of the Neo-Platonic successor of Plotinus. The utility of the matter included in this treatise justifies its adoption, as one of the groundworks of modern logic, but its entire harmony with Aristotle's doctrines may be doubted.

It ought to be remembered, in studying the logical treatises of Aristotle, that they were composed, not primarily to present and furnish a complete course of training in the art of reasoning, but were produced and adapted to answer the exigencies and require ments of his own time. Sophists abounded, and he analyzed the grounds and elements of sophistry. Demonstrative thinkers were urging their way towards science, and he supplied a guide to investigation. Argumentation was the great instrument of discovery, and he perfected the theory of debate. Words were the media of enunciating ideas, and he criticized language as an exponent of thought. The perplexing infinity of realities almost overcame the human capacity for recognizing and registering individual things, and he furnished a convenient system of classification, and not only surveyed, but mapped out the whole continent of human reason, while he composed a geography of the thinkable. All this was done with a vigour and grandeur which proves him to have been an almost flawless incarnation of intellectuality.

On commencing the present paper, the writer intended to present a vidimus of the logic of Aristotle in his own words (translated), for which he had made preparations some years ago; but afterconsideration showed him that, unless arranged differently from that in which they appear in Aristotle's works, the tenets of the philosopher could not be usefully submitted to the reader, and that, if otherwise presented, they could scarcely hold a place in a series of articles on "European Philosophy." He has, therefore, adopted the expedient of giving such information regarding the actual works of the Stagyrite on logic as may impart a general idea of their contents, and has reserved for a future opportunity his design of composing an entire and useful compendium of the science of thinking, from the Organon of Aristotle, concise enough to be readily studied, and adapted to modern minds and uses. A few interpolations and annotations will give it such consistency and systematic form as shall, he hopes, commend it to his readers. Meanwhile he may refer such of those as have student inclinations for further information upon this subject, to Reid's "Analysis of Aristotle's Logic," O. F. Owen's translation of the Organon in Bohn's Library, the Art of Reasoning, Introduction, chap. ii., and in the body of the work, chap. xiii., the chapters in Lewes and Maurice on Aristotle, and to the Fathers of Greek Philosophy," by Bishop Hampden. The works of B. Saint-Hilaire in French, and of F. A. Trendelenberg in German, may also be consulted with great advantage. The Logics of Hamilton, Mansell, the Port Royalists (translated by S. Baynes), G. Moberly, Karslake, Chretien, Spalding, &c., are in many places informed with the true Aristotelic spirit. S. N.

Religion.

WAS THE PENTATEUCH WRITTEN BY MOSES? AND IS IT HISTORICALLY TRUE?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.—II.

WHETHER the Pentateuch was written by Moses, is a question to be decided by proving the statement that it is historically true. For this reason, we devoted our former article to a refutation of Dr. Colenso's objections founded upon popular statistics; and now, after noticing the arguments of E. H. K., we shall show that the Bishop's inferences from other portions of the Mosaic history are equally illogical, as those noticed in our preceding paper.

were not

E. H. K. quotes Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6, with other texts, and then affirms, "These, and other similar passages, clearly prove that Moses was not, and could not be, the writer of all the books of the Pentateuch" (p. 21). From certain notes or additions supplementing the history, he illogically concludes that "all the books written by Moses. If the editor, as editors often do, had added an explanatory word or clause to the objector's article, it would have ceased to be the production of E. H. K.! Such additions are found in every ancient document, and yet no one can reasonably infer from them that the document is not therefore what it pretends to be. We have at the close of several of the Pauline epistles, as, for example, 1 and 2 Tim., statements known to be from another hand, and yet no one would jump to the really ridiculous inference that they prove Paul was not the author of these epistles.

On page 24 we have, again, the statement that Christ and the apostles do not by "their reference prove the truth of the Pentateuch any more than Paul, when he referred to the games of the athletes, expressed his approval of the games." Let the reader look at Paul's "reference to the Grecian games, and his “references" to the Pentateuch, and say what he thinks of E. H. K.'s use of the word reference. Our Lord and the apostles built Christianity upon the Pentateuch, and this is called a reference by a writer who talks of "logic run mad," and is so self-satisfied as to foretell that "declaimers" on the affirmative side will adopt this "mad logic" as their "method of proof" (p. 24).

