f8^7

PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH?

c^

PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH?

REMARKS

THE FIEST FIVE LECTUEES BY THE DEAN OF
WESTMINSTEE ON THE JEWISH CHUECH ;

OTHEE PLAIN WOEDS ON QUESTIONS OF THE DAY,

REGARDING

dFatti), t&e JStfcle, an* tge (Efjuvci).

REV. S. C. MALAN, M.A.,
OP BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD ; AND VICAR OF BROADWINDSOR, DORSET.

" Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition
of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." — Coloss. ii. 8.
MeyiCTOj/ roivvv Krrjfid £o~ti} t& twp Boyfidrcou fidOy/Aa, Kal XPe^a *"?4>«Aeou
tyvxys' ivetB^j iroKKoi eto'tv ol o-vXaywyovvres diet ttjs <f>i\o<ro<pias Kal k^v^s
airdrrfs' Kal ol ju,6VrfE\Ar)z/6s, 5m rrjs evyXarrias KaTao~6povo~L. S. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. IV.

LONDON :
JOSEPH MASTEES, ALDEESGATE STEEET,
AND NEW BOND STREET.
MDCCCLXV.

XONDON :
PBINTED BY JOSEPH MASTEBS AND SON,
AIDEBSGATE STBEET.

PREFACE.

For some time past earnest men in England have been
alarmed at the spread of certain loose, rationalistic
opinions in matters of Religion connected with the
Bible, and they have wondered at it — justly, perhaps ;
since irreverence and unbelief seem out of keeping
with the good sense of the English character. Yet,
the cause — or, may be, the causes — of the present
falling away from the Faith appear natural enough,
and not far to seek. One is of native growth ; the
other is foreign.
I. As to the English side of the present state of
things — antagonism between honest Churchmen and
Free-inquirers, Free-thinkers, Rationalists, and so-
called Philosophers ; alarm in the mind of some, in-
indifference in that of others ; a growing scepticism,
and, in consequence, also a lower tone of morals in
society in general — it is only the fruit of former errors
and short-comings.
The Church — the best and purest form of the Ca
tholic and Apostolic Church on earth — was, as a
national Church, intended by God to be the nursing
Mother of a great and good people. Equally free

VI PREFACE.
from the errors and absurdities of Rome,1 and from
the narrow-mindedness of a meddlesome sectarianism,
she framed her wide2 Formularies3 on the Word of
1 " Ea vero omnia, qua? ant valde superstitiosa, aut frigida, aut spurca, aut
ridicula, aut cum sacris Uteris pugnantia, aut etiam sobriis hominibus indigna
esse videbamus, qualia inflnita sunt hodie in papatu, prorsiis sine nlla exceptione
repudiavimus : quod nollemus Dei cultum ejusmodi ineptiis longius contami-
nari." Apologia Eccles. Anglic, autore J. Juello, p. 22.
" Speaking, in the next place," says Bp. Bull, in his letter to the Countess of
Newbrugh, " of the visibility and succession of pastors in our Church, he (the
Catholic Scripturist) challengeth your ladyship, as by promise to make it good.
And here I make him this fair proposal : Let him, or any one of his party, pro
duce any one solid argument to demonstrate such a succession of pastors in the
Church of Rome, and I will undertake, by the very same argument, to prove a
like succession in our Church."
" His demand that we should show a succession of pastors in our Church, in
all ages, holding and professing the Thirty-nine Articles, is infinitely ridiculous,
absurd, and unreasonable : for we ourselves acknowledge, that the pastors of our
Church were before the Reformation, involved as well as others, in the corrup
tions of the Church of Rome, against which our Thirty-nine Articles are mainly
directed : or else there had been no need of a Reformation. And let him, if he
can, show a constant succession of pastors in the Church of Rome, always pro
fessing the decrees of the Council of Trent, in the points of image worship, in
vocation of saints, &c, and I will promise with heart and hand to subscribe to
that Council. — As for ourselves, that which we maintain is this, That our Church
and the pastors thereof, did always acknowledge the same rule of faith, the same
fundamental articles of the Christian religion, both before and since the Refor
mation ; but with this difference that we then professed the rule of faith together
with the additional corruptions of the Church of Rome ; but now (Gon be
thanked) without them. So that the change, as to matter of doctrine which
hath been in our Church, and her pastors, is for the better ; like that of a man
from being leprous becoming sound and healthy, and yet always the same man."
Vindication of the Church of England ; Works, vol. ii. p. 204, sq.
2 " What next the Romanist saith concerning our notorious prevarication
from the Articles of our Church I do not perfectly understand. He very well
knows that our Clergy doth still subscribe them. — But possibly he intends that
latitude of sense, which our Church, as an indulgent mother, allows her sons in
some abstruser points, (such as predestination, &c.) not particularly and pre
cisely defined in her Articles, but in general words capable of an indifferent con
struction. If this be his meaning, this is so far from being a fault, that it is the
singular praise and commendation of our Church." Bp. Bull's Vindication of
the Church of England ; Works, vol. ii. p. 204— 211.
s " Because our Church," says Bp. Bull, " finds that a set form of Liturgy
is used by all Christian Churches in the world, without any known beginning,
she hath hers too, and that a grave, solemn, excellently composed one, con
formed as near as she could devise, to the pattern of the most ancient offices.
A Liturgy, for its innocence and purity, so beyond all just exceptions, that the

PREFACE. Vll
God,1 and not on the fancies of men ; so as to em
brace within them the whole flock of Christ, which
is " the blessed company of all faithful people."2 Too
wise to drive, and too generous to threaten, she calls,
she admonishes, she loves ; too great to resent or to
chide, she bears and forbears, and she forgives all in
sults to herself. Yet, her dignity is such, that her
sons go to be princes in all lands, and that her Clergy
are of more honour than their fellows in other coun
tries. Her influence is only for good ; and the heart
of her people is naturally drawn towards her.
II. Such is the Church in herself, and such is her
spirit; the spirit by which she lives, and shall live
papists themselves, upon its first establishment, could not but embrace it. And
therefore for several years they came to our churches, joined in our devotions,
and communicated without scruple, till at last (as an excellent person in our
Church rightly expresses it) ' a temporal interest of the Church of Rome rent
the schism wider, and made it gape like the jaws of the grave :' nay, it is trans
mitted to us by the testimony of persons greater than all exception that Paulus
Quartus, Pope of Rome, in his private intercourses and letters to Oueen Eliza
beth, did offer to confirm and establish the Common Prayer Book, if she would
acknowledge the primacy and authority, and the reformation derivative from
him." Bp. Bull's Vindication, &c, p. 206, sq.
1 " The Church of England," says Archbishop Laud, " grounded her positive
Articles upon Scripture ; and her negative do refute there, where the thing af
firmed by you (Romanists) is not affirmed by Scripture, nor directly to be con
cluded out of it. And here not the Church of England only, but all Protestants,
agree most truly, and most strongly in this, That the Scripture is sufficient to
salvation, and contains in it all things necessary to it. The Fathers* are plain,
the schoolmen not strangers in it. And have not we reason then, to account it,
as it is, the Foundation of our Faith ?"
2 Collect before the Doxology, in the Communion Service.
* S. Basil, De vera et piS, Fide. " Manifesta defectio Fidei est importare
quicquam eorum quse scripta non sunt." S. Hilar. 1. 2, ad Constant. Aug.
" Fidem tantiim secundum ea quse scripta sunt desiderantem, et hoc qui repu-
diat, Antichristus est, et qui simulat Anathema est." S. Aug. 1. 2, de Doctr.
Christian, c. 9. " In iis qua? aperte in Scripturi posita sunt, inveniuntur ilia
omnia quse continent fidem moresque vivendi." And to this place Bellarm. 1. 4,
de Verbo Dei non Scripto, cap. 11, saith that S. Augustine speaks " de illis
Dogmatibus quas necessaria sunt omnibus simpliciter," of those points of Faith,
which are necessary simply for all men. So far then he grants the question. —
Relation of a Conference, &c, 3rd ed. London, 1673, p. 34.

VU1 PREFACE.

evermore. But if she lives in the spirit, she acts
through her members ; and these are they that griev
ously sinned against her in days that are past, when
the fathers ate sour grapes which have now set their
children's teeth on edge. I need not enter into the
details of a notorious state of the Church during a
race of Clergy now all but extinct ; when things ha
bitually took place which one would hardly credit, but
for the few eye-witnesses of them that are also passing
out of sight ; when the houses of God were allowed to
fall into decay ; when duty was seldom heard of, and
clerical functions were too often discharged by strangers
to the flocks that never saw their shepherds. Then,
in sooth, was the spirit of the Church, if not wholly
quenched, at least sorely grieved. Then, while her men
slept, did the enemy come, do his work, and sow the
seed whence have sprung up the rank weeds of error,
of scepticism, and of unbelief, which the nation now
gathers. Then, while the Priest and the Levite passed
by on the other side, careless of their poor brother
who had fallen among thieves, a good Samaritan had
pity on him, and of his poverty planted his little
chapels here and there in the most distant and most
forlorn corners of the land, which the Church has not
yet reached. But then, also, did the Priest and the
Levite lose their brother, and the Church very many
of her children.
III. During that time life in the Church was kept up
by a few earnest and conscientious men, who, by their
efforts in well doing, prevented her spirit from dying
out. After them came the religious movement of
about thirty years ago, that did much to rouse the
Church from her slumber. She awoke — but to a state
of things very different from what she remembered.

PREFACE. IX
She found a portion of her flock gone ; Dissent esta
blished in many parishes where afore it had never
been heard of, and Popery free to stalk in the land,
and to make for the coveted prize ; the beginnings of
a state of alternate wiles and artifice, of hatred and
envy, against which to struggle with her enemies on
the right hand and on the left — a state, too, that shall
never cease. In dismay at these great losses, some of
her chiefs — assuredly not the wisest — seeing so many
sheep gone, now propose to do for the Church what
has already been done for the University, so as to lower
both together; and they talk of throwing down her
fences, in order, they say, to call back the wanderers.1
Strange wisdom, that ! to rend asunder the net, in
order to catch more fish ; and because some of the
sheep were allowed to go astray, to level the fold with
the ground, and let in the wolves upon the remnant
that is left ! Better, we had thought, follow the ex
ample of the Good Shepherd, and go into the wilder
ness after the sheep that are lost ; many, very many,
will be found too glad to be brought back to the fold
and to better pastures.
Nay, the present trial of the Church is only the
fruit of her own doings ; of doings, too, that must
1 " To seek reformation of evil laws," says Hooker, " is a commendable en
deavour j but for us the more necessary is a speedy redress of ourselves. We
have on all sides lost much of our first fervency towards Goo ; and therefore
concerning our own degenerated ways we have reason to exclaim with S. Gre
gory, "Oirep %ij.ev yei/ii/ieda, ' Let us return again to what we sometime were ;'
but touching the exchange of laws in practice with laws in device, which they
say are better for the state of the Church if they might take place, the farther
we examine them the greater cause we find to conclude pzvaifiEV ihrtp eir/iev,
'although we continue the same we are the harm is not great.' These fervent
reprehenders of things established by public authority are always confident and
bold spirited men. But their confidence for the most part ariseth from too much
credit given to their own wits, for which cause they are seldom free from error."
Eccles. Pol. Bk. v. Dedic. 2. Words that seem written for the present time.

PREFACE.

have been visited on a Church so really great, and on
a nation so greatly blessed. " Shall I not visit for
these things ? saith the Lord. The prophets prophesy
falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means, and
my people love to have it so ; and what will ye do in
the end thereof?"1 Yet the trial may soon be over,
if the Church will it ; on herself depends whether she
shall suffer long from error and disunion within her
self, or whether she will come forth the better and the
wiser for what is past. Humanly speaking, however,
it may be that the working of such beautiful machinery
as the English Church and State together, by a people
gifted with so many sterling qualities, would have
brought about results too great and too good for this
world ; and that it must, therefore, have got out of
gear. Out of gear, then, it certainly is ; the State
seems disaffected towards the Church, and the Church
at variance with it and with herself. All now depends
on her wisdom, energy, and life; and after she has
been sufficiently tried, then on God's mercy in healing
her wounds. One thing, however, is certain — it would
be death to the Church to take her ease at present.
If the Church of England slumber again, she is lost.
IV. But, however tried, she lives — she cannot die ;
yet, she cannot rest. And rest she must not, until,
with the whole Church of Christ, she lays down her
weapons, and then rest for ever. Meanwhile, she owes
much of her present life and energy to the earnest
teaching of certain of her pious, able, and devoted
sons who are still living. Setting aside as not their
fault, and of little or no moment, the flights of some
of their followers, the want of judgment of others, and
the perversion to Romanism of a few more whose
1 Jer. v. 29—31 .

PREFACE. XI

minds were either weak, warped, or wanting in ballast,
the good those men did in the Church will never die.
They poured a new life into the body of Churchmen ;
whether love and care for the houses of God in the
land, or untiring energy and manly devotedness to the
work of the ministry on the highest principles, by
teaching that the Church is not a myth, but a reality ;
that her doctrines are not conceits, to be held up and
then dropped — to be made and unmade at the will of
men — but that they rest on objective Truths that shall
stand when heaven and earth have passed away ; and
that her Sacraments are not the dead letter of by-gone
types, but that they really are " outward and visible
signs of an inward and spiritual grace," and so, " ne
cessary to salvation." Much of this, however, took by
surprise well-meaning but ill-informed men, who then
drifted aside from such teaching ; and who, by so
doing, widened the already existing division of the
Church between High and Low. Nevertheless, but
for the earnestness and far the life infused into the
Church some five and twenty years ago and more, we
may doubt whether she could have weathered the
storms lately come upon her.
V. But if the present state of things — in the Church
error and divisions, and in society scepticism and in
difference — is to some extent the result of negligence
and of other short-comings during the past generation,
it may also be owing, partly, to the narrow, stiff, ex
clusive, though haply well-meaning spirit of the so-
called Low Church on the one hand, and on the other
hand to the want of judgment frequently shown by
many of the so-called High Church party. By placing
undue importance on what may, by comparison, be
called trifles, which, however lawful, were not always

PREFACE.

expedient, " that have lately sprung up," says Hooker,1
"for complements, rites, and ceremonies of church
actions, and are in truth for the greatest part such
silly things, that very easiness doth make them hard
to be disputed of in a serious manner ;" or, by making
too much of mere forms, which at all times are dead
without the Spirit that gives them life, High Church
men have often needlessly offended Opinions or inno
cent prejudices of many sheep of their flocks, and have
scared them from the fold, instead of rallying them to
it. By " paying tithe of mint, anise, and cummin,"
and occasionally either omitting, or at least appearing
to omit, " weightier matters of the Law," High Church
men made honest and sober Churchmanship at times
appear ridiculous ; and thus laid themselves open to
the charge of inconsistency, perhaps even of frivolity
in grave matters, which the practical, "sound, large,
round-about sense," as Locke calls it, of the English
people, could not endure very long.
These two negative eccentricities — each equally op
posed to the real spirit and to the teaching of the
Church of England — by repelling each other, left be
tween them a wide, empty space, called ' latitudinarian-
ism' by the sensible, orthodox, earnest men who float
therein between the two extremes ; ' liberalism' by men
either lukewarm or indifferent ; and either ' Broad
Church' or ' philosophy' by latitudinarians themselves.
The several elements of this motley gathering assimi
late — as of course they must — according to the affinity
of sentiment, leaving the pure metal of the Anglo-
Catholic Faith to shine alone, and above them all.
Yet, had the two extremes agreed to certain timely
concessions on both sides, for their mutual advantage
1 Eccles. Pol. Bk. v. Dedic. 3.

PREFACE. Xlll
and for the good of the people, they might, perhaps,
have made up a whole, consistent both with the large
Scriptural Spirit of the Church, and with the good
sense of the nation ; and thus little room would have
been left for these apparently new-fangled, yet in
reality stale opinions, hostile alike to the Faith, and to
the peace of the Church. The fault, then, seems to lie
partly with those who, from whatever motive, would
rather rend asunder than yield.
VI. And secondly — as to the foreign or German ele
ment in the present rationalistic movement, it is easily
accounted for. Many obvious reasons may have had,
and may yet have something to do with it. But the
chief cause of all this Germanism at the University,
and through it in the Church is — the need one has to
go to Germany for learning, now that real scholarship,
and especially Biblical scholarship, are at the ebb in
this country, instead of being at the flow, as formerly.
Certain philosophers of the day, comparing themselves
among themselves and ignoring their giant sires in
learning, may, indeed, amuse themselves and others
also, by writing essays on the progress and education
of the world, and on the restless activity of this nine
teenth century — which, after all, is but the fulfilment
of the prophecy that in the latter days " many shall run
to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased ;'" while,
others of the same class, evidently on excellent terms
with themselves, may even go so far as to ask, if intellect,
activity, ability and knowledge or learning are not on
their side ?2 And yet, in reality, if instead of smiling
at such overweening conceit, we chose to take them at
their word and to compare with their pretensions, the
1 Dan. xii. 4.
2 See the Letter of Anglicanus in the Times for March 11.

XIV PREFACE.

writings of some of them who, residing at the Univer
sity and with every facility for study, could have no
excuse for either shallowness, or inaccuracy — we
should be justified in bidding Oxford write ' Ichabod'
on the portal of her schools, and mourn in ashes over
the days of English learning ; of such men as Walton,
Castell, Lowth, Hickes, Hyde, Pococke, Selden, Light-
foot, Bingham, Stillingfleet, Lardner, Hooker, Porson,
Hall, Waterland, Bull, Butler, and other such mighty
scholars and learned men ; — days that are past, and
men that are gone, judging from the few successors
they have left. For, it is vain to boast; English
scholarship and learning no longer hold their own to
take the lead as formerly ; but they now seem content
to move like waiting-maids at the beck of their German
masters ; though, haply, little to the liking of these —
quos ilia tandem
Occidifc miseros crambe repetita magistros.
Yet, in sooth, unless native talent and ability have
left the land, all this imitation of others and all this
borrowing from them, is assuredly a mistake. For,
not only is the English character too solid and too
original to make good imitators, but German thought
does not suit English heads which, stored in their own
way and with their own thoughts, would almost al
ways be best for sense and for steadiness. Only read
some of the standard English divines, and others who
wrote long ere this Germanism became the fashion,
and see what greater breadth and power of thought,
what better style, and what sounder learning they show
than the divines of the present day !
But for this prevalent ignorance or lack of know
ledge, the notorious " Essays and Reviews" would not
have drawn one tithe of the notice they did. Nor

PREFACE. XV
would Dr. Colenso's works on the Pentateuch ; only
that the interest these might perhaps have created, is
greatly diminished by the small respect one feels for
the whole thing.1
VII. Neither is it altogether owing to the simplicity
of those who think Deans and Professors ' ex officio'
right, good and learned ; nor yet to the generous con
fidence in accredited teachers which is natural to the
English character, that these free, or rather, loose
opinions are allowed to spread. But, the apparent
success of this sceptical or rationalistic proselytism is
owing, first — to the readiness with which the natural
man (vl/u^ixo? uvfyimos) will receive a teaching the object
of which is to glorify ' self and self's ' intellect,' fallen
and degraded though this be, by lowering the objects
of Faith, and with them also Faith itself ; in order to
set the heart free from the trammels of the fear of
God, and to ease the conscience of the warnings of a
Judgment to come. Preachers of such doctrine will
always command a large audience, and make many
disciples among a certain class of hearers ; especially
if those preachers enjoy worldly advantages ; for there
1 "That which all men's experience teaches them," says Hooker, (Eccles.
Pol. Bk. iii. ch. viii. 14,) " may not in any wise be denied. And by experience
we all know, that the first outward motive leading men so to esteem of the Scrip
ture is the authority of God's Church. For when we know the whole Church
of God hath that opinion of the Scripture, we judge it even at the first an im
pudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a con
trary mind without cause."
" I did never love," says Archbp. Laud, (Relation of a Conference, &c. p. 31,)
" too curious a search into that which might put a man into a wheel, and circle
him so long between proving Scripture by Tradition, and Tradition by Scrip
ture, till the devil find a. means to dispute him into Infidelity, and make him
believe neither. I hope this is no part of your meaning. Yet I doubt this*
question, How do you know Scripture to be Scripture? hath done more harm
than ever you will be able to help by Tradition."
* "Qui conantur fidem destruere sub specie qusestionis difficilis, aut forte
indissolubilis," &c. Orig. q. 35, in S. Matt.

XVI PREFACE.

are no subjects on which worldly-minded and thought
less men will sooner hearken to those who flatter them
and who make things easy for them. Even though
they believe it not, they yet like to hear that ' modern
science' having discovered means whereby the blind
have only to look within themselves in order to see
light and to find their way, tells man to do the same
and to look into his intellect for things which, we are
told, " never entered the heart of man,"1 and which
" he cannot know" — in order to find the way through
life which even Plato could not discover. And as to
what lies beyond, ' philosophy' has, at last, bridged
over the chasm into which we plunge at death, and
has settled that " Judgment," which, we are told,
" follows after death," is a relative term and liable to
various meanings ; and that, somehow, things will
then be amicably arranged. Like children sitting in
state to make laws for the inhabitants of Saturn, these
teachers imagine to settle what is to be hereafter, and
to decide it after their own fashion. But the end of
both teachers and taught is not by-and-by. We shall
all appear at the bar of that awful tribunal, to our
utter amazement ; and in that day shall the work of
every man be made manifest, of what sort it is.
VIII. So also is this lifting up of the head of scepticism
and of unbelief — an unwonted sight in great and good
England — due, secondly, to the circumstances under
which these free opinions are being broached. On the
one hand, they are put forth with a certain show of
what must appear like learning to persons of little or
no information, by men of high position in the Church
and out of it, who enjoy great worldly advantages, and
who being in favour with the great, are also in favour
1 1 Cor. ii. 9.

PREFACE. XV11

with the multitude that values appearance and show.
The accidents of their social position give them a cer
tain influence, though it be only among the class — a
very numerous one, however — both of thoughtless
men who look not below the surface of things, and
leave others to think for them ; and of men who,
though not thoughtless, yet lean irresistibly towards
that which pleases their fancy, or agrees best with
their already foregone conclusions. On the other
hand, those upon whom chiefly devolves the duty of
refuting or of resisting error, in whatever shape, are,
as it happens, for the most part either unable or un
willing to enter the lists against it.
Most of the Clergy, from the very nature of their
calling, are obliged to become ' practical men,' the
moment they enter upon the duties of their sometimes
arduous parishes, in which they soon find enough to
engross their time and their affections. They reason
with themselves that all this scepticism will not reach
them in the country — though many would be surprised
to hear in what out-of-the-way cottages such matters
are discussed — and they draw the natural conclusion,
that, as regards themselves, their readiest way of meet
ing error is, to teach the Truth; and thus leave to
others the duty of taking an active part in this in-
•evitable struggle between error and the Faith. They
be true men, nevertheless ; many, very many of them
noble-hearted, devoted servants of the Church, who
spend and grudge not to be spent as faithful shepherds
of their flocks for their Master's sake. What will
become of the people to be looked after, when the
Clergy, who now move in all ranks of society by
virtue of the reverential feeling of the best part of the
people for their office, are no longer taken from the
b

XVU1 PREFACE.
kernel of the nation, and thus no longer possessed of
the admirable qualities found therein? The profes
sion, it is true, raises any man who enters it as he
ought ; yet, unless the man adorn, or at least recom
mend, the profession, he must bring it into discredit
in the eyes of those who only judge of things by their
appearance. Other considerations weigh with others of the
Clergy. There are among them men who, though
not indifferent to the present state of things — to the
secret workings of Romanism and to the progress of
scepticism — yet feel such confidence in the good sense
of the nation, and so far trust to the fickleness of public
opinion, as to comfort themselves with thinking that
things will right themselves, without interference on
their part. Others, again, who are indifferent to the
turn of the scale — Gallios, who care for none of these
things — find it easiest to call themselves ' liberals ;'
without, perhaps, a clearer idea of the meaning of that
term than going with the stream, and being left at
peace. With others the hope or the chance of pre
ferment, and other such motives which appear mean
in comparison of the importance of the case at issue,
make them lie in harbour, trim their sails, and wait
for the tide. While others, again, unable to judge for
themselves, follow their only guide, public opinion,-
and espouse the cause of the man last or most in
favour with the world.
IX. Thus the number of those among the Clergy
whose voice is heard in defence of the Truth is small
compared with the whole. As a body, they seem, in
this respect, to belie their real spirit and life, and look
almost as if they were either indifferent, or cowed by
the assurance with which the Germanizing rationalistic

PREFACE. XIX

party — for 'school' it cannot be called — presumes
upon the social position of some of its members, and,
as we have seen, arrogating to them the brilliant gifts
of intellect, ability, and knowledge, assumes an over
bearing attitude towards those who are either too well
informed, too independent, or too conscientious to
wish for aught of their philosophy. After succeeding in
making both the University and the Church each into
two camps, they then took to threatening -,1 and one
may do them the justice to say, that they have done
and do their best to make good their threat in distract
ing the Church. They will thus widen the breach,
and provoke honest and stout hearts to endurance, but
to surrender — never ; albeit they claim immunity from
all opposition. So that, by a convenient arrangement
of theirs, if we honest Churchmen venture to avail
ourselves of the leave given us to judge of them by
their fruits, we hear at once that " charity thinketh no
evil" — a favourite quotation with sundry newspaper
homilists ; if we rebuke ribaldry on sacred things, we
are said to lose our temper ; and if again, we demur to
certain arbitrary treatment on their part, and question
their right so to act, we are then told to hold our
peace ; because, of course, " charity beareth all things."
So it must. Meanwhile the air resounds with voices
echoing " intellect," " pride of intellect," and the
like, as applicable to the pretensions or to the results
of these new philosophers. But, may we ask, what
can this mean ? For, first — light bears witness of itself,
without any apology for it ; whereas their scholar
ship and learning, for the most part like borrowed
feathers, call forth, not argument, but a smile from
men of average reading. Secondly — real intellects
1 See the last article in the Times for March 9th.
b2

PREFACE.

never were proud of themselves. Neither Aristotle,
Plato, Newton, Leibnitz, Linnaeus, Cuvier, nor other
such were proud of their understanding, which brought
them, as one of them says, only to God's footstool.
Their intellect was too great not to feel its own weak
ness, or to be proud of it. They knew two well,
that, after all, light is only relative to the surrounding
darkness ; and that with Truth, intellect, sense, and
knowledge there is no respect of persons, but that, in
all men alike, pride comes from ignorance, conceit from
shallowness, and pretensions from "vanity. " Truth,"
says Locke,1 " whether in or out of fashion, is the
measure of knowledge and the business of the under
standing. Whatsoever is besides that is nothing but
ignorance, or something worse." " Truth is all simple,
all pure, will bear no mixture of anything else with it.
It is rigid and inflexible to any by-interests ; and so
should the understanding be, whose use and excel
lency lies in conforming itself to it."2 And, we may
add, Truth, as a principle, is sacred ; and he who know
ingly and wilfully either gainsays or perverts it, is mean
and contemptible. Therefore does Truth, by virtue of
itself alone, win the day. "Veritas vincat necesse
est, sive negantem sive confitentem," says S. Augus
tine.3 All it wants is, clear heads and honest hearts
to defend its rights. But no one can plead for the
Truth who does not love it.
X. Such a defence, however, is not, as some endea
vour to represent it, a mere intellectual passage of arms,
a controversy involving no consequences whatever be
yond the defeat of one or other of the opponents. If
it were so, and if the defence of the Truth were a
1 Cond. of the Und. sect. xxiv. s Ibid. sect. xiv.
' Epist. 174.

PREFACE.

mere matter of opinion, to contend for it were un
worthy of sensible men. But " Truth," Aristotle tells
us,1 " cannot be a matter of opinion, since the same
thing tastes to some sweet, and to others bitter."
Truth, to a\i)8es, therefore, is independent of man, and
outside him ; he does not make it, but he looks for it ;
and whether he find it or not, it exists nevertheless.
And ' the Truth,' ^ aXykux., as regards ourselves, and
for which Christians have had, have, and will yet have
to contend, consists in certain objective Truths, made
known to us through revelation in the Bible, held and
taught by the Church of England, and therefore also
by the Church Catholic ever since her beginning.
These Truths imply, as Archbishop Laud says, " the
belief of Scripture to be the Word of God and infal
lible, as a prime principle of Faith ;" and are to be re
ceived and understood in their plain and natural sense,
as by the Fathers of the Catholic Church and of the
English Church in particular ; and not to be distorted
into a non-natural sense, at the will of men, who at
all times have endeavoured not to rise up to the
Truth, but to bring it down to themselves.
Very far, then, from this controversy being of little
or of no moment, on it depends the spiritual life or the
spiritual death of those engaged in it. For it matters
somewhat, I trow, whether a man be, as by Scripture
and the Church, directed upwards to the only way
there is for him to God, that is, through Faith in the
merits and in the Atonement of Christ ; the Faith
that shows itself in works done out of gratitude and
love for God as for a Father reconciled, and accept
able unto Him only as tokens of the reality of the
Faith that brings them forth, yet without any merit
1 See below, p. 5, R. ix. rh fie? yap aKrjdes, k.t.A.

PREFACE.

whatsoever of their own ;* or whether that same man
be told, as by Rome, which claims infallibility in mat
ters of Faith,2 that " the way to be saved is to avoid sin,
and to do works of grace,"3 without any reference to
Christ's Sacrifice, which alone prevails with God and
avails for us ; or again, whether that man be sent, as
by the philosophers of the day, to wander and lose
himself within the narrow maze of his own reason and
intellect, turning round and round upon himself;
making that the object as well as the subject of his
worship ; and thus, in the end, being no nearer God
than when he started on his errand.
A controversy of this kind, then, is not of practical
indifference, as some say or make others believe it to be.
Neither can it matter little whether " the Scripture of
Truth," wherein are revealed unto us " great and pre
cious promises" of things on which depends our eternal
salvation, be upheld, honoured, and defended ; or de
spised, reviled, and, as by some, ranked with old stories
and obsolete legends. Yea, it matters much whether
we be hoodwinked by the specious sophistry " that cer
tain books of the Bible may be less inspired than
1 " Nullis ergo operibus aut meritis Deum antevertere possumus? — Nullis
plane. — Debita pietatis officia, qua; ex Fide per caritatem operante proficis-
cuntur, Deo quidem grata sunt ; non tamen ipsorum merito, sed quod ille suo
favore ea liberaliter dignetur," &c. Noelli Catechismus, p. 116, ed. Ox.
" Ex his jam locis liquere arbitror, apostolum — hoc imprimis fundamento
niti, quod quicquid boni ad justificationem ac salutem seternam consequendam
a nobis prsestitum sit, id totum ex gratia Dei, gratis nobis per Christum data,
promanet, ipsique acceptum referri debeat," &c. Bp. Bull, Harmon. Apostolica,
vol. iii. p. 217 ; preeced. et seq.
2 Romana particularis Ecclesia non potest errare in Fide. Bellarm. 1. iv. de
Rom. Pont. cap. 4, sec. 1, quoted in Abp. Laud's Conference, &c, p. 3.
8 Q. Ra unda hqmnas catsma satskhovrebad ? R. Tsodvadtagan unda mo-
shordes, da madlis saqmeni unda hqmnas. " Q. What must a man do to be
saved ? R. He must avoid sin, and do works of grace." Dottrina Cristiana,
&c, per uso delle Missioni della Giorgia ; Roma, Sagra Congreg. de Propag,
Fide, 2 ed. sect. vi. p. 31.

PREFACE. XX1U
others," since who is to decide the ' more or less' in this
case, except he be himself inspired ? every man assum
ing to be both judge and jury in a matter entirely
beyond him — or whether the Truth regarding this be
put before us in the manly words of Archbishop Laud :
" Now all Propositions of Canonical Scripture are
alike firm, because they all alike proceed from Divine
Revelation ; but they are not alike fundamental in the
Faith." " For the belief of Scripture, to be the Word
of God and infallible, is an equal, or rather a preceding
Prime Principle of Faith, with or to the. whole body of
the Creed."1 For "the charter of foundation," says
Dr. Waterland,2 " is undoubtedly an essential of the
covenant ; and therefore, of course, the admittance of
the sacred oracles, which are the charter itself (or at
least the only authentic instrument of conveyance) is
essential to the covenant ; consequently, to reject or
disbelieve the Divine authority of Sacred Writ is to
err fundamentally." Wherefore it must be evident to
all, that the shallow motive of those who deny this is,
to leave every man free to choose or to reject what parts
of the Sacred Canon he likes, in order to suit his own
personal convenience or fancy ; so as to fetter himself
with little or no Faith, and practically to owe allegiance
to no one but to himself.
XI. In this controversy, then, both sides cannot argue
either from the same motives, or on the same prin
ciple. Whereas what is called .' Truth' by those who
gainsay the Bible or parts of it, and the Catholic
Truth contained in it, must be, and indeed is, with
them a matter of opinion only — since we cannot admit
1 Relation of a Conference, &c, p. 27, 28, ed. 1673. The italics and capitals
are Abp. Laud's.
2 Discourse of Fundamentals ; Works, vol. viii. p. 97. The italics are his.

XXIV PREFACE.

the existence of a principle worthy of Christian men,
and opposed to either the Bible or the Truth — to
contend for this Truth is a matter of principle, of a
deep, unshaken principle, that dwells in the inner
most heart of those who uphold both the Bible and
the Truth it teaches. But ' principle' will never yield
to mere ' opinion,' since principle alone makes the dif
ference between firmness and obstinacy; 'firmness'
being, devotedness to a principle held on good grounds,
and therefore disinterested ; while ' obstinacy,' which
is the firmness of weak minds, is but the pertinacity
of individual opinion, and is therefore selfish and inte
rested. Thus it is on principle that we contend for the
integrity of the whole Canon of Scripture as re
ceived by the Church Catholic and by the Church of
England ; it is on principle that we keep and will keep
the Prayer Book, not only for its unrivalled beauty
and excellence, but as the Formulary of the Church to
which we belong, framed and cherished by men holier,
wiser, and more learned than are to be found at pre
sent ; and it is also on principle that we will fight for
the safety of those Truths which are both the walls
and the fences of the Church, and without which no
Church can exist. Whereas those who attack the
Bible, who work for the alteration of the Prayer Book,
and who fain would throw down the bulwarks of the
Church, so as to make it one broad plain of their own,
do it from selfish or interested motives ; for it cannot
be on a right principle. Therefore do we see that the
struggle between the Truth and error, appears un
equal ; because, whereas he that honestly contends for
the Truth does so as having everything at stake in
this one principle, the other contends only for self, and

PREFACE. XXV

for self-opinion, and is thus always ready to shift at
any moment either his ground or his mode of attack,
without any scruple as to ways and means thereto.
XII. No time, then, now for ignorance or for indiffer
ence among the Clergy, if the Truth is to be upheld ;
and if the Church is to be defended, the laity should be
well taught. To that effect a radical alteration must take
place in the style of preaching common in the Church ;
for souls cannot be saved and minds cannot be trained
unless the preachers show that not only they are in
earnest, but that they also understand what they
teach ; two qualifications often thought unnecessary.
Then, when the Truth is preached more boldly, and
thus better understood, there will not be room for so
much alarm in the mind of many, who fear lest it
should suffer from the repeated attacks of its adver
saries. The Truth has ever been, is, and will be at
tacked as long as the world lasts ; but destroyed —
never. " Occultari potest ad tempus Veritas, vinci
non potest," says S. Augustine j1 for the Lord God of
Truth, Who said, " Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away," is He also " who
keepeth the Truth for ever."2
Therefore shall the Truth stand; and they alone
also shall stand who side with it, love it, and defend
it. But in order to be loved it must be known ; and
ere it be known, it must be studied, sought, searched
for, and found ; it does not come to men intuitively,
as some seem to think. If the Church is to stand,
her Clergy must be not only well educated, in earnest,
and devoted, but learned. As we shall see presently,
no great knowledge is needed to see through false phi
losophy ; yet that little should be had ; for ignorance
• In Psalm, lxi. ' Ps. cxlvi. 6.

XXVI PREFACE.
never won either a blessing or souls to Christ ; and
those err greatly who seem to think that almost any
thing may do for the teaching the laity receive from
the pulpit, " as if the way to be ripe in faith," says
Hooker,1 " were to be raw in wit and in judgment ; as
if Reason were an enemy unto Religion, and childish
simplicity the mother of ghostly wisdom." Far, in
deed, from it. As gold is for the sanctuary, so are
the best gifts in man — reason, intelligence, abilky, and
learning, never so great and never so good as when
sanctified by being made to minister to the Faith and
to true wisdom. At present, especially, when the ene
mies of the Church are on the alert, — both those who
openly plot her fall in order to raise themselves on her
ruins, and her false friends from within, who either
try to throw down her fences, or who from ignorance
of what they do, and from small love for their Church
and for their country, play into the hands of Rome —
for friendship with Rome is treason to England — ought
her true friends to be on the watch, and " commend
themselves by the word of truth, by the power of God,
and by the armour of righteousness on the right hand
and on the left."2
" Philosophy," says Hooker, " we are warned to
take heed of: not that philosophy which is true and
sound knowledge attained by natural discourse of rea
son ; but that philosophy, which to bolster heresy or
error casteth a fraudulent show of reason upon things
which are indeed unreasonable, and by that mean as
by a stratagem spoileth the simple which are not able
to withstand such cunning. ' Take heed lest any spoil
you through philosophy and vain deceit.' He that
exhorteth to beware of an enemy's policy doth not give
1 Ecclcs. Pol. Bk. iii. ch. viii. 4. 22 Cor. ,vi. 7.

PREFACE. XXV11
counsel to be impolitic, but rather to use all provident
foresight and circumspection, lest our simplicity be
overreached by cunning sleights. The way not to be
inveigled by them that are so guileful through skill, is
thoroughly to be instructed in that which maketh skil
ful against guile, and to be armed with that true and
sincere philosophy, which doth teach, against that de
ceitful and vain, which spoileth." — " For unto the
word of God," adds the same wise and sound thinker,1
" being in respect of that end for which God ordained
it perfect, exact, and absolute in itself, we do not add
Reason as supplement of any maim or defect therein,
but as a necessary instrument, without which we could
not reap by the Scripture's perfection that fruit and
benefit which it yieldeth."2
XIII. And honestly to strive for the integrity of the
Bible, of the Truth, and of the Church, is not to fight as
beating the air ; it is to fight for the safety of the nation.
As the Church can rest on no other foundation than that
is laid, Jesus Christ, so also " is the throne established
by righteousness" only. With Him " who sitteth
upon the circle of the earth," and before whom " the
nations are counted as the small dust of the balance,"
iron-clads and fleets of merchant-men avail very little.
But, when He said : " Them that honour me, I will
1 Bk. iii. vi. 10.
2 " For though Reason without Grace," continues Archbishop Laud, (Relation
of a Conference, &c, p. 48,) "cannot see the way to Heaven, nor believe this
Book, in which God hath written the way ; yet Grace is never placed but in a
reasonable creature, and proves by the very seat, which it hath taken up, that
the end it hath, is to be spiritual eye-water, to make Reason see what by nature
only it cannot, (1 Cor. ii. 14,) but never to blemish Reason in that which it can
comprehend. Now the use of Reason is very general ; and man (do what he
can) is still apt to search and seek for a Reason why he will believe, though after
he once believes, his Faith grows stronger, than either his Reason, or his Know
ledge : and great reason for this, because it goes higher, and so upon a safer
principle, than either of the other can in this life."

XXV111 PREFACE.

honour ; but they that despise me shall be lightly es
teemed ;" He also bade history show as a warning to
all, that " righteousness exalteth a nation ; but that
sin is a reproach to any people ;" that real national
greatness depends altogether on national morality, and
national morality on the national Faith and fear of
God. And, without controversy, the Rock on which
England rests, and on which she has reared the solid
edifice of her great power, is — the fear of God ; for
He is more honoured, and His Word has hitherto been
more respected in this country than anywhere else in
the world.
But, on either side of this Rock are quicksands
on which England must tread if she swerve either
to the right hand or to the left. Only take away
the mighty, overruling principle of " the fear of the
Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom, and the
knowledge of the Holy which is understanding;" then
cut the reins of Faith by accustoming the public mind
to doubt and scepticism, and to irreverence for the
Bible, whence alone the fear of God flows ; and in
stead of this, give philosophy and reason to the teeming
life and intelligence of the manufacturing towns, and
see by-and-by what has become of this great country,
and in it of order, justice and equity in the due balance
of power. If you wish to know, only look at France
less than a century since. Things are not yet come
to that ; and may God in His mercy avert them from
English hearths ! Infidelity has not yet swept the
land with desolation ; for there is yet faith, hope, and
charity, among the people ; neither does ungodliness
yet prevail ; God still loves the land, and He is still
loved and honoured in it ; nor does open immorality
stalk abroad, for the nation has not lost shame, and is

PREFACE. XXIX

still virtuous. But there is the beginning of these
things which, like a canker, eat into the body of so
ciety. Already one may trace unmistakeable signs of
a decline from a higher standard ; all the more notice
able, as in no other country were the solid principles
of Christianity and the relative duties of the several
orders of society so well understood and so well ob
served as in this.
XIV. Those then, love most the nation, who, despite
ribaldry, scorn and ridicule, are most earnest in their
efforts, through good report and through evil report,
to preserve in their integrity the true causes of national
greatness — the Bible and the Church. Those, on the
other hand, love the nation least, who, whether in the
Church or out of it, whether divines or journalists,
gainsay the Bible and the Truth it teaches ; and attack
or ridicule the Church, by ascribing to her inward
spirit the weaknesses and other short-comings of her
members ; for in so doing they sap the foundation of
all national morality, religion and order, and thus
also of all real national greatness and prosperity. If
therefore, we — and by ' we' I mean those alone with
whom I either can identify myself, or wish so to do,
namely, men educated at Oxford who are sincerely
attached to her, and who, with others, honestly love
the nation and heartily the Church of which Oxford
was the wonted bulwark — if, I say, we would bear
in mind that, even though error and scepticism come
in like a flood, the cause of the Truth held by
the Church must stand and cannot fail, since the
Church herself rests on " the everlasting hills," and
her Lord is " the Lord God of Truth," — some of
us would stand by it with a better heart than they
seem to do. For, "if we strive together for the faith

XXX PREFACE.
of the Gospel, and, in nothing terrified by our adver
saries," uphold* God's Word as it was received, be
lieved, honoured and worshipped by the Church of
Christ ; and if we adhere to the Prayer Book as to
the Formulary and framework1 of the best and purest
form of Christ's Church on earth to which by the
Grace of God we belong, we know that in so doing
we have God, the Truth and the Church on our side;
all of more avail, I ween, than " the opposition of a
science falsely so called." What more, then, do we
want, to give us courage and confidence in the cause
we are called to defend, if at the last we wish to be
found having done our duty ? And we need to do so,
if we wish to stand. For we are not about to pass
through the Red Sea, that we should sit still in
order to " see the salvation of the Lord ;" neither are
we going up to the storming of Jericho, that we should
have only to blow a few trumpets with a more or less
uncertain sound. We are members of the Church
militant, and soldiers of Christ, whose charge we
received in ' sacrament' when we vowed to fight man
fully under His banner : " Be thou faithful unto death,
and I will give thee a crown of life."
XV. True, there is enough to dishearten at the
thought of all that is already lost, either through evil
counsels, heartlessness or indifference ; especially when,
1 "Our Liturgy," says Bishop Bull, "contains the whole religion of the
Church of England : this the popes and bishops of Rome themselves offer to
confirm and establish. Let me now ask this question, Is our Liturgy in itself
a good and safe way of worshipping God, or not ? If not, these popes were to
blame in offering to confirm it : for no subsequent decree of a pope could make
that safe and good, which was not so antecedently. If it were in itself good and
safe, then it is so Btill, though the pope of Rome never confirmed it j and so the
whole religion and reformation of the Church of England is safe and good, by
the plain confession of the pope himself, the infallible judge of the Roman
Church." Vindication, &c. p. 208.

PREFACE. XXXI
looking round one sees what great results would crown
the joint action for good of so great a nation as this.
For instance, the ' Genius et Religio loci,' more venerable
and better worth having than either Germanism with
out German scholarship and research, or than Gallican
inklings without French talent or science, have de
serted Oxford ; not because of a few crying abuses set
right, but amazed at her new form ; who will now re
call them to their hallowed and wonted haunts ? The
Church misses whole flocks of her sheep from the
fold, who will now bring them back ? Some, indeed,
may rejoice in the work of their own hands, but the
better part of the nation mourns, and will yet mourn
over greater losses, unless a spirit of wisdom be given
equal to the interests at stake and to the weal. of a
great people. Nevertheless, much evil may yet be
averted, and great good may yet be done by union, by
oneness of motive, by earnestness, and by principle,
in keeping and holding together " things that are ready
to die ;" till Faith and godliness again become the
badge of the nation. For true Religion alone can
hold and bind together into one solid edifice, the pre
vious stones of national energy, valour, honesty, sense,
steadiness, endurance, enterprise, intelligence, firmness,
loyalty, patience, manliness and generosity ; while ir-
religion, irreverence and scepticism, are the dry rot
that may soon reduce all these fine materials into a
ruinous heap.
XVI. To that intent, earnest Churchmen who do not
make light of the gravest matters ought to lay aside small
differences between themselves — what do they signify ?
— and sink all their private feelings and petty motives
into the one common object of defending the Church,
and with her the nation — against those who from within

XXxii PREFACE.
strive to level her fences; against the encroachment
of Romanism, alive as it is to the present opportunity
of disunion in the Church ; and against scepticism and
false-philosophy; and they shall be blessed in their
deed. All this is no figure of speech ; for while union
in the Church and unity of motive would make her
invincible, her enemies know well that if they can
breed divisions and dissensions within her, they may
then rule if they like. Only compare Jerusalem be
sieged by the Assyrian host, with Jerusalem besieged
by Titus, and learn that it is no time for small bicker
ings when the enemy is at the breach ; but it is then,
if ever, time to be at one and to defend the City.
And such a City, too ! If she were to be built, it
would be an honour even to draw her stones, and to
work at her walls ; but she was built long since, on the
Rock which alone shall abide while heaven and earth are
passing away. Yea, we may tell the towers thereof and
watch at her gates ; all we have to do is to love and
to defend her. " In confidence," indeed, " and in quiet
ness is our strength ;" but we show our earnestness by
the way we quit ourselves under our Master's eye.
"Our help," truly, "is in the name of the Lord;"
but He watches to see what efforts we make to deserve
His help. And since we have no leaders to look to,
for every day's experience teaches us to " cease from
man," — our safety lies wholly in the uprightness and
devotion with which we look unto the Captain of our
Salvation, " unto the author and finisher of our faith,
who for the joy that was set before him endured the
cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right
hand of the throne of God." We are also " compassed
about with a great cloud of witnesses" who look to see
how we either run the race set before us, or wrestle

PREFACE. XXX111

for the prize, and win our crown. Let us then, think
of " the Faith once delivered to the saints," to " those
same spirits of just men made perfect," who believed,
who endured, and who now are at rest. Their Faith,
our Faith, changes not with the times, as certain
teachers fondly talk ; albeit times do change ; since
we are now come to those foretold by the Holy Apostle,
when " men cannot endure sound doctrine, but heap
unto themselves teachers, having itching ears ; and
turning away their ears from the truth, are turned unto
fables." Yet the Faith abides unchanged; "always
new," says S. Cyril,1 because it is the Faith of Him
" who is the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever."
But if leaders fail us, we have bright examples set
before us, by S. Ignatius, S. Athanasius, S. Ambrose,
of the Church Catholic ; by Cranmer, by Ridley, by
Jewel, by Hooker, and by other fearless and manly
defenders of their Church. Those men counted the
reproach of Christ a greater honour than the favour
or the smiles of their fellow-creatures ; their Faith was
indeed to them " the substance of things hoped for,
the evidence of things not seen ;" they suffered, they
even died for it. But we " have not yet resisted unto
blood" — nay, our life is one of ease and of rest com
pared with theirs ; shall our Lord, then, send us per
secution, in order to see whether our Faith is to us as
dear, yea, dearer than life, and we, proved worthy of
the trust committed to us ? The blood, the ashes of
those witnesses for the Truth must have left a germ of
their life in the land ; a remnant of more than seven
thousand who have not bowed the knee to the Baal of
worldly opinion and scepticism ; men who serve God
' ecp&ppe rtOTTOeiaj rUJUl. S. Cyr. Ep. in Zoega Codd. Sah.
p. 278. c

XXXIV PREFACE.

and their generation, but not the times ; who do not
leave it to others to settle for them what will be here
after, being too busy to think of it for themselves, but
whose Faith is to them a reality, persuaded as they
are, of what they believe from the Word of God;
who are not " carried about, like children, with every
wind of doctrine," but whose Hope is the sheet-anchor
of their soul, that holds them fast through sorrows and
through storms, to the yet unseen shores of an ever
lasting Kingdom. There must be a host of such men,
worthy of their sires in Faith and in courage. If only
they were as much at one among themselves, to defend
that which ought to be dear to them, as their adversaries
are in striving to wrench it from them — things would
be very different from what they are. Even now the
united prayers and efforts of honest Churchmen might
yet, perhaps, save the Church, and hand her down
whole to those that shall come after ; instead of leav
ing to them as their probable inheritance to weep
over her ruins.
XVI. Therefore, even though we fail, let us at least
have the answer of a good conscience that we have done
our duty ; every one of us for himself. It is not by the
amount of work done that our Master measures our
services ; it is by the uprightness and honesty with
which we do Him service. Of course, we must suffer
and endure ; this is a part of the service, wherein
consists our being "faithful soldiers and servants."
But we are prepared for it. Not only were we warned
long since that " all that will live godly in Christ shall
suffer persecution, but the taunts and ridicule with which
we are made daily familiar by men who seem unable to
view things sacred in any but a worldly light, show us
plainly that abuse is harmless ; that it is no argument,

PREFACE. XXXV

but only the sting of misgivings in a bad cause. We will
therefore, bear it, if need be ; not as being holier and
better in our own eyes than those from whom we differ,
albeit they falsely say so of us ; but as counting most
dear that which they do not value, and as acting on an
inward, living principle which they care not to have.
If then, we be reviled, so was our Master before us ;
if we be hated or despised, He bids us rejoice, for so
was He also ; if at times we feel disheartened or cast
down, let us think of Him saying for our sakes : My
soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death — and take
courage. And if none of these things move us ; if
we be manly, faithful, and seek " not to please men,
but to be servants of Christ ;" if for the sake of His
glorious Name we quit ourselves according to our
strength, like men, " making full proof of our minis
try," and save at least a portion of a noble and gene
rous people, from error and unbelief, and from the
low morality that follows, we may then look for our
Master's return and for His reward. And since the
contention to which we are subject is not a battle of
human opinions, but a controversy between the Truth
and those who gainsay it, let us bear and forbear, as
men serving God and not their own selves, and avoid
mixing up individuals with the sentiments in them
which we disapprove ; that our antagonism be one of
principle and not of party spirit ; and so that our con
science may acquit us of every feeling save that of an
honest wish to defend the Truth for Christ's sake ;
not only because it is our duty so to do, but because
of the people committed to our charge " as having to
give account."
XVII. Such is my motive in offering a few remarks
on a work by the Dean of Westminster which has given

XXXVI PREFACE.

rise to contention in the Church. I have chosen it
with preference to every other, not only because it
has higher claims than others to our attention and re
spect for the sake of its author, from whom no one
would wish needlessly to differ, but also, because treat
ing, as it does, of the History contained in the Bible,
and being addressed to candidates for Holy Orders, it
must, of course be at once, the most important, the
most earnest, and the most accurate book of the sort ;
and therefore fittest for the study of the philosophy
which is now the fashion, and which we are told to
reconcile with the Bible ; " the sooner the better for
the clergy of the land."
At all events, we hear so much of this philo
sophy, that since, after all, the teachers thereof do
not tell us wherein it consists, we are left, in self-
defence, to try and find it out for ourselves. The
more so, indeed, as it seems to be the key-note of
all intellect, ability, and knowledge of the present
day ; so that it is worth our while to examine it
and see, whether we too must adopt it, or, whether
we may not still keep to our own primitive Faith and
to our old-fashioned love and reverence for the Bible,
without for all that, finding ourselves outside the pale
of intelligence or of common sense. I therefore bring
together as a starting point, a few principles common
to all kinds of philosophy, both ancient and modern ;
to which my readers may turn occasionally in order to
compare them with the new teaching offered ; without
a constant reference to them on my part. And having
done so, I consider in a few plain words how much
of this new doctrine our own philosophy, sense and
experience allow us either to receive or to reject, ac
cording to what we read " in the Scripture of Truth."

