of life by the ravages of war, pestilence and famine, we say, that from the end of the fifth century after the Deluge, the population increased only at the rate of doubling once in fifty years; we should still have in the world, in the days of Abraham, a population far outnumbering what that of the whole globe is estimated to be at the present day.-There is, then, in the aggregate population of the world at the time under consideration, no ground whatever for argument or objection against the Bible history of our Race.

2. Difficulty with regard to the antiquity of the Egyptian Monarchy, as indicated by its civilization, and recorded upon its monuments. Those who urge objection on this ground tell us that Egypt was an ancient kingdom when Abraham first arrived there; that it had already been under the government of successive dynasties, embracing altogether a long list of kings, whose united reigns according to the hieroglyphic records amount to several thousands of years. And they further argue, that when the first of these monarchs assumed his regal power and position there must have been there a very considerable population to constitute anything like a kingdom; and that this population again must have occupied many generations to increase to such numbers; and, finally, that behind all this there must have elapsed a long time before the first settlers could have reached a land so distant from the cradle of mankind. And thus

England, with all her wars, has, within the past fifty years, more than doubled her population, beside sending upward of five millions away as emigrants to other countries.

it is contended that the history of the Egyptian nation carries us back far beyond the date which Scripture assigns to the Deluge. Hence, again, has been seized with avidity the conclusion that the Bible history of the human race cannot be true.

In regard to the correctness of dates and periods derived from Egyptian hieroglyphics, especially those embraced within its earlier history, there exists, as is well known, very great uncertainty. This is evident from the fact that the lengths of these periods according to one decipherer are twice, and even thrice, as great as the same periods are read by another decipherer. And not only this, but the same interpreter sometimes differs widely from himself; thus Bunsen, in his latest recension of Egyptian chronology, speaks of having "got rid legitimately of a considerable number of useless centuries." Differences so enormous in the reading of the same records cast complete doubt on the whole system of their interpretation. Add to all this, that it remains quite undetermined yet, whether many of those whose names are found in the lists of Egyptian kings were associate sovereigns of the same province, or contemporary Rulers of different provinces, or successors of one another over two or more kingdoms; it is obvious, therefore, that any attempt to determine dates and periods from the reigns of these must be largely conjectural. Moreover, it is even uncertain whether Menes, the first of Egypt's mortal kings, whose reign is taken as the starting-point of all definite periods, was a real or a mythical personage: "The entire uncertainty of all that precedes Menes,"

says Kenrick, "may even throw doubt on his own historic reality; for we do not commonly find the darkness of a mythic period succeeded at once by light and certainty;" and the same writer intimates that his very name may be "fictitious."*

Safe and reliable computations do not carry the foundation of the Egyptian monarchy further back than 700 years before the visit of the Hebrew Patriarch. "Seven centuries before Abraham," says the Duke of Argyll, "is the estimate of Mr. Stuart Poole, of the British Museum, who is one of the very highest authorities, and certainly the most cautious, upon questions of Egyptian chronology." Admitting the reality of this monarch, and accepting this estimate, we have the reign of Menes beginning 2700 years before Christ, and 547 years after the Deluge. With these data, let us now inquire how we shall come out in regard to the population and civilization of Egypt.

Egypt, as formed by Nature, was a country that offered many advantages and attractions. The climate was salubrious. Its Delta and Valley, for an extent of six hundred miles, watered and enriched by the Nile with its many branches, possessed a soil of unsurpassed fertility. In no country in the world could subsistence be obtained more easily. It was, therefore, likely to be peopled at a very early day. Let us now suppose (and none can question the reasonableness of the supposition), that at the end of two hundred years from the Deluge,

* Ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs, Vol. II., pp. 95, 96,

a little company of eight nomads with their flocks reached in their migrations the waters of the Nile, and fixed their habitation on its warm and luxuriant banks; and that a similar company followed them and settled there at the end of every quarter of a century; and that all these companies, from the respective dates of their arrival, went on increasing at the rate of doubling every twentyfive years. We should then have at the end of 350 years, that is, at the commencement of the reign of Menes, a population of more than 260,000,-a very respectable foundation certainly for a kingdom in that early day of the world.

If, now, from the accession of Menes, in order o make ample deduction for extraordinary waste of life by tyranny, plagues and wars, we reduce the rate of increase to doubling only once in seventy-five years; then at the end of seven centuries, that is, at the date of Abraham's visit, we should have a population of 133,000,000. And if we reduce this number again by one-half, to allow for those who might have wandered away to the West and to the South, agreeably to the statement of Strabo, to people the vast continent of Africa, there would still remain in Egypt over 60,000,000 of inhabitants,-a population, surely, abundantly sufficient to account for all the wealth and power, cities and temples, and whatever else the Patriarch might have found there.

But aside from the population, it is urged that the advanced state of Civilization and the Arts at this period, in Egypt, was such as would have required a much longer period to attain than what the Bible History

allows. This objection is based on the assumption that the population of Egypt had their origin in a state of utter barbarism and ignorance-that they began at zero, and had to creep up to their knowledge of the arts, of science and government, by the slow and gradual progress of indigenous experience, discovery and invention, a process naturally and necessarily so slow, we are told, that it would have required a long series of ages to reach the elevation at which they stood at this period.

Now, all this is a mere supposition, a mere conjecture of the advocates of the theory of development. No facts, no evidence whatsoever, can be offered in proof of the hypothesis that Man's primitive condition was that of barbarism, and none certainly that the original settlers of Egypt were barbarians. It is plain from the Scripture history that even before the Flood, the mechanical arts were in a good state of forwardness; as early as the days of Lamech we read of artificers in brass and iron, and of the invention of musical instruments and the building of cities. And certainly a vessel of such stately dimensions as the Ark, with its upper and lower decks, and its manifold interior divisions and conveniences, required no ordinary mechanical skill for its construction. And of, this immense structure Noah was the master-builder, and his three sons probably his chief assistants. Now Noah survived the Deluge three centuries and a half, and his son Shem over five centuries. Hence the knowledge acquired of the arts and other matters, before the Deluge, must have been transmitted through these and the other survivors to their descend