F.W. Foviler 
 
 An Anpvrer to Bishop Colenpo 
 
 .#^^ 
 
 sstE,:^ 
 
 BSI225 
 AC7F8 
 
 ?P^^^ 
 
 -^>- 
 
BSI'Z26"" 
 ■ ' T8 
 
 '( 
 
( APR 1 1 19 
 
 V IN BEX F ENTA T E U C HI>^^Qq^qi^^ ^0 
 
 AN ANSWER 
 
 fSERIATIMJ 
 
 TO BISHOP OOLENSO 
 
 ®:J)C ^entatcuci) 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. F. W. -FOWLEE, B.A., 
 
 St. John's College, Cambridge, and Curate of Bathxoick. 
 
 'All Sci'ipture is given by inspiration of God." — 2 Tim, iii. IG. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, and CO., STATIONERS' HALL COURT. 
 
 BATH: E. K. PEACH, 8, BRIDGE STREET. 
 
 CHELTENHAM: G. A. WILLIAMS. 
 
 Price Two ShiUinr/s, 
 

f ^ APR 1 1 i^): 
 
 VINDEX PENTATEUCHL<^^^^^^^^^ 
 
 AN ANSWER 
 
 (SERIATIM) 
 
 TO BISHOP COLENSO 
 
 Wi)t ^lentatcucf). 
 
 REV. F. W. 'FOWLER, B.A., 
 
 St. John's College, Cambridge, and CuraXe of Bathwick. 
 
 ' All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." — 2 Tlm. iii. 16. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, and CO., STATIONERS' HALL COURT. 
 
 BATH: R. K. PEACH, 8, BRIDGE STREET. 
 
 CHELTENHAM: G. A. WILLIAMS. 
 
 MDOCCLXII. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The well-known talents and virtues of Bishop Colenso, as well as 
 his sacred office in the Church, have commanded for his work on the 
 Pentateuch, a wide-spread circulation. Moreover, the plainness of 
 his charges, together with the apparent correctness of his con- 
 clusions, which seem to amount to a demonstration, have unsettled 
 the minds, and shaken the faith, of many hitherto sincere believers 
 in God's word. For these reasons alone, an answer, and that a 
 seriatim one, is imperatively, and almost unanimously, demanded. 
 
 Besides these, there are reasons of far deeper importance, which 
 make an answer of such kind still more necessary. The Bishop's 
 conclusions involve, if admitted, the surrender of the whole Bible, 
 and a consequent relapse into natural religion. Such a result the 
 Bishop evidently contemplates as possible, both in the beginning 
 and end of his book. Thus he writes in his Introductory Remarks, 
 at page 12 : " Our belief in the living God remains as sure as ever, 
 though not the Pentateuch only, but the whole Bible, were removed. 
 It is written on our hearts, by God's own finger, as surely as by the 
 hand of the Apostle in the Bible, that ' GOD IS, and is a rewarder 
 of them that diligently seek him.' It is written there also, as 
 plainly as in the Bible, that ' God is not mocked,' that * whatsoever a 
 man soweth, that shall he also reap,' and that ' he that soweth to the 
 flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption.' " So again, in the same 
 page, he writes, " It is, perhaps, God's will that we shall be tauglit 
 in this our day, among other precious lessons, not to build up our 
 faith upon a book, though it be the Bible itself, but to realize more 
 
truly the blessedness of knowing that he himself, the living God, 
 our Father and Friend, is nearer and closer to us than any book can 
 be, that His voice within the heart may be heard continually by the 
 obedient child that listens for it, and that shall be our teacher and 
 guide in the path of duty, which is the path of life, when all other 
 helpers — even the words of the Best of Books — may fail us." 
 
 All this, is, in other words, that a return to Natural Religion — 
 to Reason and Conscience — as the Bishop puts it in his concluding 
 remarks, is probable ; but we say that such is far more than a pro- 
 bability. On the Bishop's principles, this is not a possibility, but a 
 certainty ; it is not merely probable, but necessary. It is not a " may 
 be," as he has it, but a " must be." For if parts of the Pentateuch are 
 incredible and impossible, what possible confidence can any rational 
 being have in the rest ? The Pentateuch must at once be excluded 
 from the Canon of Holy Scripture. And when we further find that 
 the Pentateuch is quoted and alluded to, not only by Old Testament 
 writers, but by our blessed Lord himself, repeatedly, as being of 
 divine authority, what faith can we longer have in the inspiration 
 of the New ? Give up the Law, and you give up the Gospel too. 
 It answers nothing to this, to say with the Bishop, that perhaps 
 the wisdom of our Lord's Humanity was " gradual and limited." 
 (Preface, p. xxxi.) Granting this were the case, who shall venture 
 to decide when He is speaking to us as fallible man, and when as 
 infallible God ? But whether this be the case or no, it has nothing 
 to do with the matter ; for it is certain our blessed Lord himself 
 declares that He speaks to us in his omniscient Divinity. His 
 truth is always positive and certain. " I am the way, the truth, 
 and the life." So He saith, " Whatsoever I speak therefore, even 
 as the Father said unto me, so I speak." So again, " Believest 
 thou not that I am in the Father and the Father, in me? the 
 words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself ; but the Father 
 that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I 
 am in Father and the Father in me ; or else believe me for 
 the very works' sake." (John xiv. 5, xii. 50, xiv. 10, 11.) Such words 
 as these leave no room for supposing that he speaks in other than His 
 Godhead ; the words of the Father Almighty Himself, because " He 
 and the Father are one." (John x. 30.) When, therefore, he appeals 
 
to the Scriptures, (which always included the writings of Moses) and 
 containing everlasting life; when he allows the practices of the 
 Mosaic law ; when he classes Moses and the prophets together, as 
 testifying of Himself; he speaks and can speak no otherwise than as 
 God. And yet, according to Bishop Colenso, those writings are not 
 Moses', are not real history, but are, much of them, " incredible 
 impossible, and historically untrue." We must then, on the Bishop's 
 principles, go back to Natural Religion, to Reason and Conscience. 
 The very thought must make every Christian shudder. We are to 
 have reason instead of revelation ; conscience instead of grace. This 
 at once destroys all the light, the holiness, and the comfort conveyed 
 by the dispensation of Christ. We must go back to reason's Gods — 
 Jupiter, Venus, and Moloch, and idols of wood and stone ; the gods 
 of the savage African and ignorant Zulu. Where, we may ask, did 
 reason ever teach one blessed, hopeful, comforting truth ? What 
 heathen ever got much beyond the troubling doubt about hereafter — 
 Se quis pioriwi Mani'ms locus ? What can, in fact. Reason ever tell 
 us with certainty, of immortality and life ? It is to supply what 
 reason cannot — to throw light on darkness, that Revelation is wanted 
 and given. Where Reason ends. Revelation begins. And what, again, 
 has Conscience, unaided by grace, ever done to raise and ennoble man- 
 kind ? Rather it has left him sunk in the vilest slough of pride, 
 passion, and sensualism — a mere material clay — the debased and 
 degraded animal being of St. Paul (Romans i.) ; without care or 
 thought beyond the body and the world, who had better " eat and 
 drink, for to-morrow he dies." Such is the end of letting go, even 
 the least part of God's written word ; the religion of Midian ; the 
 degradation of man. 
 
 There is one other unhappy consequence arising from the work ; 
 one which a man of the Bishop's piety could never contemplate, and 
 still less, desire. It is, that his work should become the text-book 
 for each filthy jest and scoffing sneer ; the Unbeliever's Vade-Mccum ; 
 the Free-thinker's Bible. This dark and fatal cloud, however, now 
 hangs upon it, and has, in part descended. 
 
 All will allow that these are weighty reasons for an answer, and 
 that a speedy one. Nevertheless, the writer of these pages, would 
 never have read the Bishop's book, still less have attempted a reply, 
 
if it had not come to him in the way of duty. He thankfully 
 confesses, that undisturbed by doubts himself, he has never troubled 
 himself with reading the doubts of others. But the book was put, 
 nay, forced into his hand by a friend. His attention was called to 
 two of its objections, and the question asked, " How can you possibly 
 get over such impossibilities as these?" This question, coming 
 from one who had always shewn a deep religious feeling, could not 
 pass unnoticed. He felt it a sacred call of duty to consider the 
 objections, and give such answer as he could to them. He also 
 felt, and further experience has convinced him he is right therein, 
 that there might be many humble and pious souls, whose faith had 
 been rudely shaken to its very foundations. Such was the reason 
 for his present attempt, and he humbly hopes that God may bless it. 
 
 Most Holy and Blessed Spirit, whose it is to take of the things 
 of Christ and shew them unto man ; Guide us, we pray thee, into 
 all truth ; Keep us grounded and settled in the faith, that we may 
 be built up an holy temple acceptable unto God, through Jesus 
 Christ, our Lord. Amen. 
 
 F. W. FOWLER. 
 
 Bathwick, December 3, 1862. 
 
BISHOP COLENSO'S OBJECTIONS 
 EEVIEWED. 
 
 OBJECTION L 
 
 THE PUNISHMENT FOR BEATING A SERVANT TO DEATH. 
 
 The Mosaic Law for tlie piinislunent of the above offence 
 is this : 
 
 "If a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, 
 and he die under his hand ; he shall be sm'ely punished. Not- 
 Avithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be 
 punished : for he is his money." Exodus xxi. 20, 21. 
 
 Commenting on this passage, the Bishop tells us of the 
 " revulsion of feeling " with which a Christian native 
 received these words : " How his whole soul revolted against 
 the notion that the great and blessed God, the merciful 
 Father of all mankind, would speak of a servant or maid as 
 mere ' money,' and allow a horrible crime to go unpunished, 
 because the victim of the brutal usage had survived a few 
 hours." And he adds for himself, " My own heart and 
 conscience at the time fully sympathized with his." (Colenso's 
 Introductory Remarks, page 9.) So we may understand the 
 Bishop to mean, that he regards this as an unrighteous and 
 cruel law. 
 
Now we answer, that first, this law does not sanction '' bru- 
 tal usage " on the master's part. It must be interpreted in 
 connection with such other laws regarding servants as these : 
 "Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour;" (Leviticus 
 XXV. 43.) " Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress 
 him." (Exodus xxii. 21.) The vfhole Mosaic law inculcated 
 a like merciful dealing. It cannot, then, for an instant 
 be supposed that the "smiting" here referred to, means a 
 random or violent beating, at the mere will and passion 
 of the master. To be consonant to the above two laws, 
 it must neither be inflicted with a cruel instrument, nor in 
 excess. And such a power of chastisement, circumstances, and 
 social relations between master and servant, might render not 
 only right and proper, but even necessary. Thus ex. gr. it 
 is easy to conceive that on a march, opportunities for theft 
 might be frequent, and require to be summarily dealt with, 
 especially since the servants were probably of the savage 
 hordes of Canaan. 
 
 These considerations, we think, show, that a law which at 
 first sight appears severe, is not so of necessity, and, in dis- 
 cussing a law three thousand years old, our ignorance of the 
 state of society which called it forth, prevents our being 
 good judges of its nature, and — in such ignorance — ^ought we 
 not, if it be a Divine law, to accept it as righteous, for " shall 
 not the judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis xviii. 25.) 
 But the Bishop contends the law is not righteous, therefore 
 it is not Divine. We, on the other hand, contend that the 
 law is Divine, and therefore is righteous. We will now try 
 to establish this proposition, by showing that the law bears 
 on the very face of it, the stamp of both righteousness and 
 mercy. It is righteous thus : it distinguishes, in punishing, 
 between intentional and unintentional homicide. If a brutal 
 master beat his servant with such cruelty that he died under 
 his hand, he was punished, and with death ; for the Hebrew 
 word rendered "punished" signifies "avenged," as given 
 in the margin of the English version ; and this surely was 
 a righteous retribution. The law is also merciful ; for if the 
 beating were of such a natm-e as not to cause immediate 
 
cleatli, then tlie master was punished, but by the loss of his 
 property only. This distinction between intentional and 
 unintentional manslaying, the laws of all civilized nations — 
 certainly those of England — recognize. The case occurred 
 a few years ago, of a master beating his pupil in such 
 manner that he died, almost under his hand. Eevolting as 
 this case was, yet as there was clearly no intention of 
 murder, and as the " beating " was not of a nature to 
 produce, except in extraordinary cases, death, the law 
 inclined to mercy. Are we hence to infer that the law which 
 allows moderate corporal punishment is ''brutal?" More- 
 over in hot climates, death will often result from slight 
 causes ; a scratch or a prick often ends in erysipelas, fever, 
 and death. The writer knew personally of such a case on 
 the coast of Syria : it was that of a person whose flogging, 
 though not cruel, and still less, dangerous, resulted in erysi- 
 pelas, and he died a few days afterwards. The Mosaic law 
 would mercifully prevent this and such like cases, being 
 treated as murder ; and thus, while protecting the servant 
 from cruelty, it would also restrain that Eastern vice of 
 revenge, which demanded life for life, even where life had 
 been destroyed unintentionally. 
 
 To sum up. It has been shown, it is hoped, that the law 
 objected to, if interpreted by the test of Moses' law, only 
 allowed moderate, or we might rather say, mild discipline. 
 Brutality causing death, was punished by death. In other 
 cases, manslaughter was prevented from being treated as 
 murder. And we therefore maintain it to have been both 
 righteous and merciful. 
 
 This objection (with the exception of the war on Midian) 
 is the only one which the Bishop makes on moral grounds. 
 K proven, it would be, in the writer's opinion, the most 
 serious. In noticing such objection, an inevitable digression 
 is forced upon the mind. When a writer challenges the 
 morality of Holy Scripture, we naturally enquire, what kind 
 of morality do we get from him in return ? Now we infer 
 from the Bishop's preface (pages xxxiv. and xxxv., and note 
 page xii.) that he is at least doubtful whether he ought to 
 
resign his sacred office, unless legally compelled. Can any 
 man of plain common sense have a doubt on the matter ? 
 Let us take the Bishop's case, using as the basis of our 
 argument, the axiom, that no man has any moral right to 
 betray a trust. Here is a man invested by the Church with 
 her highest and most sacred office. He is, moreover, a 
 Missionary Bishop, sent forth to convert the heathen. In 
 return for these sacred privileges, there are laid on him 
 certain equally sacred obligations. He is vowed at conse- 
 cration to "instruct the people committed to his charge, out 
 of holy scriptures." He is vowed to " banish and drive away 
 all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's word ;" 
 God's word being the Canonical Books of the Old and New 
 Testament, of which the Pentateuch is part. (vi. Article of 
 Religion.) He is charged to "be to the flock of Christ a 
 shepherd, not a wolf;" to "feed them, and devour them 
 not." (Consecration Service.) How does the Bishop fulfil 
 these weighty trusts ? By attacking a part of those Holy 
 Scriptures he is vowed to teach and maintain. And then he 
 doubts, whether, if there be no legal^ there be no moral 
 obligation on him to resign. Surely this is to sweep away 
 with " the besom of destruction" all principles of morality. 
 The sense of honour forces men to fulfil faithfully many 
 trusts, which the law could not enforce. For Law, imperfect 
 to prevent crime, is almost powerless to prevent bad faith. 
 Can the Bishop be unaware that the maxim, "Where there 
 is no legal, there is no moral obligation," is the maxim of 
 the dishonest ? " It is my right," says the thief, " to 
 plunder; it is the law's right to catch hold of me." With 
 all respect for the Bishop's mathematical attainments, with 
 all reverence for his sacred office, with all esteem for his zeal 
 and devotion — and this all who know him will say is less 
 than his due — deeply and sincerely sympathising with the 
 "pain it would cause him to leave the work committed to 
 his charge" (Colenso, preface, page xiii.) — we must yet 
 protest against a doctrine that uproots every principle of 
 duty, honor, and good faith, and which has caused, and is 
 causing, such scandal and mischief to Christ's church.* 
 
 * See Answer to Objection, " War on Midiau." 
 
OBJECTION 11. 
 
 THE FAMILY OF JUDAH. 
 
 " The Family of Jiidah" is the heading given by the 
 Bishop to this objection ; but we think the title of " Descent 
 of Jacob and his household into Egypt," conveys a clearer 
 idea of its nature. The substance of his objection is, that 
 Hezron and Hamul were, according to Moses, horn in the 
 land of Caana?i, and were among the seventy who came into 
 Egypt with Jacob, and yet they could not possibly have been 
 born until after the descent of Jacob, by Moses' own 
 account. 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 It must be granted that Hezron and Hamul were 7iot born 
 in the land of Canaan. Their father, Pharez, could not 
 have been more than three or fom' years old wlien Jacob 
 went down into Egypt. It is, therefore, " incredible," as 
 the Bishop says, that they could have been born before that 
 event. But we affirm, on the other hand, that neither by 
 Moses, nor anywhere else in the Bible, is it ever said that 
 they were. The Bishop quotes Genesis xhd. 12, and says 
 that " it appears to him certain that the writer here means 
 to say that Hezron and Hamul were born in the h^nd of 
 Canaan (page 17). Why certain, when the sacred writer never 
 says so ? Again, he quotes Genesis xlvi. verses 8, 26, 27 ; 
 also Exodus i. 1 and 5 , also Deuteronomy x. 22 ; and says 
 that " the statement that Hezron and Hamul were born in 
 the land of Canaan is vouched positively in these passages." 
 (page 19.) Yet in none of these passages is anything of the 
 kind affirmed. We find that this is only an inference of the 
 Bishop, because these passages " smn up the ' seventy 
 souls.' " But why is such strong language as " certain," 
 and "vouched so positively," used for a mere inference? 
 This is not the language of severe mathematics, and yet the 
 
Bishop exacts from the sacred writer a far greater severity, 
 and for want of it declares him "incredible and impossible." 
 