PREFACE. XXXV11
My intention was to have reviewed the whole book,
in answer to several inquiries from strangers as well as
from friends, who had been alarmed or startled at some
of the Dean's assertions ; but I found so many more
things to notice than I had expected, that I have been
obliged to limit myself to the first five lectures only.
These, however, will suffice to show that the Truth
has nothing whatever to fear from such ' free inquiry ;'
and that it requires at all times far less earnestness to
differ from the Bible than to agree with it.
And if in this work, written entirely for the occasion,
and, I honestly confess, with grief at having to vindi
cate Truths dear to our innermost hearts and souls
from the insinuations of a high dignitary, as well as with
mortification for the credit of my own University at
having to correct, in many simple matters, the teach
ing of one of her Regius Professors, I have myself
fallen into error, I shall be truly obliged to any one
who will point it out to me, in an honest and manly
spirit. The cause at issue and the interests at stake
are both so far above any personal considerations, that
I shall be satisfied if the Truth be established, and I
proved in the wrong ; though, of course, only by men
who will fairly read this book, study the subject, and
then judge of it for themselves. At the same time
I am well aware that in this case I may seem to
some to write to little purpose. To some, perhaps ;
but not to all. To many, whose manly spirit raises
them above the meanness of prejudice, the Truth
is yet greatest; and fair play still a jewel. I write
for them ; and if I can reclaim only one mind from
doubt to Faith, and from scorn to reverence and wor
ship for the Bible, I shall have worked to good pur
pose ; for I write to help Christians in doubt to set

XXXV1U PREFACE.

themselves right, and not to refute infidels and scep
tics, of whose state of mind I can form no idea whatever.
Truth, we know, did not at first prevail on the plain
of Dura ; and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego had
no chance of being heard while the cornet, sackbut,
and dulcimer sounded, and the shouts of the multitude
rang the praises of the golden image King Nebuchad
nezzar had set up. Yet, whether heard or not, they
were in the right ; and, strong in that feeling, they
would rather abide true to their Faith, alone, and only
three, and that too, in the fiery furnace in company
with the Son of God, than wait with a crowd around the
king's table. They believed, they trusted, they won ;
because they feared Him most at Whose Word even
the King of Babylon trembled. And He still is the
Living God.
For, as there was then, so also now there is, the
same principle holier and deeper, the same Faith more
precious, and the same Hope more sure and stead
fast, than anything this world can either promise or
give.
S. C. Malan.
Broad Windsor,
December 20, 1864.

CONTENTS.

PAGE
Inteoduction ...... 1 — 11

LECTURES ON THE JEWISH CHURCH.
Pbeface ....... 11 — 23
Inteoduction ...... 23 — 65
Lbctttee I. . . . . . . . 65 — 131
II. ... 131—169
» III  169—175
IV  175—236
„ V  236—279
PLAIN WORDS ON QUESTIONS OF THE DAT REGARDING
FAITH, THE BIBLE, AND THE CHURCH.
Belief and Faith ...... 282—321
Man's greatest good, and God's message to
him ..... i. — iv.
Man's original and actual state . . . v. — vii.
Nature" and work of Faith. . . . viii. — xx.
Nature and work of the intellect . . xxi. — xxxi.
Inquiry carried on in Faith, not free, but re
verent ..... xxxii.
God's government of man through Faith xxxiii. — xxxv.
The Truth received through Faith . . xxxvi. — xxxviii.
Revelation and the Bible .... 321 — 372
Necessity of a Revelation . . . xxxix. — xli.
Revelation supernatural to man, but not to God xlii. — xliii.
On inspiration .... xliv. — xlix.
On inspiration as applicable to the Bible . 1. — lviii.

lviii.-

-lxi.

Ixii.

lxiii.-

-Ixiv.

lxv.-

— lxviii.

Xl CONTENTS.
On the Scripture account of the Creation
On pre- Adamites ....
On the Flood .....
On the formation of species
Excellence of the Bible, considered only in a
literary point of view . . . lxix.
Comparison between the faithful Christian
and the philosopher . . . lxx. — Ixxi.
Practical wort of the Bible . . . lxxii. — lxxiii.
Arguments of philosophers and the Faith lxxiv. — lxxviii.
The Chubch and Clebgy ..... 372—392
On the Church in general . . . lxxix. — lxxx.
On the late Judgment of the Privy Council . Ixxxi. — Ixxxviii.
Duties of the Clergy . . . Ixxxix. — xciii.

ERRATA.
p. 31, 1. 13, for planting the vine at Nyssa read finding the vine at Nysa.
1. 18, for Psammeticus read Psammetichus.
p. 137, 1. 19, for defend it read defend her.
p. 148, note I, for vol. i. read vol. ii.
p. 171, 1. 14, for Volterrse read either Volaterrse or Volterra.
p. 261, 1. 21, for Dystras read Dystrus.
p. 286, 1. 7, for o.vt)i read aSrq, and for sbp&xiXoylas read evptcnAoyias.

PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH?

Aristotle in his Metaphysics tells us that —
I. The part of a philosopher is to inquire into the real nature,
or truth, of whatever comes under his consideration : ra oWj
j) bv sirn tivu iSnx., xai raur' so~ti Ksp\ div tou <ptb.oo-o(f>ov eirio-x^ao"Scti
rkkrfii

i

But since —
II. The absolute term ' to be' is said in various ways, either
as an accident, or, as real essence, the several modifications or
acceptations of this term, form the several categ6ries of ' what/
' what sort/ &C. : a\\' hnsi to o-j to unt'Kw$ Xeyofisvov XiytTou no\-
Xayjai;? cov %v f/.£V r\V to xolto, tru^/Ss/Sfjxo'f, stsoov Is to tag aXvfiks,
xai to fj,ij oy di; to \J/sSSof, napa. tclvtu 8' icrri t<* o~yjr\\i.a.Ta. tyj;
xuT^yogla;, olov to ft,h t'i, to 8s nolov, to 8e ttoo-ov, to 8e irov, to 8e
ttotI, xa) s'l Tt oiWo o-yficdvsi T0V TpOTtOV TOUTOV.3
The real philosopher then, 6 ovtcus QiXoo-otpo; studies irwg \£y=Tut
to ov how ' to be' is either predicated, or understood of every
single category, without confounding one with the other, since —
III. His object and purpose is, to occupy himself with1 ' good
sense in the contemplation of truth : fiouKiTai iregi <p§ovrjo-iv elvw
xa) tjjv Seaplctv Tr\v %eq\ aAijfleiav.4 And this, too, whatever be the
particular branch of philosophy to which he devotes himself ;
whether to the r}6ixov} tpua-txbv or SiuKexTixov (ufyo;, to the moral,
1 Metaph. iii. 2, 12.
2 iroWaxus iiXv, afOC airav vpis'/j.iav apx^", variously irldeed, but always ;with
reference to one and the same principle, id. iii. 2, 3.
3 Metaph. v. 2, 1.
4 Eth. Eudem. i. 4, 3.

2 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ?
natural, or dialectic branch thereof. But in none is the real
•philosopher more in earnest in his search after Truth, than in
theology, which is the first of all kinds of philosophy ; for —
(a) There are three branches of contemplative philosophy,
mathematics, physics, and theology. Of all sciences the con
templative are preferable ; and of these, theology is the first :
hjote Tpel; mi eisv $(Xocroip/a( fle«ip>jTtxai, y.aftr\y.aT\xr), ajoo-ixij,1
SsoAoyix^ — al [x.ey ovv Sicopyrixu) tuiv a.\Xuiv imoTi]jtia>v otlpsToiTspou,
UUTVj 8s tu>v flsH)pVJT»)Ca)1/.2
The search after Truth, then, of whatever kind, is the delight
of the real philosopher ; for his occupation, <pi\oo-o<pia. —
IV. Philosophy is, according to Pythagoras, a desire, a long
ing for Truth, and as it were the love of wisdom :3 opifc xa)
olove) <J>»a/« o-oQla;, of wisdom, which is but the science of what
is true in the essence of things ; cro$iav 8s eXeysv shut liri<r-
T^ftrjv t% ev toTj oucn aAyj^s/aj.*
Since then —
V. Wisdom, ^ o-o$/a, may be termed the most exact (or accu
rate) of all sciences, r| axpifiEo-TaTr) a.v tuiv Iwio-Trjfuaiy e")],5 — it
is of all sciences —
(a) The one most to be chosen for its own sake, and for the
sake of a clear perception, Tr)v ai>Tr); svsxev xou tou e!8£vai %apn
ulpSTYjV o5o"«v'6
(b) Said to be ' understanding with science,' Ixxtt eTij av ^ a-ofla
vov; xa) Iti-jot^)]' — I£ k7110-Trjfj.ru xa' vou o-uyxsijU.sv>)'s
(c) A science relating to certain causes and principles, wsgi
Tiva; aiTiaj xa) kpya.^
1 " As a tree that bears no fruit is useless," says Philo, (De Nom. Mut. p. 1056,)
" so also is physiology of no use unless it be the means of acquiring virtue j for
this is the fruit thereof, nfravaffr<tv<u biro Trjs vepl rhv kSct/jlov Stwplas irpbi tV
tou 7rc7roi7j/c(fTos ^irKrnfottjv, to proceed from the contemplation of the world, to
the knowledge of Him Who made it." A hint, or a rebuke, to sundry naturalists
of the present day.
2 Metaph. v. 1, 10.
3 Although ffo(p(a and ' wisdom' have no etymological affinity, and do not
exactly render each other, they must yet be taken in their popular relation, the
one to the other.
4 Iamblich. de V. Pythag. xxix, p. 57, ed. Mull.
0 Eth. Nicom. vi. 7, 2. 6 Metaph. i. 2, 3.
1 Eth. Nicom. vi. 7, 2. s Eth. Magn. i. 35, 11.
11 Metaph. i. 1, 17.

PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH f O
(d) Of the understanding searching into the principles of
things ; vou; IWi tcov apj^aiv,1 that is, irsp) to.; agya; t&v vo>jr«Jv
xa) twv ovtwv,2 into the principles of things • of the intellect
aod essential.
So then —
(e) Philosophy contributes towards the acquisition of wisdom,
since it is the cultivation of wisdom ; and wisdom is the science
of things divine, of things human, and of the causes relating
thereto : <piXoo-o<pla. (erujx/3a\AETai) mgo; o-o<J>i'«j xTrjo~iv. eoti yap
<pi\o<ro4>la Ittit^Seuo-ij a-o®la;, vcty'ia 8s, l-nit; Tr)p.r\ 3eicov xa) avtigm-
ttIvcuv xa) Tain toutcov aiTicov.3
VI. Therefore is the well informed philosopher bound to per
ceive, not only what may be deduced from principles, but also,
to ascertain the truth as regards the principles themselves :
Aii aga tov o-oQov (J.r) p.6vov to. ex twv ap^iov si5sv«i, aXKa. xa) neg)
to.; apya; a\r\$evsiv. So also —
(a) The more accurate a man is in his knowledge of causes,
and the better able he is to teach them, the better informed do
we also think him, whatever be the science he treats : eti tov
axgtfieo-Tigov (mo\uu.3avof/.£v) xa) tov 8i8acrxaA.ixcurEf>ov tZv a'niuiv
croQcoTepov elvat nepi tiaa-av £7ri<TT})//.i]v.*
(b) For it is the part of a well educated man to investigate
everything after its kind, as accurately as the nature of it will
allow : 7rS7rai8EUfiEi/0D yap Io"tiv eti to<toDtov Taxptfis; etti^teiv xa&'
hxarrTOV ysvo;, £<p' 0(rov r\ tou •npayu.aTO; $60-1; e7T|8e^6T«i.5 On the
other hand —
(c) The proof of a want of education is, not to be able to
discern what belongs to a subject from what does not : awai-
Ssvo~la yap lo"Ti weji sxuo-tov irpayp-a to jj.y) $vvao~6at xplviiv tou; t'
olxnov; Koyou; tov wpa.yfj.aTo; xa) tou; a.h\OTpiou;.®
VII. Wherefore, it behoves him who is best informed on a
subject, to be able to give the most solid principles thereof; as
it also befits him who studies the essence of things, to be able
to state the most solid general principles ; for such is the philoso
pher : Trpoa-rjxst 8s tov ft-aXurTa yvcopltyvTa nig) exao-Tov ykvo; s^eiv
Xeysiv Ta; j3s/3aiOTaT«; ap%aj tou ¦Kp'jyp.a.Ta;, cua-re xa) tov irep) tuiv
1 Eth. Nicom. vi. 7, 2. s Eth. Magn. i. 35, II.
3 Philo de Congr. Quer. p. 435. 4 Metaph. i. 2, 2.
5 Eth. Nicom. i. 3, 4. 6 Eth. Eudem. i. 6, 6.

4 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ?
ovTiav >j ovt« to.; vaVTtov /3e/3«iot«t«j. Eo-ti o" outoj 6 (piXoVo^os-1
and —
(a) We then know best, when the subject of our investiga
tion cannot possibly be otherwise than we make it out to be :
xa) tots {AaXto-TU 1o-fj.ev OTav /aijxeti dwap^Q touto ot» aKKo?
Whence —
(b) The proof that we really know a thing is, that we are
able to teach it : oXeoj to o->)f*e(ov tou siSotoj to IvvucrQai SiSojo-xsiv
3 / a
£0"T1V. VIII. Therefore is it necessary that he, who investigates like
a philosopher, should know scientifically what is true, that is,
the Truth, as regards the subject be considers ; lest, consulting
his own opinion, and trusting unreasonably to the words or to
the reasons of others, without examining for himself into the
truth of them, he, at the same time, either miss his object, or
be obliged to wander from one subject to another : sttsiSij t«j
$iAoo~o<£ ouvti — avayxaiov lo"T*v EWiorijftovixoSf yiviao-xsiv, tj to ahytls;,
'iva fir), to^ao-Tixcb; auTou; iipoa-$a/\\tav, xai ctKoyta; toij \eyoutriv
mo-TSUcov aveu jxafiijo-Ecoj, ajj.a jj.lv diafxapTavri, au.a 8e «XAot' lir'
aWtp peTujUaiveiv avayxa^eTai.* For —
(a) A wise, that is, a well-informed man or philosopher, ought
not to be imposed upon by others, but rather to influence them ;
neither should he be easily persuaded ; since it is rather for him
to persuade others less informed than himself: ou yap Ssiv brt-
TOLTTEO-Qat tov orofov a\\' lltlTaTTHV, xa) OU TOVTOV ETSgCO wsiflso"0ai,
kWa toutco tov rjrrov cropo'v.5
(b) This, however, requires great discretion. For there are
men who, because it looks philosopher-like to say nothing at
random, but everything with reason, often say unwittingly many
things foreign to the purpose and empty. They do this either
from ignorance or from vanity. Ashat //.ei/toi touto woXX^f
suXafiila;. El?) yap tivej o\ 8<a to Soxslv ipiXoo-o'^ou sivai to p.rfih
eixy Keysiv aKha ju-STa Koyou, itoWaxi; Aavflavouo"! Asyovrsj aWo-
Tpiou; \oyou; Tr); ¦npayfj.aTeia; xa) xsvouj. Touro 8e ttoioSo-iv ote
jj,sv 8i' ayvoiav ots 8s 8i' aAa!(ovsiav.6
The real philosopher then searches after the true principles
1 Metaph. iii. 3, 6, 7. 2 Anal. Post. i. 24, 7. » Metaph. i. 1, 12.
4 Simplic. Comm. in Epict. Enchir. p. 326, ed. Salm. 5 Metaph. i. 2, 3.
0 Eth. Eudem. i. 6, 4.

PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 5
of things, not only because he loves Truth, to aXrfe;, for its own
sake, but because Truth, to Sv y ov, which is an unchanging
principle does not, as some seem to think, depend on the opinion
of men. For —
IX. What is true, cannot, with reason, be decided by the
opinion of the many, or of the few ; since the same thing when
tasted, appears to some sweet, and to others bitter : to fj.lv yap
ahrfil; ou itXrfin XplvscrQai o'loVTai wgoo->jxsiv ouSe oXiyoTryri, to 8' aurb
to~i; fj.lv y\uxu ysuo/Asvoij Soxsiv sivai, toTj 8s wixpo'v.1
(a) So little trouble will most men take in searching after
truth ; but will, rather, turn aside to what is ready at hand :
ourai; aTa\amtapo; to~i; iroKhol; i) ^Tyo-i; tjjj aXrfisla;, xa) iv) to.
h-oifj-a fj.a.XKov TpknovTai? " Nam sic est vulgus, ex veritate
pauca, ex opinione multa sestimat."3 For such is the multitude ;
it judges of things seldom according to what they really are, but
chiefly by the opinion of others. Wherefore —
(b) The judgment of ten good men is more weighty and of
more consequence, than that of a whole multitude without ex
perience : " Gravior et validior est decern virorum bonorum sen-
ten tia, quam totius multitudinis imperitse."4 For — •
(c) Custom serves for the opinion of the multitude ; but wise
and well-informed men speak according to nature and according
to truth : 6 ju-sv yag vo'fj,o; lotja ton TroAAaiv, ol 8s o-ofo) xara $ uViv
xa) xar aXrfinav Asyoucriv.5
(d) But Truth, in its practical influence over a man, is judged
by his works, and by the tenour of his life ; for, in these, it
should be supreme : To 8' aXvjfls; lv toTs ispaxToi; ex twv epycov xa)
tou (3'tou xplvsrar lv tovtoi; yap to xvpiov.6 And then, it shows
itself in more ways than one. In scholarship, the man who
loves Truth for Truth's sake, will be painstaking, and, as far as
in him lies, accurate ; and he will not meddle with what he
cannot ascertain for himself. In learning he will be sound ; in
statements, correct and trustworthy; in his reasonings, con
scientious; and in his conclusions, straight-forward. He cares
little for appearance ; he loves reality. Not so, however, with
him who has not the love of Truth. In his scholarship, he will
1 Metaph. iii. 5, 8. 2 Thucyd. i. 20.
3 Cic. pro Rose. Com. 4 Id. pro Plane.
5 Sophist. Elench. 12, 9. 6 Eth. Nicom. x. 8, 12.

6 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ?
be slip-shod and careless ; in his learning, shallow ; in his state
ments, uncertain ; in his reasoning, hasty ; and in his conclu
sions, crooked. So that he be not found out, but have the
reputation of having the gifts in which he is lacking, he cares
little for the result. Such a man knows not what this means —
to sacrifice everything to the highest and most sacred principle
in man — the love of Truth.
It is this love of Truth, nevertheless, that distinguishes the
real philosopher, 6 ovtoi; tptx6<ro<po;, from the sham or made up
one, 6 7rKao-Tu>; ^iXoVoipof, and from the sophist, croipjo-T>)j, who is
yorytr); xa) TioXuxs^aXo;, as Plato calls him.
X. And this is evident ; for both dialecticians and sophists
put on the same outward appearance as the philosopher (for
sophistry is but apparent philosophy.) Sophistry, we see, and
dialectics take up the same subjects as philosophy; but real
philosophy differs from the one in the measure of power, and
from the other, in the relative object of life. For dialectics
attempt and discuss the subjects which philosophy seeks to know
thoroughly ; and sophistry has only the appearance, but is not.
2r]fj,siov 8s" ol yag SiocAextixoi xa) o"0$io"Tai Taurov fj.lv tnroSuowai
tryy[\La- T<$ <piXoo~6<pca (f) yag croQiio-Tixr) (paivofxevrj jj,6vov voty'ia eoti.)
— lisp) fj.lv yag to aiiTO ysvof o~T§s$STai i) o"0^io"tjx^ xa) r) Siatex-
tixjj TJ) <J>»Aoo"o<p>i'a, aXXa 8;a<f>spE( ty); fj.lv Tin Tponio Tr\; iuva/j.sa;,
Trt; 8e tou |3iou TJj upoaipkosi' " Egti Se i) ZiaXexTtxi) wefpaarnxr)
nig) wv i) <piXo<ro(pia yvcagio-Ttxr), i\ Se o-oajxarixij <f>aivofJ.evrj, ouira
S'oS.' For, as with some men it is more to their purpose to appear
to be wise than to be such in reality, without the appearance of
being so, (for sophistry is only sham wisdom, without any
reality ; and the sophist is but a trafficker in feigned philosophy,)
it is, clearly, of importance to those men to appear to be doing
the work of a philosopher, rather than really to do it without
having the mere appearance of being thus engaged : 'Ens) 8' eoti
tio-i fj.ah.Xov irpl Ipyou to Soxeiv eivai o-o<J> o~t; r) to sivai xa) fj,r) Soxsiv
(eoti yag i) <ro$icrnx^ <patvofJ.evri croQta ouo-a 8' ou, xa) 6 o-o^iotijs
XpYlfj.aTto-Tri; am a)aivo|«ivt)f <ro$i'a$ aXX' oux ouo~i);) SrjAov oft avay-
xaiov TouTot; xa) to tou vo^ou egyov Soxsiv mtslv fj.uXXov Sj ttoisiv xa)
fj.i) Soxsiv.2 1 Metaph. iii. 2, 19—21. 1 Sophist. Elench. i. 6.

PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 7
But, a man must have a very high opinion of his own attain
ments, as well as a very mean idea of wisdom, o-o<pia, of know
ledge and of science, who calls himself a philosopher. For,
6 Cronos flscopsi — oVco av rroQiliTepo; $ fj.aXXov, he who loves wisdom,
contemplates in order that he may become yet wiser ; and he
goes on advancing, wgoxonTii. Yet, the more he advances, the
more also does his horizon widen, or recede from him ; and the
space he has measured is, to him, as nothing compared with
what lies before him. The more he knows, the less he thinks
so. For, in searching after Truth, to aXr\bl;, the abstract prin
ciple applicable to all things, or after the Truth, t^v aXyQeiav, as
regards ourselves — the knowledge of God as He is, infinite, is
inaccessible to the intellect of man left to its own resources ;
and the knowledge of God as He revealed Himself to us in His
Word is fathomless ; so that the work of the philosopher, whether
heathen or Christian, never ceases. As his object is infinite, so
is his progress endless, and it ceases only in death. In this
sense, then, it is true that — outco tov eti irgoxowToVTa, 4>iAoVo<£ov
As'yEiv, vJ/euSoj, it is false to say of a man, who is still advancing
in knowledge, that he is a philosopher,1 albeit he may be called
such for his love of study and of learning — to' ys <^iXojj.a6l; xa)
(fnAoVocfiov Tauro'v,2 being Q>tXdo-o<p o; ty)v §ua-iv, a philosopher by
nature. The honest search after Truth, then, makes the philo
sopher ; the object of his life being, in the highest sense, accord
ing to Plutarch's definition of Aristotle's doctrine — 3
(a) To contemplate the things which are real, and to practise
what he ought : ^ewgryrixo; sivai tuiv ovtwv xa) irpaxTtxo; tu>v
hovTcov. And his philosophy becomes —
(6) The constant practice, or exercise, of an art suited to the
acquisition of wisdom, ao-xtjo-ij Ts^vrj; <ro<$>ia ettidjSsi'ou — wisdom
being, according to the Stoics —
(c) The science of things divine and of things human, Sslwv
xa) avdganrivuiv h:ia-Tr)ij,r\.i
XI. Men's opinion, then, affects but little the real philo
sopher. <PiXoo-o$u>v yag r$r) afj.a fj.lv, ty)v osauTou svcrrao-iv <f>uAa£eij
1 Simplic. Comm. in Epict. Ench. c. lxix. p. 310.
5 Plato, Rep. ii. 16, ed. Lond.
3 De Placit. Phil. Lib. i. Proem, vol. ix. p. 469, ed. Reiske.
4 Ibid. p. 468.

8 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ?
el; eauTov sKeo-Tgafj.fj.evo;, afj.a 8s xa) xg.Trpi osauTou osauTOV 'ifa;,
xaXxiova twv noXXwv. By thinking in earnest, and as it becomes
a philosopher, he will at the same time keep up his own way of
life, and being concentrated within himself, he will become his
own judge; a far better one than all the rest.1
But as regards nsXao-Tw; a>iAoa-o'(J>ous, sham philosophers, they
are very soon satisfied with their own progress, with their know
ledge, and with themselves. Their horizon is bounded by their
own conceit, and they soon come to their journey's end, in their
search after Truth. As they love their own selves more than the
sacred, unchangeable, eternal principle of to aXrfis;, Truth — so
also they value their own opinion and that of others above real
wisdom, Mr) ouv ti i:Xr\fj.fj,eXr\o-OfJ.sv QiXoSoj-ou; xaXouvTs; aurov;
lf.aXXov i) QiXoo-oQov; ; shall we then be far wrong, asks Plato, in
calling them lovers of men's opinion rather than lovers of wis
dom ? Toutou; yap to <f>iAo'8o|-ov xai ptiSsixtixov ivo^Asi na&o;,
yea, such men are hindered by their passion for men's opinion
of them and for show.2 The noise of the multitude around
them drowns the soft whispers, the faint but sure echoes of a
land unseen ; true messengers from a world to come, to which
the ovtw; QiXo'o-oQo; loves to listen within, in secret, and far from
the noise of men.
The difference, then, between true and sham philosophers in
general, depends not only on their respective «g%ai principles,
and on the o-Toiyeia, the elements of their respective studies, but
also on their respective -ngoa[peo-%; tou (3iov, on the course of life
they propose to themselves. Hence the various sects, alpso-si;,
of philosophy in olden times ; hence also the difference between
the greatest men of allied schools ; as, for instance, between
Aristotle and Plato ; the former of a vast, powerful, but hard
intellect, from which he would withhold nothing, treating of
theology, as he would of physics — ou yap aSrjXov iri e" wou to
6eiov uwapxei lv tjj ToiauVjj <$uVsi tmap^ei,3 instead of making like
Plato and Philo, his <f>uo-ioAoyi'a a step towards the knowledge
of God. The latter, of an intellect equally marvellous, but
more refined, and that did exercise a greater influence over his
moral character; was in so much a greater man than Aristotle,
1 Simplic. Comm. in Epict. Ench. c. xxx. p. 141.
2 Simplic. Comm. p. 310. s Metaph. v. 1, 10.

PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 9
as he saw and acknowledged how far his intellect alone could
take him ; confessing he saw but dimly what his spirit did long
to penetrate — aQaipsfaw, site (3ouXsTai tjjv a%Xvv eite aAAo ti, w;
syw ¦jrapscrxeuao-fj.ai fj,rfilv av <puyelv twv irgoo-TaTTOfj,evwv — el ye
fj,eXXotfj.i /3sAtioiv yiveoSai. " Let him who cares for me, remove
the dimness, or whatever else it be, from my mind ; for I am
ready to shrink from nothing he may command, if only I may
be made a better man thereby."1 A lasting proof of how true is
the record of Socrates : art r; avdpunrivrj o-o<pla oxiyov tivo? a%la
Io-t) xa) oufavo;, " that human wisdom is worth very little, even
nothing at all ;"2 and one that justifies S. Paul in the eyes of
even men of the world, for asking, " Where is the wise ? — hath
not God made foolish the wisdom of this world ? For after that
in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it
pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that
believe."3 Not even Plato's mind could make light out of darkness, nor
find out that which " no man can take unto himself except it be
given him from heaven," namely, "the grace of God that
bringeth salvation, and hath appeared unto all men, teaching
us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live
soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world ; looking
for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great
God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for
us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto
Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."4 He came
and by His appearing " He brought life and immortality to light
through the Gospel," and He thus placed philosophy upon a
new footing. KaTapyr)o-a; tov davxrov, He laid low the king of
terrors, of which even Socrates said, he wist not which of the
two it was to reiveivM, to be dead, whether a sleep or a transmi
gration of his soul ; albeit he reckoned it 8aufj.ao-Tov xsglo;,\ a
wonderful gain, to look upon death as only one night.5 And
our Lord Jesus Christ q>»t»o-«$ X,wr\v xa) a<pQapo-luv, having
brought life and immortality to light, for ever scattered the
gloom that brooded over this benighted world, ere He rose as
1 Alcib. see. 23, ed. Lond. s Apol. Socr. par. 9, ed. Lond.
3 1 Cor. i. 20, 21. 4 Tit. ii. 11—14.
5 Apol. Socr. par. 82, ed. Lond.

10 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH?
Sun of Righteousness, bidding His beloved rejoice in the heal
ing beams of His heavenly Light.
To that Light He bade them turn their eyes, telling them
that, as in Him and through Him alone there is now no more
death, so also they ought no longer to look for the living among
the dead ; but to rise heavenwards on the wings of Faith and of
Hope in His promise of Eternal Life through Him. He told
them to set their affections on things above, and " in patience
to possess their souls," until He come to open the gates of
Heaven, and bid them enter in and take possession of the in
heritance which He purchased for them at the price of His pre
cious Blood.
Therefore, if a man be in Him, he is indeed a new creature ;
old things are, for ever, passed away; behold all things are
become new. A new faith, ay, a faith in Him which is " the
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
— was, at His coming, given to those who were straying in doubt
or in despair ; and a new and glorious hope was also set before
them, " as an anchor of the soul, sure and stedfast," to bind the
frail bark of their existence on earth to the yet unseen shores of
Eternity. Thus did men receive new principles, xaiva; apya;,
and new materials xaiva o-Toi^sia, wherewith to begin here on
earth the building of their house not made with hands, eternal
in the heavens, beyond the reach of waste and of decay ; all of
which result from xaivij aiTi'a, from a cause new to them, " to
wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself,
not imputing their trespasses unto them."
It is therefore evident that, since heathen philosophers were
searching after the Truth in which the Christian philosopher
lives, he finds himself in another state of things ; and far be
yond the uttermost point at which his heathen teachers could
ever bring him. He may, indeed, avail himself of the same frame
work of thought, as far as that will serve, and thank them for
their help thus far ; but he cannot start from the same principles
as those from which they started, either in his 6ewpla twv ovtwv,
in his contemplation of things that be, most of which are become
new ; or in his wga^i; twv fadvTwv, in his practice of duties which
ought now to be performed on far higher grounds than heathens
could ever have dreamt of, — without his denying the Faith, and

PRKF. P. VIII.J PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 11
acting in a manner derogatory from his character of a Christian ;
thus going back to what may truly be called by comparison,
Ta ao-flsvij xai itTwya o-TOiyCia, " the weak and beggarly elements''
of a state of things past long ago. In so doing, the Christian
philosopher plays false to his eva-Tao-i;, to his position as believer
in a Revelation which he cannot deny without forfeiting alto
gether his Christian character ; and he places himself relatively
to the ovtw; Xpto-Tiavo; $tXoo-o$o;, to the real Christian philo
sopher, exactly in the position of a sophist, whose philosophy
Aristotle or Plato tell us, is a mere pretence ; and whose so
phistry consists in making a false application of the principles
adopted by the real Christian philosopher, who alone is earnest
in his search after the Truth.
Having thus laid down these few general principles of philo
sophy, we will examine how far they are observed in Dean
Stanley's Lectures.

LECTUEES ON THE JEWISH CHURCH.
PREFACE.
I. At the beginning of his Preface Dean Stanley reminds us
that these Lectures were " actually or in substance, addressed to
his usual hearers at Oxford, chiefly candidates for Holy Orders."
We must, therefore, consider them as intended by him for this,
the most important class of his hearers ; for, we cannot for a
moment suppose, that a Regius Professor delivering Lectures on
so sacred a subject, to men whom he taught what to believe and
what to teach others also, would not make these men his first
object, and sacrifice to them the tastes or the interests of the
other and less important part of his audience. We are, there
fore, justified in taking these Lectures as a kind of text-book —
if not, why were they published ? — intended for the rising gene
ration of clergy. We will look at them chiefly in this light, and
I will, as far as I can, point out fairly the merits as well as the
defects I see, mindful of Locke's good advice : " Let not men
that would have a sight of what every one pretends to, desirous

12 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [PREF.
to have a sight of truth in its full extent, be yet narrow and
blind in their own prospect. Let not men think there is no
truth but in the sciences that they study, or the books that they
read. To prejudge other men's notions before we have looked
into them, is not to show their darkness, but to put out our
own eyes."1
II. " In the first place," says Dr. Stanley,2 " the work must
be regarded not as a history, but as Lectures," a mode of in
struction which appeared to him " specially adapted to the sub
jects of which he was to treat ;" and which, " while it avoided
the necessity of a continuous narrative, enabled him to select
the portions most susceptible of fresh illustration and combina
tion," &c. There can, of course, be no objection to this form
of teaching, so that, without being a consecutive narrative it
may yet present a compact whole, an accurate, true view of the
subject in hand, and not merely a string of short essays on
the topics best suited to the fancy of the writer. We will,
therefore, charitably lay much of what appears superficial or
shallow, if not actually trifling, in Dr. Stanley's writing, to the
common acceptation of the term " Lecture," by which is too
often meant an opportunity of saying much about little, and
little or nothing about much that ought to engross our atten
tion. Yet, Lectures should borrow their character from him
who delivers them ; who, if he have duly studied his subject, so
as to be impressed with it, will always endeavour to treat it
worthily and adequately, be the form of his teaching what it
will ; according to R. vi. p. 3. Asl apa tov <ro$ov, &c. ; and
ib. (b) •KEita&eufj.evou yag eotiv, &c
III. Dr. Stanley excuses himself for thus dwelling principally
on certain prominent objects in Jewish History, by referring
his readers for fuller information to the History of the Jews by
Dean Milman, to whose scholarship he pays a just tribute of
praise ; adding, however, somewhat presumptuously :
" whose name has been made dear to all who know the value of a
genuine love of truth and freedom, combined with profound theo
logical learning and high ecclesiastical station."
Manus manum fricat, and the Dean of Westminster's meaning
1 Conduct of the Understanding. Sect. III.

P. VIII.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 13
is very plain ; but unfortunately, it is a contradiction in terms.
For since ' freedom/ eXevkpla, IXsuUpwtn;, is the condition of the
sXeufiepo; am aXXwv, of a man free or freed from others, — eXeu&egov
Se xai io-ov to 6 ti av fiouXrfral ti; ttoisTv,1 who can do what he
likes, it is evident that, when dealing with the Bible, and when
thus searching into the Truth contained in it, we cannot go to
work our own way, but we must needs keep within certain
limits, and follow certain principles, ou ju-evtoi %w tou yevou;,2
so as not to wander from the right path ; since to roam at will,
is not ' to seek.' The pointer is not free from restraint though
it run across the cover ; it is bound by an invisible spell to a
certain track which it follows warily. " Scrutatur vestigia
atque persequitur, comitantem ad feram inquisitorem loro tra-
hens."3 Hence it is called xuaiv i^veutjjj4 — "canis natus ad
indagandum," according to Cicero,5 who uses this term to ex
plain the search after Truth.6 " Omne quod honestum est, id
quatuor partium oritur ex aliqua; aut enim in perspicientia
veri sollertiaque versatur — in qua sapientiam et prudentiam
ponimus, inest indagatio atque inventio veri." Hence, too,
does he style true philosophy which acts according to certain
settled principles which it follows — " virtutis indagatio."7 Free
dom, then, wanders — and often astray ; while true philosophy —
seeks, and often finds.
Our search after Truth, especially after the Truth, cannot be
free, that is, unrestrained; for, we can come at the Truth only
by following the track that leads to it, and not one of our own
choosing; aXX' Spun; el fj.eXXofj.sv sutiatfj-ovrjo-sn, for if we wish to
succeed in our search, says Plato,8 TauTi; i'te'ov, w; to. ij^vij to>v
Ao'ycov $sgsi, we must go in the way the track of analogy leads
us ; treading warily on such a hallowed field as that of abstract
Truth. But when our search is about the Truth contained in
the Bible, then, let us, if we be Christians, put off our shoes
from off our feet, for the place whereon we stand is holy ground.
Let alone, then, common sense, reverence, and faith ; the in
stinct of an animal shows us, that when searching after Truth,
1 Arist. Polit. v. 15. 2 Anal. Post. ii. 13, 2.
3 Plin. N. H. lib. viii. 61. 4 Arrian. de Ven. xxi. 1.
6 De Finib. ii. 39. 6 De Off. ii. 5.
1 Tusc. vi. 69. 3 Rep. Lib. ji. 8, ed. Lond.

14 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [PREF.
free, unrestrained, that is, ungoverned inquiry on our part, may,
indeed, be a proof of our self-will, but, most assuredly, not of
our philosophy.
IV. Dr. Stanley's view of free inquiry leads him, p. viii., ix.,
to say, speaking of the change wrought of late years in the his
tories of Rome and of Greece, that —
" The same change was in a still higher degree needed with re
gard to the history of the Jews. Its sacred character had deep
ened the difficulty already occasioned by its extreme antiquity.
The earliest of Christian heresies — Docetism, or ' phantom wor
ship' — the reluctance to recognise in sacred subjects their identity
with our flesh and blood — in our own time has as completely
closed its real contents to a large part both of religious and irre
ligious readers, as if it had been a collection of fables. Many
who would be scandalised at ignorance of the battles of Salamis or
Cannae, know and care nothing for the battles of Beth-horon and
Megiddo. To search the Jewish records as we would search those
of other nations, is regarded as dangerous. Even to speak of any
portion of the Bible as ' a history' has been described, even by
able and pious men, as an outrage upon religion."
Does Dr. Stanley really consider this a fair and candid state
ment of the case ? He may wish to put Jewish history on a par
with Greek or with Roman records, in his mode of treating them,
thus reasoning from one category to another against R. ii. p. 1.
Bat, whereas to ov, ' to be/ is said iroXXa^w;, in more ways than
one of these several histories, aXX' aizav irpb; fdav agxyv, though
with regard to one common principle, that of each being ' a
history' — yet the iraAo; ouo-ia;,1 the accident of the Jewish his
tory being that of a people chosen from among all other nations
for a particular purpose, makes its history so distinct as to
place it in a category of its own. It cannot, therefore, on sound
principles, be treated like either the Greek, the Roman, or any
other history whatsoever. So that, while greater knowledge,
deeper research were, and are yet, needed in order to throw
more light on the history of the Jewish people, no such change
is required in it as in the histories of Greece and of Rome ; for
in these the change needed, and the change made was, from
1 Metaph. iii. 2, 3.

P. IX.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 15
fable or fiction, to something like tangible reality; whereas
there is neither fable nor fiction in the ' history' contained in
the Bible ; but only ignorance on our part as to sundry details
thereof. It is, therefore, in Dr. Stanley's words, " dangerous to search
Jewish records as we would search those of other nations,"
simply, because it is unphilosophical to treat alike subjects of
such widely different categories. In this, as in everything else,
the work {egyov) depends on the habit of mind (eJij) and on the
preference or choice (wpoaigeo-i$) of him that does it. We may
handle Joseph us or Thucydides as we please; and no greater
harm will probably result from it than some fault or other found
with our scholarship ; and it really is also a matter of profound
indifference to the world at large whether the nymph Egeria did
or did not teach old Numa; or whether, as S. Augustine will
have it,1 he practised ' hydromantia/ or water-magic. But the
man who would handle the history of the Old Testament as he
would handle that fable, would show how little he cared to rest
his search after Truth on the soundest sense, according to R.
iii. p. 1. f3ouXsTat wsg) Qgovino-tv — and how far he had forgotten
Aristotle's precept : lv kxaa-Toi; to ¦up'snov ou yap toutol apfj.6^et
dsoi; xa) avQgwwoi;.2 " Propriety in everything ; the same things
are not suitable for gods and for men."
V. However plain to Dr. Stanley, it is not easy to see the
connection between the Gnostic heresy of the Docetse ; the pe
culiar disposition of certain great but singular men ; and the
present ignorance of events told in the Bible. The Docetism
of the present time consists in worshipping ' phantoms' in the
shape of men, rather than in that of abstract ideas. rfl 61a
xstpaXri' x.t.X. " Oh ! what a head," &c, exclaim the worship
pers. Philo and Origen were, indeed, fanciful men, and so was,
in some respects also, S. Augustine ; who, nevertheless, expresses
himself rightly when he says : " Mihi autem sicut multum
videntur errare, qui nullas res gestas in eo genere literarum
aliquid aliud przeter id quod eo modo gestas sunt significare
arbitrantur : ita multum audere, qui prorsus ibi omnia significa-
tionibus allegoricis involuta esse contendunt."3 But we may
1 De Civ. Dei, lib. iv. c. 22. 2 Eth. Nicom. iv. 5, 17.
3 De Civ. Dei, lib. xvii. c. 3.

16 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [PREF.
rest assured, that none of those men are accountable for the
preference shown for the battles of Salamis and of Cannae, over
those of Beth-horon and of Megiddo. The cause of this lies
elsewhere : first, in the indifference the natural man feels for
God and for His Word ; and next, in the education at some
schools, where boys often used to learn more of the religion of
Rome or of that of Greece, than of their own. Whether things
be different at present, I know not; but I am told, the time was
when, at certain schools, a false quantity or a slip in the pedigreel
of a nymph, was likely to be visited more severely than greater
faults ; and when Greek and Roman Histories were, of course,
taught accurately, but Christian history, any how, or not at all.
As Dr. Stanley moves in a wider world than I do, he may
possibly be a better judge than I am, in saying what, otherwise
would sound very clap-trap ; namely, that —
' * even able and pious men described as an outrage upon religion,
to speak of any portion of the Bible as a history."
This, I confess, takes one quite by surprise; for we had
thought that even Dr. Watts' " Scripture," or " Bible History,"
and other such works, had long been in the hands of people of
all sorts of religious opinions.
VI. Dr. Stanley, however, wishes to correct himself " in pro
testing against this elimination of the historical element from
the sacred narrative," — a thing, which indeed, no right-minded
scholar ever dreamt of doing — when he says
" I shall not be understood as wishing to efface the distinction
which good taste, no less than reverence will always endeavour to
preserve between the Jewish and other histories."
This very proper feeling is incompatible with doing for the
Jewish history, what Niebuhr did for that of Rome. But, if
ably carried out with regard to the history contained in the
Bible, it would indeed be, as says the Dean, " a sign of return
ing healthiness" in such studies ; for we can only gain, as he
justly remarks, by becoming acquainted with the actual scenes
of events with which we are already familiar in writing; with
the language, the poetry, the habits of the people recorded in
the Bible. It took me several days to realise the fact that I

V. XI.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 17
was actually at Jerusalem ; that the hill I trod was the Mount
of Olives ; and that the peaceful village below, was Bethany.
I felt, therefore, somewhat astonished, when an English traveller
accosted me while I was studying the old olive trees of Geth-
semane, and asked me how long I was going to stay; for
that he had been there three days, had "done" it all, and
was off.
And, it would be well if one of these healthy signs were a
return to the study of Hebrew, which is all but ignored in this
country ; and yet, without a sound knowledge of it, a man must
be at the mercy of any one somewhat acquainted with it who
pretends to gainsay the Bible. Let no one fhink he has read,
or can read, the Old Testament, leastways the poetry thereof, in
any other language than Hebrew ; assuredly not in Greek ; for
— only comparing language with language — the Hebrew idiom
is caricatured by being rendered into Greek ; neither can it be
fully rendered into any other language, since a real translation
of a language into another is a thing simply impossible ; and is
at best, a paraphrase. A clergyman, therefore, if he be in
earnest, and have both leisure and ability, cannot forego so im
portant a study as that of the language in which the greater
portion of the Bible is written. If he have neither time nor
ability, let him keep to the Authorised Version ; it is a safer and
a better guide than the Septuagint.
VII. Lastly, Dr. Stanley reminds us (at p. xi.) that these
Lectures are strictly " ecclesiastical ;" and only about " the
Jewish Church ;" although, he does not, as he might have done,
in this place, define what "a Church" is; or what he under
stands thereby. However, he —
" has never forgotten that the literature of the Hebrew race is also
the Bible — the sacred Book or Books of Christendom."
That is not saying much. For how else could an utter
stranger to either " Christendom" or to the Bible, express him
self, than as Dr. Stanley does ? as if he were himself outside
that Christendom, or was fain to own divided allegiance to the
" Sacred Book or Books" of the Christian Religion ? With
every due deference to his position, I beg to say that, the more
manly way of putting it would have been : " I never will forget
c

18 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [PREF.

(the future being, in this respect, a safer tense than the
that the literature— is also the Bible, the sacred Book or Books,
to which we, Christians, owe allegiance as to the Revealed Word
of God." For, this is both true and according to common
sense; that we cannot be Christians without holding certain
objective Truths, revealed to us in the Bible ; and we cannot
hold them, without bowing, submitting ourselves, and giving
our allegiance to them.
VIII. Dr. Stanley then, guards himself (at p. xi., xii.,) and
guards us also, against running into the extreme of finding types
of the New Testament in every part of the Old. If I under
stand him, he would limit " types" to such as have " an historical
basis," that is, to mere facts in the history of the Old Testa
ment ; wherein he is right. For, a type must be the visible
figure or likeness of what it is meant to represent ; so that,
neither allegories, parables, nor prophecies can be "types;"
neither are certain facts " types," but only " examples," unless
they bear a distinct reference to their antitype. On the whole,
then, our best way is not to multiply " types," however safe we be
in profiting by the facts recorded as " examples," or, in trying to
trace in the Old dispensation, the outline of the shadow of things
that were to come, " the body of which is of Christ." Bearing
in mind, that, in reality a shadow has an exact relation to the ob
ject that casts it, however little we may succeed in tracing its per
fect outline, owing, either to the dimness of our sight, to the faint-
ness of the shadow, or to the unevenness of the ground on which
it falls. But a shadow has a certain life of its own, which he
knows best, who understands the light that makes it. So also,
but for the dimness of our intellectual vision, but for the faint
outline of the shadows cast over the varied and uneven ground
of the Old Covenant by the coming events of the New, we
should be. able to trace exactly under the Law, the outline of all
that to which the Law was intended to bring us.
The study of types requires the profound study of a mind
well qualified for it ; and no one will blame the Dean of West
minster for preferring reserve to rash dogmatism on the sub
ject. His meaning, however, is not so clear, when he includes
questions of "the limits drawn between the natural and the'
supernatural," among those on which, as on chronology, physics

P. XI. XII.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 19
or statistics, he intends to touch but seldom, — " natural and
supernatural" being —
" distinctions which to the sacred writers, were for the most part
alien and unknown."
Does Dr. Stanley mean that when God wrought signs before
Moses,1 and said to him, (v. 17): " Thou shalt take this rod2
in thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs," Moses did not
know they were signs, wonders or miracles, and therefore super
natural ? No, not even after that " the Lord said unto him,
When thou goest to return to Egypt, see that thou do all those
¦ wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand."3
Why then did Moses flee from before the serpent into which his
rod was changed, if he was used to such a wonder ? What
about the sign on the dial of Ahaz, granted to Hezekiah ?4
Or, the crossing of the Jordan, "a wonder wrought by the
Lord ?"5 &c. If Dr. Stanley meant to say, that " natural" and
" supernatural" are only relative terms, we join issue with him.
It is perfectly true that what appears supernatural to our fallen
nature, would be natural to this same nature if it were not now
fallen below the level at which it stood when man was created
by God after His own image and similitude. A state of ex
istence and certain powers were natural to Adam before his fall,
which would now be impossible, or, at least, appear supernatural.
The second Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ, came to restore by
a miraculous union of our human nature with His Divine
essence, not only the state of things anterior to the fall, but one
even better, and we now have the power, gotten through Him,
of being ultimately restored in our humanity to a glorified state,
— that is, to a state free from sin, and in the enjoyment of the
faculties Adam had ere he sinned. Meanwhile, and as long as
we are in bodies not yet freed from sin and glorified, that is,
while we are in this life, things and powers that will be natural
1 Ex. iv. 3.
2 " The rod of God," v. 17, and ch. xvji. 9, which he used " in all the signs
and wonders, which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt," Deut.
xxxiv. 11.
3 Ex. iv. 21. < 2 Chron. xxxii. 24,
5 Josh. iii. 5.
c 2

20 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [PREF.
to us hereafter, for the present appear supernatural, as, indeed,
they must. The writers of the Old Testament, writing as men
and for men, though taught of God, wrote as they believed, of
what was to them signs, wonders and miracles, wrought in order
to attest the power and immediate presence of God, without
Whom, a learned doctor of the Law told our Saviour Himself,
these signs and miracles could not be wrought.1 Of course, we
all know the habit of mind of Dr. Stanley's German authorities,
who wish to explain away some miracles, if not all of them.
On the one hand they might as well deny the presence of God
among His people, or in the Universe as Ruler thereof, as to
deny He could not do what works He pleased ; and on the other
hand they might as well affirm that our present state is not
fallen, as to deny that signs, wonders, and miracles, are not
supernatural, relatively to it.
IX. On all secondary matters of this kind, Dr. Stanley tells
us (at p. xiii.) he "is content to rest on the researches of others
and to refer to them." This seems a pity ; for he thus mars
his work ; and hence also arise the several mistakes he makes ;
against R. vi. p. 3, 8sT apa tov o-o$ov, x.t.X. A man who loves
Truth for the sake of it, never takes for granted on another
man's witness, what he may ascertain for himself; for second
hand scholarship is never worth much. But he examines for
himself, according to R. vi. (b) p. 3, ¦Keisa&sufj.evou yap eo-Tiv, x.t.X.,
it is the part of a well-educated man to ascertain as accurately
as he can his subject matter to the full extent thereof ; since it
behoves him e^eiv As'ysiv toI; fisfiaiOTaTa; agya; to be able to
give the soundest principles of what he treats, R. vii. p. 3.
If not, and if he trust to others without ascertaining for himself
independently of them, Sfj.a fj.lv hafj-apTavr,, x.t.X. R. viii. p. 4,
he is liable to miss his object, and to make other mistakes.
X. Dr. Stanley is, however, quite right in saying (p. xiii.) —
" that in proportion as such inquiries are pursued by those who
are able to make them, will be gain both to the cause of Biblical
science and of true Religion,"
although he is wrong in saying "fearlessly pursued." For
1 S. John iii. 2. Likewise, did the prophets know that the Lord spake
through them. " As the Lord liveth," said Micaiali, "what the Lord saith

P. XIII.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 21
Aristotle, who, we all agree, was a man of great sense, tells us,
that if one should fear nothing, ei pjflsv 4>o/3o7to, e'lr] 8' av ti;
fj.aiv6fj.evo; r) avaXyrjto;, "he must be either mad or past feeling."1
Moreover, good taste and respect, to say the least, if nothing
more, would make a man wish to approach God and whatever
relates to Him, " acceptably," and that is, " with reverence and
godly fear." For, if ever, it is assuredly in the case of purblind,
ignorant, and fallen human beings, attempting to look into the
mysteries of God's attributes, or even into the burden of His
Word, that these words are true : " Happy is the man that
feareth alway : but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into
mischief."2 But, perhaps, Dr. Stanley does not really mean all
that his words imply. Even he. must see, that to enter upon
such a study otherwise than with awe and in a devout spirit, is
to act the part of rash and inconsiderate men; for Aristotle
warns us again3 that 6 8s Qappelv uitsp^aXXwv nep) to. Qofiepa,
8paa-u;' Soxsi Ss xai aXa^wv elvai 6 Spaa-u;, " the man who is over
confident where he ought to fear, is rash ; and that such a
character looks very much like a braggart."
XI. Then follows the just praise of Ewald, Dr. Stanley's
" Magnus Apollo," for his profound scholarship and extensive
learning, " who has," it appears, "fulfilled the desire expressed twenty-seven
(now twenty-nine) years ago by ' Arnold and Bunsen,' in writing
his ' History of the people of Israel.' "
We all know that Dr. Arnold was, and is yet, the " grande
decus" of the school of which he was Master ; but he too, made
a mistake in logic if he classed " Judea," the land of the Bible,
with Rome or with Greece. And if he wished that Niebuhr's
wholesale dealing with Roman history should be followed to
wards the contents of the Old Testament, he too, seemed in this
instance at least, to care but little for toj ovti jj ov, and not much
for his categories. Ewald is, indeed, a very remarkable scholar ;
but so was Gesenius, and so are other Germans, who seem to
unto me, that will I speak ;" " and Micaiah said, If thou return at all in peace,
the Lord hath not spoken by me." (1 Kings xxii. 14, 28.) Even prophets like
Balaam, knew themselves to be used at times as instruments in the hands of God.
" And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." 1 Cor. xiv. 32.
1 Eth. Nicom. iii. 7, 7. ! Prov. xxviii. 14. 3 Eth. Nicom. ibid.

22 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [PREF.
come into the world already knowing what others have to learn
during the first half of their life. But Ewald has, of course, his
own peculiar views, which make him, like Ch. Bunsen, a guide
no one dares to follow, without looking well to his going.
Although Ewald's star is no longer in the ascendant in his own
country, his writings are a mine of learning, which, however,
must, like every other ore, be examined and tested with Truth,
ere it is passed off as current coin. But great, and greatly learned
as he is, it is very possible he might differ from Dr. Stanley,
and think " the constant reference to his writings throughout
the new ' Dictionary of the Bible/ " a very doubtful compliment ;
and himself sometimes little honoured by the " intellect, ability,
and learning," of some of his companions.1
XII. Dr. Stanley, however, very properly says, (p. xv.) —
" But, in fact, my aim has been not to recommend the teaching
or the researches of any theologian however eminent, but to point
the way to the treasures themselves of that History." .
For, in fact, no study is worth anything that is not first-hand;
and no writer should be taken wholly upon trust; leastways
those to whom Dean Stanley alludes —
"excellent men who disparage the Old Testament, as the best
means of saving the New ;" and " others who think that it can
only be maintained by discouraging all inquiry into its authority
and contents."
We cannot say much for their discernment. But, "rightly
dividing the Word of Truth," we find that the Old Testament
was a dispensation of types, and " a shadow of good things to
come ;" in which even prophecy glimmered only " as a light in
a dark place, until the day dawned and the Day-star arose."
And we also do, what many do not, we distinguish between a
shadow and shade ; and however little we may succeed, we seek
1 I do not wish to speak disparagingly of a work I do not possess, and which
I have not examined. But knowing, as I do, how and by whom some of the
articles were written, I can feel no great confidence in it. I have consulted it
three times at a friend's house, but never without finding one or more mistakes.
It seemed to me to be as Ovid says — " conges tuque eodem
Non bene junctarum discordia semina rerum."

