ple (Ex. xii. 48, 49; Lev. xix. 33, 34; Num. xv. 14-16; Deut. xxix. 11). All these considerations together leave no difficulty whatever in accounting for the alleged numbers.

In close connection with this point, it has been asserted that the assembling and departure of this inultitude of people is related to have been done in a manner incompatible with a personal knowledge; that it is too hurried. But the objection overlooks the real facts of the case. The narrative has furnished all the necessary elements to form a satisfactory and consistent account. First, and chiefly, there is a leader, who, judged by whatever standard, must have been a great and competent commander. Secondly, the scheme of rescue, even to some of its details, such as the consultation with the elders, the series of miracles, and the provision of money, jewelry, and raiment, was laid before him before he went from Midian to Egypt (Ex. iii.). Next is related the actual consultation with the elders (ch. iv.) on his arrival, with a full statement of the grand scheme. Next begin the interviews with Pharaoh (ch. v.), the intent of which was from the first made known to the whole people by bitter experience (v. 8, 20, etc.), and was again distinctly stated to them by Moses, before the commencement of the miracles. Then follow the series of chastisements, which, from the indications of time connected with them, must have occupied at least several weeks, perhaps months. At length comes the destruction of the first-born, which, as Moses was forewarned (xi. 1-8), was to be the signal of departure. The exodus was to take place on the 14th; and the final order of preparation was given at some time previous to the 10th day of the same month (xii. 3), — an order including the arrangements for sudden departure on the night of the 14th of Nisan (xii. 11). These are the distinct statements of the narrative; and the attempt of Dr. Colenso to bring all this preparation within "twelve hours" on the strength of our English version "this night" (for "the same night") in Ex. xii. 12, simply exhibits an ignorance of the Hebrew idiom in the use of, which a consultation of Gesenius's Hebrew

ses.

Lexicon would at once have dispelled. It is not at all inconsistent with human nature or the well-known traits of this people, that, when at the last moment they were hurriedly driven out of Egypt, especially from the capital where Pharaoh dwelt, their bread should have been unleavened and their food not prepared. The final hurry would have been more urgent at the capital. There is no reason, however, to understand that they were all congregated at RameVarious circumstances in the narrative as well as repeated statements that they were driven out of "Egypt,” imply that they were widely dispersed over the country. That they went out in various consolidated bodies is somewhat clearly stated in Ex. xii. 41, 51; of which bands the principal one, including Moses and the elders, and therefore termed pre-eminently "the children of Israel," would have departed directly from the capital. So ample is the time allowed for the subsequent march that we find (comp. Num. xxxiii. 3 and Ex. xvi. 1) a whole month to have elapsed between the departure from Rameses and that from Elim, a distance probably not much more than a hundred miles.?

A testimony to the completeness of preparation is undoubtedly found in the very word (Ex. xiii. 18, Eng. version "harnessed"), on which an attempt has been made to raise an objection. Modern commentators are nearly unanimous here in rejecting the specific meaning "armed;" and, though with some diversity in detail, agreed in finding the declaration of a somewhat thorough preparation for the march. The clue to its meaning, as Rosenmüller suggests, is found in its interchangeable use with , of which the

1 In defining the word the Lexicon says: "in historical narrative, that which has just been mentioned is regarded as present." Examples given are Gen. vii. 11; Ex. xix. 1, both past periods. Instances of its future reference are Lev. xxiii. 14, 21, where it is joined with, and in verse 6th of the same chapter where it stands alone; meaning in all these cases simply "the same.” 2 In illustration of this great event Stanley alludes to "the sudden retreat of a whole nomadic pcople—400,000 Tartars under cover of a single night, from the confines of Russia into their native deserts, as late as the close of the last century. History of the Jewish Church, p. 137.

known meaning is "girt about the loins," and thus in a state of readiness for some effort; thus compare Num. xxxii. 32 with Josh. i. 14, and Josh. iv. 12 with iv. 13. The Septuagint translates the word evovou in Josh. i. 14, and dieσkevaoμévoi in Josh. iv. 12. And though the Vulgate invariably translates armati, supported by Aquila and Symmachus and many of the Fathers, the somewhat general consent of modern scholars is expressed by the broader terms "equipped, gerüstet, parati." 1

