IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I If: ilM Hf us, I— 12 2 M 1.8 1.25 1.4 J4 ^ 6" — ► V] <^ /2 /a O CA >> '4 M Photographic Sciences Corporation # €v \\ '% V ^ ■0m O"^ % 23 *:nfcSi mmi's jinEBT WEBSTER, N.r. 1 DR. COLEiNSO ▲HD TBI PENT^TETJOH. TORONTO: EOLLO AND ADAM, KING STEEET. LONDON: GEOEGB MOEEISH, i^, WAEWICK LANE, PATEEN08TKE EOW. 1863. 4 TOSOSTO : lOTBlL AHD OIBSOH, PBISIIBS. TOHGB BIEBIT. 3 7 6"/ t DR. COLENSO AND THE PENTATEUCH. I t I thank thee, Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and has revealed them unto babea. — Matt. xi. 25. It is impossible to treat the author of this book as a Christian. I do not say this as forming any judgment of his personal state, in any way ; I speak of the public pro- fession of a religion he belongs to— Chri -^ianity as con- trasted with heathenism, Mohammedanism, Judaism, or Buddhism. Dr. Colenso states that " our belief in the living God remains as sure as ever, though not the Pen- tateuch only but the whole Bible were removed. It is written on our hearts by God's own finger as surely as by the hand of the apostle in the Bible, that ' God is, and is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.' It is written there also as plainly as in the Bible, that * God is not mocked,-— that whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap,' and that * he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption,' " pp. 53, 54. That is, with the Bible or without the Bible, Dr. C. believes in the exist- ence of God, and His rewarding them that seek Him, and in natural conscience. In other words (as far as his book goes, which he puts forth as a manifesto), he is a professed Deist. Even with the Bible he only believes so much as his heart and conscience recognize, and that the latter is to be preferred to the Bible as the means of knowing God : " that He Himself, the living God, our * Father and Friend, is nearer and closer to us than any book can be j that His voice within the heart may be heard continually by the obedient child that listens for it, and that shall be our teacher rnd guide in the path of duty, which is the path of life, when all other h(^lpers — even the words of tlie best of books — may fail ns,'' p. 54. Now it is clear that neither believing that God is, nor natural conscience, is believing in the special facts of Christianity — the in<>arnation, atonement, resurrection, redemption, being born again, the exaltation of a man to God's right hand, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. !n a word, no special truth or fact of Christianity i» " written on our hearts by God's own finger," or can be possessed by mere natural conscience or belief in C»od. All intervention of God is left out. But it is in this, and the statement of what led to its necessity, that revealed religion consists. There is a conscience in every man. The word of God acts on it. I do not doubt that there is an instinctive knowledge of a God and of judgment. This is all Dr. C. owns, with or without the Bible. Revealed religion is a series of divine and marvellous facts and truths, unfolding an intervention of God in grace with sinful man. He sets this aside. His relation- ship with God is not founded on U. He prefers, :is teaching, what he has without it ; that is, he wholly and professedly sets aside Christianity. He goes farther — he recognizes " the voice of God's Spirit .... not in the Bible only, but out of the Bible : not to us Chri^ians only, but to our fellow-men of all climes and countries, ages and religions, the same gracious Teacher is reveal- ing, in different measures, according to His own good pleasure, the hidden things of God," p. 222. Dr. C. has, in substn'^.ce, solemnly declared that this is not so (see Article xviii. of the Thirty-nine Articles) ; but I suppose this is no matter with rationalists. But his statement amounts to this : Christians and heathens have all their t I > T i T particular religions, but besido and within tliis, all have a communication in their own hearts ol the hidden things of God. The knowledge of God is not in the religion, for heathen;^ and Christians have it more or less, what- ever their religion^ in their hearts. He confirmr^ this by quotations from Cicero, Sikhs and Hindoos. Cicero's statement — I suppose Dr. C. did not find it out — is merely asserting natural conscience, with the addition of a denial of the foundation fact of revelation, that man is a sinner, driven out from God. " Whoever will not obey this law,** says Cicero, " will be Hying from himself, and having treated with contempt his human nature will, in that very fact, pay the greatest penalty, even if he shall have escaped other punishments, as they are commonly consi- dered." Now this makes human nature the measure of good, as indeed Cicero everywhere does. And just see the result, which neither Dr. C. nor Lactantius, from whom he quotes, seem to have noticed : this law or right reason " to the good never commands or forbids in vain, .never influences the wicked either by commanding or forbidding.'* Could grace be more fully denied ? Could the effect of law or conscience be more entirely mis- stated ? There are good or wicked already — God knows how — and this law or right reason changes nothing, — always succeeds with one, and leaves the other where he is. This is, we are told, " a voice almost divine.** " The same divine Teacher revealed also to the Sikh Gooroos (teachers) such great truths as these," p, 223. He then quotes statements of the unity of God, but which is Panthe- ism, that is, that God is in every thing; statements which recognize Mahomets, Brahmas, Vishnus, Sivas — of course not Christ — and that is a revelation of God for Dr. C. He then quotes from Hindoo writings " the following words, which were written by one who had no Penteteuch nor Bible to teach him, but who surely learned such living truths as these by the direct teaching of the Spirit of i e God," p. 224. In these words God is celebrated, and there is a good deal of moralizing, such as may be found anywhere ; but in which we find, " He that parlaketh of but one grain of the love of God shall be released from the sinfulness of all his doubts and actions" — a comfort- able quietus. " I take for my spiritual food the water and the leaf of Ram.*' " God dwelleth in the mind, and none other but God." Dr. C. admires what is the avowed doctrine of these same teachers, without finding out it is the grossest folly of Pantheism. " God is the gift of •charity, God is the oflering, God is the fire of the altar, by God the sacrifice is performed, and God is to be ob- tained by him who makes God alone the object of his work." Everything being but a development or expan- sion of God, we are too, and, of course, so far as we realize God in it, become God in a superior degree. But all is God ; and it is true of all things, man among the the rest. This last sentence, as Dr. C. approvingly quotes, was by " one who had experienced somewhat of what Job had experienced," p. 223. All this is but extracting Deism from Christianity and heathenism alike, and mak- ing conscience the judge of what is to be received from each; only, unfortunately. Dr. C.'s conscience accepts the very grossest Pantheism without so much as finding it out. But there is more than this. This book does not be- lieve as much of Christ as Mohammed did. Dr. C. openly professes to know much better than Christ upon the sub- ject of the divine authority of revelation. Mohammed held Christ to be a prophet, and that He will judge the world. On the last point the book does not declare itself, if it be not in an intimation borrowed from Cicero. Here is Dr. C.'s estimate of Christ's authority in what he declared: " We are expressly told, in Luke ii. 52, that Jesus in- creased in wisdom as well as in stature. It is not sup- posed that in His human nature He was acquainted, more t T t I than any educated Jow of the age, with the mysteries of all modem sciences, nor, with St. Luke's expressions be- fore us, can it be seriously maintained tliat, as an infant or young child He possessed a knowledge surpassing that of the most pious and learned adults of His nation, upon the subject of the authority and age of the different portions of the Pentateuch. At what period, then, of His life upon earth, is it to be supposed that He had granted to -Him, as the Son of man, supernaturally, full and accu- rate information on these points, so that He should be expected to speak about the Pentateuch in other terms than any other devout Jew of that day would have em- ployed ? Why sho' '-' ■* be thought that He would speak with certain divin ^dge on this matter more than upon other matier '■y science or history?" p. 32. That is,wlien Clir il ^^d One, spoke of the author- ityof the Wordof Goa, d authoritatively of the Scrip- tures and of Moses,— He merely followed the ignorance and prejudice of the pious Rabbis of his nation. Dr. Colen- so has more knowledge, and is freed from the prejudices, and in consequence can tell us positively that Christ was wrong ! He has found out that it is impossible that such things as are found in the Pentateuch could come from our loving Father. This, if we are to believe Dr. C, Christ had not moral discernment enough to find out, and took for granted all was right, so as to believe that what Moses wrote came from God. Now Christ ^ays, *' We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen," for He was of ard in heaven ; and the question is not how He learned