compel the aid and agency of the others; while in conviction, the intellect alone, though sometimes induced by the allies, determines and fixes, decides and dictates the ambition, pursuit, or intent, in furtherance of which it shall act. As, then, persuasion was the sole end of ancient Eloquence-and conviction requires to be superadded to that in the efforts of the modern orator-it is evident that the intellect must receive a larger share of interests, activities, arts, and influence of the modern than of the ancient orator; and hence, that modern Eloquence must be characterized in the main by a much greater amount of intellectuality than that of the ages and times when men in general thought and read less, were more impulsive, and more easily stirred to passionate activity, and quickened to exerted life. Then the good, the advantageous, the politic, the plausible, were more frequently urged; now the true, the right, the just, the honourable, and the elevating, are more strenuously maintained. The progress of man has imported into the possible motives by which men may be stimulated higher and holier, nobler and clearer truths; has made effective for active excitement a wider area of his being; and has brought within reach of the orator a much more exalted species of mind. The passions are probably not less active now than then, but they are less exclusively subject to bestirment; the sensibilities are not only more acute, but more refined; the intellect is subjected to higher culture and to holier laws; the will is less excitable and more easily controlled :-in fact, the whole nature of man has been more duly exercised, and less left to barren wastefulness and idle inanity. The centuries have not passed without distilling into society influences of a diviner character than Homer sung, Plato taught, Demosthenes employed, or Sophocles represented; than Virgil could conceive, Horace act upon, or Cicero express. As these have permeated and pervaded life, politics, society, books, talk, and men, they have induced changes in them all. These changes again, by action and reaction, have impressed the individual natures of men, and made them more susceptible of the kindlier touches of humanity, more prompt to move to the measures of charity, more decided in their love of freedom, not as a mere personal possession, but as affording a possibility for the outgrowth and development of man in the entirety of his being. These changes demand from the modern orator full recognition; and, if rightly comprehended, would aid him greatly in the adaptation of his means to the ends he proposes. The Eloquence of the present day must make the conviction of the intellect its peculiar care, and use suasion and persuasion upon the emotions and the will only in subordination to the conviction of the reasonable nature of man.

In subsequent papers we propose to note the application of the ideas heretofore expressed to the Eloquence of the pulpit, the parliament, and the platform, with a view to afford our readers the means of judging our theory by the tests of experience.

S. N.

Religion.

WAS THE PENTATEUCH WRITTEN BY MOSES? AND IS IT HISTORICALLY TRUE?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

MORE room is required to refute than to advance an objection. We are allowed in the British Controversialist about a tenth of the space taken by Dr. Colenso, to answer his arguments. In medias res must, therefore, be our motto. His introductory and concluding remarks, embodied in the first and last chapters, require no particular examination. We commence with his second chapter; and as his arrangement of subjects is arbitrary, we shall examine them in the order of their connection.

The second chapter is on the family of Judah, and the third on the explanation of expositors. His refutation of what commentators have said, is no concern of ours; and the third chapter may be dismissed with the first and the last. The basis of his work is the construction put upon the expression-" which came into Egypt" (Gen xlvi. 8), and the assumption, of which he is "certain," that the writer "means to say," in Gen. xlvi. 12, "that Hezron and Hamul were born in the land of Canaan, and were among the 70 persons (including Jacob himself, and Joseph and his two sons) who came into Egypt with Jacob" (p. 17). The statement, that Hezron and Hamul were born in the land of Canaan, is vouched so positively by the many passages which sum up the "70 souls," that to give up this point is to give up an essential part of the story (p. 19). Now, after all this "certainty" and "positiveness," he gives up one point, and proves the impossibility of the other.

