete change in the course of a few 
 centuries, and much more in, the course of several thousand years. It 
 would be very easy to adduce many very striking and well authen- 
 
58 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLONSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 ticated examples of this were it necessary. In the 3d verse of the 
 34th chapter of Exodus, the Israelites are commanded not to feed 
 their cattle in front of Sinai, from which it would seem that there 
 must at that time have been something there upon which they could 
 feed, — or the command would have been quite unnecessary. Again, 
 we are told (Exodus 3d, 1st,) that Moses was herding the flocks of 
 his father-in-law in the immediate neighborhood of the mount, not 
 long before the Israelites cam* there. 
 
 But aside from all this, the Bishop has fallen into a great error in 
 his estimate of the number of sheep needed for the passover. He 
 calculates that two hundred thousand yearling male sheep were 
 needed, and that this number of yearling males would imply, in due 
 proportion, a total of two millions of sheep. But this calculation 
 (as he tells us himself) is based upon the supposition that two hun- 
 dred thousand yearlings were required each year ; whereas I have 
 already shown that this passover at Sinai was in all probability the 
 only one which they kept during the entire forty years' sojourn in 
 the wilderness. And since it is but eleven days' journey from Sinai 
 to Kodesh, and a still less distance to Mt. Seir or the land of Edom, 
 (1st chapter of Deuteronomy, 2d verse,) it cannot be supposed that 
 the Israelites would conceive there was any necessity for keeping 
 any sheep for the third passover ; for by that time they might 
 reasonably expect to be in an inhabited land. They might therefore 
 very naturally have killed as many as they required, (of the flocks 
 which they had brought with them from Egypt,) during the first 
 month of their journey before they received supplies of manna, and 
 have reserved only the young male lambs for the passover. I am 
 aware that this style of argument may seem (like that of the Bishop) 
 too much based upon suppositions and probabilties; but if reasoning 
 of this kind may be employed against the veracity of the Pentateuch, 
 I cannot perceive why it may not also be used in its vindication. It 
 is certainly very unreasonable in those who split hairs, and indulge 
 in far-fetched, wire-drawn inferences against Scripture, to object to 
 being answered in a similar style ; yet those infidels whose whole . 
 stock of argument consists of cavils, and quibbles, and puerilities, 
 are the first to cry out against the "special pleading" of those who 
 undertake to draw inferences in support of the Bible from the same 
 kind of premises assumed by themselves as good enough to attack 
 and invalidate it. As I have had occasion to observe already, I am 
 not making an argument to prove that the Pentateuch is true, (in 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK 0PON THE PENTATEUCH. 59 
 
 ■which case I should pursue quite another method,) bu^am simply 
 replying to Colenso's assault upon it. The burden of proof rests upon 
 him; and I submit with entire confidence, that on the point in 
 question, my inferences above given, are quite as good and conclu- 
 sive as his. 
 
 And now let us examine the Bishop's assumption that two hun- 
 dred thousand lambs were required to keep the Passover. He tells 
 us that one sheep was enough for ten persons ! In the name of all 
 that is gluttinous, what can be the basis of a calculation like this ? 
 Preposterous as this enormous allowance seemed to me, I have yet, 
 out of difference to the Bishop's judgment in a practical matter of 
 this kind, (which I thought it possible he might understand better 
 than he does the Hebrew language,) taken pains to enquire dili- 
 gently of numerous butchers and others, in regard to the details 
 involved in the calculation. The result of these investigations is, 
 that the average weight of a yearling sheep is (in England) about 
 one hundred pounds. The Bishop has not informed us of any 
 reasons for estimating the sheep of the Israelites at a less weighty 
 and in the absence of such reasons, we may assume one hundred 
 pounds as the weight of the passover lamb of the Israelites. Now 
 this would allow to each man, woman and child, as his or her share 
 of the passover supper, ten pounds of meat besides other victuals, 
 (for they were enjoined to eat it with unleajpned bread and bitter 
 herbs.) Ten pounds of flesh for each person at a single meal ! and 
 that meal a religious ceremonial 1 What would the Bishop say to 
 an argument against the possibility of the church in Natal, under 
 his care, having celebrated the " Communion of the Lord's Supper," 
 based in part upon a calculation requiring ten loaves (or ten 
 pounds) of bread for each communicant ? And yet such an argu- 
 ment would not be more absurd than the Bishop's against the 
 passover. But English sheep weigh much heavier than California 
 sheep ; let us grant that they iseigh much more than did those of 
 the Egyptians and the Israelites. We will estimate the average 
 weight of the paschal lamb, when dressed and ready for cooking, 
 as low as thirty pounds, and even upon that estimate I claim that 
 one lamb, instead of being barely suflScient for ten persons, would 
 amply suffice for three hundred persons, and more if necessary. In 
 fact there is scarcely any limit to the number who might, in case of 
 necessity, make the passover upon a single paschal lamb. For be it 
 remembered (and it is very strange that the Bishop should need to 
 
60 A KEPLT TO BISHOP COLENSo's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 be reminded of it) that the purpose of the passover was not to 
 furnish a gluttinous feast at which participants might gorge them- 
 selves like so many famishing savages, but to celebrate a religious 
 ceremonial. The due and proper observance of the commemorative 
 rite did not at all depend upon the quantity of meat eaten ; it was 
 enough if (as in the Christian communion) each participant had a 
 morsel oi the appointed food. But the whole "argument" on this 
 particular point is so comically absurd, that it is difiBcult to resist 
 the sense of the ludicrous which strikes one, as he peruses the half- 
 dozen pages in which the Bishop (all insensible to the fun of the 
 thing) goes through his learned calculations and deductions with 
 undisturbed gravity — -just as if he were pouring forth the utterances 
 of oracular wisdom. 
 
 I have dwelt altogether too long on this piece of puerility, which 
 scarcely deserved to be treated seriously ; and I will dismiss the 
 subject with one further observation. The father-in-law of Moses 
 was at this very time in the camp of the Israelites ; he could not 
 have lived at any great distance from the camp, for Moses is repre- 
 sented as feeding his (the father-in-law's) sheep in the vicinity. 
 Therefore, if they had not themselves enough lambs for the passover, 
 they could easily procure as many as would suflSce (though not upon 
 Colenso's plan of ten pounds to each participant) from the flocks of 
 Moses' father-in-law. 
 
 And now I have done with the Bishop's " sheep argument," very 
 much to the reader's relief I have no doubt. Things that amuse us 
 at first, cease to be amusing when too often repeated. One grows 
 tired at last of the jokes and antics of even the most skillful 
 buflFoon. And though there is unquestionably something exceed- 
 ingly funny in the Bishop's peculiar style of "reasoning," yet the 
 reader has by this time become so familiar with his eccentricities, 
 that they must in a great measure have lost their power to afford 
 entertainment. 
 
 The next objection which the Bishop presents, is a very remark- 
 able one, being an attempt to prove not that Moses states anything 
 which is untrue in point of pact, but that he hints at something as 
 a contingency, or as the reason for a future event, which reason 
 involves an improbability. But the reader will understand better 
 the extraordinary character of this objection, when he sees the 
 passage upon which it is founded. The passage is as follows: 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON TEE PENTATEUCH. 61 
 
 " And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the 
 Canaanites from before thee. I will not drive them out in one 
 year, lest the land will become desolate and the wild beasts of the field 
 multiply against thee." 
 
 Now observe the "objection." It is this; — That it is highly 
 improbable, if not absolutely impossible, that the land could become 
 desolate by reason of the increase of wild beasts. And to establish this 
 improbability the learned critic labors through ever so many dull 
 pages of hypothetical reasoning. He does not undertake to over- 
 throw any fitct alledged in the text, or to disprove any statement 
 made therein, but seizing upon this mere expression concerning 
 the wild beasts, expends an immense amount of childish ingenuity 
 in assailing the probability of a contingency which is expressed, 
 so to speak, "in the paulo past-future tense, and the potential 
 mood." 
 
 I ask, in the name of common sense, whether this is not the 
 climax of absurdity? It would really seem as if "the force of folly 
 (even Colensian folly) could no further go." 
 
 Truly, the enemies of Scripture must be driven to desperate 
 extremes, when compelled to resort to arguments like these I 
 
A Eeply to Bishop Oolenso's Attack Upon the Pentateuch. 
 
 THE "wild beast" OBJECTION PUETHEE CONSIDEEED — 
 THE COVENANT. 
 
 Although I have already (as I conceive) made all the reply to 
 the Bishop's "wild beast" objection which it deserves, yet as there 
 is a class of exceedingly literal-minded persons, with whom even 
 such a wooden style of aigument as is there employed, would have 
 weight, I will say a few words further on the subject, in a spirit as 
 literal as that of the objection itself. . 
 
 The objection, the reader will bear in mind, is based upon the 
 expression employed in the 23d chapter of Exodus : " I will not 
 drive them (the Canaanites) out in one year, lest the land will become 
 desolate, and the beasts of the field multiply against thee.'''' Upon this 
 passage, the Bishop observes, that the reason assigned for not driv- 
 ing the Canaanites out in one year, is not a good reason, because it 
 was impossible that the beasts of the field could multiply to such an 
 extent as to prove dangerous to man. In support to this cavil (for 
 assuredly it is nothing more) he informs us that " the whole land 
 which was divided among- the tribes in the time of Joshua, including 
 the counties beyond the Jordan, was in extent about 11,000 square 
 miles, or 1,000,000 acres ; and according to the story, this was 
 occupied by more than 2,000,000 people." He next compares the 
 country spoken of to certain agricultural counties of England, which 
 contain (he assures us) one-half the number of acres, and also a 
 population about one-half of the- number of the Israelites. Upon 
 these assumed facts (which in reality are not facts at all) he con- 
 structs the following lucid and convincing argument: "By 
 doubling the above results, (the population and the extent of the 
 three counties, (we find that these counties of England are at this 
 very day, about as thickly peopled as the land of Canaan would 
 have been, with its population of Israelites only, without reckoning 
 the aboriginal Canaanites who already filled the land, — 'seven 
 
A EEPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 63 
 
 nations, greater and mightier than Israel itself/ — and surely it 
 cannot be said that the agricultural counties referred to, with the 
 flourishing towns and villages, are in any danger of ' lying 
 desolate' from the wild beasts multiplying against the human 
 inhabitants." 
 
 Such is Bishop Colenso's " argument," which I have given in his 
 own language ; and it proves one thing conclusively, namely : that 
 the man capable of employing reasoning of this kind, is entirely 
 incapacitated for the discussion of any serious question whatever. 
 In the first place, it is quite obvious that the danger of any partic- 
 ular country being overrun by wild beasts, does not depend merely 
 upon the density of its population. It depends also upon the charac- 
 ter of the surrounding and adjacent regions. At this day a tract of 
 land as thickly settled as one of the agricultural counties of 
 England " might be in danger of the depredations of wild beasts, if 
 it were located in certain portions of the African continent, or even 
 amid the wilds of Russia. It is palpably absurd to Institute com- 
 parisons, or draw inferences based upon the condition of things 
 in an island, secluded and separated as England is from the rest of 
 the world, and apply those inferences to a country situated like 
 Canaan, surrounded, not by the waves of the ocean, but by an 
 immense unsettled region, capable of sustaining vast numbers of 
 " the beasts of the field." Again, the idea held out in the text, is 
 not that the wild beasts will become troublesome because of the 
 thinness of the population, but on account of the dead bodies, which 
 would attract them from every quarter, in all the adjacent country, 
 or that the general effects of the desolation produced by the war, 
 would be an extraordinary multiplication and gathering together of 
 beasts of prey. Now the character of the surrounding country was 
 (even long after the period in question) such as to make the appre- 
 hension in question a very reasonable one. Wild animals abounded 
 on all sides, — unless we are to reject the whole Scripture history as 
 fabulous, and repudiate it in the mass, without waiting the slow 
 process adopted by Bishop Colenso, of assailing it item by item. 
 Certain it is that the entire narrative agrees consistently in repre- 
 senting the region as being much infested by wild animals. The 
 story of Sampson and the foxes, of David killing the lion and the 
 bear, of the bears that devoured the children who insulted Elisha, 
 and others that might be specified, together with the fact that the 
 entire country of the ten tribes, (of which country Samaria was the 
 
64 
 
 capital,) was infested by wild animals long afterward, — all these 
 tend to show that the expression in the text, "lest the land become 
 desolate," etc., is not so absurd as the Bishop argues. 
 
 But again, did it never occur to the literal-minded objector, that 
 Scripture phraseology is often figurative ; that often where it is not 
 strictly figurative, it has a certain oriental richness of coloring, 
 which forbids it to be interpreted and construed like a formal legal 
 document, or an act of the legislature ? The Bishop does not always 
 construe texts in this downright word-for-word style. No, when it 
 suits his purpose and humors his argument, he can make due allow- 
 ance fo. the genius of an oriental language, and grasp the larger 
 meaning of an oriental phrase. For we presume that the Bishop is 
 as fierce as any of his brother Churchmen against the Popish dogma 
 of " transubstantiation,'' and that when he comes across the texts, — 
 "This is my body,'' "This is my blood," etc., he finds it convenient 
 to lay aside his microscopic spectacles, and interpret them in a less 
 pettifogging spirit. Had he undertaken the criticism of the passage 
 in question, in a similar mood, what would he have found in the 
 language, "lest the land will become desolate and the beasts of the 
 field multiply against thee," to imply that as a literal fact the wild 
 beasts wou d grow so numerous as to devour and exterminate the 
 human inhabitants ? He would more probably have smiled at such 
 a matter-of-fact interpretation, and have insisted that the text meant 
 merely to convey a striking and impressive image of the blight and 
 ravage which the country must undergo if the aboriginal inhabi- 
 tants were driven out suddenly (in one year) and with great 
 slaughter, instead of by a more gradual process. If it were at all 
 worth while, I might easily knock away the entire " underpinning" 
 upon which this childish argument rests, by showing the great error 
 which the Bishop has fallen into in his estimate of the extent of the 
 tract of country in question. But I have already devoted much 
 more time and space to the matter than it merits, and I will dismi^ 
 it with the remark, that in estimating the extent of the country at 
 11,000 square miles, the Bishop is (as usual in all his calculations 
 of numbers, etc.,) very wide indeed of the fact, — ^that being really 
 much less than one fifth part of the area, — an assertion which I 
 hold myself ready to make good whenever it shall be seriously 
 questioned. 
 