what He knew but, when He taught positively, did He teach perfectly, or only under the in- fluence of national prejudice ? Dr. C. quotes the follow- ing passages of Christ's words:—-" Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me; but if ye believe not his writings how shall ye believe my words." But it seems this appeal was all beside the HI i s mark, for Moses never wrote it at nil. Hence, of course^, they were not ealled upon to believe Chri.st's words either, " Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewe*^ at the bush.»' This too was quite a mistake. " They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. If tht:y hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be per- suaded though one rose from the dead." But all this solemn af)pe;i7 of Christ to Moses, as of equal authority end weight with His o.a words and resurrection, as a proof of truth, is a mistake, the prejudice of pious Rabbis of His nation ! Dr. C. is freed from ihem, and c{:n prove he knows much bett«^r t'lfin Clirist did. And this man is what is called "Bishop of Natal." I may be asked, has he not declared his belief in all the canonical Scriptures, and bound himself in this office to require it of those he ordajus ? He has. What then does he do with his conscience ? lie tells us that too: it is governed by the Court of Arches. It is a mercy for upright men that modern rationalists shew themselves so plainly morally. I do not think I ever read any thing so morally base as the reasons for signing the Articles, in the "Essays and Reviews." Old infidels broke with Christianity — it was sad enough — but modern ones keep their places and only give up their faith. The boldness of Dr. C.'s assertions, and the excessive carelessness of his statemc *s and conclusions, are alike remarkable. He tells us that he does not believe in the deltlge, because he does in geology. He has studied it in the Zulu country, and he now knows for certain (for Sir C. Lyell is infallible, if Scripture and the Lord Christ be not) that a universal deluge could not possibly have taken place. Now Sir C. Lyell is unquestionably an able geo- logist, as well as the constant resort and refuge of infi- dels ; but he has a system, and a system which geologists less speculative and, at the very least, as able as be, en- tirely reject. Nor does he deny that the science is in its i • I > I intiuu'y. The ablest inquirers believe in ;i universal de- luge ; iliu latest reN«ar(.hes tend to prove it. I say tend, because no certain conelusit)ns jan yt»t be niodc i'roni geology as to dates. I do not liesitat*^ to atfirm, and I am supported by the ableist geologiHts, that geological dates and periods stand on the most uncertain and unsatisfac- tory footing. Sir C. LyelPs system is utterly unsatis- factory, — irreconcileable with ine evident facts of the up- heaval theory, which is generally admitti^d. Dr. C. assures us^that a partial deluge is no better, so that in spite of universal tradition, S(;ript r: , 'he autliority of Christ, who refers specifically to the deluge ah true (Matt, xxiv. 37-39), and tauch geological research, we are to have no deluge at '^11. *J do not know that I should ever hav*^ noticed this point, as it is iinj)ossiljle to follow it out here, but as affording a proof of Dr. C.'s manner of reasoning- It was not partial, he says, because a flood ■which shouM cover Ararat must, in due time, sweep over the Puy de Dome, because water finds its own level !— that is to say, water 16,000 or 17,000 feet de(;p in a nar- low locality must have been some 5,000 feet deep at thousands of miles' distance, when it had spread th^.t distance in every direction i And a man who reasons thus is to call in question the accuracy of Sciipture. But Dr. Coleuso assures us the Scriptures never affirm their own infallibility. AbstrriCtedly "infallibility" belongs to a person, not to what has been already said ; but they affirm that they are inspired by God, and that liiey have His authority. The Lord says, " The Scripture cannot be broken *' — appeals to it, as we have seen, as of equal au- thority with His own words — refers to them as testifying of Him — expounds them after His resurrection in what ♦hey taught concerning Himself — declares that all they said must be fulfilled — opens His disciples' understand- ing to understand them— -declares that His rising from the dead would be useless to convince those by whom they I'll 1 to Avere not believed ; — they are quoted by Him as abso- lutely conclusive authority. Facts here questioned, or borne with because they may be " fairly disposed of," are referred to by Christ as undoubted history. So the apostles write whole epistles, in which their entire teaching is based upon the truth and inspired authority of Scripture. Paul speaks of the Scriptures '" foreseeing," so completely does he identify them with God. '* But what saith the Scripture " is conclusive : not only so— they declare them to be by inspiration. They are called the oracles of God, and the possession of them is counted to be the main privilege of God's people ; so the law ia called "the living oracles." Peter says, " No prophesy of the S<"ripture is of any private interpretation, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." I dare say Dr. C. will call the authenticity of this in ques- tion. Take, then, the first Epistle (though I am perfectly satisfied of the authenticity of the second). There he states that the prophets searched as men into theii own prophecies, as given by the Spirit of Christ which was in them. Paul declares that " Every Scripture is given by inspiration of God" — the security of the saint in the last perilous times. He calls the Scriptures " prophetic Scrip- tures" (Scriptures of the prophets). I have no doubt this refers to the New Testament, but if it be the Old, it is saying they aie inspired. So his own teaching he de- clares to be by " words which the Holy Ghost teacheth." The prophets were infamous impostors, if what they said were not the direct testimony of God himself, for they say, " Thus s'Jth the Lord." As to Christ, it is said, " He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God, for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Himy Thus, as Son of man, what He spoke He Cipoke — to refer to Dr. C.'s question — " supernaturally," and His words were the words of God. I am aware that Dr. C. says that, on such subjects. He was no wiser than other pious Jews, and i T 1 ( 11 that he tiiinks himself wiser than Christ and the apostles on such ; but does he expect every one to have the same opinion of him th.it he has of himself ? Doea he think that many even will respect the judgment of one called a Bishop, who persuades us that Christ was prejudiced and he is no! ? Poor human nature ! Allow me to ask you, Dr. Colenso, do you believe in the resurrection ? do you believe in this stupendous exer- cise of Divine power, so suited to man subject to death ? 1 mean the resurrection of liim who was " deli- vered for our offences and raised again for our justifica- tion." Is it not something, this coming in of God to take out of death and from among the dead His own Son, given for our sins ? Do you find this without a revela- tion ? Does Cicero furnish you with this, or do Sikh Gooroos, or Pantheistic Brahmins? They may say fine things about God and patience, and do the same things (as Paul says) as the rest : can they tell of the deliverance of sinful man ? I can conceive no greater proof of imbe- cility and wilful ignorance of facts than to compare the revelation first of the whole history of man, under God*s dealings with his responsibility, and then of atonement and the intervention of God in deliverance, with the fine sayings of some heathen, — one who shows, too, men to be incapable of knowing God, as Cicero does, or with the moralizing of Pantheists. But I close. I am not writing a book on these things, but penning an ephemeral article on the poorest piece of infidelity I ever met with, and I turn to the objections to run them over rapidly. Let my reader only remember this. The object of Scripture is not to meet objections or give history, but, on the part of God, what is divinely in- structive to man ; that, if the Old Testament gave the perfection of the New, — it would prove it was not true, for the true light did not shine till Christ came ; that, meeting objections does not give the force of the positive I 12 proofs. It seems candid to quote Kurtz and Hengsten- berg (men who, however respectable, know little, as i judge, of the power of Scripture), but in merely giving an- swers to objections all the positive proofs are, of course, left out. If no answer could be given to an objection, and yet there were positive proof of that against which the objection was brought, this would only prove the so- hition of the difficulty was not known. The positive proofs of the truth of Scripture are such, that the denial of their being, as they are called, '* the oracles of God " 19 an evidence only of the moral darkness of the rejector of them. It is quite true I cannot explain light to a blind man ; but every one who sees knows he is blind. Above all, let my reader remember that the Lord himself treats the Scriptures as absolutely inspired and authoritative, quotes them as we now have them, and declares that all written of Him must be fulfilled, — that " not a jot or tittle can pass from the law till all be fulfilled," the law which Dr. C. pronounces he could not attribute to God, save as he selects bits according to his own fancy, for he has, of course, a perfect judgment ; — a man who sees nothing in the minutiae of the law, which (while a yoke in the letter) as a shadow of good things to come, is full of the deepest instruction : let him remember that Dr. C. pre- sents himself as wiser and better informed than Christ, and if he have faith to do it, pray for one who can think so, and publish a book to tell the world he does. Such views, they tell us, will unite all pious people in one mother church ; and if such questions should disturb men's minds, and a serious person would ponder and weigh them before doing so, he has only to remember that Dr. C. has such a sense of the petty importance of his own position, that he cannot have leisure (so he tells us) to ponder a while before he gives forth, pretending to be wiser than Christ,~opinions which contradict what Christ says. ) 4 The first objection is that in Genesis xlvi., Hezron and Hamui are stated to have gone down to Egypt, and consequently to have been born in Canaan, but that this is impossible if the ages of Judah and Joseph be consi- dered. It is contended that Judah was forty-two when Jacob went down into Egypt, inasmuch as Joseph was thirty-nine. Gen. xxx, 24-26, and xxxi. 41, are cited to prove that Joseph was born in the seventh, Judah in the ifourth year " of Jacob's double marriage.'