Part 3

II. Dr. Colenso next assumes that the 600,000 men of the exodus were _all_ descendants of Jacob. We contend, as a far more probable opinion, that amongst them were counted, not only the descendants of _Jacob himself_, but also the descendants of his _servants_. If we take up the book of Genesis, and glance through the brief history of the Patriarchs, we shall find abundant reason to believe that, when Jacob was invited by Joseph to come down into Egypt, he must have had a goodly retinue of servants. His grandfather, Abraham, had been able to lead forth an army of 318 servants "_born in his house_" (_Gen._, xiv. 14). It is not unreasonable to suppose that, according to the custom of those times, he had other servants not born in his house, but "bought with money".[13] At all events the number was considerably increased by a present from Abimeleck, who "took sheep, and oxen, and _men-servants_, and _women-servants_, and gave them unto Abraham" (_Gen._, xx. 14). Upon his death this immense household passed into the possession of his Son Isaac; for "Abraham gave _all that he had_ to Isaac" (_Gen._, xxv. 5). Isaac, too, we are told, "increased, and went on increasing, until he became very great; and he had possessions of flocks, and possessions of herds, and a _numerous household_; and the Philistines envied him" (_Gen._, xxvi. 13, 14). As to Jacob himself, he was sent by Isaac to Padan-Aram, where he served his father-in-law Laban for twenty years. While there, it is said, he "increased exceedingly, and had many flocks, and _women-servants_, and _men-servants_, and camels, and asses" (_Gen._, xxx. 43). All these he took with him when he set out from Padan-Aram to return to Canaan (_Gen._, xxxi. 18; xxiii. 5, 7). In addition to this large retinue, Jacob must also have inherited, in virtue of his birthright, a double portion (_Deut._, xxi. 17) of the household which his father had accumulated. Thus, it seems clear that, within ten years[14] of the Descent into Egypt, the number of servants who looked up to Jacob as their head and master, must have been very large indeed.

Now we maintain that, according to the narrative before us, these servants were _a part of the chosen people of God_, and _sharers in His Covenant_ with Abraham. This assertion is easily proved. They had all received the rite of circumcision, and circumcision was the mark of the chosen people; it was the _sign_ of God's Covenant. "This is my covenant which you shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee; every male child among you shall be circumcised. And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a _sign_ of the Covenant between me and you. And the son of eight days shall be circumcised among you, every male child in your generations, _he that is born in the house or bought with money of any stranger, that is not of thy seed_. _He that is born in thy house and he that is bought with thy money_ must needs be circumcised" (_Gen._, xvii. 10-13). It is clear, therefore, that Abraham and his posterity were commanded to circumcise not only their _children_, but their _servants_ and their _servants' children_, who thus became sharers in the promises of God.

Is it not likely then that, when Jacob came down into Egypt, he took with him not only his lineal descendants, but also his servants and their families? Let it be remembered that he was invited by his son, Joseph, whom God had made "as a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and ruler throughout all the land of Egypt" (_Gen._, xlv. 8): that Pharaoh himself had promised, that to Jacob and his household he would give "the good of the land of Egypt", and that they should "eat the fat of the land" (_Gen._, xlv. 18). Are we to suppose that when the venerable patriarch heard this joyful intelligence, he took with him _his flock_, and _his herds_, and _all his possessions_, but left behind his faithful servants with their wives and children? Would he, in his old age, when prosperity smiled upon him, desert those trusty followers who had come with him from a distant country, and had clung to him in all his varied fortunes? Would he abandon now those men of loyal heart whom he had known from a boy, and who had grown up with himself in his father's house? He knew that they were the chosen people of God: would he have come down into Egypt with his children to "eat the fat of the land", and have left them to perish of hunger in the land of Canaan?