"Which came into Egypt," means nothing more than-" which settled in Egypt." Moses absolutely shows this by including Joseph, who went down before Jacob, and the two sons of Joseph, who were born in Egypt. This is denied on pages 17 and 19, but admitted on page 27; thus:-"Evidently the sons of Joseph are not reckoned with those who went down into Egypt with Jacob, because they were born there," &c. He may, if he chooses to be hypercritical, add, "This description is, of course, literally incorrect;" but as he admits that the writer's meaning is obvious enough," that is all we care about. But if so obvious in relation to three in the family register, it is equally obvious in relation to Hezron and Hamul. There is nothing in that register to prove that these sons of Pharez were born in Canaan, except the phrase, "came

into Egypt," and that Dr. Colenso admits is equivalent to settling in that country. That they could not have been natives of Canaan, is proved by himself (pp. 18, 19), by showing the impossibility that various events recorded could have occurred before the immigration into Egypt. From this impossibility he should have judged of Gen. xlvi. 12, and not have forced a meaning upon it, in order to fasten a charge of inconsistency upon the Pentateuch.

On a fair construction of the writer's meaning, it has long been a settled point with theologians that Hezron and Hamul were natives, not of Canaan, but of Egypt. The absurdities which Dr. Colenso infers are, however, the result of his own inadmissible assumptions. In the note on p. 18, we are told that "Judah was forty-two years old when Jacob went down into Egypt." This is assumed; and upon the assumption is grounded the opinion, that "Judah was about three years older than Joseph," which is too low a disparity of ages, as seen from the following facts. Jacob spent twenty years in Padan-aram (Gen. xxxi. 41). About the expiration of fourteen years, Joseph was born, and Jacob asked permission to return to his father (Gen. xxx. 25). Hence, on leaving Laban, Joseph was six years old; therefore, on Dr. Colenso's view, Judah was then only nine years old. Now, mark the consequences of this assumption-between Judah's birth and that of Issachar, by the same mother, there was a more than usual interval, for which an allowance of twelve months is much too small, as seen by comparing Gen. xxix. 35 with xxx. 9-12, 17, 18. Between Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah (Gen. xxx. 17—21), intervals of two twelvemonths are also as low as can be admitted. It follows, then, that Dinah, on the lowest possible computation, was only three years younger than Judah, and therefore only six years of age when Jacob left Padan-aram. Now, on this journey home, Shechem violated Dinah, and then wished to marry her; that is, on Dr. Colenso's view, a girl six years old was mature enough for these occurrences! But this is not all. If Judah, the fourth son by Leah, was nine, and, as stated by Dr. Colenso, was born in the fourth year after Rachel's marriage, Simeon was about eleven, and Levi about ten. Now these lads, not in their teens, were old enough to entrap and slay the whole body of men forming the city of Shechem! Such are the absurdities which flow from the gratuitous assumption that Judah was only three years older than Joseph, and, therefore, only forty-two when he accompanied Jacob into Egypt. He was, therefore, many years older than made out by the Bishop; and, if only fifty-two, the impossibilities asserted by him on pages 18 and 19, become possibilities. If, again, the forced construction put on Gen. xlvi. 12, is exchanged for what he admits to be the obvious meaning, then as many more years can be allowed as may be required for the events turned into fiction.

One reads again, with some astonishment, the following passage:"I assume, then, that it is absolutely undeniable that the narrative of the exodus distinctly involves the statement that the 66

persons, 'out of the loins of Jacob,' mentioned in Gen. xlvi., and no others, went down with him into Egypt" (p. 18). Wherever the Bishop is "certain," especially when he thinks himself" absolutely undeniable," his reader may be sure of lurking fallacies. Notice carefully the one here; it exists in the words, "and no others." This all-important fact is innocently assumed; and upon this assumption chapter after chapter is based. Where is it asserted that lineal descendants, and no others, immigrated with Jacob? That no others are mentioned, is what was to be expected. The seventy are mentioned in a family register, and who looks to such a document for the names and births of servants? Even if silence on this point were not natural, is Dr. Colenso to build upon negative arguments such a theory as cuts off the first five books in the Bible, and makes Christ appear either a deceiver or a deceived person? Opposed to this assumption are the expressions, "house" (Gen. xlvi. 31), and "household" (Gen. xlvii. 12), in antithesis to "brethren." Joseph's brethren are "the seventy," the lineal descendants: house and household include all belonging to the tribe of Hebrews. To say they do not comprehend others than lineal descendants, is to beg the whole question. This must be proved, and not assumed in Natal fashion.