* The impos- sibility of Hezron and Hamul's going down to Egypt, arises from this, l hat Judah was twenty when Joseph went down into Egypt, and that Hezron and Hamul, who rank in point of time with Judah's great grand children though his own grand children by Tamar, could not have been born when he was forty-two, i. e. twenty-two years after- wards. On the other hand it is insisted that the narra- tive of Jacob's going down, makes sixty-six souls go witH him, and there are not sixty-six without Hezron and Hamul. There is no ground for the objection at all. I do not insist on the uncertainty of the exact difference between the ages of Judah and Joseph, as what might be added, even if just, would hardly clear up the point ; though, bringing it perhaps within the limits of possibility, it is sufficient to throw doubt upon Dr. C.'s assertions. But Gen. xlvi., is simply to record the immediate descendants of Jacob who were associated with himself in Egypt, to give his family. Thus Er and Onan are noticed, onl) H is added, they died in Canaan. It is then added '* and the sons of Pharez wer? Hezron and Hamul." This I2th verse is distinctly genealogy, no*, that all went down into Egypt who are named in it : for Er and Onan are I 'J %4 ■ named because they are sons, while it is expressly stated they did not go down at all.* In the 12th verse the introduction of " were " is em- phatic, and the phrase, I apprehend, clearly intended to be supplementary. It is not » Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Pharez, and Zarah, and the sons of Pharez, Hezron, and Hamul," which would clearly have been the case if they had been goers down into Egypt. But the histo- rian stops at Zarah, and adds supplementary information : Er and Onan were on the list of sons, but they did not go down, they died before, and Pharez's sons were Hez- ron and Hamul. They are looked at as filling up the breach, but the latter half of the verse is, in contrast with going down, an explanation of the history of that fami- ly. As if he had said : these were Judah's sons, but I must add this explanation to the slatement: Er and Onan never got down, for they died, and Pharez had two sons who are counted m to supply their place. For, though the leading thought be the going down of the family into Egypt, yet in order to this he gives the whole family ; and that this is so is evident, for he introduces Joseph*s sons, adding they were born in Egypt. Indeed, I think it very questionable whether all Benjamin's sons were born when he came into Egypt. It was after Joseph's birth that Jacob agreed with Laban to stay longer, and staid six years. He then journeyed to Palestine, when A •The computation in the passage is not very clear. If we' count in Er and Onan, we have thirty-three sons and grandsons. If we leare them out we must count Jacob among the souls of his own sons and daughters. However, I am disposed to include DinaH and Jacob, and leave out Er and Onan, and read thus ; " These be the sons of Leah which she bare unto Jacob in Padan Aram, with hiu daughter Dinah, all Ihe souls of his sons and daughters : thirty and three." As if he had said, this makes thirty and three. If not, we must count in Er and Onan and make it mere genealogical computation of sons, and the 26th verse would be general, the computation already given excluding Jacob, and Joseph and his sons. l=- Joseph must have been seven years old. He was sold into Egypt at seventeen. Hence Jacob had been only ten years in Canaan when Joseph went there. Jacob had settled first at Succoth, then near Shechem, and Dinah, who was probably nearly of Joseph's age, was old enough to be ill-treated by Hamor, before Benjamin was born. For Jacob went off to Bethel after the des- truction of the men of Shechem, and after leaving Bethel, Benjamin was born and Rachel died. He does not appear either in the history. Joseph is a boy, the son of Jacob's old age. Benjamin could only have been two or three years old when Joseph went down ; for if Dinah were seven or eight years old when she came to Canaan, say she was fifteen or sixteen when Hamor wronged her; seven or eight years had elapsed in Canaan before Benjamin was born, and two or three years more elapsed before Joseph went down. We must add twenty-two for the interval between Joseph's and Jacob's going down. Benjamin was thus at the utmost twenty-four or twenty-five. So he is called a " lad " (nahar) xliii. 3, and a little one (katan) in xliv. 20, and (nahar) again, 31. This being so, and giving the fullest possible age of twenty-five, which, with the three terms, is very improbable, it is very little likely that he had ten sons born to him. I doubt even whether Reuben's sons were all born, as he says, "slay my two sons." On the whole, I think it is evident that this is a genealogical list, without reference to the place of birth : — the statement of the whole family, as a family, who went down. This manner of giving a genealogy complete, and a general fact which is not accurately true as to each individual in it, though it characteri- zes the subject of recital, we have other examples of. To go no farther than chapter 35 : All Jacob's sons are given, including Benjamin, immediately after the account of Benjamin's birth in Canaan, and it is added, " these Ar,V TV are ihc sous of Jacob wliich were born to him in Padan Aram.^'* The exact gencnlogy was the important thing, end it is given accurately. The main fact which characterized the family was iheir birth away from the land of promise, in the country where Jacob served for a wife. It was no object to except Benjamin in the state- ment ; it was to give tlie accurate history of his birth. I doubt not a moment he ie a special type of Christ in connection with Israel : the son of his mother's affliction, but of his father's right hand. But it could be no mw- take for the writer, or compiler, or whatever he was, had given all the details of his birth immediately before, and speaks in the passage itself of Jacob's being in that land. But, Benjamin being born, the time, was come to give the whole family. The subjects are given with divine purpose, in view of after dealings of God, which He foreknew, not as mere histories to amuse ; and hence we get distinct subjects without arrangement of dates. Dr. C. states that Judah's misconduct was after Joseph's going down to Egypt, because it is said, " at that time." Now Judah's genealogy and ways were all important because our Lord was to spring out of Judah. But after this history of Jrdah which lasts some twenty years at any rate, the history of Joseph's going down into Egypt is resumed where it left off. Judah's history is introduced as a separate subject parenthetically. The last verse of xxxvii., and the first verse of xxxix, are connected, and the history of Judah comes in between as a whole of twenty years by itself " At that time ** is only the general epoch, and the whole history is given together. This is exceedingly common in Scripture. But as Joseph was a remarkable type of Christ, eo Judah was his progenitor according to the flesh. And this Pharez and his son Hezron were so. I must add that the relative ages of Judah and Joseph are anything but clearly proved. The relative dates of Joseph's birth and I i t 17 ■ bis going down into Egypt, and of each to other events are far more distinctly given. On the whole the purpose of the statement in Gen. xlvi., is clearly to give Jacob's family, and hence some are noticed who did not go down to Egypt, and Hezron and Hamul are specially introduced into the verse not with the list of sons, but as associated with them. The saying, " Thy father went down into Egypt threescore and ten persons, and now ye are as the stars," takes up the general fact, to shew the marvellous increase. The fiame is the cat.^ in the New Testament, specially in Luke. Dr. C. in fact admits the whole case where he says, " wishing to sum up the seventy souls under one catego- ly, he uses (inaccurately as he himself admits) the same expression, ' came into Egypt.' " Now this settles the whole question. He gives a category of persona, that category being Jacob's family with the general fact of that family's leavmg Canaan and going into Egypt. B»it he introduces some who did not literally go down, though they were there. If this be so, and it is perfectly evident, .Dr. C.