Harbinger, Mar. 2, '63. THE BATTLE OF THE BOOKS. gle day, for the first notice of any such feast to be kept is given in this very chapter, where we find in v. 12, "I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the first-born in the land, both man and beast." He then argues the impossibility of conveying the instruction to "each individual household in this vast community in one day, though it was necessary that the notice should be distinctly given to each separate family, for it was a matter of life and death." Neither could the "directions have been conveyed by any mere sign.” Now this is worse and worse. A careless reader of v. 12, paying no at tention to the context, would no doubt understand "this night" to mean the night of the day upon which Moses was commanded to deliver his instruction to the Israelites. But how could a Rev. Bishop so blunder? Let us look at the facts. Ex. xi. shews that Moses had the information some time before the fearful night that he threatened Pharaoh, who refused again to let the people go. After a time God required (chap. xii. 2) that a new counting of the year should at once begin-that, that month should be to them" the beginning of months," and that the Passover arrangements should begin upon the tenth day of the month, when the lamb should be selected and placed apart until the fourteenth of the same month, and then killed in the evening (v. 1-6.) Nothing is more reasonable than the supposition that this full instruction was given to Moses on the first day of the month, which was then constituted the first month of the year, and thus there were ten days to make known to the people the command, which Moses communicated to the elders for that purpose, and fourteen days before the fatal night. Poor Colenso must have lost himself in the thick darkness which overspread the land! But what then is to be understood by "this night" in verse 12? Simply that which the context clearly indicates. Both this night and this day (v. 14) imply not the night and day in which the words were spoken to Moses, but the night and day or which Jehovah was speaking. 66 2. Then the Bishop enlarges upon the command that every woman borrow of her neighbour and of her that sojourned in her house, jewels of silver 99 and jewels of gold and raiment," &c. He sees the poor people of a large city like London, setting out to borrow of the rich, and wisely concludes the business could not be got through in twelve hours. But as all this rests upon the mistake just corrected, it only serves to waste the paper upon which it is writ ten and trouble heads which are soft enough to take the Bishop's statements without close examination. 3. The remaining objection of this chapter is that 150,000 lambs would have been required, and could not have been possessed. But the Bishop does not fairly quote Josephus, but gets from him an average of persons for one lamb less than his words warrant. Then, again, they were not bound to a lamb for each household. "If the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it." If then there were not lambs enough the same arrangement would apply, as Jehovah never held men responsible for doing what could not be done. It must also be remembered that the instruction given in Egypt upon this appointment had not reference to the first Passover merely, but to its annual commemoration, and would therefore contain all the requirements for the future condition of the nation. What could be observed at its first celebration would be binding, and what could not would stand over. But more upon this on a subsequent page. THE MARCH OUT OF EGYPT. "And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about 600,000 on foot, that were men, besides children. And a mixed multitude went and very much cattle" (Ex. xii. 37-38.) up also with them, and flocks and herds Under this head the Bishop says, "This large number of able-bodied warriors implies a total population of at least two millions. Here, then, we have this vast body of people of all ages summoned to start, according to the story, at a moment's notice, and actually started, not one being left behind, with all their multitudinous flocks and herds, which must have been spread over a district, as large as a good sized English county......I do not hesitate to declare this statement to be wholly incredible and impossible...... And what of the sick and infirm, or the women in recent or imminent childbirth, in a population like that of London, where the births are 246 a day, or about one every five minutes ?" Then he observes that "the order to start was communicated suddenly, at midnight, to every single family of every town and village, throughout a tract of country as large as Hertfordshire, but ten times as thickly populated" -- that in the same night" they had to gather in all these flocks and herds, spread over so wide a district, and to drive them to Rameses ---and, that, having done all this, they started that very same day and marched on to Succoth, not leaving a single sick or infirm person, a single woman in childbirth, or even a single hoof (Ex. x. 26) behind them." What have we to say to this wonderful performance? 