 But does the statement of Moses amount to this : namely, 
 that Hezron and Hamul went down into Egypt in company 
 with Jacob ? If so, they were born in Canaan, as the Bishop 
 infers, and were born when their father could not be more 
 than three or four years old. And this is clearly incredible. 
 Bishop CoLENSO, however, affirms that the statement of 
 Moses does amount to this. He says, " I assume, then, that 
 it is absolutely undeniable that the narrative of the Exodus 
 (Ex. i. 5.) distinctly involves the statement that the sixty-six 
 persons," (Hezron and Hamul being two of the sixty-six) 
 '' out of the loins of Jacob, mentioned in Genesis xlvi. and 
 no others, went down with him" {i.e.^ in his company, or at 
 the same time,) " into Egypt." (page 18.) However 
 '■'- undeniable " this assumption may be, we must take the 
 liberty to deny it altogether. All we can grant is, that to a 
 person reading Genesis xlvi. for the first time, or without 
 due attention, it might seem that Hezron and Hamul went 
 down with Jacob. Our counter proposition to the Bishop's 
 is this : 
 
 The Mosaic a,ccount does 7iot involve the statement that 
 Hezron and Hamul went down, i?i point of time, with Jacob. 
 
 We will now attempt to prove this. The expression ^^with 
 Jacob,'"' in Genesis xlvi. 26, means in Jacob's lifetime. We 
 maintain this from verse 8. There it is said, " These are the 
 names of the children of Israel, which cam£ into Egypt'"' 
 The "came with Jacob into Egypt," of verse 26, is qualifed 
 by the "came into Egypt " of verse 8 ; and what can the 
 qualification be conceived to be, but as to time ? The sacred 
 writer is guarding himself against the misconception that 
 might arise from verse 26, that all the "threescore and six" 
 went down absolutely, as to time, with Jacob. And that he 
 does mean by " with Jacob," in Jacob's lifetime, appears, we 
 think, beyond all doubt from verse 27 ; there we read, " all 
 the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt were 
 three-score and ten." Now two of these seventy, Ephraim 
 and Manasseh, he tells us in this very verse were born in 
 
Egypt; how then can the words, "came into Egypt" as 
 applied to them, possibly mean anything else but that they 
 7vere there in Jacob's lifetime ? The same meaning is the only 
 possible one in Exodus i. 1, (the text so much relied on by 
 the Bishop) of the words " came with Jacob." For there 
 too, is the qualifying expression "came into Egypt;" and 
 there, too, the historian reckons up those who so came at 
 " seventy souls," (verse 5,) one of whom, Joseph, certainly 
 never came there with Jacob in any other sense but coming 
 in his lifetime, as the sacred historian expressly adds, " for 
 Joseph was in Egyj^t already." 
 
 So far then is Moses from affirming positively that all the 
 sixty-six went down into Egypt at the same time, that he 
 expressly guards against such misconception of his statement, 
 by showing that his meaning is that they all went down in 
 Jacob's lifetime. In this sense, and in this sense only, can 
 Joseph be one of the seventy who went down with Jacob, for 
 Moses carefully tells us he went before. In this sense only, 
 could Ephraim and Manasseh be two of the seventy, for he 
 carefully tells us that they were born in Egypt. Unless then 
 it can be shown that Hezron and Hamul could not have 
 been born in Jacob's life-time, the whole of the Bishop's 
 objection must fall to the ground. But they certainly could 
 have been born in Jacob's life-time, " for Jacob lived in the 
 land of Egypt seventeen years " (Genesis xlvii. 28) : and 
 by that time theu" father Pharez would be twenty or twenty- 
 one. 
 
 In brief, the statement of Moses, we contend, is clearly 
 this : Hezron and Hamul were not born in Canaan, did not 
 go down to Egypt at the time of Jacob's emigration, but 
 were born in Egypt during Jacob's life-time. 
 
 The objection seems to have arisen because the Bishop 
 will insist that the words " with Jacob, " mean at the same 
 time, whereas we contend the sacred wi'iter carefully shows 
 us that they mean in Jacob's life-time. Will the Bishop 
 maintain that those two words must mean that they all came 
 at the very same instant of time ? This is a more than ma- 
 thematic precision which even he would hardly exact. We 
 
have historic precision, and that is all we want or ought to 
 look for. Take an illustration. Siii:)pose an historian of 
 England were to say of a certain household of seventy souls, 
 that it came into England with William the Conqueror. 
 Suppose him to qualify this expression by saying and 
 repeating elsewhere that it came into England. Suppose 
 him farther to say that one of the seventy came into 
 England hefffre William. Suppose him still farther to say 
 that two more of the seventy were horn^ not came, into 
 England. And suppose him, still in his own history^ to make 
 the age of two more, such that they could have been born 
 in England in the Conqueror's lifetime, and must have been 
 so born. Would any ordinary reader say that his statement 
 that the household came into England with William the 
 Conqueror was historically untrue? Should we not reply, 
 " You are treating the history not as a history, but as an 
 arithmetic ?" Now if the reader in the above illustration 
 will substitute Jacob for William the Conqueror, and Egypt 
 for England, he will have the Mosaic account of Jacob's 
 emigration, and will see the weight of Bishop Colenso's 
 objection. 
 
 OBJECTION III. 
 
 THE SIZE OF THE COUKT OF THE TABERNACLE, COMPARED 
 WITH THE NUMBER OF THE CONGREGATION. 
 
 The objection is founded on the following words, in 
 Leviticus viii. 1, 3,4: ''And the Lord spake unto Moses, 
 saying . . . Gather thou all the congregation together unto 
 the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation. And Moses 
 did as the Lord commanded him ; and the assembly was 
 gathered together unto the door of the Tabernacle of tlie 
 conCTCffation." 
 
9 
 
 The objection is tliis : That the assembly, to be gathered 
 unto the door of the Tabernacle, must have come withm the 
 court of it. But this court, the Bishop demonstrates, would 
 hold no more than five thousand, whereas about a quarter of 
 the whole population was (in round numbers) six hundred 
 thousand. 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 The whole question tm'ns on the meaning attached to the 
 expressions "the assembly," " the whole assembly," "all the 
 congregation ;" Tlie Bishop says, " It appears to be certain (!) 
 that by these expressions is meant the whole body of the 
 people, at all events, the adult males in the prime of life among 
 them." (page 31.) We will now take the passages adduced 
 by the Bishop himself in favour of this opinion, and 
 endeavour fairly to draw out their meaning by a seriatim 
 examination. 
 
 (1.) Lev. viii. 3, 4. Here Moses was ordered to gather 
 " all the congregation ;" but it was " the assembly'''' only was 
 gathered. We infer from two phrases being used there was 
 some understood distinction between them. And the 
 distinction we infer to be this, that the latter was a jmrt of 
 the former. 
 
 (2.) Exodus xii. 6. " The whole assembly of the congre- 
 gation shall kill it (the Paschal Lamb) in the evening." 
 The Bishop's first meaning cannot be right for this, unless 
 babes and infants killed or helped kill the lamb. Neither 
 is his second meaning probable according to his own figures ; 
 for he estimates 150,000 as the number of lambs required, 
 and this involves four men in the killing of each lamb. We 
 infer the meaning of the expression to be general^ i. e.^ no 
 part of the population exempt from the command, 
 
 (3.) Exodus xvi. 2. " The whole congregation of the 
 children of Israel murmured," &c. This excludes infants, 
 for they could not have "murmured." We think that the 
 meaning may fairly be inferred to be the people generally, 
 i.e., in great numbers, murmured; and we will admit that 
 
10 
 
 the expression, " the whole assembly," in the next verse, 
 does apply to all, man, woman, and child. 
 
 (4.) Numbers xiv. 5. " All the assembly of the con- 
 gregation," &c. We infer the meaning to be, all of the 
 congregation that were assembled. (Sept. 7r«o->3; a-vva.yuynq\ 
 all the meeting. Vulg. omiii multitudine ; all the multitude.) 
 
 (5.) Numbers i. 18. The meaning of "all the congrega- 
 tion" here, is clearly confined to the warriors of twenty years 
 old, and upward. 
 
 (6.) Leviticus xxiv. 14 and Numbers xv. 36. " All the 
 congregation" in these two passages must be limited by (3.) 
 
 (7.) Numbers xvi. 19, 25. "All the congregation" 
 gathered by Korah, is limited by ver. 16 to a very small 
 number, 250 (ver. 17), viz.^ Korah's own company. 
 Compare also verses 21 and 22. The rest of the congrega- 
 tion was not with them, for they were " in the door of the 
 Tabernacle " (ver. 18) ; while the rest were about " the 
 tabernacle of Korah," &c. (ver. 24); and '-'■ on every side'"' 
 of it. (ver. 27). 
 
 (8.) Numbers x. 3, 4. Here we think " all the assembly" 
 does not mean the whole population, but only a fraction of 
 them. For the trumpets were used to call the assembly 
 "when the tents were to be moved," or raised. (Vulg. and 
 Sept.) Numbers of the people must have been employed in 
 raising their tents. We presume the words, " all the assem- 
 bly shall assemble ... at the door," &c., to refer to those not 
 thus employed. We read the words, too, as an order as to 
 what they were to do, not as stating the fact of what they did. 
 We admit, however, that this interpretation is not so 
 necessary as the former ones appear to be, and we will 
 therefore grant, (for argument's sake only,) the expression 
 does mean here the great mass of the population, though it 
 can hardly be supposed to mean, young chikh-en and those 
 taking care of them. 
 
 (0.) Joshua viii. 35. The addition of the words, "with 
 the women, and the little ones, and the strangers," &c., to 
 the expression " all the congregation," seems to restrict this 
 expression to adult males. 
 
11 
 
 We will now give the results of the above analysis. If it 
 be a fair and correct one, we establish this. The " assembly," 
 in Lev. viii. 4, does not mean the same as "all the congrega- 
 tion" in verse 3, but means a part of it. That the phrases 
 " whole assembly of the congregation" and " whole congre- 
 gation of the chikhen of Israel," are necessarily restricted 
 by (2) and (3) to a part of the whole people. That the phrase 
 " whole assembly" does in one case (3) apply to all, and 
 may so apply in (8). Lastly, what is the important 
 point of om* argument, that in one case (7), the expression 
 "all the congregation" is limited in (7) to a very small 
 fraction indeed of the whole population, viz., only t7vo 
 hundred and, fifty. 
 
 We will now apply these results. In the passage on which 
 the Bishop founds his objection (Leviticus viii. 1-4), it is, 
 we repeat, "all the congregation" who are summoned, but 
 it is "the assembly" who come. Now if "all the congrega- 
 tion" means a part of the whole population, and once so 
 small a part as two hundred and fifty, the "assembly" must 
 mean a still smaller part by (1). (The word " assembly " in 
 the Sept., we may remark in passing, means no more than 
 what we call "a meeting," o-^^aywyn*). We maintain there- 
 fore, that not the main body; (Colenso, p. 33) not the 
 600,000 (round numbers) actually gathered " unto the door 
 of the Tabernacle," but a very much smaller number? 
 and perhaps a very small number indeed. 
 
 But, says the Bishop, they ought (p. 33) to have been 
 there. This is very true. But we demur to the conclusion 
 that because 600,000 ought to have been there, therefore they 
 overe there. For ovght, as in matters of arithmetic it stands 
 for nothing, so in matters of duty it often stands for next to 
 nothing. Thus the writer has known the chm'ch bell call " ail 
 the congregation" of five thousand together, when " the 
 assembly" actually gathered was no more than three or four. 
 
 * Taking the word a-uva-yta-yt] in the Sept., and the words " multitudo, turha, 
 ccelus, congregatio, congregaverunt" in the Vulg., we may fairly take all tlie 
 expressions, "assembly," &c., to mean what in common phrase is called "a large 
 .meeting." 
 
12 
 
 Moreover, the Bishop should recollect that the children of 
 Israel were a "stiff-necked" and "disobedient" people. 
 Neither do we think it fair that the "assembly" should be 
 assumed to be gathered in measured, mathematical lines, 
 equal in length either to the breadth of the tabernacle or of 
 its door. We may more fairly, we think, believe that the 
 expression, " unto the door," means that the door was the 
 point cPappui, if we may be allowed the term, the spot unto 
 which they were to flock together. 
 
 In fine, we maintain that " the assembly" really gathered 
 unto the door, might be far less than the five thousand 
 which it would hold, and that this is shown by a careful 
 consideration of the words of Moses himself. 
 
 OBJECTION IV. 
 
 MOSES AND JOSHUA ADDRESSING ALL ISRAEL. 
 
 This objection is founded on Deut. i. 1 ; Deut. v. 1 ; and 
 Joshua viii. 34, 35 ; and is as follows : — That the people 
 being two millions and a half (round numbers) it "is not 
 conceivable that a man should do what" (Moses and) 
 "Joshua are there said to have done" {i.e., speak and read to 
 them all) "unless it were done in dumb show." (page 36, 37.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 It must be admitted that Moses and Joshua could not 
 have spoken and read to all Israel, so as to be heard by them, 
 without a miracle. And of such a miracle, as the Bishop 
 justly adds, " scripture tells us nothing." (page 37.) But 
 it does not follow because no miracle was recorded, none was 
 wrought; because there are many circumstances in the 
 
13 
 
 Pentateucli, clearly miraculous, where the miracle itself is 
 not related. In fact, the Exodus and wanderings of Israel 
 from first to last are altogether miraculous. 
 
 But we make no use of this argument here. We think 
 the whole objection is met by applying here, the rule of 
 quifacitper almm.,facitper se. If Moses and Joshua gave 
 orders such that their words were spoken and read to all 
 Israel, then they in effect, spoke and read them themselves 
 to all Israel. This, we think, is a fair and natural construc- 
 tion to put upon the words of the sacred writer. Certainly, 
 it is the construction often put upon secular history. Thus, 
 ex. ffr., we read sometimes of a G-eneral, in the course of a 
 battle, " bringing up fresh troops into action," where the 
 " bringing " means that they were brought by his orders, 
 but the actual setting them in motion, he has had nothing 
 to do with. Let us interpret the words of divine history with 
 no more favour and no less than we give to profane, and 
 there is nothing in the statements objected to but what is 
 historically true. 
 
 OBJECTION V. 
 
 THE EXTENT OF THE CAMP, COMPARED WITH THE PRIEST'S 
 DUTIES AND THE DAILY NECESSITIES OF THE PEOPLE. 
 
 The nature of the objection is this, that the camp of the 
 Israelites must have been of such wide extent that the 
 people could not have travelled the distances required of 
 them. (Colenso, pp. 39, 40.) We will not enter into the 
 details of this objection, as we shall follow them in our 
 
14 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 ■ We admit the computation of the Bishop to be reasonable, 
 viz. : that the area of the whole camp covered a space of twelve 
 square miles. But we are entitled to surmise that this whole 
 camp, of so great extent, and containing such hosts, must 
 have had sub-divisions. Probability makes this a natural 
 order, a necessary surmise. We turn then to scripture, to 
 Moses' scripture, to see if this surmise be confirmed or 
 rejected. And we find that it is no surmise at all, but a 
 recorded fact. Thus Moses tells us the Gershonites " pitched 
 westward the tabernacle." (Numbers iii. 23.) " Moses and 
 Aaron and his sons, encamped towards the east." (Numbers 
 iii. 38.) " The camp of Judali pitched eastward the taber- 
 nacle." (Numbers ii. 3.) Each tribe had its separate en- 
 campment. (Numbers ii. whole chapter.) Each camp had 
 its own "standard " (Numbers ii. 34.), and its own " captain." 
 (Numbers x. 14 — 27.) The children of Israel were ordered 
 " to pitch their tents every man by his own camp " and 
 every man by his own " standard." (Numbers i. 52.) In short, 
 let the reader only run his eye over the above-quoted passages^ 
 and he will find it impossible to come to any other conclusion 
 but that the whole cam}) was divided into twelve compartments 
 or sub-divisions. 
 
 Such being the fact., the Bishop's objections, (pages 39, 
 40,) become, in mathematic phrase, " vanishing quantities." 
 The Priests would 7iot have far to carry the oifal. The 
 people would not have far to carry their " ashes," and 
 "rubbish," and "filth of every kind." They would not 
 have far to go for " necessities of nature." And as to the 
 command in this last respect contained in Deut. xxiii. 12-14, 
 we cannot see why the Bishop should suppose it to include 
 those who could not obey it, viz.., " the aged and infirm, 
 women in childbirth, sick persons, and young children." 
 Thus instead of going " six miles''' (Colenso, p. 40) they 
 would have only to go the very short distance to the outside 
 of their own camp. 
 
15 
 
 OBJECTION VI. 
 
 THE NUMBEK OF THE PEOPLE AT THE FIKST MUSTER, COM- 
 PARED WITH THE POLL-TAX RAISED SIX MONTHS PREVIOUSLY. 
 