*s argument is simply worth nothing at all. When he says : ** all the souls which came into Egypt were threescore and ten,'* we have the demonstration that some at least who were born in Egypt, provided they were of the family that came, are accounted as coming. The case of Hezron and Hamul is much clearer, because there is only an accessory statement in the genealogy ; "and the sons of Pharez were Hezron and Hamul." And we have no need to say again with Dr. C, "the de- scription is, of course, literally incorrect, but the writer^ meaning is obvious enough," for it is literally correct, and the meaning obvious too. But I may add Dr. C.'sown re- mark, which shews the utter wilfulness and equal .absurdity of his objection : " He wishes to specify all those out of the sons of Jacob who •wrerp- 1ivin<» a* the B t time of the commencement of the sojourn of the Israel- ites in Egypt, and from whom such a multitude had sprung at the time of the Exodus." How soon Ilezron and Hamul were born wc cannot say. They are brought into the list in connection with the loss of two of the sons of Judah, with whose history they were con- nected, — one of them being ancestor of David and of the Christ, The next objection is really almost too absurd to notice, but worthy the futility of rationalist arguments. Dr. C. makes a computation of how far files of men as many in number as could stand in front of the breadth of the tabernacle would reach. Does he think the writer did not know, as well as Dr. C, that all the con- gregation could not have stood in the court. But he was not so morally dull as to think of it. Supposing the riot act read to a crowd of 100,000 persons, and I say, the riot act was read to the multitude who stood before the magistrate, and 1 computed how far 100,000 men would reach, standing in a file directly before the magistrate. What, would anyone think of the sense of the person who made the remark ? Or are the crowd not responsi- ble because they cannot hear it.^ Away with such childish trifling. But the fact is there is no ground for the remark at all. " Before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation," has a most important meaning in these ordinances. Within the tabernacle and holiest of all was the place of Jehovah's communing directly with Moses ; outside, yet in connection with the tabernacle, the place of meeting the people, of God's going out, not in the revelation of Himself, but in communications from Himself to the people, and of the access of the people to Him. All the court of the tabernacle of the congregatiott was held to have this character of " before the door of the tabernacle," and all done there and communicated thence was done before the dcor of the tabernacle of the t congregation. All brought up to tfic court was before the door. Thus if all the people had been outside the court and Moses had stood in the doorway of the court, they would have been before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.'* It was the general expression for coming up to the court or entering it, though not going near the tabernacle where the door literally was " The women," we read, " assembled them- selves in troops at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." They did not come when the tabernacle was set up in order, in troops, between the laver and the holy place. But we have the matter definitely stated.— In Exodus x!. we find, ver. 29, *' he put the altar of the burnt offering by the door of the tabernacle of the congre- gation. . . . and he set the laver between the tent of the conofre^ation and the altar." Thus the altar of burnt of- fering, the; first thing met with on entering the court wa^ by the door of the tabernacle. Now this was the place where God was to meet the children oflsrael, as contrast- ed with meeting Moses within the veil. Exod. xxix. 42^ "a continual burnt ofl'ering ... at the dt^or of the taber- nacle of the congregation before the Lord, where 1 will meet you to speak there unto thee. And there I will meet with the Children of Israel." Thus Moses standing under the hangings of the Ci. .1 and speaking to the crowd without was speaking to them gathered before the door of the tabernacle. Had they been inside the court he would have turned his back to them. So when a person oftbred a burnt offering, he offered it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord.— He killed the; bullock before the Lord, and the blood was sprinkled upon the altar that is by the dcor of the taber- nacle of the congregation. They came up to the Lord there, instead of offering it where they pleased, away from him. And this was carefully secured by ordinance, as a guard against idolatry. They had to bring all the 20 beasts they slew up before the Lord : Lev, xvli. 4. The gathering of the congregation to the door of the taber- nacle was bringing thorn up to the court, so that Moses standing there might address them* And the place spe- cifically pointed out for this was not at the door, but where the altar was, i. e. next the entrance of the court where the people were to come up with their sacrifices, have them brought out. lu a word, there is no ground at all (ot Dr. O.'s remarks. ly absurd bringing forward such objections. Had Dr. C* l>een ri soldier, or lived in the din I have had to live in, he would have known that a walk a mile and a half out of a city, for the necesr^ities of life, was a very natural thing. The fifth objection is first that the sh(;kel is called the shekel of the sanctuary before tlmre was a sanctuary; and that the money of which the silver sockets, &c., were made was the redemption money, and that the census which as- certained the number of the people on which the redemp- tion money was paid was six months afterwards, by which time the number must have increased. This haa no ioundat)on whatever. As to the remark that it was called the snekel of the sanctuary before the sanctuary was set up. The book is a history and gives the sum ta- ken according to the value of the money known when U was written. They paid at the time what was known, when the book was written, as the shekel of the sancia- ary, perhaps settled at the very lime. As regards the num- bering, it is clear the computation of the sum that was paid is made from the numbering itself, the result of which was kri nvn when the account of it was written.— There is no con^/... g of the same number; — Exodus xxxviii. 26, Numb. i. 46, — it is the number itself. I do not know what the ground for saying s'x months is. The tabernacle was set up on the first day )f the first month, the numbering took place a month after. The sockets, chapters and filaments may have been made just before. "^hey may perfectly well have given each man his money, and the actual number'ng been made six weeks afterwards to verify it, and that number be given as the ascertained one, even if some few had attained the age of twenty in the short interval. 'J he command to give the half shekel is given in chapter 30, But this was by no means all the silver, for many had offered willingly, but it was lyf ically important that it should be understood that that on which the tabernacle f V-.— 1 + 2S of witness was founded was redemption, and what separated the service of God from the world wa« re- demption. Hence the sockets of the boards of thd tabernacle and the hf^oks and chapiters on which the hangings of the court were fixed were -^f this silver.— The actual numbering took place when the tabernacle was set up to verify the number redermed, which had its own importance. If some shekels more were given it was of no consequence whatever to notice them, as the direction for their use wat* given already. Some few might have died who had given their half shekel, some few reached twenty, but the sum, when numbered, is taken as the sum applied to the service. We know that the populaUon in the wilderness was as nearly stationary as possible. The next difficulty is how they got tents, on leaving Egypt, and carried them. I might fairly say I do not know. Some may have been badly off for want of them, have made them on the journey, and while staying at Sinai for a year. As to carrying them, nothing is said ; they had asses doubtless, perhaps camels, as well as Oa ;;n. The history says nothing about it. To say they couKi not have them is absurd. Very likely they were at first great- ly in want of them. All this is to the last degree idle : it is not the object of the history to give these d* *ails. Dr. C. then takes a very difficult Hebrew word to prove that if it means "armed," there are difficulties in knowing how they got arms, or how they were afraid of Pharaoh if they had. it is really tedious to go through such ab- surdities. The wo^d probably signifies that they went out " in array," — not as poor hunted runaways : for God took them out with a high hand. " By strength of hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt." But it does not by any means follow, if their faith were not lively, that they would not be alarmed when attacked by trained soldiers. -It is said in this same 13th chapter: God did not take 24 them the short way lest the people should repent when they saw war, and return to Egypt. And they were so disposed. God suffered their faith to be tried for a