PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 OBJECTIONS 
 
 OF THE EIGHT EEV. 
 
 JOHN WILLIAM COLENSO, D.D, 
 
 BISHOP or NATAL. 
 
 BY THE EEV. 
 
 GEORGE VALLIS GARLAND, M.A. 
 
 EECTOE OF lANaTON MATKATEES, DOESET. 
 
 With God all things are possible." — Maek x. 27. 
 
 LONDON: 
 EIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE. \ 
 1863. * 
 
PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 OBJECTIONS 
 
 OF THE BIGHT EEV. 
 
 JOHN WILLIAM COLENSO, D.D. 
 
 BISHOP OF KATAL. 
 
 BX THE EEV. 
 
 GEORGE VALLIS GARLAND, M.A. 
 
 EECTOB OF lANaiON MATRATEBS, DORSET. 
 
 With God all things are POSSIBLE."— Mark x. 27. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 RIVINaTONS, WATERLOO PLACE. { ^^ ^^ 
 
 1863. ^ erted 
 
 /"o to it 
 
 belong 
 
► 
 
 LONDON : 
 GILBEET AND RITINGTON, PHINTEES, 
 
 ST. John's squaee. 
 
PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS, 
 
 It may seem most presumptuous in one, who is no 
 Hebrew scholar, to attempt a reply to Bishop Colenso's 
 work, " The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua 
 critically Examined;" but some of the examples of 
 alleged contradiction appear so groundless, that even 
 at such risk I would venture on a few lines. With 
 the general argument, however, I have nothing to 
 do ; for though every difficulty weakened, is a weaken- 
 ing of the whole argument, yet this is a work for 
 educated and learned minds. My object is to offer 
 solutions from the English text for the help of the 
 ignorant sceptic, into whose hands, by means of these 
 alleged contradictions in specific passages, there has 
 been placed a handle, which, unless they are studied, 
 and solutions for them discovered, must more or 
 less paralyse the work of every parochial clergyman. 
 Our office is to teach that, which from the time of 
 the Saviour, and long before, has been accepted as 
 the inspired Wo7'd of God. This, it is now asserted 
 (p. xxxiv), should no longer have '■'■ascribed to it 
 attributes of perfection and infallibility^ which belong 
 
 A 2 
 
4 PLAIN rOSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 to God only^ and which the Bible never claims for 
 itself J^ There may be in translation an occasional 
 technical error ; but if it be true, as it is further stated 
 (p. 8), '•'•that the so-called Mosaic narrative cannot 
 he regarded as historically true," I can only add, 
 in the words of St. Paul, " ive are of all men most 
 miserable f^ as it is difficult to conceive how the false- 
 hood of the Pentateuch does not also necessitate a simi- 
 lar charge against the whole Bible. (1 Cor. x.) The 
 ground of my attempt to solve these alleged contradic- 
 tions and incredibilities is, that any solution^ however 
 improbable^ if it does not involve an impossibility^ or 
 exjyress contradiction in the sacred text itself is to 
 be accepted, rather than the monstrous idea that the 
 holy record itself is untrue, and that no solution can 
 be vitiated except by being superseded (as doubtless 
 it soon will be) by a better, or by involving such 
 impossibility or express contradiction. I contend 
 that no part of the sacred narrative should be con- 
 sidered untrue because improbable^ but only because 
 impossible; for if we admit one part of the Bible to 
 be false, merely because improbable^ where is the limit 
 between the truth and falsehood of the rest? And 
 on what grounds does such limit rest ? Is it to be 
 man's opinion ? Yet in the very midst of this dis- 
 puted narrative, after an injunction (Deut. iv. 2), 
 "Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command 
 you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it," we 
 find (in ver. 5), that it is expressly stated that these 
 statutes and judgments were commanded to IMoses 
 by God Himself. These words are so united with 
 the narrative, that they must stand or fall together, 
 and thus become one of the great internal evidences 
 of the inspiration of the Pentateuch. Yet we are 
 asked to reject this account as historicallj/ imtrue. 
 And on what grounds ? The assertion^ I cannot 
 
OF THE OBJECTIONS OF BISHOP COLENSO. O 
 
 say proof (us I do not think any one of the alleged 
 instances is substantiated), that contradictions exist 
 in the sacred text, and that " incredible " and " cib- 
 surd " events are therein related to have happened. 
 The relinquishment of that belief, which we have 
 inherited from our fathers, that that, which we call 
 the Word of God, both in its separate parts, and 
 in its integrity, is both doctrinally and historically 
 true, which latter portion this book endeavours to 
 disprove, is far too momentous to be entertained, 
 except on grounds against which not a shadow of 
 doubt can be cast; and in the objections cited I 
 cannot find one that is not open to refutation of 
 seemingly a simple character. 
 
 In chap, ii., p. 19, it is conchided that '•'• 07ie of the 
 two accounts must be untrue ;" either the birth of 
 Hezron and Hamul^ in the land of Canaayi^ or the 
 other series of events recorded to have taken place 
 beforehand conceiving Judali' s family . 
 
 The argument seems based on these data (p. 
 18),- 
 
 1. That Judah was tJiree years older than 
 Joseph. 
 
 2. That Judah was married when twenty^ and 
 when Joseph was seventeen years old. 
 
 3. That Judah was forty-two^ when he went with 
 Jacob to Egypf^ and when Joseph was consequently 
 thirty -nine years old. 
 
 Neither of these two latter data can, 1 think, be 
 said to be necessarily deduced from Scripture. (Gen. 
 xxxviii. 1 ; and xli.) 
 
 Except the account in Genesis we have nothing 
 to help us in fixing the date of Judah's marriage 
 from chronology; and there we find no date fixed 
 between 2208 a.m., when Esau was married, and 
 when Jacob, being of the same age (Gen. xxv. 24), 
 
6 PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 was consequently /or^^ years old (Gen. xxvi. 34), and 
 
 2288 A.M., the date of Isaac's death, a year before 
 
 2289 A.M., the first year of plenty, — a calculation 
 drawn from comparing the date of Jacob's death, 
 2315 A.M., with his seventeen years' sojourn in Egypt, 
 and the seven years of plenty, and two of famine, 
 which occurred before the migration to Egypt. 
 
 To fix the date of Judah's marriage, we can only 
 refer to Gen. xxxviii. 1, where we read it occurred 
 *' at that titne^'' — words that are assumed to refer to 
 the period when Joseph was seventeen years old. 
 (Gen. xxxvii. 2.) Now if Scripture events were all 
 recorded in chronological order, there might be some 
 grounds for such deduction; but this, we know, is 
 not always the case; as, for example, Isaac's death 
 is recorded (Gen. xxxv. 29) before the relation of 
 the account of the sale of Joseph (Gen. xxxvii.), 
 though the latter event occurred some years before. 
 The style of the narrative would seem to refer these 
 words, "«/ that time^'' to Gen. xxxvii. 1, the men- 
 tion of the fact of Jacob's sojourn in Egypt, rather 
 than to the record of the event which immediately 
 precedes, the sale of Joseph to Potiphar (Gen. xxxvii. 
 36), which is further assumed to have occurred when 
 Joseph was seventeen. For either of these two verses 
 (Gen. xxxvii. I. 36) seems the more probable ante- 
 cedent to which to refer the words " at that time^'' 
 than the relation of Joseph's age of seventeen in 
 Gen. xxxvii. 2. For the whole of the events in 
 Gen. xxxvii. cannot be said to have necessarily 
 occurred when Joseph was seventeen.^ but only after 
 he had arrived at such age. The expression of his 
 " being seventeen years old^ and feeding the flock^'' 
 would seem merely to teach that at such age this 
 was his habit of life, or that he then commenced 
 such pastoral duties. The probability is that his 
 
OF THE OBJECTIONS OF BISHOP COLENSO. 7 
 
 dreams, his relation of them first to his brethren, and 
 then to his father, his visit to Shechem, the sale to 
 the Ishmaelites at Dothan, and the second sale to 
 Potiphar, did not all occur within one year. Besides, 
 in Gen. xxxvii. 2, we read these words, " These are 
 the generations of Jacob," or the history of the 
 events connected with him, as in Gen. ii. 4, " These 
 are the generations," or history " of the heavens and 
 the earth." This chapter, then, proceeds with a 
 history of Joseph, as one member of Jacob's family, 
 and for a time it concludes with the end of the 
 chapter. Chapter xxxviii., then, takes up that of 
 another branch of the family; and therefore we may 
 reasonably conclude that any specification of time, 
 which regards such new history, will go back to the 
 commencement of the generations of Jacob, and not 
 be confined to, or commence at the point where that 
 of Joseph broke off; in short, it seems to refer to 
 Gen. xxxvii. 1 , the relation of the sojourn of Jacob in 
 Canaan, and then it informs us that during such 
 sojourn Judah was married. 
 
