^TTTTTT^ 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 
 nunquam las sal veil alio sylva 
 A.D.1B84. 
 
(Presented by HON. D. ^ETHUNE DUFFIELD, 
 
 From Library of Rev. Geo Duffield, D.D. 
 
 In tall iiunquam las sal venalio sylva 
 A.D.1B84‘. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES.- 
 
 %Jl 
 
 Li 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/lecturesontrutho00cock_0 
 
LECTURES 
 
 ^ ON THE ^ ^ . i j 
 
 : I 
 
 TieuTHC o:f thce 
 
 CHRISTIAN RELIGION 
 
 DELIVERED BEFORE THE STUDENTS OF THE 
 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ON 
 SUNDAY AFTERNOONS 
 
 BY 
 
 REV. B. F. COCKER, D. D., 
 
 Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY RE I«#1IBRARY OF THE 
 
 FEB 4 1933 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 DETROIT : 
 
 J. M. ARNOLD & CO., PUBLISHERS. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the Year 1S73, by 
 B. F. COCKER, 
 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
 
 Printed and Bound at the Courier Office, 
 Ann Arbor, Mich. 
 
(LG^I-A 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 “ If any man vjill do his he shall knoxv of the doctrine -whether 
 it he of God.”— John vii. 17. 
 
 There are a ^reat mail}" opinions entertained by us all 
 in regard to iminan duty, in regard to God and liis relation 
 to the world, in regard to a future life and our destination 
 thereto, which rest almost exclusively on the teachings of 
 the Hebrew and Chiastian Scriptures. 
 
 Were we asked to trace our opinion to its source, and 
 state the fundamental reason for our belief, most of us 
 would appeal to some text of scripture ; we would fall back 
 upon some utterance of Moses or Christ. But why do we 
 appeal to the authority of scripture? Wiiy do we quote the 
 words of Moses or of Christ as though they were more reli- 
 able than the words of other men ? Is it not because we 
 regard the Bible as, somehow, a book sul generis — a book 
 standing b}- itself — and liaving a Dieine element in it, which 
 sets it apart from other books, and enables it to speak to us 
 with more authority than any other book on earth ? 
 
 Most men now believe and have believed in all ages, that 
 God does in some way reveal himself to man. In the econ- 
 omy of nature, in the evolution of human history, in the 
 
 religious consciousness of oiir race, by prophets and seers 
 B 
 
 827489 
 
2 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 ill some way, God makes known his will to men. Every 
 nation has had its inspired men and its sacred books, which 
 have been held in reverence, and appealed to as authorized 
 expositions of the Divine will. The Vedas and the Laws 
 of Menu among the Hindoos; the writings of Confucius 
 among the Chinese; the Zend-Avesta among the Persians; 
 Homer with the early Greeks; the Koran with the Moham- 
 medans, have all been revered and quoted as, in some sense, 
 uevelations from God. And, now, without being under the 
 necessity of affirming that these claims were utterly ground- 
 dess, and that these books contained no elements of eternal 
 Truth, the Christian nations claim that in the scriptures of 
 the Old and Kew Testament, we have the fullest, the com- 
 pletest, and the best Revelation of the character of God and 
 the duties and destiny of man. Christians generally believe 
 in the divine legation of Moses, and the divine mission of 
 Christ. Moses claimed that he was sent b}^ God to legislate 
 for the Hebrew race, and that the laws he gave to them were 
 directly from God. A.nd Christ claimed that he came down 
 from heaven to make a fuller and more complete communi- 
 cation of the mind of God, and a larger revelation of eter- 
 nal Truth. “ To this end was I born, and for this purpose 
 came I into the world, that I might bear testimony unto the 
 Truth.” They both professed to have a superhuman knowl- 
 edge — to foretell future events which lay beyond the field of 
 all human prevision. They both claimed to be endowed 
 Avith superhuman powers — to do things which human skill 
 and human science confess themselves incompetent to do. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 3 
 
 And they both established a new order of society, which has 
 exerted a mighty influence on the fortunes of our race, and 
 which remains unto this daj^ 
 
 And, now, it is our privilege and our duty to examine 
 into the nature of these professions, and sit in judgment 
 upon these claims. We are not to be deterred from the most 
 searching scrutiny by any fear that these claims are too 
 sacred to be questioned hy human reason, or to be tested by 
 human logic. They both profess to have a Divine call; to 
 come to us as messengers from heaven ; and tliey offer to us 
 certain credentials. Wc liavc a right to examine these cre- 
 dentials, and to judge of their validity. The Bihle plants 
 itself upon a certain order of historical facts; we may ex- 
 amine these facts; we may subject them to a rigid historic 
 criticism, and we may ask. Do they warrant tlie claims which 
 to-day are set up on its behalf? 
 
 This is the discussion to which I shall invite your atten- 
 tion in this brief course of lectures. There are several 
 methods of inquiry open to us. Assuming that God has 
 made a revelation to us in the laws and ideas of our reason, 
 we might ask if the professed revelation contained in the 
 Bible agrees with this revelation in the constitution of our 
 minds. Or, assuming that God has revealed himself in the 
 course and constitution of nature, we may ask, Do the teach- 
 ings of the Bible harmonize with the facts of science? Oj*, 
 inasmuch as the Christian Revelation {i. e., the whole Bible) 
 is based upon a continuous tissue of liistoric facts, spread 
 over 4,000 years; a tissue which in numberless instances is 
 
4 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 interwoven with the history of the Five Great Monarchies 
 of the Ancient Worltl, and thus offers so many opportunities 
 to he tested and detected, we may ask, Are the events re- 
 corded in the Bible historically accurate? Are the records 
 confirmed by other histories, monuments, ruins, gems, med- 
 als, and coins? In short, is the Bible a histoiy of real facts, 
 or a collection of legends and myths, after the manner of 
 the Iliad or the Yedic Hymns? This last is the course we 
 propose to pursue, and if we can establish the facts, there 
 will be no difficulty in showing that the doctrine grounded 
 on them must be accepted. 
 
 As a prelude and preparation for this study, I shall oc- 
 cupy the rest of the hour with some observations on the 
 spirit in which such inquirj^ should be conducted ; and I re- 
 mark, first, that sincerity of mind, honest}^ of purpose, a 
 desire to know, and a willingness to obey the truth, are the 
 first requisites to our success. 
 
 The investigation of truth is, of course, the proper busi- 
 ness of the understanding (logical faculty) ; to observe facts, 
 to scrutinize these facts as to their relative value and import; 
 to examine the evidence on which facts that have not come 
 under our personal observation and experience, are based 
 and attested ; to classify and generalise these facts ; and then 
 to infer the general principle or law which they reveal, is 
 the office of the reasoning or logical powers. This is the 
 inductive method of inquiry, sometimes called the “Bacon- 
 ian Method,” because supposed to have been first inaugurated 
 by Bacon. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 5 
 
 And, so far as Christianity is an historical religion, that 
 is, so far as it is founded upon the facts which are recorded 
 in the New Testament, the facts of the Eedeeiner^s Life, 
 Death, and Resurrection ; the facts of tlie early planting and 
 training of the Christian church; and the facts which Chris- 
 tianity presents to-day in the world around us, we claim that 
 Christian Theology is an inductive science, and we are to 
 determine its nature as an economy, and its validity as a di- 
 vine revelation, fj'om an induction of all the facts. We are 
 not unmindful that Christianity is a Life, as well as a Dog- 
 ma. It is a vital experience for the heart, which is to be 
 consciouslj^ felt; as well as a system of principles grounded 
 upon facts, which is to be thought out intellectually. We 
 shall advert to this peculiarity more fully by and by. At 
 present we allude to it simpl}^ to protest against the senti- 
 ment lirst propounded by Schleierinacher, and now very 
 positively affirmed in some quarters, that religion is exclu- 
 sively an affair of the heart, and in no sense a question for 
 the logical understanding. 
 
 In my judgment, this is an unsafe position to assume, 
 and its advocates are treading on treacherous ground. A 
 system of Theology which assumes and openly asserts a 
 perpetual conflict between faith and reason, an everlasting 
 antagonism between religion and science, cannot maintain 
 itself in the world. Christianity cannot sustain itself in a 
 ceaseless warfare between thought and feeling, between the 
 head and the heart. 
 
 The intellect of man demands and must have its satis- 
 
6 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 faction, as well as the heart. However much a man may 
 desire it, lie cannot surrender his honest convictions, silence 
 all the questions of his reason, and submit himself to the 
 ex-cathedra affirmations of a self-constituted ecclesiastical 
 authority, even to satisfy the religious wants of his heart. 
 A man must have settled convictions, definite principles, 
 which send their tap-roots down to the very foundations of 
 his intellectual being, or he can develop no strength of moral 
 and religious character. A state of inward contradiction, of 
 perpetual antagonism between thought and feeling, reason 
 and faith, is death to all real earnestness. And if it is de- 
 manded of men as a condition sine qua non of their becom- 
 ing Christians, that they shall surrender the high prerogative 
 of reason, and cease to think; if it is claimed that the teach- 
 ings of the church are not, and must not be subjected to the 
 scrutiny of the critical and logical faculty, but must be 
 blindly believed, the consequence will be that men will 
 stand up in their God-given manhood, and assert their intel- 
 lectual freedom in spite of all the anathemas of a self-styled 
 orthodoxy, and the threatened fires of Tophet. Men will 
 believe that God gave them their reason, not to befool or 
 mislead them, but to guide them. They will believe that 
 they are responsible to no man on earth for its exercise, and 
 if they conscientiously use the rational powers which God 
 has given them, they will at the last da}^ meet his approval, 
 better, at least, than if they had blindly followed any man ; 
 and so far they are right. We cannot crush out the honest 
 convictions of men by an arbitrary assertion of dogmatic 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 7 
 
 ^lutllOl•it3^ They will demaud, it is their duty to demand, 
 on what ground our pretended authority is based. We may 
 answer, on the teachings of Scripture. They reply, yes, on 
 your interpretation of Scripture, but we are just as able to 
 interpret Scripture for ourselves as you are, and we do not 
 choose to accept your interpretation. 
 
 The^" may even go so far as to ask, What evidence have 
 we that the Bible itself is in religious matters an infallible 
 authority? And the}^ have a right to ask that question. It 
 is the most natural and proper question that can arise in an 
 inquiring mind, and it is our duty to answer them, not with 
 reproaches and threats, but with reasons and arguments. It 
 is their duty to ask a reason for the hope that is in the 
 Christian ; it is every Christian’s dut}^ to be i‘eady to give an 
 answer to any one who asks a reason, and, mark 3^011, our 
 answer must be ‘‘a reason for our hope,” not a mere rela- 
 tion of our religious experience, or a confession of our faith; 
 it must be a re ison, grounded on evidence, that is, a proof 
 based upon tlie induction of facts. 
 
 Tlie most unfortunate and injudicious defenders of 
 Christian it3" are those who assert the opposition of Reason 
 and Faith, and demand a blind and unquestioning belief in 
 order to satisf>' the wants of the heart. If the service of 
 God is not a reasonable service, the race can never be 
 brought to the obedience of faith. Our belief of (Christian 
 principles must at last repose on well attested facts. Our 
 theolog3^ must be an inductive science. 
 
 But in order to our success in the use of the inductive 
 
8 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 method, a rectitude of purpose, an honesty of mind, an ar- 
 dent devotion to truth, and a determination to embrace the 
 truth, are indispensable requisites. The passion of men, the 
 indifierence and consequeni inattention of men, may vitiate 
 even this method of inquiry. Attachment to favorite theo- 
 ries, educational prepossessions, regard for mere personal 
 considerations, denominational or sectarian prejudices, may 
 lead men to overlook a large class of facts, and an order of 
 principles which bear directly upon the issue. Under the 
 influence of these feelings, men are led to attach an undue 
 importance to one class of facts in nature and history, or 
 to one form of statement in Sci'ipture, and disregard all 
 the rest, or rob them of their significance and value. 
 
 In fact, in all inquiries, whether Ethical, Scientific, His- 
 torical, or Keligious, the moi*al condition of the heart has a 
 powerful influence upon the operations of the intellect. 
 Passion can easil}^ becloud the understanding, and prejudice 
 readily warp the judgment, in all inquiries. And I cannot 
 doubt that manj^ of the errors into which men fall on relig- 
 ious questions, are the result of a want of sincere regard for 
 the whole Truth, and a fixed determination to embrace it 
 wherever it is found. Disloyalty to Truth is at bottom dis- 
 loyalty to God. 
 
 It is on this ground we assert that man is responsible to 
 God for his belief. We grant that no man has the power to 
 believe a proposition against all evidence, or irrespective of 
 all proof. But eveiy man has the power to give attention 
 to the evidence, or to disregard the evidence. Under the in- 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 9 
 
 fluence of n sincere pu»*pose to know the Truth, a man can 
 open liis eyes and carefully examine the proof; or under the 
 influence of evil passions and prejudices, he can close his 
 eyes, and disregard the most conclusive proof. And inas- 
 much a« a man’s belief in a great measure governs his ac- 
 tions, and the expressed opinions of representative men 
 control society, therefore, we must regard them as account- 
 able to God. Man must be accountable for the use of his 
 reason, as much as for the use of his tongue, and the use of 
 his hands. 
 
 We may admit that many of men’s actions are almost 
 purely automatic. They perforin a great many of what are. 
 conventionally styled right acts, under the influence of earh' 
 training, habits of education, and considerations of personal 
 interest. Yet, in most human minds, there are fundamental 
 principles which underlie moral conduct. Pianciples of 
 righteousness, of equity, of charity, and of merc}^ which 
 involve duties and obligations. Principles which make de- 
 mands upon men. Principles which claim to regulate the 
 conduct of men. Principles which conflict with the selflsh- 
 ness of men. And these are tardil}" recognized, and iiuAvill- 
 ingly obeyed. 
 
 And if these teachings of Conscience, of the Word of 
 God, and of the Spirit of God, lequire self-denial, demand 
 sacrilices, impose restraint, imply censure, impute blame, 
 they awaken the hostility of the unrenewed and impure 
 mind. The man who indulges in unholv passions and sinful 
 pleasures, places himself in an attitude of resistance, and is 
 
ro 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 thus (lisqualilied for a calm and rational consideration of the 
 claims of ri<j:liteoiisness, and the claims of Christianity. 
 This is the chief obstacle to the reception of Christianity by 
 the masses of sinful men. Christianity imposes restraint, 
 it requires self-denial, it prohibits sinful pleasures, it an- 
 nounces law, it imposes obligations, it imputes guilt, it in- 
 volves retribution ; therefore men reject it. ‘‘They love 
 darkness rather than light,” and because they do so, they 
 are unwilling to give to religion that serious consideration 
 which its importance demands, and the solemnity of the in- 
 terests involved would justify. Tliese men profess to have 
 doubts, but the}^ are not “ honest doubts.” Their sceptical 
 questionings are not the strivings of the human spirit to- 
 wards the light, but a persistent struggle of the soul to hide 
 itself in darkness, and, if possible, escape from God. Their 
 unbelief has not an intellectual but a moral cause. It is not 
 because the evidence is defective', it is because thejMove sin, 
 and ai*e resolved, at all hazards, to live in sin. 
 
 Let any one read the Confessions” of Rosseau, and 
 he cannot fail to perceive that his sket)ticisrn has not an in- 
 tellectual, but a moral cause. He was a skeptic because he 
 was an abandoned sensualist, guilty of the basest crimes, 
 which he does not hesitate most unblushingly to avow. By- 
 ron’s “Don Juan” reveals the source of Byron’s skepticism, 
 in his licentious manners and polluted heart. Whoever has 
 read Mirabeau's life, even in that half-apologetic sketch 
 which is given by Thomas Carlyle, will not be at a loss to 
 account for his unbelief. His clandestine amours with other 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 1 1 
 
 men’s wives, which Carlyle calls “ little peccadillos,” suffi- 
 ciently indicate the absence of moral purity both in the 
 actor and the biographer. And so of Diderot, the French 
 atheist, of whom Carljde is compelled to say, “Diderot is 
 not what we call indelicate and indecent, he is utterly un- 
 clean, scandalous, shameless, sansculottic, samoicdic, devil- 
 ish. To declare with lyric fury that this is wi’ong, or with 
 historic calmness that a pig of sensuality would go distracted 
 did you accuse him of it, may be considered superfluous.” 
 Indeed the remark of Dr. Johnson, in relation to the infi- 
 delity of the Earl of Rochester, is true of a large majority 
 of this class of skeptics: “Not finding it convenient to sub- 
 mit to the authority of moral laws he was unwilling to obey, 
 he shelteied himself behind infidelity.” Fairness and can- 
 dor, howevei*, compel the admission that these words of Dr. 
 Johnson are not to be applied to a large portion of the edu- 
 cated men of America who are perplexed with doubts on 
 the subject of religion. There is less of positive skepticism 
 in the literary and scientific mind of this country than of 
 Europe ; far less of the bitterness and blasphemy of infidel- 
 ity in the writings of American scholars than of English 
 authors. We import our worst books against Christianity 
 from abroad. Feuerbaugh, Strauss, Renan, Comte, Vogt, 
 Holyoake, Buckle, SpenceJ*, Maudsley, are not, thank God, 
 Americans. And even much of their skepticism is the re- 
 volt of the human mind against the narrowness and intoler- 
 ance, bigotry and despotism, of the ecclesiastical systems of 
 the old world. There is more skepticism and profanity in 
 
12 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 the University of Cambridge, England, where all the stu- 
 dents are required to subscribe to the Tiiirty-nine Articles, 
 than in the University of Miciiigan, where no religious tests 
 are required. The freedom of thought, the liberal senti- 
 ment, the general diftusion of education, in America, have 
 been favorable to the development of a purer form of Chris- 
 tianity in this land, and. above all, the absence of a State 
 Church, thrusting its dogmas clown the people’s thi'oats by 
 the iron hand of law, and hurling anathemas upon the heads 
 of those who dare assei't their intellectual freedom, has dis- 
 armed opposition, and removed the most violent and pro- 
 voking causes of skepticism. If the educated men of 
 America have doubts — and who has not?— they are, in the 
 main, ‘‘ honest doubts.” They are doubts which stimulate 
 inquirv, and in most cases result in rational belief. The 
 American mind has an eminently practical character; there 
 is in it a tone of earnestness and sincerity, which is impa- 
 tient of bare negations, and demands actions. The remark 
 of Bayne in regard to Chalmers, is equally applicable to 
 many young men of noble, earnest minds in this country 
 who may, for a season, be involved in doubt. When a 
 young man, he became skeptical through the reading of 
 Baron Von Holbach’s “System of I^s'ature.” “But,” says 
 Bayne, “it was impossible for young Chalmers to remain a 
 skeptic. He would have forced his way to conscientious 
 and hearty action, or sunk into madness, or the grave. 
 Doubt to him was agony. He felt it to be the negation of 
 all work — the death of action even in its birth; and he 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 13 
 
 strii.o^o’lecl towards truth as a giant might straggle through 
 the flames towards his dearest treasure.” 
 
 So there are young and earnest minds around us in this 
 University, who amid the conflictions and controversies and 
 apparent uncertainties of prevailing religious opinions, have 
 been involved in doubt. Tliey looked abroad upon the pro- 
 fessing church, and the^^ have been confounded and shocked 
 by the startling discrepancy^ between the pray^ers and the 
 actions of Christians — the flat contradiction between their 
 professions and their lives. They have heard so many give 
 utterance to their unspeakable joy in the knowledge of God, 
 and afterwards liave seen them fall into the rankest sensual- 
 ity% that they are staggered and scandalized, and some have 
 come to the conclusion that all Christians are either self- 
 deluded or conscious hy^pocrites. They have lost confidence 
 in Christian men. The church has too often placed itself 
 on the side of public injustice and wrong. When slavery 
 was defended in Cliristian pulpits by quotations from the 
 Bible, what wonder that Walker, Garrison, Gerrit Smith, 
 and others, should be driven toward skepticism. The author 
 of “The Purgatory of Suicides” tells a mournful story, 
 how he was driven almost to madness and to skepticism by 
 persecution for his political opinions. But he had an honest 
 mind. When released from prison, he sought the counsel 
 of that liberal churchman, Charles Kingsley, whose advice 
 was, “ Cooper, pray!” tie prayed, and found inward calm. 
 
 Then, there are other young men who have read sufli- 
 cient in Comparative Anatomy and Physiology to confuse 
 
14 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 and perplex them. They have had dreams of protoplasm 
 and pangenesis, of spontaneous generation and transmuta- 
 tion of species, of evolution of higher out of lower forms 
 of life, and they have, at length, come to suspect that pos- 
 sibly mind is onl}^ a function of the brain. They have 
 learned some of the facts and inductions of Geology, and 
 these have unsettled their faith in Moses and the Prophets. 
 The writings of Strauss and Paine and Colenzo have con- 
 centrated theii’ attention on the human element of the Bible 
 with its apparent errors and discrepancies, till they have 
 lost sight of tlie Divine element with its unchangeable veri- 
 ties. And they are involved in doubts, whicli are to their 
 own minds as distressing and agonizing, as the avowal of 
 tlieii’ skepticism is distressing to their Christian acquaint- 
 ances. Their mental condition is well described by Hume : 
 ‘‘I seem affrighted and confounded with the solitude in 
 which I am placed by my philosophy. When I look abroad, 
 on every side I see dispute, contradiction, distraction. When 
 1 turn my eye inward, I find nothing but doubt and ignor- 
 ance. What am I ? Where am I ? For what cause do I 
 derive my existence? To what condition shall I return? I 
 am confounded with these questions. I begin to fancy my- 
 self in a most deplorable condition, environed with the 
 deepest darkness on every hand.” 
 
 For all such persons we entertain a sincere respect; we 
 feel for them the deepest sympathy; and concerning them 
 we cherish the strongest hopes. It has been our privilege 
 to converse freely with many such persons. We found that 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 15 
 
 most of tliem were honest, earnest souls, to whom doubt 
 was agony. Skepticism was for them a condition of dis- 
 quietude and unrest. They longed for settled convictions, 
 they desired to plant their feet on solid rock, and feel their 
 footing logically secure. Their reason wanted, craved for, 
 its satisfaction as well as their heart. But they had inde- 
 pendence of mind, and were not to be fed with chalf, or 
 terrified into the acceptance of Christianity by appeals to 
 their fears. The treatment such young men have received 
 at the hands of some mistaken (hiristians has been most in- 
 judiciouSj and most unfortunate. They have often been 
 rudely repelled, or cowardly shunned. They have been 
 roughly denounced as the wickedest of men. N"o attempt 
 has been made to remove their difficulties and satisfy their 
 inquiring minds. The consequence is, that they have been 
 thrown into an attitude of more decided antagonism. This 
 treatment intensified their unbelief. 
 
 Now, for ourselves, we have more hope of such young 
 men than we have for those semi-brutal 3mung men who 
 plunge into intemperance and licentiousness, and regaixling 
 all moi-al and religious questions with simple indifference, 
 never think at all. If he has any sincerity of purpose, there 
 is hope of a man who will only think, even if his speculations 
 should sometimes lead him astraj^ There is so much in 
 Christianity which addresses itself to the reason and judg- 
 ment and conscience of an honest mind; it touches the 
 human heart at so many points in which the most precious 
 interests and hopes of a noble nature are involved, that we 
 
i6 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 feel assured, if men will but pursue their inquiries in a spirit 
 of fairness and candor, tlie}^ will at last be tinn believers in 
 Christianity. Lord Littleton, Dr. Clialmers, John Foster, 
 Dr. Arnold, Dr. Nast, and manj" others we could name, were 
 in their youth sceptical; in their manhood they were the 
 ablest defenders and the bri«htest ornaments of the Faith. 
 The mental struggle through whicli they passed was the best 
 kind of education for their future service in the cause of 
 Christ. 
 
 Sincerity of pui-pose is a condition of mind most favor- 
 able to the attainment of a knowledge of the Truth, because 
 it begets patience, and disposes one to wait for further light. 
 
 Ah earnest mind, as we have already remarked, cannot 
 yield to utter and universal scepticism, that is, it cannot 
 doubt everything, and say tliere is no such thing as truth. 
 It was voluptuous, frivolous, jesting Pilate, who asked con- 
 temptuously, “ What is Truth ? ” An earnest man has an 
 abiding conviction that the knowledge of truth is the highest 
 good. Truth, in his estimation, is the light and life of the 
 soul. Mau cannot fulfill the purposes of his existence, can- 
 not attain the perfection of his moral nature, cannot 
 accomplish his high destiny, without the knowledge of truth. 
 Therefore, he has an undying faith in its final attainment, 
 however discouraged and baffled he may be in its pursuit. 
 There are facts of science, which he feels he cannot reject; 
 there are undoubted principles of philosophy, which he can- 
 not ignore. These seem to be in conflict with certain accepted 
 interpretations of Scripture, and lie has }'et been unable to 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 17 
 
 find any satisfactory and adequate method of reconciliation; 
 therefore he is unhappy. The m*in of sincere and earnest 
 purpose is not, however, in haste to rush to positive conclu- 
 sions, and place himself in an extreme on either hand. He 
 wisely concludes that there may be facts and principles of 
 interpi-etation with which he i» yet unacquainted, which 
 may shed an ordering light upon the whole question, and he 
 does not dogmaticall}^ affirm or deny. He suspends judg- 
 ment, and patiently waits for additional light. This is the 
 proper attitude for every candid mind, and he who conscien- 
 tiously maintains it, will at last find satisfaction. A fact of 
 Science is one of God’s truths just as much as a statement of 
 Scripture. A first principle of reason is just as much a 
 revelation from God as a text of the Bible. God is the 
 author of nature as well as the autlior of the New Testament, 
 and He cannot contradict himself. All truth is sacred, 
 because it is all from God, and must at last be found har- 
 monious. The source of error must be in our interpretation 
 of the words of Scripture, or our interpretation of the facts 
 of nature. If both are rightly interpreted, they must agree. 
 
 Sincerity of purpose will alwa}^s be accompanied with 
 humility. This will save a man from dogmatizing too 
 positively either in this direction or that. There are con- 
 fessedly a great many men who dogmatize most offensively 
 from the theological stand-point. In both departments 
 there are foolish, conceited men who think they know it all, 
 and they are impatient of all contradiction, yes, even of all 
 
 honest doubt. If they meet with difficulties, they “cut the 
 C 
 
i8 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 knot” by a very decided dictum of their own. They are 
 recklessly iinscrnpiilous; and like “fools, boldly rush over 
 ground where angels fear to tread,” even as Prof. Tyndall, 
 who admits that much of the interest of his alfirmative posi- 
 tions is found in their audacity. But modest men are more 
 distrustful of their own powers and their own attainments. 
 If they find themselves in conflict with the matured opinions 
 and honest convictions of good men, and, especially, if they 
 find themselves arrayed against the spirit and teachings of 
 that Book which the wisest and best men of all ages have 
 revered as divine, the first question they. ask is, Am I right? 
 May not these men have been in possession of facts and 
 principles more favorable to the formation of correct opin- 
 ions? May I not be misled by my prejudices, by my one- 
 sided education, by my limited experiences, and my youthful 
 impetuosity? Ought not I to reconsider my opinions, and 
 review my own proofs? This is the spirit in which the man 
 of sincere purposes, who desires only to know the truth, will 
 act, and acting thus, he will come to the light at last. 
 
 The existence of Christianity in the world is at any rate 
 a singular fact. Its origin, its history, its achievements, aie 
 all unique. It has no parallel in the histoiy of the world. 
 It has stimulated more thought, it has exerted more influence 
 on society, on governments, on national life, than any other 
 system of opinions; as Jean Paul Eichter has felicitously 
 said, “ Jesus of Nazareth with his pierced hands has raised 
 empii'es from their foundations, turned the stream of history 
 from its ancient channels, and still continues to rule and 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 19 
 
 guide the ages.” It has been accepted as divine by the wisest 
 meri, the first scholars, the ablest jurists, the greatest 
 scientists, in all lands, and to-day, it cannot be denied, the 
 Church embraces tlie first minds of the age. This fact 
 should suggest to young men that Christianity deserves, at 
 least, a serious consideration. It is not to be dismissed with 
 a jest. The men wlio have believed in Christianity, have 
 not done so without a serious examination, and a careful 
 scrutiny of its evidences. And no sober, thoughtful man 
 will feel that it is to be i*ejected hastily, or thoughtlessly 
 despised. 
 
 Sincerit}^ of purpose wilt prompt us tq use all means for 
 the attainment of Truth. 
 
 The most important of these is prayer, — prayer for di- 
 vine light and guidance. An honest man desires light, and he 
 will thankfully accept it from whatever source. And as on 
 every hypothesis proposed, God is the source of all light and 
 all truths he will ask for light from him. Even if he has 
 doubts as to the doctrine of miracles and of direct plenary 
 inspiration, he must believe that God is near to all human 
 souls, and that he visits all human hearts, if not in a super- 
 natural, then in a natural way. Therefore all pure and 
 noble men in Christian and in heathen lands have prayed. 
 Socrates, Plato, Epictetus, M. Aurelius, prayed. Cartesius, 
 Locke, Bacon, Leibitz, Kewton, Faraday, Sir D. Brewster, 
 Sir Charles Bell, Sir John Herschel, Dr. Carpenter, Prof. 
 Huggins, Dr. Owen, Prof. Adams, prayed. If these great 
 lights of philosophy and science prayed, and were raised up 
 
20 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 into a clearer light and purer life by prayer, it will be no 
 humiliation for an under-graduate to pray. Nay, on the 
 authority of Prof. Whewell (History of Inductive Sciences) 
 I affirm that the greatest discoveries in science were made by 
 men of prayer. If you want calmness of spirit, clearness of 
 intellectual vision, pray. If you are in doubt and perplexity, 
 pray. If you want light, pray to the Father of Lights. 
 And if you cannot use any of the forms of prayer employed 
 by the Christian church, if the Lord’s prayer is not to your 
 taste, here is one from the heathen Socrates, “ God grant 
 that I may be inwardly pure, and that my lot may be such 
 as shall best agree with a right disposition of mind.” 
 
 Finally, remember you are here on the earth to do 
 something more than to think, you are here to act. You are 
 here to purify yourselves from evil, and develop a noble, pure 
 and useful life. Society also has demands upon you. It 
 is your dutj^ to labor for the welfare of the race. 
 
 Skepticism will unfit you for noble work. It will put 
 you out of sympathy with mankind. As a skeptic you are in 
 danger of becoming either a sensualist or a stoic. You will 
 become selfish and morose. You will despise your fellow- 
 men. How do I know this, you may ask. I answer by 
 quoting the words of Voltaire: “Man loves life, yet he 
 
 knows he must die. He spends his existence in diffusing the 
 miseries he has suffered, cutting tho throats of his fellow 
 creatures for paj\ cheating and being cheated. The bulk of 
 mankind,” he continues, “ are nothing more than a crowd 
 of wretches, equally criminal, equally unfortunate. I trem- 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 21 
 
 ble at this picture because it is a complaint against Provi- 
 dence, and I wish I had never been born.’" How different 
 the language of Paul: “I have fought a good fight. I have 
 finished my course. I have kept my faith. Henceforth 
 there is laid up for me a crown, which the Lord, the 
 Righteous Judge, shall give me at that day.” 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 Oh that I knevj vjhere I mig-ht find him, that I fnight come even to 
 his seat ! 
 
 I vjould order my cause before him^ and fill my mouth with argu- 
 ments . — ^JOB XXIII. 3, 4. 
 
 Two things are necessary to render Religion possible: 
 first, the presence of a religious faculty in man; second, 
 the existence of a Personal God who can be known., and 
 thus become the object of that religious faculty. 
 
 These two fundamental principles which lie at the 
 basis of all religion, natural or revealed, I shall assume as 
 the common ground upon which we are all agreed. There 
 may, perhaps, be present a few persons who question the 
 being of a personal God, that is, they deny that the Ultimate 
 Principle and Cause of all existence is or has Intelligence, 
 Will, and Moral Affections; for these are the momenta, or 
 elements, of all Personality. On this small class my argu- 
 ments will, of course, be lost. They are entrenched behind 
 a solitary breastwork of what Fichte calls ‘‘dirt-philosophy,” 
 which I cannot now turn aside to assault. My present object 
 is to carry a single position, which I regard as the main 
 position of the enemies of our faith — the denial of special or 
 supernatural revelation. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 23 
 
 The belief which I have avowed, and wiiich I have 
 
 J 
 
 pledged myself to defend in this course of Lectures, is that 
 in the Christian Scriptures, we have a special reveLition of 
 the will of God; a revelation which is more immediate and 
 comprehensive; a revelation which goes deeper into the 
 nature and relation of things; and which answers more 
 questions of personal interest and everlasting moment to us 
 all, than any other revelation that has yet been given to our 
 race. In short, it is a revelation which vindicates its own 
 claim to be regarded as supernatural. 
 
 It has been the universal beli .f of all ages that God may 
 be known^ or in other words, that He may reveal himself; for 
 what is a revelation but a disclosure, a discovering to others, 
 a making known, a manifestation ? And where is the man 
 that believes in the existence of a God, who does not also 
 believe that, in some way. He has revealed himself ; for how 
 otherwise could He be known ? Did God create the universe ? 
 Then the creation is a revelation of God, as tlie creation of 
 every artist, every poet, every mechanist, is a revelation of 
 his thought. Does God rule over the universe that He has 
 made? Then the entire course of history must be a revela- 
 tion of God, and must indicate something of a predetermined 
 goal toward which he is guiding humanity. J^ature, Hu- 
 manity, and History are revelations of God. These indicate 
 not only his being, but his universal presence, his immediate 
 agency. All the physical forces are but the veiled manifes- 
 tations of ids omnipresent Energy. All vital organisms are 
 but the efflorescence of his indwelling Life. All the necessary 
 
24 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 and changeless ideas of the reason of man are the inspirations 
 of his eternal Reason. And all the judgments of history are 
 the judgments of God. So all profound and earnest thinkers 
 have said in every age. God is evermore revealing himself 
 to man, in the symbolism of nature, the ideas of reason, and 
 the verdicts of history. 
 
 But are these the only media of Divine communications, 
 the only methods in which God can make himself known ? 
 Why may He not speak to us through human conceptions, 
 and in the forms of human speech ? Why may He not take 
 a more direct and immediate part in the education of our 
 race, and by the authority of his spoken word, permit us to 
 conceive Him simply and clearly as our Father and Friend? 
 Is there anything improbable in the conception and the hope 
 that God will act the part of a compassionate Parent or 
 loving Teacher, and aid our feeble understanding by a 
 simpler exposition of our duty in languagethat is natural to 
 us, and in the condescending use of ligures and analogies 
 familiar to our minds? And, above all, what prevents his 
 answering directly those earnest questionings of the human 
 soul about its future life and destiny, and those intense 
 yearnings for pardon, purity, and peace, to which all nature 
 is a dumb and silent oracle? To put the case in harmony 
 with the supposed facts, may not God veil himself in human 
 flesh, and taking possession of a human soul, make that his 
 temple and his oracle? May He not accompany that living 
 Oracle with such supernatural marks and attestations, as 
 shall convince men that his words are, in truth, the words of 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 25 
 
 God, and in his providence preserve the record of those 
 words for the instruction of succeedin^^ generations of men ? 
 
 I propose to show, first, that there are ^tvow^ d priori 
 presumptions that such a verbal revelation would be made; 
 secondl}^ that in the Scriptures, we have a well attested, 
 record of such Divine interposition on the part of God ; and 
 thirdly, that the evidence furnished to us of the accuracy 
 and truthfulness of this record, is such as ought to satisfy a 
 jury of honest men. 
 
 That there are strong d priori probabilities that such a 
 verbal revelation would be made, will, I think, be evident 
 from the discussion of the following propositions : 
 
 1. First, Religion is, and has ever been, a conscious 
 necessity of man’s spiritual and immortal nature. 
 
 Religion is based upon the recognition of our moral 
 relations to God, just as Morality is based upon the recogni- 
 tion of our moral relations to our fellow-men. Therefore, 
 as 1 define Morality to be the fultillment of the duties which 
 arise out of my relations to my fellow-men, so I define re- 
 ligion to be the fulfillment of the duties which arise out of 
 my relations to God. These duties are, first. Moral Rev- 
 erence; second. Conscious Trust; third. Free Obedience; 
 or briefly. Worship, Faith, Love. Now these three. Wor- 
 ship, or moral reverence, Faith, or conscious trust. Love, 
 or free obedience, must assimilate man to, and bring 
 him into communion with, the object of his Religion, that 
 is, into likeness unto and fellowship with God. Religion 
 may therefore be defined comprehensively, as that knowl- 
 
36 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 edge of our personal relations to God, and tliat performance 
 of our consequent duties to God, which shall raise us into 
 fellowship with God. 
 
 This is a definition of religion to which, I think, few 
 will object. Plato, tlie heathen philosopher, on the one side, 
 and Jeremy Taylor, the Christian divine, on the other side, 
 have given similar definitions. And it is not materially 
 different from the one given by Theodore Parker, in his 
 “ Discourse on Religion”: Religion is voluntary obedience 
 
 to the Law of God, inward and outward obedience to that 
 
 law he has written on our nature Through it we regard 
 
 Him as the absolute object of Reverence, Faith, and Love.” 
 
 Now, a religion which more or less fulfills these condi- 
 tions, that is, which reveals our relations and duties to God, 
 and leads us to regard Him as the absolute object of Rever- 
 ence, Confidence, and Love, is, always has been, and will 
 always continue to be, a necessity of man’s nature. 
 
 Under whatever aspect you regard man, — wliether you 
 confine your attention solely to his mental constitution, and 
 ask what are the facts of human consciousness; or j^ou direct 
 your attention to the study of human history, and ask how 
 the universal consciousness of our race has developed itself 
 in past ages, you will find that man needs a religion to sat- 
 isfy the instinctive longings of his heart, to resolve the great 
 problem of his intellect, and to fill up the complement of his 
 moral being. The logic of man’s intellectual nature, the 
 instincts of his emotional nature, the wants of his volitional 
 or moral nature, demand a religion ; while all history assures 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 27 
 
 US that there never was a period when our race was destitute 
 of some form of religion. 
 
 Direct your attention, for a few moments, to the mental 
 constitution of man, and ask, Do the facts of consciousness 
 clearly prove that religion is a necessity of man’s spiritual 
 nature? The answer, I think, is obvious. The logic of man’s 
 intellectual nature, the laws of thought which the Creator 
 has imposed upon the human mind, compel men to recognize 
 a God. No man can seriously contemplate nature without 
 feeling that ‘‘a principle of order,” and “ a principle of spec- 
 ial adaptation,’’ pervade the universe. Eeason teacheshim that 
 this order, these adaptations, had a beginning. The present 
 order of things is finite and temporal, therefore it cannot 
 have the reason of its existence in itself. The history of the 
 universe is a perpetual genesis, a history of succession and 
 change, therefore it cannot be eternal. Geology, tracing 
 back the history of our earth as written in fossil hieroglyphs 
 upon its rocks, tells us it had a beginning. Modern Physics 
 by its great law of Dissipation of Energy assures us that the 
 universe had a beginning, and must come to an end. History, 
 language, fossil osteology, the state of the arts and sciences, 
 tell us that the human race had a beginning. In view of 
 the facts of order and special adaptation which have had a 
 commencement in time, man is compelled, b}^ the necessaiy 
 laws of his intelligence, to affirm that they had a beginning 
 in Mind, in an Intelligent Will, as their efficient and origin- 
 ating Cause. 
 
 Associated with, perhaps preceding, all definite ideas of 
 
28 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 God, there exist in the human mind certain feelings of awe 
 and revei’ence and fear, which arise spontaneously in pres- 
 ence of the vastness and grandeur and magnificence of the 
 universe, and of the power and glory of which the created 
 universe is but the symbol and shadow. There is the felt 
 apprehension that beyond and back of the visible and 
 tangible, there is a personal, living Power, which is the 
 foundation of all, and which fashions all, and fills all with 
 its light and life; that “ the universe is the living vesture in 
 which the Invisible has robed his mysterious loveliness.” 
 There is the feeling of an overshadowing Presence which 
 “ conipasseth a man beliind and before, and lays its hand 
 upon him.” 
 
 ]^rovv, we hold that this feeling and sentiment of the 
 Divine, the supernatural, exists in every mind. It may be, 
 it undoubtedly is, somewhat modified in its manifestations, 
 by the circumstances in which men are placed, and the 
 degree of culture they have enjoyed. The African Fetichist, 
 in his moral and intellectual debasement, conceives a super- 
 natural power enshrined in every object of nature. The 
 rude Fijian regards with dread, and even terror, the Being 
 who darts the lightning and wields the thunderbolts. The 
 Indian ‘‘sees God in clouds, and hears Him in the wind.” 
 The Scottish herdsman on the lonely mountain-top “feels 
 the presence and the power of greatness,” and “in its fixed 
 and steady lineaments, he sees an ebbing and flowing mind.” 
 The philosopher lifts his eyes to the starry heavens in all the 
 depth of their concave, and with all their constellations of 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 29 
 
 glory moving on in solemn grandeur, and to his mind these 
 immeasurable regions seem “filled with tlie splendors of the 
 Deity, and crowded with the monuments of his power”; or 
 he turns his eye to “the Moral Law within,” and he hears 
 the voice of an intelligent and righteous God. In all these 
 cases we have a revelation of the sentiment of the Divine, 
 which dwells alike in all human minds. 
 
 Along with this sentiment of the Divine there is also 
 associated, in all human minds, an instinctive yearning after 
 the Invisible ; not a mere feeling of curiosity to pierce the 
 mystery of being and of life, but what Paul designates “a 
 feeling after God,” which prompts man to seek after a deeper 
 knowledge, and a more immediate consciousness. To attain 
 this deeper knowledge, this more conscious realization of 
 the being and the presence of God, has been the effort of all 
 philosophy and all religion in all ages. The Hindoo Yogis 
 proposes to withdraw into his inmost self, and by a complete 
 suspension of all his active powers, to become absorbed and 
 swallowed up in the Infinite. Plato and his followers sought 
 by an immediate abstraction to apprehend “the unchange- 
 able and permanent Being,” and by a loving contemplation, 
 to become “ assimilated to the Deity,” and in this way, to 
 attain the immediate consciousness of God. The Neo- 
 Platonic mystic sought by asceticism and self-mortification 
 to prepare himself for divine communings. He would con- 
 template the divine perfection in himself; and in an ecstatic 
 state, wherein all individuality vanishes, he would realize a 
 unison, or indentity, with the Divine Essence. While the 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 30 
 
 universal Cliurcli of God has in her purest days always 
 taught that man may, by inward purity and a believing 
 love, be rendered capable of spiritually apprehending, and 
 consciously feeling, the presence of God. Some may be dis- 
 posed to pronounce all this mere m 3 ^sticism. We answer, 
 the living internal energy of religion is always mystical; it 
 is grounded in feeling ^ — a sensus miminis'’'’ common to hu- 
 manity. It is the mysterious sentiment of the Divine; it is 
 the prolepsis of the human spirit reaching out toward the 
 Inlinite, the living susceptibility of our sinritual nature to 
 the powers and influence of the higher world. “It is upon 
 this inner instinct of the supermitural that all religion rests. 
 I do not say that every religious idea, but whatever is 
 positive, practical, powerful, durable, and popular. Eveiy- 
 where, in all climates, in all epochs of history, and in 
 degrees of civilization, man is animated by the sentiment, 1 
 would rather say presentiment, that the world in which lie 
 moves, the facts which regularly and constantly succeed 
 each other, are not all. In vain he daily makes discoveries 
 and conquests in this vast universe; in vain he observes and 
 learnedly verities the general laws which govern it; his 
 thought is not enclosed in the world surrendered to his 
 science; the spectacle of it does not sutfice his soul; it is 
 raised beyond it; it searches after and catches glimpses of 
 something beyond it; it aspires higher both for the universe 
 and itself; it aims at another destiny, another master. 
 
 ‘ Par dela tons ces cieux le Dieu des cieux reside.’ 
 
 So Voltaire has said, and the God who is bejmnd tlie skies 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 31 
 
 is not nature personified, but a supernatural Personality. 
 It is to this highest Personality that all religions address 
 themselves. It is to bring man into communion with Him 
 that they exist.” 
 
 2. The constitution of man’s moral nature also con- 
 strains him to recognize his moral relations to God. 
 
 He looks within, and there he finds tliree grand moial 
 phenomena revealed; namely, a sense of dependence, a con- 
 sciousness of duty, and a feeling of accountability. These 
 sentiments are connatural to the human mind. A being 
 wanting in these great attributes of character would be 
 ranked as less than man. Ponder well the logical conse- 
 quences which flow from tne fact that these feelings are 
 common to every human mind. 
 
 Every human being finds witliin his own heart a sense 
 of dependence upon a Power which is superior to himself, — 
 dependence not on a ‘"'blind inexorable Fate ’’(that has 
 never been the belief of humanity), but upon a living Per- 
 sonality, a being who can show favor or displeasure, and 
 who may be the object of hope or fear, confidence or dread. 
 
 And, now, within the sphere of moral freedom, does not 
 dependence necessarily imply obligation? — obligation to 
 conform to the will of this Supreme Power. Freedom of 
 self-determination, of choice, is not to do just as we please. 
 Liberty is not lawlessness. “ Fi-eedom within the bounds of 
 the law ” is at once the condition and the glory of rational 
 existence. 
 
 The self-determining power of man is circumscribed by 
 
32 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 the moral law in the consciousness of man. Self-deter- 
 mination alone does not sutfice for the full conception of 
 responsible freedom ; it properly only becomes will by being 
 an intelligent and conscious determination, that is, the 
 rational subject is able, previously, to recognize “the right,” 
 and present before his mind what he ought to do, and what 
 he is morally bound to realize and actualize by his own self- 
 determination and choice. Accordingly, we find in our 
 inmost being a sense of obligation to obey the moral law as 
 revealed in the conscience. As we cannot become conscious 
 of self without also becoming conscious of God, so we can- 
 not become properly conscious of self-determination, until 
 we have recognized in conscience a law for the movements 
 of the will. 
 
 Now this moral law, as revealed in the conscience, is not 
 a mere autonomy, a simple subjective law having no rela- 
 tion to a personal lawgiver out of and above man. Every 
 admonition of conscience directly excites the consciousness 
 of a God to whom man is accountable. The universal con- 
 sciousness of our race, as revealed in history, has always 
 associated the phenomena of conscience with the idea of 
 personal Power above man, to whom he is subject and upon 
 whom he depends. In every age, the voice of conscience 
 has been regarded as the voice of God, so that when it has 
 filled man with guilty apprehensions, he has had recourse 
 to sacrifices and penances and prayers to expiate his wrath. 
 
 It is clear, then, that if man has duties, there must be a 
 self-conscious will by whom these duties are imposed, for 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 33 
 
 only'a real will can be legislative. If man has a sense of 
 obligation^ there mast be a supreme authority by which he 
 is obliged. If he is responsible, there must be a being to 
 whom he is accountable. It cannot be said that he is ac- 
 countable to himself, for by that supposition the idea of 
 duty is obliterated, and right becomes identical with 
 mere interest or pleasure. It cannot be said that he is 
 simply responsible to society, to mere conventions of human 
 opinions and human governments ; for then right becomes 
 a mere creature of human legislation, and justice is nothing 
 but the arbitrary will of the strong who tyrannize over the 
 weak. Might constitutes right. Against such hypotheses 
 the human mind, however, instinctively revolts. Mankind 
 feel, universally, that there is an authority beyond all human 
 governments, and a higher law above all human laws, from 
 whence all their powers are derived. That higheiTaw is the 
 Law of God, that supreme authority is the God of Justice. 
 To this eternally just God, innocence, under oppression and 
 wrong, has made its proud appeal, like tliat of Prometheus 
 to the elements, to the witnessing clouds, to coming ages, 
 and has been sustained and comforted. And to that higher 
 law the weak have conlidently appealed against the unright- 
 eous enactments of the strong, and have linally conquered. 
 The last and inmost ground of all obligation is thus the 
 conscious relation of the moral creature to God. The sense 
 of absolute dependence upon a Supreme Being compels man, 
 even while conscious of subjective freedom, to recognize at 
 
 the same time his obligation to determine himself in har- 
 D 
 
34 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 mony with the will of Him “in whom we live, and move, 
 and are.” 
 
