Part 2

1. On account of the old Latin form of the name of this see, _i.e._ _Darensis_, it has frequently been confounded with the Diocese of Kildare. Thus, not to mention more recent examples, Ware severely criticises Bale of Ossory for falling into this mistake—(_Bishops_, pag. 190). The chief criterion for distinguishing between the two sees, is the mention which is generally made of the metropolitan to whom the brief is addressed, or of the ecclesiastical province to which the diocese belongs.

2. Dr. King notices as an improbability that O’Gallagher could have been bishop for fifty-two years, and, nevertheless, be only (as Dr. King imagines) seventy years of age at his death. However, true dates are sure always to mutually correspond. Referring to the Consistorial Acts, cited above, it appears that in 1545 Dr. O’Gallagher was in his twenty-third year, and that a dispensation was then granted to him to be consecrated bishop in his twenty-seventh year: hence, at his death in 1601, Dr. O’Gallagher may very well have attained the fifty-second year of his Episcopate, whilst he will be found, not indeed in his seventieth year, but, as O’Sullivan writes, “circa octogesimum annum agens”.

3. The succession of bishops in the See of Derry affords a practical refutation of the novel theory so fashionable now-a-days amongst the clergy of the Establishment, that forsooth the native clergy without hesitation embraced the tenets of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, and that the Catholic Church was only upheld in our island “by begging friars and foreign priests”. We pray the reader whenever he hears such a statement made, to call to mind the See of Derry. Was Roderick, “the arrant traitor”, in the days of King Henry, a _foreign priest_ and a stranger to our island? Was Raymond O’Gallagher a foreigner during Elizabeth’s reign? Oh! ask the faithful of Innishowen, amongst whom he first exercised his sacred ministry—ask the camps of Maguire, O’Donnell, and O’Neill! Ask, too, the very enemies of our holy faith, the first founders of the Protestant Establishment: their deeds will tell you that he was the true pastor of the fold, and hence they set a price upon his head, and at length conferred on him the martyr’s crown.

There was, however, one foreign prelate who received an appointment in Derry at this period, and he was precisely _the first_ and _only_ Protestant nominee to this see during Elizabeth’s reign. “To the two northern sees of Raphoe and Derry”, writes Dr. Mant, “Elizabeth made no collation, unless in the year 1595, when her reign was drawing towards its close”—(_Hist._, i. 284). George Montgomery, a Scotchman, was the individual thus chosen to be the first representative of the _Establishment_ in our northern sees. His patent for the sees of Clogher, Derry, and Raphoe, was dated the 13th of June, 1595, where already for many years a canonically appointed bishop ruled the fold of Christ. The good sense, however, of the Knoxian reformer judged it more prudent not to risk himself and family amidst the O’Kanes whilst arms were in the hands of the Irish chieftains: he hence consigned to oblivion his royal patent, and allowed the Irish pastors to feed in peace their spiritual fold. Even when, in 1605, he sought for a new appointment to these sees at the hands of King James, as we learn from Mant, Ware, and other Protestant authorities, he took care to make no allusion to the writ which he had formerly received in the thirty-seventh year of Elizabeth.

DR. COLENSO AND THE OLD TESTAMENT. NO. II.

The Colenso controversy has entered on a new phase. It appears we must no longer speak of Dr. Colenso as the Protestant Bishop of Natal. He enjoyed this title indeed for a time, in virtue of letters patent issued by the supreme head of the Established Church. But the judicial committee of her Majesty’s privy council has sat in judgment on her Majesty’s letters patent, and has just pronounced that they are invalid and without effect in law; that her Majesty had assumed a prerogative which did not belong to her, and had been guilty in fact, though inadvertently, of an illegal aggression upon the rights of her colonists.

