1 L a ,, KH 
 
 T ij, a ,. 
 
 ?J?y* 
 
 Jof?eph B. McCaul 
 
 Bishop GoleriFo's Criticifm Criticiped 
 
 ^m'HM 
 
 BSI22.S 
 4,C7MI"5 
 
,4-. (17 M 13 
 
BISHOP COLENSO'S CRITICISM 
 
 CRITICISED 
 
 IN A SERIES OF TEN LETTERS 
 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 THE EDITOR OF THE "RECORD" NEWSPAPER. 
 
 m\\\ fotcs anir w Jostsmpt, 
 
 :Nin ttJip-DQ-TM vb» yq\-$ nnst "«r>5 Dipon 
 
 " The place whereon thou standest is holy ground."— ^arod. iii. S. 
 
 BY 
 
 THE REV. JOSEPH B. 'M'CAUL 
 
 CHAPLAIN TO THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER, ONE OP THE ASSISTANTS IN THE LIBRABT OP 
 
 THE BRITISH MUSEUM, AND CURATE AND LECTURER OP THE UNITED PARISHES OP 
 
 ST. EDMUND THE KING WITH ST. NICHOLAS ACONS, LOMBARD-STREET; 
 
 LATE CENSOR, AND DIVINITY LECTURER IN KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON. 
 
 THIRD EDITION, WITH CONSIDERABLE ADDITIONS. 
 
 LONDON : 
 WERTHEIM, MACINTOSH, AND HUNT, 
 
 2i, PATEENOSTEE-EOW, AND 23, H0LLE3-STEEET, CAVENDISH-SQUAEE. 
 
 1863. 
 
 PRICE ONE SHILLING. 
 
"The Law breathes the air of the desert. Enactments intended for a 
 " people with settled habitations, and dwelling in walled cities, are 
 "mingled up with temporary regulations, only suited to the Bedouin 
 " encampment of a nomad tribe. There can be no doubt that the statute- 
 " book of Moses, with all his particular enactments, still exists, and that 
 " it recites them in the same order, if it may be called order, in which 
 " they were promulgated." — Dean Milman. History of the Jews. Second 
 Edition. Vol. I., pp. 95, 96. 
 
 " Who, born within the last forty years, has read one word of Collins, 
 " and Toland, and Tiudal, and Chubb, and Morgan, and that whole race 
 " that called themselves Freethinkers ? "Who now reads Bolingbroke ? 
 " Who ever read him through ? Ask the booksellers of London, what is 
 " become of these 'lights of the world.' In as few yeai's, their few suc- 
 " cessors will go down to the family vault of ' all the Capidets.' "—Edmund 
 Burke, Rejlections on the Revolution in France. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 Preface v 
 
 Letter I.— Whether the Law of Moses enjoins upon the Prtests 
 TO carry offal on their backs 1 
 
 Letter II. — On the same subject .4 
 
 Letter III. — On the same subject ...'.... 9 
 
 Letter IV. — Dr. Colenso and the "National Review" . .14 
 
 Letter V. — Whether, in order to the historic veracity of 
 Moses, the Door of the Tabernacle should have been 
 twenty miles wide, and on other matters , . . .21 
 
 Letter VI. — Whether the Israelites offered Sacrifices in the 
 Wilderness * 27 
 
 Letter VII. — Dr. Colenso's Objections as to the Cattle, com- 
 pared with those of Voltaire 35 
 
 Letter VIII. — Dr. Colenso on Sheep-farming, and the Beasts of 
 
 the Field 44 
 
 Letter IX. — Dr. Benisch'.i Opinion of Bishop Colenso's Book . 53 
 
 Letter X. — How Dr. Colenso has been "enabled more deci- 
 sively TO establish" some of his positions . . . .55 
 
 Postscript, containing the Strictures of Learned Jews . 60 
 
 * Letters VI., VIL, and VIII. were not forwarded to the Editor of 
 the " Eecord," in order to save time. Letters IV. and X. were not included 
 in the former Editions. The wTiter desires to express his thanks for the 
 courtesy shown to him, and also for the great accuracy, with one or two 
 very trifling exceptions, with which his letters were printed. 
 
PREFACE TO THE EIRST AND SECOND EDITIONS. 
 
 It will be observed that the following Letters treat exclusively 
 upon points of scholarly, and philological criticism. I have 
 endeavoured, as far as possible, to avoid pronouncing any 
 opinion upon the theological merits of the Bishop's volume. I 
 felt certain before I began to write — and the result has shown 
 that I was not mistaken — that the question of his Lordship's 
 orthodoxy would be abundantly discussed by abler pens than 
 mine. Already a number of most conclusive, and fairly- written 
 replies have made their appearance. The cause of religious 
 certainty has gained a hundredfold, by so avowed an attempt 
 to overturn all the ancient landmarks, at one fell swoop. 
 Would that it might be granted to my clerical brethren hence- 
 forward to be in a state of readiness, and prepared to give an 
 answer to every one that asketh, respecting the reasons of the 
 hope that is in them ! Mere piety and zeal are in themselves 
 inadequate defenders of the faith. Had the study of Hebrew 
 been hitherto made an indispensable portion of an English 
 clergyman's education, I venture to say, we should not have now 
 to mourn over the sad exhibition of rash incompetence, which 
 the volume under consideration so abundantly furnishes. No 
 one who has drunk into the spirit of the sacred writings, at the 
 vernacular fountain-head, could speak lightly concerning their 
 historic value. 
 
 There is a convincing grandeur and propriety of diction, in 
 every line of the Hebrew Scriptures, which carry with them a 
 general and preliminary conviction of their genuineness, and 
 authentic chronological antiquity. The Rationalistic writers 
 of Germany, and more especially Dr. Ewald {GeschicJde des 
 Folks Israel), aiford in this respect a striking and a happy 
 contrast to Dr. Colenso. Unsound, and fanciful as the conclu- 
 sions at which they arrive undoubtedly are, they nevertheless 
 handle these most ancient records of the human race, and of the 
 ways of God to man, at least with an outward show of scholarly 
 
reverence for what bears on its forefront the majestic tokens of 
 a hoary antiquity. 
 
 In considering a book such as the one before us, it is exceed- 
 ingly difficult for a clergyman to divest his mind of all theo- 
 logical bias, in weighing the merits of each several argument. 
 But when I beheld the panic created even in clerical circles, I 
 felt persuaded that mere exclamations of indignant astonishment 
 would tend only to increase the alarm and distrust. It is quite 
 true that the same shafts were before launched against Moses, 
 years ago, by the English Deists, and refledged by Voltaire, 
 dipped in the corrosive sublimate of sarcastic venom. It is also 
 true that these attacks have been again and again so triumph- 
 antly repelled and refuted, that they for a long time fell into 
 discredit and well-merited oblivion. But mere assertions to this 
 effect, would go a very little way to calm the present excitement. 
 Men would naturally inquire, " If these old-fashioned Deistic 
 " objections are really so invalid and so inconclusive, how does 
 " it happen, that a Bishop of the Church of England has not 
 *' hesitated to stake his professional character, and his reputa- 
 '* tion for Christian candour and theological attainments, by 
 ** restating them, as if they had never been disposed of, and not 
 ** only so, but by taking no small credit to himself on the score 
 " of their originality ?" 
 
 The question at issue seemed therefore to me, to limit itself 
 to a very narrow compass. It is simply this, — Have Dr. 
 Colenso's statements any intrinsic value, independently of their 
 emanating from an Episcopal chair ? In other words, does the 
 weight of learning accompany the weight of exalted position ? 
 
 If it can be shown that his Lordship is philologically and 
 critically incompetent for the stupendous responsibility which 
 he has voluntarily assumed, in declaring himself to be the 
 apostle of a new Reformation, with the demonstration of such 
 deficiency, the greater portion of our apprehensions must fall 
 to the ground. An adversary at whom we can afford to smile, 
 is no longer dangerous. To a cursory student of the ensuing 
 pages, it will be apparent that neither Dr. Colenso's erudition, 
 nor his powers of observation, are of a formidcible character. 
 
His Lordship^s book is intrinsically weak. He has fallen 
 into some blunders, which would be ludicrous, if the conse- 
 quences were not so unspeakably grave, both to himself, and to 
 those who shall receive the poison without receiving an 
 antidote. And in this respect I make bold to say that his 
 Lordship's partisans, who pushed forward the publication of the 
 volume, proclaiming its advent long before it actually appeared, 
 must bear a large portion of the blame. The public has been 
 led to believe, that the present crude production has passed 
 through the hands of several eminent scholars, who revised it 
 prior to its publication. Either Dr. Colenso has been the 
 subject of an ill-timed pleasantry, when he received the 
 assurance that his volume was in a fitting state to be given to 
 the world, or else the unhappy author had committed the task 
 of revision, to hands no better qualified to prune, than his own 
 to write. 
 
 Meanwhile, what is to be done to set our Church right 
 in the eyes of Christian scholars all over the world ? / would 
 earnestly call upon my clerical brethren 'publicly to disclaim the 
 volume, not only as a sample of English orthodoxy, but of that 
 ripe scholarship and sound common-sense for which the Church 
 of England has been so long and so justly celebrated. By a 
 public and united expression of disapp?-oval alone, can the 
 mischief be in some measure undojie. The adoption of such a 
 course could not possibly be construed into persecution. It is a 
 duty which we owe to Christ, to ourselves, and to our glorious 
 Establishment. 
 
 St. Edmund the King, Lombard-street, Dec. 9, 1862. 
 
 PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 A SERIES of letters like the present, treating upon dry topics of 
 Hebrew, and other antiquarian criticism, and appearing chiefly 
 in the uninviting shape of reprints from the columns of a 
 newspaper, would, upon any ordinary occasion, have excited 
 little attention, and found few purchasers. The rapid distribu- 
 tion of the First and Second Editions is a very encouraging 
 
viii PREFACE. 
 
 token that the interest excited by Dr. Colenso's book, is of a 
 deeper and more intelligent character, than a mere craving after 
 party polemics. 
 
 It aifords to my mind, a pretty evident indication that the 
 people of England are thoroughly aroused, and are prepared 
 to take real pains, to sift the Bishop's allegations to the bottom. 
 This is indeed a hopeful sign of the times. It shows that the 
 Word of God has a deep hold upon the affections of the nation 
 at large ; that men are not indifferent spectators of the present 
 organized combination to uproot the hallowed sway, which the 
 Bible has exercised hitherto over the minds and the consciences 
 of Christian Englishmen, to whatever shade of religious 
 opinions they may belong. It demonstrates, moreover, that 
 they have not yet arrived at the requisite point of mental 
 obfuscation, which will qualify them for appreciating the zeal 
 which seeks to secure for the Bible " its due honour and autho- 
 rity" (Colenso, p. xxxiv), by placing its teaching on a level 
 with the cloudy nonsense contained in the writings of the Sikh 
 Gooroos, or even of " such living truths " as those which 
 cheered the Indian sage, who declares, with a touching sublimity, 
 " I take for my spiritual food, the water and leaf of Ram." 
 (Colenso, p. 156). And again, " God is my clothing and my 
 dwelling. He is my ruler , myhody, and my soul" ! {Ibid. -p. 157.) 
 
 In the days of our former ignorance, such sentiments would 
 probably have gone under the vigly designation of Pantheism. 
 Their general adoption in Christian England, would doubtless 
 enable us, as the Bishop significantly suggests, " to meet the 
 Mahomedan, and Brahmin, and Buddhist, as well as the un- 
 tutored savage of South Africa, and the South Pacific, upon other, 
 and better terms, than we do now." (p. 150.) As to their present 
 desirability I will not hazard an opinion. But I will venture 
 to say, that had such enlightened sentiments of universal charity 
 prevailed in the Apostolic ages, the preaching of the Cross 
 must have lost much of its offensive dogmatism. Possibly its 
 necessity would have been altogether superseded. Are ye ripe, 
 O ye Christians of England, to adopt the comfortless rhapsodies 
 of this clumsy eclecticism from the creeds of ancient and modern 
 Paganism, in place of the glorious " Gospel which bringeth 
 salvation " ? Have ye " so learned Christ " ? 
 
 ♦S"^, Edmund the King, Lombard-street, Jan. 31, 1863. 
 
BISHOP COLENSO'S CRITICISM CRITICISED. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 WHETHER THE LAW OF MOSES ENJOINS UPON THE PRIESTS 
 TO CARRY OFFAL ON THEIR BACKS. 
 
 Sir, — No one has looked forward to the publication of Dr. 
 Colenso's critical examination of the Pentateuch and the Book 
 of Joshua* with more painful anxiety than myself. After the 
 most unwonted, and oft-reiterated flourish of trumpets which 
 announced the concluding throes of the Episcopal labour, I 
 confess I was duly prepared for the apparition of some hitherto 
 undreamt-of prodigy in criticism — for something that would 
 throw^ all foreign scholarship into the shade, and give the whole 
 world of theologians subject for meditation for the next twenty 
 years at least. On opening the volume, however, and tremblingly 
 examining its contents, my astonishment waxed greater and 
 greater, as I turned over each successive page. The book I 
 found to be full of the most astounding inaccuracies and ludicrous 
 mistakes. I confess that I felt devoutly thankful to see the 
 nature of the objections which were brought against the historic 
 trustworthiness of the sacred writers. Take, for example, 
 Chapter VI. of Dr. Colenso^s treatise. His palpable ignorance 
 of the Hebrew idiom is calculated to excite a titter amongst 
 true critics, to whatever shade of orthodoxy or unorthodoxy 
 
 * "The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, by the 
 Right Rev. John William Colenso, D.D., Bishop of Natal." London: 
 Lomjmans. 1862. 8vo. 
 
^ WHETHER THE LAW OF MOSES ENJOINS UPON 
 
 tliey may belong, all over the world. Foreigners will ask, Can 
 it be possible that the author of such sciolistic trash is a Bishop 
 of the far-fcimed Church of England ? In the aforesaid chapter, 
 Dr. Colenso draws a somewhat grotesque picture of the impos- 
 sible labours imposed upon the priest in the discharge of his 
 sacerdotal functions. The chapter is headed, " The Extent of 
 the Camp, compared with the Priest's Duties, and the Daily 
 Necessities of the People." In Lev. iv. 11, 12, we read the 
 following, " And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with 
 his head and legs, and his inwards, and his dung, even the whole 
 bullock, shall he (the priest) carry forth without the camp 
 unto a clean place," &c. Dr. Colenso inclines to adopt Scott's 
 measurement of the camp, who computes it to have " formed a 
 moveable city of twelve miles square." " In that case," says 
 the Bishop, " the offal of these sacrifices would have had to be 
 *' carried by Aaron himself, or one of his sons, a distance of six 
 " miles ; and the same difficulty would have attended each of 
 " the other transactions above mentioned. In fact, we have to 
 " imagine the priest having himself to carry on his back, on foot, 
 *' from St. Paul's to the outskirts of the metropolis, the * skin, 
 " and flesh, and head, and legs, and inwards, and dung, even the 
 " whole bullock,' and the people having to carry out their 
 " rubbish in like manner, and bi'ing in their daily supplies of 
 ** water and fuel, after first cutting down * the latter, where they 
 " could find it ! Further, we have to imagine half a million of 
 " men going out daily — the 22,000 Levites, for a distance of 
 *' six miles — to the suburbs, for the common necessities of 
 " nature. The supposition involves, of course, an absurdity, but 
 *' it is our duty to look plain facts in the face." (Pp. 38 — 40.) 
 So it is. Dr. Colenso ! But unfortunately your Lordship has 
 not done so ! If you will have the goodness to refer to your 
 Hebrew Bible, you will there see not one word about the 
 priests "carrying offal on their backs!" The word which we 
 have translated " he shall carry forth " is in the original N"'15in') 
 (vekotzi), " he shall cause to go forth," i.e., have conveyed. It 
 is the Hiphil, or causative conjugation of the verb ^^^ {yatza) f 
 
 * " We lighted cowdung fires "in every pot we had." W. C. Baldwin. 
 " African Hunting," etc. London. 1862. 8vo. p. 11. 
 
 t For many examples see Gesenius, "Lexicon Manuale Hebraicum 
 et Chaldaicura." Lipsia3. 1847. 8vo. p. 397. 
 
THE PRIESTS TO CARRY OFFAL ON THEIR BACKS. 3 
 
 =:exivit.* A very pretty specimen of scholarship this to go 
 forth to the savans of the civilized world ! Is this the summa 
 Theologies of our great Episcopal arithmetician? It might he 
 well for Dr. Colenso to read the Pentateuch at least once 
 through in the original before he gives the promised continua- 
 tion of his lucubrations to the world. So also, with respect to 
 the 22,000 Levites, above cited. If Dr. Colenso will refer to 
 his English Bible even, he will discover that he makes himself 
 merry at the expense of a sanatory regulation intended for 
 warriors in the field (Deut. xxiii. 12 — 14), and not for the 
 general congregation. It only applied to a military detachment 
 or army on active service. Does Dr. Colenso suppose that the 
 22,000 Levites carried the weapon with the paddle to it wher- 
 ever they went? Were they men of warf or of peace ? No 
 doubt, to an impure imagination, there would be little difficulty 
 in conjuring up a very comical picture of these Hebrew priests 
 and warriors, starting daily for their six miles' pilgrimage, upon 
 "urgent private affairs." 
 
 So also the notion of the priest staggering forth under his 
 repulsive burden may not altogether be free from a touch of the 
 ludicrous. But, to my mind, such pleasantries, at the expense 
 of God's Word, savour somewhat of the buffooneries of Voltaire, 
 and are doubly offensive when they lack the appearance of 
 scholarship which made his sneering blasphemies so dangerously 
 taking. 
 
 I am yours, &c., 
 
 JOSEPH B. M'CAUL. 
 
 St, Edmund's, Lomhard-street, 
 Nov. 6, 1862. 
 
 * It is -northy of remark that to Moses himself, and personally, are 
 addressed the commandments respecting the making of the altar, &c. See 
 Exod. XXX. I,— nil? n'-ari, "And ihou shalt make an altar;" and, again, 
 viN n'B?i, " And thou shalt overlay it ; " and yet we have no reason for 
 supposing that Moses included, amongst his varied accomplishments, either 
 the handicrafts of a carpenter or a goldsmith. 
 
 t I am quite aware that Michaelis considers that, for a time, the sons of 
 Levi acted as a kind of body-guard to Moses. This, however, does not affect 
 the general question of their peaceful and sacred calling. 
 
WHETHER THE LAW OF MOSES ENJOINS UPON 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 WHETHER THE LAW OF MOSES ENJOINS UPON THE PRIESTS 
 TO CARRY OFFAL ON THEIR BACKS. 
 
 Sir, — In my letter of Nov. 6th, I stated that Dr. Colenso's 
 book was full of " astounding inaccuracies and ludicrous mis- 
 takes." I wrote Strongly, because I felt strongly upon the 
 subject. I felt, with many others, that, independently of the 
 injury inflicted upon the cause of Christ and true religion, a 
 grievous, however unintentional slight, had been offered to 
 the Church of England, and her reputation for learning as well 
 as orthodoxy had been deeply wounded by the publication of 
 that ill-advised and worse-digested volume. Many people sup- 
 pose that the mere fact of a man's possessing the rashness to 
 revile the Word of God openly, is sufficient guarantee for the 
 excellence of his intentions. For myself, I feel under no 
 pressing obligation to take such a flattering opinion upon trust. 
 Impugners of the Bible must not expect to be dealt with more 
 tenderly than writers up6n other subjects. Their motives must 
 be measured by their performances ; their candour by the 
 impartial fairness of their statements. No preliminary appeals 
 ad miser icordiam, such as we find on p. xii. or p. xxxiv., ought 
 to weigh for one moment in dealing with such an unpleasant 
 task as Dr. Colenso has forced upon all his brethren in the 
 Church. He has placed himself at the bar of public opinion, 
 and invites the most searching criticism. If, therefore, he be 
 weighed in the balance and found wanting, he has himself alone 
 to blame for the deplorable position which he has voluntarily 
 taken up. To my mind, the tu quoque style of self-exculpation 
 which he adopts in the Preface, only aggravates his offence a 
 thousandfold. He would have the world believe that the larger 
 number of the clergy and laity of the Church of England are as 
 far gone in scepticism as himself, and that it is for their sakes 
 chiefly, if not entirely, that he has been induced to write. (See 
 Preface, p. xxvi.) It is, to say the least, an impertinence to 
 assume that the orthodox clergy, i.e., the great bulk of the 
 ministers of our Church, systematically suppress the truth and 
 
THE PRIESTS TO CARRY OFFAL ON THEIR BACKS. 5 
 
 keep back their own convictions that the discoveries of modern 
 science and revelation are utterly at variance. " It is a miser- 
 able policy," writes Dr. Colenso, " which now prevails, un- 
 worthy of the truth itself, and one that cannot long be main- 
 tained, to * keep things quiet.' " (P. xxiv.) Here, then, we have 
 a direct insinuation of wilful fraud cast upon those who presume 
 to differ from the Bishop and his misguided synipathizers ! And 
 in the note on the same page his Lordship illustrates his mean- 
 ing, by instancing the omission of a remarkable passage in Col. 
 Sabine's English translation of Humboldt's " Cosmos," " in 
 which the expression of the author's views as to the origin of 
 the human race from one pair, would have, perhaps, offended 
 the religious prejudices of English readers " ! 
 
