^> "«u sr ,%^ i>. ^ .0.. \^^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.! [f ilia iiM •^ i^ 1 2.2 1^ 12^ ""1= ^ 1^ 1.. 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 •4 6" — ► V] 0% m, ^/. c': c^l ^ ^-1 Photographic Sciences Corporation «: %" ..^ '' ' '^ V' TO JAMES A. MATTHEWSON, Ebquimb, OF liOlTTREAL, ▲ N ABDBNT FBIBKD AND LOVEB OF TBUTH, AMD A LIBBBAL 8X7FPOBTBB OF QOD's CAUSE, IS THIS LITTLB WOBX HUMBLY DEDICATED, AS A TOKEN OF BBSFBCT AND CMBI8TIAN LOTEy THE AUTHOR. I I ■• "/ '■ v INTRODtJCTlON. A Hebrew christian of the 17th century writes thus: "That a solid understanding of the sacred Scriptures ought to be endeavoured by all who profess Christianity, and that, as a mean nothing can more conduce towards the knowledge of them, than the understanding of their original languages," these are assertions equally un^ questionable. With gladness, therefore, should essays of this kind be admitted into the world, and made use of for the advancement of scriptural knowledge in a scriptural language. The apostle Paul, second to none of his con- temporaries in human learning, sets the knowledge of a crucified Saviour in preference to ail others, determining to know votJdng save Jesus Christ and him crucijied. To which knowledge doth the Scripture most directly lead, for the blessed publication of which, and the continuation thereof in our maternal languages, we can never enough give thanks to the Divine goodness ; for how much light has sprang forth into the christian world since then ? And how much more profoundly would christians see into the mysteries of Scripture, were they skilled to draw, ex ipso fontCy from the very fountain— that fountain wherein anti- christian shepherds have not, with puddling feet stepped and defiled ?" How many the spreading branches, hoir much variety of finish does arise from one Hebrew radix and how pleasant, as well &h profitable, a labor is it to be digging amongst those roots whose excellency duly to com* mend is a work surpassing my skill. But, if either the antiquity or sancity of a language may make it estimable, then the Hebre\v, above all others, is to be preferred. It being the tohgUe of Acla?n by which he gave names, not only to his posterity, but also to the creatures that God brought to him to be named, that tongue in which the prophets, those penmen of the Holy Spirit, did transmit unto posterity the Scriptures of the Old Testament. That tongue in which the Lord, both under the Old and New Testament administration, hath spoken to his prophets and servants ; yea the very tongue in which God himself, upon Mount Sinai, wrote his own law, with his own finger, upon two tables of stone, a tongue worthy to be written in charac- ters of gold, and highly meriting the industry of all to be reaching after it, especially of those who are devoted to Bcriptural study. Some of the ancients were not only diligent, but underwent hazards, and were at great costs to attain this sacred language. It is storied of Jerome, that he went by night, and by stealth, to be instructed in it, and that Eeuchlin gave a Jew a crown an hour to read Hebrew to him. ''England as well as other parts of Christendom has heretofore been overspread with horrible barbarism, but the clouds of ignorance have happily been dispersed, and amongst other excellent discoveries, a near way to the language of Canaan has been laid open, and yet {miserabile dictu) how many, yea, even of them qui pro Theologia Doo- toribiLs cestimantur, if a Hebrew Bible should be presented into their hands, scarce knowing the bottom of the book from the top, or the beginning from the end? Contenting themselves to see with other men's eyes, and receive by tradition what might be known radically and fundamen. tally, and that with such ease and pleasure, the path having now a long time been frequented by many skilfu^ lexicographers and grammarians, and their more learned 5> works duly epitomized, and reduced to so brief and facile a method, that ordinary capacities, in the space of one year (or sooner as they give diligence) may, from Li/ros, become good proficients in this sacred study, wherein I laboured night and day, in my more youthful years, not so much for the difficulty of attaining it, as from a delight I had in it."' The history of the Jewish Church and people is not writ- ten at length in the Jewish Scriptures in the form in which We should desire ultimately to possess it. The order of the books as they stand in the Canon is often not their real order, nor are the events themselves always related in the order of time ; accordingly if we wish to have the full ac- count of any event or character, we must piece it together from various books or passages often separated from each other by considerable intervals. Obvious examples of this are to be found in the illustrations furnished to the life of David by the Psalms, and of the history of the Jewish kings by the prophetical writings. Again, portions of the same historical events are related from different points of view, or with fresh incidents, or by implication, in parts of the historical books, where we should least expect to find them. Thus the slaughter of Gideon's brothers, and a long untold stage of his career, is sug- gested by a single allusion, in the existing narrative, to events of which the record has not come down to us. The stormJng of Hebron by Caleb is partly made up from the book of Joshua, and partly from that of the book of Judges, the narratives affixed to the end of the book of Judges must chronologically be transferred to the begin- ning of the period. Many of these scattered notices are ingeniously collected^ by Professor Blunt as undersigned evidences to the truth of the history ; and though his argu- ments are sometimes too fanciful to be safely trusted, yet his method is one of great value to the historical student, and is the same which has been followed out in a larger and more critical spirit, and with more permament and fruitful results, in Ewald's reconstruction of tlie history both of the Judges and of David. The books of the Old Testament, in their present form, in many instances are not, and do not profess to be, the orig- inal documents on which the history was based. There was (to use a happy expression used of late) a •' Bible with- in a Bible," an Old Testament before an Old Testament was. written." To discover any traces of these lost works in the actual text, or any allusions to them, even when their sub- stance has entirely perished, is a task of immense interest. It reveals to us a glimpse of an earlier world, of an extinct literature, such as always rouses innocent inquiry to the utmost. Such is the ancient document describing the conquest of the eastern kings in the 14th chapter of Genesis, the unmistakable fragment of ancient songs in the 2lst chapter of Numbers, the quotations from the book of Jasher, in the book of Joshua, and the first book of Samuel. Whenever these glimpses occur, they deserve the most careful attention. We are brought by them years, perhaps centuries, nearer to the events described. We are allowed b^ them to see some- thing of the construction of the narrative itself. The in- dications of the origin of the different documents, of varia- tions of style, by the use of peculiar names and titles, may be too minute to catch the attention of many except a pro- fessed Hebrew scholar. But the points to which I now refer are open to the consideration of any careful student. Yet, again, we must always bear in mind that the history of the chosen people is not exclusively contained in the authorised English version, nor even only in the Hebrew text from which that version is a translation. The auth- orized version, indeed, is a sufficient account of the history for the general purposes ot popular instruction. But as no Hcholar thinks of reading Thucydidea even in the best English translation, so no scholar should be satisfied unless he at least endeavours to ascertain how far the English version represents the original. And in proportion to the value we attach to the actual words of the Bible itself, oujrht to be the care not to over estimate the words even of the best modern translation. The variations are, perhaps, not important as to the general sense. But as to the pre- cise life and force of each word, (I speak chiefly from my experience of a single department, the geographical voca- bulary,) they are very considerable ; and in a language so expressive as the Hebrew, involve often serious historical conseq^uences. The Hebrew text, however, is not our only source of in- formation as to the original materials of the sacred history. Without arguing the relative merits of the Hebrew and the Septuagint texts, we have no right to set aside or neglect such an additional authority as the Septuagint furnishes. Whatever may be the value of the Hebrew text in itself, or its authority in the present Jewish Church, or the present Church of Western Europe, the Septuagint was the text quoted frequently by our Lord himself, as well as by the Apostles, and still acknowledged by the whole East. The Septuagint must, therefore, be regarded as the Old Testa- ment of the Apostolical, and of the early Catholic Church ; and though we may refuse to acknowledge this its co-or- dinate authority with the received text of our present Bible* 8 it has at least value as the very oldest Jewish tradition and commentary on the sacred text. Therefore no passage of the sacred history can be considered as exhausted unless we have seen how it is represented by the Alexandrian transla- tors, and ifj as is often the case, we find variations of consid- erable magnitude from the Hebrew, such variations may always be regarded, if not as the original account of the mat- ter, at least as explanations and tradition of high antiquity. Such, for example, are the details of the descent of the eastern kings, of the passage of the Jordan, of the execution of the sons of Saul, of the coronation of Jeroboam. The Jews of Palestine, in their horror of a rival text, — perhaps of a trans- lation which should render their scored books accessible to all the world, — held that on the day on which the Seventy Trans- lators met, a supernatural darkness overspread the earth, and the day was to them one of their solemn periods of fasting and humiliation. But to us, who know what the Septuagint was in the hands of the Apostles, as a means of spreading the knowledge of the Old Testament through the Gentile world — who in the scantiness of any remains of the ancient Jewish literature, gladly welcome any additional information to fill up the void — who feel what a bulwark this double version of the Old Testament furnishes against a too rigid or literal con- stniction of the sacred history, the Seventy Translators, if not worthy of the high place, to which the ancient church assign- ed them, may well be remarked amongst the greatest benefac- tors of the biblical literature and free inquiry. ' > There is yet another class of authorities to which I have referred whenever occasion offered. It has been truly said that the history of the chosen people is the history, not of an inspired book, but of an inspired people. If so, any record +V>of \\^o hoon r\raiitiv\T(^(\ fo uo o^^ ihut ■npnnlr*. f>vnn nlfhoiio-K not contained in their own sacred books, is far too precious to be despised. These records are indeed very scanty. They consist of a few fragments of Gentile histories preserved by Josephus, Euseblus, and Clement of Alexandria, a few state- ments in Justin, Tacitus, and Strabo, a few inscriptions in Egypt and Assyria, the traditions of the East, whether pre- served in Rabbinical, Christian, or Mussulman legends ; and the traditions of th(i Jewish Church itself, as preserved by Philo and Josephus. All these notices, unequal in value as they are to each other, or to the records of the Old Testament itself, have yet this use, that they recall to us the existence of the facts, independent of the authority of the sacred books. It is true that the larger part of the interest and instruction of the Jewish history would be lost with the loss of the He- brew Scriptures. But their original influence on the world was irrespective of the Scriptures, and must always continue. Even had we only the imperfect account of the Jews in Tacitus and Strabo, we should know that they were the most remarkable nation of ancient Asia. This argument applies vrith still greater force to the traditions of the East, and to the traditions of Josephus. With regard to the former, it is impossible, without greater knowledge than can be obtained by one who is ignorant of Arabic, and who has only visited the East in two or three fugitive journeys, to ascertain how far they have a substantial existence of their own, or how far they are mere amplifications of the Koran and the Old Testament. Some cases— such as the wide-spread prevalence of the name of Friend for Abraham, too slightly noticed in the Bible to have been derived from thence, and the importance assigned to the Arabian, Titbro, or Shouagh— seem to indicate an in- dependent origin. But, whether this be so or not, they con- tinue to form the staple of the belief of a large part of mankind A-2 10 on the subject of the Jewish history, and as such I have ven- tured to quote them, partly in order to contrast them with the more sober style of the sacred records, but chiefly where they fall in with the general spirit of the biblical narrative, and thus furnish an instructive, because unexpected, illustration of it. Many common readers may be struck by the Persian or Arabian stories of Abraham or Moses, whose minds have by long custom become hardened to the effect of the narrative of the Bible itself. The traditions of Josephus are yet more significant. It is remarkable that of his four works, two run parallel to the Old Testament, and two to the New. Whilst the histories of "the Wars of the Jews," and of his own " Life " throw a flood of light by contemporary allusions on the time of the Christian era, the "Antiquities" and "Controversy with Apion ' illustrate hardly less remarkably the times of the Older Dispensation. The *' Controversy with Apion/' indeed, is chiefly important for its preservation of those Gentile tradi- tions to which I have before referred. But the "Antiquities" f\irnish an example such as hardly occurs elsewhere in ancient literature, of a recent history existing'side by side with most of the original documents from which it is compiled. It would be a curious speculation, which would test the value of the style and spirit of the sacred writers, to im- agine how the Jewish history would appear if the Old Testa- ment were lost, and the facts were known to us only through the Antiquities of Josephus. His style is indeed widely different from that of the sacred narrative, — his verbosity con- trasted with its simplicity, his vulgarity with its sublimity^ his prose with its poetry, his uniformity with its variety. But, with all these drawbacks, to which we must add his omissions and emendations, as if to meet the critical life of > 11 his Roman masters, Ihe main thread of the story is faithfully retained : occasionally, as in the case of the death of Moses and Saul, a true pathos steals over the dull level ; occasionally as in the case of the story of Balaam, a just discernment brings out ckarly, the moral elevation peculiar to the ancieni scrip- tures. But there is yet further interest. His account is filled with variations not to be explained by any of the differ- ences just cited. To examine the origin of these would be an interesting task. Sometime he coincided with the variations of the Septuagint, and in cases where he seemed not to have copied from that version, his statements must be considered as a confirmation of the value of the text which the Septua- gint has followed. Sometimes he supplies facts which agreo with existing localities, but have no direct connection with the sacred narrative, either in Hebrew or Greek, as in his account of the mountain (evidently Jebel Attaka) which hemmed in the Israelites at the Red Sea, of the traditional sanctity of Sinai, and of the still existing manna. Sometimes he makes statements which are not founded in the narrative itself, bat which remarkably illustrate indirect allusions contained either in the histjry or in other parts of the Old Testament; as, for example, the thunder-storm at the Red Sea, which coincides very slightly with the narrative in Exodus, but exactly and fully with the allusions in the 77th Psalm, or the slaughter in torrent of Arnon which has no foundation in the Mosaic narrative, but is the natural explanation of the ancient song preserved in the book of Numbers. In a more critical histo- rian these additions might be considered mere amplif.eations of the slight hints furnished by the original writers, but in Josephus it seems reasonable (and, in that case, becomes deeply interesting) to ascribe them to an independent source of information, common to the tradition which he used, and to the occasional allusions in the sacred writers. Sometimes 12 his variations consist simply of new 'information, capable neither of proof or disproof, but receiving a certain degree of support from the simplicity and probability which distin- guishes them from common Rabbinical legends, such as the story of Hur being the husband of Miriam, or the rite of the red heifer having iis origin in her burning. Finally, other statements exist, which agree with the Oriental or Gentile traditions already quoted, and thus reciprocally yield and receive a limited confirmation, as, for an instance, Abraham's connection with the contemplation of the stars, and the great deeds of Moses in Egypt, NOTE FROM STANLY. The arithmetical errors which have been pointed out (with greater force and in greater detail than heretofore, but not for the first time, by eminent Divines and schohir.s) in tiie narratives of the Old Testament, are unquestionably inconsistent with the pop- ular hypothesis of the uniform and undeviating accuracy of the biblical history, or with the ascription of the whole Pentateuch to a contemporaneous author. But, on tlie other hand, the recog- nition of these errors, even if it should prove to be necessary, would remove at one stroke. some of the main difficulties of the Mosaic narrative. By such a reduction of the numbers as Laborde, for example, or Kenicott propose, many of the perplexities in the history of the Exodus at once disappear, and the incredibility of one part of the narrative thus becomes a direct argument in favor of the probability of the rest. And the parallel instance of a like tendency to tho amplification of Numbers in Josephus' " War of the Jews," is a decisive proof of the compatibility of such am- plifications, not indeed, with an exact or literal, but with a sub- stantially historical narratitve, of the series of events in which these errors are embedded. Is'o doubt, to those who regard the least error in the sacred history as fatal to the credibility and value of the whole of the Bible, and to the christian faith itself, such discoveries are full of alarm. But, if we extend to the narrativo of the different parts of the Old Testament, the same laws of criti- cism which we apply to other histories, especially to Oriental histories, its very errors and defects may be reckoned among its safeguards, and al any rate are guided to the true apprehension of its meaning and its intention. Without by any means admitting such errors and defedts as the enemies of revelation charge against the sacred books, we merely assert that such errors and defocts \ 13 k i would not invalidate the sacred liistory, not destroy the authority of the only volume that gives us a wortoy account of God, of creation, of Providt-nce, or of eternity. From an honest inquiry such as that whicli has suggested tliese remarks, and from a calm discussion of the points which it raises, the cause of religion has everything to gain and nothing to lose. When a celebrated critic once remarked to a young aspirant for fame as an author, who submitted his new work to him for hia opinion, " The good is not new ; and the new is not good,"' he maiie an observation which did not necessarily apply to that single instance alone. There are many cases of which that trito remark could, with every degree of justice and propriety, be made. There is a class of persons in every age which is seized with en- thusiastic admiration of every novelty; and that class of course considers itself more enlightened than those tardy people who see the folly anu the absurdity of the thing at a glance ; yet they who will not allow their eyes to be blinded, are called old fogies, and other uncomplimentary names ; nevertheless they do not feel their security the least affected, their wonted equilibrium remains un- shaken, and they go on pursuing the even tenor of their way, while the dupes who shouted glory, lose in the end their judgement, their money, and their faith. With some people it is a settled principle, that " everything which is new must be good, and every- thing which is old must be bad." They can see no beauty, no grandeur, no wisdom, in light, in truth in the past. "The time has been," says Stuart, " when tew if any, who arl- mitted the divine origin and authority of the christian religion, deemed it consistent or decorous to deny the sacred authority of the Old Testament Scriptures. But that time has passed away, and we have come to witutss new developments of sceptical feel- ings, at which our ancesters would have stood astounded. I do not mean to aver, that there has not, for ages past, been a class of men in all christian countries, who doubted the divine origin and authority of the sacred books in general. But the professed recep- tion of the christian religion as divine, with the admission that ihn New Testament contains at least a credible and authentic ac- count of it, the admission at the same time, that the Jewish re- ligion 1 ad some proper and real claim to be considered as having been approved and established by God, while the Old Testa- nient is regarded in the main as the work of sciolists and imposters, is a phciomenun that has rarely occurred, I believe, in any coun- try, but which we of the present day are called upon, perhaps for the first time, to witness." But is it necessary to be a learned man in order to distinguish falsehood from, truth ? or does truth not understand how to mfake a road for herself to the hearts of mortals, except through the mouth of the learned ? Are not innocence, sincerity, and truth the first inhabitants of the human heart 7 and do these not maintain there, through all time, their residence, if not banished u and gupplanted by passion and falsehood? Or is it necessary for truth, the oldest daughter of Heaven, to be mute, because she dwellkonly in a simple, plain heart? or must she remain silent when she sees falsehood lift up her serpent head, like the tabled Hydra, and insinuate her deadly poison into a thousand hearts? Well may I acknowledge, that there are besides me other men who are penetrated by the sarae truth and have the same calling to speak in her behalf as myself. Yet does she lose her value, if the one who is not called does what the one whose duty it is, should accomplish ? or is the former to be blamed, because he feels himself, more than the latter, irresistibly led away by the in- visible hand of truth to speak in her behalf? Who will censure a sufferer when he gives utterance to his pain through a loud groan, because others, who feel this pain in a less degree, cither suppress altogether or give vent to it by merely a slight moaning ? 1 H CHAPTER I. GENERAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE AUTHENTICITY OP THE PENTATEUCH. There is no doubt that peculiar difficulties are connected with the study of the Old Testament, and that sonie of these difficulties have been felt more than formerly, or at least have been obtruded more prominently on general notice. This is probably an advantage, rather than a loss, to the cause of religion. Each age seems to have its own appointed work in the progress of theological science. And something is always gained when the difficult parts of a subject are distin- guished from the rest. A problem, once distinctly stated, is often not far from its solution. It is not our intention here to prove that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch : many others have done this, and in a convincing manner. Their authorship is involved in the general question of genuineness and authenticity ; and it is no less evident from the internal indications, than from the uni- versal and unvarying testimony of the Jewish people, that is, the tradition and testimony of the Church of God. As there is a God whose providence governs the world, and all the creatures in it, is it not reasonable to think that he has a special care of man, the noblest part of the visible world? and that having made him capable of eternal duration, he has provided for his eternal happiness, and sufficiently revealed the way to it, and the terms and conditions of it. Now, let any book be produced, that pretends to be from God, where the doctrines are so useful, the precepts so reasonable, and the arguments so powerful; and whose truth is confirmed by so many great and unquestionable miracles, the relation of which has been transmitted to posterity, in public and auth- entic records, written by those who were eye and ear witnesses of what they wrote, and free from suspicion of wordly interest and design, with Jerusalem where the divine oracle chiefly spake, still retaining numerous vestiges, and 'exhibiting struc- tures and monuments of biblical relations. Let a book like IG this be produced with such doctrines, (if there is such a one,) and that prevailed so miraculously in the world, in opposition to discouragement which no other religion ever encountered ; but if there is no other such book, we must embrace and en- tertain the sacred doctrines of this, and recognize them as emanating from divine authority. Moses as an inspired -iuthor, is the only one who has been able to instruct us respecting the formation and unfoldings of the world. He is not an Epicurus, who has -.-course to atoms, a Lucretius, who believes matter eternal, a Spinosa, who admits a material God, a Descartes, who prates about the laws of motion, but a man tautrht by God himself, who an- nounces to all men without hesitati(^n, without fear of being mistaken, how the world was created. Nothing can be ninre simple, or sublime, than his opening : " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." He could not speak more assuredly if he had been a spectator, and by these words mythological systems and absurdities are made to shrink to nought, and become mere chimeras in the eye of reason. All the academies of the universe may raise theories on the crea- tion of the world, but after all their reseai ches, all their con- jectures, all their combinations, and their multitude of volumes, they will tell me much less than Moses has said in one single page. Such is the difference between men who speak from themselves, and the man who is inspired. These were the opinions of a celebrated Pontiff: "How many men have been prodigies in science, and yet have erred in their notions of the Deity ? How many philosophers whose wisdom has been proverbial, has asserted absurd dogmas ? because they imagined their sophistications the standard ri reason, and for- sook the sacred page where it was taught them, '' The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Learning is ostenta- tious and illusive if it does not make men religious, and it is erroneous and fallacious when it relies on its own conjectures. The belief in the unity of the deity, and obedience to his commandments are the best proofs of wisdom. How circum- scribed and conteinptible is a pretended knowledge founded on our own discovery. How wretchedly have philosophers floundered in their hypothetical definitions of moral duties, when they have deviated from orthodox precept! Of such soDhiats the prophet says, the Creator is He " That frustrateth IT the tokens of the liars, and maketh divine mad, that turneth \vi.se men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish." Genesis contains the earliest history of the world, and it contains an account of its creation and the p^enealogy of the Patriarchs down to the death of Joseph, It compre- hends a period of 23G9 years. It was not difficult for Moses to ascertain Vv'hat he wrote without inspiration, for it came to his time throu'ih a few individuals. From Adam to Noah there was one man w'ho lived so Ions; as to know both, as Isaac did with Abraham and Joseph, from whom the *radition could be easily conveyed to Moses by Amram who lived long enough with Joseph. Moses might have been confuted by learned men of other nations who sprang from the same root, if he had ventured to deviate from the truth. There were many sensi- ble contemporary men in those times, and it is absurd to imagine, that they had not, as well as the Israelites, modes of writing, to convey the knowledge of foregoing times. Dewar in his Evidences of Divine Ilevclation, says, — " that Moses was the law-giver of Israel ; and that he gave them a written record of the laws which had been issued by him, and of the events which accompanied the earlier part of the dispen- sation of which he was the founder, are facts which all anti- quity has acknowledged. That the Pentateuch was the record which was thus communicated, has also been universally admitted and is capable of ample proof. We have indeed the strongest evidence in attestation of the fact, that the sacred books in our possession, which bear his name, were written by him ; for, from the beginning of the Jewish history till the pre- sent day, in every age and country, these writings, by general consent are attributed to Moses as their author. At every step, as we travel backvsrard through the intervening centuries, this point is most fully and incontrovertibly established." If we begin this investigation at the christian era, we shall find that more than 200 years before that period, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, the Pentateuch, with the other books of the Old Testament, was translated into Greek for the use of the Alexandrian Jews, rnd from the almost universal prevalence of that language, that translation thenceforth became very widely di.'^seminated, and was thus made accessible to the learned and inquisitive of every country Greek translaiion, the Bepdiagint, proves that the I It books of Moses, in common with the other books of the Old Testament, must have existed 200 years before Christ, because there is that correspondence between the two wliich proves that the former is a version of the latter. But it is not more cer- tain that the Pentateuch existed 200 years before Christ, than that it must have been in existence in the days of Ezra at the time of the return from Babylon in the year B.C. 53G. That it was written beforo the time of Ezra, and that it was known to the people of Israel before that era, are points equally certain, for in the book of Ezra, the law of iMoses, the man of God, is specifically referred to, as a well known written document, then actually existinpr, and in the succeediug book of Nehemiah, we are informed of the manner in which that written document was openly read to the people, under the name of thft Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Isr?cl. It claims our particular notice here, that it was the people themselves who called upon Jlzra to read that book, as a work with which they had \ou^ been familiarly acquainted. '* AH the people gathered themselves together as one man, and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, also, day by dav, from the first day unto the last, he read in the Book of the Law of God." We find, also, the leading facts of the Mosaic narrative thus alluded to in prayer, in the hearing of all the people, as things with which they were familiar; " T/iou, even thou, art Lord alone, thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that ore therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preseruest them all. Thou art the Lord, the God, who didst choose Abraham, and hroughtest him forth out of Vr of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham, and foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him, to give the lands of the Canannites, the Hittitcs, the Amorites, and the Perizzites.. and the Jebuzites, to his seed, and hast performed thy words, for thou art righteous, and didst see the affliction of our fathers in Egypt, and hcardest their cry by the Red Sea, and shewedest signs and wonders vpon Fharah, and on all his sefvcmts, and on all the peajy^s 19 of his land, for thou knewest that they dealt proudly against them, so didst thou get thee a name, as it is this day. And thou didst divide the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on dry land, and their persecutors thou threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters. Moreover thou leddest them in the day by a cloudy pillar, and in the night by a pillar of fire, to give them light in the way wherein they should go. Thou earnest down also upon Mount Sinai, and speakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments and true laws, and statutes and command- mmts, and made^t known unto them thy holy Sabbath, and commandtst than precepts, statutes and laws, by the hand of Jloses thy servant, and gavest them bread from heaven for their hunger, and broughtest forth water for them out of the rock for their thirsty and promisedst them that they should go in to possess the land which thou hadst sworn to give them. Yea, when they had made them a molten calf, and said, this is thy God that brought thee vp out of Egypt, arJ, had wrought great provocations. Ytt thou, in thy mc lifold mercies, forsookcst them not in the wilderness, the piLar of cloud departed not from them by day, to lead them in the way, neither the pillar of fire by night, to show them light, and the way wherein they should go. Thou gavest also thy good spirit to instruct them, and witheldedst not thy manna from their mouth, and gavest them water for their thirst. Yea, forty years didst thou sustain them in the wilderness, so that they lacked nothing, their clothes waxed not old and their feet swelled not.'