Part 4

It would be easy to cite a host of distinguished authorities unfavourable to Dr. Colenso's interpretation. But we may well be content with these two. They certainly deserve a place in the very foremost rank of Hebrew scholars. Moreover, their testimony on the present question is above all suspicion; for it is well known that they share largely in the opinions of Dr. Colenso and his school. Nothing, therefore, could be farther from their purpose than to sacrifice the principles of philology with a view to defend the historical accuracy of the Bible. We beg to remind our readers that we express no opinion as regards the genuine meaning of this disputed word. Our position is simply this: Dr. Colenso's argument is _totally devoid of foundation_ unless he _prove_ that the word must mean _armed men_; and we maintain that he has utterly failed to do so; that, after all he has written, the meaning of the word still remains uncertain.

He attempts, however, to support his opinion by a fact recorded in the Pentateuch itself: "If they did not take it with them out of Egypt, where did they get the armour, with which, about a month afterwards, they fought the Amalekites (_Ex._, xvii. 8-13), and 'discomfited them with the edge of the sword'?" Dr. Colenso undertakes to prove that the Israelites are represented by Moses to have gone up _armed_ out of Egypt. And here is his proof. If they did not bring the arms with them, where did they get them afterwards? That is to say, after the lapse of thirty-three centuries, when we have nothing to assist us but the very brief and summary narrative of Moses, he asks us to explain in what way the Israelites were supplied with arms. And if, with such scanty means of information, we cannot tell him _how_ that fact took place, he infers that it was therefore _impossible_. Such is the flimsy reasoning by which he vainly hopes to shake the foundations of Christian faith.

It seems to us that nothing could be more satisfactory than the explanation suggested by Josephus, to whom Dr. Colenso has himself referred. But such conjectures, however probable in themselves, and well supported by authority, are unnecessary for our purpose. It is not for us to explain _how_ the facts actually occurred, but for our adversary to make good his assertion, that they are _absolute impossibilities_ or _manifest contradictions_.

If the first assumption in Dr. Colenso's argument is uncertain, the second is manifestly false. He maintains that, not only are the Israelites said to have been _armed_, but that they are represented as having 600,000 armed men. It is the existence of _such a mighty host_--_nearly nine times as great as the whole of Wellington's army at Waterloo_--_with arms in their hands_, that seems to him irreconcileable with the condition of a _down-trodden, oppressed people_. It is because the children of Israel had 600,000 _armed men in the prime of life_ that he cannot conceive it possible they would have _cried out in panic terror_ "_sore afraid_".

Now let us grant, for a moment, the point which we have just been disputing, and let us suppose Moses explicitly to declare that the children of Israel went up armed out of Egypt. Would this statement convey that there were 600,000 armed men? We know, indeed, that this was the number of the adult male population. But when we say that a people is armed, we do not mean that every man of twenty years old and upwards is under arms. Within the last two years how often have we heard it said that the Poles were armed against Russia? And yet the number of Poles actually bearing arms was not one-twentieth part of the adult male population. Just in the same way, if it were said that the Israelites were armed, we should understand nothing more than that a certain proportion of the people was armed for the protection of the whole. It would, then, be no matter for surprise that such a collection of armed men, without organisation, without training, should be struck with terror at the sight of the numerous and well-disciplined troops of Pharaoh, fully equipped, and provided with horses and chariots and all the accoutrements of war.

Dr. Colenso, as if anticipating this reply, next appeals to the Book of Numbers: "Besides, we must suppose that the _whole body_ of 600,000 warriors were armed, when they were numbered (_Num._, i. 3.) under Sinai. They possessed arms, surely, at that time, according to the story". Here we join issue with the bishop on two points. First, he insinuates that Moses makes mention somewhere of 600,000 _warriors_. Secondly, he asserts that, _according to the story_, all these warriors _possessed arms_. Now we challenge him to produce a single text from the Pentateuch in which there occurs any mention of 600,000 _warriors_. We are told that the Israelites numbered 600,000 _men_ of twenty years old and upward. But where are these men called _warriors_? And again, where is it said that all _possessed arms_? These are points which certainly demand clear and unmistakable evidence. It would be a fact unparalleled in history that every single man over twenty years of age, in the entire nation, should have been _a soldier fully equipped for war_. Our author tells us, indeed, that _we must suppose_ they were armed; that they _possessed arms, surely_, at that time. But when we look for his proofs, we find nothing but a naked reference to the third verse in the first chapter in Numbers.