 Would Dr. Colenso think me very uncharitable were I to 
 instance the following passage from pp. 66, 67, of his own work 
 before us, as containing a gross suppressio veri? The Bishop 
 quotes Deut. viii. 15, to show that the Israelites were without 
 water in the wilderness, and that " the rock did not follow 
 them, as some have supposed." He gives the passage thus : 
 "Beware that thou forget not Jehovah, thy God, who led thee 
 through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery 
 serpents and scorpions, and drought, tvhere there ivas no water." 
 The italics are the Bishop's; and here he breaks off. Who 
 would suppose that the very next words of the sacred writer are 
 as follows : — *' Wiio brought thee forth water out of the rock 
 of flint " ! ! 
 
 Far be it from me to say the omission was intentional, but to 
 say the least, it was the result of a most unfortunate accident ! * 
 
 * A very glaring example of the injustice and unsoundness of making 
 quotations from the Word of God from memory, and apai-t from the context 
 (retaining the sound, but perverting the sense), is to be found in Professor 
 Jowett's " Essay on the Interpretation of Scripture '' : — " It will not do to go 
 " into the world saying, ' Woe unto you, ye rich men,' or on entering a noble 
 " mansion to repeat the denunciation of the prophet about ' cedar and ver- 
 " milion,' or on being shown the prospect of a magnificent estate to cry out, 
 " ' Woe unto them that lay field to field, that they may be placed alone in the 
 " midst of the earth.' Times have altered, we say, since these denunciations 
 " were uttered; what appeared to the Prophet or Apostle a violation of the 
 " appointment of Providence has now become a part of it." — Essays and 
 Meriews, Ninth Edition, p. 362. In the first place they are not the words of an 
 apostle, but of our blessed Lord Himself, that the Rev. Mr. Jowett thus 
 
6 WHETHER THE LAW OF MOSES ENJOINS UPON 
 
 In my previous letter, I called attention to the trustworthi- 
 ness of Dr. Colenso's assertion that (in Lev. iv. 11, 12) it 
 is enjoined that the priest should " carry on his back " the 
 *' offal " of the sacrifices a distance of six miles to a clean place 
 without the camp, the Hebrew word simply meaning, " he 
 shall have conveyed" [vehotzi). The word M|^^ {yatza), of 
 which f^'^V'n'l {vehotzi) is the hiphil or causative conjugation, 
 signifying " to go forth," and not having the remotest necessary 
 connexion with " carrying." I rejoice to see, from a letter 
 addressed by his Lordship to the " Morning Post," that I have 
 done his critical attainments aio wrong. " Your reviewer, who 
 •finds fault with me for supposing that the priest was com- 
 manded to carry out in person the ofial of certain sacrifices for 
 a distance of six miles from the tabernacle in the centre of the 
 camp to the place ' where the ashes were thrown ' outside the 
 camp, and who thinks that he might have ordered another to 
 carry it, on the principle that ' qui facit per alium, facit per se,' 
 has surely not observed the passage, Lev. vi. 10, 11, 'And the 
 priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches 
 shall he put on his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire 
 has consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall 
 put them beside the altar. And he shall put off his garments, 
 
 parodies (Luke vi. 24), although it is evident that he fancies he is citing from 
 the Epistle of St. James, who M^rites, " Do not rich men oppress you, and 
 draw you before the judgment-seats ?" (ii. 6.) Now, were some rich Evan- 
 gelical or Anglican member of the Church of England to institute a prosecu- 
 tion against the Rev. Professor, and " draw him before the judgment-seat," 
 making use of his wealth to crush " freedom of thought," and cripple his re- 
 sources with law expenses, I hardly imagine that such a line of conduct would 
 altogether coincide with Mr. Jowett's present views of Providential appoint- 
 ments. So also, should any modern Jehoiakim (Jer. xxii. 13) set Mr. Jowett to 
 work upon his mansion, " using his neighbour's services without wages," and 
 "giving nothing for his work," I think our learned " Essayist" would be very 
 apt to fall in with the Prophet Jeremiah's views as to the wicked injustice of 
 the case ; nay, more, that he might consider the " cedar " and the " ver- 
 milion " as an aggravation of the cruelty of revelling in splendour and luxury 
 amassed by the unrequited labour of the defenceless poor ! The Oxford Pro- 
 fessor's method of quotation is also marvellously in the style of Voltaire, who 
 first puts his own words into the mouths of the sacred penmen, and then pro- 
 ceeds to annihilate his own fabrications with a scoffing sarcasm. I had hoped 
 that such a mode of argument had gone out of fashion amongst gentlemen 
 and scholars with the eighteenth century. 
 
THE PRIESTS TO CARRY OFFAL ON THEIR BACKS. 7 
 
 and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without 
 the camp unto a clean place.' If the priest was to carry out in 
 person the ashes in this case, there can be no doubt that he was 
 also to carry out in person the oiFal in the other." (Dr. 
 Colenso's letter, as reprinted in the " Daily Telegraph.") 
 
 The Bishop, then, stands resolutely to his original blunder, 
 already cited ; and, most unfortunately, the Hebrew word in 
 the secon'd passage which he adduces in its support is W"'2im. 
 {vehotzi) — " he shall have conveyed " — also ! Indeed, some of 
 the Rabbis assume that in the first case it was not necessary for 
 the priest to be present at all ; whilst, in the second, I think I 
 have demonstrated that there is no reason whatever for suppos- 
 ing that the priests were degraded to " carrying ashes," not to 
 speak of " offal," on their backs ! 
 
 Before leaving the subject, I would venture to direct the 
 attention of Dr. Colenso to the " waggons " (Num. vii. 3, &c.) 
 which the princes of Israel offered to the priests that they 
 might "be to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation." 
 
 Probably these waggons were similar in construction to 
 those represented upon the Nineveh marbles in the British 
 Museum, a cursory examination of which would well repay his 
 Lordship's trouble. 
 
 Before concluding this letter, I would advert to one other 
 subject which has excited no little surprise in many quarters. 
 The Bishop says, on p. xxi., " That the phenomena in the 
 Pentateuch, to which I have drawn attention in the first 
 instance, and which show so decisively its unhistorical cha- 
 racter, have not yet, as far as I am aware, been set forth, in this 
 form, before the eyes of English readers, may perhaps be ex- 
 plained as follows," &c., &c. [See also p. xiv.) 
 
 In other words Dr. Colenso intimates that his objections have 
 the recommendation of novelty!- Can it be possible that the 
 names of Tindal and Collins, which are watchwords in the 
 mouth of every " secularist " mechanic, are unknown to his 
 Lordship ? Has he never heard of Bolingbroke,* not to 
 
 * I would recommend to Dr. Colenso's serious perusal, a little pamphlet 
 by my father, the Rev. Dr. M'Caul, " Kationalism and Deistic Infidelity. 
 Three Letters to the Editor of the ' Kecord,' with a Postscript." Wertheim 
 and Co. 1861. 8vo. 
 
b WHETHER THE LAW OF MOSES ENJOINS UPON 
 
 speak of R. Carlile and the Rev. R. Taylor in our own 
 days ? * 
 
 Has the English translation of the profoundly learned Abbe 
 Gu^nee's f " Lettres de quelques Juifs Portugais, Allemands, et 
 Polonais, a M. de Voltaire " never fallen into the Bishop's hands ? 
 This admirable work passed through no less than eleven French 
 editions before the conclusion of the first quarter of the present 
 century. I have before me the sixth French edition, 'published 
 in Paris in 1805, and also an English edition, published in 
 Dublin in the year 1777. But for the Bishop's own intimation 
 of his ignorance of this work, I should have had no hesitation in 
 saying that almost every objection he urges, which deserves the 
 smallest attention, was adopted from Voltaire, as answered by the 
 Abbe Guenee.J A few indeed of Dr. Colenso's objections b^r 
 the unmistakable traces of originality ; but, I regret to say, 
 taking the one already discussed as a specimen of his reasoning, 
 they are not calculated to add to his reputation, either as a 
 critic, or as a logician. 
 
 * For an account of the Controversy, see Leland's " View of the Principal 
 Deislical Writers," etc. London. 1754 — 1756. 3 vols. 8vo. A later 
 edition of this work was published by Tegg and Co. [London, 1837), in one 
 volume, Svo., with an Introduction by Cyrus R. Edmonds, and the Appendix 
 of W. L. Brown, D.D. 
 
 t M. Guenee died 27th Nov., 1803. M. Picot, in his article in the " Biogra- 
 phie Universelle," informs us that Voltaire himself in his wiser moments did 
 justice to the merits of the Abbe Guenee: "Le secretaire Juif," said he, 
 " n'est pas sans esprit et sans connaisances ; mais il est malin comme un singe ■; 
 il mord jusq'au sang, en faisant semblant baiser la main." (" Tlie Jewish scribe 
 is not without wit nor leartiin;/, but he is malicious as a monhey. He bites so 
 as to drmc blood at the moment that he pretetids to hiss one's hand."—Lettre a 
 d'Alembert, du 8 Dec. 1776.) It is true that, after a while, Voltaire relapsed 
 into his scurrilous gibing tone {ton goyuenard), and launched his sarcasms 
 against his adversary. But the public saw no reason to alter their opinion, 
 and continued to receive the " Lettres de quelques Juifs " with the same 
 favour as before. 
 
 X There is also a considerable similarity between the style and cogency of 
 the Bishop's arguments and those of Tom Paine, in the " Affe of Reason." 
 For example, Paine decides against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, 
 because Moses always speaks in the third person ! Query, how about the 
 Commentaries of Cuesar ? 
 
THE PRIESTS TO CARRY OFFAL ON THEIR BACKS. 9 
 
 But to these and other points, Sir, with your kind permission, 
 I hope to advert upon a future occasion. 
 
 I am, &c., 
 
 Joseph B. M'Caul. 
 St. Edmund's, Lomhard-street, 
 
 Nov. 13, 1862. 
 Postscript. — Since writing the above I have been so 
 fortunate as to purchase a much more recent French edition 
 of this work, containing the learned author's four most re- 
 markable Memoirs on the ancient fertility of Judeea, which were 
 read by him, before the Academie des Inscriptions. 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 whether the law of MOSES ENJOINS UPON THE PRIESTS 
 
 Sir, — If your correspondent, " An Earnest Searcher after 
 Truth," really desires to know whether the Bishop of Natal is 
 
 *,* This third Letter was written in reply to the one subjoined, which was 
 transmitted to me on Saturday, Nov. 22, from the " Record " office. The latter 
 seems to have been forwarded by the writer in duplicate to the " Clerical 
 Journal." — See " Notices to Correspondents," for Nov. 27 and Dec. 4 : — 
 
 TO THE EDITOR OF THE "RECORD." 
 
 Sir, — "Will you kindly permit one whose only object is the elucidation of 
 truth, to appeal through your columns to the Rev. J. B. M'Caul, whose letter 
 •was only this morning seen in the " Record" of Nov. 12, on the subject of the 
 received meaning of the word in Lev. iv. 12, which, for your convenience, I 
 will spell as he does (Vehotzi), and which is one of those aorist tenses of the 
 Hiphil conjugation, usually called preterite, of the verb (Yatza). It is used 
 in this tense and conjugation no less than ninety-four times in the Old Testa- 
 ment, according to Rabbi Mordecai Nathan's "Hebrew Concordance." The 
 Rev. Gentleman says, truly enough, that one of its meanings is, " to cause to 
 
 go forth ;" but not at all in the sense in which he has further explained it 
 
 i.e., to have conveyed by another. On the contrary, direct personal action is 
 always implied. And these are my reasons for my assertion : — First, In every 
 case of the whole ninety-four where the word is used, as I have above stated, 
 direct personal action is implied. 
 
10 WHETHER THE LAW OF MOSES ENJOINS UPON 
 
 ri"-ht in asserting that the law of Moses (Lev. iv. 11, 12) enjoins 
 that the priest should " carry forth on his back " ('^"'r'^^'l 
 vekotzi) the offal; and again, in Lev. vi. 10, 11 (in the Hebrew, 
 Lev. vi. 3, 4), the " ashes " of the sacrifices, a proof is within 
 his reach more convincing than a thousand arguments. Let 
 him take the chapter in question to some learned Jew, and ask 
 him whether what the Bishop says is all true? If he comes back 
 from his interview unconvinced, further discussion will be hope- 
 less. I did not speak without well weighing my words, when 
 I said that such " palpable ignorance of the Hebrew idiom is 
 calculated to excite a titter amongst true critics, to whatever 
 shade of orthodoxy or unorthodoxy they may belong.^' Let 
 me tell " An Earnest Searcher after Truth," that unbelieving 
 Jews are scoffing at the recent whimsical display of ignorance 
 and audacity on the part of an English Bishop.* 
 
 In referring to Rabbi Mordecai Nathan's Concordance, your 
 correspondent is somewhat antiquated in his sources of infor- 
 mation. Buxtorf, quoting from the Tsemach David, assures us 
 that Rabbi Nathan wrote about the year 1438. A good deal 
 has been done in Biblical lexicography since the commencement 
 
 Further authorities against him are, Onkelos and Jonathan, both of whom, 
 in the verse in question (Lev, iv. 12), use the Chaldee word equivalent to 
 " educet." So also does the Syriac, so also the Persian. 
 
 The Septuagint has e^oiaei. Vulg. " efferet." Luther uses the verb 
 "Ausfiihren;" Simoni Heb. Lex. for the word in this passage gives 
 " attulit." Cocceius Lex. gives " educere," " proferre." The translation of 
 Junius and Tremellius gives " efferet." Sebast. Schmidt, "educet." Bcnisch, 
 " Shall he bring forth." And finally, Littleton, in his Latin Dictionary, gives, 
 under " Educo," — Hotzi, " to bring " or " lead forth," to " draw out." 
 
 If Mr. M'Caul had read carefully, in the Hebrew, Lev. vi. 3, 4, he would 
 scarcely have so dogmatically have propounded his opinion ; as in that 
 passage, where the same word is used, there can be no question about the 
 personal action required. 
 
 Surely, then, the Rev. Gentleman will not venture to uphold his unsup- 
 ported opinion against all these authorities. He well knows that mere 
 assertion is no more proof, than is a sneer, argument. 
 
 Trusting you will admit this letter for the " truth's sake," 
 I am. Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 An Earnest Searcher after Truth. 
 Hams ff ate, Nov. 19. 
 
 * For Dr. Benisch's opinion, as expressed in writing within the last few 
 days, to the author of these pages, see Letter IX. 
 
THE PRIESTS TO CARRY OFFAL ON THEIR BACKS. 11 
 
 of the fifteenth century. I would i-efer your correspondent to 
 the second edition of the "Englishman's Hebrew Concordance," 
 published by Walton and Maberly, 2 vols. 8vo., London, 1860. 
 On pp. 553 — 555 of vol. i. he will find no fewer than 299 
 instances of the Hiphil of ^^^ {yatza). These comprise 104 
 examples alone of the preterite, as used in the above-cited 
 passages of Leviticus. 
 
 Your correspondent insists, as far as I can understand his 
 letter, that whenever the word i^"'?2in (Jwtzi) is used, it in- 
 variably implies "direct personal action." The rashness of 
 such an assertion will be at once seen on reference to Lev. 
 xxiv. 13, " And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Bring 
 [thou] forth him that cursed." '^^'i^^ [hotzay) is in this passage, 
 the imperative singular, addressed personally to Moses. But, 
 if " direct personal action" were implied, then Moses was guilty 
 of a flagrant act of wilful disobedience ; for, on referring to the 
 twenty-third verse of the chapter, we find that he deputed his 
 own duty to the congregation : and " Moses spake to the 
 children of Israel that they should bring forth [•'1N"'2'T'T vayot- 
 zioo, literally, "and they did bring forth"] him that cursed, 
 out of the camp . . . and the children of Israel did as the Lord 
 commanded (!) Moses." 
 
 The same word is employed concerning the damsel which her 
 father and mother were to " bring " to the elders of the city. 
 (Deut. xxii. 15, &c.) Surely it is not implied that the girl's 
 father was to " carry her forth on his back ; " besides which, 
 her mother is also mentioned, and a difficulty might possibly 
 arise as to which parent was designated to bear the burden ! 
 Look, again, at 2 Sam. xii. 30. It is there said of David that 
 " he brought forth " (^^"'!?in hotzi) the spoil of the city in great 
 abundance. The verb is in the singular number; and as, 
 according to "An Earnest Searcher after Truth," "direct 
 personal action is always implied," we may conclude that David 
 had a pretty hard time of it. But the utter absurdity of your 
 correspondent's assertion appears from the thirty-first verse. 
 David is there stated to have performed a much more 
 wonderful feat even than the preceding. " He brought forth 
 (N"'I^in hotzi) all the people that were therein (Rabbah) 
 
 and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of 
 
 Amnion'' ! ! ! 
 
12 WHETHER THE LAW OF MOSES ENJOINS UPON 
 
 So much for the reliability of " An Earnest Searcher after 
 Truth " on points of Hebrew criticism ! But, I regret to say, 
 I have a far more serious objection to make against another 
 portion of his' letter. He professes to have referred to the 
 LXX. version, as to the meaning of Leviticus iv. 11, 1^, in 
 support of Dr. Colenso's assertion that " the priest was to carry 
 the offal oil his back." He says the LXX version gives i^oiaei. 
 So it does in Lev. vi. 11; but in Leviticus iv. 11, 12, the 
 passage actually under dispute, the Greek word is i^OLcrovaiv — 
 " they shall carry out." In other words, it is put impersonally, 
 and triumphantly establishes my interpretation of the passage. 
 Such an omission is, to say the least, very unhandsome. I 
 might fairly decline to argue with an antagonist of such a kind 
 as this. Then, again, my anonymous opponent brings forward 
 Onkelos and Jonathan as using the equivalent to " educere " to 
 translate W^'^'inT {vehotzi). He must have a very poor estimate 
 of the scholarship of your readers if he thinks he can persuade 
 them that " educere " means to " carry on one's back ! " If he 
 will refer to John x. 3, in the Vulgate, he will find the expres- 
 sion (referring to the Good Shepherd) " educit eas " (sc. oves). It 
 would be rather a startling theory to propound that shepherds 
 are in the habit of " carrying " their flocks " on their 
 backs ! " 
 
 Then, again, with regard to Luther's translation, " ausfuhren,'^ 
 it is very plain your correspondent is a very tyro in the German 
 idiom. The same word is used in the authorized Dutch trans- 
 lation — " uytvoeren,^'' and simply signifies to lead or conduct 
 forth. 
 
 In conclusion, I would observe that, as your correspondent 
 professes himself to be an " Earnest Searcher after Truth," he 
 is altogether on the wrong track to find it. Hunting up 
 authorities to establish the propriety of one of the coarsest 
 sneers ever levelled against the inspired Law of Moses is not 
 likely to tend either to truth or edification. Such inquirers as 
 these, St. Paul assures us (2 Tim. iii. 7), will probably continue 
 " ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of 
 the truth." 
 
 I deeply regret that your correspondent has adopted the 
 anonymous form of connnunication. I think that, in such a 
 controversy, people should not be afraid to give their names to 
 
THE PRIESTS TO CARRY OFFAL ON THEIR BACKS. 13 
 
 the public, that we may know at once *' who is on the Lord's 
 side." 
 
 I am, &c., 
 
 JOSEPH B. M'CAUL. 
 St. Edmund the King, Lombard-street, 
 Mo7iday, November 24, 1862. 
 
 Postscript. — The learned Dutch Professor, J. van Nuys 
 Klinkenberg, writes on this passage of Levit. iv. 11, 12, — 
 " Ondertusschen mogt de Hooge Priester zelf den varre niet 
 ** buiten het leger voeren en verbranden. Hy moest dit door 
 " iemand anders laten verrichten, om niet verontreinigd te 
 " worden. — J^ergl. Kap. xvi. 27, 28. (Meanwhile the High 
 " Priest durst not carry out the bullock himself and burn it. 
 " He would have to let this be performed by some one else, in 
 " order that he himself might not contract defilement.)"— 
 " De Bijbel verklaerd;' Deel iii., p. 39. 
 