 A similar interpretation of these words, "«^ that 
 time^'' we find in Deut. x. 8, where they clearly refer 
 to the 5th verse, without reference to the 6th or 7th 
 verses which immediately precede. 
 
 For this reason I can see no just grounds for fixing 
 the date of Judah's marriage, when he was twenty 
 years old., and I conclude that the text only implies 
 that it occurred during the sojourn in Canaan. 
 
 When Jacob returned from his abode with Laban 
 to Canaan, Judah was most certainly not more than 
 thirteen or fourteen years old. (Gen. xxix. and xxx.) 
 In these warm climates, as it is admitted (p. 117), 
 early marriages at the ago of thirteen or fourteen 
 were customary. The probability, — a probability far 
 
8 PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 greater than that the sacred narrative should be 
 historically untrue, — is, that — 
 
 Judah married ...... when 14 
 
 Er was born .... when Judah was 15 
 
 Er married when 13 years old, and that 
 
 he died the same year . . „ „ 28 
 
 Tamar's incest occurred . . „ „ 30 
 
 The twins Pharez and Zarah were born „ „ 31 
 
 Pharez married when 13 years old „ „ 44 
 Hezron and Hamul were born (possibly 
 
 twins) ...... „ 45 
 
 which I would take as the year of the migration, 
 when Joseph would be forty-two years old, or twelve 
 years after the interpretation of Pharaoh's dream, 
 and consequently three years later than the com- 
 putation, that he was thirty-nine at the time of 
 Jacob's entrance into Egypt. 
 
 Here I would ask, what grounds the text of Genesis 
 gives for necessarily fixing the latter date. All we 
 read is that Joseph was thirty^ when he stood before 
 Pharaoh. (Gen. xli. 46.) There is nothing, that says 
 that the seven years of plenty began at once. Therefore, 
 I submit, that the probability of a lapse of three or 
 four years between the dream and its fulfilment is far 
 greater, than the idea that the narrative is historically 
 untrue. 
 
 The next objection (chap, iv.) is grounded on '"'' the 
 size of the court of the Tabernacle^ as compared with 
 the number of the congregation^'' where exceptions 
 are taken to the text of Lev. viii. 1 — 4, it being 
 stated (p. 34) to be '■'•inconceivable how all the as- 
 sembly could have been summoned to attend at the 
 door of the Tabernacle by the command of God^ 
 Such conclusion seems drawn from deductions^ and 
 
OF THE OBJECTIONS OF BISHOP COLENSO. 9 
 
 not recorded facts. The data seem these (sect. 35 — 
 38):— 
 
 1. That the words "the door of the Tabernacle''^ 
 refer to the door of the Sanctuary. 
 
 2. That the consecration of Aaron was performed 
 inside the Sanctuary ; for I presume the word " Taber- 
 nacle" is used in the same sense in both places in 
 sect. 35. 
 
 3. That from these two assumptions it is further 
 inferred that the people were " within the courts 
 
 4. That the assembly, when thus summoned to the 
 door of the Tabernacle, must be collected in ranks of 
 the width, either of the Sanctuary or of its court, and 
 these extending for either twenty or four miles re- 
 spectively in front of the Tabernacle. 
 
 There really seems no reason for necessarily de- 
 ducing any one of these data from Scripture. 
 
 For, first, it is assumed that the words the ^'- door 
 of the Tabernacle " mean the door of the Sanctuary. 
 By referring, amongst others, to the following texts, 
 we shall, I think, find that the word " Tabernacle " 
 may bear a more general sense, as meaning not 
 merely the Sanctuary, but also the court around it; 
 just as is, both in the Old and New Testaments, the 
 similar use of the word " Templet In Exod. xxxi. 
 7 — 9 we find that the altar of burnt -offering and 
 the laver, (neither of which were placed in the Sanc- 
 tuary,) are reckoned among the contents of the Taber- 
 nacle. In Exod. xxxiii. 7, Num. ii. 2, vii. 1, it clearly 
 refers to the whole establishment, as also is the case in 
 Exod. xxxix. 33 — 40, where in the 33rd verse we find 
 the " Tent'' itself mentioned as part of the Taber- 
 nacle. In Lev. viii. 33 the priests are forbidden to 
 go out of the door of the Tabernacle for seven days, 
 while in the 35th verse they are told to abide at the 
 door of the Tabernacle; the 33rd verse must clearly 
 
10 PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 refer to the whole establishment, including the 
 court. In Num. viii. 24 the Levites are told to wait 
 on the service of the Tabernacle ; part of which ser- 
 vice, attendance on the priests, was performed in the 
 court, and not in the Sanctuary, around the altar 
 of burnt-offering and the laver. Now, in most of 
 these places it appears most probable^ and in some of 
 them certain^ that the word " Tabernacle " is used in 
 the wide sense of the whole establishment, and not 
 confined to the restricted meaning of the Sanctuary. 
 The calling together of the assembly may therefore at 
 once, I think, be said to refer to their muster at the 
 door of the coukt of the Tabernacle. 
 
 2. It is next assumed that the consecration service 
 was to be performed inside the Tabernacle or Sanc- 
 tuary itself This seems inconsistent with the narra- 
 tive of Exod. xxix., which teaches us (ver. 10) that 
 part of this service consisted of a sin-offering, when 
 the bullock was slain at the door of the Tabernacle, 
 and that Aaron and his sons put their hands on the 
 head of the bullock. They could not have been within 
 the Sanctuary when they did this. Neither in Exod. 
 xxix., xl. 12 — 15, nor Lev. viii. do we find any express 
 command given them to at all enter the Holy Tent, if 
 we except Lev. viii. 33, where the use of the word 
 " Tabernacle^'' we have already seen, seems to refer to 
 the whole establishment. I therefore conclude that 
 the grounds for saying that the consecration service 
 took place inside the Sanctuary seem insufficient. 
 
 3. The next position, that the people were within 
 the court because at the door of the Tabernacle^ and 
 to enable them to witness the consecration of Aaron 
 inside the Tabernacle^ seems, therefore, for these two 
 last reasons, to be overthrown. 
 
