"To effect still farther the object of this separate condensation, Watt placed his condenser in a cistern, the temperature of which was kept constant by a fresh supply of cold water, brought from a well by a pump; for otherwise the heat given out by the condensing steam would, by heating the vessel and the water surrounding it, have prevented the rapid or almost instantaneous condensation necessary to the efficient action of the engine. "To comprehend the necessity for a rapid condensation, it must be remembered that the effective power of the engine depends on the pressure on the piston, minus any resistance it encounters, and on the space through which it moves. If the steam could be instantly converted into water, and so entirely removed, a perfect vacuum would be formed beneath the piston, in which case, there being no resistance from this source to overcome, a maximum of power would be obtained; but if the condensation be slow, or only partial, since the piston will begin to move the instant there is any inequality in the pressure exerted on its opposite surfaces, its motion will be retarded, or the power diminished, by the resistance to compression offered by the uncondensed steam; and although that resistance would tend to diminish as the condensation proceeded, yet the space occupied by the steam diminishing in consequence of the descent of the piston in nearly the same proportion, the resistance would be nearly constant through the whole of that descent. "On the other hand, to maintain the temperature of the cylinder as high as possible, Watt at first cased it in wood to retard the radiation, and subsequently surrounded it by a second iron cylinder, admitting steam from the boiler between the two. This casing, or 'jacket,' as it is termed, is not used in most modern engines made since Watt's time, and the effects of radiation from the surface of the cylinder are now chiefly guarded against, as much as possible, by keeping that surface bright and smooth. "The second of Watt's improvements on Newcomen's engine consisted in closing in the cylinder at top, the piston-rod being made to pass through a cylindrical neck in the top, termed a stuffing-box, from the passage being rendered steamtight by a stuffing of tow saturated with grease, which, by its lubrication, diminished the additional friction resulting from this arrangement. The object of this alteration was to admit of the elastic force of the steam being employed to impel the piston downwards, instead of atmospheric pressure; for this purpose the steam was admitted from the boiler above the piston at the same moment that the condensation took place in the condenser, the steam-passage being made double for the purpose, so that the communication with the condenser could be cut off when that with the cylinder was opened, alternately. When the piston-rod descended to the bottom of the cylinder, the counterpoise at the pump-rod raised it again, as in Newcomen's engine; but to allow of this upward motion, it was necessary to remove the steam that was above the piston, and this was done by allowing it to pass under the piston, and into the condenser, through a passage opened at the proper instant for this purpose. Such is the general principle of Mr. Watt's single-acting engine, which hence became a steam-engine, and was no longer an atmospheric one. The "By a farther improvement, the counterpoise at the pump-rod was done away with, which obviously had been so much added to the unproductive work of the engine, since this weight had to be raised in addition to that of the water. upward stroke of the piston was now produced by admitting the steam below it, to act by its elasticity, as it had previously done above when causing the piston to descend. Thus the engine became double-acting, and assumed that essential general principle which it has ever since maintained, although all the details of its construction have been improved upon by successive engineers." 率 * T. Bradley, article "Steam-Engine," in Penny Cyclopædia, vol. xxii., p. 475. Such is the briefest and most intelligible trustworthy abstract of Watt's early labours we have been able to find. It points to a very different state of matters from that which now exists, and which has been described by a competent authority in these terms, viz. :"In the present perfect state of the engine, it appears almost a thing of intelligence. It regulates, with perfect accuracy and uniformity, the number of its strokes in a given time, counting or recording them, moreover, to tell how much work it has done, as a clock records the beats of its pendulum; it regulates the quantity of steam admitted to work, the briskness of the fire, the supply of water to the boiler, the supply of coals to the fire; it opens and shuts its valves with absolute precision as to time and manner; it oils its joints; it takes out any air which may accidentally enter into parts which should be vacuous; and when anything goes wrong which it cannot of itself rectify, it warns its attendants by ringing a bell; yet, with all these talents and qualities, and even when exerting the power of six hundred horses, it is obedient to the hand of a child; its aliment is coal, wood, charcoal, or other combustibles; it consumes none while idle; it never tires, and wants no sleep; it is not subject to malady when originally well made, and only refuses to work when worn out with age; it is equally active in all climates, and will do work of any kind."* Thus far have we traced the progress of "the utilization of steam." We have been unable to notice the difficulties and sorrows James Watt encountered in the realization of his great thought, or the obstacles which the law, habits of life, and ignorance of his time placed in his way. We shall, in the after part, tell briefly the story of this illustrious benefactor of his race. Meanwhile, we commend to our readers the reflections suggested by the contemplation of such a life, exerted for such purposes, and the singular aptness of his invention to the need and condition of the world, while we, and they, unite in the poet's aspiration— "That all the great mechanic aids to toil Man's skill hath found, formed, rendered, whether used In multiplying works of mind, or aught * Dr. Neil Arnott's "Elements of Physics, &c.," 4th edition, vol. i., p. 384. A new edition has been recently issued, which, however, we have not seen. Religion. WAS THE PENTATEUCH WRITTEN BY MOSES? AND IS IT HISTORICALLY TRUE? AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-III. FROM the earliest times to those of our own day, objections to the Bible as a whole, or to some of its component parts, have been common. This is not in the least to be wondered at; and should not, therefore, of itself, give rise to any alarm or misgivings in the minds of the believers in revelation; as the mere urging of objections, the common resort of the sceptic of the present day, who will not believe, because he cannot understand how these things can be," is not sufficient to overturn the authenticity of the entire narrative, and prove it to be, instead of a revelation from the Deity, no more than a "cunningly devised" fable. This is an old fallacy. Objections have been made to nearly everything under the sun, and it would be a remarkable fact if the Bible had existed for so long a period without being vigorously assailed. The fact that objections have been made to it is not, as we have said, remarkable; but it is somewhat extraordinary that