easy to take the Bishop's book, paragraph by paragraph, and place by their side the answer of men fully as competent to reason and form a judgment upon the subject as the Doctor himself. The fact is, the objections are so old, and have been so repeatedly answered, that they would not, coming from any other source, have excited much attention; the fact that they are made by a Bishop constitutes their chief interest. To take one or two conclusive answers to the Bishop's difficulties, especially to his supposition that the story of the exodus is a made up story, or a collated number of legends. The editor of The Press says,—

"The alleged blunders are so simple, and so obvious, and demand for detection so little beyond mere common sense, while, at the same time, even more palpable, in some respects, to a rude than to a civilized age, that their long impunity is marvellous. In the second place, there is that about them which precludes the hypothesis of intentional or concerted forgery. Had these accounts been interpolated at a later date by persons anxious to magnify the beginnings of the Jewish nation, such artists would have adjusted the circumstances of the Exodus and the requirements of the ceremonial law to the numbers of the people and the capabilities of the country which they traversed. They would not have made the congregation two millions, and the tabernacle in which all were to assemble large enough only for five thonsand. They would not have represented that this vast multitude could have satisfied the minute and endless religious observances enjoined in Leviticus, affecting as they did almost every action of their lives, with the aid of only three priests. They would not have placed the celebration of the sacrifices, demanding a large supply of particular birds in the midst of a desert, where the species was totally unknown. Nor would they have overlooked the absurdity of supposing that the burnt-offerings of the entire people could have been regularly eaten up by Aaron and his two sons. The coarseness of such mistakes as these forbids us to believe that they were committed by a deliberate forger. While, furthermore, how they could have been overlooked or tolerated, except from a feeling that they were matters of very little moment, it is equally difficult to imagine. It may perhaps, indeed, occur to some of our readers that the very extravagance of such errors is in itself a sort of guarantee that Christians have not very much to fear from them. These are not, it may be said, the falsehoods of deliberate imposture. They are too palpable to have escaped all notice for a period of two thousand years. Must we not suppose that the external evidence in favour of the Pentateuch has appeared to the many great minds, which the Church has numbered among her champions in all ages of the world, sufficient to outweigh these objections, forcible as they may at first sight appear?"

The Bishop, as a mathematician of some celebrity, has drawn more attention to his calculations than to his theological deductions, and yet see even in that, which is evidently his forte, how he errs. Dr. Colenso calculates, from a comparison of the recorded number of the first-born with the number of male adults, that it would give to every mother of Israel, on an average, forty-two sons. To this statement the above-quoted writer answers:

"The Bishop, by dividing 900,000 by 22,273, it would seem, finds the product nearly 42, and, therefore, concludes that there was only one mother on an average for each 42. The fallacy of this may escape observation in a cloud of figures, but if we put the case as 42 males, instead of 22,273 times 42, the argument will be the same, and the error readily perceived. Dr. Colenso's calculation amounts

to this:-Where there are 42 males, and only one first-born amongst them, it follows that there has been but one mother to the 42. No more need be said to show the mistake. But let us draw the matter fairly out, and see how stands Scripture consistency. If there were 42 males (under the circumstances of the exodus) and only one first-born amongst them, the problem to find the number of mothers for the 42 would not be worked as the Bishop has done it, but subtraction as well as division would be pressed into service. Of the 42, half would have sisters for first-borns of their families; one quarter of the remaining 21 would have lost their first-born brothers in infancy, or more, considering the cruel order from which Moses narrowly escaped; and from deaths of first-borns in a natural way, or from the severities of slavery, or from unbelief and neglect of the command to sprinkle the blood on the doorposts. Those who, from these and other causes, had lost their first-born brothers could not be set down at less than 10 or 12 more. Now, if we take 21, 5, and 11, and subtract the total, 37 from 42, the average number of males, besides infants, in the Israelitish camp to one another would be 5 instead of 42."

Dr. Colenso, in noticing the fact that the Israelites are computed at two millions, enquires, whence tents could be obtained for so many?

"Now," says the Bishop, "allowing ten persons for each tent (decency would surely require that there should not be more than this-a Zulu hut in Natal contains, on an average, only three and a half), two millions of people would require, on an average, 200,000 tents. How, then, did they acquire these? Had they provided this enormous number in expectation of marching, when all their request was to be allowed to go for three days into the wilderness,'-Exod. v. 3? For they were not living in tents in the land of Egypt, as we gather from the fact, that they were to take of the paschal lamb, and strike it on the two side-posts, and on the lintel upper door-post,' of their houses, Exod. xii. 7, and none of them was to 'go out at the door of his house until the morning,' v. 22.”