1. We do not believe they did all these things. So far we are at one with the Bishop. But then no one but himself says they did. The Bible account says nothing like unto it, and there the matter might be left. 2. The Bishop shuts his eyes to the fact that these people were moving by supernatural aid. He pictures the multitudes of sick people in London, and wonders how they could be removed, but the arm which sent death into every Egyptian family in one night was surely strong enough to secure to the delivered people freedom from sickness for a few days. David, who understood the matter better than Colenso, says, "He brought them forth also with silver and gold and there was not one feeble person among their tribes. Egypt was glad when they departed, for the fear of them fell upon them" (Ps. cv. 37.) And had there been sick persons, any amount of waggons and animals for their conveyance could have been had from the people who were in dread of them and anxious for their departure on any terms. : tons, they would have made every possible preparation. In a word, the Bishop misrepresents the Bible account, at nearly every point, by creating impossibilities, that he may point them out to the multitude who are likely to take a Bishop's testimony without examination. THE SHEEP AND CATTLE IN THE DESERT. Under this heading we read, "The people were supplied with manna. But there was no miraculous provision of food for the herds and flocks. They were left to gather sustenance, as they could, in that inhospitable wilderness. It is certain that the story represents them as possessing these flocks and herds during the whole of the forty years. It cannot be supposed that the cattle were scattered far and wide, and so were able the more readily to find pasture." Then authors are quoted to prove that the wilderness was indeed a desert land. To this we reply 1. The Bishop has no right to declare that "there was no miraculous provi sion for the herds and flocks." There were many things not recorded, and the mere silence of Scripture never proves that a supposed event did not take place. Over this stone the whole chapter tumbles and is broken to pieces. He who gave bread from heaven for the people, could have covered portions of the wilderness with grass. The Bishop says He did not. We answer, Colenso was not there, and does not know, and has no right to affirm. 2. The declaration, that "it is certain that the story represents them as possessing these flocks and herds during the forty years," is another of the Bishop's falsehoods. It is quite certain that the account represents nothing of the sort, and it is not at all likely that they did. It is certain that they possess ed cattle during the whole time, but as to the number there is nothing cer3. There is nothing in the Bible to tain. There is no reason to conclude warrant the idea that the whole mass that the Passover was kept in the wilstarted at the same time from the same derness after the early period of their point--nothing to favor the assumption journeying. Ex. xiii. 5-12 seems to that the Hebrews were suddenly aroused exempt them while in the wilderness at midnight nothing to imply that from things required of them in the their preparations for departure were promised land and in circumstances not made days before. The history favorable to the requirement. Circumshews that they knew of the departure cision, too, was omitted in the wilderweeks before, and, if not commanded so ness (Josh. v. 5-7) and an uncircumcised to do, unless they were perfect simple-person could not eat the Passover. Harbinger, Mar. 2, '63. NATURE'S SUGGESTINGS. There would then be no need for keeping vast flocks and herds, and there is none for supposing that they did keep them. After the first year or so we read nothing of large quantities of cattle. In the fortieth year we have mention of large possessions of this kind, but they were then captured from the people whose land they were to possess (Num. xxxi., Deut. ii.) But in this same wilderness the Amalekites did find much food for cattle, and men who have traversed it give us to know that, even in much later times, cattle could be sustained there. 66 3. That at the end of the first year, when they kept the second Passover before Sinai, they had much cattle, is not denied. But then the Bishop tells us they were all close at hand. What reason can he give for the assertion? This " The Mosaic narrative says nothing of dispersion." This is reasoning run mad. It does not require a multitude of men to take care of a multitude of cattle. The number requisite to their safe keeping could have been with them. The Bishop says an army would have been required to defend them from the Amalekites. But not so, for the peoples around were in fear of the men whom God had so signally delivered. Then, again, the Lord required their removal from the neighbourhood of the Mount, (Ex. xxxiv. 