INTR0D.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 23
nevertheless, to trace the objects themselves in the definite out
line of their shadows, which the coming Light did cast before
them. The men who lived in those shadows had to gather the
outline of the objects that cast the shadows from the shadows
themselves ; at best a difficult task. But we, who have the
Light, see the objects themselves ; and albeit we may be less
careful of the shadows than of the light ; yet these finish the
picture of God's dispensation which, like the finest picture ever
drawn, has both light, lights and shadows. For as there is no
light without a shadow, and no shadow without light ;• so also
there would be no New Covenant if there were not also the Old
one, neither could this be " old and done away," unless another
was made to take its place ; or, rather, to fulfil it. Thus then,
however much we may rejoice in the Revealed Light of the
Gospel, we, nevertheless, value the shadows of the Law as a set
off to the Light, with which they make up a whole well-arranged ;
we embrace the New Testament to which the Law was meant to
bring us ; and we keep the Law with gratitude for having
brought us to it ; for had there been no Old Covenant there
would assuredly be no New one.
With regard to the Old Testament then, Josephus says rightly,1
that in it, " all things are well arranged according to the nature
of its several parts, to. fJ.lv aiviTro/nivou tou voju.o0s'tou Sejiaij, to1 8e
aXXrjyopouvTo; /xsTa cs/AVOTrjToj, our Lawgiver cleverly implying
certain things, and adopting dignified allegories to mention
others : Tol; fj.kvr.oi fSouXofJ.svot; xa) to.; ahia; exao-Twv o-xotteiv, nroXXr)
ysvoiT av i) Oswpla xa) Xtav <piXoa-o$o; ; so then, he who will look
into the causes of each, will derive from his study a contempla
tion alike varied and most philosophical."

INTRODUCTION.

Dean Stanley divides the History of the Jewish Church into
three periods : (1) from Abraham to Samuel ; (2) from Samuel
to the Captivity of Babylon ; and (3) from that to the destruc-
1 Antiq. Lib. i. proem.

24 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [iNTROD.
tion of the Temple by Titus, and of the independence of the
nation by Hadrian. The first of these periods, he tells us,
is "often called, though somewhat inaccurately, Theocracy,"
though he does not say why it is thus " inaccurately" described.
He refers to other Lectures; but in these I fail to find the
reason ; so that he leaves his readers, as he probably left his
hearers, without a distinct idea on the subject.
Theocracy, Seoxparla, is a term apparently first introduced by
Josephus,1 when saying that — whereas the rule of government
had been by some made to consist either in monarchy, in oli
garchy, or in democracy, 6 r)fj.erepo; vofj.o()eTrj;, our lawgiver
(Moses) he adds, si; fj.lv toutwv oulioTtouv awsTSsv, had regard to
none of these forms ; w; 8' av tij ewtoi f3iao-afj.svo; tov Ao'yov, flso-
¦xpaTiav asrsSeijj-E to •KoXiTsufj.a, but, as some might say, straining
the term, instituted Theocracy as a form of government ; whence
it appears that Josephus looked upon Moses as the founder of
the Theocracy.
Yet, looking as we ought, at the whole of God's dealings with
His people, that was to be an emblem of His Church called out
of the world, while living therein, until it be perfected in
Heaven, we find that (1) the call of Abraham was a more com
plete example of God's free grace, of His will and of His power,
in making this one man, through his firm faith in objective
Truth and implicit obedience to it, the pattern of those that
should believe; than would have been the call, say, out of
Egypt, of the nation which repeatedly turned aside, disobeyed
and murmured, and even worshipped a molten calf, while the
Law was being given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Therefore did
God first call His Church in the person of Abraham, and not
in his posterity, in order to make him the father and pattern
not only of His Church under the Law but also of His Church
under the Gospel ; therefore did God make the promise to him
first, and therefore did He bring about the Exodus of Abraham's
posterity from Egypt in ratification of that very promise. But
(2) in order that God's people should be brought out of Egypt
according to His purpose, it was ordered that the seventy
children of Abraham that went down to Egypt, should there and
then settle and multiply into a people, to be rescued from the
1 Contra Ap. ii. 16.

INTROD.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 25
bondage to which they were to be reduced, with signs, wonders,
types and miracles, meant as figures of what should follow.
And when (3) we consider the various stages through which the
children of Israel were made to pass after leaving Egypt, their
baptism in the Red Sea as death unto Egypt and a new birth
unto God's government of them as His people ; the desert, the
law, manna, their many warnings and punishments, even through
types, as that of the brazen serpent ; the crossing of the Jordan
under Joshua or Jesus the son of Nun ; then the taking posses
sion of the promised Land, and the period of the Judges during
which "the Lord ruled over the people;"1 after that, their
having a king so far of God's appointment, that God had fore
told him,2 and that his successors were called "the Lord's
anointed," to show that God still held supreme Rule over the
nation : then the idolatry, the captivity, and the sceptre not
departing from Judah until the coming of Shiloh,3 — we may be
right in agreeing4 with Bishop Warburton,5 when he says :
" Most writers suppose Theocracy to have ended with the Judges ;
but scarce any bring it lower than the Captivity. On the con
trary, I hold that in strict truth and propriety, it ended not until
the coming of Christ." Then follow proofs given by that
learned and plain spoken6 divine, to show that Theocracy ended
not with the Judges, but continued during the Monarchy, and
until the destruction of the national independence of the Jewish
people. With him agrees Jahn,? and apparently Gesenius,
who says that " prophets were but heralds of Theocracy ; and
oracles only declarations of Theocratic sentiments towards na
tions not their own."8
It seems proved by one institution, that of the Jubilee, when
1 Judg. viii. 23. 2 Deut. xvii. 14, 15.
3 Nrnsip *sto ti; '7 J?l "» " Until the time when the King Messiah shall come."
(Targ. J. B. Uzziel, in Gen. xlix. 10, 11.) NTfflte wn wttt " For of Him is the
kingdom." (Targ. Hieros. Ibid.)
4 " Sed caute," as Carpzov says of him, Appar. Histor. criticus, p. 7.
6 Divine Leg. of Moses, vol. ii. p. 280, sq.
6 " I believe it will not be easy to find, even in the dirtiest sink of free-
thinking, so much falsehood, absurdity, and malice, heaped together in so few
words," speaking of Voltaire's Opinion of the Jews. Div. Leg. vol. ii. p. 239.
1 Archteol. Bibl. par. 221, Engl. Transl.
5 Comm. in Is. Einleit. p. 27, sq.

26 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [iNTROD.
every man was to return to his possession,1 that the Theocracy
lasted, properly speaking, from the call of Abraham to the
coming of Shiloh ; when the Father, in a figure, made over
afresh to the Son, the government of His people chosen from
the world, and brought out of it. The year of the Jubilee was
intended to keep up, not only the memory, but the actual and
tangible fact of a Theocratic government, which lay chiefly in
this — that the children of Israel were God's servants, His pro
perty, as chosen by Him. From the first God said to the
children of Israel, " the land shall not be sold for ever ; for the
land is Mine ; for ye are strangers and sojourners with Me."2
" I am the Lord your God which brought you out of the
land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan, and to be
your God."3 "For unto Me the children of Israel are ser
vants ; they are My servants whom I brought forth out of the
land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God."4 The land was
then given them to possess, but only in trust ; every tribe was
identified with the soil allotted to it ; so that the people and the
land went together as God's own ; and in order to keep up as
much as possible this state of things, the basis and the" condi
tions of Theocracy, every man was to go back to his possession
in the year of Jubilee that came round every fifty years, as a peri
odical return, restitution, or restoration to the original Theocratic
state under Joshua ; a kind of new birth for the people of Israel.5
But the children of Israel were reminded daily of the pre
sence of God among them as their Supreme Ruler, to Whom
even their kings obeyed, by the intercession at the H^SS or
mercy-seat, where God met Moses, and after him the High
Priest. This was the real seat, the Theocratic throne of God in
Israel. There did He make both His presence felt and His will
known, as Ruler, Protector, and Guide in small matters as well
as in great ones. For He not only said He was the Lord their
God, and that their kings were His anointed, but He also
styled Himself the Lord of hosts, HiftlV HiPP, Who led to
battle His people, o-TpaTr\yw fj.lv auToxpoeropi ¦^pmfj.evot rw 6sw
uwarpaTtjyov 8s ¦)(e\poTovr\tT avre; ha tov apery itpouypvTa, " that took
1 Lev. xxv. 10. 2 lb. v. 23. s lb. v. 38. «. lb. v. 55.
5 For fuller details see Bahr Symbolik. vol. ii. p. 317, 604, sq.

P. XXXII.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 27
Him for their Commander in Chief, and appointed under Him
some one of excellent courage."1 J. D. Michaelis2 differs from
the above writers, and V. Bohlen3 advances the futile opinion
that circumcision was the "acht theokratisches Bund," the real
bond or covenant of Theocracy ; if so, it must also have been the
case with Egyptians, and with other nations which adopted that
rite. For, whereas Theocracy no longer exists in the sense here
given to it, circumcision still obtains among the Jews, and
among other nations. Everything, however, tends to show,
what seems most conformable to the general tenour of God's
dispensation towards His Church, both under the Law and
under the Gospel, that Theocracy — that is, the government of
the Father — lasted under the Old Covenant, until Messiah
came, upon Whose shoulder the government of Grace was put,
to remain there for ever.
II. Speaking of the second period (p. xxxii.) of the Jewish
history, Dr. Stanley tells us that
" it comprehends the developement of the Jewish Church and Re
ligion through the growth of the Prophetic Order," &c.
How does he understand this growth, in number or in import
ance ? Prophets were, indeed, sent from time to time to recall
the people from their evil ways, and to teach God's will to men ;
yet it is said of Moses not only " that there arose not a
prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew
face to face,"4 but the Lord said also unto Moses, " I will raise
them up a prophet from among their brethren like unto thee,
and I will put My words into his mouth, and he shall speak
unto them all that I shall command him."5 Since then, on the
one hand, no prophet like Moses arose in Israel either before or
after him ; and since, on the other hand, the promised Saviour
was compared unto him, an honour which no other prophet re
ceived, it is hardly correct to speak of " the growth of the Pro
phetic Order" without specifying how this is to be understood.
For the Prophetic Order did not grow in power, in miracles, or
in gifts, but Prophets were multiplied as the circumstances of
1 Joseph. Antiq. Lib. iv. c. 8, 41. 2 Mos. Kecht. Pt. i. p. 180—188.
3 Genes, einleit. clxxxviii. 4 Deut. xxxiv. 10.
5 Deut. xviii. 18 and 15.

28 philosophy, or truth? [introd.
the people seemed to require; and their burdens were given
them accordingly.
III. Still less intelligible is Dr. Stanley when he says that
the third period of the Jewish history —
" is distinguished by the last and greatest development of the Pro
phetic Spirit, out of which rose the Christian Church, and the
consequent expansion of the Jewish Religion into a higher region."
— P. xxxii.
What can all this mean? The Christian Church being the
Church of Christ, and called after Him, began with Him, Who
established her on a new covenant and a new order of things;
but not on a " development of the prophetic spirit," chiefly
given to foretell His coming; since the gift of prophecy, granted
to very few even in the Apostolic times, ceased altogether after
them. Moreover, since our Lord Christ, Who built His
Church on " the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets," is
compared to Moses, the first of the Prophets, if we except
Enoch and Jacob, it does not appear how this Church of Christ
is owing to the development of the prophetic spirit, as such ;
unless we call a house the development of the foundation
thereof. It was the fulfilment of prophecies that had gone
before ; it was the rising of the Sun of Righteousness after a
long twilight ; but it was no more a development of existing
things, than the light of the sun is, practically, for us, a deve
lopment of the light of the stars ; since the word of prophecy is
compared to " a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day
dawn, and the Day star arise."1
IV. So also, what is this " expansion of the Jewish Religion
into a higher region" of which Dr. Stanley speaks? How
can a shadow expand into a substance ? " the shadow of things
to come" into the body which is of Christ ? Since we are
told that in Him is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor
uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but " Christ
is all in all,"2 and " they are all one in Christ Jesus,"3 " the
Mediator of a better covenant,"4 " Who taketh away the first
that He may establish the second ;"5 " therefore, if any man be
1 2 S. Pet. i. 19. » Col. iii. 11. 3 Ibi iu. 18,
4 Heb. viii. 6. 5 lb. x. 9.

P. XXXIII.] philosophy, or truth ? 29
in Christ, he is a new creature ; old things are passed away ;
behold, all things are become new."1 If Dr. Stanley means
that Jewish rites and ceremonies expanded into that which they
were meant to represent, and their sacrifices into that of Christ,
or into that sacrifice on our part " which is (our) reasonable ser
vice," Ttjv Aoyixijv Xarpelav (%/.«iv) , it was, to say the least, a strange
kind of expansion. For " expansion" is, of necessity, the exten
sion of the same thing or substance; now these rites, cere
monies, and sacrifices under the Law " were a shadow of things
to come ; but the body is of Christ."2
V. Then, speaking of the main bulk of the authorities for his
history, which are " contained in the Canonical Books of the
Hebrew Scriptures," Dr. Stanley goes on to say —
"It has been at various times supposed that the Books of Moses,
Joshua, and Samuel were all written in their present form by
those whose names they bear. This notion, however, has been
in former ages disputed both by Jewish and Christian theolo
gians, and is now rejected by almost all scholars. It has no foun
dation in the several Books themselves, and is contradicted by the
strong internal evidence of their contents. To determine accu
rately the authorship and the dates of these and the other sacred
writings is a question belonging to the same Biblical criticism,
which has thus modified the opinion just mentioned ; and to those
who are called to enter into the details of such inquiries I gladly
leave the solution of the problem." — Pp. xxxii., xxxiii.
If the Dean of Westminster thinks it generous and considerate
on his part to raise doubts in the minds of his younger hearers
on subjects on which their minds should be settled and satis
fied, without allaying the doubts he thus raises, many of his
readers will differ from him. He referred his hearers to other
critics ; but he must be well aware that by far the greater part
of the students who heard him would not go to other critics,
but would rather follow his opinion ; willing and ready as most
young men are, in order to save time and trouble, " jurare in
verba magistri," to swear by their teacher. And yet, talking of
philosophy, Cicero says3 to the point : " Est igitur ridiculum,
1 2 Cor. v. 17. 2 Col. ii. 17.
¦' Pro L. Murena. 68, ed. Em.

30 philosophy, or truth? [introd.
quod est dubium, id relinquere incertum : — Atque id decernitur
omnibus postulantibus candidatis : ut ex senatus consulto, (ora-
tione), neque cujus intersit, neque contra quem sit, intelligi
possit." Likewise, Aristotle teaches that eoti Se to~.; sxmoprpai
f3ouXo/j.evoi; irpoupyou to Siowropvjo-ai xaXw;, those who wish to have
their minds settled on a given subject must first of all begin
fairly to doubt about it; then follows the settling of the ques
tion which is the solution of previous doubt, adding, however,
truly, Aueiv 8" oux sVtiv oVyvoouvTaj tov Sso-/xo'v, that it is impossible
for those who have no knowledge to loosen the knot. 'AXX' r]
rr); faavota; axopla 8>jAo7 touto irsp) tou npayfj-aro;' And this shows
itself in the hesitation of a man's thoughts on the subject ; he
is like one bound hand and foot, who can make no progress
either way.1
VI. Since, however, Dr. Stanley leaves his readers as he left
his hearers, in a kind of doubt which, judging from the tenour
of his writing, seems to suit best his habit of mind and his feel
ings on the subject, I must beg leave to remark that — no criti
cism can determine accurately from internal evidence alone the
exact date and authorship of a Book of the Bible. The critic is
not yet born who can, or will, ever say — except through pitiable
arrogance — this Book was written by such a one, and by none
else ; at such a time, and at no other ; for such evidence is chiefly
negative. All he can do is to ' think so/ that is — to presume.
Hence the great variety both of critics and of criticism. If this
internal evidence were so plain, some at least would agree upon
it; whereas in this, perhaps, more than in any other case,
' doctors' do differ — simply because they pretend to do what
they cannot accomplish. For the sake of Dr. Stanley's readers,
therefore, or rather for that of his hearers, I will give as briefly
as I can, one instance out of many, that may serve for most of
the rest, of the ignorance, of the shallow scholarship, if not of
the bad faith — which is worse than either — of such ' free-in
quirers/ or free-thinking critics as regards the Bible, and show
how worthless are their pretensions to settle the age and the
authorship of a book from what they call the " internal evidence"
thereof. Von Bohlen, one of the authorities to which Dr. Stanley
1 Metaph. ii. 1, 2.

P. XXXIII.] philosophy, or truth ? 31
refers candidates for Holy Orders,1 and whose translator, if I
mistake not, once petitioned Parliament for a new version of the
Bible, on the strength, I suppose, of what he had found in that
German work, tells us gravely2 that the mention of the vine by
the chief butler, as seen in his dream,3 shows that it is of a later
date, certainly not anterior to the time of Josiah ; because (1) He-
rodotus says4 that ^iyuflriot— eii/ao0 ex xpMwv its7toft\fj.EVwltdxpewv*
Tat, ou yap o-$i eio-iv Iv t»j xwpy afj.irsXof " the Egyptians make use
of wine made of barley, for that there are no vine-plants, (Wein-
stocke, as V. Bohlen renders it) in their country;" because (2)
Hecatseus makes Osiris the inventor of this barley-wine, whereas
the Greeks invented the fable of his planting the vine at Nyssa,
out of Egypt ;s because (3) Herodotus again speaks of6 the wine
brought by Greeks from Phoenicia once a year in earthenware
jars, to be consumed only by Greeks ; for (4) true Egyptians,
says Plutarch,7 looked upon wine as the blood of the enemies of
the gods, and therefore neither drank it themselves nor offered
it to their gods before the time of Psammeticus. Therefore the
history of Joseph is a tale of a later date, and at least that part
of Genesis was written some time towards the end of the king
dom of Judah !
Let us now look at the facts — stubborn things at all times.
First, as to the character of Herodotus for truthfulness, which
by these freethinkers is thought of greater authority than the
Bible; it did not rank very high among his Greek friends.
'Hpodoro; 6 7roXu7rpa.yfj.wv, says Diodorus,8 ^xoAoufl>Jxcuj avrtXeyofj.e-
vat; uirovoiat; eup'trrxerat, " Herodotus, the busybody, turns out to
have followed conjectures and fancies which contradict one an
other;" tpXuapel, "he talks nonsense," says Strabo;9 woXXa
\Xeyy6fj.evo; twv Alywrrtaxcov xjtv ayvota; etyeuo-fj.evo;, "being con
victed of having told many stories about Egyptian matters, from
sheer ignorance," writes also Josephus.10 No wonder, then, if,
1 Lect. i. p. 24, &c. I refute not V. Bohlen, who is dead, but his spirit, which
yet lives.
2 Comm. in. Genes, p. 373, sqq.
3 Gen. xl. 9, sqq. 4 Lib. ii. c. 77.
5 Diod. Sic. xvi. 15. 6 Lib. iii. u. 6.
¦ 7 De Is. et Osir. c. 6. p. 392, ed Reiske.
8 Lib. i. c. 37. 9 Lib. xvii. 1.
10 C. Ap. Lib. i. u. 14, p. 1336, ed. Huds.

32 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [iNTROD.
as Plutarch says in his treatise irep) tt)s 'HpoS. xaxoijSsi'aj, on the
evil disposition of Herodotus,1 tou 'ffyoSoVou woAAouf fj.lv — xa) i)
Xefc, dig aQeXr); — e%swaTr)xe, "the simple style of Herodotus
should have taken in many men, who have allowed themselves
to be led by his good nature. But not only, as Plato says, is
it ka-%aTYi; aStxla;, fur) ovra SoxsTv sTvai S/xaiov of the last unrigh
teousness for one to pretend to be righteous when one is not,
but it is, xaxorjQeia; axpag epyov, the part of the utmost mali
ciousness to show oneself intolerable through the feint of a
simple, easy temper." So much for Herodotus and his friends.
Yet, to do Herodotus justice, V. Bohlen through his igno
rance of Greek, makes him out a greater story-teller than he
really is ; and makes him say what he never meant. Herodotus
says there were in Egypt no afjMsXot, that is no "vineyards,"
which V. Bohlen understood and rendered wrongly, "Wein-
stocke," " vine-plants," so as to make Herodotus say what even
he never could have said, viz. that " the vine" did not grow in
Egypt. If Herodotus had meant that, he would have used the
singular — ou yap o-$t eo-tiv Iv tt, xwpy aftmeXog, according to the
Greek idiom, which in this respect, is much like the English,
viz. to put the genus in the singular, and the species of that
genus, or several genera, in the plural. Thus rbfoSov, to xp'mv,
' the rose/ ' the red lily/ in general ; >j afjMsXo;, ' the vine/ or
' the vineyard/2 to. pdda, to- xp/va, ' the roses/ the lilies either of
different kinds, or many of the same sort; e.g. $uVrai lv too uSan
xptvsa 7roXXok Ta Alyumtot xaAs3o-» Xwrdv, "when the Nile over
flows, there grow in the water a number of lilies which the
Egyptians call lotus."3 So that, not only could afwreAoj never
1 C. 1. 2 Hence the various renderings of S. John xv. 1, sq.
3 Herod, ii. c. 92. So also K^po/ios- f'urAyerm, ' earthenware is brought ;' %y icepd-
luov, ' one jar,' which in the pi. would have been to uepo/uo, if Herodotus had
mentioned several jars, though he alludes to irdvra xtpanov, • the whole of the
earthenware,' (Lib.iii.6.) Likewise, ret ply \eirr6<p\ota KaBdirep SdQtnj, iptXvpa, to
81 iraxi<pXota teaBd-irfp Spvs, " some trees have a thin bark, like the laurel, the lime :
others a thick one, like the oak." (Theoph. Hist. PI. i. c. 5, &c.) " The bark of
others is imbricated like that <pi\ipas, 4\drns a/wreAou Xu,o<nrdprov xpoiiiav, of the
lime, of the pine, of the vine, of the broom, and of onions," in the plural ; all
onions being alike in this respect. And, " whereas plains are most suitable
i\ala ply Kal avxp ko! apir&ip to the olive, to the fig, and to the vine, ivirXfimr,
SI &s e.V«y S.a<pop$ to rfiy apjr&»y ia-rlv 8<ra ydp 4<rn yHs c!fj> roowrf Tivis
*a<ri Kal ap^W EW- the several kinds of vines differ widely one from another ;

P. XXXIII.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 33
mean ' vine-plants' in the sense of ' the vine' said absolutely, as
V. Bohlen thought, but Herodotus could not have meant it, and
he must have meant ' vineyards,' since he speaks of ao-Ta<pl;,
'- raisins/ used in embalming the cows sacred to Isis,1 which
imply the growth of the vine in Egypt, as does also the wine
drunk in the days of Rhampsinitus ;2 the wine given as daily
ration to the king's bodyguard,3 and the olvo; apmsXtvo;, ' wine
of grapes/ given to the priests daily,4 even before the time of
Psammetichus. Neither is Herodotus much to blame for saying he had seen no
vineyards in Egypt. He might have said it in comparison with
his own country, which is a land of vineyards ; whereas the whole
of Egypt, from the nature of its soil, could never be a ' wine
country/ although such wine as was grown there was celebrated,
on account of the climate which ripened the grapes. The vine
cannot grow well in a wet, watery, rich soil like that of Egypt :
it loves best a more dry and sandy soil ; in Egypt therefore
what vineyards there were, and what vineyards there are now,
are planted on the sandy soil of the Hajar, on the borders of
the alluvial land, at the foot or on the slope of the hills. Hero
dotus saw but little of Egypt, and chiefly Lower Egypt ; and as
in his da^, the vineyards of Marea were probably not planted,
and as he did not go through Antyllis, he might travel from the
sea-shore to Memphis without seeing a single vineyard, albeit
those of Kakem (Kw^wfj-rj) were at no great distance on the hills
westward ; and others were growing elsewhere in Middle and in
Upper Egypt.
For, the vine grew in Egypt from the beginning of what is
called history. Not only is the vine used as a determinative
symbol in hieroglyphics, but as far back as thelVth Dynasty5 do
indeed, they say there are as many kinds of vine as there are of soils." (lb. lib.
ii. 5.) And again, xaX&r&rara 81 koX a/j/ireXcp Kal rots aWots avKr, teal iXala,
" the fig and the olive are most injurious to the vine and to other plants ;
XaXeirbv 81 Kal y) afivySaAT) — so is the almond ; Ka^roi <pvre{ioval rives iv rats
ipirc'Aois, yet some people plant it in their vineyards," &c. (Ib.De Caus. PI. iii.
u. 10, 6,andc. 11, &c.)
' Lib. ii. 40.
2 Lib. ii. c. 121.
3 lb. ii. c. 168. * lb. u. 37.
6 Leps. Denkm. Abth. ii. PI. 3, 5, 11, 19, 23, 35, 38, 44, 45, 49, 53.
D

34 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [iNTROD.
we find wine, in Egyptian <LpTl Copt. Kpn,1 mentioned, of
several sorts, white wine, wine of garden -vine, wine of the
north country, wine of Lower and of Upper Egypt ; in stated
measure, or measures, and forming part of offerings to the gods :
but in the tomb of Eimei,2 cp px np-4A X*.p-HI who was
the chief butler, or superintendent of the Great or Royal house,
long before the time of Joseph, we find the whole process of the
vintage, from the gathering of the grapes, to the pressing and
boiling of the wine, into the details of which I cannot now
enter. Again in the Vth Dynasty3 we find both g,K, tyfo;,
barley-wine (beer), mentioned with wine, as an offering to the
gods ; and in pi. 69, in the tomb of Manofre, under King Assa,
we have this oTvoj xplQtvo;, and five different kinds of olvoj aprl-
Xtvo;, (as also in pi. 70, 71) ; and in pi. 61, that gives the wine
account of the AXp-HI, the butler, or bailiff, thirteen servants
are represented bringing him jars of wine on their shoulders;
and that there should be no mistake, the word £.pn, ' wine/ is
engraved between every one of the servants, to specify the con
tents of their jars.
For wine not only was drunk by the Egyptians, but it always
formed a part of their offerings to the gods, despite what Plu
tarch says ; as Herodotus tells us,4 and as we find engraved or
painted in the earliest tombs of Lower and of Upper Egypt ; on
the votive monuments of every Dynasty ; in Hieratic MSS. ; and
in the Ritual of the Dead, where the deceased often says : " I
take offerings on the altars, and I drink wine."5 So that Plu
tarch's story of no wine being offered to the gods and V. Bohlen's
faith in it, go for nothing. It was offered as we have seen,
before Psammetichus, and also after him, as proved not only
by the monuments of the Ptolemies, but also by an Arameo-
Egyptian papyrus, in which we have a detailed account of
the cost, measure, and quantity of vpp l"pjf 11011 wme
from Sidon, boiled ; "^p p~)^Q Egyptian wine, common ; and
""ftp pXID Egyptian wine, boiled; offered ft-pH nTfiK DTp
1 Whence '4pirts—'4pmv re frefciv, Lycophr. Alex. 579, and note ed. Potter.
cpiriy fleois olvox- Sappho ap. Athen. ii. c. 2, ad fin. and Casaubon's note ad 1.
Eustath. ad Odyss. 359, &m 81 '4pwts AiyvTrrta-rl 6 otvos.
2 Leps. Denkm. Abth. ii. PI. 49, 53. 3 lb. 38, 44, 61, 66, 67.
* Lib. ii. c. 39. s champ. Gr. Eg. p. 392.

P. XXXIII.J PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 35
JOI before Phtah, the great god, and TDK Dip fTp1? for a
lustration before Osiris, or ^niti'/ for the service (or banquet)
of the house, &C1 All this agrees with what Herodotus says of
the festival of Diana (Basht or Pasht) in Bubastis, olvoj a/wrs-
Aivoj avaio"i/xo5rai TtXeov lv t!j oprij TauTt) r\ lv to> aTtxvTt IvtauTw
to IttiAoiVo;, that more of grape wine was consumed at that
festival than during the whole year besides,2 — assuredly not by
Greeks only, as V. Bohlen tells us.
The existence of the vine, the vintage and process of making
the wine, long anterior to Joseph, are thus proved beyond doubt
by paintings and inscriptions in the tombs of Thebes, of Beni
Hassan, and of Ghizeh. We there see the vine trailed on forked
sticks, yapaxe;, or against a trellis-work, in gardens, and out of
them, as at the present day. And this is sufficient to prove that
the chief butler need not have lived in the days of Josiah.
But since V. Bohlen quotes even French travellers of the last
century, to prove that but few vines exist in Egypt, I may also
be allowed to quote other authors to whom he does not allude.
Hellanicus, who was twelve years older than Herodotus, tells us
that, Iv Trj IlXivQlvr, TtoXst AlymTOU irpwTi) supsbrpat Tr)v afimeXov,
" the vine was first discovered in the town of Plinthine,"3 in the
Mareotic Nome,4 — suotvla te Io-ti isepi tou; tokov;, wots xai 8ia-
Xpe~to-t)ai Trgb; TtaXatwo-tv tov MapaicoTtjv oTvov, " where there are lo
calities yielding excellent wine, especially the Mareotic wine
that improves by keeping."5
" Sunt Thasiae vites, sunt et Mareotides albse,
Pinguibus hse terris habiles, levioribus illae."6
Is this too, a Greek legend, like that of Osiris finding the vine
at Nysa, according to V. Bohlen ?
1 Papyrus Arameo-Egypt. A. Barges, 1862. Indeed we find that this rite
was continued until Christian times ; for, in the life of S. Pachom, (Zoega Codd.
Memph. p. 77,) we read that his parents having given him to drink .^Glt
nmpn eT^-To-rouTen e&oXrt^KT-q mtixejuujon
of the wine of which they had offered libations to their gods, he threw it up.
2 Lib. ii. c. 60.
3 Athen. lib. i. c. 25, p. 34, ed. Cas.
4 Ptolem. Geog. lib. iv. c. v. 8, p. 251, ed. T. Scylax Caryand. Peripl. p. 307,
ed. G.
5 Strab. xvii. c. i. 14.
6 Georg. ii. 91, and Hor. Od. i. xxxvii. 4.
D 2

36 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [iNTROD.
This Mareotic wine was xaXXto-To;, Asuxo'j ts yap xa) rj&6;,
" excellent, white and sweet."1 The Mareotic wine, however,
was inferior to the Tseniotic grown in that neighbourhood near
the sea, according to Athenseus ; who adds that there were vines
all along the Nile, r) 8s vep) tov NelXov afj-weXo;, TrXelo-Qrj fj.lv airy,
otro; xa) 6 ntoTafj.6;.2 Of all these vineyards he tells us that
those of Antyllis were the best ; and that the wine of the Thebaid
was light, and had other valuable properties. Much wine was
also made in the Arsino'ite Nome, says Strabo,3 who adds re
specting the oasis of Ammon that it has suvbpo; ts xai euotvo;,
good water and good wine.4 To these wines S. Clement of
Alexandria adds the Mendesian,5 Msvlr)o-to; vsxTap,6 while Dio-
dorus gives his testimony to the goodness of the Egyptian grape
when he says : " that the Egyptian vine being watered regularly,
SavJ/iAEiav oivou to~i; lyywp'tot; wapao-xsua^et, yields a rich abun
dance of wine to the inhabitants."7 These wines were, as we
have seen, exported to Greece and to Italy, and also eastward
to the coast of Arabia.8 Then Horapollo9 tells us, that, if the
hoopooe should be heard frequently vpo xatpou twv afjmsXwv
before the season ,of the vines, it was a sign of plenty of wine;
and that on this account the Egyptians represented this abun
dance through a hoopooe. The author of Joseph and Asenath
tells us that 'Ao-evvlb lyapr\ — br) to~i; oivoij — rejoiced over the
wines (vineyards) and the harvests of her father.10 Abulfeda11
speaking of Esne in the Thebaid says that it >,£j Jj^J ^
" has palm-groves and vineyards." Makrizi12 in his description
of the convent of El-Cosseir, quotes Khoshadim, who praises the
wine made there. So also the convent of Tamweih13 was sur-
1 Athen. lib. i. c. 25. It is alluded to as MapwviSos ixfias 44p<rns by Nonnus,
(Dionys. xi. 509, comp. also xxix. 247, sq., and xxxvi. 290, with Odyss. x. 197,
Euripid. Cycl. 141, sq., and Diod. Sic. i. 18, 20,) by Pliny, " in -Sgypto nas-
citur— Thasia, tetalo, peuce," &c. (Hist. Nat. xiv. 4, 9.)
2 Athen. ib. 3 Lib- xvii ,. j 35
4 Lib- xvii- <•'• >• 42- 6 Piedag. ii. p. 156, ed. Col.
6 Alciphron, Ep. lib. iii. ep. 5, ed. Seil. ? Lib. i. c. 36.
8 Anonym. Peripl. M. Erythr. c. 24, in Geogr. Min. ed. Miiller.
0 Hierogl. lib. ii. c. 98, ed. Leom.
10 Fabr. Cod. Pseud. V. T. p. 85, sq.
11 jEgypt. p. 23, ed. J. D. Mich.
12 Hist. Copt. p. 37. 13 lb. p. 40.

P. XXXIII.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 37
rounded by palm-trees and vineyards, that yielded delicious
wine.1 In a Sahidic fragment given by Mingarelli,2 we read of
the A. Matthew planting vines around his convent ; S. Maca-
rius himself an Egyptian mentions t^v yewpyiav ty]; apweXov,3
yewpyelv oivov,4 as things with which he and everybody else in
Egypt was familiar. So likewise the old Copt mentioned by
Masudi,5 when describing the beauties of Lower Egypt and the
lake of Tinnis, said there was no place equally beautiful on
account of its \fr**£t V^f "gardens and vineyards," which
he thought had lasted since the beginning of the world. We
also read in Cosmas Indopleustes, Lib. xi. of his Cosmographia6
and in the Acts of A. Benofer, Sinuthius, Matthew,7 &c, of
the vine, of vineyards, of the vintage, and of making the wine,
as usual occupations in Egypt,8 all of which are confirmed by
the still more recent accounts of Prosper Alpinus,9 Forskal,10
Sir. G. Wilkinson,11 A. T. Stamm,12 Nordmayer13 — " Vites plan-
tandi vel amputandi mos est, mense Mechir (Febr.), p. 77. Mense
Mesori (Augusto) etiam uvas in tota iEgypto maturari," &c,
p. 57. " Vindemia in montibus prope Cahiram, mense Julio."
Likewise Schems ed-din Abilsoroor,14 "en Mechir, tailler les
vignes ; en Mesori on presse le raisin."
The statements of which I have just given a mere outline, and
to which I may add my own personal knowledge of the exist
ence of the vine in Egypt, from one end of the country to the
other, show not only the utter worthlessness of this freethinking
criticism, though it be covered with a show of learning sufficient
1 See also what Makrizi says concerning wine and Egyptian grapes in De
•Sacy's Chrestom. Ar. Vol. i. p. 62, and 104, 105.
2 ^Igypt. Codd. Reliq. Gr. x. p. 265.
3 De Cust. Cord. c. ix.
4 lb. c. xi. De Charit. u. xxxi., De Orat. c. v., and Homil. xxvi. 11.
6 Masudi ez-z. vol. i. p. 374.
6 In Coll. Nov. PP. Mtfcon, vol. ii. p. 338.
7 Zoega Codd. Memph. p. 16, Codd. Sahid. p. 433, sq., and p. 539, &c.
8 For which prayers are offered in the Churches of Egypt, TtoilP, —
exert $<l rticycyHrt rteju. $<*. num.«L it .&.X0X1 Pray for
all trees, all vineyards, &c. (Missale Copt. Ar. p. 50.)
s De Med. ^Eg. p. 15, Ven. 1591. w Flora ^Eg. p. Iii.
11 Mod. Eg. i. p. 463. 12 De Pres. Statu Agric. Mg. 20, p. 61.
13 De Calend. ./Egypt. (Econom. p. 16, Gott. 1792.
14 De Sacy's tr. in Notices et Extr. des MSS. i. p. 252, sq.

38 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [iNTROD.
to take in the unlearned and the unwary, but they also make
evident the ' animus' of men, who would rather risk their repu
tation for scholarship than not carp at the Bible, and not gainsay
the Truth contained therein. But what must become of those
who will follow such blind guides, but that they should " both
fall together into the ditch ?"
Yet this is not all. Had V. Bohlen shown himself a real
scholar by searching out the Truth, and not merely what suited
his own way of thinking and his own purpose, he would have
quoted fairly, and from the same page in Athenseus, what Dion
Academicus says, viz : <f>iAoivouj xa) tptXomTa; tou; Alywtrtou;
etvat, that the Egyptians being fond of wine and of drink, evpe-
flijvai ts -nap auTol; fiorfir)fj.a, invented a contrivance whereby
those who were too poor to drink wine, tov ex twv xptSwv yevd-
psvov Tx'tvstv, might drink wine made from barley. From this
statement, therefore, wine from barley seems to have been in
vented after wine had been brought into use. And this fond
ness of the Egyptians for drink is confirmed (1) by several pas
sages from MSS. papyri.1 In the A^It or palace of Kamses,
wine and hak, oTvoj xp'&tvo;, abounded,2 p Tltltcnr p Ot^/TOt
£,K, "but how carefully this hak should be avoided," said a
scribe to one of his clients.3 And (2) by representations on
their tombs. But as to the " Greek legend," as V. Bohlen calls
it, of Osiris having discovered the vine about Nysa — one of the
many towns of that name — o-;£e8ov4 Alyu-nroto poawv, and having
taught men to plant it,5 it is, to say the least of it, worth as
much as the statement of Hecatteus,6 that the Egyptians, to.;
xptQa; si; to 7xwfj.a xaTaXsoucrtv, brew barley into drink ; for Dio-
dorus also tells us that the Egyptians made of barley a drink
that is little inferior to wine, 8 xaAouo-i $u()o;, which they call
' beer/7 taught, as they had been by Osiris, not only to grow the
vine, but also to sow the seed of barley and of wheat.8 This is
true as far as Egyptian accounts go, since in the Turin MS. of
1 Chabas, MS. Harris, p. 68, note. 2 Chabas, Ma. Egypt, p. 50.
3 Pap. AnaBtasi iv. in Mel. Egypt, p. 83.
4 ' Hard by,' not ' ansserhalb,' ' outside,' i.e., anywhere, as V. Bohlen ren-
ders it.
6 Diod. Sic. Lib. i. 15, 17. e Athen. Lib. x. 4 and 13.
7 prop, "fermented liquor." » Diod. Lib. i. 17.

P. XXXIII.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 39
the Sacred Book of the Egyptians Osiris says of himself,
A.rtoK-ne cyone-£,irr epntu co-rco Jtsicnrp tfruuoY
cguyre 2,jul ne-zjr co-rrrt xwp (liVD) nmiti iL&ja,1
" I am he that causeth to be, wine, wheat, sheaves, grinding,
flour, in the borders of the king of the strong, the beautiful city
(Egypt)." And both accounts given by Diodorus are further
confirmed by the fact that o~k ' beer/ and £.pn ' wine/ are
almost always mentioned together among offerings made to the
gods ; and that they also both, as well as £,K ItexeJUL • sweet
beer/ form a part of the remedies prescribed in medical books
which passed among the Egyptians for having been written by
Thoth, or Taaud, himself.2
Thus are quotations inaccurately given, and surmises broached
with authority in the face of glaring facts that refute them ;
and a psalm,3 that stands in their way, is ascribed to the
time of the Maccabees, if by any means the Bible, the witness
of the Truth it contains, and its power over the heart of man,
may be set aside. And this, translated, eagerly received, puffed
off, and retailed by men yet less learned, is the kind of ' phi
losophy' we are told to reconcile with the Bible. Can human
presumption, ignorance, and arrogancy go further ? Such men,
however they may arrogate to themselves the intellect, the
ability, and the learning of the day, must nevertheless see how
ridiculous they make themselves by their empty boasting.
VII. Whereas, looking at this same narrative with true phi
losophy, r) f3ouXeTat 7rsp) <$>p6vr,o-tv s'tvat xa) ty)v Qswptav t^v wept aXr\-
hiav* which is inseparable from good ; sense, and concerns itself
with the contemplation of Truth, we find in it touches of truth
which attest the authenticity of the writing. We have just
seen that the chief butler did not invent his dream. If we now
compare ver. 11 and ver. 13, we find that whereas the cup
bearer says to Joseph, 111712 V^ty DlSlTftgl |ftfn, ' and I
placed the cup upon the palm of Pharaoh's hand/ Joseph says
1 As given, somewhat freely, by Seyffarth, Theol. Schjfiften, p. 8.
2 Chabas. Mel. Egypt, p. 72, 73. Brugsch. Monum. vol. ii. pi. ci. 1. 3, and
p. 115.
3 Ps. lxxx. V. Bohlen. Gen. p. 374.
1 Eth. Eudem. i. 4, 8, 2, R. iii. p. 1.

40 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [iNTROD.
to him, 1T3 ni712TDl2 fiFOl, 'and thou shalt put Pharaoh's
3 t : : - t-t:»
cup into his hand :' according to the Hebrew idiom "2 T5 D13,
Ps. lxxv. 9, Jer. Ii. 7, Ez. xxiii. 31 ; but never *\5~hV. This
idiom is owing, most likely, to the shape of cups generally used
of old in Palestine, and probably not unlike the pot of manna
stamped on the shekel, which is very much like a goblet, that
was taken and held with the hand. Whereas the cup used by
Pharaoh was most likely flat, like the golden cup of Thothmes
III. in the Louvre,1 and like those given in Kossellini's great
work,2 and exactly like the metal tu}&, D13> ln daily use among
Arabs in Egypt and elsewhere. So that the cupbearer, speak
ing with a knowledge of his office which Joseph could not have,
speaks more correctly according to Egyptian usage ; which was,
judging from what I often observed in the East, to place this
flat cup, or saucer, upon the palm of the king's left hand, for
him to take it thence with his right hand, and thus carry it to
his mouth; for it could not be safely passed from the cup
bearer's hand to that of the king in any other way.3 And that
^S'Ty, ' upon the palm of the hand/ is the right expression as
regards Egyptian customs, is proved by the use of the same ex
pression at v. 21, where we read that the cupbearer placed the
cup upon the palm, ^2"1V, of Pharaoh's hand at the public
banquet.4 Such touches of truth preserved by Moses, who lived
probably at the court of Ramses II., with the princes Sha-em-djam
and Atef-amen, two of the king's sons, and who, therefore, had
opportunities of becoming acquainted with the duties of the
king's cupbearer, show the authenticity of the writing. We
1 See Sir G. Wilkinson's " The Egyptians in the time of the Pharaohs,"
p. 98.
2 Monum. Civ. Tab. lvii. fig. 5, 6.
8 Joseph and the cupbearer both spoke Egyptian ; but Joseph spoke it with a
Hebrew turn, saying something like £.Tf TA.-K 11-6^.1" JUL Ti.T JtJt
II-£.p£.A. (or rather, as he used the Memphitic dialect, cb-£.p£.£j render
ing 1\2 by JUL T<LT, albeit these two idioms are not an exact counterpart
of each other ; whereas the cupbearer expressly said, &/$ Ti--Iti H-6.&.T
£,p (rather £1) TA.T" JUL cb-£.p£.«L, " And I placed the cup upon the
king's (Pharaoh's) hand."
4 Compared with ITS said by the cupbearer himself, when he held the cup
in his left hand (v. 11), to press the grapes into it with the right hand.

P. XXXIV.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 41
see, then, with what caution should be read some of the autho
rities to which Dr. Stanley referred his hearers ; and how little
it will do to believe, and to take everything for granted on
the testimony of another man ; but rather, if we be in earnest,
ought we to search and to examine for ourselves, especially
when our search is into the Word of God.
VIII. After giving the good advice of comparing one Book of
the Bible with another — a thing done by every intelligent and
earnest student of the Bible ever since Tatian wrote his 8ia tect-
o-apwv — Dr. Stanley reminds us that
" the Books of the Old Testament, in their present form, in many
instances are not, and do not profess to be, the original documents
on which the history was based. There was (to use a happy ex
pression employed of late) *a Bible within a Bible,' an ' Old Tes
tament before an Old Testament was written ;' as, e.g., Gen. xiv.,
fragment of a song in Numb, xxi., and quotations from the Book
of Jasher in the Book of Joshua and the First Book of Samuel." —
p. xxxiv.
Wherein the ' happiness' of the expression " a Bible within a
Bible" consists does not, assuredly, appear. Anyhow, it is in
correct ; for we have no more right to call those fragments
either " a Bible" or " parts of one," than we have to speak of
' a Thucydides within a Thucydides' when speaking of his re
ference to the records of Hellanicus, or to his quotations from
Homer. We call " Thucydides" the history that goes by his
name, and we accept on his authority all the speeches, allusions,
and extracts from previous histories he gives, as part and parcel
of his work. We do not think him the less trustworthy, nor the
less a most manly and satisfactory writer, because he chooses to
quote from others ; but such is our respect for him as an his
torian, and so great is our pleasure in reading his terse and
chaste style, that the fact of certain authors — may be, other
wise little known — being quoted by him prejudices us at once
in their favour, on account of their introduction to us through
him. And does he not tell us at the outset1 that he made use
of ancient documents which seemed to him most trustworthy,
w; kw) fJ.axpOTa.Tov o-xottouvtI fj,ot wto-Tsuo-af £ufj.f3a'ivei ; for he did not
believe everybody, since he questions Homer's account.2 Like-
1 Lib. i. 1. 2 Lib. i. 10.

42 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [iNTROD.
wise Herodotus, despite what Josephus, Plutarch, and Strabo
may say, professes1 to repeat only what he heard, otsw to. Totaura
¦nttiava eo-Ti, as far as it was to be believed ; for his plan through
out his history was to write what he heard, and state from
whom.2 Neither do we find fault with Tacitus because, "ex-
trema tradit," he only gives the chief events concerning Au
gustus ; nor yet with Livy, because he chooses to follow Polybius
in some of his statements ; neither yet much with Sulpicius Se-
verus, for making free with several authors, both Christian and
profane. On the contrary, we like to trace in his writings the
thread of the annals of Tacitus, and remnants of other authors.
As we do not think of allowing these quotations to invalidate
our opinion of these heathen authors, neither ought we to allow
our faith in the Bible, and our love for it, to be in the least
degree shaken by a few allusions to anterior documents which
are known to us and entitled to our respect, only through their
being thus quoted. This " happy" expression, " a Bible within
a Bible," seems to imply that a Bible existed formerly, out of
which our Bible was made up ; than which nothing can be more
erroneous. " The Bible," or " The Book"— for " Bible" means
" Book" — is " Holy Scripture, that containeth all things neces
sary to salvation ; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor
may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that
it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought
requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of Holy Scrip
ture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and
New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the
Church," (Art. VI.,)3 as having been either spoken or written
by " holy men of God, who spake as they were moved by the
Holy Ghost."4
This being the case, we have yet to learn, what difference it can
possibly make, either in the authenticity or in the credibility of
their writings, that they should be moved to write fresh matter
from end to end of their Books, or be directed to choose some
fragment of pre-existing documents deemed by the directing
1 Lib. u. 123. 2 Comp. also Lib. vii. 152 ; ii. 44, 99.
3 No wonder these philosophers should be anxious to dispense with the sub-
scription to the Articles.
4 2 S. Pet. i. 21.

P. XXXIV.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 43
Spirit, sufficient for the purpose, and thus fit to be inserted as
part of the Book. In either case direction, or inspiration, is pre
cisely the same; and the authority of the Book thus partly written
and partly compiled is precisely the same also ; since the authority
comes not from the letter, but from the Spirit that inspired or
directed the framing of the whole. Take, for instance, two his
tories of the same nation, by two different authors; the one
inserts into his history pre-existing documents or fragments of
them, as he found them, because they appeared to him worthy
of credit ; the other writes the whole history in his own style,
and as Thucydides says, perhaps, S7ri to wpoaywyorspov t*j axpoaost
% aXrfiso-Tepov, rather so as to write agreeably for the sake of
being read, than truthfully, for the sake of telling the Truth
alone ; to which of these two authors should we be most willing
to give credit for the greater honesty ? Clearly to the one who
had taken the trouble to quote accurately the words of others
suited to his purpose. So also, and a fortiori, in Books
written under the direction of God's Holy Spirit. In short, if
a Prophet or an Evangelist, was led by the Holy Ghost to
adopt certain records or fragments of them, this choice being
thus overruled and directed, constitutes these fragments part and
parcel of the Book, and entitles them to the same respect, faith
and worship, as the parts of the Book written immediately by
the Prophet or the Evangelist ; for, assuredly, if these fragments
or records were not deemed worthy of credit, they would not
have been chosen ; but since they were chosen they are then
worthy of all credit. Yet, as they are entitled to credit, only
because they are found in the Bible, it is not logical to speak of
them as of " a Bible" within a Bible ; for they would be nothing
without the Bible in which they occur ; and therefore they are,
of themselves alone, no " Bible" at all.
This appears the only fair and real view of the question lately
revived in this country, though long since settled and almost
forgotten in others — the apparent arbitrary use of El, Elohim,
and Jehovah, in the several books of the Pentateuch, but espe
cially in Genesis. Those who either deny Inspiration, or who at
least explain it away, make of Genesis a patchwork of writing,
to which we cannot wonder themselves decline to assent. But
admitting, or rather believing in Inspiration as it exists, and

44 PHILOSOPHY, or truth ? [iNTROD.
seeing clearly that, whether Inspiration told a prophet what to
write or what to choose, the Inspiration was the same, Genesis
and the rest of the Pentateuch forms a whole alike authentic and
worthy of our implicit faith and of our profound reverence.
IX. After recommending the study of Hebrew, now so much
neglected to the great hindrance of true Biblical scholarship,
Dean Stanley goes on to say —
" The Hebrew text, however, is not our only source of informa
tion as to the original materials of the Sacred History. Without
arguing the relative merits of the Hebrew and the Septuagint
texts, we have no right to set aside or neglect such an additional
authority as the Septuagint furnishes, (p. xxxv.) But to us who
feel what the Septuagint was in the hands of the Apostles, as
the means of spreading the knowledge of the Old Testament
through the Gentile world" — " who feel what a bulwark this
double version of the Old Testament furnishes against a too rigid or
too literal construction of the Sacred History — the Seventy Trans
lators, if not worthy of the high place which the ancient Church
assigned to them, may well be ranked amongst the greatest bene
factors of Biblical Literature and Free Inquiry."
This is exactly the language to be expected from a man of
Dr. Stanley's sentiments, who is not acquainted with the Hebrew
text ; it is, nevertheless, wrong throughout.
First — it is not clear what Dr. Stanley means by his " double
version of the Old Testament ;" does he reckon, perhaps, the
Hebrew original as a " Version" ? for he cannot here allude to
one of the many Greek versions of the Old Testament besides
the Septuagint.
Secondly — it is vain to talk of the " additional authority the
Septuagint furnishes." Authority cannot be divided, especially
in matters of faith. Either the Hebrew text is the original one,
and is, as such, the highest and last court of appeal — or it is
not. As it is the original, and as the Septuagint is only a Ver
sion, under whatsoever circumstances it may have been made,
it is but a servantmaid to the Hebrew text. We cannot owe
divided allegiance to the Hebrew and to the Septuagint, and
make one whole of the two ; such a mode of reasoning is un
sound. We may and ought to value the Septuagint as perhaps
the oldest version from the Hebrew, and consult it as such ; but

P. XXXV.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 45
also, to let it go whenever it differs from the Hebrew original.
We must not be deceived by the undue importance some men,
especially in this country, are apt to give to the Septuagint,
which proceeds from the fact that — so very few study Hebrew,
that, finding themselves comparatively at home in the Septua
gint through their classical education, they like to invest the
Greek Version with a kind of original character and authority.
But, in fact, it is perhaps the most corrupt translation of any of
the ancient ones of the Old Testament ; at all events, the text
thereof is in a hopeless state. So that, as no sound critic would
venture to abide by the Septuagint against the Hebrew, it is
difficult to see bow the Septuagint can be a " bulwark against a
too rigid construction" of the Hebrew text, since, after all, we
must come to the Hebrew; nay, even in questions of chro
nology, we may reckon, if we will, according to the Septuagint,
without for all that, giving it the authority of the original.
So that—
Thirdly — it is not easy to see in what way
" the Seventy Translators may well be ranked amongst the greatest
benefactors of Biblical Literature and Free Inquiry."
Free indeed, but what about ? about the lump of pitch, of fat,
and of hair with which Daniel made the dragon burst asunder ?
or about what fish it was, the heart and liver of which made the
devil flee away when he smelled the smell thereof?1 A man must
indeed have a large organ of credulity who believes all he reads
in the Septuagint. And nothing tends more to show how little
this Version is to be trusted than the pains at which its greatest
apologist, Bishop Walton, is to prove the contrary, in his, as yet
unrivalled, Prolegomena.2 For, since it is now generally ac
knowledged, says De Wette,3 that the story of Aristeas is a
fable, the oldest account we have of this Version is, perhaps, from
Philo.4 He tells us that Ptolemy Philadelphus taken with a
love and desire for the Jewish laws, el; eXXaSa yXwTTav tijv
yaXlaixr)v fj.edapfj.o%eo-^at Sievoeito, determined to have these laws
translated into Greek from the Chaldaic (Hebrew) tongue. He
1 Bel and the dragon— Tobit iii. 2 Prol. ix. 1—66.
3 Einleit. in D. A. T. p. 56.
4 De Vita Mos. lib. i. p. 658, sq., ed. Par.