 4. Let us, therefore, proceed to the last assertion, 
 that really appears puerile, " that this assembling of 
 
OF THE OBJECTIONS OF BISHOP COLENSO. 11 
 
 the congregation at the door of the Tabernacle in- 
 volved the necessity that the whole multitude should 
 be ranged in ranks, of the widths of either the Sanc- 
 tuary or its courts, and that such ranks would extend 
 respectively a distance of twenty or four miles, imme- 
 diately in front of the door of the Tabernacle." To 
 show the great weakness of such idea we must con- 
 sider the mode of encampment of the whole congrega- 
 tion. From Num. ii. 2 we learn that every tribe en- 
 camped by itself "yar o/fj" or ^^ over against ^^ the 
 Tabernacle; that the twelve tribes w^ere divided into 
 four divisions, which occupied respectively positions 
 north, east, south, and west of the Tabernacle, which 
 thus became the centre of the whole encampment. On 
 a summons, then, to attend at the door of the Taber- 
 nacle, the natural action of the people would be to 
 approach as near as possible to this door, each succes- 
 sive person advancing to this point as far as the 
 preceding multitudes would admit, and these coming 
 from every point of the compass would thus be con- 
 tinually meeting and choking up each other's way, 
 until at last the Tabernacle would become the centre 
 of a mass of 600,000 persons. The point to which 
 they tended would be the door; but the convergence 
 of so vast a multitude from all parts would cause the 
 whole — the Tabernacle^ and not the part, — the door 
 to become the centre of the mass, or the centre of a 
 circle about 1800 feet in diameter, which would more 
 than contain the 600,000 persons, according to the 
 computation of less than two square feet to each (sect. 
 36). The most distant person, instead of heing four 
 or twenty miles away, would be only about 900 feet, 
 the radius of such circle ; a distance not nearly twice 
 the length of many of the foreign cathedrals, and 
 consequently not nearly twice the distance, at which 
 the Roman Catholic worshippers arc in the daily 
 
12 PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 practice of performing their devotions before their 
 high altar. 
 
 To obviate the objection to the inability of the people 
 to witness the ceremony of the consecration, it may 
 be imagined that on such high occasions the curtains, 
 by which the court of the Tabernacle was enclosed, 
 would be drawn up, and thus all obstructions of view 
 removed between it and the multitudes. 
 
 The next objection (chap, v.), grounded on Deut. 
 i. 1, V. 1, which seem to refer to the same event, and 
 Josh. viii. 34, 35, the inability of Moses and Joshua 
 to enable their voices to reach the ears of the whole 
 assembled multitude of two and a half millions, who 
 might be collected on a space of three thousand 
 feet square, instead of being an objection^ seems 
 rather an elucidation of Scripture ; for it is said, and 
 with reason (sect. 41), that no human voice^ unless 
 strengthened by a miracle^ would have reached the 
 ears of such a mass. The objection to the admission 
 of the miracle seems simply grounded on the fact, 
 that it is not expressly stated, that this effect was 
 produced by means of a miracle. But may it not be 
 asked. Is this a sound reason to reject the record 
 of a miracle, because the text does not say in as 
 many words that it was one ? For such a reason, 
 we must reject half those of the Old and New Testa- 
 ments. Take, for instance, the defeat of Amalek 
 (Ex. xvii.), which must be considered miraculous, 
 because dependent on the lifting up of Closes' hands : 
 yet it is not specially named as such. So in Matt. viii. 
 we have the relation of four separate miracles of our 
 Lord, and yet they are not there specially named as 
 such. It would seem in the narration of miraculous 
 events, when not particularly declared to be so, that 
 the Almighty would have us exercise our faith and 
 judgment; and therefore I cannot help feeling, that 
 
OF THE OBJECTIONS OF BISIIOF COLENSO. 13 
 
 the whole Christian Church has the greatest reason 
 to thank his Lordship for calling its attention to 
 the existence of these two acts of Moses and Joshua, 
 which may perhaps have escaped notice, as being 
 miracles. Surely objections cannot be raised to the 
 idea that a miracle mioht be wrou<?ht in behalf of so 
 important a purpose as the renewal of the Law of God, 
 at the death of the great Lawgiver, and the settlement 
 of the Israelites in Canaan ; and this at a period when 
 the support of life by ordinary means had only just 
 ceased to be the exception, and miraculous preser- 
 vation the rule of man's existence. Exceptions cannot 
 well be taken to this miracle on the ground of its 
 magnitude, being only an extension of human powders, 
 not a suspension of nature's law^s; but in its typical 
 character it takes rank with the mightiest on record, 
 as forming another link in that vast chain, which 
 binds together the two dispensations. St. Paul 
 (1 Cor. X. 2) makes the passage of the Eed Sea the 
 type of Holy Baptism. May we not see in the miracle 
 of speech by Joshua, addressed to one nation, and for 
 the high object, the promulgation of the knowledge of 
 salvation to that nation at its settlement in Canaan, 
 a type of this same miracle of speech, wrought for 
 the same object by the Apostles at Pentecost on the 
 establishment of the Christian Church ; differing only 
 in method, and by the contrast of such method pro- 
 claiming, by the symbol of the many voices and the 
 divers tongues, as well as by the express word, that 
 the fulness of the Gentiles was now to be received 
 within the pale of the Church of Christ, and the 
 blessed Gospel to be preached by every voice and in 
 every tongue, and no longer to be confined to one 
 chosen people ? I think it must be admitted that 
 these passages, far from being objections, offer an 
 elucidation to Scripture. 
 
14 PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 The next objection (chap, vi.) raised at the extent 
 of the canip^ when compared with the Priests' duties^ 
 seems to arise from the apparently erroneous idea 
 that there were only three priests (page 123). Now 
 the history gives us the names of Aaron's sons, and 
 the account of their consecration ; but it seems only the 
 passages, Exod. xxviii. 1, Num. iii. 2 — 4, which can be 
 truly said to bear the appearance of containing a sense 
 restrictive of their numbers ; and the restriction even 
 there seems only to refer to that consecration. When, 
 therefore, the charge of absurdity/ in the Sacred 
 Narrative on this head is alleged to exist, would it 
 not seem that the less doubtful of two cases should be 
 preferred : in other words, would it not be better to 
 assume that no certainty of restriction of numbers, 
 by the specific mention of Jour sons^ is intended, 
 rather than to believe the narrative to be untrue, 
 because the birth and consecration of no other son is 
 named ? I can find no words, which expressly limit 
 the consecration to those four sons, and hence I think 
 we may safely infer that, where the duties of the priest- 
 hood are related to have been so onerous, as to render 
 them incapable of being performed by those specially 
 named, other sons of Aaron may be supposed to have 
 existed and to have been consecrated ; as in the case 
 of the history of Cain's family (Gen. iv. 17), the 
 name of only one son in the first five generations is 
 recorded, and yet we cannot imagine that these were 
 all his posterity. Therefore, as there seems no 
 express restriction to the number of the sons of 
 Aaron, it would be well to inquire whether there does 
 exist any probable reason, why those named should be 
 recorded ; and then we find that all of the four are 
 remarkable for some singular events of their after 
 history. Thus Nadab, the first-born, and Abihu, for 
 their rebellion (Lev. x.); Ithamar, for being placed 
 
OF THE OBJECTIONS OF BISHOP COLENSO. 15 
 
 as bead of the Gershonites and Merarites (Num. iv. 
 28. 33); Eleazar, for having charge of the Levites 
 (Num. iii. 32), and for succeeding Aaron as high 
 priest (Num. xx. 28). A special reason, therefore, 
 seems to exist why the consecration of these four sons 
 should be named, to the omission of that of the other 
 sons of Aaron. But besides this, in Eleazar's case, 
 the express command to consecrate him as priest was 
 required to be laid down, inasmuch as his conse- 
 cration involved a breach of the rule that no Levite 
 should enter into his service before the age of twenty- 
 five (Num. viii. 24). From Josh. xxiv. 33, we find 
 that Eleazar died in Canaan, and he must therefore 
 have been under the age of twenty at the time of 
 the sin at Kadesh. The mention of his consecration 
 seems intended to point out that he was specially 
 excepted, as regards the canonical age of Levitical 
 service, rather than to contain the idea (p. 110) that 
 the Levites were not involved in the punishment, which 
 is contradictory to Num. xiv. 29. Such being the 
 apparent reasons for the express mention of these 
 four sons, we have to inquire whether it is possible 
 that a number of sons could have been born to Aaron 
 sufficient for the service of the Tabernacle, as men- 
 tioned in the Pentateuch. By calculating his mar- 
 riage to Elisheba, at the age of fourteen, and as 
 regards the question before us, reckoning only the 
 sons that might have been born to him before he was 
 ffty-five years old, so that he being about eighty at 
 the time of the Exodus, they might be of sufficient 
 age, according to the Levitical rule, to enter the 
 Tabernacle service at the period of its erection, we 
 shall arrive at the conclusion, that such sons and their 
 posterity (allowing each to marry at the age o^ four- 
 teen^ and to have annually a son) might amount to 
 between GOO or 700 persons; a number fully suffi- 
 