3) and the region where Moses fed for many years the 101 flocks of Jethro was not far away, and, on the other hand, they had Rephidim, which Dr. Kitto reckons to be one day's journey distant, where is found a broad valley, overspread with vegetation and tumerisk trees, and much frequented by Arabs for pasturage. But we are tired of Colenso deserts, and must for another month retire to green pasture and clear streams. Thank God, we know where to find them, and they will remain when the Bishop's book shall have been fully exposed and himself covered with shame. For the present the reader will not be hurt should he follow the advice given by Bengel to Rens: "Eat simply the bread of the Scriptures as it presents itself to thee; and do not distress thyself at finding here and there a small particle of sand which the millstone may have left in it. Thou mayst, then, dismiss all those doubts which at one time so horribly tormented myself. If the Holy Scriptures-which have been so often copied, and which have passed so often through the faulty hands of of ever fallible men were absolutely without variations, the miracle would be so great, that faith in them would no longer be faith. I am astonished, on the contrary, that the result of all those transcriptions has not been a much greater number of different readings." D. K. NATURE'S SUGGESTINGS. THERE is a sweetness in the lovely flowers There is a silence in each silver star That gleams and twinkles from the heavenly dome, Which tells the spirit it will find afar A bright and beauteous home. There is a music in the wailing wind, A sweetness in the gentle zephyr's breath, That says the good, God-fearing soul may find A music still in death. There is a glory in the golden sky, A sunny splendour on the crimson hills; Faint embleins of the grandeur that on high The heavenly mansion fills. There is an echo in the ocean's song, There is a murmur in the moving streams, An onward dancing in their playful spray, Which softly tells, as in a land of dreams, "This world will pass away." There is a terror in the deepening clouds, That hang above us when the thunder rolls, To us suggesting the dark death that shrouds The sin-encircled souls. There is a something in all Nature gives, From golden sunshine to the flowering sod, Which gently whispers that the spirit lives, And points the soul to God. Birmingham. Let it be remembered that "to the pure all things are pure". A. S. J. that we do a great wrong when we speak our thoughts to any one save the supposed offender, and sometimes when we speak to him-and that even when wickedness is clearly proved, it is not a profitable theme for conversation. Harbinger, Mar. 2, '63. REVIEWS, NOTES ON PASSING EVENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, &c. “THE PENTATEUCH," &c. By the Bishop of Natal. THE Bishop has issued a second volume, and promises a third. He might have grappled with the reviewers of his first volume, but evidently he is not disposed. He still thinks the priest himself was required to carry out the bullock upon his back, but, as he cannot prove it, he withdraws that portion of his first volume. Plenty of this kind of work awaits him if he have a mind to engage in it. The second volume differs much from the first, but, like it, contains little that has not been before the public. It is designed to prove that the Five Books were produced by the amalgamation of two different records, much intermingled that these records are to be distinguished by the names of God used in them Elohim and Jehovah. He considers that both records were produced long after the time of Moses and points to Samuel as, probably, the Elohistic writer. The Jehovistic additions he considers as amendments and illustrations by a subsequent hand. He writes "1. There are different authors concerned in the composition of the book of Genesis, whose accounts in some respects contradict each other.—2. One of these authors is distinguished by abstaining altogether from the use of the name Jehovah in that book, while the other uses it freely from the first.-3. The former writer composed also E. 6, as all critics admit, and as in ternal evidence shows; and it would seem from this chapter that he designedly forbore the use of the name Jehovah, until he had announced its revelation to Moses.-6. Either the name was actually made known to Moses, in the way described, or else, it is plain, the Elohist must have had some special reason for commending it in this way to the reverence of those for whom he wrote.-5. If the name was first revealed to Moses at this time, then the Jehovistic story, which puts it in the mouths of per THE REV. R. D. WILSON DEAR SIR,-Hearing that you were to lecture upon a subject of deep interest to myself I took the opportunity, on Wednesday evening, January 21, of listening to your discourse upon minis Right Reverend J. W. COLENSO, D.D. sons of all classes from the days of Eve downwards, cannot be historically true; and this involves at once the historical truth of all the other statements of the his story is further confirmed by the fact that, amidst the multitude of names which are given in the book of Genesis, down to the age of Joseph, though there are numerous names compounded with Elohim, there is not a single one compounded with Jehovah. 7. But the impossibilities, which we have found existing throughout the whole story of the Exodus, are equally conclusive against his historical truth of the whole.-8. We must return, then, to the other supposition, viz., that the Elohist had some special reason for commendof the people.