The history of this remarkable decision may be told in a few words. Dr Colenso was appointed to the See of Natal in the year 1853. In the same year, Dr. Gray, as Bishop of Cape Town, was invested by royal letters patent with metropolitan jurisdiction over Dr. Colenso and the diocese of Natal. Ten years passed away, and each in his own sphere exercised the authority which he was supposed to have received from the crown. At length Dr. Colenso’s book appears, and a charge of heresy is preferred against him. The charge is entertained by the supposed metropolitan, who sets up a court, proceeds to try the cause, and finally, in December, 1863, delivers his sentence. By this sentence Dr. Colenso is deprived of his see, and forbidden to exercise his sacred functions within the ecclesiastical province of Cape Town. The deposed bishop refuses to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court, and appeals to the privy council. The controversy was thus reduced to a simple question of law,—was Dr. Gray legally possessed of those metropolitan rights to which he laid claim? To this question the judicial committee of the privy council has given a clear and decisive answer. When a colony is once endowed with legislative institutions of its own, the crown no longer possesses any authority to create sees or to confer ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Now in the two colonies of Cape Town and Natal an independent legislature had been established in the year 1850; and therefore the letters patent of 1853 were null and void in law. Hence it follows that, according to English law, Dr. Gray was never in point of fact the Metropolitan of Cape Town; but neither was Dr. Colenso the Bishop of Natal.

Thus has Dr. Colenso pulled down the whole edifice of the English colonial episcopate. Like Sampson of old, he has been, indeed, avenged upon his enemies, but he has been himself crushed beneath the ruins he has made. Yet, though his jurisdiction as a bishop may be taken away, his moral power and his influence are increased. He now appears not only as an eminent leader of the free-thinking and infidel school of theology, but as a martyr who has suffered in the cause; and this new character gives him an additional claim to the sympathy and veneration of his followers. When the youthful plant is checked in its upward growth by the skilful knife of the gardener, it puts forth new branches on every side, and flourishes with increased luxuriance. And so, according to every human probability, the check which Dr. Colenso has received will but promote the rapid expansion of his views, and their dissemination throughout the Protestant Church. It is therefore all the more important for those who defend the cause of truth to refute his charges against the Bible, and to lay bare the sophistry of his arguments. Let us take the following example:—

“ ‘_And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, ... Gather thou the congregation together unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Moses did as Jehovah commanded him. And the assembly was gathered unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation_’—(_Lev._, viii. 1-4).

“First, it appears to be certain that by the expressions used so often, here and elsewhere, ‘the assembly’, ‘the whole assembly’, ‘all the congregation’, is meant the whole body of the people—at all events, the _adult males in the prime of life_ among them—and not merely the _elders_ or _heads of the people_, as some have supposed, in order to escape from such difficulties as that which we are now about to consider. At any rate, I cannot, with due regard to the truth, allow myself to believe, or attempt to persuade others to believe, that such expressions as the above can possibly be meant to be understood of the elders only....

“This vast body of people, then, received on this occasion, and on other similar occasions, as we are told, an express command from Jehovah himself, to assemble ‘at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation’. We need not press the word ‘all’ so as to include every individual man of this number. Still the expression ‘all the congregation’, the ‘whole assembly’, must be surely understood to imply the _main body_ of those who were able to attend, especially when summoned thus solemnly by the direct voice of Jehovah himself. The _mass_ of these 603,550 men _ought_, we must believe, to have obeyed such a command, and hastened to present themselves at the ‘door of the tabernacle of the congregation’....

“Now the whole width of the _tabernacle_ was 10 cubits, or 18 feet, ... and its length was 30 cubits, or 54 feet, as may be gathered from _Exodus_, xxvi. Allowing two feet in width for each full-grown man, nine men could just have stood in front of it. Supposing, then, that ‘all the congregation’ of adult males in the prime of life had given due heed to the divine summons, and had hastened to take their stand, side by side, as closely as possible, in front, not merely of the _door_, but of the whole _end_ of the tabernacle in which the door was, they would have reached, allowing 18 inches between each rank of nine men, for a distance of more than 100,000 feet, in fact nearly _twenty miles_”—(Part i. pp. 31,33).