The editor of the John Bull thus replies to the difficulty:

"One would have thought, however, that a nomade people in an Arabian wilderness-a people of those rude habits to which the Mosaic narrative pointsmight easily be imagined not to require tents of a very elaborate structure. A shawl hung on a pole would shelter a whole group of such primitive bivouackers for a time; and they had their flocks, by means of which they could continually add to their stock in this way. Again, it asks if the Israelites themselves were supported by miraculous manna in the desert, how did they find food for their flocks and herds? We have no right to conclude, however, that the desert must always have been so waste and arid as it is now. Professor Stanley has recorded a variety of facts, which tend to show that this desolate region was at some far distant pericd much more thickly inhabited, and much more competent to support human life than it now is."

These answers might be accumulated to any extent; one passage, however, from its singular pertinence, not only in answer to Dr. Colenso, but also to the present inquiry, may well be quoted from Archdeacon Tyall, who says :

"There is no book, whose loss would cause so wide a chasm in our historical knowledge, as the Old Testament; and if there be a history in the world free from imputation, or even surmise of forgery or fiction, as arising out of any perceptible design, on the part either of the historian or the nation, it is the Jewish

abounding as it does, beyond all others, in wonders and apparent improbabilities, and in subjects fitted to feed that spirit of national boasting which seems inherent in human nature; yet when such events are recorded in the Old Testament, it seems to be without any end which we can assign, except the simple purpose of placing the wickedness of the nation in a more conspicuous light. In the victories of the Jews no mention is ever made of the prowess of the soldiers, or the skill of the commander; whilst in their defeats it is never attempted to extenuate the disgrace. From the beginning to the end of the Bible I do not recollect one word which can be construed as the language of national vanity; indeed, a more dark and unfavourable portraiture was never drawn by any nation than that which the Jews have preserved of themselves. However important it may be to demonstrate the credibility of the Jewish Scriptures, their authenticity has no logical connection with the evidences of the Christian revelation. The credibility of the historical parts of the Jewish Scriptures is truly important to us, inasmuch as from the frequent allusions to them in the New Testament, the authority of the latter may seem to stand pledged for their veracity. But the truth or falsehood of the history of the New Testament itself depends upon proofs quite independent of the miracles. performed by Moses. The connection, however, of the Christian with the Jewish' covenant must be sought, not in the miracles, nor in the historical parts of the Bible generally, but in the types and prophecies which those ancient Scriptures contain; and it would not affect any part of the argument on which the present belief of Christianity is founded, if the historical books of the Old Testament had not been handed down to us at all."

In confirmation that the Bishop's objections, in his second volume, to the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch are not new, and have not now to be answered for the first time, we have only to quote from a work, now long out of print, by Mr. John Bellamy, the author of a translation of the Bible from the original Hebrew. His work is entitled, "Anti-Deist," being a vindication of the Bible in answer to the publication called the "Deist." He says:

"The objection next advanced by the 'Deist' was made in the early ages of the Christian church. He says:-'Suppose the book to be anonymous, or, which is worse, ushered into the world under the name of a person who, from the internal evidence of the thing, could not have written it; can it be imagined that such a book would find credit among people who have the least pretensions to reason or common sense? The books of the Pentateuch bear many strong marks of an author long posterior to Moses. The book of Numbers quotes the book of the wars of the Lord, that Moses could not possibly have written the account of his own death and burial.'

"It has often been asserted by deists that the books ascribed to Moses 'are anonymous, and consequently without authority. This is a specimen of bad reasoning. A book may be anonymous, or without a name, and yet it may contain an account of things authentic, and consequently not without authority; and a book may have the name of the author, and yet contain an account of things which are not true, like the works of the 'Deist.' The books ascribed to Moses are said by these objectors to bear internal evidence that they were not written by him, but by an author long posterior to Moses.' The internal evidence which has been brought to prove this, is Gen. xxxvi. 31, 'And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel. From this passage, these objectors say-'Should any dateless writings be found wherein the writer should say, "These things happened before the time of Henry 1863.

8

the Eighth," it would be sufficient evidence that such writing could not have been written before the time of Henry the Eighth.' From which these writers conclude that the book of Genesis, so far from having been written by Moses, could not have been written till the time of Saul or David, who were the first kings of Israel, and which was 500 years after the time of Moses.

"The whole of this objection is founded on the supposition that Saul or David was the first king of Israel; which, if it had been so, would prove that Moses could not have been the writer of the books ascribed to him. The 'Deist' should have known a little more of the Bible before he had attempted to publish his book. It will, however, appear that the Bible is a book seldom read by him; for we have positive evidence that kings reigned over Israel before the time of Saul or David. In the book of Judges, chap. xvii. 6, it is said, 'In those days there was no king in Israel.' It is also said, chap. ix. 22, ' When Abimelech had reigned three years over Israel. Consequently the evidence that the book of Genesis could not be written before the time of Saul or David, because it has been erroneously said that they were the first kings of Israel, falls to the ground.

"The evidence that Moses was a king over the Hebrews is equally as clear as that of the kings of Edom, or that Saul and David were kings of Israel.