 Before entering upon this objection, we will just notice a 
 preliminary one, though we must candidly avow our opinion 
 that it does not need notice. The Bishop objects that the 
 expression " shekel of the sanctuary " in Exodus xxx. 13, 
 could hardly have been used in the way it is, " until the 
 sanctuary had been some time in existence, and such a phrase 
 had become familiar in the mouths of the people." (Colenso, 
 p. 41.) Yet, he adds, " here it is put into the mouth of 
 Jehovah, six or seven months before the tabernacle was 
 made." And, "the phrase is used again," he says, "in 
 Exodus xxxviii. 24, 25, 26, of the actual contributions of 
 the people towards the building of the sanctuary.'''' 
 
 Now, since Moses wrote the book of Exodus after the 
 building of the sanctuary, may we not look upon ^xq expres- 
 sion " half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary," as 
 an explanatory note, nota bene, or parenthesis, declarative of 
 the value of the half shekel ? There is just such an explan- 
 atory parenthesis in the English version, in the same verse 
 with the above words and immediately after. Or, if the 
 expression must be understood as the words of Jehovah him- 
 self to Moses, where, we ask, is the " difficulty" ? We feel a 
 repugnance for reverence' sake to make any comparison be- 
 tween the words of Almighty God and the words of man. 
 But since the objection obliges us to do so, we offer this 
 illustration. As it may have pleased the Almighty to explain 
 to his servant what "a shekel of the sanctuary " was, before 
 the phrase was familiar to the people, and before the sanctu- 
 ary was in existence ; so it certainly did please the govern- 
 ment to tell us what a ^florin was, before the phrase was 
 familiar to the people, and before the florin was in existence. 
 
 We pass on now to consider the objection as to the poll- 
 tax compared with the census. 
 
16 
 
 It is founded on a comparison between Exodus xxxviii. 26, 
 and Numbers i. 46, in each of wliicb passages, the number 
 of adult males is given as the same, (603,550) though the 
 census of Numbers was taken more than six months after the 
 poll-tax of Exodus. Stated in the Bishop's own words, the 
 objection is this : Tliat "it is surprising that the number of 
 adult males should have been identicalhj the same (603,550) 
 on tJie first occasion^ as it was lialf-a-year afterwards. " 
 (Colenso, p. 42.) 
 
 The following is offered as an 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 In Exodus xxxviii. we have, as Kurtz says, " simply the 
 raising of a tax, and no numbering at all." Yet, it must be 
 granted that verses 25 and 26, of Exodus xxxviii. in the 
 English version, do imply a numbering, and that the number 
 of adults was deduced from the number of half shekels. 
 But these verses are not found in the Vulgate. There, after 
 verse 24, which gives the offerings of gold (not silver), it is 
 written, " It was offered {i. e. the gold), by those who went 
 over to be numbered of twenty years old and upward, for 
 603,550 armed men." And, though the Vulgate does after- 
 wards give the amount of siher used on the sanctuary, verses 
 27, 28, yet it does not give them in such manner as that the 
 number of people was reckoned from the number of half 
 shekels. 
 
 There are then Hebrew manuscripts which do not deduce 
 the number of adult males (603,550), from the amount of 
 silver. We therefore conclude with Kurtz, that this was the 
 "raising of a tax, and no numbering at all." The second 
 census of Numbers i. was however a very strict numbering. 
 As Kurtz says, " it was commanded, organized and carried 
 out with solemnity and formality ; and, as Kurtz adds, "the 
 difference in number of population, would be very trifling in 
 the space of six or seven months," — we think the sacred 
 writer gives the more correct result of the census of Num- 
 bers i., in his account of the poll-tax in Exodus xxxviii. 26. 
 
17 
 
 And this course, an exact writer would be careful to pursue. 
 Witli regard to the Bishop's replies to Kurtz (p. 43) on this 
 point, if the view of "the poll-tax no numbering" be true, 
 then his argument I. fails : also 11. and III. fail, from the 
 Vulgate version above given. Of II. we add, that we do not 
 say the amount of silver is less accurate than that of the 
 gold or the brass, but only the number of men given was not 
 derived from the amount; and TV., which is a deduction 
 from I., II., III., must be entirely reversed, and read thus : 
 " the story in Exodus is a rough estimate," as Kurtz supposes. 
 Next — with regard to the round numbers in Numbers i. 
 The Bishop objects that they are all in round hundreds except 
 the tribe of Gad, which ends in a fifty. But Numbers i. 3, 
 tells us that this census was a military census. The divine 
 command was, " Thou and Aaron shall number them by their 
 armies r "by their troops,''' {turmas) it is in the Vulgate. 
 Being thus reckoned by their armies or troops, there is 
 nothing very sm'prising that they should be given to the 
 nearest hundred. And if one tribe (Gad) out of twelve should 
 have happened to have come up exactly to a fifty, it is not a 
 very extraordinary chance. It is about the same chance, that 
 if the numbers one to eight were put in a bag, a person at 
 the first draw should take out any particular one, say eight. 
 It may then, without supposing anything more wonderful 
 than what often occurs, be supposed that the tribe of Gad 
 came up to an exact fifty, and for that reason was so set 
 down. With regard to the Bishop's argument that every 
 individual paid " a ransom for his soul " (Exodus xxx. 12) at 
 each numbering (p. 44), we answer that, this being done, 
 does not hinder Moses who was numbering them by troops, 
 giving their numbers as troops. As to the numbering in 
 Numbers xxvi., we confess we can see no reason why eleven 
 tribes should be reckoned in round numbers, and the twelfth 
 (Reuben) in an odd thirty. But we can easily conceive that 
 the reason was- known and understood at the time. But 
 whether known or not, we contend there is nothing wonderful 
 or surprising in the cu'cimistance, and that it in no way 
 affects the historic truthfulness of the writer. 
 
18 
 
 OBJECTION VIL 
 
 THE ISRAELITES DWELLING IN TENTS. 
 
 The objection is founded upon this text, " Take ye every 
 man for them which are in his tents." (Exodus xvi. 16.) 
 Whereupon the Bishop truly observes, that " immediately 
 after their coming out of Egypt, the people had tents" 
 (Colenso, p. 45). And he then attempts to prove that the 
 weight of these tents must have been so great as to require 
 200,000 oxen to carry them (p. 47). How much reason 
 tliere is for making the weight so excessive, will be seen in 
 the following 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 The Bishop assumes that the Israelites had tents, when 
 they left Egypt, " with poles, pegs, &c.," such as the luxury 
 of modern travel employs ; or rather he assumes the Hebrew 
 tents to have been " much heavier " (p. 47). We will now 
 make a counter assumption, giving the fact which we think 
 makes it a highly probable one. The fact is this. In the 
 present day, in Syria and Palestine, we see at the four 
 corners of the flat roofs of houses, four sticks set upright. 
 To the tops of these four sticks are fastened the four corners 
 of a piece of matting, which thus spreads as an awning over 
 the roof. The writer has taken meals under such a tent many 
 times ; and many nights in his clothes or wrapped in a grego, 
 slept. This would protect the Israelites "from the sun by 
 day, and the moon" (or dew) "by night." (Psalm cxxi. 6.) 
 We think it then highly probable that this was their tent in 
 the flight. It would be sufficient protection in a country 
 where rain seldom comes, and then only for a short time. 
 At all events, it would be all they could want for a short 
 time ; and the fact of such tents being used now, is a strong 
 presumption, considering the unchangeableness of Eastern 
 habits, that they were used then. Now four such sticks and 
 
19 
 
 a matting, under wliich ten men might sleep side by side, 
 and sit at their meals, would not, the writer thinks, be so 
 much as /ye pounds weight at the utmost. Now, taking the 
 Avhole population at two millions and a half, we may fairly 
 assume that they would not take up more space than two 
 million men. Take a ten-man tent at five pounds, and an 
 able-bodied man may be allowed to march under the bm-den 
 of ten such tents, especially in a case of urgency. This 
 would employ twenty thousand men, or one man in thirty of 
 able bodies. 
 
 N.B. We have assigned the burden to men rather than 
 oxen, both as more probable, and because we object to the 
 small weight of one hundred and sixty pounds to an ox on 
 march, assigned by the Bishop, when we have seen a 
 no very great Hercules carry two hundred weight a short 
 distance. 
 
 If, after the overthrow of the Egy]3tians, wlien the people 
 had more leisure, they attached a back and two side pieces, 
 and partially covered the front, there would be a tent with 
 " a door," as afterwards described in Exodus xxxiii. 8, 10. 
 
 As to " decency" (Colenso, p. 46), where all laid dowoi to 
 rest in their garments, the women might have lain as Ruth 
 at the feet of Boaz ; or the men and women might have 
 several tents ; or the men might do without tents, which 
 would further reduce them nearly one half. 
 
 OBJECTION VIII. 
 
 THE ISRAELITES ARMED. 
 
 Tlie objection is founded on this text: "The children of 
 Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt." Exodus 
 xiii. 18. 
 
 And it is in substance this, — 
 
 (1.) "That it is inconceivable the Israelites could have 
 possessed arms at the time of their flight" (Colenso, p. 48) ; 
 
20 
 
 and (2) " if they were armed that they should have been so 
 debased and inhuman in their cowardice, as not to fight the 
 pursuing Egyptians in defence of their wives and children." 
 (Colenzo, p. 51.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 1. As to their being armed. Here it must be observed, 
 in the first place, that the word Dli'nn " harnessed," does not 
 certainly mean armed, nor 7ieces8arily imply it. Gesenius in hoc 
 /6»<?i9 interprets it "eager," "active," "brave," "ready," 
 " prepared for fighting;" only the last of these meanings im- 
 plies having arms. Let us endeavour to fix the meaning of 
 the word, for " harnessed" conveys no distinct idea, and so the 
 English translators appear to have thought, by putting 
 "by five in a rank" in the margin. Now when we find a 
 word of obscure meaning in a dead language, the 23roper 
 course is to search for other passages where the same word 
 occurs, (and especially in the same writer,) and give it such 
 meaning, if we can, as will suit these other passages. Act- 
 ing thus in the present case, we contend that " in battle 
 array," is a suitable meaning, as Kurtz says, for it fits all 
 the passages cited by Bishop Colenso. But we do not agree 
 with Kurtz that this meaning " certainly includes the 
 notion of being armed." It surely need not in all cases, and 
 that of the Israelites was a very peculiar and exceptional 
 case : and if these considerations be allowed, then all that 
 the sacred wi'iter says, is, that they went out of Egypt in 
 battle array, i.e., in regular order, as Scott has it, and not a 
 disorderly rabble. 
 
 Grant, however, that the word does mean armed. We do 
 not think it " inconceivable" that they should have been 
 armed ; not indeed every individual man, but generally, i.e., 
 in large numbers. But how armed ? Certainly not with 
 the " swords, spears, and shields " of the Bishop's imagina- 
 tion. How were Monmouth's rustics armed, if Macaulay be 
 not " incredible and impossible? " They had, he says, " no 
 
21 
 
 other weapons than such as could be made out of the tools 
 which they had used in husbandry and mining. Of these 
 rude implements of war the most formidable was made by 
 fastening the blade of a scythe erect on a strong pole." 
 (Macaulay, vol. i., page 587-88.) And why not the children 
 of Israel their " tools of husbandry" too? An ox-goad for 
 a spear, a plough-share for a sword, and perhaps a large 
 hammer for a battle-axe ? 
 
 2. How was it they were so ^'cowardly" when pursued by 
 the Egyptians? (Colenso, page 51, on Exodus xiv. 12.) 
 Why, for many and good reasons. Because Egypt's hosts, 
 as Herodotus tells us, and as the Bishop quotes him, were a 
 disciplined army, " who applied themselves wholly to mili- 
 tary aifairs." Because Pharoah had his " horsemen and 
 chariots " (Exodus xiv. 9), and could therefore kill them at 
 a distance, could drive and ride roimd, at, and over them. 
 Because they were cumbered with burdens, and with their 
 women and children. Because they were much as a mob, 
 charged by foot and horse soldiery ; as sheep in a pen before 
 the dog and the butcher. And because " the thicker such 
 grass the easier it is mown." 
 
 OBJECTION IX. 
 
 THE INSTITUTION OF THE PASSOVER. 
 
 This objection is founded on Exodus xii. 21 — 28. 
 
 We cannot very well state this objection, because, under 
 the above heading the Bishop takes notice of several other 
 matters. We will therefore try to follow his arguments of 
 chapter x. in our 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 The objection begins thus : " In one single dmj, the whole 
 immense population, as large as that of London, was in- 
 structed to keep the Passover, and actually did keep it." " I 
 
have said in one single day," continues Bishop C, ''for the 
 first notice of any such feast to be kept, is given in this very 
 chapter, where we find it written (Exodus xii. 12), "I will 
 pass through the land of Egypt tins night, and will smite all 
 the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast ;" 
 and tlien he argues, "It cannot be said that they had notice 
 several days before-hand." We would follow this argument 
 if we could. But down to the bottom of the page (54), we 
 cannot understand it ; and although the Bishop does not 
 appear to allow any errors or omissions of transcription in 
 the Pentateuch, yet we cannot but think there is something 
 of the kind as to the pronouns "this" and "that" in this 
 part of his work on it. We will therefore give our own 
 proposition and try to prove it, and it is : — 
 
 That they had notice several days before-hand. In Exodus 
 xii. 3, the command is given, " In the tenth day of this 
 month they shall take to them every man a lamb." In verse 
 6, " Ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same 
 month." After this follow the directions as to the manner 
 of prej)aring and eating it ; and then, in verse 12, is given 
 the reason for the institution, "For I will pass through the 
 land of Egypt THAT night."* All this is spoken before the 
 tenth day. Thus the lamb mas " taken and kept up," ready 
 _to be killed, and all the directions given as to eating it four 
 dags in advance. All being thus ready, on the fourteenth 
 Moses gives the word for celebration — " Draw out (the lamb) 
 and kill the passover." If the reader will only read over 
 attentively Exodus xii. to verse 22, we are convinced he can 
 come to no other conclusion. 
 
 But, the Bishop says, that when, in Exodus xi. 4, "Moses 
 
 * The writer believes " THAT " to be the true reading here, and not " this " as in 
 the E.V. For though it is the pronoun pjfpj in Van der Hooght, yet it is cer- 
 tainly " THAT " in the Sept. and Vulgate versions, for in both it is a word in oppo- 
 sition to the word this in verse 14. Thus the Sept. in verse 12, has wktI ravrr] 
 " tJi.at night " in opposition to ^ 7]/j.epa aCrrj this, or this same day, in verse 14. 
 So the Vulgate, verse 12, has " nocte ilia," thai night, in opposition to " hunc diem," 
 this day, in verse 14. There are therefore good and strong reasons for asserting 
 that all Exodus xii. down to the end of verse 20, was spoken befo7-6 the tenth day 
 of the month. 
 
23 
 
 said, Thus saitli the Lord, About micbiight will I go," &c., 
 there can be ''no doubt that the midnight then next at hand 
 is intended." We really think on the contrary, that there 
 ^5, and very great, doubt. For the expression, '' about mid- 
 night " is a general expression, meaning any midnight. It 
 fixes the ti7ne, but not the day^ not the particular midnight. 
 And there is nothing in Exodus xi. that makes against 
 this, but rather the contrary. 
 
 The Israelites were thus prepared in all points, to kill and 
 eat the Passover at once, when the signal was given. The 
 ^^sig7i" (Colenso, p. 55) could, we say, be given to all in twelve 
 hours (Ibid), even though they be supposed to be spread over a 
 district " larger than Hertfordshire." (Colenso, p. 59.) 
 Whoever knows how expert Easterns are with signals, will 
 have no difficulty in believing that the " sign" passed so 
 rapidly ; especially on so momentous an occasion, and 
 among men in the attitude of eager expectation. And here 
 we will take leave of the institution of the Passover. 
 
 Next. The Bishop complains of " the borrowing," 
 recorded in Exodus iii. 22, as incredible. 
 
 In the first place we remark, that it is by no means 
 certain from the sacred story that the Israelites, " when 
 suddenly summoned to depart, hastened, at a moment's* 
 notice, to ' borrow ' in all directions from the Egyptians." 
 (Colenso, p. 56.) On the contrary, we think it quite as 
 likely, from the narrative, that the borrowing took place 
 before the day of flight. The borrowing was, as we shall 
 presently see, a before-settled arrangement ; and the sacred 
 historian does not fix the exact time it took place. All that 
 he says is, "The children of Israel did according to the word 
 of Moses ; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels," &c., 
 (Exodus xii. 35), and these words leave it quite an open 
 question whether they borrowed before, or at, the time of 
 flight. 
 
 Grant, however, that the "borrowing" f/?V/ take place on 
 
 * The use of the word "moment" here, and at page 61, is a huge departure from 
 that mathematical severity of expression which the Bishop exacts of the 
 Pentateuch. 
 
24 
 
 the night of departure. And, we ask, where is the difficulty 
 still ? None — when we call to mind that there was (1) Prepa- 
 ration ; and (2) miraculous interference. There was prepara- 
 tion, for, before one of the plagues was wrought, when God 
 appeared to Moses in the bush, he gave him the order to 
 borrow, and detailed both who should borrow and what 
 should be borrowed (Exodus iii. 22). Before the tenth day 
 of the month, the flight being on the fourteenth, the order 
 is repeated to Moses, and he is told then to declare it to the 
 Israelites. " Speak now in the ears of the people, and let 
 every man borrow of his neighbour," &c. (Exodus xi. 2.) 
 