 This feeling of dependence, and this consequent sense 
 of obligation, lie at the very foundation of all religion. 
 They lead the mind towards God, and anchor it in the Di- 
 vine. They prompt man to pray, and inspire him Avith an 
 instinctive confidence in the efficacy of praj^er. So that 
 prayer is natural to man, and necessary to man. Never yet 
 has the traveler found a people on earth Avithout prayer. 
 Eaces of men have been found Avithout houses, Avithout rai- 
 ment, Avithout arts and sciences, but neA^er Avithout prayer 
 any more than Avithout speech. Plutarch wrote, eighteen 
 centuries ago : “If you go through all the Avorld, you may 
 find cities Avithout Avails, Avithout letters, without rulers, 
 Avithout money, Avithout theatres, but never Avithout temples 
 and gods, or Avithout pro.yers^ oaths, prophecies, and sacri- 
 fices, used to obtain blessings and benefits, or to avert curses 
 and calamities.” The naturalness of prayer is admitted 
 even by the modern unbeliever. Gerrit Smith says : “ Let 
 us who believe that the religion of reason calls for the re- 
 ligion of nature, remember that the floAv of prayer is just 
 as natural as the flow of water; the prayerless man has be- 
 come an unnatural man.” is man in sorroAV or in danger, 
 his most natural and spontaneous refuge is in prayer. The 
 suffering, bcAvildered, terror-stricken soul turns tOAvard God. 
 “ Nature in an agony is no atheist; the soul that knoAvs not 
 Avhere to fly, flies to God.” And in the hour of deliverance 
 and joy, a feeling of gratitude pervades the soul, and grati- 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 35 
 
 tilde, too, not to some blind nature-force, to some uncon- 
 scious and impersonal power, but gratitude to God. The 
 soul’s natural and appropriate language in the hour of de- 
 liverance is thanksgiving and praise. 
 
 This universal tendency to recognize a superior Power 
 upon whom we are dependent, and by whose hand our well- 
 being and our destinies are absolutel}^ controlled, has re- 
 vealed itself even amid the most complicated forms of poly- 
 theistic worship. Amid the even and undisturbed flow of 
 every-day life, they might be satisflod with the worship of 
 subordinate deities, but in the midst of sudden and unex- 
 pected calamities and of terrible catastrophes, then they cry 
 to the {Supreme God. “When alarmed by an earthquake,” 
 says Aulus Gellius, “the ancient Romans were accustomed 
 to pray, not to some one of the gods individually, but to 
 God in general, as to tlie Unknoion.'^'* 
 
 3. The mysteiy of Life, the deeper mystery of Death, 
 prompt men to recognize the need of religion. 
 
 Whence am I ? Whither do 1 tend ? Wherefore am I 
 here ? What is Life ? What is Death ? AYho has not asked 
 these questions? There are those who answer. Life has no 
 meaning and purpose. Death is nothing, and there is naught 
 after death. The world is, for the living, a workshop, for 
 the dead, a grave. The generations of men are but a woe- 
 ful pageantry moving across the stage out of darkness into 
 darkness. Life is a play, — the play of phantasms in an 
 empty void. 
 
 How melancholy is the life of man if this be true. Well 
 
3 ^ 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 might Voltaire say of man, ‘‘Miserable wretch! weary of 
 life, and yet afraid to die ! ” Every time the funeral bell 
 tolls, the thought in some shape suggests itself, “I am a 
 mortal, dying man! The day will come when the hearse 
 will wait for me, and all this bright world will go on with- 
 out me, and I shall be left in the grave to darkness, loneli- 
 ness, silence, and the worm. Between me and annihilation 
 there is but a breath.” How sad is human life, if we have 
 no inheritance in the past, and no hope in the future. If the^ 
 friends we have loved dearer than life itself, and the pre- 
 cious memories of whom grow richer and purer as we grow 
 older, are now only loathsome clay, and their virtues, tal- 
 ents, acquisitions, graces, have exhaled into thin air, how 
 are the dewy umbrage of the sympathies withered, and the 
 fountains of the heart dried up ! 
 
 “ Shall hope never visit the mouldering urn ? 
 
 Shall day never dawn on the night of the grave? ” 
 
 If not, then in the words of Voltaire, “I wish I had 
 never been born ! ” Man comes into the world most won- 
 drously endowed; he has powers of indefinite range and 
 almost inlinite expansion. He can conceive an immortality. 
 He has instinctive longings for an endless life. Under the 
 power of this belief, he can work with a sense of the sub- 
 limest interest. Shall we say that he is the sport of delusive 
 hopes, and mocked with vain ambitions? Who shall answer 
 this question for us all? Surely God alone. We want to 
 hear a voice coming from the darkness of eternity, saying, 
 
 “ Man shall live again!” We need a religion which shall 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 37 
 
 meet and answer these mysterious yearnings of the human 
 heart. And, now, is there a book on earth so full of eternal 
 life, so sparkling with immortal hopes, as the Bible? Soc- 
 rates speaks doubtingly. Christ speaks positively. This is 
 what our hearts crave. We need a religion that shall bring 
 life and immortality to light. 
 
 4. The present moral condition of man, constrains him 
 to recognize the need of some remedial agency, which shall 
 restore man to moral order, and bring him power and pur- 
 ity and peace. 
 
 We have said that every man feels himself to be an ac- 
 countable being ; we now add that he is conscious that in 
 wrong-doing, he is deserving of blame and of punishment. 
 Deep within the soul of the transgressor is the consciousness 
 that he is a guilty man, and he is haunted with the perpetual 
 apprehension of a retribution, which, like the spectre of evil 
 omen, crosses his every path, and meets him at every turn. 
 
 “ ’Tis guilt alone, 
 
 Like brain-sick frenzy in Us feverish mode, 
 
 Fills the light air with visionary terrors. 
 
 And shapeless forms of fear.” 
 
 Man does not possess this consciousness of guilt, so much 
 as it holds possession of him. It pursues the fugitive from 
 justice, and it lays hold on the man who has resisted or 
 escaped the hand of the executioner. The sense of guilt is 
 a power over and above man ; a power so wonderful that it 
 often compels the most reckless criminal to deliver himself 
 up, with the confession of his deed, to the sword of justice. 
 
38 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 when a falsehood would have easily protected him. Man is 
 only able by persevering, ever-repeated efforts at self-indur- 
 ation, against the remonstrances of conscience, to withdraw 
 himself from its power. His success is, however, but very 
 partial ; for sometimes, in the moments of his greatest secur- 
 ity, the reproaches of conscience break in upon him like a 
 flood, and sweep away all his refuge of lies. “The evil 
 conscience is the divine bond which binds the created spirit, 
 even in deep apostasy, to its Original. In the consciousness 
 of guilt there is revealed the essential relation of our spirit 
 to God, although misunderstood by man until he has some- 
 thing higher than his evil conscience. The trouble and an- 
 guish which the remonstrances of conscience excite, the 
 inward unrest which sometimes seizes the guilty slave of 
 sin, are proofs that he has not quite broken away from 
 God.” 
 
 Surely, there is not a man upon the earth, unless he be 
 bereft of reason, who has not expei’ienced, in a greater or 
 less degree, this sense of personal self-accusation and evil 
 desert in consequence of sin. Hence the mysterious appre- 
 hension of an overshadowing retribution, which haunts the 
 guilty mind in every clime, and the attempts, which have 
 been made in every age, to propitiate the righteous displeas- 
 ure of God by self-inflicted tortures and costliest sacrifices, 
 by weary pilgrimages and endless prayers. 
 
 ISTovv, without perplexing ourselves with the metaphys- 
 ics of the origin of evil or the nature of sin, let us fix our 
 attention upon this single fact, that in all ages men have 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 39 
 
 felt the need of forgiveness of sin, have prayed for it, and 
 have sought to expiate it with tears and blood. 
 
 I know there are philosophers who tell us that sin is an 
 old grievous delusion, a fearful nightmare, which man may 
 shake off, and, as ^^ovalis has said, “suddenly believing 
 himself to be moral, he would become so,” and casting a 
 defiant glance arounul the universe, might dare any existing 
 power to make him afraid. Most men, however, will re- 
 gard this as a purely fictitious contrivance, an arbitrary stop 
 in the face of the pei-ils of the wilderness, a logical thrust 
 of the ostrich’s head into the sand. 
 
 We cannot thus shake off our forebodings, and forget 
 our conscious guilt. We cannot thus defy Omnipotence, and 
 wage a bootless conflict with despair. We need a religion 
 which shall assure us a pardon. We want a well authenti- 
 cated revelation, and a conscious Christian experience, which 
 shall enable us to say, in the language of that venerable 
 symbol of Faith which the church has clung to through the 
 ages, “I believe in the Forgiveness of Sins.” 
 
 Turn your attention from the study of the individual 
 to the history of the race, and see if the facts of universal 
 consciousness, as revealed in history, do not prove that re- 
 ligion has always been a conscious need of the human mind. 
 
 Religious worship, addressed to a Supreme Being be- 
 lieved to control the destiii}' of man, has been coeval and 
 coextensive with the race. Every nation has had its mythol- 
 ogy, and each mythologic system has been simply an effort 
 of humanity to realize and embody in some visible form the 
 
40 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 relations in which it feels itself to be connected with an ex- 
 ternal, overshadowing, and all-controlling Power and Pres- 
 ence. 
 
 Athens with her four thousand mediating deities, Rome 
 with her crowded pantheon of gods, Egypt with her de- 
 grading superstitions, Hindostan with her cruel and revolt- 
 ing rites, all attest that the religious principle is deeply seated 
 in the nature of man. Look down the long-drawn aisles of 
 antiquity, and all along to their remotest point you behold 
 the smoking altar, the ascending incense, the prostrate form. 
 Look around 5^11 even to the furthest, darkest corners of our 
 earth, and there you see the naked savage, who never trem- 
 bled in the presence of his fellow-men, now trembling in 
 the presence of his unchiselled, eyeless god. How will you 
 explain this, except upon the principle that the religious in- 
 stinct is the most powerful, the most vital, the most endur- 
 ing instinct in the nature of man ? You who have read up 
 in tiie history of the past are familiar with numberless ex- 
 amples of the power of this principle. Did remorse cause 
 the soul to writhe in hidden anguish; the altar is straight- 
 way reared, the victim bleeds, and some unseen power is 
 supplicated, who is believed capable of breathing a gentle 
 influence to calm and soothe the troubled heart. Did pesti- 
 lence breathe its poison on their cities, or an invading army 
 threaten their coasts, or disaster and defeat overtake their 
 legions abroad ; they immediately offered the most costly 
 sacriflces, and raised their hands to heaven in prayers, to 
 secure the protection or appease the anger of the gods. All 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 41 
 
 these instances are but the expression of the profound sense 
 of the need of religion which is felt by our entire race. 
 The truly philosophic mind cannot despise the heathen at 
 his prayers. In the savage who licks the dust at the feet of 
 some monster idol ; in the eastern Magian who worships the 
 sun as the highest symbol of ‘*the Unseen ; ” in the Hindoo 
 who casts himself beneath the wheels of Juggernaut, or 
 ]3lunges into the Ganges in search of immortality: in all 
 these, he sees a sublime instinct revealed, and any one of 
 these mistaken forms of religion are in his eyes the strug- 
 glings of the human spirit to find its real centre and rest. 
 
 The inward testimony of the mind, the past experience 
 of the race, the universal prevalence of religious rites, and 
 the fact that all languages abound with terms relating to the 
 being and worship of God, clearly attest that the religious 
 principle is deeply seated in the nature of man, and that it 
 has occupied the thought, and stirred the feelings of every 
 rational man, in every age. It has interwoven itself with 
 the entire framework of human society, and ramified into 
 all the relations of human life. By its agency, nations have 
 been revolutionized, and empires have been overthrown. It 
 has formed a mighty element in all the changes which have 
 marked the history of man. 
 
 A second ground of probability that God would make a 
 verbal revelation, is found in the fact that in all ages men 
 have entertained a belief in the possibility and reality of 
 intercourse between God and men. 
 
 So prevalent and pervading has been this belief, that the 
 
42 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES- 
 
 wisest and holiest men have spoken in the name of God. 
 Minos, Zoroaster, Confucius, IS'uma, Mohammed, profess to 
 have received their doctrine direct from God. The sacred 
 persons of all nations, from the Druids to the Pope, refer 
 back to his inspirations. From this source, the Sibylline 
 Oracles, the responses at Delphi, the sacred books of all na- 
 tions, alike claim to proceed. Socrates and Plato, Seneca 
 and Cicero, tell us that no man was ever truly great without 
 the inspiration of God. Poets and orators have in all ages 
 invoked this inspiration, not as a mere rhetorical flourish of 
 trumpets on entering upon their work, but because they be- 
 lieved in it, and longed to be inspired. Indeed, as Cicero 
 remarks in the opening sentence of his BivinaMone^'^'' 
 
 “It is the ancient opinion, derived even from heroic times 
 and established by common consent of the Roman people, 
 and of all nations,” that such intercourse is had with the 
 invisible powers. 
 
 ^^"or need we wonder at this universal belief, because it 
 is perfectly natural. It is suggested by native affinities that 
 crave for inspiration. And it at once meets and answers 
 tiiat deep-seated longing of the human heart for a more per- 
 fect knowledge and a more conscious assurance of the favor 
 of God. 
 
 And, now, what shall we say of these universal beliefs 
 and sentiments? Thoughtless minds may disregard them, 
 but a true philosophy of human nature must take account 
 of them. As Spencer justly remarks, “ Beliefs tliat are per- 
 ennial and universal have some foundation, and some 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 43 
 
 amount of verity.” It is absurd for Christians to cleii}^ that 
 there was some divine inspiration given to the prophets and 
 teachers of the heathen world. Do not the Scriptures con- 
 cede some measure of inspiration to all pure and noble 
 minds? Do not they teach “There is a spirit in man, and 
 the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understanding ? ” 
 Is not Christ the true light which lighteneth every man that 
 cometh into the world ? ‘‘ God at sundry times and in divers 
 
 manners,” with a variegated wisdom has spoken 
 
 to men, sometimes by the voice of Pagan philosophers, 
 sometimes by the voice of Hebrew prophets, and in these 
 last days, “by his own Son.” The light of philosophy was, 
 it is true, a torch which flung a faint gleam here and there 
 into the dusky recesses of a mighty cavern, but it was a 
 “true light.” Christianity is the sun itself pouring its 
 sevenfold illumination on a world rolling into light. 
 
 Why, then, should men be unwilling to believe that 
 God has spoken to us through pure, anointed souls, in hu- 
 man words, — spoken to us by his Son, whom, as Carlyle 
 says, “all men who will but look on Him instinctively re- 
 gard as divine?'’’ Where is the unreasonableness and im- 
 probability of this presumption that God has spoken ? WI13" 
 
 may He not use a phonetic sign just as well as a natural 
 symbol ? Why may He not reveal himself through a human 
 conception uttered in human language, as well as through 
 an organic form or a system of organic forms? Can He not 
 accompany a human messenger with such divine attestations 
 and credentials as shall constrain men to say, “ Master! we 
 
44 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 know thou art a Teacher sent from God!” just as easily as 
 He can make the heavenly oi’bs sing in the hearing of even 
 Thomas Paine, “The hand that made us is divine?” If 
 God exercises a ceaseless providence in directing the affairs 
 of the material universe, why may He not exercise the same 
 providence over the moral interests of human society, and 
 interpose in the way of Christianity to deliver men from 
 sin, and raise mankind to a higher, purer, and nobler form 
 of life? If, in His infinite beneficence, He opens his hand 
 and satisfieth the desire of every living thing, why may He 
 not also open His heart to us, and in that look of compas- 
 sion, that tone of tenderness, that touch of pity, that minis- 
 try of love, that death of self-sacrifice, which we see in 
 Christ, satisfy the longings of our deathless souls? Nay, 
 from all the heathen knew of the character of God, from 
 all they had conceived of His regard for morality, from all 
 they knew of His benevolence, might they not hope for and 
 expect a higher manifestation of God to redeem and save? 
 So Plato reasoned, and so he hoped. 
 
 Now, Christianity grounds itself upon all these facts of 
 human consciousness. It proceeds along all these lines of 
 instinctive longing and beliefs. It claims to be the consum- 
 mation and the crown of all human aspirations and hopes. 
 It presents us, in the Scriptures, with a history of super- 
 natural interposition, — direct interpositions on the part of 
 God to restore our race to moral order, to purity, and to 
 peace. And after ages of preparation, in the fullness of 
 time, a supernatural personage appears, called the Son of 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 45 
 
 God, who is so full and adequate a manifestation of the in- 
 visible God that He could say, and did say, “He that hath 
 seen me hath seen the Father.” 
 
 With a loving regard for Socrates and Plato and Confu- 
 cius as in some sense the prophets of God in heathen lands, 
 loyal, as we hope, to all truth wherever it is found as God’s 
 truth, we still claim that Christ is, par excellence, the great 
 Teacher of the world, and that the Bible is sui generis, pecu- 
 liarly, uniquely, God’s revelation to man. It is distinguished 
 clearly from all other sacred books. 
 
 1. It is preeminently historical, while all other sacred 
 books are poetic, legendary, and mythical. They make no 
 claim to be historical. The Vedas, the sacred books of the 
 Brahmins, are collections of hymns. Zend-Avesta, the sacred 
 book of the Zoroastrians, is mainly of the same character; 
 and the Tripitaka, the sacred book of the Buddhists, is a 
 code of morality, and a system of metaphysics. They offer 
 no points for historic criticism, and present no opportunity^ 
 of subjecting them to the tests by which an historical relig- 
 ion is tested. Whereas the Old and ISTew Testament offer 
 us a scheme of doctrine bound up with facts of history, 
 which depends absolutely upon them, which is null and void 
 without them. 
 
 Christianity offers us a volume, not written by one man, 
 but by at least thirty men in different stations of life. It 
 numbers among its authors the man who wore a crown, and 
 the man who threw a net; the carpenter, the tax-gatherer^ 
 the physician ; the Persian prime minister, and Csesai’s fet- 
 
46 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 tered slave. It was not written at one time, but daring a 
 period of more than two thousand years. It was not writ- 
 ten in one place, but in widely different places, — some por- 
 tions of it under the shadows of the Pyramids, others on the 
 banks of the Euphrates; some in the isle of Patmos, and 
 others in the Mamartine dungeon. There is a wonderful 
 unity in this volume; it is our best historical authority; it is 
 full of allusions to the manners, customs, and events of his- 
 tory peculiar to the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, 
 Medes, Persians, Greeks, and Romans. And I am bold to 
 affirm that it has never been proved false in a single histor- 
 ical allusion. On the contrary, it has gradually gathered 
 around it a dense cloud of witnesses, from the ruins of ISTin- 
 eveh and Babjdon, and the valley of the Nile, from the slabs 
 and bas-reliefs of Sennacherib, and the tombs and mon- 
 uments of the Pharoahs, from newly discovered manuscripts, 
 gems, medals, and coins, which ail confirm, in a striking 
 manner, its historic notices. 
 
 2. It exhibits a supernatural knowledge, that is, it fore- 
 tells the future history of persons, cities, races, and nations, 
 and continually lays itself open to detection if its predic- 
 tions are found false. 
 
 3. It asserts that there has been supernatural interpo- 
 sition, on the part of God, in the history of our race, the 
 truth of which depends mainly upon the establishment of 
 the two previous points. 
 
 I shall discuss these three points, in their order, in sub- 
 sequent lectures. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 That Tvliich was from the heginning^ which we have heard ^ which we 
 have seen with our eyeSj which we have looked upon^ and our hands 
 have handled^ of the Word of life ; 
 
 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you^ that ye also 
 may have fellowship with us ; and truly our fellowship is with the Father^ 
 and with his Son Jesus Christ. — i John i. 1,3. 
 
 If it were sirnplj- demanded of me that I should offer 
 my personal reasons for being a Christian, I would promptly 
 answer, Tiie deepest ground of my personal faith in Christ 
 and Christianity is my own religious consciousness. 
 
 We have been reading the Bible these many years, an^l 
 we do not tire of it as we do of other books. In our mental 
 progress we have left many books behind, but we feel that 
 the Bible is always in advance of us. Every year, and in- 
 deed every day, we discover in it new excellencies, and it 
 discloses to our mind profounder truths. We have striven 
 to read the Gospels and the Epistles with an open eye and 
 an impartial mind, and in spite of many obscurities, we can 
 not help believing them to be true. We do not understand 
 everything in the Bible, any more than we understand 
 everything in nature, but what we do understand commends 
 itself to our reason, our conscience, and our heart. There 
 
48 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 is a tone of downright sincerity and honesty in all its utter- 
 ances, and an inimitable air of truthfulness pervading all its 
 teachings, so that if it is not true, our nature deceives us, 
 and we have no criterion of truth. 
 
 As we read the letters of Paul we are impressed with 
 his candor, his magnanimity, his noble charity; we feel that 
 his loving, burning words convince us of his integrity, and 
 we cannot but believe what he says. We read the sayings 
 of Christ, and we feel that his doctrine is too pure and ele- 
 vated to be a human invention ; his morality, too unselfish 
 and noble to be the product of an Impostor; and his life, 
 too singular and inimitable to be less than Divine. The 
 appeal to our religious consciousness is so profound and 
 resistless that we cannot believe the Gospel to be false. As 
 we read we are often brought to a sudden pause, and by an 
 irresistible impulse we are led to exclaim, “Lo, God is 
 here!” Gentle presences, as of mercy, are peering through 
 the lines. We feel the pulsations of a living spirit beneath 
 the outward form of words. It is as though the Invisible 
 had whispered in the deepest depths of our nature, “I have 
 found thee and thou mayest not escape I ” A preternatural 
 finger has touched our heart, and it quivers with rapture and 
 with awe. A voice from within responds to the voice from 
 without, and the conviction is instant and irresistible, 
 ‘‘ These are the words of God! ” 
 
 Thus the Bible speaks directly to the heart. It wakes 
 up the divine intuitions of the soul. It meets and answers 
 the deepest longings, wants, sufterings, hopes, and fears of 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 49 
 
 man. It answers and it exceeds them all. It awakens new 
 aspirations and new; hopes. It furnishes new ideals of 
 goodness, of purity, of charity, of endurance, and self- 
 sacrifice, of which we had not felt the inspiration before. 
 And we are constrained to fall upon our knees and implore 
 strength from on high, that we may be enabled to actualize 
 them in our lives. This is the might and the majesty of 
 self -attestation. This is the evidence which is felt by the 
 educated and the uneducated alike. The man who has 
 studied the historical evidences, and the man who knows 
 nothing about them, are here as one. As Carlyle has justly 
 said, “In the poorest cottage is one Book wherein for several 
 thousands of years the spirit of man has found light and 
 nourishment, found an interpreting response to whatever is 
 deepest and divinest in him. Wherein still to this day, for the 
 ej"e that will look well, the mystery of existence is revealed 
 and propheticall}^ emblemed, if not to the satisfying of the 
 outward sense, yet to the opening of the inner sense, which 
 is the grander result.” And what is this “openingof the 
 inner sense” of which Carlyle speaks, but the awakening of 
 the Christian consciousness? 
 
 And, now, if a sincere and hearty faith in the mission 
 and teaching of Christ has opened in man this inner sense ; 
 if it has vitalized his conscience, and transformed his char- 
 acter; if it has led him beyond the outer crust of sensible 
 phenomena into the invisible sphere of eternal realities ; if 
 it has disarmed the power of temptation, and strengthened 
 
 him in the performance of duty; if it has been his solace in 
 E 
 
so 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 affliction and bereavement; if it has given him nobler views 
 of life, and transformed death into one of God’s angels; if 
 it has been the inspiration of his noblest deeds, and made 
 self-denial and sacrifice for the good of others a i-eal joy, 
 then he has within himself the best and surest evidence of 
 its truth. This inherent power and life of Christianity is 
 for him its self-attesting evidence. It is real proof. It 
 touches the soul. It comes home to his purest thoughts and 
 deepest feelings. It harmonizes with everything deepest and 
 divinest in him. And it inspires him with the conviction 
 that it is Bimne, 
 
 Therefore we do not hesitate in affirming that the 
 deepest and strongest demonstration of the divinity of Chris- 
 tianity must rest upon the living and intuitive syllogism of the 
 heart, (John vii. 17. Rom. i. 13. 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5, 10. 2 Cor. 
 iv. 6, 13.) We are quite prepared to endorse the remarks 
 of Carlyle in his “Essay on Voltaire:” “The Christian 
 Religion has a deeper foundation than Books, it is written 
 in the purest nature of man in mysterious, ineffaceable char- 
 acters, to which Books, and [verbal] Revelations, and au- 
 thentic traditions are subsidiary, — the light whereby that 
 Divine writing may be read.” 
 
 I anticipate an objection, the only one, in fact, which 
 can be urged against this mode of reasoning, by the skeptical 
 mind. Yes! you answer, the evidence from your own sub- 
 jective experiences may be satisfactory to your own mind, 
 but inasmuch as I have had no such experience, it can be no 
 evidence to me. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 51 
 
 That there is some force in this objection I readily grant, 
 bnt not to the extent that yon claim. Yon push the objec- 
 tion to an extreme which is not only unfair, but I think 
 discourteous. If you credit us with ordinary judgment, and 
 common honesty, then our testimony to the wholesome in- 
 fluence of an earnest faith in Christian truth upon the inward 
 life, should be, at least, as good evidence for you as our tes- 
 timony to the efficacy of any tlierapeutic agent in relieving 
 our physical maladies; especially if our profession of inward 
 moral health is accompanied by the outward evidence of 
 moral healthfulness and moral power. It is true there is a 
 Theory of Medicine, as well as a Practice of Medicine; and 
 that theory must be grounded upon some knowledge of 
 Physiology, and of the modus operandi of remedial agents, 
 but after all, in your practice, you proceed almost exclusively 
 on the generalizations of experience. If you are a good 
 physician, you are an Empiricist in the best sense of that 
 much abused word. In ten thousand cases quinia has been 
 found an antiperiodic tonic; in ten thousand cases the belief 
 of Christian truth has been found an excellent moral tonic, 
 and a wonderful alterative also. The proof is just as valid 
 in the one case as in the other. It is an appeal to experience, 
 that is, to consciousness. 
 
 But I have already conceded your right to demand 
 further proof, and I have no desire to withdraw that conces- 
 sion. Christianty cheerfully surrenders itself to the test of 
 experience. It reserves to itself no immunity, and asks no 
 exemption from the established principles of experimental 
 induction. 
 
52 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 Cbristianity goes yet further. It professes to be a spec- 
 ial interposition of God for the education and moral disci- 
 pline of the race; a remedial interposition which aims to 
 deliver the race from the power of evil, and lift humanity 
 to a higher and nobler form of life. It claims that this in- 
 terposition was not a sudden but a gradual movement in 
 history, beginning, in fact, with the history of our race, and 
 continued through the ages, and like all the works of God a 
 progressive evolution. It is therefore predicated upon all the 
 facts in the history of our race, and especially upon those 
 facts of history which sober historians like ISHebuhr, Bunsen, 
 Arnold, have regarded as providential. Thus it surrenders 
 itself not only to the test of experience, but it bases its pre- 
 tensions upon the facts of histoiy, and subjects itself to all 
 the fair and legitimate rules of Historic Criticism. That is, 
 it not only offers us experimental evidence, but also probable 
 or moral evidence. 
 
 And here permit me to remark that I employ the word 
 ‘‘probable ” in the logical sense, to denote a kind of evidence, 
 and not a degree of evidence. In logic, the designation 
 “probable” is used in a technical sense quite different from 
 its usual signification. In common discourse it is applied to 
 evidence which does not command assent, but in logic it 
 denotes the highest kind of proof which the nature of the 
 subject admits. It is not opposed to what is certain, but it 
 is opposed to mathematical demonsti-ation. It does not say 
 “lam absolutely certain,” but it does say “I am morally 
 certain.” 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 S3 
 
 There are persons who demand more, as a condition of 
 their faith in Christianit}^, than moral certainty. They say, 
 in an affair of such vast moment, wherein our present and 
 eternal well-being are involved, we ought to have mathe- 
 matical, or something like mathematical demonstration. 
 Surely this is an unreasonable and impossible demand. 
 Mathematics, of all sciences, has the least content, and it is 
 the most certain simply because it is the most abstract. 
 When applied to the concrete phenomena of nature it must 
 derive its djtta from the facts of experience. If these facts 
 are misapprehended, even mathematical reasoning gives 
 false conclusions. But the nature of the problem now be- 
 fore us precludes matliematical proof. Do you gentlemen 
 who are studying Law, expect to determine the guilt or in- 
 nocence of the prisoner at the bar by calculus? If so, you 
 are studying the wrong text-books and attending the wrong 
 lecture-room. Instead of Greenleaf on Evidence, you 
 ought to take up Price or De Morgan on Differential and 
 Integral Calculus. Do you physicians expect to diagnose 
 the nature of mental diseases, and determine the fitness of 
 any remedies by Equations? I fancy you working out the 
 problem beside the couch of your patient while he peers 
 quizzically out of the blankets, and wonders which is the 
 fittest candidate for the lunatic asylum. Gentlemen, be as 
 reasonable in your demands upon Christianity as jmu are in 
 other matters of human interest. Probability is for you the 
 very guide of life. In matters of the highest concern; in 
 matters affecting your business, your character, your health, 
 
54 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 your happiness, and the health and happiness of all who are 
 dear to you; in questions of life or death, you are, and must 
 he, guided by probable, that is, moral evidence. And so 
 also in the questions which concern your soul, your moral 
 life, and your everlasting destiny. Suppose you cannot 
 prove the immortality of the soul as you can demonstrate 
 that “the sum of three angles of a triangle is equal to two 
 right angles,” what then ? Will you turn a deaf ear to every 
 other kind of proof? Will you despise the noble aspirations 
 of your own deathless mind, and live and die like the brute? 
 Suppose you cannot prove the leading facts of the Saviour’s 
 life, and the leading truths of His ministry, in the same way 
 that you demonstrate that “if three quantities are in pro- 
 portion, the product of the extremes is equal to the square 
 of the mean,” what then? Will you deny that He ever 
 lived upon the earth ; will you trample under foot that 
 teaching which Theodore Parker saj^s “is pure as the light, 
 sublime as heaven, true as God ; ” and will you reject His 
 proffered help and grace ? 
 
 You confess you need more light on questions which 
 touch the religious nature of man, and underlie the religious 
 history of humanity. You want a better understanding of 
 your relations with God, and your dut}’ towards God. If it 
 be only from a feeling of curiosity, you want to know some- 
 thing about that invisible world of real being which under- 
 lies the world of phenomena; for as Plato says, “He was 
 not a bad genealogist who said that Iris^ the messenger of 
 heaven, is the child of Thaumas (wonder).” You have an 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 55 
 
 instinctive and resistless longing to know more about the 
 future life, and about your personal interest therein. Well, 
 here is a revelation which supplies that information ; here is 
 a revelation from that invisible world, a revelation which 
 professes to be from God, and the great question is, Can I 
 rely upon it ? Is it authentic ? Is it really divine ? 
 
 The problem is now fairly* before our minds. The 
 question whether the Christian Eeligion is a divine religion; 
 whether as an Economy it was originated by God; whether 
 as a Doctrine it was taught by God, resolves itself simply 
 into a question of historic fact. The history which is given 
 in the Old and ^evv Testament is almost exclusively a his- 
 tory of the direct and supernatural interposition of God in 
 the affairs of men for the irreligious instruction, and espec- 
 ially for their redemption from sin. Have we reasonable 
 evidence that it is an authentic and credible histoiy? If 
 the history is true, then the doctrine is necessarily Divine. 
 
 I shall endeavor to review the evidence in strict con- 
 formity with the laws of modern historic criticism as 
 approved bj^ our best historians. They consist chiefly of the 
 four following Canons, which I abridge from Rawlinson: 
 
 1. AVhen the record which we possess of an event is the 
 writing of a contemporary (supposing that he is a credible wit- 
 ness, and had means of observing the facts to which he 
 testifies) the fact is to be accepted, as possessing the first or 
 highest degree of historical credibility. 
 
 2. When the event recorded is one whicli the writer 
 ma,y be reasonably supposed to have obtained directly from 
 
56 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 those who witnessed it, we should accept it as credible unless 
 it be intrinsic<ally improbable. Such evidence possesses the 
 second degree of historical credibility. 
 
 3. When the event i-ecorded is removed considerably 
 from the age of the recorder of it, and thei;e is no reason to 
 believe that he obtained it from a contemporary writing, but 
 the probable source of his info»*mation was oral tradition ; 
 still, if the event be one of great importance, and of public 
 notoriety ; especially if it be one which afiected the national 
 life, and continued to be commemorated by some religious 
 festival, then it has a claim, in its genei*al outline at least, 
 to be believed as probably true. 
 
 4. When the traditions or records of one race are cor- 
 roborated by the traditions or records of another distant or 
 hostile race, the event has by this double testimony a higher 
 amount of probability, and thoroughly deserves acceptance. 
 
 A fifth canon has been oflered by Strauss which we shall 
 reject as arbitrary and unreasonable. It is based on an a 
 priori assumption of the absolute inviolability of the chain 
 of finite causation : and demands that from all history we 
 shall eliminate the supernatural, the miraculous. 
 
 • We shall devote a special lecture, at the end of the 
 course, to the discussion of “the Naturalistic Hypothesis.” 
 At present we assert, first, a miracle is not a violation of 
 natural law, but a subordination of the order of nature to 
 higher ^moral ends; secondly, the absolute uniformity of 
 nature is not an a priori intuition, but an induction from 
 experience, and cannot therefore be dogmatically affirmed as 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 57 
 
 a law governing experience; thirdly, man has an innate 
 natural faith in the supernatural, and experience and human 
 testimony can attest to us the occurrence of a supernatural 
 event; fourthly, we have all had experience of events which 
 are outside the chain of physical causation, and know from 
 experience that there are such things as ^fc/^-natural, non- 
 natural, and s^/^er-natural occurrences. If yon fire a pistol 
 into the brain of your fellow-man and thus terminate his 
 existence, you do an l^7^-natural deed. If the chemist freezes 
 water in a red-hot crucible, he performs a 7^o^^-natural act, 
 that is, he does what nature in her orderly, regular, natural 
 working never does. If, in the exercise of my free spirit- 
 power, I make an alternative choice, and subordinate my 
 natural impulses to the law of my conscience, I perform a 
 «wp^7'-natural act. If the Deity be an intelligent, free per- 
 sonality, He may do all this, and infinitely more. In the 
 exercise of His omnipotence. He may subordinate nature to 
 special moral ends, and that is a miracle. 
 
 The position that we now seek to establish is, that we 
 have the highest moral certainty that the history in the Old 
 and ^^'ew Testament is authentic and credible. 
 
 Now, while we are prepared to admit tliat facts of per- 
 sonal experience seem to have a greater degree of certitude 
 tlian facts of history, yet there are many facts of history, of 
 which we ai*e as morall}" certain as we can be of any facts 
 wliich have come under our own personal observation. For 
 example, that Hannibal led an army across the Alps; that 
 Julius Caesar was murdered in the senate-house; that the 
 
58 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 Romans invaded and for a season held possession of Great 
 Britain; that M:)ses was the lawgiver of the Hebrew race; 
 that Christ was crucified in Judea, are facts of which I am 
 as morally certain as that I saw Tliackombau, the king of 
 Fejee, in 1854. It is possible that Tliackombau might have 
 treated me, as Mr. Dickens treated a party of Americans on 
 his first visit to our country when he sent his servant to im- 
 personate his real self, but it is impossible that the entire 
 Roman public, and the whole body of historians could have 
 been deceived as to the assassination of Julius Caesar. The 
 little speech which Shakspeare puts into the mouth of An- 
 tonins, nobody quotes as history, but that the people insisted 
 on burning his body in the Forum, and erected a chapel 
 over the spot, which was afterwards converted into a temple, 
 cannot be doubted. 
 
 Let us take as an example of the histoi-ic proof, and at 
 the same time as an illustration of the line of argument, the 
 fact that the Romans once held possession of Great Britain. 
 The proof of this fact may be made up by a variet}^ of con- 
 curring lines of evidence, — 
 
 1. Traditions still retained among the descendants of 
 the ancient Britains existing in Wales and Anglesey; 
 
 2. The testimony of contemporaneous historians, espec- 
 ially of Suetonius and Tacitus; 
 
 3. The remains of Roman buildings, camps, and walls, 
 scattered around the country; as, for example, Richborough 
 Castle in Kent; the archway at Lincoln, known as the 
 ‘‘ Newport Gate ; ” the great stone wall built by Hadrian, 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 59 
 
 extending from the Solway to the mouth of the Tyne, and 
 separating Columbia from Britannia; and the remains of 
 tlie Roman wall and buildings which formed the principal 
 station of the Roman army in Britain, and which are still to 
 be seen at York; 
 
 4. Roman coins of Tiberius, Augustus, Nero, and other 
 Roman Emperors, which are being constantly found in the 
 soil; 
 
 5. Roman inscriptions in every part of the country. 
 
 Now, here are five independent lines of proof, an}" one 
 
 of which is sufficient to prove the fact that the Romans once 
 held possession of Great Britain, but when taken all together, 
 they constitute a proof equal in force to a demonstration in 
 mathematics. 
 
 This, then, is an example of the line of proof, and the 
 nature of the evidence, which we shall present of the historic 
 accuracy of the Bible. We shall point to the same concur- 
 rent lines of proof to sustain the leading facts of the Bible, 
 that can be presented to prove that the Romans conquered 
 and held possession of Britain. 
 
 1. We shall point to the existence of a people called 
 the Jews, scattered among the nations of the earth, who for 
 3360 years have celebrated the Feast of the Passover, to 
 commemorate their deliverance from the bondage of Egypt; 
 and a sect called the Christians who for 1800 years have ob- 
 served good Friday and Easter Sunday, in commemoration 
 of the death and resurrection of Christ. 
 
 2. We shall appeal to concurrent traditions found 
 
6o 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 amon^ all nations; as, for example, traditions concernino- 
 the Creation, and the [N'oachian deluge. 
 
 3. We shall refer to the testimony of independent his- 
 torians who lived in Egypt, in Babylon, in Phoenicia, in 
 Rome, and in Judea. 
 
 4. We shall appeal to the remains of ancient cities, 
 mentioned in Scripture with great minuteness and particu- 
 larity, at Kineveh, Babylon, Tadrnor, Jerusalem, and Tyre. 
 
 5. We shall refer to existing monuments, inscriptions, 
 coins, and signets, which have been found in the Tombs of 
 the Kings of Egypt, and amid the ruins of Nineveh and 
 Babylon. 
 
 (5. And, finally, we shall call attention to the discover- 
 ies of Modern Science — especially. Philology, Ethnology, 
 and Geology — which have yielded their tj-ibute of evidence 
 that the Bible is true. 
 
 And, now, for a clear understanding of the subject, I 
 had better, at once, rapidly indicate the nature and sources 
 of our materials for a comparison of sacred and profane 
 history, which, if now carefully noted by you, will greatly 
 assist you in our future inquiry. 
 
 Of Egyptian history, we have the writings of Manetho, 
 who was the High Priest of Heliopolis, in the reign of 
 Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 304 B. c. 
 
 Of Babylonian history, we have the writings of Berosus^ 
 a Chaldean pi-iest, who lived in the time of Alexander the 
 Great, 356-323 B. c. 
 
 Of Phcenician history, we have the writings of Menander 
 and Dia.% native Phoenicians. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. ’ 6 1 
 
 Of Syrian history, we have the universal history of 
 Nicolaus of Damascus, who lived about the time of Alexan- 
 der, and drew the material of his work from native sources. 
 
 Of these writers, we have not complete manuscripts. 
 What we now possess are fragments quoted by other and 
 later writers, chiefly Josephus and Eusebius. These frag- 
 ments have been collected by Max Muller, and are accepted 
 and defended as unquestionably genuine by the philosophic 
 historian Xiebuhr, and the learned Egyptologist Bunsen. In 
 addition to these we have the great work of Herodotus, the 
 father of history. The authorities in Koman histoiy are 
 familiar to you all. But in addition to all these, and of 
 more value than all these, at least so far as Old Testament 
 history is concerned, we possess, as the result of late explo- 
 rations in Egypt, Nineveh, Persopolis, and Babylon, con- 
 temporaneous records, made by order of Assyrian and 
 Babylonian Monarchs; and a large amount of conflrmatory 
 proof from the Monuments, Temples, and Tombs of the 
 Kings of Egypt, and from the Catacombs at Rome. 
 
 In regard to these inscriptions on the monuments and 
 tombs in Eg3"pt, and the contemporaneous records made by 
 order of the Assyrian and Babylonian Kings, it may be 
 necessary to furnish a more particular account. 
 
 It was long suspected that the hieroglyphical inscriptions 
 on the monumental remains of Egypt contained records of 
 histoiy, which, could they be deciphered, would be of the 
 utmost consequence to the learned world. Great were the 
 expectations of scholars when it was announced that a key 
 
62 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 had been found by which the learned could unlock tlie 
 wards, and enter the portals, of these long concealed treas- 
 ures. That key was what is known to scholars as “ the 
 Eosetta stone.” It was discovered by the French in digging 
 on the redoubt of tliefort St. Julian, near the mouth of the 
 Rosetta branch of the Nile; and was surrendered by them, 
 with other antiquities, to the British commander, Lord 
 Hutchinson, after their signal defeat at Alexandria, on the 
 21st of March, 1800. It is now in the British Museum. On 
 its arrival in England antiquarians at once recognized its 
 value. It was found to be a decree in honor of Ptolemy 
 Y., sculptured 195 b. c., and written in three different char- 
 acters. One Greek, another hieratic or sacred characters, 
 the third enchorial or common characters. The most 
 fortunate circumstance of all was that the last sentence of 
 the Greek, orders that the decree shall also be inscribed in 
 hieroglyphic, enchorial, and Greek. The hopes of European 
 scholars have been realized, and a band of eminent linguists 
 and antiquarians, as Young, Champollion, Rosellini, Lep- 
 sius, Bunsen, Wilkinson, have been able to decipher the old 
 Egyptian, and open to us the treasures of Egyptian histoiy. 
 Egyptology has now become a science; and the grand 
 works of Bunsen, Wilkinson, and Thompson have made 
 ancient Egypt almost as familiar to us as ancient Greece. 
 
 Another source of information is found in the paintings 
 and sculpture with which the ancient Egyptians decorated 
 the walls of their temples and tombs, in forms and colors 
 which have survived the wastes of time. These paintings are 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 63 
 
 real illustrations of events which transpired during the reign 
 of the successive Kings of Eg}^pt, sometimes accompanied with 
 hieroglyphical inscriptions. They may be well compared to 
 an edition of Harper’s Weekly, in which historical events 
 are illustrated by engravings, and described in letter-press. 
 They bore exactly the same relation to the histoiy of those 
 times, that an illustrated newspaper bears to our times; only 
 they are more enduring. 
 
 The British government has been at an enormous ex- 
 pense to recover these ancient paintings and monuments; 
 and t<s»-day, if you visit the Egyptian rooms of the Britisli 
 Museum, you will be delighted and surprised to see that 
 ancient Egypt has had a resurrection. The tombs have 
 given up their dead, and some of the Pharaohs are lying in 
 state in London, with the records of their deeds and their 
 times surrounding them. 
 
 We shall see as vve proceed, how the first chapter in Ex- 
 odus receives a striking confirmation from the paintings in 
 the tombs below the temple of Karnak; and how many of 
 the accounts of the relations between the kings of Israel 
 and the kings of Egypt are sustained. This discovery gave 
 a new impulse to the same class of researches amid the ruins 
 of Nineveh, Babylon, and Persopolis. A fortunate, and as 
 I legard it, a providential discovery was made by Colonel 
 Rawlinson of what is now known as “ the great Inscription 
 of Darius.” On the western frontier of ancient Media, on 
 the road from Babylon to the southern Ecbatana, that great 
 thoroughfare between the eastern and the western provinces 
 
64 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 of ancient Persia, he found an inscription on a percipitous 
 rock, 1700 feet high. This again is trilingual. One transcript 
 is in the ancient Persian, one in Babylonian, and one in 
 Scythic or Tartar dialect. “ The Babylonian column of this 
 inscription,” says Layard, ‘Ms an invaluable key to the va- 
 rious branches of cuneiform writing.” And now the bas- 
 relief on the walls of the Palaces of Nineveh and Babylon, 
 which have been entombed for 2000 years, have been de- 
 ciphered by Loftus, Layard, Dr. Hinks, and Rawlinson. 
 The very bricks also have inscriptions on them. Cylinders 
 of baked clay and green felspar, which no doubt were the 
 signets of the Assyrian kings, are found covered with in- 
 scriptions. Winged bulls are Avritten over with these cunei- 
 form or arrow-headed characters, and no one can form any 
 conception of the vastness, the voluminousness, of these his- 
 toric records, until he has stood beneath the winged bulls, 
 and looked on the slabs of the palace of Sennacherib, now in 
 the British Museum. The history of the live great monarch- 
 ies of the ancient world has been discovered during the last 
 twenty years, and the volumes of EaAvlinson are an invalu- 
 able contribution to the truth of Old Testament history. 
 These endless inscriptions are found to be the records of the 
 acts and decrees of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, and 
 as we shall hereafter see, they are a wonderful confirmation 
 of the account which is given of these kings in the Hebrew 
 Scriptures. 
 
 The confirmations of the historic accuracy of the Bible 
 are increasing every year. It is in our remembrance that 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 6s 
 
 skeptical men used to say, Where is Nineveh? Where is 
 Babylon? These places never existed. Sennacherib, Shal- 
 maneser, Tiglath-Pileser, were as mythical as Agamemnon, 
 Hector, and Achilles. Your Bible is as legendary as Homer. 
 We hear no more of that banter now. All men have come 
 to regard the Old Testament as the oldest, the most reliable, 
 
 and the most authentic history. 
 
 F 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 “ For inquire^ I pray thee^ of the former age^ and prepare thyself to 
 the search of their fathers ; Shall not they teach thee^ and tell thee^ and 
 utter 'Words out of their heart — ^Job viii. 8, lo. 
 
 In my former lectures, I have endeavored to concen- 
 trate attention on the fact that Christianity has this peculi- 
 arity in contradistinction from all other forms of religion, 
 — it is preeminently an hisiorical religion. Other systems of 
 religion are almost exclusively ideal, poetic, mythical, and 
 legendary; but Christianity is based upon a connected series 
 of actual, historic facts, commencing with the creation of 
 man, and continuing to the present hour. 
 
