of your religion, your personal religion. If you were about to embark upon a voyage to some distant region, you would deem it important to ascertain the soundness and safety of the vessel. If you had purchased an estate, you would use every means to be assured of the validity of the title, and you would desire the best judgment upon it. If you were about to undergo some dangerous operation in surgery, on which your life depended, you would desire that it should be done by the most skilful surgeon. But these are cases of infinitely less importance than the one under consideration; for if our religion is vain, then in death we lose it. It evaporates like the early dew, and disappears like a dream. Then all is lost-we are lost-immortality is lost. The loss of money, the loss of friends, the loss of health, the loss of reputation --all may admit of recovery, or remedy, or alleviation. Even the loss of life itself may be justifiable, and may turn to our true gain and immortal honour. Not one of these losses necessarily involves utter ruin and perpetual misery. But the vanity of our religion is the ruin of the soul, and that without remedy, recovery, or alleviation.

is good to the use of edifying." "Let your speech be with grace (as if) seasoned with salt." 2. Another case, equally clear, is that of the man who is resting in his knowledge and notions: with the words of religion upon his lips, he is indulging iniquity in his heart-not exhibiting a pure morality in his life, but is either openly or secretly exempting his conscience from the observance of one or more of the divine commands. But the wilful, purposed, and cherished violation of any of God's precepts vitiates a man's profession of religion. He cannot be a sincere child of God, that disregards his Father's will in any one particular. Falseness in word or deed; dishonesty, whether by robbery or by deceiving others to make a gain thereby; intemperance, drunkenness, with many other sins of an analogous character, expressly denounced in the divine Word—all nullify the claim to religion. A man may be a good Hindu, and live in vice; a good Mohammedau, and indulge in sin; yea, a good Papist, and get in dulgence for any iniquity under the sun, save and except only insubordination to priestly do mination; but no man that loves and indulgesin of any kind, can be a disciple of Jesus Christ. A Christian ordinarily immoral in hilife is a contradiction in terms. There can be no such man. He must either give up sin to be a Christian, or give up his Christianity for the sake of his sin.

3. The hypocrite presents another case. This case is something like the former, but with this difference, that the hypocrite is aware of the incongruity between all sin and religion, and also of the impossibility of passing for a true Christian without a seeming holiness; and, therefore, he both hides his sin, and feigns a holiness above others, for the purpose of gaining admiration, or pursuing some sinister end.' Now, all such may rest assured that their religion will turn out an utter delusion. It seems almost incredible that, on so solemn a subject, any should attempt to play the hypocrite before that eye which pierces every evil, and penetrates to the truth of every profession; and yet it is certain many do. A man may deceive himself by false notions, or be led astray by the corruptions of others; but no man is a hypocrite with

Let us briefly allude to a few such instances. 1. There is a case clearly marked out by the Apostle James (i. 26): "If any man among you seemeth to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart; this man's religion is vain." It will be seen by the 3d chapter that the apostle is referring to those whose conversation, instead of being pure and according to godliness, is, on the contrary, profane, corrupt, and malicious. It is not the case of a good and moderate man overtaken by temptation, or provoked into rashness, speaking unadvisedly with his lips, uttering a vain or bitter or unchristian expression; but the habitual indulgence of the tongue when it is but the servant of a corrupt heart, taking its pleasure in evil. "The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity." Out of the same mouth-that is, of the vain professor-proceeds the enormity both of cursing and blessing. But if religion had its seat in the heart, it would restrain the tongue. It is, therefore, laid down as a rule by the Apostle James, that if a man's characteristic conversation is carnal, worldly, malicious, blas-out knowing and intending it. Therefore, the phemous, uncharitable, and violent against his fellow-men, and he at the same time think himself a Christian, that man's religion is vain. It is confirmed in another place, and by another inspired apostle: "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth; but that which

more fearful will be the exposure of all such when their religion is shown to be vain.

4. The vanity of profession is shown in the case of the formalist, who places his dependence upon outward religious acts. This is a growing error of the times in which we live, at least in

THE HAND.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF SCRIPTURE EVIDENCES.

