Accordingly we find that Rosenmuller, in his commentary on this passage (_Num._, xxxv. 24), explains the word, _the assembly of judges_—“cætus judicum urbis in cujus agro contigerit homicidium”. If we apply this interpretation to the passage in _Leviticus_, every shadow of improbability and inconsistency will at once disappear from the narrative. Now, we ask Dr. Colenso, when a word in Scriptural usage has two different meanings, which must we choose when we come to examine a text in which that word is found? Are we to select the meaning which is in every way suitable to the context and circumstances; or must we rather adopt an interpretation which will make the sense absurd and impossible? Dr. Colenso has preferred the latter course. It appears to us that the former is alone consistent with the instinct of common sense and the principles of genuine criticism.
We think our readers will admit that we have fairly established our point, and proved that Dr. Colenso’s argument is utterly destitute of foundation. For the ordinary purposes of controversy it would be unnecessary to go further. But we frankly confess we aim at something more. We are not content with answering the argument of Dr. Colenso; we wish to shake his authority as a trustworthy critic. All that he has written against the Pentateuch is made up of these two elements—first, the _meaning_ which he attaches to the narrative, and, secondly, the _process of reasoning_ by which he labours to show that this meaning is inconsistent or impossible. Now it is plain, from the argument we are considering, that Dr. Colenso is liable to the grossest errors, not only when he undertakes to interpret the sacred text, but also when he proceeds to reason on his own interpretation. If this assertion be established, his authority can have but little weight.
Let us suppose then, for a moment, that by the _assembly_ is meant, in a general way, the entire people of Israel; does it follow, as Dr. Colenso maintains, that, according to the narrative, 600,000 men must have “hastened to present themselves at the ‘door of the tabernacle?’ ” We believe it does not. Nay, more, we believe that the absurdity of Dr. Colenso’s opinion is clearly proved by some of the texts which he has himself adduced. For instance:—“Bring forth the blasphemer out of the camp ... and let _all the assembly_ (עדה) stone him” (_Lev._, xxiv. 14). And again, in the case of the Sabbath-breaker:—“The man shall be surely put to death; _all the assembly_ (עדה) shall stone him with stones without the camp. And _all the assembly_ (עדה) brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died” (_Num._, xv. 35, 36). No one will maintain that the writer here means to say that 600,000 men were engaged in carrying the condemned man, or that 600,000 men threw stones at him. If Dr. Colenso had paused for a moment to reflect on these texts as he copied them from the Bible, we are convinced he would have suppressed his foolish argument. Exactly as it is said that _all the assembly_ was gathered into the door of the tabernacle, so too is it said that _all the assembly_ stoned the blasphemer and the Sabbath-breaker. In the latter case, it is clear that the number of those who were actually engaged in carrying out the sentence of God was comparatively small, but the act is fairly ascribed to the whole community, because _all_ were _summoned_ to take part in it, and those who complied with the summons _represented_ those who did not. Surely there is no reason why we may not apply the same interpretation to the former passage.