 1 have endeavored to show that, as one form of ^‘abso- 
 lute religion,” it grounds itself upon all the facts of human 
 nature, that is, upon the ideas and laws of human reason, 
 and the instincts, aspirations, and wants of the human heart. 
 I have also endeavored to show that, as a form of “ personal 
 religion,” that is, a religion of one's personal, inner life, it 
 grounds itself upon the religious consciousness of each indi- 
 vidual Christian. And, finally, as an “historical religion,” 
 it is based upon the best authenticated facts of history. It 
 is claimed that all along the ages there has appeared on the 
 stage of history a class of facts which cannot be reduced to 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 67 
 
 the uniformities of natural causation, or accounted for 
 ascribing them to the contrivance and prearrangement of 
 designing men ; and these facts vindicate their claim to be 
 regarded as promdential^ and have been regarded as pi*ovi- 
 dential by the most philosophic historians. Commencing 
 with the very dawn of human history, we see a peculiar and 
 unique order of events arising, whicli, through the course of 
 ages, acquires, periodically, new significance and new mo- 
 mentum, until it culminates in the foundation of the Chris- 
 tian church, and tlie diftusion of Christianity in every part 
 of the habitable globe. And it is upon these peculiar, prov- 
 idential facts that the peculiar doctrines of Christianity are 
 founded ; so that, if the facts are found to be authentic and 
 credible, the religion must be accepted as divine. 
 
 I now propose that we shall study these facts, scrutinize 
 them as to their validity, estimate their value, and try to 
 grasp their significance and import; in the words of Bacon, 
 “first fairly criticise, and then honestly interpret the facts.’' 
 
 There is an historical sequence and a genetic connection 
 in the tissue of facts to be considered, {jand therefore it is 
 best we should follow the chronological order. I shall 
 therefore divide the whole sacred histoiy into jive periods: 
 
 1. From the Creation of Man to the Death of Moses, a 
 period of 2553 years ; 
 
 2 . From the Death of Moses to the Death of Solomon, 
 a period of 573 years; 
 
 3. From the Death of Solomon to the Captivity of Ju- 
 dah, a period of 387 years; 
 
68 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 4. From the Captivity to the Keformation under Nehe- 
 miah, a period of 184 years; 
 
 5. From the Birth of Christ to the Establishment of 
 Christianity, a period of 63 years. 
 
 I now invite your attention to the consideration of the 
 first period — that intervening between the Creation of Adam 
 and the Death of Moses — the record of which is contained 
 in the Pentateuch, or “Five Books of Moses.” 
 
 1. And, first as to the record itself. Here are five 
 Books familiar to us as “ The Five Books of Moses.” What 
 do we know of the history of these books? I do not mean. 
 What do we know of the history contained in the books, but 
 of the history of the books themselves? Here they are now 
 as a part of our English Bible, but how do we show that 
 they have been extant three thousand years ? And if the}^ 
 have been in existence for 3000 years, what evidence have 
 we that they are the same books they were 3000 years ago ? 
 How do we know they have not been so corrupted or 
 changed as to lose their identity, like Sir John Cutler's pair 
 of black worsted stockings, which his maid had so often 
 darned with silk that they had become a pair of silk stock- 
 ings ; in other words, what guarantee have we for the integ- 
 rity and purity of the text? 
 
 This certainly is an important question, and ought to be 
 studied by Christians at least In attempting an answer, we 
 shall commence from our own time, and traveling upwards, 
 see if we can trace the presence of the Pentateuch. To-day, 
 then, there are in existence a large number of Hebrew 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 69 
 
 synagpgue-rolls written on skins (and this you are aware 
 is the form of almost all ancient books), and private MSS. 
 on parchment, in Germany, Poland, and Spain. Some have 
 been found in Russia, in Malabar, and even in China. An 
 idea of the number of these MSS. may be gathered from the 
 fact, that, in preparing for his printed edition of the Hebrew 
 Bible, Dr. Kennicott collated 490 Jewish MSS. of the Book 
 of Genesis alone. The date of these MSS. is ordinarily given 
 in the subscription. Few of them are older than the twelfth 
 century. The subscription on the MS. Bible in the Library of 
 the University of Cambridge (England) fixes its date at 856 
 A. D. And there is a Pentateuch-roll which Pinner found 
 at Odessa, which was written in the year 580 A. D. This is ^ 
 the oldest known Hebrew MS. in existence. 
 
 There are also Greek MSS., translations from the He- 
 brew, which are still older than any of the Jewish MSS. ; 
 these belong, some to the fifth, and some to the fourth cen- 
 tury. Thej-e is one in the Vatican Library at Rome, another 
 in the Imperial Library at Paris, a valuable one in the Brit- 
 ish Museum, and the oldest of all was discovered by Tisch- 
 endorf at the Convent of St. Catherine, Mount Sinai, in ^ 
 1844. All these MSS. are based upon the translation made 
 b}^ order of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, for the 
 Alexandrian Library, and known as the “ Septuagiiit” or 
 LJ^X. ; because it was understood that seventy persons were 
 employed in the translation of the Hebrew into Greek. 
 Josephus relates that the Hebrew copy which was sent from 
 Jerusalem as a present to Ptolemy, was written in letters of 
 
70 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 gold on skins of admirable thickness, (xint. xii. 2. § ii.) 
 I have no doubt of the accurac}" of this statement; for one 
 of the handsomest MS. I ever looked upon was written in 
 letters of gold on purple vellum. This translation, called 
 ‘‘the Septuagint,” was made 280 b. c. We have found the 
 Hebrew Bible in existence 2100 years. 
 
 Older still, there was a Samaritan copy of the Five 
 Books of Moses which was probably made when Manasseh 
 and other Jewish priests went over into Samaria, and con- 
 temporaneous with the building of a temple on Mount 
 Gerizim, 409 B. c. This Samaritan Pentateuch is quoted by 
 Eusebius, Jerome, Procopius, and others ; and copies of it 
 were secured from the East by Archbishop Ussher in the 
 seventeenth century. 
 
 At a still remoter period, during the reign of Jehosha- 
 phat, King of Judah, 912 B. c., Levites were appointed to go 
 through all the cities of Judah to instruct the people, and 
 they carried with them copies of the Laws of Moses. (2 
 Chron. xvii. 9.) 
 
 And, lastly, we tind in the Book of Joshua, which is 
 generally believed to have been written by Joshua or one 
 of his immediate contemporaries, that Joshua speaks of 
 “the Book of the Law,” “the Book of the Law of Moses,” 
 as a book containing “ all that Moses commanded.” Thus 
 we are carried up to 1451 b. c., that is, a few years subse- 
 quent to the deatli of Moses. 
 
 Here, then, we have a remarkable book; for the Penta- 
 teuch was originally one book, and the division into five 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 71 
 
 books, or rolls, was made as a mere matter of convenience. 
 Aside from its claim to be regarded as a revelation from 
 God, it has, in a literaiy point of view, an interest and an 
 importance to which no other document can pretend. If it 
 is not absolutely the oldest book in the world, it is certainty 
 the oldest historic record in the world that assumes the form 
 of a book. There are some papyrus-rolls in the British 
 Museum which were written about the same time that the 
 genealogies of the Semitic race were so carefully collected 
 in the tents of the Patriarchs. But these papyrus-rolls are 
 of no service to the historian. It is said there are fragments 
 of Chinese litei*ature which in their present form date back 
 as far as 2200 B. c., at least so Colebroke thinks. But these 
 are either calendars containing astronomical calculations, or 
 records of mere local interest. Genesis, on the contrary, is 
 rich in details respecting other races besides the Hebrew 
 race. 
 
 If the religious books of other nations make no preten- 
 sions to vie with Genesis in antiquity, in all other respects 
 they are immeasurably inferior. The Mantras, the oldest 
 portion of the Yedas, are, it would seem, as old as the four- 
 teenth century b. c. The Zend-Avesta, in the estimation of 
 competent scholars, is of a much more modern date. The 
 oldest of the Chinese sacred books, the Yih-King, is of a 
 venerable antiquity, but the writings of Confucius are not 
 earlier than the sixth century B. c. But Genesis is unlike 
 the Veda, which is a collection of hymns ; unlike the Zend- 
 Avesta, a metaphj^sical speculation on the origin of all 
 
72 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 things ; unlike the Yih-King, which is a treatise on ethics. 
 Genesis is a history^ and it is a history of the religious de- 
 velopment of humanity for 2500 years. 
 
 The Pentateuch has always been regarded by the Jews 
 as a sacred book, and the text was carefully pieserved and 
 scrupulously respected. Josephus says that throughout the 
 ages that have passed no one ventured to add to, or take 
 away from, or transpose, aught in the sacred writings ; and 
 he assures us that the Jews would suffer any torment, and 
 even death itself, rather than change a single point or iota 
 of the Scriptures. Laws were prescribed as to the quality 
 and size of the parchment to be used, and the amount to be 
 written on each page. In the times of Ezra, there arose a 
 class of Jewish critics called Masorites, whose especial busi- 
 ness. it was to preserve ^he purity of the sacred text. To 
 this end they counted every line, word, and letter, and even 
 went so far as to ascertain how often each letter of the 
 alphabet occurred in the Bible, and what word or letter 
 occupied the centre of the whole book. At the end of each 
 MS. they added a note giving the result of all these investi- 
 gations. These are called the “ Masoritic notes.” So mucli, 
 then, for the record itself. 
 
 2. As to the authorship of the Pentateuch. Were the 
 five books ascribed to Moses really written by him? We 
 answer, in general, the voice of positive, uniform, and an- 
 cient tradition ascribes them to Moses, and it is upon this 
 kind of evidence we have mainly to rest in all classic au- 
 thorship. Few books, comparatively, tell us by whom they 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 73 
 
 were written. Neither the Commentaries of Caesar, nor the 
 Annals of Tacitus, nor the Hellenic of Xenophon, nor the 
 Dialogues of Plato, nor the Philosophical and Logical works 
 of Aristotle, nor the Lives of Plutarch, nor, at least, nine- 
 tenths of the remains of ancient literature, contain any 
 specihc statement showing by whom they were written. 
 The only evidence applicable to such cases, and with which 
 the common sense of mankind has been universally satis- 
 fied, is public notoriety^ that is, traditions transmitted to the 
 successive generations of men by their predecessors, and 
 this traditional knowledge confirmed by the quotations and 
 allusions of other authors. It has therefore come to be a 
 general canon of historic criticism, that books are to be re- 
 garded as the product of the persons whose names the}" bear 
 unless strong reasons can be presented to the contrary. The 
 burden of proof, at an}^ rate, devolves upon those who deny 
 their genuineness. Take a most extreme case in illustra- 
 tion, the Iliad of Homer. Wiio can tell us anything con- 
 cerning Homer himself? Tliere is a difference of 4G0 years 
 in the eight different periods which have been assigned as 
 tlie time when he lived, and seven different cities claim tlie 
 honor of being his birthplace. There is no such uncertainty 
 in regard to Moses. But yet the universal belief in all ages 
 has been that Homer was the author of the Iliad, and you 
 have numerous quotations therefrom in many subsequent 
 writings; for example, in the third book of Plato’s Repub- 
 lic; and Plato lived 409 B. c. 
 
 It is needless for me to occupy your time with proof 
 
74 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 that the Jews have in all a^es assigned the authorship of the 
 Pentateuch to Moses. In nearly every succeeding book of 
 the Old and New Tertament it is quoted, or incidentally 
 referred to, as the work of Moses. Josephus, in his ‘‘First 
 Book Against Apion,” says explicitly: “We have twenty- 
 one books which contain the records of all past times, 
 which are justly believed to be Divine. And of them, five 
 belong to Moses, which contain his Laws, and the traditions 
 of the origin of mankind, till his death. The interval of 
 
 time was little short of 3000 years.” “It is become 
 
 natural to all Jews, from their birth, to esteem these books 
 as containing Divine doctrines, to persist in them, and, if 
 occasion be, to die for them.” 
 
 To this unanimous voice of the Jewish nation we may 
 add the testimony of numerous heathen writers, as Manetho 
 of Egypt, Lysimachus of Alexandria, Tacitus the Roman, 
 Juvenal, and many others, who ascribe to Moses the institu- 
 tion of that code of laws by which the Hebrews were gov- 
 erned and distinguished as a nation, and most of them 
 distinctly recognize the fact that he committed them to 
 writing. 
 
 These authorities cover a space of time extending from 
 the time of Alexander the Glreat, when the Greeks began to 
 manifest some interest in Jewish history, to the time of the 
 Emperor Aurelian, when Jewish literature had been thor- 
 oughly studied by the learned and acute Alexandrians. 
 
 There are certain objections which have been urged by 
 skeptics against the authorship of Moses, which, though of 
 little weight, demand a passing notice. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 75 
 
 1. It is urged by Paine that these books cannot have 
 been written by Moses, because they are written in the third 
 person. It is always said, -‘the Lord spake unto Moses,” 
 not “the Lord spake untome,’’ “which,” says Paine, “it 
 should, or would have been, had Moses really been the 
 author.” 
 
 This objection can certainly have no weight with edu- 
 cated and sensible men, for this is the stjTe which is adopted 
 by the most eminent of the ancient historians, Josephus, 
 Xenophon, and Caesar. Throughout the whole of Caesar’s 
 Commentaries we read of Caesar making a speech, Caesar 
 crossing the Rhine, Caesar invading Britain, etc., but every 
 schoolboy knows that this is not to be urged, for a 
 moment, as a serious objection to the universal belief of 
 centuries tliat Caesar wrote these Commentaries. 
 
 2. A second objection urged by Paine is, that in the 
 last chapter we have an account of the deatli of Moses, and, 
 of course, a man cannot write an account of his own death 
 and burial. 
 
 Xow, that this last chapter is an addendum, a supple- 
 ment to the Book of Moses, added in all pi'obability by 
 Joshua, and, perhaps, at one time a part of the Book of 
 Joshua, is I think very evident. First, because we are told 
 in one of the last chapters that “when Moses had made an 
 end of writing the words of the law until it was fin- 
 ished, he handed it to the Levites to be kept in the side of 
 the ark.” This was, then, the natural and appropriate con- 
 clusion of the book. Secondly, the close connection between 
 
76 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 this supplementary chapter, and the commencement of the 
 Book of Joshua, is so obvious, as plainly to intimate that it 
 was written by him as an addendum to the books of Moses, 
 or else transposed by subsequent transcribers from the early 
 part of Joshua as naturally belonging to, and necessary to 
 furnish, a complete account of Moses, the great prophet of 
 the Jewish church. Thirdly and finally, the presence of 
 this supplementary chapter is no more a proof that the rest 
 of the books were not written b}^ Moses, than the eighth 
 book of Caesar on the wars in Gaul, being supplemented by 
 some unknown hand, is a proof that Caesar did not write the 
 other seven. Let the Pentateuch be, at any rate, treated 
 with the same fairness with which other books are treated. 
 
 3. A third objection is urged by Colenzo. He says that 
 the Pentateuch cannot have been written by Moses, because 
 there are some numerical and chronological errors in the 
 books. 
 
 Now, if this allegation were true, it might prove that 
 Moses was a poor arithmetician or an unreliable historian, 
 but it certainly would not prove that he did not write the 
 history. As to the supposed errors themselves, we will con- 
 sider what he has to say when we come to consider the 
 veracity of Moses, or, in other words, the authenticity of the 
 Pentateuch. We will, in the meantime, grant that some of 
 the figures of the Pentateuch are now wrong ; does it there- 
 fore follow that the original figures of Moses and the early 
 manuscripts were wrong? Every scholar knows that an- 
 cient manuscripts were multiplied by transcription with the 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 77 
 
 pen ; that the numerals in the Hebrew are represented by 
 letters, some of which might be easily mistaken for others ; 
 and that, unless we indulge in the absurd idea that everj^ 
 obscure scribe who made a new MS. of the Pentateuch was 
 by a perpetual miracle preserved from making a mistake, 
 some numerical errors may have naturally arisen in subse- 
 quent ages. Such mere errors in transcription Colenzo 
 himself admits ought not to be permitted in our minds to 
 encourage an unjust suspicion as to the veracity of the orig- 
 inal Mosaic compositors. And yet, as we shall see in our 
 subsequent inquiries, these apparent numerical discrepancies 
 are the only objections Colenzo has to urge against the testi- 
 mony of universal tradition and universal history, sacred 
 and profane, heathen and Jewish, that Moses wrote the 
 Pentateuch. The presence of numerical errors can never 
 be urged by an honest mind, and never has been urged by 
 the critical or philosophic historian, as any proof that a 
 book is not genuine, or that it is not the product of the 
 author whose name It bears. Herodotus tells us that the 
 army of Xerxes numbered one million seven hundred thou- 
 sand men (Book vii.). Xow, I presume every scholar 
 regards this as a numerical error. And yet you would 
 account the man as very unreasonable who should urge this 
 as a proof that Herodotus did not write the history which 
 bears his name. 
 
 These objections of Paine and Colenzo are therefore of 
 no weight against the universal voice of antiquity, which, 
 without one exception, sustains the Mosaic authorship. 
 
78 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 If, then, Moses wrote the Pentateucli, we come now to 
 discuss our second question, Is his history an authentic 
 one? Does he narrate facts ot which he was personally 
 observant, or which he knew were true on the best and most 
 reliable testimony ; or does he deal in mere fables and 
 myths ? 
 
 N^ow, we desire to be explicitly understood at this point. 
 We shall not answer this question after the manner in which 
 it is usually answered, namely, that Moses was inspired b}^ 
 God to write, and therefore all he wrote must be true, be- 
 cause that answer carries no conviction to the mind of the 
 skeptic, nor even to the sincere doubter, of whom I know 
 there are many. 
 
 We shall answer this question in the same manner as we 
 should were it proposed in relation to Caesar or Xenophon- 
 or Herodotus of ancient times, or M acaulay or Bancroft of 
 modern times. Looking at the matter purely as one of 
 historic criticism, we shall endeavor to apply the same rules 
 of judgment to what is called sacred history as we would 
 to profane history, and deal with Moses as we do with every 
 other historian. We remarked last Sunday that it is a rule 
 of historic criticism that the genuineness of a book, the 
 established fact that it was written b}" the man whose name 
 is affixed to it, carries the authenticity of the narrative, at 
 least, in its main particulars. 
 
 If we have the author's name attached, we have some 
 one who has made himself responsible to the world for the 
 accuracy of the narrative, and whose character foi* veracity 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 79 
 
 we may be able to appreciate. In the affairs of eveiy-day 
 life we attach little value to a merely anonymous story ; if 
 the author’s name is given, we have vastly more confidence; 
 if we know him to be generally a man of veracit}", we be- 
 lieve without hesitation. This remark applies with increased 
 foi’ce to written history. We are to presume that when a 
 man writes a histor}^ for the public and for posterity, his 
 design is to narrate facts. He ma}" be liable to error, may 
 be misled by others, but as a general rule, he intended to 
 tell the truth, and we are bound to act on that presumption 
 unless we can show tliat he had some powerful motive to 
 attempt a deception. We argue this on the ground that it 
 is much more natural and easy for a man to tell the truth 
 than to tell a falsehood, and that men do, indeed, utter 
 vastly more truth than falsehood. We can conceive of no 
 state of mind more unnatural and mean than that which 
 regards with universal mistrust and skepticism the testimony 
 of other men. And we cannot help thinking that the man 
 who is everlastingly questioning the veracity of others, is 
 judging his fellows by a rule which he feels is applicable to 
 himself. The practice of the coarse and vulgar infidel is to 
 pronounce the sacred historian a deceiver, a liar ; but the 
 intelligent skeptic is ashamed of such a course. Strauss, the 
 great skeptic of Germany, disingenuously and honestly 
 avers, that “Moses, being the leader of the Israelites on 
 their departure out of Egypt, would undoubtedly give a 
 faithful history of the occurrences unless (which is not 
 pretended) he designed to deceive.” These are the proper 
 
y 
 
 8o UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 and natural inferences which Strauss felt must flow from 
 the admission that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. 
 If he wrote the book, it must be accepted as, in the main, 
 authentic and true. 
 
 A plausible falsehood, we remark further, is a matter 
 of extreme difficulty. It is the hardest task in the world 
 to tell a lie that will maintain its own consistency and live. 
 It is difficult, nay in fact impossible, to interpose a series of 
 falsehoods right into the current of history, without there 
 being numberless points at which it cannot be made to har- 
 monize. Falsehood can never quadrate with truth. It is 
 much easier for the historian to tell the truth than to perpe- 
 trate a falsehood. ' And especially when the historian ad- 
 dresses himself to the masses of men and to posterity, there 
 is a solemnity in the occasion which makes him feel that he 
 must aim at truth. The universal presumption of our race 
 is, that history, generally speaking, is to be relied upon when 
 it bears the author’s superscription. 
 
 All history, sacred and profane, all tradition, with a 
 unanimous voice, assert that Moses was the author of the 
 five books which bear his name. The general presumption, 
 then, is in favor of their being authentic history. 
 
 2. A second canon of historic criticism is, ‘‘When the 
 record we possess is the writing of a contemporary who had 
 the means of observing the facts to which he testifies, and 
 is a writer upon whose integrity we have good reason to de- 
 pend, then the record is to be regarded as possessing the 
 highest degree of credibility.” 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 8l 
 
 This is a law of historic criticism which is laid down 
 and applied to all history by such philosophic historians as 
 Niebuhr, Muller of Germany, Arnold and Lewis of En- 
 gland. The importance of this canon is admitted even by 
 the German infidel Strauss. “It would,” says he, “most 
 unquestionably be an argument of decisive weight in favor 
 of the credibility of Biblical history, could it indeed be 
 shown that it was written by eye-witnesses;” and again, 
 “ Moses, being the leader of the Israelites on their departure 
 from Egypt, would undoubtedly give a faithful history of 
 the occurrences unless he designed to deceive.” 
 
 Let us apply these two rules of historic criticism to the 
 Pentateuch. We have shown beyond the possibility of suc- 
 cessful contradiction that Moses was the author. We have 
 therefore the direct testimony of a contemporary, an eye- 
 witness of the facts which he narrates, an actor in the very 
 events he records, and not an actor only, but the leader in 
 the transactions which he relates, as Caesar was of the events 
 he narrates in his Commentaries. We have also here the 
 testimony of a writer on whose integritj^ we can depend, a 
 writer unquestionably honest, for he records his own sins 
 and defects, and the transgressions and sufferings of his own 
 people ; and necessarily honest, for he writes of events which 
 were publicly known to all. 
 
 In relation, therefore, to the events which are narrated 
 in four of these books, we have a work which, by the laws of 
 criticism accepted by the rationalists of Germany, is, for his- 
 toric purposes, just as reliable as, and, as we shall afterwards 
 G 
 
82 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 show, more reliable than Caesar’s Commentaries, Xenophon’s 
 Anabasis, Josephus’ Books of the Wars, or Maxwell’s Life 
 of Wellin<?ton, all written by contemporaries and eye-wit- 
 nesses. We have here the autobiography of a great man, 
 living in the midst of great events, the head of a nation at 
 the most critical period in its history, who commits to writ- 
 ing, as they occurred, the various events and transactions in 
 which he was engaged, whenever they are of a national or 
 public character. There is not a book in the world which 
 has a greater claim to be regarded as authentic and reliable, 
 than this account of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt 
 and their subsequent sojourn in the wilderness, as given in 
 the four books of Moses. And the Exodus is the founda- 
 ion-stone of the Divine legation of Moses. 
 
 In relation to the Book of Genesis, which covers an his- 
 toric period of more than 2300 years, the case is somewhat 
 different. Moses could not here speak from his own per- 
 sonal knowledge, and consequently in this record we have 
 not the testimony of an eye-witness. Many of the materials 
 of this book, however, were gathered from those who were 
 eye-witnesses, from family legends and registers, from care- 
 fully transmitted traditions, and, in all probability, from 
 some primitive documents extant in the time of Moses. 
 
 Let us look fairly at the case on the hypothesis that he 
 depended solely on oral tradition. Moses was, on his moth- 
 er’s side, a grandson of I^evi, one of the twelve sons of 
 Jacob. He would therefore possess an accurate knowledge 
 of the time of the first going down to Egypt, and of the 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 83 
 
 history of Joseph, as men nowadays possess of their own 
 families in the days of their grandparents. On this ground 
 alone, Moses becomes' as good an authorit}^ for the largest 
 and most important part of the Book of Genesis, embracing 
 the life of Joseph, and the latter part of the life of Jacob, 
 as Herodotus could be for the reign of Cambyses, or Fabius 
 Pictor for the account of the third Samnite war. 
 
 Again, with regard to the earlier history of the Book of 
 Genesis, I ask you to remember how few hands the tradition 
 passed through from Adam to Moses. Adam was for 243 
 years contemi)orary with Methuselah. Methuselah was for 
 100 years contemporary with Shem. Shem was for 50 years 
 contemporary with Jacob. And Jochebed, Moses’ mother, 
 was the daughter of Levi, the third son of Jacob, and in all 
 likelihood conversant with Jacob. So that, supposing Moses 
 to have depended solely on oral tradition, he might have 
 obtained the histoiy of Abraham, of the Dispersion, and 
 even of the Deluge, at third-hand, and of the events pre- 
 ceding the Deluge at fourth-hand. Xow, in connection 
 with these facts let it also be borne in mind that events of 
 such great and stirring magnitude, of such immediate inter- 
 est in a nation’s life, as for example the Deluge or the Dis- 
 persion, would cej’tainly be remembered for the space of 
 tive generations; and we know that in point of fact the oral 
 tradition of the Noachian Deluge was preserved with re- 
 markable accuracy among the descendants of Noah in 
 Chaldea, Egypt, Greece, Hindostan, and even Mexico, for 
 2000 years. But when, in addition to this, we take account 
 
84 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 of the almost certain fact that Moses had access to monu- 
 ments and records and family and tribal registers of still 
 earlier times, which had been preserved in the tents of the 
 Patriarchs, then his books acquire an additional historic 
 value. The Book of Genesis bears internal marks of being 
 a compilation from earlier documents. The Hebrew lan- 
 guage itself bears to the eye of the scholar intrinsic evidence 
 of philological development, such as is seen in a comparison 
 of the English of Chaucer with that of Shakspeare, and 
 again with that of Macaulay. 
 
 Again, the superscriptions or headings of particular 
 portions show that they are distinct documents incorporated 
 by Moses. For example, the two accounts given of the 
 Creation, the first, commencing Chap. i. 1, “ In the begin- 
 ning,” etc., which is a poetic composition ; and the second, 
 commencing at Chap. ii. 6, ‘‘ These are the generations of 
 the heavens and the earth,” a prose composition, are evi- 
 dently separate documents. So also are Chap, v., “This is 
 the book of the generations of Adam,” and Chap. x. 1, 
 “ These are the generations of the sons of Noah.” These 
 were unquestionably documents which came to the hands of 
 Moses from antique times, and which he incorporates un- 
 changed into his own writings. There is also intrinsic evi- 
 dence of his having had access to earlier writings which 
 have this peculiarity, that in one of them the name of the 
 Deity is EloJiim and in the other Jehovah, and the Elohistic 
 documents were the most ancient. These, and many like 
 indications, naturally suggest that Genesis is a compilation 
 of earlier records. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 85 
 
 Let US now survey the ground we have passed over, and 
 epitomize the conclusions we have reached. 
 
 1. The Pentateuch was written by Moses. 
 
 2. Moses was an eye-witness and an actor, in fact the 
 principal actor, in most of the events he records. 
 
 8. In regard to matters not coming under his personal 
 observation, he wrote on the testimony of competent eye- 
 witnesses, and on the authority of contemporaneous docu- 
 ments which he found extant among the families of the 
 Patriarchs. 
 
 Here, then, we have an historical hook going -backward 
 to the very springs of human history, which gives us some 
 information as to the origin of all things, and especially as 
 to the origin of the human race; which narrates the earliest 
 history of the human family, and shows that man has in 
 all ages been the object of Divine regard, and that a Provi- 
 dence has presided over the dispersions and migrations of 
 the race. This history is found by all fair rules of historic 
 criticism to be as authentic and as credible as Herodotus, 
 Xenophon, Thuc}"dides, Caesar, or Tacitus. Moses, at any 
 rate, stands on an equal footing with any classic historian. 
 I shall endeavor to show in the next lecture that he stands 
 on a surer platform of fact than any of them, and that his 
 teachings as to the relations of God to the world and to 
 humanity, are sustained by a body of evidence which, in its 
 cumulative force, is more convincing than the evidence in 
 support of any modern scientific theory which arrays itself 
 against him. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 “ Through Jaith vje understand that the worlds were Jramed by the 
 vjord of God ?"^ — Hebrews xi. 3. 
 
 Ill my last lecture I stated that the historical portion of 
 the Book of Genesis alone, ehihraces a period of more than 
 .2500 years, and that the materials for the history of that 
 long period were obtained by Moses, 1. From the direct 
 verbal testimony of those who were eye-witnesses and actors 
 in the events, 2. From famil}^ legends and registers, 3. 
 From carefully preserved and transmitted traditions. And 
 4. From primitive documentary fragments either written on 
 papyrus-rolls or inscribed on stone, which were in existence 
 at the time of Moses. 
 
 The documentary hypothesis, as it is sometimes called, 
 rests mainly on internal evidence, and indirectly on the fact 
 that such remains were found among all the Semitic nations. 
 That evidence we briefly presented in the last lecture. 
 Those who desire to investigate the subject more fully will 
 And the arguments for and against this theory fairly pre- 
 sented in the article Pentateuch, in the second volume of 
 Dr. Smith’s Biblical Dictionary. The writer of the article, 
 Mr. Perowne, Yice-Principal of St. David’s College, and 
 examining chaplain to the Bishop of Norwich, remarks that 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 87 
 
 “if without any theory casting its shadows upon (is, and 
 without any fear of consequences before our eyes, we read 
 thoughtfully the Book of Genesis, we can hardly escape the 
 conviction that it partakes of the nature of a compilation. 
 It has indeed a unity of plan, a coherence of parts, a shape- 
 liness and order, which satisfies us that it is the creation of a 
 single mind. But it bears also manifest traces of having 
 been based upon an earlier work, and that earlier work 
 itself seems to have embedded in it fragments of still earlier 
 documents.” 
 
 I believe the theory is now generally accepted by the 
 best Hebrew scholars of England and Germany. Dr. Whe- 
 don may be regarded as a fair representative of American 
 theological opinion, for two reasons: 1st. Few people will 
 question his accurate scholarship; and, 2d, ^^o one I think 
 can doubt his evangelical orthodoxy. He says; “We see 
 not the slightest objection to the theory that Genesis is 
 largely composed of preexisting documents arranged and 
 adjusted by Moses under Divine direction. What is gained, 
 in point of authenticity or of value, by denying all previous 
 record, and thi*bwing Moses entii*ely on oral tradition, we 
 cannot understand. It is absurd to suppose that a tradi- 
 tional narrative becomes less authentic by being transferred 
 from the oral to the written. On the contrary, there is 
 something gratifying in the thought that in the Pentateuch 
 we read not only*the writings of Moses, but those, perhaps, 
 of Adam, of Seth, of Enoch, forming the growing Bible of 
 the primitive chufch of the early race.” On this hypothesis 
 
88 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES . 
 
 we can understand how these precious golden fragments, 
 being few and far between, as, for example, “the Hymn of 
 Creation,” probably composed by Adam, and “the Genera- 
 tions of the Heavens and the Earth,” which bears internal 
 marks of having been written at least 1500 years later, have 
 the appearance of being very incomplete, even in the hands 
 of Moses. 
 
 For myself, I unhesitatingly adopt the “documentary 
 hypothesis” with all its consequences. I am satisfied in my 
 own mind that there were many documents in existence at 
 the time that Moses wrote besides those which are incorpo- 
 rated in the Pentateuch. Of this I hold there is indirect 
 evidence in the book itself. From these ancient documents, 
 Moses selected, under Divine direction, such only as had 
 direct relation to the sole purpose of his writing, which cer- 
 tainly was not to give the natural history of the earth, nor 
 even the natural history of !iian, nor yet the civil history of 
 the Hebrews, but the religious history of the Adamic or 
 Edenic race as a covenant race which God took under His 
 immediate tutelage and providential guidance, that in and 
 through it He might bless all the other families and races of 
 men. Or, in other words. His single object was to write the 
 history of the kingdom or church of God on earth from the 
 Protevangelium, or first gospel preached in Eden, to the 
 redemption from Egyptian bondage, which was typical of 
 the greater redemption by Christ. All other geographical, 
 ethnological, and chronological notices are but incidental 
 and subsidiary to this one single design. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 89 
 
 The history of Biblical exegesis demands that we should 
 take account of another theory, which is gradually obtain- 
 ing the suffrages of Biblical scholars, namely, that at least 
 some of the ancient documents or fragments which Moses 
 incorporated in the Pentateuch, are unchronological, poetic, 
 symbolic, and mythical. 
 
 You attempt to retrace the history of any of the ancient 
 nations, and after following it for a few centuries through 
 the long-drawn aisles of antiquity, its oi*igin vanishes in 
 that mysterious border-land which separates the historic 
 from the unhistoric period, in which you have a strange 
 commingling of the natural and the supernatural, and a 
 constant intercourse between gods and men. The Iliad of 
 Homer is a splendid mirror in which such an unhistoric 
 period is reflected, as also the Yedas of India, and the Ed- 
 das of the ancient Germans. The life of every ancient 
 nation, like the life of every individual, has its beginnings 
 in a state of semi-unconsciousness which has no chronology, 
 a state of childlike subjectivit}" in which the conception of 
 the actual facts is modified by feeling or sentiment. This 
 period, therefore, was one in which the conception of na- 
 ture, and of the power which moves and governs nature, 
 was mythological, the language in which it was expressed 
 was poetic, and the worship was symbolical. Every ancient 
 nation, then, has had its mythical period, — the Assyrian, the 
 Hindoo, the Persian, the Egyptian, the Etruscan, the Scan^ 
 dinavian ; and why, it is asked, should the Caiuite, the 
 Sethic, and the Semitic races be regai'ded as exceptions to 
 
90 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 the general law? What is there of unreasonableness or of 
 improbability in the belief that the Adamic or Edenic race 
 had its sacred myths, as well as the Cushites, or the Aryan 
 races; and if they had their sacred myths, I think I can see 
 a fitness and a propriety in some of them being selected by 
 Moses, and incorporated into the Book of Genesis as repre- 
 sentations of the theological and religious conceptions of 
 that period. I am not unmindful of the fact that the word 
 itself grates offensively on the ears of most Christian think- 
 ers. The word myth has so long been employed as synony- 
 mous with fable, that the m 3 dhical is at once understood to 
 be the fabulous and the untrue. Strauss has made so mon- 
 strous and unfair a use of the mythical hypothesis in his 
 ‘‘Lebeii Jesu,” that Christians nowadays dislike to have the 
 word used in connection with the Bible. ‘‘ The histoiy of our 
 Lord,” says Strauss, “ is a myth.” There needs but a single 
 word to show the absurdity of such an hypothesis, and that 
 word has been well spoken b}^ Dr. Arnold: “ Think of the 
 
 growth of a mjdh in that sternly historic age of Livy, Taci- 
 tus, and Suetonius!” The supposition is a glaring absurd- 
 ity. This revulsion from the absurdities of Strauss has, 
 however, caused the peridulum of thought to fly to an oppo- 
 site extreme. A sacred myth 4000 v^ears before Christ is not 
 to be rejected because of Strauss’ unfairness and dishonesty. 
 What, then, really is a myth? I answer: 1st, It is not an 
 
 untruth, or, as Carlyle says, a “ no fact,” but it is a poetic 
 representation of a fact, and a representation which often 
 goes deeper into the very heart and meaning of the fact. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 91 
 
 than all bare prosaic descriptions of the mere outward, sen- 
 sible phenomena; for, as Aristotle remarks, ‘‘Poetrj^ is a 
 tiling more philosophical and weighty than mere fact-his- 
 tory.” The true poet interprets nature from the subjective 
 stand-point, in obedience to an innate sentiment of the 
 supernatural, the Divine. There is something in him akin 
 to inspiration, and hence it is that the grandest portions of 
 the Old Testament revelation are poetic. 2dly, A myth is not 
 a fable, it is not a fictitious narrative without any historic 
 basis. In the words of Nitzsch, one of the best and sound- 
 est theologians of Germany: ‘‘A myth is religious, primeval 
 history;” but it differs from pure histor}^, first, in its origin, 
 being prior to all fixed chronology and all records; sec- 
 ondl}^, in the fact that it does not interrogate and inquire, 
 but it asserts and testifies in order to produce faith, and not 
 to impart scientific knowledge ; tliirdly, it delivers the facts 
 unanalyzed, and in a poetic rather than a chronological or- 
 der. “ In this definition,” says Nitzsch, ‘‘ nothing is involved 
 which precludes the discovery of myths in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures which are the records of true religion. The rather 
 may we maintain that the Holy Scriptures alone contain 
 true myths, and heathenism none.” 
 
 To my mind the whole controversy as to whether Moses 
 has incorporated sacred myths into the books of Genesis 
 hinges on a question of definition. If you define a myth to 
 be a fable, a fiction wliich has no historic basis, then I say 
 there are no myths in Genesis. If, with Nitzsch, you define 
 a myth to be a reiigious primeval history which is poetic. 
 
92 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 iinchronological, and symbolic, then I can see no reason 
 why there should not be myths in Genesis, just as there are 
 fables, allegories, parables, symbols, and complex scenic 
 representations, in the other parts of Scripture. For ex- 
 ample, there is the beautiful fable of the trees choosing their 
 king in Judges; the allegory of the vine in the 80th Psalm; 
 the striking parables of Christ; the gorgeous symbolism of 
 Ezekiel’s prophecy, and the wonderful scenic representations 
 of the Apocalyptic vision. And so I cannot resist the con- 
 viction that there are sacred myths in Genesis, that is, there 
 are primeval compositions which were earlier than the 
 writings of Moses himself by nearly two thousand years, — 
 compositions which belong to that primitive condition of our 
 race in which theology and history took the form of poetry 
 and symbol, a period in which all mental movement was 
 synthetic and not analytic, and in which there was no chron- 
 ology and no attempt at scientific classification. In a word, 
 there are ancient fragments incorporated by Moses which 
 belong to the earliest life, to the very childhood of our race, 
 in which the conceptions of God, of nature, and of human- 
 ity, were determined by subjective feeling and native senti- 
 ment, and not by any refiective thought. 
 
 I feel that I have occupied too much time with this pre- 
 liminary exposition, perhaps lured on by the peculiar 
 fascination which the whole subject has over my own mind. 
 I deem it important that you should be en rapport with the 
 progress of modern thought, especiall}^ in regard to a theory 
 which is in itself highly philosophical, wl^ich is accepted by 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 93 
 
 a great number of orthodox Christians, and which disposes, 
 at one stroke, of all difficulties and all objections to the 
 Mosaic record. 
 
 And, now, let us endeavor to look at Genesis in its sim- 
 ple, original form. Let ns purge our minds at once from 
 that order of prepossessions which are incident to an un- 
 critical faith, and those counter prejudices which are born 
 of a captious skepticism; and especially let us forget the 
 chronology of Archbishop Ussher, which is printed on the 
 margin, and the division into chapters and verses made by 
 Hugh de St. Cher, both modern inventions, which are really 
 no more a part of the sacred record than the paper on which 
 it is printed, and have done more harm than good. The 
 Book of Genesis opens with a psalm, a hymn which Klop- 
 stock in his day called an “Ode to Creation,” and which 
 Dr. Whedon long ago designated “ a grand Symbolic Hymn 
 of Creation.” As far back as 1862, I find him writing in 
 the Quarterly which he edits, as follows: “The rythmical 
 
 character of the passage, its stately grandeur, its parallel- 
 isms, its refrains, its unity within itself, all combine to show 
 that it is a poem.” An analysis of its interior structure ex- 
 hibits a remarkable synthesis. It has first an exordium^ the 
 proemial part. Then it is articulated into six strophes. Then 
 there is the epode^ or peroration. The six strophes part 
 spontaneously into two groups, in which there is a balance 
 and correlation of parts celebrating the first three and the 
 last three concordant steps of the creative act, — the strophe 
 and the antistrophe. 
 
94 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 The exordium states briefly the subject of the poem, 
 “111- the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.*’ 
 The first three strophes unfold the creative development of 
 the receptaxiles, — ether, avater, land. The second three 
 strophes^ or more correctly antistrophes, unfold the crea- 
 tive development of the occupants, — luminaries, avater 
 TRIBES, LAND INHABITANTS. The epode^ 01 * pcroratioii, fills 
 up the sacred number seven^ the symbol, always, of perman- 
 ence and repose. “Thus the heavens and the earth were 
 finished (the receptacles), and all the host of them” (the 
 occupants). “ And on the seventh day God put a period to 
 the Avork Avhich he had made.” 
 
 I wish I were able to present it to the eye as it npw ap- 
 pears to my mind in its organic unity., “a solemn sonnet, 
 freighted with a single thought from beginning to end.” In 
 our English version, broken up into Akerses and split right 
 across into tAvo chapters, it is like an image refiected in a 
 shattered mirror; all its real beauty is concealed. But to 
 him who can look with a clear eye on this sublime composi- 
 tion, and grasp its real unity, it is unquestionably a real 
 hymn, composed in all probability by Adam, and chanted 
 in the tents of the patriarchs in their cA^ening and morning 
 Avorship, for more than 2000 years, to commemorate the 
 fact, and keep alive the faith that this Avorld is the Avork of 
 a triune God. 
 
 XoAAq if this be a psalm of creation, jmu must not ex- 
 pect that it shall be chronological, that it shall move accor<l- 
 ing to time-measures, and not according to poetic-measures. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 95 
 
 If you do, you are simply unreasonable. The 106th Psalm 
 is an epic poem, that is, it Is a narrative in poetic measure, 
 a history in metrical form. Who would be so unreasonable 
 as to demand that this psalm shall furnish any chronological 
 data, or conform to any time-measures whatever? Psalms 
 were to be sung and felt, not to be merely read and criti- 
 cised. The poet groups his materials for the best moral 
 elfect, and arranges his numbers to secure rythm and har- 
 mony. And it is a simple absurdity to demand that there 
 shall be any chronology; nay, it spoils the grand elfect to 
 tliink of any chronology in reading this “ Symbolic Hymn 
 of Creation.” 
 
 In fact, you are forbidden to think of time at all by the 
 very first word of the exordium, which states the subject of 
 the poem. The Hebrew B’reshith, the Greek dpyr^, in be- 
 ginning (not in the beginning, for the article is not used at 
 all), has no relation to succession in time. It signifies pre- 
 temporally, “before time or in eternity,” and is so ren- 
 dered by Meyer. It is the same word as stands in John i. 1, 
 “ In the beginning was the Word,” etc. And Tholuch and 
 Dean Alford both read the text, “ Before the world was,” 
 or before there were any time-measures. Indeed, the whole 
 poem represents an ideal conception, and not a time-march 
 of phenomena at all. So convinced am I on this point, that 
 I am confident that no man who has ever attempted to con- 
 ceive of the Creation in its relation to God, can fall into the 
 anthropomorphic error of saying that “God’s ways are like 
 unto our ways,” God’s speaking is like unto our speaking. 
 
96 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 and God's days are like unto our days of tvvent 3 ^-four hours. 
 As Dr. Whedon has justly remarked: “Our traditional, 
 human, anthropomorphic, unscientific scientific constructions 
 of this chapter are Japhetic interpretations of a Semetic 
 text.” 
 
 The men who will persist in regarding “the day of 
 God” as a solar day of twenty-four hours, are involved in 
 endless inconsistencies when they try to carry their method 
 rigidly forward through the whole Bible. Human or finite 
 measures of time, when applied to anything which God 
 does, can only be an accommodated representation to meet 
 our feeble comprehension, and we are constantly guarded 
 by the Bible itself against a literal and anthropomorphic 
 conception. So we read in Job x. 45: “Hast thou eyes of 
 flesh, or seest thou as man seeth ? Are thy days as man’s 
 da}^s?” To say that God’s days of working are like our 
 days, is just as absurd and degrading a conception as to say 
 that God’s eyes are “ eyes of flesh” like ours, and it is amaz- 
 ing that any thinking man can fall into such an absurdity. 
 Our time-measures cannot condition the Divine action. 
 “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, aiid a 
 thousand years as one day,” says Peter, which simply 
 means that time does not condition either the Divine life or 
 the Divine action, but that it is the Divine action which 
 makes and conditions all time. Attempting to measure 
 God’s days of working by twenty-four hours, is just as ab- 
 surd as the attempt to measure immensity by a three-foot 
 rule, or Omnipotence by horse-power. Try your twenty- 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 97 
 
 four hour measure on such texts as the following ; “ Your 
 
 father Abraham desired to see my ddy.’’’* “The day ot the 
 son of man.” “I must work the work of Him that sent 
 me, while it is “If thou hadst known in this thy 
 
 day."'* “He shall rise again at the last “The day of 
 
 judgment.” “The day of salvation.” “The terrible day 
 of God.” It will be a wholesome and profitable exercise 
 for 5 mu to take up the concordance and refer to all tlie 
 texts ill which the word day is used with any, even the 
 slightest, relation to the doings of God, and you will find 
 that it is always an indefinite period of time of longer or 
 shorter duration, and may be 2400 years, or 24,000 years, 
 just as easy as twenty-four hours. A.nd so in Genesis, when 
 it is said God rested on the seventh day, Avill you really pre- 
 sume to say that God “rested” as you rest, because he was 
 weary, and that he needed to rest just twenty-four hours? 
 Rise above your narrow conception of the Deity, lest God 
 himself reprove yon, and say as He did to the Jews : “Dost 
 thou think that I am altogether such an one as thou art, but I 
 will reprove thee! ” Is not God “resting” still, in the sense 
 in which the word “rest” is here used? Is not all time 
 since the creation God’s grand Sabbath, in which He is not ^ 
 doing works of creation, but works of love and mercy to 
 our race ? 
 
 If men were not blinded by a false education, they 
 would never think of literal solar days when reading Gene- 
 sis. The first day, the second day, the third day, could not 
 
 be solar days, for it was only on the fourth day that the sun 
 H 
 
98 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 became visible on the earth, and was appointed as a time- 
 measure “to rule the day.” Finall}^ the whole creative 
 epoch, “the creative week,’’ is called (Gen. ii. 5) a clay in 
 the second account of “the generation of the heavens and 
 the earth.” 
 
 It has been insinuated that this is an interpretation 
 forced upon us by the discoveries of modern science, that, in 
 fact, Theology has been perpetually driven back from her 
 positions by Science, and has been oblig'ed to have recourse 
 to subterfuge and equivocation in order to hold any ground. 
 I answer, the insinuation is as false as it is foul. This is a 
 mode af interpretation which was propounded ages before 
 Geology was known, and taught by Jewish Doctors and 
 Christian Fathers for 1500 years. St. Augustine, the great 
 father of Systematic Theology, who was born 354 A. d., 
 ages before Geology was born, asks the question, Wliat 
 mean these days, these strange, sunless days? Does the 
 enumeration of days and nights avail for a distinction be- 
 tween the nature that is not yet formed, and that which is 
 made, so that they shall be called morning (in reference to 
 appearing, receiving form, or species), and evening (in ref- 
 erence to their formlessness, and want of sensible quality or 
 appearance). Hence he does not hesitate to call the days 
 nature-births, growths, or solemn pauses in the Divine work. 
 They are “ days ineffable ; ” “their true nature cannot be 
 told.” Hence they are called days as the best symbol by 
 which they could be expressed. They are God-divided days 
 and nights, in distinction from sun-divided. (Common solar 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 99 
 
 days, he says, are mere vicissitudes of the heavens, mere 
 chamres in the positions of the heavenly bodies, and not 
 evolutions in nature which belong to a higher chronology, 
 and mark their epochs by a law of inward change, and not 
 of outward measurements. As to how long or how short 
 they were, he gives no opinion, but contents himself with 
 sa3ing that it is not a name of duration. The evenings and 
 the mornings are to be considered not so much in respect to 
 the passing of time, as to their marking the boundaries of a 
 periodic work oi* evolution. This, sa^^s he, is not a meta- 
 phorical, but the real and proper sense of the word da\^ 
 the most real and proper sense, the original sense, in fact, 
 inasmuch as it contains the essential idea of c}^clicity or 
 rounded periodicity, or self-completed time, witliout any of 
 the mere accidents that belong to the outward, solar, or 
 planetary periods, be they longer or shorter. See Lange’s 
 Commentary on Genesis ; Special Introduction b3- Taylor 
 Lewis, LL. D. 
 