Dr. Colenso revels in figures. When he sets about a problem he delights to look at it from every point of view, and to work out his sum in a variety of ways. By a very simple process of multiplication and addition he has here proved that the Scripture narrative is quite ridiculous and absurd. Yet he is not content. He must lead his readers to the same conclusion by another process:—

“As the text says distinctly ‘at the door of the tabernacle’, they must have come _within the court_. And this, indeed, was necessary for the purpose for which they were summoned on this occasion, namely, to witness the ceremony of the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priestly office. This was to be performed inside the tabernacle itself, and could only, therefore, be seen by those standing at the door....

“But how many would the _whole court_ have contained? Its area (60 yards by 30 yards) was 1,800 square yards, and the area of the tabernacle itself (18 yards by 6 yards) was 108 square yards. Hence the area of the court outside the tabernacle was 1,692 square yards. But the whole congregation would have made a body of people nearly twenty miles—or, more accurately, 33,530 yards—long, and 18 feet or 6 yards wide; that is to say, packed closely together, they would have covered an area of 201,180 square yards. In fact the court, when thronged, could only have held five thousand people; whereas the able-bodied men alone exceeded six hundred thousand.... It is inconceivable how, under such circumstances, ‘all the assembly’, the ‘whole congregation’, could have been summoned to attend ‘at the door of the tabernacle’, by the express command of Almighty God”—(pp. 33, 34).

Before we proceed to examine this singular objection, put forward in so plausible and popular a form, it may be useful to describe, in a few words, the general appearance of the tabernacle, and of the court which surrounded it. Our readers will thus be placed in a position to form a clear and distinct idea of the difficulty which Dr. Colenso has raised. And we are satisfied that the more thoroughly it is understood, the more complete and satisfactory will the explanation be found.

The court of the tabernacle was an oblong rectangle, one hundred cubits(2) in length, from east to west, and fifty cubits in breadth, from north to south. This space was enclosed by hangings of fine twisted linen, supported by sixty pillars, to which they were attached by hooks and fillets of silver. The entrance to the court was at the eastern end; it was twenty cubits in width; and across the opening was suspended a curtain, embroidered with fancy needlework, and rich with gorgeous colours.

Within the court, and towards the western end, was erected the tabernacle. It was simply a large tent, constructed with elaborate care, and formed of costly materials. Like the court in which it was placed, it was an oblong rectangle, being thirty cubits in length and ten cubits in breadth. The walls were of setim or acacia wood; the roof of fine linen, covered with curtains of goats’ hair and skins. The eastern end was open, but was furnished with a rich hanging to serve as a door. Internally the tabernacle was divided by a veil into two apartments;—the _Holy Place_, twenty cubits in length, which contained the golden candlestick, the table of show-bread, and the altar of incense; and the _Holy of Holies_, ten cubits in length, in which was placed the ark of the covenant. The _Holy Place_ was appropriated to the priests, who entered it twice a day, morning and evening. The _Holy of Holies_ was forbidden to all but the high priest alone, and even he could enter only once a year, on the great day of atonement.

The argument of Dr. Colenso is now easily understood. According to the Scripture narrative, the whole multitude of the Israelites, or at least six hundred thousand men, were summoned to attend, and actually did attend, “at the door of the tabernacle”. It follows that they must have stood in a line eighteen feet broad and twenty miles long, which is perfectly absurd. Besides, they could not have witnessed the ceremony to which they were summoned unless they came within the court. But this is an absolute impossibility, as the court would only hold five thousand men, even if they were closely packed together.

