the mighty men of valour, ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths." D. C. will hardly contend that these transportations were effected on foot on the backs of the Kings of Assyria and Babylon, and that, therefore, these narratives are unhistoric. But this use of the word "carry" is not confined to the Bible:

"I would the college of cardinals

Would choose him pope, and carry him to Rome,"

is the wish of Queen Margaret as expressed by Shakespeare.

Robertson also relates, how, after the battle of Mohacz, "Solyman, after his victory, seized and kept possession of several towns of the greatest strength in the southern provinces of Hungary, and, overrunning the rest of the country, carried near two hundred thousand persons into captivity." Now suppose some arithmetical critic were to object to this account, that the circumstance here related is impossible, that it would take so many, say ten, days for Solyman to carry one person on his back, on foot, to the nearest Turkish province, and five days to return; that it would therefore take him three million days, or more than eight thousand two hundred and nineteen years, to carry the two hundred thousand persons into captivity; and hence conclude, that the narrative is unhistoric, and unworthy of credit. What would D. C. himself reply to such a critic?

He might at first, perhaps, be tempted to laugh, but would ultimately mourn over the unhappy wreck of intellect betrayed in such misunderstanding of plain English, and such an ill-timed and preposterous display of arithmetical power.

But D. C. has not only mistaken the meaning of plain English, he has also overlooked the meaning of the Hebrew word translated "he shall carry forth." To make this plain to the English reader it is necessary to remark, that in Hebrew the form of the verb can be so modified as to cause a modification of the original idea: as in English the sense of the verb "fall," by changing the vowel a into e, "fell," is modified, and signifies "to cause to fall," e. g. "to fell trees." One of these Hebrew modifications is called Hiphil, and gives a causative sense. Thus, kadash, to be holy, hikdish, "to cause to be holy, to sanctify." Now the Hebrew word hotsi, translated

The fullest explanation of the meaning of Hiphil is found in Nordheim's Grammar, "Signification of Hiphil, § 148. This species denotes the causing or permitting of the action signified by the primitive Kal. If the verb in Kal is transitive.... the Hiphil will denote the causing by its own subject of the performance of the action by another subject on an object expressed or understood e. g.,, to cause or allow one to kill another.... When Kal is neuter or intransitive. . . . the Hiphil species signifies the causing or permitting of such state or action, and is consequently transitive, e. g., 7, to be many,

to

"he shall carry forth," is just such a modification. The original verb yatsa signifies "to go forth "— the Hiphil modification used here, "to cause to go forth." The literal translation, therefore, would be, "And he shall cause the whole bullock to go forth to without the camp," which affords not a shadow of a ground for D. C.'s misinterpretation, that the Priest was to carry it himself on his back on foot. The command is simply that "he shall cause it to go forth." The how is left at the Priest's own discretion. He might cause it to go forth, or to be removed by human agency, or by waggon, or by beasts of burden. There is nothing prescribed as to the mode, and, doubtless, the Priest would choose the instrumentality dictated by convenience and propriety. There is a similar instance in Lev. xiv. 44, 45, which ought to have convinced D. C. of the incorrectness of his interpretation. There it is said, "Then the priest shall come and look, and, behold, if the plague be spread in the house, it is a fretting leprosy in the house: it is unclean. And he shall break down the house, the stones of it and the timber thereof, and all the mortar of the house; and he shall carry them forth (v'hotsi) [he shall cause to go forth] out of the city into an unclean place." Can D. C. imagine that the

make many, to multiply, &c. &c."-Nordheim's "Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language," vol. i. p. 105, New York, 1842.

Priest was to do all this personally, and thus act, not only as conductor of public worship, but at the same time as bricklayer and scavenger, and not be allowed even the convenience of a cart, but carry all the stones and timber, &c., on his back on foot? With just as much reason as he might believe that God commanded Moses to carry all the children of Israel on his back out of Egypt, because it is said, Exod. iii. 10, "Come now, therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, and cause them to go forth [the same word, v'hotse] my people out of Egypt "."

Hitherto we have argued as if the words "he shall carry forth" were addressed to the Priest. But if D. C. be a Hebrew scholar he must know, on mere grammatical grounds, that this is by no means certain, that the third person preterite of the verb is often used impersonally, and that it is so rendered by modern versions as well as the LXX. As in the French version of Lev. xiv. 44, 45, "Le sacrificateur y entrera, et la regardera : et s'il voit que la plaie soit crue dans la maison; c'est une lèpre rongéante dans la maison: elle est souillée. On démolira donc la maison, ses pierres, son bois, avec tout son mortier, et on les transportera hors de la ville." According to this translation, fully justified by Hebrew usage,

For further discussion on this subject see Bishop Colenso's Criticism criticised," by the Rev. J. B. M'Caul, p. 9.

the Priest is to come and look, others are to break down the house, and carry away the materials. And this is the sense given by Luther, by Zunz, Fürst, &c. It is also the sense known to the LXX, 2000 years ago, as, according to the best reading, they have in Lev. iv. 12, ¿oíσovσw, "they shall carry out," and in Lev. xiv. 45, kai καθελοῦσι τὴν οἰκίαν, καὶ τὰ ξύλα αὐτῆς, καὶ τοὺς λίθους αὐτῆς, καὶ πάντα τὸν χοῦν ἐξοίσουσιν 10 Thus, whether we look to the meaning of the word "carry,” as used by our English translators, or to its common use in English poets and historians, or to the meaning of the Hebrew word hotsi, or to interpretations ancient and modern, we find abundant reason for rejecting D. C.'s interpretation and his objection founded on it, as equally opposed to common sense, to Hebrew usage and grammar, and, we may add, to authority; for amidst all the translators, critics, scoffers, and objectors to the Pentateuch, so far as I know, not one has ever before put forth this absurdity.

BISHOP COLENSO, CHAP. VII. The Number of the People, and the Poll-tax.

Doctor Colenso's next objection, in his seventh chapter, is founded on Exod. xxx. 11-13, and

10 Tischendorf's Edition, in loc.