and geography of Egypt, and obtained an intimate acquaintance with its ancient laws and customs, for the sole purpose of per petrating a fraud which could bring no advantage to himself; a fraud, moreover, if it be such, that all the inquiry of the antiquary or the research of critics has failed to detect, who, instead of discovering flaws, have been compelled to admit the unity and close connection of the whole. The writer further describes accurately the principal feature of the Sinaitic peninsula; the most modern research (Sinai photographed by Foster) has only further confirmed this fact. He describes, further, the names and ancient condition of the primitive races of Canaan, informs us of the situation, and gives the ancient names of a number of Canaanitish cities. It has, we are aware, been objected of late, that it was impossible for people in the rude and unsettled state the Canaanites were in, to have possessed anything like the number of walled cities ascribed to them. Porter, whose veracity as an author has never been questioned, settles this matter. conclusively in his "Ten Years in Damascus." He informs us that in the small district of Bashan, he examined the ruins and verified the sites of upwards of a hundred ancient cities of which no mention is made in the later periods of Biblical history. We proceed to consider

2. The external evidence in favour of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

(a) Sacred.-No part of the Bible is more frequently quoted in succeeding writings than the Pentateuch. The writer of the book of Joshua speaks of the book of the law of Moses (viii. 31; xxiii. 6) as a book containing "all that Moses commanded; and the blessings and cursings." (Josh. viii. 34; comp. with Deut. xxvii., xxviii.) In Judges it is plainly alluded to. (See ii. 15, and iii. 4.) In Ruth there is manifest allusion to the law of marrying to raise up seed to a kinsman. In 1 Sam. ii. 13, 22, the words of Deut. xviii. 3 and Exod. xxxviii. 8 are closely followed. In Kings and Chronicles it is referred to, and ascribed to Moses. (See 1 Kings ii. 3; 2 Chron. xxiii. 18; xxv. 4; xxxv. 12; 2 Kings xxiii. 25). Later than this age it is not contended that it was written. In the New Testament, the references are no less numerous and explicit. See John i. 45 (also Dan. ix. 11; Mal. iv. 4); Mark xii. 26; Luke xvi. 29; xxiv. 27; John v. 46. We pass to

(b) Profane Testimony.-This, we admit, is neither very copious nor ancient. What we have, however, is important, because it is heathen testimony, and because of its clearness. The principal are Hecatæus of Abdera, Manetho, Lysimachus, Eupolemus, Justin, Tacitus, Juvenal, and Longinus. By the whole of these, the books of Moses are declared to have been received as such by the Jews in their day, and to have been considered by them as the statutebook of the nation.

We cannot, as previously remarked, prove positively from these facts that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, though the presumptive evidence is so strong as to amount almost to a certainty; nor would

it in itself be of such importance, were it not plain from the narrative that the author professes, or wishes to be taken for, Moses; so that if it can be conclusively shown that the Pentateuch is the work of a fraudulent writer, very serious doubts are thrown on the veracity and authenticity of his narrative. To say the least, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has not been disproved; and were it, we might then ask the name and time of the probable author. In solving this query, every critic has put forth a fresh theory, both as to the author and the date of his existence. But we must leave this portion of the subject, and hasten to the next query, viz.,

II. ARE THE FACTS RECORDED in the PentatEUCH HISTORICALLY TRUE? In replying to this question, our chief business will be to state and meet the principal objections which have at various times been put forward against the authenticity of the Pentateuch. Before doing so, however, we will glance briefly at—

1. Evidence.

(a) The direct evidence afforded us as to the truth of the narrative. This is, of course, external in its nature. The references throughout the whole of the Old Testament to events recorded in the Pentateuch are too numerous to be cited here; we only mention the 78th, 105th, 106th, and 107th Psalms. In the New Testament, Peter refers to the flood and building of the ark; Jude to the history of Balaam; Paul to the rock in Horeb; and Christ himself refers to many of the events and miracles, e. g., the flood (Matt. xxiv. 39); the destruction of Sodom (Mark xii. 26); Lot's wife (Luke xvii. 32); to the manna (John vi.); to the brazen serpent (John iii. 14, 15); to the burning bush (Mark xii. 26).