But Dr. Colenso objects, "there is no word or indication of any such _cortege_ having accompanied Jacob into Egypt" (p. 114). We reply that our supposition is still possible and probable, even though no mention were made of it in the brief summary of Moses. It has been well remarked that, when it suits his purpose, Dr. Colenso is at no loss to supply the omissions of the sacred text. Thus, in treating of the "march out of Egypt"--(pp. 61, 62), he supplies _aged, infirm, infants, women in childbirth_, of whom there is "no word or indication" in the narrative. It happens, however, in the present instance, that there is a pretty clear "indication" in the text, that Jacob was accompanied by "such a _cortege_". We are informed that "Israel set out _with all that he had_" (_Gen._, xlvi. 1). It has been shown that he had a large retinue of servants, and we know that it is the usage of the Pentateuch to reckon _men-servants and women-servants_ amongst the possessions of the patriarchs. Therefore, we are justified in supposing that this phrase included not only the family, cattle, and goods, but also the servants of Jacob.

Again, it is said that "Joseph nourished his father and his brethren and _all his father's house_, with bread" (_Gen._, xlvii. 12). And when Joseph went to bury his father in Canaan, we are told that with him went "all the house of Joseph, and his brethren, and his _father's house_; only their little ones and their flocks, and their herds, they left in the land of Goshen" (_Gen._, l. 8.) What can be the meaning of the _house of Jacob_ thus distinguished from _his children_ and _their little ones_? Does it not seem obviously to point to his _retinue of servants_? Unless, therefore, we set aside the evidence of the Pentateuch itself; unless we can believe that Jacob, in the decline of his life, suddenly snapped asunder the strongest ties of natural affection and of religious duty, we must admit that he brought down into Egypt a very large number of servants. We have seen that, according to the Divine command, their descendants would all receive the rite of circumcision, and be reckoned among the chosen people of God. They would, therefore, be numbered with those who, at the time of the Exodus, went out with Moses into the desert.

It is not true, then, that, in the narrative of the Pentateuch, 2,000,000 of Israelites are represented as having sprung from 70 persons in 215 years. Neither is it true, as we have shown, that only _four generations_, in the sense of Dr. Colenso, intervened between the sons of Jacob and the adult Hebrew population at the time of the Exodus. There yet remain many serious errors, and gross blunders, and palpable misrepresentations, in the argument of Dr. Colenso; but these we must reserve for a future number of the _Record_.

FOOTNOTES:

[5] See Gesenius, Fuerst, or, indeed, any of the larger Hebrew Lexicons.

[6] _Hebrew and English Lexicon_; London: Baxter and Sons.

[7] _Egypt's Place in Universal History_; London: Longman and Co., vol. i., p. 172.

[8] _Handwoerterbuch ueber das Alte Testament_; Leipzig: 1852.

[9] _Scholia in Pentateuchum._

[10] _Die Genesis Erklaert_; Leipzig: 1852.

[11] This is the literal translation of the Hebrew text, see Pagnini, Rosenmueller etc.

[12] Our readers are no doubt aware that the proper names of the Bible are differently spelled in the different versions. The orthography uniformly followed by Catholics is derived from the Septuagint, which was in general use throughout the Church in the very earliest ages. Among Protestants, on the other hand, an attempt is made to approach more closely to the orthography of the Hebrew text. Dr. Colenso has naturally taken the proper names as he found them in the English authorized version, and to avoid confusion in answering his arguments, we shall follow the spelling which he has adopted.

[13] In fact it is quite clear from several passages that Abraham had servants of both classes. See, for example, _Gen._, xvii. 12, 13, 23, 27.

[14] The death of Isaac must have taken place just ten years before the Descent into Egypt. Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born (_Gen._, xxv. 26); and Jacob was 130 when he went down to Egypt (_Gen._, xlvii. 9): therefore Isaac, if then living, would have been 190. But we know that he died at the age of 180 (_Gen._, xxxv. 28); that is to say, ten years before.

RICHARD FITZ-RALPH, ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH.

Sec. VI. HIS NOMINATION TO THE SEE OF ARMAGH.