^ From this quotation it is evident that the leading facts con- tained in the Mosaic narrative were well known to the people of Israel in the days of Ezra ; but if they were familiar with them at that era, the document which gives an account of them must have been in existence before. The circumstance of the people calling upon Ezra to bring forth and read the Book of the Law of Moses, proves that the Law of Moses must have been well known to exist in writing previous to the return from Babylon. Even if it were alleged that it were suppressed by Ezra in favour of a spurious composition of his own, those who make the supposition must assume that he had contrived to make himself master of every extant copy of vuu licUUiU<; Wuijv, ctuu th UV i I v ni Pofon VlrVlV^9 20 people to receive as genuine wbat almost every man amonj^t them must imtncaiatoly have perceived to be spurious. For, if tiie genuine work were in existence down to tho very tune of Ezra, a point clearly involved in the demand of the people to have it read to them, and if the people had been long accustomed to hear it read to thera, a point equally implied in their recorded demand upon Ezra, they must all have been adequately ac(iuainted with its contents, and the higher ranks amongst them must have repeatedly perused, and must therefo.d have known the whole of it, just as intimately AS Kzra could do himself. But what was thus universally familiar could be no more set aside by the feat of an individ- ual in favour of his own spurious composition, than the Penta- teuch could now bo set aside throughout Christendom in favour of some newly produced volume which claimed to bo the genuine law of Moses. Add to this that when the foun- dations of the second temple were laid, many persons were Alive who well remembered the first. These, consequently, must have known whether there was or was not a written law of Moses anterior to tlie captivity, nor could they be deceived by the production of any novel composition by Ezra. This important fact is, in another way, incontrovertibly es- tablished. There is now extant a copy ot the Pentateuch, pre- served by the Samaritans, the hereditary enemies of the Jews. The Samaritan Pentateuch is literally the same as the Jewish, a very few immaterial things excepted. The identity of tho original, therefore, is placed beyond a doubt. When did the Samaritans procure their copy ? The violent hatred which that people and the Jews entertained to each other, and which never raged with greater fury than in the time of Ezra, proves that it must have been in their possession prior to that period, and indeed before Judah had been carried captive to Babylon. Every one acquainted with the history of Israel knows that the Samaritans were a mixed multitude from various parts of the dominior s of the king of Assyria, sent by that monarch to succeed the ten tribes he had led into exile, and whose ter- ritories he had left desolate. In order to avert certain calam- ities with which they were visitod, the Assyrian king com- manded that one of the priests whom he had brou-ht from thence should return and teach them the manner of the God of the land, that is, how to worship and serve Jehovah the God 21 ■:^ of Israel. The result w^f, a profesaed hotnajre to the true Godj united to the superstitious observances practiced in reverence of their native idols. They feared the Lord, and served their own gods after the manner of the nations. This was the period at which the books of Moses came into the possdssion of the Samaritans, that is about the year 676 before the Christian era. From that time, therefore, we have the most unexceptionable testimony — the testimony of two hostile and rival sects, in proof of the i'aithful preserva- tion of the text of the Soptuagint. But it is also evident that this portion of the Old Testament Scriptures wcr; in existence from the time of the revolt of the ten tribes. The priest who was sent to instruct tho Samari* tans, was to teach them the manner of the Grod of the lana, according to the law and commandment which Jehovah com- manded the children of Jacob whom he named Israel ; a circum- stance which proves that the manner of worship and law of Jehovah had been previously possessed by the Israelitish t.ibes. These tribes had revolted from Judah,and had formed themselves into an opposite and rival kingdom. The sacred books could not have been I'abricated or vitiated during the period of their rivalsliip; for if any one of either nations attempted the in- troduction of a spurious work, or ihe vitiation of an uuthentio document which had previously existed, its rival would not have been slow to expose the fraud, nor could the effort to practice such deception have been made without being imme- diately detected. It is therefore evident that the Israelites could not ha\e received the Books of Moses from the Samari- tans, nor the Samaritans from the Israelites. They both equally possessed that code during the period of their separation. It must therefore have existed prior to their separation from each other. This took place about the year 975 before the Christidlh era. Therefore, the very Pentateuch which we now have, VDUat at that time have been in existence, and not only have been in existence, but well known throughout all the He- brew tribes, and so fully acknowledged to be the genuine and inspire'' law of Moses, that neither Jeroboam nor any who succeeded him in reigning over the kingdom of Israel, dared to impeach or Lo reject it, though it constituted the great ob- jection to that innovation, which, from motives of stats policy, the nation introduced — the preventing of the people from going 32 up to Jerusalem to worship, as the Law of Moses cnjojnd, We are thus brouj^ht to the reign of David and So omon, durin- which we are assured that the books attributed to Moses did not orig-inatc. David bears exphcit testimony to he authority of the law, and recommends it to his son as the guide 0? hi pHvate and public conduct. With regard to Solomon, its previous existence is proved by the splendid ceremonial of that temple which he built, not to say that the circumstance of his conduct having been so much opposed to some ot its prohibitions, shows that ho neither wrote it himself, "or saiic- doned the writing of it. In the 78th, lOoth, and 106th Psali of Dl^id we have the whole history of the l^entateuch wrought into inspired verbC. , +> i. * a i Nor can the Pentateuch be ascribed to the I'rophet Samuel, to whose time we have now extended our investigation. Uie piely, patriotism, and disinterestedness of that dis ".guished man aUow us not to suspect him to have been capab e either of fobrioating books in the name of Moses or "f "tiating tW authentic document, which had previously existed. Even if he had been capable of making such an attempt how was po - eible that he could persuade all Israel to adopt "^ 'e aurtiori- tative law of Moses, a mere modern composition of his own ot wh Ih r person had ever before heard ! How coijld he have done this under any circumstances, but especially after he had aroused ^hostility of Saul ! When that Prince was severe^ rebi-ked by him, how readily and certainly would he have polnred out the s oss imposture, had he been able so to do, and Tave demanded Sie most'positive proof of the authority under which he claimed to act in this unceremonious trea n.ent ot ?U sove ei* But in place of this he acknowledges the divine autl ority of the Law, humbles himself before his reprover con- ?ess s the truth of his charge, that he had tranr«.^ssed the commandment of the Lord. We kno« enough of the chai ac- tor of Saul to be assured that he would not make such an humbling acknowledgment in the presence of *e People o Israel, if he could possibly have acted otherwise ; nor, had not the genuineness and authenticity of the books of Moses been fully established, would he have listened to the threat of being deprived of his 'kingdom, merely, because he had not obeyed e forged commandment to exterminate the AmaleUites. Diring the 3C0 years that elapsed between the entrance of k\ 23 njoined* olomon, uted to y to the lie guide jolomon* onial of instance fie of its or sanc- d 106th Qtateuch Samuel) ^n. The nguished either of ng those Iven if he as it pos- ! authori- B own, of i he have !r he had 5 severely he have to do, and 'ity under itment of the divine •over, con- essed the be charao- :e such an people of r, had not ioses been it of being aot obeyed ;cs. ntrance of I v\ % Israel into Canaan and the appointment of Saul to be kingf^ they lived under the government of judges. While each tribe occupied the territory which had been allotted to it, and was governed by its owu rulers, all were united together by the observance of the same divine laws, and by one general counciL The people heard the books of the law read, the authority of which they acknowledged as the written law of Moses, which they had received as the rule of their conduct, and by which their judges regulated their government. The power of these rulers was limited ; they had not the influence of wealth, or of hereditary rank ; and at their death their official authority, and all the consequence which it gave them in the eyes of the people, devolved upon members of other families, who were under no obligation, and who could have no interest in adopting the views of their predecessors. It was therefore impossible for them, even if they had been inclined, to persuade the people to receive a fabrication of their own as the law of jMoses, or to vitiate the authentic document which that legislator had so recently committed to them. Indeed the existence and the divine authority of the Law of Moses are implied in the frequent notices which occur during the history of this period, of the deviations of many of the people, and of their disobedience and rebellion in adoptinjs the idolatrous practices of the heathen. If thersj had existed a doubt of the genuineness and authenticity of the Mosaic writings, which condemned their vicious habits and propen- sities, which obliged them to undergo the humiliation of con- fessing their sins, to separate themselves from the surround- ing nations, and to return to ceremonies which many must have felt as burdensome, would they have resumed the obser- vance of that same law, and have submitted to its ordina:acea with reverence ? Yet we find during this period, a constant reference to the writings of Moses, as inspired and authoritative. The man of God, in his prophetic threat to Eli, reminds him of the circumstance recorded in the Pentateuch, that the house of his ancestors had been chosen to the priesthood out of all the tribes of Israel. It is also said that certain of the Canaan- itish nations were left in the land for the purpose of proving the people of Israel, that it might be known whether they would hearken to the commandments of the Lord, which he com- manded their fathers by the hand of Moses. In the following I 24 iemarkable terms Joshua is represented as assertinii; that the Book of the Law of God is the Book of the Law of Moses 5 as reading it to all the assembled people, so that none could be ijijnorant of its contents ; and as even writin.a: a copy of it in their presence. *' Then Joshua built an altar unto the Lord God of Israel in Mount Ebal. As Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lifted any iron, and they otFered tliereon bumt-offerings unto the Lord, and sacrificed peace-offerings. And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel. And afterwards he read all the words of the Law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them." To some of the leading facts narrated in the writings of Moses, Joshua refers when addressing all the tribes of Israel, with their elders and judges at Shechem. "I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him through all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac, and I gave unto Isaac, Jacob, and Esau, but Jacob and his children went down unto Egypt. I sent Moses also, and Aaron, and I plafjued Egypt, according to that which I did among them, and after- ward I brought you out. And I brought your fathers out of Egypt, and ye came into the sea, and the Egyptians pursued after your fathers with chariots and horsemen unto the lied feea. And when they cried unto the Lord, he put darkness between you and the Egyptians, and brought the sea upon them, and covered them, and your eyes have seen what I have done in Egypt, and ye dwelt in the wilderness a long time. And I have given you a land for which 3rou did not labour." In his farewell address to the children of Israel, Joshua exhorts them to do all that is written in the Law of Moses: " Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and do all that is written in the Book of the LaAv of Moses, that ye tarn not aside there- from to the right hand or to the left." Our investigation has thus reached the time of Moses, and we have traced, by evidence which cannot be controverted, in.i>; that if Moses 5 ne could ipy ol' it into the srvant of ritten in les, over tliereon )ffurinirSk 3 hiw of Idren of Law, the n in the ,t Moses regation trangers leading TS when d judges he other Canaan, ive unto nt down plagued id af'ter^ ■s out of pursued he lied larkness ea upon t I have ng time, labour." . exhorts '< Be ye ■itten in le there- ses, and overted, 2ft the existence of the writings of Moses to the period in whidll he lived. These writings inform us of their own original ; they assert that Moses was their author* "And Moses wrotd all the words of the Lord. And it came to pass when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law and put in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for ft witness against thee." We have thus proved the genuineness and authenticity of the writings attributed to Moses. The evidence by which these are established is much stronger than can be adduced in support of the genuineness and authenticity of any merely human composition. The Mosaic writings, as well as the Books of the old Testament in general, were written by dis- tinguished persons, were immediately given to the public, and extensively made known ; they involved important interests, affected the rights of communities, families, and even indi- viduals. There is no rival or opposing claim to that which they advance, no conflicting evidence, no doubt expressed, no contradicting external circumstances. CHAPTER II. The genuineness and authenticity of the Books of Moses» thus fully established, may be proved by another train of rea- soning. This shows the variety and abundance of the evi- dence by which their truth is attested. I remark — 1. That they were made puWc in the age in which Moses lived, and have ever since been constantly read in public, and in private. Provision was made for making them well known in every succeeding generation. For it was not only enjoined in general on the Jews, that they should diligently teach their children all the words that God delivered to them by Moses and the prophets, but it was specially commanded in the books of Moses, that at the end of every seven years, when all Israel should come to appeir before the Lord in the place which he should choose, this law should be publicly read before ail Israel in their hearing, before men, and women, and children, I -rrsr ■»•?• " ' j ' i- ' ija " W!J«k'Hfl W 20 and itrangers, without any privacy or reservation ttat tUf might hear, and that they might learn, and that they might fear the Lord, and that they might observe to do all the works of this law. In r%edience to this injunction, Joshua, as we have seen, asseml d all the tribes of Israel, with their elders ftnd judges, and ead to them all that 13 written in the book of the law. The reading of the sacred writings termed a part the N^orsbip of the Jews every Sabbath, l^hey must there- fore toe been well acquainted with th««\^"t»"^4f 7 *7 time Va ^bich they were first delivered to them What affec- ZX TcUoitude does their great legislator show in the fol- low^ injunction, that they and the^r Pfen^yt^^f^^ an generauons should be perfectly familiar ^^^h them - ?' These words which I command thee this day shall be in thine heaZand thou shalt teach them diligent y unto thy iSen and Shalt talk of them when thou sittest in the house. fnfX; thou vialke^^^ by the way and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a 2n upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between Se Jyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of '%: \:Z;^:^^^ the .^0 writings were dven the strongest pledge of their genuineness, authe«l.city,and uncorrupted preservation. It would have been just as impos^ Se as Faber has well remarked, to introduce a new and spurious Pentateuch, a. it would be now to introduce a new and spurious Bible. In each case the reason is the very same, ^le aen^al puhlicity of the book Useif. The sacred volume, of thTpagL^ locked up in their temples, and were careW withheld from the profane vulgar ; hence they might be tampered with from time to time, according to the Tnterests or pleasure of the priesthood. But the law of Moses disclaimed, from the very first, all mysterious secrecy ; the written volume was to be communicated without reserve to cverv individual Israelite. Hence it was absolutely impossi- ble that such a code could either be interpolated lo serve a pre- sent pirpose, or to be altogether supplanted by a new compo- sition, which, .t a late period, should claim to be the genuine record Let us fix, when we please, for the appearance ot the «nvpl nndft- and we shall ever find ourselves utterly unable to get rid of the old one, which is spoken of as actually existing in the days of Moses and Joshua. ^ ^ I 27 In the second place> the genuineness and authenticity of the' Pentateuch are proved by a consideration of the facts narrated* Many of these were of an extraordinary and decidedly miracu* lous nature, and the Jews are appealed to as witnesses of their reality* Could they have believed that they sojourned in Egypt, that they were delivered from bondage in that country by a miraculous interposition of Almighty God, that the Ked Sea was divided to give them a passage, while their pursuers were overwhelmed by its waves and perished, that they were sustained during forty years in the wilderness by manna from heaven, that the river Jordan had ceased to flow till they had walked across its channel ? Could they have believed these things or have admitted that they were witnesses of them, un- less they had actually occurred ? In narrating these and many other fact^, does not the writer remind them of what their eyes had seen, and their ears had heard ? Among the multi- tude wliich he conducted to Canaan, had he not enemies whoj on several occasions, attacked his procedure ? Did they ever impeach his veracity, or charge him with imposture ? How eagerly would they have availed themselves of such a charge^ bad there existed the slightest ground for it as justifying them in their opposition ? It must here be remarked, that the Jews, at no period of their history, could be accused of a proneness to receive, with- out indubitable evidence, books professing to be of a Divine authority. They haVe, on the contrary, resisted and rejected writings which all Christians believe to be sufficiently attested as a revelation from God. They persecuted and often killed their own prophets, merely because their doctrines did not accord with their corrupt feelings and sentiments. What, then, but the fullest conviction of the authenticity and even Divine authority of the Mosaic writings, could induce them cordially to receive as sacred, books which imposed restraint on their natural propensities, which denounced a severe male- diction against sins to which they were prone, arid which recorded circumstances in their history which were extremely humbling to their national pride ? The facts narrated in these books clearly establish their genuineness. They are of such a character as to have ren- dered it impossible to insert them as iaterpolations at any I m 28 Wod subseqtietit to the time of Moses, because the 3em l^ete ^pealed to as witnesses of their reality, and because Vl?\f^^ 7L made, as we hav-^ seen, for making every indmdua familiarly acquainted wich the Mosaic writings, as we 1 as with the other Hebrew Scriptures, from the time of the * authors. The existence of such provis^ion was incompatible With forgery, either in whole or in part. The work of an importer must have been a production totaUy different from the Pentateuch. For what imposter would have needlessly betrayed his forgery, by inserting in his writing a aeclaration that his book was 'appointed to be publicly read, in order that the whole nation might be thoroughly acquainted with its con^ tents from the very time of its lirst composition Ur, how could he persuade the Israelites to receive it ^s the composi- tion of Mo.es, to believe that they had always had among them this novel production and that they had always been accustomed to hear it publicly read, so that t^iey ^ere familiarly acquainted with its contents ? Nor can it diminish the force of these observations to urge, that, as numerous le<>ends of miracles have been admitted into tne Roman church, so numerous legends of wonders might equally have been introduced into the national creed of Jbrael. l^or it s obvious that the two cases are not parallel. .To prove from the Romish legends that the Pentateuch might have been interpolated, it will be necessary to show, that legendary tales have been admitted into the new Testament, otherwise the mere insulated existence of such legends does not at .11 bear upon the present question. The Talmudical wonders of the Jewish Rabbis may well vie with ^^e "iiraculo^%^^^^^^^^^^^^ the Popish saints, but it is as impossible that the tales of the Talmud could have been inserted in the Pentateuch, as that the miracles of the Popish saints could ^ave been inserted in the New Testament. The Jews were faithful to the trust reposed in them, in preserving inviolable the sacred books committed to their care. I CHAPTER III. THB DIPFEEENT THEORIES RESPECTmO THE ORIGIN OP THE BOOKS OP MOSES.— WRITINGS BEFORE MOSES. But Bishop Colenso has especially lifted his weapon against the book of Genesis, and since that book is anonymous, he attacks it the more earnestly. The following from the iiibU- cal Repository" will do him good :— « In considering the Pentateuch in a literary and historica point of view, the most obvious remark to be made is, that its first book is anonymous, while in the other four the writer w carefully and repeatedly named. And this fact is the more worthy of notice, inasmuch as that first book is first not only in order but also in respect to time. To the value of scripture it is in no way important who the original writer was. ine authority of inspiration is of equal weight without the sanc- tion of a human name. Can it be determined who penned the book of Job, or of Judges, or of Chronicles, or some of the most beautiful and affecting Psalms ? and are those parts of scrip- ture of inferior weight because of that unsettled question J Is a Psalm less the^dictate of inspiration if not penned by David ? It is not the human authorship which conters the authority of inspiration, but on the contrary, it is inspiration which gives his weight to any of the Prophets, no matter what his name. The word of God bears its own stamp, and stands in no need of a voucher in any name of human renown. There is that in it and about it whereby it is as truly distin- guished from a work of the human mind, as a natural rose is dintin^mishable from an artificial one, or a natural landscape, from one arrayed according to the laws of art As the silent declaration of Deity rises from nature, so does it from revela- tion, self-sustaining and sustaining its defenders, while bor- rowing? nothing from them." " Whether we know or do not know the name and genealogy of God's human instrument in the case, is, in respect to Bcripturid authority, a matter of moment. Wuere the nanie of the writer has been recorded, and we know about him la 30 w\ other connections, it is certainly gratifying to feel that we have a sort of personal acquaintance with one so favoured of God ; and yet it is undoubtedly not without a valuable design that the names of several scripture writers have been withheld." The book of Genesis came down from antiquity to the Hebrew nation with their laws, and through the hands ol their law-giver, and was therefore, very naturally by them classed under the same head ; but that traditional classification is not entitled to oppose its full weight to the obvious fact that the bonk L anonymous. Yet, anonymous as it is, no other portion of scripture bears the mark of Divine in- spiration more legibly impressed upon it than the oook of Genesis. The aroma of the early time is about it— the time when men of simple but princely manners and ele- vated piety held oral communion with God, and the passage with whi'.h it opens is not only obviously revelation, but also the sublimest in human language. Moses is a writer very careful about affixing his name to what he writes. The other books of the Pentateuch consist of a great number of sub- divisions or topics, and to almost every several one of them is the name of Moses attached ; and to all that contain revela- tions, together with .he authority of God, as " The Lord spake unto Moses," or, " Moses wrote his law," or some equivalent form of expression. And certainly if it was to him that God revealed the order of creation, or of primal mankind, there was the best of reasons for introducing that revelation with his usual sanction. Hence, we remark with the greater cogency, that in not one of the headings of the parts of Genesis, nor in any of their contents, does the name of Moses appear. That the Book was transmitted through the hands of Moses is a matter that admits of no dispute ; but what he did for it must be determined otherwise than by mere tradition, however ancient that may be. Unsupported tradition is not competent to establish original authorship in a cas. ^f this kind. Because, in the first place, the book of Genesis treats of matters which had all taken place ages before Moses was horn, its latest subjects were to him antiquity ; and, accondJy, the account which it gives of many events is circumstantial and personally characteristic, descending even to details of conversations and descriptions of peisonai attitudes and incidents, which none could be cognizant of but the parties concerned. 31 The verv latest went mentioned in Genesis had occurred, at the S esteslimate more than half a century before Mo«t wt born, and the rest of ■''^,''""- t'SS oeriod extendin" to more than two thousand years ot a prior an fluity The earlier parts of it standing '"^elation to M sirchronolosioally. a^ the times of Homer Hes^od-d Thales stand to ours. It is clear that he could not have been th';oH,tal anthor of such a history by any natura means The book could have come to lus hands m only one ot tour ways: either the whole was revealed to him «'iP^7,j'» »"? '. or its materials came down to bin. on the ^^'^^ «/ *"^;^ °"„J or they were kept in detached records-wntten monuments 01 one wL or another, from which he composed the work ; or finally, the whole is an historical series, fef^ved in *he u^l the featu es of a vlion. Its simple directness, and plain day- tht out 1 nes are such that, if it^e a vision t has no paraUe in" the rest of scripture. In all the declared visions of the nrophets there is certainly nothing like it. "^ Neither is it according to the analogy f ^^"P^^ ^^^^ a retrospectiTO relation of human events. God has not m Xquent time, suffered a,es of i"'P»''-X"J^^"be ,1 history of redemption to pass by unrecorded, a"d «» Je =.11 foro-otten, and th^n recalled them in a vision to some individ- uTthr^by substituting the testi„.ony of one Pe--/oj *^^ of whole generations. Other steps in the unfolding of the "planofredcnption were recorded in tbe.r proper time a„d nreserved in true historical manner. If Genesis must De Se In exception we need to have somo good reason for it. _ Nowhe e eL in scripture do we find a gratuitous .nterposi- tion of revelation. The work which man is -"Pf f'" ^» for himself, is never taken out of his hands. But to _ke p a recoraof remarkable event, occuring under one s eyes is both natural for man to wish, and when the art of writing is known ""Ve fvine discipline has never been such as to render human industry unLossary, but always •« f ^ " ^^d move man to record liis own history, rather than to sutler his m „d To lie dormnant and forget all 'If', «f .'"^f^ Z^^'^:,?.' him, and then to bring it up again, at the end of centuries when it had Btill te b« reeorded, in the w,»y that it might have h^ "at first. That is not the kind of discipline jhich v,e hre learned to e.pect at the hand of God, and for a ease whleh is claimed to be of that kind as being nnparalleled, we need some most cocent reason. , , It is certainly very improbable, that holy men favoured with special revelation, of the Divine will should treat ,t w. h su* neMect and forgetfulness.-that Noah, Abraham Jacob, tor "nstanec, should keep no account of those wondertul re^^la- tions made to them, and which they understood were to affect deeply the well-being of future generations, and should coolly consi-n them to such utter oblivion that, at the end of many X they had all to bo revealed again, together with the very elistence of the men to whom they were made. Again, Moses was a man scrupulously careful to render God the glory of communications received from h.m, and could no have neglected, through a whole book, to make the slightest reJognition of a revelation so great and unparalleled, especially rfhe reccgnition would have been de<;>f •! . * "^''f f ^ voucher for ^e truth of the book. He would not have left to be aligned, in any degree, to the instrumentahty of man what he had received directly from God. And finally, the assun-ption that Genesis is a retrospective revtladonTs e^ntirely gratuitous. It is without the slightest foundation in any recorded fact. Scripture nowhere asserts. or implies, or gives the least countenance to it. 2 Such was the length of life among the patriarchs that tradition had but few successive hands to pass through between Adam and Moses; but that, in the first place, is no. like the certaTnty upon v^hich God establishes his word. He has taught us '^to make a very broad distinction between the written word and oral tradition. And. secondly, the book nresents not the slightest appearance of oral ti^d.tion, while it coS passages of a kind which oral tradition has never rewhere been known to retain-passages of recondite science phyTieal and ethnological, given in popular style, yet with per eo nreciion and order f as well as a number of long genealogical Sr ome oFthem ^ot belonging to the descendants of Jacob; and i contains a systematic chronology, not all arranged in re- lation to one era, but in each genealogy in relation to itself iaiiuii ^ ^^^ ^ „« n^o not, cnnfinrned with what > » f * > » the human memory might possibly effect, or what scuje parti- cular men of retentive memories can do. That belongs to mental science, or rather comes under the head of mental phe- nomena. We have here to do with the law of oral tradition, among an unlettered people — not what a man might uo, or can Jo, but what men under those circumstances are actually lound to do. Now, Genesis contains materials, such as no production positively icnown to have taken its rise among an unlettered people, and its shape from oral tradition is found to contain ; and throughout, in all ascertainable matters,— in geography, in ethnology, in history, in genealogy, in astronomy, and what- soever it touches, it wears the stamp of accuracy. But might not tradition, as truly as writing, be supernKurally defended from error ? True, it might, and we should promptly admit it, if God had given any instruction to that end ; it is a totally gratuitous assumption, founded upon another equally gratuit- ous assumption, namely that none could be its first writer but Moses. 3. The halfway position that the book may have been com posed from oral traditions, supplied and corrected by revela- tion, is liable to similar objections, and, like the preceding, is a pure assumption, without a particle of authority, human or divine. The earliest Jewish and Christian writers not only placed Genesis at the head of the Pentateuch, but quoted from it as from the law ; and, being thus arranged under the general head of the law, all of them, by adopting, confirmed that classification, but did not thereby affirm anything else than that the classification was a proper one. 80 far then we have the best author ity for the historical connection uf the book. It was correctly classed with the oldest books of the Old Testament. But further. Scripture in several places makes a broad dis- tinction between the materials of Genes>is and the law, and in some of those places as distinctly assigns the book to a prior anti- quity. This position is remarkably illustrated in the ninth chap- ter of Nehemiah, where the people are said to have spent part of the day reading in the word of the law of the Lord, after which, in course of their worship, they were addressed by the chief of the Levites. That address begins with a summary of what they had been reading, and presents an outline, first of the history contained in Genesis, continued down through the I H4 bondage in Egypt, and the Exode, and then mentions particu- larly the gi.in.j; of the law by the hand of Moses thus recog- nizing the whole series of ancient writings as "the book oi the law." and yet fully and carefully distinguishing the earlier his- tory from the law. properly so called. And this distinction we find uniformly observed in Scripture, wherever anything but mere classification is meant. The importance of that early history, as prior to the law, is set forth in many passages ot subsequent scripture (e.g. Psalm c.v. Neh. ix.) which uni- formly assumes its priority. , .^ . « n • ^;^u There was good reason for the classification of Genesis with the law, inasmuch as they had come down together from before the settlement of Israel in Canaan, and unitedly contained the preliminary history and national constitution of that people. In these very important respects, Genesis and the books ot the law formed a group by themselves. , .1 . Such being the case, it is the more worthy of remark, that the scriptures invariably makes a scrupulous discriminaUon touching their contents, purport, and authorship. 1 he law is discriminately said to have b*en given by Moses, and he is declared to have spoken every precept thereof, but a quotation made from Genesis is quoted simply as scripture, that is, as the written word of God. Mo; cover. Genesis is never quoted, nor is any passage of it referred to as " the law," or as the " law of Moses," nor as the law with any epithet, nor is it ever in any way alluded to as of contemporaneous origin with the law. This tact is of great force, when we remember that Genesis is quoted many times, and the law, in one way and another, throughout Scripture, and yet never in any instance are the two confounded. Ub- viously this did not occur in the case of books grouped together from such antiquity without a careful intention. Thus, in later Scripture, Genesis is repeatedly referred to as then written, ar.d yet never assigned to Moses as the writer. Now, we hold that this descrimination is correct, and that it will be borne out by a fair consideration of he book itself and its ascertainable conditions. In the first place, the book of Genesis bears the unmistakeable marks of compositions as originally written. For instance, one part of it is headed *'This is the book of the generations of Adam. Uen. Di. A_-i.L^_ «< Tu^-r. ai>o *\\o wAnPTfitions of Shom, and soon. »u y-^ Then tie structure of sonie of its parts is that dependent upon the compoHtion of them in writm^:. The antiquity of the art of ITnV^.— The great arpi- ment, and in fact, the sole reason for leaving these particulars out of view, or shrinking from granting to them their proper importance, is the unproved assumption that m those days writing was unknown. . , Such was an utterly unjustifiable presumption at any period. Because the mere existence of an ancient book, bearing the features of written composition and the archaic character ot the time to vhich it pertains, lo'j;ically throws the presumption on the other side, which must hold its position, unless displaced by some more cogent argument. Such an argument, as tar as we know, never has been adduced, a.id the investigations ot the last 30 years have now put it out of the question. It is no longer a disputable point whether icnYmfjrw^as^rac- Had before MoSfS or not ; it is one of those things which to doubt is to betray a culpable ignorance. But we have also to add, that in the time of Moses the practice of writing was already ancient, and that, too, in the highest perfection it ever possessed among the Egyptians, with whom he was educated. By the Egyptians various methods of writing were employed from very ancient date, but the most common, and really the basis of the whole, was, in its system, precisely the same as that emploved by the Hebrews and Phcenicians. ^ The Egyp- tian phonetic writing was only an elaborate multiplication ot signs, upon the same system which was common to them and the neighbourins; nations of Asia. Now, that system of writing, in all the completeness that ever belonged to it, is iound, at this hour, upon monuments, which must have been inscribed long before Abraham lelt Ur of the Chaldees. Moreover, upon those same monuments, we find pictures of books, and repeatedly occur the bound papyrus roll, and the scribe's writing apparatus, as graphic signs- evincing a pre-existing familiarity with the art. Under the fourth dvnasty of Egyptian kings, at least 200 years before the call of Abraham, such evidences of the antiquity ot writing are both numerous and unmistakable. Not only the art of writing, but also that of literary com. position bad attained a high degree of excellence m the time of Moses. The works of that author bear no marks ot I 3f. deed, what are commonly called the f ^^f^^,"^^"^^,"^^^^^^ fi.st fpoken at that very time both in S.don and " B^J-;"- \„. L of the Hebrew language or «*.