 It is sometimes asked, if Moses did not intend the com- 
 mon solar day, why did he not give us some intimation to 
 that effect? The devout, Scripture-loving, and Scripture- 
 revering Augustine saw such intimations in abundance, — 
 saw them on the very face of the account. He could not 
 read the lirst chapter of Genesis, and think of ordinary 
 days. It was the wondrous style of the narrative that 
 affected him, the wondrous nature of the events and times 
 narrated. It was the impression of vastness, of uniqueness, 
 as coming from the account itself, but which so escapes the 
 
lOO 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 notice of unthinking readers. Wondrous things are told in 
 wondrous language, and therefore common terms are to be 
 taken in their widest compass, and in their essential instead 
 of accidental idea. It is the same feeling which atfects us 
 when we contemplate the language of prophecy, or that 
 which is called the great day of the world’s eschatology. 
 ISTo better terms could be used for the “creative pauses,” or 
 “successive natures,” as he styles them; and so no better 
 words could be used than “morning” and “evening” to 
 indicate the antithetical vicissitudes through which these 
 successive natures were introduced. The first day is simply 
 one great cycle in the history of nature. It begins with 
 “ an evening,” not with “ a mtorning.” “ The evening” was 
 the period of chaos, of darkness, of invisibility, of form- 
 lessness,[and of indivisibility. “ The morning” was the com- 
 mencement of motion in this chaos, of separation, and of 
 luminosity. God calls this new phase of the earth’s history 
 “day;” the condition which preceded it he calls “night.” 
 This is God's own use and meaning of the words, and we 
 must take it as our guide in interpreting the whole history 
 of the creative week. It is not duration, but the phenome- 
 non, the appearing itself, which He calls day. See Lange’s 
 Commentary; Special Introduction by Taylor Lewis, LL. D. 
 
 And this was not a mere fancy of St. Augustine. It 
 w’as the doctrine of the best of the Christian fathers, of Ire- 
 nseus. Origin, Jerome, Basil, Gregory I^azianzen. ^^ay 
 more, it was the doctrine of many of the doctors of the old 
 Jewish church. In more recent times, Calmet, Burnet, 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 lOI 
 
 Stilliiigfleet, Henry More, Lord Bacon, Poole, and others, 
 have entertained similar opinions; and this was long before 
 Geology existed as a science, and independent of any col- 
 lision with physical induction. Their opinions and inter- 
 pretations were consequently no shift for the avoidance of 
 difficulties, hut conclusions reached on sound principles of 
 Biblical exegesis. 
 
 If the first chapter in Genesis be sacred, poetry then we 
 are not justified in expecting to find in it either the princi- 
 ples or the phraseology of science an}" more than in the 
 Book of Psalms. That sacred hymn is no more a literal 
 detail of the actual process of creation, than the description 
 of the New Jerusalem in Kevelation is a literal picture of 
 the heavenly state. The design of all revelation is not to 
 teach science, but to teach i*eligion. A revelation made in 
 the language of science would have been unintelligible to 
 the race for 6000 years of its history, and, practically, would 
 have been no revelation at all. The design of the sacred 
 Hymn of Creation was to keep before the minds of the early 
 families of men a pure theism, to teach them that Jehovah 
 is the sole Creator and Lord of the heavens and the earth. 
 
 No candid man will deny that it fulfills that purpose 
 admirably. You must feel that it was well adapted to the 
 mind of the early races of men, and that for all moral and 
 religious purposes it does its work and fulfills its purpose just 
 as perfectly in these days of modern science. It is so filled 
 and permeated with religious grandeur that it can never be 
 supplanted and rendered void. No one can read it without 
 
102 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 being impressed with its moral superiority to all heathen 
 cosmogonies, and ancient physical theories, even that of 
 Plato himself. It is fi-ee from all tlie grotesque flights and 
 fantastic imagery by which they are disfigured. There is 
 no attempt to startle by wild conjectures, or to pander to a 
 foolish curiosity. It maintains a solemn grandeur and a 
 simple earnestness throughout. There is no confounding of 
 God with his works, no perplexity from rival powers, no 
 subjecting of the Deity to a dark necessity. It stands equally 
 opposed to all Dualistic, Pantheistic, and Materialistic con- 
 ceptions of the origin of things. It is itself a silent refuta- 
 tion of the absurd theory that it was derived from an 
 oriental source. It came here from God. 
 
 The Hebrew cosmogony is familiar to you all. Let me 
 read you the Chaldean cosmogony as given by Berosus: 
 
 “ In the beginning all was darkness and water, and 
 therein were generated monstrous animals of strange and 
 peculiar forms. There were men with two wings, and 
 others even with four, and with two faces ; and others with 
 two heads, a man’s and a woman’s on one body; and there 
 were men with the heads and horns of goats, and men with 
 hoofs like horses, and some with the upper parts of a man 
 joined to the lower parts of a horse, like centaurs; and 
 there were bulls with human heads, dogs with four bodies 
 and with fishes’ tails, men and horses with dogs’ heads, 
 etc. A woman ruled them all, by name Omorka, which is 
 the same as ‘ the sea.’ ” 
 
 “AndBelus appeared, and split the woman in twain; 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 103 
 
 and of the one half of her he made the heaven, and of the 
 other half the earth, and the beasts that were in her he 
 caused to perish. And he split the darkness, and divided 
 the heavens and the earth in sunder, and put the world in 
 ordei*, and the animals that coidd not bear the light, per- 
 ished.” 
 
 “Belus, upon this, seeing the desolation of the earth 
 yet teeming with productive powers, commanded one of the 
 gods to cut oft his head, and to mix the blood which flowed 
 forth with earth, and form men therewith, and beasts that 
 could bear the light. So man was made and was intelli- 
 gent, being a partaker of the ‘Divine wisdom.’ ’’ 
 
 How simple and beautiful the Mosaic cosmogony in 
 contrast with this! How clearly and forcibly does it present 
 the gi*eat truths which all scientific men regard as lying at 
 the basis of all true conceptions of the universe, that God 
 is before all things and the Creator of nil things, that He 
 alone is unbeginning, and all things else had a beginning 
 in His creative will and word. It presents the universe as 
 one harmonious whole, the product of one designing Mind, 
 the project of His thought, the transcript of His eternal plan, 
 — a plan which was evolved through successive stages toward 
 a foreseen terminus or goal ; and, finally, it teaches that man 
 is the end toward which the creative work was tending, the 
 last and crowning work of God, and that he is the child and 
 charge, not of a blind impersonal nature, but of a living, 
 loving God. Who presumes to say that this teaching is out 
 of harmony with the most advanced science ? 
 
104 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 We earnestly maintain that the inspired Hymn of Ci*ea- 
 tion was given for the instruction of unscientific peisons, 
 and therefore its thought is theological and not scientific. 
 Still we also believe that all truth is one, and that revelation, 
 whether in Scripture or nature, must be harmonious. Science 
 in its last analysis must be Theology. Theology in its proper 
 development must be Science. The^^ were twin children of 
 heaven, vestal virgins which can never be wedded to erior. 
 We are therefore justified in the expectation that the reve- 
 lation in Scripture, when rightly interpreted, will contain 
 nothing that is inconsistent with the scientific interpretation 
 of nature. The God of all true science, and the God of the 
 Bible, teaches the same immutable and eternal truth. While 
 we admit that there are no untimely anticipations of scien- 
 tific discovery in Genesis, yet we expect that when the 
 scientific discoveries are made, the congruity and dignity of 
 the moral and religious lesson will not be defeated and 
 marred. This is all that, upon any sober and rational theory 
 of inspiration, we have a right to demand. 
 
 That there is such an agi’cement between Science and 
 Kevelation cannot be fairly denied. It has been forcibly 
 exhibited in the hearing of most of you by my friend and 
 colleague Dr. Winchell. My duty as a theologian is now 
 simply to interpret Scripture fairly and honestly ; and with 
 the views which I now sincerely entei tain, I say to the man 
 of science, go forward fearlessly with your investigation. 
 Take all the time your science demands; the sacred Hymn 
 of Creation prescribes no limits whatever. 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 Rememher the days of oldj consider the years of many generations : 
 ask thy father^ and he will shew thee thy elders^ and they will tell thee. 
 
 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance^ whe?i 
 he separated the sons of Adam, he set the hounds of the people according 
 to the number of the children of Deuteronomy xxxii. 7 , 8. 
 
 In my last lecture I expressed the growing conviction of 
 Biblical scholars that the book of Genesis is a compilation. 
 The author of that book has incorporated into his history of 
 the religious development of the world certain documents 
 of very hign antiquit}^ which lie found extant among the 
 Patriarchal families. 
 
 The first of these documents, or fragments, is the sacred 
 Hjunn of Creation, commencing ch. i. 1, and extending to 
 ch. ii. 3. This sacred Hymn, hy whomsoever written, I re- 
 gard as an inspired Psalm, just as truly as the Psalms of 
 David. The second of these documents is “the Generations 
 of the Heavens and Earth,” commencing at ch. ii. 4, and 
 extending to the end of ch. iv. A third document is “the 
 Book of the Generations of Adam,” commencing at ch. v. 
 And a fourth is “the Generations of Noah,” commencing at 
 ch. X. It is obvious, at a glance, that these “Books of the 
 Generations” of Adam and Noah, are not accounts of the ori- 
 gin or births of Adam and Noah, but histories of their sue- 
 
io6 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 cassors, their clesceiidaiits. They imi-rate what succeeds, and 
 not wliat precedes tlieir various captions, or J leadings. 
 Therefore I think we are sliut up to the conclusion that 
 “the Generations of the Heavens and Earth,” commencing 
 at ch. ii. 3, is not an account of the origin of the heavens and 
 the earth, but of a subsecpient special development of the 
 earth and man distinct from the origination de novo of the 
 sacred Hymn of Creation. 
 
 One thing, at any rate, is obvious at a glance, the two 
 accounts are dilferent in many respects. First, the}^ bear 
 internal evidence of having been written at widely different 
 periods of time. The last must have been written at least 
 1500 years later than the former, for we have in it geo- 
 graphical allusions to Ethiopia, or the land of Cush, and to 
 Assyria, or the land of Asshur, and these were not settled 
 by Cush and Asshur, the descendants of Koah, till after the 
 dispersion fi*om Babel, 900 years subsequent to the death of 
 Adam. Secondly, the latter is an account of the generations, 
 births, or developments of the heavens and the earth “after 
 they were made,” or, as Lange expresses it, “the commencing 
 historical development of the world, the heaven, and earth 
 after they are tinished,” for “ Paradise, in a mystical sense, 
 is still heaven and earth together.” It is a history, therefore, 
 of a local and special development. Thirdly, the account of 
 the Edenic man in ch. ii., is different from the account of 
 the Generic man in ch. i. In Genesis i. 27, the Hebrew is 
 
 bara, created, originated. In Genesis ii. 7, the Hebrew is 
 
 %atzar, fashioned, molded, developed, as the potter fashions. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 lO 7 
 
 molds, or develops the vessel out of clay. Hence good He- 
 brew scliolars read the verse, “and God developed Adam, 
 dust of the earth.” 
 
 Maj^ we not therefore fairly conclude tliat the sacred 
 Hymn of Creation celebrates the origination, the creation, of 
 all things and beings and races by God, and teaches us that 
 He is the Creator and Lord and Proprietor of all; and that 
 “the generations, births, or developments of the heavens 
 and the earth,” narrate a more specialized, local, Edenic 
 commencement, within appreciable and ascertainable historic 
 and geographical limits. 
 
 The first account, we have seen, is ideal, poetic, and un- 
 chronological, and cannot be subjected to time-measures. 
 The latter begins a chronology, and fixes a starting-point in 
 the history of the covenant race, and in the development of 
 a religious econom}\ Under no circumstances can the first 
 account come in conflict with the facts of science. It stands 
 in no relation to geological time, and it has no conflict with 
 the doctrine of geographical centres for the fauna and flora 
 of the eaith. 
 
 And here we are brought face to face with a question 
 which is being earnestly discussed in the fields of sbience, 
 and which it is impossible for the theologian to ignore. 
 The conviction is gradually gaining ground among scientific 
 men that the human race did not originate in a single pair 
 of progenitors, but in a plurality of pairs (perhaps three or 
 four) placed in diflferent geographical centres; and further- 
 more, that there were races of men upon the earth ages prior 
 
io8 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 to the Caucasian or Edenic race. 1 shall not enter upon a 
 detail of the reasons for this theory, or ^ive any decided 
 opinion as to its merits. It is a pure question of science to 
 he decided on purely scientific grounds. Let no Christian 
 place himself in the attitude of an ignorant declaimer against 
 true science. It is God’s truth revealed in nature, and lie 
 who fights against it, is simply fighting against God. But 
 suppose the archeologist, the ethnologist, and the philologist 
 shall finally reach the conclusive proof of a diversity of 
 races and of origins in time, what then? I answer for 1115^- 
 self, the ijrospect occasions me no anxiety. I feel no alarm. 
 It will not, for a moment, disturb my faith in the inspiration 
 of the Bible, in the Divine mission of Christ as the Teacher, 
 Eedeemer, and Saviour of all men of all races. I do not 
 feel that I shall need to reconstruct my theological system, 
 or rewrite my creed, or abate one jot or tittle of any evan- 
 gelical utterance. God will still, in my creed, be the loving 
 Father of all races of men. God is not the God of the Jew 
 only, or the Caucasian only, but of the Gentiles (ra eOur]) 
 also. The Greek and the Arabian, the Mongolian and the 
 Negro, the Tartar and the American Indian, may still say, 
 with as much feeling and truth as ever before, “We are the 
 offspring of God! ” The image of God which consists in in- 
 telligence, freedom, and the capacity of moral and religious 
 affection and action, in some of its lineaments remains on 
 all amid the ruins. The unity of the race will still remain 
 as a physiological unity if not a genetic unity; it is still a 
 “ l)lood-unity ” if not a unity of lineal descent. Christ will 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. I09 
 
 still be the Redeemer and Saviour of all men, even of those 
 who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s trans- 
 gressions, who was the figure, or type, of Him who was to 
 come.” The second Adam, the second covenant head and 
 representative, took on him the seed of Abraham, a Semite 
 and Caucasian, that in him all nations, tribes, and families 
 might be blessed. So that in Christ, that is, in his plans, 
 his purposes, his sympathies, his redemption, there is neither 
 Jew nor Greek, Barbarian nor Sythian, bond nor free, male 
 nor female, all are as one. They all need a Saviour, and a 
 Saviour is sent to all. And this need of a Saviour is surely 
 not to be predicated on our being the lineal descendants of 
 one man, so much as on the fact that “ we have all sinned 
 and come short of the glory of God.” Christianity stands on 
 broad, obvious, conscious facts of personal sin and personal 
 guilt, and not on any theory as to the origin of sin. Surely 
 there is nothing to be feared from the progress of true 
 science. Let us be calm and dignified in our faith. Sooner 
 shall heaven and earth pass away than God’s truth fail. 
 Human interpretations, conceptions, and symbols have 
 changed, and must change; but God’s eternal word “abides 
 forever.” 
 
 So much provisionally. I ought to state further that 
 there are many theologians of acknowledged orthodoxy who 
 believe in the Divine inspiration of the whole Bible as the 
 true and real W ord of God, who hold that the generations, 
 births, or developments of the heavens and earth, com- 
 mencing at ch. ii. 4, is the account of the special and local 
 
no 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 commeiiceiiieut of jin Edeiiic nice in an Edenic centre, the 
 calling into being of a specially endowed and Divinely in- 
 structed man, the covenant man, who was the tigure of Him 
 who was to come, that is, lie was the type of Christ, the 
 Teacher and Redeemer. The Edenic man appears as the 
 instructor, the teacher, of the prehistoric races. This is ‘‘the 
 seed*’ through which God will elevate and bless the Turan- 
 ian, the Khamite, the Negro. The Caucasian race, lix it as 
 you may, has always been the missionary race, the civilizing 
 race, the educating race, in every age. This last and noblest 
 of the species began in the Edenic centre about six thousand 
 3' ears ago, and from that point a lixed chronology begins. 
 Its mission was partial!}" interrupted by the Fall. The first 
 covenant man Adam was defeated b\" temptation, the second 
 covenant Adam conquered. As it was, Cain and his race 
 (the Cainites) going eastward before the flood, built cities for 
 the older races, instituted pasturage of cattle, invented music, 
 and wrought in metals. They gave to the Chinese the civi- 
 lization they stereotyped but could not improve, and finally 
 were fused and lost in the earlier indigenous races, and 
 China remains where Jabel and Tubal-Cain left it five 
 thousand }"ears ago. 
 
 The deluge occurring in an area covering the valley of 
 the Euphrates, described by Hugh Miller, destroyed the 
 pure Caucasian race except a single fainil}-. When the flood 
 subsided, the progenitors of the Caucasian race, Sheni, Ham, 
 and Japhet, went forth from tlie plains of Shinar. Shem 
 and his race peopled Syria, Chaldea, and Arabia. Ham 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 1 1 I 
 
 peopled Egypt. Of Japliet and Ids descendants, some went 
 eastward into India and others westward to Europe (the 
 Indo-European race). The sons of Ham led hy Mizraim got 
 possession of Egypt, as Josephus says, “ without a battle,” 
 and ruled as the “Shepherd Kings” during five hundred 
 years, from the dispersion to the death of Joseph. The 
 Shepherd Race, after invading in vain Syria, Greece, and Car- 
 thage in succession, emigrated to America, and erected those 
 vast piles of architecture in Egyptian or Cushite style which 
 are the wonder of the traveler in Central America to-daj \ 
 
 “ The two languages of the two distinguished tribes of 
 the Caucasian i-ace, Hebrew and Aryan, ditfer widely; 
 neither can be derived from the other; but both bear marks 
 of derivation from a common origin. Each is a wonderful 
 structure, appearing as if created by some master-mind, and 
 yet showing traces of some fracture like that at Babel. The 
 speakers of these two dialects alone possess a history. This 
 one Caucasian race alone, being about one-tifth of all the 
 races, is a superincumbent patch, as if latest born, and over- 
 lying all the rest.” (See “ Metliodist Quarterly Review,” 
 January, 1871, p. 154.) 
 
 How many difficulties now disappear! Kow we can un- 
 derstand where Cain found his wife, and for whom he 
 builded cities. Now we can conjecture who were “ the sons 
 of God,” the covenant race, and who “the daughters of 
 men,” the prehistoric races mentioned in ch. iv.* 
 
 * To those who are desirous to pursue this inquiry further I 
 commend I)r. McCauslaiid’s ‘‘Adam and the Adamites,” a work 
 
I 12 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES, 
 
 We have now reached the solid platform of history and 
 of a fixed chronology, and I proceed to siiow how the lead- 
 ing facts of Genesis are confirmed by distinct and independ- 
 ent proof. 
 
 There is an important historic event narrated by Moses 
 in which it appears that the Edenic race, save eight persons, 
 was destroyed by a flood. We might naturally expect that 
 an event of such magnitude would leave an impression upon 
 the common mind of our race which could not be easily for- 
 gotten. Accordingly we find the traditions of a flood 
 amongst all tlie families of ancient and modern times. 
 
 This tradition appears in the old mythologies of Egypt, 
 Greece, Chaldea and Rome, India and ISTorthern Europe, 
 Mexico and South America, and it still lives in most distant 
 countries, and amongst the most isolated and scattered 
 tribes. You may find this tradition of the flood in India, 
 amongst the Arabs and the Africans, and still more vividly 
 amongst the aboriginal tribes in N'orth and South America, 
 and even amongst the isolated tribes in the South Seas. 
 
 The fragments of Berosus the Chaldean, and Manetho 
 the Egyptian, are the most authentic and ancient historic 
 documents in the world, and they both give an account of 
 
 written in a reverent spirit, and by a scholar of the highest repute 
 in England. Of course we cannot endorse all the views presented. 
 We think the writer very unfortunate in his exposition of Genesis 
 vi. 1-f. “ The sons of God ” he regards as the pre-historic or pre- 
 
 Edenic ract s, and “ the daughters of men ” are the descendants of 
 Adam. This seems to us a complete reversal of the fact. If there 
 were any people on the earth to whom the title “ sons of God ” was 
 appropriate, it must have been the descendants of the Adam who, 
 Luke says, “ was the son of God.”— Oh. iii. 33. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 II3 
 
 the deluge. Berosus mentions Noa^i by name together with 
 his three sons, Sheni, Ham, and Japhet. Lucian’s account 
 of the flood is familiar to every Greek scholar, who recog- 
 nizes at once in Deucalion the N'oah of Scripture. Sir 
 William Jones, the accomplished oriental scholar, tells us 
 that the tradition of a flood is prevalent throughout the 
 whole of continental India. The great naturalist and trav- 
 eler Humboldt says he found the belief of a deluge fresh 
 and distinct among the whole of the Indian Tribes of South 
 America. You are most of you acquainted with the Mexican 
 tradition, asalso thatof ourlYorth American Indians, and we 
 found it existing with remarkable circumstantiality amongst 
 the Feejeans in the South Seas. 
 
 To the Scripture account of a deluge it has been urged 
 as an objection, that the Ark of ISToah was not of sufficient 
 capacity to contain even a mere fraction of the different 
 species of the animal kingdom, much less provender for one 
 hundred and fifty days; that there was not water enough in 
 all the clouds and seas to drown the world, and rise fifteen 
 cubits above the highest hills; and that there are now trees 
 living upon the earth, as the Baobab in Africa and the Tax- 
 odium in South America, which are six thousand years old, 
 and as they are now living, there could have been no flood 
 during that period or they would have been destroyed. 
 Yow, we grant at once that all these arguments are valid as 
 urged against a universal deluge, but we neutralize all these 
 objections against the Mosaic record by one simple affirma- 
 tion,— the deluge of N'oah was a local deluge, and not a 
 
 I 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES, 
 
 II4 
 
 universal one; it was a flood not covering the entire globe, 
 but a flood brought upon the “world of the ungodly,” and 
 that world of the luigodly occupied a small portion of the 
 globe in the centre of the Asiatic continent. 
 
 The world of the ancient patriarchs was not the entire 
 globe, but simply so much as was known to and occupied by 
 them. When therefore it is said “ that the fear of the 
 Israelites was upon every nation under heaven,” of course it 
 can only mean the nations who knew them, the nations of 
 Arabia and Mesopotamia. When it is said that at the da}" of 
 Pentecost there were Jews assembled at Jerusalem out of 
 every nation under heaven, we certainly do not understand 
 there were Jews there from America, for Columbus had not 
 then crossed the Atlantic; America was an undiscovered 
 land. So when it is said the earth was covered and all the 
 high hills under heaven, we cannot suppose the flood pre- 
 vailed on this continent, or that the Andes were submerged; 
 it must mean the earth then known and inhabited, the hills 
 with which they were acquainted. 
 
 The Confusion of Tongues and the Dispersion of the 
 Noachidse, the descendants of Noah, are important facts in 
 the Mosaic History. It marks the valley of the Euphrates 
 as the grand geographical centre of the covenant Race. 
 
 When the descendants of Noah, in their first emigra- 
 tion, gathered together on the banks of the Euphrates “in 
 the land of Shinar,” they said “ Let us build ourselves a city 
 and a tower whose top may reach to the heavens.” It is un- 
 necessary to suppose, as some have, that any real idea of 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 
 “scaling the heavens” was entertained by the builders of 
 the Tower of Babel or any other Babylonian temple-towers. 
 The expression used in Genesis is unquestionably a mere 
 hyperbole for “ great heights,” and should not be literally 
 construed. The more natural hypothesis would be that the 
 “high tower” was designed as a refuge against future 
 catasti-ophes and deluges; and the city was a development 
 of that centralizingtendency which reveals itself in the early 
 history of our race. Both of these motives must have been 
 displeasing to God. The first i-eveals a want of faith in the 
 Divine promise no more to bring a deluge on the earth; the 
 second was a contravention of the Divine purpose to people, 
 redeem, and subdue the earth through the agency of the 
 covenant Race. 
 
 The circumstantial accuracy of the narrative is, at any 
 rate, deserving of notice. There was no stone in the alluvial 
 tract produced and watered by “ the great river ” and the 
 Tigris. It is expressly stated that in proceeding to rear the 
 proposed edifice “they had brick for (or instead of) stone, 
 and slime had they for mortar.” And though some have 
 attempted to cast ridicule on the record of these labors, 
 Heeren, no mean authority, emphatically says, “ There is 
 perhaps nowhere else to be found a narrative so venerable 
 for its antiquity, or so important in the history of civiliza- 
 tion, in which we have at once preserved the traces of a 
 primeval national commerce, the first political associations, 
 and the first erection of secure and permanent buildings.” 
 
 But what is still more to the purpose, we have the col- 
 
ii6 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 lateral testimony of Berosus, the Chaldean historian, who 
 writes as follows: “At that time the men of antiquity 
 
 are said to have been so puffed up with strength and haught- 
 iness that they despised the gods, and undertook to build the 
 lofty obelisk which is called Belus or Babylon. But the 
 gods defeated tlieir plans, and the rubbish took the name of 
 Babel. For up to that time men had relied on the use of 
 one language, but then a various and discordant use of 
 tongues was sent, and they could not proceed.” 
 
 Furthermore, it is generally believed by the best archa3- 
 ologists that in the dilapidated remains of the Birs Nimrud 
 we have the remains of the Temple of Belus, described by 
 Herodotus, and that this Temple of Belus was erected by 
 Nebuchadnezzar on the very foundations of the identical 
 Tower of Babel, or the ancient Borsippa, which means 
 “Confusion of Tongues.” 
 
 The Jewish Talmudists have always asserted that the true 
 site of the Tower of Babel was at Borsippa (the Biris Nim- 
 rud), which is seven miles and a half from the northern ruins 
 of Babylon. Then, the French expedition to Mesopotamia 
 found at Birs Nimrud a clay cake, dated from Barsip the 
 30th day of the 6th month of the 16th year of Nabonid, and 
 this discovery confirmed the hypothesis that the Birs Nim- 
 rud contained the remains of the Borsippa, or Tower of 
 Babel. 
 
 And now the evidence has been completed by the dis- 
 covery of the “Borsippa Inscription” in cuneiform charac- 
 ters, made by order of Nebuchadnezzar who rebuilt Bor- 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 1 1 7 
 
 sippa, which means the Temple or Tower of Confusion.’- 
 The translation of this inscription was made by Dr. Oppert, 
 the celebrated German Egyptologist. I select from it as 
 much as relates to the question before us : “We say of this 
 
 edihce, the house of the Seven Lights of the Earth, the 
 most ancient monument of Borsippa: A former king built it 
 (they reckon 42 ages), but he did not complete it. Since a 
 remote time people had abandoned it, without order ex- 
 pressing their words. Since that time, the earthquake and 
 the thunder had dispersed the sun-dried clay ; the bricks of 
 the casing had been split, and the earth of the interior scat- 
 tered in heaps. Merodach, the great lord, excited my mind 
 to repair this building. I did not change the site, nor did I 
 take away the foundation-stone. In a fortunate month, an 
 auspicious day, I undertook to build porticoes around the 
 crude brick masses, and the casings of burnt bricks. I 
 adapted the circuits. I put the inscription of my name in 
 the Kitir of the porticoes.” Does the skeptic now tiy to 
 raise the laugh at Moses and his Tower of Babel, and the 
 Confusion of Tongues from whence it derived its name? 
 There are the ruins, there is the testimony of ISTebuchadnez- 
 zar, and there are the owls amid the ruins whose solemn 
 stupidity are a fit emblem of his mental obtuseness. 
 
 In regard to the actual facts of the Dispersion as given 
 in Chap. x. of Genesis, Rawlinson remarks that it is a chap- 
 ter of wonderful grasp, and still more wonderful accuracy, 
 in which we have a sketch of the nations of the earth, their 
 ethnic affinities, and to some extent their geographical posi- 
 
ii8 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 tion and boundaries. Tlie Toldoth Beni Noah (generations 
 of Noah) has extorted the admiration of modern ethnolo- 
 gists, who continually find in it anticipations of their great- 
 est discoveries. For instance, in the very second verse the 
 great discovery of Schlegel, which the word Indo-European 
 embodies — the affinity of the principal nations of Europe 
 with Aryan or Indo-Persic stock — is sufficiently indicated 
 by the conjunction of the Madai or Medes (whose native 
 name was Mada) with Gomer or the Cymry, and Javan or 
 the lonians. Again, one of the most recent and unexpected 
 results of modern linguistic inquiry is the proof which it has 
 furnished of an ethnic connection between the Ethiopians 
 or Cushites who adjoined on Egypt, and the primitive inhab- 
 itants of Babylonia. In the tenth chapter of Genesis we 
 find this truth thus briefly but clearly stated, ‘‘And Cush 
 begat Nimrod,” the “beginning of whose kingdom was 
 Babel.” So we have had it recently made evident from the 
 same monuments, that “out of the land went forth Asshur, 
 and builded Nineveh,” — or that the Semitic Assyrians pro- 
 ceeded from Babylonia and founded Nineveh long after the 
 Cushite foundation of Babylon. Again, the Hamitic descent 
 of the early inhabitants of Canaan, which had often been 
 called in question, has recentl}^ come to be looked upon as 
 almost certain, apart from the evidence of Scripture ; and 
 the double mention of Sheba, both among the sons of Ham, 
 and also among those of Shem, has been illustrated b}^ the 
 discovery that there are two races of Arabs, one (the Jokta- 
 nian) Semitic, the other (Himyaric) Cushite or Ethiopic. (See 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 II9 
 
 Rawlinson’s “Historical Evidences,” pp. 71, 72.) Finally, 
 in a paper published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, 
 Sir H. Eavvlinson remarks that “the Toldoth Beni Noah” 
 is undoubtedly the most authentic record we possess of the 
 affiliations of those branches of the human race which 
 sprang from the triple stock of “Noachidse.” And further, 
 “If we were guided by the mere intersection of linguistic 
 paths, and independent of all references to the Bible, we 
 should be led to fix upon the plains of Sliinar, called an- 
 ciently Babylonia, as the focus from whence the various 
 lines have radiated.” 
 
 The Bondage in Egypt was another notable event in 
 Jewish history, and one likely to leave a lasting impression, 
 not only on the nation’s memorj^, but also on their literature, 
 their language, and even their customs. 
 
 It is a fact well known to oriental scholars that there 
 are quite a number of Egyptian words in the Pentateuch. 
 Pharaoh is the Egyptian for “the Sun,” and this was a title 
 borne by the Egyptian monarchs from very early times. 
 Potiphar an Egyptian word which means “belongingto 
 the Sun ; ” it is a name common on the monuments of Egypt, 
 and specially appropriated to a priest of On, or Heliopolis, 
 Asenath is the Egyptian for “worshiper of Neith,” an 
 Egyptian deity. Zaphnath-Paaneali^ the name which Pha- 
 raoh gave to Joseph, means “sustainer of the age,” or as 
 Jerome freely translates it in the vulgate, “ salvator mundi.” 
 Moses is unquestionably an Egyptian name, since it was 
 selected by Pharaoh’s daughter “because he was drawn out 
 
120 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 of the water.” Mo is the Egyptian for “ watei*,” and oushe 
 means “to save.” Many other examples might he given ; 
 these will siitSce our purpose. 
 
 The writer of the Pentateuch manifests an intimate 
 acquaintance with the geography, the natural history, and 
 the ethology of Egypt. The Egyptian towns mentioned hy 
 Moses are all recognizable, and are even well known places 
 to the modern Egyptologist. Pithom is the Patumus of 
 Herodotus. Bameses is the Beth-Rameses of which a de- 
 scription is given in a hieratic papyiTis of the 18th or 19th 
 dynasty. Zoan^ the Tan is of the LXX., whence the “ Ta- 
 niticnome” of Herodotus, is the modern Zan, evidently a 
 great town in the time of the Ramesside monarchs. Mig- 
 dol is the Migdolus of Hecataeus; it retains its names in the 
 Itenerary of Antonine, and appears in the position assigned 
 it by Moses, on the north-east frontier, near Pelasium. Of 
 On ov An, “the city of the Sun,” called in Greek Heliopo- 
 lis, nothing need be said ; the instance is familiar. The 
 correctness of his allusions to the natural products of the 
 country, — its wheat and rye and barley and flax and palm 
 trees; and especially his intimate knowledge of the manners 
 and customs of the ancient Egyptians, has never been ques- 
 tioned. “The position of the Egyptians with regard to 
 foreigners — their separation from them, yet the allowance 
 of them in the countiy — their special hatred of shepherds, 
 the suspicion of the strangers from Palestine as spies — their 
 internal government, its settled character, the power of the 
 King, the influence of the Priests, the great works, the em- 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 I2I 
 
 ploj^ment of foreigners in their construction, the use of 
 bricks, and of bricks with straw in them, the taskmasters, 
 the embalming of dead bodies, the consequent importation 
 of spices, the violent mourning, the fighting with horses 
 and chariots,— these are a few out of the many points which 
 may be noted as proving the intimate knowledge of Egyp- 
 tian manners and customs on the part of the author of the 
 Pentateuch.” (EawlinsoiVs “Historical Evidences,” pp. 290, 
 291.) Some of these customs, as the embalming of the dead, 
 the employment of mourners to sing plaintive dirges in 
 honor of the departed, were adopted by the Hebrews, and 
 are seen in subsequent j^ears. 
 
 This historic period in the life of the Hebrew nation 
 does not rest on tradition alone. It has received a striking 
 verification in the recent discovery of a painting which is 
 known to have been coeval with the birth of Moses. The 
 painting was found on the walls of the Tomb of the Pha- 
 raohs under the great temple at Karnak, and copied by 
 Eosselini, the first or nearly the first explorer of these won- 
 derful remains. An engraving of this striking picture is 
 given in vol. ii. p. 182 of Kavvlinson’s “Herodotus.” This 
 painting is a real commentary on the first chapter of Exo- 
 dus, and places the Israelites before us ac.tually engaged in 
 “hard bondage in mortar and brick,” which Moses saw with 
 so much indignation. An Egyptian taskmaster is set over 
 them with a rod in his hand. The diversity of countenance 
 as well as color, so wonderfully preserved for 3300 years, 
 distinguishes the oppressed Israelitish slave ; and the process 
 
122 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 of brick in akin O’ is seen from tlie clio’,^in<y of the clay to the 
 time ‘‘the tale of bricks” is coimted. Their countenances 
 are as perfectly Jewish as those of any old clothesrnan who 
 now perambulates the streets of London. I*^either Law- 
 rence nor Jackson could have painted more real Jews, the 
 features are so changeless and so peculiar to the people. 
 And then their occupation, the process of brickmaking in 
 its various stages, their limbs bespattered with mud, and the 
 Egyptian taskmaster with his scourge, all seem a decisive 
 evidence, not only of the Captivity, but of all the circum- 
 stances narrated by Moses. In the original painting the 
 Egyptians are presented in the usual ruddy color, the Jews 
 are painted in ^ sallower color, and when we remember that 
 in the other subjects which are represented by painting in 
 the tombs of Egypt, the utmost regard is paid to individual- 
 ity, and even to minuteness in all the accessories, we cannot 
 doubt the accuracy or the application of this wonderful dis- 
 covery. 
 
 In relation to this painting the London Quarterly^ a high 
 authorit}', says: “Rosselini’s last delivery of illustrations 
 
 brings vividly before us those Jevvs who were captives in 
 Egypt under the 18th dynasty, and previous to the Exodus. 
 Independent of the evidence furnished by the phonetic in- 
 scriptions upon the picture itself that they are Jews, no 
 cursory observer who glances at the lineaments of the per- 
 son can fail to discover their identit}^ Tliese Jews are em- 
 ployed under the dynasty of the very kings contemporary 
 with Moses in the specific kind of slave work which both he 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 123 
 
 and Manetlio describe, namely, ‘ making bricks.’ The whole 
 is an illustration and a contirmation of Exodus, ch. i. 11-14.” 
 
 The Exodus was unquestionably the great event in the 
 historv of the Jews. To keep it in remembrance the feast 
 
 i 
 
 of the Passover was instituted as a national festival, it was 
 observed on the very evening of their departure, and has 
 been observed ever since by the Jews in every land. You 
 may step into any Jewish synagogue in any citj^ of the 
 world on the 14th day of the Hebrew month Nisan (falling 
 sometimes in the latter part of March, and sometimes in the 
 early part of April), and you will see them eating the Pas- 
 chal Lamb with bitter herbs and unleavened bread, just as 
 they have done for 3350 years. This great national festival 
 is observed by the Jews as a perpetual memorial of the Exo- 
 dus from Egypt, just as the Fourth of July is celebrated by 
 the American people to commemorate the Declaration of 
 Independence. 
 
 Besides this perpetual national festival, we have the 
 testimony of Manetlio and Hecatmus in confirmation of the 
 words of Moses. The latter informs us that ‘‘in ancient 
 times Egypt was visited with a pestilence, and most of the 
 people referred the calamity to the gods whose displeasure 
 was excited because there were so many foreigners in the 
 land who neglected the worship of the divinities. The na- 
 tive inhabitants therefore determined to drive them out 
 without delay. The mass of them fled to Judea. This col- 
 on}^ was led by a man named Moses, who was distinguished 
 b}^ his prudence and courage. He took possession of the 
 
124 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 country and founded Jerusalem. He also arranged their 
 civil and religious affairs.” The most striking confirmation 
 of the Scripture account of the Exodus from Egypt and the 
 sojourn in the wilderness, is furnished by the Sinaitic In- 
 scriptions which have lately been translated by the Rev. C. 
 Forster, an eminent oriental scholar, and printed in his 
 recent work, “ The Voice of Israel from the Rocks of 
 Sinai.” * 
 
 You are all doubtless familiar with the route which it is 
 supposed the emancipated tribes of Israel took, from the 
 head of the Gulf of Suez to Mount Sinai, on their way from 
 Egypt to the Land of Promise. The narratives of Moses 
 and the traditions of the Arabian Tribes alike inform us 
 that they coasted along the eastern shore of the Red Sea, 
 now called the Gulf of Suez, with its waters on the right, 
 and the rocks which form, as it were, the roots of Sinai on 
 the left, till they turned into some of those valleys which 
 lead to its very base. 
 
 The first notice of these strange inscriptions on the 
 rocks in an uninhabited and uninhabitable wilderness, was 
 written in the sixth century by a merchant of Alexandria 
 in Egypt, named Cosmas, but who acquired the surname of 
 Indicopleustes on account of a voyage he made to India, 
 532 A. D. He published the account of these inscriptions in 
 
 * This work is now included in his three volumes on “ The 
 One Primeval Language traced experimentally through Ancient 
 Inscriptions, etc.” Richard Bentley, London. The students will 
 find these volumes in the University Library. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 125 
 
 a work in Greek entitled ‘‘ Christian Topography,” and he 
 ascribed them, conjectn rally, to the age of Moses and the 
 Exodus. 
 
 Dr. Edward Robinson, the distinguished American Bib- 
 lical scholar, and his companion Mr. E. Smith, visited this 
 region in 1830-7. Dr. Robinson gives an account of these 
 Sinaitic Inscriptions in his “ Biblical Researches,” vol. i. 
 pp. 552-556. He states that they are cut upon the rocks on all 
 tlie routes leading from the west, in unknown characters 
 which are everywhere the same, but interspersed with quaint 
 tigures of men, beasts, and birds. The spot where they 
 exist in the greatest numbers is the “Wady Mokatteb,” or 
 “The Written Valley,” through which the usual route to 
 Sinai passes before reaching Wado Feiran. Here they are 
 found on the rock by thousands. The characters are every- 
 where the same, but hitherto (1839) have remained unde- 
 ciphered in spite of the efforts of the ablest palaeographers. 
 Copies of these inscriptions were made by Mr. G. F. Grey, 
 and published in the Transactions of the Royal Society of 
 Literature in 1850, and very minute accounts are furnished 
 by Lieut. Wellsted and Buckhardt in their “ Travels in 
 Arabia.” 
 
 Mr. Forster had already signalized himself by the dis- 
 covery of the Hamyaritic Alphabet, and the translation of 
 Hamyaiatic Inscriptions found at Hbn Ghorab; and his at- 
 tention was now directed to the Sinaitic Inscriptions. He 
 found that the alphabet was the same as that of the Masara 
 and Rosetta stone, and that the language was not Hebrew 
 
126 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 but ancient Egyptian, the vernacular of the country and of 
 the ]'eople among whom the Israelites had sojourned for 
 eight generations, or two liundred and fifteen years. 
 
 And, now, after these preliminary statements w'hich go 
 to show that these inscriptions are not forgeries, as some 
 skeptics would insinuate, what is their testimony? They 
 confirm, — 
 
 1. The Scripture account of the passage of the Red Sea, 
 and the defeat of Pharaoh in his pursuit. 2. The miracu- 
 lous supply of the Hebrew host by “Feathered Fowls” 
 from the sea, incorrectly translated “quail,” but more cor- 
 rectly the “ casarca,” or ruddy goose. 3. The miraculous 
 supply of water from the hard granite rock, and the healing 
 of the bitter waters of Marah with a branch. 4. The prayer 
 of Moses when his hands were sustained by Hur. 5. The 
 biting of the people by fiery serpents, and the healing of the 
 people by the brazen serpent sustained on a pole. 6. The 
 obstinacy, stubbornness, and intractibility of the people 
 generally, is represented in several of the inscriptions by 
 “the wild ass.” 
 
 You wlio are curious in these matters may find fac- 
 similes of some of the Sinaitic Inscriptions, and also Mr. 
 Forster’s translations of thirty-eight of these inscriptions in 
 Cassel’s “Biblical Educator,” vol. i. pp. 170-174. The notes 
 in regard to the “ Winged Fowls ” brought up from the sea 
 by the strong wind, and as tlie sands of the sea in numbers, 
 are full of instruction. The whole study impresses us witli 
 the conviction that as the natural history of the earth is 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 127 
 
 written in fosj»il liieroglypliics upon the buried rocks, so the 
 religious history of our race is written in ancient characters 
 on the rocks above the ground. 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 When the Most High di'vided to the nations their inheritance^ Tvhen 
 he separated the sons of Adani^ he set the people according to the number of 
 the childreii of Israel. For the Lord'^s portion is his people ; Jacob is the 
 lot of his inherita7ice. He found him in the desert land^ and m the waste 
 howling wilderness he led hun about ^ he instructed him^ he kept him as 
 the apple of his eye. As an eagle stirreth up her nest^ jluttereth over her 
 youngy spreadeth abroad her wingSy taketh theiUy beareth them on her 
 whigs : So the Lork alone did lead hhuy and there was no strange god 
 
 vjithhim . — Deuteronomy xxxii. 8~i2. 
 
 The period of sacred history which we are to consider 
 this afternoon, is that interval between 1451 and 975 b. c., a 
 period of 476 years, commencins: with the death of Moses 
 and extending to the end of Solomon’s reign. The record 
 of this period is contained in the books of Joshua, Judges, 
 Samuel, and part of Kings and Chronicles. This period 
 embraces the extremes of obscurity and splendor, of debase- 
 ment and exaltation, of degeneracy and piety, in the history 
 of the Hebrew race. 
 
 Immediately after the death of Moses, the Israelites, 
 under the leadership of Joshua, crossed over Jordan and 
 took possession of Gilgal in the plains of Jericho, and for 
 three hundred years afterwards were engaged in a perpetual 
 strife for a bare existence with the petty tribes who held 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 129 
 
 possession of Canaan, and the}" seemed, finally, just on the 
 point of surrendering, and being as a distinct nation entirely 
 crushed out, when they were suddenly raised up by the hand 
 of providence, and carried forward with rapidity to the 
 highest pitch of national greatness, the noontide splendor of 
 the Hebrew commonwealth, under Saul and David and 
 Solomon. 
 
 During the latter part of this three hundred years of de- 
 basement and suffering, the Israelites were compelled to hide 
 themselves in caves and thickets and rocks and high places 
 and pits; many of them fled over Jordan to the land of 
 Gad and of Gilgal because of the Philistines ; and there was 
 neither sword nor spear nor armor in the hands of the 
 Israelites, nor even a smith in all their tribes to make an im- 
 plement of war; so much had thej^ been despoiled and 
 trodden underfoot by the Philistines. But during the life- 
 time of one man they were rendered victorious over the 
 Philistines, the Moabites, the Syrians, the Ammonites, and 
 the Amalekites. The very men who had been compelled to 
 hide themselves, unarmed, in caves and pits, eventually saw 
 their own garrisons in possession of Damascus, the northern 
 extremity of the land, and throughout all Eden in the east, 
 and the dominion of David extended to the Euphrates. 
 
 Four hundred years of these four hundred and seventy- 
 six may be regarded as the dark ages ” of the Hebrew 
 commonwealth. The Israelites were fugitives from slavery. 
 They had been retained by the Egyptians for two hundred 
 
 and fifteen years in the most cruel and abject bodage. They 
 J 
 
130 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 were consigned to the meanest and most degrading toil, 
 doing the veriest drudgery of the Eg.yptians, while the most 
 unreasonable and excessive demands were made and exacted 
 with rigorous cruelty. There was therefore no place and no 
 opportunit}^ for culture or i-etinement, or even moral disci- 
 pline. And it is not to be wondered at, if under these cir- 
 cumstances there was found amongst the Israelites much of 
 the ignorance and demoralization and barbarity which are 
 the inevitable consequences of slavery. The Israelites 
 would also partake very much of the character of the semi- 
 barbaric tribes by which they were surrounded in the desert 
 of Arabia, and the land of Canaan. In tlieir social life the}' 
 were contaminated by their vices; in their religious life they 
 were continually drawn into idolatry, and worshiped the 
 gods of the suiTounding heathen tribes; in the method in 
 which they ^conducted their wars, and improved their vic- 
 tories, they were necessaril}', we might almost say, assimila- 
 ted to the savage and inhuman spirit of those against whom 
 they had to contend. 
 
 It is amazing how the perverse spirit of modern infidel- 
 ity has expended its little stock of sympathy upon the strong, 
 settled, warlike people who were in possession of Canaan, 
 and arrayed itself, with its heavy stock of bitterness, against 
 the comparatively unarmed Israelites, who were barely 
 struggling for a place on which to j)lant their feet, depasture 
 their cattle, and rear a home. 
 
 These skeptics never take into their account the facttliat 
 these Canaanitish nations were more numerous and far more 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 I3I 
 
 powerful than the Jews; that they were better armed and 
 disciplined, and more experienced in the arts of war; and 
 that they dwelt in fortified cities with all the resources of the 
 coiintiy at tlieir command, while the Jews were compara- 
 tively unai-med, undisciplined, and unaccustomed to war. 
 In the time of Deborah and Barak tliere was not a sword or 
 a spear seen amongst JO.OOvO in Israel. So disproportioned 
 were the situation and forces of the Israelites to that of tlie 
 (Janaanities, that had the former looked at this aspect in the 
 case, they must have regarded the result with considerable 
 apprehension. C(n*tainly the Canaanitish nations regarded as 
 a settled, valiant, warlike people, may be well spared the pit}" 
 which perverse minds seem to bestow upon them, as though 
 they were like sheep driven to the slaughter before the 
 Israelites. The disproportion in numbers, in arms, in dis- 
 cipline, in resources, was so much in favor of the Canaanites, 
 and against the Israelites, that they never could have secured 
 a footing, or maintained themselves in the land, but for the 
 direct interposition of Divine providence. Sometimes the 
 victories of the Israelites were secured by a mere handful of 
 men, as at the taking of Jericho, and as in the utter discomfiture 
 and overthrow of the Midianitish host by a band of 300 men ; 
 while the greatest victory evei* achieved by the Israelites was 
 over an army of the Philistines consisting of ‘‘30,000 char- 
 iots, 6000 horsemen, and people as the sands of the sea.-- 
 when the Israelites were armed each with his plowshare and 
 his coulter and axe and fork and ox-goad, and there was not 
 a sword or spear in the hands of an Isj-aelite, save Saul and 
 Jonathan. 
 