none, nor the whole of these objections have been sufficient to overturn revelation, and prove that the Bible is false. The Bible still exists as the statute-book of a holy life to the majority of Christians. We may, in fact, expect to meet with difficulties and objections, arising from the professed nature of the book and its contents. Bible professes to be a revelation from the Most High to His creature man; a communication from the Infinite to the finite; one in which the attributes and will of the Deity are revealed more or less clearly, and a path of duty marked out for man, by walking in which he may best serve his Maker here, and fit himself to dwell with Him eternally hereafter. In this book we are plainly told (Deut. xxix. 29) that there are secret things into which man is not to penetrate, as they "belong unto God." So that it is plainly asserted, that man's curiosity is not, and will not, always be gratified. The professed purpose, then, and professed authors of the Bible, lead us of themselves, apart from every other consideration, to expect difficulties; for is it probable the Superior will be always fully understood by the inferior? or is it possible for the finite to comprehend the Infinite? The It is only, then, when the objector, instead of asking. "How can these things be?" sets himself up as a judge, and undertakes, by the application of his own "verifying faculty," to prove, that not 1863. N only can these things not be, but that they never have been, because they are, as he says, opposed to the law of nature, to the discoveries of science, and the new light she is continually shedding on the intellectual world; and undertakes to show, further, how each particular error, or (apparent) contradiction and impossibility crept into the record, and professes to analyze and sift the whole, reserving the good, and throwing the chaff away, that the believer has any just cause for apprehension, and needs to examine whether these things be so or no. The present age is pre-eminently one of objection and speculation in matters of religious belief, but the objectors seldom or never combat the explanations given of difficulties and seeming contradictions, or take any notice of them in the way of criticism; but continually urge, and re-urge, their old and often-refuted arguments. In the subject for discussion, it will be seen that two questions are involved, both important, and each, to a certain extent, dependent on the other, viz., I. Was the Pentateuch written by Moses? II. Are the facts recorded in it historically true? Of these, the former question is the more difficult to prove, the latter the more important to the argument. We shall endeavour to prove the affirmative of each point. I. Was the Pentateuch written by Moses? It is certainly the duty of those who deny the fact to show clearly why it could not have been written by Moses, and to help us to discover its real author. Of the attempts made in this direction we shall have something to say hereafter, and will meanwhile give the direct evidence, internal and external, for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. 1. Internal. (a) It bears the name of Moses. We cannot, of course, prove to a demonstration that Moses did write it, any more than we can be positively certain that Virgil wrote the Eneid, Xenophon the Anabasis, or Froissart the chronicles which bear his name. Without direct evidence to the contrary, the reputed author of a book is held to be the real author. There is no direct evidence to the contrary, and therefore, on the point of general repute alone, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is established. (b) It corresponds with what might be expected from a man living in the time, and placed in the situation, of Moses.-The internal evidence on this point is very strong. The style of the work is simple and primitive. The ideas, lives, and characters sketched have about them the air of antiquity. The very words, constructions, and grammatical forms exhibit marks of remote authorship, many of them having become obsolete before the date of the composition of the Book of Joshua. To overcome this difficulty the opponents of the Mosaic authorship, while they have been unable to deny the existence of these marks of antiquity in the composi tion, have alleged as a cause, that the book was compiled at a much later date, by some one who possessed genuine documents of the time of Moses, and who adopted the style of these documents in framing his narrative. This is certainly neither a very probable nor satisfactory hypothesis; unless, which is not asserted, the compiler wished to pass the work off as the production, not of himself, but of Moses. It is as probable as that a modern author, describing the desolation of England by the Normans, and using William of Malmsbury's Chronicle, should slavishly bind himself to his spelling and style of diction. This objection, however, carries weight when viewed in connection with that urged by De Wette, that the book is too perfect in its language, &c., to be the work of so early an age of a nation's history as that in which Moses lived; that to be the first record of a nation, it is far too elaborate; and that its style shows it to belong to the acme, and not to the infancy of Jewish literature. To this we reply, that though the Pentateuch is the oldest writing extant of the Jewish (or probably of any other) nation, there is no proof that it is the first essay in literature of that nation. We have not the writings anterior to the composition of the Pentateuch, in which to trace the gradual development of the literature till it had reached the stage in which the Pentateuch was composed; if we had, no doubt the difficulty would altogether vanish. As it is, we assert that the internal evidence of the Pentateuch shows that it belonged to an early and rude, and not to a late and refined age. Its characteristics are "plainness, inartificiality, absence of rhetorical ornament, and occasional defective arrangement. Compare it with the writings of Solomon, the eloquence of Ezekiel, or the lofty flights of Isaiah, and the contrast is obvious. Again, compare the song of Moses and the children of Israel with David's elegy on the death of Saul and Jonathan, or with any of the Psalms. But we may even admit that the style in which the Pentateuch is written is superior to that belonging to the literature of the Jewish nation at the time of Moses, without in the least invalidating his claim to be regarded as its author. We find that Moses passed a third of his life in Egypt, and are expressly told that Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. It is now an ascertained fact that the art of writing, not in hieroglyphics, but phonetically, was known and practised in Egypt, and that history, epistolary correspondence, and novel-writing were prominent features in the literature of that country previous to the time of Moses. This consideration, we think, sufficiently accounts for the too refined style, if, indeed, it is such, on account of which objection has been taken to the authorship of the book. (c) The writer shows an intimate acquaintance with the manners, customs, and topography of Egypt, which is but natural to a man situated as we are informed Moses was, but which could not have belonged to any succeeding writer previous to the captivity of Israel. Now either the writer must have lived at the time of Moses, or else the modern compiler minutely studied the history |