66 mas

since the Israelites amounted to only seventy persons; and it is exceedingly improbable that they had in so short a time become more numerous than the native Egyptians, who had been a settled nation for about six hundred and fifty years. But it is very possible that a conquering tribe, like the Turks of modern times, might be inferior in number even to the smallest of the two nations that then occupied Egypt. We learn from the Sacred Narrative, that the Israelites were compelled by Pharaoh to erect "treasure cities "-in other words, fortresses to secure his plunder-a fact which strengthens the supposition that Egypt was then under the iron rule of a foreign conqueror; for no such precaution was taken by Joseph when he received all the money of the country in exchange for corn. Finally, we find this Pharaoh actually proposing to Moses to violate the laws and customs of Egypt, by sacrificing the sacred animals within their land. The remonstrance of the Jewish legislator is, as we shall see, very appropriate when addressed to a foreigner, but scarcely within the bounds of credibility if we suppose that any such speech could be made to a native prince. "And Pharaoh called for Moses and for Aaron, and said, Go ye sacrifice to your God in the land. And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God: so shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us? We will go three days' journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to the Lord our God as he shall command us."-Exod. viii. 25-27. The policy of the intruding sovereign is easily illustrated, "He found himself," says Mr Faber, ter of a land in which were two distinct races of men, who, from a sense of mutual benefits, had generally lived in strict amity with each other; and he was fully aware, or at least he naturally suspected, that, notwithstanding any temporary disgust, the Israelites would be far more likely to make common cause with their friends the Mizraim, than with himself and his intrusive warriors. Hence, to a man who was restrained by no nice scruples of conscience, who considered only how he might best secure his conquest, and who neither knew nor regarded Joseph, the policy is obvious; and the principle of it is most distinctly exposed by Moses: "Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the laud." With the natural feelings of a conqueror, and with the superadded remembrance of a former expulsion from this very country, he anticipated a probable rebellion of the native Egyptians; and he shrewdly conjectured that, while he was engaged in reducing them to obedience, or in resisting an invasion of the dethroned king from the Thebais, whither (according to Manetho) he had retired, the Israelites, compactly associated in the land of Goshen, would take him in the rear, and place Therefore, they did him between two enemies. set over them taskmasters, to afflict them with their burdens"-reducing them, and also the native Egyptians (as we learn from both Manetho and Herodotus), to a state of absolute servitude, obliging them to labour in public works, which were probably un

53

dertaken quite as much in order to break their spirits by severe labour, as for other purpose.*

66

any

A striking confirmation of the opinion, that the native Egyptians were not the oppressors of the Israelites, is furnished by the command given to the latter by Moses: "Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian;" which would seem to indicate, that though the Hebrews were oppressed by the State, they received kind treatment from the Egyptians as individuals, so as to lay them under obligations to make a grateful recompense. The mere fact that the Israelites were strangers in the land of Egypt," would not have been a sufficient reason for such a command, unless it had implied that the Egyptians had shown kindness to them in their adversity, and had thereby earned for themselves a right to kindness in return. This is one of those apparent contradictions, but real confirmations, of the accuracy of the Sacred Narrative which truth alone could furnish. A forger inventing a story, would, without doubt, have represented the Egyptians as entitled only to hostility and hatred from the emancipated Hebrews.

In the present state of chronology, it is difficult to determine, with perfect certainty, the correspondence between the events portrayed on the monuments and the dates and events found in the Sacred Volume, though all that we have been able to extract of a historical kind from the monumental sculptures and inscriptions is in entire harmony with what the Scriptures, directly or indirectly, teach respecting Egypt. But by far the most valuable portion of the contributions which the study of Egyptian antiquities has brought to our stores of Biblical literature, is derived from the memorials of the manners and customs which the people of the Pharaohs had deWhoever," picted on the walls of their sepulchres. it has been justly said, "is curious to know how these prineval inhabitants of the Valley of the Nile worshipped their gods, and warred with their neighbours and with foreign nations-how they were armed and disciplined-how they laid siege to and stormed cities how they exercised judgment, and feasted, and buried their dead-how they danced and sang, and played on instruments of music, and wrestled and tumbled-how they ploughed and sowed, and reaped and gathered fruit, and cultivated the vine, and plucked the grapes, and trampled them in the winepress-how they built and made bricks, and drew enormous weights, and clove wood, and practised carpentry in all its branches-how they hunted and shot, and snared birds and caught fish-how they killed and cooked, and served up their dinner, and ate-how they laid out their gardens and houseshow they furnished and adorned them-how they built and rigged out their boats and barks, and rowed or floated on the Nile;" all this, and much more, may be found in these interesting paintings. The Egyptian was determined to make his sepulchre, his more lasting mansion, as like as possible to the more temporary scenes through which his soul had passed in its course of transmigration in this state of being. Accordingly, upon all walls

"Each change of many-colour'd life he drew;" Faber's Origin of Pagan Idolatry, vol iii., book 6, p. 553; Illustrated Commentary on Exodus i. 8-10.

and the disinterment of these long-buried records has, after the lapse of three thousand years, presented these faithful pictures in all their original freshness and spirit. Now, the bearing which the discovery of these records must have on the veracity of the Mosaic history is very apparent; and the evidence which they furnish of the accuracy of the Sacred Volume, even in the most minute details, is quite decisive, because incidental, undesigned, and above all suspicion of collusion.