"We read that the chiefs of the people having assembled, Moses, with the assistance of Jethro, prince of Midian, gave directions for forming a regular government. From this period he was acknowledged a king; for it is said, Deut. xxxiii. 5, And he was KING in Jeshurun (i. e., in Israel), when the heads of the people and the tribes were gathered together.' Here we see that the work melek, a king, was applied to Moses as it was to the kings of Edom, or to Saul, or to David, and to all the kings of Israel. So that the Deist' has been altogether mistaken as to the time and person of the first king of the Hebrews; consequently all the historical, chronological, and internal evidence, which he advances to prove that Moses was not the writer of the books ascribed to him, only prove his profound ignorance of the history and chronology of the Bible.

"Now as those objections are fairly answered, agreeably to the literal sense of the words, and proved to be no way objectionable, I have only to notice two things, in order to ascertain as clearly that Moses was the writer, as that any book bearing the author's name, and not written more than fifty years before the present time, was written by the person whose name it bears.

"The first is, when the person whose name is prefixed to the book declares he is the author; the second, when a whole nation gives testimony to this declaration, by acknowledging him to be the author.

"The writings ascribed to Homer have been universally acknowledged to have been written by him; and the best proof of his being the author was, that he declared himself to be so, and that the nation in which he lived acknowledged him to have been the author. The same may be said respecting the productions of Euclid; and even of our countrymen, Milton and Newton. What stronger proof can there be that one wrote Paradise Lost,' and the other his 'Principia,' than that they themselves declare it, and which were received as such at the time by the whole English nation? It is expressly said, Deut. xxxi. 9, 24, 25, 26, that Moses was the writer; and the books called the books of Moses have not only been received as written by him, by the whole nation of the Jews down to the present day, but they were also acknowledged as such by the universal consent of all those ancient writers who lived nearer his time ;-Sanchoniathon, Manethos, Berosus, and others, the historians and poets, among the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Chaldeans, and other nations, whose authentic memorials are still preserved. By Pythagoras and Plato, who travelled into Judea four hundred years before Christ; copied the books of Moses, and introduced a great part of them into their writings.

Also Eumenius the Pythagorean, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Tacitus, Pliny, Juvenal, and Longinus give testimony to the writings of the venerable penman, as to time, place, and circumstance. From all which it is as certain that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, as that Homer wrote the Iliad;' Milton, 'Paradise Lost;" Euclid, his 'Elements;' or Newton, his 'Principia:' so that there can be no doubt in the mind of any impartial man as to the genuineness and authenticity of the Pentateuch. Hence it appears that the evidence which has been brought forward on this ground has had no other tendency than to establish the advocates of the Bible more firmly in the belief that he was the writer, by showing how extremely ignorant these men have been concerning the history, circumstances, manners, customs, and usages of the ancient Hebrews."

In his "Apology for the Bible," arising out of his celebrated controversy with the notorious Thomas Paine, Bishop Watson thus treats, generally, upon the same topic:

"You 'proceed to examine the authenticity of the Bible; and you begin, you say, with what are called the five books of Moses,-Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Your intention, you profess, is to show that these books are spurious, and that Moses is not the author of them; and, still farther, that they were not written in the time of Moses, nor till several hundred years afterwards; that they are no other than an attempted history of the life of Moses, and of the times in which he is said to have lived, and also of the times prior thereto, written by some very ignorant and stupid pretender to authorship, several hundred years after the death of Moses.'-In this passage the utmost force of your attack on the authority of the five books of Moses is clearly stated. You are not the first who has started this difficulty; it is a difficulty indeed of modern date, having not been heard of either in the synagogue or out of it till the twelfth century. About that time, Eben Ezra, a Jew of great erudition, noticed some passages (the same that you have brought forward) in the first five books of the Bible, which he thought had not been written by Moses, but inserted by some person after the death of Moses. But he was far from maintaining, as you do, that these books were written by some ignorant and stupid pretender to authorship many hundred years after the death of Moses. Hobbes contends that the books of Moses are so called, not from their having been written by Moses, but from their containing an account of Moses. Spinoza supported the same opinion; and Le Clerc, a very able theological critic of the last and present century, once entertained the same notion. You see that this fancy has had some patrons before you; the merit or the demerit, the sagacity or temerity of having asserted that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch is not exclusively yours. Le Clerc indeed, you must not boast of. When his judgment was matured by age, he was ashamed of what he had written on the subject in his younger years; he made a public recantation of his error, by annexing to his 'Commentary on Genesis' a Latin dissertation-concerning Moses, the author of the Pentateuch, and his design in composing it. If in your future life you should chance to change your opinion on the subject, it will be an honour to your character to emulate the integrity, and to imitate the example, of Le Clerc. The Bible is not the only book which has undergone the fate of being reprobated as spurious, after it bad been received as genuine and authentic for many ages. It has been maintained that the history of Herodotus was written in the time of Constantine, and that the classics are forgeries of the thirteenth or fourteenth century. These extravagant reveries amused the world at the time of their publication, and have long since sunk into oblivion. You esteem all prophets to be such lying rascals, that I dare not venture to predict the fate of your book.