132 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 These Infidels in their morbid sympathy for the Ca- 
 naanites take no account either of the fact that the Land of 
 Canaan belonged by all prior and natural and unquestion- 
 able right to the Israelites. It was theirs by the original 
 gift of God to Abraham and his posterity. It was theirs by 
 an undisturbed possession of more than two hundred 3^ears, 
 from the time of Abraham to the departure into Egypt. It 
 was theirs because their fathers had depastured their flocks 
 and digged wells there, which in ancient times established 
 an acknowledged right in unoccupied lands. This claim 
 had never been relinquished, and was well known to the 
 Canaanites. 
 
 So that the Jews were only returning to their own 
 land, and to the sepulchers of their fathers, where Abraham 
 and Isaac and Jacob were buried, and they were bearing 
 with them the bones of Joseph, that he might also, as he de- 
 sired, ‘‘sleep with his fathers.” They were not coming as 
 invaders or usurpers, to drive out the original or rightful 
 owners of the soil, but they were coming to repossess their 
 original home. The}^ Avere also returning comparatively 
 unarmed, and these very Ammorites were the first to fall 
 upon and attack an innocent, harmless, defenseless people 
 seeking their own rights. Finally, the skeptic never thinks 
 of the cruelty and uncleanness and brutality and demon- 
 like character of these Canaanites. Their idol-worship Avas 
 celebrated by the most horrid and revolting rites. They 
 made their children pass through the fires to Moloch, and 
 they were guilty of the most impure and unnatural crimes, 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 133 
 
 — crimes for which the Sodomites were swept from the face 
 of the earth. And yet these are the people the Infidel hugs 
 to his bosom, while he vents all his bitterness and hate upon 
 the poor sulFering Israelites, just escaped from two hundred 
 years hard servitude, and now returning, poor and dispirited, 
 to their ancient home. Still it is just like Infidelity, for its 
 sympathies are with the worst and basest of men. 
 
 It has been further objected, that even supposing the 
 Israelites had a right to the land, yet in possessing them- 
 selves of it, they practised many barbarities and cruelties, as, 
 for example, when 12,000 of the inhabitants of Ai were slain, 
 the king made a prisoner, put to the sword, hung upon a tree 
 till evening, and then buried under a heap of stones; and 
 that other instance when Adoni-bezek was taken, 10,000 of 
 his people slain, and his toes and fingers were cut oft. 
 
 Let us at once grant that these were acts of cruelty 
 which in our time must be regarded as barbaric in the ex- 
 treme. At the same time it must not be forgotten that in 
 those times all wars were carried on with great barbaritj^; 
 and there is no wonder if the Jews, smarting under the in- 
 juries and cruelties which these nations had inflicted upon 
 them, should be tempted to carry on war very much in the 
 same spirit, and to act towards the conquered very much in 
 the same maimer as they had treated them. When it is 
 mentioned by the Infidel to the dishonor of the Hebrews 
 that they cut off the thumbs and great toes of a captured 
 king, he ought to state that that same king had during 
 his days of power cut off the thumbs and toes of seventy 
 
134 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 kino's, and compelled them to gather up their food from 
 under his table like dogs. And when he tells us that the 
 Israelites were guilty of the promiscuous slaughter of the 
 inhabitants of some of the cities they conquered, he ought 
 also to state that this was the uniform i)olicy of the Canaan- 
 ites towards the Israelites. They trampled down their 
 lields, seized the fruit of their grounds, took away their 
 cattle, slaughtered them indiscriminately, and so grievously 
 oppressed those who were permitted to live that they sought 
 refuge from their fury in dens and caves of the earth. 
 
 These facts are not mentioned to justify revenge, or to 
 plead for the barbaric practices of that age, but to show the 
 unfairness of attempting to judge a people just emerging 
 from slavery with its ignorance and degredation, and who 
 were everywhere surrounded by a cruel and barbaric people, 
 by the pure morality of Christianity, or the light and civili- 
 zation of the nineteenth century. ‘‘ The equity of history 
 demands that men be tried by the standards of their times,’’'' 
 
 But it is replied that this ‘‘war of extermination” 
 waged against the Canaanitish nation was carried on at the 
 command of God; and as this is the great argument of 
 modern Infidelity, we shall give to it a more careful consid- 
 eration. You who have read Thomas Paine’s “Age of 
 Reason ” may remember the use which he makes of these 
 facts, and how on this account he denounces the Bible as a 
 “book of lies, blasphemy, and wickedness.” In our own 
 times we have heard silly persons who under the influence 
 of Spiritualism had reached the last stage of lunacy, sa3% 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 135 
 
 ‘‘ If this be the God of the Jews and the Christians, I do not 
 want such a God ! ” 
 
 ]N"ow, that the Hebrews were commanded to “drive out 
 the inhabitants of the land,” we at once admit, but that this 
 means a “ war of extermination,” we promptly deny. 
 
 Let us read the command which was given to the He- 
 brews on this head. The first command was given in 
 Exodus, ch. xxxiv. 11-17. “ Observe What I command thee 
 
 this day: behold, I drive out (not, thou shalt drive out, but 
 
 I drive out) before thee the Ammorite Take heed to 
 
 thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of 
 the land whither thou goest, lest they become a snare unto 
 thee. But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, 
 and cut down their groves,” etc. This command is reiterated 
 in Xumbers, ch. xxx. 52-55. “Then shall ye drive out all 
 the inhabitants of the land.... And ye shall dispossess the 
 inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein; for I have 
 given you the land to possess it,” etc. Here is no command 
 to exterminate the inhabitants; the command is to “drive 
 them out,” to “ dispossess them,” to “take possession of the 
 land.’ 
 
 1 . Because the land was theirs. It had been given to 
 their father Abraham four hundred years before, and had 
 been held in undisputed possession by the patriarchs Abra- 
 ham, Isaac, and Jacob, for upwards of two hundred years; 
 and God had again distinctly assured them that the land was 
 their own possession. Here, then, was a title to Canaan 
 which was indisputable and unalienable. God, to whom the 
 
136 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 earth belongs, had given it to them when unoccupied; and 
 by a prior occupancy of more than two hundred years, and 
 by having digged wells therein, they had acquired what 
 amongst all nations was a clear, legal, indefeasible right and 
 title to the land ; it was therefore theirs. 
 
 2. They were commanded to drive out the Canaanites, 
 because God sought to subserve great moral ends by placing 
 the Israelites in Canaan as a distinct and isolate people. 
 
 God had originally separated Abraham and his seed to 
 be his people, that their separate national existence under a 
 Theocratic government might be a perpetual witness for 
 God in the earth; and that they might be instrumental in 
 preserving and diffusing a pure Theistic religion amongst 
 the nations. So that in them God designed ultimately to in- 
 struct and bless all the nations of the earth. This same 
 purpose was unquestionably before the mind of God in 
 settling the Israelites in Canaan. 
 
 In order to fulfill this end, it was needful that they should 
 be saved from falling into idol-worship. The Israelites had, 
 in all probability, been idolaters in Egypt, and the polluting, 
 sensual orgies with which idol-worship was celebrated, had 
 a peculiar fascination for the ignorant, debased, and sensual 
 mind. Any intercourse with the idolatrous nations of 
 Canaan, would have been a fatal and almost certain occasion 
 of the Israelites falling again into that sin, as, in fact, we 
 find in their subsequent history it was. In order, therefore, 
 to the moral elevation of tliis people; in order to their edu- 
 cation in a pure Monotheistic religion; in order to the 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 137 
 
 foi*niation of a pure character which should exert an elevat- 
 ing influence upon the world, it was indispensable they 
 should live a distinct people. Hence it was that they were 
 commanded to make no covenant with the inhabitants, lest 
 it should be a snare to them, and they should go after other 
 gods. Hence it was they were commanded to pull down 
 their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves, 
 lest they be tempted to idol-woi’ship. Hence, also, it was 
 that they were commanded to dispossess the inhabitants and 
 drive them out, or “ they would be as thorns in their eyes 
 and goads in their sides,” and under the influence of these 
 associations they would pollute themselves more than their 
 fathers had. 
 
 There were also geographical reasons (if we may so 
 designate them) why the Jews should be settled it Canaan 
 rather than any other part of the globe. The Jewish nation 
 was, in the purpose of God, to be the light of the ancient 
 world, a grand centre of light whence it might radiate. 
 Amongst this nation the Messiah was to appear; He who 
 was “the desire of all nations was to be born here; salva- 
 tion was to go out from Zion to the ends of the earth. God, 
 therefore, chose the land of J udea to be the grand theatre of 
 all these redeeming agencies, because it was the centre of 
 the world’s population; it was the key to the three continents 
 of Europe, Asia, and Africa, and immediately accessible to 
 them all ; while three seas, the great highwa3^s of ancient 
 and modern travel, washed her feet. Take up a map of the 
 world and you can see, in a moment, the importance of 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 138 
 
 Syria as the key to the world’s commerce, and you ctin 
 understand the jealousy of the powers of Europe at this 
 moment lest any one should possess themselves of this key 
 to the East to the exclusion of all tlie rest. 
 
 3. A third reason why the Israelites were commanded 
 to drive out and dispossess these inhabitants was, “the in- 
 iquity of the Ammorites was full.” 
 
 In addition to the fact that in dispossessing^ the Am- 
 morites they were taking possession of their own land, they 
 were also employed, in the providence of God, as the in- 
 struments of a righteous retribution, and the agents in 
 accomplishing what had now become a great moral necessity. 
 
 Now, the history of the human race clearly proves that 
 nations, as well as individuals, may become so morally cor- 
 rupt as to be beyond all redeeming agencies, and their ex- 
 termination becomes a great moral necessity"; just as the 
 putrid limb demands the severities of tlie surgeon’s knife, 
 and its excision is imperatively demanded in order to pre- 
 serve the body ; so also there are sometimes members of the 
 great body politic, individuals, sometimes whole tribes, 
 whose excision is demanded in order to preserve human 
 society from moral putridity and rottenness. As in that 
 affecting disease, hydrophobia, the extinction of the sufferer’s 
 life has hitherto been regarded an imperative necessity to 
 the safety of those around him, so the extinction of whole 
 tribes has been required in order to the safety of the sur- 
 vivors. It was so with the Thugs in India. There were an 
 association of robbers and murderers. They lived only on 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 139 
 
 plunder, and it was a law amongst them never to rob until 
 they liad first murdered their victim. The British govern- 
 ment exhausted every expedient of a I'eformatory and re- 
 straining character to no purpose, and was compelled finally 
 to exterminate them. So it was with the Antedeluvians, and 
 they were cut ofl* by a flood. So it was with the Sodomites, 
 and they were devoured by fire. So it was with the Canaan- 
 ites, and they were devoured by the sword. And though 
 war is indeed a dread alternative and a scourge even to the 
 conquerer, yet wars and pestilence and famine and earth- 
 quakes are the punitive resources and agencies of nature's 
 God. 
 
 Can it be objected that it is contrary to Divine justice or 
 mercy that a people should be cut oft* indiscriminately, from 
 the oldest to the youngest, since this is done by plague and 
 famine and pestilence? The Asiatic cholera during its last 
 visitation swept away four millions of human beings of all 
 ages, forty times more, in all probabilit}', than were de- 
 stroyed in these Canaanitish wars. But, perhaps, some may 
 reply. That resulted from the violation of the natural laws 
 of hygiene. Precisely so; but what did tens of thousands 
 of these sulferers know about “laws of hygiene and health ?” 
 A"et they were destroyed. What we contend is that the 
 Canaanites were overthrown for violating the great inoi’al 
 laws of God’s universe, which are just as essential, and even 
 more essential, to the existence and well-being of man than 
 laws of hygiene and health. And in this case they violated 
 moral law, not in ignorance, but knowingly and deliber- 
 
140 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 ately, while the sufferers from plague and pestilence violated 
 natural law in ignorance. 
 
 The whole objection therefore resolves itself into this 
 question, Was it consistent with the moral government of 
 God to employ human agents in inflicting His penal retri- 
 butions upon sinful nations? Our answer is, Perfectly con- 
 sistent. Does not God in the administration of His moral 
 government of the world always employ human agency, 
 yes, even in inflicting punishment? Is not the family an 
 institution of God, and has not God committed to the parent 
 the authority, and imposed the duty, of restraining evil ten- 
 dencies by correction and punishment? Is not human gov- 
 ernment an ordinance of God, and as much a part of God’s 
 moral government as the natural sequences of the universe? 
 In human governments God employs men to punish sin, and 
 has even committed to them the power over life and death. 
 We have no sympathy whatever with that morbid condition 
 of public sentiment which expends all its sympathy on 
 criminals, and carries sweetmeats and bouquets to the cells 
 of murderers; and when the extreme penalty of the law 
 has to be inflicted upon the murderer of ten men, it lifts up 
 its hands in holy horror and says to the officers of justice. 
 You must not take away that man’s life, 5mu have no right 
 to, it is a serious thing to send a man into eternity unpre- 
 pared! Yes it is, and when that villain sent ten souls into 
 eternity unprepared, that was a serious thing. There is the 
 blood of ten precious lives upon his hands, and God says, 
 “ Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 I4I 
 
 shed” (Gen. ix. 6). But nowadays men call capital punish- 
 ment “legalized murder,” and the public sympathy is more 
 on the side of the dark blood-stained villain, than on the 
 side of suffering innocence, and eternal right and justice. 
 
 In the history of nations we can clearly see how, on a 
 large scale, God has employed even war as a chastisement 
 of a guiJty nation. The expulsion of the Moors, the most 
 industrious and useful inhabitants of the Peninsula, en- 
 tailed weakness and civil war upon Spain for centuries. The 
 atrocities and cruelties of Rome produced the great league of 
 which William of Orange was the head ; it sharpened the 
 swords of Eugene and Marlborough, and closed in mourning 
 the reign of Louis XY. The massacre of St. Bartholomew 
 and the revocation of the edict of Xantes were the remote 
 though certain causes of the French Revolution. Who will 
 say that Oliver Cromwell was not a rod in the hands of God 
 to chastise the perfidious and treacherous Charles and his 
 wicked advisers ? And it will be readily granted that Wash- 
 ington was employed to rebuke and chastise as well as break 
 tlie insolence of British power and oppression in this conti- 
 nent. The entire history of humanity is a historj^ of the 
 employment of human agents to execute the righteous retri- 
 butions of heaven; and we should never have heard any 
 objection to its being employed in the case of the Canaan- 
 ites, were it not because of the wicked hostility of Infidelity 
 to anything which happens to be recorded in the Bible. 
 
 Having now replied to the strongest argument Infidelity 
 has ever been able to urge against the Old Testament his- 
 
142 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 tory as a record of God's interpositions in the moral history 
 of oiir race, we now proceed to a further consideration of 
 the genuineness and authenticity of the Bible history of tins 
 period of 475 years. 
 
 The records of this period are contained in the Books of 
 Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and part of Kings and Chronicles; 
 and the question we have now immediately to consider is, 
 Have we in these books a reliable, truthful, authentic his- 
 toiw of those times? Tiiis^ present is our sole and only 
 question. 
 
 This question is of course answered by Thomas Paine 
 in the negative. He says, ‘*No, the books are anonymous, 
 therefore they are without authority.” The assumption is, 
 these books are anonymous; the argument is, because a book 
 is anonymous it must necessarily be untrue. Kow we shall 
 show that this assumption is untrue, and this argument is 
 illogical. 
 
 1. The argument that because a book is anonymous, 
 that is, because we are not sure who wrote it, therefore it is 
 not true, is a fallacious and indeed a ridiculous argument. 
 
 There is a book in England, commonly known as “the 
 Doomsday Book,” and written many hundred years ago, 
 containing a survey of all the lands in England, their 
 boundaries, owners, etc. This book is in all courts of Jaw 
 held as of the highest authority as to matters of fact related 
 in it. And yet the book is anonymous, no man can tell who 
 was its author. A special i)leader of the Thomas Paine 
 type would make a great argument of this in the High Court 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 143 
 
 of Chancery. Oh that book is anonymous, therefore it is 
 untrue! The Reviews are all anonymous books, but do we 
 or will posterity esteem them as of no authorit}'? On the 
 contrary, the}^ are now quoted as the highest authorit\^, and 
 will in all succeeding ages be received as authoritative rec- 
 ords of the civil and military and political history of the 
 nation; so little foundation is there for our being startled 
 with this cry, The}" are anonymous, therefore they are with- 
 out authority I The Turin papyrus on which we have the 
 history of Eg3"ptian Kings, even from the time of the Great 
 Raineses, are anonymous. The Parian marbles, or, as they 
 are sometimes called, the Arundelian marbles, found in the 
 isle of Paros, on which is engraven in capital letters a 
 chronicle of the city of Athens, are anonymous. The Saxon 
 Chronicles in which we have the records of the early history 
 of Great Britain are anonymous. Yet all these are esteemed 
 by learned men as of the highest historic value, though we 
 know nothing of the persons by whom they were composed. 
 There is abundant evidence of their authenticity, and their 
 inestimable historic value, even though tlieir authors are 
 not known. The}^ have all the force and value of state doc- 
 uments preserved amongst the national archives. And so it 
 is with the records in the Books of Samuel, of Kings, and 
 Chronicles. They have really all the authority and value 
 of state papers, being authentic public documents preserved 
 amongst the national archives of the Jews as long as the}" 
 were a distinct nation, and ever since cherished by the scat- 
 tered fragments of that people as the most authentic, reli- 
 
144 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 able, and ancient records of their early national history. 
 Let me here put a case whicli, as an illustration, will be 
 perfectly in point: “If anyone having access to the jour- 
 nals of the Lords and Commons in England, to the books 
 of the Treasury, tlie records of the War office and Privy 
 council, should at this day write a history of the reigns of 
 George I. and II., and should publish it without a name, 
 would any man tliree or four hundred j^ears or even a thou- 
 sand years hence question the authenticity of this book 
 which had been received by the whole nation as authentic 
 from the day of its publication to the present hour? This 
 is a case exactly in point. The history of the Jewish nation 
 as contained in the Old Testament was thus composed from 
 state documents, and thus accepted as authentic by the en- 
 tire nation from that day to this. 
 
 2. The assumption made by Paine that these books are 
 anonymous, is false. 
 
 The Book of Joshua is clearly the production of an eye- 
 witness. The writer was one of those “who passed over 
 Jordan dry-shod.” He speaks of Rahab as still dwelling in 
 Israel when he writes, and of Hebron as still in the posses- 
 sion of Caleb the son of Jephunneh. The universal tradi- 
 tion of the Jews is that it was written by Joshua. And it is 
 asserted in the book itself that Joshua wrote these words in 
 the Book of the Law. 
 
 The Book of Judges is by uniform and ancient tradi- 
 tion ascribed to Samuel. The two Books of Samuel were 
 originally one work. Samuel in all probability wrote as far 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 145 
 
 as the twenty-fourth chapter, and the remainder was com- 
 pleted by Nathan and Gad ; accordingly we read in 1 Chron. 
 xxix. 29 : “ Now the acts of David, the king, first and last, 
 behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the Seer, and 
 in the book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the book of Gad 
 the Seer.” The two Books of Kings formed in the Hebrew 
 one work, and are, as we have already said, a compilation 
 from state documents kept in the public archives of Jerusa- 
 lem and Samaria. 
 
 Another collateral proof which I desire you also par- 
 ticularly to note is that we have preserved a Book of Psalms, 
 which were composed by David, and have been sung by the 
 Jews in their public worshii) and family devotions from the 
 time of David to the present day, the Hymn Book, as you 
 may properly call it, of the Jewish church. Many of these 
 Psalms were written to celebrate great events in their na- 
 tional life, and in the personal history of David their king. 
 Tlie 78th Psalm certainly belongs to the time of David, and 
 it contains a rapid sketch of Jewish history, from the won- 
 ders wrought by Moses in Egypt to the settlement of the ark 
 on Mount Zion by David, and contains allusions to more 
 than fifty events in the national history of the Jews, the 
 agreement between which and the historic books is remark- 
 able. Now the question E wish to put to you is. Do you 
 think it possible to induce tlie American nation to commence 
 singing in all their public worship hymns to commemorate 
 events which never happened in their history? Un the 
 
 whole, then, it is evident that the Jews of David’s time, of 
 K 
 
146 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 our Lord’s time, and of all recent time, have no other ac- 
 count to give of their national history than the account 
 which is contained in tlie Old Testament. 
 
 We are now to consider wliat amount of conllrmation 
 profane history furnishes to this portion of the sacred nar- 
 rative. 
 
 This period of 476 years embraces, as we have already 
 remarked, the extremes of depression and exaltation, hu- 
 miliation and glory, in the history of the Jews. During 
 the first three hundred years the Israelites were a small and 
 comparatively insignificant people dwelling in the hilly 
 country of Judea, and barely maintaining their existence 
 against the ceaseless attacks of the surrounding tribes, none 
 of whom made any figure in histoiy. We cannot therefore 
 expect to find any points of contact betvs^een profane and 
 sacred history during that period. Egypt was at that time 
 the most important kingdom, and Ass 3 U‘ia was just rising 
 into note. These are the only two nations which can be 
 said to have any histoiw, and there was no intercourse be- 
 tween the inhabitants of Canaan and either Egypt or As- 
 syria, consequently there is no mention in sacred history of 
 these kingdoms on the one hand, or of the Jews in j:>rofane 
 history on the other. 
 
 The great event of the first three hundred years of this 
 period we are now considering, was the entrance of the 
 Israelites into Canaan, and the driving out of some of the 
 Canaanitish tribes, a portion of whom on the appinach of 
 Joshua fied to the coast of Afilca. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 147 
 
 Now, the Bible history of this event is co 11 tinned tlie 
 
 testimony of three distinct and independent authorities, — 
 Moses of Chorine, the Arniinian historian, Procopius, the 
 secretary of Belisarius, the Roman General, who accompa- 
 nied him to Africa, and Suidas, the ancient Lexicographer. 
 These three all tesiify that at Tigisis (now Tangiers) in 
 Africa there was a monument bearing this inscription, We 
 are the Canaanites whom Joshua drove out.’’ 
 
 Moses of Chore. le says, ‘‘ When he (Joshua) was de- 
 stroying the Cana.inites, some lied to Agra, and sought 
 Tharsis in ships. This appears from an inscription, carved 
 on i^illars in Africa, which is extant even in our time, and 
 is of this purport: ‘ We the chiefs of the Canaaiiites, fleeing 
 from Joshua the Robber, have come hither to dwell.’ ’’ 
 
 Procopiusp, having mentioned Tigisis, a city of Xu- 
 midia, proceeds to say: ••Where there are two columns, 
 made of white stone, near the great fountain, having carved 
 upon them Phoenician letters, which read thus in the lan- 
 guage of the Phoenicians : ‘We are they who fled from the 
 face of Joshua the Robber, the son of Nun.’” This, re- 
 member, is the testimony of an eye-witness. Procopius had 
 accompanied Belisarius, the Roman general, as his secretary 
 in the war against the V andals in Africa. 
 
 Suidas, the Lexicographer, says, “And there are up to 
 the recent time such slabs in Numidia, containing the fol- 
 lowing inscription : ‘We are Canaanites, whom Joshua the 
 Robber drove out.” 
 
 The latter portion of this period of 476 years, was the 
 
148 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 top-tide splendor of the Hebrew commonwealth under the 
 rei^jns of Saul, David, and Solomon, The Jewish empire 
 was now in its advancing glory. During the reign of David 
 the Jews were a great nation among the nations of the earth, 
 during Solomon’s reign they were perhaps the greatest. 
 They were now brought into immediate contact with Egypt, 
 Syria, and Phoenicia. We may therefore expect many no- 
 tices of the Jews in the history of those nations during that 
 period. 
 
 The first nation they were brought into contact with 
 was the Syrian. One of the first exploits of David was the 
 defeat of the Syrians near the Euphrates when they came 
 to assist Hadad, king of Zobah, a defeat which cost them 
 twenty thousand men. Their chief city, Damascus, fell 
 into the hands of the Israelites. 
 
 This is mentioned by Eupolemus and Nicolas of Damas- 
 cus, who drew their information from native sources. Nico- 
 las says : ‘‘After this there was a certain Hadad^ a native 
 Syrian, who had great power: he ruled over Damascus, and 
 all Syria, except Phoenicia. He likewise undertook a war 
 against David, the king of Judea, and contended against 
 him in a number of battles; in the last of them all — which 
 was by the river Euphrates, and in which he suffered 
 defeat — showing himself a prince of the greatest courage 
 and prowess.” 
 
 The Jews were during this period brought into inter- 
 course with the Phoenicians These Phoenicians lived on the 
 westerly slopes of Lebanon, and held the important sea- 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 149 
 
 ports of Tyre and Sidon. They were a great commercial 
 and seafaring people, and needed to keep up the inland 
 traffic through the land of Israel to Damascus and the Eu- 
 phrates. Accordingly" we find that when David became 
 master of the land, overtures of friendship were made by 
 the chiefs of the Phoenicians, the good-will of David was 
 secured by numerous presents (1 Chron. xxii. 4), and a firm 
 friendship was established which continued down to Solo- 
 mon’s time (1 Kings, v. 1). 
 
 This friendly connection between Hiram, king of Tyre, 
 and Solomon, is mentioned by Menander and Dius, native 
 Phoenician historians. 
 
 The words of Dius are as follows : ‘‘On the death of 
 Abibalus, his son Hiram became king. This man raised 
 banks on the eastern part of the city, and made it larger, 
 and united it to the temple of the Olympian Jupiter, which 
 stood on an island by itself. He built a causeway between, 
 and adorned this temple with golden offerings. Moreover, 
 he went up into Lebanon, and cut timber to build temples. 
 Now they say that Solomon, who ruled over Jerusalem, sent 
 riddles to Hiram,” etc. Hiram paid a large sum of money 
 to Solomon as tribute. 
 
 The account which is given of the Phoenicians as to 
 their wealth, enterprise, maritime skill, and arts, is perfectly 
 in accord with all we learn of their history from other 
 sources. “Thou knowest,” writes Solomon to Hiram, the 
 Phoenician, “that there is not among us any that have skill 
 to hew timber like the Sidonians.” Again, “Send me now 
 
150 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 therefore a man cunning to work in gold, and in silver, and 
 in brass, and in iron, and in purple, and crimson, and blue,” 
 etc. And again, when Solomon built a navy of ships on the 
 shore of the Red Sea, Hiram sent in the navy his servants, 
 shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of 
 Solomon.” Here we see at once, as in a mirror, the real 
 character of the Phcenicians. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 0 Assyrian^ the rod of mine anger ^ and the staff in their hand is 
 mine indignation. 
 
 1 will send him against an hypocritical nation^ and against the peo- 
 ple of my wrath will I give him a charge^ to take the spoil, and to take 
 the prey^ and to tread them down like the mire of the streets . — Isaiah x. 
 5 , 6 . 
 
 The third period of sacred history which comes under 
 consideration this afternoon, is that which intervenes be- 
 tween 975 and 588 B. c., a period of 38 T years. 
 
 It coininences with the division of th& Hebrew common- 
 wealth into two separate kingdoms immediately on the death 
 of Solomon ; and ends with the destruction of the temple 
 and the city of Jerusalem in the nineteenth year of the 
 reign of IsTebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. 
 
 The last lecture embraced the history of the rise of the 
 Jewish empire ; the present embraces the histoiy of its de- 
 cline and fall. During the reign of Solomon the Hebrew 
 nation reached the zenith of its glorj^, and became, in fact, 
 the ' greatest empire of the East. It extended eastward to 
 tlie Euphrates, southward to the borders of Egypt, and 
 northward to Asia Minor. Sitting like an empress be- 
 tween tlie Eastern and Western oceans, the navies of three 
 
152 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 continents poured their treasures at her feet, and awed by 
 lier commanding name, the dromedaries of Midian brought 
 spontaneous tribute of spices and silver and precious stones.” 
 
 The history of this period is a history of the achieve- 
 ments of peace rather than the exploits of war. Along 
 with peace there came the highest degree of national pros- 
 perity. Peace and commerce made “gold as brass, and 
 silver as the stones of the street.” The large quantities of 
 the precious metals imported from Ophir and Tarshisli indi- 
 cate a boundless source of wealth. The kings and princes 
 of the subject-provinces paid annual tribute in money and 
 in kind. Monopolies of ti’ade also contributed largely to the 
 king’s treasury, and the trade in tine linen and chariots and 
 horses from Egypt must have brought in large revenues. 
 The king’s domain-lands were let out as vineyards, or for 
 other purposes, at a fixed annual rental, and a tax of ten 
 per cent, was levied on all products. The total amount of 
 revenue brought into the treasury from all sources in gold, 
 exclusive of all payment in kind (which must have also 
 been immense), was 6G6 talents, which some compute at 
 upwards of eighteen millions of dollars. 
 
 The temple erected by Solomon on Mount Moriah was 
 unquestionably the most costly and magnificent structure of 
 the ancient world. He also erected a number of elegant 
 palaces, laid out extensive pleasure-grounds, digged pools 
 and reservoirs, erected fountains, planted gardens with all 
 manner of trees, and secured a large collection in zoology 
 and botany from every part of the then known world. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 153 
 
 The most celebrated of his palaces was the House of 
 the Forest ot’ Lebanon,” a splendid Basilica (a pillared hall) 
 a hundred cubits long. All the plate, and much of the fur- 
 niture of this palace, was of pure gold. Here was the royal 
 hall of ordinance and of justice, where, seated on a throne 
 of ivory and gold, which was guarded and sustained by six 
 lions on each side, the symbols of the tribe of Judah, he 
 heard appeals and made decisions. 
 
 All the equipments of the court and the apparel of the 
 servants were on the grandest scale. If Solomon went on 
 a royal progress to his paradisiac gardens at Etham, he was 
 clad in snow-white raiment, and rode in a stately chariot of 
 cedar, decked with silver and gold and purple, and carpeted 
 with the costliest tapestry. A body-guard of “threescore 
 valiant men” accompanied him, the tallest and handsomest 
 of the sons of Israel, arrayed in Tyrian purple, their long 
 black hair sprinkled freshly every day with gold-dust. If 
 he went from his hall of judgment to the temple, he marched 
 between two lines of soldiers, each with a burnished shield 
 of gold. Forty thousand stalls for horses, and twelve thou- 
 sand horsemen, made up the measure of his magnificence. 
 
 He built strong fortifications, as Millo, Hazor, Megiddo, 
 and the two Beth-horons, for the purposes of defense ; and 
 large cities for the purposes of commerce, as Tiphsah on the 
 Euphrates, and Tadmor in the eastern wilderness (better 
 known in latter days as Palmyra), whose magnificent ruins 
 are to-day the astonishment and wonder of the traveler. 
 An empire of such extensive commercial relations, occupy- 
 
154 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 ing' such ii commMncling geograpliical position, and displa}^- 
 ing so much magnificence and wealtli, must have excited the 
 attention, and ieft some impression upon the history, of the 
 surrounding nations. Accordingly we find notices of tlie 
 Jewish empire in Phoenician, Syrian, and Egyptian histoiy. 
 
 On the deatli of Solomon, Rehoboam his son ascended 
 the throne. The tribes of Israel were now determined to 
 relieve themselves of the oppressive burdens which, in the 
 latter part of his reign, Solomon had imposed upon the peo- 
 ple, to sustain the splendor and extravagance of his court. 
 They therefore recalled Jeroboam from his retirement in 
 Egypt, where he had lied to escape the displeasure of Solo- 
 mon, and with him at their head the}" demanded of Reho- 
 boam the redress of their grievances, but, it would seem, 
 without success. 
 
 It is evident that the ten tribes were predetermined un- 
 der all circumstances to separate from Judah, and establish 
 an independent government. Accordingly they openly re- 
 volted, and made Jeroboam their king, while the tribes of 
 Judah and Benjamin remained under the government of 
 Rehoboam. 
 
 This was the origin of the two kingdoms of the Hebrew 
 people, the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah; 
 the first occupying the northern portion of the land, with 
 the ancient city of Shechem for the seat of government; the 
 second retaining the southern portion of the land, with 
 Jerusalem for its capital as heretofore. 
 
 It is beyond our design to trace the subsequent history 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 155 
 
 of tliese two kingdoms. We desii*e simply to note that the 
 kingdom of Israel maintained its existence under the reigns 
 of nineteen kings for 254 years. Its career throughout all 
 that period was downwards. It was an idolatrous, corrupt, 
 and sensual nation ; and at last after various chastisements, 
 most of the people were taken captive beyond the Euphra- 
 tes by Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, never to return. This 
 occurred 721 b. c. 
 
 The kingdom of Judah maintaim^d its existence 133 
 years longer, in all 387 years. This kingdom was favored 
 with many excellent rulers, and the worship of the true God 
 was not utterly forsaken, a circumstance which, no doubt, 
 contributed to prolong the existence of the empire. In its 
 later histoiy the nation became corrupt and idolatrous, and 
 was at last taken captive by ISTebuchadnezzar, king of Baby- 
 lon, in the nineteenth year of his reign, 588 B. c. 
 
 This period of 387 years, between 075 and 588 b. c., 
 was, as most scholars are aware, an eventful epoch, second 
 to none in historic interest. It comprised within its limits 
 some of the most important I’cvolutions in the ancient world. 
 AYhile the events we have biletl}^ narrated were transpiring 
 among the Hebrews, equally momentous events were tran- 
 spiring among the great nations of antiquity. “This period 
 embraces the development, decline, and fall of the Assyrian 
 empire; the sudden and rapid growth of Media and Baby- 
 lon ; the revival of the Egyptian empire under tlie Psam- 
 metichi; the most illustrious period of the Phoenician cities; 
 the rise of Sparta and Athens; the founding of Carthage 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 156 
 
 and Home ; and the spread of civilization from the Sea of 
 Azof to the Pillars of Hercules.” (Ravvlinson.) These 
 great events were transpiring in the ancient world contem- 
 poraneously with the reigns of the kings of Israel and 
 Judah, as recorded in the Books of Kings and Chronicles. 
 This period has been appropriately styled the transition 
 period of profane historj^ because during this 387 years 
 profane history emerges from the dream-land of mjThs and 
 legends, and enters the sober lields of chronological realities 
 and sober facts. 
 
 Of this period we have fortunately the most ample and 
 reliable historic records. Herodotus, justly styled the Father 
 of History, was born in the centuiy following, 484 B. c. 
 The greater portion of his life was spent in travel to collect 
 the materials for his great work. He visited Eg}’^pt, Baby- 
 lon, Sythia, Gyrene, Zante, Dod6na, and the Greek colonies 
 which encircled the shores of Southern Italy, conversing 
 with priests and learned men, examining public monuments, 
 searching the national archives and public records, for the 
 most authentic information in relation to the history of these 
 various nations. In the following century we have the his- 
 torian Berosus, a priest of Belus at Babylon, who wrote a 
 history of Babylonia, of which many fragments are pre- 
 served in Josephus, Eusebius, Syncellus, and the Christian 
 fathers, which are regarded as remarkably authentic and 
 accurate. A little later we have Manetho, a priest of Heli- 
 opolis, who wrote a ‘‘History of Egypt.” The genuineness 
 of the fragments of this history, which are preserved in 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 ^57 
 
 Josephus, Eusebius, and Syncellus, has been ably demon- 
 strated by Niebuhr, Bunsen, and Muller. And in addition 
 to these we have the Asiatic and Egyptian monuments 
 which we have already described. Here, then, we have 
 abundant materials for a comparison of sacred and profane 
 history, and we shall see that Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Greece, 
 and even Moab and Phoenicia, vie with each other in offer- 
 ing their tribute of testimony to the truth and accuracy of 
 the Hebrew records. 
 
 During this eventful period of 387 years the Hebrews 
 were brought into contact with the neighboring kingdoms 
 of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. They were often at war 
 with one or the other of these powers; sometimes they were 
 victorious, but often er defeated and made tributary to first 
 one and then the other; and finally they were utterly sub- 
 jugated and carried as captives beyond the Euphrates. If 
 their history as recorded in the Bible is an authentic history, 
 and not a mere fable, we may naturally expect to find, that 
 as their relations to Egypt and Assyria and Babylon are so 
 frequently mentioned in Hebrew history, so also the Jews 
 will be mentioned in the histories and monuments of these 
 great powers. Just as in American history we have allu- 
 sions to the relations of our nation with England and 
 France, and in French and English history we have similar 
 allusions to their relations with Ameri<^a, so we may expect 
 to find the same reciprocal allusions in the histories of these 
 ancient nations. 
 
 I have previously intimated that the Books of Kings 
 
UNIVERSITY LE CTURES. 
 
 158 
 
 aiul Chronicles were compiled from state documents, records 
 which had been preserved in tlie national archives of the 
 Hebi’ew commonwealth, as state documents are now pre- 
 served in the E,olls Court in London, and at the Capitol in 
 Washington. This method of chronicling and preserving 
 the records of national events was the uniform practice in 
 all the great nations of antiquity. These records were 
 made on skins, parchments, and papjn-us-rolls ; sometimes 
 on stone, clay-tablets, and brass, sometimes in paintings on 
 the walls of palaces and tombs. 
 
 In almost all the ancient nations the preparing of these 
 important records was confided to the priests. Among the 
 Hebrews it was committed to prophets in the highest repute 
 among the people. The compiler of the Books of Chronicles 
 particularizes thirteen books of prophets which formed a 
 portion of the national chronicles of the Jews. The Books 
 of Samuel, of Nathan, of Gad, etc., are among the docu- 
 ments which are mentioned as supplying the materials for 
 the two Books of Kings and Chronicles, and the work of 
 compiling and arrangijig is, by universal tradition, ascribed 
 to Ezra. The writings of some of the most illustrious of 
 the prophets who lived during this period have come down 
 to our times. Isaiah, IJosea, Joel, Micah, Obediali, Jere- 
 miah, Zephaniah, all lived during the reigns of the kings of 
 Israel and Judah. The prophet Isaiah was contemi)orary 
 with Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. 
 One whose life was so thoroughly incorporated with the 
 national life of the people, who mingled in public allairs. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 IS9 
 
 and vvais so' frequently consulted by kings, must have had 
 tlie best opportunity of accurately knowing the histoiy of 
 the times, and though not designing to write a histoiy, we 
 may naturally expect in his writings to find frequent allu- 
 sions to public events. Accordingly we do find that he 
 mentions the entire succession of kings from Uzziah to 
 Hezekiah; the alliance of Eezin king of Syria and Pekah 
 king of Israel against Ahaz king of Judah; the plunder of 
 Damascus; the spoiling of Samaria; the praj^er of Heze- 
 kiah; the destruction of Sennacherib’s ho^t, his return to 
 Nineveh, his murder and the escape of Ids murderers; the 
 invasion of Tiglatli-Pileser ; and a great maiy^ other events 
 of his time which confirm the accounts which are given in 
 the Books of Kings and Chronicles. 
 
 The two great powers with which the Hebiews were 
 brought into contact during this period were Egypt and As- 
 syria. 
 
 Let us commence with Egypt, and see how far the ac- 
 count given in Kings and Chronicles of the relations between 
 the Hebrews and the Egyptians, is confirmed by Egyptian 
 history. 
 
 The%rst noteworthy event which transpired in the his- 
 toiy of the kingdom of Judah, was the invasion of Judea 
 by Shishak in the fifth year of Pehoboam. In the 2d Book 
 of Chronicles, xii. 1-9, we read that Shishak came up against 
 Jerusalem with twelve hundred chariots, sixty thousand 
 horsemen, and footmen without number. He took the 
 fenced cities which belonged to Judah, and was proceeding 
 
i6o 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 to invest Jerusalem, when Rehoboam made his submission 
 and became tributary to the Egyptian kings. Shishak pil- 
 laged the temple and ‘^the king’s house,” and carried away 
 also the shields of gold which Solomon had made. This is 
 the Biblical account. 
 
 The record of this same campaign still remains on the 
 outside of the great temple of Karnak, put there by order 
 of Sheshonk I., the first Pharaoh of the 22d dynasty, to 
 commemorate his success. Among the list of captured towns 
 and districts the name of “ Tuda MelcliV'^ (kingdom of Ju- 
 dah) was discovered by Campollion. The existence of this 
 inscription is also affirmed by Sir G. Wilkinson and M. Bun- 
 sen, two high authorities in Egyptology. (See Rawlinson’s 
 “Herodotus,” vol. ii. p. 315.) 
 
 Another important event in the history of the relations 
 of these two kingdoms, Judea and Egypt, is mentioned in 
 2 Kings xxii. 29-35. Pharaoh-Kecho invaded Judea, de- 
 feated and killed Josiah, the king of Judah, pressed his 
 conquests to the Euphrates, also took Carchemish and Jeru- 
 salem, led Jehoahaz the son of Josiah into captivity, and 
 established his dominion over the whole of Syria. 
 
 Rawlinson says, “It is impossible not to recognize the 
 famous Egyptian monarch whom Manetho calls Nechao, 
 Herodotus Keco, and the monuments Neku, the son and 
 successor of the first Psammetichus, as the Pharaoh-Kecho 
 of this historic record in Kings.” The invasion of Syria by 
 Kecho, and the defeat of the Syrians in a great battle in 
 Megiddo, are attested by Herodotus; and Manetho, the na- 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 i6i 
 
 tive Egyptian liistorian, tells us that the same king took 
 Jerusalem, and carried Jehoahaz captive to Egypt. 
 
 Let us now turn to Assyrian history, where the points 
 of contact with Hebrew history are frequent, and we shall 
 lind numerous and interesting confirmations of the accuracy 
 of the Biblical record. 
 
 The separate existence of the two kingdoms of Israel 
 and Judah is abundantly confirmed by Assyrian inscrip- 
 tions. The names of the kings of Israel and the kings of 
 Judah occur frequently in the accounts which the great As- 
 s\Tian monarchs have left of their wars and conquests. 
 These names are always capable of an easy identification 
 with the Scripture names, and always occur in the same 
 chronological order as given in the Bible. The Jewish mon- 
 arch has the title of “King of Judah,” and his Israelitish 
 brother is designated after his chief city, “the house or city 
 of Oniri,” he being the original founder of Samaria. 
 
 During the reigns of Menahem, king of Israel, and 
 Uzziah, king of Judah, and for a century after, w'e find 
 a close connection between Jewish history and that of 
 Assyria. The history of the two nations becomes now in- 
 terlaced, as it were, in consequence of numerous wars ; 
 and all the kings who reigned in Assyria for one hundred 
 and twelve years are mentioned in Scripture. The succes- 
 sors of Pul, or Phul, king of Assyria, are presented in 
 Scripture in the exact chronological order in which they 
 stand on the monuments: 1. Tiglath-Pileser II. 2. Shal- 
 maneser IV. 3. Sargon. 4. Sennacherib. 5. Esarhaddon. 
 
 L 
 
i 62 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 These five kings all carried their arms into Palestine, 
 and they stand out as prominent figures in the history of the 
 Jews, just in the order in which they are here given, and it 
 is at least remarkable, may we not say providential, that 
 after 2300 years, the monumental records of these five mon- 
 archs are now in the British Museum, and are deciphered 
 with as much ease as any ancient Roman or Greek inscrip- 
 tion. 
 
 1. Tiglath-Pileser II. The chief events related in 
 Scripture in which this Assyrian monarch was an actor, are 
 his two invasions of the kingdom of Israel ; the first when 
 he took Ijon, Janoah, Kedesh, Gilead, Galilee, and all the 
 land of Naphtali, and carried the people captive into As- 
 syria (2 Kings XV. 29) ; the second when he came at the 
 invitation of Ahaz, king of Israel, and not only chastened 
 Pekah, king of Israel, but took Damascus, and slew Rezin, 
 the Syrian king (2 Kings xvi. 7-9). 
 
 The first expedition is slightly alluded to in the inscrip- 
 tions of Tiglath-Pileser, but no details are given. Of the 
 second, an account is given on the pavement slabs of a pal- 
 ace at Nimrud, which slabs are now in the British Museum. 
 They have been translated by Dr. Hinks and Col. Rawlin- 
 son, and they attest that Tiglath-Pileser defeated Rezin, 
 king of Damascus, took and destroyed his city, and that the 
 king of Samaria paid him tribute. 
 
 2. Shalmaneser lY. He was the successor of Tiglath- 
 Pileser. We read in 2 Kings xvii. 3-6 that this Assyrian 
 king twice came up against Hoshea, the last King of Israel ; 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 163 
 
 on the first occasion to levy or enforce tribute, on the second 
 to punish Hoshea for contracting an alliance with Egypt, 
 the foe of Assyria ; at which time he laid close siege to 
 Samaria for three years. There are two inscriptions in the 
 British Museum which, it is believed, belonged to Shalman- 
 eser. One of them mentions Hoshea, king of Samaria; the 
 other speaks of a son of Eezin, king of Damascus. 
 
 The capture of Samaria is claimed by his successor Sar- 
 gon as an exploit of the first year of his reign. This claim, 
 at any rate, confirms the fact that Shalmaneser commenced 
 the siege of Samaria, and prosecuted it for three years. 
 The prolonged absence of the Assyrian monarch from his 
 capitol seems to have encouraged a rival to come forward 
 and usurp the throne. While Shalmaneser was prosecuting 
 the seige of Samaria, Sargon possessed himself of the 
 supreme power, just as in later times the Pseudo-Smerdis 
 took advantage of the absence of Cambyses in Egypt for a 
 like purpose. The fall of Samaria may therefore have oc- 
 curred during the i-eign of the usurper Saigon whose ascent 
 to the throne founded a new dynasty. 
 
 3. This Sargon, the successor of Shalmaneser, was the 
 builder of the magnificent palace of Khorsabad, now so well 
 known from Mr. Botta’s excavation, and the engravings of 
 its sculptures published at the expense of the French gov- 
 ernment. A valuable series of monuments now deposited 
 in the Louvre at Paris, furnish the bulk of the historical 
 notes of his reign. The statue of Sargon brought from 
 Idalium is now in the Berlin Museum. 
 
164 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 Oil one of the inscriptions brought from Khorsabacl, 
 Sargon tells us that he took Samaria in his first year, and 
 carried away captive to Assyria 27,280 Jewish families. 
 The same fact is mentioned in 2 Kings xvii. 6, “In the ninth 
 year of Hoshea the King of Assyria took Samaria, and car- 
 ried Israel away into Assyria.” This was the end of the 
 kingdom of Israel after an existence of 254 years. From 
 this captivity they never returned. 
 
 Of this Sargon we have a clear historical notice in Isaiah 
 XX. 1, “ In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod (when 
 Sargon the king of Assyria sent him), and fought against 
 Ashdod, and took it.” On the Black Obelisk, now in the 
 British Museum, there is an inscription to the effect that 
 “Sargon made war against Ashdod, and took it.” (See 
 Rawlinson’s “Herodotus,” vol. i. p. 379). 
 
 4. The Assyrian Monarch who appears in Scripture 
 next to Sargon, is Sennacherib, whom the monuments show 
 to have been his son. 
 
