Law, the blessings and the cursings; there was not one word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel.' This was beyond question or comparison the most august assembly the sun ever shone upon; and I never stand in the narrow plain with Ebal and Gerizim rising on either hand to the sky, without involuntarily recalling and reproducing the scene. I have shouted to hear the echo, and then fancied how it must have been, when the loud-voiced Levites proclaimed from the naked cliffs of Ebal, Cursed be any man that maketh a graven image, an abomination unto Jehovah,' and then the tremendous AMEN! tenfold louder from the mighty congregation, rising and swelling from Ebal to Gerizim, and from Gerizim to Ebal "."

Similar is the testimony of another thoughtful and learned student of the sacred text, Dr. H. Bonar. "The two mountains," says he, "look very near each other, though one is deceived as to distances here. Yet it did not seem an unlikely

The Land and the Book, p. 470. What immediately follows respecting the writing of the Law on stones is also worth reading. Indeed the whole volume is one of the most delightful and instructive books I know. And if any one wants a volume of evidences, let him quietly read this through. I cannot imagine any one rising from its perusal without being convinced of the authenticity of the Old Testament.

thing that parties should answer each other from those heights. I asked, especially as to this, Mr. Rogers, the excellent consul of Khaifa, who is at present here on business. He mentioned that it is quite a common thing for the villagers to call to each other from the opposite hills, and that the voice is heard quite distinctly. Having already found in the desert how far sound is carried, I did not think the distance between Ebal and Gerizim at all greater than between some of those places where we had already tried our voices; and I thought I could have undertaken to make known my wishes to any shepherd and fellah on yon rock, had there been one there at the time, or could I have addressed him in his native tongue." He adds in a note, "If Jotham's voice were at all like that of his people to this day, clear and shrill, he would find it easy enough to stand on the top of Gerizim, and call down to the inhabitants of the city beneath, 'Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that my God may hearken unto you.' Judges ix. 76.”

Now, if the voice can be distinctly heard from Gerizim to Ebal, that of Joshua, who stood midway between the two, might be heard by the multitude, who stood before him, on the slopes of the hills: and thus Bishop Colenso's objection

Dr. Bonar's "Land of Promise," p. 371. Bishop Colenso might also have gleaned this information from Dr. Stanley's "Sinai and Palestine," note 2, p. 237.

is found to be nothing more than an ebullition of zeal without knowledge.

But we cannot pass on to the next objection without noticing an insinuation at the close of this paragraph. The Bishop says, “Nor can it be supposed that he read them first to one party, and then to another, &c., till all the congregation had heard them. The day would not have sufficed for reading in this way all the blessings and the cursings,' in Deut. xxvii., xxviii., much less all the words of the Law,' many times over, especially after that he had been already engaged, as the story implies, on the very same day, in writing 'a copy of the Law of Moses,' upon the stones set up in Mount Ebal. Josh. viii. 32, 33." Bishop Colenso, not finding enough in the Sacred Text to form a direct straightforward objection, has here condescended to employ that most unworthy mode of attack, an insinuation. To understand how baseless it is, read the narrative, and observe that in it there is no note of time whatever. For aught that is said in the text, Joshua might have taken a week or a month to write the Law, and another to read it before the people.

BISHOP COLENSO, CHAP. VII. Extent of the Camp, Priest's Duties, &c.

The next objection is founded on the English

version of Levit. iv. 11, 12, "And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head and with his legs, and with his inwards, and his dung, even the whole bullock, shall he [the priest'] carry forth without the camp to a clean place." After enlarging on the size of the camp, and quoting Thomas Scott's opinion, that it must have formed a moveable city of twelve miles square, and therefore have been as large as London, he says:

"In that case, the offal of these sacrifices would have had to be carried by Aaron himself, or one of his sons, a distance of six miles In fact, we have to imagine the Priest having himself to carry on his back on foot, from St. Paul's to the outskirts of the Metropolis, 'the skin, and flesh, and head, and legs, and inwards, and dung,' even the whole bullock."

Here we have to charge Bishop Colenso with something worse than want of common sense, with unauthorized addition to the words of Scripture, in order to excite the profane mirth of his readers, by exhibiting a ridiculous picture of the Priest "on foot," carrying the whole bullock "ON HIS BACK." Bishop Colenso well knows that the words "on foot," and "on his back," are not in the text. He has added them gratuitously to exaggerate the difficulty. Wilful addition to the words of the author is as inconsistent with that love of truth which the Bishop so often pro

7

Bp. Colenso's insertion; the words are not in the English Version, nor in the Hebrew Text.

fesses, as ridicule is with respect for the opinions of others, and unwillingness to give unnecessary pain. Indeed, profane humour is incompatible with that seriousness of mind which is indispensable in the investigation of truth. It is bad enough in Voltaire, but quite unworthy of the sacred office of a Bishop. The objection itself is as absurd, as the mode of stating it is offensive to good taste. Even as the English version stands, a reasonable man would infer that the Priest, one of the highest dignitaries in the congregation of Israel, might have this work performed by some one else without personal service. But by insisting that the word " carry means transportation on his back, and on foot, D. C. betrays his ignorance both of the English language and the Hebrew text. In the Bible itself, our English translators have often used the word carry,” where it is impossible to suppose that it means bearing on the back. Thus, in 2 Sam. vi. 10, we read, " And David carried it (the ark of the covenant) aside into the house of ObedEdom." We know that David was not permitted to lay a finger on the ark; he therefore could not have carried it himself. So 1 Chron. v. 26, it is said of Tilgath-pilneser, "he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them to Halah, and Habor, and Hara, &c.," and of Nebuchadnezzar, 2 Kings xxiv. 14, that he "carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all

66