Jabez was a king from the day of his birth, we see Joseph appearing before a mere child in his eighth year. The use of the third person in the address of the chief butler to Pharaoh, when he said, "Me he restored unto mine office and him he hanged," may not be significant, but again it may point to one different from the youthful monarch, and exercising sovereignty in his name, in other words to Mareshah or Moeris. If this be the case, we may presume that since his act of judgment upon the two officials he had died, and that Joseph became his successor as the royal adviser and viceroy. At any rate we know from Joseph's calling himself "a father to Pharaoh," though he was but thirty years of age when he stood before him, that Jabez must have been at best a youth; and the fact that Joseph was exalted to the highest position under the king would seem to indicate the previous death or withdrawal from office of the Midianite regent.

Jabez being the Apophis and Pepi of the lists and monuments, it was to be expected that Egyptian history should at least mention those who in Chronicles are placed in proximity to this honourable Pharaoh. Accordingly we found Anub, his uncle, and Acharchel, his kinsman, in the Shepherd dynasty, as set forth by Manetho and the Turin Papyrus under the forms Anoob and Archles, two names so uncommon as to take their resemblance to those of Chronicles out of the sphere of mere coincidence. Seeking for a further recognition of Anub, who as Anubis is mentioned together with Hercules or Acharchel in more than one ancient list of Egyptian divinities, he was discovered in Uenephes of the so-called first dynasty of Manetho. As the first pyramid builder, and by Cho or Cochome, the site of his pyramids, he connected with Kaiechos or Choos, the Kekeu, whose pyramid is regarded as the oldest Egyptian monument, and whom Manetho places in his second dynasty. Since there is good evidence of the multiplication of dynasties and of individual Pharaohs by this historian, it is not unlikely that Kenkenes, the immediate predecessor of Uenephes in the first dynasty, is but a corrupted form of Kaiechos or Choos, who is Coz the father of Anub. If we identify Chons the Theban god with Kaiechos, the form Kenkenes is capable of easy explanation. I have not yet indicated the monumental Anub; as a pyramid builder, I hold him to have been Kneph Chufu, the contemporary, during the latter

Statement of Results.

311 part of the reign of Cheops, with that illustrious Pharaoh. The initial letter of Anub is the Hebrew ayin, which often receives the power of g or c in transliteration into other languages. Thus Canopus and Anubis are the same term. The surname Chufu he must have acquired from some alliance with the house of Cheops or Joab. In Usaphais, the successor of Uenephes, and in Biophis or Binothris, who follows Choos, Zobebah, the daughter of Coz, and sister of Anub, appeared, as the first female sovereign in the land of Egypt. Seeking the aid of the other records it was found that Greece knew Anub, the man of grapes, and Uenephes, the king, under the name of Oenopion, king of Chios, the son of Bacchus, the god of wine, whose ancient worship connects with Cybebe and Sabazius. This Bacchus again was the son of Ammon, according to the mythologists, and thus reveals his Egyptian origin. In Thebez was his seat; and Chonsu was his son, who, by the representations of divinities upon the monuments, is allied with Anubis and Bubastis. Bubastis, as the goddess of the moon, which she is portrayed as bearing on her head, must be the Greek Io, mother of Epaphus, and Zobebah, mother of Jabez. These were late divinities compared with the old solar line of Ra, and came into note only when the twelfth dynasty began its reign. Now, placing the Hebrew line alongside of the maternal ancestry of Jabez, the four generations, Ammon, Coz, Zobebah, Jabez, may easily coincide with the three, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and give us in Ammon, the god, the son of Lot, for Ammon and Isaac were contemporaries. It is true that we have little else on which to base this identification, save the undoubted Egyptian origin of the Moabite god Chemosh, and the fact that in the story of the Theban Niobe many mythologists have found a reminiscence of Lot's wife.

