this, however, the geographical conformation of their respective countries stood for something, and many things combined to produce the legends and the traditions upon which their differing national characteristics were based, and by which the Palestinian and the Mesopotamian nationalities in general acted and reacted upon each other.

Among the pictures shown were types of the Sumerians and Akkadians (Semitic Babylonians), the remains of the temple tower at Ur of the Chaldees, the Babylonian gods, the wild looking man and woman (Adam and Eve ?), hunting wild animals, the Creation and Flood tablets, including that giving the cause of toothache, ploughs with seeding tubes, Merodach fighting with the dragon, and several others of equal interest.

DISCUSSION.

The CHAIRMAN then proposed a hearty vote of thanks to Prof. Pinches for his most valuable paper, the culmination of a series before the Victoria Institute which he began nearly thirty years ago. This was warmly carried by acclamation.

The CHAIRMAN, in opening the discussion, said :—In comparing the Assyro-Babylonians and the Hebrews we remember that Abraham, the great ancestor of the latter, came out of Ur of the Chaldees, and this fact seems to have borne fruit in the resemblance of the laws of Khamurab with those divinely promulgated by Moses. Note, for instance, the command against removing a neighbour's landmark in both (see Deut. xix, 14; xxvii, 17; Prov. xxii, 28; xxiii, 10) and compare with them the curses inscribed in actual Babylonian boundary stones, now in the British Museum, against any one who should move them. The resemblance of the narrative of the flood in the Bible and in the Babylonian records also dates from about this time.

The Egyptians had a great influence on the Hebrews, demonstrated by the fact that at the end of this bondage, idolatry had great prevalence among the latter, as witnessed by the worship of the golden calf. The Hebrews long continued to practise idolatry, copied from the neighbouring nations, until the time of the Kings, when they were punished by the Babylonian captivity, from which Judah only returned.

Though the Babylonians were idolators, the Scripture record tells us of the faithfulness of the captive men of Judah under severe temptations, witness Daniel, Shadrack, Meshach, and Abednego After their return to their own country in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah it appears that the Hebrews had learnt their lesson and they were then a practically monotheistic nation.

Babylon was throughout polytheistic, as Prof. Pinches tells us, but the chief influence it exerted upon the Hebrews was caused by its riches and luxury. As early as the time of Joshua we read that Achan coveted and stole a goodly Babylonian garment, some silver, and a wedge of gold (Josh. vii, 21); and more than seven hundred years afterwards, King Hezekiah ostentatiously displayed his riches and treasures to the envoys of the King of Babylon (2 Kings xx, 12-19; 2 Chron. xxxii, 31); while nearly eight hundred years later still, we find that Babylon is referred to as representative of luxury and wicked worldliness (Rev. xvi, 19, xvii, 5). The Hebrews apparently followed the Babylonians in these vices, as far as they had opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN then drew attention to some pictures and a long column in the Times of that day, describing recent archæological discoveries in Mesopotamia, and expressing the opinion that many more will probably be made during the next few years. The CHAIRMAN expressed a hope that Prof. Pinches would keep the Victoria Institute informed of all these new discoveries in the Ancient Land of Babylon.

Mr. SIDNEY COLLETT said :-I am sure we must all feel grateful to Dr. Pinches for his learned and interesting lecture. Indeed, we always listen to him with profit.

There are, however, one or two things in the paper which call for

comment.

On page 191, the Lecturer says:- The Jews of the time, when the Monarchy was set up, had in their minds the scandal and misrule of the times of the Judges, and thought that the dignity inherent in a Kingly Court would have a counteracting influence."

:

Now, this view is not borne out by Scripture. For in 1 Sam. viii, 6, we read "the thing displeased Samuel when they said, give us a King." And then in verse 7 God Himself said: "they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them."

Then on page 192, when he speaks of " the legend of the sea monster, Rahab, in the Book of Job." It would have been better had he said :

66

the reference in the Book of Job to the legend of the sea monster," etc. Indeed, as Dr. Pinches himself shows, on page 194, Rahab in Scripture more than once refers to Egypt. So that it may be questioned whether in this passage the "Babylonian legend" is referred to at all.

Also, on page 195, I cannot agree with the lecturer when he says that " The Hebrew account of Creation was given in order to refute the Babylonian Account." No doubt, incidentally, it did have that effect, as all Scripture Truth corrects all unscriptural errors. But, surely, it had a far wider purpose than that; and would have been written as the commencement of Holy Scripture, even if no Babylonian account had ever existed.

