two testimonies of antiquity have been brought forward to show that the name Jehovah, or Jao, existed beyond the limits of the Mosaic institutions; the one from Macrobius, proving, it is thought, the employment of this name in the Grecian mysteries-the other in Porphyry, showing its existence among the Phoenicians. Macrobius flourished in the first part of the fifth century of the Christian era, under Theodosius the younger. The passage in his writings above referred to, consists of verses ascribed to Apollo Clarius. According to Tholuck, Jablonsky, in his Pantheon Egyptiacum, has clearly shown that these verses belong to a Judaizing Gnostic. Besides, does the knowledge of the name Jao, among the Greeks, or Egyptians, or Orientals of Western Asia, in the second or third century of our era, prove that it originated among them, and not rather that it was derived from the Jews then universally dispersed ?

"We know from Jamblicus, that the syncretic theosophists of that age were accustomed to adopt foreign names of God, and employ them in their incantations."-Tholuck.

The passage from Porphyry, is professedly derived from Sanchoniathon, and is preserved by two of the fathers of the church, Eusebius and Theodoret. It, however, fails entirely in answering the end for which it is cited. Porphyry simply says, "Sanchoniathon gave a true account of the Jewish

history, and this because he received his accounts from a priest of Iεvw "—Jevo.

There are two other data which are supposed to furnish proof of the hypothesis which I am opposing, one of which is an inscription on the temple of Isis at Sais, transmitted by Plutarch, but of which no mention is made by Herodotus, or Diodorus, or Strabo. For an exposure of the insufficiency of these testimonials, the reader must, however, be referred to the article of Tholuck, where entire satisfaction may be obtained.

The present section has already reached an undue length, and we have yet before us a class of objections, which, if I mistake not, our author regards as particularly forcible. The next section will contain an examination of their validity.

SECTION XII.

Objection to its genuineness, derived from the alleged fact, that Moses was unacquainted with Hebrew, the Egyptian being his vernacular language.

To the class of objections discussed in the last section, belong the suggestion, "that Moses was never out of Egypt, except so far as the land of Moab," and the consecutive inquiry, "What could induce him to place Paradise upon the Euphrates?

And what could he know of Pison, and Gihon, and Hiddekel?" Prior, therefore, to the consideration of the difficulty stated at the head of the present essay, it will be necessary to inquire how far the Hebrew lawgiver was qualified by his attainments in geographical knowledge, at least, for communicating the information contained in the book of Genesis. It is thought that the above stated questions, although captiously proposed, will, in their solution, lead to the adoption of views entirely at variance with the result at which the author of them hoped to arrive. For where, in the whole range of history, may we find an individual in whom so many qualifications for writing the production in question, meet, as in Moses-descended from Chaldean ancestors-nurtured at the court of Pharaoh, and instructed in all the learning of the Egyptians— having, doubtless, intercourse with the Phoenician merchants, whose pursuits led them to all parts of the world then accessible to commercial enterprise; and who, in fine, spent eighty years of his life in Arabia—during forty of which as a private individual, his acquaintance must have been extensive with the Nomadic tribes who ranged from Egypt to the Euphrates, and who throughout the forty years succeeding, as the leader of the Israelites, had extensive dealings, peaceful as well as warlike, with various surrounding nations. Surely, it is alone. necessary to direct the reader's attention to the

facts thus hastily enumerated, to produce in him a feeling of surprise that any one should for a moment have questioned the entire competency of Moses, to furnish all the geographical and historical details which are contained in the early Hebrew writingsand when the question recurs, "What could induce Moses to place Paradise upon the Euphrates?" we have only to answer, that there was the first seat of the human race, and that with this fact the historian had ample means of becoming acquainted.

But let us now advance to the consideration of the objection," that Moses and the Israelites did not, and could not write, or read, or speak Hebrew, which was the language of the Phoenicians and Canaanites, until after the invasion and peaceable settlement of the promised land." What then is the proof of this startling assertion? It is said "that Chaldee was Abraham's native language, and that Hebrew was the language of the Canaanites which Abraham and his posterity learnt by travelling among them." Who doubts this? And yet our author, prodigal of testimony where none is wanted, cites in support of it, Dr. Rees, and his authorities quoted under the head

Hebrew char

acter,' in the Encyclopedia-which authorities are Le Clerc, and Joseph Scaliger, and Walton, and Selden.

I have said, who questions the statement above made? I know of no other but Dr. Cooper him

self, who leans on it for support, and yet who professes to disbelieve it in part. He admits that Abraham acquired the Hebrew language, but "naturally infers that he would not teach it to his descendants, from his great reluctance to permit Isaac to marry in Canaan." However natural may be this inference, it appears to be not only entirely without proof, but opposed by the learned authorities which are above quoted, and conclusively shown to be false by a passage in the patriarchal history. Respect is had to Genesis xxxi. 46, 47, where at the parting of Jacob, and his father-in-law Laban, a pile of stones was erected as a memorial of a covenant into which they had entered. "Laban called it Jegar-sahadutha, but Jacob called it Galeed." Their languages were therefore different-Laban spoke Chaldee, but Jacob, the grandson of Abraham, and the progenitor of the Israelites, who at the close of his life, with his family, made Egypt his permanent residence, spoke a different dialect which was Hebrew. It appears then to be incontrovertible that not only did Abraham, according to the admission of our antagonist, acquire a knowledge of Hebrew, but that this also became the language of his descendants. And all this occurred by a process the easiest imaginable— Hebrew and Chaldee, now cognate dialects, nearly resembling each other, originally presented still less diversity than is at present manifest. For accord