258 
disjointed, part being found in one spot and part in another, 
but which, when compared together and classified, and as far 
as possible reconstructed, are quite sufficient to convince the 
skilful palaeontologist that they are segments of one great ori- 
ginal. In like manner all the traditions, mythologies, writings^ 
inscriptions, paintings, &c., are so many excavated relics oi 
primeval history, which, though often broken up and dis- 
figured, and found among a vast variety of nations, yet when 
carefully examined and scientifically arranged, become capable 
of such reconstruction as to satisfy the ethnologist that they 
are parts of one authentic original. Assuming, then, as I 
hinted at first, that the Pentateuch is both authentic and 
genuine, — facts which I trust none of you dispute, we 
have in this line of argument an ethnic testimony to its accu- 
racy which cannot but confirm and consolidate our faith, and 
which at a time like the present, when the Pentateuch is 
assailed both by critical and scientific scepticism, must be very 
consolatory to timid and doubting hearts. 
The Chairman— Ladies and Gentlemen, it is my duty as Chairman— and 
I do it from my heart— to move a vote of thanks to Mr. Titcomb for his 
most excellent lecture. If our cumulative votes could be brought to bear on 
him as his cumulative evidence has been brought to bear upon the subjecu 
before us, I think he would stand very high indeed. (Cheers.) 
Captain F. Petrie, Hon. Sec.— Before the discussion commences, I have 
to state that Mr. Gosse, one of our Vice-Presidents, has sent me a communi- 
cation with regard to the subject of the paper just read, and, with your 
permission, I will read it. 
“ I regret that I shall not have the opportunity of hearing this paper read. 
I hail it with great satisfaction : it is most admirable and most valuable ; lifl 
only fault is its shortness. But I venture to express an earnest h°pethat W. 
esteemed author will dig still deeper m this P c h mme, and lay bef or. the 
Victoria Institute more of these treasures of ancient lore, which lI believe are 
almost exhaustless ; treasures of historic confirmation of the Word of God, 
of great value, because of their absolute freedom from all susprcion of 
sion with Hebrew authorities. The force of this sort of evidence is cumula- 
lative : therefore, the more we can accumulate, the better. I venture to ask 
a few questions on some points of detail. < 
“ In section 4, and passim, the author reckons the Phoenicians m the 
Semitic family.’ But if the Bible is true, the Phoenicians were not descended 
from Shem, but from Ham ; for Sidon was the first-born son of Canaan 
(Gen. x. 15, 19). Perhaps the affinity of the Phmnician ^ 
Hebrew is intended ; but language is one thing, family another. _ Ths 
guage is meant, I gather from sections 28 and 29 ; where i I’l 
generally conceded truth, that Semitism was a gradual P^ 10 ^ 1 
ment from the older forms of the Turanian and Hamitic tongue s not 
the truth of what is the predicate here (the priority ofother t 0 ^ e stothe 
Shemitic) that I am mooting ;-perhaps something might be said on the other 