^tlndred d alecM n. dubitable evidence of Shem.t.e ongm an ess asso ated^^^^^ ^ =ri»";fw'l thet:-t, ^^L in the »e.. tents Within these few months, announcement b as been no room to question eitner ms uni. -.t-. - I I 37 .ealUy ,f UU discovery , or the l^o-/^^ Xl^lTeTery the investigations hy which f 7*1' first time, that, in the ^xltt!^ 7 - \" t: :Ti''trthf cwa:rrn>o.« It is also to the point to ^d, tt at tn .^_ ^hom Abraham's *-'J'^'[,l*t;esente/ as an eminently ;i^:att:rt^ri:Lrarsiy in^nor to th. o. Egypt. „ ., '„^i. ^f thft kind to value most Wow, TeraVs family was "ff »/ *';«3^^"b the pressure highly such an ai-t, ^«'"g "';^^'^'«^.tXt ^of W They of poverty, nor <'°.f«f "«! by the h.vou ^^ ^^^.^^ ^^^ were pious, sensible men, ot » f f!" ,. J^., „£ manuers— thinking, as well as of »7,^^^^/t'„"tve\e best educa- just such men as were n>o«t I'^ely *» ^^^ ^^^^yy followed tion that was current. -^-^ "'f^ „.° j,; the manners and customs "f *««^^^^^2 fovourite art of Writing has from anient time be.njh ^^ the Sons ot Shem. ^ "",,"". „gs,ed skill therein, but tribe of them, n every ag«'^as posses- e ;^^^„„,;al the great division of the P„fP«°*Xst remarkably have cherished it as an ^*"'%f'','f7;-„/° 1 book has in al they been tue people o'.'"" ..''.•j;f_ their national l^:^rded ages. ''-;^-„ttr-"k- theatre, crushed centre. Even in the present «»J' scattered refugees undertheweighto ages f degeneracy, s^^ ^^^ over the face of the worm, J ^ readers- neighborhood of the sons of ^^'^f' ?"" And even readers of the -"«».' 'j^frfhewaSg of trading among the savages o A*™a.^he wande g ^^_ Arab has •'f^^^^.^'ljSn^^ improbable th^at, living m r^^dLtTftTetr^^eH W the Semitic patriarchs should have remaiued igaorant ot it. CHAPTER fir. a 1 THE DOCUMENT THEORY AS APPLIED TO GENESIS, UNSOITND AND UNSATISFACTORY.— A SUGGESTION AS TO THE POSSIBLE COM- POSITION OF THE BOOK. Here we are met by another class of those who seem bent upon diminishing the authority of Scripture by one way, if not by another, who inform us, with as much assurance as if they had been there and seen the thing done, that true, there were writings— documents they call them — in the earlier time, but that they do not exist any longer, for Moses composed his book out of them, and then left the origmals to perish. If such is the fact, we ask to have it well proved. For it is a singular one in 8-5ripture, and not according to the analogy of revelation in this respect. It must be borne in mind that we have not here to deal with mere lists of names which might be copied from some secular register, but also with passages of holy writ upon which the stamp of inspiration is most clearly impressed, and with which the lists are connected as integral parts of the series. We cannot admit that the substance of Genesis ever was any- thing but inspired. For wisdom, and knowledge, and holiness, and justice, belong to the grain of its texture, and the whole bearing of its narrative is prophetic, and from •in to salvation. Consequently we reject the hypothesis that Moses composed the book out of secular documents. That it should have been composed out of inspired doc- uments is not according to the analogy of Scripture history. The books of the Chronicles, which are altogether peculiar may be an exception to this remark. They appear to be an epitome of the national records made by another hand. But when Ezra edited the sacred books accumulated in his time, he did not presmne to pick and choose among them, and to say what should be preserved and what not. Much 39 Sow, if Moses could be shown to aave done with p^- vious books what later hands did J°' 7'* r^J^'equently alterations. So was Ezra if Pf *, but he ma n" P to alter what God had revealed to "t^JkJXst revealed a consistent with analogy to assume tl^^t ^od hr^t re series of writings, and *«» ^"^^'''l^t'Lect some of them nerson to modify or amend them, or to select son ■^"Co'ntdtellr-itself, this document theory is to the last ^'fZ'Zi%r^ i« not a vestige of proof to sust^n it eitherin the s^" of the --Pone-' P«»«/*~ri^^^^ in the way. in ^«ch*hey are quoted m ubse^ue ^^^^^^^ ture. No ancient authority of any kind lias ne as asserting it, or as referring '« G«nems 'n such a way imply it. The internal evidences which are ua as^th^e use of the -?-;d\J«^7''^;"^„?l"^"^pective pits fectly consistent with the integrity of the respeci a ^-r-bormurbe taken for what U appears a„d pr._ fesses to be, unless it can be ^1>°7„ *° ^^ '"SeT All at- It professes and appears to be a ^'^ "^^'^'f^^^tMng else rfit^^i's \rre:krrfT;h:peieL,y w «rw^":£:: c:mV^:iMr;h^^ book of oenesu jTo'nrider its substance and ^^^^^-,^^^^1 view completely B«sta.ned It,. "0' ^ «' V« ^ ^^l, Hself but a .Uection of smaller books, *= 'be wn ^^ ^ is. Its structure, in fact, is just tnat oi lae x. smaller scale. .• i ;t „„„oUt« bave. in all TliP different parts of which it consists, nave, • eas^but't:. tf res^cave ti^^^^^^^^^^ 40 oneness of historical event in their chronological arrange- ment, is similar to that of the whole Bible, and independ- ent of any intention in the persons who wrote its parts. The shape of these parts and their respective symmetry forbid the hypothesis that the book is a reconstruction out of previoutlv existing documents. Each pan is complete in itself, havini- its own proper beginning, subject and ap- propriate close, as well defined, and after the same manner as the later books of Hebrew Scripture. You may call them books, or sections, or parts, or what you will, we have their own authority for calling them books one of the very earliest of them, Gen 5. 1. calls itself, the Book of the Generations of Adam, in the word sefher employing a term which cannot be mistaken for anything short of writing, and by their very titles and shape they declare themselves to be of independent construction. Take any one of them and publish it apart, and it will tell its own story from begin- ning to end, and be found to stand in as independent a lit- erary position as the Book of Joshua or of Ruth. Lach one of them bears every appearance of being now all that it ever was. ,. Genesis has no appearance of being a reconstruction from the material of more ancient documents, it is the collection, in chronological order of the ancient books themselves, without further trace of editorial work than that of modernizing the diction and prefixing the conjunc- tion in some cases, by way of linking the consecutive books together. The division into chapters, and even the older Hebrew divisions into sections, is one obviously made at a later time by persons who paid no attention to the original structure. Both these divisions at different periods of the history of the book, have covered up and disguised its real proportions, by designating it with new marks upon a different principle, as sometimes we find works of ancient architectural art overlaid with plaster, and marked with the features of another order by some later hands. W e must break away the plaster and search beneath it tor the mouldings which reveal' the orignal designs, in hke man- ner, by neglecting the division into chapters, and studying that of the original books, we shall obtain a much clearer • 1 - - i» j-l- - laea oi \n\j __i. ..^J r.ifan^ ftf flia wVinTe aeries. ■ 41 Another evidence that we have of the ^""f' *»/P;"f„'^t'; and not a reconstruction by any later hand, is that, in "om* "ses they are found to overlap each "'^^l^^jX^^^i 4 one book running b,iefly over tl.e ground ''"-^f ''y '^f^^^^^^^^ it. predecessor. As if or.ginally ««"<»•"/ ^y frit it reco niJd the propriety of preparing the ground fo "' °«" P"^^"^''^ which would not have been the case, ,'>''? ''''^^"kP' TnT.ft,etVotrofeKCkf''T^^^^^^^^^ fron" ^^ bt::ning> .he first chapter to the thir^ve.e of e second chapter, and contains the account ot creation earth was prepared for the habitation of man, and the wort c wn^d b? the formation of man in the "»«f »» f"^'^-^^ b^„ This first of cxistina books surpasses all that have Been the earth ; and majestically as it opens bo u ^ ^ day on which God rested from all ^^^^ J^^Vfhrma k of hav- ot^r passage of Scripture^-- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Crttor h?^- ing been not only inspired, but dictated ^J J^^^^ ^^^ to Jl It is a revelation not only adapted to the ^^Drew u Lwhole human race; -^^f^;:^^,::^^:Z2 which they have been assigned in the orcver ot m They are -ated as the Minis -^^^^^^ ^ gVyCltio'ns of during the ^' per.d of i -^^^^^^^^^^ ^.^ of devotion creation. ilavmg m au d^cs <= served a most and constraining etiort into ine piup^.1 And in this results ot truth reward the ^f^i^^T^^ stUl fa f om latter field we are convinced that its value is siui '"TL'SHf^heleconi book is marked by a separate titllTdOs a.aiu of the "-tion of man, but en ers n^re particularly into the manner of it F";^^'',;;;^'^^ fell from primal man, his original state «' '» '»?f'' "^ "^i^^.^if ^„d it, the wretched consequences oi ">"* '»''- "P"" j" extends his children, and closes with the birth of ff^" I'^fJ^ from the 4th verse of the second chapter to the end I 4.2 fourth ohapter. This history complete in itself, is f '«> »' ^""' interest to all mankind, setting forth as it does^ ^he orig n of that evil which is in the world, and the remedy for it in calling UDon the name of the Lord. ^ ^^-^ \he third book is the genealogy of Seth, starting once more from the creation of n,an, and briefly recup.talating its princ,- pal facts. It records the deseneraoy of man among the descendants of that pious patriarch, with 'he honourable ex- ceptions of Enoch and Noah, and comes down to th« "» dreth year of Noah's life on the verge of the flood. And therc^^ as an antedilurian genealogy, it properly comes to » "'"S^- J^* the fourth book, which extends from the 9 h verse of the smh chapter to the end of the ninth chapter, the ^>"sl«. ^"^J °\^! the history of the deluge, and it closes with a few br'^f ^'^to ments touching the subsequent life of Noah, and the date ot ''''inThe >/* which includes from the beginning of the tenth chapter to the ninth verse of the eleventh we have the most valuable ethnological record in existence, positively the k^^^ of general history. It treats of the distribution of the family o Noah, with the original cause of their ^'i'«P^''«'°»-„„f^ ^^;/] the rest, it has every element of a complete work. Nor should we over bok the internal evidences of its ambiguity ; firs that it makes mention of Sodom and Gomorrah in such » nianner as to show that when it was written those <=} .'^^ '«« f " 'fj existence, and occupying a di^«nf»'»^<"JP°^""'" /".*!:"';' geography of Canaan ; secondly, that in its account of national Settlements it contains no name known to have an en at a sub ruent period ; and thirdly, that although belonging to a Z^ZI reLrds chiefly concerned with the descendants u Shem, it gives as much space to the settlements oJ Ham. as to Suh; re't of mankind together. Evidently the write wa^ deeolv impressed with the existmg superiority ot that race as fn the preLt day a similar treatise would S^e -ost jm to the Japhetic. When that book was composed, the sons of Ham were sUll the masters of the world, and Sodom and Gomorralu Admah and Zebino were still in the unchecked career of "tL'Z;tttwr:no longer consistent with the purp.e of revelation to carry forward the h.^'ory of the whole r^ce < ;\ da th' pr wl dc A hi tl it c b Accordingly, the stream of narrative is couuucu w .«« 43 dants of Shem through Arphaxad. Andjthe ^«A bo^k fi^m the 10th verse of the 11th "haP'^ '^^B'^je ^"^ f^^^ ^-.i presents '^e jeneo og.oal senes f.om fehe. ^^ ^.^^_ ^^^^ t^^dty^'r^e 'J-'S ofre of%ha ancestors of ^'^Jt'^^venth book is the Ufe of that patriarch and the ™ost beautiful example of f»«f»' ^'f/i^i^f^itraham and the throughout to set forth the ia.th and -1 of Abraha™ ^^^^^ blessings which rested upon h.m. and ^asprom ^^^^ %^rZ rth'^'Atatn^::\ }e tr.nsfer of the b essin- according to promise, to his son Isaac %h;:.... . f ''i~iranrr c — tia. histrj :^i^^r7^£^^'^ quiet and co-nparatively stationary l^howem ocoup ^^^_ ^th;:i::o;:i;rs^^^^^^ ,„gyofthedescendantso^Esaua„dl.to^^ is composed of six f 'ff«7"' V!''' ;'i„7„l. Scripture, and bears stantial than any other in thu P"';"" "' ,„bsequent period, mark of having been enlarged a some subseq 1 ^^ the adventures of hib children ^ ^^^^^^j. ^^ princely tuneral in Canaan, ff ^^f,'?^^^^^^^^^ ^„til the death Le cir-nstanc. in whij h eft his^family ^ ^ ^^^^ of Joseph .^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ The sojourn among foreigners, :7:^il1y tLt^\e . w ich^^y »^e t^ec^ &r:^b^i^:^"sir w^ ^^^.-la, u„tii mo^s 44 was providentially prepared and miraculously called to effect their deliverance. , To account for such an array of complete productions, the hypothesis of oral tradition will not suffice. And there cau be no call for it until some fact is discovered which shall go to ascertain when writing was invented, or, at least, go tar enough back to present it in some stage of incipiency. It is equally unnecessary, for the same reason to have recourse to the hypothesis of a reprospective revelation to Moses, l He book has every appearance of being genuine history, preserved in the usual historical manner, and nothing in the conditions of the case can be shown to be inconsistent with that appear- ance which it bears. In structure it is indisputably a series of parts, each complete in itself, and bearing every mark ot an independei t work, and there is nothing in the book itself, nor in other Scripture, which in any degree conflicts with the declaration which that structure makes. ^ , ^ . The substantial facts of most of those early books must have been first put on record by contemporaries. The only one, which is not a simple account of facts observable by men is the first, and we can see no reason why the revelation ot it must be supposed to have been delayed until the time ot Moses, when it was of as much value, and as comprehensibU to the first man, as to him, and pertains not to the interest ot the Hebrews alone, but of the whole human race. Adam, or Seth, or Enoch, were much more likely to be the first recipients of thkt revelation. And it will hardly be claimed, that, coming from them, it would be less worthy of confidence. As to authorship of Genesis, seeing we have only prob- abilities to rely upon, the strongest claim would seem to belong to those eminent servants of God who lived nearest to the facts recorded. It is reasonable to thinK, that the best qualified to record a revelation, and the circumstances con- nected therewith, must be the highly honoured individual to whom it was made. , • , In most of those ancient books, private conversations and other circumstances are given, which, by natural means, none but the persons to whom they occurred could possibly relate for the first time. There can be no doubt that Adam hiinselt is the authority for the conversation held with (jod, in the primitive statH ot immaa nohness aua m i;uiwz=vv.«» ^ -« I » I W th« ark, but some of the rat parens >v ^ ^ "^•"wVrrno reason for ae.yin. the exU^^^^^^^^^^ revelation until the Hebrew exode from Egypt^exoept^ ^^^ claiming the credit thereof for y^^^^^^JZ%o think it dne reverence for the penman »f *V';'"\r'' ,,ecy was efficient that t»e honour redound to God If a ^rop .y ^^ uttered by l-noch, or the trmn p ..nctioned by Moses. already as abundantly ™»cW for a^ f ---^^^^^ l^^ f„ Of all men. "»"« f '^ ^.^J'^^tine presence and will, as the the manifeBtations ol tne i^iviue p imnu se of very n;e„ to whom they ''*'«™»'^l'','^* ^Xlinen7y pious human nature, and because *«M» '^^V^h^irSest value .en of their respocuve t-s would a«.ehte^^ to every word ot ljod» aii luiu^s ^ are cerLinly in favour of the P"/'"™ *J,tlhs to wt^m they of scripture were first F»»ed ^y ^he P»t™«hs ^ ^ > ;iC a ™"y th'i!;L\i=i;of it, withU affecting =st f^tt« -or^^^^^;f-.ai alive among them, as now ^" ^^^^^^^ from losing the same people are held together ana w themselves in any other population, by the Dook pleted canon. ^^.^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^e Bible of In what we call ^j^^ ^^^'^^^^^^ ^y^^ ^^^^ before Moses, con- the patriarchal time, the bible oi me "" . ^e, i I ! i\ 4d hafVative has got beyond the first sons of Adam, it has exhibited these fuadamental doctrines. That God created the heavens and the earth, that God made man in hia own image, in mhteousness. and true hoUnesa, that man, though able to remain holy, was free to sin ; that he did sin, and that human suffering is the consequence of sin ; that God had provided a way of salvation, and that whosoever worshipped Him should be accepted. . . »» n •*■ Sircceeding revelations made progressively fuller exposition of the way of redemption, bringing out the subordinate tea- tures of that great mystery as the minds of men were prepared for it; but even for the family which first sinned, its essential outlines were distinctly drawn. Revelation has* from the beginning, been in every age, a code of complete re igious instruction, in what God required of his people at that time, always adapted to the particular shape of the existing dispen- sation, and each preceding portion the most admirable pre- paration for that which was to follow, while possessing its own permanent value as a part of the whole. God has always accompanied his revelations to man with strong evidences of their truth, and these evidences have always been greater and more impressive according to the importance of the revelation. Thus revelation began with visions and signs; .the ceremonial law, which was a direct revelation from God. was given only on the testimony ot Moses, but accompanied with Divine miraculous power. But when God revealed the moral law he said unto Moses, 1 will come unto thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the peop e may hear me speaking to thee." And although the people saw not the face of the Lord, yet they saw the terror ot his glory. Thunder and lightning, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the tempest exceeding loud, so that all the people that were in the camp trembled. But in the revelation of the Gospel it is God himselt who speaks face to face with man, no other testimony is needed. God in the person of Jesus is his own testimony. He not only spoke in ihe presence of thousands, but was visible to the eye. Here the people have not been charged by the voice ot God from amidst the clo;id of darkness, but heaven itseli bas Poured forth its glorioas light, to enable every person to behold the glory and hear the voice of the x.ora. wo ujtvu ^«=» — I II I ( 4f heard the truth itself, for in Jesus it dwelleth among us. Btit Bishop Colenso still requires a sign and seeks after more ■wisdom. . I Well, as we believe that the Bishop is an honest sceptical Thomas, and will not believe that "All scripture '^ g^ven by inspiration of God, nor the testimony of bim who sa^d, -B essed are they who have not seen and J^t bel e^e we hope he may yet exclaim with Thomas, "My Lord and my God." CHAPTE 11 V. THE ORAL LAW AND JEWISH TRADITIONS. Bishop Colenso seems altogether to overlook the testimonies of the Jews who know more about Scripture, than any other nation, their undisputable cammentaries on the Bible are sufe- cient corroborations of this assertion, but there are o her proofs of it, even without fully admitting their assertion hat L oral law, accompanying t^,e written law, was commuted alone to them. In proof of the existence of an oral law, they reason as follows : ^ j j The command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil, was verbal, for there was nc written law till the time ot Moses ; that Cain might have been ignorant ot the crime ot homi- cide if God had not forbidden murder. How were Cain, Abel, and Noah, informed that sacrifices so seemingly repugnant to nature, were grateful to the Deity, if there had been no oral injunction for it, and why should Abel's offering be respected and not Cain's, if they had not been previously mstrucied m the difference!' It wis a verbal prohibition to cut the Aesh from a live animal, or eat blood. Frontlets are ordered but not in what manner to be formod, or of what materials com- posed. Circumcision is ordained, but not of what member, The month is mentioned without specifying whether solar or lunar. '« Thou shall not seethe the kid m its mother s milk but the injunction extends to any other mothers ^^ailk. it was forbidden to murder man, but it was f ;j^'^d^J . J^^\^^^^ woman. If an oral law had not accompanied the w^tt^n law, its ambiguities could never have been solved. It has been I 4d alleged against Scripture, that it proffers only temporal bene* fits, an ignorant and gross people just emerged from severe slavery, might be more influenced by the hope of temporal re- Ward than future acquittal, but the learned Jews discern the passages that indicate a future stato> and the oral law is a more explicit development of it» The Jewish tradition is that the oral law was delivered to Moses on the Mount ; he cora-- municated it to Aaron, Eleazar, and Joshua; they delivered it to the Seventy Elders ; from them it went to the Prophets ; from the Prophets to the Sanhedrim ; from them it was trans- mitted to the wise men of Jerusalem and Babylon, and was at length committed to writing by Judah the Saint. Who will contend with a nation, they plead on the exposition of their Scripture, and on the tenets of their religion who were blessed with supernatural communication ? It might seem superstitious for the Jews to believe they were favoured with a peculiar inspiration if the Divine influ- ence did not still predominate, and endow them with preter- natural fortitude to preserve their faith amidst so many efforts to shake it. Moses' appeal to our ancestors for the verity of miracles is bold and confident. " I speak not to your children which have not known, and which have not seen the chastisement of the Lord your God, His greatness, His mighty hand, and His stretched out arm, and His miracles, but your eyes have seen all the great acts of the Lord which He did." A festival was immediately ordered to celebrate their emancipation from Egypt, not to commemorate events that formerly occur- red, which no one might remember, but events which were recent, which were existing, and which every one witnessed. The holiday from the period of its institution has been an- toually kept) and the people, who celebrate so indubitable and miraculous an interposition of providence, never can withdraw their worship from Him who ordained it. If human evidence could strengthen our belief of the sacred narrative, we might derive it from various writers. Profane authors have corroborated divine history, their mythological fictions have deformed it> but in the principal facts they are agreed. Moses was the first who instituted the oflftce of magistrate amoiig the Jews^ and the quaiincations for the onice were 49 eV.ii'acteristio of the value of the man who instituted it. A magistrate was to possess wisdom, humility, and the fear of God ; he was to contemn riches, to revere truth, to be of good fame, and bo popuhr and beloved. The supreme court of magistrates consisted of seventy besides Moses, who was president of the council ; the oral law had been consigned to him, he was the repository of thcMraditional code, and it was by him to be transmitted to the elders. The sacrifice of the temple was a solemn and awful rite the auspices of the Deity over it, were manifested by a fire descending from heaven and consuming the victim. As mir- acles and prophecies have ceased, and we are no longer enlight- ened by inspiration, we do not comprehend all the wonders and mysteries of the temple, and the extraordinary interven- tion of the Deity where the Shekinah peculiarly resided ; a pillar of cloud surmounted the temple ; God was solemnly invoked, and the oracle was audibly uttered from the Divine presence ; the ministry of the temple was a tremendous office ; the High Priest's caution in entering the Holy of Holies on the great day of atonement was terrific; the Philistines ap- proached the temple without timidity, till Dagon fell and they were smitten with emerods ; the consecrated fane of the God of the Hebrews was not to be profaned, unhallowed obtrusion to inspect the ark offended the presiding Presence, and 50,000 Philistine were smitten. No one was forgiven who transgressed the laws of the temple, and Nadab and Abihu perished for daring to offer strange fire before the Lord ; even the zealous Uzzah's inconsideraten.^ss in extending his hand to support the shaking ark was fatal to him; King David trembled and stood aloof; the astonished gazers retreat- ed, the offended Deity was to be approached only by purified ministers of His own appointment. Sacrifices were founded on a positive institution ; remission of sin was matter of grace and favor ; God appointed the man- ner of signifying it, and revealed it to Adam, and by Adam it was communicated to his children ; the Diety propitiated by atonements testified his acceptance by an external and visible si.crn ; Cain perceived that Abel's offering was respected but hfs was not ; we can only conjecture by what signal this was evinced ; perhaps a fire from heaven on the oblation, might c ii i i! ' SO hate tnanifested dWf, W^c'lt! ofMraUmtt" fit tep of fire Pf »^* ^f rr-j^Kd Th»--i»' ^"""g ^'^'' V/e hear nothing of the ^J"™"' , j^ j. gpirit «as im- first temple, hut during the tabernacte the bMyP ^^^ parted to the Israelites by TJrnn ^t the second by Bath Kol. Irst templeby the P'^Pl-^'^^^^l^^^^'tatrhy inspiration in or the X from heaven. God ermum ate"?"f ,„eh an influence on the Tisions and dreams. God e^^-^J^^J^J^t operation, the pro- mind as carried ««»^i<=\°.°te/ecSied the inspiration, and phetwas in a trance while te reeeivea / i„e„t of Sften in awful consternation ) ^»' *^°f ^J^ Z divine word prophets could ^-'1? >?;,tV terror Ir' perturbation. For it rrEnio^ZTSl r aU £Lora.s^-^^^^^^^^ M>eak against my servant -Moys ■ ^ congregation, ■^Maimonides says m one f j^» ''"^'^ ^ „Wch man can « Know ye sirs, that .*here =1 f three way , J ^^^^^^^^5^,1 ^ arrive at the reception of the trutb, viz. ^^^ "onstration; perception ^J ^ll/and rcTaWity." Bishop teachings of men of ""doubted piety a»ar , ^^^ Colenso prefers to »«" according to the Mb ^^^^^ no attention to the others. We^wever up ^.^^ ^.^^ fully to answer the objections brought tortn oy le guided by all of them. , difficulties with Learned Hebrews have n^^«' /f^ *J°^^ the Bible th. Pentateuch. They have aja''l"t Writers in all ages ana the Talmud. They have had excrflent wr ^^ ^^^^ and countries on all the ^f e^c" '"P'^^^V^e is not'an En- as of human knowledge and geu«^ . b-^^ ^ ^ „bt,i„ed dish book in existence in which inlormation ^^^^ l^ this point. Dr. Colenso ought *» remem Hebrews ever were, and st.U are, ^e ""^^ ;^„, „f the Pcnta- to fiction, obscurity and c"""'" ™|[,^,ew in it is concerned, teuoh, as far as the knowledge of the Hebrew ^^^ ^.^^ Ho ought also to remcmbe' *hat f^^ ^^g^brcws to bo in were always acknowledged by the ^learne^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ the folUwiug order ; Mo»»s wruvc »..= » \ \ * \ , \ T ' 61 J^ob. Joshua wrote his book and the last ?ight verses in th«i Pentateuch. Samuel wrote his book, Judges, and Ruth* David wrote the Psalms, but was assisted by others. Jere- miah wrote his book, the book of Kings, and the Lamentations. Hezekiah and his cotemporaries collected Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes. The men of the great synagogue, Ezekiel. The twelve minor Prophets, Daniel, and Esther ; and Ezra, wrote his book and the Chronicles. He ought also to remember that the Hebrews gave to the modern ages men who regenerated the practical, scientific, and religious life. From Abraham and Moses down through the Psalmists and prophets, to the days of Alexandrian glory | and the rise of Christianity ; from the days of the Persian sages, down through the philosophical and theological schools of Egypt, Spain, France, Italy, and Germany, to De Rossi and Manassab. Ben Israel, their sons, were the banner-bearers of truth, philosophy, mathematics, liberal ideas, and freedom of conscience. But not one among them all ever attacked the Bible ; not even when they were opposed to Christianity, and did all they could against it, did they lay hand on the Bible. The world knows, that Halewi, Maimonides, Spinoza, and Mendlesohn were Hebrew philosophers; that Saadiah, Ibn Ezra, Nachmonides, Ralbag, and Arbaband in Spain, Rashi, Rashbam Redak in France, Mendlessohn, Wessely, i bua^ Levi, E:'»hel in Germany were grammarians, lexicographers, exegetics and philologians ; but very few out of the Hebrews, and of course Bishop Colenso included, know what those men wrote, although there are at present about 8,000 Hebrew volumes in the British Museum alone. Now, we say emphatically, that all these great Hebrews have acted in accordance with the rules laid down by Mai- monides, and still believed that the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses is a fact. And now let us see what the Bishop's objections against the Pentateuch are. I t i: CHAPTER VI* BISHOP colenso'b histobical objections. First Objection. I- the 2nd chapter of his first hook, he says, " I shall noW proceed to show by means of a number of prominedt m- stances, that the books of the Pentateuch contain, m their own account of the story which they profess to relate, such remarkable contradictions, and involve such plain impossibil- ities that they cannot be regarded as true narratives ol actukl historical matters of fact. Without stopping here to speak of the many difficulties, which (as will appear here- ^er) exist in the earlier parts of the history, I shall at once CO on to consider the account of the Eiodus itselt, beginning with the very first step of it, the descent into Egypt. ■ "And the sons of Judah, Er and Ouan and Shelah, and Pharez and Zarah, but Er and Onan died in the land ot Canaan: and the sons of Pharez, Hezron and Hamel. it appears to one to be certain that the writer here means to say, that Hezron and Haraul were bom in the land of Canaan and were among the seventy persons (including Jacob himselt, and Joseph and his two sons) who came into Egypt with Jacob. Now, I am sure when I say, that a Jewish child would set the Bishop right on this point. The Bishop here seems to prefer the German to the English translation, and eaves out the verb vn^i vajehejah "were," Ger. "waren.' Now, whether he has done this willfully or ignorantly we do not know. But one thing we know, that there is a great difter- ence in the reading,-" and the sons of Pharez were Heron and Hamul," and the Bishop's reading Now, it he would have cleaved to the original, or consulted the Targum, where it reads distinctly pm "vahavan," or the authorized Hebrew- •■ 53 • F G^erman, (though it seems he was ashamed of his English version) he would not have troubled himself to make that mis- take. And here we will just quote the following remarks by the son of the Chief Rabbi of the Jews of London. " We can easily see why Bi&hop Colenso has fallen into this egregious error. The author does not seem to have consulted the original, he suffers himself to be bound in the trammels of the authorized version, and servilely copies its mistrans- lations. And further, throughout the criticism, the author wholly ignores the labors of the Jewish commentators in the same field. He devotes so much space (chap. II and III) to show that the clumsey devices of Kurtz and Hengstenberg for reconciling the difficulty about the family of Judah are untenable, but does not allude to the simple solution suggested by the critical Ibn Ezra, that the idiom need not be taken here literally, but that the event recorded in that chapter may have taken place many years before, (just as in Deut. x. 8.)" On this Dr. Gumming remarks. « It is indeed a strange occurrence to find the Jew, in the nineteenth century, moie zealous for the integrity of God's Holy Word than the Bishop of Natal." Now, if the Bishop would have consulted the 26th verse in the original, he would have known, since he pretends to be a Hebrew scholar, that the word " habah " ** which came " is not in the past, which is proved by Rashi, one of the greatest Hebrew grammarians. And very rightly Prof. Hirschfelder remarks that " the mentioning of Hezron and Haraul in verse 12 is easily accounted for. After the sons of Judah had been enumerated the narrative adds, " but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan." And then after a suitable pause goes on to say, ** And the sons of Pharez were Hezron and Hamul," indica- ting thereby that these were to supply the place of those that had died, but by no means intending us to believe that they were born in the land of. Canaan, and that they went down into Egypt with Jacob. ColensOfS Second Ohjection. The Bishop's second difficulty is, as he states in the 4th chapter of his first book, " the size of the court of the Taber- nacle compared with the number of the congregation." He ir ili 54 savs "^nd Jehovah spake unto Moses say in.s gather thou the Sre^aUon together unto the door of the Tabernacle of the cooSeSn. And Moses did as Jehovah had commnnded him! And the Assembly was gathered unto t^^^^-r o the Tabernacle of the Congregation, Lev. ^!"' 1;^; , ^J'X^^ appears to be certain that by the expressions "^^^^^^^^ here and elsewhere, ' the Assembly " f^^, ^j^°^^ .^ff fn^^^^^ ♦Tip rnn^retration/ is meant the whole body of the people— It an evS the adult males in the prime of life among them iKt merely the elders or heads of the peop e, as some —-ana not mei j ^ difficulties as that have supposed, in order to escape iruiu ouv cannot, which we are now about to consider. At any rate, i cannot, with due regard to the truth, allow myself to believe, or at- Tempt to p^^^^^ others to believe that ^-^h expres^^^^^^^^^^^ above can possibly be meant to be understood of the elders only. "We read, for instance, with reference to the Passover, ^^m whole Assembly of the Congregation of Israel shall V?n U in the evenin-," Exod. xii, 16; and again, The whole Con*reULn 0? the children of Israel murmured Igl^stte^aTArroninthewi 7f Israel said unto them, ye have ^J^^^S^* ^^J'^, ^^.^ *^^^^ wilderness to kill this whole Assembly with hunger, lixod. wiWerjs to kU ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ faces before Xthe i W^of the Congregation of the <^^^^^,^^l^^^^^^ Nimh xiv 5 And when the people were numbered, they J^aTembS a^/ tt:Congre,atio^oU^^^^^ aeckred their pedi-rees, after their families, by the house ot their fathers N^ 18. So '' all the Congregation " stoned the itSmlr Lev xxvi U ; and the Sabbath-breaker, Numb. ■ ^^^r\ :;:kU^ '' gathered a// tke C^9^e9at^^^ against Moses and Aaron, unto the door of the label nacle ofX cfngregation, and the glory of Jehovah appeared unto all the Congregation. And Moses rose up, and went unto Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel ^olbwed bnn, Numb xvi 19-26.-^where the - elders" are plainly distin- Sd from "all the Congregation " And when the plague fcoutwe are told, ''Aaron took, as. Moses conimanded and ran nto the midst of the Congregation and, behold the ^rJevas be-un among the people. Numb, xvi, 47. And plague was oe^uu ^, _» _.