 Two expeditions of this monarch against Hezekiah, 
 king of Judah, are related in Scripture. 
 
 The first of. these was when Hezekiah had thrown oft* 
 his allegiance to Assyria (an allegiance paid by the kings of 
 Judah from the days of Ahaz). In 2 Kings xviii. 13, 14, we 
 read, “Kow in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did 
 Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against the fenced 
 cities of Judah, and took them. And Hezekiah king of 
 Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have 
 offended; return from me; that which thou puttest upon me 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 1 65 
 
 will I bear, and the kin^ of Assyria appointed unto Heze- 
 kiah king of Judea three hundred talents of silver and 
 thirty talents of gold.” 
 
 This Sennacherib was the monarch who removed the 
 seat of the Assyrian government to Nineveh, which he calls 
 ‘‘ the ro}^al city.” The city had fallen into a state of ex- 
 treme decay, and he directed his vast resources to its restora- 
 tion. He also erected a magnificent palace, which he 
 decorated throughout with elaborate sculptures in commem- 
 oration of his various achievements. This edifice which is 
 now known as the great Koyunjik palace, was excavated and 
 thoroughl}^ explored by Mr. Layard, and a large collection 
 of its sculptured monuments was removed to London at the 
 expense of the British government, and now crowd the As- 
 syrian rooms of the British Museum. The excavated portion 
 of this palace covers an area of about eight acres. At the 
 grand entrance were placed the collossal winged bulls, with 
 six human figures of vast proportions. On four of these 
 collossal figures are inscriptions which contain the annals of 
 six years of Sennacherib’s reign. These inscriptions were 
 independently translated by Dr. Hinks, Col. Rawlinson, 
 and Mr. Laj-ard, with remarkable agreement. Here, among 
 much historical matter, is found the following confirmation 
 of the account we have just read from the Book of Kings. 
 Sennacherib in his inscription says, ‘‘And because Hezekiah, 
 king of J udah, would not submit to my yoke, I came up 
 against him, and by the force of arms and by the might of 
 my power I took forty-six of his strong fenced cities, and of 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 1 66 
 
 the smaller towns which were scattered about, I took and 
 plundered a countless number. And from these places I 
 captured and carried off as spoil two hundred thousand one 
 hundred and fifty people, old and young, male and female, 
 together with horses and mares, asses and camels, oxen and 
 sheep, a countless multitude. And Hezekiah himself I shut 
 up in Jerusalem, his capital city, like a bird in a cage, build- 
 ing towers around the city to hem him in, and raising banks 
 of earth against the gates, so as to prevent escape . . .Then 
 upon this Hezekiah there fell the fear of the power of my 
 arms, and he sent out to me the chiefs and the elders of 
 Jerusalem with thirty talents of gold, and eight hundred 
 talents of silver, and divers treasures, a rich and immense 
 booty. . . .All these things were brought to me at Nineveh, 
 the seat of my government, Hezekiali having sent them by 
 way of tribute, and as token of his submission to my power.” 
 This translation was made by Sir H. Rawlinson. (For 
 further information in regard to this magnificent palace of 
 Sennacherib and the inscriptions there found I refer you to 
 Layard’s “Nineveh and Babylon,” ch. vi.) 
 
 There is a coincidence in every respect between the 
 record in Kings, and the record on the monuments, except 
 in regard to the number of talents of silver. The account 
 in Kings says three hundred talents, that on the monuments 
 says eight hundred talents. The Bible evidently enumerates 
 in that amount only the actual money carried away. Sen- 
 nacherib himself probably estimates the actual value of all 
 the precious metals carried away, for at verse sixteen we are 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 167 
 
 told Hezekiah cutoff the gold and silver from the pillars and 
 doors of the temple, and gave it to the Assyrian king. 
 
 A still further confirmation of the Biblical account of 
 Sennacherib’s having taken Lachish, and of the king of 
 Judah having come there to submit himself to him, was dis- 
 covered at Mosul by Mr. Layard. A chamber was discov- 
 ered in which the sculptures were in a better state of 
 preservation than any before found at Koyunjik. The 
 sculptures and bas-reliefs of this chamber are minutely 
 described by Mr. Layard at pp. 126-129 in his “ N’ineveh 
 and Babylon.” There on a throne may Sennacherib be seen 
 sitting before, or at the entrance of, the city of Lachish, and 
 above his head is the following inscription in cuneiform 
 characters, “ Sennacherib the mighty king sitting upon his 
 throne before the city of Lachish. I give permission for its 
 slaughter.” Before him is a train of captives in a supplica- 
 ting attitude, and the most unpractised eye can easily recog- 
 nize the physiognomy of the Jew. At page 129 Mr. Layard 
 gives an engraving of some of these captured Jews, which 
 you may do well to inspect. 
 
 The second expedition of Sennacherib into Judea fol- 
 lowed some time after. On this occasion no collision took 
 place between Sennacherib and Hezekiah. Sennacherib 
 sent threatening letters to Jerusalem, but before he was able 
 to carry his threats into execution, that miraculous over- 
 throw of his army took place which is recorded in 2 Kings 
 xix. 35-37, “And it came to pass that night, that the angel 
 of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 1 68 
 
 [which was at Lib n ah on the borders of Egypt] an hundred 
 fourscore and five thousand: and wheii they arose early in 
 the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. So Sennach- 
 erib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, 
 and dwelt at Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was 
 worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adram- 
 melech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword : 
 and they escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esarhad- 
 don his son reigned in his stead.” 
 
 It is generally agreed that the equally marvellous 
 account which is given by Herodotus in chapter 141 of his 
 second book entitled ‘‘ Euterpe,” is the Egyptian version of 
 the same event. The Egyptians would naturally ascribe 
 such a miraculous overthrow of so large and powerful an 
 army to the interposition of their own gods. But that such 
 an event did occur, the evidence is conclusive. The names 
 of the kings and the place of the battle in both accounts, 
 are the same. 
 
 The murder of Sennacherib by his two sons on his re- 
 turn to Nineveh, is mentioned also by Berosus, the Assyrian 
 historian. 
 
 Esarhaddon is distinctly pointed out as the son and suc- 
 cessor of Sennacherib. “ Esarhaddon his son reigned in his 
 stead” (2 Kings xix. 37). Here again the Assyrian monu- 
 ments agree with the Scriptures. The Hon. Fox Talbot in 
 his “ Assyrian Texts Translated,” assures us that Esarhad- 
 don, in his inscriptions, frequently speaks of Sennacherib as 
 his father. The events with which his name is connected in 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 169 
 
 Scripture are few. He was obviously tlie contemporary of 
 3Iauassah, and was undoubtedly the kin^ of Assyria whose 
 captains “took Manassali among the thorns, and bound him 
 with fetters, and carried him to Babylon ” (2 Chron. xxxiii. 
 11). The monuments full}' confirm this fact by stating that 
 Manassah was a “tributary of Esarhaddon.” 
 
 But here is an apparent discrepancy. The Bible saj^s that 
 the generals of an Ass 3 adan king took Manassah captive to 
 Babylon. The question naturally arises. What had an 
 Assj^rian king to do with Babjdon? Observe how, even in 
 incidental matters, there is a wonderful coincidence. Esar- 
 haddon was the only Assyrian king who was actually the 
 conqueror and consequently tlie king of Babjdon. He built 
 a palace and occasionally held court there. A Babjdonian 
 tablet has been found dated by the j^ear of liis reign. No 
 similar fact can be proved of an}" other Ass}"rian monarch. 
 
 With Esarhaddon the notices of the Assyrian kings close 
 in the sacred volume. 
 
 Babylon soon after became a powerful monarch}^ and 
 under Nabopolassar threw off the Assyrian yoke, and over- 
 threw the Assyrian Empire. After the death of Nabopo- 
 lasser, Nebuchadnezzar succeeded to the throne. Tlie revolt 
 of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, provoked the wrath of 
 Nebuchadnezzar, who beseiged and took Jerusalem. He 
 carried away captive some members of the royal famil}" and 
 many nobles as hostages for the future fidelity of the king. 
 Among these was Ezekiel the prophet, and Daniel and his 
 three companions. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 170 
 
 This was the commencement of the Babylonian captiv- 
 ity. The revolt of Zeclekiah in the nineteenth year of the 
 reign of ISTebuchadnezzar, completed the ruin of the king- 
 dom of Judah. Nebuchadnezzar now burned the temple 
 and city to the ground, and transported the people to Baby- 
 lonia. Thus ended the kingdom of Judah, 588 B. c. 
 
LECTURE IX. 
 
 Thus saith the Lord to his atioi7ited^ to Cyrus, -whose rig^ht hand I 
 hare holden, to suhdtie nations hejore him ; For Jacob my servant's sahe, 
 and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy 7tame: I have surna7ned 
 thee, tho7igh thou hast 7tot Jcno'W7t i7ie, I am the Lord, and there is none 
 else, there is 7io God besides ine ; I girded thee, though thou hast 7iot kiiown 
 7ne: That they 7tiay hno-w from the risiitg of the sun, and froin the -west, 
 that there is 7to7ie besides me, I am the Lord, a7id there is 7ione else , — 
 Isaiah xlv, 4-6. 
 
 We are now in the course of our inquiry brought lo 
 the fourth or last period in the Old Testament history, a 
 period of 184 years intervening between 588 and 404 b. c. 
 
 This period commences with the destruction of the 
 temple and cit}^ of Jerusalem by fire, and the carrying away 
 of the tribe of Judah into captivity, in the nineteenth year 
 of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and extends through 
 the seventy years captivity to the final reestablishment of 
 the Jews in their own land, during the reign of Artaxerxes, 
 king of Persia, which closes the historic records of the Old 
 Testament canon, 400 years before the coming of Christ. 
 
 This period of 184 years again naturally subsides into 
 two periods, 1. The time of the captivity and servitude in 
 Babylon, 52 years; 2. The period of the return and re- 
 establishment of the Jews in their own land, 132 years. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 172 
 
 The period of the captivity was also an eventful epoch 
 in the history of the great nations of the earth. The As- 
 syrian empire was overthrown by the Babylonians under 
 Nabopolasser, and Babylon became the greatest nation. 
 The Babylonian empire itself was during this period subju- 
 gated by Cyrus the Persian, and the Medo-Persian swa}^ 
 became supreme. 
 
 The seventy years captivity of Judah really commenced 
 with the capture of Jerusalem by ^Nebuchadnezzar in the 
 fourth year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, GOG B. c. 
 
 About 600 B. c., ^Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian 
 empire, was besieged by the Medes and Ba.bylonians. Tak- 
 ing advantage of this state of affairs in Assyria^ JNecho, king 
 of Egypt, interfered in the affairs of Judea, dethroning 
 Jehoahaz, who was then tributary to Assyria, and placing 
 Jehoiakim, a vassal of Egypt, upon the throne. 
 
 ^Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, while engaged in 
 the siege of Nineveh, saw, with displeasure, -this interfer- 
 ence of the king of Egypt in the affairs of Judea, and sent 
 his son Nebuchadnezzar to restore the province to its 
 allegiance. In this he succeeded, and Jehoiakim became 
 his vassal, and continued so to the end of his days. 
 
 Nineveh was subsequently captured, and Nabopolassar 
 dying soon after, Nebuchadnezzar succeeded to the throne. 
 While the attention of this monarch was otherwise engaged, 
 Jehoiakim had the temerity and madness to revolt against 
 him. Nebuchadnezzar then besieged and took Jerusalem, 
 He carried away a portion of the sacred vessels of the 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 173 
 
 temple, which he lodged in the temple of Beliis at Babylon. 
 He also carried into captivity some members of the royal 
 family and many of the nobles as hostages for the future 
 fidelity of the king and people. Amongst these were Ezekiel 
 the prophet, and Daniel and his companions, Shadrach, 
 Meshech, and Abednego. 
 
 This was properly the commencement of the Babylonish 
 captivity ; the completion of this captivity, that is, the time 
 when the entire tribe may be said to have been taken cap- 
 tive, was in the nineteenth year of N^ebiichadnezzar’s reign. 
 Zedekiah had been induced by Pharaoh-Hophrah, king of 
 Egypt, under promises of aid, to revolt. In consequence of 
 this revolt the Babylonian king invaded Judea with a large 
 army, burned the temple and city to the ground, sent to 
 Babylon all the gold and silver he could find, and transport- 
 ed all the people who had been left behind after Jehoiakim’s 
 captivity, save the veriest poor of the land; and thus ended, 
 under the itiost unhappy circumstances, the kingdom of 
 Judah after an existence of 387 years. 
 
 Of the actual condition and history of the Jews during 
 the remaining fifty-two years of their captivit}^ we have no 
 direct historic records, and these fifty-two years would have 
 formed a blank in the Hebrew annals, did we not possess in 
 the writings of one of the prophets some historic materials 
 which fill the blank. Conformable with the usage of Isaiah 
 and Jeremiah, Daniel combines history with prophecy, unit- 
 ing in one book an account of the visions with which he was 
 favored, and a history of the events which transpired under 
 his personal observation. 
 
174 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 It’, then, this B^ok of Daniel be genuine, if it was really 
 written by Daniel, the narrative it contains must possess the 
 highest degree of historic credibility. The witness is a 
 thoroughly competent witness; his testimony is the best, 
 because he narrates events of which he had immediate 
 knowledge, and he had the best opportunity of knowing, 
 inasmuch as he filled offices of trust under the Babylonian 
 and the Medo-Persian kings. 
 
 This Book of Daniel contains some of the most remark- 
 able and explicit predictions in relation to the future destiny 
 of the four great empires of antiquity, — the Babylonian, 
 Medo-Persian, Macedonian, and Roman ; it announces in 
 plain and literal terms the coming of the Messiah, and fixes 
 the exact year of his advent; it has therefore been the subject 
 of the combined attacks of Infidelity from the days of Celsus 
 and Porphyry down to the present hour. And there is no 
 wonder that it should be so when we remember how clearly 
 and circumstantially all these prophecies have received their 
 accomplishment, and thus furnished an unanswerable proof 
 of the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. It was asserted 
 by Porphyry in the third century, and it is the favorite 
 argument of Strauss and the German rationalists in the 
 present day, that the Book of Daniel could not have been 
 written by Daniel, but must have been written during the 
 reign of Antiochus Epiphanes by some impostor. 
 
 This is tlie assertion, now let us have the proof. Here 
 then is the proof. Can you believe it m}^ skeptical friend ? 
 
 The minuteness and accuracy of the predictions tallj^ s6 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 ^75 
 
 exactly with the known course of history, therefore they 
 must have been written after the event.’’ Who ever heard 
 such an argument before! Because the prediction was so 
 strikingly fulfilled, it must have been written after the event ! 
 It is with the skeptic a foregone conclusion that the knowl- 
 edge and prediction of events which are future and remote 
 is (even to God) an a priori impossibility; it is a miracle 
 which never can take place, and, therefore, on this simple 
 presumption, they deny that this Book of Daniel could have 
 been written during the Bab 3 donish captivity, or that Daniel, 
 one of the captives, was its author. This is surely to ignore 
 all facts, and be a skeptic in spite of all evidence. 
 
 I^ow that the Book of Daniel was not composed during 
 the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, 160 B. c., is certain. 
 
 1. Because it was translated into Greek during the 
 reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, more than seventy years be- 
 fore the ascension of this very Antiochus. 
 
 2. Daniel's prophecy, particularly in relation to the 
 ascendancy of the Greeks, was shown to Alexander the 
 Great when he pushed his conquests into Palestine, 332 B. c., 
 and he was disposed on that account to deal favorably with 
 the Jews. 
 
 3. There are quotations from Daniel made by Joseph, 
 the son of Sirach, who must have written his book 180 B. c. 
 which, though uninspired and uncanonical, is just as good 
 historic authority as Herodotus or Josephus. 
 
 4. The alternate use of Hebrew and Chaldee, which is 
 the main linguistic peculiarity of the Book of Daniel, is only 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 176 
 
 natural, and could only have occurred, when both languages 
 were currently spoken by the Jews. This collateral f)i’oof 
 may therefore be regarded as fixing the date of this book 
 during the period of the captivity. 
 
 5. Finally, it may have some weight with the Infidel 
 to add that the genuineness of the Book of Daniel, and also 
 of Ezekial, is admitted by Thomas Paine. I confess that 
 his opinion, however, on one side or the other, is of no weight 
 with me, for he is the most ignorant, unscrupulous, and dis- 
 honest author that has ever attempted to write down 
 Christianity. 
 
 The genuineness of the Book of Daniel being thus 
 placed beyond doubt, we shall proceed to consider the con- 
 firmations of its authenticity which are furnished so con- 
 clusively by profane history. 
 
 The two great nations with which the Jews were brought 
 into relation during these 184 years, were the Babylonian 
 and Persian: during the first seventy years their relations 
 were with the Babylonian kings, during the remaining one 
 hundred and fourteen years with the Persian kings. We 
 commence, then, with Babylonian history and ask, Does it 
 confirm the Bible history? 
 
 The fundamental event of this period was the Captivity 
 itself. This event was predicted by Jeremiah twenty years 
 before its actual occurrence : ‘‘ And this whole land shall 
 
 be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations 
 shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (Jeremiah 
 XXV. 11). That this prediction was literally fulfilled admits 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 177 
 
 of no reasonable doubt. That the Jews were really carried 
 away into Babylon we need not attempt to prove. Not only 
 do we find from the monuments of Babylon, and the subse- 
 quent history of Persia, that such transfers of whole popu- 
 lations were common in the East, but we have the direct 
 testimony of Berosus, the Chaldean historian, to the actual 
 carrying away of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar, and their 
 final settlement in Babylonia. 
 
 There are events of much more minuteness and partic- 
 ularit}^ narrated by Daniel in relation to the history of 
 Babylon and her kings, which receive a striking confirmation 
 from profane history. 
 
 I. The character of Nebuchadnezzar, the length of his 
 reign, the fact that he uttered prophecies, and his strange 
 sickness, these are all points in which we find a signal agree- 
 ment between sacred and profane history. 
 
 1. The character of this prince, the splendor and mag- 
 nificence he displayed, his military success, his devotion to 
 his gods, and the pride he took in adorning Babylon, are all 
 noted by Berosus and Abydenus, and in these respects they 
 confirm the account of him which is given by Daniel. Take 
 as an example one fact. Daniel represents Nebuchadnezzar 
 as saying in his pride, “Is not this great Babylon which I 
 have built? ” and Berosus confirms this saying by telling us 
 that Nebuchadnezzar repaired the city which had existed 
 from the first, and added another to it, and both statements 
 are verified by the fact that nine-tenths of the inscribed 
 
 M 
 
178 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 bricks found in the ruins of Babylon are insci'ibed with 
 Nebuchadnezzar’s name. 
 
 2. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar was endowed, on one 
 occasion at least, with prophetic powers, as stated by Dan- 
 iel, is also remarkably confirmed by a passage in Abydenus. 
 ‘‘The Chaldeans,” says he, “relate that, after this, Nebu- 
 chadnezzar went up to^his palace, and being seized with a 
 Divine afflatus, prophesied to the Babylonians the destruc- 
 tion of their city by the Medes and Persians, after which he 
 suddenly disappeared from amongst them.” Is it not re- 
 markable that this particular prince, who alone, of all the 
 heathen monarchs with whom the Jews were in contact, is 
 said to have had the future revealed to him by God, should 
 thus be mentioned by both Daniel and Abydenus? 
 
 3. The length of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is stated 
 without any variation by Berosus, Polyhistor, and Ptolemy, 
 as forty-three years. 
 
 The Babylonian monuments go to prove nearl}^ the 
 same thing, for the account of the forty-second year has 
 been found upon a clay-tablet in Babylon, being an order 
 on the imperial treasury, dated in the current year of the 
 reigning monarch, just as a modern act of parliament would 
 be in Great Britain. All this is in perfect accordance with 
 the Bible. The first year of Evil-Merodach, the successor 
 of Nebuchadnezzar, is the thirty- seventh year of the cap- 
 tivity of Jehoiakim, who was taken captive in the eighth 
 year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. 
 
 4. Berosus, the Chaldean historian, is silent as to Neb- 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES . 
 
 179 
 
 uchadnezzar’s strange sickness. It is not to be expected 
 that he would perpetuate the memory of so humiliating an 
 event in the life of a Babylonian monarch. But in the 
 “Standard Inscription” translated by Sir H. Bawlinson, 
 there is a memorandum which certainly answers to this 
 event. “For four years,” says he, “I did not build any 
 high places, did not lay up any treasures, did not sing the 
 praises of my god Merodach, did not offer sacrifice, did not 
 keep any works of irrigation.^’ He suffered from a form of 
 madness known to physicians as “Lycanthropy,” in which 
 the patient imagines himself an animal. 
 
 II. The successor of this unfortunate monarch was 
 IS’eriglassar, who, though not mentioned in Scripture as a 
 monarch, has been recognized as one of the princes who 
 accompanied Nebuchadnezzar in his last expedition to eleru- 
 salem. He is designated in Jeremiah as Rab-Mag, the chief 
 of the magicians, and this is the title which is also found 
 attached to the name of Neriglassar in his brick legends. 
 It corresponds, letter by letter, with that of the Babylonian 
 king. 
 
 III. Of the son of Neriglasser, who was a mere child, 
 and reigned only a few montlis, the sculptures contain no 
 trace. 
 
 IV. Whether his successor, the last native king whose 
 name stands in the canon of Ptolemy, has a place in the 
 sculpture narrative, has long been a dispute amongst learned 
 men. His name was Nabonidus. 
 
 That there is no name in the least resembling this in the 
 
i8o 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 Bible is readily granted. But it has always been supposed 
 that this prince was identical with Belshazzar, whom Daniel 
 makes the last Babylonian ruler. 
 
 The great diversity of these^two names has always made 
 this theory appear very unsatisfactory, and Infidels, finding 
 that we had no better explanation to offer of this acknowl- 
 edged difficulty, have been emboldened to declare that Dan- 
 iel’s account of Belshazzar was a pure invention of his own, 
 that it is contradicted by Berosus, and is an unmistakable 
 proof of the unreliable character of the entire book. They 
 could point to the fact that Daniel makes Belshazzar the 
 last Babylonian king. Ptolemy’s canon makes IS’abonidus 
 the last. They could also point to the fact that no profane 
 historian mentions such a king as Belshazzar. They could 
 also show from Berosus that the last Babylonian monarch 
 was absent from the city when it was taken by the Pei’sians, 
 and could not have been, as Daniel says, slain in the midst 
 of his bacchanalian revelries. B erosus says the last Baby- 
 lonian monarch was taken prisoner afterwards at Borsippa, 
 and then, not slain, but treated with great kindness by 
 Cyrus. 
 
 Here, then, was a great triumph for Infidelity. BuCto 
 show how premature all Infidel triumphs are, and how 
 strikingly Scripture is confirmed, instead of being invali- 
 dated, by every new discovery in history as well as in 
 science, we can now, in our turn, point to the wonderful 
 and providential discovery made by Sir H. Rawlinson in 
 the year 1854, at Mugheir, the ancient U r of the Chaldees^ 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 I8l 
 
 of the following inscription: ‘‘Nabonidus (the last king) 
 associated with himself on the throne, daring the latter part 
 of his reign, his son Belshazzar, and allowed him the title 
 of king.” This Belshazzar was the prince who conducted 
 the defense of Babylon, and was slain in the massacre which 
 followed the capture. His father IS'abonidus, who com- 
 manded an army stationed in Borsippa, surrendered to Cy- 
 rus, and received that clemency which the Persian kings 
 usually showed to a fallen monarch. Thus, by this provi- 
 dential discovery, Berosus the Babylonian historian, and 
 Daniel the sacred historian, are harmonized, and another 
 striking example is furnished of the circumstantial accuracy 
 of the Bible. 
 
 This discovery also throws a flood of light upon another 
 text in the fifth chapter of Daniel, the twenty-ninth verse. 
 When Belshazzar saw the mysterious writing upon the walls 
 of the palace, “Mene mene tekel upharsin,” and none of 
 the magicians and literati of Babylon could interpret it, he 
 sent for Daniel, who at once explained it. Then Belshazzar 
 commanded to clothe Daniel in scarlet, and put a chain of 
 gold about his neck, and proclaim him third in the empire. 
 But why proclaim him third? why not second? or if there 
 were three, who was first, and who was second? The an- 
 swer is furnished in this discovery , — JYabonidus was first, Bel- 
 shazzar was second, Daniel was third. 
 
 The fact of the sudden and unexpected capture of Baby- 
 lon by a Medo-Persian army dui*ing the celebration of a 
 festival, and the consequent absorption of the Babylonian 
 
i 82 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 into the Medo-Persian empire, is another of those numerous 
 and striking’ agreements between profane and sacred history 
 which speak for themselves and need no comment. The 
 narrative of Herodotus is as follows : 
 
 ‘‘Cyrus, with the first approach of the ensuing spring, 
 marched forward against Babylon. The Babylonians, en- 
 camped without their walls, awaited his coming. A battle 
 was fought at a sliort distance from the city, in wdiich the 
 Babylonians were defeated by the Persian king, whereupon 
 they withdrew within their defenses. Here they shut them- 
 selves up, and made light of his siege, having laid in a store 
 of provisions for many years in preparation against this at- 
 tack ; for when they saw Cyrus conquering nation after 
 nation, they were convinced that he would never stop, and 
 that their turn would come at last. 
 
 “ Cyrus was now reduced to great perplexity, as time 
 went on and he made no progress against the place. In this 
 distress either some one made the suggestion to him, or he 
 bethought himself of a plan, which he proceeded to put in 
 execution. He placed a' portion of his army at the point 
 where the river enters the city, and another body at the 
 back of the place where it issues forth, with orders to march 
 into the town by the bed of the stream, as soon as the water 
 became shallow enough; he then himself drew off with the 
 unwarlike portion of his host, and made for the place where 
 Nitocris dug the basin for the river, where he did exactly 
 what she had done formerly: he turned the Euphrates by a 
 canal into the basin, which was then a marsh, on which the 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 183 
 
 river sank to such an extent that the natural bed of the 
 stream became fordable. Hereupon the Persians who had 
 been left for the purpose at Babylon by the river-side, en- 
 tered the stream, which had now sunk so as to reach about 
 midway up a man’s thigh, and thus got into the town. Had 
 the Babylonians been apprised of what Cyrus was about, 
 or had they noticed their danger, they would not have al- 
 lowed the entrance of the Persians within the city, which 
 was what ruined them utterly, but would have made fast all 
 the street-gates which gave upon the river, and mounting 
 upon the walls along both sides of the stream, would so 
 have caught the enemj^ as it were in a trap. But, as it was, 
 the Persians came upon them by surprise, and so took the 
 city. Owing to the vast size of the place, the inhabitants of 
 the central parts (as the residents at Babylon declare) long- 
 after the outer portions of the town were taken, knew 
 notliing of what had chanced, but as they were engaged in 
 a festival, continued dancing and revelling until they learnt 
 the captui-e but too certainl}". Such, then, were the circum- 
 stances of the lirst taking of Bat>ylon.” (See Bawlinson’s 
 Herodotus,” vol. i. pp. 254-255.) 
 
 The Bible account of the festival is given in the fifth 
 chapter of Daniel. At the concluding verses we read, “In 
 that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. 
 And Darius the Median took the kingdom.” 
 
 All this was distinctly foretold, even to its minutest de- 
 tails, by the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah. “Thussaith 
 the Lord, that saith unto the deep, Be dr}^, and I will dry 
 
184 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 up tliy rivers : that saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, 
 and shall perforin all ray pleasure” (Isaiah xliv. 27,28); 
 “ and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the 
 two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut” (xlv. 1). 
 “ One post shall run to meet another, and one messenger to 
 meet another, to show the king of Babylon that his city is 
 taken at one end, and that the passages are stopped, and the 
 reeds they have burned with fire, and the men of war are 
 affrighted.” “In their heat I will make their feasts, and I 
 will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a 
 perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the Lord.” (Jer. li. 
 31, 32, 39.) “Her young men shall fall in her streets, and 
 all the men of war shall be cut off in that day” (xlix. 26). 
 
 This prophecy was delivered one hundred and sixty 
 years before the taking of Babylon, and yet that event is 
 predicted, even to its minutest details; its river was to be 
 dried up, the water gates left open, the city taken during a 
 night of revelr}% and Cyrus its conqueror is mentioned by 
 name two hundred years before he was born. Skeptics have 
 no other resource but to say that Isaiah must have written 
 after the event. 
 
 The Restoration of the Jews to their own land, and their 
 vicissitudes and fortunes until the reformation under Nehe- 
 miah, fill up the remaining one hundred and twenty years. 
 The history of the Jews during this period is given by Ezra 
 and Nehemiah, and receives some illustration and confirma- 
 tion in the books of the prophets, Haggai, Malachi, and 
 Zachariah, who lived after the captivity. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 185 
 
 Tlie prophet Daniel was still alive when Babylon was 
 taken by Cyrus, though he must have been a venerable old 
 man, upwards of eighty years of age. There is every reason 
 to believe that he was in the highest repute with the con- 
 querors. In some of the decrees issued by Cyrus in relation 
 to the return of the Jews, he evidently indicates some knowl- 
 edge of those predictions in the Book of Isaiah which sig- 
 nalized him as the conqueror of Babylon and the deliverer 
 of the Jews. ‘‘Thus saith Cjuais king of Persia, The Lord 
 God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; 
 and he hath charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, 
 which is in Judah ’’ (Ezra i. 2) . 
 
 There can be little doubt that Daniel called the attention 
 of Cyrus to these prophecies. We know that he had studied 
 the writings of Isaiah, and Inid ascertained that the dura- 
 tion of the captivity was to be seventy years. And when 
 he found the seventy years had expired, and Babylon was 
 in the hands of the very king Cyrus whom Isaiah had so 
 signally pointed out as the “restorer of the captives of 
 Israel,” he directed the attention of Cyrus to the prophecy. 
 The communication of these facts would unquestionably 
 produce a deep impression upon the Persian Cyrus, espe- 
 cially when it is remembered that the Persians were believ- 
 ers in one God, and had an intense abhorrence of idol-wor- 
 ship. Their faith, and that of the Jews, were in this respect 
 identical. 
 
 C 3 "rus accordingl}^, as we read in Ezra i. 2-5, issued a 
 decree in the first year of his reign, authorizing the Jews to 
 return and build the temple at Jerusalem. 
 
i86 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 Most of the then existing race of Jews had been born 
 in Babylonia, and had established themselves in the country. 
 Only a small but pious minority were disposed to return. 
 The first caravan was organized under the direction of 
 Zerubbabel, the grandson of Jehoiakim, the last king of 
 Judah, and Joshua, the son of Josedech, the last high 
 priest. It consisted of 50,000 persons, including about 7000 
 male and female servants. Before their departure Cyrus 
 restored to them the more valuable of the vessels of the 
 temple which Nebuchadnezzar had brought away. Zerub- 
 babel was also entrusted with large contributions towards 
 the expense of rebuilding the temple from those Jews who 
 chose to remain in Babylon. 
 
 The Jews on their arrival in Jerusalem commenced 
 earnestly to rebuild the temple, but experienced consider- 
 able annoyance from the Samaritans. They weakened the 
 hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them, and hin- 
 dered them during the reigns of Cyrus and his successor 
 Cambyses ; and by the misrepresentations they made to 
 Smerdis (he is called Artaxerxes by Ezra) thej^ induced him 
 to issue a decree that the work of the house of God should 
 cease (Ezra iv. 24). 
 
 The issuing of this decree by Smerdis, wiio was a Mede 
 and a usurper, and as such opposed to the pui-e theistic re- 
 ligion of the Persians as well as the Hebrews, is no matter 
 of surprise. He sought not only to reverse the religious 
 policy of his predecessors, wlio were Persian kings, but also 
 to restore the power to the Medes which they had lost since 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 187 
 
 the days of Cyrus. This suspension of all the works on the 
 temple lasted until the second year of Darius Hystaspes, 
 during which the poor Israelites lost heart, and were greatly 
 discouraged. But from this lethargy they were aroused by 
 the earnest preaching of Haggai, and commenced with fresh 
 zeal (Haggai ii. 1-9). 
 
 The restored Jews experienced no further molestation 
 in the lifetime of Darius, who reigned thirty-six years, and 
 died 485 B. c. He was succeeded by Xerxes (the Ahasuerus 
 mentioned in Esther), who continued filendly to the Jews 
 notwithstanding the efforts of the Samaritans to prejudice 
 his mind against them. 
 
 Xerxes was succeeded by Artaxerxes Longimanus, 
 whose long reign embraced many circumstances of interest 
 to the Jewish people. He commissioned Ezra to return to 
 Jerusalem, and set in order everything necessary to the ser- 
 vice and worship of the true God ; he was accompanied by 
 another caravan of six thousand persons. The final per- 
 mission to build the walls of Jerusalem as well as the tem- 
 ple, was granted to Xeliemiah, the cupbearer of Artaxerxes 
 Longimanus, in the twentieth year of his reign. Xehemiah 
 had heard fi-om some of his returned countrymen how the 
 Jews, who had engaged in rebuilding the temple, were in 
 affliction and reproach, and that the walls of the ancient 
 city were still broken down, and her gates consumed with 
 fire. This intelligence deeplj^ affected him. He “sat down 
 and wept, and mourned certain days, and fasted, and praj^ed 
 before the God of heaven.” The sorrow of his soul cast a 
 
i88 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 hue of sadness over liis countenance, and it did not escape 
 the attention of tlie king when Nehemiah appeared before 
 him in his duties as cupbearer. He inquired, ‘‘Why is thy 
 countenance sad, seeing thou art not sick?” Nehemiah an- 
 swered, “ Why should not my countenance be sad, when the 
 city, tlie place of my fathers’ sepulchres, lieth waste, and the 
 gates thereof are «ionsumed with fire ? ” Artaxerxes immedi- 
 ately granted him leave of absence for fifteen years, and 
 empowered him to rebuild the walls of Zion, and fortify 
 the ancient city. After twelve years’ absence he returned 
 to Babylon, but hearing that social disorder was prevalent 
 in Jerusalem, he again obtained permission to return, and 
 with an unsparing hand he effected those great changes, and 
 established those regulations, which are known as “the 
 Reformation under Xehemiah.” 
 
 Here the history of the Old Testament Scripture closes, 
 and our further information in relation to the history of the 
 Jews until the coming of Christ, is obtained from Josephus, 
 and the uninspired Book of Maccabees. 
 
 The authenticity, as well as the genuineness, of the sacred 
 Books of Nehemiah and Ezra, has nevei* been questioned 
 by Infidels. They disarm even the rationalists of Gennan}^ 
 by the absence of any miraculous or even marvelous fea- 
 tures, the humble and subdued tone in which they are writ- 
 ten, and the weakness and subjection the}^ confess. They 
 at once refiect the spirit of the age, and the state of feeling 
 amongst the afflicted, chastened Israelites. These are all 
 marks which at once attest the sincerity and honesty of the 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 189 
 
 writers. There is no doubt that the books were written by 
 the persons whose superscription they bear. The writers 
 were personally observant of the facts they narrate. Ezra 
 was the head of ecclesiastical and Nehemiah of civil affairs. 
 Even Paine, the prince of scoffers, who is so unscrupulous 
 in his assertions of want of genuineness, and his charges 
 of falsehood, admits the genuineness of these books. 
 “These books,” says he, “we allow to be genuine, giving 
 an account of the return of the Jews from the Babylonian 
 captivit}^ about 536 before Christ, but those accounts are 
 nothing to us, nor to any other persons, unless it be the Jews 
 as a pan of their nation’s history; and there is just as much 
 of the word of God in them as in the history of France.” 
 Indeed! Ezra and Nehemiah are genuine, authentic 
 books, but they are nothing to us! Let us see. The first 
 verse of the Book of Ezra saj-s; “iNTow in the first year of 
 Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the 
 mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up 
 the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a procla- 
 mation,” etc. Is it nothing for us to know that Jeremiah 
 was a true prophet, and that the prediction he uttered one 
 hundred and thirty years before, prefacing it with the sol- 
 emn words “Thus saith the Lord,” was literally fulfilled ? 
 Is it nothing for us to know that there had been in the early 
 history of our race, for four thousand years, supernatural 
 interpositions of God in the moral affairs of men, punishing 
 sinful nations by carrying them into captivity, and after 
 seventy years of suffering and penitence stirring up the 
 heart of a Persian king to set them free. 
 
190 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 The two foLindatioii-stones on which Christianity rests 
 are, — 
 
 1st, That events have been clearlj^ predicted two hun- 
 dred and even two thousand years before they actually tran- 
 spired ; events which no human sagacity or foresight could 
 possibly have divined, such, for example, as the promise of 
 tlie Messiah, tlie great Deliverer from sin, who was the de- 
 sire and hope of Israel in all their families and tribes; 
 
 2d, That there have been from age to age supernatural 
 interpositions in the moral history of our world for the in- 
 struction and moral elevation of the human race. In all 
 the ages God has been leading humanity forward towards 
 its predestinated and now visible goal. 
 
 If these two positions can be proved, then Christianity 
 stands on a foundation firmer than the pillars of heaven, 
 and more stable than the everlasting hills. 
 
 The pi-oof of these two propositions is contained in this 
 one affirmation, “The Bible as a history is true.” 
 
 This we believe we have established beyond rational 
 controversy^, by an appeal to memorable traditions found 
 amongst all nations; to the testimony of independent his- 
 torians who lived in Egypt, in Babylon, in Phoenicia, in 
 Pome; to existing monuments and inscriptions, coins and 
 signets, found in the tombs of the kings of Egypt, and amid 
 the ruins of Nineveh, Babylon, and Susa'; and, lastly^, to 
 the discoveries and conclusions of modern science, and the 
 admissions of Infidels themselves. As an argument we re- 
 gard it as amounting to a demonstration, and we are just as 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 I9I 
 
 certain of tlie truth of the great leading events in tlie Scrip- 
 ture narrative, as we are of any occurrence in our past ex- 
 perience. 
 
 If, then, the Bible as a history be true, what are the 
 logical inferences which follow from that fact? 
 
 1. As a history it clearly proves the interpositions of 
 God in our world; that He is concerned with its moral his- 
 tory ; that He has at various periods originated visible relig- 
 ious institutions and economies for the instruction and moral 
 discipline and purification and elevation of humanity; that 
 at sundry times and in divers manners He spake in time 
 past unto the fathers by the prophets, and in the latter days 
 has spoken by His Son. When once the historic truth and 
 accuracy of the Bible is admitted, you cannot escape this 
 conclusion. 
 
 2. If the historic accounts contained in the Bible are 
 true, anotlier inference is, that the writers were most of 
 them, at least, inspired men, and received their knowledge 
 immediately from God. 
 
 You will remember that as yet we have not claimed for 
 the Bible this peculiarity above all other books, that it was 
 written under inspiration from God. We have been willing 
 to place it on a level with all other histories, subject it to the 
 same rules of historic criticism, and ask of it, as we would 
 ask of Herodotus or Xenophon, Is the Book as a history 
 true? If, then, as a history it be true, let us see what are 
 the logical consequences of that truth. Most of its writers 
 display in a striking manner the knowledge of the future. 
 
192 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 They foretell events which are distant, and utterly beyond 
 human saojacity or foresight to divine. For example, Isaiah 
 foretold the captivity of tlie Jews, that it should continue 
 seventy years, that finally Babylon should be taken by the 
 Pei-sians during a feast by turning the river from its course ; 
 and Cyrus, the deliverer of the Jews, is mentioned by name 
 one hundred and fifty years before all this occurred. What 
 other rational, or even possible, inference can be drawn 
 from thence save this, that it was revealed to him by God ? 
 
 Again, the genuineness of the Book of Daniel is ad- 
 mitted by Paine, and, we think, we have demonstrated its 
 authenticity. In this book thei-e are remarkable prophe- 
 cies; as, for example, the history, characteristics, and fall of 
 the four great empires of antiquity, are distinctly symbol- 
 ized in the image of ^Nebuchadnezzar. The time of the 
 Messiah’s appearing is also distinctly marked, and the future 
 history of the church to the end of time is outlined. What, 
 again, can be the rational inference from all this but that 
 he was inspired by that God who, as he himself remarks, 
 •‘revealeth secrets and maketh known what shall be in the 
 latter days.” The Bible presents us with three peculiar 
 classes of supernatural facts : 
 
 1. There are miracles of Knowledge, grounded on Di- 
 vine Omniscience. 
 
 2. There are miracles of Holiness, grounded on the 
 Divine Perfection. 
 
 3. There are miracles of Power, grounded on the Di- 
 vine Omnipotence. 
 
LECTURE X. 
 
 Produce your cause ^ saith the Lord ; bring forth your strong reasons^ 
 saith the King of Jacob. 
 
 Shew the things that are to come hereof ter that we may know that ye 
 are gods : yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it 
 together . — Isaiah xli. 21, 23. 
 
 We are almost disposed to regret that we have occupied 
 so much ot’ the allotted time for this course of lectures on the 
 single proposition that the Bible as a history is true, and 
 thus abridged our opportunity for discussing more thorough- 
 ly the proposicion that as a revelation it is Divine. But 
 really the evidence is so voluminous that we have been com- 
 pelled to omit much that we desired and intended to present, 
 and we have been embarrassed in making our selections. 
 The argument is a cumulative one, and every year is adding 
 to the fullness and completeness of the historical evidence. 
 We trust, however, we have presented sufficient to leave on 
 your minds the conviction that no ancient history in exist- 
 ence can present so many confirmations of its authenticity 
 and truth as the Old Testament history. 
 
 And now taking the history as it lies before us, what 
 evidence does it furnish of Divine interposition and of in- 
 struction ? Can it be regarded in any sense as a revelation 
 
 of God and from God ? 
 
 N 
 
194 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 First of all and most obvious of all is this lesson that 
 God has always been near to man, always interested in man, 
 and that He has constantly interposed in the affairs of men. 
 The God of the Old Testament is something more than “the 
 soul of the world,” as Aristotle taught, something more than 
 an “ unconscious mind,” if such a phrase be not indeed a con- 
 tradiction in terms. God is a righteous God, a moral Gov- 
 ernor, and a just Judge. In His moral government of the 
 world He has always subordinated the “natural” to the 
 “moral,” the “physical” to the “spiritual.” Furthermore, 
 in carrying forward the moral order of the world He has 
 employed human agency. He has chosen a class of men who 
 by superior endowment, and spiritual insight, and special 
 illumination, have been signalized as Seers, Prophets, and 
 Messengers. These have been employed as the Teachers 
 and Lawgivers of men. They seem to have been endowed 
 with a superhuman knowledge, and their teaching and mis- 
 sion accompanied by supernatural powers. There has, thus, 
 always been furnished a kind of evidence which their con- 
 temporaries have accepted as proof that they were sent of 
 God. We now desire to ask the question. Does that proof 
 seem adequate ? 
 
 I ask your attention this afternoon to the first fact, the 
 possession of supernatural knowledge, which I shall designate 
 the Miracle of Knowledge, for, as Hume admits, “All 
 prophecies are leal miracles.” 
 
 We point then to the fact that in the sacred writings 
 *♦ 
 
 there is displayed a knowledge of the future above and be- 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 195 
 
 yoiid all the teachings of reason and experience, a super- 
 natural, snperhunian foresight, more remarkable even than 
 their records of supernatural power. 
 
 We have remote events foretold with minuteness and 
 accuracj^, events which lay absolutely beyond the reach of 
 human sagacity, and human prevision. We have number- 
 less predictions in relation to national affairs, and individual 
 characters and actions, which could never have been fore- 
 seen by a finite intelligence, all of which have been literally 
 and circumstantially fulfilled. And we therefore conclude 
 that this knowledge must have been supernaturally com- 
 municated to the writers, and that the book in which these 
 prophetic annunciations are found, must be regarded as 
 containing a revelation from God. 
 
 This is the argument which is urged in our text. Let 
 them bring forth their strong reasons, or arguments, and 
 show us what shall happen, shew us things that are to come, 
 that we may know that ye are gods. In the spirit of our 
 text we may challenge every form of false religion and 
 every species of skepticism, and say. Produce your cause 
 and bring forth your strong reasons, because we are sure 
 that the argument from prophecy is impregnable and un- 
 answerable. Prophecies, with their fulfillments, are unques- 
 tionably miracles of knowledge, and bring a supernatural 
 element into the Scriptures of the Old and Kew Testament. 
 
 In order to establish the validity of this argument there 
 are two conditions to be fulfilled. 
 
 The first is to show the distinct priority of the prophecy 
 
196 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 to its corresponding fulfillment in history, or the far ante- 
 rior date of the former to the latter, so as to place the ful- 
 fillment beyond the possible calculation of human foresight. 
 
 The second is to show from independent historic sources 
 that the prediction was really and substantially fulfilled. 
 
 When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument 
 from prophecy becomes a demonstration that the knowledge 
 possessed by the sacred writers was derived from super- 
 natural sources. There are many illustrations which might 
 be given ; we shall select only two. 
 
 Our first illustration of this argument will be taken from 
 the predictions of the Dispersion, the Prosecutions, the Suf- 
 erings, and Preservation of the Jews as a distinct nation 
 among the other nations of the earth. These predictions 
 are contained in the twentieth chapter of the Book of Deu- 
 teronomy, verses 15, 20 to 28, 31 to 34, 36 and 37, 47 to 51, 
 and 61 to 68. 
 
 The distinct priority of these predictions to the events 
 of history in which they have been, and are now being ful- 
 filled, cannot be questioned by the most obstinate skepticism. 
 They began to be fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 70 A. D. They are being fulfilled in every part of the hab- 
 itable globe, and are fulfilled every day under our own 
 eyes. 
 
 The language in which the book containing these pre- 
 dictions was written is of itself sufficient proof of their an- 
 tiquity. The Hebrew ceased to be spoken as a living 
 language after the Babylonish Captivity, and there was no 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 197 
 
 grammar of tliat language made until a period long after. 
 
 About 277 B. c. the Pentateuch was translated into 
 Greek for the use of the Alexandrian Jews, who now spoke 
 only the Greek language, and from the almost universal 
 prevalence of that language became widely" diffused and ac- 
 cessible to the learned of every land. That Greek transla- 
 tion is extant, and in the hands of almost every scholar, thus 
 proving that the prediction of the dispersion and sufferings 
 of the Jews was in existence at least 340 years before a>ny 
 events occurred which are a fulfillment of them. 
 
 We may proceed yet further back in the antiquity of 
 the Hebrew Scriptures. When the ten tribes revolted from 
 the dominion of Rehoboam, 975 B. c. (nearly one hundred 
 years before the destruction of Jerusalem), and founded a 
 separate kingdom, they took along with them the five Books 
 of Moses, and in subsequent years translated them into the 
 Samaritan dialect. Here, then, we have two distinct copies 
 of the Pentateuch, one the Hebrew, the other the Samaritan; 
 one kept by the tribe of J udah, the other by the ten tribes 
 of Israel. ^low, had there been any disposition to tamper 
 with, or alter the sacred text, these two peoples would have 
 acted as a mutual check upon each other, the Jews having 
 no dealings with the Samaritans ; and the result is, that, with 
 few exceptions, they are in perfect agreement. Here, then, 
 we are carried backwards three thousand years, and there 
 we find we have extant, predictions uttered by Moses in re- 
 lation to the future history of the Jews, which, ^as3we will 
 now proceed to show, have been remarkably fulfilled. 
 
198 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES.^ 
 
 I. First as to their Dispersion amongst all nations of 
 the earth. These predictions are contained in Deuteronomy 
 xxvii. 49, 50, 63, 25, 36, 64, 65, 68. 
 
 “ The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from afar, 
 from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a na- 
 tion whose tongue thou shalt not understand; 
 
 ‘‘ A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not re- 
 gard the person of the old, nor show favor to the young.” 
 