Let us then look into this passage, and see if it corroborates the assertion of Dr. Colenso. Here is the text as we find it in the English Protestant version, to which we must suppose the bishop to have referred:--"Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel * * from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel"--(_Numbers_, i. 2, 3). The people were numbered accordingly by Moses and Aaron, and the result is given to us in the same chapter:--"So were all those that were numbered of the children of Israel * * from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war in Israel; even all that were numbered were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty"--(vv. 45, 46). If we are to rely upon this version, it is clear that Moses does not say there were 600,000 _warriors_, nor 600,000 men _possessed of arms_, nor 600,000 men that _went to war_, but, simply, 600,000 men _fit_ to go to war,--in other words, 600,000 men in the prime of life.

But perhaps Dr Colenso would prefer to be judged by the authority of the Hebrew text. Those who were numbered are described by the words [Hebrew: kol yatza tsaba] (kol yotze tzaba)--_every one going forth to the host_. In the opinion of Dr. Colenso this must mean every one belonging to the army--every _armed warrior_. Let us see if this interpretation is borne out by the use of the same phrase in other passages. We find it prescribed (_Numbers_, viii. 25) that at the age of fifty the Levites shall return from the _host_ ([Hebrew: tsaba]--tzaba) of the service". Now, it is well known that the Levites were not permitted to serve in the army. Therefore, the word _host_ ([Hebrew: tsaba]) does not here mean the _army_, but, as all commentators explain it, the body of Levites engaged in the active service of the Tabernacle. Again, we read (_Gen._ ii. 1). "The heavens and the earth were finished, and all the _host_ ([Hebrew: tsaba]) of them". In this passage the word manifestly refers to the works of the creation which had just been completed. It is also frequently applied by the prophets to the heavenly bodies,[12] and to the choirs of angels.[13] This word, therefore, in its primary sense, would seem to represent a collection of men or things _marshalled in order_. Frequently, indeed, and most fitly, it was used to designate an army; but we deny that it was employed exclusively in that signification.

If, then, we seek to ascertain its exact meaning in the first chapter of _Numbers_, we must examine the context in which it is found, and the circumstances to which it refers. Moses is commanded by God to number the people, and the way in which he executed that command is accurately described. There is not a word, in this, or the following chapters, about soldiers, or arms, or warfare. The object of the census was simply to distribute the people of Israel, according to their tribes and families, around the Tabernacle which stood in the midst of the camp. The position of each tribe was clearly defined, with a view to the preservation of strict order and regularity. May we not, then, fairly infer that by the _host_ is here meant the whole people of Israel _marshalled_, as they were, _in order_ around the Tabernacle? It is probable that those only were numbered who were responsible members of the community, that is to say, all the fathers of families.

We conclude that the argument of Dr. Colenso fails to establish any inconsistency in the sacred narrative: first, because it is quite uncertain that the Israelites are said to have been _armed_; secondly, because it is simply false that they are represented to have had 600,000 _armed warriors_.

Our readers will perhaps be disappointed to find that they have reached the end of our paper, and that out of the many objections of Dr. Colenso, we have answered but one. We confess, indeed, we have done but little. Yet it is something if we have parried even a single blow that was aimed at the Ark of God. It is something if we have struck down even one of that daring and defiant host with which Dr. Colenso has essayed to storm the citadel of truth.

LITURGICAL QUESTIONS.

From among the many questions with which we have been favoured, our space allows us to attend in this number only to the following. For the others we shall find place next month.

I.