Dr. Colenso has written five chapters on the exodus and its diffi. culties; of which the one numbered ten in his work is on the institution of the passover. His object is to show that on the very night of the observance, without any "notice several days beforehand" (p. 54), Moses directed the Hebrews to keep the passover ;

and that on the same night the exodus took place. In Exod. xii. 3, a reference to the tenth day shows that that day was yet future; in ver. 6 we find that the lamb was to be kept till the fourteenth day, which again proves that the directions were given several days beforehand; and, yet because when the day anticipated had arrived, God said, "I will pass through the land this night" (ver. 21), Dr. Colenso affirms that time for preparation was not previously allowed.

Having reduced at least five days to one night, he, in profound ignorance of all Eastern customs and manners, "imagines the time that would be required for the poorer half of London going hurriedly to borrow from the richer half" (p. 57) jewellery and raiment. The Hebrews are pictured as hurrying from the east to the extreme west of London by Dr. Colenso, an absurdity of which Moses is not the author. In the Pentateuch we find it was the Egyptians who, under the apprehension of instant and universal death, went hurriedly to the Hebrews, forcing upon them their jewels and garments, and entreating them to depart with whatever they required (Exod. xii. 33, 36). Dr. Colenso reviews all the facts of the case, and then pronounces the history to be absurd. The masses of the people in the East from time immemorial have converted the surplus of their earnings into trinkets, which are worn profusely on every finger and toe, on the arm from wrist to elbow, round the neck and waist, on the forehead and hair, on the nose and the ears, which have as many perforations as possible. To strip themselves of their jewels, and to empty their bags and boxes, was the work of a few moments to the Egyptians; and to collect them was a process as expeditious to the Hebrews. Dr. Colenso, as if he had never read the statements he criticizes, sends the people from one part of a city like London to another, whereas Moses directs each Hebrew to take from his neighbours and lodgers whatever he desired (Exod. iii. 22). This transfer of the property began some days before the night of the departure (Exod. xi. 2, 3), but the critic confines it to the last moment. Having thus turned the tables, reduced the time against clearest evidence to the contrary, transferred modern and European ideas to Hebrews living 3,300 years ago, what else can result but a heap of absurdities and contradictions? Take the Pentateuch as it stands, and there will be no such difficulties as those "imagined" by the Bishop.

His eleventh chapter is founded upon the misrepresentations of the tenth, and falls with it; but as it contains some apparently startling objections, we shall devote a few paragraphs to show what they are worth.

66

What," he inquires-" what of the sick and infirm, or the women in recent and imminent childbirth," during the march out of Egypt, "in a population like that of London, where the births are 264 a day, or about one every five minutes ?" (p. 62). Out of 2,500,000 souls, 600,000 are the Bishop's estimate of adult males; and therefore 600,000 represents the number of adult women. Out of this

number 264 mothers, that is, one out of every 2,272 women, were seriously inconvenienced by the march out of Egypt; and what then? Could not the exodus take place, despite such inconvenience? Were not 2,272 women enough to assist one woman in childbirth? Ought any man with common sense to urge such an objection against the possibility of the exodus?

66

The allusion to London is most preposterous here, as everywhere in the Doctor's book. We are told by Moses that the midwives escaped the wrath of the tyrant by the excuse,-the Hebrew are not like the Egyptian women in childbirth (Exod. i. 19); and yet Dr. Colenso draws his illustrations of the inconvenience and peril of parturition among women enfeebled by London life and London residence. In Africa, women will, on a march, turn aside, be delivered, sometimes without any assistance, and overtake their party at the next halting-place. It is from such cases that a writer, who has lived in Africa, ought to have conceived of the extent to which one Hebrew woman out of twenty-two hundreds would be inconvenienced by the march out of Rameses, and then the objec tion, trifling even under more unfavourable habits of life, would never have been advanced.