 And again : — " De Hoogepriester moest dan die opgesneeden 
 " en nu van vet beroofden varre en bok, door mannen daer toe 
 
 " bekwaem, laten uitdragen tot buiten het leger Deze 
 
 " uitvoering van de zond offers geschiede, allerwaerschijnlykst 
 " gelijktijdig met dat de priester het brand offer begon te 
 " offeren. (The Highpriest must now have the dismembered, 
 " and divested of fat, bullock and he-goat, carried forth by suit- 
 
 *' able persons without the camp This conveying forth of 
 
 " the sin-offering most probably took place when the priest com- 
 *' menced offering up the burnt-offering.) " — Ibid., Deel iii., 
 p. 169. Since writing the above (on p. 12), I have learned 
 that the edition of the Septuagint, cited by an "Earnest Searcher 
 after Truth," is that of Stier and Theile. They have indeed 
 i^oi<7et in the body of the text, but give in a foot-note, on the 
 same page, e^oiaovaiv, as a various reading ! ! ! The edition 
 that I employed was that of F. Field, Oxon. 1859, 8vo. The 
 reading i^oLcrovacv is found in the Alexandrian MS., and also is 
 followed in Walton's Polyglott, in Cardinal Mai's edition of the 
 Vatican text, Home, 1857; in Bagster's Polyglott, edited by 
 Dr. Samuel Lee, 1831, fol. ; in Canon Holme's folio edition, 
 Oxford, 1798, fol. ; and also in Bagster's edition of the LXX, 
 according to the Vatican MS. The Complutensian Polyglott, 
 and that of Plantin (Antwerp, 1569, fol.) are the only editions 
 
14 BISHOP COLENSO AND THE "NATIONAL REVIEW. 
 
 of any weight, if indeed they possess any authority, in which 
 I find i^olaec. To these, however, it is apparent " An Earnest 
 Searcher after Truth " had no access, as he has not pressed them 
 into his service. 
 
 I have also examined the following editions of the LXX, all 
 of which have e^olaovaiv, viz., the Aldine {Venice, 1518, fol.), 
 the Sixtine {Rome, 1587, fol.), that of Paris (Gr. and Latin, 
 16^8, fol.), it has e^oiaovacv " e^erent," that of Grabe {Oxford, 
 1707, fol.), and lastly, that of Tischendorff (Zei/^^^c, 1856, 8vo.). 
 This latter edition is particularly important as having been col- 
 lated with the " Codex Ephrem." The overwhelming weight 
 of testimony,* therefore, including that of the three principal 
 MSS., viz., Alexandrian, Vatican, and Ephraemi, is in favour 
 of the reading i^olcrovcnv. The Complutensian text (closely 
 followed, as B. Arias Montanus himself implies in his Preface, 
 by the Antwerp edition of Plantin) was confessedly framed upon 
 several MSS. Ussher, Walton, and Hody, accuse the Complu- 
 tensian Editor of altering the text to make it correspond exactly 
 with the Hebrew. This imputation Dr. Davidson stoutly 
 denies. It seems to me, however, that Hody {De Bibliorum 
 Textibus Originalihus, p. GS'^!, Sec.) has a good deal to say for 
 himself upon the subject. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 BISHOP COLENSO AND THE *' NATIONAL REVIEW. 
 
 Sir, — I was fain to hope that in my former letters I had set at 
 rest the meaning of the word W"^^irn. {veJiotzi), " he shall carry 
 forth." (Lev. iv. 11, 12.) Dr. Colenso would have us believe 
 that it signifies in this passage, that the High Priest was *' to 
 carry a whole bullock on his back," a distance of six miles, to a 
 place outside the camp ! I endeavoured to show that such an 
 interpretation was nothing more than an illiterate and imperti- 
 nent burlesque upon the inspired Law of Moses. I supported 
 my arguments by reference to the best commentators, by the 
 
 * And yet, in an article in the "National Review" for January, 1863, 
 p. 12, I find the following extraordinary statement: — "No one ever dreamt 
 " of giving it («'^fini Levit. iv. 11, 12,) any other meaning in this passage, 
 " but that of the English version." (!) 
 
BISHOP COLENSO AND THE *' NATIONAL REVIEW." 15 
 
 opinion of eminent living Jewish and Christian Hebraists, and 
 also by adducing the testimony of the chief MSS. of the Septua- 
 gint version. All the best MSS. are unanimous in reading 
 e^oiaovatv, i. e., " they shall carry forth." 
 
 In other words, ^^''V'i'^l (vehotzi) is put impersonally, and 
 the High Priest was not degraded to " carrying offal and ashes 
 on his back," as Dr. Colenso would have his readers believe. 
 
 It would appear, however, that there are yet would-be 
 Hebrew scholars and critics, who are unconvinced. In the 
 "National Review" for January, 1863 (pp. 11, 12), I read the 
 following : — 
 
 " It is by no means to be inferred that the volume is care- 
 " lessly put together, or that it is liable to such charges as those 
 " which have been brought against it in the pages of some of 
 " the Conservative journals. To one of them we cannot help 
 " referring, because it is more foolish and ill-mannered than any- 
 ** thing that we ever remembered to have seen, as proceeding 
 " from one who claims to be a learned divine. The Rev. 
 " J. B. M'Caul declares, in a letter to a ' religious ' paper, dated 
 " November 6, that on opening Dr. Colenso's w^ork he was truly 
 " astonished ; ' the book I found to be full of the most astound- 
 " ' ing inaccuracies and ludicrous mistakes. I confess that I felt 
 " 'devoutly thankful to see the nature of the objections which 
 *' ' were brought against the historic trustworthiness of the 
 " ' sacred writers. Take, for example. Chapter VI. of Dr. 
 " ' Colenso's treatise. His palpable ignorance of the Hebrew 
 " * idiom is calculated to excite a titter amongst true critics, to 
 " 'whatever shade of orthodoxy or unorthodoxy they may 
 *' ' belong, all over the world. Foreigners will ask, Can it be 
 " ' possible that the author of such sciolistic trash is a Bishop 
 " ' of the far-famed Church of England ?' For this charge the 
 " sole foundation (!) is a supposed mistranslation by the Bishop 
 " of Lev. iv. 11, ' The skin of the bullock, &c. . . he shall 
 " 'carry forth without the camp.' Rather, we should say, his 
 *' acquiescence in the supposed mistranslation of the English 
 *' version. Mr. M'Caul continues, * The word which we have 
 " * translated " he shall carry forth " is in the original nehotzi, 
 " • "he shall cause to go forth," i. e., have conveyed. It is the 
 *' ' Hiphil, or causative conjugation of the verb yatza = exivit. 
 " * A very pretty specimen of scholarship this to go forth to the 
 
IG BISHOP COLENSO AND THE "NATIONAL REVIEW." 
 
 " * savans of the civilized world ! ' So writes the champion of the 
 " Mosaic narrative. We have above, urged the importance of 
 " courtesy at all hazards towards opponents. But if we ever 
 " were tempted to break the rule, it was wheii we read a 
 *' criticism of so intolerable an audacity as the above. Mr. 
 " M'Caul is right in his statement about the general sense of the 
 " Hiphil conjugation; though, if he means to assert that the 
 *' Hebrew conjugations are invariably constant in their meaning, 
 " his knowledge of the Hebrew language must be far smaller 
 " than his name would have us to expect. But will it be be- 
 " lieved that the word in question is not a difficult and unusual, 
 " but a very common one, — that no one ever dreamt of giving 
 ** it any other meaning in this passage than that of the English 
 " version (!), — that it occurs in numbers of passages where it 
 " could have no other possible sense, — that Gesenius, the first 
 " lexicographic authority, recognises it as unquestionable, and 
 *' that he allows a causative meaning in one single passage of the 
 " Old Testament (!), and that one, in which a causative meaning is 
 " neither obligatory, nor indeed, in our (!) opinion, probable ?" 
 In a note on p. 12, the " National Reviewer " writes : — 
 " Since the above was written Mr. M'Caul's second letter has 
 " come before us. He supports his chai'ge of gross ignorance 
 " against the Bishop, by trying to prove that in three instances, 
 " out of nearly 300, the word may perhaps (!) be used in a 
 " different sense from that in which the Bishop uses it.^' 
 
 I would first call attention to the want of candour in the 
 Reviewer's quotation from the disputed passage of Dr. Colenso. 
 
 The Reviewer writes, " The skin of the bullock, &c 
 
 he shall carry forth." Bishop Colenso writes, " In fact, we 
 " have to imagine the priest having himself to carry on his back, 
 " on foot, from St. Paul's to the outskirts of the metropolis, the 
 " skin and fiesh, and head, and legs, and inwards and dung, 
 " even the whole bullock." ! (P. 40.) The " National Re- 
 viewer " quotes from the Bible, abridging the passage as far as 
 possible, so as to weaken the force of ray objections, and to lead 
 his readers to suppose that I ill-naturedly exaggerated his Lord- 
 ship's jeasonable acquiescence in the words of the English 
 version. I quoted the exact words of Bishop Colenso's ridi- 
 culous and unscholarly commentary thereupon. It is a poor 
 cause that requires to be bolstered up by such slippery 
 
BISHOP COLENSO AND THE ** NATIONAL REVIEW. 17 
 
 evasions. With respect to the " National Reviewer's " quota- 
 tion from Gesenius, I would simply remark that it is much 
 to be regretted that our learned critic does not favour his 
 readers with a specification of the particular edition of 
 Gesenius's *' Lexicon " which enabled him to make his 
 remarkable discovery. I would refer my readers to Gesenius's 
 " Lexicon Manuale Hebraicum et Chaldaicum .... Editio 
 altera onendatior, ab auctore ipso adornata, atque ab A. T. 
 HoiFmanno recognita," Lipsiae, 1847, 8vo., p. 397, and leave 
 them to decide for themselves as to the justice of the Reviewer's 
 aspersion upon the Hebrew scholarship of Gesenius. I would, 
 however, further observe that the point really at issue is not, 
 whether the " National Reviewer " is a Hebrew philologist or 
 not, but whether Dr. Colenso understands anything whatever of 
 the sacred vernacular which he pretends to criticise. I should 
 be sorry to lose sight of the main question, as to the Bishop of 
 Natal's personal attainments, in a general discussion upon the 
 meaning of any Hebrew word whatsoever. His Lordship has 
 ventured to translate veJwtzi by " he shall carry on his back." 
 The " National Reviewer" has judiciously kept this fact out 
 of sight, and launches out into a diffuse discussion as to 
 whether the Hiphil conjugation of yatza has a causative signifi- 
 cation, or simply means '* to carry." He, in fact, identifies 
 himself with the opinion of an " Earnest Searcher after Truth, '^ 
 who alleges that " direct personal action is always implied : " 
 in other words, that Jiotzi alvrays means literally " to carry." 
 The •' National Reviewer " goes further. He insinuates, 
 although he has not the courage to say so totidem verbis, that it 
 does so in nearly 300 examples ! 
 
 I have said that the Hiphil of yatza occurs 299 times in the 
 Hebrew Bible, In ninety cases at least, the word is used 
 respecting God's bringing up the children of Israel out of 
 Egypt. Now, I would ask the " National Reviewer " whether 
 the word in these ninety cases, is a literal or a figurative ex- 
 pression ? Does it mean actually "to carry"? Or does it 
 allude to the miraculous and human agency by which the 
 Exodus was accomplished ? If my memory serves me rightly, 
 it is repeatedly said, that God brought forth the children of 
 Israel " by the hand of Moses and Aaron." Is this a figurative 
 or literal expression ? Did Moses and Aaron carry two million 
 
 c 
 
18 BISHOP COLENSO AND THE " NATIONAL REVIEW." 
 
 souls in their hand, or as Dr. Colenso might render it, " on 
 their backs " ? And, again, we read that they were brought 
 forth, "by signs and wonders, by a mighty hand, and by a 
 stretched out arm." Is " direct personal action " here implied? 
 Let me now adduce a few other passages in which, according to 
 the " National Reviewer," Hotzi always means strictly and 
 literally " to carry." Let us look for instance at Deut. 
 xxii. 19, "because he hath brought up (^W^'^in hotzi) an evil 
 name upon a virgin of Israel." Again, verse 21, "Then they 
 shall bring out (•IW'^im. vehotzioo) the damsel," according to Dr. 
 Colenso and the " National Reviewer," " carry out on their 
 backs " ! Also, in verse 24, of the virgin and her seducer, 
 " Then ye shall bring (DiT'^^^'i'T] vehotzaythem) them both out," 
 i. e., " carry them both out, on your backs " ? So also in 
 1 Kings xxi. 10, according to the above eminent Hebraists, 
 Naboth was " carried out on the backs " of the elders of his 
 city ! In Ezra i. 7 we read, " Also Cyrus the king brought 
 forth (M"'!iin Jiotzi) the vessels of the house of the Lord which 
 Nebuchadnezzar had brought (S'^!2in hotzi) forth out of Jeru- 
 salem." Rather an undignified proceeding for two such mighty 
 potentates ! In 2 Chron. xviii. 33, King Ahab says to his chariot 
 man, " Turn thine hand, that thou mayest carry me [on thy 
 back ?] out of the host." {See 1 Kings xxii. 34.) And yet we 
 read, " Howbeit, the King of Israel stayed himself up in his 
 chariot," &;c. In Ezekiel xlii. 15, " He brought me forth to 
 the gate." In Ezra x. 3, " Now, therefore, let us make a cove- 
 nant with our God to put away (S^'Sin'p lelwtzi) all the wives." I 
 wonder whether Sir Cresswell Cresswell would understand 
 " carrying on one's back " as the equivalent to the sentence 
 of a decree nisi ! Further, in Gen. i. 12, " Let the earth 
 bring forth (^^1^^ vatozay) grass." Numbers xvii. 8, Aaron's 
 rod, we are told, " brought forth buds." It is quite evident 
 that " direct personal action '' is in these two passages as 
 "always implied" ! ! ! But to proceed. According to Dr. 
 Colenso and the " National Reviewer," we learn the interesting 
 fact that Rahab (Josh. vi. 23), " and her father, and her mother, 
 " and her brethren, and all that she had, and all her kindred," 
 were carried out of Jericho on the backs of the two spies ! A 
 more perplexing case even still (inasmuch as " direct personal 
 action is always implied") occurs in 2 Sam. x. 16: — "And 
 
BISHOP COLENSO AND THE " NATIONAL REVIEW." 19 
 
 Hadarezer sent (!) and brought out (^^^""1 vayotzay) the Syrians 
 that were beyond the river." Perhaps Dr. Colenso could 
 explain arithmetically how Hadarezer succeeded in being in 
 two places at once ? In 2 Kings xv. 20, " And Menahem 
 exacted (W??*5 vayotzay) the money of Israel, even of all the 
 mighty men of wealth." I would invite the " National Re- 
 viewer's " attention to Gesenius's explanation of this passage, 
 " exegit pecuniam sq. ^V, tributum imposuit. (2 Reg. xv. 20.)" 
 Again, in 1 Chron. xix. 16, " And when the Syrians saw that 
 the}' were put to the worse before Israel, they sent messengers, 
 and drew forth (IW^^I^T vayotzioo — literall}^, '* and they caused to 
 come") the Syrians that were beyond the river," &c. Once 
 more, 2 Chron. i. 17, " And they fetched up and brought 
 forth •1N"'?i''l (vayotzioo) out of Egypt a chariot for six hundred 
 shekels of silver, and an horse for an hundred and fifty, and so 
 they brought out horses for all the kings of the Hittites and for 
 the kings of Syria, by their means " ('i'^"'?'T' ^7t? heyadam 
 yotzioo — literally, "by their hand they caused to go forth.") 
 The same mode of expression, on the same subject, is found in 
 several other passages. In Prov. xxx. 83, it is said, " Surely 
 the churning of milk bringeth forth (^'"'r'^'' yotzi) butter, and the 
 wringing of the nose bringeth forth (^'"'^V yotzi) blood ; so the 
 forcing of wrath bringeth forth (N'^^i"' yotzi) strife. In Jer. 
 X. 13, it is said that God "bringeth forth {^'V'^\ vayotzay) wind 
 out of his treasures." See also Jer. li. 16, and Psalm cxxxv. 7. 
 In Isaiah xl. 26, it is applied to the stars. It is said that God 
 " bringeth out their host by number." So again in Job 
 xxxviii. 32, " Canst thou bring forth ((^""^inn hatotzi) Mazza- 
 roth ?" These few examples must for the present suffice, but 
 they might be multiplied far beyond the limits of a letter. And 
 now. Sir, I would ask, in the name of common sense, whether 
 the Hiphil of (^^^ yatza), as according to the " National Re- 
 viewer," means literally " to carry " (I will not press Dr. 
 Colenso's interpretation " to carry on one's back " too closely !) 
 in every passage of the Hebrew text, with the exception of the 
 three passages in which I have in my former letter " tried to 
 prove that the word may perhaps (!) be used in a different sense 
 from that in which the Bishop uses it ! " ? 
 
 Either the " National Revievvcr " is a very illiterate, or he is 
 a very disingenuous controversialist. He either reckons upon 
 c 2 
 
20 BISHOP COLENSO AND THE '* NATIONAL REVIEW." 
 
 the inability of his readers to verify his statements, and hopes 
 to produce an impression in favour of the Bishop, by affirming 
 what he knows to be palpably incorrect, or else he is no better 
 qualified than Dr. Colenso himself to criticise the Hebrew text. 
 The approbation of such ex parte supporters is of itself sufii- 
 cient to awaken serious misgivings as to the object and aim of 
 the present attack upon the Pentateuch. 
 
 When Simon the gaoler of the unhappy son of Loius XVI., 
 asked, ** What is to be done with the young wolf's cub ? " his 
 employers, with ambiguous significance, answered, " He is to 
 be got rid of." So it is at the present juncture with the inspi- 
 ration of the Bible. Its Divine authority is "to be got rid 
 of," if possible, by fair means, if not, by other and less legiti- 
 mate methods of attack. We may feel devoutly grateful that 
 the v^ndissembled vexation of the conspirators, at the lamentable 
 fiasco of their vaunted champion's first onslaught, is betraying 
 them into the manifestation of their true colours. We may 
 hope that the time is not far distant, when English " Neology " 
 will drop its disguise, and, discarding its present pitiful protes- 
 tations of zeal for God's truth, will stand forth in the sinister, 
 but less dangerous semblance of avowed unbelief and atheism. 
 
 There is something that might pass current for a spurious 
 manliness in the sceptical hardihood of R. Carlile and the Rev. 
 R. Taylor, and which shows to signal advantage, when compared 
 with the pusillanimous degeneracy of the new lights of the 
 present day. The former unhappy men knew that fines and im- 
 prisonment awaited them as the inevitable results of their 
 boldness, and yet they were not dismayed, by any fear of con- 
 sequences, from speaking their minds. Whilst the latter, 
 harbouring the very same animosity against the inspired Word 
 of God, prefer, at present at least, *' amhiguas spargere voces,'^ 
 to drop a word of doubt as to Moses' " historic " veracity here, 
 and a sneer against the credibility of a miracle there, all 
 blended down with honeyed words, and sugared with eupho- 
 nious truisms, to suit the uncritical palate of the wavering and 
 the unlearned. The sympathies of the Enghsh public are 
 easily enlisted on the side of any champion, however mistaken 
 his cause, whose courage and self-abnegation keep pace with 
 his words. They are apt to look coldly upon propounders of 
 strange doctrines, who stand shilly-shallying between blows and 
 
THE DOOR OF THE TABERNACLE. 21 
 
 blandishments, irresolute whether to strike or to parley ; whose 
 eyes are wistfully wandering in search of a loophole of escape, 
 in case the tide of popular applause should run counter to their 
 innovations ; and who are evidently prepared to be blasphe- 
 mously outspoken, or mistily Evangelical, in proportion to the 
 amount of sympathy or support they may receive at the popular 
 hands. Let Dr, Colenso and his friends, like honest men, lay 
 aside their protestations of orthodoxy, and come forth into the 
 theological arena in their true colours. Their fall will be de- 
 plored by the whole Church of Christ, but their names will be 
 rescued from the present, well-merited stigma of treachery. 
 They will be then mourned over, but not despised, by all truth' 
 loving men. * 
 
 I am, &c., 
 
 JOSEPH B. M'CAUL. 
 St. Edmund the King, Lombard-street^ 
 Jan. 12, 18G3. 
 
 * This fourth letter was not included in the first edition of the present 
 pamphlet, and is inserted here (out of its chronological order) for the sake of 
 convenience. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 W^HETHER, IN ORDER TO THE HISTORIC VERACITY OF MOSES, 
 THE DOOR OF THE TABERNACLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 
 TWENTY MILES WIDE, AND ON OTHER MATTERS. 
 