46 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [iNTROD.
therefore sent to Eleazar the high priest at Jerusalem, request
ing him to send him for the purpose able men equally learned
in Greek and in their own tongue. Philo says nothing of the
number of these men ; but Josephus,1 who tells us that Ptolemy
wrote to Eleazar at the instance of Demetrius Phalereus, librarian
of Alexandria, also says that Eleazar wrote to him2 he had
chosen avlpa; s£ oaro <puXrj; sxaa-rr\g, dug itEwdfJ.§afj.ev eyoVTag tov
vdjj.ov, six men out of every tribe,3 whom he sent having the.
Law. They delivered to the King of Egypt the parchments
on which the Law was written in letters of gold ; and he placed
the men in the island of Pharos4 in separate cells, la-ap'tifj.ou; twv
epfj.r\veuovTwv olxio-xou; fj.txpoug, repeats Justin Martyr, after
Aristeas5 of which, however, neither Philo nor Josephus say a
word; albeit Josephus B. Gorion, whatever his authority be
worth, tells us6 'nm DTQ OV2-V "flttl *>ti?Pi Dl1? ]m
1i1j?1D tS^K that Ptolemy the king gave them seventy7 houses,
and separated every man from his fellow, ¦y.wp'to-ag ovtov; car
a.XXr]Xwv.a S. Clement of Alexandria simply says,9 xar iVtav
hxao-Trjv hgfj,r\vsuo-aVTe;, "that they translated everyone his own
version separately" — sxao-Tw TSiov olxov amvetfj.a;-10 while Abul-
feda, I know not on what authority, says,11 that " such was the
eagerness among the learned men of Jerusalem to obey the
summons of Ptolemy, that Eleazar was obliged to choose six
1 Antiq. lib. xii. c. 2, p. 508, ed. Huds.
2 This correspondence is also given at length in Eusebius, Prap. Ev. pp.
350, sq.
3 Epiphanius (De Mens, et Pond. ix. p. 168, ed. Petav.) says Eleazar chose
six men out of every tribe in order not to create jealousies. And Irenseus Adv.
Hser. lib. iii. c. 25, ed. Grabe, gives the names of the seventy-two from Aristeas.
4 lb. 12, p. 518 ; Philo I.e. p. 659.
5 Ad Graec. Cohort, p. 13, 14, ed. Col.
6 Lib. iii. c. 2, p. 174, ed. Breith.
DWi maw seventy-two, Massech. Sopherim, apud Lightf. Opp. ii. p. 934,
ed. fol. Rot. So also S. Athanas. Syn. S.S. Opp. ii. p. 156, ed. Col., Euseb.
Priep. Ev. lib. viii. p. 354, ed. Col. from Aristeas, and S. Cyril. Hieros. Catech.
iv. p. 36, ed. Morel.
s Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 9, p. 174, ed. Mentz; and Iren. Adv. Hair.
lib. iii. c. 25, p. 255. Kara $ta(p6povs ofaous A\A<A.oir /tj) wpotrlevres. S. Cyril.
Hieros. I.e.
9 Strom, i. p. 342, ed. Col.
10 S. Cyril. Hieros. I.e.
11 Hist. Ante Isl. p. 54, sq.

P. XXXV.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 47
out of every tribe.1 And Justin Martyr2 declares that he had
seen Ta to-yyr) twv olx'to-xwv lv T?j <Papw — eti a-w'Cflfj.sva, the
traces of these cells still preserved in the island of Pharos.
This, however, may but show that he, like many other travellers,
was very simple to believe all he was told ; I too, have seen the
place whence was removed through the air the cell which is now
at Loretto !
We are then told that these thirty-six or these seventy-two
translations were all finished in seventy -two days, and that they
agreed wonderfully together, not only Iv vor\tj.ao-tv, aXXa xa) ev
Ae£eo-iv,3 not only in sentiments but also in expressions. The
king was greatly struck and pleased ; he then placed a copy in
the library at Alexandria and sent others through Egypt. When
the Alexandrian Library was burnt, Epiphanius tells us that
copies of the Version that had been preserved were then placed
in the Serapeum.
Whatever truth and fable be mixed up with these accounts,
great difference of opinion did exist as to what books were then
translated from the Hebrew into Greek. Josephus tells us
plainly,4 ouSs yap wao-av exetvog £<$$rj Xaf3e~tv tijv avayga<pi)v, aXX'
aura. fj.ova Ta tou vojj.ou irap&ioo-av ol 7refj,<pSsvTsg br) tjjv eJwjjo"iv sis
ty]v 'AXe^avlpstav, " that the king did not succeed in obtaining
the whole copy of Scripture, but the men sent to Alexandria
to translate, only brought him the books of the Law." So that
either these words mean nothing, or it is in vain that Bishop
Walton and others bring to bear upon this what is also true, viz.
that vdfj,o; is also said of the Psalms, of Isaiah and of the Pro-
1 These men were sent to Ptolemy who <£> j ..jJiij. lu«j *a_Uj
x\jjA[i ^dtM>J tiW-WJj b-j <Hl \yo^-ji *J^*\j AgkL-i! ^jJJ L_fllUi-j
divided them into thirty-six pair, classing them according to their tribes, and
commanded them to translate for him thirty-six copies of the Law. (Ibid.)
2 Cohort, ad Grsec. p. 14.
3 S. Cyril. Hieros. I.e. owexvevaav ai iraaai epia,ve!at avvavrifSXrfiiiaai
— Kal ras Siajwas Kal rets Af{«s, (S. Clem. Al. I.e.) to aAra rats airais Kifcat,
(Iren. Adv. Hser. I.e.) all this, Beta 8iva//.et (Justin M. l.c.) in the same words
and in the same thoughts ; a thing that could not have been, says Philo, but that
the translators, as if inspired, prophesied, not every one different things, but all
the same names and the same words, Stamp tmo$oK4ais IkcJittois aopdrus 4vrj-
Xovyros, as if an unseen prompter told everyone of them what to write.
4 Antiq. lib. i. 3.

48 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [iNTROD.
phets in general ; for here Josephus distinguishes vdp.og from
irao-a avayguQrj, by which he does not surely mean the Apocry
phal writings ; applying vd(j,og to the Canonical Books.1 And the
internal evidence of which we hear so much for other Books,
certainly seems to confirm all this ; for the style of the Penta
teuch differs much from that of the other Books, and is better
than that of most of them, some of which show a later and less
exercised hand. Josephus B. Gorion, however, says that the
seventy-two elders and priests among which was Eleazar himself
explained to the king TO NIpOH "HBD 1Kt2> ]"»K1 Him the
Law and the rest of the twenty-four Books, ^r*=j i\jjA\
" the Law and the rest of it," says Abulfeda, I.e. But Epi-
phanius, I.e., goes beyond these authors, and says that they sent
to the King of Egypt from Jerusalem, x/3' fj.lv Tag svSiaflsVou;,
1/SSo^xovTa 8uo 8= Tag airoxpu^oug, twenty-two Canonical and
seventy-two Apocryphal Books.
This Version, such as it was, was then deposited in the Library
in the Bruchium, and after that in the Serapeura. There
Origen consulted it, and on it he worked at his Hex or
Octapla. Hence too, the Versions of Eusebius and of Lucian,
to say nothing of those of Aquila, of Symmachus, of Jericho,
and of Neapolis, together with that of Theodotion ; all of which
have more or less contributed to the Version of the LXX. as
we now have it. So corrupt had the text of Origen already
grown that Lucian and Hesychius began a recension of it, of
which nothing now remains. This Version of Lucian, as S.
Athanasius calls it, is the seventh of those he enumerates.2
Further particulars concerning what use Origen may or may not
have made of the Version of Theodotion, — the Eusebian Revision
used in Palestine, — S. Jerome's opinion3 of the work of Origen,
and other such questions would be here out of place ; suffice it
to say that, albeit some MSS. may be more correct than others,
' Philo also (I.e. p. 660) mentions only rbv v6fiov and ras ypa<pds, as S. Clem.
Al. also does ; and he speaks of these translators as prophets and as hierophants,
ols 4£ey4vero crvvSpafifiv \oyurfio7s tthiKptvio-t r$ MciiTecos KaBapardrtf nveip.art,
" to whom it was granted to seize and to render in the truest terms the real
spirit of Moses," without allusion to other portions of Scripture.
2 In Synops. S.S. Opp. vol. ii. pp. 156, 157.
3 Ap. Huetium, in Origen. Opp. vol. i. p. 254 — 263.

P. XXXV.J PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 49
as e.g. that of the Vatican reprinted in Bishop Walton's Poly
glot, yet so uncertain is the text of the LXX., so many are the
discrepancies, and so great is the mixture and the confusion in it
that De Wette1 says the criticism on the LXX. can be brought
no further than the collecting of various readings; and that not
one of the editions yet published, gives a text either pure or
trustworthy.2 L. Bos, than whom few men have been better
judges in the matter, enumerates the real uses of the Septua
gint, saying :
" Magnam etiamnum habet utilitatem Versio Grseca : nam
primo multa facit ad Novum Foedus recte intelligendum —
secundo magnum hodieque usum habet Versio Grseca ad inda-
gandum verum Sp. S. sensum in codice Hebrseo," &c. — " At
verb cavendum etiam, ne nimium hanc Versionem extollamus, et
plusquam par est, ei fidamus : ne sequiparemus earn veritati
Hebraicse, nedum preeponamus. Conferre eam oportet
conici HebrjEO, non pr^eferre."3
1 Einleit. I.e.
5 While L. Bos, (Proleg. in ed. LXX. Francq. 1709, 4to.) says: " Confectam
esse Versionis hujus partem nullus dubito primis Ptolemsei Philadelphi annis —
cujus sive jussu, sive potius sponte sua sacros Libros ex lingua Hebraica in Grso-
cam converterunt Judsei Alexandrini, qui Grace sciebant. Nequaquam ad illorum
accedo sententiam, qui Aristese Historiam veram esse agnoscunt. — Fuisse autem
Alexandrinos Interpretes illos, ex dialecto colligi potest, neque fuerunt illi
homines divino numine afflati ; — non etiam tot homines, quot vulgo feruntur,
nimirum LXX. vel LXXII. hoc opus agressi fuisse videntur ; sed pauciores
numero, et forsan uti ego quidem existimo, quinque tantum. — Atque hi homines
non transtulerunt omnes libros sacros, quod multi opinantur, sed Pentateuchum
solum. — Quod ad reliquos libros attinet, illi deinceps sunt translati, non simul
eodemque tempore, neque ab uno, sed a diversis hominibus, diversisque tempo-
ribus. — Librum Josuis serius et quidem post Ptol. Euergetse Junioris transla-
tum fuisse colligit Doctissimus Hodius ex vocabnlo yaitfos, quod occurrit u. viii.
— Diversum a Pentateuchi stilo esse stilum librorum Judicum, Ruths et Regum
variis exemplis demonstrare possum. — Qui Paralipomena transtulit, rursus alius
fuisse videtur Interpres. — Eodem modo se res habet cum versione Ezra et Nehe-
mia — Estheree liber conversus fuit in linguam Gracam non Ptol. Philad. tempore
sed Philometoris, uti observavit eruditissimus Usserius. (De LXX. Interpret.
p. 22.) Diversus iterum Interpres Jobi. Is Poetas Grsecos legit. (The Greek
Version of Job is treated of at length in J. D. Michaelis Einleit. in die gottl.
Schriften des A. Bundes, p. 123 — 129: he says of it, "ganz erschrecklich
interpolirt," &c.) Qui Psalmos et Proverbia transtulerunt, periti atque disei"ti
fuerunt. — Diversi etiam Interpretes fuere Ecclesiasta, Cantici, atque Propheta-
rum. — Quod vero attinet ad Danielis versionem, qua nos hodie utimur, Theodo-
tionis est," &c.
3 L. Bos, Proleg. c. 1. E

50 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [iNTROD.
Lightfoot also closes his dissertation on the LXX.1 and on
the value put upon it by the Jews, with affirming that " five"
and not " seventy" were the men who made it ; mentioning also
many of the omissions, interpolations, and other defects in the
Greek Version, and he ends with these remarkable words :
" In his quse dixi de Versione Grseca, atque ejus non-lectione
inter Hellenistas, contra-sentientes novi me habere viros doctis-
simos, et olim quidem ipse fui in contraria sententia. Unde
facilius, uti spero, persuadebitur lectori, me non hsec ex studio
contentionis dixisse; sed ex quanta quanta possum seria rei
disquisitione, cogitationibus ssepiiis iteratis, atque intimo desi-
derio investigandse veritatis."
An opinion thus formed and thus given by so real and so
learned a scholar, shows the true philosopher, the man who is
in earnest about the Truth of his subject ; such opinion, there
fore, is of greater weight than a random and popular vote of
thanks to these pretended seventy or seventy-two " benefactors
of Biblical Literature and Free Inquiry."
X. For, one can apply no other term than 'puerile' to
some of the criticism these 'free inquirers' bring to bear on
the Septuagint. For instance, they do not stop to consider that
this Greek Version being made in Egypt, and in Egypt at
Alexandria, most likely by Jews of that place for Jews of that
place also, it is a local Version, that is, a Version which renders
, many terms, allusions, &c, in the Hebrew text, in a way to be
understood by residents in Egypt. Neither do these 'free
inquirers' trouble themselves to look at the map, to see that Pa
lestine and Egypt lying at right angles to each other, and there
fore very differently as regards both the Red and the Mediter
ranean Seas, are each liable to physical and to meteorological
phsenomena of wind, rain, &c, which differ almost toto ccelo in
each country ; as I have found, not only by my own experience,
but by the still higher authorities of CI. Ptolemy's meteorological
calendar for Alexandria and for Lower Egypt,2 and from a series
of Observations made by the French Expedition at Cairo in
1800, 1801, and given in their work on Egypt.3
1 Opp. vol. ii. pp. 929—940, fol.
' *i£(Tfis a.ir\dvav, ed. Halma, vol. iii. p. 47, sq.
3 Descript. de 1'Eg. vol. ii. p. 322, sq.

F. XXXV.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 51
Thus, reasoning a priori, we find, what is actually the fact,
that in Palestine, the two principal currents of air are easterly
and westerly, owing to the situation of the land as regards the
sea on the one hand, and the deserts of Arabia on the other ;
and that in Egypt, these two principal currents of air are from
the same causes, northerly and southerly. As I have already
treated this subject with some detail,1 and as I shall have to
recur to it when I refute one of Dr. Stanley's expressions re
specting the passage of the Bed Sea, I will at present only
mention that —
First — Whereas, from physical causes, the D^lp PHI ' east
wind' in Palestine, is the most violent and fearful in its effects
on animals and on vegetation, that same east wind in Egypt,
being checked and cooled by its passage over the Red Sea, is
JiLsli " wholesome and favourable," as Abdollatif tells us.2
Secondly — That from physical causes also, the effects peculiar
to the east wind in Palestine belong in Egypt exclusively to the
southerly winds.
Thirdly— That, whereas the term EP, lOTJULi, lOJUt, is said
both in Palestine and in Egypt of any local sea, lake, or river,
yet, that when said absolutely with regard to Palestine in general,
D"1 is ¦Vniil CH "the Great Sea," or the Mediterranean, Ezek.
T T " T - * .
xlvii. 20, &c, and is used for " west," Josh. xi. 3, &c. But in
Egypt "the sea," r\ 8aXao-o-a,3 is the "north sea," r, $oprjtr\ SaXao-o-ri*
" the Great Sea."5 And the same local definitions obtain there
at the present day;^*^] "the Sea" is *^)\ jstJ "the Sea of
Roum" or Europe ; <_i/s^ " maritime" is used for " north," as
\Ji "fronting," i.q. Q^TfJ in Palestine, is used for "south."6
" The Alexandrian translators living in a country so differently
1 'Vindication of the Auth. Vers. pt. i. p. 96, sq.
2 JEg. p. 11, ed. Wh. 3 Scyl. Per. p. 81, ed. Mull.
4 Herod, ii. 159, &c.
6 oT<L2£-o-rep as e.g. in ,£>,&.- nft- or n't £,p crrr ot<lx-
oTep p Jtxi. ajulkt (n-Taj-rt) &.K frf p prt-q p<ucf
" the Greeks that (dwell) on the border of the Great Sea (or Great Water-basin >)
on the western side of the Saitic nomc ; the name of which (place) is Raketi
(Alexandria.)" (Brugsch Geog. Denkm. i. p. 40, and pi. v. 262.)
6 Khalil Dhaher. inDe Sacy, Chrest. Ar.p. 20, sq., &c.
E 2

52 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [iNTROD.
situated from that whose Books they were translating ei's tt]v
xotvr)v SiaAsxTov, into the vulgar tongue, and so as to become, as
Philo says, xotvwQeXr); of common use, were obliged to translate
so as to be understood of those for whom they wrote. They,
therefore, very properly, rendered D} by Zuo-fj,r), Suo-pai, where it
means " west," said absolutely : had they rendered it by 0«Aao-o-«
it would have meant " north," said absolutely. Likewise, when
translating from the Hebrew the effects of the Dip "east
wind," they were obliged, in order to make sense in the Greek
of Alexandria, to render that term by voto; ; and the effects of the
Dip by those of the voto;, as /3/aioj, xauVcov, &c. In this case,
they, living at Alexandria could no more render Dip " east"
and " east wind" by amjAicoTjjs or avaToAij, than they could have
rendered D^ when meaning "west," by 8aXa<r<ra, which, in
Egypt, means "north." Free inquirers, however, are not re
strained even by the points of the compass ; and, therefore, take
no account of these local details. But they argue that since
" east" in Hebrew is rendered " south" at Alexandria, it there
fore means " south" and not " east ;" and they afford us the
amusing sight of a Professor (V. Bohlen) teaching "that
the wind that cleft the waters of the Red Sea must have been a
south wind," and his pupil, a writer in the Journal of Sacred
Literature, maintaining that it was a " north wind ;" because
neither will have it as the Hebrew gives it, "east." When,
however, any sober-minded and real scholar finds Dip " east,"
predicated of ]1D¥ "north," ]WFi "south," 31# or 31#D
" west," then will Dip lose the sense of " east" which is in
herent in it ; and the Dip Pill "east wind" may then blow from
north to south.
Sound criticism and common sense, therefore, grant to the
LXX. no more authority than it deserves. As to the Canonical
Books, no scholar will set aside the Hebrew text for the Greek
Version; and as regards the Apocrypha, wherein the chief
authority of the LXX. consists, S. Cyril of Jerusalem warns
his catechists, saying : '¦ jj.o) ^vjSev twv airoxpuQwv avaylvwa-xe, read
me naught of the Apocrypha; for, why should he who ignores
the Books received by all, disquiet himself in vain concerning

P. XXXV.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 53
those that are doubtful ? ayayi'vaxrxs Ta; Qs'ta; ypa^ag, Tag etxoa-t
huo fitfiXoug Tr]g TraXatag Siafl^xijj tol; utto twv o/3' epfj.r\veuTwv epfj.r\-
vsutsto-a;, but read the Holy Scriptures, the twenty-two books
of the Old Testament, translated by the seventy-two Inter
preters, xai TauTa; fj.6vag fj,sXha, and meditate on these only."1
For, the degree of authority granted to the Septuagint, from
the fact of our Lord having, perhaps, and His Apostles having
certainly, quoted from it, amounts to very little after all. Their
quoting from the Septuagint sanctioned it, first — only as being
the one Version generally available ; that is, they sanctioned
the use of a Version from the original, the main point, to which
I shall presently return. Secondly, in quoting the LXX. they
sanctioned only the passages they quoted ; for, to argue, that
their quoting certain passages sanctions the whole Version and
all the things contained therein, is very much like saying — I
have picked this ripe pear off that tree, therefore all the rest
are ripe — a kind of argument which not only shows little philo
sophy, but which refutes itself.
As to our Saviour quoting the Septuagint — the place brought
forward as an example S. Luke iv. 17, 18, is by no means con
clusive. For S. Luke might himself give the quotation from
the LXX. as his wont was, he not being a Jew. Nay, it is far
more likely that the Lesson was then read by our Lord in He
brew ; for had it been in Greek " the eyes of all" would not
have been " fastened on Him," except in astonishment at what
He could mean ; inasmuch as Justin Martyr tells us2 plainly, that
the LXX. iravTayou iraga Trour'tv elo-tv'Iouiaiotg, o'i xai avaytvwa-xovre;
o\> o-uviacrtv to. elgr\fj,sva, " is everywhere among the Jews, who,
however, do not understand what is said therein." Neither is it
reasonable to suppose that the Jews then showed less respect
for the Hebrew text of the Law than they do at present, when
in every little synagogue they read it in Hebrew ; albeit not ten
persons present, perhaps, can understand what is read, until it
is explained in the vulgar tongue. Hence the origin of the
Targums in former times. For as to the boasted passage from
the Talmud Hier. Lib. Sota c. 7, given by Buxtorf,3 of R. Levi
having heard them in the synagogue of Csesarea, reading in
1 S. Cyril. Hier. Catech. iv. ' Pro Christ. Apol. p. 72.
3 Lex. Chald. p. 104, s.v.

54 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [iNTROD.
Greek the Lesson out of Deut. vi., Lightfoot1 proves that it was
not ' reading' but ' reciting ;' and not out of the Book of the
Law, but that it was said only "de recitatione periocharum
phylactericarum."2 Nay, we dare not press the point of our
Saviour's quotations from the Septuagint, lest we make Him
out far le'ss accurate than His Apostle. For instance, He is
said at S. Matt. xvi. 27, to have quoted xai tote anrolwost Ixao-Ttp
xaTa Tr)v xpa£iv auTou, either from Ps. lxii. 13, on <ru awolwost;
exao-Tcp xaTa Ta epyaaurou ; or from Prov. xxiv. 12, o; a5ro8i'8coo-iv
exao-Tw xara to. spy a auTou, which S. Paul quotes far more cor
rectly thus : og anrolwost sxao-TW xara Ta epya auTou. Rom. ii. 6.
Of course, we cannot for a moment suppose that this has
reference to Sir. xxxv. 21, scuf avTaTroSai avOpwirw xaTa Ta; Trpafet;
aurou ; we may rather perhaps, infer from this pretended quota
tion in S. Matt, that it is no quotation at all. For we have in
Ps. lxii. 13, IIJi^DS and in Prov. xxiv. 12, 1^23 both sing.
and in the LXX. xara to. epya, both pi.; yet sgyov might have been
used in the sing. ; for although it somewhat differs in idiom from
to. epya, as does ' a man's work' from ' a man's works / yet this
difference is far from being always observed in the LXX. : and the
pi. V&}!D5 would have been quite as idiomatic as the singular.
But 7ifS which is used chiefly in poetic style, differs nearly as
much from Jlli^ as irpanetv does from ttoisTv. Such a passage as
HJS'jLn 7#2 "p3 shows the difference, and shows that 7^2
in Prov. xxiv. 12, is better rendered through wpa^t;, — weg) fj.h
ouv irpa^tv xai to. wpaxTa i) <f>gdvrjo-t;, wsp) 8s tt)v mir)0~tv xa) to)
irotr\Ta i) ts'^h].4 — compared with D^HI/ pIVTl vJ/S 5 wherein
we see clearly that irga%ew; fj.lv ouv apyr\ wpoatpeo-t;' — 8io out
avsu vou xa) Itavota; out avsu r)Stxr]; Io-tiv eJ-jscoj q irpoa'tpeo-t;' — r, yap
euirpa^ta tsXo;, i\ 8' ope%t; toutou.6 Whence we may safely conclude
that our Saviour's words are not a quotation from the Sep-
1 Opp. vol. ii. p. 397.
2 And as Selden further says : " Nimirum erant formulae sacra quibus ex
Ebrteorum scitis uti licuit etiam lingua qualicunque utenti nota, veluti Adjuratio
Uxoris suspectse, Preces, Benedictio mensas, &c. Sed vero dubitari nequit,
lectionem illam audi sntt in Gemara ac sic memoratam, ac Hellenisticam
dictam, ipsam fuisse Greecam Deuteronomii Versionem," &c. (J. Seld. Comm.
in Eutych. Pat. Alexandrini Orig. Eccl. p. 162.)
3 Isa. xli. 4. i Eth. Magn. i. 35, 9.
6 Prov. x. 16. 6 Ethi Nicom. vi. 2, 4.

P. XXXV.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 55
tuagint ; but whether they be His or S. Matthew's, they are an
exact translation — $'lt\? being well rendered exoVt<», — of the
Hebrew of Prov. xxiv. 12 ; and far more correct than either of
the other renderings of the Septuagint.
So much is made of these, so called, quotations from the
LXX., said to be found in the New Testament, that a little cool
reasoning on the subject may not be here out of place. In fact,
most of these said quotations bear about as much resemblance
to the passages from which they are said to be taken, as e.g.
this expression in Shakspeare :
" Be wary ; best safety lies in fear j"1
bears to, " Happy is the man that feareth alway ;"2 or as —
" Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice,"3
bears to, " Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak ;"*
or, again, as — :
" This spirit dumb to me, will speak to him,"5
bears to, " if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him,"6 &c,
not one of which can be called a quotation from the words of
Scripture. Yet this, and worse than this, is done with regard
to the LXX. We are gravely told e.g. that, fj-r) i8siv Savarov,
S. Luke ii. 26, Heb. xi. 5, is a quotation from ti; Icttiv av-
6gwwo; o; Z,r]a-sTat xa) oux ovj/srai davaTov ;7 whereas they both are
Hebraisms, to which Philo8 alludes when speaking of the use
of iSsTv in Holy Scripture ; Xsysrat yag ort ira; b Xao; ewpa rr)v
tpwvt)v, oux jjxouev, et sq. Likewise, mpsuou el; elpr\vr\v, S. Luke
vii. 50, is said to be quoted from 1 Sam. xx. 42 ; but this too is
the Hebrew idiom, ^nwl "=[7 ; so also Ixkrysov fj.e Kupte uil
Aafiih, S. Matt. xv. 22, is another such quotation from Ps. vi. 3,
HIPP ^2n sXerjo-dv pt,e Kupte. So, again, xaTEufluvai tou; nroia;
rjfuibv si; 68ov elgr)vr\;, S. Luke i. 79, is said to be taken from xai
68ov elprjvr); oux oi'Sao"!, Isa. lix. 8 ; elpr\vr\ ujjav, from Judg. vi. 23,
which is the Hebrew *]7 Dl/ti*; forgetting that — if these and
other like expressions given by the Evangelists be called ' quota
tions/ that is, the very words spoken by those of whom they
1 Hamlet, act i. sc. 3. 2 Prov. xxviii. 14.
1 Hamlet, ib. 4 S. James i. 19.
5 Hamlet, ib. 6 Acts xxiii. 9.
? Ps. lxxxix. 47. 8 De Migr. Abr. p. 395.

56 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [iNTROD.
are told, and not a translation of their words into Greek, then
both our Saviour, the Syrophenician woman,1 the blind beg
gars,2 blind Bartimeus,3 Thomas/ the man possessed of the
devils,5 our Saviour to His mother,6 the lepers to Him,? the
rich man to Abraham,8 must all have spoken Greek, and that
too, quoting the Septuagint; an assertion, I trow, few will
venture to make. Nay, even Herod addressing the daughter of
Philip,9 must have remembered exactly the words of Ahasuerus
to Esther, as given in Esth. v. 3; the angel coming in to
Mary,10 is made to repeat the words said by the angel to
Gideon ;n and both are also made to speak Greek. This
system of quotation, that would hold good in no other case, and
which also cannot hold good in this, makes the oddest compari
sons, as e.g. between the mustard-tree,12 and the tree mentioned
in Daniel iv. 9, " that reached unto heaven ;" the parable of the
vineyard13 is also thus taken from Isa. v. 1, 2 ; the final gather
ing of God's elect mentioned in S. Matt. xxiv. 31, is made to
refer exclusively to the Jews ;14 the battle of Armageddon which
is yet to be fought15 is thus made to be either the battle of
Megiddo lost by Josiah16 or the other won there by Barak nearly
seven hundred years before ; lv apyy \\v 6 Aoyoj1? is derived from
tw Ao'yo; tou Kupiou ol oupavot lo-Tepswdrjo-av ;18 yea, even our Lord's
Prayer is made to be partly taken from David's thanksgiving for
the offerings to the temple.19
But, in all this there is neither scholarship, philosophy, nor
sound criticism. On the other hand, common sense tells us that
men speaking and writing in the same language, and on the
same subject, which they all draw from the same source, must
of necessity often agree in thought and in word. Accordingly,
we find that the Apostles and the Evangelists having to preach
1 S. Matt. xv. 22. 2 S. Matt. xx. 30.
3 S. Mark x. 47 ; S. Luke xviii. 38. 4 S. John xx. 28.
6 S. Matt. viii. 29 ; S. Mark v. 7 ; S. Luke viii. 28. « S. John ii. 4.
7 S. Luke xvii. 13. s s. Luke xvi. 24.
» S. Mark vi. 22, 23. 10 s. Luke {. 28.
" JulJg- vi- 12- u S. Matt. xiii. 32.
>=> S. Matt. xxi. 33. 14 Deut. xxx. 4.
16 Rev- xvi- 16- " 2 Chron. xxxv. 22.
17 S.Johni. 1. >s Ps. xxxiu. 6.
18 1 Chron. xxix. 10—13.

P. XXXV.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 57
and to write in the same language as that of the LXX., and
having to refer not only to the same original of which the LXX.
is but a translation, but also to treat of the same subjects, it
is impossible that they should not make use of some of the
same expressions as the LXX., be they Hebraisms, idioms, turns
of phrase, &c. ; all of which may be more or less modified ac
cording to the character or to the birthplace of the writer. And
this is precisely what happens. We find e.g. that S. Matthew
who was of Galilee, is more Hebrew in his Greek — I pass by the
question of a Hebrew original of his Gospel, for the present —
than S. Luke who, most likely, was not a Jew. Thus S. Mat
thew gives quite correctly, according to the Hebrew and to the
LXX. ou Qovevostg, Hlinfi «7 &C, ou ju-oi^suVsi?, ou xXsfyetg,1
whereas S. Mark and S.. Luke give p-i) <$oveuo->jj, pj fioi%suo-ij?,
&c, which agree neither with the Hebrew nor with the LXX. ;
but which are, perhaps, more common Greek.
If, therefore, we understand by 'quotations from the LXX.'
that which alone can be called such, viz. the exact repetition , of
the words given, we shall find that real quotations from the
LXX. to be found in the four Gospels are very few. Out of
one hundred-and-four such quotations which I have carefully
examined, I have found only thirty-six literal. Of these, twenty-
seven need not be quotations, but may be looked upon as trans
lations from the Hebrew, which could not be rendered otherwise
either by the LXX. or by the Evangelists ; so that these twenty-
seven quotations prove nothing. There remain nine concerning
which I will not now do more than say that, in general, S. Luke
quotes less fully than S. Matthew, who sometimes differs from
the Septuagint, but agrees with the Hebrew, as e.g. in ch. ii. 15,
where he read ^37; and not with the LXX. T3T7 to" Texva
* ; * T T ;
auTou; whereas S. Luke keeps to the LXX. in ch. iv. 17 — 19,
where he gives xai TixpXolg avafiXetytv, which is not found in the
Hebrew. So that when we look at things as they are, we fail to discover
wherein lies much of this vaunted excellence of the LXX. as
" a treasury of Biblical criticism." For, as to its having been
read habitually in the synagogues of Palestine, like the question
1 Ch. xix. 18, and v. 21.

58 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [iNTROD.
of our Saviour's usually speaking Greek, I can only refer the
reader to Mr. Rogers' work,1 where he will find reasons ' why /
and then to the work of Salmasius, one of the greatest scholars
the world ever saw,2 for reasons ' why not ;' with which, I own,
I must agree.
All these questions of authenticity, interpolation, recension,
corruption, &c, as regards the LXX., — questions, too, which will
never be set at rest, — show plainly that the main point, the main
object of the Greek Vulgate, is independent of them. With all
these imperfections, that Version did much good at the time, and
is yet doing much good where it is used. What, then, was the
object for which it was allowed to be made at the time?
Whatever might have been the King of Egypt's intention,
whether it was to enrich his national library, or to make him
self acquainted with the laws of the Jews, who were living in
great numbers in his dominions, — or whether this Version was
made for the Hellenistic Jews, or, as it appears, for the Gentile
world in general, — matters not. It was then made by the will
of God, in order that the Scriptures, which until that time were
known only " pj'vw t«j fiapfiaptxw yhst to a race called 'bar
barian' by the Greeks," as Philo says,3 should thenceforward
become xotvwfyeXr); , of common use : thus " gratiS, Dei inter-
pretatse sunt Scripturse prius quam Dominus noster descenderet,
et antequam Christiani ostenderentur,"4 and so as to prepare
the world for His coming. The translation of the, then, only
Revealed Truth, from the sealed volumes of the Hebrew Canon,
into a language spoken wherever civilisation did reach, and the
publication through such means of prophecies then known only
of the nation to which they had been delivered, was virtually
for the heathen world the dawn of day, that glimmered imme
diately before the rising of Him Who is the True Light. No
wonder, then, if He was expected when He did come ; if even
oracles would no longer speak, awaiting the appearing of Him
Who is the Way the wise of this world could not find, the Truth
they sought in vain, and the Life they yearned after, without
ever obtaining a sure and certain hope of it. Therefore, con-
1 Dissertations on the Gospels, London, 1862.
2 Funus Hellenisticse L.
a De V. Mos. p. 658. i Iren. Adv. Hrer. Lib. iii. c 26.

P. XXXV.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 59
sidering the place this Version occupied, it was in a certain
sense the " door unto Christ," as S. Chrysostom says,1 elxdrw;
8e Qupav Tag ypa<pa; IxaXeosv, for those who could read the Old
Testament in no other tongue. And this being done through
a Version from the original, sanctioned for ever the use of
translations in the preaching of the Gospel ; and by so doing,
taught a practical lesson on the subject of Inspiration, which
we shall consider elsewhere more fully.
Taken, then, at its due worth, and used intelligently, the
Septuagint — although no " bulwark against too rigid or literal
a construction of the Sacred History," since it can have no
absolute authority as a last appeal in difficult or in doubtful
questions with a real scholar, who, of course, would never dream
of leaving the Hebrew text for the Greek, yet — is valuable as a
help for the criticism of the Canonical Books of the Old Testa
ment. On such terms — but on such only — may we accept,
even gratefully, the services of this Egyptian bondmaid to her
Hebrew mistress — the Hebrew Scriptures— that must ever re
main the original and the literal text of the Old Testament.
XI. Dean Stanley then mentions another class of autho
rities for Sacred History — " heathen traditions," which he very
properly does not seem to overrate ; although we must always,
with him, recognise with pleasure in heathen writers any allu
sion, be it ever so faint, to the Sacred Narrative. In this respect
heathen traditions are of greater interest, as appearing, as it
were, at a greater distance from the people of God than the
legends told in Rabbinical or in Mohammedan writings. Even
these, however, oftentimes deserve some notice on account of
their very absurdity; but authority they can have none, not
even though they bear on the history of an " inspired people."
This is, again, one of the ' happy expressions' the Dean of West
minster so much likes, but which, it must be owned, is far from
being as clear or as clever as it seems to him.
XII. Many will, I doubt not, agree with me that it must
at least be difficult to see wherein lay the 'inspiration' of a
people that murmured against God, that disobeyed Him, so
that Moses exclaimed, " Would God that all the Lord's people
were prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon
1 Horn, lviii. in S. John, p. 324, ed. Migne.

60 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [iNTROD.
them I"1 that served Baal and Ashtaroth, until only one prophet
was left to the seven thousand men who had not bowed the
knee to those idols; and a people that brought down upon
themselves well-merited judgments for their wickedness. But
we may perfectly understand that being a ' chosen people/ they
were, even during their waywardness, the object of God's espe
cial care, shown in many ways, but chiefly in His raising among
them from time to time ' inspired men/ as speaking witnesses
to His rule, and as heralds of His coming judgments.
XIII. Dr. Stanley next (p. xxxvii.) raises the interesting
question of Eastern traditions relating to the Jewish people, and
how far some of them have " a substantial existence of their
own," independently of the Coran and of the Old Testament.
Such a question can be fully answered only by one who, like
Burkhardt, would spend the better part of his life among the
wild tribes of Arabia, from Yemen to Tadmor and Damascus,
and converse freely with them ; then comparing the oral lore
thus acquired with the Targums, the Talmud Babylonicum, and
other ancient Rabbinical works, and then with the Coran, in
order to see whence Mahomet derived his knowledge of facts
not mentioned in Holy Scripture. We find, indeed/both in
the Coran and in the writings of Ash-sharestani, Abu'1-feda,
Abu'l-faraj, Es-soyuti, Abi'l-sorur, and others, accounts of the
idols worshipped by the Arabs during what they call JUsH
LJjsIsjSI "the time of their ignorance," i.e., before Islamism.
Some of those idols had names as nearly connected with a
Hebrew origin as others mentioned by Sanchoniaton in his
Phoenician history; such as the goddess Allat, i^J&\, Oupavlr,
'AXtXaT? S\j^, IJQ, Meni, Mr]v ; Jjjj, Hobal, 731, o\%X;
jujj, Nasr, Nisroc, &c.3 Some of those idolaters, says Abu'l-faraj,
ol*],b Jjiu, even talked of (i.e., believed in) the resurrection or
'return;' a statement repeated by Chrysanthus, Patriarch of
Jerusalem,4 who renders jU^, ' return/ by h»\Si ' resurrection.'
This sounds very much like an echo of the Patriarchal Creed,
1 Numb. xi. 29. 2 Herod, iii. 8.
8 Pocockii Spec. Hist. Ar. p. 4 and 95, sq.
* In his treatise on Religions, ed. Bernst. p. 7.

P. XXXVII.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 61
" I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at
the latter day upon the earth ; and though after my skin, worms
destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God, Whom I
shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not an
other," — especially when brought from the land of ^J,^. 'Awaz,
or Uz, from the dwellings of his children the Adites, to whom
jyb Hud (Heber) was sent as prophet.1 ,
Yet we ought to receive such statements very cautiously ; for
both Abu'l-faraj, and after him the Patriarch Chrysanthus, bor
rowed their information most likely from certain verses preserved
by Al-Kazwlni,2 found engraved on ancient ruins in Hadramaut,
in the neighbourhood of Aden,3 wherein we read4
UjL& JjA jjjJ (j** 1JJ *-wb
yij\]j ti->*jJlj CLi\j% ^Jj
" Our kings," say the Adites, " establish for us sacred laws after
the religion of Hud, and we believe in signs, and (in) the Re
surrection, and (in) the Life." But, in the original Hymiarite
inscription found in 1834 at Hisn Ghorab, not a word is said of
all this, added, no doubt, by the Arabic translator who engraved
the Arabic inscription, in accordance with the Arabic traditions
found in the Coran,5 according to Mr. G. Hunt,6 who reads,
(p. 4):
"As to us, we coerce the abandoned, the seditious, and the
slothful, but we strongly love the orderly and the steady. And
the base we stigmatise.
"Our strong camels fit for travelling sweep on proudly and
are lean [i.e., hardy] . And the bow-twang sounds sharply, and
the sword-clash is frequent. And the smart [soldier] is made
welcome, but the disapproved — "
Verses thus interpreted by Mr. Forster :7
"Over us presided kings far removed from baseness, and
1 Abu'l-feda. Hist. Ante Isl. p. 16 and 18.
2 Vol. ii. p. 43, ed. Wust. and afterwards reprinted by A. Schultens in his
Monum, Vetust. Arabia;, Lugd. Bat. 1740, p. 67, sq.
s Forster, Geog. Arab. vol. ii. pp. 81—106 ; and 351—408.
4»V. 7, Al-Kazw. and A. Schult.
5 As, e.g., Sur. xxiii. 34, sq. ; xxvi. 122, sq. ; xlvi. 23, sq., &c.
• Hymiaric Inscr. Plymouth, 1848.
7 Geog. Ar. vol. ii. p. 350.

62 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [iNTROD.
stern chastisers of reprobate and wicked men, and they noted
down for us according to the doctrine of Hud,
" Good judgments written in a book to be kept, and we be
lieved in the miracle-mystery, in the resurrection-mystery, in
the nostril-mystery."
Both these renderings cannot, of course, be right. Mr. G.
Hunt commends his reading by his greater exactitude and his
better knowledge of Arabic ; but he is radically wrong in taking
no account of the small rings that separate the words, after the
true Ethiopic and Abyssinian fashion, — a fashion akin to that
of the Samaritans, and of the Assyrian* inscriptions; thereby
making words according to his own notion. Mr. Forster is
right in observing the division of words recorded on the in
scription; but his reading is so un scholarlike, so arbitrary, and
so fanciful, that one can place no confidence in it.1
XIV. Yet, however interesting be such dim, uncertain rem
nants of olden memories of God's people, cherished among the
sons of the East, they are but faint echoes, after all, of the his
tory of that people whose "influence irrespective of the Scrip
tures," and outside the Covenant, must be compared to the
indistinct sound of voices in which men outside a building can
catch but a few words. It is not likely that a nation, called
from all the rest and set apart, if not cut off from them by pe
culiar ordinances — vo'ppt — iroXu to wapr\XXayfj.svov — wgl; Ta twv
aXXwv avQpwwwv,2 that were held " instituta sinistra, f'ceda, quae
pravitate valuere;"3 of all nations, fj.dvou; — axotvwvrjToug elvat ttjs
irpb; aXXo etjvog eirtfj.i^tag, the only one that would not mix with
any other, nragaH>oa-tfj.ov wotouv to fj,~ta-og to irpog Toug avtigonrou;, and
that handed down hatred for men as an inheritance to her chil-
ren,4 " adversus omnes alios hostile odium ;"5 a nation whose
1 In these two lines he reads arbitrarily \ for or takes no account of either ;
yO for V, and CLi ; ' for ^ and ^ for j ; {JJJ for • ; • for ,_> ;
omits ; reads j for : ; omits ^ ¦ omits two letters in a word of five ;
inserts (_£ where it is not ; reads v for . and reads • for •«• or i  $.
u J xi u
I have not Rbdiger's work on these inscriptions ; and I regret I cannot speak
of them with more certainty ; but in order to work on them I should require
a trustworthy copy of them, and books of reference which I have not.
2 Diod. Sic. Fragm. in Stroth. jEgypt. ii. p. 35.
3 Tacit. Hist. v. 5. * Diod. Sic. ibid. p. 369. * Tacit, ibid.

P. XXXVII.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 63
Acropolis (Jerusalem) was saved from being looked upon, w;
Tupavvetov, as a seat of tyrants, aAA' w; tepdv, but was looked upon
as a sanctuary only by the honour in which it was held ; since
their institutions were said to be tojv Tugavvi'Scov to. Xr\o-Tr]pta,
"the robberies of tyrants," some of whom, Ixaxouv xa) auTr]v
{rr)v %t«pav) xai Tr)v yetrvtwo-av, laid waste their own land as well
as that of their neighbours / — it was not likely, in short, that a
nation that sank through untold vicissitudes from a short glory
to the most abject state of poverty and contempt,
" Judsei, quorum cophinus fcenumque supellex,"2
should exercise any but a trifling influence on her neighbours,
who were utterly foreign to her commonwealth.
Had we therefore, only the accounts of the Jews left us by
Tacitus, Strabo, Diodorus, Justinus, and others, we could not
know they were so great a nation, albeit Dr. Stanley thihks we
should; nay, we must have had a far more exalted idea of
Persia and of Assyria, while the second book of Herodotus on
Egypt alone would outshine them all. Neither was it intended
that the Jewish people, as a people, should influence much
other nations with which it was taught, for a particular purpose
and for a certain reason, to have nothing in common. But
chosen of God as it was, to be His peculiar people, the visible
image and the first beginnings of His Church, of His " family
which in heaven and earth is named," God's purpose would not
have been answered, neither would the Hebrew people have ex
ercised its rightful influence over those without whom " it should
not be made perfect," if its birth, bondage, deliverance, bap
tism, wanderings, murmurings, punishments, conquest of the
Promised Land, and subsequent waywardness, trials and repent
ance, and overwhelming judgments, which happened to them
for ensamples, had not been " written for our admonition, upon
whom the ends of the world are come." The Old Testament,
therefore, was not written, as it were, by accident, in connexion
with the Jewish people ; but the writing thereof was as much
an integral part — and thus as much a necessary result — of the
existence of the Jewish nation as ' the chosen people/ as the
1 Strabo, Lib. xvi. t. ii. 35, sq. 2 Juv. Sat. iii. 14.

64 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [iNTROD.
Old Covenant made with them was intended to be a harbinger
of the New.
XV. As to other writers, such as Josephus, and whatever
other collateral histories we may like to read, such as that of
Josephus B. Gorion, we may or may not believe them, or part
of them, according to their greater or less claims to our belief;
for they are entirely independent of the record given in the
Bible. To them we may grant belief; to this we owe the
allegiance of Faith. I shall elsewhere show the real, practical,
and popular difference between belief and Faith ; and if I am
called, as no doubt I shall be by some, ' old fashioned' for
thinking so, Truth, I answer, is also very old fashioned; and by
it I will abide.
XVI. " Such are the main authorities," says Dr. Stanley,
of the Hebrew text, the Septuagint, Heathen and Eastern tra
ditions, and Josephus.
" In using them for these lectures," says he, " it will sometimes
happen that they hardly profess, or can hardly be proved, to con
tain the statement of the original historical facts to which they
relate. But they nevertheless contain the nearest approach which
we, at this distance of time, can now make to a representation of
those facts. They are the refraction of the history, if not the his
tory itself — the echo of the ' words, if not the actual words." —
p. xl.
Granted, as regards the Septuagint, Josephus, and the tradi
tions ; but does Dr. Stanley really mean that the history told
in the Hebrew text is only a " refraction of that history" and
" the echo of the words," but not the actual words ? If such
be his sentiments, he cannot assuredly, be envied for them. For
my part I believe, and I will go on believing, that the history
therein told is the history itself, in so far as it was seen good in
God's sight that I should know it. Moreover, I also believe
that, were I able, I should understand why such and such
things, and not others, are told in that history ; as well as why
thus much of them, and no more, is made known to me. But
as regards that history and that Book, to inquire ' why' and
' wherefore' would be sheer folly and arrogance on my part. I
therefore abstain from it. I receive that Book as it is given

LECT. I.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 65
me, for the Giver's sake ; and as I endeavour to study it, I find
that the deeper I go the deeper it is, and that it is far beyond
my understanding. I cannot say "I have seen the end of all
perfection," but I can say, in sooth, that I have seen the end of
some ; since I have read nearly all the writings of Confucius,
Meng-tsze, and of Lao-tsze in their own wonderful tongue, for
it is idle to think one can read a man's thoughts in any trans
lation of his works. I have sought for wisdom among the
Buddhists of Tibet and of Ceylon, and in the peerless lore of
India and of Aryana vaeja ; Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero are my
friends ; yet " I count all these but loss for the excellency of the
knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord — that I be found in
Him, not having mine own righteousness, but that which is
fhrough the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God
by faith." And I find him as he was said to be, the wisest of
these wise men of old, who owned that — i\ avbpwwlvr\ o-oQ>ta dxlyou
Ttvb; aj-'ta Io-t) xa) ouhvd; — human wisdom is worth but little,
yea, nothing at all ; but also that the Psalmist is yet wiser in
saying, " Thy commandment is exceeding broad."

THE PATKIAECHS.
LECTURE I.— THE CALL OF ABRAHAM.
After sowing broadcast over the last page of the Introduc
tion sundry expressions about "errors in chronology," "in
numbers," "contradictions between different narratives," to
which I shall recur in another place, Dean Stanley opens his
first lecture with telling us that " the Jewish Church or nation
has its origin from Moses," but that the Patriarchal age is the
prelude to it. So that the first event in this period, the migra
tion or call of Abraham, according to whether we look at its
human or at its divine side, " may fitly be treated as the open
ing of all ecclesiastical history."
So far so good ; with this one exception, however, that there
is no ' human' side to Abraham's leaving his native plains for
p

66 philosophy, or truth ? [lect.
the hills of Canaan, except for such as look at everything
divine and spiritual from a human point of view. Abraham
'migrated/ it is true; but, for a man in his position, for a po
tentate, as it were, in wealth, in lands, and in very much cattle
among the jj^Jl Jj&], the inhabitants of a city of Chaldea, — to
leave all this, taking with him his wife and servants, in order to
go " he knew not whither," would, from a human point of view
only, appear little else than madness. But Abraham, being
called by God, migrated in obedience to that call, by faith in
certain objective Truths then set before him by God ; and his
obedience to that call, whatever his kinsmen might think of it,
" was imputed unto him for righteousness, and he was called
the friend of God." So that his migration was only the public
act by which he showed his obedience ; and thus, by his works,
made his faith perfect.
The ' human and the divine' side of Abraham's migration are
not, therefore, as Dr. Stanley says, " set before us in the Biblical
narrative, as if in unconscious independence of each other," — a
somewhat flippant way of speaking of it. For how can this
be, after that " the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of
thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house,
unto a land that I will show thee ?"a One feels almost hurt at
having to call a Dean's notice to the evident consciousness of
purpose throughout this grand example of God's call and of
man's obedience to it ; for Terah did not, either by accident or
unconsciously, take Abram from Ur of the Chaldees ; neither
did Abram and all he had leave Haran to wander at random
over the boundless plains of Shinar ; but he left Ur, and then
Haran and all that he had, in order to ' walk towards' the great
and precious promises which God did set before him as objects,
which Abram ' saw' by faith — as he did the day of Christ—
and which he reckoned more true than the world in which he
lived, and of more value than all he left behind.
He did so by the will and at the bidding of Him Who said
to him, " I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of Ur
of the Chaldees."2 And this was believed among his posterity :
" Thou art the Lord God," said Nehemiah,3 " Who didst choose
1 Gen. xii. 1. 2 lb. xv. 7. 3 Ch. ix. 7.