 The Bishop's next difficulty, relates to the time of the sojourn of 
 the Israelites in Egypt. Quoting the 40th verse of the 12th chapter 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 65 
 
 of Exodus, " Now the sojourning- of the children of Israel who dwelt 
 in Egypt was four hundrpd and thirty years," — he says : " The 
 question which we have here to consider is this : to what sojourning 
 do the above words refer ? whether to that of Jacob and his descen- 
 dants in the land of Egypt only, or to the entire sojourning of them 
 and th ir forefathers Abraham and Isaac in a strange land, both in 
 Canaan and Egypt, from the time the promise of old was given to 
 Abraham, and he sojourned in the land of promise as in a strange 
 country." 
 
 Upon this question the Bishop (for once) decides correctly. He 
 concludes that the sojourning referred to, includes a period com- 
 mencing from the birth of Isaaq, comprising the sojourning of the 
 descendants of Abraham in Egypt as well as the land of Canaan. 
 But he says that inasmuch as the period from Jacob's arrival in 
 Egypt to the time when the Israelites left the country is but 210 
 years, the covenant that they should be in Egypt 400 years was not 
 fulfilled. That the Israelites were but 210 yeiirs in Egppt is true ; 
 and the Bishop might have arrived at this conclusion by a much 
 simpler and more obvious path than the one he has adopted, and 
 thus spared himself a great deal of unnecessary trouble. In the 3d 
 chapter of Exodus we find the following : "And the Lord said, I 
 have suruly seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, 
 and have heard their cry by reason of their task-masters ; for I 
 know their sorrows. And I come now to deliver them out of the 
 hand of tlio Egyptians. Now therefore behold, the cry of the 
 children of Israel is come unto me, and I have also seen the oppres- 
 sion wherewith the Egyptians oppress them. Come now therefore 
 and I will send the unto Pharaoh that thou mayest bring forth my 
 people the children of Israel out of Egypt." 
 
 Now according to one mode of computation, but 210 years of the 
 allotted time was now fulfilled, and it might be said that the Lord 
 moved by the "cry of the children of Israel" that rose to him, 
 mercifully shortened the time of their affliction. Yet it was even 
 then literally fulfilled ; for Isaac and Jocob were strangers and 
 sojourners in a land which was not theirs, long before the latter 
 came to Egypt. 
 
 And here, before making any further cammeuts upon this subject, 
 it may not be out of place, to say a few words concerning the cove- 
 nant made by Jehovan with Abraham and his seed. 
 
 Abraham's father, we are told, was an idolater ; hence Abraham 
 5 
 
66 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 himself must have been brought up to worship idols. See Joshua, 
 chapter 24, Terse 2. In the first conversation recorded between God 
 and Abraham, we find that the latter is required to leave xhe land 
 of his nativity and the house of his father, and to go to a land which 
 God will show 'unto him. Genesis, chapter 12, verse 1. Nothing 
 is recorded similar to the circumstances under which the Lord first 
 appeared unto Moses, such as the burning bush, etc., nor similar 
 to those under which He manifested himself unto some of the 
 prophets. From this, it has been inferred by some, that Abraham 
 "sought after God," as his Creator, so that when he revealed himself 
 it was as one expected and looked for, and not as to a stranger who 
 would be surprised and overwhelmed by fear at the manifestation. 
 Hence the Lord revealed himself (it has been thought) familiarly 
 to Abraham, and not in dreams, or portents. However this may be, 
 from that time Abraham served the Lord ; he left his house and 
 the house of his fathers, and went wherever he was directed by the 
 power he had invoked and found. But instead of receiving any 
 reward for his devotion, he seemed to have entered upon a career of 
 continual wanderings and unceasing trouble. Yet the "reward" 
 was promised by Jehovah himself: "Fear not Abraham, I will 
 reward thee exceedingly," is the language used by him whose 
 promise cannot fail. " What canst thou give me," was the reply of 
 Abraham, "being that I am childless ; and the servant of my house 
 will inherit me ?" Then followed the assurance that no servant or 
 stranger should succeed to his inheritance, but that the Lord would 
 give him an heir ; that his children should be strangers in a land 
 that was not theirs, and be afflicted there, for a term of 400 years. 
 The covenant on the part of Abraham, was that he and his seed 
 should for the term of 400 years devote themselves, under all cir- 
 cumstances of trouble and privation, to the carrying on of the work 
 confided to them by the Lord ; and as both Isaac and Jacob devoted 
 their lives to this work, it is eminently fitting that the covenanted 
 term of 400 years should commence from the time of Isaac. The 
 great object to be accomplished by Abraham and his descendants, 
 was to make God and his will known to all the nations of the earth. 
 For this purpose they were selected and set apart ; this was the 
 object of the covenaut, and of all their afflictions. As a light 
 shines out more brightly amid surrounding darkness, so they testified 
 more effectually to the goodness of God, through their troubles and 
 their sufferings. All that they endured and suffered, all their trials 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLEXSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. Gt 
 
 and persecutions, and afflictions, tended directly or indirectly to this 
 one great end, the accomplishment of their covenanted work, the 
 fulfillment of their divinely appointed mission. Sometimes it is 
 hard for human wisdom to discern the use and object of their bitter 
 experiences ; often it is easy for the sliallow objector and the pro- 
 fane scoffer to criticise the question, and to cavil. But how shall 
 the finite mind, with its poor human sounding-line, fathom the 
 depths of the divine wisdom. Man cannot always comprehend the 
 counsels, or judge the plans of the Almighty. Yet "fools rush in, 
 wliere angels fear to tread," and we find in those modern days, 
 legions of critics puffed up with the vein conceit of a little super- 
 ficial learning, who do not hesitate in their presumptions folly, to 
 arraign Jehova himself before them, and to pronounce his wisdom 
 foolishness. Truly hath it been said, 
 
 "A little learning is a dangerous thing, 
 Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring ;" — 
 
 for the doubts and difficulties which never trouble the mind of the 
 simple and the child-like, and which make infidels and scoffers of 
 the half educated, who have learned enough to make them vain and 
 presumptions, but not enough to make them truly wise, and sure to 
 disappear or sink into insignificance, before the deeper and more 
 thoughtful investigations of those who have penetrated beyond the 
 outer vestibule of the temple of knowledge, and aided by a higher 
 philosophy, seek in reverent spirit to discover the Truth which God 
 has revealed to his creatures. 
 
 The great object of the covenant with Abraham, as already stated, 
 was to make God, his power and his will, known in the world. 
 Abraham and his descendants were the chosen human instruments 
 for the accomplishment of this purpose. Four hundred years was 
 the period of "affliction'' originally fixed, during which the seed of 
 Abraham were especially to serve the Lord in this work. But their 
 " cry"' arose to the all-merciful Father, and by the plagues inflicted 
 upon Pharaoh and his people the power of God was manifested to 
 the Egyptians, and Jehova made known to them before the fulfill- 
 ment of the stipulated period. Thus the contemplated work was 
 accomplished, and the covenant virtually fulfilled, when the Israe- 
 lites had been but 210 years in Egypt. Yet, as I have also shown, 
 we may regard the 400 years as being literally completed, by count- 
 ing from the birth of Isaac, who was an appointed and consecrated 
 instrument in the covenanted work, even from his birth. 
 
68 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 The Bishop's next objection is based upon the scriptural account 
 of the " Exodus in the fourth generation." The discussion of this 
 subject occupies the 16th chapter of his book. 
 
 Not satisfied with having devoted one entire chapter to the task 
 of elaborately ^roOT?i(/ a fact which required no proof, and which 
 no Biblical scholar ever denied, (namely, that the Israelites were 
 not 400 years in Egypt, but only 210 years,) he resumes the subject 
 in another chapter. Now not only is this fact universally acknowl- 
 edged, but it is plain upon the face of the narrative, and the period 
 is even printed in figures in the margin of a common edition of the 
 English Bible, with which Bishop Colenso must be familiar. What 
 then can be his motive in making all this parade of pj-oof of an 
 admitted fact ? Surely he cannot wish to deceive ignorant readers 
 by producing the impression in their minds that the defenders of 
 the veracity of the Pentateuch maintain that the Israelites were 400 
 years in Egypt. If I could permit myself to believe that the Bishop, 
 like an unprincipled lawyer, was only anxious to win his case, by 
 any means however unconscientious, I could then easily account for 
 these two chapters of superfluous proof. I should then recognize at 
 once, in the kind of tactics he has adopted, that stale trick of dis- 
 honest reasoners which logicians designate as the "suppressio veri," 
 the suppression of the truth — a trick which in morals is equivalent 
 to direct falsehood. For according to an accepted maxim in ethics, 
 "suppressio veri est suggestio falsi" — that is, the wilful concealment 
 of a known truth in reasoning, is equivalent to a suggestion, or 
 indirect assertion of a lie. In the present instance, if any person- 
 age less venerable and respectable than a Bishop had followed so 
 crooked a path in his argument, I should have been driven to the 
 conclusion that it was his purpose to deceive and mislead. It 
 would have been clear to me that the only object of pretending to 
 prove that the Israelites were only 210 years in Egypt, was to make 
 the reader suppose that defenders of the Bible claimed and argued 
 that they were there 400 years. Then having produced this false 
 impression, nothing could be easier than to go to work and prove 
 that they were not there any such period, from all which the infer- 
 ence would seem to be that the veracity of the Pentateuch had been 
 successfully impeached. Such is the view of the matter which I 
 should have taken, had the argument I refer to been advanced by 
 some infidel writer. As it is, I am obliged to acquit the Bishop of 
 indirect falsehood, on the plea of ignorance. Of course it is very 
 
A IJEPLT TO BISHOP COLENSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 69 
 
 hard to conceive how the Bishop could be ignorant of the fact that 
 all commentators admit that the Israelites were but 210 years in 
 Egypt, and that the narrative clearly shows that such was the case ; 
 but then it is harder yet to charge him with knowing the fact, and 
 pretending to be ignorant of it for purposes of deceit and falsehood. 
 As the case therefore is necessarily one either of ignorance, or 
 something much more reprehensible, I will, as I have done in sev- 
 eral previous instances of the same kind, acquit the Bishop of the 
 graver charge — though the evidence is so overwhelming that a jury 
 would be likely to bring in a verdict of guilty, upon it, without 
 leaving their seats. 
 
 "Again," says the Bishop, "when it is said (Genesis 15 : 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 migration, viz : Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amram, Aaron. 
 As Jacob was so aged, and Moses and Aaron also were advanced in 
 life beyond military age, we may reckon from Levi, who went down 
 into Egypt in the prime of life, and then the generation of Joshua, 
 Eleazer, &c., in the prime of life, will be the fourth generation." 
 Now if there is any obscurity in this, and if the reader fails to see 
 clearly the point of the objection, he will please to attribute it to the 
 Bishop, and not to me. From his statement as it stands, it would 
 appear as if he did not understand how to compute "four genera- 
 tions," for he has counted ^ve for /oMJ-. At least I confess myself 
 wholly unable to guess upon what principle he estimates it as "four 
 generations" from Levi to Eleazer. According to the ordinary and 
 obvious method of computation, it is five, viz : Levi one, Kohath 
 two, Amram three, Aaron four, Eleazer five. Inasmuch as neither 
 Aaron nor Moses returned to Canaan, while Eleazer did, it is not at 
 our option to consider that Eleazer and his generation were the 
 fourth. Neither Aaron nor any of his generation, nor any of those 
 who were over twenty years of age at the time they left Egypt, 
 came to Canaan ; they all died in the wilderness. Thus, if we 
 reckon from Levi, it would be the fifth and not the fourth that 
 returned "hither." The fact unquestionably is, that the four gene- 
 rations are reckoned from Kohath the second son of Levi, who came 
 to Egypt with Jacob, as well as his younger brother Marory, and 
 was probably under 20 years of age, just as Eleazer must have been 
 
70 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 at the time he left Egypt. I say he must have been under 20^ 
 because otherwise he would have died in the wilderness as all the 
 rest did. 
 
 The Bishop thus proceeds : " Moses and Aaron are descendants 
 — and thus of Joshua and Bleazer, in the fourth generation, from 
 some one of the sons or adult grandsons of Jacob, who went down 
 with him into Egypt." He then goes on, counting from Levi to 
 Aaron, Mishael, Blezephan, Korah, and from Reuben to Dathan, 
 and Abram, whom he places in the third generation ; and also from 
 Pharez to Nashan, whom he places in the fourth generation. But 
 inasmuch as we are told that Nashan was the elder of the tribe of 
 Juda a year after they left Egypt, (see Numbers 2 chapter,) he 
 must have been over 20 years of age at that time ; and this was 
 before they sent the spies into Canaan. Consequently he died in 
 the wilderness, and his son must have been the one who came 
 "hither ;" and he was of the fifth generation from Pharez. There- 
 fore we must in this case also, begin to reckon from Hezron, of 
 whom the Bishop had so much to say in a previous chapter, when 
 he undertook to prove the impossibility of his having been born in 
 the land of Canaan. In establishing his present point, the Bishop 
 seems to have entirely forgot his former argument, for the two are 
 in perfect contradiction, while the fads in the two cases are consis 
 tent and harmonious. In truth, one strong inferential proof of the 
 veracity of the Bible history is to be found in the remarkable cir- 
 cumstance that the attacks upon it contradict and confute each 
 other ; and even the same infidel writer in criticising one portion 
 of the narrative often gives the lie to what he has advanced in 
 assailing another part. Such is certainly the case with the Bishop, 
 whose memory in regard to what he has himself written seems to 
 be as defective as his arithmetic and his logic. The Bishop's argu- 
 ment on this point is exceedingly dry as well as exceedingly weak, 
 and any reply to it cannot fail to be both long and tedious ; I shall 
 therefore spare the reader a minute examination of it. But if any 
 person has suflScient curiosity about it to pay him for the trouble, 
 he has only to compare the statements in the chapter where the 
 critic undertakes to prove that Hezron was not born in Canaan, with 
 the statements in the chapter upon which I am now commenting, to 
 see how flatly and recklessly he contradicts himself. 
 