 “ The Lord shall cause thee to he smitten before thine 
 enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee 
 seven ways before them: and shalt he removed into all the 
 kingdoms of the earth.” 
 
 “The Lord shall bring thee, and thy king which thou 
 shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy 
 fathers have known.” 
 
 “And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, 
 from the one end of the earth even unto the other. 
 
 “ And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, nei- 
 ther shall the sole of thy foot have rest.” 
 
 1. As to the agent God would employ in dispersing the 
 Jews, it is said that it shall be a nation from afar, from the 
 ends of the earth, swift as an eagle, of a strange tongue, a 
 fierce countenance, and intensely cruel, sparing neither man 
 nor beast. 
 
 All this was strikingly fulfilled in the character of the 
 Roman army which invaded and overthrew Jerusalem. 
 That armj^ was literally composed of men who came from 
 “the ends of the earth,” from England, France, and Spain; 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 199 
 
 and Vespasian and Adrian, the two conquerors, were both 
 from Britain. The Romans, too, from the rapidity of their 
 conquests and the fierceness of their attacks, are well com- 
 pared to “eagles,” and they always carried them as the en- 
 sign of their armies. Tlie Latin tongue was a “strange” 
 language to the Jews, and still more the languages of the 
 nations who composed the Roman army. And it is well 
 known that the old Romans were of a “fierce countenance,” 
 stern, undaunted, cruel, and hard-hearted, “who regarded 
 not the person of the old, and showed no favor to the 
 young.” Josephus says that Vespasian slew all, man by 
 man, and showed no mercy to age, out of hatred to the 
 nation. 
 
 2. The manner of their dispersion is clearly set forth. 
 They were to be plucked from off* their lands, smitten be- 
 fore their enemies, going out one way against them and flee- 
 ing seven wa 3 "S before them. The manner of their disper- 
 sion was bj" the sword, by banishment, and by flight. 
 
 The Romans destroyed all their cities, and ravaged the 
 whole country. The inhabitants who escaped the sword 
 were forcibly expelled from Judea, and fled as houseless 
 wanderers into the surrounding country. Many of them 
 were carried into Egypt and sold as slaves; and a public 
 edict was published by Adrian prohibiting them on pain of 
 death from setting foot in Jerusalem, or even approaching 
 the country around it. From that time to this their land 
 has been in possession of foreign masters, few of the Jews 
 being permitted to dwell there, and these under the most 
 
200 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 servile and humiliating conditions. Heathens, Mohamme- 
 dans, and Christians have each in their turn possessed Judea; 
 it has been the prey of the Saracens; the descendants of 
 Ishmael have overrun it; but the Israelites have never been 
 permitted to possess it, though they have often desired to 
 return. Amid the revolutions of states and empires during 
 the past eighteen centuries, the Jews alone have been aliens 
 from the home of their fathers. 
 
 3. The extent of their dispersions is more remarkable 
 than the manner of it. They were to be “removed into all 
 the kingdoms of the earth,” and to be “ scattered among all 
 people from the one end of the earth even unto the other.’ 
 
 There is not a country upon the face of the earth where 
 the Jews are unknown, nor a city of any note where they 
 are not to be found. They are in Europe, Asia, Africa, 
 America, and in the islands of the sea. They are citizens 
 of the world without a country and a home. Neither 
 mountains nor rivers nor deserts nor oceans, the natural 
 boundaries of other nations, have terminated their wander- 
 ings. They tread the snows of Siberia and the sands of 
 Arabia. They are found in China and Japan, in Persia 
 and India. We have met them in Australia and New Zea- 
 land, Taheite and South America. From St. Petersbui-g 
 to the Cape of Good Hope, from Britain to Madagascar, 
 from Labrador to Patagonia, from New York to San Fran- 
 cisco, the Jew is found. No inhabitant of the intervening 
 regions would be known everywhere except a Jew, and the 
 great peculiarity is that thei-e is no region which he can call 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 201 
 
 his home. While scattered through every nation he does 
 not belong to any nation. There is a peculiarity in his 
 physiognomy, and in his circumstances, which distinguishes 
 him from every nation under heaven. You can perceive a 
 restlessness in his manners, an anxiety in his countenance, 
 and an unsettledness in his operations, which show him to 
 be nowhere at ease, and nowhere at home. He finds no 
 rest for the soles of his feet, and his heart trembles and 
 beats sorrowfully everywhere. 
 
 II. Let us see how the predictions of their Persecu- 
 tions and Sufierings have all been fulfilled. These are 
 found in Deuteronomy xxviii. 37, 46, 48, 31, 33, 34, 32, 65, 
 66 , 68 . 
 
 “ Thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a 
 by-word, among all nations whither the Lord shall lead 
 thee.” 
 
 “And they [the curses of God] shall be upon thee for 
 a sign and a wonder, and upon thy seed forever.” 
 
 “ Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies, which the 
 Lord shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and 
 in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a 
 yoke of iron upon thj^ neck, until he have destroyed thee.” 
 
 “ Thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou 
 shalt not eat thereof: thine ass shalt be violently taken away 
 from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee: thy 
 sheep shall be given unto thine enemies, and thou shalt 
 have none to rescue them.” 
 
 “ The fruit of thy land, and all thy labors, shall a na- 
 
202 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 tioii which thou kiiowest not eat up ; and thou shalt be only 
 oppressed and crushed alway : 
 
 ‘‘ So that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thine eyes 
 which thou shalt see.” 
 
 “Thy sons and thy daughtei’s shall be given unto an- 
 other people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with long- 
 ing for them all the day long; and there shall be no might 
 in thine hand.” 
 
 “ They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their 
 gold shall be removed: their silver and their gold shall not 
 be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord” 
 (Ezek. vii. 19). 
 
 “And among these nations shalt thou lind no ease, nei- 
 ther shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the Lord shall 
 give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and 
 sorrow of mind.” 
 
 “And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and 
 thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assur- 
 ance of thy life.” 
 
 “And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with 
 ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee. Thou shalt 
 see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your 
 enemies for bondsmen and bondswomen, and no man shall 
 buy you.” 
 
 1. Tliey were to be perpetually exposed to derision and 
 mockery and insult. “ Thou shalt become an astonishment, 
 a proverb, and a b}^-word, among all nations whither the 
 Lord shall lead thee.” 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 203 
 
 There is a passnge in the first volume of Hallam’s ‘‘His- 
 toiy of Europe” which shows how strikingly this prophecy 
 has been fulfilled. Speaking of the condition of the Jews 
 in the middle ages, he says: “They were everywhere a sub- 
 ject of popular insult. A time of festivity to others was 
 often the season of mockery to them. It was customary at 
 Toulouse to smite them on the face every Easter. At Be- 
 ziers they were attacked with stones from Palm Sunday to 
 Easter, an anniversaiy of insult and injury generalh^ pro- 
 ductive of bloodshed, and to which the populace were regu- 
 larly instigated by a sermon from the bishop.” 
 
 Benjamin of Tedula, who traveled in the twelfth cen- 
 tury through a great part of Europe and Asia, found the 
 Jews everywhere oppressed, particularly in the Holy Land. 
 To this day the Jews who reside in Palestine, or who have 
 resorted there in old age that their bones may repose in their 
 own land, are abused by Greeks, Armenians, and Europe- 
 ans; and the haughty deportment of the Turkish soldiers 
 toward the poor and persecuted Jew, is painted to the life 
 hj the prophet, “The stranger that is within thee shalt get 
 up above thee very high, and thou shalt come down veiy 
 low.” In Persia even in modern times they cannot appear 
 in public, much less perform religious ceremonies, without 
 being treated with scorn and contempt. At Tripoli when a 
 criminal is condemned to death, the first Jew who happens 
 to be on hand is compelled to become executioner, a degre- 
 dation to which no Moor is subjected. In Arabia they were 
 treated with more contempt than in Turkey. The remark 
 
204 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES, 
 
 is common to the most recent travelers in Asia and Africa, 
 that the Jews are astonished, and the natives are indignant, 
 at any act of kindness or even civility that is done to this 
 ‘‘despised nation.” And in former years even in London 
 the}^ were compelled to live in a locality known as the Old 
 Jewry. That the name “Jew” is still a by-word and a 
 proverb among all nations, is a fact well known to all. A 
 Jew is the synonym for a cheat. To be “Jewed” is to be 
 cheated, all the world over. There is a common proverb by 
 which men express the most cruel and inhuman treatment, 
 “You use me worse than a Jew.” What a detestable char- 
 acter has Shakspeare drawn of a Jew in the “Merchant of 
 Venice.” 
 
 2. They were to be i^erpetually spoiled and oppressed. 
 The fruit of their lands was to be taken from them, their 
 oxen were to be slain before them, their sheep given over 
 to their enemies, their silver was to be cast into the street, 
 and their gold removed, their sons and daughters were to be 
 given to other people, and themselves condemned and re- 
 duced to slaver 3 ^ 
 
 The history of the treatment of the Jews hy the nations 
 among whom they sojourned, is little else than a history of 
 robbery and spoliation. It was the policy of the kings of 
 France to employ them as a sponge to suck their subjects’ 
 money, which might then be squeezed out of the Jews with 
 less odium than by imposing direct taxation. It is almost 
 incredible to what an extent these extortions were carried. 
 A series of alternate tolerations and persecutions was borne 
 
UNIVERSITY LECIURES. 
 
 205 
 
 by this extraordinary people, and at the same time they dis- 
 played an invincible perseverance, and a talent for acquiring 
 wealth, which kept pace with the exactions of their plun- 
 derers. Phillip Augustus released all the Christians in his 
 dominions from their liabilities to the Jews, reserving a fifth 
 part unto himself. Richard, John, and Henry III. often 
 extorted monej" from them. Henry by the most unscrupu- 
 lous and unsparing measures reduced them to abject poverty. 
 An English historian says he always polled the Jews at 
 every low ebb of his fortune. His extortions were so great, 
 says Rapin, that he reduced the miserable wretches to such 
 extremity that they desired to depart from his kingdom ; 
 but even self-banishment was denied them. Edward I. 
 completed their misery, seized upon their property, and 
 banished them from the kingdom. 
 
 Not only have ihej^ been robbed of their property, but 
 also of their families; their sons and their daughters have 
 been t^ken from them and given to other people. The 
 fourth Council of Toledo ordered that all their children 
 should be taken from them, lest they should partake of their 
 errors; and they were shut up in monasteries. When they 
 were banished from Portugal, the king ordered all their 
 children to be retained and baptized. We have had exam- 
 ples of this treatment in our day; one celebrated case oc- 
 curred only lately in the Papal states. 
 
 3. They were to be the subjects of cruel persecution. 
 Their enemies shall put a yoke of iron on their neck; they 
 shall have sorrow of mind, and failing of eyes, and trembling 
 
2o6 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 of heart; their life sh ill lung in doubt, and they sh ill have 
 no assurance of their lives. The history of the sufferings 
 of the Jews is a perpetual tale of horrors. 
 
 Basnage, the elaborate historian of the Jews, says : 
 
 “ Kings have often employed the severest edicts, and the 
 hands of the executioner, to destroy them ; the seditious 
 multitude lias performed massacres and executions infinitely 
 more tragical than princes. Botli kings and people, Chris- 
 tians and Mohammedans, have united in designs to ruin this 
 nation, and have not been 'able to effect it. The Jews have 
 from age to age passed through miseries and persecutions 
 and torrents of blood. 
 
 “Emperors, kings, and caitiffs, all united in subjecting 
 them to the iron yoke. Constantine after having suppressed 
 a revolt they had raised, commanded their eai’s to be cut off, 
 and dispersed them as fugitives and vagabonds into differ- 
 ent countries, whither they carried the marks of suffering 
 and shame. Justinian abolished their synagogues, prohib- 
 ited their performing worship even in caves, rendered their 
 testimony inadmissible, deprived them of their natural right 
 to bequeath property, and, when such oppressive measures 
 led to an insurrection, their property was confiscated, many 
 were beheaded, and so bloody did the executions become 
 that all the Jews of the country trembled.” 
 
 In Spain, conversion, imprisonment, or banishment were 
 the only alternatives. In France a similar fate awaited 
 them. Gibbon says that at Vendome, Treves, Mentz, 
 Spires, and Worms, many thousands were piilaged and mas- 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 207 
 
 sacred. A remnant was saved by a feigned conversion, but 
 many barricaded their houses, and precipitated themselves 
 with their wealth and their families into the flames. They 
 fled from country to country seeking rest, but all in vain. 
 Asia afforded them no asylum. Mohammed, whose impos- 
 ture had become the faith and law of the millions of Asia, 
 had in the precepts of the Koran infused into the hearts of 
 his followers an intense hatred of the Jews, and he set the 
 example of a relentless persecution which at this day the 
 Mohammedans do not cease to follow. In England, also, 
 they suffered great cruelties. During the Crusades the 
 whole nation united in persecuting them. In one single in- 
 stance in the city of York, flfteen hundred Jews, in- 
 cluding women and children, were refused quarter, they 
 could not purchase their lives at any price, their ‘‘gold was 
 not able to deliver them,” and frantic with despair they 
 perished with mutual slaughter. 
 
 4. Among all the nations through which they were 
 scattered they were “to And no rest.” 
 
 For many years after their dispersion they found no 
 rest in Europe, Asia, or Africa. They have been expelled * 
 from one kingdom after another. Phillip Augustus ex- 
 pelled the whole nation from France. Louis IX. twice 
 « 
 
 banished and twice recalled them. Edward I. banished 
 them from England, and they were not permitted to return 
 till Cromwell’s time. They were expelled from Spain by 
 Ferdinand and Isabella, and 800,000 persons departed from 
 the kingdom. By an imperial “ukase” dated Oct. 31, 1827, 
 
2o8 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 they are not allowed to reside, even for a limited period, in 
 any of the cities of Russia, without a special permit from 
 the government. 
 
 III. Their Preservation as a distinct nation, notwith- 
 standing their sufterings, persecutions, and universal disper- 
 sion, next demands attention. “I will make a full end of 
 all the nations whither I have driven thee : but I will not 
 make a full end of thee ” 
 
 ^Notwithstanding the wars and persecutions and massa- 
 cres to which the Jews have been subjected for ages, they 
 still exist, and are very numerous. It is estimated there are 
 five millions of them scattered over the globe. God has 
 made a “full end” of many of the nations that afflicted 
 them. Egypt and Assyria, Babylon and ancient Rome, are 
 no more, but the Jews are everywhere. 
 
 ]No nation on the face of the earth haS' been preserved 
 half so long. The northern nations which made their in- 
 cursions into the south of Europe are now no more, they 
 have been lost and swallowed up in the common mass. The 
 Gauls who went forth in shoals to seek their fortunes in for- 
 • eign lands are lost, and no traces of them can now be 
 found. In England it is impossible to determine where the 
 descendants of the ancient Britons are, or in any way to 
 distinguish them from the Romans, Saxons, Danes, and 
 Normans, who at different periods have been the conquerors 
 and owners of the soil. But here is a nation four thousand 
 years old, which for two thousand years lias been scattered 
 among all nations without losing its identity. The Jews 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 209 
 
 are as distinct a nation at this very hour as they were when 
 they dwelt alone in the mountain fastnesses of Judea. 
 
 They also wear the same physiognomy, the same con- 
 figuration and cast of countenance, which distinguished 
 them three thousand 3’ears ago. In the tombs of the kings 
 of Egypt there are paintings of the “Hebrew slaves” which 
 were made at an earlier period. These countenances are as 
 perfectly Jewish as the countenance of any dealer in old 
 clothes who perambulates the streets of London to-day. 
 
 The Jews have been scattered among every nation on 
 the earth ; they have been robbed, spoiled, persecuted, op- 
 pressed, trodden under foot ; yet they have continued for 
 four thousand years a distinct people. The Jews are the 
 living witnesses of the truth of Christianity. 
 
 As a second illustration of the Miracle of Knowledge, 
 I direct your attention to the numerous prophecies scattered 
 over the Books of the Old Testament which foretell the com- 
 ing of a mysterious personage, — a Divine Man who should 
 in some inexplicable manner unite in one personality the 
 Divine and human, and by virtue of this mytserious union 
 should redeem humanity from sin, and elevate the human 
 race to a higher plane of life, — a Divine Man who in future 
 ages shall wear the names of Redeemer, Saviour, King of 
 Righteousness, Prince of Peace. 
 
 It would be impossible for me now to quote all the pas- 
 sages from the Old Testament in which the coming of such 
 a personage is foretold. Many of them are familiar to Bible 
 
 readers. “The King cometh,” “thy Salvation cometh,” 
 
 o 
 
210 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 “ the Redeemer cometh,” “the Lord cometh/’ “the Messen- 
 ger of the Covenant cometh,” “the Desire of nations shall 
 come,” “ the Messiah the Prince shall come,” “ blessed is 
 he that cometh in the name of the Lord,” — are expressions 
 wliich frequently occur in the books of the prophets. The 
 most remarkable text, which in all ages has been regarded 
 both by Jewish and Christian commentators as an emphatic 
 prediction of the coming of Ciirist, is Isaiah ix. 6, 7. “ For 
 
 unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given : and the gov- 
 ernment shall be upon his shoulder : and his name shall be 
 called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The ever- 
 lasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his 
 government and peace theie shall be no end.” 
 
 The predictions of the coming of Christ are not confined 
 to general assurances of salvation and deliverance, which a 
 perverse criticism might interpret as impersonal ; but there 
 are numerous prophecies as to the parentage, place of nativ- 
 ity, time of appearing, and personal characteristics, which 
 determine the real personality of the Messiah. 
 
 1. The parentage of the Messiah is carefully marked. 
 He was to be of the seed of Abraham : “]n thee and thy 
 seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” But 
 Abraham had two sons, one by Hagar and another by Sarah ; 
 which was the child of promise? The answer is, “ In Isaac 
 shall thy seed be called.” Isaac had two sons, Jacob and 
 Esau; from which shall the Christ descend? “ The elder 
 shall serve the younger ; ” thus Jacob is distinguished. But 
 Jacob had twelve sons, and we need a further limitation. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 21 1 
 
 “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver 
 from between his feet, until Shiloh (the Sent-One, — the 
 Messiah) come ; and unto him shall the gathering of the peo- 
 ple be.” Judah becomes a numerous tribe, and we need 
 some more specific limitation. “ In that day there shall be 
 a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the peo- 
 ple ; to it shall the Gentiles seek.” David, the son of Jesse, 
 became king of Israel, and David’s descendant became 
 David’s Lord. 
 
 2. The place of His nativity is distinctly marked in 
 
 Micah V. 2. “ But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou 
 
 be little among the thousands of J udah, yet out of thee shall 
 he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel ; whose 
 goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” This 
 was one of the most ancient cities of Judah, the birthplace 
 of David, and so clearly was this marked as the place of the 
 Messiah’s birth that the scribes and chief priests in Jerusalem 
 could at once answer the inquiry of Herod (Math. ii. 3-6). 
 He gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people to- 
 gether, and demanded of them where Christ should be born. 
 “And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea: for 
 thus it is written by the prophet.” 
 
 3. The time of the Messiah’s coming was definitelj^ 
 fixed. 
 
 (1.) He was to appear in the second temple, that is, 
 before the second temple was destroyed. 
 
 When the Israelites returned to Jerusalem after the sev- 
 enty years captiviD" in Babylon, and had commenced to 
 
212 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 rebuild the temple, “the ancient men ” who had seen the for- 
 mer temple built by Solomon in all its grandeur, and now 
 saw how much inferior the present one was, wept with a 
 loud voice.” The Lord directed the prophet Haggai to com- 
 fort them with the assurance that though the present tem- 
 ple was inferior in architectural beauty, yet it would surpass 
 it in moral grandeur. ‘ ‘ The glory of this latter house shall 
 be greater than of the former.” “I will shake all nations, 
 and the Desire of all N'ations shall come : and I will fill this 
 house with glory.” (Haggai ii. 7, 9.) The first temple was 
 destroyed on the 10th of August, 583 b. c. The second 
 temple was built by Cyrus, 500 b. c. After Christ had 
 appeared in it, it was destroyed by the Romans, 70 a. d. 
 
 (2). He was to come before J udah ceased to furnish a 
 governor or ruler. 
 
 “ The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a lawgiv- 
 er from beneath his feet, until Shiloh (the Sent-One, — the 
 Messiah) come ; and unto him shall the gathering of the 
 people be” (Gen. xlix. 10). When Christ came, a king 
 reigned over the Jews, and the council of the nation had 
 legislative authority. The land had become a Roman prov- 
 ince, but the remains of regal power still lingered in Judah. 
 But in the very year that Christ made his appearance in the 
 temple, the twelfth of his age, Archelaus the king was de- 
 throned and banished, Coponius was appointed procurator, 
 and the kingdom of Judah was degraded to a province of 
 Syria. The power of life and death had up to this time been 
 vested in the Sanhedrim, but when the Messiah came the 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 213 
 
 power departed, and in answer to Pilate they said, “It is 
 not now lawful for us to put any man to death.” 
 
 (3). He was to come at the end of a definite number of 
 years from the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild 
 Jerusalem. Dan. ix. 24, 25, 26, 27. 
 
 “ Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and up- 
 on thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an 
 end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to 
 bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision 
 and prophecy, and to annoint the most Holy. 
 
 “ Know therefore and understand that from the going 
 forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusa- 
 lem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and 
 threescore and two weeks : the street shall be built again, 
 and the wall, even in troublous times. 
 
 “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be 
 cut off, but not for himself : and the people 'of the prince 
 that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary ; and 
 the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of 
 the war desolations are determined. 
 
 “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one 
 week : and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sac- 
 rifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of 
 abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the con- 
 summation, and that determined shall be poured upon the 
 desolate.” 
 
 To understand this prediction we must remember that 
 both in symbolic and prophetic language one day stands for 
 
214 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 one year. So we read in Ezekiel iv. 6, “ I have appointed 
 thee each day for a year.” This is the uniform standard of 
 prophetic time. Seventy i^rophetic weeks are 490 prophetic 
 days, literally, 490 years. The Jews had also sabbatic years, 
 that is, each seventh year was a sabbath by which their 
 years were divided into weeks of years, each week contain- 
 ing seven years (Leviticus xxv. 4). Seventy sabbatic weeks, 
 again, are 490 years. This is a principle of interpretation 
 which is sustained by the soundest exegesis, and approved 
 by the very highest authoritj^ as, for example, Mede, Sir 
 Isaac Kewton, Bishop ISTewton, Keith, Hengstenberg, Cum- 
 mings, and many others. 
 
 This period of “ seventy prophetic weeks,” or 490 years, 
 is marked by a given terminus a quo and a given terminus 
 ad quern ; the commencement and the close are clearly de- 
 lined. 
 
 The commencement of this period of 490 years is to be 
 reckoned from the ‘‘going forth of the command to restore 
 and build Jerusalem” (Daniel ix. 25). There is no possi- 
 bility of mistaking this starting-point. We read in Ezra 
 vii. 8 that this command was issued by Artaxerxes in the fifth 
 month of the seventh year of his reign, or 453 b. c. The 
 termination of the period is “ the confirmation of the cove- 
 nant,” the establishment of the kingdom of the Messiah by 
 the opening of the gospel door to the Gentile world, 37 a. d. 
 453 B. c. and 37 a. d. make the 490 years. 
 
 This period of “seventy prophetic weeks ” is divided 
 into three unequal parts, — “ seven weeks,” “threescore and 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 215 
 
 two weeks,” and “ one week.” It will be interesting to con- 
 sider these more minutely. 
 
 The “ seven weeks,” or 49 years, commence with the 
 issuing of the command to restore and build Jerusalem, and 
 end with the completion of the work under N'ehemiah. IN’ow, 
 we have the testimony of the Jews that the temple was 46 
 years in building (John ii. 20), and we learn from jtTehemi- 
 ah that the streets were built again, and the wall of the city 
 was completed 434 b. c. Here we have the exact 49 years. 
 
 The “seven weeks” and “threescore and two weeks” 
 which together make sixty-nine prophetic weeks, or 483 
 years, commence with the command to restore and build 
 Jerusalem, and end with the manifestation to Israel of the 
 Messiah the Prince. This event occured 30 a. d., when 
 Christ was baptized by John at Jordan (John i. 20-24). 453 
 B. c. and 30 a. d. make the 483 years. 
 
 The “ one week,” or seven years, from the manifesta- 
 tion of Christ to the complete confirmation of the covenant, 
 is an integral part of the seventy weeks, and ends with the 
 admission of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert, into the 
 Christian Church, 37 a. d. In the midst of the week^ or 
 three and a half years from the time of his baptism by John, 
 the Messiah was cut off. 
 
 (4). The Messiah was to send a messenger, or harbinger 
 before his face to prepare his way. 
 
 “ Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall pre- 
 pare the way before me : and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall 
 suddenl}^ come to his temple, even the messenger of the cov- 
 
2i6 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 enant, whom ye delight in : behold, he shall come, saith the 
 Lord of hosts ” (Malachi iii. 1), 
 
 “ The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Pre- 
 pare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a 
 highway for our God ” (Isaiah xl. 3). 
 
 The messenger appeared in the person of John the Bap- 
 tist. He began preaching in the wilderness of Judea, “ The 
 kingdom of God is at hand.” The attention of the people 
 was arrested. They all wondered of John whether he was 
 the Christ, and they sent unto John saying, “ Who art thou? 
 that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What 
 sayest thou of thyself?” And he answered, I am the voice 
 of one crying in the wilderness. Make straight the way of 
 Lord as said the prophet Elias ” (John i. 23). 
 
 The Jews were earnest and diligent students of the Old 
 Testament prophecies, and with these specific marks which 
 indicated the period of the Redeemer’s advent, there is a nat- 
 uralness in the “ universal expectation ” which was enter- 
 tained by the Jews that He was about to be “revealed unto 
 Israel.” 
 
 4. The prophets furnished the portraiture of peculiar 
 characteristics by which the Messiah could be easily recog- 
 nized as the Sent of God. A noteworthy one is given by 
 Isaiah in ch. liii. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9. 
 
 “ For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and 
 as a root out of a dry ground : he hath no form nor comeli- 
 ness ; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that 
 we should desire him. 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 217 
 
 ‘‘ He is despised and rejected of men ; a man of sorrows 
 and acquainted with grief : and we hid as it were our faces 
 from him ; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” 
 
 “ He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, }^et he opened 
 not his mouth : he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, 
 and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth 
 not his mouth. 
 
 “ He was taken from prison and from judgment : and 
 who shall declare his generation ? for he was cut off* out of 
 the land of the living : for the transgression of my people 
 was he stricken. 
 
 “ And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the 
 rich in his death* ; because he had done no violence, neitlier 
 was any deceit in his mouth.” 
 
 This reads like a chapter in the personal history of 
 Christ which was written after his death. Whereas it was 
 written more tha4i five hundred years before he was born. 
 
 Now, what is the impression which this Miracle of 
 Knowledge ought naturally to make on an honest mind? 
 The answer is obvious. If the record is true, the Redeemer 
 must be Divine, 
 
LECTURE XI. 
 
 What think ye of Christ f— M atthew xxii. 42. 
 
 In the last lecture we endeavored to show that the Old 
 Testament contains x^i'edictions of the coming of a distin- 
 guished personage who is designated the Messiah, and that 
 in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, whose life is recorded in 
 the Gospels, these predictions were circumstantially ful- 
 lilled. These prophecies with their fulfillment are Miracles 
 of Knowledge. 
 
 We now turn our attention to the person and character 
 of Christ, and ask the question, Can we recognize in Him a 
 supernatural element ? The question of to-day has been 
 well put for us by Jean Paul Kichter : “Who and what 
 was that great Prophet who trod the fields of Palestine nine- 
 teen centuries ago, and who has ever since been woi-shipped 
 as a God by the foremost nations of the world ? ” Have 
 the foremost nations of the world been right in esteeming 
 and worshipping Him as God, or have they been mistaken, 
 imposed upon, and self-deceived? 
 
 The answer to this question determines the fate of Ciiris- 
 tianity, and establishes or oveiTlirows its authority in our 
 minds. It decides for us the question whether Christianity 
 shall henceforth be regarded, in its origin and nature, as in- 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 219 
 
 triiisically different from Buddhism, Bramiiiism, Parseism, 
 and Mohammedanism, or whether it shall be placed on the 
 sjime footing with these religions of the world. It settles, 
 at once and forever, whether the teachings of Christ have 
 any more authority than the teachings of Brahma, Zoro- 
 aster, Confucius, and Mohammed. 
 
 The battle of the Evidences must therefore be fought 
 out on this field and around this one central point, the Per- 
 son of Christ. Setting aside all collateral questions, and all 
 mere side issues, the opponents of Christianity on the one 
 hand, and the friends of Christianity on the other, are con- 
 centrating all their forces around this citadel of strength, 
 the possession of which must determine forevei* with whom 
 the victory lies. Of this last grand disposition of contending 
 forces we have a significant intimation in the fact that now 
 all the attacks upon Christianity, and all the defences of 
 Christianity, are cast into one form, “the Life of Christ.” 
 The literature of this subject has already become volumi- 
 nous. We have “Lives of Christ” from the skeptical stand- 
 point by Strauss and Eenan ; and from the stand-point of 
 faith by Neander, Lange, Pressense, Ellicott, and others. 
 
 The question at issue between the friends and opponents 
 of Chistianity may therefore be clearly defined, and the 
 lines may be sharply drawn. Either the person and charac- 
 ter of Christ were entirely within the sphere of nature, like 
 every other human life, and may be accounted for upon 
 purely natural principles, or they were something above na- 
 ture, that is, supernatural and miraculous. These are the 
 
220 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 only two propositions which can be affirmed in relation to 
 the person of Christ : either He was a man amongst men, in 
 whose character and teaching there was nothing but what 
 may be easily accounted for, and fully explained by natural 
 principles and laws ; or He was a superhuman personage com- 
 ing to us from the invisible world, to be the medium of inter- 
 course between G-od and man, and instituting a Divine econ- 
 omy for the moral elevation of the human race. The grand 
 question to be decided is. Was there anything in the person 
 or the character, the acts or the teaching, of Christ, of which 
 history can fully certify us, which clearly distinguishes Him 
 from the rest of humanity as a supernatural personage, and 
 proves Him to be Divine? 
 
 This is the issue which Christ presented to the skeptical 
 Jews, What think ye of Christ ? whose son is He? ” is He 
 the son of man or the Son of God ? is He merely human, 
 or is He indeed Divine ? 
 
 They answered him, “The son of David ! ” All they 
 recognized in Him was the merely human, and therefore 
 His mission and teaching were in no sense supernatural. 
 And now mark the dilemma in which they are involved. 
 Jesus said unto them, David in or by the spirit (that is, un- 
 der the influence of a prophetic afflatus which ye admit to 
 be Divine) calls him Lord. N'ow if David (in the 110th 
 Psalm) call him Lord, how can He be his son ? If David 
 recognizes Him as a superhuman personage, how can He be 
 a mere man ? 
 
 This is the line of argument I propose to pursue in this 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 221 
 
 discourse. I purpose to keep this question contiiiuall}" before 
 your attention, What think ye of Christ ? I shall ask you 
 calmly to consider this question in the light of history, and 
 of the past and present religious phenomena of the world, 
 and I shall urge you to pronounce a deliberate verdict in 
 view of all the facts, and of the logical consequences in- 
 volved in the facts. 
 
 Christianity exists to-day ; and as a matter of fact it has 
 existed in the world for, at least, eighteen centuries. It is 
 interwoven into the very texture of human history, and in- 
 corporated into the framewoi*k of modern society. It has 
 exerted a mighty influence on the entire current of philo- 
 sophic thought for sixteen centuries ; it has revolutionized 
 the opinions, formed the literature, and modified and spirit- 
 ualized the fine arts, amongst the foremost nations of the 
 world. By its agency kingdoms have been raised to great- 
 ness, and empires have been overthrown, and it has formed 
 the most powerful element in all the changes which have 
 marked the history of civilization. And to-day it controls 
 the destinies of the civilized world, and wields an empire 
 embracing one-third of the entire population of the globe. 
 As Jean Paul Frederick Bichter has felicitously and truth- 
 fully said, “Jesus of Xazareth, with his pierced hands, has 
 raised empires from their foundations, turned the stream of 
 history from its ancient channels, and still contines to rule and 
 guide the ages.” While empires have been overthrown, and 
 nations have been blotted out, and systems of philosophy 
 have been exploded, and human economies have perished, 
 
222 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 Cliristiauity has maintained an undiminished vigor and a 
 perennial youth. Resisted and opposed by kings and po- 
 tentates with fire and sword ; its confessors immured in 
 dungeons, tortuied on the rack, and burned at the stake; and 
 its martyrs numbered b}^ millions, it has, in spite of all op- 
 position, conquei’ed for itself an immense and ever increas- 
 ing territory in the mind and heart of our race. It has been 
 assailed by Infidelity with scorn and ridicule and plausible 
 sophistries, and sometimes with subtle and powerful argu- 
 ments, but in those very times it has gathered up new 
 strength, and conceived and executed its grandest enterpris- 
 es for the conversion of the world. When skeptics have 
 pronounced it effete and dead, and have made arrangements 
 for its respectable interment, it has renewed its youth, and 
 to-day it exhibits more vitality, freshness, and power than 
 it ever displaj^ed before. 
 
 Christianity, therefore, is the grand phenomenon which 
 the student of history cannot afford to disregard, and haugh- 
 tily ignore. Every phenomenon must have its origin, its 
 cause, its reason, and its law. And the great facts of relig- 
 ious history, the phenomena of the Christian world, demand 
 to be studied, accounted for, and explained, just as much as 
 the phenomena of the material, and the events of the moral 
 world. 
 
 I am deepl}^ solicitous to engage your logical powers in 
 the effort to solve this grand problem of history. I urge 
 you, fearlessly, earnestly, and critically to endeavor to ac- 
 count to yourselves for the present existence and amazing 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 223 
 
 power of Christianity in the world. I ask you to attempt an 
 explanation of all the facts of Christianity, to deduce its or- 
 igin, to account for its progress, and, if you think it possible, 
 to reduce it to the same laws as govern the development of all 
 the other facts of history. And especially do I urge you to 
 attempt to account for its existence in the world on pui-ely 
 natural principles, and without having recourse to supernat- 
 ural principles and powers. The only conditions I would 
 impose upon you are that your explanation shall be ade- 
 quate, and the reasons you assign for its existence shall be 
 rationally and logically sufficient. 
 
 For the better management of the discussion I will en- 
 deavor to proceed upon the assumption that in relation to 
 Christianity your minds maintain a skeptical attitude. To 
 all of you the question, I know, cannot be devoid of inter- 
 est. Christianity professes to deal with matters that affect 
 our dearest and most precious intei'ests, our well-being on 
 earth, and our happiness beyond the grave. Still, in regard 
 to the Divine origin of Christianity, I suppose you to stand 
 in doubt. You are not sure that it was originated by God ; 
 you suspect it may have been originated by dishonest and 
 designing men ; or it may have been a natural development 
 of the childhood conceptions of our race, born of legends 
 and myths. And I commence tiie inquiry by seeking to as- 
 certain where there are any points upon wliich we are all 
 agreed. Is there any ground upon which we can stand, and 
 from which we can start on our journey? 
 
 Are we not all agreed in the common opinion, enter* 
 
224 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 tainecl alike by Christians and Infidels, that Christianity in 
 some way had its origin in and with Christ? Christianity, 
 somehow, centres in the person of Christ. Whether we 
 think of Christ as the real historic personage presented to us 
 in the writings of the four Evangelists, or whether we re- 
 gard Him as “the obscure man of Nazareth ” around whom 
 the lively fancy of succeeding ages has thrown a vesture of 
 mythological conceptions, Christ is in some sense, for us all, 
 the grand central figure of this historic drama. And there- 
 fore all discussions concerning the Divine origin of Chris- 
 tianity must commence with the person and <diaracter of 
 Christ. If He be found to be the person the four Evangel- 
 ists ]-epresent Him, and the person they represent Him as 
 claiming to be, then the person of Christ is the grand cen- 
 tral miracle of history, and the strongest evidence of the 
 Divinity of the Christian religion. 
 
 It will be found, as we proceed with our discussion, that 
 all the various theories which have been proposed to explain 
 the origin of Christianity, are, in reality, answers to the 
 question, What think ye of Christ? 
 
 1. There is one class which meets the question by ig- 
 noring the whole life-history of Christ as recorded in the 
 New Testament, and pronouncing Christianity to be an impo- 
 sition and fraud perpetrated by Christ and His so called 
 Apostles. 
 
 This explanation of the existence of Christianity was 
 first suggested by the heathen assailants of Christianity, 
 Celsus, and Julian the Apostate ; then insinuated by French 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 225 
 
 deists of the school of Voltaire, and reproduced in this coun- 
 try by Thomas Paine, kut never raised to the dignity of a 
 scientific argument. 
 
 We grant you that this is the most convenient, but surely 
 not the most rational or honorable, mode of disposing of so 
 grave and important a question. If you are resolved not to 
 believe an individual whatever his reputation for veracity, 
 the most convenient way is to call him an impostor and liar, 
 and turn away. But no individual of any manliness, and 
 sense of decency, and reverence for truth, can pursue such a 
 course. The hypothesis of imposture is so revoiting to mor- 
 al sense, as well as to common sense, that its mere statement 
 is its own condemnation. It has never been seriously car- 
 ried out, and no scholar of any decency and self-respect has 
 the hardihood now to profess it openly. “ A German by the 
 name of Bruno Bauer, a theological weather cock, vagabond, 
 and final apostate, has endeavored to revive this exploded 
 theory, and represents the Gospels as deliberate fabrications. 
 But even Strauss ignores him as unfit for decent company.” 
 It is not to be denied that the life-history of Christ has been 
 accepted as true by the profoundest thinkers, the ablest ju- 
 rists, the most philosophic historians, in Europe and Ameri- 
 ca, and it is an act of no small presumption in men of very 
 ordinary attainments to pronounce all these illustrious men 
 the dupes of falsehood and deception. Yet this was the pre- 
 cise course pursued by the opponents of Christianity until 
 within a few years past, and it is the resort of vulgar and 
 ignorant unbelievers still. This form of Infidelity is simply 
 
226 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 an insult offered to common sense, and a libel on the dignity 
 of human nature. 
 
 This theory that Christianity originated in imposition 
 and fraud, makes a greater demand upon an unreason- 
 ing faith, and requires more blind credulity, than all the 
 mythological stories of the prehistoric age, or tlie puerile 
 miracles of the medieval period. How in the name of com- 
 mon sense could an impostor, that is, a conscious deceiver, 
 a selfish and depraved man, have invented, and consistently 
 maintained from beginning to end, the purest and noblest 
 character known to history with the most perfect air of truth 
 and reality? How could He have conceived and carried out 
 successfully, in the face of the strongest prejudices of His 
 people and age, a plan of unparalleled beneficence, moral 
 magnanimity, and heroic self-sacrifice? The man who 
 accepts, or pretends to accept, this theory, must, to be consis- 
 tent, also believe that the purest, the most elevated, the most 
 original, and the most influential system of ethics the world 
 has ever seen, was devised and published by one of the 
 vilest and basest of men, whose object was simply to deceive 
 his fellow-men ! He must believe that the first precepts 
 enjoining purity of heart, sincerity of purpose, rectitude of 
 intention, singleness of eye, were inculcated by a conscious 
 hypocrite. He must believe that the first injunction to uni- 
 versal love, to unbounded charity, broke forth from the lips 
 of a narrow bigot. He must believe that this impostor 
 exemplified the ideal perfection of this beautiful system of 
 morals in the most unique, original, and faultless life, — a 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 227 
 
 life which has extorted the admiration even of bad men, 
 and constrained the loving homage of the purest and best 
 men in every age. Now, if you can accept all these para- 
 doxes, and many more indeed, in which j^ouare involved on 
 the hypothesis we are considering, then, with Prof. Rogers, 
 T must exclaim, “ O Infidel, great is thy faith! ” 
 
 Between ourselves, then, who believe in the Divine and 
 heavenly origin of Christianity, and those who pronounce 
 it a mere imposition and fraud perpetrated by designing 
 men, how does the case stand as a matter of historic fact? 
 Have we the same historic certainty in regard to the life of 
 Christ, that we have in relation to any other facts of history ? 
 Are we as certain that Christ was born in Bethlehem, under 
 the reign of Augustus Csesar; that He spent His private life 
 in Galilee, and His public life in Jerusalem ; that He per- 
 formed the works which are recorded of Him, and uttered 
 the sayings which are ascribed to Him in the four gospels, 
 as we are that Xenophon took a prominent part in conduct- 
 ing the famous retreat of the Greeks from the plains of 
 Mesopotamia ; or that Napoleon was born in Corsica, led his 
 armies on the fatal march to Moscow, was defeated at 
 Waterloo, and died at St. Helena? Can history when fairly 
 and honestly appealed to, cany us over the intervening 
 eighteen centuries, set us, as it were, in the midst of the 
 hearers and actual observers of Christ, and enable us to 
 pronounce a decided judgment upon tlie integrity and purity 
 of His character, and the validity of His claims to a super- 
 natural mission ? 
 
228 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 The discussion of the following propositions will fur- 
 nish the answer to this question : 
 
 1. We have the testimony of four distinct and inde- 
 jDendent witnesses, biographers of the founder of Christian- 
 ity, three of whom were eye-witnesses of the acts and per- 
 sonal hearers of the sayings of Christ, and the fourth 
 (Luke) was the daily companion and associate of those who 
 were ej^e-witnesses. 
 
 2. These original witnesses of the acts and sayings of 
 the founder of Christianity, attested the genuineness and 
 truthfulness of their testimony by passing their lives in 
 poverty, suffering, and reproach, as a consequence of their 
 sincere adherence to the facts; and finally sealed their testi- 
 mony with their blood. 
 
 We have a life of Christ by Matthew, an officer of the 
 customs, who became a disciple of Christ, and who wrote 
 his gospel at Jerusalem ; a gospel by Mark, which was writ- 
 ten in Rome; a third by Luke, a native of Antioch, a phy- 
 sician who accompanied Paul on his travels; and another by 
 John, written at Ephesus. Of each and every one of these 
 witnesses we remark in general, they are deserving of the 
 
 n 
 
 fullest confidence, because they had the very best oppor- 
 tunity of obtaining information, they were eye-witnesses, or 
 the associates of eye-witnesses ; because of the moral purity 
 of their character; because of their entire disinterestedness; 
 and because of the sufferings they endured on account of 
 this testimony they bore to the world. 
 
 The force of this evidence is somewhat abated in the 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 229 
 
 minds of the less thoughtful by the circumstance that now 
 we have these four histories bound in one volume, and 
 the impression is they are all the work of one author. Let 
 it be distinctly remembered that in these four gospels we 
 have four separate and independent narratives detailing 
 what each writer saw and heard for himself; that each has 
 his own peculiarities of style and manner, and sustains the 
 character of an independent historian; that each account 
 was published separately, published at different intervals, 
 and under widely different circumstances. It is evident in 
 every sentence, as Paine admits, that there is no collusion 
 between them, and no preconcerted authorship ; and, finally, 
 each one of these writers passed his life in dangers and suf- 
 ferings incurred because of having published this testimony, 
 and some of them sealed it with their blood. 
 
 It has been urged that these four historians were the 
 personal friends of Christ, and on that account disqualified 
 to write a truthful and impartial narrative. But who ever 
 heard such a principle of historic criticism applied to any 
 other composition? Was Plato disqualified for giving a 
 trustworthy account of the trial of Socrates, and reporting 
 that remarkable speech which he uttered in prison before 
 drinking the poisoned cup, because he was the admiring, 
 loving friend and disciple of the great philosopher? By no 
 means! The narrative for that very reason becomes all the 
 more trustworthy and interesting. Was Boswell disqualified 
 for writing the biography of Dr. Johnson because he was 
 his companion, admirer, and friend? Was Dr. Hanna unlit 
 
230 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 to write the life of Chalmers because he was his son-iii-law? 
 It must be a peculiar style of hypercriticism which could 
 say, Yes! And surely John, the loving and beloved disci- 
 ple, was no less disqualified for writing a faithful account 
 of his Master’s words because he always sat next to Him at 
 meat, and reclined on His bosom, and hearkened with ador- 
 ing wonder to His words of love. 
 
 What conceivable motive could these simple-minded, 
 unambitious fishermen have for publishing a false and un- 
 reliable account of the acts and sayings of their great 
 Teacher? It could not be the love of power, because he 
 who desired to be greatest among them was commanded to 
 become the servant of the rest. It could not be the love of 
 wealth, because they were taught to provide neither purse 
 nor scrip, to lay up no treasure on the earth, and make no 
 provision for the morrow. It could not be the love of fame 5 
 because they were taught they would be persecuted, for- 
 saken, despised, for Christ’s sake. The}^ could have but one 
 motive, — the love of truth. 
 
 Having put in these documents, the records of the facts 
 as known and believed amongst the early Christians, we 
 next present collateral evidence that Christianity did origin- 
 ate with Christ, and that the original witnesses of His acts 
 and sayings did pass their lives in poverty and reproach and 
 suffering in consequence of bearing their testimony. 
 
 We learn from the writings of Tacitus, the Eoman his- 
 torian, who was born in the reign of J^ero, that within 
 thirty-four years after the death of Christ there was a “vast 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 231 
 
 multitude of Christians” in the city of Rome. He further 
 adds : The author of that name (Christian) was Christ, who 
 in the reign of Tiberius was put to death as a criminal under 
 Pontius Pilate. Those in the city of Rome who were found 
 to be favorers of that sect were put to death. These execu- 
 tions wei*e so contrived as to expose them to derision and 
 contempt. Some were covered over with skins of wild 
 beasts, that they might be torn to pieces by dogs; others 
 were covered with combustible materials, and set on tire in 
 the night and burned to death. (“ Annals,” bk. xx. ch. 44.) 
 
 We are not unmindful of the devices of Infidelity to 
 destroy, if possible, the force and value of this testimony 
 of the heathen historian by asserting that these words have 
 been interpolated into the writings of Tacitus by some 
 Christian after his times, who committed a pious fraud to 
 maintain Christianity. This is but one of the many exam- 
 ples of the reckless and unscrupulous assertions of Infidel 
 writers, which has not the least shadow of authority or even 
 probability. But we have a prompt and overwhelming 
 refutation in the words of an acknowledged skeptic, who 
 has too much integrity as an histoilan to give the least 
 countenance to such slander. We refer of course to the 
 historian Gibbon. In his ‘‘Decline and Fall of the Roman 
 Empire,” vol. ii. pp. 407, 408, he remarks : “ The most 
 skeptical criticism is compelled to admit the truth of this 
 important fact, and the integrity of this passage of Tacitus. 
 The former [the truth of this j)assage] is confirmed by the 
 dili gent and accurate Suetonius, who also mentions the pun 
 
232 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 ishments which were inflicted upon the Christians. The 
 latter [the integrity of the passage] may he proved by the 
 consent of the most ancient MSS., by the inimitable char- 
 acter of Tacitus, by the purport of his narrative, and by his 
 reputation, which guarded the text from the interpolations 
 of pious fraud.” 
 
 This testimony of Tacitus as to the origin of Christian- 
 ity, and the sufferings of the early Christians, is also con- 
 flrmed by his contemporaiy Suetonius, by Juvenal, a Avriter 
 of the same age. Martial, and Pliny the Younger. 
 
