114 
contains good history ; and, on the other hand, it should he observed that it 
by no means follows that because the ordinary facts contained in the Old 
Testament are good history, the supernatural element is good history likewise. 
And here I will refer to a conversation I had last January with a gentleman 
who stands in a high position as a writer on the constitutional history of 
England. He told me that in the documents of the middle ages, those who 
were engaged in historical researches meet with a number of facts, just such 
as might be expected in ordinary life, all told in so simple and truthful a 
manner, that no person would think of disputing that they were good history ; 
but, he added, in the closest connection with these are a number of 
miraculous stories which no man on earth could possibly believe to be true. 
According, then, to my friend’s observation, we have during the middle ages 
a very large amount of good history, containing the most ordinary facts that 
can well be conceived, and so told that they receive ready credence, while 
united with these in their immediate context, are a number of miraculous 
statements, which, as he says, it is impossible for any one to believe. Here 
we have two things — a true historical statement and an utterly fabulous, 
miraculous story, side by side ; and I think that this so far bears on the 
subject that there are numbers of persons who suppose that because we can 
prove that the Old Testament contains a great deal of good history, we are, 
therefore, proving the historical truth of its miraculous element. I say that 
it behoves us carefully to look at this matter, because it is of no use to 
attempt to put down unbelievers’ objections to the historical character of the 
Old Testament by such arguments, which, of course, can be given in 
abundance ; but what we want to prove is, not the truth of the history 
generally, but that the superhuman and supernatural element contained in 
the Bible is also true. This is the real point, and the whole gist of the 
modern controversy respecting both the Old and the New Testament 
Scriptures centres in this. To this therefore we ought to address ourselves, 
and it seems to me that with all the proof given in this Paper of the general 
truth of the History of Joseph, as well as the proof that might be given of the 
other characters of the Old Testament, still the Paper does not deal with 
the great fact which we wish to maintain, namely, that not only is there 
a great deal of truth in Biblical history, but that the supernatural element is 
as true as the ordinary facts. 
Rev. A. R. Gregory . — May I ask Mr. Tomkins one question upon a point 
which struck me very forcibly when listening to one part of the paper. 
During the interim which elapsed between the death of J oseph and the taking 
away of his bones into Palestine, where might his remains have been kept, and 
how would those who removed them procure them when they wanted to take 
the same away, especially when we consider the circumstances imder which 
they left ? 
Rev. H. G. Tomkins. — I think I can give you a tolerably good theory in 
answer to your question. In Egypt the destination of the mummy was 
to be consigned to that sepulchre to which the family had constant access, 
and, in the Egyptian sepulchres the family not only had constant access, but 