 Our critic next exhibits his Biblical learning in a striking light, 
 by ascribing the genealogies found in Joshua, Ruth, and Chronicles, 
 
A KEPLY TO BISHOP COLONSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. *I1 
 
 to the Peatateuch. This singular error can scarcely, however, be 
 attributed to ignorance for in several places the Bishop uses allu- 
 sions which seem to show that he really does understand what is 
 embraced in the term — the Pentateuch. He certainly speaks of 
 the Book of Chronicles as not being a part of the Pentateuch, and 
 the following passage (from Colenso) may perhaps throw some light 
 upon the question of his motive for ascribing the genealogies found 
 in Joshua, Ruth, etc., to the Mosaic Books, against the veracity of 
 which his logical artillery is specially aimed: "In 1 Chronicles, T, 
 22, 27, we have a remarkable exception to the above rule (that all 
 the genealogies referred to are found in the Pentateuch) where we 
 find the genealogy of Joshua given as follows : ' Joshua the son of 
 Nun, the son of Elishama, the son of Ammihud, the son of Ladan, 
 the son of Tahan, the son or Telah, the son of Rephah, the son of 
 Ephraim,' — that is to say, Joshua is given in the 9th generation 
 from Ephraim, or the 10th from Joseph. "Upon this," says the 
 Bishop, " I would first remark, we are not here concerned with the 
 Book of Chronicles, but with the narrative in the Pentateuch and 
 and the Book of Joshua, and must abide by the data which they 
 furnish." Thus we see that so soon as our critic discovers something 
 in the Book of Chronicles which he sees makes against his theory, 
 he straightway resolves to throw Chronicles overboard and repudiate 
 it altogether. The Pentateuch must be proved to be false at all 
 hazards, and whatever tends in any way to sustain it, must be 
 assailed or thrown out of the account. . 
 
 The reason why the genealogy of Joshua is, or may be an excep- 
 tion to the above rule, is this, — namely, that all the rest of the gen- 
 ealogies found in the Pentateuch, are of the fourth generation, from 
 these that came into Egypt with Jacob. The 16th verse of the 15th 
 chapter of Genesis, which says, " In the fourth generation they 
 shall come hither again," cannot be applied to the children of Joseph, 
 because as they were never in Canaan, the words can have no 
 application to them. They can only be applied to Joseph himself, 
 who was of the first of the generations that came into Egypt ; and 
 if the fourth generation after him were to "come hither again," it 
 would be necessary that they should have left Egypt three genera- 
 tions before the rest of the Israelites did, because the first generation 
 was counted from the grandsons of the sons of Jacob, at least in 
 some, as in the tribe of Judah, which was reckoned from Hezron 
 the grandson of Juda. 
 
12 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSo's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 The Bishop further says : " We have no express statement of the 
 age of Joshua at the age of the vexodus ; but we may suppose it to 
 have been about the same as that of Caleb the son of Jephenneh 
 with whom he is so often coupled ; and Caleb was 40 years old 
 when sent to spy the land at the end of the first year of the exodus. 
 Hence since the exodus took place 215 years at most after the 
 migration into Egypt there must have intervened between the birth 
 of Zelah and that of Joshua 215 years. Take from this the 10 years 
 that Joseph lived, — for he was alive when grandchildren were born 
 to Ephraim, — and Zelah was a grandson of Ephraim, and the 40 
 years of Joshua's age at the time of the exodus, and we have left 
 105 years from the birth of Zelah to that of Joshua. So according 
 to the chronicler there must have been six complete generations in 
 105 years, which is hardly credible." Now let us see if this is really 
 as incredible as the Bishop declares. In the first place Zelah may 
 have been born before the death of Joseph ; and if he was born 15 
 years before, ivhich he probably was, the time from the birth of 
 Zelah to that of Joshua would be 120 years, giving 20 years between 
 each generation. Does the Bishop mean to say there is anything 
 incredible in a father being only 20 years older than his son? Such 
 instances are by no means uncommon, and though it certainly can- 
 not be assumed as a general rule, it is absurd to speak of it as an 
 impossibility. But second, from the statements in Chronicles, it 
 cannot be made out whether the generations spoken of were suc- 
 cessive generations, or were brothers, the children of Ephraim. 
 The language employed by the Bishop, and purporting to be that 
 of the Book, is in fad different from thai which we find in Chronicles. 
 Tlie Bishop begins from Joshua, thus : "Joshua the son of Nun, the 
 son of Elishoma, the son of Amraihud," etc., down to Ephraim, 
 conveying the idea that each of the individuals named, belonged to 
 a different generation. But the language of the record by no means 
 makes it clear that they were of successive generations. After 
 relating that Ephraim begat a son, and called him Beriah, and 
 after stating why he was so called, the account goes on ; " And 
 Raphah his son, and Resheph his son, and Zelah his son," and so on 
 to Joshua. Thus it will be perceived that Zelah instead of being 
 the great grandson of Ephraim, was according to the language of 
 the chronicle, the son of Ephraim. But it cannot be said that they 
 were all sons of Ephraim, for this would make Joshua the son of 
 Ephraim ; and this cannot be, since we are told that he was the son 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 73 
 
 of Nun. Neither can it be said that they all belonged to successive 
 generations, because the account mentions nine sons of Ephraim 
 who were killed before Beriah was born, employing the same kind 
 of language. Hence it would have to be said that Ephraim lived 
 till nine successive generations were born, and that he then begat a 
 son named Beriah. For these reasons it has always been understood 
 that the account in Chronicles did not speak of generations in 
 regular succession, but spoke of fathers, sons, and brothers of the 
 same generations, without that kind of strict reference to regular 
 succession, which the Bishop seems determined to insist upon. The 
 only account we can find of the regular generations of Ephraham 
 is in the 26th chapter of Numbers. This account, the Bishop refers 
 to, but is unwilling to make any use of, because it does not suit his 
 purpose, or sustain his hypothesis. It is easy enough to assail the 
 veracity of the Bible, or of any history that was ever written, by 
 adopting Bishop Colenso's mode of proceeding. It is in fact, as 
 Hamlet said of playing the flute, " as easy as lying." You have 
 only to torture the text into something it does not mean, and was 
 never designed to say, — to put your own construction upon it, and 
 then go to work with owlish gravity and a great show of logic and 
 learning, to prove that it (your own forced construction) is utterly 
 false. Having done this, it only remains to declare with complacent 
 triumph, "this statement is clearly incredible." And thus the work 
 is achieved ; the card house set up on purpose to be demolished, is 
 demolished. Such seems to be Bishop Colenso's receipt for proving 
 the Pentateuch a fable ; and by making use of precisely the same 
 method, it requires no great amount of skill or ingenuity to prove 
 that all history ancient and modern, is no more reliable than the 
 adventures of Baron Munchausen or the voyages of " Sinbad the 
 Sailor." 
 
A Eeply to Bishop Oolenso's Attack Upon the Pentateuch- 
 
 Let any man possessed of the ingenuity of an average country 
 attorney, select any history ancient or modern, sacred or profane, 
 and go mousing through it in search of " objections" and "difficul- 
 ties," and he will find abundance of the same microscopic sort that 
 Bishop Colenso delights in. If he fails to find more plausible ones 
 than many such as the Bishop exults over with a ludicrous compla- 
 cency, he must be a dull fellow indeed. In fact, not a few of the 
 "points" gravely made by our critic, are so trifling in their charac- 
 ter as to cause me an embarrassing hesitation whether to give them 
 any serious answer at all. If on the one hand I pass them without 
 notice, there may be individuals (though it is difficult to conceive 
 it) who may suppose them unanswerable ; if on the other, I under- 
 take seriously to reply to these puerilities, I seem to myself by the 
 very act, to bestow upon them some small degree of importance. 
 Several of these difficulties are such as I should imagine none but a 
 child would raise, and such as many intelligent children could easily 
 solve. 
 
 "Again," says the Bishop, "according to the chronicler, Elishama 
 was the grandfather of Joshua. But Elishama was the captain of 
 of the host of Ephraim about a year after his grandson Joshua had 
 commanded the whole Hebrew force which fought with Amalek, — 
 which also is hardly credible." 
 
 Now I confess myself utterly at a loss to guess why this should 
 appear at all incredible to any intelligent Biblical student. The 
 Bishop himself concludes (and very properly) that Joshua was 40 
 years old at the time spoken of. Hence, if Joshua was born when 
 his father was 30 years old (which assuredly is not "incredible") the 
 latter would be 10 years old -at the time spoken of. If Nun, the 
 father of Joshua was likewise born when his father Elishama was 
 30 years old (which is not "incredible") Elishama would be 60 years 
 older than Joshua, — that is 100 years old at the time spoken of- 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 75 
 
 What is it that the Bishop iinds incredible in all this ? Is 100 years 
 so great an age for those days that he cannot believe in it ? or is it 
 incredible that a man of 30 should beget a child ? In one of these 
 two things the fact which is pronounced incredible must consist, if 
 there is any thing at all incredible in the statement. The age of 
 100, seems at that time to have been no greater than 10 in these 
 modern days ; and even so late as the wars of Napoleon, men of 10 
 and upwards have commanded armies, and acquitted themselves 
 with credit. But after all, it is quite improbable that Elishama 
 was "captain" or leader of the "army in any sense, or that he had 
 any military command at all. Had Bishop Colenso's acquaintance 
 with Hebrew been other than of the most superficial character, he 
 would not require to be told that "Ifossi/" (which is the Hebrew 
 word he refers to as meaning captain) is frequently translated 
 "elder," or "prince," and that it does not necessarily involve the 
 idea of military rank. A theologian and a Bishop should not argue 
 dogmatically from a mere word or phrase of a text in a translation, 
 like an unlearned person ; and there is no excuse in this instance, 
 for the importance which our critic attaches to the word "captain" 
 in the English version. The idea of pre-eminence, is the radical 
 idea of " N^ossy ;" it may be pre-eminence in age, or in something 
 else. 
 
 In the present instance it means simply that Elishama was the 
 head man of his tribe; and such was his position, he having in fact 
 nothing whatever to do with military business, Any scholar, (even 
 though ignorant of Hebrew) will easily understand how this may 
 be so. Instance!! of it abound in all languages ancient and modern. 
 
 The Latin word "dux," which sometimes means a general, is quite 
 as often used (more often in fact) where there is no allusion to 
 martial command or rank, and where it has to be rendered by the 
 English words, prince, leader, guide, conductor, etc. The same is the 
 case with the French word "chef," which sometimes means a general, 
 and sometimes a head cook. But in his eagerness to convict Moses 
 of falsehood, our literal minded Bishop disregards all such scholarly 
 distinctions ; and pouncing upon a particular word, and fastening 
 upon it whichever of its many significations suits his purpose best, 
 drives with all the recklessness of ignorance and prejudice combined, 
 right onward through thick and thin, toward this goal. 
 
 In order to lay a proper foundation for his next objection, the 
 Bishop finds it necessary to add to the text some words which are found 
 
76 A REPLY TO BISHOP OOLENSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 neither in the original or in the translation, previous to assailing it. 
 He commences thus : " But in truth, the account of Joshua's descent, 
 in 1st Chronicles, involves a palpable contradiction. Thus in verse 
 24 chapter 1, we are told that Ephraim's daughter built two villages 
 in the land of Canaan. If we suppose this to mean that the descend- 
 ants of Ephraim's daughter after the conquest in the time of Joshua 
 did this, yet in verses 22, 23, we have this astonishing fact stated — 
 that Ephraim himself, after the slaughter by the men of Gath of his 
 descendants in the Ith generation, mourned many days, and then 
 married again, and had a son Beriah, who was the ancestor of 
 Joshua." 
 
 Now I am prepared to admit, that if the Book of Chronicles 
 makes the statement which the Bishop avers, its veracity stands 
 impeached. But if the Book contains no such statement, what shall 
 we say of the Bishop's veracity ? And the fact is, that the record 
 contains no such statement. Here is what it does say : 
 
 "And his (Ephraim's) daughter was Sharah, who built Bethharon 
 the neither and the upper, and Uzzen Sherah." There is not a 
 word here about this having been done " in the land of Canaan ;" 
 that phrase is an addition to the text made by the Bishop — made, 
 probably, because he thought in his hasty blundering way, that it 
 must have been in Canaan, and that there could therefore be no 
 particular harm in adding the words. The Bishop probably argued 
 thus: " It is certain that the childfen of Ephraim were killed by 
 the men of Gath in Canaan, for Gath is undoubtedly in the land of 
 Canaan, and the statement concerning the killing of the children of 
 Ephraim, and that concerning the building of the villages, are both 
 in the same chapter." Such I imagine must have been the Bishop's 
 logic ; and it would be no looser or more slovenly than usual with 
 him, if it were not for the significant words, "that were born in the 
 land," were not annexed to the statement concerning the men of 
 Gath. That statement reads thus : " And the sons of Ephraim, 
 Shuteloh, Bered, Tahath, Eloda," etc., "whom the men of Gath, 
 ' that were born in that land slew,' because they came down to take 
 away their cattle," etc. The Bishop says that these were the des- 
 cendants of Ephraim of the seventh generation ; while the chronicler 
 calls them "the sons of Ephraim," which would seem (in the absence 
 of some reason to the contrary) to imply clearly enough that they 
 were Ephraim's own children, and of the first generation. As to 
 the force of the phrase " that were born in that land," I suppose 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 71 
 
 there can be little serioua question among Biblical scholars. It 
 clearly does not mean, that were horn in Oath. We would scarcely 
 speak of " Frenchmen who were born in France," except with some 
 special reference which does not exist in the case in question. 
 Frenchman alone implies prima facie, that the individual to whom 
 the term is applied was born in France. But if we were speaking 
 of something done by Frenchmen in Canada, and were to use the 
 expression, " this was done by Frenchmen who were born in that 
 land," every one would understand, not France, but Canada, by 
 "that land," and would infer that the deed spoken of was done by 
 people of French extraction residing in Canada. Hence the phrase 
 in question must be applied to the land of Egypt where Ephraim 
 and his sons then were ; and the meaning is, "men of Gath who 
 were born in Egypt." Nor is there anything more singular or 
 incredible in the notion that "men of Gath" were born in Egypt. 
 During the seven years of famine throughout the land of Canaan, 
 (which included Gath,) there was plenty in Egypt ; and men of the 
 various tribes of that land went down thither as did the children 
 of Jacob, to obtain supplies. Of these, some would doubtless 
 remain in the new country, and beget children there ; thus there 
 were men of Gath born in Egypt, as there were Hebrews born there. 
 Of these, some doubtless returned with their children to their own 
 country, when the famine was over. These children growing up 
 were those spoken of as having killed the children of Ephraim, when 
 the latter came to them after their cattle. So much for this terrible 
 objection, over which the Bishop indulges in such a triumphant 
 flourish of trumpets. The whole "difficulty" of the case, has no 
 other foundation than the critic's own ignorance and want of 
 reflection. 
 
