that the whole number of the family
was on that account increased. On the contrary, etc.... If
we take all the families given in Exod. vi. 14-25, together
with the two sons of Moses, we shall find that there are 13
persons, who have between them 39 sons, which gives an
average of 3 sons each. This average is a fairer one to take
for our purpose than the former; because these persons lived
at all different times in the interval between the migration
into Egypt and the Exodus. We may suppose also, that the
average of _children_ is still as large as before, or even
larger, so that each man may have had on the average six
children, three sons and three daughters....

"Supposing now the fifty-one males of the _first_ generation
(Kohath's) to have had each on the average three sons, and
so on, we shall find the number of males in the _second_
generation (Amram's) 153, in the _third_ (Aaron's) 459, and
in the _fourth_ (Eleazar's) 1377, instead of 600,000.

"In fact, in order that the fifty-one males of Kohath's
generation might produce 600,000 fighting men in Joshua's,
we must suppose that each man had forty-six children
(twenty-three of each sex), and each of these twenty-three
sons had forty-six children, and so on!--of which prolific
increase, it need hardly be said, there is not the slightest
indication in the Bible" (pp. 102-5).

From this he concludes,

"That it is quite impossible that there should have been
such a number of the people of Israel in Egypt at the time
of the Exodus as to have furnished 600,000 warriors in the
prime of life, representing at least two millions of persons
of all ages and sexes; that is to say, it is impossible, _if
we will take the data to be derived from the Pentateuch
itself_" (p. 101).

Lastly, he anticipates an explanation which some interpreters have
proposed, "that there may be something wrong in the _Hebrew numerals_".
Such a suggestion, he very fairly observes, will not avail here; because
"this number is woven, as a kind of thread, into the whole story of the
Exodus, and cannot be taken out without tearing the whole fabric to
pieces" (pp. 141, 143).

Such is the elaborate structure which Dr. Colenso has reared with an
ability and an earnestness worthy of a better cause. In reply, we
purpose to demonstrate that the foundation