^^t;, J^ (^^^ ^^^ trumpets) all ••When thou snait oiuw wicu in^i** >,- - - / k « 65 ' T ^ V e i, U the Ammhli, shall assemblethemaelves to thee at the d^^^^^^ Tabernacle of the Congregation and if thou blow with but one trumpet, then the princes, which are heads of the thousands of Israel shall rather themselves unto thee, Numb, x, 3-4 Ana once more "The^ was not a word of all which Moses com- manded, which Joshua read not before all the Gongregatwn^ of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, .and the strangers that were conversant among them, Isaiah viii, 6b. »' From some of the above passages, indeed, it might m reasonably inferred, that the women also, and ^^^^^'"''^ J^^^^ be included in the '• whole Congregation.'' For we cannot suppose that these were exempt from death, when the plague broke out " in the Congregation;' At all events, i follows distinctly, from the last passage that the old men niust be con- sidered i; be included in it. But let us confine our at enUon f.rthe present to the 603,550 warriors, Numb, i, 32, who "certainl/ must have formed a part of ;^ the whole Congre- gation,'' leaving out ot consideration the multitude of old men women, and children. • „« "'This vast body of people, received on this occasion as we are told, an express command from Jehovah Himselt, to Tsemble '' at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congrega- ?i;n." " We ueed not press the word "all" so as t» i.cade everv individaal man of this number, still the expression, all the Conie<'ation" the "whole Assembly," must be surey- undeVrtoSd ?o imply the mau. hod, of those who were able to »ttand esDfciallv when summoned thus solemnly by direct Wee of Jehovah Himself. The mass of these 603,550 men ourht. we must believe, to have obeyed such a command, and hl'ten to prevent themselves at the "door of the Tabernacle -^Vl3*;K:?S"d;stinctly '.at th. door of the Tabernacle," they must have come wUhm the court And this md-^ed. was necessary for the purpose for which they were summoned oa ZZL., na,ily I witness the ceremony of the consec^v tion of Aaron and his sons to tlie Priestly office. Ihis was to be pfrformed inside the Tabernacle itself, and could only therefore be seen by those standing at the door. .'now the whole width of the Tabernach was 10 cubiU or 18 feet, reckoning the cubit at 1,824 feet, (see Bagsters Bible, and its length was 30 cubits, or 54 feet, as may 1 I p ili 1 1 h il 56 be gathered from E.26, (Home's Introd. 3, P-.2320 ^Ho^S two feet in width for each full-grown ">*»' »|f „"', " T^, just have stood in front of it Supposing then *"»* »» the congregation" of adult males in the prime of life had given due\eed tothe Divine Summons, and tad hastened i take their stand, side by side, as closely as poj"" ^» front, not merely of the door, but of the whole end ot to* Tabernacle, in wLh the door was. tW-o«W have reached allowine 18 inches between each rank cf nine men, tor a ms tonce ff mire than 100,000 feet, in fact nearly me^ty *"'« Further the Court was 100 cubits in length and 50 cubite in hrerdtrE. 27, 18, that is, it was about ISOfeet long and 90feet b^ad. And.' since the length of the Tabernacle as above was 54 feet, we have for the space left between the Tabernacle and the hangings of the court, before and behind, astrttl 63 feet in°frfnt and 63 feet behind or perhaps we mav sav. 84 feet in front and 42 feet behind, inns, rhenT84 feJ would represent that portion of the men in the prime of life, who could by any POB^p^y have been crowded Lside the court, in front of the tabernacle, while the whole body would be represented by 100,000 feet, "Or, if we suppose them to fill the wMc width of the court 90 feet, instead, of merely the space directly m ^0;^^ «f *he Tabernacle 18 feet, still the whole body would extend to a li^tance of 6,706 yards, nearly 4 miles, whereas that portion of them, who could find any room to stand ^^ front of the Tabernade, filling up the whole width of the court, would bo represented by 84 feet or 28 yards. "But how many would the whole court have contained? It area (60 vards by 30 yards) was 1,800 square yards, and the : a Ttfe Tabernacle itself (18 by 6 yards) was 08 square yards. Hence the area of the court outside the rabernaclo was 1,692 square yards. But the "whole congregation would have \ade a body of people, nearly 20 miles or ^ore accurately, 33,530 yards long, and 9 yards wide, that S to spy, packed closely together, they would have covered an area of 201,180 square yards. In fact the court, when thronged, could only have held 5000 people, whereas the IbUdied men a4e ^exceeded 600,000 „E- t^V^- tering Levites, "from iiu lo ov yeui^s uiu, ttv.v w-o^ --* 57 number, at 4.48, only 504 of these could have stood within the court in front, of the Tabernhcle, and not two thirds of them could have entered the court, if they had filled it from one end to the other. It is inconceivable how, under such circumstances, " all the assembly," ** the whole congregation," could have been summoned to attend "at the door of the Tabernacle," by the expi-ess command of Almighty God." Bishop Colenso ought to be aware that the national con- stitution of the Hebrews was built on a Patriarcho democratic basis. The existence of a perpetual representation of the people is indicated both by their customs and their laws. The representatives consisted of the heads of tribes and families, men who, by virtue of their age (the term Tekenim elders did not then as yet express a merely formal appellation,) and na- tural position in society were well fitted to exercise a partriar- chal authority. Even while in Egypt Moses gathered *' all the elders of the children of Israel," (Ex. 4 : 29,) with whom conjointly he was to appear before Pharoah, (Ex. 8 : 16-18). When therefore it is said (4: 30-31) « He did signs before the people," " the people believed in them and they bowed their heads,'' we must assume that all the people, as is clearly evident from 4, 29, were not present on that occasion, but that the elders referred to fully represented them. Thus early do we find the data, so often applicable in the subsequent books of Scripture, viz., that " the people" signifies the same as "the people represented by their elders. Compare Ex. 19 : 7-8, where Moses convoked " the elders of the pet pie," and then " all the people together" reply to the communication imparted to the former; also Judg. 10: 8, where the "people," and the " princes of Gilead" are identified. See also Josh, 23 : 2, where all Israel is paraphrased and at the same time restricted, by the phrase, " its elders, judges, and officers. On this supposition alone can it be er plained how Moses could speak to all the people. Com p. Maimonides in his pre- face to the Mishna,) From this point of view, also, is to be explained one of the most decisive passages in point : " Ye are all:" it is said, Deut. 29 : 10, « standing to-day before the Lord your God, your heads, your tribes, your elders, your officers, every man of Israel, your children, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewei; of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water." That Moses had at that time cl2 I I \: ill ) \ i I 58 actually convoked an assembly, »^^^^^^^ however, could be <^ompo8ed only of the re^^^^^^^ .^ ^ enumerated, for what business 'l^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ who were national assembly ? ^^^^^""^ Ktter took part in the assem- the delegates o the ^1^^^^^^^^^ the subjects and blv and from them they atterwaraa ic massage is par- Sts of the legislative d'^^J^;., J„ :/ he\bsen?by ticularly important; the ."^"^jf^Prf^"^. ^..Not with you those who are present >;'»§ "'^7^'«:1 j" I nake this covenant alone," says the Law-giver, ja . 14, o ^^^^^ and this o'ath, bnt with h;™ «' » «^^»''^^^^^^^^ H^, „s to-day," national assembly, the a6»e«( of the l'"»S g«°^ ^^ -^J,^, .anted by those 'l^/'L^Ilr^W J." Sit is Manifest that with saying, "your heads, ffourfnftes- x ^^^ The entire tribes cannot be mean .as it woulc, ^^^ be needless to ™«°*'°°'. '»,.*'?'*''Sa o„lv bv wW of "lustra- officers. The word '• tribes' is added »°'y J "f^^^^ .. „„a tration. It explains more P?""'"'";'^ f ^the tribes, both of calls to mind the head or pn.>"=«^ P™Pf^ »' *^' I', ^d to the these titles being likevtise implied, m Mam. 1 . , twelve princes of the tribes. ^ ^ 33 . 5 ) Thus, too, it is said in 'j^.r/s Ul) he w^, king, (i- e- .. In Jeshurun (surname "^ f ^i'^,,'': J„blcd L head, supreme gmUe and regent,) when there ^ ^^^^^^ o/tM p^ple, toget^r ;Ae «'* „f ^^-^Uian the " heads" of the parallelism « tribes is noj;^^"^ , mssaee under con- of tribes, that of the elders and ^^^'J'^XrZUi U, the '"'•' r V tbHrople The Xle natn as wa. shown organization oi the people, ^uy » aiatinct greater or in the preceding chapter, ^f . ^jvided °t» horeWas, «k^.) .mailer, bodies (such as t'^^^^if^^'th^ee bodies of repre- With reference to this %\7^/;™^°°';S^-„„b occasionsf at wntatives were cljpsen. Lhese wer^ on »_ ^^^ „,„„,v>lv. or. i Bfintatives were uii^jBcu. ..»— - ..— ^^ the head of the people, representea mem m I ^ \ «iC eO I I ^ \ 59 when measures of general interest were to be adopted, assisted Moses, who was their supreme leader. When the people are to be numbered (for the purpose of ascertaining the number of men able to bear arms,) the twelve princes of the tribes are expressly named, (Num. 1 : 5-16,) as assistants of Moses and Aaron in this undertaking. These princes, of whom there was one for every tribe, (the tribe of Joseph, bemg divided into two divisions, had two representatives. The tribes of Levi, on the other hand, is omitted, it being permanently exempt from military service) are more particularly described, (Num. I : 16,) as the " deputed q( the congregation. Ihat this designation, however, did not bslong to them exclusively, and that the number of those who appeared in the general assembly as the representatives of the people, was much greater, is evident from Num. 16 : 2. For here the 250 men who conspired with Korah against Moses and Aaron, are all said to have been " princes of the congregation, deputed of the asseniblur They must, accordingly, have been the most dis- tinguished fathers of families, called also sometimes elders, (NSm. 11: 15; Deut. 29, 1^, 31 : 28,) and making their appearance while yet in Egypt, (Ex. 13 : 21,) The full assembly of the most distinguished men of all the tribes is called ifoei. This word properly signifies a "fixed appoint- ment" of time or place. The persons assembled constitute ttie Hdah i. e. the "congregation" assembled according to this fixed manner. (Here the whole congregation (Edah) is expressly distinguished from « all the children of Israel, and is manifestly designed to denote only the committee or council.) Hence, those men, as being the deputed of (to) the assemb y or congregation (Kerei Moed or Haedah) ar^Jf^spectively denominated " princes of the congregation (Nesie Eda ) (Num. 1 : 6, 16, 2. Comp. 1 : 18,) where m addition to the princes, the whole congregation is convoked, since, in order to obtain an exact list of births, it was expedient to confer with the respective heads of families. Another term applied to those who assembled upon such deputation or convocation, is the word Kahal This term also signifies assembly. Compare tne 12th chapter of Exodus, where (verse 3) mention is made ot the "congregation of Israel;" and then (verse 21) the phrase «' elders of llrael" substituted, with the 31st chapter ofDeut., where (verse 28) the ''elders of your tribes, and your oflicers, 00 I: W ^ ■J * ' are first spoken of, and then (verse 30) the phrase the whole assembly (Kahal) of Israel," used instead. The two different terms, therefore, are in each case identical in sense ; the phrase, " congregation or assembly of Israel," signitying the people of Israel nresent through their representatives. We have now then become acquainted with a two-fold council— -a small one composed of the princes of the tribes, and a large one composed of all the deputed. These two assemblies, moreover, are to be respectively convoked by difter- ent signals, described, (Num. 10 : 3, 4). When simple blasts of the trumpet are heard, the great (congregation) council is to assemble ; but whea the long protracted notes are sounded, the council of princes only shall convene. In addition to these a third body of men was chosen. 1 he number of this body was not so small as that of the chiet princes of the tribes, nor so large as that of the joint body ot the representatives. It constituted as it were, the elite chosen from among the latter. " The Lord said to Moses : Gather unto me 70 men of the elders of Israel, of whom thou knowest that they are the elders of the people and their officers. Take these to the tabernacle of assembly, that they may stand there with thee. I shall speak with thee, and shall take of the spirit which is upon thee and put it apon them, that they may bear with thee the burden of the people, so that thou mayest not bear it alone, (Num. 11 : 16, 17, comp. vs. 24; comp. Ex. 25 : 2, 9, where '70 of the elders ot Israel are thus early mentioned.) These seventy men were accord- ingly selected from the number of those who were already recognized as elders of the people, and as acting in the capacity of magistrates, Deut. 1 : 5.) According to John, (Arch, ii : 1, p. 59) it would follow from Num. 26 : 5-50, that the then existing number of chief families was 59, and that the heads of these, together with the 12 princes of the tribes constituted a College of 71. But if we count accurately, the result will be different. For, in numbering the families, we must take into account only the large sub-divisions there given, and not the main divisions. John has, perhaps, overlooked these circumstances. However, the passage quoted shows, at all events, the probable correspondence of the num- ber of the chosen elders with the number of chief families.) mi.-~ ->^ ii/% V.^ wrnai'aA nrii^Vi 4^liair nnnr iWcrnii.M as. mPW UeDUted %! I'J'. ' Sfa t =A ti.Tin«t» Bi iiftf^ IM tamatimmtm 61 I ^ and inspired by God, and are henceforth to stand by the side of Moses, and share with him the burden of public affairs. Here, then, we have a permanent senate, composed of a definite number of men in constant activity. This was th*? body which regularly accompanied Moses as his council and aid. The advantages of this associate body must be evident. For the unanimous voice of the oldest and most esteemed men of the nation, the confidence which they put in the mea- sures adopted relative to the people, could not fail to produce a great moral effect upon all. They exercised, as it were a perpetual mediation between the interests of the people on the one hand, and the highest aims and purposes of the legislator and executive on the other. This senate of 70 is, in all proba- bility, alluded to when the elders, during the consp 'racy of Korah, are mentioned aa accompanying Moses, (Num. 16 j 25.) Still everything goes to show that this newly constituted council was established to exercise a moral influence only, and not to supply the place of the full assembly of the national representatives. On the contrary, the power of representing the people, and of acknowledging the force of legislative mea- sures, continued subsequently as well as previously, (In Deut. 27 : 1, it is said that Moses and the elders of Israel cona- manded the people. The command in question was only m regard to one particular ordinance, viz.: that of erecting monuments on entering the land of Palestine. But provided the elders here alluded to are indeed the 70, yet it is reasona- ble to suppose that the command in question was first com- municated to the great assembly, before being made incumbent on all the people,) in the hands of the proper representatives. Their number, which probably included the 70 elders, was mucli more considerable, it being, in general, not hmited, and increasing according to the proportion. When, therefore, at the revolt of Korah, the elders of Israel, i- e., as is very likely, the 70, are gathered round Moses, (Num. 16: Z5,) it nevertheless follows, from v. 2. that the greater council still continued to exist at the same time, the 250 being said to have belonged to it. « , . i « * According to 2 Sara. 2 : 4, " the men of Judah" came to anoint David king. Again (2 Sam. 3 : 21) Abner says to David, "I will arise and go and gather all Israel, tha. they may make a league with thee," There is no doubt that here, 62 ,00. reference is had only to ^^JXT'^^'tI^ "J^n- trib'.. as well as to those of tl",^,™^" « P'^Me, knomng .hat tatim alone Abner could T")^'*" '» f*S. he would to a if he could pursuade the ch.e ™«" °" '''i„% gam. 6 : 1. certainty, obtain th« «™'"' l^^l j ' "came to David unto „e are told that " h11 the <"'>;» »f,,M;'';\;""'f„stead of which Hebron," to P»y h'»,ho>n»g« »' J'";^^ "^f',he ; „,.j„ He- U reads(v. 3)all the eW-' "f/^" \ ^ and thiy anointed bron, and he made » '«»S"?, ™'^^ tubes'' therefore, f.gmfies David king over Israel. 5" '"*„'. ,ed by their elders. „„ more "\l- /ll- '^^f Xisa cm.' he "eprese'ntatives of the -When after the rebell on of -^-^f '°"; "* p ' y ^ snife ensued people assembled to do homage anew to Uav.u^ j^. Ltween the man of Israel »■"* 'he men f J . V ^^ 43, 44.) Whereupon, Shoba a Benjan..t^e,cr^^^^^,^^ ^^^^^^^ man to bis tents, O Israel, (20 . V.) ^^^^ ^^^^ involved in this call, m so f" »'•'"; „»e of he people were very fact that the representat ves al e ot^ .^^^P^^P ^^^^^^ here assembled. If they «'sP«f»'" , "natural consequence was effected, the whole ?«»?'« ""7''^*^ that great multi- revolt from the king. Were "« ,» PJ^^'^^^h^, ^ss^mbly, their tudes had aocked together from all P^J^' '» '^» ^,, ^ J„ more protracted meeting would, «" "'^"f^'^Yeu David resolved Lgerou, than their ^.X^renanl^acll. 13: 1.) we are , to transport the ark of t^« /o™™";' J^^ . ^ ^f thousands and informed that he eon^-f * "f ''" Ce 4e» t^e permanent hundreds, and with al the leade s. H^J"^ » 5^ i/indicated. existence of those ancient •»?^"'f '°"^^„\f^^Jti<>-„, a e called "the Those who were thus convoked f»^.«°;~"2.) The address whole congregation of Israel, (1 ^ '"™" . ,/„.../i<,n . it was aa if David il p'-'i-^-'^l^'f ':f:"|Ju"oftheCi our God, follo«is, "If it seem good to you, a"* us 01 ^^ let us ^nd abroad to the res «f °"^„^^ ^^U Levites, in the Israel, and "it\''>'™.f°i!;tfSher themselves unto us. cities of their suburbs, that they 'Tyj^Z^Aly meant the other By the « rest of our brethren," '^ ""''^'rs " all the elders of leaders of the people, Solomon, also oiders a „ ^^ Israel, all the heads of their tribes, »<» J ""y„ing the ark of 'convene at Jerusalem, for t^e^pujo- f tra« ^^^ ^^^ ^,„, the.covenant k 8 : 1;^ J„1>«,S -. 3.) In .he 29thChap. V 63 of 1 Chron. " tie princes of fathers, and the princes of ^^^ of Israel of thousands and hundreds and the princes m the ser- V ce of ihe king" (T.6,) who brought donations for the bu.W.ng of the terapleT are designated the " ""-f^f!"' ' P^ , I- in V 9 that is. "the (represented) people. Ihe donations. Lr'efore. wer'e probablV P-i'-ef o^father'nl the neople, the contribution of the « princes of fathers, being eft to or imposed on each individual house of fathers, .n propor- t on r k ir'^respective n-.eans. On the a""^^'"" "f ^.f »^»*^ to the throne, "all Israel," of their own impulse, as it seems we"ch"echem for the purpose of obtaining an alleviation of the burdens imposed on them by Solomon, 1 K. ',f -J'- ,"5 illent answer which the King "t"™*'', '» """^ J^^P^^ii fT 13^ called out the following expression (v. 16; f">™ » ) is ael •" « We have no part in David, to jour tents, Israel! 'rarthese words ever/connection between the r.be,of,Israd »nii the vounff KinB was forever severed. All Israel, now ever heardtW /erhoboam had returned, "and they send hUherand call him to the congregation (««''b jd «staU him Kinff over all Israel." Here it is clearly seen that •••o'>gf«g» U "" "g ifies the assembly of the '^P-^-'^'-^.^tst,^^^^^^ the oerson of these, all Israel were present. Other '"»'»»««»' shXg what influ;nce on the royal succession the people tad Si iVat' 'e''iind';e?et;nce made'to the representative avstem Thus, Jeremiah addressed a message to the elde™, Xr 29 • 1 ^ Zerubabel was accompanied by the heads of fami- • Vl,;, k- 2^-! 1 Finally as late even as the time of the Macca- hes, (Ezra 4. Ao.j f '"a''^," '„„„„. i,..j toeether w th the bees, mention f'^-^^'^f'^^^^l^Z^X^ZUe Sanhedrim ot subsequeni i"""^* ,^ rpoard to the circumstance Tharthe 'LV^e^rtnT: men ormeTlfmrediate contmuatiom Ime Se'nt of 70llders instituted by Mo-s, as is asserted by the Rabbins, Scripture itself urnishes ««%^'?Jfy^;^\;l instance alone-in a prophetic vision of Ezekiel 8 . 11, i^ mention is made of " 70 men of the elders of I*™«l; J';^^ heino- represented, however, as worshipping idols, "owever, it is verrUkely that the institution of the Sanhedrim, evenji "es^cTs Us external form, was founded on a more ancient one. Compare Talmud, Sanhedr, 1, 6.) The influence of that coun- cil was, indeed, suppressed by many a king, but it could never be wholly extinguished. We find it from time to tinne, especially on all important occasions, (when alone it is noticed,) stand out in all its potent viffor. It was tiis democratic element, too, which acted as a mighty support to the prophets, ever favouring and protecting their freedom of speech; Comp. 1 K. 18: 19; Jor. 26 : 16-19.* Benson, on the same subject, says, "All the congregation means, the elders, who represented all, and as many of the people as would and could get thither, that all might be wit- nesses both of Aaron's commission from God, and of his work and business." Rashi is also of the same opinion. But if the Bi^hop would look into the original text, where it tells us in the 4th verse of the 8th chap. Lev., " vatikahel haedah," and not ** kol haedah," that is, " an assembly was gathered together," but not the whole congregation, he would not trouble himself to make another such mistake. . ! I. Third Objection, On p, 81 of the first book, the Bishop brings forth another objection on the following passage : " And afterward he read all the words of the Law, the blessings and the cursings, accord- ing to all that, which is written in the book of the Law." On this he remarks, " How, then is it conceivable that a man should do what Joshua is here said to have done, unle':s indeed the * The advice which Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, gives him, in the 18th chapter of Exodus proves to us that Moses did not always speak to the whole congregation, (v. 17-22,) "And Moses' father-in-law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. Thou wilt surely wiar away, both thou and this people that is with thee, for the thing is too heavy for thee, thou art not able to perform it thyself alone. Harken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee : Be thou for the people to Godward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God. And thou shnlt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do. Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness, and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hun- dreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens." fl66 AITAin (i\\tk 0.^1 A V lof clion Fkanf \ c / 05 reading of every word of all that Moses commanded, with the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the Law, was a mere dumb show, without the least idea of those most solemn words being heard by those to whom they were addressed ] For, surely, no human voice, unless strength- ened by a miracle of which the Scripture tells us nothing, could have reached the ears of a crowded mass of people, as large as the whole population of London. The very crying of the little ones, who are expressly stated to have been present, must have sufficed to drown the sounds at a few yards' distance. It may be said indeed that only a portion of this great host was really present, though all Israel is spoken of. And this might have been allowed without derogating from the general historical value of the book though of course not with t impeaching the literal accuracy of the scripture narrative, ^ * ;h by some is so strenuously maintained. But the words aDcve quoted from Joshua are so comprehensive, that they will not allow f this. We must suppose that, at least, the gre it body of the congrega- tion was present, and not only present, but able to bear the words of awful moment which Joshua addressed to them. Nor can it be supposed that he read them first to one party, and then to another, ^-c, till all the Congregation had heard them. The day would not have sufficed ioi reading in this way all the blessings and cursings in D. 27, 28,— much less all the words of the law, — many times over, especially after that he had been already engaged, as the story implies, on the very same day, in writing a copy oi the Law of Moses upon the stones set up in mount Ebal. Jo. 8, 32, 33." How the Bishop dares state that Joshua wrote a copy of the Law Of Moses on the very same day, we cannot explain, since no one ever read such a statement in the Bible. And it is also manifest that Joshua did not write a copy of the Law of Moses, ih^iit is to say, certainly cot the whole 5 books of iVioses, (for what stone and lime would have sufficed for this ?) What Joshua wrote and spoke or caused to speak through the Levites, were the Ten Command- ments which are held as the moral law, and all the blessings and the cursings as ordered by Moses, contained in D. 27, 28. Moses in the language of the Bible never intended that Joshua should write on the stones and then speak from the mountains more than the cursings and the blessings and the Ten Com- mandments. Both the coHunand of Moses in Deut. 27, and the 06 statement in Joshua 8, 4,4, testify that nothing more was spoken than the Ten Commandments and the cursings and blessings, which is easily performed in ten minutes. Fourth Objection, In the 6th Chap, of Bishop Colenso's first book, he again finds some difficulty about " The extent of the Camp, compared with the Priest's duties and the daily necessities of tlie People. He quotes the foliowing passage " And the skin of the bullock* and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, even the whole bullock, shall he (the Priest) carry forth without the camp, unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire. Where the ashes are poured out there shall he be burnt, L. 4, 11, 12. The objection is, how the priest himself would carry the refuse of the sacrifices a distance of three quarters of a imle. From the outside of the camp wood and water would have had to be fetched for all purposes, if, indeed, such supplies of wood or water for the wants of such a multitude as this could have been found at all in the wilderness. And on p. 88 he says, <' The supposition involves of course an absurdity. Bat it is our duty to look plain facts in the face." Here we may again safely say that the text proves, that it was not the priest alone, but the Levites also, who attended to all these things', which the Bishop says the priest performed. In the 6th and 7th verse of the 3rd chap, of Num. we read, ''And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron the priest, that they may minister unto him. And they shall keep his charge, and the charge of the whole congregation, before the tabernacle of the congregation to do the service of the tabernacle." The Hebrew for the word minister in the 6th verse is '' vsherthu," which means '* to w^it upon," " to serve," or " to assist." In the targmn we read it, " vishanshun," " help to serve." Rashi is of the same opinion; he has it, « m^aeen," which means "to assist in every wav,'' and the very repeliiion of the Hebrew word in the" 9ih" verse, " netunim, netunim," " wholly given," proves that the priests could make any use of the Levites, and Ihat they were obliged to perform any duties imposed on them i 67 • t ,1 bv the priests. But we must not forget that the performance of this sacrifice, (which is called a sin-offering) was an exception to the others. Fifth Objection. On page 89 the Bishop finds an objection from the following passage. ''And JehoTah spake unto Moses, sayiog, When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto Je- hovah when thou numberest them, that there be no plague among them when thou numberest them. This they shall give, every one that passeth among th6m that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the Sanctuary, an half shekel shall be the offering of Jehovah, E 30, 11, 13. He says, "We may first notice in passing, that the expression, * shekel of the Sanc- tuary,' in the above passage, could hardly have been used in this way until there was a Sanctuary in existence, or, rather, until the Sanctuary had been some time in existence, and such a phrase had become familiar in the mouths of the people. Whereas here it is put into the mouth of Jehovah, speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, 6 or 7 monttis before the Tabernacle was made. And in E. 38, 24>, 25, 26, we have the same phrase used again of the actual contributions of the people towards the building of the Sanctuary. ^^ Now the Bishop must know that the shekel was in existence long ere this time, for we find it mentioned in Gen. 23 : 15 ; Ex. 21 : 32. Here the Lord evidently calls it the shekel of the Sanctuary with the intention of m-xking for it a fixed value, viz : that of '^0 geras, so that each one had to pay 10 geras. It appears that in different countries they had different values of the shekel, as for instance, in Canada we have a pound worth $4,00, and in England a pound is worth nearly $5,00. This shekel then which the Lord fixed at 20 geras was to be the currency of the Sanctuary. [jittle objections which the Bishop puts forth about the tents, arms, &c , &c., are but old repetitions, and have been answered dozens of times. If he would take the trouble to read " Jew's letters to Voltaire" he would be soon cured of his scruples. CHAPTER VII. SHOWING THAT INFIDEL OBJECTIONS ARE MOSTLY FOUNDED ON MISTRANSLATIONS OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT. Bishop Colenso might as well put forth the following twenty" eight objections, usually urged by infidels as "n excuse for their rejection of the Bible as a revelation from God. let. It is said that when Abraham saw that three men stood by him he ran to meet them. (Gen. 18 : 2.) Now, we would ask, if they stood by him, where did Abraham run to ? 2nd. We gather from many commentaries, written by eminent men, on Gen. 4? : 6, 7, that God promised to reward Cain for his wickedness, and to punish Abel for his goodness, by making the former ruler of the latter; now, we would ask, what man would say to his servant. If you rebel against me, and obey not ray commands, I shall make you for your disobedience, ruler over my household 1 3rd. How is it that God could raise an exceeding great army from dry bones, (Ezek. 37 : 10,) and yet could not help Judah to drive out the inhabitants ot the valley, because they had chariots of iron ? Judg. 1 : 19. 4th. "And God did tempt Abraham," Gen 22: 1. If we are tempted to do evil, why should we be punished for the com- mission of it 1 oth. " Let 't be according unto your words, he with whom it is found shall be my setvf nt, and ye shall be blameless." Gen. 4>4> : 10. How could it be according to their words to make him a servant, when in the ninth verse it appears that Joseph's brethren had agreed that he should die with whom the cup was found] And again how could it be according to «heir words th&t they should be blameless when in the same verse they said they would be bondsmen, not blameless. 6th. " The wicked borroweth and payeth not again," (a decisive mark of the ungodly) Ps. 37: 21. How can this be T?.v/\ritia 10 . Q^ ivVioro vro dnA tViA TeraolWps t > mommmimvmtif^- ' M ^ 69 were commanded to borrow from the Egyptians and no mention made of their having ever repaid them at any subsequent period 9 7th. " And till Moses had done speaking ^ith them he put a veil on his fice. And the children of Israel savr that Moses' face had shone/' Ex. 34 : 33, 35. Aaron and all the children of Israel were - .aid of the shining of Moses' face, but he called unto them, and gave them all the commandments that the Lord had spoken with him on Mount Sinai." Now, we ask, how could they be afraid of the shining of Moses^ face when he spoke to them veiled 1 8th. " A meat ofiering mingled with oil and dry,'* Lev. 7 : 10. How could it have been dry it it were mingled with oil. 9th. In Isaiah 49: 25, it is written, "For I will contend with him that contendeth with thee.'* How do you reconcile this declaration with the command of Moses in Deuteronomy 25: 9, where a woman is commanded to spit in the face of an Israelite, an indignity which we would not suffer to be practiced upon our youngest child 1 10th. How is it that in Exodus 12 : 15, we read, ** Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread,'' while in Beut, 16 : 8, it is written " Six days thou shalt eat unleavenea bread 1 11th. How is it that in Leviticus 19: 34, a command is given to " love a stranger as one's self" whilst in Deut. 23: 20, it is written, ** Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury, but unto thy brother thou sbalt not lend upon usury ] 12th. How can we reconcile Jephtha's sacrificing the life of his innocent child (Judges 11 : 35) with Genesis 9 : 6, where we read, *' Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed?" 13th. How is it that in Hosea 1 : 2, we read that God commanded Hosea to take a wife of whoredoms, but in Deut. 22: 20, 21, Moses commands that a person guilty of whoredom should be stoned to death ? 14th. How can we reconcile the conditional language of Jacob in Gen. 28 : 20, 21, " If the Lord will be with me, and give me bread to eat, Ac, then shall the Lord be my God," with Deut. 6:5,* And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." 15th. How can we reconcile the command in Deut. 6 : 5, with the language used by David in Psalm 96 : 1, '* I love the Lord because he hath heard my voice and my supplications ?" I I6tli. Job 6 : 12, 13 t0 Is my flesh of brass ? Is not my him, why complain of not him ? belp in me ?" If Job's help was in being able to bear the burden put upon ^^ 17th " They reap every one his corn in the fie d. 1* they , j| 4 reaped thefro'wn Ln, why did Job find /ault with them, . comparing them to wild asses, rising betimes for a PjeJ ? Iftth Tob 41- 11. "Who hath prevented me to repay him '' it tie word prevent stands for fn^^r^.^^^^^^^^ tnrn to Ps 21 " 3. " For thou preventest hxra with the bless^ ngso? goid^^^^^^^^ settest a' crown of pure gold on his hefd r In one case it is evident that prevent means to hinder, or obstruct, whilst in the other it has a different meaning, and the Bible being indiscriminately circulated, how is the illiterate man to distinguish f . 19th How can we reconcile David's saying in Psalm 53 . 3, c^Th r^isnone that doeth good, no not one/' and aga Psalm 104 • 35, " Let the sinners be consumed out ot the fi^xth" (thereby cursing the whole human race, for ^'none la Itod no not oU,'') with 1 Chron., 21 : 17 where he says, «Tsit noti that'have sinned, but as for these sheep, what ^Totf Ht'Van we reconcile with common sense the ques^ tion put to Job in 39 : 20, " Canst thou make him (a horse) ftfraiP' We all know that a child could very easily frighten a horse, how can we, therefore, or how can any one, suppose ?hat God would ask Job if it was possible for him to do what a child would find no difficulty whatever in doing f 91st Affain how can what we find Ps. 101 . d, De recon ciled with fhat'is written in Ecclesiastes, 7 : 17 ? In the former pa sage U I said " I will set no wicked I^ing before mine eyes f hate the works of them that turn aside, ^\.«^f J^^^^^^^^^ tome.'^ Whereas in the latter we learn that we may be somewhat wicked, for it is said, " Be not overmuch wick d ? 