 Sir, — In my second letter I said that certain of Dr. Colenso's 
 objections to the historical veracity of the Pentateuch bore the 
 unmistakable impress of originality, although the least un- 
 scholarly of his arguments were drawn from the English Deists 
 and Voltaire. It is respecting one or two of the Bishop's own 
 genuine performances that I would crave permission to say a 
 few words in my present communication. Chapters iv. and v. of 
 his Lordship's " Critical '^ examination seem to me to demand 
 especial attention on account of their pre-eminent absurdity. 
 The title of Chap, iv, is " The size of the Court of the Taber- 
 nacle compared with theNumber of the Congregation." Its object 
 is to prove arithmetically that because the door of the Taber- 
 
22 THE DOOR OF THE TABERNACLE. 
 
 nacle was not " tiventy miles! " in width, that therefore "Jehovah 
 
 " spake [not] unto Moses saying Gather thou [all] the 
 
 *' Congregation together unto the door of the Tabernacle of the 
 " Congregation. And Moses did \iiot\ as Jehovah commanded 
 " him. And the assembly was [not] gathered unto the door of 
 *' the Tabernacle of the Congregation." — "Lev. viii. 14."* In 
 passing, I would observe that the verse cited is not the " 14th," 
 either in the Hebrew or the English text; but a minor inaccuracy 
 of this description is a mere nothing in comparison with the 
 critical blunders with which the work abounds. The correct 
 reference isLevit. viii. 1 — 4. When I first read these two chapters 
 of the Bishop's book I could not help feeling that his Lordship 
 was far more indebted to the " simple-minded, but intelligent 
 native " mentioned on p. vii., for some of his arguments than he 
 has had the candour to admit. Surely, it is a little unhand- 
 some in Dr. Colenso to deprive his swarthy fellow-critic of 
 the honour justly accruing to him for discovering impossi- 
 bilities of so novel a description in Moses' narrative, and which 
 have hitherto escaped the acumen and research of all the 
 Ewalds, and De Wettes, and Eichhorns, &c., &c., collectively 
 and individually. It is hardly fair that his Lordship should 
 usurp the entire merit of the disclosure of such a remarkable 
 blot upon the face of the Mosaic story, as the one upon which 
 this fourth chapter is based. Feeling somewhat diffident at 
 following the BislixDp of Natal on to his own vantage ground of 
 figures, I will neither attempt to prove that the door of the 
 Tabernacle was twenty miles wide, nor yet that all " the adult 
 " males in the prime of life," amounting to " 603,550 men," 
 did find standing room in the Court of the Tabernacle, the 
 area of which. Dr. Colenso informs us, was sixty yards by 
 thirty yards. I would, however, ask permission to examine 
 into some of the arguments upon which the Bishop's most con- 
 clusive reasoning is based. 
 
 He proceeds upon the assumption that the whole male popu- 
 lation is included in that expression " The Congregation." Dr. 
 Colenso evidently has not consulted his Hebrew Bible upon the 
 present, as upon many other occasions. He would otherwise 
 have observed that the words actually employed strengthen his 
 own position. The actual words are n"737n"73 (7vo/ haeydah)^ 
 * Compare Exod. xxix. 42, 43. 
 
THE DOOR OF THE TABERNACLE. SJ3 
 
 i.e., "all the Congregation." The first text which the Right 
 Rev. Prelate adduces in support of his theory is rather an 
 unfortunate one. "We read/' says he, "for instance, with 
 " reference to the Passover, ' The whole Assemhly of the 
 " ' Congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.' " (Exod. 
 xii. 6.) This happens to be a passage of Scripture employed 
 by the Rabbis to prove the authority of a delegate ! The 
 "whole Congregation" did not, and could not, each kill 
 a Paschal lamb, otherwise, instead of " 200,000 Iambs " 
 (p. 58), the "whole Congregation" would have required 
 603,550 lambs, i. e., one to each adult male ! ! Or does Dr. 
 Colenso mean to insinuate that it took three men to kill one 
 lamb ? 
 
 The Talmudists rightly understood " the whole assembly of 
 Israel shall kill it," in Exod. xii. 6, to mean, that a sufficient 
 number of lambs were to be slaughtered to meet the wants of 
 the entire people, by those persons upon whom the duty 
 naturally devolved. 
 
 A little further on. Dr. Colenso continues : "So * all the 
 congregation' stoned the blasphemer. Lev. xxiv. 14, and the 
 Sabbath-breaker, Num. xv. 36." Does Dr. Colenso then 
 mean to say, that in every case no fewer than 603,550 stones 
 were hurled at the criminal ? 
 
 I feel somewhat ashamed of propounding, even hypothetically, 
 such puerilities, but they are the logical results of the Bishop's 
 reasoning. Surely, Sir, I did not overstep the bounds of truth 
 when in my first Letter I described certain portions of this 
 pseudo-criticism as being " sciolistic trash." 
 
 Has the Bishop of Natal never been present, by courtesy, in 
 the Upper House of Parliament, when the Commons were sum- 
 moned to the bar? Who would be so insane as to doubt the 
 historic veracity of the Times' reporter, who stated that the 
 Commons did appear at the bar, because every individual 
 Member, or even a majority of the Members, were not actually 
 present ? 
 
 Sir, I grieve and blush to think that the unparalleled reputa- 
 tion of the English Bench for sound scholarship should be thus 
 burlesqued in the eyes of foreigners. Dr. Colenso's book will 
 be translated into the continental languages. I have the privi- 
 lege to be acquainted with several eminent foreign scholars. I 
 
24 THE DOOR OF THE TABERNACLE. 
 
 cannot describe to you the feeling with which I heard one of 
 them, a most accomplished Hebrew gentleman, exclaim, on 
 reading the volume in question, " It is the most foolish and 
 unlearned work of the kind that I ever looked at ! " 
 
 The names of Ussher, and Warburton, and Kidder, and 
 Lowth, and Newcome, and Horsley, and Walton, have hitherto 
 given our Church a proud pre-eminence amongst Biblical 
 scholars; not to mention our Lightfoots, and Kennicots, and 
 Blayneys, and Hodys, and Prideauxs. Our author may rely 
 upon it that his own name will go down also as a critic. 
 Few, however, would grudge his Lordship his own distinctive 
 celebrity as a Biblical Commentator, judging from the specimens 
 of criticism already disposed of. 
 
 But to pass on to chapter v. : " Moses and Joshua address- 
 ing ALL Israel/' 
 
 The statements to which Dr. Colenso objects are as follows : 
 — " These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel." 
 (Deut. i. 1.) "And Moses called all Israel, and said unto 
 them." (Deut. v. 1.) *' And afterwards he read all the words 
 
 *' of the Lord according to all that which is written in 
 
 " the Book of the Law. There was not a word of all that 
 " Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the con- 
 " gregation of Israel, with the women and the little ones, and 
 " the strangers that were conversant among them." (Josh, 
 viii. 34, 35.) 
 
 The gist of Dr. Colenso's argument is this : " We must sup- 
 *' pose that, at least, the great body of the congregation (between 
 " two and three millions) was present, and not only present, but 
 " able to hear (!) the words of awful moment which Joshua 
 *' addressed to them." (P. 37.) And again : " How, then, is 
 " it conceivable that a man should do what Joshua is here said 
 " to have done, unless, indeed, the reading .... was a mere 
 " dumb show, without the least idea of those most solemn 
 " words being heard by those to whom they were addressed ? 
 " For surely no human voice, unless strengthened by a miracle, 
 *' of which the Scripture tells us nothing, could have reached 
 " the ears of a crowded mass of people, as large as the whole 
 " population of London. The very crying of the ' little ones,' 
 " wlio are expressly stated to have been present, must have 
 " sufficed to drown the sounds at a few yards' distance." 
 
THE DOOR OF THE TABERNACLE. 25 
 
 Before proceeding further, I would observe that Dr. Colenso's 
 sneer about the " little ones " "i^ni {vehattaf) again betrays his 
 ignorance of the Hebrew text. " Taf" is a noun singular of 
 multitude ; it is sometimes applied to signify the entire 
 *' family." Gesenius instances a case (2 Chron. xx. 13) * where 
 it includes the women as well as the children. ^\}^'Q^} CS^ C2 
 ^■7"^"?^ Gam tafam — nshayhem ouheneyhem^" etiam familia 
 eorum (nenipe) femince et liberi eorum ;'''' and, again. Gen. 
 xlvii. 12 — ^i^i? "'?? Lepi liattaf\ =.*' pro ratio?ie familice" 
 (Gesen. Lexicon, Lipsice, 1847, p. 358.) J There is, therefore, 
 no absolute necessity to decide that babies in arms, whose 
 ** very crying must have sufficed to drown the sounds at a few 
 yards' distance," were present at all. 
 
 But I am not disposed to dispute the apparent superi- 
 ority which Dr. Colenso's unacquaintance with a dead lan- 
 guage gives him. I would submit for his consideration two 
 parallel instances which modern history furnishes, and leave the 
 Bishop to draw the inference as to the practical wisdom of his 
 reasoning. On turning to the French "Moniteur" for July 
 IG, 1790, I there read an account, from the pen of the accre- 
 dited reporter of the journal, who signs his name M. Peuchet, 
 of a similar commemorative festival — I mean the " Fete of the 
 Confederation" intended to inaugurate the new Constitution of 
 the French people. He writes as follows : — " The fete of the 
 " * Federation Generale ' presented yesterday the most impos- 
 *' ing spectacle which a free people can offer. The Champ de 
 " Mars, destined to receive the entire nation {fa nation 
 " entiere), had been put in requisition for this grand cere- 
 " mony, and one saw with what zeal the citizens of all classes 
 " had devoted themselves to complete such works of this 
 *' amphitheatre {de ce cirque) in which they were able to lend 
 *' a helping hand. The same zeal animated the superintendents 
 *' of the other works. In two days they were finished 
 
 * The English version reads, " And all Judah stood before the Lord, -with 
 their little ones, their wives, and their children." 
 
 ■\ Gen. xlvii. 12. Fi^/r/afe, " praebens cibaria singulis." Septuaffint, " Kara 
 aojfia." Walton translates the Syriac, " pro ratione familise eorum ; " and 
 Onkelos, "juxta familiam uniuscujusque." 
 
 + Other examples ■will be found in "The Englishman's Hebrew and 
 Chaldee Concordance," 2d edition, vol. i., p. 484. 
 
:SO THE DOOR OF THE TABERNACLE. 
 
 " Arrived on the Champ de Mars, what a sight! what a sub- 
 " lime spectacle ! Two hundred thousand men encircled the 
 " altar of their country ! They waited for their brothers, their 
 " legislators, their King, to cement (pour afFermir) a liberty still 
 *' unsecured (encore agitee) on the bases of justice, of faith, and 
 " solemti oaths. Silence reigned supreme. The Major-General 
 *' of the Federation pronounced in the name of the military 
 " deputies the federal oath. It was repeated by all, and 
 " received by the people, the legislators, and the King." 
 
 After giving the words of the oath pronounced by the King, 
 and the extraordinary enthusiasm which its utterance caused in 
 the remotest portions of the vast amphitheatre, the writer pro- 
 ceeds to describe the effect produced by the Queen's presenting 
 her children to the multitude : — " This movement of deep 
 " sensibility and grandeur was warmly appreciated {vivement 
 *' senti) by the Federals, who simultaneously {tous unaniment) 
 " acknowledged it by their applause and acclamations. They 
 " recalled with the oath, taken by all and in the name of all, the 
 *' duties which it enjoined and the obligations ivhich it imposed.''^ 
 
 Even women and children (!) were present, and realized the 
 importance of the occasion : — " The women, the children {les 
 " enfans), the soldiery, invoked blessings on the King, the 
 " father of his people, and the friend of all." This French 
 journalist could see nothing absurd or out of place in so uni- 
 versal a participation in the feeling of joy at the common 
 welfare. On the contrary, he exclaims, in fervid rapture, 
 " Quel religieux sentiment domine cette multitude immense ! 
 " Comme le jpeuple est sublime, lorsquHl est tout entier au senti- 
 " ment de sapropre grandeur I'' 
 
 It must indeed require the ungesthetic temperament of a 
 Colenso to see anything incredible, or out of place, in the 
 similar popular ratification of the Divine Hebrew Constitution, 
 as described in such sober terms by Joshua. Lengerke does not 
 object to its historic veracity upon any such foolish grounds as 
 the Bishop.* 
 
 In conclusion, I would just refer to the " Moniteur " of June 
 
 10, 1794. In the impression for that day, I actually find a 
 
 verbatim report of two speeches addressed by Robespierre to a 
 
 similar assembly, on the occasion of the festival given in honour 
 
 * Kenaan. Volks und Religionsgeschichte Israels. Theil. 1, p. 642. 
 
WHETHER THE ISRAELITES OFFERED SACRIFICES, ETC. 27 
 
 of the *' Supreme Being." Surely this could not have been 
 written by an eye-witness ! " The ver'ij crying of the little ones, 
 ^' ti'ho are expressly stated to have been present, must have sufficed 
 " to drown the sounds at a few yards distance !" (Colenso, 
 p. 37.) 
 
 I am, Sir, &c., 
 
 JOSEPH B. M'CAUL. 
 St. Edmund's, Lombard-street, 
 Nov. 19, \m2. 
 
 LETTER VL 
 
 WHETHER THE ISRAELITES OFFERED SACRIFICES IN THE 
 WILDERNESS, OR NO. 
 
 Sir, — It is announced that the first 10,000 copies of the English 
 edition of Dr. Colenso's book have already been sold. But, in 
 common with many others, I desire to know why the Natal im- 
 pression — the larva, or chrysalis, from which the present literary 
 prodigy was elaborated — has been consigned to a fancied obli- 
 vion-, after such a singular fashion. After giving unmistakable 
 symptoms of animation, both at the Cape and in England, the 
 uncanny little " disowned " is pronounced to have been still-born, 
 and the report is industriously spread that it never breathed. 
 Surel}'^, Sir, such a palpable case of concealment of birth is 
 fitting subject for " Crowner's Quest." Witnesses are not 
 wanting who can testify to its vitality and parentage ; * in 
 other words, that though it may not " contain the expression of 
 Dr. Colenso's present opinions," it does throw very great light, 
 not only upon the animus with which he wrote, but, also, upon 
 
 * The writer of these Letters might have availed himself, had it been 
 needful, of two several opportunities of seeing copies of the Natal impres- 
 sion, in different hands, within the space of a week. This observation does 
 not allude to the copy which was in the hands of the Editor of the 
 " Kecord." This Natal edition has also found its way to the Continent. 
 
^5 WHETHER THE ISRAELITES OFFERED 
 
 the then position of his Lordship's literary qualifications as a 
 Biblical commentator. 
 
 Meanwhile, Sir, the present volume presents ample subject 
 for critical animadversion, even purged, as it is, from some of the 
 more egregious crudities of its former self by abler hands, and 
 wearing the splints and bandages, which the too sanguine skill, 
 and partial manipulation of " Essayist " Shiphras and Puahs 
 have devised to give it shape and consistency. 
 
 In a very able article in the April number of the " London 
 Review," treating of Dr. Colenso's Commentary to the Epistle 
 to the Romans, his Lordship's position, as a scholar and a critic, 
 is so appositely described, that I cannot forbear extracting one 
 or two passages, as admirably illustrating the defects of his 
 present " Critical Examination " of the Pentateuch and the 
 Eook of Joshua : — " Persistency of affirmation, a silent disregard 
 '* of what has been alleged and proved against their views, and 
 " a frequent intimation that everybody else is in error, perhaps 
 " even absurdly so, — these are the characteristics of the volume. 
 " Broad Churchmen seem to ignore all that has gone before 
 " them, and remind us of the couplet in which the exclusive- 
 " ness of the man of fashion is described : — 
 
 " * The world polite, his friends and he, 
 And all the rest are nobody ! ' 
 
 " It might have been expected that a Bishop and Father of 
 '' the Church would have been careful to do honour to the 
 " illustrious men of former times, as well as to fortify himself 
 " with the suffrages of his brethren and predecessors, but this is 
 " not our Bishop's temper. His many years' study of the 
 " Epistle has brought him to conclusions adverse to those of 
 " almost all who have gone before him, and he may well be shy 
 " of sending his readers to inquire of them. It answers his 
 " purpose better to forget they ever wrote, or to denounce them 
 " as in error." 
 
 And again : — " His (the Bishop's) appearances before the 
 " English public, since his elevation, have not tended to enhance 
 " his fame. He may be great in arithmetic and algebra, but is 
 " a very tyro in far weightier matters." 
 
 If the London Reviewer had had Dr. Colenso's present 
 volume before him, he could not have more accurately described 
 its attributes. Assertion is made to serv'e for argument, the 
 
SACRIFICES IN THE WILDERNESS, OR NO. 29 
 
 author's self-esteem and ipse dixit stand him in stead of patient 
 labour and erudition. Take, for example, Chapter xx. 
 (p. 122), — '* The Number of Priests at the Exodus, Compared 
 with their Duties, and with the Provision made for Them." 
 The Bishop refers (p. 123) to the words of the prophet Amos, 
 — " Have ye offered me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness 
 forty years, O house of Israel ?" His Lordship's commentary on 
 these words is as follows : — " Which show that, in the prophet's 
 view, at all events, such sacrifices were required and expected of 
 them ! " This is indeed a very cavalier way of dealing with the 
 passage. Let it not be supposed that I accuse the Bishop of 
 having made himself acquainted with the opinion of the Rabbis, 
 far less, of distinguished Christian commentators, upon this 
 passage. I only express my surprise at the rash temerity, and 
 the off-handed, self-satisfied ignorance which he displays in the 
 matter. Petrus affirmat, quis negahit ? 
 
 Let me inform his Lordship, that most, if not all, of the 
 Hebrew commentators believe, and assert, that sacrifices were not 
 offered, except on rare occasions, in the wilderness. A host of 
 learned Gentile critics are of the same opinion. Voltaire asserts, 
 and bases an argument upon the assertion, that no sacrifices at 
 all were offered during this period. (See " Lettres de Quelques 
 Juifs, par M. VAhhe Guenee." Tom. 1, p. lf;0 — 196.) And 
 if this be the case, I need not say that all that his Lordship has 
 written, so much to his own satisfaction, as to the impossibility 
 of finding cattle, not to speak of " turtle doves " (p. 125), in the 
 wilderness, falls to the ground as a matter of course. And first 
 I would remark, that it is the general opinion that the rite of 
 circumcision was not practised in the desert. This of itself 
 would disqualify a large proportion of the congregation from 
 participating in the commemoration of the Passover. No uncir- 
 cumcised person was to eat thereof. (Exod. xii. 48.) " It is 
 " here important to remark," says Michaelis, " that the Israelites 
 " did not circumcise the greater part of their children born unto 
 " them in the desert, and yet we find, from Josh. v. 1 — 9, that 
 " Moses had allowed this all along to pass unpunished." 
 (Smith's Translation, Vol. IV., p. 42.) 
 
 But to proceed with the general question, viz., Whether sacri- 
 fices were required or no in the wilderness ? And first let us 
 hear what the Rabbis have to say in the matter. The learned 
 
30 WHETHER THE ISRAELITES OFFERED 
 
 J. Meyer, in his " Tractatus de temporibus et festis Hebraeorum," 
 Ugolitii Thesaurus, Tom. 1, col. ccccxcii., writes: — " Doctores 
 " in Pesikta, nee non R. Levi Ben Gerson, Chaskuni et alij 
 " tradiderunt, non celebrasse filios Israelis in deserto Pascha, 
 " nisi hoc unum duntaxat, (Num. ix. 1., Seqq. et versu 10 
 " seqq.) idque innuere Amosum, v. 25. Rationem adferunt 
 " quod in illo anno castra habuerint in uno loco, et masculos, 
 " qui eis nati erant, potuerint circumcidere, ne circumcisio eos 
 " inipediret ab edendo Paschate," &;c. (The doctors in the 
 Pesikta have told us, that the Children of Israel did not 
 celebrate the Passover in the desert except this once (Num. 
 ix. I, etc.), and that Amos implies as much (v. 25). They 
 give as their reason, that during that year they had their 
 camp in one place, and were able to circumcise the males whicli 
 had been born unto them, so that the want of circumcision 
 might not hinder thera from eating the Passover.) And again : — 
 " Abarbenel vero aliam adhuc rationem suppeditat (Num. ix. 1, 
 " seqq. in Legem, fol. 2852), cur in deserto non celebraverint 
 " Pascha. Q,uum enim adhuc essent in deserto Sinai, pro- 
 ** pinquo terras habitabili, vicino Medianitis, ubi invenerunt 
 " agnos, placentas, et amaritudines, Pascha celebrare poterant 
 " statuto tempore. At vero omnibus reliquis annis, quibus in 
 " deserto errabant, a terra habitabili semoti ; non potuerunt 
 " aliud facere Pascha, donee venirent in terram habitabilem, 
 " sive terram Canaan." (Abarbenel, however, gives this 
 additional reason why they did not celebrate the Passover 
 in the wilderness. As long as they abode in the desert 
 of Sinai, in the neighbourhood of a habitable region, close 
 to the Midianites, where lambs, cakes, and bitter herbs 
 would be forthcoming, they had the means of keeping the 
 Passover at the appointed time. But in all the remaining 
 years, in which they wandered in the desert, remote from 
 inhabited regions, they were precluded from celebrating another 
 Passover, until they should enter upon a habitable region, to 
 wit, the land of Canaan.) — Ibid., col. ccccxciii. 
 