We shall but allude, for completeness of statement, to certain other objections of the same nature, which have been already sufficiently answered elsewhere: alleged oversights or incompatibilities, which it is asserted imply a later fabrication. We would add that if the supposed oversights are real, this pseudo-Moses was certainly a very sorry bungler in the art of fabrication, and he found a still sorrier set of dupes in the whole nation who elevated him to Moses's seat, and for hundreds of years reverentially received his foolish utterances. But in truth nearly all the arithmetical difficulties raised by Dr. Colenso are not contradictions, impossibilities, or incompatibilities; they are simply unexplained or incomplete statements, in which no difficulty at all might have been seen if the writer had furnished one wanting link, and from which now all difficulty vanishes when some admissible supposition is supplied. The statements that Moses addressed all Israel, and that the congregation assembled within the court of the tabernacle, are relieved from being the most stupid of fictions by the simplest of explanations, viz. that as Israel was organized as thoroughly as any modern army, Moses in addressing them had only to proceed as does any modern general, and communicate through his inferior officers (as indicated Deut. xxvii. 1, 9, 14); and that the congregation could be, and often was assembled representatively, - a fact proved by

1 Gesenius gives, "acres, strenui, alacres ad pugnandum," which Keil adopts. Fürst very widely, "accincti, parati, instructi, armati." Knobel, "in organized bands." Ewald revives an old view of Theodotion, "in five divisions," as from , five, or a supposed

.

instances in which "the elders" are identified with the congregation and "the children of Israel" (Ex. xii. 3, 21, 28; xix. 7, 8; Deut. v. 1, 2, 3; Lev. ix. 1, 5, 23, 24). The supposed impossible duty of the priest "to carry" the offal and ashes of the sacrifice without the camp (Lev. iv. 11, 12), becomes perfectly feasible by merely understanding the word

in its legitimate sense "remove," or "cause to go forth." Besides, the encampment consisted of five distinct camps (Num. i., ii., x.), one of which comprised the Levites alone. The specific direction for cleanliness in the camp (Deut. xxiii. 12-14), which has been cited as requiring an impossibility, is shown by the context to refer to the military camp of a future warfare in the promised land, where a much smaller number of persons was to be concerned; while the sanitary arrangements of the wilderness, in this respect, are not preserved in the narrative, but must of course have met the emergency. The method, very likely, was the same, except in the distance traversed: such is now the common custom of Asiatics. The Punjaub Sanitary Report for 1862, says, that" In our jails all our refuse is buried in the garden, and being rapidly decomposed..... no inconvenience is experienced"; and the writer specifies the general custom as being conformed to the supposed custom of the Israelites.?

The objection that lambs enough for the passover could not have been procured in the wilderness is sufficiently answered by the facts, first, that the law was enacted primarily for permanent observance in the settled home, and irrespective of that protracted wandering; that we do not know whether it was observed in the wilderness after the sojourn at Sinai, or was superseded, like circumcision; and that, if it was kept, in an emergency a single lamb might suffice for a large number of persons, simply for a memorial observance. God never exacted impossibilities, and in some cases even then, waived ceremonial regulations, as when

1 It is not asserted that this is always the case. The word, like, very commonly designates the people as a body. The context must determine. Cited by G. S. Drew in his reply to Colenso, p. 91.

(Lev. x. 4) the Levites entered the sanctuary to remove the corpses of Nadab and Abihu, and as in the marked case of circumcision. And whereas from the nature of the case we infer (and Colenso admits, Part I. p. 91) that such of the observances as hinged upon harvest gatherings must have lain in abeyance, we find also, in Deut. xii. 8, 9, and Amos v. 25, 26, intimations that there was, in practice, a large deviation from the law of sacrifices.

This, too, is a sufficient answer to the question how the small number of the priests in the wilderness could sprinkle the blood of so many paschal lambs, and how it could be done in the court of the tabernacle. If at any time the number of priests was then inadequate to their work, what difficulty in supposing an arrangement similar to what was admitted and commended in the time of Hezekiah, when the priests being "too few," were aided in their functions by "their brethren the Levites" (2 Chron. xxix. 34), and the course of Solomon, who finding the one altar inadequate to his sacrifice, consecrated and used another (2 Chron. vii. 7). These suppositions are perfectly admissible, being suggested by the sacred volume itself, and in full analogy with its spirit and method.

Several other peculiarities of number, which have been cited as objections, are disposed of by easy suppositions. The exact correspondence of the numbers of the poll-tax (Ex. xxxviii. 25, 26) and that of the census or military muster within six months following (Num. i. 1-46), taken in connection with the proximity of time, points conclusively to the identity of the reckoning; and may be explained either that the poll-tax registry was used for the military census so soon following, or (with Benisch) that the free-will offerings of the people (Ex. xxxv. 5-9, 20–29), being even more than was needed for the tabernacle (xxxvi. 5-7), were made to take the place of the poll-tax, which was destined for the same purpose (xxx. 16), the product of the poll-tax being (as matter of fact) identified with "the offering" (ch. xxxviii. 24, 29).'

1 Dr. Benisch supposes that from the superabundant offering enough was