 2. There was miraculous interference. God himself pro- 
 mised his help in the matter, when he appeared to Moses in 
 the bush. " I will give this people ^a^^^z^r in the sight of 
 the Egyptians : and it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, 
 ye shall not go empty (Exodus iii. 21). Before the tenth of 
 the month, this divine help was given. " The Lord gave the 
 people favour in the sight of the Egyptians." (Exodus xi. 3). 
 (From these words we incline to think the borrowing was 
 made then.) And now, still supposing the borrowing to be 
 on the night of departure, the Israelites had before it, made 
 their requests, and the Egyptians had been, by divine grace, 
 disposed to comply with them ; nay, were more than disposed 
 to comply, were most anxious to press the things needed 
 upon them. For as we read that they "were urgent upon 
 the people, that they might send them out of the land in 
 haste " (Ex. xii. 33) ; we may reasonably believe they thrust 
 on them the means of so doing. Taking all this into account, 
 and also that the things borrowed, were light and of small 
 compass, "jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment" 
 (Exodus iii. 22, and xi. 2, and xii. 35) ; and where is the 
 "difficulty?" 
 
 Last. The Bishop thinks the 8tart^ or rather the warning 
 to start, out of Egypt was too sudden. " How," he asks, 
 " could the secured notice to start, have been so suddenly and 
 so completely circulated; for not one, he says, "was to go 
 out at the door of his house until the morning?" (Exodus 
 
25 
 
 xii. 22.) We will try and tell him how, for it appears very 
 simple. In the first place, we think that this order though 
 a general one, had its exceptions, and if Moses wanted mes- 
 sengers to carry out God's commands, such excejitions would 
 have been allowed. Such exceeding severity of interpretation 
 as the Bishop's is we think unnecessary, especially when we 
 remember that Moses records great events, but does not jot 
 down little details.* But be it that the law had no exception. 
 It is " inconceivable" that Moses should have had no friends 
 among the Egyptians ready to obey his behests, especially 
 since they were most anxious to get rid of the Hebrews 
 (Exodus X. 7). And then — that " mixed multitude " (Exodus 
 xii. 38) that " went up with them ;" (the order certainly had 
 nothing to do with them) — what were they about all day ? 
 Surely Moses might find plenty of messengers from among 
 them. What more likely than that he did so ? They could 
 easily bring in the people to Rameses and its suburbs, even 
 from " a district larger than Hertfordshire." But why should 
 Moses be required to set down all these petty details, or 
 indeed why should we ? 
 
 OBJECTION X. 
 
 THE JIAECH OUT OF EGYPT. 
 
 The objection is founded on Exodus xii. 37, 38. It is 
 chiefly this : That the whole population of the Israelites, two 
 millions and a half (say), "were summoned to start, and 
 actually started, at a moment's notice,* not one being left 
 behind, together with all their multitudinous flocks and 
 herds." (Colenso, p. 61.) We cannot, however, for briefness' 
 sake, put the whole of this objection into one statement. 
 
 • See Note, page 23. 
 
26 
 
 We therefore refer the reader to Colenso, chapter xi.; still he 
 will find them embodied in om- 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 The suddenness of the summons we have already discussed 
 in the last objection. It was there shown the " warning " 
 was not "at a 'moment's notice," but at a twelve-hours' 
 one. It was also shown, how they might have easily been 
 collected into Hameses and its suburbs to eat the passover, 
 and were thus all at hand for the start. But we do not 
 insist on this last cu'cumstance, as being certain, but only as 
 probable, or, suppose we say, possible. Be this as the reader 
 pleases, still the Bishop will not allow, under any circum- 
 stances, the suddenness of the Israelites' start, as put in the 
 statement above. All that he has objected to before is bad 
 enough, but this is far worse — " it is," he says, " utterly 
 incredible and impossible." 
 
 We think not, however. If the people were collected in 
 Rameses and its suburbs — if, as is most certain — they were 
 as ready and eager for the spring as a hare when the grey- 
 hounds are unslipped — why then, that they should start the 
 next ■ morning, is not beyond the bounds of possibility, even 
 though no other than natm-al means were employed. The 
 herdsmen and shepherds, scattered over Groshen, that 
 unfortunate " district larger than Hertfordshire," might 
 have moved up nearer to the rallying point of Rameses in 
 the after-midnight, and joined the main body further on, 
 with their floclis and their herds. 
 
 This, however, is not the true solution of the wonders of 
 the flight. It is only offered as a consideration to those who 
 would place it out of the bounds of possibility. The true, 
 the scripture, solution is that — 
 
 There was miraculous interference. We have hitherto 
 assumed nothing but natural means, no miraculous interfer- 
 ence. But as we shall have a little word to say about such 
 assumption under the next objection, we will say no more 
 
27 
 
 about it here. We will therefore repeat that there was 
 miraculous interference here. Moses tells us that the whole 
 Exodus was determined, ordered, and wrought out, by 
 Almighty God himself. David expressly mentions one 
 miracle, " there was not one feeble person among their 
 tribes." (Ps. cv. 37.) If this be not a miracle among tribes 
 numbering two millions and a half, we cannot conceive what 
 is. But the Psalmist tells us still more, viz., that the flight 
 itself was miraculous, "He," i.e., God, "He brought them 
 forth with silver and gold;" {ib.) Why then are " sick and 
 infirm,'^ brought forward as objections in the teeth of the 
 Psalmist ? seeing he tells us there were none. Must he too 
 fall into the Mosaic category of " incredible and impossible?" 
 
 The above considerations, we think, coupled with what 
 has been stated as to the means previously employed, is a 
 sufficient answer to Colenso, pages 61, 62. It is much the 
 same as that of Km-tz, quoted by the Bishop (pages 62, 63), 
 though we do not agree with him as to the impossibility of 
 all, at all events of the great mass of the people, meeting at 
 Rameses next morning, and for the reasons already given. 
 
 Now how does the Bishop reply to Kurtz ? Kurtz says, 
 " the procession started from Rameses, and smaller parties 
 joined it from all directions." " Oh, but," says the Bishop, 
 " that idea will never do; the text before us says plainly, 
 "the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, 
 about six hundred thousand on foot.'" (Colenso, page 63.) 
 And so, because Moses says they started from Rameses, he 
 will not allow a single man to come in from the neighbour- 
 hood. We ask, is it fair to treat any historian, sacred or 
 profane, thus ? If Rameses were the head quarters for the 
 setting-out, as undoubtedly it was, for there was King 
 Pharaoh, and there were Moses and Aaron ; if the great 
 bulk of people did start from thence, is it to be said he is 
 "incredible," or even "historically untrue," because, by 
 Rameses he includes the country surrounding it ? Certainly 
 iX\e Bishop himself is not so inexorably exact of speech in 
 
 c 
 
.28 
 
 his own history, for he tells us the population of London is 
 2,803,035 (page 36), by which he means to include West- 
 minster, and half-a-dozen other large towns as well. Would 
 it be fair to charge him for this, with being historically untrue? 
 Certainly not. But the Pentateuch, in his sight, is a " Treatise 
 on Arithmetic," rather than an " Outline of Jewish History." 
 In fact, here, as elsewhere, the Bishop treats Moses just as 
 the grave-digger does Hamlet, — " an' he speak not by the 
 book, (of Arithmetic) equivocation shall undo him." 
 
 As we have rather complained here and often of the Bishop's 
 canon of criticism^ it is only fair to state what that canon 
 is, and why we complain of it. The canon may fairly be 
 stated to be this : " The application of arithmetic to history" — 
 a method far different " from the application of algebra to 
 geometry." According to this canon, every sentence, nay 
 every word (Rameses to wit), of an historian, is to be under- 
 stood with a more than mathematical precision ; and we say 
 that such a canon, whether applied to sacred or profane his- 
 tory, is wholly inadmissible. It is wholly inadmissible, because 
 no history at all could stand such a test. All history must 
 be abandoned at once as "incredible and impossible." We 
 must give up the Asiatic invasion of Greece, the battles of 
 Marathon and of Salamis, because Greek historians really 
 are preposterous, both in their tigm-es and facts.* The battle 
 of Waterloo is altogether a fable, because Alison and M. 
 Thiers are not harmonious in their numbers. Even mathe- 
 matics must be abandoned as a delusion. An algebraist 
 who tells us that -^ equals infinity, or who has the audacity 
 to sum up an infinite series, is a violent romancer. The books 
 of Euclid must go, too, with those of the Pentateuch. For 
 Euclid all along, assumes, for the base of his history, the 
 reality of a straight line, and Euclid is therefore a most 
 abominable impostor. (What a comfort for school boys at the 
 Pons Asinorum !) Nay, speech itself must fall into the same 
 category of condemnation. For a man can hardly utter a 
 
 * " quidquid Graecia mendax 
 
 " Audet in historia." Juv. Sat. x. 174. 
 
29 
 
 sentence, or relate a circumstance without being picked up 
 at once, as liistcnncally untrue ; and language is given not 
 only to "disguise" but to belie our tLougbts. Surely no 
 critic can be allowed to go figuring like this ! 
 
 But to return to the Flight. It is objected that the first 
 three days' march is long and severe. Poor Kurtz spies out 
 this, and meekly pleads that, perhaps, they had some rest on 
 the way. But the Bishop is stern and inexorable still. He 
 must have his "pound of flesh," from that unhappy culprit 
 whom he has cbagged forth for execution. " It is not in the 
 bond." " Nothing whatever," says the Bishop, "is said or 
 implied about these days of rest in the Scripture. There 
 would surely have been some reference made to them, if 
 they really occurred." (Colenso, p. 63.) Well no, we confess 
 it is not in the bond. But then, it is no very violent or im- 
 probable flight of imagination to suppose that they did rest. 
 As to there being no reference made to it, it is surely enough 
 to say, that Moses is writing a Jewish, not an arithmetical, 
 progression. He gives us, as already noted, the chief facts, 
 not the petty details. Thus he does not tell us that they 
 slept during those toilsome days of march, from Rameses to 
 the Red Sea. Yet, in spite of our terror of this unrelenting 
 Rhadamanthus, we almost believe that they did. At all 
 events, as the publishers say, "the right of believing this 
 idea is reserved." 
 
 We hasten to the last objection on this point. "And now 
 let us see them on the march itself" (Colenso, p. 63.) So 
 we will ; first with the Bishop's, and then with our own eyes. 
 The Bishop sees them " in one column, fifty men abreast," 
 (p. 63) "extending more than twenty-two miles Imig " (ibid), — a 
 line of continuous motion, compared to which, the tail of the 
 great sea serpent is a mere trifle itself — " with its head two 
 days' march in advance of the rear." (Colenso, pp. 63, 64.) 
 Why the Bishop should see them thus, we cannot imagine. 
 They are not so marshalled in the book of Exodus. We see 
 them rather in a good many columns, and covering a great 
 breadth as well as length of ground. In fact we see them 
 
30 
 
 But the 
 reader is requested to see with his own eyes. 
 
 "And the sheep and the cattle" says the Bishop, "they 
 must have formed another vast column." (p. 64.) Yes, no 
 doubt. "But what did these two millions of sheejD and oxen 
 live upon during this journey from Rameses to Succotli, and 
 from Succoth to Etham, and from Etham to the Red Sea?" 
 (Colenso, p. 64.) We suspect that they lived upon very short 
 rations indeed, both the cattle and the people, during these 
 three days. We have a little to say upon this matter too, 
 but as it belongs to the subject following, it shall be attended 
 to by-and-by, in Objection XL 
 
 OBJECTION XL 
 
 THE SHEEP AND CATTLE OF THE ISRAELITES IN THE DESERT. 
 
 The objection is founded on Exodus xvi. 35 — "The chil- 
 dren of Israel did eat manna for forty years, until they came 
 to a land inhabited ; they did eat manna, until they came 
 unto the borders of the land of Canaan;" and it is this : — 
 
 That " there was no miraculous provision of food for the 
 herds and flocks : that they were left to gather sustenance, 
 as they could, in the wilderness : and that it is impossible 
 such a multitude of cattle could find any (!) means of sup- 
 port, for forty years, under the circumstances." (Colenso, 
 p. 65.) 
 
 Now the possibility, or impossibility, of maintaining these 
 , large flocks and herds, in the desert, depends upon the cor- 
 rectness or incorrectness of the Bishop's two premises : 
 (1) That there were no 7iatural, and (2) that there were no 
 super-natural, means of support. These are the two points 
 to which we must give our attention. In doing so, we shall 
 follow the Bishop's arguments, in this the longest, and (as 
 
31 
 
 we think) the most interesting chapter of his hook. And, 
 having thus shaped our course, we will make sail on om- 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 (1). Investigation of natural means of support for flocks 
 and herds, in the desert. 
 
 We have, however, almost forgotten that little matter of 
 the victualling of flocks and herds, from Rameses to the Red 
 Sea, mentioned in the preceding objection. We must ask 
 the reader's indulgence, to go back to it for a minute. As 
 there said, we susjject that (allowing no miraculous inter- 
 ference), their rations were very scanty indeed. Still it is 
 not " impossible nor incredible " that, dm-ing those three 
 days, well fed for the start, they might have been kept alive 
 by a small quantity of corn providently taken by the herds- 
 men, and by what little herbage they might pick up on the 
 way. They would not require such high feeding for that 
 short time, as the Bishop seems to suppose, as we shall pre- 
 sently see, and this hypothesis involves only natm-al means. 
 
 But — revenons a nos moutons — who are left sadly starving, 
 forty years, in the wilderness. It is high time to find them 
 some means of support. 
 
 Now, it must be admitted that the desert itself, is, as the 
 Bishop justly contends, a most unpromising som'ce of supply, 
 even by Mosaic history. The sacred historian constantly 
 describes the barrenness and desolation of that desert, through 
 which God so wonderfully led and preserved his chosen 
 people; and sums it up in fear-inspiring words, as, " a waste 
 howling wilderness." (Deut. xxxii. 10.) How can natural 
 supplies be presimied in the face of this declaration ? We 
 must not suppose that " the flocks and herds scattered far 
 and wide " (Colenso, p. ^Q>)^ in search of food, though the 
 practice is somewhat akin to their instincts, and not altogether 
 unusual. But still, we must not suppose this, for here again 
 we are shut up by the Bishop, with a '' law of the Medes and 
 Persians." "Tlie story says nothing, and implies nothing 
 
32 
 
 whatever of this" (Colenso, p. 66), and therefore, (though we 
 do feel it rather hard), we say nothing too. We will enquire 
 then, instead, what it is likely that the people could find in, 
 or raise from, such a land. It must be borne in mind that 
 they would want to raise nothing for themselves, since they 
 were " supplied with manna" (Colenso, p. 65), as the Bishop 
 allows. And here we will bring forward Canon Stanley, in 
 evidence (as quoted by Bishop Colenso), to whose valuable 
 work we owe the gTeatest obligations. Passing by his accu- 
 rate and eloquent pictures of the grandeur and desolation of 
 the wilderness, — (and the reader will thank us for pointing 
 it out to his notice) — we will take his results. First, he says, 
 " much may be allowed for the spread of the tribes far and 
 wide, through the whole peninsula." (Colenso, p. 70). But 
 this won't do, as we have just seen. " I doubt if any allow- 
 ance can be made for such spreading," says the Bishop, 
 (p. 70.) We must move on then to result No. 2. Tlie learned 
 Canon mentions the " actual passage through the desert, of 
 a caravan of five thousand African pilgrims on their way to 
 Mecca." (Colenso, p. 71.) But we are promptly driven oft' 
 this ground again. " The population which we are now con- 
 sidering, was two millions, not Jive thousand.'''' (Colenso, p. 71.) 
 Arithmetic obliges, so we humbly go on to result No. 3. 
 Canon Stanley remarks that there " are indications of Sinai 
 having furnished greater resources formerly, than at present." 
 (Colenso, p. 71.) The Bishop answers, " whatever they may 
 be, they cannot do away with the plain language of the Bible 
 already quoted, which shows that the general character of 
 the desert was as desolate and barren then as now." (Colenso, 
 p. 71.) Though " every little helps, " and we ask but this 
 small pittance of Mount Sinai, it cannot be granted. There 
 is nothing left but to go mournfully onward to result No. 4. 
 " There is no doubt that the vegetation of the wadys has 
 considerably decreased," says Canon Stanley. (Colenso, p. 71.) 
 There "is no shadow of ground for this belief," and itis'nt 
 worth mentioning, answers our inexorable Bishop, (p. 72.) 
 Not even a few trees, as material for the ark ; not a trifle 
 
33 
 
 more water, is permitted. (Colenso, [vii.] and [viii.] p. 72, 73.) 
 In fact, to go no fm*ther, the Bisliop will not allow the Canon 
 the least gi-atuity, though the smallest contributions would 
 be thankfully received. Still, we do think that Canon Stan- 
 ley's deductions are not so completely demolished as all 
 this ; and that he certainly does prove that there was, to some 
 little extent, more vegetation formerly than now. And this 
 is all he maintains, and which we think, the Bishop might 
 grant him. He establishes thus much and he demands no 
 more. To use his own able words, " It must be confessed 
 that none of these changes solve the difficulty {i.e. of feed- 
 ing the flocks and herds), though they may mitigate its force. 
 But, they at least, help to meet it : and this must, under any 
 circumstances, be borne in mind, to modify the image which 
 we form to om*selves, of what must always have been — as it 
 is even thus early described to be — 'a great and terrible 
 wilderness.'" (Colenso, p. 75.) 
 