22nd. Proverbs 26 : 4 : 5. - Answer not ^ fool accordi^^ to his folly." " Answer a fool according to his folly. l^o not these two verses contradict one ^^o^^^W 23rd. How can we ac ount for the improbabilities and apparent fon^radictions in Gen. 31 : 46. "And Jacob said Tto his brethren, gather stones." ^e all kno^^^^^^^^^^ had but one brother, namely, Esau, aod that ^^ the time tie saia "gather stones," his brotherwas far away trom him in tbc land of Seir, the country of mom ( 71 V 24th. In Hosea 10 : 1, we read, "Israel is an empty v\nef he bringeth forth fruit unto himself." Is not this a palpable contradiction ; if he was an empty vine how could he bring forth fruit 1 and if he brought forth fruit, how could he have been an empty vine? 25th. In Ex. 33 :'^3, we read, " I will not go up in the midst of thee, for thou art a stiffnecked people, lest I onsuine thee/' And in the fifth verse of the same chapter, *'Ye are a stiff- necked people, 1 will come up into the midst of theo and con- sume thee." Now, how can these two verses be reconciled either with each other or with what we find in Malachi 3 : 6^ " I am the Lord, I change not ? '' 26th. In Jeremiah 25 : 1, we r^ad, "In the fourth year of Jehoiakim, King of Judah," that was the first year of King Nebuchadnezzar, while in the book of Daniel, lat chap., 1, 2, v., it is said, ♦< In the third year of Jehoiakim, King Nebu- chadnezzar came unto Jerusalem a? 1 took Jehoiakim prisoner.' Do these two chapters agree ? Again, in 2 Kings, 24, wc read, that, ♦' After a reign of three years Jehoiakim rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, and was destroyed," and if so how comes it that ia the 36th chapter of 2nd Chron., 5th v., we are told that Jehoiakim reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. 27th. 1st Sam., 28 i 12. " And when the woman saw Samuel she cried with a loud voice, and the woman spake to Saul, saying. Why hast thou deceived me ? for thoti art Saul. How is it that the witch did not know Saul until she saw Samuel coming up ? Again, if she really brought up Samuel^ why did she not know him ? for she screamed " I saw gods, and above all, why was she so much afraid of them when she was accustomed to bring up spirits 1 28th. Esther, 7:5. " Then the King Ashasuerus answered and said unto Esther the Queen, who is he, and where i8 he, that durst presume in his heart to do so ?' What made the King express such astonishment when he himself had given authority to Ham an to destroy the Israelites ? And further, why did Haman exhibit such fear when it was only necessary for him to remind the King that it was done by his permission and approbation ? j i. i • v All these objections can easily be answered by taking the original instead of the English version, and so they are answered. (See Mykur Hayem, p. 370.) And so also the most I' i T2 of t!ie Bishop's objections fall to nought, by depending upon the original, and relying upon the ancient commentators. To give the reader an idea of the difference between the original and the present English version, we quote the follow- ing passages. . 1Q o Genesis 18 : 2. ENGLISH. HEBREW. And he lift up his eyes and And he lift up his eyes and looked and lo, three men stood saw, and heboid three men stood by him, and when he saw them, opposite him, and when he per- he ran to meet them. ceived them, he ran to meet them. Genesis 4 : 6, 7» And the Lord said unto Cain, Why is thy countenance fallen, if thou doest well shalt thou not be accepted? but if thou doest not well sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. And the Lord said unto Cain, Why is thy countenance fallen ? if thou doest well thy face shall be lifted up, but if thou doest not well thy sin shall watch thee at the door of judgment, and unto thee shall be his (Sa- tan's) besire to cast thee down, but th'^u canst rule ov«r him. Kashi, Aben Exra, Targ. Jerum, and Targum Onkelos, Chaldee writers, and various other Hebrew commentators, unite in this interpretation, and a very little reflection will, i think, convince us of its propriety. It is natural and reason- ble to suppose, that what God meant and intended Cain should therefore understand was, that if he did not well, not only would his sin confront him at the door of judgment, but that Satan's desire would be towards him to cause him to sin more and more ; whereas if he did well not only should his face be lifted up, but power, or strength, would be given to resist and overcome him who wished to cast him down. Some i^ oj"^ that it may be understood differently, and that it is to Abel and not to Satan that God refers when he says, "unto thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule over him." But it such were the case why do we read in the preceding chapter that God said unto Eve, "And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Was it not because she had fallen from the favour and incurred the wrath and condematiou of her Creator? Undoubtedly. I 1 ■«■ J But on the contrary, do we not r«ad, <■ And tho Leril "'""^}-S npon him the merited displea- sure ot his Maker, m case of contin ued disobedience f Exodus 12 : 35. . . ,. ^'-Q^SH. HEBREW. The Lord commanded them to ask, or reauesfc, Us ther ™mo I ? ^n' •'""""■^ '" Abraham, Gen. 15 " 4, "Te recTlv ZL ^^T ^'*^ «'«"' substances," or, mo;e oo> rectlj, with great riches. ^DetkL'wi+f^.f^ ^'f^ ^^'^^ ^^"n Moses had done speak. /ea oLfis f^^e *''^' ^' ^^'* ^"?. "^^^ i.^««>' ^« *J^e^ put a ^^" veil upott his face. r^Jj"^ ''^''? ^1'^''° are many who say that Moses communi- th th rvd^";""^"'^ ^'^'^' ^^ ^^^ Children of JS ot strengthening his opinion that the word niil" in the abo-^ text IS introduced in italics, but it must be evident to Z ^d '^ l"tf t"'1' " ''^l'' '" ^^^ '^' "-^ verses the :4th ; Wi" A/ '"'''' ^^'^^^ "^* ^^^^^ l^en the fact, for we find, took the veil off, t. 34 ; and in v. 35 Wer ead that « the Chil- ir 1^'^'"' ?-\''^' ^^^^ '^ ^^^^^'" t^^^ " the skin of !w face shone,' wh^ch never could h^ve been the case if lie had had he veil on his face whi^.e he was speakin., ai d tit it : tL '? ""r \'^" ^" '''"^ ^^"^ sperkingt-hecommand I A ' ^''' ^^^ ''^^"''^ trauslatitjn has it) bat, "when he «?shes'u:' ".r^'*'" ^^^^."f^^" '''' f-^'" ^ben E^ra fur. ^ no aln II %"'?•'{ of opinion, as to the reason of Moses «nT?h7 V'nL ^^'^'^'^^''' ? concluding, that it was to the «nd tliat the people might not be permitted to look commonly ^Hd anuliarly upon his face, but^nly and exclusively when II i ... I i ?l Which Qce:mo^:! the veil wag removed, that the ghining and 1 1 14 glory of his countenance might impart dignify to his coianmtinl- cations, and inspire hia hearers with awe. Many of my chira- tian friends and readers will, perhap^think that the view which I have thus taken of this pafesage, conflicts with what they find in the 3rd chapter of 2nd Corinthians^ hut 7 nrv vers^adcd if they will only patiently refer to that chapter, id examine Paul's line of argument throughout, and ila conclusion in the 15th and 16th verses ("but even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart, nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away"), it will be found that precisely what was done when Mofos wait speaking with God and what was invariably done when he (Moses) spoke to the children of Israel, is what Paul here had in mind in reference to the turning of Israel's heart to the Lord, for a«, whenever Moses turned to receive the command- ments of God, and the children of Israel turned to receive them from him, the vsil was removed. This m^st have been Paul's meaning when instructing his hearers, he said, "when the heart of Israel shall turn to the Lord the veil shall be taken away. Genesis 22: 1. ENGLISH. HEBUEW* « And it came to pass,. God did "' And it catae to pass, G od did tempt Abraham." prove Abraham." Com. 1 Sam. 1 7 : 39 ; Eecks. 2:1; Dan. 1 i 12. Genesis 44 : 10. »* And he said. Now also let it " And he said^ It ought to he "be according unto your words ; as ye say, nevertheless^ he with he with whom it is found shUl whom it is found shall be my 1>e my servant ; and ye shaU be servant, and ye shall be inno' 1)lameleBa." eent." Leviticus 7 : 13, « Besides the cakes^ he shall " Besides the cakes of leaVen- offer for his offering leavened ed bread^ he shall offer hia offer- Ibread." »»g-" Leviticus 7: 10. "And every meat offering, »'And every meat offering, mingled with oil, ami dry." mingled with oil, or dry." 'T' The letter 1 v-hich has- a great variety of raeiningpj should not be here used as a copulative conjunction, but as a dis* junctive; for how could anything mingled with oil bo dry ? Deuteronomy 25 : 9. ENOLIStt. HEBREW* *' Then shall hi8 brother's wife «' Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence come unto him i»i the presence of the elderS) and loose his shoe of the olders, an.l loose his shoo from off hiR foot) and spit in his from oflf his footj and spit out face, and sLall answer and say, bejorc him^ or 1 1 his presence, and So shall it be done unto that sliall answer und say, So shall man that will not build up his it be done unto the man that brother's house." w oiild not build up his brother's house.'* Judges 2: 31. " Then shall It be, that what- fcoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the chil- dren of Amnion, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt oftering." " Then shall it be, that vhat* Foever cometh forth of the doors of my ho 186 to meet me, when I return in peac»! from the chil* dron of Ammon, shall surely bo the Lord'-, or, I shall offer it uji for a burnt offering" ii It is singular that the word "and' should have been pot into this peculiar passage, instead of or, i'lr to the reader it \^ould appear that Jeptha, in order to fulfill his vow, must hava taken the life, and imbrued his hands in the blood even of hid Innocent and beloved child, and offered h?r up to that God who has said, " Thou shalt do no murder.'' ]?esides, if hd offered her up for a burnt offering, the Hebn-w in the 39th verse would be bi?"i, which aii^nifies, "to bring up an offering;" but as the Hebrew there is i£?;;n, it means that l\o devoted her to the Lord, according as we find " she knew no man ' forever, verse 39. Some may ask, how is it that the transiator, who must have been well acquainted with Hebrew, could have made such a mistake as to introduce and in the passage referred to instead of or ? My answer is, I cannot account for it, for in Exodus 21 : 15, we read, " He that smites his father m hi"*- mother shall surely be put to death." And why, I would ask, has not the translator rendered this same letter i or instead cf andt in the passage before us, as well as he has done in the passage in E-xodos (where his translation is perfectly correct) f re llosea 1 : 2t KNQLISH. •• the beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosca. And the Lord said to Hogea, Go take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms : for the land hath committed great whoredom > departing from the Lord" HEfeREWk " The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to llosea, Go and take unto thee a wife of a foreign nation, and children of foreign nations) for the whole land hath intercourse with those who wor* ships false gods, departing from the Lord." Job 26 : 6. " They reap eVery one his corn " They reap in the field wh»i* in the field." belongeth not to them." Psalm 104 : 36» "Let sins he consumed, thon the ungodly will be no more." " Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more." Proverbs 2G : 4, 5» " Answer not a fool according " Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like to his foolishness, lest thou bo unto him. Answer a fool ac- like unto him. But answer a cording to his folly, lest he be fool contrary to his folly, that Wise in his own conceit." he may know he is not wise." Hosea 10 1 li " Israel is an empty vine, he " Israel Is a vine elnptying bringeth forth fruit unto hiln- the fruit which it giveth, ot gelf" riches, brings thCm into more Bin." ExO(3tis 33: 5. " For the Lord had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stififnecked peo- ple : I will come up into the midst of thee in a momtat, and consume thee." ." For the Lord had said unto Moses, Say unto the children ot Israel, Ye are a stiffnecked peo* pie J should I come up into the midst of thee one moment. I would consume thee.' Job 6 t 12, 13. "Is my flesh of brass? la not my help in me ?" " Is my flesh of brass 7 Oh 1 surely my help is not in ni««" t i Psttlm 82 : 1. *'Qod standeth in the congre- gation of the mighty, he j udgeth among the gods." " God standeth in the congre- gation of the mighty : he judgoth amr •" / **>e judges." Psalm a] : J^. " I will make mention of thy '* I vill remember thy righte- righteousncss, even of thine only." Psalin 50 " These things hast thou done and I Icept silence; thouthought- est that I was altogether such an one as thyself; but I will reprove thee, and si^t them in order before thine eyes." "• ac •, thou only one." ' . ^ose things hnst thou done ; had I kept silence, thou wouldst have thought that I am such an one as thyself, therefore I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes. " CHAPTER IX. I SIXTH OBJECTION. la the 9th chapter of 1st Book, the Bishop quotes the fol- lowing passage : " The children of Israel went up harnessed out of the Land of Egypt," E. 13 : 18. He observes, "It is, however, inconceivable that those down-trodden, oppressed people, should have been allowed by Pharoah to possess arms, so as to turn out at a moment's notice 600,000 armed men." The Bishop takes a great deal of trouble to prove that the word "chamushim" signifies " armed." Now, we do not deny that the word " chamushim" signifies " armed," not of course in the Bishop's sense, which means all kinds of weapons neces- sary for a battle, (of which nothing is said in scripture) ; but what it signifies is merely that they were prepared. They could have been prepared with sticks, clubs, azes. and other such things which they could take with them, without exciting suspicion. If the Bishop could have witnessed the revolution of Hun- gary in 1848, he would have seen how people can be prepared to meet an enemy without the use of weapons in such a sense 78 .s L. supposes the I-Ute. .c. f^^^^^^^^^^ ^.t^rthat'tll the 600,«00 ...e„ ot' ^^^JZP^J^^ .ven to arm a portion '^^C^'^^,.,^ slavery, an easy task since tlie tribes ot ^?\'J"^ J themselves as and it would have be^ne^y for .h « to P-p.re^th^^ .^. _^^^ well as a portion of the other. "'^ ^^'g. ^ „ants us U, they had sueh arms f all. B-it th b p ^^^ ^^_^^^^ ,, believe " that the .oA* body of 600,ouu war _ ^^^^ and he attempts to prove it trom N.l. * ^^ the Bishop numbered unde^ Sinai." Now, we are sorry lor t, ^^^^p ixrrrfaf t^t SliHor/fUtfrr i"'"' ::: sSr^he VhS ctnt pt: s^ie nothin, is sai« about it in scripture. jjj Now, the numbering to which *« ^/f °P3battle, and was af..r they had conque-d A". 1|V '„ the^^^^^^^^^ b .^^ .^^^ Burely they could easily f '* P™™ ,, 4^;^ ^e must remem- from the conquered anj^. Besides a^M^h.s^^^^ ^^^ ^^ rdtlry hTellTlrtthnU an their weapons, and twch isrlel could make uae of in any time oi need. SEVENTH OBJECTION. A • ih^ ^\Whc^r^ ask'' " What did they eat the next day, . wh^Xfcr^^Ve RedSea? What on the next th»e rj Z;Z n„"iu4rii"of a^ishc^^ ^^l^^!^ out of Ksypt, Ex. !-• '*^-„""' ;,e his own words: what the cattle lived on ^^^^^^^„,fhU fen,ed another UlJt;tuVir:rr-lXra ^-h greater tract of 70 l^rotsnd in proportion to thoir number, as they would not marcTi of course in compact order. Hene« the drove must have iengthened out for many long miles. And such grass as there was, if not eaten down by the first ranks, must have been trodden under foot at once and destroyed, by those that fol- lowed them mile after mile. What then did those two mil- lions of siioep and oxen live upon during this journ«y from Kameses to Suecoth, and from Suceoth to Etham, and from Etham to the Rod Sea." P. ll(>, book L Now, the Bishop liimseif admits that there was grass ; but if not eaten down by the first ranks must have been trodden under foot at once, and destroyed by those that followed tb«m mile after mile. Now, supposing it was 60, the cattle would have enough (if not their till) to sustain life, Again, in chapter 12 the Bishop says: " The sheep and cattle of the Israelites in the Besert, and the children of Israel did eat liianna 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." E- 16: 35. " ThQ people^ we are told, were supplied with manna. But there was no miraculous provision of food for the herds and flocks. They were left to gatlicr sustenance, as they could„ iu that inhospitable wilderness. We will now go on to consider the possibility of such a multitude of cattle finding any means of support, for forty years, under these circumstances, "And, first, it is certain the story represents them as possess- ■ «V/ these flocks and herds (iuring the whole of the forty years which they spent in the wilderness. Thus, in the second year, IMoses asks, ' Shall the flocks and the herds be slain for them to suffice them !' N. 1 1 : 22. And in the fortieth year we read, ' The children of Reuben and the children of Gad, had a very great multitude of cattle,' N. 32 : 1. This, it is true is said immodiataly after the capture of a great number of cattle and sheep from the Midiaeiites, N. 31. But the spoil ill that case was divided among all the people. And, therefore, it the tribes of Reuben and Gad could still be distinguished among the rest, as having a great multitude of cattle, they must have been so noted before the plunder of the Midianites, Accordingly, we find that, at the end of the first year, they kept the second passover under oinai, N, 9: 5, and, therefore, ,cn.ayp.-e*ume,fiud at that time, .s Wore '200 f«0 mT. ZZVih. first year (69) at their commana, and two m.l Uons of sheep a..d oxen close at hand. ,ed, that all occasions specified m the liislor/. ir, i r^ \ ^^ which the story is silent altogether yet at ^J)^^ '^^^"^^ nearly twelve njonths, ' a yeaj- al ^J'^'^,'- ,^/ {.^thernacle _-they were all collected ^"f" ^^'^^^'^^Heh time the second ^as in Process of buiUm> at the end otj^l-^^^ ^^^^ Hence we 6nd the command in h. 3-t. i, ->eiuier flocks nor herds feed before that mou"'- ,f ,te country ■■ Lastly, it cannot b. F» ™^^J; f ^'^^^^rl^ ny umtcrial through which they travelled has under ne y ^^^^ there any water to dnnh f^'f^-^\^' ^J.^ did iJuhvr it appears also Ibat the water irom the rock ma them as some Ime supposed ' ^f^'^''^ l\f'^^^^^^^^ T.l,nvnh tliv God who led thee through the gieat ana itn Wo :"derneL therein were fiery serpents and .corp,,on. and 81 drought and of the shadow of daath, through a land that no man passed through, and wher. no man dwelt ^ ,:;'\t Let us now see what Canon Stanley tells us : first, as to the nature of the country, through which the l^ost "t Israel must have marched from the Red Sea to Sinai, (Sinai and Pales- tine.) 'The wind drove us to shore-the shores ot Arabia and Asia. We landed in a driving sand-storm, and reached this place, Ayun-Musa, the wells of Moses. It ^^ %f ^"£ Lt, this plot of tamarisks, with its seventeen ^^Us Zt^emiZy L islandin the Jc.ert, and now used as the Richmond ot Suez, a comparison which chiefly serves to show what a place Suez itself must be. Behind that African i:ange lay Ji^gypt. with all its wonders,-the green fields of the Nile, the immense cities, the greatest monuments of human power and wisdom. On this Asiatic bide begins immediately a wide circle of level desert, stone and sand, free as air, but w ith no trace of human habitation or art, where they migl.t wander, as far as they saw, for ever and ever. And, between the two, rolled the deep waters of the Red Sea, rising and falling into the tides, w|nch, except on its shores, none of them couid have seen the tides of the |reat Indian Ocean, unlike the still dead waters of the Mediterranean Sea. • , . . , . - The day alter leaving Ayun, Musa was at .lo. within sigtit of the blue Chan nel of the Red Sea. But soon the Red Sea and all were lost in a sand-storm, which lasted the whole d.y. (I have retained the account of the sand-storm, chiefly oecause t seems to be a phenomenon peculiar to tins specia region. Van Egtnont, Niebhur, Miss Martineau, a^^l^ "^I^^^Vqir.nd was just as violent at the passage of a friend in 1«41, and aoain of another two months after, ourselves in 185u. ) Imaoine all distant objects entirely lost to viev. the sheets of sa.cf floating along the surface of the desert, like streains of w'aer, the vvhole ak filled with a tempest of sand, driving in vour face like sleet. ,. ■, ^ ..We were, undoubtcdl, , o.-^ the tr.ck of the EraeUtes; and we saw the spvin-, which w.ost travellers hAi.'^e U> U Marah, and the two valleys, one of whieh must al'"™' «^'- tainly, both perhaps i,. Elim. The general scenery .. e. her mmJnse plains [i. c, ba,-e and barren P >""»"* -';^;,;;^ latterly, a sacces^i-.n of watercourses (without wat.r exactly like the dry bed of a Spanish river. Thes. D-2 82 1 1 cullies araduallr brin- you into the heart of black and ^wl e n^untuins. Fo7 ihe n.os, par, , he d.sci v,:^ <^«<>- lllv bare. But the two rivals for Elnn are trin^cd »ith t efand shrub.. ,/.>,.' vegeMlon rre have^et ^nthej.^. First, there are the w.!d palms, suceessors to the "^ree score and en, not like those of Egypt or of pictures, but e ther dwarl hat is, trunkless, or else v^ivh savage, ^"•■•y/™"^' aiTbranches all dishevelled. Then there are the fe=\» '^^ tolrLks, here assuming snarled bough, and hoary heads on whose leaves is found what the Arabs call manna. Ib-rdly Teri tie wild acacia, but this is also tangled by xts desert growth into a thicket, the tree of the Burning Bush and the Shittim-nood of the tabernacle. "A stair of rock brou-ht us into a glorious wady, enclosed between red granite mountains, descending precipitously upon iheTands. I cannot too often repeat that 'l>ese wadys a e exactly like rivers, excrpt in having no '«<'«r; and u is this appearance of torrent, bod and banks, and "l*^' « '» 7, ^°°^^ for tributary streams, and at tintes even rushes and shrubs frinAn.- thei course, which gives to the whohmtdcnns a doMdru and thlnty a.pect,-^lgn^ of 'naler, u-ater, t"Xherl and not a lop I **,/,•' Here too began the curious 5i"ht of the mountains, streaked from head to foot, as nUhboTling streams of dark red matter poured over them iealh the i-ueous fluid sparked upwards, as they were heaved froi the ar-ound. The toad lay throu.h what seemed to be the ruit'and the cinders of mountains calcined to ashes, hkc the heaps of a gigantic foundry. P. 96-.1. .. There are at first sight many appearances, which, to an unoracticed eye, seem indications of volcanic agency. Bat tlTareall.it^. believed, illusory. The vast l-F. as of calcined mountaias, are only the detritus "'^ " Z''.;^;' fj stone formation. The traces of igneous .action in ''^ ?f^» '« rocks belong to their first upheaving, not to any/'''';^'-"'^ convulsions Everjwiere there are signs ol the action ot ■ water nowhere of fire." P. 22. Such, then, is the track Ilongwhich, according to the story, the two ">•''"<'"»/„ I;;"" lites had to pass with their twi millions of sheep and oxen. ^^ Why the Bishop quotes the sbove from "Stanley," find overlooks the foUowina he hirasolf knows : 8S t f l- e It )f k e- >» "The encampment by the Red Sea, between Elim and the wilderness of Sin, appears to be fixed beyond a doubt, (^tan. lev T) P 37 69.) Lwiving this point we are probab y correct if we imacvine the Israelites, after the interview with Jethro, to have gone up eastward into the central mass of mountainB, and that the fi^ht with Amalek took place on the Wady Zeirnn, from the end of which the Wady Esh Shetkhsv^ee^s round in a vast semi-circle, northward, eastward, and south- ward and thus forms a solemn approach to the plain desig- nated as the scene of the Giving of the Law No one c.n read descriptions of the cliffs and summits which surround the spot without perceiving that they are fit to be, as we beheve them to be, th'^ awiul and magnificent propufloea of Jewish "'"After leaving Sinai, the Israelites, as we have said, were no lonoer a horde of slaves, but already an organized people. We are far more at fault, however, in tracing their wanderings henceforward than previously. If we could have the at^sistance of Hobad the Midianite he v.ould be to us^ ''instead ot eyes, forasmuch aB he knew how travellei-s were to encamp m the wilderness. But until the limestone plateau ot tt-tih, with its various wadys, is thoroughly explored, we must be content to see a cloud rest on the wandering of the lorty years. It is only when we approach the mountains on the southern and eastern sides of the Daad Sea and the country beyond the Jordan, that we begin to l^'-^f ,^ ^^^^^^^^^^ another of the regions in which the Holy His ory was enacted, another part of the frame work which encloses the Holy Land, The district beyond the Jordan is, as has been remarked, less fully known to us than the Peninsula of Sinai. We must indeed except Petra and the Idumcean country, which since the time of Bnrckhardt have been constantly visited by travellers who take the larger route from Egypt to Palestine. But the regions which ae to the north-east of Idumoean are still very inadequately explor(!d. Theif v:ere mt v'ldted hy Stanley, nor did IJr. Robinson enter them on either of liis joui;n,?ys, with the exception of one short excursion on which he was accom- panied by V^ande Velde in search ot the site of Hella. A RtiU more recent traveller, Roth,iias died Pi'^^V''*'''' uP' w the notes which he had collected«re not yet fully pubhshed. 84 be premature, till the whole S'"ai '« f^^'™ ^^^ -^ ^^^^ say that no shadow of doubt rests on t'-f^^ ^^„^^ re- to us that the level spaee fi=.ed on by Robinson, -^"^ ™= . examined by Stanley, sr.ffioientl, »f «f ^ "" !^ ^^nd in the t,.ca.e. Here is extent -ongh 'n .^ .feaaites, here wadys opening out of it tor "'« «»;= " , , j „,ouud, in is thi "7f 7,it-::,t';fy*re Cse^^ 1o«n the sight of all the assemoiy , n" "• ti,e cause ; apd hear the tumult of the people ^^^o^^^'^lt of v:ater. 'i^-rnof r^rarth; ^;:uC. Honnee.^ ritstrsri::gf th^rd\::r:-d L moSn. *"now the wilderness at that time -'^Jom...^J^^rr^ many parts, but »o^ -'---'^i:;; "^0110! „'' " ^- -''^^ Irom btanley 1. e. J'-c^ „^^ rnntlrnr of vcaetntton, and anight almost he .af atmnspa,^t coumg »/ «3 ^^^^,^ ^^^ -^^:^rtSgtheq-fnj^ about a days' journey froni «- -u^i-cast of Si- w.^ cam^ to a thick wood of tamansks ""^ fom ^ ot"re«>nt travellers ^hieh pastured there. Most_ acoount liecu t 85 T in the scripture for tie support of the cattie, «nd '^<='•J°°lf need water as well as ,veeD food,") «' ^re it .ays .n O^e 2Ut V. of 16th ehap. Ex." And they gathered " ^/fYJ"™;",^ every man aeeording to his eating, and when the eun wazea hot, it melted," Rashi on this says,/ The »»g^*'>«;'f " *X melted and became brooks of water enough to support the "'trthis verse establishes the fact that the ungatJ,ered manna which was melted added not only to ^^f, »;*^"""°" ^; Ae cattle, but also increased the vegeta ion of '^^ "''''^ "J;', by its moisture. And, we have reason »<> b^^''.^?^*^' » ™^? for this very purpose the Israelites were ^--b ^de \ t^g^^^er more than an on.er for every man. We would call " «^/ attention of the reader to the above, and all the ditheulties will be at once overcome. ElOnin OBJECTION. The Bishop's difficulty about " The number onhe first born compared with the number of "'"'o adults. All he n born males, from a month old and upwards, of '^oso U at wer numbcred,'were twenty and two thousan w und ed and threescore and thirteen, J;f -b°'f -^^^'^^^^f ^X"t.l. these nmst have had one or oth«r of the -2.-73 as^^e borr, of his own family.-eKept of course any «^«;^ ' 'f "j^,, Lt-born of any fan.ily was a daughter, or was dead, oi wlucU we shall speak presently. , , ,, . .-Jo .„ .. And these were not the firstborn on the father s side, as Michael supposes, so that a man might have "-"J^^^/^^f^ many children, but only one first-born, as ^^^^^ "^^^^ ^'^ Jacob himself. They are expressly stated '» ''^ ^ ,f"'" " . firstborn on the mother's side,-- all the fifBt-lx" ' «'^' "^^ eth .he matrix,' note 3, 12. So that according t" '1'° ^'^ in the Peutatench, every mother of Israel must have luut on the average forty-two sons. „ t^ i " How then is this difficulty to be explained ? I^^rtz says .. . wlmust enquire whether there are no other t^eans (than that suggested b] Miehaelis, which the Scrip.urewiU not allow, as Kurtz admits of explaining the ,ave been enormously increased and, as he «»y.«/'"'««lf' f,'"/?^.^^^^ Ct tM.tU colossal For, in that case, if a man had hau tour S, ndTad had b; each of them, he must have had on the average forty-two sons by each. So '>>""• '''VHonffdoes amv, (which indeed Kurtz assumes without a proof,) does Xtall help to lessen the difficulty "1^^^ «f ^""/ '"„ ^ "norediblo statement, that every mother ot Israel had, on the «TTornap. fort-two male children." »7 2nd. *' A Bccond is the large number of children to whom the Israelitish mothers gave birth." , Answer. " This again, is assumed without proof, or rather directly in the face of all the facts which are given us, by which to judge of the 8ize of the Hebrew famibe« We have no reason whatever to suppose, from the data, which we find m the Pen- tateuch, that the mothers of Israel were prolific in any unusual Does the Bishop really mean to say, that nothing is found in Scripture, that the Israelites were prolific when the 7th verse of the Ist chapter of Exod. distinctly tells us " And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly and multiplied, and waxed exceedingly mighty, and the land w^s filled with them." (German.) -Aber die sohne Israels waren fruchtbahr, vervielieltigten, und vermehrten s.ch und wurden stark uber maascn schr, und dasland ward yoll von ihnen. Surely, the language of both these is expressive enough, that there must have been an unusual degree ot prolificness among the Israelites, and more so, if we look into the original. Any Hebrew scholar will see at once that this language expresses an extraordinary prolificness among the l^^raelites, and as Benson remarks, " like fishes or insects as one of the words here used signifies." But, did the Bishop ever take notice of these words, '' a mixed multitude went up also with them," Exod. 12: 28. The idea which we will bring forth out of the above quota- tion may appear strange at first sight to the Bishop and to many readers, but will after all establish its veracity by pay- iuo- a little more attention to it. • . -41 .u^ There is no doubt that the Hebrews intermarried with the Eo-yptians while in Egypt. The first we read of in Gen. 41 : 45 when Joseph was married to Asenath daughter of Poti- ^'igaiif [it dLl^y stated in ExocL 6 : 25 that Elea^r Aaron's soon took him one of the daughters of Putiel to wife The word '' Ereb rab " (a mixed multitude) can also mean that these were a mixture of descendants of Hebrews Egyp- tians and others. But even experience will prove this fact, for wo find among the Jews here and there, heads and ooun- I 8S tenances of African complexion, their ^f ^.-^^^^^^^^^^^^^ laces of a dark colour. And who kn^ws tbat but or tMs ve y reason, the mixed multitude m Exod. 38 : /2' ^J, f '^^^^^^^^^ after the stateu.ent of the previous ^^^«\^!f ^ ,'\^^ J^^^Jber 60U,000 men are given, to show the Possibility o that numb r Recent discoveries among the Jews in t^^^"^„ ^^^^^^^ places show us the existence of great numbers of Jews o^ a Pect African colour. This view -^ .^f^^P^f ^^^^^^^ Lxed multitude consisted «f/"^^', ^^^^ .^^J ^f J'^e why direct line out of the loins of Jacob, (and i do noi seo w jr ^otado;"^ there is nothing in Scripture again.t it), all the Bishop's difficulties will vanish at once^^^^^ the direct descendants of '^-^-\J^\:\'^^:tt"n w h t^em all down to Egypt, they must ^^jt^;^^^^/^^;;,\^^^^^^^ their cattle, their maid-servants and !J^^,^;«f.^^^^.^f 'J^,^^ fit for war, and trained We know that Abraham had 318 f^'^vants fit »o^ '^ therefore, to arms. His nomadic household must hav^econ^m^^^^^^ ^^^^ , more than a thousand souls. .J^^^^nfv manservants and maid- brought with him from Syria so "^^J^y^^^'f^'S of an attack servants, and so much wh^recattle that he was aha^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ from Esau, he divided them into l^^.^''^''l\^^^^^^ of those, these, then, we are justified in ^«f "^^"^^^^^.^^ij J^'tedTo his 66 chil- who went jpitli Jacob into Egypt, was not 1^°"^^ ^ ^^ "^^^ ^en. Ir': an».children but eon^-t.d of^seve al thousand^me ^^ servants and maid-servants. ^^^^^'^ «:^,^^"'^;"^, ^^^ descendants of down into Egypt with Jacob." Professor Herschfclder remarks : contributed to give « There are various causes which may nave ^" . j ^^e BO small a number of fi^'^^-born at the first numbeiing first place, I remark that many f^rst-bornmu.t have uee when Pharaoh ordered the first-born to ^'^^ '^^.^^^'J^^^Tvhen an ;hat a providential -cape Moses had from infant. Secondly, many of the fi'^^^'J;'^"}. ,^ "^^ admits, page 144, the Urst numbering took place. Dr. ^^olenso aamu^ b . ihat such may have been the case, tl'«"gh he says, it would ^y m 811 Tho foUovring bas been furnished me by Professor Fliimp* of Hannlton : — ^^In the fourth Generation tkeu shall come hither agam,- - Gen. xv. 1 6- . The twelve son« of J-^|>;f -;,rtb\^Cran '^^^^^L^ bad between them '^^ ?'>'^'^^^J'^ }'^l^^^^^^^^^^^ generation to Luld be 54 males, (according to \^« ^*«^[' ^^ \^'„'t'^' ^jtLut since Er and Onan died in the L«md of ^""7"' 'ii^jVd that of issue,) in the •econd, that of Amram ^.;^,3,-in iht th^a t ^^^ Moses and Aaron 1,094,-and in \^«/o"^^^' *^,*'^^X« in the Eleazar, 4.&23 ; that is to «^Vrf ?ten 5 00 "^ D^^^^^^^^ prime of life, there could not have been 5,000. vu v^ Pentateuch, p. 163 Po\».nso's well known acuteness, the correctness of data they do not tuhy ^^^^^^^^^^^iL^'ft-om this, the terms supplied. Dr. Colenso's erro.- ^^^^^f.^^^^^.TlLce his ap- He does not understand tU. term l^i^^lTlnsi^n^^^^^^ prehension of the premises being false, his conclusions are Barily wrong. „. . » gincle succession Sphraim's children of the ""'l.f """ '5"' ,l™ied, he, »ith the lion here meaning single family. T''' •'"f P» "''"(j^^'^^tion of would be the generation of their reapecu vc y & > Urof »a/«.,h"t th"-e ^vould be ^ «"t;^?^° X^fmany wive., and ber of the first-born. Fourthly, a man ™'^^« "r; ^^ first-born, children by ea^h of "''^■". ,V"' ^, "° "^^a"Sw MTcbaelis and the mother's side." I ^2 ^i tc^^ \rv^ O^. \^^S. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) W.r y.x 1.0 I.I :^ 1^ 12.0 ill 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 •4 6" — ► p> * 7 f^. \> > % ' ^ # > c^- <*. V ^ (9/1 Photographic Sciences Corporation % '^^ 23 WEST MAIN 5TREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 90 on. Joshua, though in the fourth generation, of those who came into Canaan, was in the tenth generation from Joseph, 1 Chron, Chap, vii, 22-27, bearing in mind that generation, in the first instance is used of succeeding famiiies inclusive, but in the latter of one family only. From not keeping the above in view, Dr, Colenso has fallen into the stupendous fallacj', of asserting that (here could not have been of the Israelites 5Dt)0 warriors in the prime of life at the period of the Exodus from Egypt. First, He says, pa^e 167 : The Scriptures implv no Euch fecun- dity either in Gen. 46, o» in Ex. 6, or in Ex. i. 19,' where the mid- wirer say of the Hebrew women, " they are delivered ere the mid- ■wives come in unto them." He has either overlooked or wiliully omitted, Ex. i 7. And the children of Israel were fruitful and increard •abundantly, and multiplied and waxed exceedingly mighty and the land was filled with ihem. Second, That the increase of the Israelites in Egypt must not be limited to the ratio oi* 4^ to each of the four generations or 3^ as instanced in the family of Levi, Ex, i. 9, fully shews, " And he (Pharaoh) said unto his people, behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mighter than we." Question. Could this have happened under the ordinary ratio Off the four generations Kohath, Amram, Moses, Joshua, as applied by Dr. Colenso, who forgeta that each of these generations wer» composed of several families, and the ratio 4^ ought to be applied to the single family and not to the generation composed of several familieg. * Answer. Females in Egypt arrive at puberty much earlier than the naiives of colder climates. Many marry at the age of twelve or thirteen years, and some remarkably precocious girl* are married at the age of ten. Few remain unmarried after six- teen years of age. An Egyptian girl at the age of thirteen or even earlier may bis a mother.