16 PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 cient for the offering of the sacrifices and the portage 
 of the ofikl, even at the highest computation, that 
 this latter had to be carried a distance of six miles to 
 reach the limit of the camp. However such com- 
 putation of the number of priests may appear impro- 
 bable, yet such improbability can hardly be said to be 
 so great as the idea, that the narrative on this head 
 involves an " absurdity''' (page 40). 
 
 The other branch of the objection (chap, vi.) to 
 the extent of the camp^ compared with the daily neces- 
 sities of the people^ seems open to yet greater excep- 
 tions; for it is said that, in Deut. xxiii. 12 — 14, it 
 is commanded that all should go out of the camp for 
 the necessities of nature ; a " command " that really 
 I can find no trace of. The objection seems capable 
 of solution, by connecting the 12th verse with the 
 10th verse, and disconnecting it with the 13th verse. 
 It would seem then that the 10th verse orders, that 
 in case of ceremonial uncleanness the person so af- 
 fected should go out of the camp ; — that verses 11, 
 12 are merely supplemental orders; the one referring 
 to the mode of purification of the unclean person, the 
 other appointing a place of quarantine during such 
 uncleanness. Ver. 13 is simply another supplemental 
 order, that in case the necessities of nature required 
 it, while in quarantine, provision should be made to 
 preserve there such attention to cleanliness and 
 sanitary measures, which, without such provision, 
 was likely to be infringed. Ver. 14 again refers to 
 ver. 10, which gives the cause, why no person ceremo- 
 nially unclean should remain within the camp. By 
 placing verses 11, 12, 13 in parentheses, and a full 
 stop at verses 10. 12, 13, I think all the objections on 
 this score, as to the size of the camp, may be cast 
 aside. This solution is merely grounded on the pos- 
 sibility that it may be consistent with the punctuation 
 
OF THE OBJECTIONS OF BISHOP COLENSO. 1/ 
 
 of the Hebrew text : if not so, it must of course be 
 rejected, and a better sought. On this head I can 
 say nothing, from my ignorance of Hebrew. All my 
 attempt has been to solve these alleged difficulties by 
 the English text; but if, as I believe is the case, the 
 ancient Hebrew is not punctuated, the solution itself 
 may yet hold good. 
 
 The objection (chap, vii.) on account of the simi- 
 larity of the numbers at the collection of the poll-tax^ 
 with that of the first muster^ ought only to be con- 
 sidered a singular coincidence. But a coinciderice can 
 be said to be neither improbable nor impossible^ when 
 it is the result of the will of One, by whom the 
 subjects of such coincidence are made. To intro- 
 duce this, as an objection to the sacred narrative, seems 
 very like a denial to the Almighty of the power of 
 creation by birth, and removal by death over those of 
 whom it is related. It seems strange to say we are 
 to reject a Biblical record, because it appears '■'' sur- 
 prisi7ig.'^ The coincidence of the decree of the taxing 
 with the birth of the Saviour (Luke ii.), by which 
 that birth occurred at Bethlehem, and thus fulfilled 
 the prophecy of Micah (v. 2), is no less surprising. 
 
 Again, the objection (chap, viii.) grounded on the 
 possession of tents by the Israelites (Exod. xvi. IG), 
 seems to arise from forgetting their pastoral and 
 hence nomadic character (Gen. xlvi. 34), one similar 
 to that of the Arabs, though for the time confined 
 within the limits of the land of Goshen. Their every- 
 day abodes would probably be tents; and though a 
 very large portion of them might be scattered through 
 the cities of Egypt, yet the nucleus would still remain 
 in Goshen, carrying on their trade of shepherds, one 
 contemned by the Egyptians, and therefore well fitted 
 to suit the despised state, in which, as slaves, they were 
 held. A body of tents may, therefore, naturally be 
 
 B 
 
18 PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 imagined to have been ever in preparation for a move. 
 Besides, the mass of the people, who as slaves were 
 employed in the building of the " treasure cities," 
 cannot be supposed to have only lodged in houses. 
 The bulk most probably resided in huts of the poorest 
 description, possibly in tents, which would, again, 
 have supplied this want. In addition to this, we must 
 not forget that the Exodus was no hasty movement. 
 Prior to appearing before Pharaoh, Moses had col- 
 lected the elders of Israel, and informed them of the 
 Almighty's intended deliverance. (Exod. iv. 29, 30.) 
 Does not this instruction presuppose a certain amount 
 of preparation for the event ? It is generally thought 
 that the period, during which the plagues were poured 
 on the land of Egypt, extended over a year or more. 
 AVith the certainty of deliverance, are we therefore 
 asking too much, that it should be believed, that this 
 portion of time was employed, as far as their " tasks " 
 would admit, in perfecting their arrangements ? When 
 the signal to march was given, though the moment 
 itself was one of haste, yet in one sense they were 
 partially prepared for it : just as death, come when it 
 will, is to nearly all a sudden event, though the entire 
 life may have been a preparation for it. The men- 
 tion of the tents seems to be a proof, by which it w^as 
 shown, that they had believed the promise of deliver- 
 ance, inasmuch as they had provided abodes suitable 
 for a sojourn in the wilderness. Neither do I see 
 why objections are to be taken to the carriage of 
 these tents, on the score of the difficulty of providing 
 trained oxen. The existence of camels, of which we read 
 herds are kept by the Arabs now, as of old in Jacob's 
 time (Gen. xxxii. 15; xxxvii. 25), would supply the 
 required means of carriage, besides being animals well 
 suited to the nature of the way; add to this the use 
 of waggons, of which we read in Gen. xlv. 19. The 
 
OF THE OBJECTIONS OF BISHOP COLENSO. 19 
 
 mention of tents, instead of being an objection, seems 
 to supply a want in the sacred narrative, which con- 
 tains no allusion to a preparation for an event, which 
 from the very nature of the message, attested also by 
 miracles, we cannot well believe was not made. It 
 seems a great stretch to confine the Jewish habitations 
 in Egypt to the simple idea of a house, because such 
 term is used in the directions relative to the institu- 
 tion of the Passover (Exod. xii. 7. 22), — directions 
 intended for their guidance in future years, not confined 
 only to the present instance, and from this to deduce 
 the charge that the narrative is historically untrue. 
 