A Eeply to Bishop Oolenso's Attack Upon the PentateucL 
 
 THE bishop's great DIFFICULTY— THE NUMBEE OP 
 THE ISRAELITES AT THE EXODUS. 
 
 We now come to the consideration of one of Bishop Colenso's 
 most weighty objections to the veracity of the Pentateuch, — or at 
 least one to which he seems to attach more importance than to any 
 other. This has reference to the number of the Israelites at the time 
 of the Exodus, and the whole of the Itth chapter of his book is 
 devoted to the attempt to demonstrate that it is impossible that they 
 could at that time have been as numerous as the record represents 
 them to have been, — and consequently that the record is unreliable. 
 The Bishop maintains with great confidence and complacency that 
 it is a natural impossibility that the Israelites could have numbered 
 600,000 males of over 20 years of age at the time in question, or 
 that the total population could have numbered 2,000,000 at that 
 time, which must have been the case to admit of the proportion of 
 adult males above stated. 
 
 But let us permit the Bishop to speak for himself. He says : — 
 " In the first place it must be observed as already noted, that we 
 nowhere read of any very large families among the children of 
 Jacob or their descendants, to the time of the Exodus. We may 
 suppose, in order that we may have the population as large as pos- 
 sible, that very few died prematurely, and that those who were born 
 almost all lived and multiplied. But we have no reason whatever 
 from the data furnis' ed by the sacred books themselves, to assume 
 that they had families materially larger than those of the present 
 day. We are told in Genesis, chapter 46, that Reuben had 4 sons, 
 Simeon 6, Levi 3, Juda 5, Issachar 4, Zebulon 3, Gad t, Ashar 4, 
 Joseph 2, Benjamin 10, Dan 1, Napthali 4. The 12 sons of Jacob 
 then, as appears from the above, had between them 55 sons, — that 
 is on the average 4^ each. Let us suppose that they increased in 
 
A EEPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 19 
 
 that way from generation to generation. Then in the first genera- 
 tion, — that of Kohath, — there would be 54 males ; according to the 
 story 53, or rather 51 only, since Er and Ovan died in the land of 
 Canaan without issue. In the second generation, that of Amram, 
 there would be 243 males ; in the third, that of Moses and Aaron 
 1094 ; and in the fourth, that of Bleazer 4923 ; that is to say, in- 
 stead of 600,000 warriors in the prime of life, there could not have 
 been 5000." Such is the Bishop's statement of the case, and such 
 the conclusion which he arrives at. * 
 
 Now transparent as the fallacity of the Eight-Eeverend critic is 
 in the present case, and superfluous as any serious attempt to expose 
 it, will seem to most Biblical students, I presume it is incumbent 
 upon me to comment upon it, in the faithful discharge of the task 
 which I have assumed. The intelligent and well-informed reader, 
 who sees through the "difficulty" at a glance, will bear with me 
 then, while for the sake of those who may never have bestowed any 
 attention upon such matters, I indulge in a few comments. And 
 first, it seems from the Bishop's mode of stating the case,, that he 
 must have been under the strange impression that in the days of 
 Jacob and his contemporaries, a change of country on the part of a 
 man, stopped any increase of his family. He tells us "Eeuben had 
 4 sons, Simeon, 6," &c. ; and fails to mention that all those whom 
 he enumerates were born in Canaan. Neither does he furnish us 
 ■ any hint as to the foundation of his preposterous assumption, that 
 none of the fathers whose names he quotes had any more children 
 after they went into Egypt. In his first chapter, our author maintains 
 that 12 children were born to Jacob in 7 years, and that 8 of them 
 were born in 3 years ; now I should like to ask him how many 
 children could have been born (upon a similar calculation) to 
 Eeuben, or any one of the sons of Jacob, after they came into Egypt, 
 or even during the It years that Jacob lived in that land ? If I am 
 told that the History does not mention any children born in Egypt, 
 my answer is, that it is ridiculous to claim that none were born 
 because none are mentioned. What should prevent the sons of 
 Jacob from having children after going into Egypt as well as before ? 
 The probabilities are all the other way, and there is abundance of 
 room to argue that they would have a great many more children in 
 Egypt than in Canaan. If I considered it worth while, I could 
 easily cite many strong (and some very curious) authorities to show 
 that there was something in the climate, or other physical conditions 
 
80 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLONSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 of ancient Egypt, which in a wonderful degree faTored fecundity, 
 and made it more remarkable in this respect than California is sup- 
 posed to be. Several ancient writers, speak of cases of three, four, 
 and five, or six children at a birth, as having been not very uncom- 
 mon in Egypt. But I do not care to dwell upon any consideration 
 of this kind, nor do I rest my argument at all upon testimony of 
 this character. The Bishop's objection can be easily and as I think, 
 satisfactorily disposed of upon independent grounds. liF the reader 
 recollects the4)Ositions taken by our critic in the first chapter of his 
 book, he will remember that it was there claimed that Judah was 
 but 43 years old when he came with his father into Egypt. Now if 
 at that time Judah had 5 sons (as it is admitted he had) how many 
 more might he have had when as old as Jacob at the time Benjamin 
 was born, — that is the age 97 years ? For let it be remembered 
 that (according to the Bishop) Jacob was 84 when he got married ; 
 that he then served Laban the second term of 7 years for Eachel, 
 and 6 years for his cattle, (13 years in all) adding to which 84, his 
 age at the time of his marriage, we have 97 years. If Jacob had 
 8 children in 3 years, under the circumstances of this case, how many 
 could Judah have had in 55 years ? (that being the difference be- 
 tween his age at the time of coming to Egypt, and that of Jacob at 
 the time Benjamin was born.) But again, let us take the case of 
 Benjamin himself, whom the Bish-jp credits with 10 children, (which 
 is in fact the number he had before going into Egypt) and no more 
 assuming, as he does in the case of all Jacob's sons, that he had no 
 children after arriving in Egypt. Now according to the Bishop's 
 own calculations, Benjamin must have been 6 or 7 years younger 
 than Joseph ; and Joseph was (according to the same calculations) 
 39 years old at the time Benjamin and his father came down into 
 Egypt ; consequently Benjamin was not over 32, (or 33 years at 
 the most) when he arrived in Egypt, at which time he was already 
 the father of ten children. Now I ask in the name of common sense 
 and common probability, why we are to suppose that there was no 
 further increase to this family in Egypt ? I ask, on what ground 
 the Bishop assumes such an improbability, not only in Benjamin's 
 case, but in the case of all his brothers ? The difference between 
 Benjamin's age at the time of his arrival in Egypt, and Jacob's age 
 at the time when Benjamin was born, is 65 years ; and we have as 
 much right to assume that during that whole period Benjamin con- 
 tinued having children, as the Bishop has to assume the contrary. 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 81 
 
 Nay, if Jacob had 8 children in 3 years (as the Bishop makes out 
 that he had) why may we not estimate the increase of Benjamin's 
 family at the same rate, and declare that he was in all human prob- 
 ability the father of over a hundred children before he reached the 
 age of Jacob at the time of his own (Benjamin's) birth ? Such a 
 line of argument would be at least as much supported by reason and \ 
 probability, as that adopted by the Bishop. In short, the notion 
 that no children were born to the sons of Jacab in Egypt, is too 
 preposterous for argument. The Bishop seems to think that if any 
 had been born, they would have been recorded, because express 
 mention is made of the birth of Jechabed ; and if her birth is put on 
 record, why not other births, if there were any ? The answer to 
 this is obvious to every one but Bishop Colenso. Jechebed was 
 destined to be the mother of the great Hebrew Law giver ; surely 
 there is good reason why the mother of Moses should receive special 
 mention, — a reason not at all applicable to the case of those who 
 were to play no great part in the national history. If some future 
 Bishop Colenso, should a thousand years hence, go through the an- 
 nals of the United States, and make a list of all the names recorded 
 in it, and then make those names the basis of a calculation of the 
 population of the country, he would act about as wisely as his illus- 
 trious predecessor of Natal. 
 
 Let us now see whether we are in fact compelled (as the Bishop 
 says we are) to resort to the supposition of "very large families" 
 for the children of Jacob, or to the supposition that " very few died 
 prematurely," or that "everyone that was born lived and multi- 
 plied," or that there was any miraculous and unnatural increase, in 
 order to sustain the theory that at the titne of the Exodus, the Isra- 
 elites numbered 600,000 adult males, or a total population of 2,000,- 
 000. The calculations which I am obliged to go into, in order to 
 elucidate this matter, must necessarily be dry and tedious ; and they 
 are such as cannot be made interesting to the ordinary reader. 
 Yet as I have undertaken to answer the Bishop's reasonings, and to 
 expose his sophistries, I cannot avoid entering into statistics and 
 calculations of this perplexing and minute character. If the reader 
 finds these details too much for his patience, his only resource is to 
 skip the remainder of this chapter. 
 
 We are told that Jacob had 12 sons and 1 daughter — 13 children 
 in all. Also, that when he came into Egypt his entire family 
 (including sons, grandsons, and great grandsons) numbered 10. 
 6 
 
82 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Each of his 12 sons had an average of 4 J children, — certainly not 
 an extraordinary number. The Bishop himself has elaborately 
 proved (what nobody ever denied) that the Israelites were 210 years 
 in Egypt. Thus far there is no dispute, and no room for dispute, 
 about the data. But in regard to the next point (that is how long 
 it took Jacob to raise his family of tO) there may be a difference of 
 opinion. According to the Bishop's calculations, it took him 46 
 years ; for he says that Joseph was 39 years old when Jacob came 
 down to Egypt (the time when Jacob's family numbered 70) and 
 he (Joseph) was born 1 years "after Jacob's double marriage." 
 See the 1st chapter of Colenso. Adding 39 and 1, we have 46 years 
 as the time in question. But according to my explanations in 
 answer to tha,t chapter, and as I understand the narrative, it took 
 Jacob 18 years to raise his family to the number stated. This result 
 I arrive at as follows : — he went to Laban when he was 45 years 
 old, served him t years, and was then married at the age of 52 ! and 
 we are told that he was 130 years old when he came into Egypt ; 
 hence from his marriage till his arrival in Egypt was T8 years; and ' 
 during this period his family reached the number of 70 as already 
 stated. It will be seen how great an advantage accrues to the 
 Bishop in the argument, by adopting my estimate of the time in- 
 stead ot his, since he allows an increase of 70 in 43 years, while I 
 allow 78 years for that amount of increase. Nevertheless I will 
 take the latter estimate (however much it may make against me) 
 because I believe it to be correct. Now if Jacob could in 78 years, 
 raise a family of 70 persons, we may suppose that each one of those 
 70 persons, could in the like period increase in the same ratio ; that 
 is, in 78 years after the arrival in Egypt, the Israelites then would 
 amount to 70 times 70, which is 4,900. Then in 78 years more, these 
 4,900, increasing in the like manner, would number 70 times 4,900, 
 which is 343,000. But the Israelites were 210 years in Egypt, and 
 twice 78 years is only 156 years, which leaves 54 years more of the 
 210, during which the 343,000 population would continue to increase 
 in the same ratio as heretofore. Now in 78 years more these 343,000 
 would by the same method of computation heretofore adopted, 
 amount to 70 times 343,000 which is 24,010,000, or over twenty-four 
 millions. If they would amount to this number in 78 years, how 
 many would they amount to in 54 years ? — this is the only remaining 
 qugstion to be determined. Let the reader bear in mind, that I am 
 .answering Bishop Colenso^s objection merely. My object is not to 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK DPON THE PENTATEUCH. 83 
 
 show what the actual increase was, but that there is no impossibility 
 in its having been as great as the Bishop says the Pentateuch rep- 
 resents it to have been. Therefore if any person feels disposed to 
 criticise my calculation, or the principle upon which it is based, let 
 him be quite certain that the criticism affects the entire validity of 
 the calculation as an answer to the Bishop, — that is as designed to 
 show that it is not impossible that the Israelites increased to 2,000,000 
 during their sojourn in Egypt. But to resume ; — if I am correct 
 thus far in my computation, the Israelites amounted to (or may have 
 amounted to) 343,000 souls at the end of the second 78 years of their 
 sojourn in Egypt. Had they remained there 78 years more, they 
 would have amounted to 24,010,000. But they in fact only remained 
 54 years more ; and if we take 54-78 of that number as a fair esti- 
 mate of what the population would be in 54 years, we have about 
 16J millions as the result, or what amounts to the same thing, if we 
 make a simple proportion, as follows ; — 24,010,000 is to the answer 
 sought, as 78 is 54, we obtain as the result, 16,494,102. Now, one 
 obvious objection to this calculation is, that no allowance is made 
 for deaths before arriving at maturity, &c. It may also be urged 
 that the increase in 54 years would not be 54-78 of what it would 
 in 78 years, because the actual increase would continually become 
 greater, (though the ratio would' remain the same) as we approach 
 the end of the period. Other difficulties also, having more or less 
 plausibility may be raised ; but with 16J millions as the result of 
 our calculation, we are in a condition to make very liberal deduc- 
 tions and allowances, and still retain a figure sufficiently large to 
 satisfy the Bishops call for 2,000,000 at the time of the Exodus. 
 He only demands 2,000,000 ; and after striking off 11-12 of the 
 number arrived at by the above calculations, for deaths &c., we 
 will still have all that he says the truth of the Pentateuch requires. 
 It will be seen therefore, that we can afford to be very liberal with 
 the Bishop ; and by adopting his own estimate of 46 years, instead of 
 78, as the time during which Jacob increased from a unit to 70 
 souls, we can be still more liberal, and instead of allowing 22,000,- 
 000 for deaths &c., as we have done, we could make a discount of 
 twice that number. 
 