We want Dr. Colenso, then, to prove why Isaac should succeed to all his father had (Gen. xxv. 5), and yet Jacob should not inherit what Isaac possessed. We want to know on what principle the laws of inheritance and the natural course of things are to be set aside, in order to strip Jacob of all his possessions, and thus prove the Pentateuch to be a tissue of absurdities.

Now, Abraham had 318 armed retainers, born in his own house (Gen. xiv. 14), and all incorporated into his tribe by circumcision (Gen. xvii. 12, 13). On Dr. Colenso's principles of population we are to quadruple 318 to find the number of the whole "house" of Abraham; and thus assume it consisted of more than 1,272 souls. To this household Isaac succeeded, and, in the natural course of things, Jacob inherited Isaac's possessions. To them he brought his acquisitions from Padan-aram, where he had "increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants," &c. (Gen. xxx. 43.) Now, for the pleasure of "impeaching" the veracity of the Pentateuch, Dr. Colenso strips Jacob of a body of retainers without which he, as a normal prince, could not have existed, and sends him to Egypt with only the 70 named in the family register. Jacob is blessed with greater possessions than Esau; Esau acquires a tribe mustering 400 armed men (Gen. xxxii. 6), and Jacob increased exceedingly." While Esau's tribe must have contained some 1,600 souls, Jacob must have 70, "and no others." On assumptions such as these Dr. Colenso founds chapter after chapter, and expresses his "thankfulness" that he has got rid of the Pentateuch, and all "superstitious terrors" (p. 143) about its inspiration.

The distinction between the family and the tribe of Jacob, indicated

at the immigration, is as clearly established as the exodus. In Numb. i. 1-46, we have the stations to be taken up by the twelve tribes when encamped in the wilderness. Each prince had "his host," and also "they that were numbered of them." This statement is repeated, in connection with each tribal head, with studious care and wearisome reiteration. The total of these hosts, and those numbered with them, is 603,550. Now, Dr. Colenso, in face of the distinction between the 70 lineally descended and "the household" that immigrated with them, takes only 70 as his premiss; and then, notwithstanding a similar distinction between the two classes in the total at the exodus, takes 603,550 as his inference; and then, out comes one of his monstrous absurdities. If such liberties may be taken with the Pentateuch, why not with other ancient and modern documents? and then what becomes of all history, sacred and profane? In his 17th chapter, Dr. Colenso, on an inadmissible basis, as will be shown, allows four generations to 215 years. He then takes 4 as the ratio of progression, on grounds guessed at, but which we need not dispute. Then, instead of taking 70, and multiplying it by 44, as he ought to do, he multiplies only the 54 grandsons of Jacob. The result of these assumptions is, that at the exodus there would be an increase in the population of 4,923. These lineal descendants, obtained by more than one petitio principii, are compared again, on another petitio principii, with the 603,550, a total of lineal and tribal descendants!

We must now turn to the 16th chapter, to show the curious manner in which Dr. Colenso jumps at his premises. In the 15th he first devotes five pages to prove that the Israelites sojourned only 215 years in Egypt. This has long been the established opinion both in England and Germany, and might have been taken as a recognized basis for argument. But his 16th chapter will be one of the curiosities of literature, if his book escapes the waste-paper basket. In Gen. xv. 16, the exodus is foretold as to take place in the fourth generation." A previous verse shows that God thus indicated that event as to happen at the expiration of the fourth century from the time the prediction was made. But, curiously enough, Dr. Colenso takes the meaning of the passage to be, not the end of four centuries, but a standard of the period to be represented by a generation. This mistake was excusable; not so the perverse ingenuity with which it is supported. He takes "all the instances which he has been able to find" (p. 97) of genealogies given in the Pentateuch; and for very good reasons, as will appear, tabulates only the genealogies of four persons, concealing that of the fifth in a paragraph by itself. The argument is this:— as Moses was the son of Amram, and Amram of Kohath, and Kohath of Levi, these four names show four stages; hence, Moses lived in the third "generation." Now, all the cases but one of those tabulated, on his own showing, make Moses, the leader of the exodus, live in the third generation; and hence, over the column of names in which "Moses" is placed, Dr. Colenso puts the words,