Here is, indeed, a very serious charge against the credibility of the Pentateuch. But it seems to us a charge which, from its very nature, must refute itself. Dr. Colenso will not deny that the Book of _Leviticus_ was written while the tabernacle was still in existence; and that its author, whoever he may have been, had the tabernacle and its appurtenances constantly before his eyes. If he was not a truthful historian, but an impostor, he was certainly a most skilful impostor. He must have known well, all his readers must have known well—quite as well as Dr. Colenso—that the tabernacle could not hold more than five thousand people. Now it is perfectly incredible that any man of common sense, not to say a most clever and successful impostor, under these circumstances, would have ventured boldly to state that six hundred thousand persons were gathered within its precincts.

Let us, however, examine the argument in detail. The foundation on which it rests is clearly enough stated by Dr. Colenso. “It appears to be certain that by the expressions, used so often here and elsewhere, ‘the assembly’, ‘the whole assembly’, ‘all the congregation’, is meant the whole body of the people—at all events, the _adult males in the prime of life_ among them—and not merely the _elders_ or _heads of the people_”, etc. We deny this assertion. The Hebrew word עדה (heda), which is here translated the _assembly_, the _congregation_, comes from the root יעד (yahad), _to appoint_, and means literally an _assembly meeting by appointment_. It is quite true, as Dr. Colenso contends, that the word is sometimes employed to designate the entire body of the people. But it is also true, though he ignores the fact, that it is sometimes applied to a _select few_, invested with a certain authority and jurisdiction. We shall be content with submitting to our readers one remarkable example.

In the thirty-fifth chapter of _Numbers_ we read of the cities of refuge. They were to be six in number—three upon each side of the Jordan; and were intended to afford shelter to those who had unintentionally shed innocent blood. “And they shall be for you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not until he stand before the _assembly_ (עדה) for _judgment_” (_Numbers_, xxxv. 12).(3) It is then laid down that if the murder have been deliberate, it shall be punished with death (16-21). But if the fatal blow have been struck _without enmity_ or _premeditation_, or _by chance_ (22, 23), “then the _assembly_ (עדה) shall _judge_ between the slayer and the revenger of blood.... And the _assembly_ (עדה) shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the _assembly_ (עדה) shall restore him to the city of his refuge” (24, 25). It is quite impossible to suppose that the judicial tribunal here spoken of could be the entire body of the people, or even the 600,000 male adults. The question to be tried was one of the highest moment, involving the life or death of a fellow-citizen. It was also one of extreme delicacy, having to deal, not with the mere external act, but with the motives and feelings of the heart. To the _assembly_ (עדה) it belonged to pronounce, not merely whether one man had killed another, but whether in his heart he had _committed the crime_ of murder. For this purpose witnesses should be examined, evidence should be carefully sifted, and, perhaps, even the domestic secrets of the accused and of his victim should be laid bare. Was this a task that could be entrusted to a mixed multitude of 600,000 men?

Accordingly we find that Rosenmuller, in his commentary on this passage (_Num._, xxxv. 24), explains the word, _the assembly of judges_—“cætus judicum urbis in cujus agro contigerit homicidium”. If we apply this interpretation to the passage in _Leviticus_, every shadow of improbability and inconsistency will at once disappear from the narrative. Now, we ask Dr. Colenso, when a word in Scriptural usage has two different meanings, which must we choose when we come to examine a text in which that word is found? Are we to select the meaning which is in every way suitable to the context and circumstances; or must we rather adopt an interpretation which will make the sense absurd and impossible? Dr. Colenso has preferred the latter course. It appears to us that the former is alone consistent with the instinct of common sense and the principles of genuine criticism.

We think our readers will admit that we have fairly established our point, and proved that Dr. Colenso’s argument is utterly destitute of foundation. For the ordinary purposes of controversy it would be unnecessary to go further. But we frankly confess we aim at something more. We are not content with answering the argument of Dr. Colenso; we wish to shake his authority as a trustworthy critic. All that he has written against the Pentateuch is made up of these two elements—first, the _meaning_ which he attaches to the narrative, and, secondly, the _process of reasoning_ by which he labours to show that this meaning is inconsistent or impossible. Now it is plain, from the argument we are considering, that Dr. Colenso is liable to the grossest errors, not only when he undertakes to interpret the sacred text, but also when he proceeds to reason on his own interpretation. If this assertion be established, his authority can have but little weight.