 Yet satisfactory as this result would seem to be, we have all along 
 conceded a great deal more to the Bishop than there was any neces- 
 sity for conceding. We have every reason to believe that the 
 Israelites increased while in Egypt in an extraordinary and almost 
 
84 A EEPLT TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 unprecedented manner. It is true that the Bishop gravely assures 
 us that the Bible furnishes us no ground whatever for supposing 
 that they increased very rapidly. But the reader must long ago 
 have become quite accustomed to our author's vast assertions and 
 unfounded statements. He will not therefore be much surprised at 
 another instance of the same kind. If he will turn to the 1th and 
 12th verses of the 1st chapter of Exodus, he will find the following 
 extraordinary language, which the Bishop most certainly must have 
 forgotten entirely when he made the strange assertion above quoted: 
 "And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly 
 and multiplied, and waxed exceedingly mighty, and the whole land 
 VAS FILLED WITH THEM." " But the more they (the Egyptians) 
 affected them, the more thej multiplied and grew; And they (the 
 Egyptians) were grieved because of the children of Israel." Now 
 I repeat, that this is remarkable language. It would be diflEicult to 
 accumulate in a few sentences, more emphatic and expressive terms 
 in which to declare the extraordinary manner in which the Israelites 
 multiplied. Observe the rhetorical accumulation of words : — they 
 "increased abundantly;" they "multiplied ;" they "waxed exceed- 
 ingly mighty;" the "whole land was filled with them;" they 
 "multiplied and grew ;" and finally so enormous was the increase 
 of the Hebrew bondmen, that it began to inspire their Egyptian 
 oppressors with alarm, — ".they \<rere grieved because of the children 
 of Israel." Yet in the face of all this, the learned and Right-Rev- 
 erend critic coolly informs us that the Bible furnishes us no ground 
 whatever for supposing that the Israelites increased very rapidly! Of 
 all the astounding assertions, in this astounding book, the last is 
 assuredly one of the most remarkable. 
 
A Eeply to Bishop Oolenso's Attack Upon the Pentateuch, 
 
 THE NUMBER OP THE FIRST-BOEN. 
 
 The number of the "first-bom," compared with the number of 
 adult males, constitutes a " difficulty," or objection to the truth of 
 the Pentateuch, which the Bishop manifestly considers as being of 
 the most formidable description. The discussion of this subject 
 occupies the 14th chapter of the book ; I now take it up, out of its 
 regular order, because of its connection with the matter which I 
 have treated of in the last article. The Bishop commences by 
 taking the statement in the Book of Numbers, giving the number 
 of the "first-born," and endeavoring to show that that statement is 
 necessarily incredible and false. 
 
 The 43d verse of the 3d chapter, reads as follows : — " And all the 
 first-born males by the number of names, from a month old and 
 upward, of those that were numbered of them were twenty and two 
 thousand, two hundred and three score and thirteen." Upon this 
 the Bishop remarks; — "Let us see what this statement implies, 
 when treated as a simple matter of fact. If there were 600,000 
 males of twenty years and upwards, the whole number of males may 
 be reckoned at 900,000, in which case there would be but one first- 
 born to 42 males ; in other words, the number of boys in every 
 family must have been on the average 42. This will be seen at 
 once, if we consider that the rest of the 900,000 males were not first- 
 born, and therefore each of these must have had one or other of the 
 22,313 as the first-born of his family, except of course, any cases 
 where the first-born of any family was a daughter, or was dead, of 
 which we shall speak presently." Let us now see what our author 
 says of those that died : — 
 
 "In some families the first-born may have died before the num- 
 bering ; some too, who were born about the time of the birth of 
 Moses, may have been killed by the order of Pharaoh. Still we 
 
86 A BEPLT TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 cannot suppose any unusual mortality of this kind without checking 
 in the same degree the increase of the people. Let us however 
 reckon that one out of four first-born died, so that instead of 44,546 
 first-born male and female, there would have been, if all had lived, 
 about 60,000. But even this number of first-born for a population 
 of 1,800,000 would imply that each mother had on the average 30 
 children, 15 sons and 15 daughters ; besides which, the number of 
 mothers must have been the same as that of the first-born, — Whence 
 there would have been only 60,000 child-bearing women to 600,000 
 men, so that only one man in ten had a wife and children." Thus 
 it will be seen that the Bishop concludes that it is incredible that a 
 population of 1,800,000 should have but 60,000 child-bearing 
 women ; and also that each mother could have 30 children. This 
 may be quite incredible, but it is certainly no more so than the 
 Bishop's supposition, which is that a population of 1,800,000, (males 
 and females, men, women and children) should have 600,000 child- 
 bearing women, thus allowing an average of one child to each 
 family. For if we suppose the 600,000 wam-iors to have each, one 
 wife (throwing polygamy entirely out of the question) these, — ^that 
 is the warriors and their wives would make up two-thirds of the 
 population, and we should have but 600,000 left as the total number 
 of children. This estimate seems to me at, least, no less incredible • 
 than the other. But the fact is, the Bishop has needlessly befogged 
 himself with his surmises and his figures. A little common sense, 
 and an ordinary regard to the facts of experience would have saved 
 him from falling into so ridiculous an error. I have at the present 
 time under my instruction, a nujpber of children belonging to sixty 
 different families. I have taken the pains to ascertain the total num- 
 her of children, belonging to these 60 families, that are now alive ; 
 also the number of all \he first-born both males and females now 
 surviving. I now propose to give the result of this investigation, 
 as calculated to shed some practical light upon the whole subject. 
 
 The total number of children in the 60 families, I found to be 273: 
 the total number of first-born males, surviving, 19 ; of first-born 
 females surviving, 12 ; that is 31 first-born in all, in 60 families, or 
 about one surviving first-born in two families, one-half of all the 
 first-born children having died a natural death. 
 
 In the case of the Israelites however, there were peculiar causes 
 to diminish the number of the first-born. We are told in. the first 
 chapter of Exodus, (verse \b) that the king of Egypt spake to the 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK tIPON.THE PENTATEUCH. 81 
 
 Hebrew midwives and commanded them, when doing their office 
 for the Hebrew women, if they should be delivered of a son, then 
 "ye shall kill him ; but if it be a daughter, then she shall live." In 
 the 22d verse of the same chapter a further order of Pharaoh is 
 recorded, which was designed apparently to secure more effectually 
 the destruction of such male children as might be spared by the 
 midwives ; — "And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying ; — ' every 
 son that is born of the Israelites ye shall cast into the river, and 
 every daughter ye shall save alive." These orders were given before 
 Moses was born, and we have no reason to suppose that they were 
 ever countermanded ; consequently they existed for more than 80 
 years. Now is it unreasonable to infer that under these remorseless 
 decrees, backed as they were by the whole power of a despotic and 
 absolute ruler, and suggested by the fears of the people, who viewed 
 with apprehension the increase of the Israelites, — is it unreasonable 
 I say, to infer that one-half of the male children, including one-half 
 of the first-born, perished by violence from the operation of this 
 exterminating policy, while it remained in fo; ce ? Of those that 
 escaped, I am justified by current statistics in assuming that one-half 
 died natural deaths. If this be admitted as reasonable, then at the 
 time of the Exodus three-fourths of the " first-born" among the Isra- 
 elites were dead, and those that were actually numbered, were no 
 more than one-fourth of those that had been born. And now let us 
 glance at the question as to the " number of families," respecting 
 which the Bishop has got into such a dense fog. The first-born 
 males, as given in Numbers, amounted to 22,273. But if my pre- 
 ceding calculations are just and reasonable, these constituted but 
 one-fourth of the actual nufliber born, three-fourths having perished 
 either by violence or disease. The whole number born (of first-bom 
 males) would then be 89,092. Adding to this, an equal number of 
 females, and we have 118,184 as the total of first-born, which will 
 also of course, be the total of families. If this w as the number of 
 families, then supposing one wife in each (and allowing nothing for 
 polygamy) we have 356,368 heads of families. Substracting this 
 number from the total population, (which the Bishop claims to have 
 been 1,800,000) we have an unmarried population of 1,443,682, 
 divide this by 118,184, (the number of families) and we get 8 and 
 a small fraction, which gives an average of not more than eiglU 
 children to a family, instead of 42, as the Bishop would have it 
 appear. 
 
88 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Without wishing to attach too much importance to the results of 
 my own investigations with reference to the 60 families to which I 
 have alluded, I must nevertheless be permitted to claim that practi- 
 cally such an inquiry is entitled to considerable weight, when 
 opposed, to nothing more substantial than the mere a priori reason- 
 ings of the Bishop. The law which I have found to obtain by my 
 own actual investigations, will, I think, be confirmed by a larger 
 induction. Meantime, I am satisfied that the unprejudiced reader 
 will agree with me in the conclusion that this formidable objection 
 which the learned critic deemed so conclusive of the falsity of the 
 Pentateuch, amounts to no more than a fresh proof of the rash 
 ignorance of its author, and a fresh illustration of the superficial 
 manner in which he habitually deals with Scriptural questions. As 
 I appi^oach the end of the task which I have imposed upon myself in 
 answering his book, I am more and more strongly impressed with 
 the shallow and childish character of the objections advanced, and 
 with the haste and carelessness with which many of the views pre- 
 sented by Bishop Colenso appear to have been adopted. Indeed, 
 when I encounter such strange assertions as that quoted at the end 
 of my last preceding chapter, concerning the increase of the Israe- 
 lites, I find it diflScult to resist the belief (incredible afe it may seem) 
 that the Right-Eeverend critic has never condescended to bestow 
 even so much as a careful perusal (not to speak of reverse and 
 conscientious study) upon the venerable volume which he has rushed 
 into print to dishonor and demolish. 
 
 The Danites and the Levites at the Time of the Exodus. 
 In the 18th chapter the Bishop devotes his critical talent to de- 
 veloping certain terrible "difficulties" which he has discovered in 
 that portion of the Pentateuch which speaks of the "Danites and 
 the Levites at the time of the Exodus." All these objections how- 
 ever, seem to be based upon the assumption that the children of 
 Jacob who came with them into Egypt, had no more children born 
 to them after they came into Egypt. The Bishop's difficulty, as will 
 be seen, is still concerning "the enormous increase" of the Israelites, 
 from their entry into Egypt, to the time of the Exodus. He con- 
 tinues thus, to harp on that theme ; — 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATE0CH. 89 
 
 " When however we go on farther 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 Hushim. 
 (Gen. 46 : 23.) And that he had no more born to him in the land 
 of Egypt, and therefore had only one son, appears from Numbers, 
 26 : 42, where the sons of Dan consist of only one family. Hence 
 we may reckon that in the fourth generation, he would have had 27 
 warriors descended from him, instead of 62,100 as they are numbered 
 in Numbers 2 : 26. In order to have had this number born to him, 
 we must suppose that Dan's one son and each of his grandsons must 
 have had about 80 children of both sexes." The Bishop then makes 
 the same kind of objection to the "numbers" recorded of the tribes 
 of Levi, Benjamin, and other tribes of Israel ; but the entire argu- 
 ment in each case is based upon the same ground already stated, — 
 namely that the sons of Jacob had no children after arriving in 
 Egypt. The only reason given by the Bishop for this singular 
 assumption is, that we have no record of any such births, and that 
 it is nowhere stated in Scripture that any such children were born ; 
 whence he infers that there were not any such births. I have already 
 in a previous chapter given my views as to the value of this kind of 
 negative testimony, and of the justness of the Bisho'p' a positive infer- 
 ence therefrom. But in stating that Scripture makes no mention 
 of any children born to the sons of Jacob in Egypt, the Bishop has 
 been guilty of one more of those singular errors which seeem to 
 imply that he has never carefully read the book which he is criti- 
 cising. I wonder whether the following passages from the 48th 
 chapter of Genesis are entirely new to the Bishop ; or if not, I 
 should be edified to know how he understood those passages when 
 he made the strange assertion referred to : — "And Jacob said unto 
 Joseph, ' God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of 
 
 Canaan, and blessed me And now thy two sons Ephraim and 
 
 Manasseh, which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I 
 came unto thee into Egypt are mine ; as Reuben and Simeon, they 
 shall be mine. And thy issue which thou hegettest after them, shall be 
 thine, and shall be called after the name of their brethren in their 
 inheritance.'" What possible inference can we draw from this, 
 except that Joseph had other children besides Ephraim and Man- 
 asseh ? Is not the language quoted, a request on the part of his 
 dying parent, that these other children shall be called by the name 
 "of their brethren." Does not this suggest at once a sufficient 
 
90 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLONSO'S ATTACK UPOff THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 rerson why the names of the other children of Joseph are not men- 
 tioned as the heads of separate families ? But to make the matter 
 still more plain, let us look at the language of the passage quoted, 
 a little more narrowly. Jacob says "These two sons that were born 
 unto thee before I came into Egypt ;" but if Joseph had no other 
 sons, why this form of e?;pressibn ? Why specify the two, unless to 
 separate and distinguish them from others? "Thy two sons" would 
 have been the expression if there had been no more. Jacob pro- 
 ceeds ; — " As Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine." These 
 words, taken in connection with the next {the 6th) verse, imply 
 that just as the sons of Joseph that were born to him after Jacob 
 came into Egypt were to be "called after the name of their 
 brethren," so were the sons of Keuben and Simeon that were born 
 unto them after the same event, to be called after the name of their 
 brethren who were born before the time spoken of. Hence the 
 children of Dan, born unto him after he came into the land of 
 Egypt, were "called after the name" of his son Hushim, who was 
 born in the land of Canaan. 
 
 In regard to the utter unreasonableness of the main assumption 
 that the sons of Jacob suddenly ceased having children on arriving 
 in Egypt I have already commented at some length. Aside from 
 any express mention in Scripture of children born in Egypt, the 
 manifest presumption is that in the natural course of things they 
 continued to have children as before. Several of the sons of Jacob, 
 were still quite young at the time of arriving into Egypt, where 
 they continued to live until an advanced age. Yet by, some process 
 of argument peculiar to himself, and which is a mystery to others, 
 the learned critic has arrived at the conclesion, (which he compla- 
 cently terms a " reasonable" one) that the whole twelve of these 
 men suddenly and without any suggested cause, ceased having 
 children after setting foot in Egypt 1 But I think I need not dwell 
 upon this matter further. The entire "difficulty" which I have 
 been discussing is so intimately connected with the one discussed in 
 my previous article entitled " Of the number of the Israelites at the 
 time of the Exodus," that they must stand or fall together. Yet 
 repeating his favorite manoeuvre of making one "objection" do 
 duty as half a dozen, the Bishop has revived the same subject in a 
 slightly different shape in several places. To avoid therefore the 
 unnecessary repetition of what I have already advanced, t refer the 
 reader to the chapter or article above mentioned. 
 