 The objection (chap, ix.) drawn from Exod. xiii. 
 18, again, seems rather an elucidation of Scripture. 
 For by the interpretation advanced of '•'"harnessed" 
 as '•'• armed" a solution (however much it may be 
 repudiated, p. 49) is provided for the difficulty 
 arising from their possession of arms at Rephidim, far 
 more probable than the idea, that they were obtained 
 by rifling the dead bodies of the Egyptians on the 
 shores of the Red Sea. Beinof no Hebrew scholar, 
 I can say nothing of the true meaning; but that ad- 
 duced, " armed," which is apparently supported by the 
 parallel passages stated in p. 48, seems most clearly 
 to suit the context; for the first part of the verse 
 (Exod. xiii. 18) relates the road of the migration, and 
 by the addition of the fact of their being " armed," 
 the apparent tautology of a second record of the de- 
 parture is avoided. The obtaining of " arms " appears 
 objected to on the ground, that they had no time to 
 procure them on the night of the Exodus; but this 
 idea seems to arise from confining the spoliation of 
 the Egyptians to this one night. True it is the two 
 verses (Exod. xii. 35, 3(>), which contain the record of 
 their " bo?TOwing" follow the account of their being 
 sent out of Egypt. But when w^e consider how great 
 
 B 2 
 
20 PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 was the belief of the Israelites in their coming de- 
 liverance (witnessed by their continued trust in Moses, 
 though his efforts only increased their burdens, Exod. 
 iv. 31 ; v.), an expectation seemingly shared in by some 
 of the Egyptians (Exod. ix. 20), may we not imagine 
 that the giving and taking of "67/(7/. things as they 
 requiretV (in which I can see nothing " extravagant " 
 to include "arm^") took place or commenced even 
 earlier than the last night of the captivity, especially 
 when we read Exod. xi. 3? for Exod. xi. 1 — 3 does 
 not appear necessarily connected with the rest of the 
 chapter, or to have been spoken on the same day. 
 Surely there is nothing " extravagant " in this idea, 
 when we further consider the long-existing anxiety of 
 the Egyptians to get rid of the Israelites (Exod. x. 7), 
 and that their retention was due to the will of the 
 king, and not of his people. Arms would surely be 
 the first thing sought for, before undertaking so long 
 a journey. Neither does the panic at Pi-hahiroth 
 appear to militate against this view, Every-day ex- 
 perience shows us the inefficiency and terror of even 
 an armed rabble against a regularly organized force; 
 and this supposition is yet further supported by the 
 remembrance of their late abject condition as slaves. 
 This idea seems also borne out by Ps. Ixxviii. 9, 
 where we read, at the very onset of the history, of 
 an act of cowardice of the children of Ephraim, — an 
 act not resolvable of any recorded instance appli- 
 cable to that particular tribe : and therefore this 
 passage, where the whole people is designated by the 
 name of the chosen son of Jacob's chosen son Joseph, 
 once ruler of Egypt, seems naturally to refer to some 
 period of the nation's history, when closely connected 
 with Egypt, and to point to this last panic at the Red 
 Sea, which occurred just before the time, when they 
 were for ever freed from their old masters. 
 
OF THE OBJECTIONS OF BISHOP COLENSO. 21 
 
 The next objection (chap, x.), relative to the insti- 
 tution of the Passover (Exod. xii. 21 — 28), seems 
 arounded on the idea that the Israelites were in- 
 structed " on one single day " how to keep, and on 
 that same day that they actually did keep the Pass- 
 over. The whole force of this objection seems to 
 arise from the use of the word "Mz*" in verses 12 
 and 14, which is considered to refer necessarily to the 
 day, on which these instructions were given by God to 
 Moses. In support of such idea a comparison is 
 drawn with the expression used in Exod. xiii. 8, where 
 the word '"'' thaf'' is used; and it is thence inferred it 
 ouoht to have been used also here. But the two 
 cases do not seem similar. In the latter case, from 
 the 5th verse of that chapter w^e learn that Moses was 
 speaking of what the Israelites were to do at a distant 
 day^ when settled in Canaan, and therefore the use of 
 the word '"'' thaV seems more appropriate. The second 
 supporting reference (Exod. xi. 4), " about midnight^'' 
 seems entirely without weight, as it must first be 
 proved that these instructions were given by God to 
 Moses on the day that he last visited Pharaoh, an as- 
 sumption of which the narrative says nothing. In fact, 
 it is left entirely uncertain when they were given ; all 
 that is stated is, " that the Lord spake to Moses and 
 Aaron in the land of Egypt." (Exod. xii. I.) By 
 referring to Ezek. xxxix. 8 we shall find a similar 
 expression, " This is the day whereof I have spoken." 
 Here it cannot possibly refer to the day on which the 
 prophet spoke, but only to that on which the judgment 
 on Magog was to take place. Similar instances of 
 an indefinite use of the vvord " this " occur Jonah iv. 
 2; 1 Sam. xviii. 21. And even in this same chapter 
 (xii. 17) we find the use of the word in reference to a 
 future event, which is recorded as past (a mode of ex- 
 pression common in prophetic style, Isa. liii.), "In 
 
22 PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of 
 the land of Egypt." It seems strange to found an 
 objection on one word, which is often used indefinitely, 
 when by applying it to the antecedent, to which the 
 sense would seem naturally to refer it, all would be 
 harmonious and clear. That antecedent seems to be 
 the '■\fourteentli day''^ mentioned in verse G. Then 
 the whole chapter would seem to teach as follows: 
 ver. 1 states, without defining the exact period, that 
 the subjoined instructions were given by God to Moses, 
 while in Egypt prior to the Exodus, and as a record 
 to posterity of the object of the Passover. From the 
 instructions themselves we clearly gather, that they 
 were given before the tenth day of the month (ver. 3), 
 and, under this idea, all the difficulties of the vast 
 multitude keeping this solemn rite are done away. 
 Time is allowed for the choosing of the lambs on the 
 tenth day; for the Israelites to be instructed in the 
 rite in all its minuteness ; its primary object declared, 
 as a protection from the destruction about to fall on 
 the first-born ; its prophetic character displayed, as 
 being announced as the day, on which their deliver- 
 ance should take place (ver. 17); and the object of 
 its perpetuity pointed out, as a record of these great 
 events. These instructions from God to Moses end 
 with the 20th verse ; what follows leads us to conclude 
 that they were promulgated to the people prior to the 
 further charge of Moses to the elders (ver. 21 — 27), 
 which from its nature appears to be the actual com- 
 mand, issued on the '■'- fourteenth " day, for the imme- 
 diate slaughter of the lambs, which the words, " Draw 
 out now," seem to infer had already been prepared. 
 The mention of the sprinkling of the blood may have 
 been reiterated on account of the important issue of 
 life and death dependent on obedience to the com- 
 mand ; while all the preparatory orders for the choice 
 
OF THE OBJECTIONS OF BISHOP COLENSO. lo 
 
 of the lambs had been given long before. Under such 
 an idea, that every family had been provided with a 
 lamb on the " tenth," it does not require any great 
 stretch of the imagination to conclude, that necessary 
 steps had been taken, by which the final order for 
 their being slain might be sent from IMoses, through 
 the elders, to all the people of Israel. The whole ac- 
 count is analogous to the giving of orders by a govern- 
 ment to its general to carry out, with all his troops 
 on some certain day, some special duty requiring a 
 certain amount of preparation. It is his duty to give 
 the first necessary orders, and to take fit precautions 
 for their promulgation throughout the whole of his 
 army, however widely dispersed, so that when the 
 day of action shall arrive, there may be no delay in 
 either the publication or execution of the final com- 
 mand. 
 
 The difficulty (chap, xi.), relative to the march 
 out of Egypt, seems to arise from the idea that the 
 command was given at a " moment's notice^'' without 
 any prior preparation. I have already endeavoured 
 to show, that such idea of extreme haste is not con- 
 tained in the sacred record, but that the immediate 
 order to march was the only sudden part of it ; that 
 general preparations for it seem implied; that the 
 very day, on which it should occur, was foretold 
 (Exod. xii. 17), though for some wise reason, not 
 recorded, God had not given any special orders for 
 the providing of victuals (Exod. xii. o9), perhaps 
 in order to test their faith in His providence 
 (Deut. viii. 2); and that there seem no sufficient 
 grounds for confining the spoliation of the Egyptians 
 to the last night of the sojourn in Egypt. The idea 
 that all the Israelites assembled at Ramescs from all 
 parts of Egypt and Goshen, with their flocks and 
 herds, does not appear to be recorded in Scripture. 
 