 Well, then, we have made little out of all this, more than 
 that the Bishop dislikes begging. He will not " pity the 
 sorrows of those whose trembling limbs have borne them to 
 his door." And as we confess to have gotten little, whilst 
 we've been upon tramp, we will give up the practice. If 
 begging won't do, we think work will, at all events, some- 
 thing very considerable. Canon Stanley shows (and Shaw 
 also) from "the gardens at the wells of Moses, and those of 
 the Greek monks of St. Catharine," how much the diligent 
 hand of man may do, even in the most unthankful soils. 
 (Colenso, p. 73.) There, as elsewhere, God ever blesses 
 His own sacred ordinance of work, and makes even the 
 " desert smile" with herb, and flower, and fruit. " He 
 tm-neth the wilderness into a standing water, and dry 
 ground into water springs. And there he maketh the hungry 
 to dwell, that they may prepare a city for habitation ; and 
 sow the fields, and plant vineyards, which may yield fruits 
 of increase." (Psalm cvii. 35-37.) But when Shaw and 
 Canon Stanley show what great things are done, the Bishop 
 replies, these are only " little gardens," and made in a long 
 
34 
 
 process of time. Surely forty years is a long- process of time 
 — at least for a gardener ! So again, when Canon S. says 
 ^' there was a greater population then than now," and conse- 
 quently, with more than half a million adults, the " little 
 gardens " might become great ones ; the Bishop quietly begs 
 the whole question at issue. " If the Pentateuch be mainly 
 unhistorical, we can take no account of the power of the 
 Amalekites," that is to say, there mas not a large population. 
 (Colenso, p. 74.) Because the population is great, the 
 Pentateuch is false ; and, because the Pentateuch is false, 
 the population is not great. This is reasoning rather in a 
 circle, we imagine. 
 
 On the whole. It is clearly possible and credible, and, we 
 may say, certain^ that half a million of men, working hard 
 and perseveringly, must have raised very large supplies, 
 even from the stubborn and unyielding soil of the desert. 
 And these supplies being entirely for cattle, as already 
 noticed, would go a great way toward their support. 
 
 There remains only one more, and that a very important, 
 means of supply (by natural means) to be considered. 
 Again, Canon Stanley shows convincingly, that the copper 
 mines of Egypt, and monuments and hieroglyphics in 
 Surabit-el-Khadim, and the Wady Mughareh ; the ruined 
 cities of Edom and Petra ; demonstrate a far greater traffic 
 and population in early ages than now. (Colenso, p. 74.) To 
 all this the Bishop replies, '•'- This does not help to prove in 
 any way that two millions of people, with their two millions 
 of sheep and oxen, could have lived under Sinai for twelve 
 months, and could have been maintained for forty years," 
 &c. (Colenso, p. 74.) This certainly is a dogma of the most 
 startling description. Not help to prove in any way ? Are 
 we to ignore our geography altogether, as well as our 
 history? Is Egypt, too, " incredible and impossible," and 
 the Eed sea a mirage ? "We have been in the habit of 
 thinking that Egypt has been one mighty granary for the 
 nations, from the days of Jacob till now. We have fancied 
 the Red sea a great highway of commerce, even before the 
 
30 
 
 navies of Hii'am and Solomon floated upon it. (1 Kings ix. 
 26, 27.) But, perhaps, this is all a mere play of the 
 imagination. Egypt never grew corn, (though we have seen 
 mummy wheat) and no boat ever sailed the Red sea, till the 
 P. and 0. Company rose. 
 
 This, however, we can hardly believe. And therefore we 
 think that vast supplies did come across the desert, from 
 Eg}Yt on one side, and the Red sea on the other. And 
 these vast supplies added to the considerahh ones, raised by 
 the labour of half a million of men, might well supply two 
 million head of cattle,* even for the twelve months under 
 Sinai " (Colenso, p. 74) ; and these are the natural means of 
 support. 
 
 (2.) Enquiry as to supernatural means of support, i.e.^ 
 by miraculous interference. 
 
 Now the Bishop lays it down as a law, that, where there 
 is no miracle recorded, there we must not assume one. And 
 — aware of the value of so powerful an ally — he pounces 
 down on and captures the Canon aforesaid, and employs him 
 in his own artillery. These are serious odds to struggle 
 against ; still we must do it as we may. What then does 
 Canon Stanley say? This. "As we have no warrant to 
 take away (from holy writ), so we have no warrant to 
 add." (Colenso p. 70.) 
 
 To this — Canon Stanley's Canon — we entirely subscribe, 
 heartily, and ex animo. But we must take leave to demm' a 
 little to his application of it. We have read his book with 
 the greatest delight — regarding it as the most complete, 
 exact, learned, and at the same time interesting — in fact, 
 best work on the Holy Land which we are acquainted with. 
 Butthen — we are a little afraid that the learned Canon himself 
 
 * Amount of food required by the cattle. Kahsch says, (Colenso, p. 77) " The 
 inhabitants of these climates require comparatively little food." (The writer has 
 often seen an Arab dine off a flat cake of bread and a few dates.) Whereupon 
 Bishop C. asks: "Is the same true *of sheep and oxen in those climates?" 
 Yes. They eat about as much in proportion to our cattle, as a Highland or Welsh 
 pony compared to a stall-fed horse. Besides, as an Irishman would say, some of 
 the Bishop's sheep vf^vc goats. (Exodus xii. 5.) 
 
36 
 
 is of a somewhat " incredulous " turn of mind too — though 
 to a far less extent than the Bishop of Natal. For, if we 
 remember right, he allows no more than some four or five 
 spots, in all Palestine and Jerusalem, to be genuinely and 
 bona Jide, holy. Now we confess to being quite unprepared 
 to relinquish all the cherished and pious traditions of ages of 
 Christians, reaching back to the times of Constantino and 
 Helena, and most likely beyond them. This uproots all the 
 hallowed and soul-stirring emotions so dear to the pilgrim : 
 and the traveller might spare himself both the dangers and 
 fleas. 
 
 Canon Stanley then applies his Canon in this way. " It 
 is no answer to say that they, i.e. the Israelites, were main- 
 tained by miracles," for " if we have no warrant to take 
 away, we have no warrant to add." That is, in other words, 
 we must not suppose a miracle, where no particular miracle 
 is recorded. And we demur, we say, to this application of 
 his rule. If the sacred writer affirm and declare, most ex- 
 pressly, that his history is altogether miraculous — and Moses 
 does this, (Deuteronomy iv. 37, ix. 29, and/>a,ssm), if he tells 
 us all along of Almighty favour and Almighty command — 
 if he records, page after page, miracles of the most stupen- 
 dous kind — if he tells us that a signal of God's presence 
 was constantly abiding with them (Exodus xl. 38), — if, in 
 short, his history is one avowedly miraculous, from the first 
 to the last — are we not entitled to believe, when miraculous 
 events are related, that a miracle occurred, though it be not 
 recorded ? On the contrary, we think it a legitimate part of 
 the commentator's duty, to show, in answer to objections, 
 how such and such things might take place. He must not 
 indeed bind people to receive them, but he surely may, and 
 7nust say, where a miraculous event is recorded, that there a 
 miracle was done ; for he says no more than this to those who 
 object. Such event, is not, as you term it, impossible, if 
 you will only believe God's hand to have wrought there. " If 
 thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that be- 
 lieveth." (Mark ix. 23.) 
 
Therefore, we think we Imve a right to say of such a cir- 
 cumstance as is now being considered, that God's hand, some 
 way or other, we know not how, was there. Tliis view will 
 apply to much of what has been treated of before. We hope 
 therefore that the present objection is fully answered as well 
 as others. The flight, borrowing, march, and maintenance, 
 are no longer incredible, or impossible, and though we think 
 we have shown this on natural means only being supposed ; 
 yet we contend that Scriptm'e does warrant us to believe that 
 Divine counsel, grace, and aid, were given, even in places 
 where not expressly recorded. 
 
 There is one point more under this objection, which for the 
 sake of completeness, must not be omitted. , "The Israelites 
 under Sinai," says Bishop Colenso, " must have found it in 
 \N\ntQT, bitterly coW Why? Because "in the mountainous 
 districts it is very cold in the winter nights." (Colenso, p. 79.) 
 Certainly, if the people got upon the heights, it would be 
 bitterly cold. But if, as was the case, they kept to the plains 
 below, it would only be moderately so. The writer has seen 
 snow from the plains of Baalbec, not many hundred feet 
 above his head, on the slopes of the Lebanon, and this in 
 July or August, when the sun was striking do^\Ti as a furnace 
 of fire. And the Israelites had cattle, and therefore skins at 
 command. And lastly, where did the Israelites obtain fuel 
 for cooking and warming ? Answer : By way of Egyj)t or 
 the Red Sea. 
 
 OBJECTION XII. 
 
 THE NUMBER OF THE ISRAELITES COMPARED WITH THE 
 EXTENT OF THE L^VND OF CANAAN. 
 
 This objection is founded on Exodus xxiii. 27-30, and would 
 be more clear if entitled — " The objection of the wild beasts." 
 
.38 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 The Bishop compares the population of Palestine with 
 that of three English counties and also with that of Natal. 
 He finds no fault with the amount of population, but only 
 with there being any "danger" expressed (verse 29) "of 
 the land lying desolate by the multiplying of the beasts of 
 the field." (Colenso, p. 83.) 
 
 We really have nothing whatever to say to the Bishop's 
 "lions, elephants, rhinoceroses, and hij^popotami." (Col. p. 83. ) 
 (We never heard of the last in a purely Syrian menagerie.) 
 Perhaps in a country where there are mountains, caves, 
 dens, and holes, and where the people had no fire-arms, they 
 stood their ground longer against the march of civilization. 
 They might be exceedingly mischievous to crops, if not kept 
 in good order. There are plenty of very troublesome jackals 
 even at the present day. There were " lions " and many 
 " foxes " down to the time of Sampson. (Judges, xiv. 11.) 
 We can say no more. Davus sum, non Van Amburgk. 
 
 OBJECTION XIII. 
 
 THE NUMBER OF FIRST-BORN COMPARED WITH THE NUMBER 
 OF MALE ADULTS. 
 
 This objection is founded on Num. iii. 43, "All the first- 
 born males, from a month old and upwards, of those that 
 were numbered, were twenty and two thousand two hundred 
 and threescore and thirteen." 
 
 And it is this, — The number of the first born males being 
 22,273, whilst the number of males of 20 years and upwards 
 must have been (by the Pentateuchal account) not less than 
 900,000 ; therefore every mother of Israel must have had on 
 the average forty -two sons (Colenso, p. 84). 
 
39 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 First of all, both the above numbers {we think) must be 
 received as correct. For, as the adult males were more than 
 600,000 by the Pentateuch history (Exodus xxxviii. 26, and 
 Numbers i. 46), then the whole number of males mtist, at 
 least, be 900,000. Neither can it be allowed that the number 
 of first-born males (22,273), is an error of transcription, 
 because, as the Bishop clearly shows, we find 22,000 of them 
 redeemed by the 22,000 Levites, and the remaining 273 
 redeemed by money (Numbers iii. 39, 45,46), (Colenso, pp. 
 86, 87). If then, the first-born males of the 7dhole population 
 be 22,273, the consequence is inevitable, and each mother in 
 Israel hacl^ on an average, forty-two chikben. This point tlien, 
 i.e., whether the first-born of the whole population is here 
 numbered, is the only question at issue, and to this om- atten- 
 tion must now be directed. 
 
 Here we are going to use the ''Doctrine of Limits."' We 
 are going to suppose that the first-borns numbered, were so 
 within a certain limit. But, as perhaps we shall not be per- 
 mitted to make even a supposition (which may be true or 
 false), without giving the reason why, we will first do so. It 
 is this. As the subject is now kft, we are obliged to believe 
 one or other of two very incredible things, viz. : — 
 
 I. That each Jewish mother had on an average forty-two 
 male childi-en ; * or 
 
 II. That a wi'iter demanding to be believed inspired, 
 should assert such a monstrous absurdity. 
 
 Fixed on the horns of so sharp a dilemma, there is no 
 relief left but to suppose that a part, not the whole of the 
 first-borns was nmnbered. 
 
 Still, this is only at present an "empirical" law — a mere 
 supposition which a fact may throw down, or a fact may 
 establish. It must then be tested by facts, and its likelihood 
 stand or fall by them. And, as we are quite sure the Bishop 
 
 * Or, rather 21 male children; for Kurtz cuts them down to that number at one 
 blow .He also makes further reductions, amounting to (say) from 10 to 15 per cent. 
 CColenso, pp. 85, 86.) 
 
40 
 
 will never allow oiir "Theory of Limitations " to be applied 
 to the Pentateuch, unless we can bring- something in its 
 favour out of the Pentateuch itself, we will now give the 
 limit we suppose, and then test it by the Mosaic books. 
 
 We think then, that the first-born males numbered, were 
 limited in some way, and now to find what the limit was. 
 
 (1) All frstborns were to be the Lord's, (Ex. xiii. 2, 12) 
 but all might be redeemed (v. 13). (2) The first-born males 
 were redeemed thus : 22,000 of them were redeemed by the 
 22,000 Levites being vicariously accepted for God's service in 
 their stead. (Numbers iii. 12, 39, 45.) (3) There then 
 remained 273 first-born males to be redeemed. Now what 
 was the amount of money fixed for their redemption ? It was 
 five shekels, (v. 46, 47, 50.) 
 
 This five shekels is the clue by which we discover what the 
 first-borns were that were numbered. They were the first-born 
 males, of children under five years old: "if it be from a 
 month old even miiofive years old, then thy estimation shall 
 be of the male, five shekels of silver." (Lev. xxvii. 6.) Thus 
 five shekels was the ransom of children under five years old. 
 This, the writer thinks, is a clearly established fiact. For it 
 is a most singular coincidence that the 273 first-borns actually 
 numbered, pay exactly the same ransom ordered for children 
 under five years old. It is still more singular that all males 
 above five years old, were set at different and far higher rates 
 of redemption (Leviticus xxvii.), and yet the 273 first-borns 
 numbered, paid only five shekels each, the same as all under 
 five years were rated at. Had any of the 273 been over five 
 years, surely they would have paid their proportionate ransom 
 ordered by Leviticus xxvii. But they did not. Their legal 
 case too, presents a most striking coincidence. The males 
 under five, of Leviticus xxvii. 6, were "vowed." (v. 2.) So 
 were the first-borns, by God's command. (Exodus xiii. 2, 12.) 
 The ransom ordered for the males under five, is five shekels. 
 The ransom 'paid by the first-born is five shekels too. (Num- 
 bers iii. 47, 50.) 
 
 Therefore we think our supposition that the fijst-borns 
 
41 
 
 numbered, were the first-borns from " a month old even unto 
 five years old," is no longer a supposition, but a fact — and a 
 fact established by the sacred writer himself. 
 
 It is, however, but fair to see what can be said on the other 
 side. If it be said this law applies only to one who has made 
 ''a singular vow" (Lev. xxvii. 2), we answer, a child under 
 five could not make such a vow. If it be urged to this, that 
 his father might for him, as in the case of a Nazarite (Num- 
 bers vi. 21), we answer, it cannot be so, for the ransom of a 
 Nazarite was totally difierent. (Numbers vi. 13-20.) And 
 moreover, the law of the Nazarite, which allowed of a ter- 
 mination to his vow (v. 13), does not apply here. And still 
 more, and conclusively, from Leviticus xxvii. 28, where it is 
 
 said, " No devoted thing both of man and beast shall 
 
 be sold or redeemed.'''' 
 
 So again, when the Bishop says that " the question is 
 decided at once" (p. 90), because " Moses numbered, as the 
 Lord commanded him all the firstborn among the children of 
 Israel," * we answer, Yes, all within a certain limit — the limit 
 being supplied by Moses himself, in Lev. xxvii. 6. 
 
 It remains only to see whether statistics contradict this. 
 Take the whole population at the Exodus at two and a half 
 millions. This is half a million more than Bishop C, taking 
 a moderate estimate, rates them at, in p. 35. Take half of 
 these, 1,250,000, as males. This, again, is rather more than 
 the census tables of 1861 show. Then, since by the Table 
 below, most kindly furnished the writer by the Eegistrar 
 General,! the number of males under five years old is about 
 
 * Numbers iii. 42. 
 t ENGLAND AND WALES. CENSUS OF 1851. 
 Proportion per Cent, of Children under 5 years of Age, to the Total Population of 
 each sex. 
 
 Age. 
 
 Males 
 and Females. 
 
 Males. 
 
 Females. 
 
 Under 5 years ... 
 
 13.01 
 
 13.21 
 
 12.81 
 
 Note. The Ages of the Population for 1861 are not yet ascertained, hut it is not likely that the 
 proportions at the different ages will differ materially from those in 1851. 
 General Register Office, Somerset House, 
 November 28, 18C2. 
 
42 
 
 13 per cent, of the whole male population ; we have for the 
 Avhole Israeli tish males under five 3^ears, the number 162,500. 
 The ratio of the Mosaic firstborn (22,273) to this, is the 
 ratio of 1 to 7| nearly. In other words, the ratio of firstborn 
 males of all ages to the males of all ages was then less than 
 1 to 8. Therefore each mother in Israel, at that time, had 
 on an average, not more than 8 children in all. For we 
 may suppose there were as many firstborn females as 
 males. Some of Kurtz's remarks farther reduce this 
 average (Colenso, 85, 86). This is not a high average 
 when we consider the early marriages and long life at that 
 period (see Objection xiv). 
 