1º. Can _black_ or _violet_ vestments be used _indifferently_ at _Requiem_ Masses, as stated in the _Ceremonial_ of Baldeschi, edited by Vavaseur? (page 14), _Paris_, 1859.

2º. "Rubrica de coloribus paramentorum non est praeceptiva, sed directiva, unde non inducit rigorosam obligationem; quia praeceptum S. Pii V. latum in bulla missalis, ex quo rubricae vim obligandi habent, non se extendit ad hanc rubricam de coloribus". Ferraris, in voc. Paramenta Sacra.

Can a priest, therefore, use at _Requiem_ Masses vestments of any colour, when, on any occasion, the number of priests to celebrate are many, and the black or violet vestments few? Can we conclude that, in such circumstances, the obligation of the rubric ceases?

3º. Must the _ciborium_ containing particles to be consecrated, be placed not merely on the corporal, but also on the altar stone? What is to be done when the altar-stone is too small to contain the chalice and large host? Can the ciborium be placed outside the stone, or should the particles be taken from the ciborium and arranged on the corporal, so as to rest on the altar-stone?

* * * * *

In reply to the first question, we beg to state that black or violet vestments, in our opinion, cannot be used indiscriminately. The Rubric of the Missal clearly lays down that black vestments are to be used, and we are not aware of any authoritative decree stating the general principle that one or the other can be used at discretion. The custom, no doubt, has been introduced of using the violet colour in many places; but in several instances this was done and sanctioned by authority, through a necessity which would justify a departure from the Rubric, inasmuch as there might not be a supply of black vestments; in other instances, it may have been done in consequence of the opinion gradually gaining ground that black or violet could be used indifferently. It appears to us more correct to say, that in case of necessity the violet can be used without much difficulty.

But our reverend correspondent gives, as his authority, the _Ceremonial_ of Baldeschi, edited by Vavaseur, 1859. We have consulted this author, and we find that he refers the reader to the _Ordo Divini Officii_, Roma. In this ordo it is stated that the colour in Missa Defunctorum is niger vel violaceus. And the following note is appended: "S. R. C. Ann. 1670. 21 Jun. v. Cardellini in Nota ad quaest. 3. Decret. 4440. Cujus tamen coloris (violacei) parcus admodum erit usus, et fortasse solum in aliquali necessitate; sic Cavalieri". The decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites here referred to, is as follows: Oritana--"Sacra Congregatio censuit servandum esse decretum vicarii in Ecclesia Cathedrali ne in posterum celebrentur Missae defunctorum nisi cum colore nigro vel saltem violaceo ... Hoc die 21 Junii, 1670".

The word _saltem_ appears to us not to allow the indiscriminate use of black or violet, but rather the use of the violet, when the black vestments are not at hand.

It may not be out of place to observe here, that there are two decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences which illustrate this subject.

Dub. 1. "Utrum qui privilegium habet personale pro quatuor Missis in hebdomadis singulis debeat cum paramentis coloris nigri celebrare diebus non impeditis ut possit indulgentiam Plenariam pro Animabus Defunctorum lucrari?

Dub. 2. "Utrum qui celebrat in Altari Privilegiato pro singulis diebus debeat semper uti paramentis nigris diebus non impeditis ut indulgentiam Privilegii consequatur?

"Ad primum dubium resp. Affirmative. Ad secundum pariter ut in primo.

"Ita decrevit sub die 11 Aprilis, 1840".

From these two decrees it is quite clear that it is indispensable for a priest to celebrate in black vestments on the days allowed, of course, in order to gain the plenary indulgence, _ut possit indulgentiam plenariam pro animabus defunctorum lucrari_. If the black or violet could be used indifferently, there exists no reason for confining this important privilege of a plenary indulgence to a Requiem Mass said in black vestments. We are of opinion, therefore, that, as a general rule, the black vestments are to be used, and the violet only _ex aliquali necessitate_, as has been remarked in a directory which we have before us. 'We must, however, observe that in the _Caeremoniale Episcoporum_ it is stated that the bishop assisting at a Requiem Mass can use a black or violet cope: "Si Episcopus noluerit celebrare, sed hujusmodi missae pro defunctis per alium celebratae interesse eadem norma in omnibus servabitur, quae expressa est in capite praecedenti; ipse vero Episcopus cum cappa, vel cum pluviali nigro seu violaceo facta confessione cum celebrante ibit cum suis assistentibus ad sedem suam"--_Caeremoniale Episcoporum_, libro 2º, cap. 12, no. i.