24 PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 The record (Exod. xii. 37) is simply, '•'•that they 
 journeyed from Rcnneses to Succoth.^' These words 
 would seem to imply that Succoth, about the in- 
 terpretation of which a doubt is admitted (p. 4G), 
 and which is distinct from the other Succoth of 
 Scripture, was a name to express not a "yj/crce," but 
 the '•'• encampment^^^ or '•'• point of assemblage^'' on 
 the day after the Exodus, to which the whole multi- 
 tude of the people would culminate from all parts, 
 without necessarily going- to Rameses at all, the 
 mention of the journey from Rameses referring only 
 to that portion of the Israelites, who dwelt there. 
 In p. 63, this is admitted to be the capital of the 
 province^ and somewhere in the immediate neigh- 
 bourhood of the king^s palace. We may, therefore, 
 safely infer that it was the head-quarters of Moses, 
 and of the chief officers of the Israelites, and there- 
 fore their departure would naturally be used as an 
 expression to denote that of the collective body of the 
 whole people. The idea then seems to be, that the 
 whole multitude of the Israelites was summoned 
 at midnight, for which summons they had been 
 partially prepared, to set forward on their march ; 
 that the point, to which they advanced, was an en- 
 campment, thence called " Succoth ;" but that the 
 place of their departure was said to be Rameses, as 
 being the head-quarters of the people. The carriage 
 of the sick and infirm may easily be explained by 
 the use of waggons, of which we read in Gen. xlvi. 5, 
 to say nothing of the power of the Almighty to have 
 caused by a miracle, that none should be so affected 
 at such a time, as to be incapable of obeying His 
 command; not an improbable position, when we re- 
 member, that the ground of all faithful obedience 
 to God is based on the certainty, that He never 
 gives a command, for which He does not also provide 
 
OF THE OBJECTIONS OF BISHOP COLENSO. 25 
 
 a mode of accomplishment. The idea of this multi- 
 tude, marching as a regular army '"'' fifty abreast " 
 (sect. 77), seems only introducing unnecessary diffi- 
 culties by insisting on what appears to be a rejected 
 interpretation of the word " harnessed.'''' (Exod. 
 xiii. 18.) Their mode of progression, instead of 
 necessitating the idea of a '•''column^ twenty-two 
 miles long " (sect. 77), would at the first, before the 
 regular arrangement, organized at Mount Sinai (Num. 
 ii. X.), naturally assume the character of an Arab 
 migration, where the men are also generally armed, 
 and united with their families in the march. By a 
 calculation we shall find that the whole two and a 
 half millions of persons, added to the computed flock 
 of two millions of sheep (p. 58), could easily be con- 
 tained within the space of a couple of square miles. 
 This space may be doubled for the addition of the 
 herds of camels, oxen, &c., and waggons; and even 
 then I can see no reason, why exceptions should be 
 taken to the Scripture account of such a caravan, 
 especially when we consider the unconfined nature 
 of the road through which they had to pass. The 
 passage in Deut. viii. 4 will, I think, give the 
 natural solution of the difficulty as to the power of 
 the multitude to travel the distance to the Red Sea 
 by three journeys. The idea that these were without 
 intermission (sect. 78), does not appear to be re- 
 corded in Scripture. In either case the same God, 
 that afterwards fed them, could at the very onset 
 have strengthened them for the journey. 
 
 The objection (chap, xii.), arising from the alleged 
 impossibility of supporting the flocks and herds in 
 the desert without a miracle, appears again to be the 
 denial of the record of a transaction, simply because 
 the mode by which it was effected is not related. 
 Is it improbable^ it certainly is not impossible^ that. 
 
2G PLAIN rOSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 as the people were fed by the miraculous manna, so 
 their flocks should be sustained by a miraculously 
 increased growth of desert herbage ? This seems 
 naturally to be inferred from Deut. viii. 4, where 
 two things, clearly miraculous, attendant on the 
 journey through the wilderness, are only related 
 incidentally. But in another light this objection 
 seems raised on a deduction, whose premises seem 
 insufficient, that the wilderness has undergone no 
 change since that period, — a singular presumption on 
 which to charge the Bible narrative with historical 
 untruthfulness, when the changes around Babylon, 
 Nineveh, Tyre, &c., are taken into consideration, 
 where fertile regions are now comparatively desert 
 wastes. In Exod. iii. 1, we find that part at least of 
 the desert, through which they passed, was adapted for 
 pasturage, and actually so used by Moses for the 
 flocks of Jethro. The texts (Deut. xxxii. 10; viii. 15. 
 Num. XX. 4, 5. Jer. ii. 6), adduced in support of this 
 alleged sterile character of the wilderness, all bear the 
 appearance of being not definite, but general descrip- 
 tions of this district, as compared with the fertility of 
 the promised land and Egypt, and this description is 
 yet farther coloured with the warm phraseology of the 
 East. The text Deut. viii. 15 cannot possibly disprove 
 the idea of the stream of miraculous water following 
 the Israelites on their journey, as seemingly taught 
 by St. Paul (1 Cor. x. 4); for immediately after the 
 expression, " where there was no water," we find it 
 added, " who brought forth water out of the rock of 
 flint." So as regards Num. xx. 4, 5, I cannot help 
 thinking (however it may seem opposed to the general 
 idea, that the water was at two separate periods pro- 
 duced from the rock), that the account here given 
 (verses 2 — 13) is only a recapitulation of the same 
 miracle recorded in Exod. xvii., — an opinion I would 
 
OF THE OBJECTIONS OF BISHOP COLENSO. 27 
 
 ground on the similarity of the name used in both 
 places, " Meribah," and also on the seeming inappro- 
 priateness of the words of Moses, " Must we fetch 
 water from the rock?" (Num. xx. 10,) if it be 
 insisted that they were spoken after a first per- 
 formance of such miracle, — words implying doubt, 
 not anger, as shown in verse 12, where God says, 
 " Ye believed Me not," for we cannot imagine Moses 
 would have doubted, had he before produced water 
 from a rock. The situation of the account seems no 
 argument against this reasoning, as Moses often in- 
 troduces passages without immediate reference to 
 that, about which he is then writing. The greatest 
 objection to this view seems based on the name, given 
 to the place, where the reputed repetition of the 
 miracle is mentioned, " Meribah-Kadesh," Deut. 
 xxxii. 51. But may not the adjunct Kadesh refer, 
 not to a specific place, but to a district, in which 
 Meribah was situated ? In Ps. xxix. 8, we read of 
 the " wilderness of Kadesh," which seems to be the 
 same as that of Sin, where Rephidim was situated 
 and which appears to have been the abode of the 
 Amalekites (Exod. xvii.), who also (in Gen. xiv. 7) 
 are said to have dwelt in Kadesh. If this be allowed, 
 no argument against the water accompanying the 
 Israelites on their journeys can be grounded thereon. 
 But I cannot help thinking that the word " wil- 
 derness " is not necessarily intended to imply a sandy 
 waste ; for we find the term applied to the " wilder- 
 ness of Judsea " (Matt. iii. 1), yet this was not con- 
 sidered incapable of supporting flocks ; just as the 
 American prairies, the Tartaric steppes are wilder- 
 nesses, yet provide food for countless herds of animals. 
 The objection in chap, xiii., grounded on the 
 comparison of the number of the Israelites with the 
 
28 PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 size of the country, as offering no sound reason for 
 the gradual extinction of the original inhabitants, 
 " lest tlie beast of the field multiply against thee " 
 (Exod. xxiii. 29), seems capably of solution by a 
 reference to Gen. xv. 18, where we find that the 
 extent of the land, promised to Abram and his seed, 
 was " from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates." This 
 was to be the inheritance of the Israelites, forfeited 
 by their misconduct, in not driving out the inha- 
 bitants, and their other sins, and only approximated 
 to in the reigns of David and Solomon. I cannot 
 help thinking, that had it pleased the Almighty to 
 have depopulated this vast region, and then to have 
 placed therein the two and a half millions of the 
 people, they would have found no little difficulty in 
 preserving the land from desolation. The objection 
 seems to arise from confininiif the thouofhts to the 
 "ac/i^«/," instead of the '■^ protnised^'^ extent of the 
 land. In the computation (p. 82) there is allowed 
 but one person to three acres; while in Belgium, 
 (according to Murray's Handbook,) the population 
 is nine times greater, or three persons to an acre; 
 and in the woodland regions of the Ardennes I 
 believe that wolves and boars are in severe winters 
 not un frequently met with. 
 