mo- ment, and they did repent when they saw war; only now it was but to make His deliverance the more conspicuous. Nor, where faith was not in exercise, was it very wonder- ful. Accustomed to be slaves, with all their women and children and cattle, the way of escape barred, no practice in war or even in any common military arrangements, they were in faei^ of the most experienced warriors on earth, with chariots and cavalry ; — themselves a great mixed multitude. When Dr. C says " a body of 600,000 warriors," he says what is false. They were not warriors. They were of an age fit for war, even if that were true of them; but they were poor brickmakers, though now roused by God's intervention to leave the house of bondage. The next objection as to the passover, is founded on misstatement and carelessness. Dr. C. insists it was impossible to notify it, and have all ready in time. He tells us the first notice of any such feast to be kept is given in this very chapter, where we find it w^ritten, verse 12. " I will pass through the land of Egypt this night. ''^ Hence he argues it was im- possible to have all Israel ready, and insists on this night and the use of the Hebrew word hazeli. But zeh has not this kind of exactitude always. At any rate the chapter shews distinctly the falseness of the conclusion Dr. C. has drawn from it. The directions had been given at the beginning of the month, and the lamb had to be kept up three days ; " This month shall be unto you the beginning of months, it shall be the first month of the year to you, Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying : on the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, . . . and ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same i ^ > 1 month." Dr. C. say notice several days I pass through the land bad indeed. Moses i take a lamb the tentli, this we are told cann hand, because the cl comes to killing and else ? If the lamb W! fourteenth, the ordin objection does, is to No doubt the momen pies the inspired writ fully suffices to shew of time and notice. The rest of the articl first place kids would all the male lambs pe ate it, loins girded, were prepared long b in the wilderness. was any sudden noti< by the urging of the Dr. C. thinks that false alarm, proves tl confusion in Israel, i demanding to move ^ loins girt and staff m moment that all was no hint of an ordei The Egyptians were already borrowed je pation of going. Th inattention to the s account dwells chie a moral import he c m. :■ ■•- 25 nonth." Dr. C. says this cannot mean that they had lotice several days beforehand, because it says, I will )ass through the land of Egypt this night. This is very )ad indeed. Moses is told to notify to all the people to ake a lamb the tenth, and to keep it to the fourteenth, and his we are told cannot mean that they got notice before- land, because the chapter says *' this night," when it jomes to killing and eating it. And what can it mean jlse ? If the lamb was not kept up from the tenth to the burteenlh, the ordinance was not kept at all. All this jbjection docs, is to disclose the will of the objector. ^o doubt the momentous ordinance itself is what occu- aies the inspired writer, but the beginning of the chapter ■'ally suffices to shew that the objection drawn from want >f time and notice, is as perverse as it is unfounded, rhe rest of the article does not deserve notice. In the iirst place kids would do, so that there was no danger of ill the male lambs perishing. As to notice to start, they ate it, loins girded, and staff in hand, ready to go, and were prepared long before to be on the move, to sacrifice in the wilderness. Nor is there a word to shew there was any sudden notice ; or that their move was caused by the urging of the Egyptians. Dr. C. thinks that his own confusion, in fright from a false alarm, proves that there must have been hopeless confusion in Israel. But they had for a length of time been demanding to move v/ith all their flocks, and were now loins girt and staff m hand, so that we cannot doubt a moment that all was prepared nd arranged. There is Qo hint of an order to start communicated suddenly. The Egyptians were urgent on them to go. They had already borrowed jewels from the Egyptians in antici- pation of going. The whole theory of Dr. C. is simply inattention to the scriptural account. Because that account dwells chiefly on the great facts which have a moral import he concludes there were none else even 1 26 when they are positively stated, and makes stafemcntt moreover, ond statements upon which all his argument depends, which are not in the passage, or actually contra- dict it. I may add that I do not even admit that the 600,000 were only men in the prime of age ; they were all above twenty — twenty and above, that were men, besides children. This would make a considerable difference in the numbers. As to how the herds were fed in the desert, it is certain they chose their encampment where there were springe. At Sinai God gave them water out of a rock. I may add that Dr. C. speaks of Mount Serbal as Sinai, which is more than doubtful, or confounds two opinions, applying statements as to onf^ incorrectly to the other, ignorant that there was any difference ; which, as to the character of the place of encampment, is important. Lipsius thought Serbal was Sinai, but more exact research has made it pretty clear it wasnot, and shewn where Israel encamped. The attempt to say, as Dr. C. says, that the wandering in the desert is not a necessary preliminary to all the history cf Israel, is too barefaced, does too much violence to the common sense of every man who has read scripture to call for an answer. Movements of whole nations in the deserts of Upper Asia have been frequent when there was not the miraculous interposition of God to give water, which is stated in the history of Israel. Israel stayed mainly in the north of the desert on the borders of r.lount Seir and the land of Canaan, where there were wells and pasture. Though what is related in detail i^ what happened at Sinai at the beginning, and at the close. When Dr. C. says the Scripture story says not a word about this long sojourn near Mount Seir and the Red Sea he makes a blunder with his usual carelessness. The Israelites got through the desert of El Tyh* (which is not •El Tyh 18 a modern name (the wandering) for the desert diatrictljinj north of Sinai. * •• ST the desert of Sinai as Dr. C. says) by a rapid and short journey to the desert of Paran and Kadesh Barnea close to Canaan. There they were called on to go up the mountain of the Amorites and take poss€!«sion of the land. Instead of this they sent the spies, the Lord giving His sanction to it, but at their desire. Their faith failed and they would not go up, and were condemned to wander the forty years, till the men, save Joshua and Caleb, died. It was on their refusal to go up that they turned and went to the Red Sea (Numbers xiv. 25), and then it was they compassed Mount Seir (Deut. i. 40), and were on the border of countries affording supplies. In one place where they had no water they were given it again miraculously, went down finally outside the VVady Akaba to the Red Sea, returned to Mount Hor for Aaron's death, and then, at last, down to the Red Sea again, going up the eastern side of the mountains of Seir to Moab and Jordan. The statement of Dr. C. is merely the result of carelessness in searching Scripture. The detail of these long years we have not ; but we have of a stay of a yeaf in Sinai, where water was given miraculously, a short journey across El Tyh,the Lord himself leading them, their arrival at the borders of the land, and their journeying about Mount Seir and to the Red Sea, water being given them miraculously when it failed. Let me remark how beautifully at the moment they were sent back from the land through their unbelief (Numb, xiv.) God gives direc- tions what to do in the land, shewing His promise and purpose as sure as His Word and nature, in spite of man's folly and failure .-Numb. xv. The only account we have of the stations between their reaching the borders of the land in the second year, and their reaching Jordan, is in Num. xxxiii., and the localities at which they stopped during this interval of time are unknown till we come to Moseroth. Thence their journey is clear to the Red 28 Sea, back to Hor, back to the Red Sea, and round Scirto Edom. (Comp. Numb. xxi. and Dcut. x.) But we know that from Kadesh to Zered was thirty-eight years, so that they reached Kadesh in the second year before the end of it, probably a good while before, because the wars against the Amorites and Og were after Zered and before Jordan. Now they did not leave Sinai till the end of the second month of the second year. They abode in Kaditsh many days, certainly more than forty, so that we are sure that the journey Irom Sinaj to the borders of Canaan was very short indeed. They were there on the edge of cultivated land. God turned them back, but they never left the neighbourhood of Canaan, Seir, and the Red Sea. And He who turned them back took care of them, giving them water at Meribah miraculously when needed. Of all this Dr. C. is ignorant, telling us Scripture says no- thing about it,— not having examined that which he is pretending to prove unhistorical. This is true that the Lord gives us those parts of the journey in detail which have a moral bearing, and not how the cattle were pro- vided for. But the book is all false if it be not historical. We have the