Mr. AVERY FORBES pointed out, with regard to the view of monotheism found in the earlier history of the Babylonians, Assyrians, and other ancient nations, that there was a remarkable similarity of name in the mythical founder of, or the chief deity worshipped by, several nations, far apart, and with little or nothing else in common. Thus the earliest Egyptians were said to have been monotheistic, and their first mythical King was called Menes. The Hindus derive many of their caste laws from Manu, a mythical son of Brahma. The Greeks had two mythical Kings, descendants of Zeus, named Minos. Tacitus, in his Germania, tells us that the German nation looked on Mannus as their divine founder. The North American Indians call their supreme deity Manito (vide Hiawatha). Does not this seem to point to a common origin and a common monotheism for the human race?

Mr. THEODORE ROBERTS thought some of the objections raised by previous speakers were founded upon misconceptions of the paper. In particular, he instanced Mr. Collett's with regard to the Israelites desiring a king. No doubt this was well intentioned, but was only a makeshift consequent upon the failure of the people to realize the ideal theocracy which God had provided for them. The same kind of thing had happened in much later times when the breakdown of the ideal presented in Scripture had led people to have recourse to human arrangements not sanctioned by God.

He thought the lecturer on page 184 had implied that the Hebrews had been monotheists from earliest times.

He was struck with what he might call the restraint of inspiration found in Genesis as contrasted with the fanciful accounts of creation and the flood which the lecturer had given us from the Babylonian tablets. He asked how was it that the Biblical records had eschewed all these unscientific and ridiculous particulars unless it was that their writing was controlled by divine inspiration.

Mr. HOSTE remarked that the Genesis account of the Noachian Deluge was popularly believed by the Neo-Critics to be a composite narrative from sources P and J combined by some Redactor. This editor was so slovenly in his methods that instead of assimilating his authorities and producing a succinct and unified account, as an ordinary historian would, used scissors and paste-pot and produced a composite account, which the Critics profess to be able to dissect into its component parts. Mr. Hoste asked the lecturer whether it was not a fact that the Chaldean account of the Deluge, deciphered in 1872 by George Smith, tallies to all intents and purposes, names and numbers excepted, with our Genesis account, so much so that we are told by the Critics, that the latter must have been derived from it. It is rather difficult to see how the same account can be at once a composite from P and J and directly derived from the Chaldean account. Would not this rather tend to discredit the Critical theory? Is it not more likely that the Hebrew and Chaldean accounts represent, the one, the original, pure, monotheistic narration, and the other the corrupted polytheistic tradition of the same events?

Who can get a clean thing out of an unclean-monotheism out of polytheism? No, monotheism corrupts into polytheism, and polytheism refines into pantheism.

Mr. EDMUND KIMBER said :-On the whole I think Dr. Pinches' excellent discoveries and interpretations corroborate the Biblical history of the Creation of the world and of the Deluge. Of course, there are critics among us who see a divergence between the First and Second Chapters of Genesis. I don't. Substantially they agree and must be read together, and we must put upon them the best construction" just as all lawyers and judges do upon our Acts of Parliament. "We continue to act," as Burke said, upon the early received and the uniformly continued sense of mankind.” We might just as well say the landing of Julius Cæsar in these

66

islands in 55 B.C., or of William the Conqueror, about 1,000 years afterwards, was legendary, as to say the Biblical story was legendary. There is nothing to contradict it and there are many things to corroborate it. Take the first two verses of the First Chapter of Genesis where we are told that in the beginning the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." What more beautiful and what more natural? How came the historian or chronicler to write this? Who saw it? Who told him of it? How did he know the face of the waters moved or that the Spirit of God moved thereon? The witness did not see the Spirit but he saw the surface move and ripple, and wondered how it was caused. He could see nothing except the water undulating. He found that it did so in obedience to the invisible wind which was set in motion. by an unseen Power, and he was forced to the conclusion that it must be the "Spirit of God." It is impossible to get over this sublime incident in the Creation of the World, and to deny that the Hand that made it as well as the Story are Divine.

Lieut.-Colonel RIACH desired to associate himself with the questions which had been put and inquired further whether any remains now exist which might be thought to be those of the Tower of Babel, also whether any authority is known for the statement that the purpose of the tower was to reach heaven.

DR. PINCHES' REPLY.

Dr. PINCHES expressed his thanks to the Chairman for his kind and appreciative words, and the further instances, illustrating in such an interesting way the subject under discussion. He was glad that his paper comparing the Babylonians and the Hebrews had met with Col. Mackinlay's approval, and he was all the more gratified because, when he came to write it, he (the author) found that he was doing it upon somewhat different lines, and in a less interesting way than he had at first contemplated. He hopes, therefore, that, notwithstanding its defects, it will appeal to most of the members of the Victoria Institute as a contribution (though possibly an imperfect one) to a very important branch of Biblical study. It is needless to say, that this contrast between the Babylonians and the Hebrews might have been greatly extended, but