Let us suppose then, for a moment, that by the _assembly_ is meant, in a general way, the entire people of Israel; does it follow, as Dr. Colenso maintains, that, according to the narrative, 600,000 men must have “hastened to present themselves at the ‘door of the tabernacle?’ ” We believe it does not. Nay, more, we believe that the absurdity of Dr. Colenso’s opinion is clearly proved by some of the texts which he has himself adduced. For instance:—“Bring forth the blasphemer out of the camp ... and let _all the assembly_ (עדה) stone him” (_Lev._, xxiv. 14). And again, in the case of the Sabbath-breaker:—“The man shall be surely put to death; _all the assembly_ (עדה) shall stone him with stones without the camp. And _all the assembly_ (עדה) brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died” (_Num._, xv. 35, 36). No one will maintain that the writer here means to say that 600,000 men were engaged in carrying the condemned man, or that 600,000 men threw stones at him. If Dr. Colenso had paused for a moment to reflect on these texts as he copied them from the Bible, we are convinced he would have suppressed his foolish argument. Exactly as it is said that _all the assembly_ was gathered into the door of the tabernacle, so too is it said that _all the assembly_ stoned the blasphemer and the Sabbath-breaker. In the latter case, it is clear that the number of those who were actually engaged in carrying out the sentence of God was comparatively small, but the act is fairly ascribed to the whole community, because _all_ were _summoned_ to take part in it, and those who complied with the summons _represented_ those who did not. Surely there is no reason why we may not apply the same interpretation to the former passage.

Nor is this mode of speaking peculiar to Sacred Scripture. Every year the members of the House of Commons are summoned to appear at the bar of the House of Lords; every year we are told that they obey that summons. Who is there that questions the truth of this statement? It represents a fact with which we are all familiar. Yet Dr. Colenso with his rule and measure will demonstrate that the fact is impossible and the statement false, because the place in which the Commons are said to assemble cannot possibly hold one-tenth of their number.

So much for Dr. Colenso as an interpreter of the Bible. He is satisfied that if we accept the narrative we must believe that six hundred thousand men were gathered unto the door of the tabernacle. We have seen that he is mistaken; but let us now concede this fact, and let us see how he proceeds to reason upon it. Since the tabernacle was only eighteen feet wide, this immense multitude must have stood in a line eighteen feet in breadth and twenty miles in length. This is certainly a most extraordinary conclusion. No multitude ever yet stood in such a line; no multitude _could_ stand in such a line unless they had been specially trained during many years for that purpose. There is no conceivable reason why the Jews on this occasion should have stood in such a line. And yet Dr. Colenso will have it that they _must_ have stood in this way, if it be true that they were gathered unto the door of the tabernacle.

We are tempted to offer an illustration of the very peculiar manner in which Dr. Colenso here pursues his critical examination of the Bible. Many of our readers will remember the 15th of August, 1843. In the phraseology of Scripture it might be said that upon that day 100,000 Irishmen were _gathered to O’Connell_ on the Hill of Tara.(4) To the ordinary reader such a statement would present no insuperable difficulty. It would convey, indeed, a pretty correct idea of what we all know actually to have taken place. But when submitted to the Colenso process, this simple narrative will be found to undergo a very startling transformation. O’Connell did not occupy a space more than two feet broad. Therefore there was just room for one full-grown man to stand in front of him. The second must have stood behind the first; the third behind the second; and so the whole multitude must have extended in a single unbroken line over many miles of country. A little boy at school could tell us that, when we say the multitude was gathered unto O’Connell, we do not mean that the multitude occupied a space which was only as broad as O’Connell. Yet Dr. Colenso maintains that this is the only meaning which the phrase admits. Such principles would make strange havoc with history.