A Eeply to Bishop Oolenso's Attack Upon the Pentateuch. 
 
 THE IMPOSSIBILITY THAT THE PRIESTS COULD HAVE 
 PERFORMED THE DUTIES ASSIGNED THEM. 
 
 The nineteenth chapter of the Bishop's book is entirely devoted 
 to a discussion of the views presented by Kurtz and other German 
 writers, who take the same side with the Bishop in the controversy 
 touching the Pentateuch. It is worthy of note, that these assailants 
 of Scripture by no means agree among themselves, and while they 
 unite harmoniously in attacking the veracity of the Bible, they 
 dispute vigorously with one another as to the grounds upon which 
 it is to be rejected. Left to themselves, the infidel writers confute 
 one another, and leave little for the defender of Scripture to do, 
 except to quote one rationalistic authority against another, and so 
 leave them at loggerheads, — if he were content to adopt that 
 course. As this nineteenth chapter is occupied with family disputes 
 among the allied forces of atheism, I shall leave them to settle their 
 own squabbles in their own way, and pass on at once to the 20th 
 chapter, which is entitled, " The number of the Priests at the time 
 of the Exodus, compared with their Duties, and with the Provision 
 made for them." "The Book of Leviticus," he says, "is chiefly 
 occupie I in giving directions to the priests for the proper discharge 
 of the different duties of their oflBce, and further directions are given 
 in the Book of Numbers." Then after quoting divers passages 
 from the Book of Leviticus and Numbers relating to the different 
 sacrifices and offerings that the Israelites were commanded to make 
 at a future time, he thus proceeds r^— " And now let us ask, for all 
 these multifarious duties during the 40 years sojourning in the 
 wilderness, — for all the burnt offerings, meat offerings, peace offer- 
 ings, trespass and thanksgiving offerings, &c., of a population like 
 that of the city of London, besides the daily and extraordinary 
 sacrifices, — how many priests were there ? The answer (it is still 
 Colenso who speaks) is very simple. There were only three, Aaron 
 
92 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSo's ATTACK UPON THE PEN'fATEUCH. 
 
 and his two sons, Bleazer and Ithamar. Yet how was it possible 
 that these two or three men should have discharged all these duties 
 for such a vast multitude ?" 
 
 Having thus strongly stated the difBculty, the Bishop proceeds to 
 anticipate the answer which he conceives the defenders of the Pen- 
 tateuch may make. He is not content with simply exhibiting the 
 incredible character of the text which prescribes the Priests' duties, 
 but to make his task complete, he demolishes in advance whatever 
 may be said on the other side. " It cannot be said," he proceeds, 
 " that the laws which require the sacrifice of such birds were in- 
 tended only to suit the circumstances of a later time when the people 
 should be finally settled in the land of Canaan." He then goes on 
 to quote the explanation of the difficulty given by Haverneck, and 
 attacks that explanation with as much zeal and vigi)r as if it were a 
 part of the Pentateuch. He evidently imagines that to demolish 
 Haverneck is about equivalent to demolishing Moses. In proof 
 that t e laws in question were meant to go into effect in the wilder- 
 ness, and before the Israelites became established in the land of 
 Canaan, the Bishop says : — " In fact we have one of these com- 
 mands manifestly referring to their life in the wilderness (Lev. 14) 
 where after it has been ordered that the priest shall go out of the 
 camp to look at the leper, and that the leper duly cleansed shall 
 after that come into the camp, and shall tarry abroad out of his tent 
 seven days, and on the eighth day shall offer two he lambs and one 
 ewe lamb." 
 
 Having now quoted enough to set the objection in question 
 clearly before the reader, I will proceed to furnish what I conceive 
 to be the true answer to it, upon the critic's statement of the case, 
 we are required to believe that the meaning of the 14th chapter of 
 Leviticus is that the Israelites during their sojourn in the wilderness 
 made daily sacrifices of pigeons and turtle doves. But I think 
 that I have already clearly shown in a previous chapter, that the 
 Israelites were not required to make these sacrifices until their arri- 
 val in the promised land ; and as I cited several texts of Scripture 
 in support of this position, which the Bishop seems to have entirely 
 overlooked, I consider that it will require something more than a 
 mere assertion to overthrow it. In the 34th verse of the 14th chap- 
 ter of Leviticus, we find the following language : " And the Lord 
 spake unto Moses and unto Aaron saying ; when ye be come into the 
 land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 93 
 
 plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession," &c. ; 
 then follow th6 directions as to the duties of the priest in the case 
 mentioned. I am aware that it may be argued from the fact that 
 the word " camp" is used in the first part of the chapter, in connec- 
 tion with the leprosy of man, that this was intended for the time 
 that they lived in camps, and consequently for the time they were 
 in the wilderness. But in reality no such conclusion can be drawn 
 from the use of the word in question ; for long after the arrival of 
 the Israelites in Canaan, there were periods during which in war 
 and battle with the heathen nations, they resided in "camps," and 
 it was in fact with reference to the regulation and purifying of 
 these military camps that the general rules referred to were given. 
 In the 12th chapter of Numbers we are told that Miriam became 
 leprous and was sent out of the camp ; but we are not told that she 
 brought the sacrafice that a leper was commanded to bring. Also, 
 in the 5th chapter, we are told that they sent out of the camp "every 
 leper, and every one that had an issue, and whatsoever was defiled 
 by the dead ;" but we are not told that they came back to the camp 
 bringing any of the sacrifices of which the Bishop speaks. The 
 fact that the specific command was given to send particular lepers, 
 and those that were unclean, out of the camp, after the general 
 command ^vas issued, that every unclean person should be sent out of 
 the camp and should bring the different sacrifices spoken of, is proof 
 by implication that because they could not bring the sacrafices 
 the general operation of the law was suspended; that is, that unclean 
 persons were only sent out in special cases when specifically ordered. 
 For it is plain that the general law which was given first, would if 
 regularly enforced, have left no occasion or necessity for the partic- 
 ular orders given afterwards in individual cases. 
 
 As to the question " how Aaron and his two sons" could attend 
 to all the sacrifices spoken of in Leviticus, it will be time enough to 
 consider that when it is shown that those sacrifices were offered or 
 intended and directed to be offered in the wilderness. This the 
 Bishop has not shown ; and besides the leasons above adduced for 
 believing that those sacrifices were not required during the sojourn 
 in the wilderness, I think that there is another reason which should 
 have had much weight with the Bishop. He tells us that these three 
 priests could not possibly have attended to the multifarious duties 
 spoken of, and yet that there were but these three during the sojourn 
 in the wilderness. Afterwards, when the Israelites arrived in Canaan 
 
94 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 there were priests enough. Now what is the inference which a 
 reasonable and candid man would draw from this under the circum- 
 stances, and in the absence of anything to show that the laws pre- 
 scribing said duties were to go into effect before the arrival of the 
 people in the promised land ? It is so plain that any intelligent 
 child would at once solve the whole difficulty. The child would say, 
 " The doctrines are given to do certain things the doing of which 
 requires a large number of priests; the same authority that requires 
 the things to be done provides hut three priests in the wilderness 
 (which is not a sufficient number) and a greater and sufficient 
 number when the journey is over ; therefore it must be that the 
 things directed to be done, not during the journey, but after it was 
 finished." 
 
 In the absence of any proof that Aaron and his two sons were 
 required to do what the Bishop says they could not do, I shall adhere 
 to the opinion that no such impossibility was required of them ; and 
 without expending further time upon the matter, I will refer the 
 reader to what I have already advanced in a previous chapter, 
 showing clearly enough, as I think that the Israelites did not observe, 
 or seem to imagine that they were required to observe (during the 
 sojourn in the wilderness,) the laws (that is the great bulk of them) 
 laid down in the Pentateuch which are of a ceremonial character. 
 They and their priests and leaders appear plainly to have held the 
 opinion (which the Bishop has discovered to be erraneous) that those 
 laws were designed to go into full force and effect, when their 
 unsettled and nomadic life in the desert was over, when their wan- 
 derings should have ended, and when upon their establishment in 
 the promised land should afford the proper occasion and means of 
 attending to all ceremonial observances in a due and orderly manner. 
 They did not in fact (as I have already shown by citations from the 
 Book of Joshua) even observe the rite of circumcision, one of the 
 most important and significant of their rites, during the time of 
 their journeying through the wilderness. 
 
 But our critic seems to be of the opinion, that the sons of Aaron 
 were not even at any subsequent time sufficiently numerous for the 
 discharge of the prescribed duties. This is a more serious matter ; 
 and if he can establish the soundness of the opinion, he will indeed 
 have advanced a step in his attempt to invalidate the authority of 
 the Pentateuch. He says ;— " We do not find the sons of Aaron 
 numerous in the time of the Judges, or in Eli's time, or in Samuel's, 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 95 
 
 or in David's, or in Solomon's except in the record of the Chronicle. 
 Aaron himself had at most only two sons living, and one of these 
 had only one son." 
 
 But if this is so, — ^if the sons of Aaron in the days of Eli, Samuel 
 and David, were so few, whence did the priests come whom Saul is 
 said to have slain ? We do not need the Book of Chronicles to 
 inform us that Saul was a certain parody of Samuel and David. In 
 the 1st Book of Samuel, chapter 22, verses 18 and 19, we find the 
 following : "And the king (Saul) said to Doeg, turn thou and fall 
 upon the priests. And Doeg the Edomite fell upon the priests and 
 slew on that day four scour and five persons that did wear a linen 
 ephod. And Nob, the city of the priests, smote he with the edge 
 of the sword, both men and women, children and sucklings." 
 
 Now I admit that the force of this passage might have been 
 avoided, had the Right-Eeverend assailant of the Pentateuch chosen 
 to adopt a different style of tacticts. He might have repudiated 
 altogether any Biblical testimony on the subject of the number of 
 the priests, and affected to regard this passage from Samuel merely 
 as another example of the want of veracity that characterizes the 
 Pentateuch. But instead of doing so, he exhibits his singular and 
 incredible want of knowledge of the Book he is attacking, by 
 appealing to it for confirmation of his statement ; with all the confi- 
 dence of ignorance he exclaims, — "We do not find the sons of 
 Aaron (the priests) numerous in the times of the Judges, or in Eli's 
 time, or in Samuel's, or in David's," etc. Could he have been igno- 
 rant of the account of Saul's slaughter of the priests (or sons of 
 Aaron) recorded in the passage above cited? Singular as such 
 ignorance may seem, we are obliged to believe it to be even so : — 
 the only alternative is to find the Bishop guilty of disingeniousness 
 and wilful deception. Upon the whole, I think I may leave this 
 difBculty in regard to the number of the sons of Aaron without 
 further comment. The answer to it is involved in the answer to 
 difficulties already urged ; and the reader who has thus far patiently 
 followed me in my argument, will see how little weight is due to 
 the present objection. 
 
A Eeply to Bishop Oolenso's Attack Upon tlie Pentateuch, ,^ 
 
 AN OLD DIFFICULTY EEVIVBD. THE PRIESTS AND THE PASSOVER. 
 
 I am now come to the 21st chapter of the Bishop's Book, which 
 is entitled, " The Priests and their duties at the Celebration of the 
 Passover." Applying the same species of microscopic criticism to 
 the account of these duties given us in the Sacred narrative, which 
 he has applied to other portions of the record, our author discovers 
 that the priests could not possibly have discharged the duties in 
 question. 
 
 "We are told in 2 Chronicles, 30 and 35, that the people killed 
 the Passover," says the critic, " but the priests sprinkled the blood 
 from their hands. Hence, when they kept the second Passover 
 under Sinai, where we must suppose that 150,000 lambs were killed 
 at one time, between the two evenings, each priest must have had 
 to sprinkle the blood of 50,000 lambs in about two hours, — that is at 
 about the rate of 400 lambs every minute for two hours together." 
 
 Now this is nothing more than a former difficulty revived. It is 
 an old acquaintance, brought onto the stage in a new dress. It 
 appeared in the previous chapter concerning the number of lambs 
 'necessary to celebrate the Passover. Having once dealt with this 
 objection in its original shape ; having as I fondly imagined, com- 
 pletely demolished and even buried it, I think I have a right to 
 complain of its resurrection. Unless I am utterly mistaken, I 
 proved in a former chapter, to the perfect satisfaction of every 
 candid person, that instead of 150,000 lambs, 100 were amply 
 sufficient to celebrate the Passover. Indeed, if I were required to 
 select any one position, "objection," or "difficulty" which Bishop 
 Colenso has taken or raised, as being more absurd than the rest, it 
 would be his estimate of the number of lambs requisite for the 
 Passover. To argue solemnly, as he did, that in the celebration of 
 a cominemorative religious rite, each participant must gorge himself 
 with eight or ten pounds of flesh, when a morsel would suffice, would 
 
1 REPLY TO BISHOP COLONSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 07 
 
 really seem to betoken insanity or idiocy. Yot such was the 
 argument by -which the Bishop arrived at his estimate of 150,000 
 lambs. 
 
 But the critic himself, in another passage, furnishes a complete 
 confutation of his own reasoning. He tells us that "in the time of 
 Hozekiah and Joshua, when it was desired to keep the Passover 
 strictly, the lambs were manifestly killed in the court of the 
 Temple. Wo must suppose then, that the Paschal lambs in the 
 wilderness were killed in the court of the Tabernacle, in accordance in 
 fact with the strict injunction of the Levitical law, that all the offerings 
 should be killed before the Lord at the door of the Tabernack\" 
 The italics in the above quotation are mine ; the language is the 
 Bishop's. 
 