— Lane's Egypt, Chap. 6, Domestic Life. The women of E^pt are very prolific, two, three, four and even five children having been the offspring of one birth. The chil- dren of Israel displayed greater fecundity than the Egyptians, or in what sense are we to take the words, " The children of Israel are moro and mightier than we." But it is not necessary to assume any extraordinary increase, tak- ing Dr. Colenso's own data 4J, which, as I have shewn, he misap- plies to generations instead of to families. He says, " The twelve sons of Jacob had between them 5;i sons, that is oh the average 4^ each." Applying i t to one family, not one gt-neration.— Puge iG.i. He ought to iiave said, 51, for, as he afterwards observes, Kr and Onan died in the hind of CanHan, therefore only 51, were progeni- tors, of the Israelites where as, he uses the maltiplier 53— and his numbers 24:i, LlP4 and 4.923, ought to have been 23yi, 1032i and 4647J. 91 But returning to his own data of 4i to a family, or 3 J as derived from Levi, and assuming 4 as the mean of increase, am. that there were seven generations of Jacob's 8on8,(succes8ive families is here meant) then we have by the principles of Geometrical Progrei- ■ion ; 4T I 51=4 X4x4x4x4x4x4x51 So that the first family from descendants of Jacob's sons Egypt would consist of 204 males, according to Colenso 243 The Second consists of 816 1 according to Colenso 1094 la (( Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh u (I (( i( (( (( (( 4923 3264! 13.056! 52,224 1 208 896 832.834 nearly 1.000.000 which will agree with Dr. Colenso's data of allowing 30 years to a generation, for 215 years divided by 30 years gives *l \ genera- tions. And having deducted 1-2 from ratio and 1-6 from number of terms or generations we may safely write down one million, which will agree with the statement in Exodus. Out of his own mouth, then, is Dr. Colenso convicted of error. NfKTH OBJECTION. The Bishop in chapter 20 assumes that all the varioas sacrifices were offered during the forty years sojourn in the wilderness, and he spends a j^ood deal of ink and paper, but he cannot bring forth a positive assertion that such really was the case. Tlie difficulty with the Bishop is, how the Jews could provide the different birds for sacrifice in the wilderneps. Now, here again we can say, that any Jewish child would laugh at such an assertion, for, it is an established fact that no regular sacrifices took place during their stay in the wilder- ness. Surely, if they did not observe circuraaisioa m the wilderness, neither would they observe sacrifices. On this subject we would recommend the reader to see Prof. Hershfelder's remarks on page 163. A couple of years in a Jewish seminary would do the Bishop good. FJLJP^I! SEOOISTX). OHAPTER I. COLENSO'S CIIITICAL OBJECTIONS nESPECTING JEHOVAH AND ELOniM — IN HIS OWN WOKDS. Bishop Colenso states his arguments as follows :— " In the story of the Exodus we read as follows.— 'And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah. And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto J{?ccb by the name of God Almighty (El Shaddai), but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage, and I have remembered my covenant. Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am Jehovah. And I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and 1 will redeem you with a stretched out arm and with great judgment. And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God. And ye shall know that 1 am Jehovah youT God which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land, con- cerning the which I did swear to give it, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, and I will give it to you for an heritage. I am Jehovah.' Ex. 6 : 2, 8. "The above passage cannot as it seems to me, without a per- version of Its obvious meaning,— the meaning which would be ascribed to it by the great body of simple-minded readers, who have never had their attention awakened to the difficulties, in which the whole narrative becomes involved thereby—be ex- plained to say anything else than this, that the name Jehovah, D3 Was not known at ail to the Patriarchs, hut was now fbr the first time revealed as the name by which the God of Israel would be henceforth distinguished from all other Gods* So Proft Lee aOjnits, who in his Hebrew Lexicon explains the word Jeho7ah to be the most s:.cred and unalienable name of God* Unknown, however, to the Patriarchs, it is not, therefore, more ancient m all 'probability than the time of Moses. And so jJosephus writes, Ant. 2 : i 2, 4. Wherefore God declared to him (Moses) Fis holy name, which had never been discovered to men before* But then we come at once to the contra* dictory fact, that the name Jehovah is repeatedly used in the earlior parts of the story, throughout the whole book of Genesis* And It IS not merely employed by the writer, when relating simply as an historian, in his own person, events of a morO ancient date, in which case he migl)t be supposed to have ihtro- duced the word, as having become, in his own day, after having been thus revealed, familiar to himsolf and to his readers; l-at it IS put into the mouth of the Patriarchs themselves, as Abraham 14 : 22 ; Isaac 26 : 22 ; Jacob 28 : 16. '' Nay, according to the story, it was not only kr n to these but to a multitude of others, to Eve 4: 1, and Samuel v. 29> before the Flood, and to Noah, after it 9 : 26 j to Sarai 16:2; Rebecca 28 : 7 ; Leah 29 : 35 } Rachel 30 : 24 ; to Laban also, 24 : 27 ; even to heathens, as Abimelech, the Philistine King of Gerar, his friend, and his chief captain, -Q i 28. And» generally, we are told that as early as the time of Enos, the son of Seth, ' then began men to call upon the name of Jeho* vah,'4: 26, though the name was already known to Eve» according to the narrative, more than two centuries before. " The recognition of the plain meaning of E. 6 : 2-8, such as that quoted above from Prof. Lee, (a writer of undoubted othodoxy) would be enough at once to decide the question as to the Mosaic authorship of the Pantateuoh* If the name originated in the days of Moses, then Moses himself, certainly, in writing the story of the ancient Patriarchs, would not have put the name into their mouths, much less into those of heathen men, nor could he have found it so ascribed to them in an older document. Prof. Lee's view^ therefore, would require us to suppose that, if Moses wrote the mam story of the Exodus, and of his own awful communications with God as well as the Elohistie portions of Genesis, yet some oth« 94 writer must have inserted the Jeh^vistk passages, l^at then t^mi?r''''f '/^^"' ^"^"''^^^ writers^hould have dared Lmdv?'J ^^r^K,"^ distinctionjus own additions with a TJnt7n ^^T^' ^"^ "^T^^ ''' «"^ ^^i«h had actually been written by the hand of Moses. The interpolator n'ust hare known that the older document was not written by Moses^ and had no such sacred character attached to it. cShibltdTn'^ tK Tl- '^ ' '•^^«'^«'^i"g' these discrepancies is exhibited in the following passage from Kurby, p. 101. 'It is not expresslj said that the name Jehovah was nn- tXrrohf " 'a t'. '^ ^^^«^-' b"^ "-rely that^ n he of Sri^f^ age, God had not revealed the fullness and depths of His Nature, to which that name particularly belonged/ "And so writes Kalisch. E. 6 : 2,3.-The only possible ex- niThtn"''i^^''/'r^J '""^^^ to-'Myname"wAhas not been understood and comprehended by the Patriarchs in IS essence and depth/-al though it wasfetrn in tMs thie already occasionally mentioned. II ^\mT.nt'^ fp^'u^'f^^ '" assumption made only to get over !ll f ' J'^ If Abraham made use of the name Jehovah at a^l, then God was known to him in the same measure, in some measure, in sonie sense or other,^by that name, if n^t kn^wn BO perfectly as by the Israelites in latter days,' If the pS archs employed the name at all, it could scarcely haveCn Mid I appeared unto them by the name, El Shaddai, l,ut by when we read such words as these : 'Abram believed in Jehovah, and ho counted it to htm for nghteousness. And he *aid unto him, I am Jehovak that b^ought thee out of Ur, of the Chaldee, 'to give thee tht land to inherit It ' Gen. 15:6. 'I am Jehovah, the God of Abra- ham thy father and the God of Isaac, the I'and, whereon thou hest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed &c. And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, &c.,X S JtUvah he my God, Gen. 28 ; 13, 21.' TpW?k^ ''k-T ^^^.^^' Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, Jehovah, which saidst unto me &c. Gen, 32 : 9. Could ot^^^'' *'^Tf ^" ^'^''^^^ -^ ^o 15 • 15 in G. 22: 20, 24^ 33 in G. 25 : 1, 15^ 70 in G. 46- in all 147 names, and in the last of these passages we have Israel, Lemuel>^ Iahleel> Machiel> lahzeel ; but in not a single in- stance is miy Of these names coinpounded with the word \Jehovah. "Again, in N. 1 : 5, 15, among 24 new names there are 9 compounded with Elohim,— ii^ezur, Pagic?, Shelumie/, Ne» thanic^, Eli-dh, £:^ishma, Gamalie/, ^/lasaph, T)Qx\el,~nt)t ona • with JehoviL Again, in the list of spies, N, 13 : 4, 15. out of 24< other new names, 4 are compounded with Eiohim> — Gaddie?, Ammiei?, Michae?, Gene7, none with Jehomh^ And m the list t)f those who ai-e to divide the land by lot, N, 34: 19, 28, we have seven other names compounded with El,-1 Shemur/, ^^idad, Hannit^, Kemue?, i;^izaphan, Palhd, Pcdahf7> ^-mne with Jehovah. Also in Jo. 15, we have six names of towns compounded with EK-Jabnec7, Kabse^^, Joktee/. Jezrec?, iJ^toled, £7tekon>— besides the man Othnic/, but not wre with Jehovah. ''Some of the passages just quoted are, undoubtedly, Elohistic, others may be, and in fact, as we shaH see hereafter, are, most probably Jehovistic. ^ "But, however, this may be, the argument derived from them IS decisive against the historical veracity of those portions of Genesis,^ which represent the name Jehovah as being all a lonsr as familiar in the mouths of men as the word Elohini. Tiiey do more than this, they suggest also that even in th^ time of the Jehmist, if he lived in a latter age than the Elohist, the word Jehovah was not in very common use among the people, 60 as to be frequently employed in the composition of the names of their children* Otherwise, as he has introduced here and there, such names as were common in bis own time! compounded with Jehovah. • "The above is said,assuming that it has already l^een sufficiently shown, that there is no reason to suppose that the details of the story of the Exodus, including the list of (he names &c are historically true. Otherwise, it might, of course, be oroue'd 9T that the very fact, that no such Jehovistic names occur in tho whole narrative, is it itself a strong indication of the truth- fulness and historical reality of the record. But then how can the absence of suoh names be recoaciled with the statement that in the time of Enos, men 'began to call upon the name of Jehovah,' or with the perfect familiarity with that name which according to the Jehovistic portions of Genesis, existed in all ages ? If so many names were formed, before the times of Moses, compounded with Ei, how is it not one, throughout the whole book of Genesis is compounded with Jehovah, on the supposition that this Name was known and used so freely from the first ? *' In fact, if only one such name, e. g., lochebed, really existed in the age before Moses, it is obvious that it would only have been a type of a multitude of others which must have been in use in those days, but of which w« find no sign in the Pentateuch, ** As it is, there are only the names of two persons throughout the whole of the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua which are compounded with Jehovah, viz : that of Joshua himself (of whom it is expressly recorded Num. 13 : 16, that Moses changed his name from Oshea to Jehoshua) and, probably, that of Ichabod, the mother of Moses. Bat the very fact of the occurrence of this latter name, as a salutary instance of the fjrni3 so common in later days being used in these early times, is itself a very strong indication, that the passages in which it occurs, Exod. 6 : 20, Num. 26 : 59, may be ' iterpolations, tlie product of a later age than that even of the Jehovist. We shall find this suspicion confirmed as we proceed. For the present, it will be enough to say that it seems very strange that, if the names of the father and mother of Moses were known to the writer of the account of his birth in Exod, 2, they should not have been there mentioned at the first, instead of its baing stated quite vaguely, " There went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi." " Very different is the result however, if we examine the Chronicles, and quite in consistency with what we have ob- served already of the 'character of this book. Here we find Azariah, 1 Chron. 2: 8, in the third generation from Judah. Nay, the wife of Judah's grandson, Hezron, who went down E with Jacob into Egypt, is Abiah, 2 : 24, and Hezron's grand- Eon is Abijah, 2 : 25, and Judah's grandson is Reaiah, 4 : 2, and another of his early descendants is Jonathan, 2 : 32. So Issachar's grandson is Rephaiah, 7 : 2, and his great grandson is Abiah, verse S, and among the early descendants of Levi are Joel, 23 : 8, Rehabiah, verse 17, Jeriah and Arnariah, verse 19, and Jesiah, verse 20. The first cousins of Moses, Jesiah's «on Zechariah, 24 ; 25, and Jaaziab, verse 27, and we have actually Bethiab, the daughter of Pharoah, 4 r 18, apparently the Egyptian King. So among the ancestors of Samuel him- self are Joel, Azariah, Zephaniah, d: 36, which, however appears as Shaul, Uzziah, Uriel, verse 24, and among those of Asaph and Ethan, David's contemporaries, are seven others, whose names are compounded with Jehovah. ' " In short, such names abounded in these early days, accord- ing to the chronicler, just as freely as in latter days, from the age of Jacob's great-grand-children downward, iiefore that age no such names are given even by the chronicler, while, among the hundreds of names mentioned in the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, down to the time of the conquest of Ca- naan, there are only to names of this kind, Joshua and lochc- bed. It is scarcely possible to doubt that the chronicler has simply invented these names. He has, apparently copied the earlier names from the Pentateuch itself, down to the age of Jacob's grandsons, and a h^R of their children. But, there, it would seem, his authority failed him, and for the rest he had to draw upon his own resources, and, according, he has inserted many names compounded with Jehovah, which were familiar to himself in later days. "In fact the argument obviously stands thus. Either the name, Jehovah, was first revealed, according to the story, in the time of Moses, or it was known long before that age, from the very first, from the time of Eve, Gen. 4 : 1, or of Enos, when '' men began to call on the name of Jehovah," Gen. 4 ; 26. If, then it was first made known in the time of Moses, how can we account for so many names appearing in the Chronicles, of persons who lived before that age, which are compounded with Jehovah, to say nothing of the name itself being so freely put into the mouths of all kinds of persons, in the Jehovistic portions of the Book of Genesis ? If, on the other hand, the statements in Gen. 4 : 1, 26, are true, then, _/ > r DD -i » as names compounded with Elohim, were common enouf?h, how is it that none are found compounded with Jehovah till more than 2,000 years after the time of Enos, appearing fir«t, but thf»n, according to the chronicler, as plentifully as in far later times, in the age of Jacob's great-grandchildren ? *' If indeed such names had first appeared after the time re- ferred to in Exod. 3 : 6, wc might have supposed that then, by the republication of the nxme, a fresh impulse was given, iW its being freely used among the people. But the Ohronioler's data forbid such a supposition according to him, the name first began to be used freely, in the composition of nameSf' amongst Jacob's great grandchildren, while they were, we rau8t suppose, miserable slaves in the land of Egypt. However, tho fictitious character of the Chronicler's statements is sufficiently shown by the fact, that in the very age, in which he gives so many of these names, tho Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua, amidst their numerous additional names, furnish not one of this kind, except, as before, Joshua and lochebed. "It should be observed that the inference, which may be fairly drawn from the fact abcvc stated is two fold : *' 1st. That main portions of the Pentateuch and Book of Joshui were composed bfeore the name Jehovah had been long in such familar uses, as to be freely employed in the formation of proper names. " 2nd. That they were probably not written in the later ages, to which miiiy eminent critics are disposed to assign them, — were not written for instance after the age of Solo- mon, or even after the latter part of David's life, when propor names compounded with Jehovah began to be common, as the history shows, and, therefore, they would most likely have crept into the text. Thus we have David's sons, Adonijah, and Shephadiah, 2 Sam. 3 : + ; Jedidiah, Solomon's other name, 12: 25; Jonadab, David's nephew, 13 : 3; Jonathan theson of Abiathar, 15 : 27 ; Benaiah, Jehoiada, and Jehosha- phat, 20 : 23, 9A ; another Benaiah, Jonathan, Uriah the Hittite, 23; 30,32, 39." We have thus devoted this chapter to giving Colenso's argument in his own words. CHAPTER II. NAMES OP THE MESSIAH IM THE OLD TESTAMENT.— -PR?:. PARATORY STATEMENT. M. .Tehovaii. In the Book of " Eeha-Rabathi," fol. 59 the question is asked : What is the name of the Messiah ? Kabbi Abba ben Chanania replies : Jehovah is His name, as It 18 written : "And this is his name by which he shall be called: Jehovah our righteousnesfi. Again in Midrash Tehi- hm, fol. 40, the 10th verse the 35th chap, of Isaiah is thus commented : " And the redeemed of Jehovah shall return, and come to >5ion with shouting and everlasting oladness upon their heads, this means the redeemed of the Mesiah. T ?• }!^^^^^- (I^o^^O'S or The Word.) Gen. 36 : 3 ; •' And I shall be with thee," says the Targum, '' my Memra shall sup- port thee.-' ^ Gen. 39 : 2 ; "And Jehovah was with Joseph " the translation of the Targum is, ''And the J/cmm of God was m the assistance of Joseph." Exod. 3 : 8 • " And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the E-yptians "the Targum says, "By my Memra I will deliver them out of Egypt. Num.23: 21; "Jehovah his God with him: and uie shouting of a king in him," which Jonathan Ben Lsiel translated; '; The M<^ra of God is their help, and the trumpet of king Messiah shall be heard amon«^ them." The largum Onkeios, however, says: "The Memra of God is their help, and the Sheldna of their king among them."* 1^1' ^}^^^ -""'tv ' ^i"^ ^^°'^ ^^ *he Lord came unto Abraham " ?nrhiZif' r *t- ^''^ place ^vhere God is represented as reveal- ing himself by his word. Some learned mL suppose that the delar Jehovah translated here word of the Lord, means the same with the -Koyos rov 9,ov of St. John, ch. 11, and by the Chaldee pharaphrases in the next clause called (meomeri) my word, and mother places meimera daiya, the word of Yea a contraction for ini''n?r''i'K'^ ^'^ ^^P"^"" ^'^^y« *° ^°^«ider as a person The will of God has been revealed in different ways, 1st Bv a Dersonal Again the same writer remarks on v. 1, chap. 22 : " I wish once for all to remark, though the subject has been referredrbefore! 1 * ; » r ' • 101 3. Shekina. Wherever the word " Chebod Jehovah," the "glory of Jehovah" transpires in the old Testamer.t, tho Targnim translates it Shekina, a word which si^^nifies the revealed, or rather visible God — Grod manifested in the flesh ■r— because the root of the word Shekina is " shaken," to dwell. They derived this title from Exod. 24: 16; "And the glory of Jehovah ^itwe^i upon Mount Sinai." Deut, 31 : 3 ; " And Jehovah thy God shall go before thee," Jonathan Ben Usiel translates : " And the Manra of God, \\U Shekina, shall go before thee." 4. Hakadosh Barucii Hu. (The Holy One, blessed be he.) This we find in Sohar upon Genesis, fol. 63 ; ''And the king Messiah, who shall also be called, the Holy One, blessed be He." 5. Zebaoth. Sohar upon Exodus fol. 4, speaking of the 7th verse of the 2nd chapter of the Songs of Solomon : •' I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, (which is in Hebrew Zebaoth) and by the hinds of the field," he says, this means the king Messiah who is called, Zebaoth.^ that the Chaldee term meimsra, which we translate word, is taken personally in some hundreds of places in the Targuns. When the author Jonathan speaks of the Divine Being as doing or saying anything he generally represents him, as performing the whole of his memra, which he appears to consider not as a speech or a word spoken, but as a person quite distinct from the Most High. St. John uses the word Xoyos in precisely the same sense with the Targumists. Chap. 1., 1. See Clarke. * The term Zebaoth, usually rendered hosts, in connection with other names of God, occurs iirst 1 Sam. 1 ; 3 ; and then it occurs eleven times in Samuel, four times in Kings, and three times in Chronicles. Most frequently this tern? occurs in three prophets ; in the first, Isaiah, 55 times, in Jeremiah 76 times, and 8 times in Amos. Then it occurs once in Hosea, once in Michah, once in Nahum. orcein Habakuk, twice in Zephaniah, six times in the second Isaiah, and fourteen times in Psalms. From the fact that Zebaoth, in connection with the other names of God, never occurs in the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Judges, but so many times in Samuel and the other books, it is evident that neither Samuel nor any writer posterior to him could be the author of the Pentateuch. The term Zebaoth was added to the name of God in opposition to Zebaism, the worship of the stars and the forces of nature, to denote that God is the creator and governor of all the celestial hosts and the forces of nature. But there is no need of conjec- tures where we have positive definitions. Jeremiah defined this 102 C. Son op God. The Medrash Ralbah on Exodus fol. 133, says : Jii future all nations shall bring presents to the ^ing Measiah, and God will say to hirn : Take from them ; as it is written: "Princes shall come out of P]<^ypt, Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God. Psalms 68 : 31 And also, <• Kiss the Son, lest he be angry," Psalms 2 : 12. Also, Prov. 30: 4; "Who has ascended up into heaven and term thus : " Thus saith God who giveth the sun (to be) the light of the day, the laws of the moon and the stars, (to be) the light of the night, who ruffles the sea that its waves roar, Jehovah Zebaoth IS his name. Jer, 35 : 35. Here we have the Lord of nature's forces and nature's laws, as Isaiah says : "And I (God) command of all the host thereof (of heaven,) (Isaiah 45 : 12,) as the Levites in after times praised God :" Thou art God alone, thou hast made the heaven, and the heaven of heavens, and all the hosts thereof the earth and all that is upon it, the seas and all that is in them' and thou sustainest them all, and the host oi heaven worship thee." Nehemiah9: 6. This id ;a is most beautifully described by a late Psalmist (Ps. 148). So we have here the same doc- trines of God, as we have noticed in the second Isaiah, condensed with the other prophets in two words Jehovah Zebaoth. Also, against the superstition of astrology, the prophet Jeremiah enters his loud protest. He savs- '• Thus saith God, learn not the way of the heatnens, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the Heathen are dismayed at them, because the laws of the heathen are vain," &c., (Jer. 10; 2.) After the prophet has more power- fully contrasted Zebaism and Astrology with the true doctrine of God, (Ibid) from v. 3 to 15, he concludes, " Not such is the portion of Jacob, for he is the former of all things, and Israel is the tribe of his inheritance, /e/iovtfA Zebaoth is his name, (v 16 > Similar passages are in nearly all the other prophets, and in many Psalms which will convince the reader of the correctness of our hypothesis' on the term Zebaoth and the prophetic doctrines of God. ' It must appear strange that the term Zebaoth never occurs in lizekiel, who lived in the midst of professed " Zebaists He only sets the term Jdonai in the place of Zebaoth. In the more an- cient portions of the Bible, especially in the Pentateuch, the term ^donai IS little used, and then always as an address to God, in the vocative case. The first who makes frequent use of this term and in other cases IS Isaiah the same prophet who first brought the term Zebaoth in vogue. Ezekiel, however, has several times in nearly every chapter and in different cases Jldonai Jehovah, a figure of speech little used by the other prophets, except in the vocative case. ' ^ -^donai takes the place of Zebaoth with Ezekiel, as it did with the oldest writers, because the two words are synonymous in one respect ; and of different signification in another, jldonai is derived f 103 'Mi descended? Wlio gatliereth the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth ? What is his name, and what is the name of'liis iSon, if thou knowest it? 7. Light. On Isaiah 60 : 1 ; '* Arise, shine, for thy light is come," the Targum paraphrases, thy Salvation is come. Tanchuna foL 75, says : The prophet speaks of the age of the from the same root with p^ to subject, to rule, to judge, hence Adonai signifies the Supreme Judge and Ruler to -yhom ail things are subject, (In one respect, viz : as judge, Adonai and Elohim are synonymous.) Hence Adonai expresses the same idea as Zebaotb, viz : God is the ruler of the universe and its supreme Lord. Thus it is opposed to Zcbaism and astrology. The careful avoiding to mention the term Zebaoth, while the prophets after Ezekiel have it again frequently, only proves the caution of Ezekiel not to mention- the deities of the heathens among whom he iived. This was either prudence or a scrupulous observation of the law (Ex. 23 : 13.) He therefore replaced it with Adonaij which is in this respect synonymous with Zebaoth. Thus it may safely be asserted, that the same doctrines concern- ing Gcd, cosmogony, and ontology is common to all prophets. The God of the prophets is not a sectional or national deity, but the universal and supreme Godhead dVi57 ^h'^K The Lord of the universe; Isa. 40: 28. |?0N ^nVi< the God of truth; Isa. 65: 16, as Isaiah says, aod C2'*n CD^nb"K *^® ^^^ of life, (Jer. 23: 36,) as Jeremiah says. It is the greatest, most sublime, and most univer- sal idea of God ever conceived by man. But the idea is so vast, so immense and incomprehensible, defying also the flight of the light- est imagination. Therefore the prophets contrast two revelations ; the great and endless in this vast universe, and the small, minute one in the life of the individual. Israel, in the very same sentence, where he speaks of the immensity of the Deity, concludes, "Ne- vertheless I look upon the poor and contrite spirit, and (upon him who is) eager after ray word." " Ah ! Lord God, behold thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power, and stretched out thine arm, there is nothing too wonderful for thee. Thou doest grace unto the thousands, and recompensest the wick- edness of the parents unto the bosom of their children after them, the Lord, the Great, the Mighty God, Zebaoth is his name. Great is the counsel, and mighty is the scheme, as thine eyes are open upon all tlie ways of the sons of man, to give to every man ac- cording to his own ways and the fruits of his thoughts," said Jeremiah, (33 : 17, 18, 19.) And then he said, "Thus saith God, let the wise man not glory in his wisdom, nor the strong man in his strength, nor the wealthy man in his wealth ; but let him who glories glory thus, lut him be intelligent and know me, that I, 194 Messiah, and the light is the Messiah. The Midrash Rabbah, on Lamentations, says : The name of the Messiah is light , as it is written. *' He revealeth the deep things, and the secret things. He knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with Him." 8. Matron. Sohai, on Exodus fol. 21, says : In the age of Messiah all those nations who would show themselves hostile to Israel, shall be delivered into the hand of Matron, As Isaiah said, ''Who is he that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozzab ? For I will tread them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon ray garments. " Then in another place, says the same book : The 8hekina is the Matronithu. ^ 9. Zeer Anpin. " The little face." This title the Caba- lists confer upon the son to distinguish him from the father, and it is very frequently used in the Sohar, and other Caba- listic works. 10. JiNON. 11. Peleh, (Wonderful.) 12. Joetz, (Coun- sellor.) 13. El-Gieor, (Mighty God.) 14.. Abi-Ad, (Ever- lasting Father.) 15. Sar-Shalom, (Prince of Peace.) These are the names of Messiah in his divine character. In his human character he has the following names : 1. Bar-Enoch. Son of Man. Sohar on Genesis fol. 85, says, it is written ; " There came one, like a Son of Man, in the clouds of heaven," Dan. 7 : 13. This is the king Messiah, God, do grace, judgment, and righteousness in earth, that I delight in this, sayeth God; (Ibid, 9 : 22, 23). "Behold all the souls are mine, both the soul of the father and the soul of the son are alike -ine," said Ezekiel, (18; 14,) The same voice resounds in a later psalm, "High above all nations is God, above the heaven is his glory. Who is God our Lord, who thronetk exalted, looketh down low, in heaven and on earth, erecteth the poor from the dust, lifteth up the needy from the dung-hill," Psalm 113 There can be nothing mora kin I, loving, gracious, and merciful than the God of the prophets, who "is high and exalted, en- throned for ever, and Holy is his name, elevated and holy do I dwell, and with the contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of those who are humbled, and to revive the hearts of those who are contrite," (Isa, 57 : 15.) Therefore, the prophets calls God "my Father," and "our Father," "thy Redeemer," thy baviour," and all other names which signify a most intimate connexion between God and man. ' » * I « 105 and has the same signification as in Dan. 2 : 44 ; ♦' And the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall never be 2. David. Sohar on Exodus fol. 93, says : As David was king in this world, (or age) so shall David be the king in the age to come, which is the king Messiah. Therefore, says the Psalmist, " The stone which has been rejected by the builders has become the corner-stone." Talmud Chagiga, fol. 14, says: It is written in Daniel 7 : 9; I saw, and behold thrones ^ere set-'" and again : " His throne was pure flames of fire." This, however, (that is, the singular and the plural of the word thrones) is in contradiction ; because it means one for Him and one for Divid, which is, as Rashi remarks, the king 3. Zemach. Zechar. 6 : 12, it is written, " Behold the man whose name is Zemach, (the branch,) and he shall grow out of himself, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. On which the Targum paraphrases instead of Zemach, Mes- siah. In Midrash Rabbah, or Lamentation, we find Rabbi Joshua Ben Levi, says : The name of Messiah is Zemach as it is wr'tten : *♦ I shall bring my servant Zemach," Zechar. 3 : 8. Rabbi Tanchuna, fol 68, or the same pas^e in Zechariah. This is the king Messiah, as also the prophet Jeremiah, says, •' Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, Zemach, and he shall reign as a king, and shall prosper, and execute judgment and justice upon th? earth." , . , ., mi j 4. Bar Nafli. This is a name which the Talmud gave him and is hardly translated in the sense in which it is under- stood by a scholar of the Talmud. The passage where we find this name is in tract Sanhedrin, fol. 96, 2, and reads thus: Saith R. Nachaman to R. Isaac : Hast thou any information of the coming of Bar-Nafli ? The other replied : Who is Bar- Nafli ? It is the Messiah answered the first. Dost thou call the Messiah Bar-Nafli? Yes, he replied, for it is written. «' In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David, which is fallen." Amos 9 : 11. The word Nafli has the same root as the word Nofeleth," which is /ttZ/ew. r^ u o o 5. Bbed, Servant. In Isa. 42 ; 1 ; 43 : 10 ; Zech. 3 : 8 ; Ps. 86 : 16 ; Isa. 52 : 14 ; 53 : U ; and many other places, The Rabbinfe a^ree with Christians, that it is the Messiah. V2 100 The Messiah as King, Redeciiier and High Priest : 1. King. Hebrew, Melech ; Chaldean Malka. Sohar, on Ex. fol. 52, says : Wherever 8criptui-e speaks of a Melech, without special name we have always to understand, King Messiah. 2. Shilo. Tract Sanhedrin, fol 98, 2, says :— What is the name of the Messiah ? R. Shilo replied: His name is Shilo. Midrash Rabbah on Genesis says : — " Until Shiloh comes," this means the King Messiah. Targum Onkilos, as well as Targum Jerusalem translates that passage : Until King Mes- siah comes, to whom belongs the government, 3. GoEL. Redeemer. R. Berechia says: — Even as the first redeemer, Moses, made himself known as such, by his works, so the latter redeemer, King Messiah, will be acknow- ledged by his works. The first brought down manna from heaven, so will the latter do, as the Psalmist says when pro- phecying of the Messiah, (72) that the corn will grow even upon the top of the mountaias. The first gave the people water from the rock, the latter will do the same as it is written in Joel 3 : 18 ; '* And it shall coi::»« to pass on that day, that the mountains shall drop down new vine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers c* Tudah shall flow with water, and a fountain shall come forth from che house of the Lord, and shall water the valley of the Shittim." 4. Malach Hagoel. •- The Redeeming Angel." Sohar Chadash, on Gen 48: 16, says: — Who is that Redeeming Angel who shall bless the children 1 It is the Shekina, because no other cin redeem, and no other can bless. 