I.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 67
Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and
gavest him the name of Abraham." ' For, " the God of glory
appeared unto our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia,
before he dwelt in Charran, and said unto him, Get thee out of
thy country and from thy kindred, and come into the land which
I shall show thee," adds S. Stephen.1 Not as ' a tradition' ac
cording to Dr. Stanley, for if S. Stephen had wished for a tra
dition he would have chosen one of the traditions generally re
ceived in Edessa itself; but he said it, as taught of God, in
order to explain and to place beyond doubt that which being
well known of all Abraham's kindred, was taken for granted in
the first mention of Abraham's call from the land of his birth.
For, his origin and his call were known even to the heathen
neighbours of his children ; since Achior, the captain of the host
of Holofernes told him that " this people are descended of the
Chaldeans, and they sojourned heretofore in Mesopotamia — many
days; then their God commanded them to depart from the
place where they sojourned, and to go into the land of Canaan."2
Better, by far, and more straightforward to deny the whole
thing, than to make a history of Abraham of our own. Thus
Dr. Stanley, in order to support his own view of the case quotes
Gen. xii. 5, " And Abraham took Sarai his wife," &c, as part of
what he calls the ' external' or ' human' side of the migration ;
whereas this is said of Abraham, and Abraham did it, after what
God had said unto him at v. 1, of the same chapter, and in
consequence of that very verse which Dr. Stanley gives as the
opening of the ' divine' side of Abraham's movements ; thus, in
fact, taking v. 5, in a ' human/ and v. 1, in a ' divine/ point
of view — but by what authority ? and thus himself also showing
unconsciously though it be, that the * divine' and the ' human'
sides of Abraham's migration are so blended together as to be
inseparable ; since he takes of the one in order to prove the
other. II. Dr. Stanley, therefore, asserts too much when he further
says that —
" there was nothing outwardly to distinguish Abram and his family
from those who had descended from the Caucasian range into the
1 Acts vii. 2, 3. 2 Judith v. 6, sq.
F 2

68 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
plains of the South in former times, and who would do so in times
yet to come." i
There was this to distinguish them from all other such wan
dering tribes ; (1) the irresistible impulse, lvt)ovo-iao-fj.dg, of their
chief, who led them, not like other clans or families, to wander
about in search either of pasture for their flocks, or of an abode
for themselves, but, under God's guidance, to a land He had
promised, and which was their hope, the lode-star to direct their
march until they actually came there. And (2) they were dis
tinguished from (other) Caucasian tribes, in that they were
Syrians, D"ClK Deut. xxvi. 5, Gen. xxiv. 4, sq., xxxi. 20, 24,
and not Chaldees, and that most probably no tribes from what
we may rightly call the Caucasian range, ever found their way
to the plains of the South. For, even if the Chaldees, Chasdim
or Chaldeans from among whom Abraham was called, could be
proved to have been XaXlatot, o'htveg to iraXatbv XaXufieg wvopA-
X,ovto, the Chaldeans which were formerly called Chalybes,1 —
a very doubtful question — they lived either in southern Colchis,
or, as some of them did, among the hills of Pontus, too far from
the Caucasus to be called "the Caucasian range." For this
range did not extend indefinitely, even unto the northern parts
of India, which were not o-uvoWovTa toTj Kauxaa-'totg opea-tv, as
Patroclus, whom Strabo2 corrects, did think ; but the Caucasian
range, properly speaking, is as Strabo tells us,3 eoti 8" opo;
touto UTrep-ystfj,evov tou nrsXayoug sxarepou tou te TJovtixou xai tou
Kao-wtou, SiaTsi^/JJaiv tov la-dp.lv tov Sispyovra auTo', "that Caucasus,
the mountain which overhangs both the Euxine and the Caspian
Seas, stretching across the isthmus that confines it." Strabo
further limits the breadth of this range as he had the length
thereof ; and lest we should ascribe to it any of the hills pro
perly belonging to Armenia, or the high table land therein con
tained, he goes on stating that the spurs or buttresses ayxaivsf,
of the Caucasus embrace Iberia, xai rolg 'Agfj.evlwv opeo-t o-uvaV-
touo-i, and join on to the mountains of Armenia ; and he adds :
rauTa 8" eoti fJ-sgrj tou Taupou wavra, tou 7toiouvtoj to vo'tiov tijj
'Apfj.eviag wXsupdv, x.t.X. " these are all parts of the Taurus, that
1 Strabo, lib. xii. c. iii. 18, 19, 28. s Lib. ii. 2.
3 Lib. xi. 15.

I.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 69
forms the southern side of Armenia, as it were somewhat de
tached northwards and stretching on towards the Caucasus and
to the shore of the Euxine."
III. But since so much is made of tradition, we may adopt
one respecting the original land of the Chaldees that recom
mends itself by its probability, and that is followed by the Tar-
gum of Onkelos and by other Chaldean authorities. We read
there1 that the ark rested TT1j? "HltO iH " on the mountains of
Cardu ;2 Tou 8s 7rAoi'ou toutou xaraxXtdevrog lv tj 'App-ev'ta, says
Berosus, eti fuepo; ti (ovtou) ev toi; Kogftuuiwv opea-t T0~t; 'Agfj.evta;
liap-evst — " that ship having rested in Armenia, a portion of it
is said to be still remaining on the Cordusean mountains of
Armenia."3 "These mountains," says Indjidjean in his Ar
menian Antiquities,4 " are like a belt, and compass the land of
Armenia as it were on four sides reaching even unto Mount
Masis, on which, according to the Armenian tradition, the ark
did rest ; so that, Arab authors, who, unable to pronounce ac
curately the word ' Gortus/ call these hills Djudi, may yet
mean Mount Masis," (Mount Ararat,) &c. The Armenian,
however, makes a mistake ; for these hills are called \ j V
Cards in the version of Saadias, and j J| Jj^ Djebel el-Carud,
Mount Cariid in the version published by Erpenius ; Arabs also
say j£ pi. a\J\ Curd, pi. Acrad.5 This range of mountains
1 In Gen. viii. 4.
2 0»;fi w. jd4 Pesch. and S. Ephr. in Gen. viii. Opp. i. p. 53 and 152.
"The ark," says the Mendean writer of the Lib. Adami, iii. 72, " descended
^P?r°? «-»*Q4 ^^ upon the mountains of Cardun, and rested there." And
the names of these mountains according to the Targ. B. Uzziel, are »3Tfc
Cardania and &MO"!N, Irminya.
3 Berosus, ed. Richt. p. 58 ; Georg. Syncell. Chronogr. p. 55, ed. Dind.
These mountains are called KapSoixia Spn, (Xen. Anab. iv. 1, 2), " Carduchi
quondam dicti, nunc Corduseni,'' (Plin. N. H. lib. vi. 17 ;) „„ /- Lnpn_n^p
" which is Curds," lit. " Gortus," says Indjidjean, in quoting this passage of
Pliny, (Indjidj. Ant. Armen. Vol. i. p. 79) ; TopSvaiav x»>pia, (Strabo, lib. xvi.
24) ; and called by Armenian writers fipfSLg ^npif.nuus^ "the mountains
of the Curds;" (Moses of Chorene, lib. ii. c. 33; i. 13); and the valleys
thereof; (Mich. Tchamtchean, vol. ii. p. 854,) &c.
* Vol. i. p. 81.
5 The name Djudi, ^Jjcsjl! is given to the mountains on which the ark

70 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
called elk i_?Jjff- Djudi DaStt by the Turks, is tipped with snow
during the greater part of the year. It bounds the plains of
Mesopotamia looking north from Mosul, and the view from the
top of those mountains over these same plains, with the hill of
Sinjar (Shinar ?) far on towards the horizon, and the Tigris
meandering below, is one of the most beautiful and one of the
most interesting of panoramas ; since we may think that, in all
probability, it can differ but little from the view Noah had when
he came out of the ark.
Where Mount Sarendib be on which the ark is said in the
Samaritan version to have rested is not known, though it be
rendered by Mount Ararat ; and it cannot be in any way con
nected with the tradition given by Bar-Hebrseus,1 of the ark
resting in Apamea chief city of Pisidia.2 But the Arabic ac
count of Mount Djudi, is evidently borrowed from the Targums,
that give a local tradition which has much to recommend it.
Yet, I should be the last to bring it forward if it were in any
way opposed to the witness of Scripture; but it is not. The
rested, in the Coran, Sur. xi. 44 ; and thence by all Arabic writers, who some
times write it ^j ->. ' Djordi ;' " male pertinaci errore," says Schultens, (in
Lex. Geogr. ad fin. Vit. Salad.) ; who pleads for Mount Ararat (Mount Masis),
not being aware of the meaning given to the ' Montes Gordysei' by Armenians
themselves. Al-Kazwini, however, determines the part of the hills on which the
ark rested, s.aying : ^ J\ Ij^. ^ J^ Jj^ ^OjcsjSI Jap-
Jjj&\\ c— Jlss!) „ve "Mount-Djudi is the mountain which overshadows
Djeziret Ibn-Omar on the eastern side;" Acj^JI i.\ 4 ^ " of the land of
Mosul," adds Ab'ul-feda, (Hist. Ant. I. p. 16.) " The ark of Noah, on whom
be peace ! rested ou it, as the Most High God said : (Cor. Sur. xi. 44) ' And it
rested on the Djudi,' and Noah, on whom be peace ! built on it a place of wor
ship which subsists unto this day, and unto it people resort. There remained on
that mountain timbers of the ark unto the time of Beni Abbas." (Al-Kazwini,
vol. i. p. 157, ed. Wiist.) The Geographical Lexicon quoted by Schultens, gives
nearly the same words, though it says nothing, either of the place of worship,
or of the timber ; but it speaks of two " towns Kardy and Bazydy by the side
of El-Djudi in Mesopotamia, and near to the town of Themanin, where Noah's
ark rested j" wherein Schultens sees TODW < the eight' saved by water, &c.
1 Chron. p. 7.
2 Bar-Hebreeus here uses the Greek word |Zq£}Q Ktfiar6s ; the whole sub
ject is treated at length in J. Bryant's " Vindication of the Apamean Medal;"
Anc. Mythol. vol. v. pp. 290—313 ; and Cellar. Geog. Ant vol. ii. p. 136, 168,
sq. 'Aird/itta Kiflorifj of Ptol. or 'Att. KiPar6s. But the legend is of a later date.

I.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 71
words of the Hebrew text £D"nN "nil Gen. viii. 4,'simply mean
' the mountains of Armenia proper,' Jer. Ii. 27, and not Mount
Ararat, now called in Turkish Allah Dagh, ' the Mountain of
God/ and in Armenian, Mount Masis in particular / however
strenuously Armenians contend for their Mount Masis, with its
many names, as for the Mount Ararat meant in the Hebrew
text.2 The plain or province of ' Ararat' situate in the north of
Armenia and a royal prerogative, took its name, Moses of
Chorene tells us,3 from Arseus who fought there against Semi-
ramis, was defeated, and left it the name uypmpuitn ' shame'
or * defeat of men.' But Indjidjean4 tells us the name
tuputpuMui ' Ararad/ was never used for the whole nation among
Armenians, although it was so used among foreign nations ; as
well as that of ' Aram' or ' Armenia.'5 Since then the moun
tains of Cardu, or Djudi, were reckoned to Armenia, Onkelos
and the tradition which he followed only specify the range of
mountains on which the ark did rest, in the country mentioned
in the Hebrew text. '
After having stood on the top of that range, and seen the
plains of Mesopotamia below, and then travelling through the
whole of Armenia which is as mountainous and intricate as
Switzerland or the Tyrol, it struck me that the tradition preva
lent in Chaldea and preserved by Tg. Onkelos, by Mendean
writers, and in the Coran, was very plausible. Had the ark
rested on Mount Masis or Ararat, Noah and his immediate de
scendants would have lost themselves ere they found their way
through the narrow winding valleys and over the high and pre
cipitous passes of the whole of Armenia into the plains of Shinar.
Whereas, if we admit that the ark did rest on the mountains of
Cardu, Noah and his family would have only to descend from

' Moses Choren. lib. i. c. II ; Indjidj. Ant. vol. i. p. 54, sq.
2 Mdffios ipos, Strabo, lib. xii. c. 4; Indjidj. Antiq. Arm. p. 58.
3 Lib. i. 14 ; ii. 21. 4 Antiq. vol. i. ch. i. 2, p. 7.
£ Moses of Chorene, lib. i. c. 11, derives ' Armenia' from Aram, son of Haik,
great grandson of Japhet ; for the Syrians call it ' Armen,' — which certain learned
but fanciful men derive from '39 "V ' mountain of the moon,' in allusion to the
shape of the ark, one of the first objects of worship — and Persians call it ' Ar-
menigk ;' wherein Strabo lib. i. p. 2, 34, says : robs yap &<p' ifuiv Sipovs kuAov-
liivovs in' abruv r&v liipav (Ap/ievtovs Kal) 'Apaftnaiovs KaKiiaBai.

72 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
the hills on which they stood when coming out of the ark, into
the wide plain spread at their feet below ; and there form their
earliest settlements under the lea of those hills. For it is but
reasonable to think that the first families of mankind after the
Flood did not, at once, wander very far from what was to them
in fact the cradle of their existence, and that they gradually
spread and peopled the plain of Shinar, until after the disper
sion at the Tower of Babel ; when they were sent forth to people
the Earth.
IV. Where, then, was "Ur of the Chaldees ?" and who were
those Chaldees, or Chasdim ? The man would render a great
service to history, both sacred or profane, who could ' settle' this
question. But, if we can bring forward no proof, we may,
nevertheless, glean a few facts that may help us towards a right
knowledge of the subject. Strabo, who from his birthplace
must have written with good knowledge of the geography of
Pontus especially, tells us,1 that ty}; 8e Tpairetpuvrog uiregxetvrat
xa) Tr]g <Papvaxtag Tifiapr)vot Te xai XaXlaiot xa) Xavvot, above Tra-
pezuntus and Pharnacia, are both the Tibarenians, the Chal
deans, and the Sannians ;2 ol Se vuv .XaASaToi XaXuf3eg to iraXaibv
wvofj-aXfivro, " but these Chaldeans of to-day were formerly called
Chalybes," and celebrated for their silver and iron mines, and
for the manner in which they wrought those metals.
— tguv 8 ayp^i iroXubprpeg Ti/3api)Voi"
Tot; 8" etti xai XaXu/Seg a"TUd>sA>jv xai airrpsa yatav
vatouo-tv, fj,oyepou SsSaijxoTEj spya cnSijgou.3
" Hanc prope sunt Chalybes, durissima rura colentes ;
Quos labor exercet ssevus ferrique metalla."4
Whence ' chalybs/ steel. " Ergo Chalybes et Chaldsei iidem,
eorumque regio ferri dives," says J. D. Michaelis ;5 and on this
he builds his opinion that the DHC^S were those Chalybes ;
proving it as he thinks, from Jerem. xv. 12, " Shall iron break
1 Lib. xii. c. 3, 18, 19.
2 Ttfiaprivlri Kal XaKSln Ka\ Sowik^, (Menippi Fragm. in Marciani Heracl. in
Geogr. Minores, Vol. i. p. 572, ed. M.)
3 Dionys. Perieg. v. 767, ed. M.
4 Prise. Perieg. 744, ed. M. ; et Avieni Desc O. T. v. 947 ; Scylax Car. 88,
p. 65, ed. M. ; Xen. Anab. v. 5, 1 ; Arriani Peripl. P. Eux. c. 27, 31, ed. M., &c.
6 Spicil. Geog. ii. 78.

I.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 73
northern iron and steel ?" said of these Chalybes. He further
shows from Jerem. i. 14, iv. 6, vi. 1, x. 22, xiii. 20, Ezek.
xxvi. 7, that the Chaldeans or Chasdim, were to come from the
north; and in reply to those who said that anyhow, coming
from Babylon they must reach Jerusalem from the northward,
he brings forward Jerem. vi. 22, J1BV flNE! S3 D# TOil
" behold, a people cometh from the north country ;" and x. 22,
" behold — a great commotion out of the north country, to make
the cities of Judah desolate," &C1 He thinks that " interjecto
Jesaiam inter et Jeremiam tempore, fortassis Manasse in Judaea
regnante, Chaldseos Septentrionales ex antiqua patria magno
agmine erupisse," these northern Chaldees left their ancient
abode, during the time that elapsed between Isaiah and Jere
miah, and after successive victories took possession of Babylon
and of the country round ; as either described or foretold by
Habakkuk i. 6, " For lo, I raise up the Chaldseans, that bitter
and hasty nation, which shall march through the breadth of the
land, to possess the dwelling places TTiJSti'P that are not
their's." But J. D. Michaelis makes no allusion whatever to the
ZaASaioi mentioned by Xenophon,2 which were also on the borders
of Armenia, but on the south-east, adjoining the KagSou^oi.3
1 Gesenius (Comm. in Is. c. xxiii. 13, vol. ii. p. 749,) attempts to refute
J. D. Michaelis with Ez. xxvi. 7, which rather confirms what Michaelis says :
and with Jer. xxxix. 5, and Iii. 9, that prove nothing, by showing that Nebu
chadnezzar was at Riblah ; for he might have been there, whether coming from
Babylonia or from elsewhere eastward of the Euphrates. But Gesenius did not
see that he contradicted himself in attacking J. D. Michaelis ; since himself ap
plies the words, " who raised up the righteous man from the east," Is. xli. 2,
and " calleth a ravenous bird from the east," xlvi. 11, to Cyrus. (See Comm. in
Is. I.e.) If, therefore he understands ' the east' literally of the land where Cyrus
dwelt, surely J. D. Michaelis had the same right to take the terms ' north' and
' north country' as literally, when said of the Chaldees.
2 Anab. lib. iv. c. 3, 4 ; v. c. 5, 17 : Cyrop. iii. c. 1, 34 ; c. 2, 1,7; vii. u. 2,
5, &c.
3 Even the passage Anab. vii. c. 8, 25, KapSovxot Se, Kal XdXvfies, Kal Xa\-
Saim, which some propose to alter to ^ XaXSaioi, without any authority whatever,
shows these Eastern Chaldeans to have been distinct from the Chalybes or so
called Northern Chaldeans ; since while among the Chalybes, (Lib. v. c, 5, 1,)
he speaks of the KapSovxot, Kal XaXSaloi, whom he had made enemies by forag
ing among them ; showing that when Xenophon was there and when he wrote
(b.c. 400) the Chalybes were not yet called ChaldEei, as in the days of Strabo,
B.C. 30.

74 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
We have every reason to suppose, however, that the name
XaXlaiog was given by the Greeks, with their usual ignorance of
foreign names, and xaTa Ttva Xefywg nsapa^Aopav \ nragaTro'trpw,
(Eustath.) to the XaXlot, inhabitants of the XaXlla, x<!>gx Trig
'Apfj.evtag,1 owing to the similarity of XaXlla and XaXloi, that were
little known compared with yij XaXlalwv, XaXtiaioi, known of all
the then civilised world. Eustathius therefore, is probably quite
right in saying,2 Xwpa Ss 'Agfj.eviag r) XaXl'ta, r\g fJ-eyjptg r) /Jovtixi)
fZxa-tXeta. Toug 8e IxeTcte XaXtiovg eirtxpaTel r) ovvrjieta $to-uXXa(3wg,
ou XaXha'tovg. XaX^aiot yap Tgto-vXXajZwg ol ttotI fj.lv Kr)Q>r)veg,
x.t.X. AeyovTat fueVTOt nrapa rtvwv xa) 01 weg) tijv KoAj^iSa XxASai
XaXiialot Tpto~vXXaf3wg xara Atxa'tagypv. " Chaldia is, indeed, a
province of Armenia, to which the kingdom of Pontus reaches.
But the custom prevails to call those people Chaldi (disyllabic)
not Chaldaei. For the Chaldsei (trisyllabic) are those who were
descended from Cepheus, &c. Yet the Chaldi, who join on to
Colchis are by some called Chaldsei (trisyllabic) as Dicaearcus
tells us." These XaASoi, Chaldi, ptiuquifn^g, ' Khaghdi-k,' or
' Khaldi,' are always carefully distinguished by Armenian authors
from the Chaldsei, ^uiqi^kiaj^, ' Chaghtyai-k/ or ' Chaldyai.'
Thus Moses of Chorene,3 says Colchis was divided into four
provinces, the southernmost of which was 2Su,i^u£ np b"L
fuuinutfii-^ "theDjani (Sanni), which are the Khaldi."4 These
were conquered by Valarsaces,5 and are named TfuSLfu.^ iqnh-
uiiugt-na, np kli piuiqmfiu^ " the Sanni of Pontus, which
are the Khaldi," among whom Tacitus was slain.6
Even in Xenophon's time, the Chalybes occupied more than
one tract of country ; since some of them dA/yo» rjo-av xa) umjxooi
1 Steph. Byz. s.v. p. 455, ed. Dind.
2 Comm. in Dionys. Perieg. v. 767, p. 350, ed. Mull.
3 Geog. p. 356, ed. Wh.
4 J. D. Michaelis, who evidently knew nothing of Armenian, and trusted en
tirely to Whiston's translation, quotes this and other passages from Moses of
Chorene to show the existence of these Chaldeans of Pontus. But in every one
of these instances Moses Chor. speaks of the futunui/n-a ' Khaldi,' which
he distinguishes from the auintLkusja ' Chaldeans' in Lib. i. u. 4.
6 MoseB Choren. Hist. Lib. ii. c. 4.
" Ib. u. lxxiii,

I-] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 75
twv Moo-vvoixwv, "were few and subject to the Mosynceci,"
whereas1 others were auYo'vo/*oi, " independent."2
We see then that XaXlla is not a corruption of XaXla'ta, as
Miiller thinks,3 albeit he is right in saying " de Chaldseis Ar-
menise in hisce Ionicis h. 1. cogitare nequit," if by " Chaldsei
Armenia?" he understands the XxASaToi of Xenophon ; for the
.XaASoi were severed by the whole of Armenia from these eastern
XaXZaioi. And there can be no difficulty in making XaXtiot,
Chaldi, Chaldees, out of fumqutfu-p, for the Greek % is made
to answer for the ^ 'cha' in .XaA8aioi, and for pi, in XaXht ; and
again ^ stands for *& in ' Cardu/ Kaplouyta Sp-if, Carduchi
montes ; and the Armenian « which is pronounced ' gh' in the
throat, like a certain vulgar way of pronouncing 'r' in French,
1 Anab. Lib. v. •,-. 5, 1.
2 Ib. vii. u. 8 , 25. They were all, however, identified with the Xd\Soi, Khaldi,
and these again with the " gens Armenochalybes ultra Trapezuntem, a majore
Armenia xxx mill, passuum distans," (Plin. H. N. Lib. vi. 4,) and with the
" Armenochalybes qui et a latere Colchicarum solitudinum ad Ceraunios habi
tant et Moschorum tractus ad Iberum amnem in Cyrum defluentem," (Ib. c. xi.)
mentioned by Indjidjean (Antiq. Arm. vol. i. p. 337, and 327), where he quotes
several fathers of the Armenian Church, to prove the intercourse which existed
from the first with Colchis through the Armenochalybes or Chaldi. Among
them from the first 'f, ufaqp.ui'u uthq. h-uinLtruii m-uJiuUg
flourished sciences, of, p_u/bp ^topi/tu^nlt/i iujUu^u gni.^
tjuiuku (3£~ uin—UiQftli liui^uMU/kinp puinn-fcutaunq
pMutfylrtuf l?pu f> a.npu l^n cli^ua u n i_ usm_ u£nhtnnu[iL.
"L.p L. fyngfcfiu ^mi^tf-fip, _puj£fi^9 puut u7rg_ piuin^
u^lp. " For the words of Phormaleon go to prove that the first ancestors of
the Chaldeans dwelt in the valleys of the Caucasus towards Pontus ; they were
called Chaldi (Khaghdi-k), Chalybes (Chaliv-k), and by us Khaldi (Khaghdi-k),
and came and settled on the other side the Euphrates, which was called the
land of the Chaldeans. They, at first Chaldi or Khaldi, ptunnftp LuiiP
piuirpn[tp, npo ^rfiu fynnpftuutgfio who were Colchians, had from
the first astronomical tables engraved on stones in Colchis, whence they were
taken to Greece," &c. Likewise Michael Tchamtchean (Hist. Arm. vol. i. p.
209, and ii. 66, 78, &c.) .speaks of the piuiijuifit-B LuiiP k-pLfin
piuiutkuig £L uipL-utuil^nnUU muting It- fi ^fiuufiunj
piup&p ^uiinq " Khaldi, or land of the Khaldi, on the western side of the
Dais, and to the north of the Highlands of Armenia."
3 Note ad Marc. Heracl. Epitome Peripl. Menippei, Geogr. Min. vol. i. p. 572.

76 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
and sometimes also in English, answers in very many words for
' 1 ;' as e.g. mnynuA, Aghvan, Alban(us). So that, even though
Schultens says: "Unde ii\Ji\ Curdinostri? A Gordyseo monte
dicerem si ^\J\ scriberetur," we should have ready to hand the
etymology of D^t^S Chasdim, Chaldees, if we wished to handle
it as coolly as does Gesenius. He thinks that ^lt£>3 and XaX-
laiog " haud difficulter conciliari possunt. Statui enim potest,
nativam formam fuisse "«n2, qua? in Curdorum nomine jU)j|
servata ab Hebrseis et Chaldseis in "Httf? (r et s permutatis) a
Grsecis contra in XaXlaio; mutata sit,"1 (Gol. ad Alfrag.)
But, in sooth, ' r' et ' s' non sic permutantur, without proof
thereof; and Schultens is right when remarking on these same
words of Golius, " CI. Gol. p. 17, ad Alfrag. autumat Curdorum
appellationem reliquias esse Chaldaorum ut ex ^jj^jj^ Chal-
dceis, non tantum ^.tfj\&u& Chasdcei, sed et ^jo\j^ Chardm,
Churdai sint conformati, iidem cum veterum quoque Gordyais."
He adds, " Hsec mihi quidem non magnopere rident."2
Neither does Genesius5 offer3 to make Arphaxad 1t£>pS"lX
father of the BHJiO (as Josephus does) and to derive it from Ar.
AJil pl» l'iI 'border/ and "Tt^D for "lii^S, so as to mean
' border of Chesed/ or ' land of Chesed/4 commend itself to
exact scholarship ; nor yet Ewald's emendation, in making <_j.|
i.q. c_>,! ' to make fast/ so as to read in '7Ji'3S"lX ' the fortress
of Cheshed.'5 But, besides the arbitrary way of making ' Ar
phaxad' the name of a people in Gen. x. 22, and even at 24, and
as it must be, the name of a man, in ch. xi. 10 — 13, without
any ground for so doing,6 the " allgemeine Lautgesetze," the
1 Thes. L. S. s.v. «fta.
2 A. Schult. in Lex. Geog. ad V. Salad, s.v.
3 Gesenius borrowed this etymology from J. D. Michaelis (Spicil. Geog.
ii. p. 75) without acknowledging it, although he loses no opportunity of refuting
•him if he can. It only shows how the scholarship of to-day subsists on that of
others ; and that there would be but little of it, if 4it were not for the giants in
learning of the last two centuries. After all, Vitringa is better worth reading
than Gesenius on Isaiah ; and J. D. Michaelis is a safer man than Ewald, and
quite as learned, if not more so.
4 Comm. in Jos. vol. ii. p. 745. ' Gesch. Volk. Isr. i. p. 405.
6 Reland. Paloest. p. 62, sq., is worth reading on this subject.

I.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 77
universal laws of articulation, of which Ewald speaks, in order
to twist *TJ£G into ^ItSO, kshad into kasd or kasdi, and this out
of hard or kurd, are far from clear or trustworthy, without proofs,
which he does not give. Granted tf/ changes into jy and D>
' Schibboleth' into ' Sibboleth/ and ' r' into ' 1 ;' but ' r ' or ' 1'
into ' s' is not so easily done on grounds that are neither fanciful
nor arbitrary. Shemitic dialects may be called one family ; but
like brothers and sisters, they all have their own individual
characters ; and it is not always safe to explain the peculiarities
of a brother by those of another. So also these Arabic-Hebrewr
Shemitic terms are seldom logical, and so, do not always hold
good ; witness Simonis' etymology of "f^DS'lK which he ren
ders, " diffusio (familiae) maxima," and brings it from Arab.
^liifudit, Heb. |"DS manavit, effudit se, and Chald. and Syr.
rn££> fudit, effudit ! I1 Yet, will it not do to find much fault
with him, as he is still a great authority with the scholars of to
day whenever it suits their purpose. Why do such etymologists
not at once see in ''T&'DS-lN, &js£\ij\ 'Urfa of Chesed/ i.e.
' Ur of the Chaldees ?' it would have the advantage of con
necting the present name with the former one of Ur !
Moreover, the Armenian word uinpnul,, which Ewald brings
forward to support his etymology, rather destroys it. utqp.ui^,
uiqp.uiq- or <£uigp.ujti, ' Aghpag/ ' Aghpak' or ' Haghpag/ also
' Albac' and ' Albacia/2 is the name of two districts of Armenia.
iunp.utli ipnpp, ' Lesser Aghpag/ in the province of Gordjaik,
was also called fynpq-nL.^, or iunp.tul£ linpq.nL.uig, ' Gortuk'
or ' Aghpag of the Gortuk/ or * Curds ;' and forms a portion of
the hilly country that extends to the north of Nineveh, and be
tween the lakes Van and Urumiah. It is the part of Assyria
adjoining Armenia, which Ptolemy3 says, xaAsiTai i) fj.lv irapa ty\v
'Apfj.sv'tav 'Appaira^tTtg, was called ' Arrapachitis.' The other
Aghpag, uinp.uili JtVir, the ' Greater Aghpag/ is a part of the
Province of Vasburagan, to the north of the Lesser Aghpag.4
Those, then, who fancy they find the ' traces of Arphaxad' in
1 Onom. Vet. T. p. 438. 2 Moses Chor. Geog. p. 360.
3 Lib. vi. c. 1, 2.
4 See Michael Tchamtchean, Hist. Arraen. vol. ii. p. 806, i. 298, and map.
Indjid. Antiq. Armen. vol. ii. p. 64, &c.

78 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
' Aghpag' and in ' Apfanraxhig , must not divide the word into
1W2 ^"IN as they do ; but, according to the supposed radicals,
into *lkj "=J2nN ; then, as J. D. Michaelis remarks, what be
comes of "7$ ? Thus it is by no means proved that Arphaxad
was the father of the Chasdim ; and even if he were, nothing would
be gained as regards the birthplace of Abraham, who was not a
Chaldee, but himself a Syrian as well as his grandson, "the
Syrian ready to perish j"1 and like his nephew Laban, the Syrian
of the city of Nahor.2 Neither were these nations taken one
for the other, since Jeremiah (xxxv. 11) mentions expressly
entail ^11 and D"1$ VTI, "the army of the Chaldees and
the army of the Syrians/'
Thus, then, we are now no nearer actual certainty than when
we started on this inquiry ; " imo potius," says the learned Vi-
tringa,3 "an non tot incerta et confuse tradita magnas menti
offundunt tenebras ?" We have, however, acquired greater know
ledge, chiefly from local geography, — (1) respecting the XaX-
dot, Chaldi, which were twofold : those inhabiting Pontus, and
workers of metals, that could not be reckoned to the " Caucasian
range ;" and those inhabiting Colchis, that might be reckoned
to the Caucasus, but were not workers of iron, and therefore
could not be the D^K^S alluded to in Jer. xv. 12. And (2) we
see that these .XaASoi, whether of Pontus or of Colchis, were al
ways distinct from the AaASaioi, Chaldsei. We also find that the
XaX$u~tot of Xenophon were close to the Kaplou^ot, but not the
.XaASoi ; inhabiting the same, or nearly the same, tract of country
they do at present, mountain fastnesses, they share with the
Curds, who are thus called by the Turks j.A from their wild
and ' wolfish' indomitable nature ; and whom, although not alike
in features, they resemble in their predatory disposition, as in
the days of Job, i. 17. But this is a Turkish etymology. We
must rather look to their name as a remnant of Trip, OVr°,
whom Ab'ul-faraj makes a son of Shem, but which, at all
events, is a very ancient name of the mountains on which, from
time immemorial as it appears, the Ark is said to have rested.
1 Deut. xxvi. 5. 2 Gen, xxiv-
a Comm. in Jes. vol. i. p. 412.

I.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 79
While the ' Chaldi' pjuithnfiL-j* have almost disappeared, the
' Chaldsei' subsist in great numbers at the present day, and speak
nearly the same language as formerly ; not, however, in the
land they conquered in the south of Mesopotamia, but in the
land of their birth in the north of it. They are now reduced
to their original state PPPI 87 DjtfH PIT, as a people that was not,
until the Assyrians U^T? PHD) established it into a powerful
nation for them that dwelt in the wilderness around,1 as Isaiah
said of them prophetically. Whence, then, were they called
XaASaToi ? am tivo; XaASa/ou.2 If so, from 1&3 Chesed, a son
of Nahor (Gen.xxii. 22), one of Abraham's line; and thus speak
of ' Ur of the Chasdim' per Trpo'AinJ/iv, as Vitringa, and Bochart,
and Ditmar,3 and Hyde4 think, though not J. D. Michaelis ? And
why — a singular fact — are they called D'HKO, Chasdim, by the
Hebrews, and £»r-^, Chaldaye, by the Syrians, both Hebrews
and Syrians being originally from the same country ? It is best
to say nothing of what one does not know.
V. Where, or what then, was D'HJy? TIK, ' Ur of the Chal
dees ?' I know not what Bayer says in his work, which I have
never seen ; but I feel sure that neither he nor any one else can
answer this question with certainty. From what has been said,
however, we must in all probability, look for it in the north,
and not in the south of Mesopotamia ; and we must again resort
to tradition, which we may receive as we like. We read in the
Kufale,6 that in the thirty-fifth jubilee, and in the fourth year
of the third seven years thereof, Ragu took to himself a wife
whose name was Ura, daughter of Ur, daughter of a son of
Chesed, and to him was Serug born. Then began men to
commit all manner of violence, and to build fenced cities. And
Ur,6 the son of Chesed, built Araha, which is of the Chaldees,
l\iH : ftVr1 : TlA£P^ : (Cheledewun), which he called after
his own name, and after that of his father, &c. There dwelt
Serug, and after him his son Nachor, to whom he taught the
1 Isa. xxiii. 13.
- Steph. Byz. S. v. p. 455, sq., and Euseb. Cbron. Armen. vol. i. p. 11.
3 Vaterl. der Chald. p. 4. 4 V. R. Pers. p. 75.
5 C. xi. p. 45, ed. Dillm. « Or, Ud, according to other MSS.

80 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
magical arts, &c. j1 and to him was born Sarah. On the other
hand, Michael Tchamtchean, in his history of Armenia,2 gives a
very modern origin to Ur, which he says was the name of a go
vernor, of Parthian origin, appointed /> Jp^utq-bmujbpLpfih
bq.buuigL.ng there in Mesopotamia, in the land of Edessians,
by Valarsaces ; and who gave his name to the city which some
call Orhe, but which afterwards was called Urha.3 Indjidjean,
however, tells us4 " that from all antiquity the science of the stars
flourished in the city of Ur, whence some derive the word
Uranus, Oupavd;, and that there the teaching concerning the
sun brought about the worship of fire, called ^nup, hur, in old
as well as in modern Armenian ; and the city of Ur, which is
•Urha and Edessia, is in Mesopotamia, adjoining the land of
Armenia." While Matthew of Edessa alone of all Armenian
writers says that Edessa was built by Tigranes ; but he does not
say whether it be Tigranes I. or II.5
But how comes it, if Edessa, which is Urhoe, be Ur, neither
S. Ephrem nor Jacob of Edessa once alludes, so far as I know,
to its being either ' Ur of the Chaldees' or the birthplace of
Abraham ? One would think they would have mentioned so
high a distinction of their own famed city. S. Ephrem simply
speaks of fjir^o> io | Ur of the Chaldees, and says6 that Nimrod
Jcojl ouAj]j y*±h\a ^j> .;¦ NV>| "reigned in Arech, which is
Edessa."* A. Ezra, R. S. Jarchi, R. S. Ben Melech, in Miclol
1 P. 46. 2 Vol. i. p. 215, sq.
8 The Patriarch Dionysius (Assem. B. Or. vol. i. p. 388, note 1) alludes to
this in his Chronicle (fol. 15), when he says that, in the eighteen hundred and
eightieth year of Abraham (b.c. 136), f . Vn r\ j«*>\Vn .jOlJol ^^ - ¦ \Vr»1
AaIdZ] wtOltol OTlVlW ^\iO — wiO!>) " Orhoe, first king of Urhoe
(Edessa) began to reign there, and reigned five years ; and from him was the
city called Urhoe." If so, why not Orhoe ? " Then began the kingdom of
Urhoe, which lasted from Olyrop. 161 to Olymp. 249 (b.c. 136 to a.d. 217)."
4 Antiq. Armen. vol. i. p. 38, sq.
6 Notices et Extr. des MSS. by Ch. Cirbied. 1822, p. 22.
6 On Gen. ix. vol. i. p. 58.
? But in another place (p. 154) he says tjQliol _»G1) ¦ . »i1 "Arech
which is Urhoe ;" a statement repeated by Ab'ul-faraj (Chron. p. 9), who, like
other Syriac authors, always uses the term .jCliof and L»Olio |> ' Urhoe'
and ' Urhojo' for ' Edessa' and ' Edessenus.' It would be interesting to trace

I.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 81
Jophi, say nothing on the subject. The Midrash Rabba1 only
explains TIN by the story, found in the Coran, Abu'1-feda,
and elsewhere, of Nimrod casting Abraham into a furnace of
fire, whence he came forth unhurt. R. D. Kimchi2 explains
T)^ by PlI^plp, ' vale/ or ' valley/ and proves it, as he thinks,
through Isa. xxiv. 15, "Wherefore glorify the Lord BHIgQ in
the fires." The LXX. renders "flN through x<i>pa, which, how
ever could not be from "fltf changed into TJ/, ' a city,' a ' town
ship/ as Chwolson says.3 Abarbanel,4 who is justly com
mended for his learning, says that " Ur Chasdim tHtf ITKJtf
Dlpft UV N^N DHtlO is not the 'land of the Chaldees/ but
the ' name of a place' on the other side of the River Euphrates,
in the kingdom of Aram. Several cities were taken by Assur,
and the fairest of them was the one called ' Ur of the Chasdim/
because the Chasdim took possession of it." He then alludes
to R. D. Kimchi's opinion ; and he mentions that of others
who say that the Chasdim "IJT tWDJyP? PINT tiWl OH^y TO
were worshippers of fire and of the sun there, and that on that
account it was called ' Ur, fire and light of the Chasdim ;' JTD
"Q"7 "the end of it, however," says Abarbanel, "is that Ur
Chasdim was a city on the other side of the River;" and thus he
leaves us where we were.
He is right, nevertheless, in saying that T)tf is the name of a
place, and cannot be the name of a country, nor yet a euphe
mism ; for cities are not so called. We never read of <ui..e
^ddl ' the bride of cities/ said for Damascus, although this
epithet often follows the name of that city ; neither is " the joy
of the whole earth" said without 'Jerusalem;' nor yet <im,js
*luJt 'the bride of Syria/ for Ascalon, unless that city be
the link in Syriac between )¦'>¦*>< Jo] and ,jCIJO|i ' Ur of the Chaldees'
and ' Urhoe.' This can only be done by looking into Syriac MSS. anterior to
the names KoAAi^oq and "ESeo-o-a. And it seems as if ' Urhoe' must be derived
from 'Ur,' rather than, as one says, of its Arabic name i&,, \jj, H 'Roha,'
' Erroha,' from the Greek ' Callirrhoe.'
1 Fol. 42.
2 Sepher Shoresh. s. v.
3 Die Ssab. i. 313, note 4.
4 Comm. in Pent. ed. Bash. fol. 42, verso. G

82 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
named, any more than SpQaXbg yr); without Dodona, &c. Neither
does Gesenius' derivation of "fltf from the Sanscrit, without
proofs of this being the case as regards "Ur Chasdim, do more
than make one lose confidence in such etymologists; like
' Agupta-s' for ^Egyptus, and ' Nila-s' for Nilus. These are as
sertions that require proof, without which they are worthless.
Bochart, who is yet unrivalled for his multifarious learning —
" undequaque doctus" — says1 rightly, " saltern Ur Chaldseorum
ubi Abrahse majores habitarunt, Gen. xi. 28, non procul erat a
Corduen&, in qua substiterat Area Nose. Res patet ex Ammiani
Marcell. Lib. v. Itaque Ur circa Nisibin, Tigri propior et Cor-
duense duabus nimirum stationibus." He, like Gesenius, how
ever, leans in favour of Eupolemus,2 who puts Ur whence Abra
ham came forth ev iroXet Tr\g BafiuXwvtag Kafj.apivr] y]v Ttvag Xeyetv
woXtv Oupir)V " Sic enim Ur Chalda>orum erit JJra de qua Plinius,3
quod putaverim Chaldseos pIX scripsisse, id est Auran ; unde
apud Ptolemseum in Babyloniae descriptione, irapaxetTat Se tiS
EutpparYi r] Augav'tTtg ^wpa." Yet he sums up in favour of the
" Ur mentioned by Ammian, as Abraham's birthplace, because
the way thence to Canaan lay through Haran ; whereas, if he
had started from the (now called) Babylonian Ur (Werka ?), his
route lay through a large expanse of desert on his way north
wards, and he would have to come south, thus crossing twice
the Euphrates. Moreover, Abraham's ancestors did not share
in the common dispersion, but lingered around the mountains
of Cordyena on which the Ark rested." Josephus4 leaves the
matter in doubt. "Aran {Apavr\g)," he says, " lv XaXSa'totg 'air'e-
Savev lv wdxet Oupjj twv XaXtiaiwv Xeyofj.evr\, died among the Chal
deans, in a city called Ura of the Chaldeans ; and his sepulchre
is shown unto this day." Abu'1-feda,5 alluding to the doubt
that exists as to Abraham's birthplace, says, " Some put it in
j\^t\ El-ahwaz, and others J^] r^ ,JjUj in Babel, which
is 'Irak." On which Ibn Batutah,6 speaking of the cave on
Mt. Casius, near Damascus, where Abraham first saw the star,
&c, says, " Yet I saw in 'Irak - ^ i-i/ii <Oj a village known
1 Phaleg. Lib. i. c. 10. 2 Euseb. Prtep. Ev. lix.
3 Li°- v. c. 24. 1 Antiq. Lib. i. c. 6.
0 Hist. Ante Isl. p. 20. 0 Vol. i. p. 231.

!•] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 83
as Bors, between El-Hillah and Baghdad, in which they say
\# (*ut>)/\ <&y> Abraham was born. It is near the town of
Dhoulkefl,1 and Abraham's tomb is found there." Hyde2 is of
this opinion, and takes 'Op^drj in Babylonia3 to be Ur, though
he is at great pains to show that it is the same word as Urhoe,
Roha, Erroha, and Callirrhoe.
As regards this name given to Edessa, in common with many
other places in Epirus, in Macedonia, at Tyre, in Moab, &c,
Pliny4 says, " Arabia supra dicta habet oppida, Edessam quse
quondam Antiochia dicebatur, Callirrhoen a fonte nominatam."
Hence the Arabian U . or U \\ Rohe, or Errohe, " the name of
which Lbl <y^?/^ in Bum (Greek and Latin) is Edessa."5
'Avrtdyeia — oySovj rj ew) t% KaXXt'p'po\g xlfj.vrjg,6 the which, com
pared with "Eho-a-a, iroXtg Xugtag ha Tr)v twv • u8oVa;v pupjv outco
xArjflsia-a,? leaves no doubt as to the city, and to its situation ;
albeit it gives Cellarius8 and Berkelius9 some little trouble to
reconcile these statements with Strabo, who, after saying10 that
the Euphrates is crossed at Anthemusia, in Mesopotamia,
wrepxetTat 8s tou iroTafj.011, o-ypivoug Tenapag hsxoma, r) Bap-fSuxYj,
r)v xa) "E8sera-av xai 'Iepav woXtv xaXoua-tv, ev y\ rip-wart tt)v Sup'tav
0eov Tr)y 'ArapyaTtv, " beyond the river, (coming hither from Me
sopotamia,) at about four schceni, is Bambyce, which they call
Edessa and the Holy City, in which they worship the goddess
Atergatis." On this I may remark — (1) that as to Edessa (Oorfa), Ste-
phanus Byz. errs in saying that it was so called 'from the gush
of waters there.' He meant KaXXtppdr\ ; for, from want of a
more certain etymology, we may think ' Edessa' not far from
Heb. PlDIH ' myrtle/ i. q. "IP1DX, Pers, v ^T 'green myrtle/
1 A ' faithful' man, known for his fasting, #c, Cor. xxi. 85, mentioned toge
ther with Enoch and Ishmael ; by some said to be Job, but byAbu'1-feda (Hist.
A. I. p. 28) said to be the name given to Bischr,, Job's son, whom God sent to
preach to his countrymen after Job's death.
2 De V. R. Pers. p. 73.
3 Ptolem. Geog. Lib. viii. 20, 29 ; and v. 20, 8.
' N. H. Lib. v. «. 24.
5 Lexic. Geog. ap. Schult. V. Salad, s. v.
6 Steph. Byz. s. v. vol. i. p. 64, ed. Dind.
? Ibid. p. 171. 8 Geog. Antiq. Lib. iii. c. xv. 25.
9 Not. in Steph. Byz. s. v. 10 Lib. xvi. 1, 27.
G 2

84 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
a name given to beautiful women,1 and thus also probably to
cities in green and beautiful localities, such as that of Vo?|,
Edessa. Thus Damascus is styled by Abu'lhosain jrjJl £*>-
" the garden of the East," " where the myrtle t_j3 l^J ^
u^Liu 1 iutf»- offers a garden that never ends," and where every
orchard on the river banks is ever green ; ^jd] (jm^s. " the
bride among cities" Ja«L, 'Lo. JjJii Jfe> " embosomed in thick
foliage and watered by bubbling streams."2
2. Although Bambyce and Edessa cannot both be true of the
same city, yet there is this to account for Strabo's ascribing
Edessa to Syria. In Lib. xvi. 1, 2, he says, Soxsi Se to t<Zv .Supcov
ovop-a haTslvat airb ftsv ty\; BafZuXwvta; [J-eXP1 T0" 'to-o'txou xoXirou,
airb 8e toutou jw-s^gi tou Eu^e'tvou to iraXatdv. "Formerly Syria
seems to have extended from Babylonia to the Gulf of Issus,
and thence to the Euxine." He may thus reckon Edessa to
Syria, where Ibn al-Wardi places it, when, speaking of Aleppo,3
he says, " Here is Errhoa, also a large city, fenced and defended
by a wall, ^ ^^ ^ JA^A c^cu ^jud\ ^pi] l^j
(jjJls!^\ , and in it is the fountain of the Prophet, that sprang
up to Abraham (El-khalil) when he cast the engine against the
temple of the idols. There are several towns around it, and all
these belong to the province of Haleb."4
3. Although Strabo either said 'Bambyce' of Edessa, or
'Edessa' of Bambyce by mistake, yet he may be justified in
calling Edessa 'Ispa. iroXtg.5 For Edessa had, from the days of
Adseus or Thaddseus, her apostle, a character for sanctity. Josue
Stylites, a native of Edessa, who wrote a history of all the vicis-
1 Esth. viii. 7, 10, 11. s Ibn Batutah, i. p. 188.
3 P. 26, iu Rosenmull. Anal. Ar.
4 For " Syria" was a very comprehensive term, Pliny says '(Lib. v. 18),
" Syria — Palsestina vocabatur, et Judaea, et Coele, dein Phoenice, et qua recedit
intus Damascena : ac magis etiamnum meridiana, Babylonia. Et eadem Meso
potamia inter Euphraten et Tigrin : quaque transit Taurum Sophene : citra
vero etiam Comagene.''
5 We must distinguish between 'Uph. niXis, i. e., ir6\is Upd, and 'UpiiroKa,
although the two may have originally been identical. The first means a ' holy
.city,' v6\is Ipf), ipj) wdAif (Luc. de Dea Syr. throughout), and belongs to Hie-
rapolis in Syria, or Mabug, celebrated for the worship of Atergatis. The other
is given to Hierapolis in Phrygia (Colos. iv. 13), of which more presently.

I.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 85
situdes of his own city from a.d. 495 to 507, says that, " the
Persians were not then able to take the city, although pressed
on all sides, in fulfilment of the promise made by Christ
to Abgarus, the faithful' king, saying, y^'^> "|oou ^ap;
V>\s\ Oia 4^A*J ]^ ]'1ri|Vno, Thy city shall be blessed,
and the enemy shall not have dominion over it for ever."1 And
S. Ephrem in his Testament2 alludes to this in these words :
I'V^i^n; ]Sd1 w»oi So") oio .o/U-p* j ]sp ^>*,2 ; " Blessed is
the city in which ye dwell, Urhoe, the mother of wise men :
the city that received the blessing from the mouth of the Son
Himself through His disciple. This blessing, then, shall rest
on her unto the coming of the Holy One; on her, »jOiio|
,-iiau AxS> ]A*voV<-> IAj^, on Urhoe, the blessed city of
Mesopotamia."3 Theodoritus, also,4 speaking of the passage of
Julian through his favourite place, Haran, says that tv)v "Eho-o-av
wg suosjSsta xoo-\j.oufj.svr\v suwvup.ov xareXtirsv, " that he passed
Edessa on his left, as being a city adorned with piety,"5 e7tei
apxySev irav$r)fj,e) xgto-Ttavl^etv eXa^ev >]8s r) iroXtg, " because that
city happened to have been Christian from the beginning;"
for, from the preaching of Thaddeus tjj tou Xpto-Tou irpocrava-
xstTat irpoo-r\yop'ta' " Edessa continues faithful to her Christian
name."6 Thus, then, Strabo might place Edessa in Syria, and
call her Hierapolis ; but the name ' Bambyce' never belonged
to her : it was the name of 'Iepa iroXtg, Mabug, or Mambej, in
Syria proper, chief city of the Cyrrhestica, under the Romans.7
1 Assem. B. Or. i. p. 261, and 262. » Ibid. p. 141.
3 Acta S. Ephremi, p. xxxiii.
4 Hist. Eccl. Lib. iii. u. 26, and iv. 18.
5 " Out of hatred for her inhabitants," says Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. Lib. vi. 1.
6 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. ii. 1 .
1 Although, probably from want of books, I cannot find that Bambyce " sei
eine baumwollen stadt," &c, 'a cotton town,' as Forbiger (Alte Geogr. vol. ii.
p. 643, note) says, yet I cannot help suspecting some confusion between this
and the Hierapolis of Phrygia. For if Bambyce, Ba/ifliKr), come from f}6fifiv%,
bombyx, then Hierapolis was a ' silk,' and not a ' cotton' growing city ; but of
this especial distinction I can find no trace. And if Bafi$iici] be, as indeed it may
be, a Hellenized form of the Arabic name ,^jJu> manbedj, (though not of
v^_'
LJ£ij^o manbiz, ' a bow for beating cotton,') then it has nothing to do with
silk, but rather with the great pile of wood irvp-li, " lighted," as Lucian tells us,
iopriav Si rraalviv — tueylffrriv tov elapos apxopiivov 4irut\4ovo-f Kai piiv ol p.\v irvp))v

86 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LlSCT.
The Ur mentioned by Ammianus Marcell. might, from its
situation have been the birthplace of Abraham ; but the same
reasons make Edessa quite as eligible ; and since tradition fixes
on that spot, we may keep to it till we have reason to change.
It was, indeed, a city of many names, but not as Dean Stanley
gives them : namely —
" Orfa, Rdba, Orchoe, Callirrhoe, Chaldseopolis, Edessa, Antioch of
the far East, Erech, Ur." — p. 6.
For Orchoe, 'O^o'tj, and Chaldseopolis belong to the supposed
Ur of Babylonia, and not to Edessa; and Antioch could not
be " of the far east," unless Antioch in Mygdonia (Nisibis) were
called ' Antioch of the farther east.' Moreover, Dr. Stanley
omits, I know not why, two names which did belong to Edessa,
01 Be XapvirdSa xaKeovcri, " at the greatest of all feasts, that of the opening of spring,
which some call a wood-pile, but others a beacon or lamp, from the large pile
set on fire in honour of Juno or Atergatis." (Luc. de Dea Syr. vol. ix. p. 126,
ed. Bip.) So also at Aphaca, near the temple of the 'A<ppoSirr) 'AfpaKtris — Kara
/xtv oh) Tfl Upbv — *vp eVI rov aipos XapnrdSos % cr<paipas ipalverai Slmiv k.t.A.
(Zozim. Hist, in Aurel. p. 32, ed. Steph.) And Abu'1-feda (Tab. Syr. p. 127,
sq. ed. Koehl.) quotes the author of Al-Ansab, who says that Manbedj was built
by Cosru, who called it Manbeh <tjJu>, and who raised therein .\j u^-UO
a ' fire-house' or ' fire-temple.' From <)jJco ' Manbeh,' the generic term for
' fire-place' or ' house,' came the Arabic ' Manbedj.' It is called Mabug
ri*-\Kn in Syriac, and .rr\ . \g>- .^ Hierapolis, 'the priestly city,' (Assem.
B. Or. ii. 22) and is often mentioned as the seat of an Episcopate celebrated
through Xenajas or Philoxenus (Assem. B. Or. p. 11, sq.) ; and also as a town
given to idolatry, of which James, Bishop of Sarug, in his treatise on idols
(Assem. B. Or. ii. p. 327, sq.), says that "the devil made Mabug }Al,^
'jZciVj* IjlOQS) a city of priests of goddesses, and named it after himself,
in order that it should go astray for ever."
Lastly, whatever claim Hierapolis of Syria — i. e., Mabug — may have to the
name ' Bambyce,' certain it is that Hierapolis of Phrygia (Colos. iv. 13) is, to
this day, called ' Pambuk qalessi,' i. e., ' Ca9tle of cotton;' owing to the Bepp.it
SSara, hot mineral springs, that made it famous in olden times ; that leave a
white deposit which has accumulated for ages past, and which from Laodicea
(Strabo, Lib. xiii. c. 1, 14) looks exactly like a waving sheet covering a part of
the hill on which stand the ruins of Hierapolis. From the theatre, which com
mands a beautiful view of Khonos dagh, the mountain of Colosste, and of the
range of Mount Cadmus, with the ruins of Hierapolis on the foreground, this
white sheet is hardly visible ; but from the bottom of the hill, and coming from
Laodicea, and from that part of the vale of the Meander, this ' Castle of cotton'
forms a very remarkable object.