 And thus, interpreting scripture by scripture — interpret- 
 ing Num. iii. 42 by Lev. xxvii. 6, — the above arguments 
 prove, that the Mosaic number of firstborn males is con- 
 sistent both with itself and also with actual statistical facts, 
 and is therefore not only possible and credible, but most 
 reliable as to accuracy. 
 
 But we cannot quite leave the subject here. Tliere is 
 another point proved by thus " searching the scripture ;" 
 a point most important to all students of Holy Writ. What 
 the search has brought to light is most assuredly this : that 
 Moses was no false or fictitious historian, avoiding with 
 cunning, or even with common care, the risk of recording 
 anything improbable or impossible, but that he writes on 
 the contrary, as a straightforward, open, and honest man 
 would do, not glossing, extenuating, or smoothing down any 
 one of the wonderful events he narrates ; but, conscious of 
 the truth of his words, is utterly regardless of vindicating his 
 own faithfulness, leaving mighty Truth to vindicate Herself, 
 — and thus forces from our heart's core the unavoidable con- 
 fession, — " Now, by this I know that thou art a man of God, 
 and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth, is TRUTH. 
 (1 Kings, xvii. 24.) 
 
 Here the Bishop calls a halt, and gives us the terminus 
 ad quern he has reached. Being somewhat tired with the 
 
43 
 
 marcli, and having- heavy ground in the front, we arc glad 
 to obey, and follow his example. We will end, then, this 
 part of our task, by giving a little paraphrase of his words 
 in this place ; first warning the reader that it is by no 
 means an accm'atc, or even faithful transcript of Colenso on 
 the Pentateuch, page 90: "By this time, surely, no doubt 
 can have arisen in the mind of one single reader, as to the 
 historical veracity of any portion of the Pentateuch. This 
 belief in its truth, I am sure, will be confirmed into a certain 
 conviction, by its appearing plainly from the data of the 
 Pentateuch itself, that there was such a vast population as 
 recorded to come out of Egypt; in other words, that the 
 children of Israel, at the time of the Exodus, could and 
 did, if we only attend carefully to the distinct statements of 
 the narrative, amount to two millions." 
 
 OBJECTION XIV. 
 
 THE NUMBERS OF THE ISRAELITES AT THE TIME OF THE EXODUS. 
 
 This objection is as follows : — 
 
 The number of the adult males at the time of the Exodus, 
 was, according to Moses, 600,000 ; but it could not have been 
 5,000 according to Bishop Colenso. (p. 103.) 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 We must admit the two following propositions as being 
 fully proved by the Bishop from Scripture, viz : 
 
 (1.) That the children of Israel came out of Egypt about 
 215 years after they went down thither in the time of Jacob. 
 
 And (2.) That they came out in the fourth generation 
 from the adults in the prime of life, who went down with 
 Jacob. (Colenso, chap, xv. and xvi. and p. 100.) 
 
 D 
 
44 
 
 Having established these two points, the Bishop adds, that 
 from this " it can be shown, beyond a doubt, that it is quite 
 impossible there should have been, at the time of the Exodus, 
 so many as 600,000 male adults, provided we take the data to 
 he derived from tJie Pentateuch itself.'" (Colenso, p. 101.) 
 
 It is our task now, to show that this is possible, and we 
 shall for convenience sake, divide our argument into two parts 
 and show (I.) That the number (600,000), is possible, leaving 
 out the Pentateuch data ; and (II.) that it is possible, taking 
 them in. 
 
 (I.) The number is possible in itself Now, the Bishop 
 takes 4^ sons to be the average number to each man. We 
 shall suppose an average to each man more than three times 
 as great, viz. 15.* Our supposition (of 15), we admit to be 
 much greater than that of the Bishop, but still not impossible 
 in itself. For the sake of shewing the contrast of numbers 
 in each generation, and the final result, we shall give the 
 Arithmetic of the Bishop's and our own calculation. Thus — 
 
 BISHOP COLENSO'S ARITHMETIC. THE "WRITER'S ARITHMETIC. 
 
 12 Sons of Jacob 12 Sons of Jacob 
 
 4J 15 
 
 54 Males in Kohath's generation 180 Males in Kohath's generation 
 
 4i 15 
 
 243 Ditto in Amram's generation 2700 Ditto in Amram's generation 
 
 4i 15 
 
 1094 Ditto in Moses' generation 40,500 Ditto in Moses' generation 
 
 44 15 
 
 4923 Ditto in Joshua's generation 607,500 Ditto in Joshua's generation 
 
 Thus, instead of 4923, our average makes the adult males 
 in Joshua's generation a few thousands more than those 
 given in the Pentateuch, which are 603,550. The reader 
 must remember here, that Joshua's generation is the gener- 
 ation at the time of the Exodus ; Joshua being then about 
 forty years old. 
 
 Now we will not attempt to disguise that this average 
 
 "• Of course it lies with us to prove that this average is possible, subject to both 
 (I.) and (II.) This will be given farther on. 
 
45 
 
 (of 15) is a very high, nay more, at first sight, a very 
 improbable, average. For it involves the fact of each man 
 having on an average fifteen daughters as well as fifteen 
 sons, thus making the average number of children to each 
 man no less than thirty. Tlie following considerations 
 however, will show that it is not impossible, nor yet beyond 
 the bounds of credibility. 
 
 (1.) Cases do occur of families between twenty and 
 thirty living children, begotten by one husband of one wife.* 
 This relieves the impossibility. 
 
 (2.) The probability is increased, by the fact of Eastern 
 marriages taking place at a very early age, often at sixteen 
 years, and even less. Such early marriages probably took 
 place in Judah's family. (See Genesis xxxviii.) 
 
 (3.) The improbability is done away, by the practices of 
 polygamy and concubinage. For if a man can have twenty 
 children by one wife, he may have thirty by several. The 
 Pentateuch furnishes many instances of these practices, and 
 also other parts of Scripture frequently, 
 
 (4.) The great age to which men lived down to the time 
 of Moses. (See Pentateuch />as5?>w.) 
 
 (5.) Tlie great age, also, at which the men begat, and 
 the women conceived, children. The Pentateuch gives as 
 
 * We give the following instance from a quaint old Epitaph, (kindly supplied by 
 a friend, James Beard, Esq., Tormarton), on one Gabriel Russell, in Tormarton 
 Church, Gloucestershire. The monument records Gabriel's death m 1663, at 88, 
 and his wife in 1667, at 90 years old. 
 
 " Here Gabriell Russell lies, whos watcMull eyes 
 Were William, Marques of Newcasell spies ; 
 Over three parishes, his onely hands, 
 Were there entrusted with his Lordship's lands. 
 Full ninty yeares my Father and I, 
 Ware San-ants to that Nobillity ; 
 Byt all that knew them, did them witnes bare, 
 Of their just dealings, loyalty, and care. 
 And for their comfort here below 
 One and twenty children They could show." 
 
 Notwithstanding the disregard for Lindley Murray, caused by one of the Beni- 
 Russell dipping his oar in, the above sliows that tlie worthy Gabriel had twenty-one 
 living children ; and there is nothing said or implied of his being a polygamist or 
 liaving a second wife. 
 
46 
 
 examples of this : Abraliam and Sarah (Genesis xvii. 17), 
 and Amram and Jochabed, as to the latter (Exodus vi. 20). 
 
 (6.) The greater than natural fecundity promised by 
 Almighty God, and given, and acknowledged. This appears 
 from tlie following passages. " In multiplying, I will 
 multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand 
 which is upon the sea shore" (Genesis xxii. 17, and xv. 5, 
 and xvii. 6). " There shall not be male or female barren 
 among you" (Deut. vii. 14, 13). " And the children of 
 Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, and multi- 
 plied, and waxed exceeding mighty : and the land was filled 
 with them" (Exodus i. 7). " Thy fathers went down into 
 Egypt with threescore and ten persons, and now the Lord 
 thy God hath made thee as the stars of heaven for multi- 
 tude" (Deut. X. 22). And, moreover, we are entitled to 
 presume from these promises that more children were reared 
 than in the ordinary course of nature. 
 
 And now we may ask the reader : Is there anything 
 impossible, even suppose we leave out (6), is there anything 
 improbable, that a man begetting children from the age of 
 20 to 100, having only one wife, bearing children from the 
 age of say 18 to 90, should have 30 children ? Is there 
 any thing in such a man married to several such wives, 
 having 30 children, or many more, that is not highly 
 probable ? 
 
 There is nothing, then, improbable in itself, that, under 
 such conditions, the average may be fifteen sons to each 
 man, and by -consequence there be in the fourth generation 
 600,000, and more, male adults. For as many might have 
 less, so many might have more. And be it noted of this, 
 that nothing has been here advanced contrary to the Penta- 
 teuchal accounts, or Pentateuchal data, but entirely in 
 accordance with them. And this is the proof of (I). 
 
 It now lies with us to prove, that our average of fifteen 
 sons per man, necessitating more than 600,000 males in the 
 time of the Exodus is 
 
 II. Possible, taking in the Pentateuchal data. The Bishop 
 
47 
 
 sajs, that if we go by the Pentateuch, we must take his 
 average of 4i * (p. 101 and 103, art. 115 and 118.) It lies 
 with us to disprove this proposition. We therefore oifer the 
 following- 
 Reasons for rejecting Bishop Colenso's average of 4^. 
 
 (1.) Statement. The proposition translated into plain 
 English, is this ; that the twelve patriarchs had 53 sons and 
 no more. (Colenso, p. 102). 
 
 (2.) We admit the above statement so far as the word 
 '' sons, " but dispute the last three words. 
 
 (3.) The Bishop does not tell us why they had no more 
 than 53 sons, but as he takes the number from Genesis xlvi. , 
 we presume he founds it on the words "All the souls," in 
 verses 15, 22, 25, 26, 27. 
 
 (4.) Ui3on this we observe, that "all the souls" applies 
 only to those who "came with Jacob into Egypt," by verses 
 26, 27. (That is, those who came there in Jacob's life-time, 
 by answer to Objection 11.) 
 
 (5.) The fact of Moses only recording the names of 53, 
 does not prove there were no more, because he only records 
 the names of those who were "heads of houses," or tribes. 
 "These be the heads of their fathers' houses." (Exodus vi. 
 14.) See also 1 Chron. iv. 38, which restricts its own gene- 
 alogy, as well as that of Exodus to " heads " or " princes." 
 
 (6.) It is not likely that Moses would record more than 
 the heads or chiefs of houses. N.B. We hope the Bishop is 
 not discontented that Moses and Chronicles do not give the 
 names of the whole 600,000, as we confess we cannot share 
 his grief in this. 
 
 (7.) If the twelve patriarchs had no more than 53 sons, 
 the following consequence is unavoidable : vi^.. Twelve men 
 (each of whom had begotten sons already), in the prime of 
 life, go down to Egypt, with " their wives " (Genesis xlvi. 5), 
 and not one of them begets another son. This, we think, 
 
 * It will be seen the whole argument turns upon (1) whether we are obliged by 
 the Pentateuch to take the Bishop's average of 4^ or not ; the writer maintains not : 
 and (2) whether the Pentateuch contradicts our own average of 15, which hitherto, 
 so far as we have yet gone, it does not, but the contrary. 
 
48 
 
 approaches far nearer to the bounds of the " incredible and 
 impossible " than anything the Bishop has produced from 
 the Pentateuch. It is in utter defiance of all probability. 
 
 For these reasons, we assert therefore that the Bishop's 
 average of 4|, must be rejected. 
 
 Here perhaps, we might stop. We have shown the average 
 of 4^ to be untenable by the Pentateuch. We have shown 
 the average of 15 has nothing "impossible" in its nature, 
 and so far as we have yet seen, is perfectly consistent with 
 the Pentateuch. Still, we will not rest satisfied here, but 
 see if the Bishop adduces any arguments to throw down this 
 average. 
 
 Our average has assumed that "polygamy was the rule." 
 "Assumed without proof," says the Bishop, (p. 117.) 
 Answer. Abraham, Esau, Jacob, Judah (concubinage), were 
 polygamists. The divine promise to " multiply Abraham's 
 seed as the stars," involves the necessity of polygamy. It 
 is also a recognised institution throughout the whole of the 
 0. T. The sons of Issachar were certainly great polygamists, 
 and had many sons, by 1 Chron. vii. 4. 
 
 We have searched carefully for any other objection to our 
 average, but can find none. All the other objections of the 
 Bishop, turn, either upon the necessity of his average of 4^, 
 which we have rejected, or on his impossibility of the fii'st- 
 borns, which has already been overthrown. 
 
 We therefore sum up thus : That the average of 1 5 sons,* 
 though undoubtedly not in the list of " ordinary occiu'rences" 
 (p. 120), is not impossible, nor even highly improbable in 
 itself: that it is quite consistent with the Pentateuchal 
 account : that the promises of God in the Pentateuch make 
 it most probable : that the account of the Pentateuch 
 makes a high average necessary (Exodus vi. 7, and Numbers 
 i. 46) : and that this average gives at the time of the Exodus 
 more than 600,000 male adults. 
 
 * Only three more than Jacob had. 
 
49 
 
 It will be seen we have taken no account at all of any of 
 Jacob's sbei^lierds and herdsmen going down into Egypt with 
 him. If such were the fact, it would of course, greatly 
 reduce our average of 15. This we have left out, because 
 their emigration is not necessary ; but not because it is not 
 probable. On the contrary, we maintain it as most probable. 
 The analogy of Abraham, Lot, Esau, Jacob, and Judah, 
 whose servants or shepherds travelled with them, make it 
 more probable that they did so in the Descent to Egypt, than 
 that they did not. The fact that " the flocks and herds" 
 were taken to Egypt (Genesis xlvi. 32), makes it all but cer- 
 tain. Jacob had his herdsmen with him before, and how, as 
 he advanced in years, can he be supposed to do otherwise now? 
 When we hear of a flock of sheep being at market, we are 
 obliged to suppose somebody brought them. Farmers who 
 have shepherds, do not usually drive their own flocks to mar- 
 ket, or fresh pasturage. There is no reason, but the contrary, 
 why Jacob and the patriarchs should be exceptions to this rule. 
 We cannot, therefore, avoid believing, that the servants 
 and herdsmen went down with the patriarchs, and were 
 many of them incorporated with their families. The Hebrew 
 Ben, meaning " foster son," makes this highly probable. 
 (See note, p. 53.) This is the only way, too, we can see, of 
 explaining who that "mixed multitude" were, that joined 
 in the Exodus. Here, again, is another result of the 
 arithmetic test. The "flocks and herds" had no one to look 
 after them, because no attendants are mentioned. This is 
 another necessary ofispring of the alliance between domi- 
 neering arithmetic and poor hen-pecked history.* 
 
 " Humano capiti ceiricem Pastor equinam 
 
 Jungere si velit, &c. 
 
 Spcctatum admissi, risum teneatis, amici ? ' 
 
50 
 
 OBJECTION XV. 
 
 THE DANITES AND LEVITES AT THE TIME OF THE EXODUS. 
 
 Is founded on the four following passages: Gen. xlvi. 
 23 ; Num. xxvi. 42 ; Num. ii. 26 ; and Num. xxvi. 43 ; 
 and is this : — 
 
 The warriors of Dan's tribe at the time of the Exodus 
 ought to have been only 27 instead of 62,700. 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 We do not know by what process the Bishop makes the 
 sons of Dan only 27. We make them 100 (round numbers), 
 taking his average at 4^ and that Dan had only one son. 
 But this does not matter, for it is not the point. Where 
 does the Bishop discover that Dan had one son only? Not in 
 Gen. xlvi. 23, certainly, by (5, page 47) still less by Num. xxvi. 
 42, for here the historian distinctly tells us he is naming the 
 " heads of houses " (see also Exodus vi. 14). " These are the 
 sons of Dan after their families^ of Shuliam, the family of the 
 Shuhamites. These are the families of Dan after their 
 families." " These are the sons of Dan," he says ; but 
 how? not as an only son, but "after their families." The 
 whole objection thus falls at once to the ground, for Dan 
 may have had many more sons. 
 
 N.B. If the reader wish to enquire how it is the families 
 of Dan were only one, he is referred to 1 Chron. xxiii. 11, 
 where it would seem that two families were sometimes 
 incorporated together into one ; at least in David's time. 
 
 Here again we remark how the arithmetical test or canon 
 has been brought out in full force. Because the name of one 
 son of Dan is given, we are to understand he has no more. 
 Just as if, to return to our old friend William the Conqueror 
 again, if an historian should say that William Eufus was son 
 of the Conqueror, and was head of a family ; therefore tlio 
 aforesaid Conqueror cannot have had any other son ! Q.N.E.D. 
 
51 
 
 numbers of the Levites at the Exodus. 
 
 The Bishop also objects to the small increase of the 
 Levites ; viz., that they only increased from 22,000 to 23,000 
 in thirty-eight years. 
 
 Answer. The number of the Levites appears to have 
 been limited by some dispensation of Providence not re- 
 corded. They were at the first census less by ten thousand, 
 than the least of all the tribes (Manasseh). Some, we 
 may presume, fell among the 14,700 who died of plague for 
 mm*muring (Num. xvi. 49) ; some more also among the 
 24,000 who fell for idolatry at Shittim (Num. xxv. 9). If 
 we attribute it to the hand of the Almighty, there is nothing 
 surprising in it. If we disallow this, there is still nothing- 
 impossible nor incredible in believing some limitation in 
 marrying, or some casualty befel them ; nothing that aifects 
 in any way the historic truth of the Pentateuch. 
 
