thousands of the first-born of the land, of the drowning of their monarch and all his army in the Red Sea. If all this had really taken place, is it not reasonable and probable that the Egyptian historians would have known something about it, and that some record would have been made of it?

Admitting the possibility of the Red Sea opening in the manner claimed; that three millions of people could subsist forty years in an arid desert, where water and verdure are the scarcest things known; that their clothes did not grow old nor wear out; that food should daily fall from heaven to keep that vast body of people alive for nearly half a century; that the river Jordan, when at high flood, condescendíngly parted its waters, holding, with a firm wall of the aqueous fluid, the floods that must have accumulated on the upper side, while three millions of men, women, and children, with all their cattle and luggage, could pass over; admitting that by the word of the man Joshua the sun and moon should stop in their courses for nearly the length of a day; admit ting all these utter impossibilities, is it likely that this host of three millions of people could enter a land where were numerous kings, nations, and cities, and exterminate them with the sword, taking possession of the land, and no neighboring nations know anything about it, though the Phoenicians, an intelligent, literary people lived in the immediate vicinity, on the northwest, the Egyptians a short distance to the southwest, the Pelasgians and Ionians, who occupied the isles and mainlands of Greece, and who at that time were in vigorous existence, to say nothing of the Moabites, the Edomites, and the Arabians in the southeast? Is it likely, to repeat, that such events could take place and no neighboring nation know aught of them?

And after hundreds of years had passed by, and the glorious reigns of David and Solomon arrived, when a solid, well-organized nationality had been established, when fabulous wealth had been accumulated, surpassed by no other nation, when the gorgeous temple had been built, requiring the labor of 153,000 men for seven years, and an expenditure of wealth in gold and silver amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars; with the erection of the king's palace in

keeping with the temple, and when a seraglio of one thousand women were kept for the king's individual pleasure, especially when this king was said to be the wisest man in all the earth, and whose fame and glory were known to all nations, is it likely that all this could exist, and neither the Chaldeans, the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Grecians, nor the Romans, all of whom were at that period in flourishing existence, know anything of it? No contemporaneous historian of any nationality, no literary man of any country at that era, seems to have known anything of the great Jewish nation, of its wealth, numbers, and glory. Not a word of history in any nation existing at that time can be found. anywhere. Hesiod and Homer knew nothing of the land of Palestine or the nation which inhabited it, though the latter often spoke of neighboring nations, of the Phoenicians, the Phrygians, etc. Xenophon knew nothing of such a land or people; Pythagoras knew nothing of them, though he passed over twenty years in Egypt, and possessed himself of the literature of the world. Neither Socrates nor Plato knew of such a land or people. Berosus of Chaldea, a cousin nation, knew nothing of them. Herodotus, the famous Grecian traveler, though he twice visited Syria, and must have crossed the land of the Jews, and soon after the glorious reign of Solomon, when Jerusalem and the temple were in all their glory, yet he never heard of the famous King Solomon, his powerful nation, and all the brilliance which surrounded him. It is certainly most reasonable to conclude that had Solomon, in all his glory as a king of a powerful nation, surrounded by remarkable wealth and affluence, thus existed, some of the nations named and some of the writers pointed out would have known something of it, and have given some account of what they knew. Herodotus especially, as he wrote pretty full accounts of his travels and discoveries in Egypt, Syria, and Chaldea, would certainly have mentioned the nation of the Israelites had they been as far advanced in civilization as represented, possessing a large and wealthy city, with a temple vieing with all similar structures in the world. As IIerodotus saw nothing of all this, and said nothing of it, it is but fair to conclude that in his time there was no such people,

no such king, no such city, and no such temple. We have no contemporaneous history to corroborate in the slightest degree the Bible story of the wealth, populousness, and advanced state of civilization of that country. And however, anxious we may be to believe all the unknown writers of the Bible tell us, we have nothing to corroborate it, nothing to assure us it is worthy of our credence.