name of each place where they slopped during the whole forty years. This must be history or forgery. I have noticed elsewhere that the statement in Deut. x. seems to contradict the list in Numbers but becomes the strongest proof of the historical character of the book when closely examined, because we find, by careful comparison of facts and passages, that they traversed the same ground twice from Hor to the Red Sea, from the Red Sea to Hor, and then back to the Red Sea and east of Edom. But men do not make these apparent contradictions, solved by collateral facts and shewn to be unconsciously true, save in relating real history, which, as they know the facts, they have no need to combine and arrange. Dr. C. makes difficulties as to there being wild beasts in Canaan with so large a population. His objections 29 aw futile. What ie the population of India ? how dense is well known, yet tigers and wild beasts abound. Modem European populations are no rule at all, nor even Port Natal, l>ecau8e they settled more in Canaan in towns and villages. Counting in the Canaanites beside^ Israel is only another instance of Dr. C's, carelessne»3, for the supposition made is their total immediate destruc- tion. My own conviction is that the nvimber of Israelites is greatly exaggerated. The 600,000 are all males not children, all the grown men. The whole of the reasoning in the next chapter to prove the first-born more numerous than is stated seems to me an undoubted mistake. I cannot doubt that those only, and the same in Egypt, who were still members of their father's families are counted. The captive in the dungeon and Pharaoh himself may have been first-born, but it is not supposed, as in question, that they should die. It was the house. " There was not a house where there was not one dead." In each family which was together the first-born was taken. I do not believe that a first-born fatlier and his first-born son were both taken or numbered. The first-born children of child-bearing mothers were counted. The first-born of existing families at the time of the numbering. It clearly, I apprehend, did not include old men and grandfathers whose fathers were dead, or even heads of families married out, but first-born of living mothers whose families were with them. Hence counted from a month old. Those below were yet unclean. Remark here that the question must have presented itself to the mind of the writer. It is a proof that it is historical that an evident difficulty is left unserved. A forger does not put an evident difficulty in his account. Here we have an apparent and evident difficulty. The number of grown men is in the previous chapter. JVo explanation given. Why ? Because the writer is stating facts, not inventing a story, and therefore states the fact T 30 without noticing the tlilliculty. Fof myself, I can only say, when I never thought of a question iii it, I never took the statement as to Egypt or Israel as referring to other than families at home, unmarried members of households. Indeed, in this particular case, it may be questioned whether it was not those only born after the destruction of the first-born Egyptians to whom the ordi- nance here referred to was given. God says he sanctified then to Himself all the first-born. It would, perhaps^ suppose an unusual number in their first year of liberation, which would be nothing extraordinary. However, on this I do not insist, as those under a month must be sub- tracted, who, in this case, might be numerous. " All the males," does not refer to all of all ages, but all the males as contrasted with females. Indeed, in verse 43, it is rather implied that all were not : " and all the first- born males by the number of names, from a month old and upwards of those that were numbered of them, were 22,273." But neither do I insist on tliis, as the Hebrew may, I apprehend, be taken as *' in their numbering " the same as *' in number." As to the question of the increase of population during the sojourn of Israel in Egypt it has been discussed and re- discussed a hundred times, and it must require over- weening self-confidence in Dr. C. to bring it forward as he does as an argumentum crucis. He says the doubts he has " raised will be confirmed into a certain conviction, by its appearing plainly from the data of tiie Pentateuch that there could not have been any such population itself to come out of Egypt," p. 148. I suppose he must be ignorant of what has been said of it ; if not, such language is simply overweening impertinence to men far better versed in such inquiries than himself. If the Israelites doubled in fifteen years, they would have been 1,146,880 in two hundred and fiften years ; in two hundred and thirty years 2,293,760. But the statement of Scripture is, that J 4 f .. i i 1. ,■ I 3> " the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abun- dantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty and the land was filled with them ;'* and the new king said, " Behold, the people of tlio children of Israel arc more and miglitier than we," . . . and they perse- cuted them. Very probably they were all removed lo Goshen, giving rise lo Manetho's story of Avaris. ** But the more they afllieted them the more they multiplied and grew," so that their increase was not such as makes any difficulty. In England the increase in ten years was niore than 23 per cent., where town and manufacturing habits largely impede, so that 35 per cent, in fifteen years is reached in the actual state of England. So that doublinff in the circumstances of Israel, with extraordinary bless- ing in this respect, was nothing incredible, though we have no proof of their numbers more than the 600,000 males above twenty, and no proof that the majority of women were not Egyptians or other strangers. If this fact be taken into account, the increase presents no kind of difficulty. But the duration of the sojourn is a very obscure point : Joscphus gives it both as two hundred and fifteen and as four hundred and thirty. The reader may see Clinton Fynes' investigation of ;he point, if he have access to it. He reckons two hundred and fifteen years, taking the shorter or Hebrew chronology. Many able chronologists doubt of this, as Hales. At first sight Gal iii. 17 seems to decide the question, but when exa- mined it does not, 1 tliink, necessarily do so. The apostle takes the time of promise as a general fact. To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. Now the con- firmation to the seed does not come in for some forty years after the promise. It is of this confirmation the apostle speaks, if we take the letter of what he says. But his object was not the date, save as showing »)ie law coming long after the promise. He refers to Ex. xii. 40, which was sufficient for him, and is ambiguous. Ho i 32 may refer to patriarchal times as those of promise, and take the Egyptian state as foi^r hundred and thirty years. The len^h of the sojourn in Egypt is an unsettled ques- tion. As to the Chronicles, it is, I judge, a blunder of Dr. C»\ whirh I should not think much of, were not his book solely founded on affec*r«d ;iccuracy of detail. I Chron. vii. itfO, presents ditnciiUies. This is always hopeful ground for iiiildels. What is difficult to understand they can more easily ttirn to their own purpose, for others have not a positive answer ready. If we follow the statement simply, however, there is no great difficulty. The Chronicles, besides giving the histoiy of Judah, not Israel, and especially of David's family, gather up all the fragments possible of ancient history and genea- logy for the return of Israel from Babylon. Take the passage thus — " The sons of Ephraim Shuihelah :" his genealogy is followed down to a second Shuthelah, and there stops. Then the passage speaks of two other sons of Ephraim, Ezer and Elead, who made a raid against Gath, and were killed ; and then follows another son of Ephraim, which is quite natural, and his genealogy is given. His daughter Sht/ah is simply a descendant of his. Ammihud was fifth from Ephraim. The objection to the numbers of the Danites and Levites, that of the former being large, though Dan had only one son, which, to an unpractised eye, may seem to present the greatest difficulty, is founded on want of attention to the reckonings of scripture ; as if in every case those mentioned are all. The very comparison with Chronicles which Dr. C. institutes ought to have taught him it was not so ; for there are persons mentioned there who are not in £xo» dus. The genealogies are given as far as needed to make out the moral history according to God's government of Israel, but no farther. Any number may be left out, even generatious niuy, i^oviued wh^t is uccded is gives.