66

On equally unsound views, Dr. Colenso makes "infants and children go on foot twenty miles a day, as the story implies" (p. 47). The story is told by him, not by Moses. The expression, "on foot" (Exod. xii. 37), is in reference to the 600,000 "that were men;" and it is only by forcing words that on foot can be applied to children or infants. Did the 264 children born on the journey, as calculated by Dr. Colenso, walk on foot? Could the Pentateuch have existed thirty-three days, not to say thirty-three centuries, if Moses had implied any such nonsense as the Bishop delights to indulge in? The very statement that those on foot were 600,000 in number, not including, or "besides," children, is a proof that the remainder rode out of Egypt in suitable conveyances, on oxen, asses, horses, or camels, which a people in terrible haste for their departure would eagerly place at their disposal. If we are to allow Dr. Colenso to leave out whatever he chooses, and imagine whatever he likes, of course there will be absurdities enough in the Pentateuch or any other history that exists. But whence does he get his one day for the departure? and whence the twenty miles' distance between Rameses and Succoth? In the Pentateuch we find that "the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth" (Exod. xii. 37), and that this happened "on the morrow after the passover" (Numb. xxxiii. 3). If the reader will carefully attend to these statements, he will see what gratuitous and unsupportable assumptions have to be made before Dr. Colenso can hazard his extraordinary statements.

The Hebrews, and probably all the ancients, reckoned from sunset to sunset, and not from midnight to midnight, in counting their days. From the evening after the afternoon of the day when the lamb was killed" (Exod. xii. 6), begins the fourteenth day, in the

night of which the death of the firstborn took place. This fourteenth day closed on the following evening, when the fifteenth day" the morrow after the passover "-commenced. Twenty-four hours from this second evening constitute "the morrow " of the exodus; during the latter twelve only would Moses lead the people on the journey described as from Rameses to Succoth." From the time when Pharaoh thrust out Moses and such of the Hebrews as were with him in the royal city (Exod. xii. 30, 31), to the departure from Rameses, must have been at least eighteen hours, probably twenty; and yet Dr. Colenso confounds this midnight expulsion of a few from the royal "city" with the general exodus of the whole nation from the land of "Rameses." To make "the story as absurd as possible, he first reduces a period of not less than five days to half a night, and now converts an interval of not less than eighteen hours into a few.

Most of the ten plagues were such in nature that many weeks, probably several months, must have elapsed from the first demand for liberty to the exodus itself. During this period, Dr. Colenso gravely assumes that the people made no preparations whatever, so that at the death of the firstborn they are perfectly bewildered with the arrangements necessary for such an emigration.

66

From Rameses to Succoth" is stated to be 20 miles. No two maps we have consulted agree on the locality of Succoth; how, then, can the distance between it and Rameses be determined? Rameses is the name of both the district called Goshen (Gen. xlvii. 6, 11), and a fortress built for a magazine (Exod. i. 11), and to overawe the Hebrews. That 2,500,000 persons should collect about such a fort as their starting-point is most improbable; and yet this is assumed by Dr. Colenso. The narrative clearly intimates that Succoth was their general rendezvous from all parts of Rameses,— not the fort, but the land so called. Naples is the name of a city and of a kingdom; New York is the name of a State and its metropolis, just as Rameses is the name of the land of Goshen as well as of its store city. Now, if at the invasion by Garibaldi of Naples the kingdom, the 6,000,000 Neapolitans had emigrated, would any man with common sense represent them all as first collecting together at Naples the city? In 1850, the State of New York contained some 3,000,000 souls: suppose that General Lee or Jackson were to invade the State, and the people were to cross over into Canada; would it be rational to suppose that the present Governor Seymour would collect all the inhabitants of the State of New York at the city of the same name, previous to their departure? Yet Dr. Colenso absurdly takes Rameses, from which the Hebrews departed for their rendezvous at Succoth, to be the city, instead of the land called by the same name.

The city from which Moses, and those with him, were expelled by Pharaoh (Exod. ix. 29, 33) was the metropolis of Egypt; and yet, Dr. Colenso confounds this seat of the court with the treasure city in Goshen; and represents the Hebrews as coming from all directions