 Thus, it seems the Bishop is aware of the fact that all the offerings 
 including the Paschal lambs were to be killed and prepared in the 
 court of the Tabernacle; and he is also awaro of the fact tluit this 
 was to be done " between tho two evenings," which ho estimates to 
 include not more than two hours time. Now tho only passages of 
 Scripture from which we cun form any notion of the number of sheep 
 required for tho cchibration, are those very passages which show the 
 place, and the time where, and in which they were to be killed. They 
 were to bo killed in the court of the Tabernacle; so the Bishop informs 
 us. But wo know tho area of that court, which is only 1,692 square 
 yards, and could only have held (as the Bishop himself estiniiitLs) 
 "when thronged, about 5000 people." As these are facts about 
 which there is no dispute, and which the critic seems to bo fully 
 awaro of, I fo(;l as if I were authorized to assume for myself the 
 attitude of an intorrot;-atoi', and to ask ; — "If tho pIai;o where the 
 Inmbs were to bo killed was so limited in size, and the time for 
 killing them so short, and tho persons who wero to sprinkle tlio 
 blood were so few, how do you como (in tho absence of any proof) 
 to assume that the number of lambs to bo killed was so enonuous?" 
 By some strange but characteristic confusion of ideas, the Bishoj) 
 conceives himself in tho position to demand triumphantly; — "How 
 then arc wo to conceive of 150,000 lambs being killed by at least 
 150,000 people in so small a space, in two hours' time ?" How, 
 indeed I I for one must beg leave to disclaim ever having con- 
 cived, or tried to conceive any such outrageous absurdity. On the 
 contrary, my conception is, that tho size of tho court being told us, 
 T 
 
98 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACE UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 and the time within which the lambs were to be killed being also 
 told us, and the number of lambs not being told us, we must infer 
 the latter from the former. I accordingly, instead of stultifying 
 myself by making ridiculous calculations about 150,000 lambs, 
 prefer to "conceive" of the requisite number of men for the work 
 (not over 100) killing and preparing the requisite number of lambs, 
 {certainly not over 100) in the place and at the time prescribed for 
 the purpose. My conception is reasonable, probable, and consistent; 
 while the Bishop's is as wild as the dreams of a hasheesh-eater. 
 
A Eeply to Bishop Oolenso's Attack Upon the Pentateuch. 
 
 MORE BLUNDERS — THE PASSOVER A SACRIFICE — 
 THE SPRINKLING OF THE BLOOD, ETC. 
 
 The next objection raised against the veracity of the Pentateuch 
 has reference to the sprinkling of the blood of the Paschal lamb 
 upon the altar by the priest as was the custom in the days of Heze- 
 kiah and Joshua, instead of sprinkling it upon the door-posts accord- 
 ing to the command given by Moses. And in discussing this subject 
 the Bishop again lugs in his friend Kurtz, whose statements he 
 seems to treat as if invested with the authority of Scripture. Kurtz 
 finds a great difficulty in the " supposed sprinkling of the blood by 
 the priest." He says ; — " What were the actual facts of the case ? 
 When the Tabernacle was first instituted, it was commanded that 
 the blood of the lambs should be smeared on the door-posts of the 
 respective houses ; Exodus, 12 : f ." Here we have another instance 
 of that gross ignorance of Biblical matters, which' characterizes in 
 an equal degree both the Bishop and his ally. By referring to the 
 12th chapter of Exodus, the reader will perceive that the contents 
 of that chapter were communicated to the Israelites before the Tab- 
 ernacle was instituted at all, and while they were yet in Egypt. 
 
 Again; "This command is nowhere revoked or changed," says 
 the same learned critic, furnishing still another instance of careless 
 assertion. Persons who undertake to enter the field of Biblical 
 criticism, ought to be aware that the Passover lamb is a sacrifice. 
 Exodus 12 : 21, contains an express direction to style it "the sacri- 
 fice of the Lord's passover ;" "And it shall come to pass when your 
 children shall say unto you, 'what mean ye by this service ?' that ye 
 shall say, it is the sacrifice of the Lord''s Passover." Hence the rules 
 applicable to this service or institution are included in the general 
 law concerning sacrifices; and we find no passage in the Bible 
 excepts the Passover sacrifice from the operation of that general 
 law. Had Kurtz and Colenso been aware of these simple facts, and 
 
100 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 then referred to the general law spoken of, they would have avoided 
 the blunder into which they have fallen. That law is to be found in 
 the 12th chapter of Deuteronomy, the 8th and following verses of 
 which read as follows : — " Ye shall not do after all the things that 
 we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes. 
 For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance which the 
 Lord your Godgiveth you. But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell 
 in the land which the Lord your Ood giveth you to inherit, and when 
 he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about so that ye dwell in 
 safety ; then there shall be a place which the Lord your Ood shall 
 choose to cause his name to dwell there ; thither shall ye bring all that 
 I command you, your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes, 
 and the heave offerings of your hands, and all the choice vows which ye 
 vow unto the Lord.'''' 
 
 Now the above is certainly a passage sufficiently remarkable, and 
 sufficiently important, to attract the attention, and to remain fixed 
 in the memory of every intelligent and faithful Biblical student. 
 The professional theologian and scholar, should certainly be able to 
 perceive its significance, and comprehend the scope of its application. 
 Had Bishop Colenso had this passage in his mind, how could he have 
 failed to understand that many things embraced in the ceremonial 
 law were prospective in their character, and prescribed with refer- 
 ence to the future condition of the Israelites when established in 
 the Promised Lanid, after the unsettled and nomad phase of life in 
 the wilderness was over 1 Had he once mastered this idea, it would 
 have helped his' understanding of several of those points which he 
 has raised in former chapters, such as the non-celebration of the 
 Passover in the wilderness, &c., in addition to the light it throws 
 upon the present question. "Thither shall ye bring all that I com- 
 mand you, your burnt offerings and your sacrifices," &c. The word 
 " all" in this passage must bo held to include tne Passover sacrifice 
 with the rest ; and I presume that it cannot be necessary to remind 
 even Kurtz and his brother critic that the blood of all sacrifices was 
 to be sprinkled upon the altar by the priest. 
 
 If I am correct in what I have already advanced on this subject, 
 it is entirety immaterial whether the tents which the Israelites used 
 in the wilderness had door-posts or not. The Bishop indeed assures 
 us with great confidence that they had not. I confess myself at a 
 loss to guess whence he derived his knowledge on this point. He 
 does not himself inform us ; and it is in fact one of those hasty 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 101 
 
 assertions, made without any authority, in which he is very prone to 
 indulge. Had he paused to reflect a little, instead of taking what 
 seemed to him to be probable for granted, — ^had he patiently ex- 
 amined all the passages of Scripture calculated to throw light upon 
 the matter, and especially had he remembered that there are two 
 different Hebrew words which have been translated "tent" in the 
 English version, which have distinct meanings, and refer to "tents" 
 of very different construction, he might have thought the question 
 open to some doubt. As however, it is really a point of no impor- 
 tance whatever in the view which I have taken of the matter, I 
 shall spend no time in exposing the ignorance which is exhibited in 
 his summary mode of settling the question. 
 
 But the Passover sacrifice seems to be fruitful in difficulties ; and 
 the Bishop has not yet exhausted his objections derived from this 
 source. It appears from the directions given in Chronicles that the 
 Paschal lamb for the whole nation was to be killed and prepared in 
 the Temple or in its Court, and the question arises, " Could the 
 court of the Temple hold the whole nation, men, women and chil- 
 dren ?" I am not at all astonished that the Bishop inclines to answer 
 this question in the negative. But again, in the 9th chapter of 
 Numbers it is prescribed that the Paschal lamb must be taken on 
 the 14th of the month, killed in the evening, or at twilight, and 
 eaten till midnight. During this time the whole body of the Israe- 
 lites must partake of it at one place — the Temple. Hence arises a 
 second query in the Bishop's mind, namely; — "How was it possible 
 for those who lived at the extreme ends of the land of Canaan to 
 come down to Jerusalem once every year, each bringing his entire 
 household for the sake of tasting the Paschal lamb ? Even if we 
 suppose it to have been no more than 400 miles from the extreme 
 borders of the land of Canaan to Jerusalem, it would require from 
 40 to 50 days for the journey, coming and going. This the Bishop 
 very naturally supposes "to be no easy task." 
 
 But here, as in so many instances, the critic in his reckless haste 
 to rush to a conclusion hostile to the Pentateuch, has overlooked 
 considerations which would I should suppose have at once suggested 
 themselves to any Biblical scholar. The directions for the future 
 celebration of the Passover are to be found (as I have already said) 
 in the 9th chapter of Numbers. In the 10th verse of that chapter is 
 a provision (which the Bishop has evidently overlooked or forgotten) 
 for the special benefit of those who reside at a distance from Jerusa- 
 
102 A EEPLY TO BISHOP COLONSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 lem, aud upon whom would fall the necessity of a " far journey," an 
 order to observe the Passover of Jerusalem. Those Israelites whose 
 homes were at such a distance from the Temple as constituted "a 
 far journey," whatever that may have been, are there commanded 
 to celebrate the Passover on the 14th day of the second month. 
 What then constitutes a "far journey ?" The understanding among 
 the religious teachers of the Hebrews at the time was, that none 
 was required to go down to Jerusalem to eat the Paschal lamb, who 
 was at such a distance from the city at sunrise on the 14th that he 
 could not reach it by the hour at which the lamb was to be killed. 
 Such was, and has always been the understanding and the practice 
 among the Hebrews themselves. And this distance has also, for 
 particular purposes, been still more definitely fixed. The learned 
 authors of the Mishne, and those of the Talmud, their successors, 
 have designated 15 miles from Jerusalem as constituting "a far jour- 
 ney" within the contemplation of the law. If any one is disposed 
 to question the authority by which this construction has been fixed, 
 I would refer him to the Itth chapter of Deuteronomy, where we 
 find the following : — " If there arise a matter too hard for thee in 
 judgment, being matter of controversy, thou shalt then arise and 
 get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, and 
 thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and the judge, that 
 shall be in those days, and inquire. And they shall show thee the 
 sentence of judgment ; and thou shalt do according to the sentence 
 which they of that place shall show thee ; and thou shalt observe 
 to do according to all that they inform thee. According to the 
 sentence of the law which they shall teach thee thou shalt do. Thou 
 shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, to 
 the right or to the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, 
 and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there 
 before the Lord thy God, or unto the Judge, even that man shall die, 
 and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel." 
 
 This would seem to vest the priests and judges of the time, with 
 full authority to decide all questions of construction, and all practical 
 questions arising under the law. The question we are speaking of 
 is one that must of course have arisen in the nature of things, so 
 soon as the time came for celebrating the Passover after the building 
 of the Temple. Every Israelite residing at a distance from Jerusa- 
 lem had to satisfy himself as to his duty with reference to going 
 down to participate in the great national sacrifice. He appealed to 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 103 
 
 the legitimate authorities ; and they decided it as I have stated ; 
 and in conformity to that construction of the law, has been the 
 uniform and unquestioned practice of the nation. 
 
 It seems to me, that to a healthy, practical mind, the very remark- 
 able fact, that all the objections and difBculties of this sort which 
 critical ingenuity has suggested, have been foreseen and provided for 
 in the Mosaic si/stem; — that they are all met and answered by some 
 part of that system ; — that nothing seems to have been overlooked, 
 or left unprovided for ; — it seems to me, that, this wonderful circum- 
 stance, must to such a mind, be the strongest proof that something 
 more than human wisdom and human foresight were concerned in 
 devising the Hebrew law. One thing at least is certain ; if Moses 
 himself invented it, he is entitled to be considered the greatest leg- 
 islator of whom history furnishes us any record ; for no other man 
 or body of men ever devised a system so complete in all its parts, 
 and which in its practical workings developed so little necessity for 
 amendment or revision. Sentimentalists and shallow optionists, 
 who look upon all things from the stand-point of the 19th century, 
 and of European civilization, and who forget that the world had an 
 infancy, and that the flower and fruit of modern intellect and refine- 
 ment, must have had a root in a hard soil and in ruder ages and 
 races ; — such fanciful thinkers may find much that is harsh and 
 cruel, and repulsive to their finer sensibilities, in this code. But 
 men who know what human nature is, and who know also the 
 history of human codes and human legislation in the earlier ages of 
 the world, will be more and more pressed with the wisdom and 
 completeness of the Mossic law when viewed with reference to the 
 people and age for which it was designed, the more they contem- 
 plate and examine it. 
 
A Eeply to Bisliop Oolenso's Attack Upon the Pentatencli. 
 
 THE WAR AGAINST MIDIAN. 
 
 We now come to the 22nd and last chapter of the Bishop's book. 
 The subject discussed, is " The War on Midian " The author con- 
 gratulates himself at the outset, that he is not the only English 
 clergyman who questions the veracity of the Pentateuch, and informs 
 the reader that the Rev. A. W. Hadden, and Professor Rawlinson 
 frankly admit that difiSculties such as he has pointed out in the 
 present volume do actually exist in the Pentateuch. This is a 
 statement which I am not prepared to dispute ; nor indeed is it at 
 all to be wondered at, |if Biblical learning in the English Church 
 is at so low an ebb, as one would infer from such astounding 
 exhibitions of professional ignorance as are continually presented 
 in this elaborate work by one occupying so high a position in the 
 establishment. 
 
 The Bishop prefaces the argument in this final chapter by an 
 outburst of pious gratitude at his emancipation from the fetters of 
 his old belief. " How thankful we must be," he devoutly exclaims, 
 "that we are no longer compelled to believe as a matter of fact, 
 the story related in Numbers, 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, 12,000 
 oxen, 61,090 asses, 615,000 sheep, together with all their goods, 
 burned all their cities, and then by command of Moses butchered in 
 cold blood all the women and children, except the women who had 
 not known a man by lying with him." 
 
