sons of Michael, of Korah, of Dathan, were certainly in the fourth generation from Jacob's sons; others, however, were in the fifth, e.g. Nahshon, and Zelophehad; one in the sixth, Bezaleel; one also in the tenth, Joshua. This last was spoken of in p.14, note, indeed, as probably a mistake of the Chronicler; we are disposed now to retract that opinion. The only reason against the accuracy of this genealogy (1Chron.vii.23-7), is the fact of Joshua's grandfather, Elishama, being prince of the tribe of Ephraim (Nu.i,10), at the same time that his grandson was general of the army. But we have the same apparent anomaly in the case of Hur and Bezaleel (Ex.xxxi.2), which is unobjected to. Suppose Elishama the contemporary of Moses and Aaron, and therefore between 80-90, and Joshua a shade younger than Caleb, or between 30-40, and the whole is clear and reasonable. Moreover we read that Joseph saw Ephraim's children of the third generation' (Gen.1.23), that is the fourth from himself. But if there had been 4 generations within 80 years, there certainly might be 6 more in 110-20. The obscurity of the previous account of Ephraim's children, 1Chron.vii.20-2, in no way affects the genealogy of Joshua. This being so, it would certainly be fairer to reckon the average number of generations in Egypt as five rather than four.

The following errors (corrected in 3rd edition) arising partly from inadvertence, partly from printer's mistakes, may also be pointed out as of some importance.

p.10, for 12-3 years afterwards' (twice), read many years afterwards'.

p.12, for two distinct families, the Hezronites' &c., read three distinct families, the Pharzites, the Hezronites' &c.

6

p.36, Ephah and Maacah' enumerated as concubines of Caleb the son of Hezron, belonged not to him, but to the later Caleb, the son of Jephunneh.

p.114-5, for 8-900' (twice), read 8-9000'.

6

pp.129-30,136, for 3600' (three times), read 3500'. p.153, for 30 or 40', read 50'.

APPENDIX No. III.

ADDITIONAL NOTES ON SOME POINTS OF INTEREST.

SOME matters touched upon by Bishop Colenso in Parts II. and III. have been passed over, or only just alluded to, in the text, as being irrelevant to the proper subject before us. Briefly to consider these is the object of this Appendix.

1. MOUNT MORIAH.

That there is no reason for supposing the hill of Abraham's sacrifice to be the same with that on which the Temple was built, but rather the contrary, we have already admitted (p.51, note). Bishop Colenso, however, would have us believe, that the Temple was never built on Mount Moriah at all, but on Mount Zion. His reason for this is the fact, that the place of God's dwelling is always spoken of by the prophets, psalmists, &c., as Zion, never as Moriah, whether they lived before or after the captivity. This is certainly the case; yet is the statement in 2Chron.iii.1 very explicit, that it was upon Mount Moriah that the Temple was built. Nor is this testimony weakened materially by the late date at which the Chronicler wrote; since he had the second Temple before his eyes, which was doubtless built upon the same site as the first, being reared by those who had seen the first (Ezra,iii.12); while, as already remarked, the use of the name Zion is quite as marked and universal after the captivity, even to the days of the Maccabees, as before. That these two appellations involve a contradiction is, therefore, most improbable. Bishop Colenso's own explanation of the distinction between the city of Zion, and the Temple-hill, makes the whole clear at once. David was in the city of Zion at the time of the pestilence, on the adjoining eminence stood the threshing-floor of Araunah, where Jehovah appeared to him. This spot he selected for the site of the Temple, and thither we read that Solomon brought up the ark 'out of the city of David, which is Zion' (1 Kings, viii.1).

This eminence the Chronicler tells us was called 'Moriah', without however laying any stress upon the name, or implying any connection between it and the appearing' unto David. The city of Zion seems then to have spread itself out beyond its former boundaries, and covered this hill also. Nothing was hence more natural, than that the whole mountain should receive the name which had at first belonged only to a part; and so the dwelling-place of Jehovah be still spoken of as Mount Zion, as in fact we find it.

2. THE TABERNACLE AT GIBEON.

Both Kings and Chronicles agree that the great high-place' was at Gibeon, that there Solomon sacrificed 1000 burnt-offerings," and that there Jehovah appeared to him in a dream. When however the Chronicler goes further, and tells us the reason for this, that there stood the Tabernacle and the brazen altar, Bishop Colenso rejects his statements as untrustworthy and fictitious. His reasons for this are, (1) the absence of any mention of the Tabernacle in Kings; (2) the divided worship resulting from the ark being in one place, and the altar in another; (3) the silence of the history as to the various removals of the Tabernacle; and (4) the fact of Samuel not committing the ark to the Tabernacle, on its recovery from the Philistines, but to a private house; and of David building a special Tabernacle for the ark at Zion; neither of which were probable if the original Mosaic tent yet stood. To this we may reply, (1) that the separation of the ark from the Tabernacle, and the worship before it, were timehonoured customs, however contrary to the original design of Moses (see p.310), and we have here to do simply with matters of fact, not of right; (2) that it is certain the Tabernacle was removed from Shiloh, stood for a time at Nob, and afterwards ceased to be there, from the statements of the earlier history (1 Sam.i.-iv.xxi.-ii.); (3) that the ark was committed to the house of Abinadab by the men of Kirjath-jearim, not by Samuel, who does not appear as Israel's judge until 20 years later (1 Sam.vii. 1-3). There seems, therefore, no sufficient ground for doubting the Chronicler's statement that the Tabernacle did stand at that season at Gibeon.