(b) Indirect evidence. This, though not so conclusive, nor likely to have much weight with our opponents, yet demands a passing notice. It may be briefly summed up in the following sentence. The Jews still exist, and though their present existence and past history since the destruction of their city and temple prove the truth, and is the fulfilment in every particular, of an ancient prophecy contained in their own books (Deut. xxviii.), they still hold the prophecy, and all the events recorded in these books, as true, notwithstanding it brings them no advantages, but, on the contrary, as is too often the case, shame and derision. We proceed to notice and meet

2. Objections to the authenticity of the Pentateuch. We shall group these into two classes.

(1.) Framework. (a) Chronology.-Bunsen is the chief objector. The chronology of the Old Testament places the creation of the world between 4000 and 5000 B.C. According to Bunsen, the historic records of Egypt reach up to 9085 B.C.; he further asserts that the nation existed in 10,000 B.C., that the records of other nations reach back to 40,000 or 50,000 B.C., and that from the time when the whole earth was of one speech and language, to the time when the various tongues-which philological research has, we

admit, shown to be closely allied with one parent stem-were currently spoken, a period of at least 20,000 years must have intervened. Such are the main features of the objection which we have to examine and confute. We assert, then, in the first place, that there is no positive evidence of the historic records of any nation reaching as far back as 40,000 B.C., or of Egypt in particular to

9000 B.C.

The Babylonians, Chinese, and Hindoos, in the professed histories of their race, carry back the antiquity of man for about half a million of years. But it is manifest that these extravagant numbers are purely mythical, and that no nation has authentic records earlier than the Egyptian-an indirect confirmation this of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. India has no historical documents earlier than the third, or China than the sixth, century B.C. Indian history scarcely reaches to the time of Alexander, and Chinese not higher than 2637 B.C. Berosus, the historian of Babylon, claims for his nation an antiquity of 466,000 years, and yet arranges his dynasties in such a way as to make it evident to the critic that there are but seven historic ones, the earliest of which began 2458 B.C. M. Bunsen, to make the date 3784 B.C., is compelled to assume the historic and authentic character of a dynasty which, according to Berosus, reigned more than 34,000 years; two kings alone occupying the throne for the space of 5,000 years.

The Egyptian chronology is drawn from "Egyptian records," or "from monuments and other records." We reply that Egypt has no continuous monumental chronology; nor does it possess the materials from which such a one can be framed. The records are the lists of the kings as given by Manetho, who flourished during the time of the Ptolemies. But these records, though they are historical, and accurate so far as the names, dates of accession, and duration of the reign of the several dynasties and of each particular king are concerned, inform us that several of the dynasties and kings were contemporaneous, that many kings were reigning in Egypt at the same time; and while they do this generally, they do not inform us particularly which dynasties and monarchs were contemporaneous, nor give us any clue as to the number of years to be deducted on this account in each case. Bunsen first supposes that Manetho has correctly accounted in his sum-total for all this; and then, instead of taking the 5,000 years which Manetho gives to human kings, 2,500 being allotted to a supernatural period, makes of it 5.462 years; and placing the accession of Menes, the first king of the whole country, thirty-six centuries before the Christian era, the period of 9000 B.c. is obtained. But the monuments have no chronology above 1525 B.C.. and the history of Egypt does not date earlier than 2700 B.C. We have not space to enter into further details, but must leave these facts with our readers.

The second part of the objection is based on the assertion that a period of 20,000 years is requisite for language to have developed and diverged into the various dialects extant at the present day.

This objection, it will be observed, totally ignores the interference of the Deity at the building of Babel, and the confusion or distinction of tongues thence immediately arising; but setting this aside, there is no real foundation for the hypothesis. It assumes that a certain number of years-the precise number can never be ascertained-were required to develop French and Italian out of Latin; and, rigidly enforcing this as the unit, counts up the number of stages through which language must have passed, multiplies the two together, and asserts the product to be 20,000 years. We object to this, because the unit cannot be accurately ascertained; and were it, it would not thence follow, as is assumed, that every stage through which language has passed in the world's history required precisely the same number of years for its development as the example chosen. Lastly, it is an ascertained fact that, when young, and without literature, language grew with a rapidity quite unknown in its later stages. Objection is also taken to

(b) Ethnology.-(i.) By making Canaan the son of Ham (see Gen. x. 6), it connects the Canaanites ethnically with the Egyptians; whereas they are a separate nation.

