In other words, the number of boys in every family must have been on the average forty

To this I reply, that this unusual number of boys is got only by using the word firstborn in a different sense from that in which it is used in every other place in Scripture. The usual sense is, when applied to human offspring, the firstborn of both father and mother. D. C. and Kurtz affirm that it means the firstborn of the mother only.

"And these were not the firstborn on the father's side, as Michaelis supposes, so that a man might have many wives and many children, but only one firstborn, as was the case with Jacob himself. They are expressly stated to have been the firstborn on the mother's side-'all the firstborn that openeth the matrix,' Numb. iii. 12." Now, in the words on which D. C. builds, there are two requisites laid down as to those instead of whom the Levites were to be taken: first, that they were to be used, first-begotten of opener of the matrix. If D. C. will look at the accents, he will see that this is the sense given by the accentuators. "Every first-begotten, opener of the matrix, of the sons of Israel." That B'kor means first-begotten, is evident from the usage of the Bible, in passages to which D. C. alludes, but whose testimony he rejects. Jacob had several wives, and therefore might have had, on

2, firstborn, or as it is the Father; secondly,

D. C.'s principle, four firstborns. But only one, the first-begotten, Reuben, is reckoned as B'kor, "firstborn," throughout the Bible. In the next place, Gideon "had many wives,” Judges viii. 30, and one concubine is also mentioned. He might, therefore, have had many firstborn, but Scripture counts only one as his firstborn. "And he said to Jether his firstborn, Up, and slay them" (ib. ver. 20). David had also many wives, but only one B'kor, first-begotten, Amnon. 2 Sam. iii. 2. Indeed, it is plain to common sense, that there could not be many firstborns in one family, without inconvenience, quarrelling, and litigation. From the days of Jacob and Esau on, there were rights of primogeniture, which were of the utmost importance, and the Law expressly decides, that if a man has several wives, only one can be the B'kor, or firstborn, the heir to the privileges and advantages belonging to that position. "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him sons [o], both the beloved and the hated, and if the B'kor, the first-begotten son, be hers that was hated; then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved, B'kor, first-begotten, before the son of the hated, which is indeed the first-begotten." Deut. xxi. 15, 16. Here the word B'kor can mean nothing but first-begotten, for each of the two wives had a firstborn son, and might claim equal rights, but only one is

B'kor, the first-begotten. D. C. says, this is nothing to the purpose. But they who adhere to the ordinary rules of exegesis, and believe that the author is the best interpreter of his own words, and that a passage is not to be isolated from all other similar passages, and explained by itself, without any regard to the usus loquendi, will think this decision of the Lawgiver of the utmost importance. The meaning of the word is here given to prevent injustice and strife, and is therefore definite; and this decision is confirmed by the cases of Jacob, Gideon, and David. We have therefore the practice, as well as the Law, and can have no doubt about the meaning of B'kor. Now, this of itself will take away much of the force of D. C.'s objection. One man might have, in fact, four families, like Jacob, or six like David, at Hebron, or many, like Gideon, and yet have only one firstborn, or might not have a firstborn at all. The males of these families would go to swell the total number of the males, and a modern arithmetician calculating according to modern statistics, where each man has usually only one family, would be altogether in the wrong, if he were to pronounce the narrative unhistoric, because there was only one firstborn in six or more families. D. C.'s objection, founded on a calculation made from false data, cannot prove the number of firstborn here given unhistoric. To what extent polygamy and

concubinage prevailed, it is impossible to say; but as both were lawful, they must have prevailed in some degree.

But then the passage to imposes a second limitation. firstborn were not only to

which D. C. refers Those reckoned as be B'korim, first

begotten of the father, but also firstborn of the mother. If therefore a man married a woman who had already had children, his first-begotten was not a firstborn according to the requirements here laid down: and therefore though he might have a large family, he would have no firstborn, not even if he took other wives afterwards, who never had had children. Their firstborn would

therefore not answer

not be first-begotten, and the requirements here laid down in those to be numbered. For such cases, again, many would have to be struck off from those required by modern statistics, and help to account for the smallness of the number here reckoned as firstborn. Then, again, the circumstances of the 900,000 males, who were alive at the time of the census, must be taken into consideration. There were, first, those not a month old, not reckoned; secondly, those above a month old, say up to twenty; thirdly, the parents of these, or, more correctly, the generation to which their parents belonged; fourthly, the generation of their grandfathers; and as some must have been as old as Moses and Aaron, the generation of their great

grandfathers. And if we take into account the great difference that there is between the eldest and the youngest child in families, especially where there are second or third marriages, often twenty, sometimes thirty years, there may have been representatives of the families of the greatgreat-grandfathers. Thus there may have been in the 900,000 five generations. Amongst the eldest, that of the great-great-grandfathers, all the firstborn would probably be dead. In the generation of great-grandfathers, many firstborn would also have been in eternity. Even in the generation of grandfathers and fathers, not a few had passed away, though many representatives of these generations still lived. Amongst the children between one month and twenty years of age, many firstborn were in their graves. How many mothers lose their first child in child-birth? How many families lose their eldest in infancy? All these would diminish from the number of the firstborn, and set modern statisticians at fault. Indeed, I suspect, that if the number of the firstbegotten in families were now taken, the result would be very different from that required by the à priori reasonings of arithmeticians. But, besides, there were also the firstborn who had perished in the murder of the male children, commanded by Pharaoh. When all these things are taken into consideration, the small number of firstborn will not prove a serious difficulty to