 Of the same opinion are Castalio and Drusius. See " Critici 
 Saeri," on Amos. v. 25. So also Poole, in Synops. on the same 
 text. Walton so understands the Hebrew, and also the Targum 
 of Jonathan. He translates the interrogative (Amos v. 25) by 
 numquid and num, instead of nonne, which latter would imply 
 
SACRIFICES IN THE WILDERNESS, OR NO. 31 
 
 an affirmative answer. So also Archbishop Newcome, *' Did ye 
 offer unto rne sacrifices and an ofTering of flour in the desert 
 forty years, O ye house of Israel ? Nay ! but ye bare," &c. 
 Again : Peters on Joshua " thinks that they are not here 
 " reproached with a neglect which Moses would not have 
 " suffered, and that probably they had no cattle to sacrifice, and 
 " that therefore Jeremiah, when he saith (vii. 22, 23), ' God 
 " commanded not sacrifice when they came out of Egypt,' 
 " means that He did not immediately ejspect it." 
 
 Dr. Gill, whose ample Hebrew and Rabbinical erudition 
 gives him especial qualifications for speaking upon Jewish 
 topics, writes, " Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offer- 
 ings ? No ; they were not offered to God, but to devils, to the 
 golden calf, and to the host of heaven, so their fathers did in the 
 wilderness forty years, where sacrifices were omitted during that 
 time, a round number for a broken one, it being about thirty- 
 eight years," &c. And again, on Acts vii. 42, " They offered 
 
 to devils, and not to God (Deut. xxxii. 17), and though there 
 
 were some few sacrifices offered up, yet, since they were not 
 
 frequently offered, nor freely, and with all the heart and with 
 
 faith, and without hypocrisy, they were looked upon by God 
 
 as if they were not offered at all." 
 
 Of the same opinion is the Danish Regius Professor Basse- 
 dow : — " Du Haus Israel, hast du mir wohl 40 Jahr in der 
 "VViisten geopfert ? Ihr dientet vielmehr den Abgotten." 
 (" O House of Israel, did ye then offer me sacrifices during 
 forty years in the wilderness ? Ye served idols much more.") — 
 Die Religioji Israels. Berlin and Altona. 1766. 8vo. P. 398. 
 
 So also Starcke, on Amos v. 25, says positively that there 
 were no sacrifices offered : — " Weder freivvillige Opfer, noch alle 
 schuldige Opfer " (neither freewill offerings, nor all the obliga- 
 tory sacrifices) ; according to the prescription of the law, 
 ** Theils aus Mangel des Viehes, theils wegen des vielfaltigen 
 Reisen ;" («. e., " partly from scarcity of cattle, partly from the 
 frequent journeyings.") — Si/fiojjs. Bihl. Exeget. in Vet. Test., 
 Theil iii., col. 228. 
 
 J. Spencer writes {De Legihus Ilehraeorum ritualibus. Hagce 
 Comit. 1686.*) : — "Locum hunc prasruptum et hiantem, sic in 
 
 * " I would suggest that the above abrupt and elliptical passage should 
 " thus be harmonized. Did ye offer me sacrifices and gifts during forty 
 
32 WHETHER THE ISRAELITES OFFERED 
 
 " planitiem redigendum existimarem. An Sacrificia et munus 
 " obtulistis mihi in deserto quadraginta annis ? Minime sane, 
 " nam vitulum sacrificio coluistis." (Lib. iii., p. 40.) 
 
 This passage, I admit, is not decisive. Rosenmiiller also 
 speaks dubiously and cautiously, adducing both sides of the 
 argument. Marckius {Analysis Exegetica. Amst. 1698. 4to.) 
 agrees with Grotius in believing that sacrifices were offered 
 in the wilderness, qualifying his decision, however : — * " Etiamsi 
 " tam frequentes non fuisse, et solennes oblationes omnes, 
 " quam postea in Canaan, lubentes agnoscamus." (p. 434.) 
 
 De Wette inclines to this qualified opinion. Olshausen, on 
 the parallel passage in Acts vii. 42, says, " Ye served me not 
 '' alone, not always." (Clark's F. T. L., vol. xix., p. 447.) 
 
 Ewald, however, speaks most positively on the subject : — 
 " Did then these Israelites not bring, for forty years long, any 
 '' sacrifices to (Javeh) Jehovah ! For, in the sterile, barren 
 " desert it was quite impossible for them to do so at all. 
 " [Konnten sie solche gar niclit hrvngen.) At least, private 
 " individuals {einzelnen) had not the means {keine Krdfte dazii) 
 " of so doing ; although, perhaps, in the name of the congre- 
 " gation, at times, a defective and meagre offering might have 
 " been brought, but not worthy of mention in comparison of 
 " the liberal {fetten) offerings made [at the time of Amos] by 
 " private individuals {compare Hos. ii. 5 — 16; Jer. vii. 22); 
 *' and yet this was the golden age of Israel, so well pleasing to 
 " Jehovah ! So little value was attached to sacrifices of this 
 " nature ! "— " Die Propheten des A. B" Bd. 1., p. 104. 
 Stuttgart, 1840. 8vo. 
 
 To any one who has studied Ewald's scholarly, albeit dan- 
 gerous work, Dr. Colenso's summary method of disposal of the 
 erudite German's conservative views will create no surprise 
 whatever. Men of such difterent mental calibre and attain- 
 ments would naturally have few sentiments in common. " Any 
 " one who is well acquainted with it (Ewald's book) will per- 
 " ceive that my conclusions, on many important points, differ 
 '" materially from his." (Colenso, p. xv.) 
 
 " years in the wilderness ? By no means ; for ye honoured the calf with 
 " sacrifice." 
 
 * " Although we freely admit that the offerings were by no means so 
 " frequent nor so regular as afterwards in Canaan." 
 
SACRIFICES IN THE WILDERNESS, OR NO. 33 
 
 But, to resume, Professor Noyes (" New Translation of the 
 Hebrew Prophets.''^ Boston, \S^6S. 8vo.) writes, on Amos 
 V. 25 : — ** I led you and fed you in the wilderness, forty years 
 *' without sacrifice. Plow, then, can ye imagine them to be a 
 *' substitute for moral virtue ? " (p. 256,) 
 
 So, also, in the " Holy Bible," printed in Dublin in 1857, 
 " translated from the Vulgate, diligently compared with the 
 
 " Hebrew, Greek, and other editions, published with 
 
 ** the approbation of the Catholic Archbishops and Bishops of 
 " Ireland," I find the following categorical note on the above 
 cited passage of Amos: — "Except the sacrifices that were 
 " offered at the first, in the dedication of the Tabernacle, the 
 " Israelites offered no sacrifices in the desert." 
 
 Last, and not least, I would adduce the testimony of the 
 profoundly learned Dutch Professor, I. van Nuys Klinkenberg 
 \" De Bijbel verklaerdy Amst., 1780—1795), on Actsvii. 42: 
 — " In our opinion, the Lord would declare that the usual 
 *' sacrifices {offerdienst) were suspended {opgescJiort), because 
 ** they had no sufficient supply (voorraed) of cattle for the 
 " sacrifices {slachtofferen), nor corn for the meat-offerings. As 
 ** if the Lord said. Have I required at your hands slain beasts 
 ** and meat-offerings, during your wanderings in the desert ? 
 " Emphatically, no ! {immers neen) seeing that the usual 
 '^ offering was suspended." (Deel 21.) 
 
 And now, Sir, I would ask whether the Bishop's summary 
 
 assertion, " The words of the prophet Amos show that, 
 
 " in the prophet's view, at all events, such sacrifices were 
 *' required and expected of them," is not, to say the least, 
 an extremely flippant one ? * 
 
 His Lordship seems to ignore, if not to be altogether un- 
 aware, that upon this very passage of Amos, and its context, 
 more has been written by scholars of every degree, than upon 
 many other more important places of Holy Writ. 
 
 I think Dr. Colenso might well have paused before he com- 
 mitted himself to opinions so dogmatically expressed, as to the 
 unhistorical veracity of the Pentateuch, based solely upon 
 
 * See Deut. xii. 8, etc., — " Ye shall not do after all the things that we do 
 here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes. For ye are 
 not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God 
 giveth you." 
 
 D 
 
Si WHETHER THE ISRAELITES OFFERED SACRIFICES, ETC. 
 
 arguments founded upon his own personal conjectures. No 
 doubt it is a very pretty little disquisition to which the Bishop 
 treats his readers, as to whether the expression ^^'^ "^^^ {Benay 
 Yonali) means " birds of the wilderness " or " young pigeons " 
 (p. 125) ; but the sneer, in which he allows himself, as to the 
 impossibility of the people carrying pigeons out of Egypt 
 *' when they fled in such haste, and so heavily laden, and as yet 
 " knew nothing of any such law, ... or how could they have 
 "had them at all under Sinai?" (p. 124)— this sneer, I say, 
 might have been altogether spared, had his Lordship approached 
 to his most difficult task, either in the spirit, or with the creden- 
 tials of a Biblical scholar. 
 
 The more I examine into Dr. Colenso's claims to critical 
 scholarship, or even to the ordinary theological attainments of a 
 Divinity student, the more palpably glaring does the presump- 
 tuousness of such a self-delusive declaration become, as I find 
 on p. xxxvi of his present work : — " It may be possible (!) to 
 •' represent some of the arguments in this book as invalid, 
 " others as unimportant ; but, if the main result of it be true, 
 ** as I believe it will be found to be, it seems to me impossible 
 " that, five years hence, unless liberty of speech be granted on 
 " these matters, any of the more hopeful and intelligent of our 
 *' young men will be able, with clear consciences, to enter the 
 " ministry of the Church of England." 
 
 I would fain believe that the scholarship of the Church of 
 England has not yet ebbed so low, that her younger branches 
 will be led away by so shallow a prophet, and unqualified a 
 teacher of theology, as every page of Dr. Colenso's " Critical 
 Examination " abundantly demonstrates him to be. His Lord- 
 ship has much of the merest rudimentary work before him, 
 before he can hope even to gain a hearing amongst the Doctors, 
 not to speak of leading a Reformation ! 
 
 I am, &c., 
 
 JOSEPH B. M'CAUL. 
 
 St. Edmund's, Lombard-street, 
 Nov. 25, 1862. 
 
OBJECTIONS AS TO THE CATTLE OF THE ISRAELITES. 35 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 DR. COLENSO'S OBJECTIONS AS TO THE CATTLE OF THE 
 ISRAELITES COMPARED WITH THOSE OF VOLTAIRE. 
 
 Sir, — In my preceding letter I adduced a number of authorities 
 to show, that it is by no means so certain as Dr. Colenso asserts 
 (p. 123), that the children of Israel offered sacrifices during their 
 sojourning in the wilderness. The Rabbins are of opinion that 
 circumstances precluded the people from fulfilling the Divine 
 injunctions. They had neither cattle, nor other supplies, such as 
 would enable them to observe the prescribed ritual with con- 
 tinuous regularity. When the congregation were upon the 
 march, during their frequent wanderings and changes of station, 
 further and obvious impediments would present themselves. 
 That they had, however, at first a large number of flocks and 
 herds upon their exodus from Egypt is a matter clearly asserted 
 by the inspired penman (Exodus xii. 38), nor is, indeed, denied 
 by the Bishop of Natal. '* Having so large flocks and herds," 
 writes the Bishop, " ' even very much cattle ' (Exod. xii. 38), 
 ** many of them must have lived scattered over the large extent 
 *' of grazing ground, required under their circumstances, and, 
 *' accordingly, they are represented as still living in the ' land of 
 " Goshen.' (Exod. ix. 26.) But how large must have been the 
 " extent of this land? We can form some judgment on this 
 " point by considering the number of lambs which (according to 
 ** the story) must have been killed for the Passover." (pp. 57, 58.) 
 The Bishop computes that 200,000 male lambs of the first 
 year (allowing one lamb to ten persons ; or, if one to twenty 
 persons, 100,000) would be required. 200,000 male lambs of 
 the first year imply, says oui* author, an equal number of female 
 lambs of the first year also. " So that 400,000 lambs of the 
 *' first year implies [sic] a flock of 2,000,000 sheep and lambs of 
 ** all ages. Taking, then, into account the fact that they had 
 *' also large herds, ' even very much cattle,' we may fairly 
 ** reckon that the Hebrews, though so much oppressed, must 
 ** have possessed at this time, according to the story, more than 
 " two millions of sheep and oxen." (pp. 58, 59.) 
 D 2 
 
36 OBJECTIONS AS TO THE CATTLE OF THE ISRAELITES 
 
 I do not mean, at present, to dispute the accuracy of these 
 his Lordship's numerical conclusions, which, he assures us, are 
 based upon the testimony of a " sheep-master, experienced in 
 Australia and " Natal." (p. 58.) 
 
 The Bishop continues : — " What extent of land, then, would 
 " all these have required for pasturage ? Having made inquiries 
 " on the subject from experienced sheep-masters, I have 
 " received the following replies. One informs me that, in New 
 " Zealand, there are a few spots where sheep can be kept two 
 " to an acre ; in other places one can be kept per acre ; but, 
 " generally, two acres are obliged to be allowed for one sheep." 
 
 " Another writes as follows : — 
 
 " In Australia some sheep runs are estimated to carry one 
 " sheep to an acre, and these I think of the best quality. 
 *' Others are estimated at different numbers of acres to a sheep, 
 " until as many as Jive acres are allowed for one sheep by the 
 •' Government, for the purposes of assessment. If these lands 
 *' were enclosed in small farms or paddocks, they would keep a 
 " much larger number. But when shepherded in flocks, much 
 " grass is destroyed and trampled under foot, that, if the animal 
 " were kept in a state of comparative rest, would be available for 
 " its support. Natal is able to support a much greater number, 
 " principally from its climate, as well as from the fact that the 
 " proportion of good land is incomparably greater with reference 
 " to the extent of poor land. The small number of sheep kept 
 " here at present would afford no example, upon which an 
 " opinion could be formed. But I think that I am within the 
 " mark when I say that three sheep will hereafter be found to 
 " be supported by an acre of land. 
 
 " Let us allow Jive sheep," says Dr. Colenso, " to an acre, 
 •' then the sheep alone of the Israelites would have required 
 " 400,000 acres of grazing land — an extent of country con- 
 " siderably larger than the whold- county of Hertfordshire or 
 " Bedfordshire — besides that which would have been required 
 " for the oxen. We must then abandon altogether the idea of 
 *' the people living together in one city, and must suppose a 
 " great body of them to have been scattered throughout the 
 " whole land of Goshen in a district of 400,000 acres, that is to 
 " say, twenty-five miles square, larger than Hertfordshire 
 " (391,141 acres)." (p. 59.) 
 
COMPARED WITH THOSE OF VOLTAIRE. 37 
 
 Bishop Colenso judiciously abstains from informing us as to 
 the nature of the pasturage in Natal, and also {from hearsay) in 
 Australia and New Zealand. He does not tell us whether it is 
 a scanty, tufted herbage, from which the sheep laboriously cull 
 a sparse subsistence, or whether it is a rich meadowland, 
 abundant in verdure, and luxuriant in the spontaneous produce 
 of a bountiful nature. Surely the Bishop does not suppose 
 that the Faunas of Natal, New Zealand, and Australia are 
 identical, far less that the grazing grounds over the whole world 
 are substantially the same in fertility and kindly productive- 
 ness. Is he unaware that New Zealand is considered, and 
 justly so, to possess a far more advantageous climate for sheep- 
 farming than Australia ? But for the present let us look a little 
 nearer home. On turning to the article " Dorsetshire," in Ful- 
 larton's " Gazetteer of the World " (Edinburgh, 1856, 8vo.), 
 I find the following, "From the east to the west, through the 
 central parts of the county, runs a ridge of chalk hills, declining 
 on the south side into downs and valleys, which abound with a 
 short, sweet herbage, nourishing, it is said, from 800,000 to 
 1,000,000 sheep, esteemed equally for their flesh and fleece " ! 
 
 The Bishop, be it observed, has chosen to take his estimate 
 from the comparative extent of Herts, Bedfordshire, and Mid- 
 dlesex, which are confessedly not sheep-farming counties. He 
 cannot complain, therefore, if I draw my rejoinder from a 
 *' ridge of chalk hills " in the county of Dorset. What I have 
 to complain of, in common with many others, is that his Lord- 
 ship makes the most onesided statements, drawing his conclu- 
 sions from the scantiest data, and then proceeds to raise objec- 
 tions as if they were insurmountable, and as if he had exhausted 
 every reliable source of information before he propounded them. 
 Dr. Colenso is great indeed at conjuring-up perplexities, but he 
 never hints at the possibility of any solution being forthcoming 
 outside his own semi-civilised Diocese of Natah This is indeed 
 one of the most dangerous features of his most-superficial 
 treatise. It is an "anthology of difficulties." He blurts out 
 his own crude theories as if they were oracularly unanswerable ; 
 nay more, as if a Solomon or a Daniel would be rash indeed 
 were they to insinuate that all reliable sources of information 
 had not been subjected to the exhaustive process of his own 
 inexorable arithmetical calculations. Surely his Lordship for- 
 
38 OBJECTIONS AS TO THE CATTLE OF THE ISRAELITES 
 
 gets that sheep were bred in England before Australia or New 
 Zealand were colonised, or even before Natal was raised to the 
 dignity of an episcopal diocese. But what will my readers say 
 when they learn that Voltaire has been beforehand with Dr. 
 Colenso in this very line of argument, and with a result neither 
 more lucidly shining nor successful ? 
 
 1 turn to the Abbe Gu^nee (Lettre I., Tom. ii.),* — "In 
 which the question is discussed, whether it was impossible that so 
 many women, and so much cattle, could be found in the country 
 of the Madianites as the author of the Book of Numbers 
 mentions" Voltaire is incredulity itself at the statement " that 
 the victors found in the camp of the vanquished six hundred 
 and seventy-five thousand sheep, seventy-two thousand bullocks, 
 sixty-one thousand asses, and thirty -two thousand girls. "f 
 
 *' You add a note," writes M. Guen^e, " to this text, in which 
 " you say, ' Madian was not comprised in the Land of Promise. 
 " ' It is a small skirt of Idumsea in Arabia Petrea, it begins 
 " ' towards the north, at the torrent of Arnon, and ends at the 
 " ' torrent of Zared in the midst of the rocks, and upon the 
 " ' eastern shore of the Lake of Asphaltis. This country is now 
 " ' inhabited by a small clan of Arabians. It may contain eight 
 " ' leagues in length and somewhat less in breadth.' This oppo- 
 " sition between so great a number of girls and cattle, and the 
 " small extent which you give this country, is probably brought 
 *' in with some view. You meant, it is likely, to ridicule this 
 " story, and, consequently, the book which contains it." 
 (Pp. 364-365.) M. Guenee, in his Notes, cites three different 
 works of Voltaire's, in which he harps upon the same objec- 
 tion. He then continues : " As you repeat this difficulty so 
 " often, and with so much confidence, it is probable you think 
 " it extremely embarrassing. Let us look into it, and see 
 
 * In the English edition, Letter vii., pt. 2, Vol. I., p. 364. 
 
 \ " Any one who has had an opportunity of visiting the great Arab tribes 
 " of the Syrian desert, can see that the Bishop's difficulties are here purely 
 
 " imaginary On one occasion I rode for two successive days, in a 
 
 " straight line through the flocks of a section of the Anazeh tribe, and the 
 " encampment of the chief was then at a noted fountain thirty miles distant, 
 "at right angles to my course; yet the country was swarming with men 
 " and women, boys and girls, looking after the cattle." J. L. Porter. Letter 
 to the " Athentcum," dated Jan. 1, 1863. 
 
COMPARED WITH THOSE OF VOLTAIRE. 39 
 
 " whether this account is so incredible and absurd as you think 
 « it." 
 