—— f ss ' Next, generations are taken by Dr. C. as if they were the same then as now. They lived one hundred and thirty or one hundred and forty years, and their families were often proportionate, and here God interfered expressly to multiply them. Thus if we had not Gen. xxv. all scrip- ture would have led us to suppose that Ishmael and Isaac were all the sons Abraham had. Here we see he had six sons more when he was quite an old man, of whom nations sprung. Here for other purposes it was important to notice it. In other cases it was not. Next the assumption that Israel remained only two hrmdred and fifteen years in Egypt is a questionable one. The number of the generation following the twelve pa- triarchs is no way decided. To begin the computation one really ought to take at any rate one hundred and thirty-nine, not seventy ; that is, take the females in. So the children of Dinah and Serah do not appear at all. The fact of a number of children in one generation says nothing as to the result. Benjamin had many ; Reuben had many. Neither were large tribes. Does Dr. C. sup- pose that a forger would have been insensible to this if he had been inventing. It is the strongest possible proof that the account is historical, drawn from facts, for no one would have laid himself open to the objection. There was no need whatever, but that the facts were so, to lend a handle to objectors. It was u., at^^ral if it were not true. Dr. C. states that Moses' children were only two. I doubt it much. They were only two by Zipporah, but he had married also an Ethiopian woman. It did not concern the scripture history to say anything of children by her. We see from the genealogies that families were reckoned all under one head if they were not numerous 80 as to make a distinct family— 1st Chron. xxiii. 10, II— or might come in as two when properly the head should have been but one, as Ephraim and Manasseh. If Joser>h had had a dozen sons afterwards they would not have 34 fonned distinct familie*— Gen. xlviii. 6. They would have merged in the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.^ All these considerations which lie at the >asis of the whole system are ignored by Dr. C. We have an instance how much the names are taken merely to represent fami- lies, and how many may be left out, in the very case Dr. C. mentions, who in his usual careless and superficial way does not notice or perceive it, being simply bent rn his own object. " The Amramites, he tells us, numbered as Levites in the fourth (Eliezer's) generation were, ««* above, only two, namely, the two sons of Moses, — the sons of Aaron being reckoned as Priests. Hence the rest of the Kohathites of this generation must have been made up of the descendants of Ishar and Uzziel," p. 169-170. This is because Ishar and Uzziel are mentioned — Exodus, vi. 21, 22. But this is simply that there was some special reason for mentioning them. Kohath had another son, Hebron, who may have had for cught we know ten times as n.any. In a word those are noticed in the genealogies as to whom some special motive existed, others not. Dr. C. has not even found it out. All his calculation here is based, to say nothing of its general fallacy, upon his not noticing what was before his eyes in the text. But this fact, with a thousand other similar ones, involves a principle which makes the ground of all his calcrlations fundamentally false. Let the reader note this case, as it may clear his mind as to these statements of families. A genealogical succession is given, and only two sons out of four mentioned. One, it so happens, we can supply as far as it goes, because Moses and Aaron came from that stock, — the absence of the other we cannot ac- • As to Dan, if the abs( nee of others of the tribe not yet formed hin- dered the application of the rule laid down in the case of Zelophehad'g daughters, the fact that he had only one son may ha\e been removed in A ffi.Yf o-Anerations. Hushim mav have had ai many a? Jair who had thirty tons who rode on thirty aisei colti. com t for. In this case we arc srrc of it, becpune he i« mentioned a few verses before. Now it is just as possi- ble, very likely indeed, that Amrarr may have had a host of sons besides Piloses and Aaroi who are mentioned because of their impoitance. The names are given more to show from whom people are descended who aic Wnown than to tell all the descendents. All this Dr. C. has over- looked, and simply made mathematical calculations as if all were given. — His whole system is false. Dr. C.'s computations are merely neglect of all the principles of scriptural genealogies. Besides, I repeat, the numbers given are such as prove they are not fabri- cated ; and the paucity of Levites, and the numbers of Dan prove that the statements are drawn from history and facts, as the whole tenor of the statements bear on the face of them, and are such as no man on earth would have invented. Dr. C. says : — It is incredible the Le- vites should not have increased more during the sojourn in the wilderness. The fact that Elie zer did not die proves nothing as to the Levites not coming under the judgment which fell on Israel, for their murmerings when the spies returned ; God was pleased to keep Israel at the same level in the wilderness. As to numbers that is clear. The Levites were no exception. God may have used providential means for this, the privations of the wilder- ness, which affected the Levites as well as the rest. But there is no motive for thinking they were exempt from the judgment. But the truth is the great change in relative numbers in the tribes shews all the reasoning as to the small increase of the Levites, utterly valueless. Population may increase or decrease at such a rate, but that says nothing whatever for particular families. One increases, another becomes extinct. Thus Manasseh rose from 32,200 to 62,700. Ephraim had sunk from 40,500 to 32,500. Benjamin increased from 365410 to 45,600. Dan was stationary. Ashur had increased r 36 fror... 41,500 to 53,400. Judah had remained pretty 8u.t\onary. Issachar largely increased. Simeon had fallen from fifty-nine thousand to twenty-two. Thus the particular degree of the increase of the Levites, on which Dr. C. has bestowed so much labour, is of no import whatever. All Dr. C.'s remarks indicate a singular in*, attention to facts. As regards the small number of Priests making it impossible they could fulfil their services ; unless in the case of the offering of birds, it is a mistake to thmk tha priest had anything to do save to receive the blood, and arrange a burnt-offering on the altar. All the operations of slaying, flaying, cutting up, were done by the offerer. But let it be remembered we are speaking of history. The doctrinal import, (which is their real value) of the directions for the sacrifices, is mvst precious as these are knowntypes of the sacrifice of Christ. No part of Scripture is more important. This of course is lost on Dr. C. Now as^to history^ we have no proof that a single offering was brought all the time they were in the wilderness. Burnt- offerings were always voluntary, and, in the state of Israel, it is just as likely they never troubled their heads about it ; for they sinned without compunction, and certainly had never circumcised their children, so that really they had no right to offer any sacrifice. That they did not offer a peace ohV.ring is certain, for they murmured for meat, complaining of the manna, and got the quails in chas- tisement ; at any rate on the second occasion. Save Miriam we do not hear of any one having the leprosy. There is no evidence of any historical difficulty what- ever, but the contrary. Indeed, Amos. v. 25, complains that they did not offer sacrifice to Jehovah, but took Moloch and Chiun for their Gods. History, therefore, has nothing to do with the matter; the instruction as to priests and sacrifices, is doctrinal, not historic. The details of Dr. C.'s reasonings are as trifling as usual. t 1 T As Scripture speaks often of doves in the wilderness, he assures us the psahnist was hardly thinking of the terri- ble deserts of Sinai — of which he knows nothing. Was ever more egregious trifling ? As regards the Passover, Dr. C. says it was impossible the priests could suHice to kill the passover, and sprinkle the blood. If, as it is evident they naturally would, they kept it as they had in Egypt, every house killed the lamb for itself. The whole ditticulty is a soap bubble, proving only Dr. C.'s will and foolishness. If Dr. C. had given himself the trouble of reading, 2 Chron. xxx., which he quotes, he would have seen that the Levites (verse 17) killed the passover, because many of the people had not sanctified themselves, and they did so only for those who were not clean. It rather appears that it was the blood of the burnt-offering which the priest- sprinkled then. At any rate this, and Josiah's passover, when the priest did sprinkle the blood of the paschal lamb, were special ex- ceptional cases, and there were plenty of priests and Levites attending iii their nlaces. As far as the New Testament goes it would seem each prepared it for him- self. It is really disgraceful for a person in Dr. C.'s posi- tion, or for any one, to make a formal attack on a Book he has professed to beiieve in, on grounds so futile and with a carelessness which proves no honest research for himself, but that his will was father to his thought. He has at any rate proved himself, logarithims and all, to be an equally incompetent and pretentious man. Pro- bably, those, by whom nine years ago, he assures us, he wai not thought unworthy of the position which he holds, supposed that, l;i declaring he believed in all the canonical Scriptures, he said the truth. Just think of a man taking the battle of Waterloo (and on the side of the victorious ormy, well know! *5, as every one does, it is in pursuit most are slain,) as a test of the numbers of Asiatic armies, as to which a child, who has read 38 t I ) RoUin*^ History of Greece or Persia, knows the dif- ference. Dr. C. complains of the destructive Razzia against Mi- dian. Midian had been the means of corrupting Israel, and leading them to idolairy, so as to lead to 25,000 Israelites falling in the pestilence God sent ; and that by the inexpressible