-9. The most natural reason ing the Name to the regard and veneration would be that he himself was introducing it, as a new Name for the God of Israel. — 10. We find an indication of the fact that the Name did not exist before the time of Samuel in the circumstance that, throughout the history in the book of Judges, there is no single name which can be appealed to with confidence as compounded with the diand after the time of Samuel we observe, vine name in the form of El.-11. During in the book known by his name, a gradually increasing partiality for the use of not one name of this kind occurs at such names compounded with Jehovah, while sition that this name may have been introan age, as is inconsistent with the suppoduced by Samuel.-12. Hence arises the suspicion that Samuel was the Elohist; the circumstances of his time, and the and the position he held, together with accounts which are handed down as to his doings, and especially the tradition with respect to his historical labours, tend strongly to confirm this suspicion.' Jehovist -6. And this unreal character of But we cannot combat the second book till our examination of the first is complete. Then we expect to shew that the two are about equal. UPON "THE MINISTRY." communication take notice, but deal with statements to which I take exception. Nearly the first point you touched was that of apostolic succession. You seem to think that " modern ministers" are really successors to the Apostles, not as respects their extraordinary qualification and work, but in a more subordinate sense. But this simply amounts to saying that modern ministers are successors to the Apostles minus those higher qualifications which are essential to an apostle in the only sense in which the word is applied to the original twelve. In proof, however, of the correctness of your view, you referred to the commission recorded by the Evangelist Mark, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (xvi.) You argue that as the commission could not be fully carried out by those to whom the Lord immediately addressed it, and as the work involved could only be accomplished in stages, he must have intended to address himself to their successors in all ages of the world. Now you are of course aware that the two following verses complete the Lord's address on the occasion referred to. And these signs shall follow them that believe in my name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover." But had you brought into view the whole of this address, as these signs do not follow those who believe through your own preaching, it might have been inferred, at least, that you were not one of those for whom the Lord intended this address, and consequently not a successor of the Apostles. 66 Your lecture supplied an illustration of the possibility of even a pious and educated man remaining blind to almost everything beyond the pale of his theological bias. This was apparent in the fact, that though at the opening of the service Eph. iv. was read, in which the Apostle says that the ascended Lord gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the minis 66 try, for the edifying of the body of Christ"-and though you quoted these words in the lecture, you seemed not to notice that there are several offices named whose designations imply peculiar and distinctive work for each, you went on, by manifest implication, to mould all these separate workers into one man, whom you designate the "modern minister." This was done by speaking of the whole labor to be performed by these several officers as the work of "the minister," which you placed under the following heads : 1. The preaching of the gospel, and the administration of the ordinances. 2. Pastoral supervision, involving visitation of members. 3. The ruling of the church. Under the first you did not hesitate to tell us, that preaching the gospel is the work of the "minister," and that the holy ordinances require his hands in order to their right administration. But this you made no attempt to prove, and I have no hesitation in saying that the reader of the New Testament will search in vain for even one glance at your " modern minister," to whom specially is committed the preaching of the gospel and the administration of ordinances. True, we read of evangelists whose duty it was to preach the gladtidings, as the name evavyeλions (a messenger of good, or a proclaimer of glad-tidings) denotes. We learn also that their work involved the planting and setting in order of churches. But in vain do we look through the pages of the New Testament for one who, like unto your " modern minister," was constituted the sole preacher, teacher, and ruler of a church, belonging to a clerical order, and designated by the title of reverend. On the other hand, so far from finding any trace of the ordination, or the setting apart, of a class of men as the only authorised preachers of the gospel, Acts viii. supplies an instance in which the whole church, excepting the Apostles, were scattered abroad, and went everywhere preaching the word. Certainly we read of the ordination of elders, whose privilege it was, in common with all the members of the church, to preach the gospel; but this class of officers was quite distinct from the evangelist. Then also no scripture warrant can be produced for the assumption, that the holy ordi |