The see of Armagh became vacant by the death of David O'Hiraghty, which took place, according to the _Annales Nenaghtenses_, on the 16th May, 1346. Dr. O'Hiraghty had been Dean of Armagh, and was elected by the chapter of Armagh, _quasi per inspirationem divinam_, as John XXII. mentions in the bull by which, on July 4th, 1334, he ratified the election.[15] He was consecrated at Avignon, and having ruled his diocese for nearly twelve years, died in 1346. On the 31st July, 1346, Clement VI., _jure provisionis_, appointed to the vacant see Richard Fitz-Ralph, then Dean of Lichfield. The bull of nomination contains that the chapter of Armagh had already unanimously elected the same Richard, and that he had given his consent to the election.[16] The Four Masters place in the year 1356 the death of Farrell (son of Jeffrey) MacRannall, Primate of Armagh and representative of St. Patrick. This, as Dr. O'Donovan remarks, is evidently a mistake of the Four Masters, as Richard Fitz-Ralph was certainly not one of the Mac Rannalls. We may say that, besides the mistake in the names, there is also a mistake in the dates. It was precisely in 1356 that Archbishop Fitz-Ralph set out upon that visit to London which was the occasion of his controversy with the Franciscans. The mistake made by the Four Masters is all the more incomprehensible for this reason, that of all the primates who sat at Armagh since the days of St. Francis of Assisi, no one was more likely to be remembered by the Franciscans than Archbishop Fitz-Ralph.

Dr. Fitz-Ralph was consecrated at Exeter on the 8th of July, 1347, by John Grandison, Bishop of Exeter, and three other bishops.[17] If this date be correct, the Primate found himself engaged in the onerous duties of his new office even before his consecration. On the 10th of April, 1347, Clement VI. appointed him, together with the Archbishop of Cashel, to make inquiry on the part of the Holy See into some charges brought against the Archbishop of Dublin by the Bishop of Ossory.[18] On the 12th of July of the same year he received faculties from the Holy See to dispense in a case of invalid marriage, the parties belonging to the diocese of Armagh.[19] The bishops of Ardagh and Cloyne were appointed on the 29th August, 1347, to give him the pallium.[20]

Sec. VII. THE ACTS OF HIS EPISCOPATE.

One of the most striking characteristics of Archbishop Fitz-Ralph's pastoral life was his assiduity in preaching the word of God to his people. His sermons on the principal festivals, still extant in MS. in the university libraries of Dublin, Oxford, and Cambridge, and in the British Museum, would fill a large volume. Already as Dean of Lichfield he had been remarkable for his fervour in preaching, but as successor of St. Patrick in the see of Armagh, he seemed to have received a double spirit of zeal and diligence. A volume of his sermons, once in the possession of Ware, and lately purchased for the British Museum at the sale of the Tenison library, includes sermons preached at Avignon, London, Drogheda, Dundalk, Trim, and other places of the province of Armagh. The fame of his eloquence preceded him to the Holy See, and when at Avignon he was frequently admitted to the high honour of preaching before the Holy Father and the cardinals and prelates of his court. He loved to make our Blessed Lady's virtues the subject of his discourse. _De Laudibus S. Deiparae_ is the title of many of his sermons. There are also special sermons on her Conception, Visitation, and Assumption. His sermons are generally constructed on a uniform plan. After quoting his text, it was his custom to begin with some short prayer like the following, which occurs in a sermon preached at Avignon on the feast of All Saints, 1358: _Pro edificandi gratia impetranda, devote, si placet, matrem gratiae salutemus, dicentes Ave Maria._ And in a sermon preached before Innocent VI. on the feast of the Epiphany, after the text _Videntes stellam Magi_, he begins with the invocation, _O Maria stella Maris, Mater stellae solaris_. After the introductory prayer he repeats the text in the vernacular, and then proceeds with the division of the subject. In dividing his discourse he generally employs the rigour of the scholastic method; each member of the division being complete in itself, and forming as it stands a finished whole. Hence, the great feature of his style is its singular clearness; a clearness which, however, never becomes hard or cold, so tender is the unction that pervades the entire. He appears to have had a singular devotion to St. Catherine the Martyr and to St. Thomas of Canterbury, among the saints; three or four different sermons are to be found in the collection in honour of each. It is much to be regretted that those beautiful sermons have never been printed.