 On p. 368 (Translation) the Abbe proceeds: — "I shall grant 
 *' for a moment that your survey is just, and that the country of 
 ** Madian had the extent you say, would it be impossible that 
 *' thirty-two thousand girls should have been found in it ? If 
 ** this number seems incredible, it must be doubtless because it 
 " supposes too many inhabitants for so small a country. Let 
 " us, then, form a calculation. Thirty-two thousand girls, sup- 
 *' pose about the same number of boys. There would be, then, 
 *' sixty-four thousand young persons of both sexes, which must 
 " be reckoned from the birth to the age of matrimony (the 
 ** Hebrew text is clear with regard to this, and the Vulgate 
 " says expressly, ' Puellas auteni et omnes fceminas virgines 
 *' ' reservate vobis,' See Book of Numbers xxxi." {Author's 
 Note.) " These young persons, according to the common com- 
 " putation, must have amounted to at least half the nation. . . . 
 " which gives one hundred and twenty-eight thousand persons.* 
 •' Do you think. Sir, that a country eight leagues long, and of 
 *' nearly the same breadth, cannot support one hundred and 
 '* twenty-eight thousand inhabitants ? A country of this extent 
 ** must contain about two hundred and forty-eight thousand 
 *' acres of land, and an acre of good ground can maintain four 
 " persons ; even if we limit it to three, forty-three thousand 
 " acres would have been more than sufficient to maintain the 
 *' one hundred and twenty-eight thousand Madianites. Let us 
 *' add, if you please, fifteen thousand acres, as we may suppose 
 ** that the lands of Madian did not yield crops annually, and that 
 " it was necessary to leave the third part of them fallow every 
 ** year, we shall then have in all but fifty-eight thousand acres 
 *' employed in the support of the inhabitants. Is it inconceiv- 
 *' able that out of two hundred and forty-eight thousand acres 
 '* there should be found fifty-eight thousand of common fertility ? 
 *' Therefore, thirty-two thousand girls do not necessarily imply 
 *' that there were too many inhabitants of this extent. To 
 " these proofs, by calculation, let us add examples. Such a 
 " number of inhabitants, you say, in so small a country ! But 
 ** do you forget, or pretend to deny, the population of Egypt, 
 " which is still more astonishing in proportion, and yet attested 
 * Compare this with Dr. Colenso's exaggerated arithmetic, p. 144. 
 
40 OBJECTIONS AS TO THE CATTLE OF THE ISRAELITES 
 
 " by SO many writers ? The immense population of Judaea, 
 •* yea, even under the Asmonean kings, and under the Herods, 
 " which is acknowledged even by heathen writers ? That of 
 *' Greece, and particularly of Attica, a country of small extent, 
 " very mountainous, stony, and yet very populous ? And 
 *' lastly, that of Rome, under Servius, that is at a period when 
 " the Roman State, which did not then extend to more than 
 " eight leagues in length or breadth, supported more than two 
 *' hundred thousand souls ? . . . How many provinces are there 
 " even now in China, England, Flanders, &c., of the same 
 " dimensions, which support more than one hundred and twenty 
 " eight thousand inhabitants ? . . . . One hundred and twenty- 
 " eight thousand persons, and more, may therefore live in a 
 " country eight leagues in length and breadth, allowing the 
 " ground to be of common goodness." (pp. 368 — 312.) 
 
 With these computations of the Abbe Guenee contrast Dr. 
 Colenso's estimate of " the number of the Israelites compared 
 with the extent of Canaan.^'' (p. 83.) His Lordship computes 
 " the whole land which was divided amongst the tribes in the 
 time of Joshua " at 7,000,000 acres ! And yet, arguing from 
 Natal statistics, the Bishop cannot be persuaded that these 
 seven millions of acres could possibly subsist two millions of 
 inhabitants ! ! !* The Bishop is evidently a very poor agrono- 
 
 * The following letter appeared in " Public Opinion," of Dec. 27, 1862, I 
 give it a place as manifesting the Bishop's total unacquaintance with all 
 matters connected with farming statistics, ob?erving at the same time that 
 Dr. Colenso's whole argument, respecting the number of lambs that would be 
 required for the Passover, displays entire ignorance of the manner in which, 
 Jewish tradition assures us, it was celebrated. The Paschal feast was not 
 necessarily regarded as a meal, but as a symbolic commemoration, in which 
 each person might partake of only a small portion of the lamb, as Christians 
 partake of the bread in the celebration of the Holy Sacrament : — 
 
 " TO THE EDITOR OF * PUBLIC OPINION.' 
 " Sir, — It does not appear to me that any thoroughly satisfactory reply 
 " has ajipeared in your columns to Bishop Colenso's difficulty regarding the 
 " number of male lambs required for the Passover. Your correspondent 
 " ' E. T.' meets his objection in a way which I think is unsatisfactory, viz., — 
 " by asserting that 40,000 would have been sufficient, instead of the 150,000 
 " supposed by the Bishop. 
 
 " As a clergyman officiating in a pastoral parish in the south of Scotland, 
 " I am prepared to take the Bishop on his own ground, and to show that 
 
COMPARED WITH THOSE OF VOLTAIRE. 41 
 
 mical calculator, or else lie suppresses the fact, that the colonial 
 soil of which he speaks, is a very meagre and barren one, in 
 comparison with that of some of the less-favoured countries of 
 Europe. Of this topic I would, however, fain treat in my next 
 letter. But let us now hear what the learned Abbe has to say 
 about the cattle : — " We shall not look far back, or far distant, 
 " for instances to show that an equal, or perhaps a less space of 
 " ground may support such a quantity of cattle. England alone 
 " will supply us with many such examples. Let us produce a 
 " few out of an author of reputation. Sir John Nichols, a writer 
 " very well versed in rural economy, informs us, that Dorse t- 
 " shire supports, besides other cattle, about five hundred 
 *' thousand sheep in a space of four leagues diameter. He 
 *' speaks of another place, too, of smaller extent, and marshy 
 *' ground, where may be found from four to five hundred 
 " thousand sheep. And, lastly, he informs us, that in the 
 " neighbourhood of Dorchester, he reckoned six hundred 
 " thousand in the space of two leagues. Is not this number 
 " greater in proportion than six hundred and seventy -five 
 " thousand sheep, seventy-two thousand oxen, &c., supported 
 *' in a country eight leagues square ? We think that your own 
 " country might supply you with many such instances, and if 
 
 " even if a lamb had been required for each man capable of bearing arms — 
 " {. e., 600,000 — there would have been no difficulty whatever in providing 
 " them. The population of my parish is a little above 400 souls. The number 
 " of lambs lambed every spring is, I believe, about 15,000. Let us, however, 
 "suppose it 12,000, of which we may fairly suppose that 6,000 are males. 
 " Thus the number of male lambs born every year in a part of our own 
 " country, which is by no means famed for richness of pasture, as the land 
 " of Goshen was, bears to the population of the district at the rate of 15 to I. 
 " As the Israelites were a prstoral people, it is not at all improbable that the 
 " number of their male lambs bore a like proportion to their population. If 
 " so we should have had 30,000,000 male lambs born within a year of the 
 " Exodus, out of which the Bishop's 150,000 could be taken without great 
 " difficulty ! 
 
 " On the ignorance of pastoral matters displayed by Bishop Colenso, I 
 " make no comment. I have already trespassed sufficiently on your valuable 
 " space. The above figures speak for themselves. 
 
 " I am, Sir, &c., 
 " A Clergyman of the Church of Scotland." 
 
42 OBJECTIONS AS TO THE CATTLE OF THE ISRAELITES 
 
 " they are uncommon, we could readily tell you the reason of 
 *'it." (p. 374.) 
 
 This closing remark, I presume, is levelled by the Abb4 
 (speaking as a Jew) against Voltaire's sneers respecting the 
 bloodthirsty and warlike habits of the Hebrews ! (See Colenso 
 on the " Massacre"* of the Midianites, p. 144.) Let it not be 
 supposed, however, that the learned Abbe calculates the capa- 
 cities of the country only with regard to the support of the 
 inhabitants and their sheep. He is comprehensive in his views, 
 as he is inexorable in his arithmetic. He continues — " How- 
 " ever it be, such of your own countrymen as have written on 
 " agriculture, lay down principles which are equally favourable 
 *' to our way of thinking. They tell us that an acre of land 
 " can support three oxen. [See Colenso, p. 59.] Therefore 
 " twenty-four thousand acres would suffice for seventy-two 
 " thousand oxen, and ten thousand one hundred and seventy 
 " acres for seventy-one thousand asses, even supposing that 
 *' an ass eats half as much as an ox. According to the 
 " same writers, an acre of land can support twelve sheep, 
 *' therefore fifty-eight thousand two hundred and fifty acres 
 " would suffice for six hundred and seventy-five thousand 
 " sheep. Put these sums together, and you will find that 
 " ninety thousand four hundred and twenty acres would be 
 " sufficient for the whole stock of cattle. And if you add 
 *' to this the fifty-eight thousand acres, which were reserved for 
 ** the support of the inhabitants, you will perceive that the sum 
 ** of one hundred and forty-eight thousand four hundred and 
 *' twenty acres only, was employed for the maintenance of all 
 ** together. Now, we ask you. Sir, was it impossible, that out 
 ** of two hundred and forty-eight thousand acres, of which the 
 " country of Madian consisted, there should be one hundred 
 ** and forty-eight thousand four hundred and twenty that were 
 " fit for pasture or tillage ? And may we not fairly conclude 
 ** from this, that it is no way incredible that this country sup- 
 " ported so many men and cattle as Moses says, and that his 
 
 * " The Tragedy of Cawnpore, where 300 were butchered, would sink into 
 " nothing, compared with such a massacre, if indeed, we were required to 
 " believe it." — Colenso, p. 144. " Here is an order to butcher the boys, to 
 " massacre the mothers, and to debauch the girls." — Tom Paine' s "Age 
 of Reason:' London: Holyoake. 18G1. 8vo. P. 40. 
 
COMPARED WITH THOSE OF VOLTAIRE. 4"3 
 
 " account cannot appear absurd to any except those who are 
 *' unacquainted with the resources of ancient or modern agricul- 
 " ture ? " (pp. 374, 375.) 
 
 • These concluding remarks of M. Gu^nee's contain a reproof 
 which most felicitously describes the *' stand-point " of the 
 Bishop's information. Acu rem tetigit ! Dr. Colenso has lived 
 so long in Natal, and is so apparently preoccupied and absorbed 
 with the country of his expatriation or adoption, that he seems 
 to overlook the fact that there may possibly be other portions of the 
 world differing in climate, in fertility, and in natural productions. 
 His Lordship's conclusions, as to what is or is not possible in 
 other latitudes, drawn from what is or is not possible in Natal, 
 are about as logical, as it would be to assume, that the gorilla 
 is never found in the forests of West Central Africa, because a 
 suburban Du Chaillu has hitherto failed to encounter the hirsute 
 anthropoid satyr, in his lair, amid the sylvan fastnesses of St. 
 John's-wood. 
 
 Dr. Colenso's shortcomings seem, indeed, to be traceable to 
 the same source as those of Reuben of old. His Lordship's " too 
 long abiding among^^ the colonial " sheepfolds,^' has apparently 
 impaired any " Sunny Memories " which he may once have 
 taken with him from other lands. I think. Sir, you will agree 
 with me that the Pentateuch is likely to survive the Bishop^s 
 misgivings and objections, and that his predicted Reformation 
 has been fixed for too early a period, when he points to the 
 close of the five ensuing years, as the period of its completed 
 triumphs over the old systems of exploded faith and credulity. 
 (See Preface, p. xxxvi.) Meanwhile, from the numerous 
 coincidences which I have pointed out in this single Letter, 
 between the objections urged by Voltaire against the Law of 
 Moses, and those propounded by Dr. Colenso, I think your 
 readers will scarcely wonder at my expression of surprise con- 
 tained in a former Letter, that "the Bishop does not strengthen 
 his own position, by adducing the concurrent testimony of his 
 illustrious French predecessor in the paths of Biblical philo- 
 logy. 
 
 I am, &c., 
 
 JOSEPH B. M'CAUL. 
 
 St. Edmund'the-King , Lombard-street ^ 
 Nov. 28, 1862. 
 
44 DR. COLENSO ON SHEEP-FARMING 
 
 LETTER YIII. 
 
 DR. COLENSO ON SHEEP-FARMING AND THE BEASTS OF 
 THE FIELD. 
 
 Sir, — In my last Letter I endeavoured to illustrate tlie Bishop 
 of Natal's objections respecting the number of the cattle pos- 
 sessed by the Israelites in Egypt, as compared with the extent 
 of the land of Goshen (p. 59) ; and again respecting " the number 
 of Israelites compared with the extent of the land of Canaan " 
 (p. 82), by parallel objections of M. Arouet de Voltaire. I 
 showed how exactly the conclusions of these two eminent 
 Biblical commentators and philologists coincided. I also gave 
 at length the Abbe Guenee^s masterly refutations of Voltaire's 
 sophisms, which refutations apply with equal force to the argu- 
 ments of Dr. Colenso. 
 
 I will now for convenience' sake restate the Bishop's objec- 
 tions with reference to the cattle, as contained on p. 59, and 
 then proceed to examine them, by the light of the statements of 
 competent witnesses who have resided both at Natal, and in New 
 Zealand, and also in Australia. Dr. Colenso writes, " What 
 " extent, then, would all these (two millions of sheep and oxen) 
 *' have required for pasturage ? Having made inquiries on the 
 " subject from experienced sheepmasters, I have received the fol- 
 " lowing replies : — One informs me, that in New Zealand there 
 " are few spots where sheep can be kept two to the acre ; in other 
 " places, one can be kept per acre, but generally two acres are 
 *' obliged to be allowed to one sheep. Another writes as 
 " follows : — 
 
 " In Australia some sheep-runs are estimated to carry owe 
 " sheep to an acre, and these, I think, are of the best quality. 
 " Others are estimated at different numbers of acres to a sheep, 
 " until as many as five acres are allowed for one sheep by the 
 " Government for the purpose of assessment. If these lands 
 " were enclosed in small farms or paddocks, they would keep a 
 *' much larger number. But when shepherded in flocks, much 
 " grass is destroyed and trampled under foot, that, if the animal 
 *' were kept in a state of comparative rest, would be available for 
 
AND THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD. 45 
 
 " its support. Natal is able to support a much greater number, 
 " principally from its climate,* as well as from the fact that 
 " the proportion of good land is incomparably greater, with 
 " reference to the extent of poor land. The small number 
 " OF sheep kept here at present would afford no 
 " example, uroN which an opinion could be formed. (!) 
 " But I think that I am within the mark, when I say that three 
 " sheep will hereafter be found to be supported by an acre of 
 " land." (p. 59.) 
 
 Dr. Colenso's " sheepmaster, experienced in Australia and 
 Natal," speaks with exceeding caution and reserve. He warns 
 the Bishop that he can only supply him with very inadequate 
 data from which to reason ; and yet, in spite of this salutary 
 admonition, his Lordship at once proceeds to assume his 
 premises, and to draw conclusions disparaging to God's inspired 
 Word therefrom ! — 
 
 "Let us allow five sheep to an acre; then the sheep alone 
 *' of the Israelites would have required 400,000 acres of 
 " grazing land ; an extent of country considerably larger than 
 " the whole county of Hertfordshire or Bedfordshire, and more 
 *' than twice the size of Middlesex, besides that which would 
 *' have been required for the oxen. "We must then [tnost 
 " disagreeable necessity !'\ 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 throughout 
 *' the whole land of Goshen," &c., &c. (p. 59.) 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that Dr. Colenso assumes that the 
 pasture-grounds of the long, and highly cultivated Goshen, were 
 identical in features with the wild and unfrequented ^^ sheep- 
 runs " of Natal, Australia, and New Zealand ! He does so 
 positively, in respect to the equally cultivated, and densely 
 populated land of Canaan, with, its hundred cities, its smiling 
 well-w^atered plains, its oliveyards, and its vineyards — all of 
 which, the Israelites were promised they should find stand- 
 ing, and take possession of, at their conquest of the country. 
 " But, perhaps, a still better comparison may be instituted 
 " with a country which resembles, in many respects, in its 
 " natural features and other circumstances, the state of Canaan 
 * This is contrary to fact — glaringJy so with respect to New Zealand, as I 
 shall presently show. See p. 47 of these Letters. 
 
46 DR. COLENSO ON SHEEP-FARMING 
 
 " in those early days (!). The colony of Natal has an extent of 
 " 18,000 square miles, and a population, white and black 
 " included, probably not exceeding 150,000 altogether," &c. 
 {Colenso, p. 83.) 
 
 This offhand comparison, and its quiet tone of self-assurance, 
 are in themselves something astounding, as coming from one 
 who professes to have received a liberal education. "We are to 
 believe that Palestine, lying on the waters of the Mediterranean, 
 colonized by the Phoenicians — a few hours from Damascus — 
 above all, directly adjoining upon Egypt, then in her zenith, 
 was in a position precisely analogous to remote, man-eating 
 Australia and New Zealand, or to the sparsely inhabited, and 
 not a whit less unciviHzed KafFraria ? Really, Dr. Colenso, you 
 presume a little too far upon the credulity, not to say the 
 patience of your readers ! Have you forgotten the pertinent 
 advice of the Latin moralist, — " Qui semel verecundice fines 
 transierit, eum bene et naviter oportet esse imprudeiitem ? "* 
 
 Let us now hear a competent witness as to the sheep-runs and 
 grass-lands of New Zealand. In a very ably written work, 
 entitled " New Zealand, the Britain of the South," by Charles 
 Hartshorne, who describes himself as " a New Zealand colonist, 
 and a visitor to the United States, the Canadas, the Cape 
 Colony, and Australia" (second edition, London, 1861, 8vo.), 
 I find the following : — " The wild grass lands of New Zealand, 
 " it must be borne in mind, are of limited extent ; perhaps in 
 " both islands, there is not now left unoccupied, grass country 
 *' sufficient to form a hundred good sheep-runs. The average 
 " area of acres at present occupied, coupled with that of the 
 *' whole of those, which by degrees may be discovered, may be 
 " roughly estimated at from ten to twelve millions of acres, 
 " capable, in their common wild-grass state, and under 
 
 * I fancy I can already hear a chorus of critics pronouncing this last 
 ■word, " imprudentem," to be an interpolation upon the Textus reccptus of 
 Tully, Epist. Fam. V. 12. I am quite free to confess that I have just 
 dropped a " liquid " into it, with a view to make it rather more euphonious 
 than the received reading of " impudentem.'^ And why should I be ashamed 
 to admit the soft impeachment, vhen his Eminence Cardinal Angelo Mai does 
 not blush to proclaim that he also has adapted certain passages of his edition 
 of the Vatican Text, thereby rendering the edition completely useless as an 
 exponent of the actual condition of the Codex? I think the Cardinal's 
 offence is greater than mine. 
 
AND THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD. 47 
 
 " THE RUDE RUN-HOLDING SYSTEM, of Supporting Only one 
 " sheep to three acres ; or, in other words, of giving the colony 
 " a flock of only some three or four millions of merinoes. 
 " Experience shows that a large portion of these lands, laid 
 " DOWN IN PASTURE at a moderate outlay, will support three 
 " or four sheep an acre.* And, I believe, no practical man 
 ** would deny that, if the best wild-grazing lands in New 
 *' Zealand were laid down in grass, and run-holding were partly, 
 " and by degrees, to be abandoned for field-grazing, the result 
 •* would be that, in a few years, the colony might boast a flock 
 " of from ten to fifteen millions of sheep ! " (pp. 329, 330.) 
 
 It is pretty evident that Dr. Colenso's informant, so con- 
 fidently cited on p. 59, and described as " an experienced 
 sheep-master," was nothing more than a holder of one of the 
 above-described " sheep-runs." But, on pp. 213, 214 of 
 Hartshorne's interesting volume, I find the following additional 
 and most important testimony: — "Near Auckland, 100 acres 
 " of Taranaki meadows have carried nearly 100 head of cattle 
 " through the year, many of them fat for the butcher. At 
 " New Plymouth, incredible as it may seem, thirty-Jive acres 
 " of "f fern land laid doivn in grass, have been known to carry nearly 
 " 300 sheep throughout the year (!). Whilst bush-land, after 
 " bearing four heavy wheat-crops in succession, has been sown 
 " with grass in March, and afforded a good bite for cattle in 
 " May. Indeed, sufficient has been seen of the luxuriance 
 " of artificial pastures, to show that our ordinary lands laid 
 " down in grass, are quite equal to the grazing of four sheep 
 " per acre throughout the year ; and Mr. Weld, one of our 
 " largest graziers, is quite correct in saying, in his late admirable 
 " pamphlet on New Zealand * Sheep-farming,' * that there is a 
 ** * good deal of land in New Zealand which, when grassed and 
 *' * fenced, will keep eight sheep. an acre all the year round, and 
 *' * be proportionately good for cattle.' " 
 
 And now let me say one word as to the fallacy of comparing 
 
 * This is a very low estimate. It is said that many of the farm pastures, 
 •with a few turnips to help out, are capable of fattening six or seven sheep an 
 acre the year through. — Author's note, ihid. 
 
 t It is the prevalence of the fern that makes the sheep-runs so unproductive 
 in suitable fodder for the sheep. Hence the enormous extent of acreage re- 
 quired. 
 
48 DR. COLENSO ON SHEEP-FARMING 
 
 the fertility of Natal with that of Australia and New Zealand 
 — much rather, of carefully irrigated and highly favoured 
 Egypt, or happy Palestine. Dr. Colenso does not allude to 
 the fact, that all the year round, one half of the sheep-runs of 
 Natal are lying absolutely fallow. It is found necessary to 
 burn the land before the rains, in order to clear it, and to 
 secure a new supply of fi-esh-green herbage. A graphic descrip- 
 tion of this custom of burning the Natal sheep-runs is given in 
 Shooter's " Kaffirs of Natal," pp. 32, 33 {London, 1857, 8vo.), 
 and also in " South Africa Delineated," p. 176, by the Rev. 
 Thornley Smith [London, 1850, 8vo.), who also notices that 
 " KafFraria is by no means over-peopled," p. 64. 
 