 N.B. It will be seen that no notice is taken of the 
 objections in p. 111. Art. (131) and (132), because they are 
 already met by the results of answers to objections xiii., 
 xiv., and xv. 
 
 OBJECTION XVL 
 
 THE XUJIBER OF PRIESTS AT THE EXODUS, COMPARED W'lTH 
 THEIR DUTIES, AND WITH THE PROVISION MADE FOR THEM. 
 
 The objection is (mainly) this : — 
 
 That the number of priests was insufficient to perform 
 various duties specified by Bishop Colenso, p. 122, 123. 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 The whole force of the objection rests on the number of 
 priests, which, according to the Bishop were only three, viz. 
 Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar. 
 
62 
 
 Our argument is, to show that there were many more 
 priests than these three. First, we admit that after the 
 death of Nadab and Abihu, Aaron had no sons living, besides 
 Eleazar and Ithamar. (Leviticus x. 16.) But we maintain, 
 there were many more priests than three, for the following 
 reasons : 
 
 (1.) Aaron was about 84 years old at the time of the 
 Exodus. Therefore his sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, might 
 easily be of the ages of 64 and 63 at that time. 
 
 (2.) For reasons already given (Answer to Obj. XIV.) 
 they may have had 15 sons each, those of Eleazar ranging 
 from 44 to 30 years of age (suppose) ; those of Ithamar 
 from 43 to 27 ; at the same time of the Exodus. This gives 
 us at once thirty additional priests. 
 
 (3.) The two eldest sons of Eleazar may easily have had 
 four sons above 20 years old, between them, and the two 
 eldest of Ithamar one such each. This gives six more 
 priests. 
 
 Adding all these together, we have 36 priests besides 
 Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar. And, be it observed, this is 
 a low estimate, for there may have been more. 
 
 This, however, is not all. There is every probability that 
 Aaron had more sons than Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and 
 Ithamar; and consequently that there were many more 
 priests : thus, 
 
 {a.) It is unlikely that a man who lived to be 123 (Num- 
 bers xxxiii. 39), and when polygamy was allowed, should 
 have had no more than four sons. 
 
 (b.) Suppose him to have had only two more sons. These 
 two also might have had 15 sons each, over 20. Thus we 
 we get 30 more priests. 
 
 {c.) Add to all this that more children would be coming of 
 age, to be made priests during the pilgrimage in the wilder- 
 ness. 
 
 Adding all these together, except {c), we have a total of 
 69 priests at the time of the Exodus ; and many of these, 
 
;j3 
 
 Is there anything in the Scripture to overthrow this calcu- 
 lation ? The writer can find no reason there for doing so. 
 It is no answer to say, that Aaron and his sons were conse- 
 crated, and that he had only two living. For the word sons^ 
 in Exodus xxix. 8, and in Leviticus viii. 2, is a word that 
 means descendants, quite as much as actual sons.* (Sept. 
 liovi Vulg. liberos and Jilios.) Neither is it any answer to 
 say that because four are named, therefore he had no more. 
 For both Exodus and Chronicles name only "heads of 
 houses" (Exodus vi. 14), or "princes in their families." 
 (1 Chron. iv. 38, and v. 24, and vii. 3.) And moreover, it 
 may be added that what is recorded (in 1 Chron. xxiii. 11, 
 and xxiv. 3-5), makes it very probable that children of 
 Aaron's deceased sons were enrolled in the families of Eleazar 
 and Ithamar. 
 
 Thus, as we contend, Scriptm-e does not forbid, but 
 encom'ages us to believe that there were as many as 69 priests 
 at the time of the Exodus, and many more coming on. Let 
 us apply this number to Bishop Colenso's test of 500 sacri- 
 fices with five minutes' time for each. Each priest would 
 have seven such sacrifices, and would be employed 35 min- 
 utes ! And, we have taken, in all this, no account whatever 
 of Aaron's daughters' sons, who are included by the Hebrew 
 w«rd Ben, nor yet of his " foster sons." Both these would 
 add amazingly to the number of priests. It is needless to go 
 farther, for 69 priests only, destroy all the objections of this 
 chapter, except that — 
 
 We have still in this place to notice — The objection of the 
 birds. We have only to say that Gesenius does not attemj^t 
 to define exactly what the birds were, whether " doves," 
 pigeons, or others. The Bishop himself does not affirm 
 them to be certainly " pigeons." He can " scarcely believe" 
 that birds of the wilderness, were found in such numbers as 
 is implied by the offering of them after child-birth, (p. 126.) 
 But this does not prove they were not there, and it is not 
 
 * I U according, to Gesenius, means " a son ; " "a grandson ; " " a foster son ; " 
 and it belongs to poetic diction when " sons of the Grecians " is used. We hero 
 ofler our best thanks to a iady-friend, tor her valuable help in the Hebrew. 
 
54 
 
 incredible or impossible tliey should have been. We think 
 therefore, unless it could be proved what the birds were, no 
 objection can lie, and must therefore be ignored. And now, 
 having got through the objection of " the Birds," as well as 
 of the "Beasts," we feel thankful to find that the Fishes 
 have no objection at all ; we will therefore pass on to 
 
 OBJECTION XVIL 
 
 THE PRIESTS AND THEIR DUTIES AT THE CELEBRATION OF 
 THE PASSOVER. 
 
 This objection resolves itself into two parts : and is 
 
 I. That the 150,000 lambs at the Passover could not have 
 been slain in the Court of the Tabernacle (Col. p. 132). 
 
 II. That the Priests could not have sprinkled the blood of 
 these lambs on the altar (p. 131). 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 I. That the 150,000 lambs at the Passover could not have 
 been killed in the Court of the Tabernacle. 
 
 To answer this objection, we shall (1) enquire what tiie 
 law of the Passover was at the time of its institution ; and 
 (2) whether anything in the Mosaic law required the Paschal 
 lamb to be slain in the Court. 
 
 (1) The law of the Passover at its institution. It is quite 
 certain that the. Israelites did not slay the Passover at the 
 door of the Tabernacle then, for the simple reason that the 
 Tabernacle was not in existence. Neither is there at its fii-st 
 institution (Ex. vi.), any prospective law, as to what should 
 be done thereafter ; all that was ordered then, referred to 
 that Passover, i.e.^ the one on the night of the flight : " Every 
 man " was to take " a lamb for an house ;" or if the house- 
 hold were too little for the lamb, he and his neighbour took 
 it together. (Ex. xii. 3, 4.) They were to " let nothing of 
 
56 
 
 it remain until the morning ; and that which remained of 
 it imtil the morning, ye (i.e., the people) shall hurn with 
 fire" (Ex. xii. 10). The people also were further ordered to 
 sprinkle the blood in this manner: — "Ye shall strike the 
 lintel and the two side posts with the blood" (Ex. xii. 7, 22). 
 From all this it is clear that they killed and ate the first 
 passover at their own homes. 
 
 (2.) Whether the Mosaic law given afterwards, modifies this 
 practice and compelled them to kill in the court of the Taber- 
 nacle. The Bishop says, that as all burnt-offerings, peace- 
 offerings, sin-ofterings, and trespass - ofi'erings, and every 
 animal killed, " to ojf'er an offering unto the Lord'" (Lev. xvii. 
 4), was commanded to be brought unto the door of the Taber- 
 nacle ; therefore the paschal lamb was to be so brought also. 
 We think otherwise, and for this reason. The sacrifice of tlie 
 passover was a sacrifice loer se, wholly distinct from all the 
 other sacrifices. They all, as their names import, were 
 ojfertory sacrifices, i.e., sacrifices offered unto the Lord. But 
 the passover was not an offertory sacrifice at all, none of it 
 was offered to God. It was simj)ly a commemorative or 
 7nemorial sacrifice, commanded in remembrance of a mighty 
 deliverance. (Ex. xii. 14, 25, 27.) The former as offertory 
 sacrifices were altarial, i.e., were burnt, in whole or in part, 
 on the altar (Lev. i. 9, 13, 17, iii. 5, 11, 16, iv. 10, v. 6, 7,). 
 The latter was, strictly speaking, not altarial at all, none of it 
 being bm-ned or even laid on the altar, but was eaten at home, 
 and its remains, if any, there burnt. We have therefore no 
 right to say from the Mosaic law, that the paschal lambs were 
 killed in the com-t of the tabernacle ; for the law of offertory 
 sacrifices does not apply to them, and there is nothing of tlie 
 sort commanded as to the passover itself. 
 
 But then, as the Bishop justly observes, by 2 Chr. xxx. 16, 
 and XXXV. 11 — " The priests sprinkled the blood from their 
 hands and the Levites slayed them ;" i.e., the jjaschal lambs : 
 so also he shows, that " in the time of Hezekiah and Josiah, 
 when it was desired to keep the passover strictly, in such 
 sort as it was ^Titten," 2 Chr, xxx. 5, the lambs were mani- 
 
5G 
 
 festly killed in the court of the temple. No doubt they were 
 killed in the court, for the same reason, and therefore 
 after the same practice as in the time of Moses ; hut most 
 certainly not because it is so written in Moses' law, for that 
 it is not. And what must have been the practice in the time 
 of Moses ? This : if the priests were to sprinkle the blood 
 on the altar, then the lambs must have been slain near the 
 tabernacle, but not of necessity in its court. Thus it was a 
 matter of convenience, not of law; and being thus slain, 
 in and about the court of the tabernacle in the time of Moses, 
 nothing could be a more exact imitation of this j)ractice, 
 than to slay them in Hezekiah's time in the court of the 
 temple. 
 
 We, therefore, conclude that in Moses' time there was no 
 law to compel the killing of the paschal lambs in the court 
 of the tabernacle. But since it was convenient that they 
 should all be together in one place, in order that the priests 
 might " sprinkle the blood," therefore the practice was to 
 slay them near the tabernacle ; and that such was the 
 practice, is not proved by any thing in Moses' law, but by 
 the practice discovered in Chronicles. 
 
 This answers the whole of I., for the lambs were not 
 killed in the court, but in and about it. It, also, answers 
 all of ( [161] p. 132). We pass on to 
 
 11. That the priests could not have sprinkled the blood 
 of the 150,000 lambs. 
 
 We cannot discover that the priests sprinkled the blood of 
 each lamb separately. It certainly is not so said or implied 
 in the texts brought forward by the Bishop, and which we 
 have already considered. But grant it so to be. The objec- 
 tion is founded on there being only three priests, and this is 
 already met by Answer to Objection xvi. 
 
 We cannot help expressing, here, the hope that some 
 learned scholar of the Hebrew race, some " master of Israel," 
 may also give us an Answer to Bishop Colenso. For our consi- 
 derations of Jewish rite and genealogy have been conducted 
 only so far as to show, that there is nothing either impossible, 
 
incredible, or historically untrue in the Pentateuch. We 
 should greatly like therefore to see Iioav the Jews, ancient and 
 modern, expound their own genealogies, and legal rites, &c. 
 Such a work would throw great liglit upon interesting points, 
 and had such one, in popular style been in existence, we tliink 
 the Avork of Bishop Colenso could never have been wiitten. 
 
 OBJECTION XVIIL 
 
 THE WAR ON MEDIAN. 
 
 This objection is founded on Numbers xxxi. 
 The Bishop objects to the war on Midian, (I) on the ground 
 of its impossibility, and (II) on that of its immorality. 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 I. With regard to its impossibility. " We are called on 
 to believe," says the Bishop, " that 12,000 Israelites killed 
 48,000 men, pillaged their property, demolished their 
 castles, destroyed their towns, and carried off 100,000 
 captives, and all without the loss of a single man." (Colenso, 
 p. 144.) 
 
 Now if we are speaking to those who deny that God can 
 and that God has wi-ought miracles ; to Atheists in short — 
 we have nothing to say. For to argue with such, is to enter 
 on a totally different argument than we are treating of here. 
 To the fool that saith in his heart, " There is no God," we 
 say nothing now. <iBut to those who do believe in God, w^e 
 would say, what is there impossible or incredible in this ? 
 Remember, the sacred wi-iter always tells you he is recording 
 miraculous events ; the doings of God, not those of men. If 
 he tells us that not they, but " the Lord their God, should 
 destroy the nations with a mighty destruction, . . . that 
 
58 
 
 no man should be able to stand before them until they were 
 destroyed" (Deuteronomy vii. 23, 24) ; if he tells us that 
 God says, " I will cast out the nations before thee" (Exodus 
 xxxiv. 24); what wonder then that "five of them should 
 chase an hundred, and an hundred of them should put ten 
 thousand to flight, and their enemies should fall before them 
 by the sword?" (Lev. xxvi. 8.) For it is no longer Israel 
 but God. "They got not the land by their own sword, 
 neither did their own arm save them, but God's right hand 
 and his arm, because He had a favour unto them." (Psalm 
 xliv. 3.) It is not Moses, it is not Joshua, it is not Israel 
 triumphs, but it is "the Lord of Hosts." "With our 
 enemies," is Israel's boast, " is the arm of flesh; but with 
 us is the Lord our God, to fight our battles." (2 Chron. xxxii. 
 8.) To Him then belongs the power, and the victory, and 
 the triumph, " who brake the arrows of the bow, the shield, 
 the sword, and the battle." (Psalm Ixxvi. 3.) "Thine, 
 Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the 
 victory^ and the majesty ; for all that is in the heaven and in 
 the earth is thine. Thine is the kingdom, Lord, and thou 
 art exalted as head above all." (1 Chron. xxix. 11.) 
 
 11. With regard to its immorality. The remark made 
 in Answer to Objection I. may here be repeated. If the 
 destruction of the Midianites was by God's command, we 
 must be certain that it was righteous, for " shall not the 
 Judge of all the earth do right ?" Nevertheless, since God 
 in his Holy Word has been pleased to show the reason why 
 such stern punishments as the slaughter of Midian were 
 executed, we may lawfully examine them. First, however, 
 we would make one or two introductory remarks of a general 
 nature. 
 
 Thus, then, wliatever is recorded oftlie acts of God's 
 people must be considered as cases wJiolly exceptional. The 
 history and circumstances of the Jews, were, all throughout, 
 entirely exceptional. Their civil and social law, as well as 
 their very existence and abode, were all for a particular pur- 
 pose. They were God's people, governed by God himself for 
 
59 
 
 un especial purpose — the preserving His knowledge, His 
 word, and His worship, amid a heathen world. Tlieir civil and 
 social laws are therefore no p7xcedents for lis. For the same 
 reason, none of their acts contrary to God's law, " Thou 
 shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Lev. xix. 18), are 
 precedents either. The Jews themselves could not disobey 
 the above law without a direcj; warrant from heaven. Still 
 less, if possible, can we dare to violate this law, until we can 
 plead a like manifest warrant from its divine Author. 
 
 By this rule we must estimate many acts recorded in the 
 Old Testament. He who made the law, alone could dispense 
 with its observance. When his people f//of dispense with it, 
 they did so by direct warrant from Him. This will explain 
 many dark passages of Jewish story, which seem at first 
 sight to us, unrighteous and cruel. Thus the act of 
 Jael to Sisera, viewed as an act of man, is one of such 
 cold-blooded treachery and cruelty, that even a heathen 
 could reprobate it as an accursed deed.* Viewed as 
 an act of God, done by his warrant and interference, it 
 is God striking down an enemy of himself; it is His 
 " right hand " dealing out due vengeance on a cruel oppressor, 
 too mighty for man's. But this is no precedent to us, and 
 we cannot follow it, until we can show the same divine 
 warrant. The same of the slaughter of the Midianites. It 
 was a punishment inflicted, not by man. It was not Moses, 
 it was not Israel that destroyed them, but that God to whom 
 " belongeth vengeance and recompense " (Dent, xxxii. 35). 
 And why were they and other nations so utterly destroyed ? 
 Because they had sinned against God and man, a long time, 
 and without repentance, and God's longsufiering would no 
 longer bear with them; and the " sickle was now put in, " 
 because "the harvest was ripe" to be cut down ; for "their 
 wickedness was great." (Joel iii. 13.) Five hundred years 
 God spared them ; five hundred years his people were 
 strangers to the promised land; because ihe "iniquity of 
 
 * " Et penetralia, 
 
 Sparsisse nocturno cruore 
 Hospitis." — HoR. 2 Ode, xiii. 6—8. 
 
 E 
 
60 
 
 the Amorites was not yet full." (Genesis xv. 16.) Not for 
 God's "favour to Sion," "but for the wickedness of these 
 nations the Lord doth drive them out from before thee." 
 (Deut. ix. 4.) " The land is defiled " saith God, " therefore 
 I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself 
 vomiteth out her inhabitants. (Lev. xviii. 25.) And these 
 Midianites. They were the vile and vicious idolaters of St. 
 Paul ; men who had " changed the glory of the uncorrupt- 
 ible God into an image made like to corruptible man, 
 
 given up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own 
 hearts." (Romans i. 24.) They had seduced Israel to join in 
 their foul whoredoms, and worship in their vile idolatries. 
 (Numbers xxv. 1,2.) Therefore the sentence of their right- 
 eous doom went forth ; that " God to whom vengeance belong- 
 eth, shewed himself." Their "judgment," delayed so long, 
 now "lingered" no more (2 Peter ii. 3), and then- "dam- 
 nation was just." (Rom. iii. 8.) 
 