 Whoever of my readers has at any time looked through Paine's 
 Age of Reason, will recognize this argument as borrowed from that 
 infidel work. "The horrid butchery of the Midianites," has for 
 generations been the theme of indignant declamation on the part of 
 assailants of Scripture, and it is certainly a theme out of which any 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH, 105 
 
 common scofifer can easily make cheap capital with an unlearned 
 and impressible audience. The moral aspects of this affair, I have 
 fully treated of, in a work shortly to be published as an answer to 
 the "Age of Reason." But inasmuch as my present opponent 
 disclaims assuming the infidel position, and professes to raise no 
 question but that of the historical veracity of the narrative ; — inas- 
 much as he does not pretend to arraign the Almighty for any of his 
 known dealings with his creatures, or to assail his character as revealed 
 to us in Scripture, — but only to question the historical proof of his 
 alleged dealings ; — for these reasons I shall not at pi'cseiit discuss 
 the moral aspects of the conduct of the Israelites towards the Midi- 
 anites, but confine myself to the mere historic question. The point 
 then, which remains to be discussed, is concerning the possibility or 
 probability of 12,000 Israelites being able to conquer and take so 
 great a number of their Midianite enemies. The Bishop estimates 
 all the captives alleged to have been taken, at 100,000, "more than 
 8 persons to each man" of the victors. "They must also," he de- 
 clares with emphatic incredulity, "have driven before them 808,000 
 head of cattle, more than 67 to each man." But when we remember 
 that the captives were women and children, it appears to me that 
 there is nothing to stagger belief in this statement. Every one 
 who has any acquaintance with history, knows how often in both 
 ancient and modern warfare, small armies have overrun, and con- 
 quered, and held in subjection, populous countries ; how insignifi- 
 cant forces have laid great cities under contribution ; and how a 
 disaffected population of hundreds of thousands have been restrained 
 and kept in awe, by a few thousand regular troops. As to the 
 number of cattle that one man is capable of "driving before him," 
 if the Bishop could witness the performances of a Californian 
 vaguero, he would not regard "more than 61 to each man," as such 
 a very astonishing number. Instances are not rare, where a body 
 of armed men, have made prisoners of ten times their number of 
 unarmed men ; and where the captives are women and children, 
 there is scarcely a limit to the number that a small force could 
 capture. With reference to the cattle, there would be still less 
 difiiculty, for the captors might very naturally and advantageously, 
 compel their prisoners to assist in driving them ; and such no doubt 
 was the course in the instance in question. But we ought not to 
 be astonished at the Bishop's absurd calculations on this subject. 
 We have no right to expect an accurate knowledge of military 
 
106 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 matters from a theologian, — especially from one whose studies in 
 his own specially seem to have been so unsuccessful. 
 
 The Bishop pursues the subject as follows : — "But it may be as 
 well at once to show that besides involving the above incredible 
 statement, the narrative itself as it now stands, is unhistorical. We 
 are told that Aaron died on the first day of the fifth month of the 
 40th year of the wanderings ; (Numbers 33) and they mourned for 
 him a month. After this the Canaanites fought against the Israel- 
 ites, whereupon the latter attacked the former and destroyed them ; 
 for which two transactions we may allow another month. They 
 journeyed from there (Mt. Hor) to compass the land of Edom, and 
 were plagued by fiery serpants, for which we must allow a fort- 
 night. They made nine encampments, for which we must allow a 
 month.'' He then allows a month for the sending of messengers to 
 Sihon, King of Bashan, and a fortnight to spy out the city of 
 Jazer, and a month for the war with Og, King of Bashan, and 
 then proceeds as follows : 
 
 " Thus then from the first day of the fifth month, on which Aaron 
 died, to the completion of the conquest of Og, King of Bashan, we 
 cannot reckon less than six months, and are thus brought down to 
 the first day of the eleventh month, the very day on which Moses is 
 stated to have addressed the people on the plains of Moab." 
 
 From the argument of which these exceedingly crude and rash 
 calculations are made the basis, one would be led to infer (if he did 
 not know otherwise) that these calculations were themselves a part 
 of the Pentateuch, and were the distinct statement of Moses himself, 
 rather than the absurd conclusions of Bishop Colenso. The reader 
 however, will bear in mind that the above allotments of time for 
 the various transactions mentioned, are purely hypothetical and 
 arbitrary — mere guesses, and no more, no reason or authority for 
 them being given, and no hint of the process by which they were 
 arrived at being vouchsafed. They are pure Colensian dieta, an- 
 nounced ex cathedra, as if they were the result of that direct inspira- 
 tion, which though denied by Moses, the learned prelate seems 
 disposed occasionally to claim for himself. 
 
 Having furnished us with his "time table," for the events of 
 Hebrew history above enumerated, the Bishop proceeds : — " And 
 now what room is there for the other events which are recorded in 
 the Book of Numbers, as having occurred between the conquest 
 and address of Moses ?" 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 101 
 
 The events to which the Bishop refers as not having taken place 
 for want of time, are these : " The march forward to the plains of 
 Moab, Balak's sending after Balaam, his journey and his prophecy- 
 ing, Israel's abiding in Shetlun and committing whoredom with the 
 daughters of Midian, the death of the 24,000 by the plague, the 
 second numbering of the people, and the war with Midian." 
 
 Now all this is very childish. The absurd assumption which the 
 Bishop makes (and he makes it apparently in perfect good faith 
 and sincerity, without a suspicion of the absurdity it involves) that 
 all the events which he enumerates, must have taken place in succes- 
 sion one after another, no two of them proceeding simultaneously, is 
 sufficient proof of his unfitness to deal with any practical question 
 whatever. 
 
 Suppose that some centuries hence, a critic of the Colenso school, 
 should undertake to examine the credibility of the history of Cali- 
 fornia, from 1849 to 1863. We can easily conceive that he would 
 find it utterly incredible ; and he would, (if thoroughly imbued with 
 the philosophy of his master) discourse somewhat after the following 
 fashion : 
 
 " The number of events which are crowded into this brief period 
 of 14 years is so great as to throw discredit upon the narrative. No 
 sensible person can pretend to believe that all the events narrated, 
 could by any possibility have happened in less than several centuries. 
 In 1849, the state was a wilderness, unsettled and uninhabited, save 
 by a few Indians and Mexicans. Wild beasts abounded throughout 
 its whole extent. But according to this historian in the short period 
 of 14 years, or rather in a small part of it, the following series of 
 events transpired : — 1st, the discovery of gold ; 2nd, the American 
 immigration, numbering altogether over half a million of souls, and 
 which must have occupied as much as 5 years ; 3d, the European 
 immigration, for which we must allow 5 years more ; 4th, the 
 Chinese immigration of over 50,000, which being by sailing vessels, 
 and requiring a long voyage, (the vessels engaged in this business 
 also being limited in number) must have occupied at least 10 years 
 more; 5th, we are informed that before the expiration of this period, 
 the enormous sum of 240,000,000 of dollars in gold was taken out 
 of the mines ; but in another place the chronicle furnishes the 
 means of detecting his own fictitious statements, for he tells us that 
 the annual production of gold amounted to only about 24,000,000 ; 
 and we can perceive at a glance that at this rate, it would take 10 
 
108 A KEPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 years to bring the aggregate up to 240,000,000. Of course the 
 gold could not be taken out until the men had arrived in the coun- 
 try to take it out. This is sufiSciently obvious. Now I have already 
 shown that the immigration alone must have occupied more than 14 
 years. What then I ask, are we to think of the veracity of a histo- 
 rian, who indulges in such statements as these ? Nor is this all. 
 The following is a list of "historical" events related by our author, 
 for the occurrence of which no time is left, namely ; — 1st, the series of 
 civil troubles connected with what is known as "the First Vigilance 
 Committee ;" 2nd, the terrible transactions under the Second Vigi- 
 lance Committee ; 3d, (though probably first in point of time,) the 
 war between the Americans and the Mexican population ; 4th, the 
 exploration and settlement of the whole country, the building of 
 numerous large cities, the construction of thousands of miles of 
 mining canals, "flumes," and acqueducts, and the intersection of 
 the entire state by an immense system of stage roads, including a 
 considerable number of railways • 5th, the development of an in- 
 credible number of silver mines, which did not commence until the 
 gold-period was about over, and which must have occupied (from 
 the vast number of the mines spoken of, and the enormous amount 
 of silver taken out) at least ten years. It is easy to see the impos- 
 sibility of all these things being done in 14 years, and no argument 
 can make the matter plainer. Yet if other evidence were needed 
 to impeach the veracity of this narrative, it is supplied in the incred- 
 ible and absurd character of many of its particular statements. 
 When we are told of trees 40 feet in diameter ; of bea; s weighing 
 2000 pounds, capable of fighting and running for two hours after 
 thay had been shot through the lungs and liver ; of a mere handful 
 of Americans, over-running and conquering the country, putting to 
 flight and subduing a dozen times their own number ; of mines so 
 rich that they were sold for $6,000 j^er foot, and so numerous that 
 for many months they registered and incorporated at the rate of^ 
 per day ; when we are gravely assured that silver was so abundant 
 that it was used as the material for the manufacture of bricks, and that 
 cargoes of these silver bricks were shipped to the east during the civil 
 war ; — when we are required to believe these and a thousand other 
 statements no less marvelous, or else to question the veracity of the 
 audacious narrator, no sensible person can, long hesitate which 
 alternative to adoDt." 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO'S ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 109 
 
 The above, I flatter myself, is no unsuccessful imitation of the 
 true Colensiau style of criticism ; and in such as a disciple of that 
 school might very naturally apply a thousand years hence, to a 
 faithful history of California for the first twelve or fourteen years 
 after the gold discovery, if that history stood merely upon its own 
 intrinsic credibilitj^. The value of a line of argument of this partic- 
 ular kind, it is for the reader to determine. 
 
 In enumerating the successive events in Hebrew history as the 
 Bishop has done, and assigning a certain time for each, he seems to 
 think that there are no such things as contemporaneous events; that 
 when people are " i:i:urning" for a friend, they do nothing else, and 
 that all the ordinary business of life is suspended. The Scripture 
 tells us that the people " mourned 30 days for Aaron," but are we 
 to infer that they did nothing hut mourn during that period. Upon 
 the occasion of \he death of Washington, and their other presidents, 
 the American people "mourned" for a period recommended by 
 Congress, and many (including ofiScers of the army and navy, pub- 
 lic ofBcers, and large numbers of private citizens) wore crape for 
 30 days ; but meantime public and private business went on as 
 usual, and the march of events was not stayed for a moment. 
 Again, in time of war, the whole nation is not exclusively engaged 
 in war; and what was to prevent "Balak from sending after 
 Balaam," while the Israelites were carrying on hostilities against 
 the Bashanites ? Yet the Bishop informs us, that this fighting with 
 the Bashanites "must have occupied a month," and won't allow that 
 anything else could have been transpiring at the same time. He 
 speaks of " a month," very much as if it were a pint pot, with a 
 fixed capacity for containing a certain quantity of events and no 
 more. Can anything be more silly than this style of reasoning ? 
 
 Nearly a hundred years ago, a bold and acute infidel, wrote a 
 work designed to overthrow religion, and to root out all belief in 
 the Bible from the minds of men. He believed too that he had 
 fully succeeded, and he concluded his task with the confident boast 
 that he had gone through all the Sacred Books from Genesis to 
 Kevelations, as a woodman goes through a forest with his axe, and 
 that he had so effectually demolished them all that he would defy 
 all the priests and old wamen in Christendom, to set them up again. 
 Yet these trees which the deluded man imagined he had cut down, 
 stand to-day, more firmly rooted in the convictions and reverence of 
 the world than ever. The boasted axe of the self-confident scoffer 
 
110 A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSo's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 was powerless to injure them. The priests and old women have 
 never been called upon to "set them up," for they have never fallen. 
 And now in the latter half of this 19th century, all over the civilized 
 world, the vast majority of the learned, the great, and the good, 
 receive those Books as the oracles of the living God. That which 
 the keen shrewdness and vigorous pith of Paine, the subtle genius 
 of Voltaire, the vast erudition and trenchment sarcasm of Gibbon 
 failed to accomplish, has now been again attempted in the volume 
 I have been reviewing, and the failure has been more signal than in 
 any preceding case. Nothing could have encouraged such a man 
 as this English Bishop to enter upon such a task, but the most 
 amazing compound of ignorance and presumption. Indeed, there 
 is to my mind, something ludicrous in the spectacle of a man of 
 inferior scholarship, and certainly characterized by no extraordinary 
 intellectual power, lifting his puny weapon against a volume which 
 for ages has been the object of vain attack by the Titans of Scepti- 
 cal philosophy and criticism. Most assuredly the Book whose 
 doctrines have withstood the metaphysics of Hobbes and Hume, and 
 whose historical statements have survived the criticism of Gibbon 
 and Volney and Strauss, and the whole body of the German ration- 
 alists, is not destined to fall before the logic and the learning of 
 Colenso. Yet it is certain that this crude volume will like the "Age 
 of Reason,'' enjoy a temporary celebrity, and find many readers. 
 To many also, its arguments will seem formidable ; and even those 
 who find nothing unreasonable in any one of them, will have their 
 faith somewhat shaken by the effect of them collectively. Pew 
 persons can read such a book, (no matter how weak and inconclu- 
 sive it may really be as an argument) without having a general 
 impression left upon their minds, of the improbability of many things 
 in the Biblical narratives. This is natural enough ; for it cannot be 
 denied that such improbabilities to the modern mind exist, in the 
 Bible as they do in all ancient histories. But this impression of 
 improbability is all that Colenso's book produces, and that is clearly 
 insufficient to overthrow the Bible, or it would have been overthrown 
 long ago. The objections to the story of the passage of the Red 
 Sea, to the marvels that are related of the sojourn in the wilderness, 
 to Joshua's commanding the sun and moon to stand still, etc., are by 
 no means new. Paine presented all this class of objections, with ten 
 times the force and clearness of Colenso, — and yet in vain. In fact, 
 the author of our being, has himself implanted a principle of belief 
 
A REPLY TO BISHOP COLENSO's ATTACK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. Ill 
 
 in the human mind, so strong and ineradicable, that it baffles all the 
 calculations of sceptics, and robs their cavils of half their power. 
 This they are apt to stigmatize as blind superstition, but it is in fact 
 a species of intuitive logic, more certain and more reliable than the 
 more elaborate and formal system which is distinctly conscious of 
 all its own processes. 
 
 I have now completed my task, so far as the first volume of 
 Colenso is concerned. I think that I have furnished a satisfactory 
 answer to every specific objection to the veracity of the Pentateuch 
 which that volume contains, and that I may venture to appropriate 
 the figure of speech used by Paine with reference to the Books of 
 the Bible and apply it to the chapters of Colenso. Being myself a 
 wood chopper in the literal sense, I conceive that I have a better 
 right to the figure than Paine, and will therefore conclude in the 
 same complacent spirit in which he penned the last sentences of the 
 Age of Reason ; "I have now gone through with this book, from 
 the first chapter to the last, as a woodman goes through a forest 
 with his axe, felling the trees as he advances ; and I believe that I 
 have so effectually demolished every one of said chapters and their 
 ' objections' contained therein, that all the infidel Bishops in Chris- 
 tendom, (even with the assistance of all the ' intelligent natives' in 
 Africa,) will never be able to set them up again."