Anxious to secure efficient pastors for his flock, he took care that his clergy should have the benefit of the highest literary and ecclesiastical training it was within his power to procure. With this view he sent four of his priests to the University of Oxford, where he himself had spent so many happy years of profitable study. He also acquired for his diocese from the Benedictines of St. Mary of Lenley's in Normandy, the priory and houses of St. Andrew in the Ardes, belonging to that order. Besides this, he was diligent in visiting every portion of his province. Among the rolls of Edward III., there is a letter of 28th April, 1356,[21] addressed by that King to the Archbishop, at a moment that the latter has actually engaged in his visitation of the diocese of Meath. Edward calls upon the Primate to return with all speed to Dundalk to treat with Odo O'Neill, who was advancing upon that town with a considerable army of Irish. Nor was it the first time that the Archbishop's virtues enabled him to discharge the blessed office of peacemaker in the disturbed state of society in which his lot was cast. As far back as 1348 he had received from the King full powers to treat for peace between the English and Irish.[22]

While careful of the spiritual interests of his diocese, Archbishop Fitz-Ralph did not neglect to take care of its temporal concerns. He justified to the letter the description given of him in the bull which made him Archbishop: _in spiritualibus providum, in temporalibus circumspectum_.

On January 11th, 1351, he received from Clement VI. a favourable answer to his petition that he might be allowed to incorporate with the mensal funds of his see the income of four churches with care of souls, provided the ordinaries consented, and that the sum did not exceed the annual value of one hundred marks. The petition of the Archbishop set forth that the entire income of his see did not reach four hundred pounds sterling per annum. On the same day the Pontiff issued letters requiring the Abbot of St. Mary's in Dynelek (Duleek), the Prior of St. Leonard's in Dundalk, and the Archdeacon of Armagh, together with the chapter of the cathedral, to examine how far it would be useful to exchange certain church lands, rents, and other immovable property, for others, which the Primate judged more likely to be advantageous to the see of Armagh.

Two documents preserved by Rymer show how careful Dr. Fitz-Ralph was not to sanction by any act of his the claims made to the primacy by the Archbishop of Dublin, to the detriment of Armagh. The first is dated 8th December, 1350, and is an order from Edward III., that the Archbishop of Armagh should not have his cross carried before him within the limits of the province of Dublin. Archbishop Fitz-Ralph was unwilling to cause disturbance by refusing to obey this order, but on the other hand he felt that to comply with it fully would be to prejudice the legitimate claims of his see.

He resolved in consequence simply to absent himself from Dublin. He procured a royal license which excused him from personal attendance at the parliaments held at Dublin, on the ground, that within the province of Dublin he was not permitted to have his cross borne before him. In 1349 he was charged by the same king to plead in the royal name before the Sovereign Pontiff Clement VI. for the grace of a jubilee on behalf of the people subject to the English crown. In Oxford there is a MS. entitled _Propositio ejusden (Ric. Rad. sive Fitz-Ralph Archiepiscopi Armachani) ex parte Regis Angliae Edwardi III. in consistorio Domini Papae, Avinione pro gratia jubilaei ejus Domino Regis populo obtinenda, anno 1349_. A similar heading is prefixed to another _propositio_ of the same prelate, which, as we shall see, he urged in person at Avignon in 1357. Pope Clement VI. was engaged in anxious efforts to restore the oriental churches to union with Rome. The Armenians were in an especial manner the objects of his paternal solicitude. The remarkable series of questions which the Pope proposed to the bishops of that church are well known in ecclesiastical history. It was, probably, during this visit to the Holy See that Archbishop Fitz-Ralph became acquainted with the two Armenian prelates, Nerses or Narses of Manasgarda and John, Bishop elect of Clata, in Greater Armenia. These oriental bishops had long and earnest conferences with their Irish brother on the sad state of their once flourishing church, and at their earnest and oft-repeated requests, the Primate resolved to contribute his aid to the great work of bringing back the Armenians to unity. One circumstance connected with the occasion, though it narrowed his field of argument for the time, has given, nevertheless, to his writings a character which makes them valuable in modern controversy. In his _Questiones Armenorum_ he was forced to defend the Catholic doctrine almost exclusively from the Holy Scriptures, seeing that his adversaries did not admit the authority of the Roman Church. Hence his position as a controversial writer does not differ from that which the Reformation has imposed upon modern theologians since the time of Bellarmine.