(ii.) By making Cush the father of Nimrod (Gen. x. 8), the "mighty hunter" is made an Ethiopian; whereas he is a Scythian, or Tauranian.

The first objection rests on the ground that the Phoenicians, who were Semitic, were identical with the Canaanites. This, however, is not so easily proved. Phoenicia was a part of Canaan; but the Phoenicians were distinguished as a peaceable, maritime, and commercial nation, while the Canaanites were fierce warriors, rejoicing in prancing steeds and chariots of iron, not given to commerce, or to any of the arts of peace. The objection that certain Canaanitish names are of Semitic origin is not sufficient to establish the identity of the two; for names do not always betoken a race, while the names of many places, as Baal-bek, Marathus, Bethshan, &c., which are really Hamitic terms, together with the Babylonian tradition in Eupolemus, that Canaan was the grandfather of Cush and Mestraim (Mizraim), goes far to confirm the truth of the text.

(c) Genealogical objections. In the list of the descendants of Cain (Gen. iv. 16-20), and of Seth (Gen. v.), there is a certain amount of sameness, e. g., Enoch (iv. 17; v. 18), Lamech (iv. 18; v. 25), are identical. Several others-Methusael and Methuselah; Irad and Jared; Mehujael and Mahalaleel-are similar. From this fact it is argued that the two lists are in reality one; and, further, that these names are purely mythical, in common with the early history of all nations of antiquity. There is the sameness, we grant, but there is also a very remarkable difference; thus Methusael is the son of Mehujael in the one; Methuselah of Enoch in the other: Lamech in the one is father of Jabal, Jubal, and Tubalcain; in the other of Noah. But the sameness argues nothing; for in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah we find the following contemporaneous monarchs bearing the same name, viz., Jehoram,

son of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram, son of Ahaziah; two Ahaziahs; two Joashes; yet none will thence declare that there was no divided monarchy. The mythical nature of the list rests upon the ety. mology which has been given of the names. This is first assumed as correct in each case, and then we are told the word is employed to designate a particular age, and not an individual. Critical writers a century hence may with similar reason infer that Temple, Longley, Butler, Cumming, Trench, had no real existence. The argument, that because the history of other nations runs into myth, it is therefore probable the Hebrew should do so too, is as substantial as for a man to conclude that, because there are very many counterfeit bank notes abroad, it must, therefore, be impossible to obtain a good one.

(d) Physiological objections.-This attacks the duration of life among the antediluvians. We are told that it is impossible for man to live above 200 years, and that for any to give him a period of nearly a thousand years is absurd, and at variance with the facts of science. We admit, though it cannot be proved, that it may be impossible for men now to live above 150 or 200 years, yet it does not thence follow that they never could. We are corrupted and degenerated with the taint of hereditary disease; our bodies are worn out with excessive physical and mental labour; but from the beginning it was not so. The species was new and pure; the food pure and simple; the toil of mind and body very different from what it is now; and when the date and cause of the gradual shortening of life is distinctly mentioned, we find nothing incredible or absurd in this part of the narrative. We have now to consider

(2.) Objections to the facts recorded.—Into many of these we have neither space nor necessity to enter, as they have been previously discussed in former volumes of the Controversialist; such are the "Mosaic Record of Creation," in vol. vii., and the "Mosaic Account of the Deluge," in vol. xv. Passing by these, we come to those urged by Dr. Colenso, and which, in his opinion, are sufficient to destroy the authenticity of the Pentateuch.

(a) The increase of the Israelites in Egypt, during the traditional period of 215 years, or the larger one of the Septuagint, of 430 years. We are told that 66 persons went down with Jacob into Egypt, and that it was impossible for these in 430 years to have swelled to 600,000 fighting men, giving an aggregate of more than 2,000,000 for the whole nation. Naturally it may be so, supernaturally not. But the 66 persons were those who " came out of the loins of Jacob," and among them we find 51 grandsons, young men. Others went into Egypt besides these. Jacob and all their households were to come down. Jacob took his goods, and all that he had; and we are expressly told that every man and his household came with Jacob (Exod. i. 1). The households, we know, were large, Abraham possessing 318 servants born in his own house, so that it is not to be supposed that less than a thousand persons went down