But the name of Ammon conducted us to Thebez or No

Ammon and to Manetho's twelfth dynasty. There we found, with the deities Ammon and Chons, the Pharaohs named Amenemhe after their ancestor, one of whom had the same fate as Ati, the husband of Zobebah. It was, however, in Amenemhe III. Moeris, that we met with the great Egyptian builder and legislator, who may fitly represent the Pepi Merira of the sixth dynasty. If the record of Chronicles be true, which, apart from its appearance in the most truthful of all books, should be established by the fact that the men who handed it

down were the contemporaries in Egypt and in Thebez itself of those whose names it commemorates, then it follows of necessity that this Theban dynasty is that in which Jabez occurs. In order, therefore, to restore the history of Jabez to the world, all the glories of the reign of Moeris must be added to those of Pepi Merira and the obscure notices of Apophis. As we have seen, many modern writers place Joseph under a Pharaoh of this dynasty, feeling compelled to do so by the coincidence of the reforms introduced by the Hebrew viceroy, as these are recorded in Genesis, with those attributed to the Osirtesens and Amenemhes. The most ancient monument that marks the site of On or Heliopolis, the city whence came Joseph's wife, is that of Osirtesen I.

The materials at my disposal are not such as to enable me to give the Pharaohs of the twelfth dynasty their individual places in the scheme of Chronicles. The present system of chronicling the monarchs of Egypt by their dynastic titles is as absurd and useless as it would be to call the English John, Plantagenet III., and Elizabeth, Tudor v. The Pharaohs had simple names like other people, and these names, such as Cheops, Schafra, Pepi, are the only ones by which they can be identified in other records. For they do survive in other records, not only in that contained in the book of Chronicles, nor in those which Sanscrit and Persian, Greek and Latin authors have written, but also in the oral tradition of far-off peoples in whose ears the name of Egypt has never been breathed. And one And one great mission of the long-neglected chapters with which this paper has been occupied is to reduce to system and unity all these old legends of the world's second infancy, and prove that God has made of one blood all nations of men.

It was no part of my scheme to reduce the alleged antiquity of the Egyptian annals and place the patriarch Abraham not many generations later than their commencement. I had no theory to work out, no preconceived notion to prove true. The study of Chronicles led me, whether I would or not, into Egypt, astonishing me more, perhaps, than any of my readers may be astonished with the new revelation the book unfolded, when read in the light of the ancient glories of that historic land. Nor did it diminish these glories to find that Abraham must have been the guest of one of Zoan's most ancient

Antiquity of Egypt's History.

313

Pharaohs, or that Isaac halted on its borders before Cheops reared his pyramid. Such, however, are among the results obtained from the study of the one Pharaoh, whom the Word of Inspiration commends as more honourable than his brethren, now no longer to be known as Apappus Maximus, but as Jabez the Good. JOHN CAMPBELL.

THE

ART. VI.-The Conservation of Energy.

"We

HE man who journeyed from Jerusalem to Jericho fell among thieves. The doctrine of the conservation of energy has been still more unfortunate; it has fallen a prey to the magazine scientists and rhetoricians. These have stripped it of its true meaning, and saddled false ones upon it, until scarcely any likeness to its scientific self remains. read constantly," says Professor Tait, "of the so-called 'physical forces'-heat, light, electricity, etc.; of the 'correlation of the physical forces,' the 'persistence or conservation of force.' To an accurate man of science, all this is simply error and confusion." These misunderstandings of the doctrine have given great support to materialism and atheism. Hence the need of examining the subject.

The doctrine in question was first known as the correlation and conservation of the forces. The forces were said to correlate, and hence force is one. Force was also said to be conserved, and hence was presumably eternal. But this terminology was treacherous; for force is defined in text-books on physics and mechanics as anything which tends to change the condition of a body whether in motion or at rest. Hence, gravity, cohesion, affinity, repulsion, pressure, impact, etc., were all arranged under the head of force. Now, as the forces were said to correlate, it was easy to blunder into the notion that all the attractive and repulsive forces of matter can pass into one another. It was not uncommon to hear it asserted that chemical affinity, and even repulsion, were but transformed gravity. Even the space-filling quality of matter depends upon force; and since all the forces correlate, it occurred to some speculators that solidity and inertia also must, in some way, correlate with the other forces. Other speculators, whose ignorance was equally dense and exhaustive, urged that this would never do; as in such case matter might go off in a puff, and thus nothing would be left. This necessity of limiting

1 From a suggestive treatise on Theism. By Borden P. Bowne, Professor of Philosophy in Boston University.

2 Recent Advances in Physical Science, p. 389.