5. Malach Ha Berith. ♦* The Angel of the covenant. This is derived from Mai. 3:1, and the Sohar takes it as a rule that, wherever Scripture says of the angel of the covenant, it speaks of Jehovah. CHAPTER 111. THE MEANING OF THE NAME JEHOVAtt. ,Tnx nu^N n*nK Nearly every reader of theological literature knows the f^ifference of opinion on the Hebrew terms of oar caption which occur Ex. 3 : 14. Rendered liberally they read, I wil I be what I will be," or, " I will become what I will become, as the Hebrew verb n^n signifies to be, to become and to have, (with subsequent Lamed.) We abstain from citing h«re the different opinions on the subject, by ancient and modern authorities, being a mere vain show of erudition, as we must beg leave to differ from all of them. Hecrel says on one occasion, « The things are ideas realised : i. e. before the things can exist, the ideas or schemas thereot must have existed in abstracto and after they entered into the list of material existence, they became concrete, material- ized or substantiated facts, ponderable or imponderable, obser- vable either to the senses or mental preception. So the thing first exists in abstracto and then both in abstracto and in wncretor If reasoning from facts and analogy is a lega process to arrive at unknown facts, this doctrine ot Hegel is self-evident, and can be gainsayed only by the thoughtless theories of that class of materialists, who deny the connexion of cause and effect, and see ir the universe the result otan irrational accident. It is not necessary to our present object to refute their theories, as we need only appeal in this respect to common experience. The ideas which have become concrete in this material universe or also in the history of mankind must have existed prior to them and independent on them. For every particle of matter and every fact of history is an idea realised, and certainly the idea could not be realised unless it existed. i -n v 4- The ideas of all things that were, are, and will be, must have existed in either of the following forms : Either conscious or unconscious of themselves, either separate or ^isconnected^, or connected in a common centre to a unity. -^eur^^aC:. an- I 108 Daub suppose Hegel to consider the ideas havinp; existed unconscious of tberaselves. There is, however, such a con- tradiction in the terms ** unconscious ideas" that no philosopher can be supposed to havo used tbem. If they were unconscious, the question would naturally rise, how could they become aelf- consc'ous in man to such a degree that he thinks about his own power and mode of thinking ? Not thinking is a mere negative, a nonentity, a» darkness, death and cold are, and the nonentity can not result in the entity, the absolute nothing can not by any known process result in something. Furthermore if those ideas are thoughtless or irrational, how cfl.n they invariably obey certain fixed laws, and become existent in obedience to certain rational dicta, so clearly o' ser- ▼able by their order, purpose, and co-operation as parts of the totality ? Ideas not thinking are synonymous to no ideas. Things being the realization of no ideas are the work of thoughtless accident : that is exactly what Hegel did not say, no philosopher can imagine or prove, and no species oi reasoning can support. Ideas thinking are synonymous with self- conscious ideas, as thought and self-consciousness are identical. All rational beings are solf-conseious because they think, and vice versa. Hence the ideas which existed and exist prior to the things, are thinking and self-conscious — rational. The ideas can not exist disconnected and separate, because their realization is one grand unit. This is the very fundamental idea on which that Cosmos of Humboldt is based, and directs all our researches in physical nature. Without it the science of astronomy has no foundation, and the reciprocal effects of bodies and elements are unimaginable. What we call, in common parlance, the harmony of nature, or, in the language of Pythagoras, the harmony of the spheres, signifies the union of all ideas realized in the universe. Having thus arrived at a central or supreme intellect which is at the dame time the creative power, we are at the very idea of God who, according to this definition, embraces within him- self all the ideas which have, do now, or will become realized in the material universe or in the history of mankind. The Jews say in their daily prayers, of God, •' Wjjio renew- eth daily and perpetually the work of creation," and this is based upon sound philosophy. " Not only is the creation of this earth not finished yet," as the naturalist Halle beautifully lo;) T says, ** bnt also the universe is unfinished. As on this globe and among these creatures a perpetual change takes place, life and death continually operate for each other, so this universe, subject to the same laws, must be subject to the same revolu- tions. Worlds die and worlds are born daily in this universe. Nay. solar systems, with all their unmeasurable millions or creatures, expire daily, while others of the same magnitude arc born again." Therefore, we say, that God renews daily the work of creation. Therefore, we said before that all the innu- merable millions, of things and beings which will in all future be created, all the ideas to be realized, as Hegel would say, are contained in the primitive intellect in God. Spinozu, also defines the Diety somewhat in the same man- ner, bu j he limited Divine nature twice. First by the perpet- ual co-existence of matter, and secondly by the hypothesis that creation was finished, hence all ideas are realized. These two limitations at once negative his first definition of the Deity, while oure is unlimited either' by space or time. This understood it must be admitted, that the Hebrew language chose the most proper word to name the Diety, niH' Jehovah is composed of the three tenses of the verb n'^r^ (Hayah) which as we have remarked before, signifies, also to to becojne. Hence Jehovah signifies that Supreme Being who is the cause of all things that were, are, or will be, or in the language of Hegel, the Being containing all the ideas that have, do now, or ever will become realizeJ — the Supreme Intellect. The reader must understand at once that the terma of our caption, Ahejeh asher Ahejeh signify *• Providence." In order to ascertain the real meaning of the Divine name Jehovah, according to the Pentateuch, as well as to the pro- phetical scripture, I will here place together all the passages in relation to it, and expound them distinctly. In Exod. 3 : 14, is rendered the name Jehovah, ♦'! will be that I will be." All commentators agree that this passage signifies the idea of Divine eternity, but they differ only as to how the double expression Ahejeh (I will be) should be explained. It seems, indeed, that (that I will be), without resorting to an artificial explanation, is superfluous. For else why are these words omitted in the next part of the same verse ? Con- sidering, however, that the most important idea of all thoughts should be defined here, how is it possible, that it has been I no done in such an incorrect manner ? To avoid this difficulty, I will now endeavour to illustrate the quoted passage in another way. The first word Q' AhejeK') conveys the idea of being as it was expounded by the prophet, Isaiah 48 : 13 ; " I ai:;, I am the first and the last " that is, "I was, I am, and^ 1 will be." But a mere being or existing is as good as nothing to us, as long as it cannot be perceived in any way. Th-^ two words, n>nH "«:?« are, therefore, added to explain the first word n^HN telling us that it is an everlasting being who reveals itself as existing. The passage must be rendered thus : I will be who will become a perceptible existence, i.e., who will always bo known by His operations. The two words t\''T\}^ ntt'K which were only given as an illustration, are therefore very justly omitted in the other part of the verse. The correctness of this conception is proved by ths conclud* ing words of the passage (Exod. 3: 15,) where it reads. *' This, (the immutable Being denoted by the name Jehovah) is my essence in ill my eternity, and this will be my memorial, (namely by its visible and perceptible operations) from gen- eration to generation." In the same sense we read explicitly, ib. 15: 18 ; ''ochovah will reign forever and ever." And thus it is clearly expressed, 34 : 6-7 ; Jehovah appears as a Being almighty, gracious and benign, long-suffering and abundant in mercy and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, &c. It is, indeed generally supposed that Moses, has drawn his idea of God from Egyptian theological sources. This opinion, they maintain, can be proved by an inscription of Neith (Egyptian Athena) at Sais in Lower Egypt. Plutarch reports : At Sais, the temple of Athena, which they consider always as Isis, has the following inscription : " I am all that was, that is, and that will be, and no mortal has ever lifted my veil." This inscription, however, is of a modern and not of an ancient Egyptian origin at all, as can be proved by the diction of it. The ancient Egyptians did not know any such thing as the pehlos (Greek veil) which was transferred from the Greek goddess of Athens to Sais in this inscription. (See Konrad Schwenk's Mythology of the Egyptians, page 196.) Although Schwenk justly remarks, that Proklus styled this Ill /i. inscription in Plato's Timaens, as follows : " I am that is, that will become to be, and that came into existence. Nobody has has ever unveiled my chiton, (under garment) and the fruit which I have born was Helios (the sun)" ; but the Athenian pehlos having been done away by him, the inscription assumes no better prospect. For, the veil not being recognizable, it IS ridiculous and* absurd to speak then of lifting it up. It appears confessedly, as a latter inexplicable workman- ship. The principal ideas of the name Jehovah which Moses adapted from patriachal traditions (See Rev. Dr. Wise's His- tory of the Israelitish nation, page 82) and perfected, as they are displayed partly in the Pentateuch, partly in the prophet- ical pictures. 1. Jehovah is the cause of all the causes. Lord of the uni- verse, the eternal, providential, immutable, being above all time and space, (See Exod. 16: 18; 30: 22;) and is the type of all perfections, Exod. 34 : 6, 7. 2. Jehovah is a unique, spiritual being, Deut. 4 : 2 ; 35 : 39 ; 32 : 39; Isaiah 45 : 5, 6. Therefore, it was so emphati- cally forbidden in the Mosaic dispensation to make any image to symbolize the Most High, Exod. 15: 15; Deut. 4 : 12-24; for the immaterial one cannot be represented by material images in any degree. The great merit of Moses is of being the first who arose with energy against the generally prevailing concrete concep- tion of God, and thus shattering Heathenism to its very foun- dation. If now the school of Scotus Erigena, and that of Benedictus Spinoza, maintain that God should be the sub- stance of the whole world, if the school of Leibnitz considers the universe a conception of God, and Fichte and Schelling thought God the eternal bond of all thingn, the hypostatical law of the world, — against all these pantheistical suppositions must be objected that the world appearing as imperfect, as it does, it is then the substance of God himselfi which is unreasonable ? For such a statement contradicts the idea of God as the type of eternal perfection and beauty. 3. Jehovah is the father of mankind, Deut. S3 : 6. This idea is explicitly expressed by the prophet, Malachi 2 : 10, Psalms 103 : 13, &c. Nay his Divine love extends also to all living creatures without exception, Psalms 45 : 9. The pro- Dounciation of the name Jehovah was probably Jehiveh ; the 112 future tense of nin (Jah) is the poetical expression of Jeho- vah ; Eloha is also used in poetical style instead of Elohim, and has the same meaning, namely the primitive power. This word is derived from the verb n^«, which signifies in the Arabic languages, adore, revere. The h of nSx belongs to the root and has, therefore, a mappik (a dot) in n. 4. •?« This name of God signifies the Bswerful, it is derived from biK the power. , 5. jn« The Sovereign of the whole universe. It is very often used with the plural emmentive. , 6. nur The Almighty, Omnipotence. It is also used with the pluralis majestatis. « „ , . 7. mK3:f First, The Lord, or the Eternal Lord of all beings in heaven and upon earth, for the word is used in this sense Gen. 2 : 1. Second, The Lord of Heavenly Hosts, that is : the stars. The Lord of the Israelitish armies, since they have to propogate the Divine truth, Exod. 12 : 51. 8. TvVr The Most Figh, the Supreme and Most Supreme Being, Deut. 32 : 8 ; Psalms 97 -,9. As epithets are used tt^np the Holy, infl Worthy of De- votion, Gen. 31 : 42. n^3K the Powerful, Gen. 49 : 24. m:f Rock, at its protection one takes refuge. The Protec- tor, Deut. 32 : 4 ; b«iJ the Redeemer, Saviour, Isaiah 63 : 16, a^iotti 31D the Good. , r^ j ^u From all this follows, that the idea of a unique God, the ideal type of our understanding is displayed in the old biblical scriptures with such a clearness and truth as never has been exceeded by any religious or philosophical system. On the profound truth contained in the Mosaic words, Deut. 4 ; 4 ; " Hear (understand) Israel, Jehovah, our Almighty God, this Jehovah must be one unique Being, commonly translated, '' Jehovah our God is one God." The .T-^ws not only lay a great stress upon this passage, but also believe that there is a great mystery connected with it. In one of theii most ancient writings the following passage occurs on the above mentioned verse: Simeon ben.Joachi, says, "come and see the mystery of the word Elohim, there are three degrees, and each degree is by itself alone, and yet they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other Zohar, Lev. § col. 116." mi - - T_T U i« „^«T^»i '>x'K/\n/\iin/ia REMARKS, IN REPLY TO COLENSO'S OBJECTIONS. After having made these preliminary remarks w ^ will call the reader's attention to the first verse in the Bible, where we read, " In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth. '♦ With this announcement," as Baird says, '♦ the Spirit ot ijod commences the sacred volume. He is about to put upon per- manent record a revelation, intended to answer all those ques- tions which spontaneously spring, in the depths of the human soul, concerning our highest and eternal interests, a revela- tion r^ ^Decting the nature of God, the cause and the remedy of our ruinous estate, the purpose for which life is given, the immortality of man, and the alternative states ot eternity,-- themes which have perplexed and bewildered philosopher? and sages in every age. The first line of the first page of this blessed book announces him, whose nature and whose works are the theme of the whole. It unveils in sudden light a glorious One, whose lustre increases through every page, like a morning sun, -rowiug continually in radiant majesty, pour- ing abroad a flood of unapproachable glory, alone in a starless lirmanient. When the student of the sacred volume reads, in that first line, the sublime announcement,—* In the begin- nincr, God,'— he at one bound, ascends a height, as tar above that lofty Olympus where fabled Jove sat enthroned, as the 114 heavens are higher than the earth. Thus taught the alono eternity of God, the Creator, and the temporary ori<,'in of all things else, visible and invisible, lie has already gained a sublimity of science, which all the wisdom and research of - classic philosophy never attained. Gazing abroad from this mountain pinnacle,— on the one hand is nothing but the cter- nity of God, on the other is the creation, just launching I'orth upon cycles, each one of which is the unfolding of a new chap- ter, in the revelation of the high and lofty One who inhabits that eternity.'* Throu.Miout the first part of the narrative, thn« divided, the work IS, by the name Elohim, almost exclusively ai>cribed to the first person as the representative of the Godhead. 1< rom the 4th verse of 2nd chap, tho title is changed, and in the particular narrative there begun, it is Jehovah lUohim— the Lord God, who is represented as the actor. By this name is designated that glorious Jehovah Christ, " by whom God made the worlds," Heb. 1 : 2. That he was meant by the name, Lord God, is demonstrable. On this P?^"*^ 7f .^'^^^«"^y pause to cite the testimony of the Son of God himself, in the last chapter of the Book of Rev. 5 : b,— " Ihe Lord God of the Holy Prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. 5 : 16,—" I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches." Jesus, then, is the Lord God of the Old Testament writers. Here the reader will not fail to recall the account with which John com- mences his gospel. " In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him,' John 1 : 13. In this connection the fact is very striking, that when in the midst of that portion of the sacred record in which the title, Lord God, is constantly used, we come to the interview between the tempter and the woman, the style is changed. Satan aiming to seduce the woman to the forgetfulness of the ever present God, ignores tha: Lord God who was, alike the creative media- tor to innocent man, as he is the atoning mediator to man ■Tov 7,!l"^' putting God afar off, he asks, " Hath God said / liie woman falls into the snare and replies, " God hath said." But it was not Elohim, God, but the Lord i Hi i) • r God, wIjo alik<3 gave tlie command, and called the pair to account for disolxKliimce. Gen. 2 : 10, 3 : 9. We have already ahown that the most ancient commen- tatorH agree that the name of the Messiah Christ is Jehovah, as also, (Logos or the Word, Memra,) and so Benson says, on 3rd verse 1st chapter Gen. — •• Ood said "—not by an articulate voice, for to whom should he speak ? but in his own eternal mind. Ho willed that the effect here mentioned should be produced, and it was produced. This act of His almighty will is termed, Heb. 1 : 3, the word of Bis power. Perhaps, however. His substantial Word, his son, by whom he male the worlds, Heb. 1 : 2, and Psalms 33 : 6, 9, is here intended, and whom the fathers of the Christian Church thought to be termed the Word, John 1 ; 1, chiefly for this reason.'' OtU- argument against the Bishop's objection is simply this : that Elohim is the Father and Jehovah the Son, the Christ. The first is considered as the Almighty, the Crea- tor ; the Second, the Self-existent power, He who was and is and is to come. Elohim is appropriate in speaking of creation and nature; Jehovah is especially appropriate m speaking of man and of redemption. In this fact we have the key to the different names occurring in the Bible. . Now, let us look on the Scriptures. Elohim, appears on the first verse as the Father and the Creator, but Jehovah does not appear until the repetition of the history of the creation in the 2nd. Chap. 4th verse, which shows us that the world was created by Jehovah. In one word it gives us the explanation how Elohim created the world by Jehovah. ^ But, as in all these revelations, it is the substance and spirit of the message, rather than its outward form, which carries with it the most enduring lesson, and the surest mark of its heavenly origin. '* Behold, when I shall come to the children of Israel, and shall say unto them. The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you, and they shall say, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I am that I am Thus shalt thau say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you,^^ « r u- . It has been observed, that the great epochs of the history I 116 of the Chosen People are marked by the several names, by which in each the Divine natu- e is indicated. In the Patri- archal age we have already seen that the oldest Hebrew form by which the most general idea of Divinity is expressed is 1.1-Elohim, " The Strong One," " The Strong Ones," '* The Strong." " Eeth-El." « Peni-El," remained <3ven to the latest times memorials of this primitive mode of address and worship. But now a new name, and with it a new aTS^^I^^^ introduced. "I am Jehovah, I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by the name of El-Shaddai, (God Almighty,) but by my name Jehovah was I not known unto them. " The only certain use of it before the time of Moses is in the name of " lochebed," borne by his own mother. It, has been beautifully conjectured that in the small circle of that family a dim conception had thus arisen of the Divine truth, which was thought the son of that family proclaimed forever to the world. It was the rending asunder of the veil which overhung the temple of the Egyptian Sais. " I am that which has been, and which IS, and which is to be, and my veil no mortal hath yet drawn aside." It was the declaration of the simplicity, the unity, the self-existenct. of Divine nature, the exact opposite to all the multiplied forms of Idolatry, human, animal and celestial, that prevailed, as far as we know, everywhere else. " The Eternal." This was the moving ^^nng of the whole life of Moses, of the whole story of the Exodus. In viewing the history, even as a mere national record, we cannot, if we would, dispense with the impulse, the elevation, of which the name of " Jehovah" was at once the cause and the symbol. Slowly and with difficulty it won its way into the heart of the people. We can trace its gradual incorporation into the proper names, beginning with the transformation of Hoshea into Jehoshua. We can trace its deep religious significance in the frequent usage which separates those portions of the sacred records where the name " Jehovah" occurs from those where the older name "of Blohim" is used. The awe which it in- spired went on, as it would seem, increasing rather than diminishing with the lapse of years. A new turn was given to It under the monarchy, when it becomes encom- passed with the attributes of the leader of the armies of .1 1 117 earth and hoaven, "Jehovah Sabaoth," "The Lord of Hosts." And in later times it lies concealed, enshrined, behind the wo^d which the trembling reverence of the last age of the Jewish people substituted for it, and which appears in the Greek and in the English version of the Scriptures,—" Adonai," " Kinios," " The Lord," a sub- stitution which, whilst it effaced the historical meaning of the name, prepared the way tor the still nearer and closer revelation of God in Him whom we now emphatically acknowledge as " Our Lord." Then, we read "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old." " When he prepared the heavens, I was there, when he set a compass upon the face of the depth, when he established the clouds above, when he strengthened the fountains of the deep, when he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment, when he appointed the foundations of the earth, then I was by him, as one brought up with him." Prov. 8 : 22-30, it is undoubtedly the Son of God the Jehovah Christ who speaks. And no other than he, as from everlasting he was present with the Father, in the charac- teristic exercise of infinite wisdom, concurring in a glorious scheme of creation, providence and redemption, of which he, in time, by that same name appears as the sole glorious administrator, and at length, in his own incarnate person, the embodiment and consummation. In him the whole wisdom of God, which shines in his other works concen- trates its scattered rays. " The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth ; by undc^rstanding hath he established the heavens," Prov. 3:19. Now, the passage that the Bishop quotes, (Exod. 6 : 3,) ** And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them," will at once be seen by any Hebrew scholar to be a wrong trans- lation, for the words B'El Shaddai, do not mean " by my name El Shaddai," as in the latter part of the verse where the word ushmi is mentioned, but it means with El Shaddai or in El Shaddai. The rirst verse reads thus : And God spoke unto Moses and said, I am Jehovah (Christ), and though I appeared in former times to Abraham, and Isa^c, and Jacob as El Shaddai yet by my name Jehovah (Christ) I 118 1 was not fully known unto them. Therefore say unto the children of Israel, I am Jehovah Christ." As in former times I appeared together with, or in, El Shaddai, so now I appear in my destinctive name as the Jehovah Ohrist. And when we read " Abram believed in Jehovah," it proyea that Abram believed no more than the promise which Jehovah gave him, though Jehovah did not appear at that time as a distinct person, as the Christ the Son of God. Again, when Jehovah appeared unto Jacob (Gen. 28 : 13) and said, I Jehovah am the Elohim of thy %ther Abraham, and the Elohim of Isaac, and made the promises hi the following verses to him, Jacob in the 20th and 2lst verses of the 28th chap., vowed a vow, saying, " If this God will be with me and will keep me then shall this Jehovah be my Elohim." ' And so we read in the 9th verse of the 32nd chap, ot Lren., Elohim of my father Abraham, and Elohim of my father Isaac, thou Jehovah who saidst unto me, &c., &c., deliver me, I pray thee, &c., &c. The distinct appearance of Jehovah Christ the Son of God, from Elohim. is the Bishop's only difficulty. I^he Bishop attempts to make us believe that there are only two names of persons throughout the whole Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua, which are compounded with Je- hovah, viz : that of Joshua himself, and probably that of Jochebed, the mother of Moses. The Bishop is very expert at compounding and denvating names in the English, but utterly fails when he comes to the Hebrew. One single name will be sufficient to convince the reader of the great blunder the Bishop has made. Jehudah i^-i^ni Eng. Judah the son of Jacob, Gen. 29 : 55. ♦' And she conceived again and bare a son, and said, now will I praise the Lord, theiefore she called the name ; Jehudah. The two syllables in the name Jehudah are compounded, as every Hebrew scholar must admit, of praise Jehovah. Surely the Bishop must have overlooked or wilfully neglected this name. But it appears that this is not the only name which the Bishop has overlooked or wilfully neglected, as there are many others of Jehovistic composition mentioned in the ir'entateucii. iJaii me rusuop ueuy luao i-uc vvmj[>uoiiiou t-i 119 " Reuben" was Jehovistic, when the reason for giving him that name was because, '* Jehovah looked upon my affliec- tion'' and out of which that name is composed. As also the name, " Simeon," a composition from the words, Jehovah heard that I was hated. Or " Mitzpah " in the 49th verse and 30th chapter of Gen., which is compounded of Jehovah, watch. But perhaps the Bishop will not be satisfied with these compositions, he wants the syllables "Jo" and " Jah." If the Bishop will trouble himself to look out for the following names in the Hebrew, he will find that there are such also, and he will read Vajoh in the 24th verse and ;36th chap, of Gen. And he will read, "And the son of Manasseh went and took the small towns thereof, and called them Havoth-yo^V, Num. 33 : 41 . Even the names Joseph and Job have as much right to claim a derivation from Jehovah as Jocktbed. But we have names in the Pentateuch which contain three letters of the word Jehovah, viz : Achihud, Anubudf Num. 34: 20, 27. And Abihu in Exod. 6: 23, nin^n« «in'3« i"»n^n;7 which no Hebrew scholar will overlook. And here it must be remembered that the whole name Jehovah consists of but four letters, viz : nin* the three first of which are contained in each of the above names. And what will the Bishop do with the 15th verse of the 17th chap, of Exod. ? "And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah-nissl. As also with Gen, 22 : 14 ; ''And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah' jirchy We could produce more names rf persons and places composed with Jehovah, but what we have ad- duced we think is enough to convince the reader that the Bishop is wrong, and that his theory about Elohim and Jehovah, upon which he almost rests the whole of his second Book, is but a dream. And we will leave this with the words, " Let God be true and every man a liar." Yes, the very God Elohim, who in sundry times and in divers man- ners spake of old to the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by his son Jehovah. Yes, the Elohim of creation becomes the Jehovah of redemption. I would that the Old Testament were employed often- times inquita a different way from that which is not uncommon in nppealing to it. What can we say of those 120 teachers who find just as complete a revelation in the^ Old Testament of every Christian doctrine, as in the New? For example the doctrine of the Trinity is found there, as completely ther as in the New Testament. Yet the Saviour, in refe nee even to Moses says, that, " No man hath seen God { . any time, the only begotten Son, who la in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,'^ John 1 : 18. Were the Jews Trinitarians before the coming of Christ 1 I know of no satisfactory evidence of this fact. All the efforts to prove it have ended in mere appeals to cah- hcUizing Jews, who lived long after the New Testament was written. It is the light which the New Testament casts upon various passages of the Old ; and that only which enables us to bring the Old Testament to bear upon this doctrine. It remained for Christ to make the full revelation of this. It was only by the incarnation, that the Trinity ot the Godhead was fully developed. And when the NeAV Testa- ment asserts that this or that thing was done by Christ, or the Logos, under the ancient dispensations, or that this or that was spoken by Him, it is only then that we come to a full knowledge of any specific nature, as it respects the Old Testament, concerning the persons of the Godhead. In this way, the Old Testament does indeed contribute important aid in the making us acquainted with the doctrine of the Trinity. To one who receives with meekness the ingrafted word, which is able to save our souls, the Scriptures show, beyond contradiction, that as the Father is God, so Jesua Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. This truth, how- ever, must be combined with another, which is revealed with equal clearness and enforced with equal solemnity. *' I am Jehovah, and there is none else ; there is no God beside me." The combination of these truths establishes the doctrine of tlio Holy Trinity, for those Three must together exist in one infinite Divine essence, called Jehovah or God ; and as this essence must be indivisible, each of them must possess not a part cr a portion of it, but the whole fulness or perfection of the essential God>^ead, forming, in an unity of nature. One Eternal Jehovah ; and therefore revealed by a plural noun, as the Jehovah Elohim, which comprehends these Three, but with this soleiau qualificatiun, that the Jchoviih Eloliim is in trutx. 121 but one Jehovah, a Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghosts The most usual appellation of the Deity in the original Scrip- tures of the Old Testament is Elohirti, which is constantly translated *'God ;" but it is the regular plural o? Eloah, which also occurs, though much less frequently than in the plural form, and is always translated in the same manner. This plural appellative is generally put in agreement with singular verbs, pronouns, and adjectives, as in Gen. 1 : 1 ; Elohim has created, — creavih Dle^ — les Dieux area. This is the ordinary construction through the whole Bible. But sometimes the apposition is made with verbs, pronouns and adjectives, in the plural number likewise, and sometimes singulars and plurals arc put together in the same agreement ; as Gen. 20 : 13, God (plural) caused me to wonder — vagari me fecerunt Dei, — les Dieux mi oht fait egarer. Deut. 5 : 26, . heard the voice of the living God (plural) — (audivih vocem Diorum Viventium) -, — des Dieux vivans, &c. To these may bo added the similar expressions, though without the word. Elohim. Psalm 149 : 2, Israel shall rejoice in his Maker (plural) in Creatoribus suis, — de ses Createurs. Isaiah 54: 5. For thy Creator (plural) is thy husband (plural). Eccles. 12: 1, llcraember.thy Creator (plural). The fact which principally requires our attention is the constant use of Elohim, to designate the one and only God. It is not a little remarkable, that in the sacred books of a people who were separated from all other nations for this express object, they should bear a public and continual protest against polytheism. That the ordinary name and style of the only living and true God should be in a plural form. Did some strange and insuparable necessity lie in the way ? Was the language so poor that it could furnish no other term ? Oi', if so, couM not the wisdom of inspiration have suggested a new apndlative, and for ever abolish the hazardous work ? None of thene reasons existc^l. The Lnguage was rich and c >pi.)U3. Bisides that glorious and fearful name, Jehovah, the appropriated and unique style of the true God, there was the singular form " Eloah" of the very word in question. " Eleir O Israel, Jehovah, our Elohim, one Jehovah." This sentence was proclaimed as a kind of oracular effatum, — a solemn and authoritative principle to the Israelites. Had it bee?! intended to assert such a unitv in the Divine nature, as is F 122 absolutely solitary, and exclusive of every "modification of plurality: would not the expression o necessity have been this " Hear, Israel, Jehovah, our Elohim, one l.loah ? But as the wora. actually stand, they appear to be in the most definite and expressive manner designed to convey the idea, xZ^ notwithstanding a real plurality intimated in the form Elohim, Jehovah is still One. „ This supreme mystery must transcend all the powers of human thought, and the question must recur again and again, X saith the Scripture ?' Our imaginations must be counted Ithe small dust of the balance. Thus, do you conceive that tL very names, " the Father, the Son," imply a certain pom n duraS, beyond which the Father inhabited eternity alone ? You^once^tion cannot countervail the assertion of Scripture that the goings-forth of the Saviour have been froin eve ast^ ' in-, or the words of Christ himselC, adop mg the form u a which declares the Divine solfexistence from eternity to eternity, " I am the first and the last." . -r» . r on MosI; confirms this truth when he states in Deut 5 : 39, - *« Know therefore this day, and consider it in thu.e heait tha Jehovah he is the Elohim in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath, there is none else." And in the 35th verse ot the same chapter, '' Unto thee it was showed, that^thou might- est know Tor believe) that Jehovah is the liilohitn. The Bishop in the 9th chapter 2nd Book makes the follow- ing remarks on " The Derivation of the Name Momh. ^' There is, however, one word m Genesis, the name of place, MuriaA, Gen. 22 : 2, which appears at fir.st ^v^^ \^ be compounded with Jehovah. For the ordinary reader, how- ever, it will be sufficient to obsen^e as follows :-- That this is the only instance m the whole book of Genesis, where any ni:me of place or person is (apparently) compounded with the name Jehovah." We have already shown tha there are a number of names found in Genesis besides Monah, that are compounded with the name Jehovah. The Bishop, again on page 146, says : - Not one of all the ancient interpreters has thought of Bamonah m ben. ZZ . ^, being identical with Mount Moriah, the Temple Hill, except ^Here^again the Bishop assumes to say a thing for which iny lieDruw byuuiu* ^au i;;,waB.t- imu, i 123 i In the first place, we would reoommond the Bishop to see Rasby on that subject, and he will see that Moriah means *' The Temple Hill." Secondly, let him look at the Targum Onkelos, a more an- cient commentator, who translates it " Aroh Fulehonoh,'^ '* The phce of Incense.'* Watson, on Moriah, says : " A hill on the north east side of Jerusalem, once separated from that of Acra by a broad valley, which according to Josephus, was filled up by the Asraoneans, and the two hills converted into one. In the time of David, it stood apart from the city, and was under cultiva- tion ; for here was the threshing-floor of Araunah, the Jebusite, which David bought, on which to erect an altar to God. 2 Sam. 24: 15-25. On the same spot, Solomon afterward built the temple, 2 Chron. 3 : 1, when it was included within the walls of the city. Here, also, Abraham is supposed to have been directed to offer his son Isaac. Gen. 22 : 1, 2. Moriah implies * vision,' and the ' land of Moriah,' mentioned in the above passage, in the history of Abraham, was probably so called from being seen ' afar off.' It includes the whole group of hills on which Jerusalem was afterwards built." Clarke, on The Land of Moriah, says : " This is supposed to mean all the mountains of Jerusalem, comprehending Mount Gihon or Calvary, the mount of Sion and of Acra. As Mount Calvary is the highest ground to the west, and the mount of the temple is the lowest of the mounts." Mr. Mann conjectures that it was upon this mount Abrs^ham offered up Isaac, which is well known to be the same mount on which our blessed Lord was crucified. Beer-Sheba, where Abraham dwelt, is about forty-two miles distant from Jerusa- lem, and it is not to bo wondered at that Abraham, Isaac, the two servants, and the ass laden with wood for the burnt offer- ing, did not reach this place till the third day. Josephus himself says, that Moriah was the mountain upon which the temple was afterwards built. Again, in ch. 9, 2 b., the Bishop makes a mistake, when he quotes Kuenen, who says, " That the word Eloha n'^K is not used in Hebrew, but in Arabic.'' We refer the Bishop to Deuteronomy 32 : 17, " They sacri- ficed unto devils, not to God." Here he will find the word Eloha. Also to Daniel, 11: 38, ** But in his estate shall ha I Eliihim, Ruth, 3 1 Sar-.uel, 97 2 Samuel, 59 1 Kings, 88 2 Kings, 97 Jehovah. 18 320 153 258 277 124 honor the cod of forces/' Here Eloha again occurs. And he?e it must be observed, that this is the pure Hebrew and not the Syria-Chaldee, where Eloha occurs very frequently, The Bishop again, in chap. 12, says : " Let it first be ob- eerved, that in the Pentateuch, and Book of Joshua, so soon as the name Jehovah is proclaimed, it appears constantly m every page as the ruling name, the word habitually and most commonTy employed fof the Divine Being. This continues aho thr ugh the Book of Judges Ruth, Samuel and Kings The name Elohim is also used, but far more freqvently the T Vi ttqVi " "^I^Thus a careful examination of each book gives the following result, reckoning only those instances in which the name Jl.i oTElohim is applied to the true God, and not to human beings or idols : . , .. * El'ihtm. Jehovah. Exodus, 134 398 Leviticus 52 311 Numbers^ .... 