This, however, only applies to the bishop.

Again, the _Caeremoniale_, in the same book, chapter 25th, no. vi., treating of the function of Good Friday, says: "Episcopus et omnes utuntur paramentis nigris si haberi possint et deficientibus nigris coloris violacei".

We now come to the second question, and in our answer we shall probably have to make some observations closely connected with the subject matter of the first question. We hold that the rubric de coloribus paramentorum is _praeceptiva_. There are two decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites bearing on this subject.

1. "Inter postulata a Reverendissimo Episcopo Vicen. in visitatione ad Limina transmissa unum extat, quo ipse jure conqueritur de confusione colorum in paramentis sacrosancto Missae sacrificio, aliisque functionibus deservientibus, quae etiamsi sacris ritibus opposita in dicta tamen civitate et in ceteris Episcopatus Ecclesiis conspicitur. Huic propterea abusui providere, imo de medio tollere volens, humillime supplicavit idem Episcopus pro opportuno remedio. Et Sac. Rituum. Congregatio in ordinario coetu ad Vaticanum coacto respondendum censuit _Serventur omnino rubricae generales_: facta tamen potestate Episcopo indulgendi ut in Ecclesiis pauperibus permittat illis uti donec consumantur". 19 Decemb., 1829. in Vicen.

2. "Potestne continuari usus illarum Ecclesiarum quae pro colore tam albo, quam rubro, viridi et violaceo utuntur paramentis flavi coloris vel mixtis diversis coloribus, praesertim si colores a rubrica praescripti in floribus reperiantur? Resp. Servetur strictim Rubrica quoad colorem indumentorum, 12 Nov., 1831. Marsor. ad dub. 54. Vide _Manuale Decretorum S. Rituum Congregationis_".

In these two decrees, the observance of the Rubric with regard to the colour of the vestments is prescribed, "_servetur strictim Rubrica quoad colorem indumentorum_". Such a form of words appears to us inconsistent with the opinion that the said rubric is merely _directiva_.

We may also observe that even the use of many colours, or rather the mixture of them, is laid down as an abuse to be abolished, and power is granted to the bishop to allow the use of such vestments in _poor churches_ until they shall be no longer fit for use. If it be an abuse to use many colours, how much greater the abuse if a colour be used quite opposed to the rubric! It therefore seems to us that the opinion of Ferraris is at variance with what the Sacred Congregation of Rites lays down on this subject. He holds that the bull of St. Pius V., "_non se extendit ad hanc rubricam de coloribus_", and the Congregation of Rites says, "_servetur strictim Rubrica quoad colorem indumentorum_". Indeed we must say that all discussion appears to us to be set aside on this point by these decrees, particularly if we keep in view a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites dated 23rd. May, 1846, which was afterwards approved and confirmed by the present Pope on the 17th July, 1848, and which is as follows: "Decreta a Sacra Congregatione emanata et responsiones quaecumque ab ipsa propositis dubiis scripto formiter editae, eamdem habeant auctoritatem, ac si immediate ab ipso summo Pontifice promanarent, quamvis nulla facto, fuerit de iisdem relatio Sanctitati Suae". We hold, therefore, that the rubric is _praeceptiva_, and ought not to be departed from unless in such cases where a real necessity would warrant us to do so; and we may add that we would not consider it lawful to use white vestments in a Requiem Mass, inasmuch as we cannot conceive what necessity could turn up to justify such a departure from the rubric. Much better would it be, in such a case, to say the Mass of the day occurring, or some other votive Mass.