I. P. 6.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 87
namely, her own name Urhoe and Urha, and that of ' Justino-
polis/ given her by Justinus.1 It was the capital of Abgarus,
who, however, never was ' Akbar/ as Dr. Stanley says, " Ab
garus, Agbarus, or Akbar," (p. 6,) misled, I trust, by Hyde ;2
for ' Abgar' was a name which like ' Csesar' at Rome, ' Pha
raoh' or ' Ptolemy' in Egypt, and ' Antiochus' in Syria, was
given to all the Governors of Edessa ; a list of which is pre
served in the Chronicle of Dionysius.3 After Abgar, and in
consequence of his reported letter to our Saviour and the reply
he received from Him, Edessa became as we have seen cele
brated for her faith ; and then as a school to which men flecked
from all parts of the East, drawn alike by her reputation for
wisdom and for learning, and by the beauty of her situation.
V. This is equally striking whether you come from the north,
down the green slopes of the lower hills of Armenia, or from
the rich pastures and the waving cornfields that spread far and
wide on to the horizon looking towards Haran. But the most
beautiful picture this city presents is, perhaps, from the pass in
the steep hill at the back of the town. After a dreary journey
of several hours over a barren table land, — the luxuriant foliage
of the walnut-trees, and the dark green cypresses which rising
above the city walls, stand like gaunt sentinels around the sacred
tank and by the Mosque of Abraham, on the foreground — the
city itself as it were embraced by rugged rocks and steep hills
on the right and on the left, with its churches, its white mina
rets and numerous cupolas, detached from the green plains of
Mesopotamia that stretch beyond unto the foot of the blue hills
of Mardin — forms a picture only second to the view of Damas
cus coming from Dara at the foot of Anti-Lebanon.
I will not enlarge on my feelings at this sight ; though it be
far inferior to Haran in interest. I have visited many places of
renown, even the most holy ; yet the plains and the hills of the
1 p,ereKXi\Br]aav roivvv iirb rov avrov 'lovarivov "ESto'ffa Kal 'Avdfrapfias, Kal
rovruv exdrepa rfj avrov irpooiryopia KareKO(rfir)dri<rav. (Evagr. Hist. Eccles.
Lib. iv. c. 8.) " Both Edessa and Anazarbas had their names changed by Jus
tinus, and each was adorned with his name."
2 De Vet. R. P. p. 74.
3 ' Abgar' in Syriac means ' lame.' "Alii," continues Asseman, (Bib. Or.
vol. i. p. 261, note,) " Augarum, Abagarum, Abbarum, Agbarum, vel Acbarum
proferunt : sed non recte ; a Syriaca enim radice recedunt," &c.

88 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
land of the Patriarchs seemed to be of other hues than the rest;
the air they breathe is fresher from the East, and they seem to
tell in plainer language the truth of their ancient history. But
once inside the walls of the town and past the sacred spring, all
illusion ceases. I tarried not, therefore, until I reached a high
spot, within the upper walls, whence I could see, far to the
southward, the mound and ruined tower of Haran, as a distant
landmark on the boundless plain of Padan-Aram. As in travel
ling in the East I put faith only in the unchanging and un
changed features of the landscape and of the scenery around
the sacred spots I visited, and dwelt on that chiefly, I confess
that the sight of those plains from the hills of Ur, interested me
much more than the grated hole in which I was told Abraham
was born. I would rather feast my eyes and refresh my mind
by studying the peculiar expression and language of the hills
and of the plains which I knew Terah and Abraham and Nahor
must have trodden, and on which they must have wandered
with their flocks, certain as I felt, that I then beheld some of
the landscape they must have seen ; and that it could not be
very different from what it was in their time. This, indeed, is
the real charm of Eastern travel ; for as to the stories you hear,
they are a waste of time and a burden tor the memory.
The fish in the tank, however, a pretty kind of cyprinus, with
bright orange fins, whether sacred to the memory of Abraham,
as Hyde tells us from an Arabic author, or rather, as it appears
to me, a remnant of the same heathen worship1 as that of the
fish at Hierapolis sacred to Atergatis — were, I found, very much
like other fish. Some days, a shoal of them would follow me
round the tank even if I threw them nothing to eat ; as those
did of which Lucian speaks at Hierapolis, o'htveg ep^ovrat xaXed-
jw.EVoi, "that came when called;" at other times I could not
evoke them from their depths with handfuls of peas sold for the
purpose. My philosophy availed me nothing ; but I found that
1 So remarkable a spring as that at Oorfa, could hardly fail to be the seat of
some idolatrous worship in olden times— chiefly that of Juno, Venus Syria, Der-
ceto, or Atergatis, to whom fish were sacred. Not only do we find the lake and
the fish at Hierapolis, but also at Aphaca between Heliopolis (Baalbek) and
Byblus (Gebail), KaB' o yobs 'A<ppoSirris 'AipaKtriSos XSpvrai. rovrou irA.i)<rlo»
Klp-vy rls iarlv, k.t.A. Zozimi Hist. lib. i. in Aurel. p. 32, ed. Steph.

I. P. 6, 8.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 89
whether at Ur of the Chaldees or elsewhere, fish will not rise
when you like ; and that, do what you will, you must abide their
pleasure. VI. The objects at Oorfa which I found of far greater interest
than either the fish, the Mosque, or Abraham's cradle, were
ancient sepulchral caves hewn out of the live rock at the back
of the hill1 on which the city is partly built. No sepulchres I
saw before or since gave me so good an idea of what Machphelah
PI7SDD> " the double cave/'2 must be, or must have been ;
several of these, that bear witness to the wear and waste of ages
past, must have been hewn at a great cost ; and bespeak the wealth
and the importance of those for whom they were prepared. The
first chamber, or hall, of some of these sepulchres might measure
from twenty-five to thirty feet in length by fifteen or twenty in
width and as many in height. The entrance into this hall was
originally small enough to be closed with one or with two stones ;
and at the end of this first chamber, opposite the entrance, is
another opening that leads into an inner chamber around which
the dead lay in niches cut on three sides of it. On one of these
I found traces of colour laid on the mortar with which it was
coated after the manner of Etruscan tombs in the neighbourhood
of Clusium, or of Greek tombs near Delphi. This may have been
Terah's place of burial ; this hollow cave may have re-echoed
the rolling of the stone at the entrance, as Terah's last farewell
to the son he buried ere he left this city for the plains of Haran.
Hence, from the hill in which these ancient dwellings of the
dead were made, and looking towards Haran we may follow the
course Terah, Abraham, and Nahor took on leaving Ur, and
fancy them, their families and their flocks, wending their way
across the plain to the southward towards the low mound then
called |*]PI as now, ,Jj=~, Haran.
" Was it," asks Dr. Stanley, " as according to Josephus, the
grief of Terah over the untimely death of Haran ? Was it, as
according to the tradition followed by Stephen, that the higher
call had already come to Abraham ?" — p. 8.
1 Now called Top-dagh, c Uj i_J»J 5 not ' Top-dag' as Dr. Stanley says.
2 From to ' to double ;' hence KeQaWrivia, from the shape of that island.
Bochart, Phalcg. p. 464.

90 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [l.ECT.
And the same pen answers, " we know not."
VII. So then Dean Stanley seems to admit, that for him,
Stephen's statement is only a tradition which carries with it no
convincing proof or certainty. Thank God, we know better.
We know that it was God Who brought Abraham, first— not
out of Haran, but out of Ur of the Chaldees, (Gen. xv. 7.)
And, lest there should be any doubt about it, the statement
made in Gen. xi. 26 — 32 was, to use the language of the present
day, written by an Elohist ; whereas, Gen. xv. came from the
pen of a Jehovist. So that it appears that both Moses and his
so-called anterior documents, agree in saying that Abraham left
Ur of the Chaldees at God's bidding ; and for no other reason.
We know, further, that for those who receive the Bible as they
ought, the fact that a man gifted with a wisdom and with a
spirit which his adversaries could not resist, (Acts vi. 10,) whose
face when he spake was like that of an angel ; who, just before
his death saw the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing
on the right hand of God — saying, at that same time : " the
God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham when he was
in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran," takes this state
ment out of the category of ' tradition.' Tradition is but the
worn out selvage of Truth. But this is Truth itself. True, by
reason of the time, of the facts, of the person who said it, of the
person who wrote it, and of the Book in which it is written.
For, as to the quibble raised respecting Ur of the Chaldees
not being ' in Mesopotamia/ it is unworthy of real scholars ;
since we have seen, that before the time of Stephen, the limits
of Syria and of Mesopotamia were far from fixed, and that at
the time of Stephen, Ur or Edessa was reckoned to Mesopota
mia proper according to the strict division and meaning of that
term. For even when conventionally reckoned to Syria, Edessa
as well as Haran, must always have been, geographically speak
ing, in Mesopotamia, in Padan-Aram, in Aram of the two
Rivers ; a country, which from the very first, was physically
and not conventionally, determined. Secondly, — since we admit
that we do not exactly know where Ur of the Chaldees was, or
what it really means, is it not idle to contend that it was not in
Mesopotamia ? And thirdly, — admitting that Ur of the Chal
dees was Edessa, and a city of the Chaldees, might it not be in

I. P. 8.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 91
Mesopotamia, in D"HPU D"|N as well as, Apamea, Nicephorium,
and Callinicum, founded by the Seleucidse, Iv t?j p-so-r] twv iroTa-
fj.wv, as Zosimus calls Mesopotamia V- or as well as a settlement
of Argives in Cilicia, of Phoceans in Gaul, or of Dorians in Caria
and in Sicily ?
VIII. But if, for argument's sake, we talk of ' tradition/
which of the many traditions did S. Stephen follow ? Here, in
sooth, may we say, " We know not." Dean Stanley refers
us to Josephus, Antiq. Lib. i. c. vii. 1, but it is at c. vi. 5,
that he mentions Terah's departure from Ur, fj,i<rr]o-avTog Tt)v
XaXlalav ha to 'Apavou irevbog, "his having taken a dislike for
Chaldea on account of his mourning for Aran ; and they all
came to Haran in Mesopotamia ;" wherein we see that Josephus
had no >clear idea of the site of Ur, Ouprj twv XaXlatwv ; but he
took it for a city of Chaldea, instead of- for a settlement of the
Chaldees. Had he dreamt of Edessa being OupY\, he never
would have drawn the limits of that Chaldean territory some
where between Oorfa and Haran, a distance of not twenty
miles, especially seeing both are in the heart of Mesopotamia.
But, had Dr. Stanley read carefully the statement of Josephus
to which he refers us, he would have seen, that Josephus ascribes
Abraham's departure from 'Chaldea' to obedience to God's
Order, and that xaTaAEWEi ty)v XaX^aiav — tou Beou xeXeua-avTog
elg ty)v Xavava'tav fj,ETsXQe~tv — irtQavbg Tolg axpowfusvotg, " he left
Chaldea — at God's bidding to come to Canaan — believing what
he was told." So that, whatever Terah's private feelings may
have been, we see that both Josephus and S. Stephen agree in
saying that Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees in obedience to-
God's call ; the very thing " God said unto him : I am the
Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee
this land to inherit it." (Gen. xv. 17.)
IX. Since then, their departure from Ur of the Chaldees was
"to go into the land of Canaan ;" and was not 'for Haran/ to
which " they came" on their way, and " dwelt there ;" the move
cannot have originated with Terah, although he, being at that
time the head of the family, is represented as " taking Abram his
son" and his near of kin, to lead them forth from that land.2
1 e.g. Lib. i. p. 28, ed. Steph.
2 ' Ur of the Chaldees' is said at Gen. xi. 28, to be " the land of Haran's

92 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
But the move must have begun with Abraham ; xa/roi rig erepog
oux av rix&eo-Qri, "for, indeed what other man," says Philo,1
"would not have been grieved, not only at leaving his own
home, but at being driven from one town to another, into diffi
cult and intricate wildernesses ? Who is he that would not have
turned back, giving up his object and the hope of it, hastening
from his present difficulties, and thinking it folly to choose ac
knowledged evils for goods as yet unseen ?"
And this first call of Abraham at Ur, and his instigating his
father Terah to leave it with him, may possibly be veiled under
the manifold traditions left us on the subject. S. Ephrem, for
instance,2 tells us that the " Chaldeans in Thare's (Terah) time
having forsaken the knowledge of God gave themselves up to
the worship of a god of their own, Cainan,3 to which they had
built a splendid temple. Meanwhile crows were sent to lay
waste their land, as a punishment. One day, Abraham was sent
by his father to his field to drive them away ; but, unable to
succeed, he exclaimed : 0 God, •jJ-i),! ]±h)o |iV)t pdlj loi^j
Maker of Heaven and Earth, help me ! God heard him,
and at once the crows flew away. Abraham astonished went
home and told his father what had happened, and insisted on
their all giving up the worship of Cainan. Terah, however,
declined.4 So Abram set fire to the temple, and Haran having
nativity." But this says nothing against the fact of Abraham and his family
being ' Syrians' and not Chaldees. For (1) Haran might have been born there,
and not his brothers ; and (2) Ur of the Chaldees, being, probably, a ' settle
ment' only of the Chasdim in Mesopotamia, Abraham might be born there, and
yet be a Syrian, W|j,
1 De Migr. Abr. p. 362.
» Collectan. S. Ephr. and Jacob. Edess. in S. Ephr. vol. i. p. 156.
3 )l±£l, Libra Zodiacalis, fco "^D Jjla .001^02 ]' ' ¦ " Ijfij ]^0
]Sdll l;£iJOALO ^QQJ U*T> ]& ^001 ^001 " At the voice given by
Caino (the Balance) were produced all things brought forth by the waters, that
are hurtful and by which the world is injured." (Lib. Ad. i. p. 232, ed. Norb.)
The constant worship of water as a part of that of fire, may be seen in many
instances : a long dialogue between >oj Ur, called the ' king of darkness,' as
destroying it, with his mother )a±±, ]Vq, the Chaotic water, is found in the
Bame book. (I. p. 390, sq., and II. 206, sq.)
4 Terah, called ^j\ ' Azar' in the Coran, Sur. vi. 75, &c, is said to have
made and sold idols, at Beit Ilahiyah, east of Damascus (Ibn Batut. vol. i. p.

I. P. 8.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 93
come to put it out, or at least to save the idol, was consumed
in so doing. Then followed a persecution against Terah on the
part of the Chaldeans, who required that he should give up
Abraham. He refused, and was then made to leave Ur with all
that he had." This tradition is not found either in the Greek
or in the Armenian Versions of the works of S. Ephrem ; and
the story of the crows1 is the only particular Abulpharaj gives
respecting Abraham ;2 but it is told at even greater length in
the Ethiopic Kufale. There, we are informed that " at seven
years of age Abram could read books, and that he ran away from
Terah's house because he would not worship idols." Then fol
lows the story of sowing time and of the crows, which is here
said to have happened when he was fourteen ; of the fire set to
the temple of idols, of Abram's knowledge of the heavenly
bodies, &c. In the Targum J. B. Uzziel on Gen. xi. 28, we read
that Nimrod " cast him fcmO"J ^HIPIX1? into a fiery furnace,3
because Abraham preached against idols. Haran said he would
be on whichever side did win. Abraham was not hurt by the
fire; but it fell from Heaven and destroyed Haran in presence
of his father." But, enough of these stories.
X. At every step from Oorfa on the way to Haran, which now
lies as it did of old, at about six hours' march from Ur, the hills
on the right and on the left of the plain recede farther and far
ther, until you find yourself fairly launched on the desert ocean
— a boundless plain, strewed at times with patches of the bright
est flowers, at other times with rich and green pastures, covered
237) and £j£ [g. ^\ " was attached to his unbelief," says Ab'ul-feda,
(Hist. A. I. p. 20'.') He is thought of differently in the Abyssinian Church, that
calls him ^<Wft<W^ ; " faithful." (J. Lud. Lex. s.v.) Yet Abraham had to get
him out of hell, " as a good son ought to do to his father." (Perikta Sota, in
Eisenm. Endekt. Jud. ii. p. 359, &c.)
1 It is said to have happened when Abraham was fifteen years old. The word
JlilO^Q S. Ephr. and fOQOJO Abulph. is rendered ' locustas,' by the trans
lator of S. Ephrem ; but wrongly. J. D. Michaelis saw in it xipaxas, and
Bruns and Kirsch so rendered it, rightly. For in the Ethiopic Kufale where the
same story is told, c. xii. p. 47 — 49, we read, ,£<Wi ; JC^'X' ! " a cloud of
crows." Locusts, however, laid bare the same country more than once, as e.g.
a.d. 952, after a famine. (Matth. of Edessa, in Notices et Extr. des MSS.
vol. ix. p. 21.)
2 Chron. p. 11. 3 Cor. Sur. v. 20, and Masudi. c. iv. vol. i. p. 85.

91; PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
with flocks of sheep and of goats feeding together, here and
there a few camels, and the son or the daughter of their owner
tending them. One can quite understand how the sons of this
open country ,jjj| ' el-badu' — the Bedaweens — love it, and
eannot leave it : no other soil would suit them. The 'air is so
fresh, the horizon is so far, and man feels so free, that it seems
made for those whose life is to roam at pleasure, and who own
allegiance to none but to themselves. But by far the chief in
terest for any one who visits such a land for what the land
has to give, is — not to look for Roman spear-heads lost by
Crassus, nor yet for the ruined tower of a Christian Church,
neither for the shrines of Besin, of Bel-Shemein, of Barnemre
Tarhato, and other gods of which Jac. Sarugensis speaks,1 and
which are said to exist in the neighbourhood, as remnants of
" the gods of Haran ;"2 but the chief interest lies in the associa
tions of patriarchal life among which he finds himself at once.
The village of Haran itself consists of a few conical houses, in
shape like beehives, built of stones laid in courses one over
the other, without either mud or mortar; these houses let in
the light at the top, and are clustered together at the foot of the
ruined castle built on the mound, that makes Haran a land
mark plainly visible from the whole plain around. The prin
cipal inhabitants of the place are the Bedaween tribes, which
haunt the neighbourhood in search of pasture. One of their
tribes, the Anazeez, had spread their tents of black goats'-hair
at the foot of the mound, between that and Rebekah's well ; and
I pitched my tent among them.
That same day I walked at even to the well I had passed in
the afternoon coming from Oorfa ; the well of this the city of
Nahor,3 " at the time of the evening, the time that women go
out to draw water." There was a group of them, filling, no
longer their 'pitchers/ — since the steps down which Rebekah
went to fetch the water are now blocked up, — but filling their
water-skins by drawing water at the well's mouth. Everything
around that well bears signs of age and of the wear of time; for
as it is the only well of drinkable water there, it is much re
sorted to. Other wells are only for watering the flocks. There
1 Assem. B. Or. vol. i. p. 327. 2 2 Kings xix. 12.
3 Comp. Gen. xxiv. 10, xxviii. 5, 10, xxix. 4.

I. P. 8.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? ' 95
we find the troughs of various height, for camels, for sheep,, and
for goats, for kids and for lambs ; there the women wear nose
rings, and bracelets on their arms, some of gold or of silver, and
others of brass or even of glass. One of these was seen in the
distance bringing to water her flock of fine patriarchal sheep ;
ere she reached the well, shepherds, more civil than their bre
thren of Horeb, had filled the troughs with water for her sheep.
She was the sheikh's daughter, the " beautiful and well favoured"
Ladheefeh. As the shadows of the grass and of the low shrubs around the
well lengthened and grew dim, and the sun sank below the
horizon, the women left in small groups ; the shepherds fol
lowed them, and I was left alone in this vast solitude. Yet not
alone 1 the bright evening star in the glowing sky to westward
seemed to point to the Promised Land, as when Abraham took
it for his guide ; the sky overhead, clear and brilliant as when
he gazed on it, and the earth, the ground on which he trod, —
all spake a language heard nowhere else. The heavens whis
pered and the earth answered, " Walk by faith," " stagger not
at the promise of God through unbelief," but do as Abraham
did, " be strong in the faith, giving glory to God," and " by
thy works make thy faith perfect." There is, also for thee,
a Promised Land — thy home. Keep thine eye thereon, and
thou, stranger and pilgrim on the earth, believe Him that pro
mised, as Abraham did ; " seek," as he did, " a better country,
that is, an heavenly," and it shall be " counted unto thee for
righteousness." These words, breathed in the silence of the night, and in
presence of Abraham's witnesses, the same stars and the same
heavens which he saw, carried home to my heart a reality I had
never felt before. Mean and foolish did the strife of tongues
of the outer world then appear ; vain did the pretensions of its
wisdom seem, and futile the opposition of a science falsely so
called — here, by the well of Haran, within hearing of God's
promise to Abraham, within sight of Abraham's faith in that
promise, and of his obedience to Him that promised, Whom he
counted faithful. That was real philosophy. His life was — our
life is — practical; irpaj-tg — Tou UovTog.- Reason upon it, then;-
as you will, this was the egyov, the work of Abraham's faith — to

96 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
go whither God called him; not seeking for motives or for
fancies within himself, but obeying God. One step of his from
Ur towards Canaan was worth all that philosophy ever did
devise. In accepting to walk by faith as his condition through
life, and in making proof of his faith through his obedience, —
giving up self and self-will to God, — Abraham was a wiser and
a greater man than all the wise men of Greece ; for he denied
himself, and trusted God. So, then, "his faith wrought by
his works," and his reward for it was, to be " called the Friend
of God" — at peace in this life, and at rest in Heaven.
I went back to my tent : it was beset with visitors, who, with
genuine Eastern hospitality, bade me welcome among them, and
we soon became friends. I spent several days with them and
in the neighbourhood, but chiefly by the well of this " city of
Nahor," to which Eliezer came for Rebekah, and Jacob for
Rachel. Among my hosts I noticed especially one called El-
khalil, a venerable old man, whose likeness I drew several times ;
for it could only be that of Abraham.
XI. But — to return to the world — Dean Stanley says that
" for the highest spirit of the Patriarchal family Haran could not
be a permanent abiding-place." "Two days' journey brought
him to the high chalk cliffs which overlook the wide western
desert. Broad and strong lay. the great stream beneath and be
tween. He crossed over it, probably near the same point where
it is still forded — at Zeugma ; the ancient passage was a little
west of the present passage at Birs." — pp. 9, 10, and note.
Yet all we know for certain of Abraham's journey from Haran
to Canaan is what we read in Scripture : " And Abraham took
Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance
that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in
Haran ; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan ; and
into the land of Canaan they came."1 There is no sign of
delay in this ; but from it we must gather, with S. Ambrose,2
that " paruit itaque mandato Abraham, nee ulla legitur mora
intervenisse. Egressus perambulavit usque ad Sichem." Every
thing else not mentioned in Scripture concerning Abraham's
journey south is legendary, from Aleppo to Mecca. One legend
1 Gen. xii. 5. » Vol. iv. p. 173, de Abr. Patr.

I. P. 9.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 97
is as trustworthy as another ; and we need not, therefore, believe
Justinus, Nicholas of Damascus, Berosus and others more than
the traditions or the legends sown broadcast over the East
through the Talmud and through the Coran.
I have never seen " Beer's Leben Abrahams," to which Dr.
Stanley refers ; but Nicholas of Damascus,1 it is true, says, ac
cording to Josephus,2 that 'A$pafj.r\; Ifiaa-'iXeua-e Aap.aa-xou 'hrr\Xu;
<ruv a-TpaTw aQiypt-svo; Ix tvj; yr); uirlp BafiuXwvog XaXdatwv Xeyo-
fj.evr\;' "Abraham reigned in Damascus a stranger, who had
come with an army from the land called 'of the Chaldeans'
beyond Babylon." And Justinus3 also tells us, " Judseis origo
Damascena, Syrise nobilissima civitas : — nomen urbi a Damasco
rege inditum — post Damascum Azelus, mox Adores, et Abra
ham, et Israhel reges fuere." But one thing in this state
ment is as true as another; Abraham was King of Damascus
according to Justinus as much as ' Israhel;' so Jacob, too, must
have reigned there. And when Dean Stanley, who seems to
put faith in the story told by Justinus, and to wish to see Abra
ham ' King of Damascus/ further draws, as he thinks, a proof
of it from a certain play upon the words Eliezer of ' Damascus/
as having been brought thence by Abraham, he ought also to
maintain, on precisely the same grounds, that Potiphar ' had
reigned in Dothan/ since the steward of his property was
Joseph his servant, a Hebrew, who came from thence, and was
lord of all his house ; and that Sarah must have been ' Queen of
On/ or of Tanis, since she had an Egyptian maid.
Let us see, however, what all this is worth. And first about
this play upon the words : iWfy ?&&! WH TO P^D']^,
' And (the son of possession of) he that looks like the probable
heir to my house, (is) this Eliezer of Damascus ;'4 whereon it is
argued that p^D, being aira% Xey. for "^E, ' possession/ was
chosen by the writer — the fifth historian ! says Ewald5 — to alli
terate with pJM211, in a kind of proverbial form, that points to
an older history, &c, — a fond c.onceit, truly.
For, what of that ? Alliteration is almost peculiar to Shemitic
languages in all ages; only take the first page of an Arabic
1 P. 114, ed. Orell. 2 Antiq. Lib. i. c. 8. 3 Hist. Lib. xxxvi. c. 2.
4 Gen. xv. 2. 5 Volk. Isr. i. p. 446, note.
II

98 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
poem, and read.1 Besides, it is difficult to see how this pre
tended play on "p'Uffift and the term VTS"^ (verna meus,
oixETtjj fj.ou), v. 3, can possibly even show that Abraham ever was
at Damascus, much less that he reigned there. For, by com
paring together Gen. xii. 4, xvi. 16, xxi. 5, and xxv. 20, we find
that Abraham was seventy-five years old when he left Haran ;
eighty-six when Ishmael was born of Hagar, that is, one year
after Sarah had given her to Abraham, that, again, being ten
years after Sarah had had Hagar for a maid (Gen. xvi. 3). Now
"Sarai Abraham's wife took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian,
after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan" (ib.) ;
that is, of course, the same year that he left Haran to come to
Canaan, whence he went straight to Egypt, on account of the
famine ; and there either Sarah bought Hagar, or, as the story
goes, Pharaoh gave Hagar to Sarah, grieved that she should
have to wait upon herself.
Clearly, then, Abraham arrived in Egypt within less than
a twelvemonth after his departure from Haran. This, it must
be seen, leaves very little time for his conquest of Damascus and
for his reign there, if he ever went near the place. Moreover,
Eliezer, if born in Abraham's house at Damascus, that is, -the
same year Abraham left Haran, must have been sixty-five years
old when Abraham sent him into Mesopotamia (Gen. xxiv. 1 — 3)
to fetch Rebekah, since Isaac was then forty, and Abraham one
hundred and forty years old; therefore Eliezer could not be
more than thirteen or fourteen years of age when Abraham
spake of him as of 1JT3 pt£to"|3 or TQ")5, in ch. xv. 2— a
very young 'steward' indeed. But, rather, the fact that he
could not be a • steward' at this early age proves (1) that
pt£>P~}2 cannot be rendered ' steward/ but as Gesenius rightly
1 Thus, for instance, we find a ' real ' play upon this very word piasn,
tjjSj^cO, in Ahmed Arabsiad. V. Tim. c. xcvi. vol. ii. p. 909 ; where, speaking
of Timur's soldiers at Damascus, he says: jj. ¦• *, <t_\ ^. ]^.. IL
J^L* ^j\ \Sniy>-j i^*z\ yr-o \$**J ^\jj\ \ytJL< that "when
they departed from Damascus (JJ^eiit and after they had ' combed' |JL&^
the leaves of her beauties off the branches of her wealth ^^ .J, ay, a
thorough ' combing.' " This is alliteration indeed, the other is fancy.

I. P. 10.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 99
renders it in the sense of " ' the presumptive heir' to my house."
This is also the meaning given to |3 in this place by Abarbanel,1
who remarks that, when sent to fetch Rebekah, Abraham does
not call him 'son/ but only 'elder servant.' And as to his
name ' Eliezer/ it was given him, says the Midrash Rabbah,2 on
account of his help to Abraham in defeating Chedorlaomer and
his allies; the Targ. J. B. Uzziel and Targ. Hieros.3 putting
into Abraham's mouth these words, " The child of my house,
pkOTl PP3 "b TTIIgnS ^T hV\ through whose assistance
(hands) wonders were wrought by me (or, for me) in Damascus,
thinks he is to inherit of me !"
Be this as it may, it is very clear that we have not " in this
play on the name of Abraham's faithful slave," as Dean Stanley
says, " a guarantee of the close tie which subsisted between the
Patriarch and his earliest conquest;" a mere assumption, with
out a shadow of proof, that is no guarantee whatever of what
cannot have happened, if we look attentively at the text of
Scripture. And as to the fame of Abraham, which eti xai vuv lv
t>j Aafj,ao-xrjVf — 8o£a£sTai, " is still great about Damascus," says
Josephus,4 as another guarantee of Abraham's reign there, his
fame is still greater in the Hedjaz and at Mecca; so he must
have reigned there also.
XII. Nothing, therefore, is less likely than that Abraham
should have followed the route Dr. Stanley marks out for him.
First, the ' Zeugma' he mentions as having been a little to the
south of Bir, or El-Bireh, Sj+A\,5 (and not ' Birs/) Turkish,
' Beredjik/ was so called to Xj-uypjt. tou Eufyparou, because of the
bridge, said to have been built by Alexander the Great, which
did there span the river, deep and rapid as it is, and united the
two opposite banks. This Zsuyp.a, however, was either of the
Comagene, according to Pliny, or of the Cyrrhestica, according
to Ptolemy.6 It was, therefore, to the north of Haran, and not
on the way to Canaan; whereas Abraham's direct route to
Canaan lay straight from Haran to the other and older Zeugma,
1 Comm. in Pent. p. 46, verso, ed. Bash.
2 Fol. 45, verso. ¦" Ed. Walton, l.c.
4 Antiq. Lib. i. c. 7.
5 Abu'1-fed. Tab. Syr. p. 127, ed. Koehl.
c Cellar. Geog. Ant. vol. ii. p. 341, sq.
H 2

100 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
near Thapsacus, irpbg to iraXat to xaTa ty]v Qafyaxov,1 which Dr.
Stanley seems to have overlooked. This would bring Abraham
in a straight course also to Tadmor, and thence, somewhat out
of his way, to Damascus, if he then visited that place. But, inas
much as the small town of Sichem is the first station mentioned
in Holy Scripture after Haran, it is most probable that Abra
ham followed, on his way from Haran to Canaan, the same route
which Jacob took on his way from Canaan to Haran, and which
Dr. Stanley himself marks out for him at p. 63; that is, from
Haran to Tadmor, and thence, through the Hauran, to the
fords of Jordan, near to Salim, or Salem. His course would,
naturally, be as straight as possible, and shaped according to
the wells or other watering stations for his flocks. It is idle to
suppose him conquering Damascus or any other territory while
bent on reaching the land to which God was leading him,2 which
he traversed, and through which he reached Egypt, within less
than a twelvemonth of his leaving Haran.
XIII. We may, then, think what we like of the story told by
Ibn al-Wardi,3 of Abraham being moved by God to leave his
country with his family for Schaubet-el-beidha, 'the white city/
whither the angel Gabriel was sent to guide him to the ' white *
mound' ^^ajoill J^!U on which the citadel of Aleppo stands.
Ibn Batutah4 calls it 'U^iJl, the ' grey' rock, and goes on to
say that Haleb, Aleppo, takes its name from "Abraham's 'new
milk' >jJ!>1j! i_^L>- the milk of his flocks, which he gave to
the poor," &c. When he left Aleppo, Ibn al-Wardi says that he
prayed for all sorts of blessings on the town ; so that now, who
ever visits that city never leaves it without shedding tears of
regret. My experience was different from this : I was, on the
contrary, very glad to leave it. This story is also told by El-
kazwini ;5 nevertheless, even Arab writers are not agreed upon
the subject : " nam aliqui Arabum volunt eum tetendisse nimis
australiter per Meccam, sic alii eorum nimis borealiter per Haleb
quae Aleppo : sic Ibn al-Malld Halebensis, qui dicit Haleb
1 Strabo, Lib. xvi. u. 1. 23.
2 to-nevSf awrtlvwv — " he hastened on his way thither, putting his readiness
to obey God on a par with his arrival there." Philo. De Abr. p. 358.
3 Tab. Syr. ed. Koehl. p. 188. « Trav. vol. i. p. 148.
s Vol. ii p. 122, ed. W.

I. P. 10.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 101
fuisse ex locis ad quse peregrinatus est Abraham, qui ibi aliquan-
diu substitit post discessum suum ab Haran. Proh nugse I"1
XIV. But we should never have done if we rehearsed half of
what is told of Abraham in Jewish and in Arabic writers. There
is nothing he could not either know or do. T3PI D^ti* 'J \2
INTO JIN "3X- " At three years of age Abraham knew his
Creator," says R. Bechai ;2 though here, again, authors differ,
since Masudi3 quotes Cor. xxi. 53, to show that * j^j. ^j.\ Si
" the first inward guidance had been given him," ere he came
out of the cave on Mount Casius, near Damascus, where he had
been hidden.4 And no wonder, since R. Menachem tells us5
that ^pTV '2H b& 13"). "Zadkiel was Abraham's tutor;"
and many more absurdities of this kind, which would make up
a large volume of most unprofitable matter.
XV. After giving us a pretty description of Damascus at
p. 10, Dean Stanley proceeds to a fuller account of Abraham's
character, and says —
" Not many years ago much offence was given by one, now a
high dignitary in the English Church, who ventured to suggest
the original likeness of Abraham by calling him a Bedouin
sheykh." >
One can hardly picture to oneself the state of innocence that
could take offence at such a thing; but, that it can be true,
being said by the Dean of Westminster, is assuredly no compli
ment to his countrymen. Yet the same thing is repeated by a
reviewer friendly to the Dean in the "Edinburgh Review"
(Jan., 1864, p. 137) — reviews are often strange things — who
there can bring himself to say that —
" Dr. Milman's greatest crime (as Dr. Stanley has observed), with
out which his other offences would scarcely have been noticed,
was that he ventured to let in the light of common day upon
ground which was popularly considered too sacred for the sun to
shine on. It was thought an unpardonable familiarity with holy
things, a dangerous and profane liberty, to speak of Abraham as a
Sheikh or a Bedouin chieftain ; of the Israelites after their occu-
1 Hyde, De V. R. P. p. 74. 2 Par. Vajer. fol. 29, col. 3.
3 Vol. i. 84.
4 But ' born,' according to Ibn Batutah, vol. i. p. 231.
5 Par. Schemoth, fol. 80, in Eisenmeng. End. Judenth. i. 823, ii. 375, &c,

102 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
pation of Canaan as an ' independent yeomanry, residing on their
hereditary farms ;' of the Levites as a ' learned nobility ;' of Israel
itself as a ' confederacy of separate republics' or of ' scattered
cantons.' "—pp. 137, 138.
Of course, the rfiog of all this is self-evident — it is to make
party capital out of what is really too claptrap to find its way
into manly writing. The ovtcos (piAoVo^oj, the real philosopher,
would not condescend to such trickery. He would not try to
catch the ear of the multitude — " vulgus, quod ex veritate
pauca, ex opinione multa, sestimat"1 — in making it appear that
light is on his side only, and that others are yet in gloom, at
such a trifling price. Yet what light ? to call Abraham a Be
douin Sheikh. One cannot refrain from a smile at such childish
criticism, nor from wondering at what the state of minds must
be that can call this " the light of common day." Their own dim
ness it appears is not yet removed ; and ere they operate ou their
brethren's eyes, themselves need indeed see well enough to do it.
At the same time, we may question the fairness of fathering
upon the venerable Dean of S. Paul's, commonplace expressions,
which he is much too learned ever to have considered as " light"
thrown upon the subject. Whatever be his religious opinions,
of which I am no judge, he at all events is a scholar, and very
superior to those who now run for shelter under his wings.
The fact is that Abraham was neither u ' Bedouin' nor a ' Be
douin Sheikh / for in those days — at least in those parts — such
terms as jjjj\ and ^jo.IjjJI, 'bedu' and ' Bedaween/ were
not in use. But, by belonging to those who, in polite Arabic,
are called jj\ Jj^, ' the family of men dwelling in tents made
of black hair/ to the ' Scenitse' of Latin authors, Abraham was
more likely to be what in Syriac might be Ir^'r2, ' Bar-baro/ a
' son of the open country/ a ' barbarian/ the father, too, of a
'barbaric race/ fiapflagixou ysvoug.2 He was 'Paganus/ or
better still, ' a heathen/ even while he was " the Friend of God"
and "the Father of the faithful;"3 since 'heathen' comes from
'heath/ the Gothic hAltJ), a 'field/ adj. hAl<J>Q£, A, 'of
1 Cic. pro Rose. Com. 2 Philo, D* V. Mos. Lib. i. p. 658.
s Rom. iv. 11, 16.

I. P. 10.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 103
the field/ a man or a woman living in the fields or country ; a
' heathen/ PlTTtJ' CJ^N. It is not the light of day, to o-a^vsg,
the plain Truth, that is to be dreaded, since Truth in itself — but
especially Truth as regards the Bible— is the hallowed principle,
the sacred object to be desired, to be searched for, and to be
put forth at all cost when requisite. But 'Truth' is too
often disfigured by those who give themselves for its apostles.
Thus, to compare Abraham to an Arab Sheikh is so natural and
so simple, that it need not be thought of twice ; but to make it
appear as an effort of genius, as a proof of the ' philosophy' of a
particular party, is not creditable. What is it, according to
Plato, that distinguishes the ovTwg $iAoVo$oi, 'real philoso
phers/ from the irXao-Tw; a>»Ao'<roa>oi, ' sham philosophers/ but
<ptXofo%'ta fuaXXov r) <J>iAoo-o<$i'a, but " the love of praise or the love
of men's opinion, rather than the love of truth ?" And what
does separate the philosopher QtXdo-o<po; from the sophist a-o$to--
Tt\g, but the r$og, the ' moral habit/ and the Uo;, the ' manner
or custom' of each in setting forth the Truth, honestly or not ?
It stands to reason that, the more we become acquainted with
daily life, but especially with patriarchal life, in the East, the
better we understand the narrative of Scripture, and the more
also we can enter into the spirit of it. We then judge better
of distances, of allusions, and of the relative position of places,
if we have visited the land of the Bible ; and if we have not visited
it, but only know the languages of the Old and of the New
Testament, and something of the language at present spoken in
Palestine, we are able to understand expressions and the force
of terms which are all but a dead letter to us if we do not. If
we have visited the Holy Land, we then see the various events
of which we read in Holy Scripture, as it were, painted on a real
background. No one, for instance, can have seen as I did, the striking of
tents and the moving of a whole Arab encampment at sunrise,
with flocks and herds that spread for miles over the high table
land that separates the hills of Moab from the vales of Rabbath-
Ammon, without being able for ever after to feel more at home
in reading the history of Abraham's journeyings, of Isaac, and
of Jacob with his two bands, returning from Padan-Aram.
The reality of certain narratives contained in the Old Testament

104 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
can only gain by such experience ; and the more it is multiplied
the better. But as regards those for whom such accounts are
written by eye-witnesses, it all depends on how things are put
before them. The events and the scenes recorded in the Bible
may be treated like ordinary events and ordinary scenes, even in
a jocular way ; or with reverence and worship, as it is meet they
should be ; as events and scenes of a land which, although it
be now " trodden down of the Gentiles," is, nevertheless, the
sanctuary of the whole earth.
" What then," asks Dean Stanley, " is the position which has
been accorded to Abraham by the general witness of history ?" —
" We see it best by considering the two names by which he is
known in eastern traditions, ' Friend of God' and * Father of the
Faithful.' "
XVI. Although we cannot, of course, talk of the general
witness of history to a man who is only one great subject
of the most peculiar and especial history in the world, and shut
out from all others ; a subject only second to the great object
of that history, to Him " Whose day Abraham saw and rejoiced,"
yet Dr. Stanley has a few very good and pertinent remarks on
the first of these names at pp. 13, 14. The name El-Khalil,
* the Friend/ ' the intimate Friend' of God, obtains in Moham
medan countries only from the use made of it in the Coran.
Whoever has studied the spirit of the Meccan impostor, as shown
throughout his life, may see at once why he fixed principally
upon this title of Abraham. It was necessary for him that he
should claim friendship with, and praise him who was 'the
Friend of God / and of whom, on that account, he tells many
wonderful and absurd stories. For the same reason of self-
interest, did he hold up other characters of the Old and of the
New Testaments ; even our Lord Himself; so that he might
embrace and gather all, Jews as well as Christians, in the meshes
of his crafty, barefaced imposture. There can be no doubt
about it ; since luli-j <Ujo <d!l aULelj ijjj <uJj«i Jj^p- *b'U
" Gabriel came and taught Abraham true religion" — Islamism,
of course — " and God chose him for His Prophet and for His
Friend."1 " Abraham was, indeed, chosen by God, as he was called by
1 Masudi, i. p. 84.

I. P. 14.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 105
God," says Dr. Stanley, who, however, seems to have a some
what indistinct idea of his subject, when he adds :
" Although in the word ' ecclesia,' in its religious sense, the
etymological meaning, of an assembly called forth by the herald,
is lost in the general idea of ' a congregation,' yet this original
meaning gives a fitness to the consideration that he who was the
first in the succession of the ' ecclesia' or ' church,' was so by virtue
of what is known in all subsequent history as his ' call.' " — p. 14.
XVII. For the etymological meaning of ExxArjo-i'a, ' ecclesia/
is hardly "an assembly called forth by the herald;" if so, and if
the ' being called by a man' constituted the IxxAijo-ia, then the con
gregation called by the muezzin to the mosque from the minaret,
would, to a certain extent, be an IxxAijcr/a ; though not accord
ing to the idea of it received at Athens. The 'herald' was
clearly, only an accident, a form of calling. The IxxAijcria must
be called ; so a herald was sent to call every member to the
place of gathering ; but what constituted the IxxAijo-ia was, of
course, not the ' herald ' himself, since a message might have
been sent in some other way than through him, but the vofj,tfj.r\
exxXryr'ta consisted both in and of the gathering together of cer
tain citizens only, called from the rest, as being duly qualified to
become members of that ' ecclesia/ ixxAijeria ; the first of those
qualifications being that of citizenship, for foreigners were not
eligible; next, that of age, birth, character, &c. Those citizens
thus qualified and then called, were said to be IxxAyjtoi, called
out from among the rest, by virtue of certain rights they had ;
for those rights entitled them to the calling, not the calling to
the rights ; they were called, only to certain duties, which en
tailed rewards, &c.
Nothing could be less like what is termed ' a congregation,'
a motley gathering of people, of animals and of things inanimate,
than the IxxAijo-ia — ' a chosen assembly of free citizens duly
qualified/ whose parents were also free, and who themselves
were not otherwise disqualified by crime or by defamation.
Very far from being a ' congregation' only, it was held in the
public square, ayopi, where the space marked out for the ' eccle
sia' was fenced off by hurdles, ysppa, in order to keep out
strangers, who could not be admitted until after the votes had
been taken. And it was on account of all these distinctive fea-

106 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
tures of lxxA>jo-/a, ' ecclesia/ that this term, and no other, was
chosen by the Holy Ghost, from among other generic ones,
such as : b'fj.tXog, bfj.r]yuptg, o-uva^tg, o-uvohg, o-uvaywyr], o-uyxXrj<rtg,
a8poto-fj,dg, aXta, e'tpea, iravr)yugt;, <ruv>]Auo-ia, cruAAoyoj, ayepov;,
eirayepo-tg, ayuptg, ayopa, a-uXXoyif, Qa.fj.vpig, avaxXYyjtg, aysXr\, irotp.-
vtov, &c, and from other specific terms, such as : \3ovXr], xara-
xXYjo-tg, &c.
The exxXr,o-ia then consisted of citizens called out from among
the rest, by virtue of certain rights they had, for certain pur
poses, functions, &c. The ' purpose/ be it deliberative or what
not, of the ' ecclesia' was the ' object' proposed to every citizen
thus called; and that brought him to the assembly. God
called Abraham, as being IxXexTog, ' chosen,'1 and He set be
fore him promises " afar off," yet true, for the sake of which,
Abraham came out of Ur, and walked towards the Land of pro
mise. Without such an object he would not have gone ; but
that object thus set before him, and real, though unseen, be
cause true by virtue of Him Who promised it, and Who set it
before Abraham, not only brought Abraham out of Ur, but kept
up his strength of purpose through his long journey towards
Canaan. And he thus represented the Church which could not
exist without objective Truths and promises which she holds and
cherishes — but does not make.
Except this apparent oversight as to the real meaning and
character of IxxArjo-ia, ' ecclesia/ the whole remainder of this
paragraph in Dr. Stanley's book is well worth reading. I will
only remark that the story of Abraham and of the sun, moon
and stars, related by Dr. Stanley at p. 17 as told by Ibn Batutah,
is incorrectly given. It runs thus :2 " From this cave, Abraham
saw the star, the moon and the sun ; as the sublime Book
says." There3 it is thus told : " When the night fell over him
he saw a star ; he said : This is my Lord : but when it did set,
he said : I do not like those that set. And when he saw the
moon excelling in brightness, he said : This is my Lord : but
when it set, he said : Surely, unless my Lord guide me I shall
be among them that live in error. But when he saw the sun,
yet brighter than the moon ; he said : This is my Lord ; this
1 Rom. xi. 28. This is again treated elsewhere.
2 Ibn Bat. vol. i. p. 231. ' Cor. Sur. vi. 76, sq.

I. P. 18, 19.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 107
is the greatest. But when it set, then he said : 0 my people, I
am indeed innocent of that which ye do in common (i.e. idolatry.)
For my part, I have like an orthodox turned my face towards
Him who created the heavens and the earth ; for I am not of
those who join together (to worship idols.)" This story is often
told by other authors ; as e.g. by Masudi,1 who, however, gives
it only in part.
XVIII. Then follow (pp. 18, 19) other excellent remarks on
Abraham's faith as shown by his works, if so be I understand
Dr. Stanley right. We will not discuss together " the paradox
of the reformer," as he calls it ; but if he mean by what he
says that Abraham's faith was not in words but in works, and
that by his works it was made perfect, for that without works
faith is dead — then I agree with him, and we both agree with
S. James. Yet what does he mean by, " was counted to him ?"
I understand it to mean, that Abraham was accounted righteous
by God, for believing Him, even so far as to hope against hope ;
— his hope being the very work — to spyov, though not in this
case, to tsXo; — of the faith that wrought it ; so that " he stag
gered not at the promise of God through unbelief." And as he
gave proof of his faith through works which showed his faith
to be implicit and sincere, thus acknowledging that God, as
God, had full right to bid him walk by faith and not by sight,
his works were accepted; yet only as tokens of his faith.
Through works which his faith made him do, he showed himself
to be ' righteous,' that is ' doing right' in giving up ' self,' and
in giving himself up to do God's will only, body soul and spirit.
Yet, as naught of this could be wrought in him and by him,
unless he had first believed and trusted God, it is clear that his
' righteousness' consisted, not in the works themselves as works,
but in the faith that wrought them. Abraham was ' righteous/
not in leaving Ur or Haran ; but in leaving these cities at God's
bidding; believing and trusting Him.
In other words, the object, or objects, set before him by God,
the Land of Promise,2 and the day of Christ, were Truths and
' the Truth/ for Abraham. That Truth set before him as the one
object to which he looked by faith — faith, being as we shall see,
1 Vol. i. p. 84.
2 Trpoard^eis — rpavortpois (rnpeiois Sy)\ovp.4vas. Philo. De Abr. p. 358.

108 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
both intellectual, belief, and moral or spiritual, trust in God
and in His promises— brought him out of Ur and made him
walk towards Canaan : as the lode-star of his course. Fancy
him looking, as some now teach, for the Truth within himself;
would he ever have left his father's house, to go he knew not
whither ? or, had he been called, and had he not believed the call,
would he have forsaken everything in order to obey that call ?
But, so little have Truth, faith and obedience altered since Abra
ham's time, that he is said to be the " father of them that believe ;"
and they that " are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."
Nay, it is hard to understand, how a well constituted mind, can
do otherwise than see clearly, that Abraham's righteousness
consisted in his faith in certain definite Truths set before him,
and towards which he walked, being led thither by that faith.
Truth was for him objective ; the only subjective Truth he knew
was the conscience of his having obeyed God ; by coming out
of Ur at God's call, to look for a land as yet only promised, but
promised by God. No wonder, then, if Dr. Stanley seems to
find it difficult to reconcile all these plain facts, and all this
plain teaching, with that of the so-called philosophy of the day,
that confounds ' faith' with ' belief,' that is, belief and trust in
things spiritual and peace of mind withal, with belief and mis
givings in things intellectual, and no peace of mind withal, only
for the sake of escaping from the inevitable surrender of ' self
to objective Truth — the only Truth there is — and therefore from
obedience to aught but to ' self also. Yet, " without faith it is
impossible to please God," and "faith without works is dead,
being alone."
So thought, so did, so teaches Abraham. Therefore was he
also called the " Father of the Faithful" — not only as father of
the chosen people which, whatever may its sins of idolatry, of
stubbornness have been, was nevertheless 'faithful' compared
with other nations ; but Abraham was called the ' Father of the
Faithful/ as being the pattern for them to follow who wish to
be blessed with him in his ready, whole and entire obedience to
objective Truth, to God's call and promises ; both the type and
the seed of the Church militant in the earth. Yet, for all that,
Abraham was not the " first believer," (p. 19,) as Dr. Stanley
says : at least S. Paul did not think so. For, he tells us plainly,

I. P. 19.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 109
that "by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice
than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous,
God testifying of his gifts ;" " by faith Enoch was translated
that he should not see death" — " for before his translation he
had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it
is impossible to please him : for he that cometh to God must
believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that dili
gently seek him — to!; ex^touo-iv amdv. By faith, Noah being
warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear pre
pared an ark to the saving of his house ; by the which he con
demned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which
is by faith." (Heb. xi. 1—7.)
This would be more than enough, even if we had not the
Epistle to the Romans, to show that " faith with S. Paul" was
not as Dr. Stanley says, " almost synonymous with the admis
sion of the Gentiles." Righteousness that is by faith is not
applied by wholesale to nations ; but to every individual heart,
that makes objective Truth, so to speak, subjective, by receiving
it through faith, and then acting upon it, according to the
strong or to the weak nature of that faith, more or less as it did
in Abraham's heart. Dr. Stanley's intention, therefore, is not
clear when he says : —
" In modern ages of the history of the Church it has too often
happened that the doctrine of ' faith' has had a narrowing effect
on the conscience and feelings of those who have strongly embraced
it."— p. 19.
What can this mean ? Dr. Stanley does not think, assuredly,
that it is possible for man to believe, that is, to trust his
Creator too much ? Abraham, at least, did not think so.
" Hath not the potter power over the clay ?" and " shall the
clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou ?" Or
does Dr. Stanley allude to the weakness of human nature, which
often would restrict the grace of God, either to mere outward
forms of worship, of dress, of rites, or of ceremonies not posi
tively contrary to the Word of God ? Or does he mean men
who judge others in the matter of eating, drinking, and the
like ? For, he cannot wish to say, that the definite creed of
those " who are ready to give a reason of the hope that is in
them," narrows their conscience or their mind in thinking that

110 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
those who are not able to give reason of such a hope, because,
perhaps, they have none, are to be pitied ? All that can be said
is, that " those on whose conscience the doctrine of faith has
a narrowing effect" do not understand it aright.
They know nothing of the real " doctrine of faith" who say :
' I believe,' and stop there, careless of their works ; neither do
those, who think that their own works — that is, "their own
righteousness which is of the law," and but " filthy rags" at
the best, will avail them, by virtue of a dreamy, indefinite, general
and unmeaning belief they have in God, understand " the doc
trine of faith." Still less do those who hold and who teach
that men may believe or not, may accept or reject as they like,
the witness God giveth in His Word, and who treat that Word
the Bible, with even less reverence than they would one of their
favourite heathen authors ; who thus throw off all and every
kind of restraint which ' faith' imposes on the heart, and yield
allegiance only to what falls within the narrow scope of their
limited intellect — have an idea of what is meant by " the doc
trine of faith." Those alone understand " the doctrine of faith,"
who do as Abraham did ; who, denying themselves, by crush
ing within them the conceit and the puny pride of their own
intellect, give up their own will to God, and accept His terms
— to walk through life as did those " of whom the world was
not worthy," by faith in Him, moved by their obedience to His
will, and not to their own. "The doctrine of faith" consists in
" receiving the kingdom of Heaven as little children," who feel
ing their own weakness believe what they cannot understand,
and trust him that speaks, because their heart is too fond to
doubt him. "The doctrine of faith" is to say with Samuel:
" Speak, Lord, Thy servant heareth" — and to do it.
S. Paul is clear enough on this point. Writing to Gentiles
he speaks, of course, of their admission " into the household of
God," and that too, through faith in Him Who wrought out
for them their admission, by " breaking down the middle-wall
of partition," and "nailing to His Cross, the handwriting of
ordinances that was against them." But, so far from thinking
that " faith was almost synonymous" with that, S. Paul says to
these same Gentiles : " The Gospel of Christ is the power of
God, 7ravTi tw irta-Teuovxt, to every one that believeth ;"-

I. P. 20.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? Ill
not hxarspw tw irtarsuovTi to each of the two, Jews and Gentiles ;)
but, in order, — " to the Jew first and also to the Gentile ;'n
and, " Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every
one that believeth," iravTt toj 7no-tsuovti, for, " with the heart man
believeth unto righteousness."2 " So then they which be of
faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham."3
XIX. " His very name implies' this universal mission," says
Dr. Stanley. His name, truly ; but not the name Dr. Stanley
gives him thus —
" ' The Father,' (Abba) : ' The lofty Father,' (Ab-ram) : ' The
Father of multitudes/ (Ab-raham) : an abbreviation of rab-amon
(hamon = multitude, as of the drops of rain, the swelling of springs,
the voice of singers). Gesenius, Lexicon, 281." — p. 20.
First — ' Abba' or ' Abbo' is the Syriac term for ' father* in
the emphatic form, which never entered into the composition of
' Abraham.' In that form which properly means ' the father'
it is used like 6 iraTr]g, in the vocative, Abba, ' Father/ ' our
father/ ' my father/ &c.4 But in Hebrew, the voc. ' father/
in the sense of ' my father' is "OK,5 shortened into s3£t, when
forming proper names given by one man to another, such as
'^ft'QK ' Abimelech/ &c, (i.e. ' 0 father, 0 my father king/)
'father, king;' 7NP3NI (0 father, my father strong,) 'mighty,
father.' But when such names were given absolutely, as for
instance, by God to Abraham, and not relatively, the proper
name was then formed with "2!$,, DX, ' father,' and not with
\3S! ' my father.' The few other proper names thus formed
besides that of Abraham, prove the rule ; such as "ir3X and
"OniS >' ^"O^ and ^$3i$ each of a different meaning ; as well
as D^ON6 and DISK, and as altered by God, DPTQN.
Secondly — Gesenius' Lexicon from which Dr. Stanley quotes
must, probably, be the English translation which I do not
1 Rom. i. 16. 2 Rom. x. 4, 10. 3 Gal. iii. 9.
4 S. Mark xiv. 36 ; Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iv. 6.
6 The same idiom obtains in Arabic and in other Shemitic dialects e.g. ^c \j
' O my uncle,' a familiar address to men, ^ \j ' O my mother,' to elderly
women, &c.
6 Numb. xvi. 1, 2, &c.