 With regard to the slavery question here touched by the 
 Bishop (page 144), the remarks already made under Objec- 
 tion L, and the present, appear to meet it. Slavery with the 
 Jews is an exceptional condition and under an exceptional 
 state of society, and therefore is no precedent for us. The 
 slave was protected from mvirder by the law, " He that 
 smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death " 
 (Ex. xxi. 12). He was protected from bodily injury by the 
 law, " If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of 
 his maid, that it perish ; he shall let him go free for his 
 eye's sake" (Ex. xxi. 26). So also the same penalty for loss 
 of a tooth (v. 27) [Dean Graves on Pentateuch, 156]. This 
 is a very different matter from slavery as it exists now. 
 Therfe was, moreover, an inspired sanhedrim (Num. xi. 
 16, 25), in order to hear and judge complaints (Ex. xviii. 21, 
 and xxiv. 1, 9). Until, therefore, we can shew all these 
 conditions, we can draw from the Pentateuch no warrant for 
 slavery now. We can, moreover, affirm it to be contrary to 
 the spirit of the Christian Revelation. We agree, however, 
 thus far, that to quote texts from the Pentateuch against it, 
 especially by incautious hands, is a dangerous thing to do. 
 
61 
 
 We liave lastly, under this objection, to conside? the possi- 
 bility or impossibility of the events of the last six months of 
 the pilgrimage being accomplished in that time. These events 
 will be found collected in Bishop Colenso's Work, at pages 
 144, 146. We maintain their possibility, thus: Aaron died 
 on the first day of the fifth month of the fortieth year of 
 the wanderings; they mourned him a month. Allow, with 
 the Bishop, for the conquest of Arad and his cities, another 
 month. Allow, still with the Bishop, from Mount Hor by 
 way of Red sea to Punon, including the plague of fiery 
 serpents (compare Num. xxxiii. 41, 42 with xxi. 10), a 
 fortnight. And now they are in full and rapid march for the 
 Holy Land. This we may well believe, since they were under 
 Almighty guidance (Num. ix. 23), and were assured by 
 Divine promise of easy conquest (Lev. xxvi. 8). We see 
 no reason why, thus sujiported, they should rest, as Kurtz 
 presmnes, on the way. For the nine marches from Punon 
 to Pisgah then, say 180 miles, we allow only a fortnight- 
 There is nothing in the history (Num. xxi.) to prevent us 
 supposing that the conquests of Silion and the Amorites of 
 Jaazer, both small districts and close at hand, were not 
 combined and simultaneous operations, carried out, as tlie 
 war on Midian, by detached flying squadrons (Num. xxxi). 
 Allow then for these two operations a fortnight. Let the 
 conquest of Bashan be supposed not simultaneous with the 
 above two, and being a small district about 30 miles off, 
 allow it a fortnight to be overcome. These conquests were 
 probably made by the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh, 
 (Num. xxxii. 1, 39,) who formed settlements there, but whose 
 warriors went back to Moses for the conquest of Canaan 
 (verses 18, 26, 27, 33). 
 
 We will now put the above into a table as follows : — 
 
 (1) Mourning for Aaron 1 Montli. 
 
 (2) Conquest of Arad 1 „ 
 
 (3) Mount Hor to Punon (by Red Sea) ... h „ 
 
 (4) Funon to Pisgah A „ 
 
 (5) Conquest of Sihon and Jaaznr i „ 
 
 (6) Conquest of Bashan h n 
 
 4 Months. 
 
There wijl then remain two months for the operations now 
 mentioned and summed up by the Bishop, pages 145, 146. 
 We will now consider the time for these. From Mount 
 Abarim before Nebo, to the plains of Moab on this side of 
 Jordan by or near Jericho (Num. xxxiii. 47, 48 and xxii. 1), 
 would be a day's march. There they were spread from Beth- 
 jeshimoth to Abel-shittim (Num. xxxiii. 48, 49), at which 
 last place the idolatry took place (Num. xxv. 1). Allow a 
 fortnight for the idolatry, plague, and numbering, in the 
 plains of Moab. There will then remain six weeks save one 
 day, for the conquest of Midian. And in such time, under 
 the circumstances, this might reasonably be done. 
 
 Of com-se it is not to be supposed that such rapidity of 
 events, belongs to the list of ordinary occurrences. Still it 
 is not an impossibility for powerful armies so soon to sweep 
 over, and make settlements in, districts by no means large, 
 nor widely separated. It requires only a constant course of 
 uninterrupted success. And this is just what, by Divine 
 help, the Israelites had. If we only believe that the "Lord 
 of Hosts " was with them, there is nothing incredible or 
 difficult to believe in the rapid subjugation of the hostile 
 tribes. And thus in the last, as in all other of the objections, 
 we contend there is nothing incredible or impossible, or 
 affecting in the least degree, the historic truth of the Penta- 
 teuch. 
 
 Digression. It will be seen that the writer has omitted 
 entirely all consideration of two objections raised in the 
 Bishop's preface, viz., the impossibility of the animals being 
 gathered together in the ark ; and that of an universal 
 deluge. The reason for this omission is, his entire ignorance 
 of Natural History and Gleology. With regard to the former 
 objection, since his lore as a Naturalist is almost limited to 
 the knowing- a cow from a horse, he can only offer a sugges- 
 tion taken from higher authority. Dr. Lardner in his 
 Museum of Science and Art, says, that " Naturalists have 
 resolved the ' existing animal kingdom into four primary 
 divisions.' (Vol. xi., \\ 66.) These four are divided again into 
 
63 
 
 different orders. " Naturalists have reduced animal forms 
 to seventy-eight orders, in one of which man stands alone." 
 (Vol. xii. p. 160.) These again are sub-divided into genera 
 or generic forms, and of these he tells us 1867 is tlie total 
 number in the human period of the world. (Vol. xii. p. 154.) 
 These might have been received into the ark, and from them 
 or less than them, if it so pleased God, all other animals 
 have been derived. 
 
 Then again, though the writer is still less learned in 
 Geology, is in fact no antediluvian at all, yet he contends 
 that nothing the Bishop has said of the hills of Auvernge, 
 which may not have always been " covered with light and 
 loose substances," (preface p. viii.) can weigh against the 
 universal belief of mankind, or sweej) out of man's mind 
 the ever admitted axiom — Communis consenms stat pro 
 ratione. 
 
 Every result of Geology, has hitherto con&med "most 
 strikingly," the order of creation in Genesis, as is most ably 
 stated by a high authority. (Lardner, Mus. Vol. xii. pp. 158- 
 160.) The vague reports, now floating dimly round, as to 
 the time of man's creation, cannot for an instant shake this 
 testimony of nature. The more Nature has been searched, 
 the more w^itness has she borne to the Genesis of Moses. 
 The believer in his Bible can never doubt, that the more she 
 is searched, the more like evidence she will afford. God's 
 Work, ever has been, ever is, and ever will be, harmonious 
 with his Word. 
 
 Nunquam aliud Natura^ aliud Sapientia cficit.'"* (Juv. 
 xiv. 321.) 
 
 To retm-n, however, from this digression, which the reader 
 is recommended to skip. Whoever has taken the Bible in his 
 right hand and Bishop Colenso on the Pentateuch in his left, 
 cannot fail to see, both where the fallacy of his argument 
 lies, and the consequent falsity of his conclusions. His 
 deductions from Moses, unlike his deductions from Euclid, 
 are from first to last, wrong. The same error all through 
 
 * The writer begs humbly to suggest this as a motto for Sir C. Lyell's forthcoming 
 
vitiates liis demonstrations. Everywliere it is the applica- 
 tion of a test to history with which history has nothing to 
 do. It is taking the words of history, not in a literal sense, 
 but with a more than mathematical precision. We say, 
 with a more than mathematical precision, for what we have 
 already said was no exaggeration at all, but sober truth ; 
 namely, that if the Bishop applied his test to Euclid, 
 Euclid must fall. The Bishop evidently looks on the 
 omission of a petty detail by an historian, as a sin as un- 
 pardonable as the leaving out a step of a geometrical 
 demonstration, or a term of an algebraic expansion. Thus, 
 when the historian tells us that God miraculously fed more 
 than two million men in the wilderness, but does not think 
 it necessary to say how the sheep were fed; therefore, is the 
 Bishop's conclusion, they could not have been fed at all. 
 So again, if he tell us that the flocks and herds went down 
 into Egypt, because he mentions no shepherds ; therefore they 
 had none. If he tell a miraculous doing, but does not 
 specify the miracle ; therefore none was performed. With 
 regard to this last point, we must again affirm, spite of the 
 Bishop and Canon Stanley combined, that where miraculous 
 events happened, there there was, and must have been, 
 miraculous interference. In short, we believe the words at 
 the end of the Gospel are equally suitable in their sense for 
 the end of the Pentateuch, "There are also many other 
 things which (God did by Moses) and which are not written 
 in this book" (John xxi. 25). So too in the Bishop's sight, 
 every Avord in a history, is an arithmetical quantity of fixed and 
 determinate value, and can mean nothing more nor less, even 
 when qualified by the historian himself. "With Jacob " means 
 the same instant of time with him, though the historian 
 shows plainly that not such is his meaning. Eameses, 
 again — but we will say no more about tJiat. " All the 
 firstborn " means the whole population, though the historian 
 himself gives us his limit. It is plain, that in arguing thus, 
 the Bishop has been carried away by his mathematical 
 pursuits. He has been a mathematician all his life ; 
 
 " While yet a child, and erst unknown to fame, 
 He lisped in mmhers, and the numbers came ;" 
 
65 
 
 and hence he treats history like a bad sum in arithmetic. 
 Such criticism, however, cannot be allowed. The sacred 
 subject that is treated here, forces it candidly to be sjDoken 
 out, that such a method is only an extravagant QuLxotism, 
 and amounts to a decided fit of mathematical monomania.* 
 And it is necessary to say this, because many a reader of his 
 work observes that the calculations amount to a demonstra- 
 tion, but does not always observe, that the application of 
 them is absurd and unwarrantable. We hope, instead of 
 Part II. on tlie Pentateuch, the Bishop will favour the world 
 with a short and clear solution of a little difficulty still 
 existing in his friend Euclid himself, viz., the 12th axiom — 
 that lucus a non lucendo, of the first book. For we really 
 have been able to draw no other deduction from Part I., than 
 that the fact of being a great mathematician, does not imply 
 of necessity, being a great theologian. Duty, not inclination, 
 and the solemn importance of the subject, compel us to be 
 thus out-spoken ; and to point out unreservedly, the childish- 
 ness of the Bishop's Objections, and the absurdity of his 
 arguments. And the same weighty motives are our claim 
 on the reader's indulgence — 
 
 Da veniam scriptis, quorum non gloria nobis 
 
 Causa ; sed titilitas^ qfficiumque fuit. 
 
 CONCLUDING RE:MARKS. 
 
 Laying aside the "we" employed in the character ot a 
 Reviewer, I must now take leave to add a few words on my 
 own part. I have endeavoured in these pages, to do that 
 which the Bishop desires, " test fairly and honestly the truth 
 
 * Edie Ochiltree to Monkbarus. " I hae aye said ahiut your back, that for a' the 
 nonsense maggots that ye whiles take into your liead, ye are the maist scientific 
 o' a' our Colonial Bishops." — Walter Scott, slightly altered. 
 
of every inference he lias drawn." I liave tried to set forth 
 his objections and arguments in all fairness and impartiality. 
 Where I have disputed his conclusions, I have put forth and 
 noticed every one of his arguments ; at least I believe so ; 
 though writing in the midst of perpetual interruptions, such 
 may not quite be the case. More than that, I have searched 
 out Scriptm-e and not without a reproaching and sorrowful 
 spirit, in the way of a doubter ; like a sceptic hunting for 
 vermin in cleanly places, trying to muddy crystal waters. 
 It has been said to me by a friend who has read the manu- 
 script, that I have sometimes indulged in lightness. It may 
 be so, but I have written no more than what the subject 
 before it must obviously impress upon the mind. And I 
 cannot alter it ; for I have an eye to those ungodly jesters 
 already alluded to in the preface. Derision, I thought, might 
 stop their profaning mouths, where argument would not. 
 Ridicule, not Reason, is the rod of ribalds. 
 
 The view I have taken of Mosaic history, is, what I shall 
 take leave to call the common sense view. It is the view 
 which any man, mot greatly below the average of common 
 sense, — the view that a plain countryman, who reads his 
 Bible, and thinks on what he reads, — would and does take. 
 He, and even a child, can perceive in a moment, that the 
 events of the Exodus are not such as can happen in ordinary 
 life. Yet reading all through, that God's voice and God's 
 hand, were working things out, no doubt of their truth ever 
 enters his mind. Tliis, the reader will soon see, is all I have 
 done. I have sought out no learning, nor puzzled God's 
 word with complications of science. I have varnished 
 over no text ; supposed no errors of scribes ; and rated the 
 numbers even higher than Bishop Colenso. I have taken 
 Scriptm'e in its simple, grammatical, and literal sense ; and, 
 except where other Scripture forbade, interpreted it with a 
 precision, almost as severe as the Bishop himself. The result 
 of my studies has been — what I pray God it may be to each 
 one of my readers,^that my belief in the Pentateuch has 
 deepened into the conviction, fixed as the decrees of Fate, 
 
67 
 
 that it is not only a true and faithful, genuine and autlieutie, 
 but also a literal History. Every fact that lies around us 
 confirms this conviction. The mighty pyramids of Egypt, 
 which attest the labours of swarming populations, bear wit- 
 ness to the numbers at the Exodus epoch. The three stones 
 in the wall of Baalbec — that Spliynx of modern engineers — 
 which wild Arabs still hold as set up by the Geni of Solomon ; 
 prove that his legions of Lebanon workmen, was no fiction of 
 poetry. The Bible, more especially the Mosaic law, has com- 
 manded such ages of belief, and resisted such ages of assault, 
 as no work of man ever has done, or ever can do. The Jew, 
 who of yore, wept by Babylon's waters, the Law's worship at 
 Sion, still clings to it now, in far deeper misfortune, with 
 unshaken fidelity. Neither man's weakness, and neither his 
 wickedness, have loosened one stone in God's Temple of 
 Truth. Thousands of errors have blemished the text ; all 
 have marred not one doctrine of Catholic Faith. And Pride, 
 that hateth instruction ; Vice, that hateth reproof, have spat 
 on it foul venom, time out of mind. Silent and quiet, through 
 revolving generations, the Word of God pm-sues its course. 
 As is His natural, so is His spiritual world. As earth main- 
 tains her voiceless path ; as planets and stars, sweep onward 
 for aye in their noiseless roll ; so the Word of the Lord en- 
 dm-eth for ever, " rejoicing as a giant to run his course." 
 Thus Scripture, like " the heavens, declare the glory of God ;" 
 the Bible " showeth, like the firmament, His handiwork." 
 Though there be " neither speech nor language, yet their 
 voices are heard among them," declaring that " underneath 
 them are the everlasting- arms." Unheard to mortal ear, 
 unseen to mortal eye, God's hand upholds God's Word. This, 
 this is a miracle. This is God Himself preserving his own 
 eternal, immaterial kingdom ; fulfilling the words of his own 
 Blessed Son—'' Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my 
 words shall not pass away." 
 
 THE END. 
 
68 
 
 "While the above has been going through the press, an 
 advertisement has appeared, announcing the Bishop's Part II. 
 on the Age and Authority of the Writings of Moses and 
 Joshua, as nearly ready. This is altogether overleaping the 
 limits of the ludicrous. If we have only laughed hitherto, 
 we do so now on the other side of the mouth, with sorrow 
 and shame. The Bishop must know that there are many 
 men in the Church, who have given themselves up to life- 
 long poverty, in order to lift their feeble arms to " fight the 
 good fight of faith." These men, very simply perhaps, but 
 still somewhat naturally, expect to see their spiritual com- 
 manders in the forefront of battle. And there, thank God, 
 our Bishops have always been, heretofore. It is impossible 
 to witness unmoved, one of their sacred order, not merely 
 forsaking his colors, but doing all he can to hand them over 
 to the enemy. No clergyman, who has the least respect for 
 his cloth, can see without sorrow, such a scandal cast on it. 
 The Bishop has no right to expect any man to pay him the 
 respect of reading his words, so long as he writes them in 
 lawn sleeves. (See Bishop of London's Charge, p. 17.) 
 
 There is, however, one comfort in the forthcoming publi- 
 cation, though it be but a poor one. Judging from Part I., 
 and also from the subject of Part II., we may expect 
 something unspeakably absm-d when the work is brought 
 forth. " Parturiwit monies^ 7iascetur ridiculus mus." A 
 somewhat larger animal than Horace's mouse may indeed be 
 expected to appear ; there being such very decided symptoms, 
 as we have seen, of "a rat in the garret." There is a little 
 preliminary matter too, which the Bishop must settle, as a 
 base of operations. He must first prove that the Parthenon 
 was built yesterday, and the Pyramids the day before ; we 
 may then be prepared to listen to his sentiments as to the 
 date of the Mosaic writings — but not till then. 
 
 R. E. Peach, Printer, 8, Bridge Street, Bath. 
 
/ 
 
DATE DUE 1 
 
 ^m..4«^«w^ 
 
 ^fnaaneai 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 OAVLORD 
 
 
 
 rniNTCDiNUSA. 
 
Syrocuse, N. Y. 
 Stockton, Colif. 
 
m 
 
 
 BS1225.4.C7F8 
 
 Vindex Pentateuch! : an answer 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00039 7234 
 
 ■ - — 'P^^^^W 
 
 
 ■•'-zm^