 In addition to, and in confirmation of, the testimony of 
 sacred and profane historians as to the origination of Chris- 
 tianity by Christ, and as to the vast number of its confessors 
 and martyrs in the first century, we direct your attention to 
 the monumental remains of the early Christians ivhich have 
 been lately discovered in the catacombs of Pome. These 
 catacombs were immense galleries which the early Roman 
 Christians dug deep beloAV the earth’s surface, where they 
 retired to escape persecution, and where, during a great por- 
 tion of the first and second centuries, they lived and died. 
 These catacombs are calculated to extend more than 900 
 miles underground as streets, and to contain almost 7,000,000 
 graves. It will be remembered that Tacitus tells us there 
 was a “ A^ast multitude of Christians” in Rome in his day, 
 and by the the time of the emperor Valerian it is estimated 
 they constituted one-half the population of the cit}". We 
 descend into these catacombs of Rome, and, as it Avere, see 
 the struggling, persecuted community of Christians “living 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 233 
 
 ill dens and caves of the earth,” where numbers, after suf- 
 fering martyrdom in the cause of Christ, lie reposing until 
 His second coming ; and over their remains we read such 
 inscriptions as this : ‘‘In the time of the emperor Adrian, 
 the young man Marius, a general in the army, sacriliced his 
 life for Christ’s sake, rests at last in peace, and was buried 
 with merited tears and respect.” Finallj^ the appellation 
 of “Martyr” is inscribed on the greater number of the 
 tombs. And, now, is it rational to suppose that these first 
 Apostles and Evangelists were designing hypocrites and 
 wicked deceivers? What imaginable motives could induce 
 them to engage in such a wicked scheme when they knew 
 they would be persecuted even to death ? 
 
 The man who can accept such a theory must be cred- 
 ulous indeed. He must believe that without arms, without 
 power, without wealth, or learning, these men were victori- 
 ous over old prejudices, and ancient beliefs, and long cher- 
 ished usages, and venerable forms of religion, and in three 
 centuries took possession of the ancient world. He must 
 believe that the actors in this stupendous fraud, acted not 
 onl}^ without iiny assignable motive, but against all assign- 
 able motives; that they persisted in an unprofitable falsehood 
 in defiance of prisons and fiames. And, lastly, that amid 
 all their depravity and conscious wickedness they had the 
 elfrontery to preach the purest and most sublime morality 
 the world ever listened to, and, stranger still, the inconsist- 
 ency to practice it. If you can do all this, we cannot help 
 exclaiming in amazement, “O Infidel, great is thy faith!” 
 
234 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 Theodore Parker has truly said, “ It would have taken 
 a Jesus to forge a Jesus,” and we will add, a Jesus would 
 have been incapable of such a forgery. A bad man was 
 morally incapable of conceiving such a noble and perfect 
 ideal; a good man could not possibly have perpetrated such 
 a fraud. 
 
 Let us grant, for argument’s sake, that, in the skeptical 
 sense of the word miracle, a miracle is an impossibility. 
 Let us even grant that miracles alone could not prove a rev- 
 elation to be true. Let us hold even the Divine inspiration 
 in abeyance; and let us take our stand upon the platform 
 occupied by intelligent doubters of the present age, and see 
 if the admissions and concessions they make, do not involve 
 the conclusion that in the person of Christ we have an ele- 
 ment that rises above the plane of nature, — a supernatural 
 element. 
 
 Let us first distinctly determine their exact position in 
 regard to the life-history of Christ. And, first, we begin 
 with Strauss of Germany. He is by far the ablest modern 
 adversaiy of Christianity. He has subjected the N'ew Testa- 
 ment to the severest criticism; and yet he admits that Jesus 
 of I^azareth lived upon the earth, and that “his life and 
 character were substantially what is represented hy the 
 evangelists,” excepting, of course, the mii*aculous element. 
 I quote from Rousseau : “ Shall we suppose the evangelical 
 history to be a mere fiction ? Indeed, my friends, it bears 
 iiot the marks of fiction. On the contrary, the history of 
 Socrates, which no one presumes to doubt, is not so well 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 235 
 
 attested as that of Jesus Christ. Such a supposition, in fact, 
 only shifts the difficulty without removing it : it is more in- 
 conceivable that a number of persons should agree to write 
 such a history, than that one should furnish the subject of 
 it. The Jewish authors were incapable of the diction, and 
 strangers to the morality, contained in the Gospel. The 
 marks of its truth are so striking and so inimitable, that the 
 inventor would be a more astonishing character than the 
 hero.” (*‘ Emile,” vol. ii. p. 318.) 
 
 My next testimon^^ is from Gerrit Smith. In an article 
 on “ Reason and Religion,” in the IN'ew York Tribune^ we 
 read : 
 
 “ I am not in these remarks denying aught of the value 
 of tlie Bible. Incomparable is that volume, if for no other 
 reason than that it contains the life of Christ. But it 
 may be asked, since I am not confident that the Bible is all 
 true, how am I confident that it contains the true life of 
 Christ? My answer is, that such a life could not be fabri- 
 cated. It must have been substantially what the Bible rep- 
 resents it to be. Such a reality transcends all the possibili- 
 ties of fiction. It cannot be the coinage of the imagina- 
 tion. It cannot be a picture without an original. Besides, 
 had it been within the compass of a good man’s ability to 
 invent such a life, his goodness would prevent him from 
 palming it off upon the world as a reality. I scarce need 
 add that an approach to such a life lies wholly without the 
 reach of a bad man’s conceptions, and can find no place in 
 his possible inventions.” 
 
236 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 I olfer another extract from Theodore Parker’s “Dis- 
 courses on Religion.” Speaking of Christ, he says : 
 
 “ He united in himself the suhlimest precepts and the 
 divinest practices. He rose above the prejudices of his age, 
 nation, and sect. He poured out a doctrine beautiful as the 
 light, sublime as heaven, true as God. Eighteen centuries 
 have passed away since the sun of humanity rose so high in 
 Jesus, yet what man, what sect, has matured his thought, 
 comprehended his method, and so fully applied his life? ” 
 From Greig’s “Creed of Christendom” I select the 
 following : 
 
 “ It is difficult, without exhausting superlatives, to do 
 justice to our intense love, reverence, and admiration for 
 the human character of Jesus. We regard him, not as the 
 perfection of intellectual and philosophic mind, but as the 
 perfection of spiritual character, as surpassing all men of 
 all times in the closeness and depth of his communion with 
 the Father. In reading his sayings we feel we are holding 
 converse with the purest, noblest, wisest being that ever 
 clothed thought in the poor language of our humanity. 
 In studying his life we feel that we are following the foot- 
 steps of the highest ideal yet presented to us on earth.” 
 
 De Witte of Germany thus speaks in regard to Christ: 
 “The man who comes without preconceived opinions 
 to the life of Christ, and who yields himself up to the im- 
 pression which it makes, will feel no manner of doubt that 
 he is the most exalted character and the purest soul that 
 history presents to us. He walked over the earth like some 
 nobler being who scarce touched it with his feet.” 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 237 
 
 Kenan concedes that in the four gospels we have “an 
 authentic life of Christ.” The gospel by Matthew is re- 
 garded by him as entitled to “ unlimited confidence,” 
 “doubt is scarcely possible.” Mr. Kenan has also visited 
 Palestine and familiarized himself thoroughly with the 
 actual scenes in which transpired the life of Christ, and he 
 says, “ The special commission for the exploration of an- 
 cient Phoenicia, of which I was the director in 1860-1, led 
 me to reside on the frontiers of Galilee, and to traverse it 
 frequently. I have traveled through the evangelical prov- 
 inces in every direction. Scarcely any locality in the history 
 of Jesus escaped me. The striking accord of the text and 
 the places, the wonderful harmony of the evangelical idea 
 and the landscape, served as a revelation. 1 had before my 
 eyes a ‘ fifth gospel,’ torn, but still legible, and thenceforth 
 through the narrative of Matthew and Mark, instead of an 
 abstract being which one would have said never existed, I 
 saw a wonderful human form live and move.” 
 
 With these views of the credibility of the gospel narra- 
 tive, it is interesting to hear Kenan’s answer to the question. 
 What think of Christ?: 
 
 “ Christ for the first time gave utterance to the idea 
 upon which rests the edifice of the everlasting religion. He 
 founded the pure worship — of no age, of no clime— which 
 shall be that of all lofty souls to the end of time.” “Ke- 
 pose now in thj^ glory, noble founder! Thy work is fin- 
 ished; thy diviiiity is established. Fear no more to see the 
 edifice of thy labors fall by any fault. Henceforth, beyond 
 
238 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 the reach of frailty, thou shalt witness from the lieights of 
 divine peace, the intinite results of thine acts. Thou hast 
 become the corner-stone of humanity so entirely that to tear 
 thy name from this world would be to rend it to its founda- 
 tion. Between thee and God there will be no longer any 
 distinction. Complete conqueror of death, take possession 
 of thy kingdom ; whither shall follow thee by the royal 
 road which thou hast traced, ages of worshipers.” (“Vie 
 de Jd^us,” pp. 1G8, 308.) 
 
 Mark what is conceded to us by these various writers: 
 
 1. It is admitted that the life and character of Christ 
 must have been subsLantially what the gospel history says 
 it was. 
 
 2. That the character and teachings of Christ were 
 transcendently pure and true. 
 
 3. That there had never been such a human life before, 
 and no man has since attained to anything so pure and 
 exalted. 
 
 Now, we ask no more than is here conceded, and upon 
 these admissions we argue that the earthly life of Christ, 
 apart even from his miraculous acts, furnishes an extraor- 
 dinary and conclusive proof of his superhuman character. 
 Let it once be admitted that the facts of His life, even as a 
 man, did transpire, that His character, even as a man, was 
 what the New Testament represents it, and upon that ad- 
 mission we erect an argument for his Divinity. Looking at 
 Him just as He is presented in the gospel history, we cry 
 ecce Homo ^ — behold the Man! Look at the outward condi- 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 239 
 
 tions of His eartlil}" life, consider the age, the coiintiy, and 
 the circumstances in which He appeared, the darkness and 
 moral degeneracy which existed, and within those circum- 
 stances see Him develop a sinless life, an harmonious, com- 
 l)lete, and perfect moral character, a comprehensive and 
 universal benevolence, and an originality of moral and 
 religious teaching, and say, was He onl}^ a man ! Sin is a 
 universal characteristic of humanit}^, so that “there is no 
 man that liveth and sinneth not,” but Christ was absolutely 
 sinless, therefore he was superhuman. And for Christ to 
 live upon the earth without sin was a greater miracle than 
 for Him to raise Lazarus fi'om the grave. The simple his- 
 tory of the Redeemer’s life and character is potent against 
 all the encroachments of Infidelity. In the presence of 
 those glorious scenes with which the evangelical narrative 
 abounds, skepticism and impiety slink away and hide them- 
 selves in darkness. But humanity will not forget them ; 
 men still wonder at the gracious words which fell from His 
 lips, and still exclaim, “Never man spake like this man!” 
 The brightness of the bilghtest names that adorn the page 
 of history pale and wane in presence of the radiance which 
 shines from the person of Christ. The scenes at the tomb 
 of Lazarus, at the gate of Nain, in the happy familj" at 
 Bethany, in the upper room at Jerusalem, in the garden of 
 Gethsemane, on the summit of Calvary, and at the Sepul- 
 cher, the sweet remembrance of the patience with which He 
 bore wrong, the gentleness with which He rebuked it, and 
 the love with which He forgave it, the thousand acts of 
 
240 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 condescension by which He earned for himself, from self- 
 righteous pi'ide and censorious hypocrisy, the name of “the 
 friend of publicans and sinners,” — these and a hundred 
 things more which crowd those concise memorials of love 
 and sorrow with such pathos and beauty, will continue to 
 attract and charm the soul of humanity, and on these the 
 highest genius and humblest mediocrity will dwell in the 
 ages that are to come, and men shall be constrained to con- 
 fess, “Thou art the Son of God!” (See “Defense of 
 the Eclipse of Faith,” pp. 142-144.) 
 
LECTURE XII. 
 
 Rabbi f we k?tow that thou art a teacher come from God : for no man 
 can do these miracles that thou doest^ except God be with 7/m.— J ohn 
 
 III. 2. 
 
 I REMARKED ill my lasL lecture that it is now generally 
 conceded that we have in the four Gospels an authentic life 
 of Christ. Ernest Kenan may be regarded as giving utter- 
 ance to the last word which embodies the concessions, if 
 not the settled convictions, of the modern Positive school ; 
 and he grants that the four Evangelists are entitled to “un- 
 limited confidence,” and doubt as to their sincerity and 
 honesty is, says he, “hardly possible.” The facts in the 
 case were very much as they have presented them, or at any 
 rate there is a large substratum of fact underlying the 
 whole gospel narrative. 
 
 The real question at issue between the friends and the 
 opponents of Christianity is thus narrowed down to a dis- 
 tinct and clearly appreciable issue. It now becomes a ques- 
 tion of interpretation. How are the facts to be legitimately 
 accounted for, and adequately explained? The universally 
 accepted belief of Christendom that Christ was a super- 
 natural personage, is regarded by us as the only legitimate 
 
 and adequate explanation. Other hypotheses have been 
 Q 
 
242 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 proposed which disregard and reject the supernatural ele- 
 ment, and seek to explain the whole phenomena of Christi- 
 anity on natural^ or, as they are pleased to say, on rational 
 principles. By one party it is claimed that the uneducated 
 and unscientific disciples mistook extraordinary natural oc- 
 currences for supernatural or miraculous events. By another 
 it is asserted that the poetic fervor of the oriental imagina- 
 tion threw around the merely natural events a vesture of 
 myth and symbol. And by another party it is suggested 
 that in the enthusiastic adoration of the early Christians for 
 the person and character of Christ, they were gradually led 
 to think and speak of Him as more than human, and finally 
 to worship Him as a God. The first is the Naturalistic 
 hypothesis of Paulus; the second is the Mythical hypothesis 
 of Strauss; the last is the Legendary hypothesis of Kenan. 
 
 Common to all these hypotheses is the one general prin- 
 ciple of rejecting everything miraculous. They all say, the 
 four Evangelists narrate events which are supernatural; and 
 as miracles are contrary to our experience of the uniformity 
 of nature, no human testimony can render these statements 
 credible, nor even probable, and therefore a rigid historic 
 criticism must eliminate the miraculous element. 
 
 The following quotations from Kenan’s late work on 
 “The Apostles” are the most forcible statement of this 
 principle. “It is an absolute rule of criticism to deny a 
 place in history to narratives of miraculous circumstances, 
 for it is simply the dictate of observation. Such facts have 
 never been really proved. All the pretended miracles near 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 243 
 
 enough to be examined are referable to illusion or impos- 
 ture. If a single miracle had ever been proved, we could 
 not reject in a mass all those of ancient history; for admit- 
 ting that very many of these last were false, we might still 
 believe that some of them were true. But it is not so. Dis- 
 cussion and examination are fatal to miracles. Are we not 
 then authorized in believing that those miracles which date 
 many centuries back, and regarding which there are no 
 means of forming a contradictory debate, are also without 
 reality, in other words, that miracles only exist when 
 people believe them ? The supernatural is but another word 
 for faith, A miracle never takes place before an incredu- 
 lous and skeptical public that are the most in need of such 
 convincing proof. Credulity on the part of the witness is 
 the essential condition of a miracle. There is not a solita- 
 ry exception to the rule that miracles are never produced 
 before those who are able or permitted to discuss and criti- 
 cise them.” 
 
 Before we proceed to the discussion of the general prin- 
 ciple here assumed, that miracles are contrary to our experi- 
 ence of the uniformity of nature, and therefore “it is an 
 absolute rule of criticism to deny them a place in history,” 
 I desire to call j^our attention to one or two minor points in 
 the above quotation from Renan. 
 
 “ A miracle,” says Renan, “ never takes place before an 
 incredulous and skeptical public tliat are the most in need of 
 
 such convincing proof There is not a solitary exception 
 
 to the rule that miracles are never produced before those 
 who are able or permitted to discuss and criticise them.” 
 
244 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 This remark is made by Renan in regard to modern 
 pretensions to miracles ; but it is obviously made with the 
 design that it should be applied, by his readers, to the 
 miracles recorded in the New Testament. This is simply an 
 indirect way of saying, the miracles of Christ were not per- 
 formed in the presence of “ an incredulous and skeptical pub- 
 lic ” who would be careful to scrutinize and expose them ; but 
 always in private, and before an audience prepossessed in His 
 favor, and blindly credulous as to His pretensions. Of course 
 it would not be in keeping with French politeness to say, in 
 round terms, that Christ was an impostor, but the insinuation 
 is clear enough to any thoughtful reader. The common 
 sense inference is that the miracles of Christ were decep- 
 tions and frauds. In the case of Lazarus, Renan says right 
 out that Jesus lent himself an instrument to a “pious 
 fraud.” And yet of this pious impostor Renan has the 
 strange inconsistency to say: “ Whatever may be the sur- 
 prises of the future, Jesus will never be surpassed. His 
 worship will grow young without ceasing. His legend will 
 call forth tears without end. His sufterings will melt the 
 noblest hearts. All ages will proclaim that, among the sons 
 of men, there is none born greater than Jesus.” What 
 meaning, we may ask, yea, what sincerity, can there be in 
 that grand apostrophe to Jesus with which he closes his 
 twenty-fifth chapter, if he believes that the miracles were 
 impositions: “Repose now in thy glory, noble founder! 
 Thy work is finished ; thy divinity is established. A thou- 
 sand times more beloved since thy death, than during thy 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 245 
 
 passage here below, thou shalt become the corner-stone of 
 humanity so entirely, that to tear thy name from this world 
 would be to rend it to its foundations. Between thee and 
 God there will no longer be sluj distinction.” I think you 
 must conclude with me that if Christ was an impostor, 
 Kenan was certainly a hypocrite, for no honest, upright 
 mind could possibly cherish toward Jesus such sentiments as 
 are here uttered by Renan, if he believed that He sought 
 to deceive the disciples as to the nature of the apparently 
 marvelous works He performed. < 
 
 But let us look at the facts. Were none of Christ’s mir- 
 acles performed in the presence of an incredulous and skep- 
 tical public? How was it in the case of the man with the 
 withered hand who was healed in the synagogue on the 
 Sabbath day in the presence of the Pharasees? Were they 
 His private friends, prepossessed in His favor? Were they 
 notable to criticise the facts? They were unable to deny 
 that a wonderful work had been wrought. They were 
 exasperated, and went out and held a council against Jesus 
 how they might destroy Him. What of the woman who 
 had been for eighteen years bowed together, and could in no 
 wise lift up Iierself, who was healed in the synagogue on the 
 Sabbath day? What of the blind and the lame who came 
 to Him in the temple when crowded with worshippers, and 
 He healed them; and the chief priests and scribes seeing the 
 wonderful things which He did, were sore displeased ? The 
 miracles of Christ were performed before those who were 
 both able and disposed “ to discuss and criticise them.” Let 
 
246 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 any one read the ninth chapter of John’s Gospel, which 
 records the seachin^ scrutiny instituted by the Jewish rulers 
 respecting the healing of the young man born blind, — the 
 examination of the young man, of his parents, of his neigh- 
 bors, and he must be convinced that no modern court of 
 justice ever subjected a matter of fact to a severer scrutiny. 
 They were not able to shake the testimony. The}" could not 
 disprove the miracle. All they could do was to say, “ Give 
 God the praise; we know that this man is a sinner!” But 
 Kicodemus uttered the conviction of all honest and impar- 
 tial minds when he said, “ K-abbi, we know thou art a teach- 
 er come from God : for no man can do the works which thou 
 doest, except God be with him ! ” 
 
 The miracles ascribed to Christ were so numerous, so 
 diversified in their character, so open and public, being per- 
 formed in the presence of enemies as well as friends, so 
 promptly and readily performed everywhere without any 
 previous preparation and notice, that it was impossible that 
 there could be any- collusion or any deception. Passing by 
 those which were produced within the sphere of inanimate 
 nature, we need only to consider those wrought upon the 
 persons of men. Palsy, dropsy, withered limbs, blindness, 
 want of hearing and speech, leprosy, confirmed lunacy, 
 were maladies as well known in their outward symptoms 
 eighteen hundred years ago as they are to-day. Persons 
 could not be atflicted with such maladies for months and 
 years without the fact becoming generally known. The 
 neighbors must have known all about them as neighbors do 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 247 
 
 now, and could readily attest to the reality of their affliction 
 and the reality of their cure. No man can well pass him- 
 self off for deaf or dumb or blind in his own neighborhood, 
 and especially as congenitally deaf, dumb, or blind, without 
 detection. And when such are suddenly, instantaneously 
 healed by a word, there can be no room for delusion, and 
 no ground for doubt. Mere nervous affections, as hypocon- 
 driasis, hysteria, and the like, might perhaps be relieved 
 through the power of excited expectation. But when every 
 kind of disease, throughout a whole region of country, is 
 instantaneously and perfectly removed at the word of one 
 person, no ground is left for denying the reality of the 
 miracies. Now, this is precise!}^ the case' with the gospel 
 miracles. “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in 
 the synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, 
 and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of 
 disease among the people.” “ And whithersoever he entered 
 into villages, oi* cities, or country, they laid the sick in the 
 streets and besought him that they might touch if it were 
 but the border of his garment : and as many as touched 
 him were made whole.” 
 
 Now, if Eenan admits the essential authenticity of 
 the chief portions of the four Gospels, it is certainly 
 incumbent upon him that he should deal honestly with the 
 facts, and not represent the miracles of Christ as having- 
 been performed in a corner, when the most palpable and 
 obvious fact is, they were performed in the most public man- 
 ner, — in the streets, the synagogue, the temple, in the broad 
 day, and under the very eye of the bitterest enemies. 
 
248 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 It is furthermore insinuated by Eenan that the belief 
 in the supernatural is an infirmity of weak and credulous 
 minds. It is a strange and somewhat peculiar fact, however, 
 that it has been a common belief of all ages, and of the 
 masses of men in all lands. more, the intellectual 
 
 giants of all nations and ages have believed in the super- 
 natural. Socrates and Plato, Augustine and Chrysostom, 
 Anselm and Aquinas, Bacon and Newton, Leibnitz and 
 Pascal, Guizot and Carpenter, Rothe and Lange, Sedgwick 
 and Whewell, and an innumerable host of the first men of 
 all departments of human learning and natural science, are 
 arrayed against Strauss and Renan. 
 
 The central point in the position of Strauss and Renan 
 is that a supernatural event, a miracle, is an a jyriori impos- 
 sibility. It is so contrary to all our experience of the uni- 
 formity of nature that no evidence can render the account of 
 a miracle credible.* This is the point, then, to which our 
 attention must be especially directed. 
 
 * The complacence with which the skeptical scientists speak 
 of their experience of the “ uniformity of nature ” is well rebuked 
 by Carlyle. 
 
 “ ‘But is not a real Miracle simply a violation of the Laws of 
 Nature?’ ask several. .Whom I answer with this new question, 
 What are the Laws of Nature? To me perhaps the rising of one 
 from the dead were no violation of these Laws, but a confirmation; 
 were soipe far deeper Law, now first penetrated into, and by 
 Spiritual Force, even as the rest have all been, brought to bear on 
 
 us with Material Force ‘But is it not the deepest Law of Nature 
 
 that she is constant?’ cries an illuminated class: ‘Is not the 
 Machine of the Universe fixed to move by unalterable rules?’ 
 
 Probably enough, good friends And now of you too I make the 
 
 old inquiry: What those same unalterable rules, forming the 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 249 
 
 Xow, we shall advance and defend this counter propo- 
 sition, namely. So far from the universal belief of humanity 
 in the supernatural being unphilosophical and irrational, the 
 time is fast approaching, and even now is, when he who has 
 hitherto objected to the miraculous element in Christianity, 
 will be compelled to acknowledge that his philosophy re- 
 quires him to believe both in the possibility and actuality of 
 miracles. 
 
 And, now, first of all, let us come to a clear under- 
 standing as to the sense in which we are to use the words 
 natural and supernatural. What is nature? and what is 
 the supernatural ? In other words, what is a natural occur- 
 rence ? and what is a supernatural or miraculous occur- 
 rence ? 
 
 complete Statute-Book of nature, may possibly be? Have any 
 
 deepest scientific individuals dived down to the foundation of the 
 Universe, and guaged everything there? Did the Maker take 
 them into His counsel ; that they read his ground-plan of the in- 
 comprei'-ensible All ; and can say. This stands marked therein, 
 and nomore than this? Alas! not in anywise! These scientific indi- 
 viduals have been nowhere but where we also are ; have seen some 
 haiidbreadths deeper than we see into the Deep, that is, infinite, 
 
 without bottom as without shore The course of Nature’s phases, 
 
 on this little faction of a Planet, is partially known to us: but 
 who knows what deeper courses these depend on ; what infinitely 
 larger Cycle (of causes) our little Epicycle revolves on? To the 
 Minnow every cranny and pebble, and quality and accident, of its 
 little native Creek may have become familiar : but does the Min- 
 now understand the Ocean Tides and periodic Currents, the Trade- 
 winds, and Monsoons and Moon’s Eclipses ; by all which the con- 
 dition of its little Creek is regulated, and may, from time to time 
 (unmiraculously enough), be quite overset and reversed? Such a 
 minnow is man ; his Creek this Planet Earth ; his Ocean the im- 
 measurable All ; his Monsoons and periodic Currents the myste- 
 rious Course of Providence through ^ons of ^ons.” (‘' Sartor Re- 
 sartus.”) 
 
250 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 This is ii question which must be settled before we can 
 proceed one step with the discussion. It is impossible to 
 argue with an opponent unless we are agreed as to the use 
 of the middle terms common to both. The adversaries of 
 Christianity assert that a miracle is a violation of the estab- 
 lished order of the universe. We si\y that it is not a viola- 
 tion of the established order of the universe. On the con- 
 trary, we say that the natural and the supernatural taken 
 together, constitute the one system of things. The opponents 
 of Christianity say that a miracle is a suspension or violation 
 of immutable laws which God ordained from the foundation 
 of the world. We say that a miracle is simply the mani- 
 festation of a higher law not yet fully comprehended by 
 science. It is not something against what men call nature, 
 but something above nature, the result of a power acting 
 upon nature in harmony with its established laws. The 
 skeptic defines a miracle as the effect of an arbitrary power 
 acting altogether independent of means. We say that 
 miracles are effected through the instrumentality of means, 
 but of means which are beyond the reach of human control, 
 for the present at least. Unless, therefore, we can come to 
 some mutual understanding as to the meaning of the terms 
 we use, it is manifest that no common ground of reasoning 
 can be found. 
 
 There is equal uncertainty and want of agreement in 
 the use of the word nature. Men talk fluently about the 
 ‘‘ laws of nature,” “ the order of nature,” “the uniformity 
 of nature,” and sometimes of “eternal nature,” without any 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 251 
 
 precise find definite ideas. At one time the term nature is 
 used to denote the essential attributes of a thing which con- 
 stitute it what it is, as the nature of light, heat, electricity. 
 At another time it is used to denote tliat by which the con- 
 stitution of a thing or a being is determined, as nature has 
 done this or that. In the writings of some, nature compre- 
 hends the sum of all phenomena, the universe of created 
 being. In the language of others it means an “ unknown 
 something underlying all phenomena, an impersonal power 
 or agent which is the cause of all things. Sometimes it is 
 used to designate material existence as contradistinguished 
 from mind; at other times as embracing both. One philoso- 
 pher tells us that “nature is the empire of mechanical 
 necessity,’’ another says that “nature is a system of things 
 subject to the action of free powers, and permitting fortuities 
 and contingencies.” The “laws of nature” are now spoken 
 of as rules imposed upon nature by an intelligence, a reason 
 which is above nature; and at another time they are spoken 
 of as real entities, forces, and causes. Thus, by turns, natui-e 
 is ideal and real ; is lawgiver and subject ; is effect and cause; 
 is creature and creator. Can it be possible that we can ex- 
 tricate ourselves from the confusion and perplexity occa- 
 sioned by this loose and equivocal use of language? We 
 cannot even think clearly, and we cannot reason accurately, 
 until we have learned to use the terms natural and super- 
 natural in a strict and definite sense. 
 
 The German philosophers, it is [generally conceded, are 
 more exact and precise in the use of language, and they em- 
 
252 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 ploy the term nature in a very precise and uniform sense. 
 In the philosophy of Germany, nature and its correla- 
 tives, whether of Greek or Latin derivation, are, in general^ 
 used to express the world of matter in contrast with the 
 world of mind. “ Whatever,” says Coleridge, who derived 
 his philosophic views from the Germans, “ is comprised 
 in the chain and mechanism of cause and effect, of course 
 necessitated, and having its necessity in some other thing 
 antecedent or concurrent — this is said to be natural ; and the 
 aggregate and system of all such things is nature.” It is 
 therefore a contradiction in terms to include in nature the 
 free will of man, or the volition of the Deity, since, by its 
 very definition, a free will is that which originates, causes, 
 determines, an act or state or being. It is true we sometimes 
 speak of the “nature of the soul,” “ the nature of God,” and 
 of a free volition as “natural,” but then we use the term 
 “nature’’ in a tropical or accommodated sense. Nature, 
 then, let us clearly understand, is the empire of mechanical 
 necessity. It is the world of matter with its properties and 
 laws, and these laws simply express the relations of resem- 
 blance, coexistence, and succession. It is the system of 
 things in which we have only continuity and uniformity. 
 Nature, let me again repeat once for all, is the world 
 of material, sensible phenomena. And the laws of nature 
 are the uniform relations observed in the recurrence of ma- 
 terial phenomena. On this last point I shall quote the words 
 of three men who will not be suspected of any undue pre- 
 possessions in favor of theology. Herbert Spencer says, 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 253 
 
 ‘‘Law is simply the uniformity of relations among phenom- 
 ena.” Montesquieu has said, “Laws are the necessary 
 relations which spring from the nature of things.” And the 
 Duke of Argyle says, “Laws are simply an observed order 
 of facts.” Laws, then, it is admitted, are not real causes, 
 they are simply relations, and nature is simply a series of 
 related effects. Whenever we come to inquire after, and deal 
 with real entities, powers, and causes, we pass beyond the 
 field of Physics and enter the realm of Metaphysics. We 
 quit the Phenomenal and deal with the Metaphenomenal. 
 
 Now, if this be nature, where shall we place mind ? and 
 especially that grand essential power of mind, or spirit, we 
 call will, OY personality ? If the testimonj- of consciousness 
 is to be at all relied upon, its deliverances are direct, em- 
 phatic, and conclusive, the will is free. The attempt on the 
 one hand to deny, and on the other hand to prove, that “I 
 am free,” is only equalled in absurdity by the attempt either 
 to deny or to prove that “I exist.” I know that I am free 
 just in the same way that I know that 1 exist, by direct, im- 
 mediate consciousness. The mind of man is not material, 
 and it is not governed by the laws to which matter is subject. 
 It is true we speak of laws of mind, and of their absolute 
 necessity in i*elation to thought. But as Hamilton justly 
 says in his Logic, “You must not suppose that these laws and 
 that necessity are the same in the world of mind as in the 
 world of matter. For free intelligences, a law is an ideal 
 necessity given in the form of a precept which we ought to 
 follow, but which we may also violate if we please ; whereas. 
 
254 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 for the existences which constitute the universe of nature, a 
 law is only another name for those causes which operate 
 blindly and universally in producing certain inevitable re- 
 sults. law of thought^ or by logical necessity^ we do not, 
 therefore, mean a physical law, such as the law of gravitation, 
 but a general precept which we are able certainly to violate, 
 but which if we do not obey, our whole process of thinking 
 is suicidal, or absolutely null.” Mind is an active power, and 
 not a passive thing. It does not stand in the chain of cause 
 and effect. It has an original spontaneity. It is self-moved and 
 self-determined. It has a creative power. It can originate its 
 own states and acts. It is essentially free. And if nature 
 be the empire of mechanical necessity, we cannot say of 
 such a free power that it is a part of nature. It is something 
 above nature. It is capable of acting upon nature. It can 
 control, modify, and conquer nature. And there is no other 
 word which can express the relation of Personality to nature 
 but the word supernatural. Here, then, we have found the 
 supernatural, — found it not in the domain of theology, but 
 in the domain of philosoph}^ 
 
 In the language of a sound philosophy, nature will 
 stand for matter with its phenomena, properties, and laws; 
 and the supernatural will stand for spirit with its reason, its 
 energy, its freedom, which first ordained the laws of matter, 
 and still controls, collocates, and subordinates these laws to 
 higher purposes and nobler ends. Thus we conclude that 
 this one world-order unfolds itself in two distinct spheres, 
 — an order of nature in which necessity reigns, and an 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 25s 
 
 order of moral life in wliich freedom reigns. In the first 
 tiiere is absolute uniformity from age to age; in the latter 
 there is diversity, contingency, and even the possibilit}^ of 
 disorder and sin. 
 
 The two spheres of tlie one realm of being are clearly 
 marked to our experiential knowledge. On comparing the 
 actions of men with the events of the material universe, and 
 even the movements of instinctive brutal forms of sense, we 
 can at once recognize an intrinsic and radical difference. 
 The movements of the planetary orbs are regular and uni- 
 form, and may be noted and formulated with mathematical 
 precision. Terrestrial changes occur in unbroken succession, 
 the same antecedents being always followed hy the same 
 results. The laws of ciystalization and chemical affinity are 
 never broken ; chloride of sodium never has failed to crys- 
 talize in a cuboid form, and oxygen and h3^drogen always 
 combine in the same definite proportions. Vegetable life 
 and organization are ceaselessly uniform, there are alwaj^s 
 the same morphological forms. Unreasoning and instinct- 
 ive life never leaves its sphere. Tlie bee builds the same 
 hexagonal cell she built before the fiood. There is an all- 
 pervading order in the physical world. 
 
 We now enter the sphere of human activity, — the moral 
 world. And here we find that events do not transpire under 
 a law of uniform sequence. Human actions cannot, like 
 the movements of the planets, be reduced to statistical tables. 
 The history of humanity does not give exact prevision of 
 the future, as does the histoiy of physical science. Man has 
 
'56 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 a pliiriiDotent, alternative power. His will is a pluri-efficient 
 cause, that is, it has “the power or immunity to put forth 
 in the same unchanged circumstances either of several voli- 
 tions, or supposing a given volition to be in the agent’s con- 
 templation, it is the unrestricted power of putting forth in 
 the same circumstances a ditFerent volition instead.” This 
 is the realm of freedom^ the sphere where virtue, praise- 
 worthiness, nobility, heroism, self-sacrifice, may have place; 
 and it is also the sphere where disorder, lawlessness, and sin 
 may occur even while the demand of reason and conscience 
 is for order and harmony. 
 
 And, now, the point to which I desire to call your at- 
 tention, and upon which I intend especially to insist is that 
 to some extent at least, yea to a large extent, the world of 
 nature is subordinated, subject to the higher world of mind. 
 The world of nature is a system of things designed to be 
 governed, modified, and subordinated by free moral powers. 
 Man can act, does act, upon the chain of cause and effect in 
 nature. He can control and direct the forces of nature. He 
 can so collocate and adjust the properties and forces of mat- 
 ter as to accomplish the purposes of his intelligence, and 
 bring about new results which nature alone, by her own in- 
 ternal workings, could never have produced. Now, if these 
 propositions can be fully established, then all objections to 
 the direct interposition of God in a supernatural way to in- 
 struct and redeem men are swept away. For if the human, 
 the finite mind, can control and modify natural laws, no 
 rational man can deny to the Infinite Mind the power to 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 257 
 
 control and modify, to restrain or accelerate, the action of 
 natural laws, and this is all that we claim in the miracles of 
 Christ. 
 
 Has, then, man this power over the physical world ? To 
 answer this question fully, and to exhibit all the evidence 
 upon which the affirmative rests, would be to write a volume 
 on the power of mind over nature. Mr. Marsh has written 
 a large volume on one single branch of this interesting sub- 
 ject, the power of man to modify the physical geography of 
 the globe. I refer to his work on “ Man and Nature.” 
 There are some excellent chapters on the same theme in Sir 
 Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology.” Other works 
 might be written on the power of man to control and subor- 
 dinate the mechanical, chemical, and electric forces of na- 
 ture; on the influence of mind upon the vegetable life of 
 the globe ; and also on the power of man to modify and 
 change the instincts, the habits, and even the physical de- 
 velopment of the animal creation. 
 
 That man has modified the physical geography of the 
 
 globe cannot be doubted. By his free intelligence he has 
 
 altered the climatal condition of whole tracts of countiy, and 
 
 changed the phys^gnoniy of the globe. He has materially 
 
 aftected the fall of rain by the felling of timber, or by the 
 
 planting of trees, Thei'e was a time when in Lower Egypt 
 
 rain rarely fell in any considerable quantities. During the 
 
 French occupation of Egypt, about 1798, it did not rain for 
 
 sixteen months, but since the planting of more than twenty 
 
 millions of trees by Mehemed Ali arid his successors, there 
 R 
 
25 ^ 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 now falls a good amount of rain, so that ]*eal showers are 
 now no rarity. Man has materially extended or materially 
 circumscribed the geographical boundaries of plants and an- 
 imals. He has learned to control the mechanical, chemical, 
 and electric forces, and he subordinates them to his purposes. 
 If he lifts a stone from the earth, and suspends it in the air, 
 or locks it in the bridge which spans the river, the law of 
 gravitation is held in abeyance, or subordinated to the 
 higher law of intelligent purpose and free action. By the 
 collocation or readjustment of mechanical forces, he over- 
 comes the resistance of winds and tides, and propels his 
 vessel across the furious deep. He seizes the lightning in 
 the clouds and guides it harmless to the earth, or sends it 
 along the telegraphic wire to carry his thoughts or chronicle 
 his acts to the ends of the earth. He loosens the most in- 
 tricate combinations of elementary substances, and recom- 
 poses them in new forms, such as nature’s laboratory never 
 produced. He solidifies carbonic acid gas, freezes water at 
 the tropics, and even in red-hot crucibles in the temperate 
 zone. He makes new chemical substances, such^ as are not 
 found in nature, and which are of the utmost value in med- 
 icine and the arts. Man has also modifi^ and changed the 
 development of vegetable life. He has removed plants from 
 their original habitat, placed them in new conditions, and 
 they have undergone changes in consequence, so great as 
 scarcely to be recognized as the same species. Single flowers 
 have been changed to double flowers, as in the rose and the 
 dahlia. Spines and thorns have been obliterated. Creepers 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 259 
 
 have been made to stand erect. Biennials have been changed 
 to annuals. The color of flowers has been strangely altered, 
 even from red to blue. And fruits have been astonishingly 
 modified in size, in color, in flavor, by the skill of man. 
 And. finally, man has marvelousl}’’ changed the physical de- 
 velopment and habits and instincts of animals. They have 
 been altered in size, as may be seen in the Arabian racer 
 and the London dray horse, which are unquestionably one 
 species. Instincts have been obliterated or rendered dor- 
 mant, as in the horse; and new instincts have been devel- 
 oped and become hereditary, as in the pointer and retriever 
 dogs. The common rock pigeon has, by the manipulations 
 of man, been changed to the tumbler, the carrier, the 
 trumpeter, and the fantaiL, These, and numberless other 
 examples which might be given, show the power of man 
 over nature. On this subject I have great pleasure in quot- 
 ing the words of Mr. Wallace, the real author of the doctrine 
 of “Natural Selection.” “At length, however, there came 
 into existence a being in whom that subtle force we term 
 mind^ became of greater importance than his mere bodily 
 structure. Though with a naked and unprotected body, this 
 gave him clothing against the varying inclemencies of the 
 seasons. Though unable to compete with the deer in swift- 
 ness, or with the wild bull in strength, this gave him weap- 
 ons with which to capture or overcome both. Though less 
 capable than most other animals of living on the herbs and 
 the fruits that unaided nature supplies, this wonderful 
 faculty taught him to govern and direct nature to his own 
 
26 o 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 benefit, and make her produce food for him, when and 
 where he pleased. From the moment when the first skin 
 was used as a covering, when the first rude spear was formed 
 to assist in the chase, when fire was first used to cook his 
 food, when the fii'st seed was sown or shoot planted, a grand 
 revolution was effected in nature, a revolution which in all 
 the previous ages of the earth’s history had had no parallel, 
 for a being had arisen who was no longer neeessaril}^ sub- 
 ject to change with the changing universe, — a being who 
 was in some degree superior to nature, inasmuch as he 
 knew how to control and regulate her action, and 
 could keep himself in harmony with her, not by a 
 change in body, but by an advance of mind... Man 
 is, indeed, a being apart, since he is not influenced by 
 the great laws which irresistibly modify all other organic 
 beings. Nay more; this victory which he has gained for 
 himself, gives him a directing influence over other exist- 
 ences. Man has not only escaped ‘ natural selection ’ him- 
 self, but he is actually able to take away some of that power 
 from nature which before his appeni’ance she universally 
 exercised. We can anticipate the time when the earth will 
 produce only cultivated plants and domestic animals; when 
 man’s selection shall have supplanted ‘natural selection ’ ; 
 and when the ocean will be the only domain in which that 
 power can be exerted, which for countless cycles of ages 
 ruled supreme over all the earth.” (‘‘On Natural Selec- 
 tion,” pp. 324-326.) 
 
 The system of nature, then, we conclude, is one in 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 261 
 
 which there are general laws securing uniformity, and yet 
 permitting of such collocations and dispositions of physical 
 forces by the agency of mind, as shall result in individual 
 changes, extraordinary complications, and fortuitous events. 
 There are not only necessary events, but also contingent 
 events. IS'ature is not sternly rigid, but flexible, pliant to 
 the hand of man. IS'ature is certainly controlled by flnite 
 mind, why can it not be controlled by Inflnite Mind? If 
 man can mould, control, modify, and subordinate nature so 
 as to accomplish the designs of his intelligence, and convert 
 a destructive agent, like electricity, into a beneficial agent, 
 I cannot see why the Deity, the God who made all and sus- 
 tains all the powers of nature, may not control and subor- 
 dinate nature to secure benevolent purposes, and grand 
 moral results. In the light of these facts the objections to 
 the supernatural in religion melt away. 
 
 The prevalent notion of the supernatural among skep- 
 tical men is that of a power acting independent of all means, 
 whereas the true conception is that of power exercised 
 through means that are yet beyond our knowledge and our 
 control. A miracle, therefore, is not a real violation of 
 natural laws. God has no need to violate his own estab- 
 lished order of the universe. Miracles are part of the Di- 
 vine order. “They are not disturbances and disorders, but 
 the high and shining points of the course of nature where 
 it celebrates its festivals. They are the supernatural beam- 
 ing forth from the inmost life-ground of nature. They are 
 the clear flashings of the Creative Spirit through the veil of 
 
262 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 matter, while in the ordinary course of nature it only shim- 
 mers through the natural event as a soft, mild radiance.” 
 (“Bremen Lectures,” pp. 103, 104.) They are the control 
 and subordination of nature to the moral order of the uni- 
 verse, which is, in fact, the highest law of the universe of 
 being, because Mind is infinitely superior to matter. Man-s 
 acting upon nature proves him a pow'er above nature. The 
 human is higher and nobler than the natural. The result 
 of man’s action is the production of something which nature 
 cannot produce, for nature never built a house, or made a 
 watch, or constructed a locomotive. Such works are super 
 —above the natural. God’s action on nature is much the 
 same as man’s action on nature. The difference between 
 finite power and infinite power constitutes the Miracle. 
 
 To our mind it is just as easy, and just as rational, to 
 believe in a miracle, say the turning of water into wine, as 
 to believe that water can be frozen in a red-hot crucible. 
 Finite knowledge achieves the one, infinite knowledge 
 achieved the other. 
 
 I^'ow, that God has thus acted upon nature, acted out of 
 the regular succession of causes and effects established in 
 nature, may be easily shown. 
 
 Creation was the first miracle. That first beginning of 
 time, that first production of the primordial element or ele- 
 ments out of which all things were formed, was a miracle, 
 for before time existed there was no succession, and there- 
 fore no order of nature. The testimony of the rocks is full 
 of such miracles. There was a time when our earth was 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 263 
 
 once a molten mass of liquid rock, when there was not a 
 spore, a cellule, an atom of life, within its dark domain, 
 when all nature from its centre to its circumference was a 
 creation of dead, inorganic matter, and in the operation of 
 mere natural law, must have so remained forever. The 
 geologist can take up in his lingers the fossil remains of the 
 lirst form of life which was brought into existence on our 
 planet. The act by which the first organized life was 
 brought into being was above nature, a supernatural act, a 
 miracle. Even Darwin admits that “life was first breathed 
 into the first form or forms by the Creator.” Was not that 
 a supernatural act, a miracle; dead matter became alive. 
 Where is the difference between that act, and the bringing 
 of a dead Lazarus to life ? Life is not the result of physical 
 and chemical forces, it is something which transcends chem- 
 istry, and has its origin directly in Creative Power. So says 
 the Bible. So says the best and most recent science. M. 
 Claud Bernard, Pasteur, Quatrefages, Dr. Beale, Professor 
 Huxley, Murphy, are all agreed on this point. Dr. Frank- 
 land’s late experiments (recorded in Nature^ vol. iii. No. 64) 
 are decisive. Spontaneous generation cannot be proved to 
 be an ordinary nature-process. The initiation of life in the 
 universe is an epochal event. It is the extraordinary course 
 of nature; it is a miracle quite as great as revelation sup- 
 poses. 
 
 The appearance of rational intelligence on the earth is 
 equally a miracle. It cannot be accounted for by habit, 
 variation, and natural selection. This has been abundantly 
 
264 
 
 UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 proved by Murphy in “ Habit and Intelligence,” and by 
 Mivart “On the Origin of Species.” “We know, from the 
 testimony of science, that God has interposed in the natural 
 history of our earth to place man upon it^ This was, in the 
 fullest sense of the word, a supernatural interposition of 
 creative power, a miracle. The placing of man upon the 
 earth, in any other way than by the operation of natural 
 law, in any way contrary to our experience, was a tremen- 
 dous miracle. God interposed supernaturally to place man 
 upon the earth. How, then, can there be any violation of 
 analogy in His interposing supernaturally, in the way of 
 Christianity, to organize a divine societ}^, and recreate man 
 to purity?” (“Plurality of Worlds.”) 
 
 What, then, is the Biblical conception of nature? It is 
 the living vesture with which God clothes himself and be- 
 comes manifested to man. He continually upholds all 
 things by His power. He is the life of nature and He is the 
 law of nature. The uniformities of nature are the result 
 and the proof of His perfection and immutability. None 
 of the forces or energies of nature have ail existence inde- 
 pendent of God, all is pervaded, upheld, animated, directed 
 by Him who made the whole. From that fullness of power 
 and life which flows from Him through the world as its 
 innerlife. He can, by a special volition, originate something 
 new, which is a manifested miracle, just as His ordinary 
 working is a concealed miracle. 
 
 I hold, however, that if you explained all the miracles 
 away, you have not explained Christianity away. As Car- 
 
UNIVERSITY LECTURES. 
 
 265 
 
 13^6 has said, ‘‘The Christian religion once here cannot pass 
 away.” Religion and philosophy are the two great facts of 
 liiunan thought, facts real and iincontestable. “Christian- 
 ity,” says Cousin, “is the last religion which has appeared 
 upon the earth ; it is the end of the religious movements of 
 the world, and with it all religion is consummated. In fact, 
 Christianity, so little studied, so little understood, is nothing 
 less than the summing up and. crown of the two great relig- 
 ious sj^stems which reigned b}" turn in the East and in 
 Greece.” That is, it is part and parcel of the development 
 of human history as planned by' God. 
 
THE LIBRARY OF THE 
 FEB 4 1933 
 UNIVERSITY Of ILLINOI 
 

 

/ o-r:>