wickedness., of Balaam, who, when he could not curse Israel, recommended Balak to lead them into sin, and then God could not bless them. For this they were punished, and, as a settled nation there, de- stroyed. Dr. C. congratulates himself that he is not called oil to believe it. Bu' thus he must give up the whole Old Testament for his 3wn notions ;• he must give up God's judging the world. God sent Abraham's seed down into Egypt because the iniquity of the Amorit(;s was not yel full. The whole history is a history of the judicial extermination of these races for their wickedness. It is a question not of history, but of the whole ways and deal- ings of God in judgment. He will find it in the Psalms ; he will find it in Revelations. God presents Himself as a moral governor, and in this special case used human instruments to carry out His judgments, p.s He did after- wards against Israel, as He had warned them by the prophets. The whole es^'^blishment of Israel was founded on the principle rejected by Dr. Colenso : all God's judg- ments are. Dr. C. does not like to believe in judgment. Be it so. But that is no way of judging of history. As to God's revelation of Himself, it is objected that the Old Testament character of God cannot be that of the true God. He did not reveal Himself in Judaism. He gave laws, promises, but He dwelt in thick darkness — was avowedly hid behind the veil. The way into the holiest was not made manifest. He was patient in goodness and grace, but the system was one of public moral government. The sins of i\e fathers could be visited on their children, as we see still in providential govern- 39 ment. There was a code of national laws, of which Christ could say, " Moses for the hardness of your hearts gave you this commandment." In the n^ tional laws he did not set aside slavery. The law made nothing perfect. He took, as a people in the world, the people where they were ; put checks on will, softened in many respects the manners of the age by His authority, and what was an immense point, suffered nothing to be done without it — an immense point, because arbitrary will was arrested. But all this was not bringing souls to God, nor revealing God as he is to souls. He is light and love. He has been revealed in Christ, a revelation Dr. C, it appears, is content to give up. He is so wise, so competent to know God, and judge of what He ought to be, that he can give up all revelation of Him ; and yet is ignorant of the first principles of the revelation he is giving up, and publishes an empty book, if ever there was one, to prove it, — assuming, as his statements are conclusive, Moses and all the prophets are ignoramuses, Christ knows no better than the Rabbis, but Dr. C, of course, does. Christ attaches His sanction to the whole of the Old Testament, as having the authority of God. Now this does not merely affirm inspiration : it is the blessed Lord putting His seal to God's having been justly tepresented there as thus revealed. Dr. C. thinks differently ; he would not have such a God — is relieved in thinking it is not true. Christ felt no need of such relief. What shall we think of one who holds the nominal place of bishop of the Christian Church, who counts himself the moral supe- rior of the Lord ? Who else will think so ? Think of the vanity and character of the man who could. Did ever a man degrade himself to the same degree ! For Christ did not see any thing moral to make Him call in question its being a revelation of God. Dr. C. does. Christ could see that there were national laws given, as suited to the hardness of their hearts. That Dr. Colenso does not see. 4(0^ III He is as ignorant of the relationship of the Gospel to the law as a national code, as he is presumptuous and ill- founded in judging the law and slighting the Gospel. For every man of sense the book will do good. But I will complete the question of detail as to the Midianites. Numb. xxxi. ; Comp. xxi. 1, and xxxiii. 33- 40. The objection is, that time is not allowed for the de- struction and other events before Moses addressed the people, Deut. i. 3. I have, as will be seen, no objection to the result at which Dr. C. arrives ; but I will show the levity of the proofs, and then the excessive carelessness of the author. There is no proof whatever of the time employed in the destruction of Arad's cities. It is very probable the prisoners alluded to had been taken thirty- eight years before, when they would go up the moun- tain (Numb. xiv. 44, 45) : they may or may not. Israel then defeated now avenge themselves. Five day» may have very easily done the work. Further, it appears rather to have been carried into effect during the mourning for Aaron, for they left Mount Hor after- wards, Numbers xxviii. 41. Next we are told that there was a fortnight for the serpents and healing, and then a month of journey ings. This is the usual inat- tention io th6 facts. They moved oa from one station to another, and murmured because of the way, and the serpents were sent while on the journey. They had made four encampments of this journey, before the ser- pents were sent ; this is certain, by comparing Numb. xxi. 10 and xxxiii. 41-43. Thus the three months and-a-half become perhaps a month and a-half or two months. Sihon was defeated. It may have been in a day and the country fell to Israel. They marched thence up north, and Og came out with all his people and was defeated. For all this there may have been a month possibly more. Thus three months at the outside would have sufficed for what Dr. C. takes six months for. Let it be three and a t ' l»' -' 41 half. This much is certain that in the point where Dr. C. is precise, tne serpents and supposed subsequent journey, he is precisely wrong by not consulting the text. Dr. C. then for the remaining facts gives " March forward to the plains of Moab." March forward from where ? They were in Moab, the expeditions had started thence. But they wore by Arnon the border of Moab. They made then very short stages. They might move their head- quarters, but they were in Moab, only they moved into the plain from Mount Abarim. Balak was alarmed and sent for Balaam. This may have taken a week. We have thus some four months gone. Here Israel fell into sin with Moab, and thereupon Israel attacks the Midian- ites by divine command. My statements leave two months for this. 1 should be quite disposed to say with Dr. C, six weeks perhaps, and probably four, was ample so as to allow a month more for the previous marches and wars. No one can pretend to say how much each took ; there was time enough for all. But this is not even necessary, though it sufficed to shew the arbitra- ness and even error of Dr. C.'s calculations. More was spent in some parts ; in others the text contradicts him* But what is curious enough is that Dr. Colenso has made the passages he holds to be irreconcilable, so as to prove they are unhistoric, exactly coincide by his computation, and has not found it out. Moses' address in Deut. i. 3, is after defeating Sihon and Og, as it is expressly stated, verse 4. Dr. C. says "Thus, then, from the first day of the fifth month, in which Aaron died, to the completion of the conquest of Og, king of Basham, we cannot reckon less together than six months . , . and are thus brought down to the first day of the eleventh month, the very day on which Moses is stated to have addressed the people in the plains of Moab, Deut. i. 3 " Just so, accordingly Deut. i. 4, states that it was after he had slain Og, that he made the address. Dr. C has managed to make a f 42 blunder in his proofs, but has tumbled by mistake, into proving exactly historic what he attacks, and this is to Bet aside the Bible by unquestionable facts. On the quotations from Cicero and the Hindoo author celebx-aiing Ram, I have spoken, and add no more here. A more pretentious and futile attempt to set aside the revelation of God, it never came to my lot to examine. It may be W(ill just to add that the quotation from * types of mankind » which Dr. Colenso quotes, as he says, with entire sympathy, is from one of two works by Messrs. Gliddon and Nott to prove that there are several races of mankind, as there are of animals, and following the analogy of the forms of these last, according:' to a theory of Agassiz, the object being to prove that the negroes are a distinct race, and formed and destined to be fit for slavery. I (tan hardly think that if he was so zealous with the Zulu for the honour of the true God as to condemn the Pentateuch because it recognized slavery in Israel, that he can have read the ])ook. It is very superficial, is wrong according to the best authorities as to America, particularly South America, and contradicts itself as to Africa. His only argument, to which he (Mr. Gliddon) constantly recurs, being the presence of negro figures on the Egyptian monuments, of which, with Lipsius and others, he exaggerates the antiquity in a way which the monuments themselves clearly prove to be false, inasmuch as kings given as successive are proved by the monuments to be contemporary, as many as eight at a time. Mr. Gliddon was Consul General of the United States in Egypt. I quite admit Dr. C. does not quote the book in what it says of negroes, but the argument which meets his entire sympathy is used to get rid of the 'prejudice ' whi(3h believes with Paul that * God has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,' in order to justify the reducing the blacks to slavery as a distinct race. ' ■ • ' ■ • '' (ll* I