 The objection (chap, xiv.) relative to the fewness 
 of the first-born, compared with the numbers of 
 males, seems to arise from grounding the view of 
 the size of the families (p. 102) on merely the 
 recorded numbers of such families, without consider- 
 ino^ that the omission of the names of other mem- 
 bers does not actually necessitate their non-exist- 
 ence. This seems supported by the brief record of 
 Cain's family (Gen. iv.); by the examination of the 
 small number of generations between the Deluge and 
 
OF THE OBJECTIONS OF BISHOP COLENSO. 29 
 
 the call of Abraham (Gon. xi.); from which we must 
 conclude, that, without the admission of the idea of 
 enormous families, the world could not have been 
 peopled, as it was at the time referred to. This idea 
 seems yet further supported by some recorded in- 
 stances of vast families ; as the seventy sons of Jerub- 
 baal (Judges ix. 24) ; the thirty sons and thirty 
 daughters of Ibzan (Judges xii. 9); the forty sons of 
 Abdon (Judges xii. 14). The computation, therefore, 
 of forty-two sons to a family (p. 84) seems no high 
 one, at a period and in a country, when they married at 
 the age of about fourteen, and died at about a hundred 
 and thirty. Besides, as regards the present objection, 
 this excessive number need not be insisted on, if 
 proper allowance be made for the decrease of the first- 
 born by natural causes, and the slaughter in Egypt 
 (Exod. i. 22), to which apparently in the support of 
 such objection too little weight has been given 
 (sect. 95). 
 
 The objection (chap, xv.) regarding the sojourn in 
 Egypt may be passed over as hardly involving an 
 objection, but only a difficulty ; the solution of which 
 is familiar to every Biblical student. 
 
 That in chap, xvi., drawn from the words (Gen. 
 XV. 16), "In the fourth generation they shall come 
 hither again," seems to be the one that presents the 
 greatest difficulty, as grounded on that preceding it, 
 the extent of the sojourn in Egypt (chap. xv.). But 
 inay they not be taken to mean, that in the lifetime 
 of some members of the fourth generation they 
 should return to Canaan ? a prophecy actually ful- 
 filled; for, dating the 400 years' sojourn from the 
 birth of Isaac, we find then that Jacob, Levi, Jochebed, 
 and Moses, represent respectively the first, second, 
 third, and fourth generations. During Moses' life- 
 time and that of his cotemporaries, the children of 
 
30 PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 Israel left Egypt, and returned to Canaan. Not that 
 they entered the confines within Jordan on account 
 of the sin at Kadesh, but Moses did certainly enter 
 the limits of the land, promised to Abram, concerning 
 which this prophecy (Gen. xv. 18) was uttered; inas- 
 much as, while Moses was alive, the Amorites and 
 Moabites, whose countries were comprised within the 
 limits of the prophecy, were conquered. 
 
 The assertion at the end of chap. xvi. of the impos- 
 sibility of the nation thus multiplying from seventy 
 persons to six hundred thousand warriors^ representing 
 two millions of persons at least, seems utterly ground- 
 less, if allowance be only made for the effect of early 
 marriages and long lives, in the production of large 
 families. For if it be possible, that Aaron's family, 
 in the space of about forty years, could have increased 
 to six hundred or seven hundred persons, — acalculation 
 by no means impussible, — by a similar calculation it 
 would follow that a far greater number than two mil- 
 lions could be derived from the original seventy, who 
 came into Egypt with Jacob, during the space of the 
 215 years' sojourn. And this extraordinary fecundity 
 seems yet further supported by Exod i. 7. 12. 20. 
 This reasoning would also seem to do away with the 
 objections in chaps, xvii. xviii., as to the numbers of 
 Israelites, Danites, and Levites, at the time of the 
 Exodus : objections that are grounded on the appa- 
 rently erroneous idea, that, because certain members 
 of a family are mentioned, none others existed ; and 
 that therefore all the families were small, instead of 
 being extraordinarily large : an idea which the whole 
 Bible history seems to imply, in order to account for 
 the population of the world, and which in some in- 
 stances, as before laid down, it directly asserts to have 
 been the case. Even in the extreme case of Dan, of 
 whom only one son is recorded in any Scripture 
 
OF THE OBJECTIONS OF BISHOP COLENSO. 31 
 
 genealogy, it cannot be said that none other was born to 
 him, any more than the same cannot be said of Cain, 
 whose only recorded son was Enoch. All that would 
 seem to be implied from such record is, that a certain 
 pre-eminence was granted to those thus named, which 
 was not given to the other sons not expressly men- 
 tioned, just as is shown by the words of Jacob to 
 Joseph, with regard to Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. 
 xlviii. 5, 6), taken in connexion with any other 
 progeny of Joseph, who, together with their offspring, 
 would be merged in the family of one or other of 
 these two. 
 
 The same mode of solution seems to apply to the 
 objection (chaps, xx. xxi.), touching the insufficiency 
 of the number of the priests for the performance of 
 the general duties, as well as those particular services 
 expected from them at the time of the celebration of 
 the Passover. There seem no sufficient gfrounds for 
 confining their numbers to only those recorded to 
 have been consecrated; and on this supposition we 
 cannot imagine the provisions for their maintenance 
 were unreasonably large. 
 
 We now come to the last objection (chap, xxii.) 
 under the head of the War in Midian : where it is 
 stated (sect. 173) that ''''the narrative^ as it now 
 stands^ is im historical,^'' from the apparently alleged 
 reason, that the multitude of events recorded are too 
 numerous to be crowded within the space between 
 the^r^^ day of the fifth month of the fortieth year of 
 the wanderings, and the first day of the eleventh 
 month ; an objection that seems entirely without 
 foundation, because based on purely supposititious 
 allotments of time for such events. The only re- 
 corded allotment of time seems to be that of the 
 mourning for Aaron ; which in Num. xx. 29 is fixed 
 at thirty days. Then, in sect. 1 73, follows the " sup- 
 
32 PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 position,^' that ^^ offer this" the campaign with Arad 
 took place; a specification of time, not apparently 
 recorded in either Num. xxi. 1 — 3, or Num. xxxiii. 40. 
 All that seems recorded is, that such campaign took 
 place during the sojourn at Mount Hor; and hence 
 I think it may be safely inferred, that it occurred either 
 before Aaron's death, or durinof the mourninjr for him. 
 Another month is therefore free for the other events. 
 The next allotment of six weeks for the plague of the 
 serpents, and the other 7iifie encampments, seems also 
 to be purely supposititious. The proper number of 
 such encampments, from Num. xxxiii. 41 — 49, appears 
 to be only eight: — Zalmonah, Punon, Oboth, Ije- 
 abarim, Dibon-Gad, Almon-diblathaim, the moun- 
 tains of Abarim, and the plains of Moab. There 
 seems no reason, why greater latitude should be 
 required for the marches between these, than was 
 asked in sect. 78 for the journey to the Red Sea, 
 where for those three marches only three days were 
 allowed. To do away then with unnecessary diffi- 
 culties, may not a space of fourteen days be consi- 
 dered sufficient, which leaves a margin of six days 
 for the plague of the serpents ? Under this idea, there 
 remains a space of four and a half months for the 
 conquest of Sihon, of the Amorites at Jaazer, of Og, 
 and of the Midianites. Taking the presianed period of 
 two months and a half (sect. 173, v. vi. vii.) for the 
 three first, there still remains a yet further space of 
 two months for the sin at Shittim and its consequent 
 punishment, the census, and the war with Midian, a 
 period more than is claimed for the latter (sect. 174, 
 6). From the tenor of Num. xxv. 3 — 9, the event 
 of the plague at Shittim seems confined to one day; a 
 space, also, which may be considered amply sufficient 
 for the numberintj of so well organized a host as that 
 of Israel, when we further consider that the lust ccn- 
 