112 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
know; for Gesenius treats of D"pNt at p. 11 of his Lexicon,
ed. 1833, 8vo., and at p. 10 of his ' Thesaurus L. Sanctse/ 4to.,
and "p. 281" seems very far in the book for a term beginning
with 2tf except it be mentioned at Q"|. But in the editions
I have there is assuredly nothing said about " amon" and
" hamon." Gesenius who, in general, is a sound scholar, tells
us that in DPTOK, DPI"! may be compared with Ar. A&j
' a large number / but he does not say a word in either Lexicon
about rab-amon; and since the root DPH does not exist in
Hebrew, we can only compare it with the Arabic term. Simon,
however,1 proposes DPI 31 3K 'pater muUitudinis turbee,' fx.eyag
¦traTYip irXydoug Ifowv (Sir. xliv. 19), and says that others have pro
posed DP! D"1 2K pater excelsus muUitudinis; an etymology
which is much like this one given by Dr. Stanley in another
note, p. 20 :
" According to the Persian tradition, his name, before his con
version, was Zerwan, ' the wealthy.' Hyde, Rei. Pers. 77."
Here again Dr. Stanley seems to take everything for granted ;
although he is, perhaps, hardly to blame for not knowing that
here Hyde is not quite correct.
XX. It is true that L,: Zerwan, (Jj&jj Zerhwan, and
^Jojj Zerban, are given in Persian dictionaries as names of
Abraham,2 in like manner as the same names were given to
Shem, according to Moses of Chorene ;3 and no doubt Abraham
is so mentioned in the book quoted by Hyde, which I have not ;
yet all these are but legends, like the rest. For in the very
quotation " e libra Zend" given by Hyde,4 and from prayers
contained in the Khorda-Avesta, Zerwan does not refer to ' King
Abraham' as Hyde infers, but to King Zerwan, ' Old Father
Time / and not to any real king of that name ; for no such a
king is to be found in the Tarikh Jehan Ara that gives all the
kings of Persia before Islamism. A like passage occurs in the
Yesht-Sade ;5 " Be ye as long-lived as King Zerwan ;" and
1 Onora. vol. i. p. 451. 2 As e.g. in the Borhan-i-qate', *. vv.
s Hist. lib. 1. c. 5, p. 17, ed. Wh.
4 Rei. V. P. p. 77. The quotation is not in Zend, but in Pa-zend or Parsi.
6 xxix. and xxxii. vol. i. pt. ii. p. 154, sq. ed. Kleuker,

I. P. 20.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 113
elsewhere,1 " be ye as immortal as Kai-Khosrii." This 'Zer
wan' or ' Zerban' when said of Abraham, does not as far as I
can find, (I have however, very few books to help me) refer in
any way to Hyde's etymology ' auri custos/ which is out of the
way and far fetched.
But there can be very little doubt, I think, that all these
terms are one and the same, and derived from the Zend ' Zar-
vana akarana/ or qadhata, uncreated or self-existent Time, re
peatedly mentioned in the Zend Avesta ; as e.g. in the Vendi-
dad XIX.2 nizbayafiuha. tu. zarathustra. thwashaha. gadka-
tahe. zrwanahe. akaranahe. "Call, 0 thou Zerdhust, upon the
heavenly, uncreated, self-existent Time;" to which Zerdhust
answers :3 nizbayemi. thwashahe. qadatahe. zrwanahe. akaranahe.
" I call upon the heavenly self-existent, uncreated Time," &c.
This must be the real origin of Zervan or Zeruan of Berosus,
quoted by Moses of Chorene,4 as having reigned after the Flood,
but before the Tower of Babel, with Titan and Japethostes, &c,
and mentioned also by Mariba of Catina who had found at
Nineveh a book translated into Greek by order of Alexander the
Great, in which he read that " all history begins with ag/»w
nL-u/hu L. quifiuiuiVu L. auiLubutnu^-l^ Zerwan and Titan
and Apetostes."5
This same Zerwan is also mentioned by Eznig, in his refuta
tion of heathen sects,6 who, when speaking of the Parsi worship,
says : " The Parsis say that, before there was anything, either
of things in heaven or of things in the earth, qpnuuA n3u
uAinL.'L £-n> one existed whose name was Zerwan, which means
either 'fate' or 'glory.' From him were born Ormizt7 and
Armen, the two principles of good and of evil," &c. Michael
Tchamtchean8 quotes from Moses of Chorene and from other
authors, the Sibyl of Berosus, which he says was Berosus* own
daughter, repeating what I have quoted from Moses of Chorene
1 Spiegel Z. Av., Abth. iii. p. 233. s Vol. i. p. 175, ed. Spieg.
3 Id. p. 176. 4 Hist. lib. i, c. v. p. 16.
6 Moses Chor. lib. i. c. viii. p. 23. 6 Lib. ii. 1, p. 113, ed. Ven.
7 Hormuzd and Ahriman. Mich. Tchamtchean relates a dialogue of Zerwan,
concerning his son Ormizt, about the creation of the world, &c. Hist. Arm.
vol. ii. p. 26.
8 Hist. Arm. vol. i. p. 57. I

114 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
respecting Zerwan ; but he adds1 that " Shem having migrated
to the north-west, called the hill on which he dwelt Sim, after
himself; and other places after the names of his sons, as e.g.
the hill Zerwan, after his son Zerwan." Indjidjean also2 repeats
the same things, and has a whole chapter devoted to show, that
Shem was Zordasht or Zoroaster ; and that " what the ancients
relate ifutult TtuipiLfili qpnL.uthwj iguipuib /iJuSuutuluiuu
ubJiuj concerning the first or primitive Zerwan, is to be un
derstood of Shem." This 'primitive' or 'great Zerwan/ Shem
of the Armenians, is the <jj^ u^j ' the great Zerwan' of the
Persians; a title they give to Abraham; every nation thus
making the most of its favourite ancestor, as Egypt of Menes,
Thebes of Cadmus, and the Rhodians of Jove, oitivej kx Aibg,
iuxpvro. XXI. " There is yet," says Dr. Stanley — but this time, he
speaks hesitatingly — " a more certain and enduring memorial of
this side of Abraham's mission,"
"if we may trust the ingenious conjecture of a distinguished
writer that — whereas ' Elohim' is a plural and means ' gods,' and
therefore, must have been coined in a polytheistic age — Abraham,
instead of looking upon these gods as so many devils, looked upon
these ' Elohim' as so many names invented with the honest pur
pose of expressing the various aspects of the Deity, though in time
diverted from their original intention." — p. 23.
In short, if I understand him aright, whereas Abraham was
accustomed in his idolatrous days, to see • gods/ ' Elohim/
worshipped, and to worship them himself, he perpetuated his
turning from these idols to the true God, by still keeping to the
term 'Elohim/ but using it with a verb in the singular; as e.g.
instead of saying, as formerly, ' the gods have done it ;' he now
said, ' the gods has done it/ &c, and he thus introduced
Monotheism. " Abraham," continues Dr. Stanley's authority, " saw that all
the Elohim were meant for God ; and thus Elohim comprehend
ing by one name everything that ever was or ever could be called
Divine, became the name by which the Monotheistic age was
rightly inaugurated : a plural conceived and construed as a sin-
1 Ch. ii. p. 59. 2 Antiq. Armen. vol. i. p. 285, 286.

i. p. 23.] philosophy, or truth? 115
gular. From this point of view the Semitic name of the Deity,
which at first sounds not only ungrammatical, but irrational, be
comes perfectly clear and intelligible. It is at once the proof that
Monotheism rose on the ruins of a polytheistic faith, and that it
absorbed and acknowledged the better tendencies of that faith."
—p. 23.
It matters little who said this ; it means absolutely nothing.
Had Abraham been the first to use ' Elohim' with a singular
verb, and had he never used any other term for ' God/ this
' conjecture' would hardly be one ; it would carry its own proof
with it, and be evident. As it is, however, we can only look
upon it as written for writing's sake, as another specimen of that
' philosophy for the million/ that looks somewhat learned, per
haps ; but is not so.
. First — a conjecture in order to be ' ingenious' must be pro
bable ; but this is not ; for — while we cannot prove that Abra
ham did set the example of using ' Elohim' with a singular verb,
we can prove that he did not.
Secondly — the use of D^PlvjSt which is a ' plural of majesty'
only, with a sing, verb, is an idiom of the language ; either of
servile and abject reverence for kings and superiors, inherent in
the Eastern character ; or, of partitive construction of nouns in
the plural with a verb, a pronoun or an adjective in the sin
gular, as e.g. D\ng ' lords'— i.e. ' lord/ ' master/ PfCtfj? D'TTN
' a hard master/ lit. ' domini durus.' Is. xix. 4. "HV^Pl l^nX
(his lords) 'his lord the Egyptian/ Gen. xxxix. 2, Ex. xxi. 6,
8, 29, &C1 ijh^l Job xxxi. 39, her husband, lit. ' her lords ;'
vfiJ2 'his lord;' lit. his lords or masters; all of which are
not relics of polytheism ; but are simply idiomatic.
Thirdly — if so be that 0*07$ ' Elohim/ with a sing, verb or
a sing, adjective, be a token of Abraham's Monotheism, how
comes it that the same expression is used for one idol ? e.g.
Dagon WJ7K our god; (lit. 'our gods;') 1 Sam. v. 7.
Baal-zebub, Vl?jfc the god (lit. 'the gods') of Ekron, 2 Kings
1 Danzii Thurgem. p. 26, 149, 150; Ewald Hebr. Gr. p. 326, sq., and 641.
Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 662, sq. i 2

116 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
i. 2 ; and the molten calf, Ex. xxxii. 1, xxiii. 32, said to be
DViTN ' gods/ for ' a god.' We grant that every one of these,
was the personification of some property or of some quality of
Nature, — will anyone maintain that Dagon as well as Baalzebub,
and Baalzebub as well as Mnevis, " comprehended in himself
everything that was or that could be called Divine," so that
whether Dagon, Ashtaroth, Baal, Moloch, or Baalzebub, they
were all one and the same thing, without distinction or dif
ference ? For, if the conjecture holds good in the one case it
must also hold good in the other. But —
Fourthly — as a proof of how futile is this supposed " more
certain and more enduring memorial" of Abraham's Monotheism
— we have only two instances on record of Abraham using the
word Dwtf 'Elohim/ viz. Gen. xx. 13, and Gen. xxii. 8.
In the first instance Abraham used 'Elohim' with a verb in the
plural; and in the second only, with one in the singular. More
over, the first passage, D\"17$ VW TI^Pl was written by a
so-called Elohist ; and the second lyPlS")!1 ^"171$ by a Jeho
vist. So that according to the showing of these philosophers,
and to use their language, Abraham grew but slowly1 out of
his Polytheistic habits into Monotheistic expressions, and seems
to have been a long time making up his mind on the subject ;
since the first time he is recorded to have used * Elohim/ and
that too, with a verb in the plural, he had left Haran nearly
five-and-twenty years. It was only, perhaps, twenty years later,
and after that God had said to him : " I am the Almighty God,"
^IV? 71SI, Gen. xvii. 1, that Abraham used ' Elohim' with a verb
in the singular. Nay, all we can gather from this " ingenious
conjecture," and from the facts I have brought to bear upon it
is, that Abraham used the term ' Elohim' very much in the
same way as Socrates uses bsdg and flsoi, thus : ou to/vuv /*o'vov
Yipxsos to) 0su) tou a-wfj,aTog eirtfj,eXYj$Y]vat — aXXx ttjv vf/u^v — ev-
1 These are almost the words of Ewald, Hebr. Gr. p. 641, who speaking of
B<rf») says : that "nachdem der mosaische Monotheismus eingefuhrt war," after
that the Mosaic (not Abrahamic) Monotheism was introduced, BVfaj gradually,
" almahlig," grew to be construed with a verb in the singular. We see, as we
shall again see, that in this ' philosophy' the master and the disciples are not
always at one.

I. P. 23.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 117
e<f>uo-e. " But verily, it did not suffice to God to care for the
body of man, He also created within him the soul;" tivoj yap
aXXou {Jcoou 4>uj£)j irgwra fj.lv Qswv twv tol fj-sytcna xai xaAAiora
o-uvrajj-aVTwv ))o~0i)Tai oti ela-'t ; ti 8s <J>uAov aAAo r) ol clivOpwiroi Qsoug
vepairsvovo-i ; &c. " For the soul of what other animal owns the
first feeling concerning the gods who have ordered everything
so beautifully, namely, that they exist ? What other race but
that of man worships the gods ?'n We must all admit, that it
is not saying much for Abraham, to hold that he was not in
advance of Socrates in his knowledge of God.
XXII. Hitherto, and until " the light" of the " common day
philosophy" gleamed upon the pages of Holy Scripture, one had
thought that the knowledge of the true God which Adam, Abel,
Enoch, Noah, Shem, and his children must have had, was by
them perpetuated among the early patriarchs. Even in the
days of Enos, fT} PP Dtt>3 XHpb 7PHPI, Gen. iv. 26, men began
to call upon the name,2 not of ' Jehovah' itself, since it was not
then made known to them, but upon the Name of the Lord, —
of Him Who afterwards revealed Himself as Jehovah. Enoch
tfti7KPTriK "ilVnrn " walked with God," (Gen. v. 22,) and
we are told that those who then pleased Him pleased Him only
by their faith in Him. (Heb. xi.) This ' conjecture/ then, is
not sound, neither is it wep) $povY)o-iv xai aA^siav, (R. iii. p. 1) ;
and Abraham was not the first to introduce the use of the verb
in the singular with ' Elohim/ for Eve did so before him when
she said : "IJTI DVT7K thrTV# \3 (Gen. iv. 25), "For God hath
appointed me another seed instead of Abel."
XXIII. But, inasmuch as there is only one straight road, that
of Truth, of to ctXyUg — tou ovto; y dv — all those who will not
walk therein must go astray. This very subject is a fresh proof
of it. We have heard one Professor telling us that the ' Elohim'
1 Memorab. Socr. lib. iv. 13, also 5, 7, 18, 19, &c.
2 The rendering of the Authorized Version is correct ; albeit the Targ. Hieros.
and J. B. Uzziel, the Midrash Rabbah (p. 27, verso), Miclol Jophi (p. 3, note),
and R. S. Jarchi I.e. explain it to mean, ' They called other gods by the name of
the Lord,' i.e., they made themselves idols ; a meaning Targ. Onkelos seems to
think right, as it renders 'irrin hoph. ' coeptum est,' by ?wW)D IWBSrra #!, ' the
sons of men ceased from calling upon the Name of the Lord.' Neither Abar
banel nor A. Ezra allude to it.

118 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
of Abraham showed his Monotheism ; which, however, Moses
must have introduced, says another j1 while a third devotes two
whole volumes, not wanting in rationalistic learning, such as it
is, to prove the Polytheism of Moses. " Voici ma pensee," says
this philosopher,2
" je crois que— le premier chapitre de la Genese, est le programme
de six actes cosmogoniques que l'on jouait devant les initios dans
les mysteres Egyptiens ; — que Moise met en action dans le Pen-
tateuque un grand nombre de divinite's subalternes, bien qu'il ne
permette d' adorer que Jeovl, PAdoni, le maitre, le chef supreme,
I'Autos, le lui, qui domine tous ces Alloi, tous ces autres, dits en
Hebrew Aloiin ou Aleim, — Je crois, au contraire que le Poly-
theisme de Moise, avoud enfin et bien compris, serait un salutaire
exemple de toleVance religieuse, et que la scene qui se passe dans
le Jardin d'Eden est relative a, l'initiation Egyptienne." — Pref.
pp. vi., vii.
Being very much in advance of the age, he traces the successive
improvements in the Hebrew alphabet, which was originally
taken from the Zodiac,3 to that of Paleg, or Pelasgian, at the
tower of Babel, which he frames in his own way; he then dates
the first reading from the days of Enos, interpreting the passage
(Gen. iv. 26) PliPP D^3 frltf? 7PnPl TK
"az eovel l-qea B-OHM jeove, alors on commenga h lire par le
nom AEI ; et commencer a lire par le nom AEI, revient a la facon
de parler, commencer a faire usage de l'ABC." — p. 136.
After that he gives pictures, drawn from Egyptian figures, of
these "Aleim de Moise," which he calls " dieux Amoneens" from
' No-Ammon/ in Egypt, and then he proceeds to give, in vol. ii.,
a literal and verbal translation of the first three chapters of
Genesis, in this wise : — 4
"LA GENESE.
Chapter I.
Sens Vulgaire. Texte. Sens Intime [et Rationnel.6]
Dieu Aleim Les Forces, les Dieux (Amoneens,
Demiourgues, Artistes ou Fabri-
cateurs du monde)
1 Ewald, above, p. 114, note.
2 Lacour, Alei'm, ou les Dieux de Moise, 1839.
» Vol. i. p. 102, sq. « Vol. ii. p. 21, sq. - Vol. i. p. 281.

i. p. 23.]

philosophy, or truth ?

119

crea
au commence
ment
les cieux
etla terre

" e"tait
informe

bba taillaient, formaient, sculptaient,
beachit en commencement-d'etre, en
ehauche
at la substance
eohmim des signes celestes, du ciel stelle*,
des cieux,
uat et la substance
eaetz de la terre blanche et aride."

eite
TEOU

et confuse, ubeou

et l'obscurite"
Stait
sur
la face
de l'abime

et l'esprit

ueohe
ol
ENI
TEOUM

UBOVE

Vebse 2.
e'tait, e'tait faite,
un signe pyramidal ou obeliscal,
une borne figurant l'etre informe
et sans vie positive,
et un ove figurant l'enveloppement
compressif de l'etre informe et
sans vie positive ;
et il y avait des tenebres compres
sives faisant empechement
surla surface
des signes tumulaires pyramidaux
figurant l'etre informe et sans
vie positive.
Mais le souffle, l'esprit dilatant et
liberateur
des Fobces, des Dieux,
planait avec amour, couvait, in-
cubait pour rechauffer et fecon-
der
surla surface
des eaux, des semences, des etres."

This kind of Hebrew and the translation thereof is what this
philosopher calls " le sens intime ou rationnel, de rationalis,
raisonnable, conforme k la raison."1 Can human conceit and
folly exceed this ; and need we any further proof of the ex
tremes of unreasonableness to which Rationalism will go ? If
such senseless exhibition does not convince men, nothing will.
We then come in Dr. Stanley's book (pp. 23 — 26) to a well-

de Dieu

Aleim

se mouvait

mbepht

sur

OL

la face

ENI

des eaux

EMIM

1 Vol. i. Introd. p. xxix.

120 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
written and interesting account of God's covenant with Abra
ham, upon which I have to make the following remarks.
XXIV. At page 24 Dr. Stanley, after saying correctly that—
" Abraham was bidden to prepare as if for the peculiar forms of
sacrifice which for centuries afterwards, in his own country, were
used to sanction a treaty or a covenant," — p. 24,
refers us to V. Bohlen's note on Gen. xv. 10. I trust Dr.
Stanley does not take for granted all V. Bohlen says ; it would
indeed be aXoywg, without reflexion. (R. viii. p. 4.) For the
German critic tells us there, nothing new, certainly ; but in a
parenthesis he states that "|PQ, the term used in this passage
of Genesis for dividing the victim, is a word of later date, which
occurs in the Song of Solomon, ii. 17, Jer. xliv. 18, and that
the victims were chosen after the Levitical institution, &c. ; evi
dently meaning to imply that this narrative was written later
than we believe it to have been, and that the writer, be he
Moses or any one else, did not give the facts as they actually
took place, but that he arranged them in his own way. Now,
what is this worth ?
He tells us dogmatically that *)PQ, which he writes without
points — thereby intending to speak in general of the ' root' "IPOj
and not of the verb ""IJn3 in particular — is of a later date. The
fact is that the verb IPO is a7ra£ Asy. here, and that the de
rivatives 1PJ3, pHPQ are found in two other places. However,
not only does it often happen that derivatives are used later than
the verb or the root, but this is the usual way in spoken lan
guages ; and all languages were spoken at some time or other.
But for this, what would become of the ' formation' and gradual
improvements, or, at all events, alterations in languages ? Ac
cording to V. Bohlen's reasoning, we have good reason to say
that these lines of Caedmon —
leohfc paep sepers .
buph bruhenej- pojib .
baej jenemmeb1 .
are of a later date, because in Milton2 we read —
1 Csedmon, Par. ii. 25, p. 8. 2 Parad. Lost. Bk. vii.

I. P. 24.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 121
" God saw the light was good ;
And light from darkness by the hemisphere
Divided : light, the day, and darkness, night,
He named."
seeing ' leohfc' is ' light/ ' bsej/ ' day/ ' jenemmeb/ ' named/
&c. Or we might as well say that Chaucer and Herbert both
lived together, because each wrote a ' Country Parson/ one in
verse and the other in prose, and each happens to use some
words alike.
If Homer, or any other favourite author, such as Pindar or
Thucydides, were thus treated, there would be little left in them
that their friends would care to read ; for the interest lies, not
only in the story they tell, but also in the style, through which
\we love to be carried back to the time when they severally
Vtjrote. Let us take, for instance, this line : — 1
ript,og ^ ^s'Aioj jW-steviWeto j3ouAuto'v8s
xa) tots 8)j Klxoveg xXlvav §afj,ao-avTeg 'Ayatoug.
Homer never wrote this: we know better. First of all,
Homer never existed ; settle where he was born, whether on the
banks of the Meles or on the slope of Pelinseus, and we will
believe you.
Secondly, and to begin with the first word : Y\p.og, it is true,
is of Ionic origin; so that, for that matter, Homer might have
written it ; but as we do not know where he was born, we do
not believe in him. Then, again, the author of the Iliad, in
deed, always writes r\fj.og in protasi ; but the apodosis sometimes
begins with TY\p.og, and sometimes with xa) tots, 8>j tots or tots 8>j.
Now, we know that in the best style of all well-ordered lan
guages, both East and West, the protasis and the apodosis are
always observed, with the relative adverbs or particles ; * when' —
' then / ots — tote, &c. : r\p.og — Tr\fj,og, therefore, is more correct,
and of a better age, than r\fj,og — xai tote, &c. So, then, such
lines as r\fj.og, ip'tXat, xar olxov x.t.X.
Tr]fj,o; Supalog r\xSov —
must be older than Sophocles, though found in his plays ;2
1 Odyss. ix. 58. 2 Trach. 531, sq.

122 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
no doubt from some anterior document handed down among
the Heraclidse ; although there can be no doubt that Sophocles
himself wrote such a line as
eu yag oto oti
xotoiSsv, r]fj.og tov KiQatpwvog toitov,
eirXrjo-latyv1 —
where \p.og stands alone, without the apodosis.
Likewise, when we find in the Iliad2
r)(j,o; 8* ^sAioj xaTsdv, xa) lir) xve<pag rJA0s
h) tots xotfj-rpavTO —
we call such lines ' Smyrnean/ from Quintus Smyrnseus, who
wrote the Posthomerica ; but when, on the other hand, we read3
r)fj.og 0 our ap irw r)wg, sti 0 afj,<ptXuxr) vug,
TrifJ.o; ap' ap,<p) irupr}v xptTog eygeTO Xabg 'A^atm,
we reckon these to Homer, if he ever lived — at least, we call
them Homeric. But when i\fj.og and Tt\fj.og are separated from
each other by more than one line, as in II. A' 86 — 90, such lines
may safely be thought pre-Homeric; we therefore call them
' Meonian/ from ' Meone/ the mother of Homer, although we
do not exactly know who she was. As to r\eXtog, it may be Ho
meric ; but with regard to /*stsviWsto, it is doubtful. For we
find it, e.g. in Apollonius Rhodius,4 said of a wild beast ' coming/
not ' going,' as it is here said of the sun ; so that they cannot
both be right. And as regards |3ouAuto'v8s, it must be taken
from these lines of Apollonius —
r\p.og 8e TpiTaTOV Xayog r\fj,aTog avop.evoto
XelireTat e% r)oug, xaXeouo-t 8s xexp.r)wTeg
spyarlvui yXuxspdv o-$tv aQap /3ouAuto'v ixlVflai,
T>jjU,oy kg r]poTO vsioj5 —
inasmuch as it is not usual to derive a noun from an adverb,
but rather the contrary ; the noun being the origin of the ad
verb — /3ouAuto'v8s found in Homer must be of later date than
jSovXvtov found in this passage of Apollonius. This line of the
Odyssey, therefore, must be either an interpolation, or of a
much later date than Apollonius. Altogether, these two lines
may be considered spurious.
1 (Ed. Tyr. 1134. 2 a' 475. s ji, v< 433.
4 i. 1245. • iii. 1339, sq.

I. P. 24.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 123
Sed hsec nugse. It is only to show that the same kind of
criticism that would rightly be called contemptible, or rather no
criticism at all, regarding books which, however favourite, have
done no moral good, is yet called ' philosophy' when applied to
the one Book which, through its influence, is alone the power of
God unto salvation. And why? Simply because men hate
the light of that Book, and try to darken it in every way they
can. Yet, it shines. The sun cares very little for all the
awnings put up in order to shut him out. He shines, and con
tinues to shine, and will continue to shine unto the end, though
not on those who purposely hide themselves from the whole
some effect of his rays. Such are critics of V. Bohlen's school.
The spirit of their criticism shows itself at once ; nothing is too
paltry for them ; so that they beguile unwary and ignorant men
into shutting themselves up at mid-day, lighting the candle of
their own intellect, and calling that the sun.
It is impossible not to smile at their absurdity — at the ab
surdity, for instance, of deciding that "|j"Q, a genuine Hebrew,
and no ' foreign' term, is of a comparatively modern date, be
cause, besides being seldom used, two of its derivatives are found
in later books. But we have seen what this is worth as regards
terms belonging to the language itself; for when these terms
are clearly foreign, the case is different. At this rate, why not
ascribe the writing of Genesis to Isaiah or to Jeremiah ? for
1PI3» ' emptiness/ occurs first in Gen. i. 2, and after that in
Isa. xxiv. 1, Jer. iv. 23; 1PJ3> then, is of Isaiah's or Jeremiah's
time, and the first chapter of Genesis may come from the pen
of either of them, — most likely from that of Isaiah ; since we
have no means of proving that all aira% Xeydfj.eva, and that all
terms rarely used were not invented, ' pro re nata/ by some
author of credit who then set the fashion.
Thus also |H2 occurs in Genesis, in Judges, in Zephaniah,
and in Jeremiah: which wrote the others? Did the Elohist
write Jeremiah, or Jeremiah the Elohistic passage? In this
case the ' verb/ which is found in Judges and in Zephaniah, is
youngest, and the derivative TP1S is oldest, occurring, as it does,
in Genesis ; while in the case of ~|PQ, which was written by a
•Jehovist/ the 'verb' is oldest and the derivatives youngest.
Are these relative peculiarities of the Elohistic and of the Jeho-

124 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [lECT.
vistic styles, to derive the verb from the noun, and vice vers& ?
Again, mD occurs twice, in Lev. xxi. 20, and in Isa. xxxviii. 21 :
which was first written ? And since jHD is f°una only in Job>
in 1 Kings, and in Micah, Job may, or must have been, written
by Ezra. So much for this ' rational' criticism, which has one
distinctive mark beside that of absurdity, to be inconsistent ; and
therefore it is no criticism at all, but simply the expression of
certain men's minds — so far, then, of little worth.
On a par with this is V. Bohlen's assertion that Abraham dis
posed the victims after the Levitical pattern. This is sophistry.
For God, Who ordered the Book of Leviticus, might, I trow,
tell Abraham how to arrange them. Of the two, the Levitical
pattern was rather after this.
XXVIII. The second remark I have to make is on Dr. Stan
ley's calling this covenant with Abraham " the first covenant, the
Old Testament." (p. 25.) At first it seems as if Dr. Stanley
overlooked ' the first covenant,' " the everlasting covenant" made
by God " with man and with every living creature," the bow that
joins earth to heaven in token of peace, and which is now as
beautiful as when the sun of heaven drew it on the retreating
storm of the Flood. Yet, even if Dr. Stanley calls this 'the
first covenant' not absolutely, but relatively, to the ' New/ it
then excludes Abel, Enoch, Noah, and others who walked by
faith ; so that, even thus, it is hardly a correct expression, for
assuredly God's covenant with Noah is, and will still continue,
binding, as long as the world lasts ; and this covenant is ante
rior to that which God made with Abraham.
XXVI. Thirdly, Dr. Stanley, in a note (p. 25), speaking of
the boundaries of the land promised by God to Abraham, says —
" Gen. xv. 18—21. The ' River of Egypt' (here only) is the
Nile. It is inserted, evidently, as the extreme Western limit of
Jewish thought and dominion."
Was the Regius Professor sure of what he stated ; or did he
state it only on the authority of others, without any research of
bis own into Ta irpwra a-Toty/ia of what he asserts ? thus per
haps, committing himself. He tells us that the '"river of
Egypt' means (here only) the Nile ;" but —
First, why " here only ?" for "IPIJI must be said of the Nile in

I. P. 25.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 125
Isa. xix. 5, where D^Pj is said of the river when it ireXayl^st, is like
a sea.1 In this verse, however, WlPl} is said of the canals of
Egypt, as in Exod. viii. I,2 whereas D'Htf'], pi. of "IX^, the 'river/
is always said of the 'rivers/ the 'branches' of 'the river.'3
Here, then, ""li^D "H^ cannot be said of the ' canals' made by
Ramses II. (Sesostris), who airb Msfj,tpewg lir) QaXao-o-av wgu^e
iruxva; ex tou iroTafuou hwpuyag, " dug many canals from Memphis
to the sea, in order to facilitate the transport of merchandise —
to 8s fj.eyta-Tov, irpb; Ta; twv iroXefj.iwv s$o'8ouj byugav xai 8uo"e/x/3oAov
sttoIyios tijv ywpav — but who chiefly by these means made the
country safe against the incursions of enemies, and difficult to
invade ;"4 a fact that bears directly on the sense given to this
expression in 2 Kings xix. 24, and Isa. xxxvii. 25, but which I
cannot discuss here. And the reason for which ")PI3 in the
T T
singular is here said of the Nile, and in the plural PVHPI3, of
' canals,' is plain. ")PU is the generic term for ' a stream of
water flowing in a bed either natural or made with hand ;' and
therefore is the Nile, the "iPlJ, the ' water-stream,' xar li-oxrjv,
of Egypt, and therefore also is it to be understood of the ' River'
when in connection with Egypt ; although, when said absolutely,
it applies to 'the River/ the largest and the nearest to the first
1 'Ev Se rats avafidffto-i tov Nei'Aou KaX/nrrerai iraaa (Atyvirros) Kal -KeXaylfei
irXty ray oiK^ffeotv — vijffi£ov(rai Kaia r-^v ir6p'p'ai&Gv 6^iv — "in the inundations of
the Nile the whole of Egypt is covered with water, and is like a sea, in which
the towns and the villages appear at a distance like islands" (Strabo, Lib. xvii.
1, 4); r6re — S NeiXos — v4Xayos 4£al<prns 'drtaaav iroiei rr\v Alymrov — "then
the Nile suddenly makes a sea of the whole of Egypt." (Himer. Orat, xiv.
8, 9.) Whence Diodorus says (Lib. i. 19, 4), rbv Se irorap&v apxaiorarov per
ivo/ia axeiv'ClKedvnv, '6s 4ariv 'E\Krivio-il 'QKeavAs, that "the River from the
first was called ' Okeane,' which in Greek is ' Okeanos,' (Ocean)."
3 And in Inscr. Rosett. 1. 14, ed. Kosegart. in Prisca Mg. Lit. t. iv.
3 That D'Tip can apply to nothing else is proved by the whole context of Ezek.
xxix. 3 — 5, where the king of Egypt is compared to a dragon or to a crocodile,
fruri twnri, the symbol of Egypt, as we shall see hereafter, in the midst of ' his
rivers.' And to show that these ' rivers' cannot apply to ' canals,' but that they
must be taken for the ' branches' of the Nile — whether five or seven — three
times does the prophet speak of Tlty rOT, the ' fish of thy rivers.' But the fish
lived first in ' the rivers,' whence they passed into the ' canals,' dug, and fed by
' the rivers,' long after these were formed by ' the River.'
* Diod. Sicul. Lib. i. 57.

126 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
settlements of the descendants of Shem, that is, to the Eu
phrates. "1PU may also perhaps, be said of the Nile in Is. xi. 15 ; yet,
only, * perhaps ;' for Gesenius1 and before him Vitringa,2 T.
Onkelos, Jarchi, Abarbanel and Kimchi, Vatablus and others,
understand it of the Euphrates ; whereas S. Cyril, S. Jerome,
Theodoret, Hyde, &c, think it is said of the Nile. Gesenius, in
order to support his opinion, takes a hint from Vitringa and
quotes Peritsol3 to show that PflD U) KlPl D^VP"^ $'<&
" the tongue of the sea of Egypt is the Red Sea."4
But, in sooth, where did Gesenius ever see against the voice
of antiquity D^VQ'D^ said of the ' Red Sea/ which is always
called ^ID'DJ, Copt. cpioJUL ftoj^pl, and in o1qI Egyptian the
' tank of Arabia/ ttjHI ftTI nOTIfr, in which the ' Tesem' god
was doomed to live ?5 'EpvQpr) QaXacro-a, 'Apafitog xoXirog lir) ty)
'EpuOpTJ SaXao-o-a, always distinguished from rj iaXao-o-a, or r) Bop-
rjtr) QaXao-o-a,6 'the sea' of Egypt, to Alyuimov nr'eXayogp
ja*} +[£i\\ js*> jJ» tjSi\ *jj\ jc*> " the sea of Roum (Medi
terranean) which is also the sea of Syria and of Egypt."8
In the Hebrew text we have two terms in use, — D^HVD 1PU
• - : • t t
1 Comm. in Jes. vol. i. p. 442. 2 Vol. i. p. 359, sq.
8 Aggereth Orech. Olam. p. 106, 107, ed. Hyde.
" But this is, most probably, » mistake borrowed from Jarchi, and which
Hyde, in a note on this passage (Ibid. p. 191), sets right thus : " Male statuit
Mare JEgyptium esse Mare rubrum. Nam ex Isa. xi. 15 [this very verse], plane
constat quod per linguam maris JEgyptiaci, intelligatur ea Mediterranei pars
iEgyjito proxima in qua septem Nili ostia exonerantur. Propheta enim in earn
exitium hoc modo denuntiat, anathematizabit Dominus linguam maris Mgyptii :
et agitabit manum suam super Fluvium, quem percutiet in septem rivis suis.
Mari autem rubro quod ab ^gypto distat, aliquid inflixisse, certe nee ^Egyptum
nee ejus fluvium tetigisset, nee ad earn ullo modo spectare potuit. Dicat autem
quod vult b irXdvris ; nos ad alia properabimus."
6 Ritual of the Dead, ch. xvii. 1. 66, ed. Leps.
6 Herod, ii. 158, 9, 11. ? Strabo, lib. xvii. c. 1, 4, 35, &c.
8 Masudi, vol. i. c. viii. p. 195; and el-Kazwini, vol. i. p. 119, sq. Gesenius
simply asserts that rriSnT? is here the ' Red Sea ;' and Vitringa (Comm. p. 358)
only says, " Hoc Mare recte dici possit ASgyptium.-'' but neither gives a proof
thereof, so that their joint testimony goes for very little. A. Ezra explains here
OTSp-q; jittA by -wro wpn Dnsn "ire Min, " the river of Egypt called Shihor ;"
and he applies im to the Euphrates ; but neither he nor R. S. Jarchi explains
what is meant by ' the seven streams,' to which Gesenius does not even allude.
These are understood of the ' seven branches' of the Nile, and Ta of the Nile

I. P. 24.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 127
and D|HVP 7Pti the 'River of Egypt/ and the 'torrent of
Egypt/ and two names for those rivers, liV, ")&fl and
l1rTti\ Of these "l& is the Egyptian <LT"0-*p, £.OTp,
Sahid. eiop, lop, Memph. lipo and with the article d)i^.po
' the River/ the only river in Egypt, never called by any other
name, either in the enchantments practised in the days of the
Ramessides,1 or in the prayers of the Churches of Egypt ;2 and
by comparison, the same term is used in Daniel for ' the River'
of Babylon. Then TirTtl', 'Shihor' from "lPlt{/ 'black' is
said by some to be a name of the ' Nile/ because it is called Me-
Xag, as Egypt is -Xij^ia, from KHJU.6, ' dark/ ' darkness/ and
' Egypt / and by others it is said to be the name given to the
' torrent of Egypt' which empties itself into the sea at El-Arish.
If it be so, it cannot be the appellative of the Nile ; for a name
applicable to two objects is no special or proper name at all.
But ")PTJ has a wider meaning than 7P1J ' a torrent,' which
is a *"|P1J only under the circumstances of a narrow, a rocky
or a sandy bed, of a valley, of a sudden rise and fall, of overflow
and drying up, &c.3
itself, by many critics ; but Vitringa remarks rightly that it is not said the river
should be smitten 'in the seven streams,' TOSaSa, but 'into seven streams,'
n»li!ft, that is, in order to effect its rapid decrease and drying up.
1 Chabas, Pap. Harris, throughout.
2 Missale Copt. Ar. p. 41, &c.
3 Thus a bm is in a valley, ^jl., Job xxi. 33 ; xl. 22, Isa. lvii. 6; 'over
flows,' Amos v. 24, Isa. xxx. 28 ; ' dries up,' Job vi. 15 ; and is thus fitly said of
' tears' that gush out, flow, and dry up when grief ceases, Lam. ii. 18. Thus we
read of jrw nYirn, ' never-failing streams,' Ps. lxxiv. 15, which only dry up with
the sea, Job xiv. 11, like niirn, Jonah ii. 4 ; said in Job xiv. 11 to be dried up by
miracle, by the same power that made a torrent ]n'N Hm, Amos v. 24, ' never
fail' in the wilderness of Tekoah. These characteristics of bm make it the only
fit term for ' the river' mentioned in the vision of Ezekiel xlvii., that rose ra
pidly, and then subsided at once. Hence it was a new thing indeed to create
jS»u>a rfrin:, Isa. xliii. 19, 20, such streams or rivers in a dry land, for cVrij were
there already ; so that the converse of this image is equally correct and true :
" I will turn streams or rivers into a wilderness," Isa. 1. 2, Ps. cvii. 33. This
relative meaning of VB and of bm is beautifully set forth in Job xx. 17, rfabs
nnom x6n $ro ''irB, ' canals or branches, rivers and torrents of honey and of
butter.'

128 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
These and like instances show that there is a meaning or an
intention in the very letter of God's Word : for the prophets
and the holy men of -old did not write at will, but as they were
moved. As regards "IPU and 7PJ3 in particular, they show that
7PU could never be said of the Nile in Lower Egypt; and it
might be said of the Nile in Upper Egypt, DTIflS, only under
certain exceptionable circumstances of scenery, nature, &c, as
about Silsileh, where ' the river5 flows between high cliffs ; and
then 7PJ3 could only be said of the Nile in poetry. But as
regards ' the river of Egypt ' promised as boundary to the land
of Israel, all we can say is, that it is yet to come ; though indeed
it may. But it has never yet been so. Aben Ezra says of "|PI3 in this
place "I^Pl ^7T TUTtf NIP! " here is meant Shihor, and not the
river Nile." Abarbanel also1 says that " it is not D1T3 I^S
the Nile, for the Nile is "|^ and not "|PI2 ; but from the
"¥)D 1PI3 to the Euphrates shall be the frontier of Israel." And
on Numb, xxxiv. 5, where we have D^VP 7P13 mentioned as
the limit, R. S. Jarchi says that " it means the river that flows
before Egypt," to which A. Ezra says : it is the river of
Egypt, -|K\"J TUWi " but l1; 1S not tne river Nile." With this
agrees the Samaritan Arab. Version of Abusaid that says on
DH!fiD7rU, i_Jl> tir« fliM J^o J^] ^ij^^^
1L^\ ' river of Egypt/ " the river of Egypt is Wady el-Arish on
the frontier of Syria from that side ;"2 scoj ' ' Ptvoxopoupwv t% bgt -
{Jouotjj Suptav xaT Alyuirrov xa) Tr)v sgudgav &aXao-a-av ; " as far as
Rhinocorura, the limit of Syria towards Egypt and the Red Sea."3
And in the division of the land of Canaan recorded in the Sa
maritan Book of Joshua (Chronicon Samaritanum), p. 22, where
the frontiers stated in Joshua xv. 4, 47, are given, we are told that
"at first and until fear prevented them, they thought of extend
ing their border (1. 110), ^\)\ j&j j^, Jjo Ji\ ^\ ^J\
cJ:xkwls ^}\ jo* ^ <sL>-Lj Jki-cj -*ji£\ _sjJ1 i»-yJ>. unto
1 Comm. in Pent. fol. 50. recto.
2 De Sacy Mem. de Literat. p. 149.
3 Geo. Syncell. Chron. p. 86 ex Abyd.

I. P. 8.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 129
the Nile; but that frontier is. the Wady or torrent that opens
and empties itself on or into the sea, the shore of which extends
ffom Egypt to Palestine."1 This was D"H¥P 713$ ' the frontier
of Egypt/ 2 Kings iv. 21, 2 Chron. ix. 26, from which Solomon's
kingdom reached unto the Euphrates ; and this is further made
plain by 2 Kings xxiv. 7, " and the king of Egypt2 came not
again any more out of his land : for the king of Babylon had
taken from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates all that
pertained to the king of Egypt."
But the frontiers of Egypt eastward, were always at a con
siderable distance from the Pelusiac or easternmost branch of the
Nile. For, east of that branch, that is, towards the land of Canaan,
were the Sethroite,Bubastite, Phagrariopolite and the Heroopplite
nomes, with the cities of Ramesses, Pithom, Baal-zephon, Mig-
dol, &c, extending with the nome ' Arabia/ answering to i_s*ss!l
ti Jl\\ which was distinct from the Egyptian possessions in the
peninsula of Sinai, more or less in a straight line from the gulf
of Suez (Heroopolites Sinus) to the corner (D11V0"D^ ]W7 ?) of
the Mediterranean sea towards El-Arish. So that the king of
Babylon could not take from the king of Egypt what had always
been his own ; but Nebuchadnezzar took from Nechao II. all
that which former kings of Egypt, especially Thothmes and
Ramses II., had taken by conquest from the ' River of Egypt'
unto the Euphrates. This is again confirmed by a hieroglyphic
inscription given in Lepsius' Denkm. Abth. iii. 31, and quoted by
Brugsch,3 g,p ju.ot£.t jam &il&. aj*- P «&Pm (neo)
1 This passage seems akin to anotherin Epiphanius, (Adv. Hseres. Lib. ii. Tom.
ii. p. 703,) where we are told that "the earth was divided between Shem, Ham, and
Japhet, the lots being cast in Rhinocorura, iis Kal iv axoKovBia ?xel> Kal ovSlv ke-
v6<pwvov, oiiSe irapaireiroirifievov. 'Pivox6povpa yap epfiriveverai NeeA, Kal oSra <pv(rei
oi iirix<ipiot avri}v KaXovai, avb Se ri)s 'EfipaiSos epfxnveierai KKr\pof as it ap
pears from what followed, and is no vain report nor fictitious. For Rhinoco
rura is interpreted Neel (^£3) and thus do the natives of the land call it : (' quem
utique proprie fontem barbari Dara nominant, cseteri verb accohs Nuchul, vel
Nuhul, vocant,'— Orosii lib. i. p. 13, ed. Col.) ; but in Hebrew it means ' lots,' of
' inheritance.' Although we cannot derive ' Nile' from (^™), yet it is very
possible that the Samaritan tradition and Epiphanius' story hold each other by
the hand. Nay, we find "TO and 'IT?, yet more intimately related, as etymologies
of Kr/peis and of NtjAeijs respectively 1 (Nork. Bibl. Mythol. pt. i. p. 302.)
2 Nechao II. Brugsch. Hist. Eg. p. 254.
3 Geogr. Inschr. vol. i. p. 54, and pi. vii. 303.
K

130 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
"from the waters of Egypt untoNehrin" (Mesopotamia), show
ing (1) that in the days of Thothmes II., the " waters of Egypt"
formed the boundary of the land of the Pharaohs towards
Canaan ; and (2) that these " waters of Egypt" can be nothing
else than the D"H¥P 7PJ3 which falls into the sea at El-Arish
(Rhinocorura) ; for, neither ' the River/ called in Egyptian
' Atur' or ' Aur' when in its bed, and ' Hapimuau/ £,<&.IU-
JULOti.T, when covering the land, nor the Great Sea, OT^2£-
OTGp, nor yet the Red Sea, CLJHI ft nonmT", could be styled
in Egyptian, " the Waters of Egypt."
Moreover the limits ascribed by monuments to Egypt on the
side of Palestine, agree with those given to Canaan and to Pales
tine in Holy Scripture. Thus Ex. xxiii. 31. " And I will set
thy bounds from the Red Sea even unto the Sea of the Philis
tines, and from the desert unto the river," told more in detail
in Numb, xxxiv. 4, 5, and Josh. xv. 4, " And your border shall
fetch a compass from Azmon unto the River of Egypt, and the
goings out of it shall be at the sea ;" and Amos vi. 14, " But,
behold, I will raise up against you a nation, O house of Israel,
saith the Lord God of hosts ; and they shall afflict you from
the entering in of Hamath unto the river (or ' valley") of the
wilderness," i.e. " Sihor which is before Egypt," Josh. xiii. 3,
the borders of Judah. For "David gathered all Israel together,
from Shihor of Egypt even unto the entering of Hamath," as
stated in 1 Chron. xiii. 5.
Comparing these passages together it seems that- the frontiers
meant, are the same throughout, that is, either strictly defined
by the ' torrent of Egypt/ generally called ' Shihor/ (El-Arish,)
or indefinitely and generally drawn from the northern extremity
of the Gulf of Suez to the corner of the sea at Rhinocorura
(El-Arish). Hence we may conclude that if God's promise to
Abraham is yet to be fulfilled D'HVID "IPU may mean the Nile,
seeing we know not what may yet take place. If, however, we
are to consider this promise as fulfilled when the kingdom of
Israel reached its widest extent under David and under Solomon,
then the ' torrent of Egypt' called ' Shihor' by A. Ezra and
R. S. Jarchi in contradistinction to ' Nilus/ is the limit meant
in Gen. xv. 18, where HPU is used as a generic term, of which

II. J PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 131
7PJJ3 is the species. Since, whereas D"HVP T"^ may be said of
the ' Shihor' D71VP 7P13 could never be said of the Nile where
the Nile is supposed to be meant as the utmost limit of Israel
in Lower Egypt : still less likely could 7P13 be the etymology
of 'Nile/ as Vitringa thinks. So that unless Dr. Stanley
has more proofs to bring forward than I can find, he cannot say
as he does, " the ' river of Egypt' (here only) the Nile."

LECTURE II.— ABRAHAM AND ISAAC.
The Dean of Westminster begins this lecture with the re
mark, that the present state of Palestine may, to some extent
give one an idea of what it was in the days of Abraham — less,
however, all that now makes it different from what it then was.
We may wish it were so. We wish one met here and there
some of the Canaanites who were then in the land ; that one
could see them at their worship, and know more about the very
few traces left of their former existence in the land ever conse
crated by their name. As it is, however, most of such relics
are to be sought for elsewhere. So utterly have the people of
Canaan perished, that the most perfect and most interesting re
mains of Canaanitish worship and building may yet be seen, not
in Canaan proper, but elsewhere, as for instance, in Malta.
I was returning from Egypt and from India in 1840 when,
at my passage through Malta, I visited the Hdjar Cham, Qim or
Qima, the ' stones of Cham' or of ' Qim/ (worship or veneration)
as they are called, which had just been cleared of the soil which
had accumulated around and within their enclosure for perhaps
more than three thousand years. For, the fact of their being
situated on the upper part of a hill, where no alluvial soil could
possibly reach them, shows that the several feet of earth with
which they were filled, must either have been thrown in pur
posely or, rather, that this earth was the slow but regular ac
cumulation of decayed vegetable substance and soil during a
k 2

132 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
long range of centuries. The groundplan of the building
showed in the rudest and simplest fashion, the outer and inner
courts and the sanctuary or vab; of the actual temple, formed of
large unhewn stones several feet high for the outer wall, and
lined inside with a course of smaller stones more or less worked
by hand. The passage from one such a hall to another was
through doorways cut in solid stones, of a rude Egyptian or
Etruscan outline, i.e. wider at the bottom than at the top. In one
hall, which seemed to be the temple, and at the east end formed
in a kind of apse, were several niches in which female figures
were found with monstrous limbs, but with the smallest hands
and feet ; most probably the oldest figures of Ashtaroth of the
Syrian Venus in existence. In front of these niches were stone
seats and altars rudely carved ; and in another room, or rather
enclosure (for the worship was there performed in the open air)
the altar carved with the palm-tree — the Phoenician or Cartha
ginian symbol — was yet standing where it was left after the last
sacrifice, close to the seat of the high-priest, on the back of
which were carved two serpents and an egg — two other Eastern
symbols. In what we might call the ' ash-pit/ behind that stone
seat were found horns of sheep and of goats, and the ground
was yet strewn with ashes.
Of all the remains of antiquity I ever saw, none struck
me as so ancient; and none of that probable date ever ap
peared so perfect. I was more interested in it, as a genuine
monument of the oldest times, than even in the splendid re
mains of Thebes ; and I visited Hdjar Qim or Cham more
than once during my stay, to sketch it as it was found. I have
visited it again since, but the ruthless hands of visitors — one
cannot call them travellers who travel without a traveller's mind
— have more injured these precious tokens of a real antiquity
than the unsparing hand of Time has done during perhaps more
than thirty centuries. In the absence of all inscription or clue
to the date of these two temples or Casal Crendi, we may pro
bably assign them to the time when according to Suidas1 the
Canaanites fled from before Joshua, first to the coast of Egypt,
whence they were driven to the coasts of Africa, where they left
on record in inscriptions on stone the reason for their having
1 S. v Xavadv.