Thebes there is a sketch in which King Rameses III., who is supposed to have been contemporary with Abraham, is represented as playing the game of chess.

We learn from the Sacred Narrative that Pharaoh bestowed upon Abraham presents of "sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and man-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses, and camels." This passage has been adduced by a German Neologian as a proof that the Book of Genesis must have been written by a native of Palestine, and at a much later period than the time of Moses. "The narrator," he says,

A favourite theory of certain Infidel savans, respecting the Sacred Books of the Jews is, that they were written at a period posterior to the Babylonish" mentions the animals of his own native land, a part captivity; and they have laboured to show, by an of which Abraham could not receive in Egypt. He enumeration of the pretended mistakes and inaccu- ascribes to him no horses, which were native to Egypt; racies of the author of the Pentateuch, that he must but, on the other hand, he mentions sheep, which have lived long after the time of Moses, and that are found in the marsh lands of Egypt as seldom as he has transferred to the Valley of the Nile the man- camels and asses, which were especially odious to the ners, customs, and institutions of Palestine. We shall Egyptians, on account of their colour." proceed to consider whether or not these charges are borne out by the monumental sculptures and inscriptions.

It has often been confidently affirmed, that colonization and civilization descended from Ethiopia down the Nile to Egypt, and that, consequently, the references made in the Book of Genesis to the flourishing condition of the kingdom of Egypt cannot be authentic, as civilization could scarcely at that time have reached that country. Recent investigations, however, have completely exploded this theory. The monuments of Ethiopia are not only far inferior | to those of Egypt, but of a much later date. "Nubia," says a modern French traveller, "consists almost entirely of barren rocks. Such a land where the most urgent wants of man can only be supplied with the utmost exertion, is not the cradle of the fine arts..... So soon as I received information of the true character of the antiquities of Nubia-when I, in the pictures and sculptures, saw the same objects which are represented on the monuments of Thebes-it was clear to me that the most of the monuments of Nubia are far later than those of Thebes, and by no means served as models for them. The climate is different in the two lands; the productions of the vegetable kingdom are not the same, the most distinguished plants which the Egyptian artists have so often represented the lotus, the papyrus, the vine, &c.—are not found in these high regions; and the reed and the date tree but seldom. The arts already cultivated and perfected could have been brought to these shores, but their inhabitants could not have transplanted the arts for which their country offered no natural type to the shores of the Lower Nile." The most cursory examination of the Egyptian monumental sculptures is sufficient to show the egregious inaccuracy of the objection referred to. They prove, beyond the possibility of doubt, that long before the days of Abraham, Egypt was a mighty monarchy, governed by rulers, who had extended their conquests widely over the neighbouring nations, and had surrounded themselves with all the usual pomp and splendour of an Eastern court; and that their cultivation of the arts and sciences, and even their amusements, had reached a height which we have been accustomed to consider peculiar to modern times. In one of the tombs of

Now, first of all, the reason why the horse was not mentioned among the presents given to Abraham could not be because the author did not know how abundant horses were in Egypt; for in Gen. xlvii. 17, it is said that "Joseph gave the Egyptians bread in exchange for their horses." But we learn from the monuments that horses were used chiefly in war; and as Abraham was a man of peace, the gift of such animals would have been every way unsuitable to him. The omission of the horse, as Dr Taylor has justly remarked, instead of being an objection, is one of the strongest possible of undesigned confirmations of the truth of the narrative. Sheep, instead of being unknown or rare in Egypt, appear on the monuments often and in great numbers, the flocks consisting sometimes of more than two thousand. So also do asses, which were so numerous that one individual is represented as having seven hundred and sixty of them. Camels have certainly not yet been found delineated on these sculptures. But many objects are wanting on the monuments which yet can be proved to have existed among the Egyptians; and the camel was, in ancient times, as it still continues to be, peculiarly the animal of the wandering tribes. Even at the present day camels are chiefly bred by the Arabs on the borders of || Egypt. This portion of the Sacred Narrative derives considerable light from a scene in a rock-hewn sepulchre near the Pyramids of Geezeh, bearing the name of the king Cheops, which shows that it was in all probability made more than a century before the arrival of Abraham in Egypt. A head shepherd is represented as giving an account of the flocks committed to his charge, which follow after him. "First come the oxen, over which is the number eight hundred and thirty-four; cows, two hundred and twenty; goats, three thousand two hundred and thirty-four; asses, seven hundred and sixty-five; and sheep, nine hundred and seventy-four. Behind follows a man, carrying the young lambs in baskets slung upon a pole. The steward, leaning on his staff, and accompanied by his dog, stands on the left of the picture; and in another part of the tomb, the scribes are represented making out the statements presented to them by the different persons employed on the estate." In Gen. xlvii. 17, Joseph is represented as saying to the ruler