 Such is Dr. Colenso's credibility as a witness, even in 
 matters which must have been, a hundred times over, forced 
 upon his notice, during the course of a single year ! The same 
 boldness of assertion* and looseness of authenticity pervades 
 his entire volume. Indeed, the whole of his statements must 
 be received with the most excessive reserve, judging by the 
 specimens which I have already considered, and, I would fain 
 hope, satisfactorily disposed of. But on pp. 19, 20 of " The 
 Kaffirs of Natal, and the Zulu Country," by the Rev. Joseph 
 Shooter, I find an equally singular commentary on another 
 portion of chapter xiii. of the Bishop's book. His Lordship 
 objects to the historic value of statements contained in Exodus 
 xxiii. 27 — 30: — " I will send my fear before thee, and will de- 
 " stroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make 
 ** all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee. And I will send 
 " hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the 
 " Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. I will not 
 " drive them out from before thee in one year ; lest the land 
 " become desolate, and the beasts of the field multiply against 
 *' thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before 
 *' thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land." " The 
 
 * A very comical instance of reasoning occurs on p. 66. The Bishop 
 adduces the command, " Neither let the flocks nor herds feed before the 
 mount," Exod. xxxiv. 3, and then writes, " It cannot be pretended that the 
 [barren] state of the country has undergone any material change," &c., 
 from that time to this. His Lordship overlooks the fact, that unless there had 
 been something for the cattle to eat, there would be no occasion for the pro- 
 hibition to eat it ! 
 
AND THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD. 49 
 
 ** whole land," says the Bishop, " which was divided among the 
 " tribes in the time of Joshua, including the countries beyond 
 ** the Jordan, was in extent about 11,000 square miles, or 
 " 7,000,000 acres ; and, according to the story, this was occu- 
 " pied by more than two millions of people." (p. 82.) He 
 then proceeds to show that the population of Norfolk, Suffolk, 
 and Essex was, according to the census of 1851, one million one 
 hundred and forty-nine thousand two hundred and forty-seven 
 (1,149,247). " Surely it cannot be said that these three eastern 
 
 " counties, with their flourishing towns and their in- 
 
 " numerable villages, are in any danger of lying ' desolate ' 
 " with the beasts of the field multiplying against the human 
 *' inhabitants." 
 
 Certainly not, Dr. Colenso ; for, since the days of Edgar, the 
 wolves, and wild boars, and other wild animals have undergone a 
 gradual process of extinction. That it was a very gradual one, 
 we learn from Lord Macaulay's very graphic description of 
 the condition of England in the days of the Stuarts, even at 
 no very remote distance from the metropolis. But does the 
 Bishop of Natal forget that in certain districts of France, * not to 
 speak of Poland and Hungary, the wolves do occasionally mul- 
 tiply against the inhabitants, and put them to very serious 
 inconvenience and alarm ? So, also, in various densely-popu- 
 lated districts of India, the multiplication and inroads of tigers 
 are not a very unfrequent matter of complaint. If my memory 
 serves me, this very thing was lately made the basis of an argu- 
 ment against disarming the villagers, inasmuch as they would be 
 rendered defenceless against the beasts of the field. But let 
 us proceed to consider the Bishop's objection in reference 
 to Natal, that never-failing field for illustration with his Lord- 
 ship. " The colony of Natal has an extent of 18,000 square 
 " miles, and a population, white and black included, probably 
 '* not exceeding 150,000 altogether. This population is, of 
 ** course, very scanty, and the land will allow of a much larger 
 
 * After the wars of the French Revolution, the wolves increased so alarm- 
 ingly in France, that the subject occupied the serious attention of the Legis- 
 lature. No less a sum than 100,000 francs was appointed by tlie French 
 Government, Nov. 1, of the year 1798, to be awarded as head money for the 
 destruction of wolves. See " Les Loups dans la Beauce, par A. Lecocq." 
 {Chartres, 1860. 8vo., p. 29.) 
 
50 DR. COLENSO ON SHEEP-FARMING 
 
 " one. Yet the human inhabitants are perfectly well able to 
 ** maintain their ground against the beasts of the field ; and, in 
 ** fact, the lions, elephants, and rhinoceroses, and hippopotami, 
 *' which once abounded, have long disappeared. Leopards, wild 
 *' boars, hyaenas, and jackals are killed occasionally in the bush ; 
 ** but many a white man may have lived for years in the colony, 
 " as I have done, and travelled about in all parts of it, without 
 " seeing or hearing one." (p. 83.) This is probably a correct 
 statement, as far as it goes, but it does not invalidate the testi- 
 mony of earlier colonists and travellers, such as Pringle and 
 others, as to a very different position of affairs existing in their 
 days. The use of fire-arms,* which, I beg to observe, were not in 
 
 * " The population of that country (Palestine) at the present moment is 
 ♦' about two millions, or about equal to the number of the Israelites at the 
 " Exodus ; and I can testify that more tha?i tJu-ee-fourths of the richest and the 
 " best of the country lies completely desolate. The vast plains of Moab and 
 *' Esdraelon and the whole valley of the Jordan are without an inhabitant. In 
 " the plains of Philistia, Sharon, Bashan, Coelosyria, and Hamath, not one-tenth 
 " of the soil is under cultivation. In one section of Bashan I saw upwards 
 " of seventy deserted towns and villages. Bishop Colenso says that though 
 •' the population of Natal is so small, most of the wild beasts have long ago 
 " disappeared, and the inhabitants are perfectly well able to maintain their 
 " ground against the rest. He forgets, however, to thank gunpowder and the 
 '* rifle for this. Had the people of Natal contended against the wild beasts 
 " as the ancient Jews did, with spears and arrows and slings ; had the chiefs 
 " of the colony been forced to fight African lions, as David fought the lion 
 " that attacked his sheep, when he caught him by the beard, and smote him 
 " and slew him (1 Sam. xvii. 34), the Bishop would have had a different tale 
 " to tell this day. Many of the wild beasts have disappeared from Syria, but 
 " many still infest the country. In the plain of Damascus wild swine com- 
 " mit great ravages on the grain. This is the case along the banks of the 
 " Jordan and in other places. On the sides of the Anti-Lebanon I have 
 " known the bears to destroy whole vineyards in a single night. When 
 " travelling through some districts of the country, my tent was surrounded 
 " every night by troops of jackals and hyenas, and more than once they have 
 " left me without a breakfast. With my own eyes I have seen jackals dragging 
 " corpses from the graves beneath the very walls of Jerusalem. Were it not 
 " that the peasants are pretty generally armed with rifles, the grain crops and 
 " vineyards in many parts of Syria would be completely destroyed by wild beasts. 
 
 " The public will now see how very little Bishop Colenso knows of Bible 
 " lands, and how wise and good was the Divine promise, ' I will not drive 
 " ' them out from before thee in one year, lest the land becorne desolate, and 
 " ' the beast of the field multqjlij against thee.'" — {Letter of J. L. Porter to the 
 " Athencenm" dated Jan. 1, 1863.) 
 
AND THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD. 51 
 
 vogue in the days of the Israelitish immigration into Canaan, has 
 gradually cleared the more civilized portions of the Cape, of the 
 fercB which, almost within the memory of man, had matters pretty 
 much their own way. But what has Mr. Shooter to say upon 
 the subject, after four years of personal observation ? — " The 
 crops are subject to great depredations. Quadrupeds, birds, 
 and insects conspire to destroy them. To protect the gardens 
 from four-footed depredators, two methods are employed, 
 viz., fences and watching. The former, designed especially 
 for protection against the wild pig,* sometimes surround the 
 
 * gardens, and they also appear in the form of a barrier be- 
 ' tween the cultivated lands and pig-infested regions.f When 
 
 * two or three kraals are situated near an extensive bush, the 
 
 * owners may agree to carry a fence along that side of the coun- 
 ' try whence the pigs approach, and so exclude them from the 
 
 ' neighbourhood generally When watching is resorted to, 
 
 ' a platform of poles and strong sticks is erected in the garden, 
 
 * with a small hut on the top. This structure, which corre- 
 ' sponds to the * lodge ' mentioned by Isaiah, is for the accom- 
 ' modation of the watchers. In an extensive garden, two or 
 ' three are necessary, and the women have sometimes to assist 
 ' the men in defending their crops against nocturnal depre- 
 
 * dators. Though we have mentioned the pig as the especial 
 
 * enemy of the crops, he is by no means the only beast that 
 ' assails them. The ' fretful porcupine ' is a most undesirable 
 ' visitor. Antelopes eat the young plants ; and baboons, where 
 
 * they prevail, steal the ripe maize. In bushy districts, the 
 ' buflfalo does mischief; and, when a garden is situate near 
 ' a river occupied by the hippopotami, it is liable to their 
 ' visitations. Of all four-footed depredators, the elephant is 
 ' the most destructive," &c., &c. (pp. 19, 20.) Mr. Shooter 
 
 gives several anecdotes, in which he mentions cases of entire 
 plantations being utterly devastated by these gigantic spoilers ; 
 and not only gardens, but kraals themselves, being entered, in 
 order to purloin any produce to which they had taken a fancy. 
 
 » See Psalm Ixxx. 13, 14. 
 
 t Drummond Hay gives a very amusing description of the predatory 
 incursions of the -wild boars, in the gardens and plantations of Barbary. 
 These porcine invaders have a special penchant for cucumbers, melons, and 
 other similar dainty produce ! 
 
 E 2 
 
52 DR. COLENSO ON SHEEP-FARMING, ETC. 
 
 It appears that the CafFres feel themselves utterly powerless to 
 avert calamities of this nature, inasmuch as the elephants are 
 exceedingly ferocious, and w^reak summary vengeance upon the 
 unfortunate husbandmen should they attempt to molest or drive 
 them away. The kindling of fires apparently attracts these crea- 
 tures, instead of terrifying them, as it does the feline denizens 
 of the forest and the jungle.* 
 
 So much, then, for the testimony of the Rev. Joseph Shooter, 
 "four years resident in Natal," versus his quondam Diocesan, nine 
 years resident in the same colony. Surely Dr. Colenso might have 
 spared himself his unbelieving sneer against Moses, inasmuch as, 
 just outside, if it be so, his Lordship's own diocese, abundant de- 
 monstration is forthcoming as to the historical reasonableness, as 
 v\rell as the accuracy and credibility, of the words of the inspired 
 penman, in the controverted passage of the Book of Exodus ! 
 
 Let it not be imagined that I attach any weight to his 
 Lordship's cavil. Objection, or argument, it does not deserve to 
 be called. Weak indeed is the position of an assailant, when he 
 is reduced to such pitiful shifts to find weapons of offensive 
 warfare against the inspired Word of God ! It is a trite legal 
 aphorism — De minimis non curat lex. The Bishop of Natal has 
 indeed, in his present work under consideration, established a 
 sort of equivocal claim to be accounted a " special pleader." 
 Well had it been for his reputation as a scholar, and a prelate of 
 our beloved Church, if he had exercised his undoubted in- 
 genuity in a less questionable cause — for the Truth, instead of 
 against it ! As the matter at present stands, seeing that " litera 
 scripta manet," albeit repentance may be vouchsafed to him — 
 albeit he may be convinced of the error of his ways, and the 
 sad mistake which he has, in a moment of inconsiderate im- 
 pulse, and by the advice of treacherous advisers, committed ; 
 yet he must carry with him, to his dying moments, the un- 
 enviable consciousness, that he has done more to shake the faith 
 of his weaker brethren, than any bishop of the Church of Eng- 
 land has ever done, or (let us fervently pray) will ever do again ; 
 and that the intrinsic weakness of his volume will go far to 
 lower the high estimate, which the Church of England has justly 
 
 * See also, the very entertaining volume, just published by R. Bentley of 
 New Burlington-street, entitled "African Hunting, from Natal to the Zambesi, 
 from 1852 to 1860." By W. C. Baldwin, Esq., F.R.G.S. 
 
DR. BENISCIl's OPINION OF BISHOP COLENSO's BOOK. 53 
 
 enjoyed, for learning and theological acquirements, in the eyes 
 of Jew and Gentile, all over the civilized world. 
 
 I am, &c., 
 
 JOSEPH B. M'CAUL. 
 
 St, Edmund the King, Lombard-street, 
 November 29, 1862. 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 DR. BENISCH's OPINION OF BISHOP COLENSO's BOOK. 
 
 Sir, — The accompanying correspondence has passed between 
 Dr. Benisch, the learned Hebrew Editor of " The Jewish 
 Family Bible," and myself. I trust that it will convince " An 
 Earnest Searcher after Truth" that, in alluding to Dr. Benisch in 
 support of ''direct personal action" (Lev. iv. 11, 12), he has 
 made an unfortunate mistake, and reckoned without his Ijost. 
 I am, &c., 
 
 JOSEPH B. M'CAUL. 
 St. Edmund's, Lombard-street, 
 Dec, 3, 1862. 
 
 (copy.) 
 
 "Dec, 2, 1862. 
 *' Dear Sir, — As your 'Jewish Family Bible* is quoted in sup- 
 port of Dr. Colenso's views that the * high priest was to carry 
 out the bullock on his back' (Lev. iv. 11, 12), and some people 
 are so self-opinionated that nothing but a formal denial from 
 your own pen will satisfy them, I venture to ask you to write 
 me two lines to that effect, in order that I may append them to 
 my forthcoming pamphlet. 
 
 " I feel that I owe you many apologies, for troubling so dis- 
 tinguished a scholar, about so egregious a piece of nonsense. I 
 think, however, I may plead the freemasonry of literature as 
 
54 DR. benisch's opinion of bishop colenso's book, 
 
 my introduction to one who has hitherto been known to me 
 only through his writings. 
 
 " Believe me to be, 
 
 " Dear Sir, 
 
 " With respect and esteem, 
 " Yours faithfully, 
 
 " JOSEPH B. M'CAUL. 
 " The Rev. Dr. Benisch. 
 
 " P.S. — An early reply will oblige me, as I have gone 
 to press." 
 
 (copy.) 
 
 '^^ Jewish Chronicle Office,'' 7, Bevis Maries, E.C., 
 ''London, Dec. 2, 1862. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I am quite surprised to learn that any one 
 who has consulted my translation of the Bible, should refer to 
 it, in support of the grave mistake committed by Bishop Colenso 
 in his comment on Leviticus iv. 11, 12. My rendering of this 
 verse is as follows : — ' Even the whole bull shall he bring forth 
 without the camp unto a clean place,' &c., &c. From this you 
 will see that I have translated the Hebrew by ^"*¥*'"', ' He shall 
 bring forth,' which, of course, does not imply that the priest 
 had to carry the bullock in person. It might have been carried 
 in some conveyance. 
 
 " I shall have occasion myself to discuss this subject, as I am 
 now publishing a series of articles on the Bishop's attack in the 
 * Jewish Chronicle.' 
 
 " You had no occasion to apologize to me for any trouble, as 
 it affords me sincere pleasure to be able to contribute my mite 
 towards disabusing the public mind, in reference to the errors 
 into which the Bishop has led it. 
 
 " Believe me, dear Sir, 
 
 " Yours faithfully, 
 
 "A. BENISCH. 
 
 " The Rev. Joseph B. M'Caul." 
 
HOW BISHOP COLENSO HAS BEEN " ENABLED, ETC. 55 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 HOW BISHOP COLENSO HAS BEEN "ENABLED MORE DECISIVELY 
 TO ESTABLISH " SOME OF HIS POSITIONS. 
 
 Sir, — I have before me the second edition of Dr. Colenso's 
 " Critical Examination " of the Pentateuch and the Book of 
 Joshua. In the preface to this second edition I read the fol- 
 lowing : — " I have carefully studied all that has been said upon 
 " my book by writers of every kind, my sole object being to 
 " arrive at truth. These examinations, however, have not led 
 *' me to doubt the accuracy of any of my conclusions. On the 
 " contrary, they have enabled me to establish, in this edition, 
 " still more decisively some of my positions." Allow me, Sir, to 
 adduce a specimen of the manner in which his Lordship has, to 
 his own satisfaction, " still more decisively/ established " some of 
 his positions. In chapter ix., " The Israelites Armed,'" the 
 Bishop insists, that the Mosaic narrative asserts, that the 
 600,000 adults of the congregation of Israel were armed and 
 equipped for war. Upon this manifest absurdity of his own 
 creation, the Bishop builds an argument against the historic 
 veracity of the Pentateuch. On page 50, in order to strengthen 
 his former arguments. Dr. Colenso says, " We find Moses com- 
 " manding the Levites under Sinai (Exod. xxxii. 27) ' Put 
 *' ' every man his sword by his side.' " 
 
 Here again, I regret to notice a complete unacquaintance 
 with the Hebrew text. Dr. Colenso evidently considers that 
 the word "every " of our English Version, is emphatic. Un- 
 luckily it does not exist at all in the Hebrew. " Every man " 
 is simply t27''M {ish), " a man "=each, LXX, eKa<TTO<i. But let 
 us for a moment concede that " ish " does here mean every 
 individual of the 22,000 Levites, and then read the passage in 
 the context. It reads as follows : " Then Moses stood in the 
 " gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord's side? let him 
 " come unto me. And all the sons C?.^"^?) of Levi gathered 
 " themselves together unto him. And he said, Thus saith the 
 " Lord God of Israel, Put every man {p^^ ish) his sword by his 
 " side, and go in and out from gate to gate, throughout the 
 
56 HOW DR. COLENSO HAS BEEN " ENABLED MORE - 
 
 ** camp, and slay every man (^''^ ish) his brother, and every 
 " man (^""^ ish) his companion, and every man (li^^'H ish) his neigh- 
 " hour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of 
 " Moses : and there fell of the people that day about three 
 •* thousand men ! " If we allow only one brother, and one com- 
 panion, and one neighbour to each of the 22,000 Levites, there 
 ought to have fallen, according to Dr. Colenso's arithmetic, 
 66,000 men ! ! ! It is told of a certain enthusiastic Cardinal, 
 that he was so carried away by his admiration for the revised 
 Clementine edition of the Vulgate, that, in reference to its 
 authoritative value, he assigned to the Hebrew and Septuagint a 
 position analogous to that of the two thieves of Calvary. But 
 surely Dr. Colenso's tacit neglect of the original text and of the 
 LXX, cannot be attributable to a similiar superstitious reve- 
 rence for, or belief in, the infallible authority of the English 
 version. Meanwhile, Sir, I would repeat my convictions that 
 experiments at Biblical criticism such as the Bishop of Natal 
 seems to consider himself privileged to indulge in, unless speedily 
 and publicly disowned by the clergy of the Church of England, 
 will make her a laughingstock throughout the world. I grieve 
 to see the supine indifference, with which not a few of my 
 clerical brethren are contented to sit still under a public stigma 
 of so damaging a nature. They may rely upon it that, unless 
 Bishop Colenso's book is speedily repudiated by the collective 
 voice of the clergy, our foreign brethren will attribute our 
 silence to our inability (from want of scholarship) to discern the 
 errors and absurdities with which it abounds. 
 
 I am, &c., 
 
 JOSEPH B. M'CAUL. 
 St. Edmund the King, Lombard-street, 
 Dec. 30, 1862. 
 
 Postscript. — The uses of the word 12^"'^ are so various, 
 and it is employed in so many different significations, that in 
 every case it must be read with the context, in order to 
 arrive at its meaning. I would adduce the following ex- 
 amples in illustration of my assertion. It is said in Exod. 
 xii. 3., nJi? ii7>« Dnb ^np^l « They shall take to them every 
 man a lamb." Dr. Colenso himself has decided that on this 
 
DECISIVELY TO ESTABLISH SOME OF HIS POSITIONS. 0< 
 
 occasion only 200,000 lambs would be required, whereas the 
 actual number of adult males amounted to 603,550 men. 
 If 127'^N therefore is to be understood literally, no fewer than 
 603,550 lambs would be the number required, if literally 
 speaking, " every man " was to take a lamb. So also it is said 
 in Deut. xxiv. 16 '^na^' istpn:? aJ-^S « every man shall be put 
 to death for his own sin." Are we to take " every man " in 
 this passage absolutely/, as indicating that every individual 
 Israelite had committed an offence worthy of death ? I think 
 Dr. Colenso himself would scarcely feel inclined to press his 
 own method of interpretation to so manifest a reductio ad 
 ahsurdum. {See 2 Kings xiv. 6.) Again it is said in Genesis 
 ix. 5, " At the hand of every man's brother ("^Tf?^ ^^^) will I 
 require the life of man." The Bishop's commentary upon this 
 latter expression would be highly interesting. Further, I 
 would ask the Bishop, whether the prohibition contained in 
 Exod. xii. 16, " No manner of work shall be done in them, 
 save that which every man must eat," implies an absolute com- 
 mand to the effect that a certain amount of cookery was to be 
 performed for every single individual of the congregation, on 
 the first and the seventh day of the Passover ? The Hebrew 
 words in this passage are much stronger than the expres- 
 sion K?"^. They are ^??." ''??, literally " for every soul." 
 liOok again at Laban's words to Jacob in Genesis xxxi. 49 : 
 " The Lord watch between me and thee, when we are absent 
 one from another." The Hebrew for these latter words 
 is ^n5"in tt7"^N "iriC)3 "^3. Literally " when we are separated, a 
 man from his neighbour " (LXX erepo<; airo rov krepov). Further 
 Gen. xli. 11, \2. The chief butler tells Pharaoh how Joseph 
 interpreted to himself and the chief baker their dreams. " We 
 " dreamed each man (i^**^ e/cacrro?) according to the interpreta- 
 
 ** tion of his dream .and he interpreted to us our 
 
 " dreams ; to each man ip^^) according to his dream, did he 
 *' interpret." We find in our English translation of Exod. 
 xii. 44, " But every man's servant that is bought for money, 
 when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof." 
 Now, looking at the passage from Dr. Colenso's point of view, 
 we might argue that every Hebrew had a Gentile ser- 
 vant, and that here is a precise command, that this servant 
 aforesaid should be circumcised. But what saith the Scrip- 
 ture ? C?"'N T^^ 701 ''And every servant of [any] man." 
 