The diminutive size of the county is another strong argument that no such nation could have flourished there with the numbers and power claimed. A broken, mountainous country, filled with useless ravines and sterile rocky summits, but one hundred and forty miles in length, with less than an average width of forty miles, could hardly sustain a population of six millions of people, which, at the very lowest calculation, it must have done to be able to turn out an army of fighting men numbering over a million and a half, which it is claimed David had in his kingdom, as ascertained by a careful census. It can hardly be possible that such a broken, sterile country, containing but five thousand six hundred square miles, could produce such a people, or be able to sustain a loss of five hundred thousand men in battle in a single day as claimed (2 Chron. xiii, 3). These claims are opposed to the experience of mankind, the history of all other nations, and are in every way improbable. It is far more reasonable to believe that these wonderful statements were written out by some big story-teller within a few hundred years of our era, and that they have not truth for a basis. It is extremely doubtful whether there were such men, even, as David and Solomon ; and if they lived, it is very uncertain whether the nation over which they ruled was as populous as claimed, or that they possessed a large and powerful city, as Jerusalem is represented to have been, or that the structure called Solomon's temple ever existed save in the brains of imaginative and credulous human beings. There is not a particle of tangible proof in existence that Solomon's temple ever stood in Jerusalem. Prof. A. L. Rawson, who has made four journeys to Palestine, and has traversed every square haif mile in the country, spending also much time in Jerusalem, assures the writer of these pages that there is not a stone left of the tem

ple ascribed to Solomon, neither in the foundation walls nor elsewhere. In addition, he says there is not a stone or anything of the kind in the entire country in proof of an ancient Jewish civilized population once having occupied it. He found remains of Egyptian architecture, of Phoenician architecture, of Grecian and Roman architecture, but nothing distinctively Jewish. He also entertains very grave doubts whether a temple was even built under Ezra, while he feels very positive that Solomon and his temple are decidedly myths. He holds it as true that Herod built a temple in Jerusalem, and that that was the first of any importance that ever stood in that city. Let it be remembered that it is far easier to write fables and Munchausen tales than to make such wild vagaries truthful and reliable.

LEGENDS AND INCIDENTS.

It may be interesting to look up some of the traditions connected with the Bible story. Abraham was the son of Terah, and the father was a manufacturer of gods, or images representing them. This is according to the story of Josephus, as well as one or two other writers. Terah having occasion to take a journey, left his business in the hands of his son Abraham to attend shop and make sales. A man called into the god factory with the apparent purpose of making a purchase of an image. He asked Abraham how old he was. He replied, "I am fifty." "Yet," said the stranger, "you worship an image made but yesterday." These pointed words made a decided impression upon the mind of the future Father of the Faithful. A short time after a woman brought flour as an offering to the gods, but Abraham, instead of presenting the oblation, placed a hatchet in the hands of the largest image and broke all the others in pieces. Upon the return of his father the question was immediately asked why this destruction of his valuable property had taken place. Abraham replied that the gods had got into a quarrel over the oblation of flour, and that the largest and strongest had destroyed all the others. "You are bantering, my son," replied Terah; "for images have not sense to do that." "Ah!

say you so?" returned Abraham; "then how absurd to wor ship them!" It is submitted to the reader whether this legend is less probable and that Abraham should have become convinced of the absurdity of image-worship by his own good sense, than that God should have appeared to him in person and showed him the foolishness of idolatry.

Although Abraham may have evoluted beyond the worship of images, he did not seem to make much progress in advance of what had been attained by other nations as to the rites and ceremonies employed in worship. The rite of circumcision was simply borrowed from the Egyptians and other nations. Sacrifice he employed precisely as did all the pagan nations around him. He planted a grove at Beersheba, where “he called upon the name of the Lord." The pagans all planted. groves, and cailed upon the names of their lords. His worship was nothing more than pagan worship.

The descendants of Isaac and Jacob were simply one nomadic family of half-savage herdsmen and hunters. They had yet no priests. The eldest member of each family performed their simple religious ceremonies the same as among their pagan neighbors. Isaac and Jacob both married descendants of Nahor, the brother of Abraham. Nahor remained in Mesopotamia, while Abraham and Lot had removed to Canaan. They were all undoubtedly idolators. The nature of their worship can be correctly judged from the fact that Rachel, when she left her father's house, stole the household images or gods belonging to her father. She and her sister Leah and their handmaids doubtless mingled with the education of their children the same kind of religion in which they themselves had been reared. These children were mostly grown to be men before Jacob removed to Bethel. Up to that time there can be no question but what they had all been idol-worshipers.

The Bible says when God appeared to Moses he said, "I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob as El-Shaddai; but by my name, Jehovah, was I not known unto them." The transiation of El-Shaddai is the Almighty God. From the fragments and legends which are all we have to guide us, it is nearly impossible to decide what ideas of the