34 396 Deuteronomy, 334 550 Joshua, 67 224 Judges 52 174 , ^ ^ .. • , « In Js 2 : 9-12, the name Johovah is put>wr times into the mouth of the Canaanitish harloU Babab. In ^u"i. ZA : 24, it occurs twelve times in the addresses of the ucathen prophet, Balaam, and Elohim only eleven iim^^ ; I'ay, he is Actually made to say, " I cannot go beyond the word of Jeho- vah, my God. iNum. 22: 18. Thus there can be no doubt whatever, that the story, as told in the Pentateuch, and aH the other historical books, represents the name Jehovah as being far more common in the mouth of the people generally than the name Elohim, all along downwards ; from the time ot its bei»g announced as the special name, by which the God ot Israel would be known to his people. . . , , .i .v^ "If, then, we have any mt. is of testing independently the truth of this representation, we shall thus have light thrown from an entirely new quarter upon the qtiestions now betore us, as to the historical veracity of the Book of the Pentateuch. If we find, upon certain evidence, that the name Jehovah «;«* thus habituallv employed by men, who, beyond all doubt, lived and wrote within the period embraced by these books, we shall have so far an agreement with the Mosaic fitory, xQUi uiuic i= 126 here no contradiction to it, though, in the face of the evidence, already produced, of the unhistorical character of the narrative, even such an agreement as this could not, of course, avail to establish its veracity. *' But if, on the other hand, we find the exact contrary, — if we find that so far from the name Jehovah being habitually used, it was used very rarely, much less freely than Elohim, and often not at alU by most eminent writers, who must have been familiar with the name, and must have used it, it was really common in their days — we shall have here a direct and palpable contradiction to the intimations of the Mosaic books, and a strong independent proof, in addition to what we have observed already, of the unhistorical character of the Mosaic Btory. Our answer is, that wherever Jehovah appears, it means Christ, and the more he was known among them, the more did the name become the ruling name among them. In chapter 20th the Bishop goes on to say, — " We now pass on to the first Book of Samuel. Here, throughout , the first chapters, we do not meet with a single one compounded with Jehovah, though we find ^Zkanah and EhhM 1 : 1 ; Eli\\9\ SamucZ 2:18; i^/eazer 7 : 1." Now, we say that there are names in this book compounded with Jehovah. The very name Samuel belongs to this class, for the reason for naming .lim thus, was because, as we read in 1 : 20 ; *' And called his name Samuel, saying, because I have asked him of Jehovah." vrhnu mn-iQ O, and not ain^KD. And again in the 28th v. the expression which his mother uses Hishiltihu layhovah, I hxve lent him to Jehovah, and again, hu shaul layhovah, he shall be lent unto, Jehovah, are all strong evidences that his name is Jehovistic and not Elohistic. Also the name Elihu stin^'jK is more Jehovigtic than Elo- histic, for it has the first letters in^ of Jehovah in it. Now, we conclude that it is unfair for the Bishop to over- look all these. It appears however to us, that the Bishop has selected all throughout his books his quotations regardless of the numerous passages and evidences which are directly opposed to his argument. 1 1 I ■ i i ; CHAPTER V. qONCLtTDINQ OBSERVATIONS RESPECTING ERRORS OF TRANS- LATION.— THE REAL QUESTION AT ISSUE. There is no doubt that there are a considerable number of passages in the Old Testament, which must be denoted in Bome way as unconquerable difficulties. These places may be ■uffioiently comprised under three heads. First, the defective passages, where something has evidently dropped out ot the text: secondly, redundant passage?, where some word orvrordB have crept in ; thirdly, corrupt passages, properly so called, and inexplicable as they stand. We take the most obvious and best known examples. Of the first sort is the text in Wen. 4 • 8 ; " And Cain talked with Abel his brother, and it came to pass when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." But the word vatp/omer Bignifieu not *' talked," but '' said", amar is the ocynmon word for "said" and must be followed by a supplement of yat is Baid, *' And Cain said anto Abel his brother"— What ? ihe defect in the Hebrew text may perhaps be supplied from the Septuaglnt Version, which reads, '* Let us cro&=s to the plain. It cannot be pretended that this supplement is satisfactory. In a revised version which must render vaip/omer, * and he said," the clause from the Septuagint might be inserted in brackets, or, we think according to a safer rule, a bracketed space should be left after the word said," to indicate that something had fallen out of the existing text, and that there was no sufficient evidence to show what the omission was. This employment of a bracket must, however, take place only where the existing text is grammatically incomplete, not where a defect in the passage is matter of inference from internal or external evidence, while a grammatical construc- tion is possible. Thus, in another well known place, Lxod. 12 : 40, we read according to the English Version, and the Hebrew text, « Now the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years, which Yerse disagrees with Gen= 15, where the evil entreatin" "* Abraham's'seed in a strange land is foretold to be four dred years. of 127 18 t» And in Acts 7: C, the report of Stephen's speech give? the period as 400 years for the evil entreating of the children of Israel; but Paul in Gal. 3: 17, again makes the period 430 years, but reckons it from the giving of the promise to Ah'aham, So that as to the period, the texts are two against two, and as to the facts embraced by the period, there are threo against one. Tiiere are other difficulties, arising out of a com- putation of the lives of the Patriarchs, but confined solely to the statements of the several texts, is there a possibility of reconciling them ? And the favorite emendation is to supply from the Septuagint and Samarit .n versions in Exod. 12 : 40, " The sojourning of the children of Israel, and of their fathers in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt, was 430 years," which supplement, though *t may help the chronology, does not reconcile all the texts. And even sup- posing it did, it would not be in accordance with the true critical principles on which a translation should be executed, to admit that reading as a supphment, because the text as it stands, presents a grammatical structure without it, the emendation rests on no authority of Hebrew manuscript how- ever slight. Of the second class of places above indicated, an example may be given from 1 Sam. 6 : 19, where it is obvious that the slaughter of 50,070 men out of the people of Bethshemesh is an impossible number, besides which there is an irregularity, if not an impossibility in the construction of the text as it now stands. Here Kenicott states that these manuscripts omit the 50,000, and what is likewise of importance in conjunction with this evidence, Josephus in his account of the event, omits them likewise. And this, we think, would be an occasion where revisers should follow a rule of bracketing a word or words, evidently redundant. Or take 2 Sam. 1 : 19, where the word Iceshefh is intruded into the text. For the solution of that difficulty cannot be that which is adopted by the authorised version " (the use of) the bow," nor, according to others " (the song of) the bow,*' which Luther adopts, nor in any other way can the word be construed in the passage, as it has no objective particle. It might possibly stand as the title of the song which follows (Comp. 5 : 22,) or it is more probable, though still far from satisfactory, that the kesheth eis^nitied some musical notation, and has crept in from the '.i; l,i; > i 128 xnargin, it .re is nothing corresponding to ii in tl^ ^ef tUo The ca^e is rather one in ^hicU revisers should biacket word as an interpolation. t, „„ 1 qntii 13:1. "Saul Places evidently corrupt are sueh as 1 ^a^^;^-^ "J' wordrwhcro there can be noue, bucU » P^^fS^^^^^^Te Z lenoUto l.im by .or»e marks as «""P' ^-^-'^t^; tW l^\i-si^™;f^ab%e^;Sn^£-- .e„Uand™pple»e„taUo„^^ Zl^a :ll'd-orrX?witbrefeLce„oteto2^^^^^^^ 26 where his age is given as twenty-two years. Many ot the txtrln wWeh large'and impossible »-"b^-„/-/^ ^ J should be marked In like manner, ».s tho^"™ bu Idtn" oftha Kaid to have been amassed by David for tlie buiwin„ oi i a t1 ^-^1 chron. ^ii,^-i-^:itr^'rit^^^^^^ inff men of Israel and Judah, m Z &am. ^^ . ^> ^ \ ^, 5!^wW* are mutually irreconeilable -"dfo excessive ^, T1,P ftft i« that " iL'nora- ce." as Dr. Mctaul fcajs, oi HeW makes he fathers unsafe guides in interpretation and fo^vL^ us of the possibiruy tljat we .i^y be a so gotn^^^^^^^^ ;p wp lihmir under the same deficiency. it is \eiy n ac ti a 1 owXnslators knew more ""out Hebrew than aU he fathers taken together, (and this is very little indeed.) and that Ih* utborizcd version \s one of the best ever made; but that ;f i« fruitless or may serve the minister ot the gospu as .i Intern sermons and popular religions hooks, as liom me fethers aTaTundanee o? ezumples of involuntary, perversion^ of God's Word, arising from ignorance of the original hu the task is too invidious. It may, however, be observed, that a mstor ean hardly maintain the respect due to his office, if he Tnot able to give some answer to the enquiries of his people la nut aui^ b , „„»;^tie'' of tmnslations. respecting oimcuii.i^« ^"^ var^^ue.. oi I) I V20 We will here quote KO.no. passages, which will sl.ow us llmi ft thorough knowled-o of the Hebrew is indispensable tor tbo correct miderstaiKliu- of the Old Testaiaont. Isaiih 1 • 18-20—" Come now and let im reason together, Baith the Lord: though your sins bo as scarlet, tlu^y shall be as white as snow ; thou.u'h they bo red as cnmson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye sha 1 .at the good of the laud: but if ye refuse and rebel ye shall bo devoured with the sword : lor the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it Thus the common version. In this passage there are, in the first place, several words which are incorrectly translated. 1. The word which is here translated " now" (come now), is in the original w Nah, which, in every instance sign ifaes, that the person (or persons) are entreated to do that which is requested of them. 2. The word here rendered " let us reason is by far too weak to express the original nnDi;% which signi- fies rather a controversy, or plea before a judge.- 3. The word *' though" in both cases, is not in tl^.e original it ^^ the ^^^^ a«, which has no other signification but «/or when. 4. Again, Se'words" red like crimson," are -^ ^ f \^,^^«^ ^f^^^^^ presses, which says i)anK>, and signifaos" redder, or more ?ed." Thus far, concerning single words, now let us see what sense they give to the whole passage. God says to rebellious Israel, thlt he will reason with them, what ,s the reasoning? "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow, which,! think, is no reasoning at all, it gives free course to sin and transc^ression ; for, as great as their sins ever niiglit be that would nJt do them any harm, because <>od says ha^^^he will make them as white as snow ; i. e., he will forgive them. But when we come to the 19th and 20th verses we find quite thP contrary of that expressed in the 18th. Here, God says, ^f ye be willing and obedient"-very well-'' ye shall eat he good of the land; but if not, the sword shall devour you TMs plainly teaches that their welfare depends on tjieir obedi- en ^to God, and that he will punish them severely^ /f ^h^ are disobedie'nt and rebellious against him Tl Ms rebell ou; tence, then, looks like a " reasoning" of God with his/ebelhoua people. Wm the writer admit that there is Bomething wrong rie translation of these three verses ? Now we ^^^^ gjve our translation, and ask whether the whole sentence has not another and better sense than it has in the commoa version. Lome. 130 H' 1 I pray you, and let us plead together, saitli Jehovah, If your 8ins shall bo as scarlet, shall they become as white as snovr f If they still be redder than crimson, shall they become lite wool ? (No.) IF you are willing and obedient, you ^^f^^ the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword." And, indeed, the history ot Israel, after God had thus pleaded or reasoned with them, shows plain enough that God did not mean to say that he would mate their crimson-red sins white like snow, but that he would punisn them severely. This sentence is often confirmed m the same book ot Isaiah. For instance, S^: 1-" For, behold, the Lord Jehovah Zebaoth taketh away from Jerusalem and trom Juaan the stay and staff, all support of bread and all f^PF^* /» water." V. 14— ''Jehovah will come in judgment with the elders and princes of his people." 4: 4-" When Jehovah shall have washed away the filthiness of the daughters ot Zion, and the blood of Jerusalem, he shall have rinsed her with a spirit of judgment, and with a spirit of sweeping out. Ana there are many other passages of a similar character. We win give a few other instances, as they occur to our mind just now. Isaiah 35 : 8-" And a highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called, The way of holiness ; the unclean shall not pass over it ; but it shall be for those : the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein." Now we would ask any candid Bible reader, what sense he finds in this verse { vve will give our translation and ask again, whether there is not a clearer sense in this prophecy ? " And there will be a loot- path and a road, it shall be called, The holy way; no unclean shall pass over it ; and it will be for the traveller and the igno- rant (or unexperienced) shall not go astray. ^ , /. . • • The difference between Vi^Dtt and nn is this, the first signi- fies a way, which is cast up higher than the road, that the loot traveller might not be injured by any vehicle; the second, iBig- nifies a road for cattle and vehicles of every kind, ihe com- raon version says also, " a highway ;" but this, we beUeve, is understood by the English-speaking people as a public road, by which then, iho word '' way" would be superfluous. ^ J he word rendered - hu- those" in the common version, is in the original id^ which is foriucd by adding the two last letters to the first, vvithuu: changing its meaning, according to a frequent ^^ 1 _..t-:-u au-, i.»„^cUl?iinir overlooked. 10 I 131 connect " the wayfaring men" (which, by the way, is singular in the original) with the following a^b^i^i, and to say, *' Ihough fools," is again impossible, because the t here signifies " and, and the word does not always mean a fool, but one who is igno- rant, or has no experience. One instance more. Isaiah 65 : 20—" There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor aa old man that hath not filled his days : for the child shall die an hundred years old ; but the yinner being an hundred y^ra old shall be accursed." This is the common version. WMt does the prophet mean according to this translation ? We translate this verse as fallows: ''There shall not be from there (i. e. from Jerusalem, of which the prophet speaks m the pre- ceding verse,) an infant or an aged that will not fill up his dayi • for it is only a youth that dieth a hundred years old ; and he will be cursed ; the sinner of a hundred years of age. The idea is, that, after Jerusalem shall be restored, neither infant nor an aged shall die before the full age, a very high age, as the prophet says in th« 22nd verse—" As the days ot a tree, shall be the days of my people." And should it happen that one dieth an hundred years old, who will be considered as a mere youth, people will curse, saying : that youth was cer- tainly a sinner, or ho would not have died so young, buch instances are numerous in the Bible, it would therefore be a preat and meritorious enterprise to subject the common version to a thorough revision, not to "modernize some expressions which are not suitable to the taste of the nineteenth century ; but to remove incorrect translations of original words, or to correct punctuations by which the real meaning is either per- verted or made unintelligible. , , i There are many others, but we will conclude these series with but one of them. , , , ^v. a rnv^ Gen. 49: 10, 11, 12— commonly translated thus:— • ite sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come ; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass s colt unto the choice vine, he washed his garments m wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes. His eyes shall bo red with wine, anc' his teeth white with milk." . u t v Now since we know this was spoken by the patriarch JaooD, when on his death-bed, with the preceding words— "(jrather yourselves together, that I may tell you what shall befoll you 132 i « in the last day6," surely tbese prophecies must be of some weic'ht. As for the first above quoted verse, all agree that it relates to the Messiah, but what sense is there, we ask, m the following; two verses ? According to all translations they have no meaning at all relative to the Messiah. The Hebrew above must guide us here. Let us now try and translate these two verses literally. (Osry) "Binding, or they shall bind. (Lagephon) unto the vine." Rashy says, this means thq Israelites, who are compared throughout Scripture to a vine. (Iroh) "Jerusalem, - or "his city," from the verb ♦' Ir," and not his foal, as ordina- rily translated. (Sarekah) «' the choice vine.'' This again means the Israelites. See Jer. 2: 21. (Beny atonoh) ass-colt may be translated thus, and of course separately, (Benee) my son, (atonoh) his temple, or the entrance ot the temple. See Ezek. 40: 15. Now let us see how this vfill read— nth verse: They, the Israelites, who are called a vine, will bind him, in his city, and through the Israelites my son shall enter into his t-^mple. The word (Sorekah), which Rashy says means the Israelites, may signify also a branch, and it will read thus : *' They, the Israelites will bind my son in the city of Jerusalem, and through the branch (the crop) my son shall enter into hib temple. ; The remainder of it will read as follows :— '' His covenng (or body) shall be washed in the blood of grapes, for his eyes shall be redder than wine, (with suffering) and his teeth whiter than milk," (with foam)— as we read m Isaiah 63 : .— " Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth ia the wine vat." The Bishop, on page 288, says : " A true christian, then, is not at liberty to lay aside, as inconvenient or discomforting, any single fact of science, whether of critical or historical research, or of any other kind which God in his gracious pro- vidence is pleased to bring before him. He dare not bury this talent in a napkin, and go about his business, m his own v^ay, as if he had never heard it, as if it were nothing. He is bound to turn it to account in the service of his Great Creator, to consider carefully how far it is true, and to what extent it must, therefore, interfere with notions which he had already, perhaps, registered as certainties, upon Insufficient evidence o^Kia ^«tv Jb IniH fisneciallv on thosc who have received gitta ol J i "•^v of 133 J other kinds,— education, leisure, opportunity, and, it may be, from pecraar circumstances, a special call for the work,— which many of their fellowmen have not, and which place them in more prominent positions, as leaders and guides of othars." We would like to know what the Bishop understands by a true christian, and if he means believers in Christ. How is it then, that the Bishop denies, what Christ (after whom he calls himself) himself establishes ] We conclude this with the following remarks from the « That any one should seriously believe that he knows more than Jesus of Nazareth did of God's dealings with his people, and yet should be serious in professing to believe that the same Jesus was a Divine Messenger, seems utterly incredible, except under the supposition of insanity. Now, several inspired teachers have sealed to us the authenticity and veiacity ot_this book of Deuteronomy. It was cited as Scripture by our Lord in the Wilderness of the Temptation, up to which period the adversary seems to have had no suspicion that it was the fraudu* lent result of a conspiracy of Jeremiah and Hilkiah, — that beino- left for an Anglican Bishop, and the Germans whom ho follows, to discover. This sublime and Holy Book contains the prediction of the Great Prophet, like unto Moses, whom in after, agts Jehovah was to raise up to His people from their brethren. On this promise, St. Peter, shortly after Pentecost, insisted in his exhortation to the people in the temple, quoting it with the words—* For Moses truly said unto the Fathers.^ Was it not Moses, then ? and how came it to be ' truly said' if it was said by imposture ? To the same cardinal prophecy and promise the Martyr referred :— ' This is that Moses which said unto the children of Israel, a prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you.' Dr. Colcnso cannot but remember that when Stephen thus spake, he spake by the Holy Ghost; that ' '■ was martyred, but rewarded with the vision of the Great Prophet, for that very discourse, and tiiat he was at the time * full of the Holy Ghost.' Vainly does the Bishop of Natal argue on the presumed ignorance of his Saviour. He has to traduce the prophets, he has to show himself more sub- tle than the Serpent, he has to prove that the Disciples were mistaken, he has to arrogate fur himself a knowledge of the Mosaic writings more intimate and perspicuous than that of I 134 the Prophet who was like unto Moses, and he has to ^jaintaia that the Holy Spirit did not lead the Apostles into all truth, but left them in errors misleading and most calamitous to the churoV in this nineteenth century. It is a Bishop who already, virtually, ^as attempted to do all this-but where can he stop ? - • " - j^i=>i=*Ei>rr)ix:, NOTE ON THE PECULIARITIES OF THE WILDERNESS. STANLEY. We are too much accustomed to think that the Peninsula of Si^ai, when th" Israelites passed through, was entrrelyunm^^^^^^ itpd This however, is not the case even now, still lesc was i* olhenTwomlin 'streams of population at P-Bcnt --py the pastures of the wilderness, and two appear also at the ^^f^^^J^^ Israelite migration. The first was the great tribe of Ame ek ruled, as it would seem, by a chief who bore f/^^^*^^^^^4^^^?f' and the hereditary name of Agag,- themselves a wide-spi^^^^^^^^ clan,-" first of the nations," and, ike the /^f ^^ ,S/™^^'J^* modern days, extending their excursions far ^"^^ P^^^^f^^^^^^J'^'t leaving thei^ name, even before history commences, «» ^«^"- tains in the centre of the country. This ^f «^t"^^' °'^„^„"S^t as it would seem the whole north of the PfJ^'"«"^\^,^;^V th^new naturally be expected, the first to contest the entrance of the new people." NOTE ON THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE DESERT. STANLEY. In the case of each of the main supports of the Israelites, there have been memorials preserved down to ou^wn time of the hold acquired on the recollections of the Jewish Christian Chu^^h i ne flowing of the water from the rock has been localised in varioua forms byArab traditions. The isolated rock m ^^^l^'^^ll^^tJ'Z nea^ Mount St. Catherine, with the twelve ^"^^t^^ ^^^^ff ";"'' ^er the twelve tribes, was pointed out as he =^o™«,^^Yn *^^^^^^^ at Irast as earlv as the seventh century. The living streams oi ?e/rai of Shuk Musa, of Wady Misa, have each heen connected wi h the event by the names bestowed "Pon thexn Th« f 7^\«^^. tradition to which the apostle alludes, ^"^P^'f J ^^^^/^^^^J^^^^^^ ment in the Pentateuch to the prodigious extent of «"PPO«^Jfj * rock or ball of water constantly accompanying them. The i.nris tTan image based upon this, passed on into the catacombs where PeLr, under the figure of Moses, strikes the rocl^, from wiiich he 136 takes his name, and it has found its final and most elevated apj^- cation in one of the greatest of English hymns,— " Rock of ages cleft for me, Let me hide myself in thee." The manna, in like manner, according to the Jewish tradition of Josephus and the belief of the Arab tribes, and of the Greek Church of the present time, is still found in the droppings from the tamarisk bushes which abound in this part of the desert. The more critical spirit of modern times has been led to dwell on the distinction between the existing manna, and that described in the Book of Numbers, and the identification is further rendered pre- carious by the insufficiency of the present supply in the desert of Sinai. It became afterwards a favourite figure in Christian writings, to express the heavenly sustenance of the soul, either in the Eu- charist or in our spiritual life generally. Of all the typical scenes represented in the celebrated Ammergan Mystery, none is more na- tural or touching, than that in which the whole multitude of the Israelites, in every variety of age, sex, and character, appear look- ing up with one ardent expectation to the downward flight of the celestial food, fluttering over the hundreds of upturned heads, according to that fanciful and child-like, but beautiful conception of the descent of the manna. The historical origin of this sacred figure was always carried back beyond Palestine to the desert. A portion of it was laid up as a relic by the Ark for this very purpose, " that they might see the bread wherewith their fathers were fed in the wilderness. John 6 : 3 1 , 49. NOTE ON THE FLIGHT, BY STANLEY. It is difficult to conceive the migration of a whole nation under such circumstances. This difficulty, amongst others, has induced the well-known French commentator on the Exodus, with every desire of maintaining the letter of the narrative, to reduce the numbers of the text from 600,0(!0 to 600 armed men. The great German scholar defends the correctness of the original numbers. (Ewald ii., 253 sqq.) In illustration of the event a sudden retreat is recorded of a whole nomader people,- 4 (',000 Tartars, -under cover of a single night, from the confines of Russia into their native deserts, as late as the close of the last century. Wc may leave the question to the critical analysis of the text, and of the probabilities of the case, and confine ourselves to what remains equally true under either hypothesis. Those who have seen the Start of the great caravans of pilgrims in the East may fovni some notion of the silence and order with which oven very large masses break up from tneir encampments, and, as in this instance, usually in the darkness and cool of the night, set out on their journey, the torches flowing before them, the train of camels and asses spreading far and wide thiough the broad level desert. I ^ 13T NOTE ON "THE PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA."--STANLKY The Israelites were encamped on the western shore of the Red Sea, when suddenly a cry of alarm ran thi-ough the vast multitude. Over the ridges of the desert hills were seen the well-known horses, the terrible chariots of the Egyptian host : " Pharoah pur- eued after the children of Israel, and they were sore afraid." «' They were sore afraid," and in that terror and perplexity the 8UU went down behind the huge mountain range which rose on their rear, and cut off their return to Egypt, and the dark njght fell over the waters of the sea which rolled before them and cut off their advance into the desert. So closed in upon them that evening. Where were they when the morning broke over the hills of Arabia ? where were they, and where were their enemies 7 NOTE ON MOSES' NAME. The Bishop, on page 293, says : " Moses is named <«Jic« only before the captivity, Jer. 16 : 1. Mic. 6- 4." "And keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to JeeP hi3 statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his tes- timonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses." Kings 26 ; 3. We recommend this verse to the Bishop, which will conymce him that Moses is mentioned more than twice before the captiyity, and also points out another error of his ^/here he says that tiie Law is not called after Moses. « x ^ Other passages might be referred to, via : Joshua 1 : 29 : Judges 11 • 15-25. This latter passage will remove another difficulty, namely, that nothing is found about Moses or his writings m ttiis Bpok. DEATH OF VOLTAIRE. Voltaire, the great champion of modern infidelity, was called to his final account on the 30th of May, 1778, in the 85th year of his ase The Archbishop of Paris is said to have denied the corpse a Christian burial, and it was therefore interred secretly at Scelliereg a Bernardine Abbey, between Nogent and Troyes. (Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 13th, ed., 1840, p.26.) How he met his fate and the Support he derived from his infidel principles, may be learned Irom the following brief sketch, which is generally regarded as authentic. Volta^Te, during a long life, was continually treating the Holy Scriptures \vith contempt, and endeavouring to spread the poison of infidelity among the nations. In his last illness he sent for Tronehin When the Doctor came, he found Voltaire in the great- est agonies, exclaiming with the utmost horror, I am abandoned .s.B.Aaii*fiM5=rfa^*«*»***^ 13B will half what I am wortti, br GoU ana maa. Doctor, i wiu give >uu «».. "• "'..^ oV/ i/yorwtu give me six months life. The doctor answered S, you cariiot live six weeks, Voltaire replied, then I shall go to hell, and voii will go with me ! and soon after expired. TWss the hero of modem infidels 1 Dare any of t^^"^.^^' J^^ B,e dfethe death of Voltaire, and let f^f ^^^^^J^^^^^an den^^^ That he was a man of great and various tf^^^^^V ^^. P^^" '^^fevei but his want of sound learning, and "^oral qualifications, will ever mevent him from heing ranked with the henetac ovs of mankind. ^Tr^ng Voltaire's last visit to ^^^ris, when his triumph was com- T^lPte and he had even feared that he should die with glory, SmdU the acclamations of an infatuated theatre, he was struck by the hand of Providence, and fated to make a very different ter- "ITtlTmidi^Th"^riumphs, a violent hemorrhage raised appre- hensions for his life. D'Alemhert, I>i^-,°tv'lS"ut wer^ tened to support his resolution, in his last i^oments, hut were onlv witnesses to their mutual ignominy as well as to his own. Zl Remorse, reproach, and blasphemy, uU accompany and char- rcte-ize^^Te long agony of the dying atheist. On his return from the thLtre, L! in th'e midst of the t-lB he J - ^ acquire fresh applause, Voltaire was warned that the lon& career of his impiety was drawing to an end In spite of all the sophisters flocking ^^^^^^ him, m the mst days of illness, he gave signs of wishing toreturn to the ^^d whom he had so often blasphemed. He called for f ^"f J; ^^j^;/!!^ per increasing, he wrote the following note to Abb6 Gualtier You had prom'ised me, Sir, to come and hear «^e. \ e^*^^^^^^^^^^^^ would take the trouble of calling on me as soon as possible. Sijrnpd Voltaire. Parig, 26th February, 1778.' A few daysafte^ the following declaration m presence of the Abb^Gualtier, the Abbe Mignot and th. Marquis deVlle- vieiUe, copied from the minutes deposited with M.Momet, notary ^* 'a'the underwritten, declare that for these four days past, having bean afflrted with a vomitting of blood at the age of eighty-four, and not having been able to drag myself to the church the iUv the Kector of St. Sulpice, having been pleased to add to hib good vtS that of sending to' me the Abb6 G-l^r, I con^ess^^^ o him, and if it pleases God to dispose of me, I die ^ t^^^^^^^^^J^ which I was born, (Roman Catholic) hoping that the divine mercy will deign to pardon all my faults. Second of March, 1778 Signed Voltaire, in presence of the Abbe Mignot, my nephew, and the Marquis de Villevieille, my friend." _ After the two witnesses had signed this ^^^J^^^tion J^oltaire added these, words, copied from the same n^^utes :--<' The ^^^^^ I'nnUiPv mv confessor, having apprised me that it was saia among a cXn set o? people that I should protect against every- ?Sng I did at my death, I declare that I never made such a speech, 139 and that It Is an old jest, attributed Iodk since to many of th« learned and more enlightened than I am." This declaratio . is also signed by the Marquis de Villevieille, to whom, eleven years before, Voltaire wrote, " Conceal your march from the enemy^ in your endeavors to crush the wretch 1" (It had been customary during many years, for Voltaire to call our blessed Sa- '.our The Wretch ; and he vowed that he would crush him. He closes many of his letters to his infidel friends with the same words — crush the wretch I) Voltaire had permitted this declaration to be carried to the rec- tor of St. Sulpice, and to the Archbishop of Paris, to know whether it would be sufficient. When the Abb6 Gualtier returned with the answer, it was impossible for him to gain admittance to the pa- tient. The conspirators strained every nerve to hinder the Chief from consummating his recantation, and every avenue was shut to the priest, whom Voltaire himself had sent for. The demons haunted every access, rage succeeded to fury, and fury to rage again, during the remainder of his life. D'Alembert, Diderot, and about twenty others of the conspirators, who had beset his apartment, never approached him, but to wit- ness their own ignominy, and often he would curse them, and ex- claim, retire I It is you that have brought me to my present state I Begone I 1 could have done without you all, but you could not exist without me, and what a wretched end you have procured me.I Then would succeed the horrid remembrance of his conspiracy. They could hear him, the prey of anguish and dread, alternately supplicating or blaspheming that God against whom he had con- spired ; and in plaintive accents he would cry out. Oh Christ 1 Oh Jesus Christ ! and then complain that he was abandoned by God and man. The hand which had traced in ancieii . writ, the sentence of an impious and reviling king, seemed to trace before his eyes, " crush them, do crush the wretch " In vain he turned his head away, the time was coming apace when he was to appear before the tribunal of Him whom he had blasphemed ; and his physicians, particularly M. Tronchin, calling to administer relief, thunder- struck, retired, declaring the death of an impious man to be terri- ble indeed. The pride of the conspirators would willingly have suppressed these declarations, but it was in vain. The Mareschal de Richlieu fled from the bed side, declaring it to be a sight too terrible to be sustained, and M. Tronchin, that the furies of Orestes could give but a faint idea of those of Voltaire. This account of tlie unhappy end of Voltaire is confirmed by a letter from M. de Luc, an eminent philosopher, and a man of the strictest honour and probity. Mr. Wesley puts the whole case as follows : — "I beg leave to propose a short, clear, and strongs argument to prove the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. The Bible 140 m«fit be th« tnv«nti©ii either of good m«n or angels, Ud men ot ?^il8 or of God. It could uut be the invention of good men or ^nlel8 f^ they neither would nor could make a book and tell lies aU^the ti^c they were writing it, eaying, " Thn^^^^^ *?»« ^'''^J' when it was their own invention. It could not be the invention Tf b^ men or devil*, for they would not make a book which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns their souls to hen to ail eternity! Therefore, I draw this conclusion, that the Bible must be given by Divine inspiration. g.'i 1", hj^ por ill ii"'"' =*c: =?:?: ■u . , I •" 1 1 IT Str Sad ZebaothT. Page 119, 18th Kae, for « Anubud" read Aiiiihud.