3. THE MORALITY OF CERTAIN LAWS.

The Mosaic legislation, as already remarked (p.328-9), contained laws of very various kinds, and of different degrees of authority; some of its enactments were world-wide and eternal, the basis of all sound Morality and true Religion; others had reference to

the special circumstances and necessities of the time, and cannot be applied to any other time without injustice. The law of Moses commanded that witches and wizards should be put to death (Lev.xx.27), because these were certain to lead men into idolatry, which was an act of rebellion against Israel's king; they were guilty, in fact, of high treason. To apply such a law to modern spirit-rappers or astrologers, would manifestly be to ignore its spirit and intention altogether. The law of Moses required a man to raise up seed to his brother, in case he died childless, by marrying his wife; a regulation necessitated by the peculiar laws of inheritance then in force. Those laws have given place to others, and marriage with a deceased brother's wife ceases to be obligatory. These two principles are of the highest importance for the right understanding of the Mosaic legislation; -The law was given to a people who stood in a peculiar and unparalleled relation to God; the law was suited to a barbarous and uncivilized time. Only in its connection with that people and that time, then, can its special enactments be rightly understood. Let us now apply these principles to the instances of unjust or immoral laws, especially insisted upon by Bishop Colenso.

1. The laws concerning the destruction of the Canaanites, and the conquest of the rest of the promised land, are objected to as cruel and horrible.

belong to God, and he Shall not the Judge of

The lives and possessions of all men may dispose of them justly as he wills. all the earth do right?' It was God's will that the wicked nations of Canaan should be destroyed, and that in due time all the surrounding country, even to the Euphrates, should be subjected to his chosen people. But he would make the possession of this land by Israel conditional upon obedience. Instead therefore of destroying the nations before them by any immediate act of judgment, as he might have done, he committed it to the Israelites. If they obeyed his commands the land was theirs; if they disobeyed, then these unsmitten nations should be their curse. And so the history tells us it fell out; so far as the Israelites carried out the injunction utterly to destroy the Canaanites, so far they were blessed; they failed to do so thoroughly, and the spared remnant became thorns in their eyes and pricks in their sides, even as it had been predicted. With respect to the more distant nations, hereafter to be subjugated, the case was somewhat different. Here Israel had no commission to destroy, but to subdue; only when submission was refused were extreme measures to be resorted to. God gave these

nations to be Israel's servants; they refused; then were they resisting God, and as God's soldiers Israel smote them. In both cases the people acted simply under orders, and were no more responsible for the slaughter they occasioned, than are the soldiers of an army for the death of every foe they slay, while obeying the explicit commands of king and general. By two hypotheses only can cruelty be justly charged upon these commands, either (1) that they did not originate with God, as the history declares; or (2) that God had no right thus to punish or dispose of his creatures. The first of these is negatived at once by the many proofs of the authenticity and genuineness of the whole story, considered in this and the preceding volumes; the second, who will dare to assert? Nor is it to be overlooked, that similar instances occur in later history. Wherefore was Saul rejected from the kingdom? Because he obeyed not Jehovah. And wherein disobeyed he? In that he destroyed not utterly the sinners the Amalekites. To draw from such particular commands, and the obligation to obedience which they involved, any general principle of warfare, is to mistake their spirit altogether; their lesson is obedience. Let first, then, the divine command be given us, thus to act, and then will be the time to follow their example.

2. The law which provided that stubborn and rebellious' children should be stoned to death, is objected to as unjust, since in most cases this would be the parents' fault, in not training them aright.

Retribution for sin is the principle of the Mosaic penal code, no excuse or justification could therefore be admitted. Granted that a wicked son had been ill trained, did this make his breach of the 5th commandment less a sin? should it go unpunished because evil influence had been its cause? On this principle nearly every sin must be passed over;-might not his parents be vicious from ill-training, as well as he, and their parents in the same way ?-and so no one be punished at all. • The soul that sinneth it shall die', no matter what the occasion of its sin. But at least, then, it may be said, the guilty parents should be punished also. We answer, that the Law was not intended for cases where the parents had either connived at or occasioned the children's sin. It was expressly for disobedient children, who had been chastened', but would not hearken' (Deut.xxi.18). This word chasten' (p) is used in Deuteronomy to express Jehovah's dealings with the people in the wilderness (viii.5), as also of his 'instructing' them in the Law (iv.36); implies, therefore undoubtedly, that the misconduct of

6