With regard to the third question, we beg to say that the ciborium or particles ought to be placed on the altar-stone, and that not only during the consecration, but to the communion. The chalice and host must be placed on it, according to the rubric; of the missal, and we see no reason why the same thing is not to be done with the small particles which are to be consecrated. St. Alphonsus Liguori is clearly of this opinion: "Non igitur licet ante communionem ponere particulas consecratas extra aram". La Croix, treating of the same subject, says: "Post communionem sacerdotis possunt parvae hostiae ab eo consecratae poni extra aram in corporali"; and he gives the following reason: "Quia omnes sunt unica victima et per modem unius offeruntur". Indeed La Croix, for the same reason, states that it would be unlawful to have a second altar-stone, in case the one would not be large enough to hold the small particles together with the chalice and host: "Si unum portatile non possit cum hostia et calice capere omnes particulas consecrandas, illicitum esset has collocare et consecrare in alio portatili vicino". The best, and indeed the only remedy we can suggest, especially where there are many communicants, is to procure a large altar-stone. We have heard of some bishops declining to consecrate any stone that was under fourteen inches in length, and twelve inches in width, at least. It is unnecessary to observe that there is great danger, and irreverence too, in placing a large number of particles on a very small space or corner of an altar-stone, where an accident, and that of the most serious nature, is likely to take place at any moment. Perhaps it may not be amiss to remark, also, that those theologians who hold the opinion that the rubrics are merely _directivae_, except always such rubrics as are closely connected with the Most Blessed Sacrament, and maintain that those are _praeceptivae_. We conclude, therefore, that the ciborium or particles ought to be placed on the altar-stone, and if the altar-stone be too small for the chalice and host, it ought not to be used.

II.

1º. At High Mass, ought the celebrant to elevate the Host before the choir has terminated the singing of the Sanctus and following words?

_Answer_: The _Caeremoniale Episcop._ lib. ii. no. 70, gives the answer: "Chorus prosequitur cantum usque ad _Benedictus qui venit_ exclusive: quo _finito et non prius_ elevatur sacramentum. Tunc silet chorus et cum aliis adorat. Organum vero, si habetur, cum omni tunc melodia et gravitate pulsandum est". The celebrant ought to proceed slowly with the canon, so as to give time to the choir to terminate their part before he comes to the elevation. The choir ought to be cautioned not to protract the singing of the Sanctus too much.

2º. At High Mass, when the celebrant has sung "Et ne nos inducas in tentationem", in the Pater Noster, is he bound to wait until the choir has finished singing "Sed libera nos a malo", before he says Amen?

_Answer:_ According to a ceremonial much esteemed in Rome, published by a missionary of St. Vincent, in Bologna, 1854, l. iv. no. 1484, the priest is bound to wait. The choir _agit partem ministri_ in its answers at High Mass, and on that account the priest must wait until it responds to him, as on other occasions he waits until the server or clerk terminates his answers.

After the priest has sung "Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum", he must also wait until the choir has sung "Et cum spiritu tuo", before he says "Haec commixtio", etc.

3º. When the deacon has sung "Ite Missa est", can the celebrant, without waiting for the choir to answer "Deo gratias", turn to the altar and say the prayer "Placeat"?

_Answer_: The _Caeremoniale_, Ep. l. ii. c. viii. no. 78, says: "Diaconus vertit faciem ad populum, renes autem celebranti ... et cantat (Ite missa est) ... quo dicto, _ipse_ et _celebrans simul_ vertunt se per latus epistolae ad altare, et celebrans dicit (Placeat tibi, S. Trinitas, etc)". As the singing of "Deo gratias" occupies so short a time, it will terminate before the priest can turn to the altar; in any case, he ought not to commence the Placeat until the choir has responded.

CORRESPONDENCE.

Kilkee, February 7th, 1865.

_To the Editors of the Irish Ecclesiastical Record._

GENTLEMEN,