OF THE OBJECTIONS OF BISHOP COLENSO. 33 
 
 sus of our own country was completed in the same 
 time, though the amount of the population of England 
 is nearly fifteen times that of the Israelites. Nothing 
 recorded seems to militate against the idea, that the 
 two messajres from Balak and Balaam could have been 
 sent immediately after the defeat of the Amorites 
 (Num. xxii. 2), and during the war with Og. 
 
 It cannot be expected we should disbelieve the 
 Biblical record of the slaughters at various times of 
 the Israelites (p. 141), without some further proof 
 of its incredibility than the mere comparison between 
 them and the loss at Waterloo. 
 
 So, also, the horror that apparently arises from 
 the comparing the slaughter of the Midianites with 
 the tragedy at Cawnpore (p. 144), seems the result of 
 forgetting that the one was commanded by the express 
 order of the Almighty (Num. xxv. 17), the other 
 was the product of the mere will of man. This 
 destruction of mankind by the will of God is a work 
 of daily occurrence, as witnessed by their removal by 
 death. The shudder seems only to be caused from 
 the contemplation of the instrument. An epidemic 
 spares neither young nor old, women nor children. Had 
 Moses acted on his own impulse such feelings might 
 have been intelligible, but acting under the specific 
 command of the Creator they seem groundless. As 
 well might we feel incredulity at the record of the 
 death of a quarter of a million by cholera at Jeddo '. 
 The destruction in either case occurred from the ex- 
 press will of God, the instruments only being different. 
 The character of a general, by whose orders numbers 
 are slain in battle, excites no such degree of abhor- 
 rence as to cause the account to be rejected as 
 unhistorical. I believe the Taepings in China are 
 
 ' « The Times," December 16th. 
 
34 PLAIN POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
 
 stated in the last Quarterly, to have slain 20,000 per- 
 sons in one city ; the account of such slaughter docs not 
 render the statement incredible. It seems strange to 
 assert, therefore, that the sacred narrative is not to 
 be believed because Moses, acting as the commander 
 of God's army, carried out the Almighty's order to 
 " vex and smite the Midianites," and only in the 
 manner agreeable to the spirit of those commands, as 
 appears from Num. xxxi. 7. 
 
 It would be well, also, to consider one of the reasons 
 why (p. xi) " the ground on which we have been so 
 long standings with reference to the subject of the 
 inspiration of Scripture^ is felt to be so hollow^ This 
 ground seems to be the passage in Josh. x. 13, " TJie 
 sun stood stilly and the moon stayed;'''' words which, 
 since the time of Galileo, have been considered as sup- 
 porting the idea, that in some instances the Scripture 
 narrative is to be interpreted according to the phrase- 
 ology of the day, rather than according to the literal 
 sense of the words. But may it not be asked, with 
 special reference to this particular text, whether the 
 advance of science has not overthrown this view ? We 
 learn that it is the opinion of astronomers that the 
 sun has a motion in space, supposed to be orbital, and 
 calculated at 154,000,000 miles annually. Since read- 
 ing this, I cannot help thinking, that the usual mode 
 of interpreting this passage is a second time incorrect : 
 that we must again revert to the old opinion, modified 
 only in degree, that the sun and moon were actually 
 arrested in their orbits ; and that not only was there a 
 suspension in the rotatory motion of the earth, but also 
 that this was further communicated to that infinite 
 celestial orrery, of which the sun itself, with its at- 
 tendant planetary system, would seem to form a part. 
 Proof must, I think, now be produced that the sun is 
 fixed^ before even the literal interpretation of the 
 
OF THE OBJECTIONS OF BISUOP COLENSO. 35 
 
 words of tToshua is to be rejected; and thus, on this 
 head, the grounds for supposing the Bible narrative 
 unhistorical seem again weakened. 
 
 Lastly, the idea of imperfection in our Lord's 
 human knowledge (p. xxxi), deduced from the words 
 of St. Luke ii. 52, " Jesus increased in wisdom," as a 
 ground on which to do away with the necessity of 
 believing Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch 
 (p. xxx), seems utterly contradictory to other parts 
 of the Gospels. However such idea may be true of the 
 early portion of our Lord's life, before He commenced 
 His public ministry, and to which we need not refer, as 
 the only words, recorded to have been spoken by Him 
 during that period, are found in Luke ii. 49, words not 
 referring to the writings of JMoses at all ; yet as regards 
 the latter part of His life, the three years of the public 
 ministry, it seems utterly inconsistent with many expres- 
 sions uttered by Him, all declaring His perfect omni- 
 science, such as John i.48, when speaking to Nathanael, 
 He said, " Before that Philip called thee, when thou 
 wast under the fig tree, I saw thee;" and again, 
 John ii. 24, " He knew all men, and needed not 
 that any should testify of man ; for He knew what was 
 in man;" and John iv. 18, which declares His presci- 
 ence of the woman of Samaria's former life, and other 
 passages too numerous to be added. When, there- 
 fore, He speaks of Moses and says (John v. 4G), " He 
 wrote of Me^' does it not bear the appearance of 
 charging the Lord with the utterance of a falsehood, 
 to say, that He used this expression in the sense 
 of an accommodation to the current opinion of the 
 people, that Moses was the reputed author of the 
 Pentateuch ? To imagine this involves the necessity 
 of believing, that our Lord was in error, when He 
 claimed and asserted His knowledge of the fact of 
 the erection of the brazen serpent by Moses (John iii. 
 
36 PLAIN rOSSIBLE SOLUTIONS, &C. 
 
 14). But here and elsewhere, as John x. 15. 38, 
 our Lord claims omniscience, and therefore it seems 
 strange to deny to Him, with regard to the authorship 
 of the Pentateuch^ no ''''fuller or more accurate in- 
 formation than that possessed by any other devout or 
 learned Jew" (p. xxxi). 
 
 Thus have I endeavoured, however weakly, to point 
 out how utterly untenable the proposition appears, 
 that there exist " contradictions " and " impossibi- 
 lities^^ in the sacred narrative, so as to render it 
 " historically untrue^ The first perusal of his 
 Lordship's work was somewhat appalling, as it was 
 not to be expected that such lines could emanate 
 from the pen of an English Bishop, unless supported 
 by incontrovertible proofs ; so that even when possible 
 solutions presented themselves, I hesitated before ac- 
 cepting them. But when I found that, as I advanced, 
 each objection seemed to pass away, and to appear 
 grounded on such sandy foundations, I could not help 
 feeling, that every trial only more powerfully proves 
 the Divine origin of the " Written Word of God." 
 My attempted solutions may appear in some cases 
 improbable; but however that may be, I cannot help 
 feeling that such improbability is infinitely to be pre- 
 ferred to the incredible idea that the sacred narrative 
 is historically untrue. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 GILBEBT AND EITINGTON, TKINTEES, ST. JODN'S SQUARE, LONDON.