Before the publication of Theiner's _Vetera Monumenta_, there was but a single writer, Raphael of Volterra,[23] to assert that Archbishop Fitz-Ralph had been created Cardinal. This solitary testimony, though positive, was not considered by Ware and others strong enough to counterbalance the negative argument drawn from the silence of all other writers on the subject, and especially from the fact that upon the elaborate catalogue of cardinals, drawn up by Panvinio and Ciacconio, the name of Fitz-Ralph is not to be found. Among the documents published by Theiner there is a consistorial process drawn up in 1517 on occasion of a vacancy in the see of Ardagh,[24] in which mention is made, among other glories of Ireland, of the Cardinal of Armagh, who flourished in the year 1353. This is no other than our Archbishop Fitz-Ralph. It is curious that the statement in this process is made in words almost identical with those used by Raphael of Volterra. So close is the likeness between the two statements that one is clearly copied from the other. It is also to be observed that in the Papal documents he is never styled Cardinal, and that even as late as October, 1358, Archbishop Fitz-Ralph is styled by Innocent VI. simply Archbishop of Armagh, although in the same letter the Pontiff makes mention of the Cardinals appointed to examine into the questions at issue between our prelate and the Mendicant Orders. However this may be explained, we have the weighty authority of an official document drawn up at Rome and accepted by the Holy Father himself, for believing that the see of Armagh was honoured by the Roman purple in the person of Richard Fitz-Ralph.

Sec. VIII. HIS CONTROVERSY WITH THE MENDICANT ORDERS.

We now approach the grave controversy which was carried on for years between our Archbishop and the Mendicant Religious Orders. Even if the space at our disposal permitted it, we would not be willing to enter here into a detailed account of the dispute.

Had it been given to Archbishop Fitz-Ralph to see as clearly as history has enabled us to see, the blessings which our Church owes to the heroism of the religious orders in the days of persecution, far from opposing, he would have been the first to enlarge their privileges in Ireland. But, as it was, it is quite clear that in his opposition to them he was influenced solely by motives of an elevated nature. The whole struggle was simply a domestic misunderstanding, and of such character as that one may and must feel deep respect for both parties. We cannot do better than lay before our readers the explanation of his object and motives offered by the Archbishop himself to Pope Innocent VI. in person, at Avignon, 8th November, 1357.[25]

"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. 'Nolite judicare secundum faciem sed justum judicium judicate' (_Joan._, cap. 7).

"Most Holy Father, I protest, at the very beginning of my discourse, that I do not intend to assert or rashly to affirm anything which may clash with Christian faith or Catholic doctrine, and that it is not my intention to solicit, or even to advise, the abolition or retrenchment of the mendicant orders approved by the Church or confirmed by the Sovereign Pontiffs. But rather, it is my desire that these same orders be brought back to the purity of their original institution, and in this, also, I am ever ready to submit to the correction of your Holiness. And to approach my subject without delay, coming to London, Most Holy Father, about certain matters connected with my Church of Armagh, I found a dispute going on between certain learned doctors concerning the mendicant state and the mendicity of Christ our Lord and Saviour. After repeated invitations to preach to the people, I there delivered, in the vernacular, seven or eight discourses, and, always under the above-made protest, I defended in public nine conclusions, on account of which, and for what else I then said, the friars have appealed, though without reason, to this Holy See".

The visit to London here alluded to took place in 1356, and, as we have seen, in 1357, the case was already under judgment at Avignon. For three whole years the archbishop remained at the Holy See, while a congregation of Cardinals, specially appointed for the purpose, took cognizance of the dispute. No official decision was given, but as the privileges of the mendicant orders were confirmed, and a letter sent to the English bishops commanding them to not interfere with the friars, it may be said that the Archbishop failed to make good his cause.

Sec. IX. HIS DEATH.

On the 16th November, 1360, according to Henry of Malmesbury, Richard Fitz-Ralph slept in the Lord at Avignon. "Of whom", says Fox,[26] "a certain cardinal hearing of his death, openly protested that the same day a mighty pillar of the Church was fallen".