58 HOW DR. COLENSO HAS BEEN " ENABLED MORE 
 
 The LXX omits the word ** man " altogether, and simply reads 
 Kal irdvra olk6T7]v rj dpyvp(ov7]TOV 'Trepirefiel^ avrov. * In Exodus 
 XXX. 33, we read, " Whosoever that (p^^. ti?^« " The man 
 that ") compoundeth any [holy oil] like it," etc. (LXX 09 dv 
 irotrjcrri.) The same expression occurs in verse 38 of the same 
 chapter, both in the Hebrew and the Greek. Once more, does 
 the expression in Leviticus xix. 3, " Ye shall fear every 
 man (27''H) his mother and his father," {eKuaro^; .... ^o^elcrdu)) 
 imply, that both the parents of every one of the Children of 
 Israel were alive at the moment that Moses spake ; and further, 
 are the daughters of Israel wholly exempted from obedience 
 to parents ? 
 
 In Numbers v. 10, it is said, " And every man's hallowed 
 things shall be his." (Vtt^ip/ns rC*>S1, LXX Udarov rd 
 7]'^ia(T\xkva.^ Does this imply that every single man of the 
 congregation constantly had hallowed things ? 
 
 A very striking instance of the use of ti?'''^ occurs in Num- 
 bers vii. 3, etc. We are told that the princes of Israel 
 presented six waggons to the Levites. " And the Lord spake 
 " unto Moses saying, take it of them, .... and thou shalt 
 " give them unto the Levites, to every man, according to his 
 " service. 0''^7"^? ''?? ^"''^j LXX e/cao-ro) Kaid rrjv avrov 
 " XeLTOvp^iav.) And Moses took the waggons and the oxen, 
 " and gave them unto the Levites. Two waggons and four 
 " oxen he gave unto the sons of Gershon, according to their 
 " service ; and four waggons and eight oxen he gave unto the 
 " sons of Merari, .... under the hand of Ithamar the son of 
 " Aaron the priest ; but unto the sons of Kohath he gave 
 " none " And yet we are expressly told that they were given 
 *' to every 7nan according to his service.'" 
 
 How will Dr. Colenso and his supporters propose to explain 
 this arithmetical puzzle ? So also the command contained in 
 Numbers xxxv. 8, " Every one {^^^) shall give of his cities to 
 the Levites ; " and yet the whole number of the cities was to be 
 48 only ! 
 
 Looking again at Deut. i. 16, from the Bishop's stand- 
 point of interpretation, we should be compelled to infer that 
 family litigation was rife in every household throughout the 
 entire congregation, not to speak of legal disputes with 
 
 * Walton prefers the above reading, although he notices that tivos is also 
 found. Field adopts the latter reading. 
 
DECISIVELY TO ESTABLISH " SOME OF HIS POSITIONS. 59 
 
 strangers. Moses there says, " I charged your judges at that 
 ** time, saying, Hear ye the causes between your brethren, and 
 *' judge righteously between every man and his brother, 
 " C'n^ r>T ^'« r?) and the stranger that is with him." 
 (LXX dva/jbiaov dv8po<i koI dvafxeaov dBeXipov. k. t. X.) 
 
 Another curious example of the use of the word ^"^^ is 
 found in Judges vii. 8, " So the people took victuals in their 
 " hands, and their trumpets : and he sent all the rest (these two 
 " words 'the rest ' are not in the Hebrew nor in the Greek) of 
 •* Israel, every man (^"'^"73) into his tent {koI tov irdvra dvSpa 
 " Iapar}\ i^aTricTTeikev, dvhpa els aKtjvrjv avrov) and retained 
 *' those three hundred men." It will be observed also that the 
 LXX translates the Hebrew tC''S literally, by dvSpa instead of 
 cKaa-Tou. But a most singular employment of the word ^""M 
 is to be met with in 1 Kings vii. In verse 30, speaking of the 
 brazen laver, we read, " under the laver were undersetters 
 " molten, at the side of every (^''^) addition." And again, in 
 verse 36, " For on the plates of the ledges thereof, and on the 
 *' borders thereof, he graved cherubim, lions, and palm-trees, 
 " according to the proportion of every one (27''S eKaarov) and 
 ** additions round about." 
 
 The same word is used twice in the feminine gender in 
 Exodus xxvi. 3, " The five curtains shall be coupled one to 
 " another," etc. (Hnh^ b« nw^ , literally " a woman to her 
 sister," LXX rj erepa eK tt}? hepa^), and in verse 17 of the same 
 chapter we find it again. The same expression is found in 
 Ezekiel i. 9, etc., respecting the wings of the four living creatures. 
 " Their wings were joined one to another " '"^•HHS 7^^ TWtA (a 
 woman to her sister). 
 
 In Isaiah xxxiv. 15, HtE'S "woman " is applied to the vul- 
 tures, " every one with her mate." Again, in Amos iv. 3, it is 
 used, of the kine of Basham "every cow " "i^^^. 
 
 I have thought it not unnecessary to multiply examples of 
 the various applications of the words t^"*^ and nt£^S ^ because, in 
 the article before cited of the "National Review," the waiter 
 has ventured to assume that in the case of the word ^"'?1^, I had 
 adduced all the examples, which could be found, of the em- 
 ployment of the Hiphil of ^^^ with a causative signification. 
 The reviewer's foolish assumption will only be ridiculous, in the 
 eyes of any one fairly versed in the Hebrew language, but with 
 
60 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 the uninitiated, the case is far otherwise. An absurdity boldly 
 stated, and duly supported with the editorial "we," passes 
 current for the most erudite scholarship. 
 
 A further example of Dr. Colenso's stupendous blundering 
 in regard to the Hebrew, is found in his Lordship's reply to 
 Kurtz, on p. 24. The Bishop asserts that the same " expres- 
 sion ' litfle one ' is used in Gen. xliv. 20 of Benjamin," which 
 is employed in Gen. xlvi. 5 of the " little ones " of the sons of 
 Jacob. The truth is that two different Hebrew words, and of 
 totally different significations, are employed in the two 
 chapters ! ! ! 
 
 In Gen. xliv. 20 the word used is 1^)7 haton, LXX ve(ar€po<;. 
 {Gesenius " minor, minimus natu," i. e. younger, or youngest.) 
 It occurs also in verses 12, 23, 26, of this same chapter. This 
 is a very common signification of the word, which the merest 
 beginner ought to know. It is found no less than ten times in 
 Gen. xlii., xliii., xliv., and each time in reference to Benjamin ! 
 
 In Gen. xlvi. 5, however, the word employed is the singular 
 noun of multitude, with suffix, ^^^ taffaniy (LXX rr]v 
 a7ro(TKev7]v) which Gesenius renders in this passage "familia 
 eorum.'" It occurs again in Gen. xlv. 19. And yet the Bishop, 
 in delightful unconsciousness of his own egregious shortcomings, 
 fears not to write, " If it were necessary to give any further 
 reply to so feeble an argument, we might say," etc. I leave 
 my readers to judge as to the respective "feebleness'' of Colenso 
 and Kurtz ! 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 A LEARNED and accomplished Hebrew gentleman and scholar, 
 of my acquaintance, has placed in my hands the following short 
 critique on Bishop Colenso's book, to which I have great pleasure 
 in here giving a place in these pages, premising that the writer 
 does not belong to the Christian faith. It is a fair, albeit, brief 
 estimate of the Right Rev. Prelate's performances. 
 
 SPECIMENS OF LOGIC. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 p. 12. " And it is, perhaps, God's will that we shall be taught in this our 
 day . . . not to build up our faith upon a book, though it be the Bible 
 itself." 
 
 P. 13. " It [the Pentateuch] . . . has all along been, and, as far as we 
 
POSTSCRIPT. Gl 
 
 know, will never cease to be, the mightiest instrument in the hand of the 
 Divine Teacher for awakening in our minds just concei>tions of His cha- 
 racter," &c. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 P. 10. " 1 could believe and receive the miracles of Scripture heartilv, if 
 only they were authenticated by a veracious history ; though, if this is not the 
 case with the Pentateuch, any miracles, which rest on such an unstable sup- 
 port, must necessarily fall to the ground with it." 
 
 P. 150. "Then, instead of looking to it [the Bible] for revelations of 
 scientific or historical facts, which God has never promised to disclose in this 
 way, ... we shall have recourse to it for that which God has there in 
 His providence laid up in store for us:" which, however, as the concluding 
 pages tell us, we might, without the aid of the Bible, learn from the books of 
 the 'Sikh Gooroos.'" 
 
 SFECl.MEN OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 Chapter IX., " The Israelites Armed," contains a critical investigation, 
 ■with many quotations from the Pentateuch and other parts of the Bible, 
 references to Herodotus, Josephus, Gesenius, Alison, and opinions of modern 
 theological writers, to show the impossibility of the Israelites having been 
 able to turn out at a moment's notice 600,000 armed men : a conclusion as 
 likely to be drawn from the words in Exodus xiii. 18,* as the telegram, 
 " France is armed," would lead one to suppose that every Frenchman is pro- 
 vided with a rifle. Does Exod. xii. 35 f tell us that every Israelite borrowed 
 from the Egyptians jewels? 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 Thousands of honest believers, being, at the same time, great scholars and 
 antiquarians, have read the Book of God, assisted by their faith when receiv- 
 ing the account of signs and wonders, and making use of their learning 
 to explain the apparent difficulties in minor points. But if the Bible is to be 
 accepted only by the test of statistics taken from London and the colony of 
 Natal, and commented upon by total ignorance both of the Hebrew language 
 and the style of writing used by the ancients, the reader will arrive at the 
 conclusion that "God's providence" has allowed this book, which (p. 13) 
 " has been the means of revealing to us His true name," &c., to meet with a 
 more lamentable fate than any profane work ever known ; that it has been 
 falsified by the most clumsy inventions of a deceiver void of common sense ; 
 that these falsifications, obvious as they appear, have never been noticed 
 through thousands of years ; that Jesus and his disciples, founding their 
 doctrine on the faith of those corrupted passages, had not the least 
 misgiving about the truth or untruth thereof; and that, to open the eyes of 
 the world to the true light, was reserved for Voltaire and Dr. Colenso. 
 
 * ''WTip:''.?? i'» D'^m (Exod.),. "And the children of Israel went up 
 harnessed," or " armed." 
 
 t ^''««::! ^^? '"n?'."??% " And the children of Israel did according to 
 
 the word of Moses, and they borrowed," &c. 
 
62 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 In addition to the above, I would add the following remark- 
 able testimony' from a long-tried, and able Christian Jewish 
 clergyman, the Rev. Alexander Levie, contained in a letter 
 addressed to the Editor of the " Record": — 
 
 " Sir, — The Rev. J. B. M'Caul, in his . . . reply to * An Earnest Searcher 
 after Truth,' makes the following observation : — ' Let me tell " An Earnest 
 Searcher after Truth" that unbelieving Jews are scoffing at the recent 
 whimsical display of ignorance and audacity on the part of an English 
 Bishop.' There can be no doubt of this fact ; but there is another body who 
 are not indifferent lookers-on, but painfully feel the consequences of the 
 merciless onslaught on the volume of inspiration by would-be critics and 
 Hebrew scholars, who have probably never once read through the Old 
 Testament entirely in the original language, and yet fancy that they know 
 the spirit of the Hebrew language. The class of persons I allude to is the 
 large number of Jewish converts, both in this and other countries, amongst 
 whom are men of the highest attainments in every branch of science and 
 literature, as well as thorough Hebrew scholars. Some also are to be found 
 as clergymen of the Church of England, to which number I myself belong. 
 To speak, then, for myself, I feel pity mingled with sorrow for men like 
 Bishop Colenso, who venture to criticise the Hebrew language, because they 
 have a smattering of it. 
 
 " I do not intend, however, at present to combat Dr. Colenso's assertions. 
 .... But, hoping that 'An Earnest Searcher after Truth' is really in 
 earnest, I would submit to him the following observation : — Supposing that, 
 in the passages of Leviticus in dispute, there was no Hiphil or causative 
 voice used, but the simple Kal or active voice, or that the Hiphil voice, in 
 these passages, has not the causative signification, which Mr. M'Caul 
 ably proved that it has, would it then even follow that the High Priest was 
 actually to perform those duties, menial or not, himself? I say that it does 
 not follow that all the directions given to the High Priest to perform must 
 necessarily be performed by himself, or were intended to be performed by 
 him in propria jjersond, though the command is directed to him. Some 
 duties evidently could not be performed but by himself in person, but some 
 he might as evidently delegate to others, and yet, being the responsible 
 party, it would be as if he had done it himself; and such was evidently the 
 intention, and therefore the command is to him. 
 
 " If a King orders a Minister to carry out a certain matter or law, is it 
 meant that the Minister should do it himself, in propria persond, or that he 
 should direct others under him to do it ? 
 
 " Let Dr. Colenso and his followers prove in a satisfactory manner, and 
 from historical facts, that my observation is untenable. 
 
 " I am. Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 " ALEX. LEVIE, 
 " One of the Compilers of the 'Unylishmati's Hebrew Concordance.' 
 
 " Holloway, Nov. 27." 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 6S 
 
 The following letter has been addressed, by Dr. Hermann 
 Adler, son of the Chief Rabbi in London, to the "Athenaeum" 
 of Dec. 6, 1SG2, and serves further to illustrate the mistakes 
 into which Dr. Colenso's unacquaintance with the Hebrew- 
 tongue has betrayed him. It also furnishes another example, 
 from a Jewish i^oint of vieio, of the sort of repute into which the 
 learning of the Church of England is likely to be brought by 
 experiments at Biblical criticism, such as the Bishop's volume 
 so lamentably supplies : — 
 
 " BISHOP COLENSO AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 " \Q, Fimbury-square, Nov. 24, 1862. 
 
 " A crop of rejoinders will, no doubt, soon spring up to refute the various 
 arguments used by Dr. Colenso for impugning the historical veracity of the 
 Pentateuch. My object in writing this letter is by no means to vindicate the 
 truth of the Bible. I consider Truth to be powerful enough in itself to 
 triumph over presumption and injustice. The Bible has, indeed, stood more 
 powerful attacks than Dr. Colenso has been enabled to make upon it. 
 I would simply inquire, as one of those to whom a ' critical examination of 
 the Pentateuch ' is of special interest, how far the promise held out on the 
 title-page is fulfilled in the body of the work. The author assigns as one of 
 the reasons why it had been left to him to discover the unhistorical character 
 of the Pentateuch, the little progress which Biblical studies have as yet made 
 among the English clergy, and the neglect of the study of the Hebrew lan- 
 guage, (p. xxi.) Dr. Colenso is not, I fear, much in advance of his 
 brethren. In § 53, he says that Lev. xxiii. 40 ('Ye shall take you the 
 boughs,' &c.) contains the description of the way in which the booths 
 to be used during the Feast of Tabernacles were to be made ! — a mistake 
 which may be overlooked if made by the brilliant author of ' Coningsby,' 
 but is unpardonable in one who is an eminent divine, and is anxious to be 
 considered a learned critic. A Jewish child would set the Bishop right on 
 this point, and inform him that the four vegetable productions were to be 
 taken into the temple 'to rejoice before the Lord seven days,' and are in no 
 way connected with the booths. 
 
 " We can easily see, however, why he has fallen into this egregious error. 
 The author does not seem to have consulted the original ; he suffers himself 
 to be bound in the trammels of the Authorized Version, and servilely copies 
 its mistranslations, iin ys? no he renders ' boughs of goodly trees,' instead 
 of ' the fruit of the goodly tree.' 
 
 " And further, throughout his criticisms the author wholly ignores the 
 labours of the Jewish commentators in the same field. He devotes so much 
 space (chaps, ii. and iii.) to show that the clumsy devices of Kurtz and 
 Hengstenberg for reconciling the difficulty about the family of Judah are 
 untenable, but does not allude to the simple solution suggested by the critical 
 Ibn Ezra, that the idiom Ninn nsi 'm need not be taken literally, but that 
 
64 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 the event recorded in that chapter may have taken place many years before, 
 (just as in Deut. x. 8). 
 
 " A critical examination, according to Dr. Colenso, signifies, indeed, taking 
 every word and every expression in its most literal sense, which an unbiassed 
 reader of the Biblical narrative never dreamt of. Who did ever think that 
 the expression ' the children of Israel went up armed,' should mean that 
 each and every one of the 600,000 possessed arms ? Would the newspaper 
 report, ' The Russians have invaded Turkey,' be explained by him to mean 
 that every single native of Russia had joined the expedition ? 
 
 " Who did ever suppose, — unless, indeed, he were as absurd, as Dr. Colenso 
 makes out the writer of the Pentateuch to have been, — that the tvhole of 
 the congregation were gathered unto the door of the Tabernacle ? Do we 
 never speak of a nation, when we only mean its representatives ? 
 
 " Had the author studied the Bible with a little greater attention, toe should 
 not have been favoured with the outburst of his virtuous indignation, and the 
 Zulu Kaffir would have been taught the true meaning of Ex. xxi. 20—22, 
 Bishop Colenso would have discovered that the commandment does not refer 
 to murder with malice prepense, but to accidental manslaughter ; and that 
 still, if the slave died under his master's hand, ' it is to be avenged ' (for this 
 is the true translation of Dpr Dp3, not 'he shall be punished'). And this 
 expression he would have found explained by the ancient commentators to 
 mean, execution by the sword. 
 
 " But, in fact, there is scarcely one difficulty, one imagined contradiction or 
 impossibility, raised and gloated over by him, which has not already been 
 touched upon and satisfactorily explained by one of the Jewish expositors. 
 Thus the prohibition in Deut. xxiii. 12, is explained by them to refer only to 
 the outside of the camp of Levites, and the whole difficulty vanishes. His 
 Lordship may, indeed, claim originality for startling discoveries, such as he 
 makes, e.g., about the Passover. Who but a smatterer in Hebrew would thus 
 pervert the plain language of the text as to make it appear that a Command- 
 ment to be observed on the 10th would have been issued on the 14th of that 
 month ? But I must not encroach any further upon your valuable space. 
 
 " In conclusion, let me ask Bishop Colenso one question. He forbids us 
 from indulging the imagination, that God could only reveal Himself to us by 
 means of an infallihle book. Will he have us believe, that God could reveal 
 Himself through a book which contains such absurdities as he has discovered 
 
 "Dr. Hermann Adler." 
 
 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, 
 
 The Christian's Spiritual Instructor and Rule of Daily Life. 
 
 By the Rev. JOSEPH B. M'CAUL, Chaplain to the 
 
 Lord Bishop of Rochester, &c., &c. 
 
 * * A few remaining copies on sale at Wertheim, Macintosh, and Co.'s. 
 
 London : Wertheim, Macintosh, and Hunt, 
 24, Paternoster-row, and 23, Holies-street, Cavendlsli-square. 
 
_PAMPHIET BINDER 
 
 ^^ Syrocu5e, N. Y. 
 
 ==: Stockton. Calif 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTEDINUSA 
 
BS1225 4.C7IVI13 j 
 
 Bishop Colenso'scnlicism criticised 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 I 
 
 1 1012 00039 9602 
 
 ^ij[r>^ ^j£'*^ -^ \ 
 
 
 ■fm,m.^m 
 
 wM 
 
 i^fS^ viV^^ > 
 
 ^\( 
 
 % ' 
 
 \if 
 
 '»s<i: 
 
 «&^'| 
 
 WM 
 
 «#. 
 
 ■•S>'^'f* M: ■*