II.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 133
left their country.1 The passage from the nearest coast to
Malta is very short, and might have been crossed easily even in
those early days. At all events, and judging from the shape,
the construction, the stone figures, the carved palm, serpent, and
egg, and the skeletons found each with a stone egg in one hand,
show these remains to be of Phoenician origin, and ancient
enough to date from the time when Canaan and Phoenicia were
accounted one and the same.
II. One wonders what those Canaanites could have been like ;
although we have a correct idea of the warrior Hittites of which
we hear so much in Egyptian annals. For these were the
principal tribe of Southern Canaan in Abraham's time ; a tribe
always more or less on bad terms with their neighbours of
Tanis or of Avaris; until either they alone, or they and some
of their friends could resist the temptation no longer, fairly took
possession of that coveted land and reigned there. And when
driven away, they ceased not to give the Pharaohs trouble ; for
Ramses II. thought it worth his while to sit in state in his
town of Ramesses, built for him by the Israelites, and then to
read a lesson to the great king of the Chetas (Hittites) Cheta-sar
D^PlPlH IJi' son of Marou-sar, son of Sapalulu, and there to
make with him a treaty graven on tables of silver, adjuring him
by his god Sutech to stay within the limits of his territory, and
there to keep the peace. As regards the name of this powerful
tribe, nothing but ' terror' is to be got out of its etymology, if
it be Hebrew.2 But being always mentioned with the Periz-
zites as distinct from them, even unto the days of Solomon who
put them under tribute, it does not appear why Dr. Stanley
1 These inscriptions, says Suidas, (also mentioned by Procopius, Vandal, t. ii.
10), elcrl p.4xpi vvv iv rtf NovpiiSia irepiexovoai oiirois " 7]fie7s iapXv Xavavatoi, ovs
iSla^ev 'Irjo-oCs 6 \7j<rri)j," are yet to be found in Numidia stating: " We are
the Canaanites which have fled from before Jesus the Robber."
2 But of this J. D. Michaelis (Spicileg. Geogr. pt. ii. p. 10), says rightly,
" Quod de etymo nominis habent, a terrore ducto, non alii solum, sed ipse
Bochartus (1. iv. u. 36, p. 304) meum non facio. Nescio, unde dicti Chetesei,
pluresque veri non dissimiliores comminisci etymologias possem, prout t," -^
sive t^i- conferre luberet, sed pudori est. Indoles Gentium non ex nomi-
nibus sestimandse, quse et casu sortiuntur, ab urbe, a terra, a flumine, &c, et
honorifica sibi sumere contemti atque imbelles possunt."

134 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
should say " the Perizzites, or as they are usually called, the
Hittites ;" since PIS and nfiPt are no synonyms. The Periz
zites rather seem to have answered in the days of Abraham to the
j)Ji\ Jj»1 ' dwellers in tents/ of later days, the pagani, Bedouins
or gipsies of Palestine who wandered without allegiance to any
one, free and lawless, from the lowlands of Canaan to the hills
of the Amorites, and into the wilderness of the south ; wher
ever they pleased.
We may be sure that Abraham could never have passed with
out hindrance through the land in which he had no right even
to ' set foot/ occupied as it then was by those motley tribes
almost always at war among themselves and living on plunder,
but for the protection of Him Who was his " shield and his
exceeding great reward." The Arkite, the Canaanite, or the
Perizzite, would have stopped his march from Damascus, if he
came thence ; and if he journeyed through the desert, may be the
Girgashites would have disputed the fords of Jordan, and the
Hivites his settling to rest under the oaks of Moreh ; bidding
him move on to some more friendly tribe of the south ; unless
some forlorn Perizzite family had made friendship with him and
had escorted him to their border, or to the ' trystf of their clan,
to some wide- spreading oak by the side of a spring. Even at
the present day, when surveying the land from some high ground,
these evergreen oaks, or ilexes (for terebinths are not now
common) dot here and there the landscape with their dark, stal
wart masses, — the trysting-trees of wandering Arabs.
III. There are several terms used in the Old Testament for these
three kinds of trees : 'the oak/ the 'ilex/ and the ' terebinth/ viz.,
7^. njTOi p7K, Pl^», |17& which come from different roots.
These terms are sometimes interchanged ; yet, as Gesenius says
correctly in a learned criticism on all these terms1 — I have ex
amined every passage in which they occur — "]17X nusquam
terebinthus redditur, nisi Jud. iv. 11, h Syro. Contra quercum
magna constantia habent vet. VSS. (plane enim nauci est planu
ties2) ]"i?X denique, magna constantia veteres quercum reddunt;
1 Thes. L. S. p. 50.
2 ' Planities' however is the rendering given by Onkelos, Samar. sometimes
Jonathan B. Uzz., A. Ezra, R. S. Jarchi and R. B. Melech in Miclol Jophi,
p. 6, recto.

II. P. 30.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 135
quod etiam mire confirmatur duobus locis, Jes. vi. 13, Hos. iv.
13." From my own observation, I should feel inclined to take
PTO for a ' terebinth/ )17K for an ' oak/ and p7N for an ' ilex.'
But, inasmuch as ' oak' is a generic term for the ' ilex' (Quercus
ilex, L.), and some sixty more species of oak, several of which
(e.g., q. segilops, ballota, &c.) grow in Palestine, these several
terms may well have been used in a wide sense, as was Igug,
which originally meant only 'a tree' (draksha). Thus, albeit
the terebinth (Pistacia terebinthus, L.) is in many respects as
different a plant from the oak as the hemp, the hop, or the
spinach, yet, as the colour of its foliage, its shape, and some
times its size, somewhat resemble those of the ilex, these trees
may have been alluded to under the general term of PI7X, and
of its derivatives. The 'oak' of Shechem was most likely an
ilex, the sire, may be, of some fine specimens yet to be seen in
sundry nooks and corners of Palestine ; as, e.g., in the narrow
winding wady leading from Lubban to Seilun (Shiloh), under
which were, when I visited it, the remains of a very ancient
sanctuary, built of large stones; evidently of a very great age.
But the ilex of Shiloh is the finest and oldest looking tree' of the
kind I ever saw ; its gnarled roots clench the ground as if they
had been wedded to it from everlasting, and its hoary, crooked
boughs droop over the remains of the old building hard by, as
if that building had been reared, had lasted its time, and then
had crumbled into ruins under the eternal shade of that giant
witness of olden times. The rustling of its leaves seems to
murmur 'Heli/ 'Elkanah/ and 'Samuel/ and to sigh over
what followed. It is a fine representative of '{lyuyr) xaXoufj.evr\
Ipug, ' the oak called Ogygian/ under which Josephus1 tells us
Abraham dwelt at Hebron. On the other hand, the N"1.PO ^/$
Gen. xiii. 18, may have been a grove of ilexes ; but, more likely,
of other oak trees, like those which now grow in abundance on
the hills to the east of Hebron.
The following sentence (p. 30), therefore, reads rather oddly
from the pen of a Regius Professor : —
"As a rock or a palm-grove in the de'sert, so in Palestine itself
was the isolated terebinth or ilex, the most massive and majestic
1 Antiq. Lib. i. u. a. p. 26, ed. Huds.

136 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
of its native trees, and therefore legitimately, though not quite
correctly, rendered by the English parallel of ' the oak ;' "
as it conveys the impression that Dr. Stanley considers the tere
binth and the ilex as one and the same. If not, he would have
written, ' so in Palestine itself was the isolated terebinth or the
isolated ilex ; and' (unless ' mass and majesty' be inseparable)
' the most massive and most majestic of its native trees, and
each therefore,' &c. He seems, however, indifferent as to which
tree it was, or whether those trees at all differed from each
other ; for at page 29 he refers us to Gen. xii. 6 for " the tere
binths of Moreh," where mention is made of only one PlTiD |17X
which at page 30 he calls " the oak of Moreh."
IV. Then, anticipating Abraham's return from Egypt while
on his way thither, Dr. Stanley describes Abraham's second
visit to Bethel and his parting from Lot; and he thus moralises
on this " the first controversy that divided the Patriarchal
Church:" —
" It was the first instance of ' agreeing to differ,' in later times so
rarely found, so eagerly condemned ; and yet not less suitable to
all times, because of the extreme simplicity of its early appli
cation." Quite so ; and nothing could be more desirable than this pa
triarchal style of agreeing to differ by parting either to the East
or to the West. Unfortunately the two cases are not parallel,
and the world is not now so wide as it then was. The pa
triarchal difference was about wells and pasture land, and was
soon settled by Lot continuing to differ and going elsewhere —
by far the better way; whereas the differences of the present
day, to which the Dean of Westminster seems to allude, are
about wells and pastures of another sort. They are about prin
ciples too sacred to be touched; about the integrity of the Bible,
which is to us the Word of Life ; about our holy and most pre
cious Faith, that rests thereon ; about the Truth as it is held by
the Catholic Church, and by the Church of this country. Those
differences are also about the rights, the fences, and the formu
laries of this Church, Queen of princes in all lands, and nursing
Mother of a great and good people ; and for the sake also of this
Church and of her sons, there are also differences about the

II. P. 32.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 137
University, once famous everywhere for sound learning, and in
this country for the religious, sterling, and wholesome English
education she was wont to confer on all well-bred sons com
mitted to her charge.
And these differences exist between those who could make
themselves happy with things as they were, and those who
either could not or would not; between those who venerate,
love, and worship the Bible, as being the Word of God revealed
to them, and those who ridicule, slight, or gainsay it; between
those who live by Faith, who would sooner lose all than part
with the Hope as the anchor of the soul sure and steadfast which
that Faith in the Word of God gives, and those whose faith
reaches no further than their intellect ; between those who wish
to uphold and to maintain the Truth taught by the Church
Catholic as the Rule of Faith, and those who will neither have a
Rule nor, perhaps, a Church, and who will make the Truth for
themselves ; between those who love the Church of the nation
for her own sake and for that of the people, who will therefore
uphold and defend it, and those who rather try to throw down
her fences and to abrogate her formularies ; between those who
wish, if possible, to keep the University a seat of sound and re
ligious learning, and of the sterling education which no other
university ever gave, for the sake of the sons they have to send
thither, and those who, having no sons to send thither, have no
greater ties to it, perhaps, than the drudgery of lectures and the
gossip of the common-room, and yet think themselves alone
authorised to have a voice in matters affecting the welfare of the
University, and the moral future of the sons of England that
are sent thither. These are a few of the wells and of the pas
tures about which the best thing would be, as we are told, to
agree to differ, and part ; were it not that, judging from past
and present experience, it looks very much as if this agreement
meant — that those alone should stay who clamour for a change.
V. What the legend of the Convent of the Holy Cross near
Jerusalem be, to which Dr. Stanley alludes in a note at page 32,
I know not. But it must be akin to what says S. Ephrem1 on
Gen. xiii. 17: "Then was the Cross distinctly drawn. The
Land which had been promised to the early patriarchs in the
1 Vol. i. p. 61.

138 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
mystery of the Cross, was by reason of the Cross lost to them,
and made over to other heirs."
VI. There is not much to remark in the few following pages,
which are a fair specimen of the Dean of Westminster's chaste
and agreeable style. One expression, however, causes a smile,
when we are told that Abraham's instinct led him to the wilder
ness of Beer-sheba to see Ishmael, " who recalled to him his
own early days," — when he was eighty-six years of age ! The
other is —
" where the imperious caprice of the Arab chieftainess forbade
Hagar and her son to remain any longer in the tent," &c. — p. 37.
Dr. Stanley, I am quite sure, only wishes to draw a lively
picture of what he may have seen in his travels in the East, yet
his words give a wrong impression of a transaction which, with
out excusing Sarah's petulance of temper in itself, was clearly
brought about for God's own purposes. First, Abraham was
not an Arab, but a Hebrew ; names and nations which, although
apparently very near each other (H3^j 3'U?)> have nevertheless
each a different origin. Secondly, Sarah was not an Arab chief
tainess, but the wife of the " Friend of God," who by faith1 " bare
a son against hope, because she judged Him faithful that pro
mised." Thirdly, it was not imperious caprice on her part, for
it was sanctioned by God, Who said unto Abraham, "In all
that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice" (Gen.
xxi. 12). Fourthly, Hagar and Ishmael did not live in Abra
ham's tent. She never was there but when waiting on her mis
tress, and she had a tent of her own close by that of Sarah ; or
a small compartment of it allotted to her for her own use and
that of her child.
Neither was Isaac "the child of laughter and joy" (p. 37), as
if it were a laughter ' of joy' only. There may have been joy
in Sarah's heart as in Abraham's (Gen. xvii. 17) at the news ;
but Isaac's birth was, humanly speaking, so improbable and
unexpected, that her laughter was rather of doubt (ib. xviii. 12) ;
otherwise she would not have denied that she had laughed
(ib. 15). And Isaac may have been so named to remind her of
her laughter of doubt ; albeit she felt ashamed of having doubted
when the angel reminded her of it (ib. 13, 14, 15).
1 Heb. xi. 11.

II. P. 40.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 139
VII. In speaking of Abraham's external relations to the Ca-
naanitish tribes among which he sojourned, Dr. Stanley, if I
understand him aright, implies that Abraham was on the best
of terms with them, as worshipping the same God they wor
shipped in a sort of ill-defined, arbitrary manner.
" Abimelech, Ephron, Mamre, Melchizedek, all either worship the
same God, or, if they worship Him under another name, they are
all bound together by ties of hospitality and friendship. To over
look the unity, the comparative unity, between Abraham and the
neighbour races of Palestine, would be to overlook one of the
most valuable testimonies to the antiquity, the general Patriarchal
spirit of the record as it has been handed down to us." — p. 40.
We have seen just now the Patriarchal way of "agreeing to
differ," and its obvious advantages ; we now come to the Pa
triarchal way of making " a distinction without a difference,"
and of worshipping or not, all or nothing, after the fashion of
one's neighbours.
Abraham would have been the first to resent such imputa
tion. He would have replied that, living as a stranger and a
pilgrim in a land occupied by idolatrous and corrupt tribes as
those of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which he had no possession
whatever, not even to bury his dead, until he bought the right
to it, it would have been folly in him to quarrel with them,
even in a less degree than Simeon and Levi (Gen. xxxiv.) ; but,
while serving the Living God among men who worshipped
idols, he treated them with courtesy in all common dealings of
every-day life, though he could hold no communion with them.
He would not take from among them a wife for his son, neither
did he purchase land where he knew he should have no inherit
ance, no, not so much as to set his foot on ; he therefore be
haved to his hosts as a stranger in their land, as " a pilgrim
towards a better country, even an heavenly."
As regards Melchizedek, we know whom he served and wor
shipped ; but it is probably a mistake to class his God and the
worship of that God with the worship of the God of Abimelech,
of which, however, we know nothing : whereas we are certain
that Ephron and Mamre, being Hittites, worshipped a very
different god from that of Melchizedek and of Abraham. The

140 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [lECT.
God of the Hittites, who brought the worship of it to Avaris, in
Lower Egypt, even before Abraham's time, or very soon after,
was Seth, or Sutech, often mentioned on Egyptian monuments
and in MSS. Papyri, and represented, either as a man with the
head of an ass, or as an ass with his tail erect, even when styled
' the good god/ Itxp Itqp, as he is in the inscription found
on the sphinx of Baghdad ; whence we see that his shape could
have nothing to do with either love or hatred for him.1 For,
albeit in later times of Egyptian history his worship was either
suppressed or identified with Typhon, and his images scratched
off the monuments all over the land, probably out of hatred for
the foreign dynasty that had taken Avaris, and for a long time
had reigned there; yet at first, and while the foreign rule pre
vailed in Avaris or Tanis, as in the days of Apap or Apopbis,
Sutech was the chief divinity worshipped there. He figures as
an ass with his tail erect in the treaty of Ramses II. with
Cheta-sar, the King of the Hittites already mentioned, and
made not long before the exodus, in the city of Ramesses.2
Ramses having come to return thanks to his father, Amun Ra-
Hormachu-Tum of Heliopolis, and to Sutech (figure in the in
scription afterwards scratched off) the glorious, son of Nut,
mentioned, no doubt, in order to show the Hittite king a bond
of union between them, Cheta-Sar came to sue for peace, and
Ramses framed the treaty C^p ipi pOlf Tipi. ipi pOTf
COVT^C n neo It KHJU.6 between Ra and Sutech of Egypt
(1. 8), having previously said (1. 7) that this treaty was made
between the King of Egypt and the King of the Hittites, &.&.
nrcrp XnP ^P0"* * POT Ot OlfT Clt, " that God (nrrrp,
the Deity) should not create enmity between them ;" making
use of a very rare and very remarkable expression, especially in
a treaty of this kind, when mentioning the Deity or God ab
stractedly as one and the same between them, whatever His
name be. This would seem at first to favour Dr. Stanley's
opinion, but in reality it does not ; it only shows how utterly
careless and indifferent were those heathens as to the real cha
racter, of their gods ; assuredly so in Egypt, where in several
1 Pleyte, ledieu Seth, pi. i. 9, 10 ; iii. 1.
2 See above, p. 133, and Brugsch. Mon. vol. i. pi. xxviii.

II. P. 40.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 141
nomes gods were worshipped which in other nomes were either
hated or eaten ; and in Canaan, judging from sundry Egyptian in
scriptions in which Sutech and Baal are mentioned, these two
gods may have been worshipped together.
Thus we have the certainty that, whether good or evil, the
chief god of the Hittites in the days of Ephron and of Mamre
was Set or Sutech (whence }^tf, Satan ?) , the same as in those
of Cheta-Sar, and that it was often coupled with Baal, and re
presented like him.1 We cannot, therefore, admit the reciprocal
fraternity of feeling which, says Dr. Stanley, seems to have
existed between Abraham and his heathen hosts ; neither can
we reconcile this with the staunch Monotheism he is said to
have introduced.2
VIII. Likewise is the note given by Dr. Stanley (p. 40) —
"The God of Melchizedek (Gen. xiv. 18) was not Eloah or
Elohim, but Eliun, the name given to the God of Phoenicia by
Sanchoniaton (Kenrick, Phcen. 288)" —
incorrect, and worth very little. For, first, Eliun was not ' the
God/ i.e., the chief divinity, of Phoenicia, but only one of the
gods worshipped there.3
Secondly, 'Eliun' was not 'the God' of Melchizedek, as Dr.
Stanley says inadvertently. 'The God' of Melchizedek was
P"^ 7$, ' the Mighty Most High/ ' God the Most High / a
very different thing ; and He was ' the God' of Daniel (Dan. v.
18, iii. 26, iv. 2) and of Asaph (Ps. lxxviii. 35, 56). For we
may be sure that Melchizedek, who was a figure of the true King
of Righteousness, Who is a High Priest for ever after his order,
had the right faith, and not that of either his Phoenician or his
Canaanitish neighbours.
Thirdly, 'Eliun' ]1^ was also 'the God' of Balaam
1 Brugsch. Mon. i. pi. xiv. c. 1, 7. 2 See above, p. 115.
8 'Ek rovrov, says Sanchoniaton (p. 24, ed. Orell, and Euseb. Prsep. Ev. 1. i.
c. X. p. 37, ed. Col.), yeyivaai iWepoi — Kara roirovs yiveral ris 'EXiovv KaKov-
' /xevos "TiJihttos Kal B^Keia \eyop.4vri Bnpoid, oi Kal KarijiKovv irepl BvfiKov K. r. \.
"After these," — i.e., Misor, Sydyk, Taaut, the Cabiri, and then another race
which invented medicine, — " were born a certain Eliun, that means ' most high,'
(]i'to>, Elion, ' high,' ' most high,' adj. Deut. xxvi. 19 ; xxviii. 1 ; Josh. xvi. 5,
&c.,) and a female called Beruth ; and they lived about Byblus," &c. So that
this ' Eliun' was em inferior god of Phoenicia, and not ' the God' of that land.

142 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [i.ECT.
(Numb. xxiv. 16), of Moses (Deut. xxxii. 8), of David (Ps. vii.
18, and repeatedly in the Psalms), of Jeremiah (Lam. iii. 38),
and of Isaiah (Isa. xiv. 14) .
Fourthly, |1 y# was the common title of gods and of god
desses at Carthage. Thus, in the Poenulus of Plautus,1 Hanno
begins thus : fiW7tf D^T7tf POK, ' All hail, gods and god
desses ;' and again at 1. 4, &c.2
Fifthly, besides ' Eliun/ the Phoenicians had also ' Eloim/
'EXosifj,, D'pl7is, ol Se o-ufj-fj/zyot "IXou tou Kpdvou 'EXoetfJ. sirexXr)-
Srjcrav w; av Kpdvtot — "Eloim was the name by which the com
panions in arms of Ilus, son of Cronus, were called, as children
of Cronus," &c.3 The Phoenicians and Carthaginians also wor
shipped D^Ht, « gods/ plural of 7X, "iXog, ' god.'4
So that we learn nothing from Dr. Stanley's note but what
we knew already, viz., that certain Hebrew terms are found in
neighbouring dialects ; and since Sanchoniaton wrote a correct
account, even of the Jews, etXriQiwg Ta u7r0fj.vrifj.aTa irapa ' Iepop-fiaXov
tou lepew; 0eo5 tou'Isuw — "having received the principal heads of
his narrative from Hierombal, priest of the God Jevo,"5 who,
whether Jerubbaal,6 that is, Gideon, or not, must have been a
worshipper of the true God, as priest of Jevo, or Jehova, — it is
not singular that he should make statements akin to facts men
tioned in cotemporaneous history of the Old Testament. But
this proves nothing to the purpose; and since Dean Stanley
makes the story of Joseph and of Asenath a canonical Book of
the Old Testament in the Armenian Church,7 1 almost wonder he
did not draw his information about Phoenician matters from the
complete history of Sanchoniaton published by Wagenfeld and
1 Act. v. sc. 1.
2 Judas L. Phen. p. 10 — 12, sq. Movers Pun. texte, p. 73, where he differs
from Bochart, and from Gesenius, Mon. Phoenic. p. 363, sq.
3 Sanchon. p. 29, ed. Orell. Ewald, Weltschopf. Sanch. p. 45, sq.
4 Inscr. de Marseilles, A. Barges, Paris, 1847, 1. 16, et p. 56.
6 Sanchon. p. 2, ed. Orell. Euseb. Prsep. Ev. Lib. i. c. 6.
0 Bochart (in Geogr. Sacra. Opp. vol. i. col. 774) makes 'Uponfiahos i. q.
'Jerubbaal,' the name given to Gideon by his father Joash, i.e. ton 13 it; but
Mover (Phoen. vol. i. 434) makes it a name of the Tyrian Heracles, or ' archal,'
mentioned in Palmyrenian inscriptions — imb Bcov 'lapifi6\ov, i.q. ' Jarbas,' or
Jerubbeshet, another name of Gideon. 2 Sam. xi. 21 . ( Gesen. Mon. Phoen. p. 229.)
7 Lect. iv. p. 76.

II. P. 40.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 143
Grotefend a few years ago, with even a facsimile of the MS.
from which it is translated.1
IX. Dr. Stanley, however, very wisely declines to discuss
who was the Pharaoh that received Abraham at his court. No
one has yet ' settled' it, despite the many surmises on the sub
ject ; and no one ever shall, unless some more explicit informa
tion comes to light, in the shape of monuments or of papyri,
than we yet possess. Until then we cannot speak with cer
tainty. Eupolemus2 does not mention the Pharaoh, but only
says that Abraham taught the Egyptians astrology.3 S.
Ephrem4 does not, either, mention the Pharaoh's name, but
only says Abraham went to Egypt to learn that his posterity
should not leave that land, but after great judgments fore
shadowed in the detention of Sarah at Pharaoh's court. Jo
sephus5 calls him only <PapawQeg, and Joseph. B. Gorion6 men
tions him as PJ1HQ, Pharaoh. Marsham7 calls him Amesis ;
Africanus8 calls him ' Ramessameno ;' Abu'1-feda9 says he was
(_/*jJjk J-kij i^j^1 £r> uj^~) ' Selwan/ son of ' Alwan/ or as
others call him, ' Tulis ;'10 and he adds that, indignant at Sarah
waiting upon herself, he gave her Hagar for a maid.11 Lesueur
1 Sanchuniatons TJrgesch. d. Phon. ed. Wagenfeld ; mit einem Vorw. vom
Dr. G. F. Grotefend, Hanov. 1836 ; and again in Greek and Latin, Bremse, 1837.
2 Quoted by Alex. Polyh. in Euseb. Prajp. Ev. Lib. ix. c. 16, p. 419, ed. Col.
3 On which subject Mr. Osborne, who calls that Pharaoh ' Achthoes,' of the
Eleventh Dynasty, has a great deal to say (Mon. Egypt, vol. i. 374, sq.) But
what he says cannot command much attention, if he can find ' Adam' (p. 262)
and the worship of him in ' Atiim' or ' Turn,' the evening sun, worshipped espe
cially at On, which he calls ' Athono' (at p. 334) ; Noah or ' Nu,' in ' Num' or
'Nun;' Ham, in 'Amun;' Isis in 'i-sha,' !"!*»; Mizraim, son of Ham, in
' Osiris,' which he derives from 121', ' a potter !' and makes Dnsp the dual
thereof I ! Phut, son of Ham, in ' Phtah' (p. 327, sq.) ; and other marvellous
etymologies (found at p. 88, sq., vol. ii., and throughout the work), which one
can hardly understand a man bringing himself to write deliberately.
4 In Gen. vol. i. p. 60 and 158. 5 Antiq. Lib. i. c. 8.
6 Lib. vi. c. 38, p. 741, ed. Breith. ? Chronic, p. 73.
8 In Geo. Syncell. Cbr. vol. i. p. 189, ed. Dind. 9 H. A. Isl. p. 20, sq.
10 A name given him also by other Arabic writers.
11 The accidental omission of the end of Gen. xvi. 3, at p. 98, where mention
is made of Hagar, renders that passage somewhat confused. The point proved
is, not that Sarah had had Hagar ten years when she gave her to Abraham,
though this be probable, but, that she gave her to Abraham when he had been
ten years in Canaan, dating evidently, from his arrival there from Haran.

144 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
brings Abraham into Egypt under Ramesse Meno, fifth king of
his fifteenth Theban dynasty b.c. 2499.1 Brugsch gives no
opinion in his ' Histoire d'Egypte.'2 Bunsen makes Abraham
visit Egypt during the first half of the old kingdom, b.c. 2900;
and Champollion-Figeac3 places Abraham's visit in the sixteenth
dynasty, somewhere about Ousertesen ; but a man who, to show
the pastoral government of Egypt at that time, says, " les He-
breux s'unissaient en mariage avec les Egyptiens ; Agar, femme
d' Abraham, etait nee en Egypte," &c, can deserve very little
respect for what he says. Chabas,4 a very safe and equally able
and learned Egyptian scholar, places Abraham under the Hyksos,
about 1,900 B.C., concluding, from the similarity of manners at
the court of Abimelech and at that of Pharaoh, that the two kings
were of the same race : such doings, however, were, and are,
common at most other courts also. At last, Lepsius5 places
Abraham under Thuthmosis IV., or under Amenophis III., in
the eighteenth Dynasty, after the expulsion of the shepherd
kings, and not during their reign.
All these computations, which vary by more than a thousand
years, show how utterly hopeless it is for the present to wish to
fix Abraham's visit at the court of Pharaoh.
X. His " craft," as Dr. Stanley calls it, however, is thus ex
plained by S. Ephrem :6 " He called her his sister as a preserva
tive ; for she was daughter of Haran his brother. Wherefore he
said to Lot, We are men, brothers. So also Moses : Men, ye
are brothers. And Abraham said to Abimelech, Shels myjsister,
daughter of my father, though not of my mother ; making her
daughter of Terah, albeit she was his son's daughter."
XI. On this transaction at Abimelech's court Dr. Stanley says
in a note (p. 42) : —
" The English Version is afraid of saying that Sarah was the
wife of Pharaoh — ' I might have had' for 'I had.' Gen. xii. 19."
wherein he is right ; for there is no reason for rendering PtpNfl
otherwise than 'I took/ as in ch. xl. 11; Numb. viii. 16;
1 Chron. des Rois d'Eg. p. 322. 3 Mg. Stelle, vol. v. pt. 1, p. 356, 486.
3 L'Egypte, TJnivers, p. 293, sq. 4 Rev. Archeol. xvc. annee, 1 livr. p. 7.
' iEg. Chron. p. 388. 6 Vol. i. p. 157.

II. P. 45.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 145
Deut. i. 15, &c. Of all the old versions, the Vulgate, which has
' ut tollerem/ is the only one that renders it differently.
XII. Then Dr. Stanley, after giving us a lively description of
Abraham's pursuit after Chedorlaomer and his confederates " to
the scene of Abraham's first conquest, Damascus," comes to
speak of "the mysterious appearance of Melchizedek on the
scene," saying (p. 45) : —
" No wonder that when, in after times, there arose One whose ap
pearance was beyond and above any ordinary influence of time
and place, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews could find no
fitter expression for this aspect of his character than the myste
rious likeness of Melchizedek."
Dr. Stanley, it seems, is afraid of committing himself by calling
S. Paul the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. In this,
however, he might be more likely to have right on his side than
in many assertions he confidently makes. But had he forgotten
David's expression, " The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent,
Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek 1" (Ps.
ex. 4.)1 Dr. Stanley ought not to have omitted this, especially
while dwelling on Melchizedek's office, if he had remembered
what we read of Him Who is our High Priest, " set on the
right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens," " the
King of kings," to Whose dominion there shall be no end, and
Whose redeemed people are to be " kings and priests" for ever.
For this is the greatest and the real interest of the likeness
drawn by the Holy Ghost between Melchizedek, who was both
priest and king, and our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is also
Priest and King for ever ; albeit Dr. Stanley thinks
" there is enough of interest if we merely confine ourselves to the
letter of the ancient narrative."
' Interest' there is, if we will but look into the question and
compare Melchizedek's office with that of kindred rulers in
other countries, and at the same time too, such as the £,K A.IT,
the pN |PI3 ' priest of On' in Egypt, a man like Potipherah,
a title of which even the Ramses were proud and which they
added to their regal epithets as a kind of 'Defender of the
1 And Heb. vi. 20 ; vii. 21.
L

146 philosophy, or truth? [lect.
Faith / during the whole of their reign ; a title and an office
with which we may compare that of ^L>- ' Khan,' among the
Tartars. But this is not the place for details, for there is not
" enough of interest" in this subject when it relates to Melchi
zedek. " That title of Divinity" (Eliun), continues Dr. Stanley—
" also appears for the first time in the history ; and we catch from
a heathen author a clue to the spot of the earliest primaeval sanc
tuary where the Supreme Name was honoured with priestly and
regal service : tradition told that it was on Mount Gerizim Mel
chizedek ministered." — p. 45.
Tradition, forsooth I we have seen that ' Eliun/ as Dr. Stan
ley gives it, was no " title of Divinity" in the mouth of Mel
chizedek ; for this word ' Eliun ' p"1^ is only the adjective
that qualifies 7$ 'the Mighty God/ called by Melchizedek
Vty 7N 'the Mighty God Most High;' it is this title, and
not ' Eliun' |1 v# alone, that does appear in this place for the
first time. And as to Gerizim, does Dr. Stanley not know that
the mountain at present called Mount Gerizim may, after all,
have been Mount Ebal ? It is impossible to determine from
Deut, xi. 29, the real position of these hills. For as they stand
north and south relatively to each other, they would both be
" by the way where the sun goeth down" for the children of Israel
when, and where Moses spake these words. After the return
from the captivity, the Samaritans built for themselves a temple
on Mount Gerizim to rival that of Jerusalem ; and from that time
date all the stories they tell of its sanctity; such as — that
Abraham and Jacob worshipped and that Isaac was offered on
it ; that it never was even wetted by the waters of the Flood, that
it is the holiest spot on earth, &c. So also they, as everybody
knows, changed ' Ebal' into ' Gerizim' in their own Samaritan
version, as well as in the Hebrseo-Samaritan text of Deut. xi. 4/
to make it appear that the Levites stood, and that the altar was
built on Mount Gerizim and not on Mount Ebal, as Moses
commanded and as Joshua did, Josh. viii. 33; and they added
1 A fraud some of their descendants admitted when I taxed them with it in
their own city.

ii. p. 45.] philosophy, or truth ? 147
the substance of Deut. xi. 3, 4, after the 10th commandment in
both Ex. xx. and Deut. v.
Hence did Eupolemus borrow the account to which Dr. Stanley
seems to give credit, but which bears traces of a Samaritan
origin. Speaking of Abraham Eupolemus, as quoted by Alex
ander Polyhistor,1 says that, %evw8r)vai ts aurbv uirb iroXewg tepbv,
ApyagtQv, o so-nv fj,eispfj.r]veudp.svov opog '2\J//o"Tou, irapa Se tou MeX-
X'osUx lepswg ovto; tou Oeou xa) ^aortXeuoVTog Xafieh Iwpa, " he
was hospitably received within the temple of the city, Argarizin,
which is interpreted ' Mountain of the Most High/ and that he
received gifts from Melchizedek who was both King and Priest of
God." Now, first, 'ApyaptXj.v is the Samaritan ^rn%tf<Vle^
Argarizin, ^j^-jd, always written thus in one word in the
Samaritan Pentateuch, and sometimes in the Samaritan Chro
nicle, instead of being written in two words like the Hebrew
D^nil IH. Secondly — 'Apyaptfy does not mean opog 'Ttylo-Tou ;
for DTI? may, after all, be the pi. of Vlsl, 'Gerizite' or 'Ger-
zite/ 1 Sam. xxvii. 8, as Gesenius2 justly remarks; so that
DTlil "|P? would mean the ' mountain of the Gerizites ; but opog
'Ttylo-Tou comes from the names of holiness given to it ; such as
i_jG j jjb the ' Blessed mountain' as it is called throughout
the Samaritan Chronicle.3
Moreover, the connexion between Melchizedek and Mount
1 Euseb. Prasp. Ev. Lib. ix. c. 17, p. 419. » Thes. L. S. s.v.
3 And in Masudi (vol. i. ch. v. p. 115,) who says: "the Samaritans call
Nablfls by the name of <uii\JL*M C^-JO 'the Holy House,' (Jerusalem,)
where they have a mountain i Ci t ,J? ^A A\jL) called by them the
' Blessed Mountain.' " (The editors of Masudi who were not acquainted with the
Samaritan Chronicle, give Jjj j*b 'Cold Mountain;' but De Sacy, Chres-
tom. Ar. i. 342, gives the right reading i Ct i i«L.) Likewise Makrizi (De
Sacy, Chrestom. Ar. p. Ill and 303) tells us how Samballat asked of Alex
ander leave to build a temple on t C\ \ .\, the ' Blessed Mountain;' then
Samballat built there a temple after the model of that of Jerusalem, and tried
to draw Jews to it by telling him that ' Tor-berik' or the ' Blessed Mountain,'
was the place spoken of by God when He made mention of it <s]jjj hj$\ ,_J
(_NJ J j yb .Ac <&jA\ J*>-1 L-W in the Law saying :" Put the blessing
on the Blessed Mountain." l2

148 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LEOT.
Gerizim appears nowhere else. Most of conspicuous mountains
were at some time or other either consecrated to some god,
chiefly to Jupiter, as the Olympi of Thessaly, of Bithynia, of
Mysia, &c. ; or they were honoured with some kind of worship ;
we may, therefore, suppose that Mount Tabor, which is far more
conspicuous than Mount Gerizim, might have, at least, as good
a claim as Mount Gerizim, to be considered the altar of the land
of Canaan in the days of Abraham. Accordingly S. Athanasius
in his history of Melchizedek1 — which I am surprised the Re
gius Professor does not mention, — says nothing whatever of
Mount Gerizim, but makes Melchizedek reside on Mount Tabor.
It was in the temple of idols on Mount Tabor that he was
brought to the knowledge of the true God ; and it was there
also that iv to> laost Tr]g uXrjg eX@a>v, spAvaosv exit err) hrra, going
into the thickest of the forest2 he continued therein seven years.
It was there that Abraham came to him, in obedience to a voice
that said to him, avsXSe lv tw dpst Tafiwp xa) xpafcov Tpelg Qwvdtg'
avhpwire tou Qsou, " go up to Mount Tabor and cry three times :
0 man of God ! and a man of wild appearance will come out.
Fear not ; but cut his shaggy hair, pare his nails, clothe him,
and he will bless thee. Abraham obeyed, and went to Mount
Tabor ; Melchizedek met him ; and having come down from
the mountain took a horn of oil, and setting to his seal that
God's word was true, xa) eirto-Qpay'to-ag to> fM)p.aTt tow 6eou, he
blessed Abraham saying : EuAoy^/xsvoj si toj Qew t<2 u^Iotw, xa)
to Xotirbv xaXe~nai to ovop.a crou TSTsXstwfj.evoV Blessed be thou of
the Most High God, and let thy name from henceforth be called
' Perfect/ " &c.
S. Ephrem,3 however, tells us a different story; he says that
001 !*lx* .o?1inVn ,-»> iiOl » This Melchizedek was Shem,
who was both king and priest, and lived, not only in the days
of Abraham, but also in those of Esau and of Jacob ; that Re
bekah went to consult him and heard from him that she should
bear twins, and that the elder should be subject unto the
younger." And S. Ephrem adds " that she never could have
1 Hist. Melch. vol. i.p. 74.
-. There is yet an extensive forest of oak, of Q. aegilops, ballota, and other trees,
at the foot of the mountain, above Chesulloth.
3 In Genes, c. xiii. vol. i. p. 61.

II. P. 45.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 149
left her husband, to go and consult Melchizedek, had she not
heard of his greatness from Abraham." Neither would Abra
ham have given tithes to Melchizedek if he had not thought
him so much above himself.1 It is only in deference to Aris
totle's saying, 810 xai fyiXdfj.ubog 6 <$>tXdo-o<pog irw; so-tiv,2 " the phi
losopher is, in a way, fond of stories," that I have given these
traditions, and to show those who follow them, that they will
hardly thus arrive at the Truth.
In this case we have nothing to go by on which we can rely,
but the narrative of Scripture; and we may rest assured that,
if it had not been intended by God that Melchizedek should
appear as it were "without father, without mother, without
descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life : but
made like unto the Son of God,"3 for purposes into which it is
impertinence on our part to pry, we should know more about
him than we do. We neither know where he lived nor where
he reigned ; whether the Salem of which he was king was the
Salem or Salim, nigh unto which Jacob pitched his tents, and
John baptized, — or Jerusalem; but we know that it means
' Peace' and that Melchizedek, as type of Christ, was King of
Peace as well as King of Righteousness ; and this is worth to
us more than many traditions.
Moreover there is against even the possibility of Eupolemus'
story, the fact that — not once in the whole Samaritan Book of
Joshua (ok Sam. Chronicle) is Melchizedek alluded to. I have
found Mount Gerizim mentioned as i_Jo j .J? the ' Blessed
mountain/ in ch. xix., xxi., xxiv., xxv., xxvii., xxix., xxxviii., xiv.,
xlvi., and xlvii., and in ch. 1. it is styled *j V j»- j> and
ri.'i.P' t^T ' ^ar Djerizim' or Djebel Djerizim, or Gerizim,4
1 And S. Ephrem ends with a singular reasoning, that »J.1-S J _i} v^LO
q_cq_io ^00.0 s » tjjjaSk V^r-1 •";!¦'' ^ ^°» ^010-u*
•OOI VCLjl*> L'^d}1) Aj^DJ *. ^jjALdALD "inasmuch as the years
of Melchizedek extended up to the years of Jacob and of Esau, therefore is it
said with probability that he was Shem."
2 Mel. i. 2, 10. •" Heb. vii. 1—3.
4 And to it they apply Gen. xxii. 2 ; xlix. 26 ; Ex. xv. 17, and Deut. xxxiii.
15. Ash-Shahrestani, in his account of the Samaritans, calls Mount Gerizim
-j k dj jjliij (Up- the mountain called ' Gharim,' evidently a mistake for
'Gharizim,' which he says is the ' Qiblah of the Samaritans,' near Nablous.
Ash-Sharest. vol. ii. p. 170.

150 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
but no allusion is made to Melchizedek ; a circumstance hardly
probable if the Samaritans had felt they had the slightest right
to claim him for one of their worthies. So that " the smooth
rock and natural altar" as relics of Melchizedek on Mount Ge
rizim, on which Dr. Stanley dwells, are, I fear, a fond conceit ;
and of a much later date than Melchizedek himself.
XIII. Still less credible is what follows :
" But what is now the last relic of a local and exhausted, though
yet venerable religion, was in those patriarchal times the expres
sion of a wide, all embracing worship, which comprehended within
its range the ancient chiefs of Canaan and the Founder of the
Chosen People."
So that, on the strength of that tradition of Eupolemus which,
as we have seen, has no probability whatever, we are to believe
that, while Abraham who was a Shemite, and who, living among
Shemites, nevertheless worshipped idols from which he was di
vinely ' called' to establish the service of the true God (in Ca
naan, of course, since he left his own country immediately after
his call) — the Hittites, the Canaanites, and other tribes which
were even then destroyed by fire from Heaven for their evil
deeds, had preserved among themselves the knowledge of God
so far as to be on a par with Abraham after he had been called
from his idols, and had become (as we are told) the founder
of Monotheism 1 The consistency of this either with what Dr.
Stanley said before, or with what we know of Hittite and of
Canaanitish worship does not appear : still less of real philosophy
is there in —
" The meeting of the two in the ' King's Dale' personifies to us the
meeting between what, in later times, has been called Natural and
Revealed Religion ; and when Abraham received the blessing of
Melchizedek, and tendered to him his reverent homage, it is a
likeness of the recognition which true historical Faith will always
humbly receive and gratefully render when it comes in contact
with the older and everlasting instincts of that religion which the
Most High God ' Possessor of Heaven and Earth' has implanted
in Nature and in the heart of man, in ' the power of an endless
life.' "
First, the inference Dr. Stanley draws from the meeting of
Melchizedek with Abraham in ' the king's dale/ looks very

II. P. 46.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 151
much like a touch of that same ' Docetism' with which he re
proaches,1 as being a ' phantom worship/ those who do not take
the history of the Bible literally, and venture to draw either
allegories or fanciful inductions from bare facts.
Secondly-r-wbich was the ' Natural' and which was the ' Re
vealed' religion ? For, Dr. Stanley has just told us that Abra
ham, Melchizedek, Ephron, Abimelech, Mamre, and others
formed a kind of 'happy Patriarchal family' bound together
" by a wide, all embracing worship." So that, they, according
to the Regius Professor, must have all agreed on the same
" wide, all embracing" principles ; since we cannot conceive a
worship without a faith nor a faith without a principle. Granted
then, that what we read in Rom. i. 18 — 32 be said of those
among the heathens who wilfully " held the truth in unrigh
teousness" (ver. 18), of the bulk of those who were thus brutal-
ised, and not of the wise among them, who like Plato and others
did their best to make good use of their reason, — what, then,
about these ? Simply that : " the world by wisdom knew not
God," and since " by wisdom it knew not God it pleased God
by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe ;"2
" for therein (in the gospel of Christ) is the righteousness of
God revealed from faith to faith : as it is written, The just shall
live by faith."3 Since then, " without faith it is impossible to
please God,"4 and since this Faith must rest and does rest on
revelation, either immediate, as to Abraham, Moses and others,
or mediate, as to us, in the Bible — whosoever had that Faith,
must have had it through revelation ; that is, through a direct
communication from God with his heart. For, since " faith is
a fruit of the Spirit," it never could grow spontaneously in the
heart of man ; inasmuch as " the natural man (rf/u^ixoj avSpwirog)
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God : for they are
foolishness unto him ; neither can he know them, because they
are spiritually discerned."5 Therefore, even if we were to un
derstand "from faith to faith," Rom. i. 17, to mean 'from
Natural to Revealed Faith or religion/ must this (so called)
Natural faith or religion if intended to please God, be revealed
from Heaven to man. And, since there are not two means of
1 Pref. p. ix. » 1 Cor. i. 18, 19. 3 Rom. i. 17.
4 Heb. xi. 6. s i Cor. ii. 14.

152 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
salvation and of reconciliation, but only one — "to wit, that
God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,"1 those
who, being apparently outside the covenant, did please God
" through faith" — men whom He raised from time to time as
witnesses for His Truth, as lights in a dark place — must have
pleased Him through Faith, more or less strong, in the reconcilia
tion without which they must have continued at enmity with
Him. So then, in like manner as Abraham, whom we must take to
represent ' Revealed religion' in Dr. Stanley's view of the case,
" did see the day of Christ and rejoiced," must also the pa
triarch Job, for instance, of whom we know so little as to be
justified in putting him with Melchizedek on the side of Natural
Religion according to Dr. Stanley's estimate of each, have looked
also forward to the same day and even beyond it, when he said :
" I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at
the latter day upon the earth." So with regard to Melchizedek :
" consider how great this man was, unto whom even the pa
triarch Abraham gave the tenth2 of the spoils."3 For he was
both King and Priest ; and, so far, not only greater than Abra
ham, but also the living type of Him in whom Abraham be
lieved, and to whom, therefore, he paid honour and worship.
And this, through ' revelation' to Abraham, but * naturally' to
Melchizedek ? One grieves to have to point out such things to
a Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, and to have to tell
him that this supposed " meeting of Revealed and of Natural
religion in the king's Dale" is pure Docetism, and a dream.
XIV. It is very easy thus to make 'Revealed Religion' do
homage to ' Natural Religion/ and to make it appear as second
and inferior to that, but it is neither philosophical — tw ovti j
ov — nor manly. It is not philosophical to speak of Melchizedek
as personifying Natural Religion, and at the same time to admit,
as Dean Stanley must needs do, that he was a type of our
Lord Christ, who came into the world only because ' Natural
> 2 Cor. v. 19.
a In a note p. 46, Dr. Stanley quotes " Jerome, Epist. ad Evangelum, § 6,
who justly remarks that the narrative leaves it ambiguous whether Abraham gave
tithes to Melchizedek or Melchizedek to Abraham." But Jerome seems to have
forgotten his Hebrew (see p. 159.) And Dr. Stanley overlooked Heb. vii. 4,
where S. Paul tells us that Abraham did give tithes to Melchizedek.
8 "And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the greater." Heb. vii. 4, 7.

II. P. 45.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 153
Religion' was, and is, unavailing ; and powerless to save man.
It is a contradiction in terms. And it is not generous, it
is neither kind nor right to mystify such vital truths. The
intention of it seems obvious. It is, of course, as easy as it
is likely to be popular, to teach and to preach with the appa
rent authority of an accredited position — this " wide, all-embrac
ing worship," that sets before man Truths so hazy that they can
not be distinguished from the mist in which they are put ; that
imposes no burden of a positive Faith in positive promises ; and
that binds the conscience with elastic bands ; that takes in Abra
ham, Melchizedek, Hittites, and Canaanites together, without
distinction, or, at all events without difference ; that seems to
be everything and nothing, abrogating all ideas of a 'narrow
way' and of a ' broad road/ and making it all one level plain
where Revealed and Natural religion and any other creed may
disport themselves and claim a footing on equal terms.
But it is not according to Truth. It is not according tuj ovti
ji ov, xa) Ty aXrjSeta, that, " historical faith" — by which we must,
I presume, understand faith in our Saviour's death and sacri
fice as a fact in history —
"will always humbly receive and gratefully tender recognition
when it comes in contact with the older and everlasting instincts
which ' the Most High God, Possessor of Heaven and earth/ has
implanted in nature and in the heart of man."
What instincts ? " the law written in their hearts," may be.
When ? before the first promise of a Saviour ? ere God said
to the serpent : " I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head,
and thou shalt bruise his heel V'1 These " instincts" therefore,
and this " historical faith," are very much of the same age ;
and if " historical faith" comes in second in the history of man,
it is only because it was not wanted while man yet shone with the
glory of God, whom he then knew as he was known of Him.
But, after that this brightness had left Adam's form through
his fall, after that his innocence had ended in guilt, and that
his knowledge of God, his intimate communion with Him,
his spiritual life in God, had left in him only shame, regret for
what he had done ; only faint echoes of the voice he once heard,
1 Gen. iii. 15.

154 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
and fading memories of what he once enjoyed ; when, in short,
all that remained of his first divine image, was, a body doomed
to return to dust instead of fulfilling a higher destiny; and
' instincts' only of his former estate, instead of the full bright
ness of his nature, erst pure and godly, — then at once did
Faith step in : Thou art lost, said God to Adam, and driven
from My Paradise, and thou shalt die. But there is in My
realms One Who " is alive for evermore," Who has the keys
of hell and of death, and Who will set thee free. He alone is
the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Believe in Him, and thou
shalt live.
XV. " The power of an endless life" therefore is not in the
" everlasting instincts" of this natural religion, as Dr. Stanley
says, if I understand him aright. For I do not know what he
means by " implanted in Nature and in the heart of man." If
he meant man's nature, he would have said : ' in the nature and
in the heart of man ;' and as to the ' everlasting instincts' of
nature,' i.e., of creation, it is difficult to see what they can be.
Taking, however, 'nature' here to mean 'man's nature/ how
can the instincts of a nature that fell and was doomed to
die, the body into dust, the soul away from God, have any
" power of their own of an endless life ?" They tend upwards,
it is true, in token of their origin, and they may rise even beyond
the limits of the intellect ; yet not higher than the thoughts of
man, which, being human and earthly, can never, of themselves,
soar to those things which " eye hath not seen nor ear heard,
neither have entered into the heart of man, things which God
hath prepared for them that love Him."1 Only ask Plato
if his instincts rose higher than his thoughts, high as these
were, and if he did not yearn after what he felt was yet higher
— too high for him to attain unto. From want of the sure
witness of a Revelation, the flight upward of these ' instincts' in
him was hindered, dragged downwards, by the weight, the short
tether of his reason, that could not reach beyond a certain point,
immeasurably short of God, as God is. And as regards "the
heart of man, which is deceitful above all things and desperately
wicked,"2 it is, indeed, difficult to see whither its natural instincts
can tend, except to what is evil. " The power of an endless
1 1 Cor. ii. 9. s Jer. xvii. 9.

II. P. 46, 47.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 155
life," then, is not where Dr. Stanley seems to put it, but where
S. Paul declares it to be1 — in Him Who alone is " the Life and
the Light of men ;" " Whom to know is life eternal," and Who
hath power to give eternal life to whom He will.2
XVI. After alluding to the destruction of Sodom and of Go
morrah (p. 46, 47), Dr. Stanley goes on to treat of the sacrifice
of Isaac, which he very properly calls " an act of faith" —
" that marks at least one critical stage in the progress of true re
ligion. There have been in almost all ancient forms of religion,
in most modern forms also, two strong tendencies, each in itself
springing from the best and purest feelings of humanity. One
is the craving to please, or to propitiate, or to communicate with
the powers above us, by surrendering some object near and dear
to ourselves. This is the source of all sacrifice."
Does the Dean of Westminster really think this to be "the source
of all sacrifice ?" If so, he seems to take the figurative or de
rived sense of ' sacrifice' for the literal meaning of the term.
He might as well render this passage of Tacitus,3 " cunctos qui
aderant, in verba Vespasiani adigit; mittitque legatos ad duas
legiones, ' ut idem sacramentum acciperent/ " ' that they might
receive the same sacrament/ as to overlook the true source and
origin of ' sacrifice/ and place it in the acceptation of this term
which is derived from the institution of the rite.
Regarding, however, the very first sacrifice or oblation offered,
we are expressly told that " by faith Abel offered unto God a
more excellent sacrifice, irXslova 8uo-tav, than Cain, by which he
obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his
gifts, and by it he, being dead, yet speaketh."4 "We are
therefore, led to consider," says Archbishop Magee,5 who wrote
in the days of English learning, and to whose work it is a
real satisfaction to turn — " whether we are not warranted by
Scripture in pronouncing the entire rite to have been or
dained by God, as a type of that One Sacrifice, in which all
others were to have their consummation." "Let us, then, ex
amine the circumstances of the first sacrifice offered up by
Abel. 1 Heb. vii. 16. » S. John i. 4 ; xvii. 2, 3. » Hist. iv. 21.
4 Heb. xi. 4. s Aton. and Sacr. vol. i. p. 47, sq.

156 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
" It is clear from Scripture that Abel's sacrifice was accepted,
and that of Cain was rejected. Now, what could have occa
sioned the distinction ? If we look to the writer to the He
brews, that the ground on which Abel's oblation was preferred
to that of Cain was, that Abel offered his in faith, the meaning
then is, that by faith Abel offered that which was much more of
the true nature of sacrifice than what had been offered by Cain.
Abel, consequently, was directed by faith, and this faith was
manifested in the nature of his offering. What, then, are we to
infer ? Without some revelation granted, some assurance held
out as the object of faith, Abel could not have exercised this
virtue ; and without some peculiar mode of sacrifice enjoined, he
could not have exemplified his faith by an appropriate offering.
The offering made was that of an animal. Let us consider
whether this could have a connection with any Divine assurance,
communicated at that early day.
"It is obvious that the promise made to our first parents
conveyed an intimation of some future deliverer, who should
overcome the tempter that had drawn man from his innocence,
and remove those evils which had been occasioned by the fall.
This assurance, without which, or some ground of hope, it seems
difficult to conceive how the principle of religion could have had
place among men, became to our first parents the grand object
of faith. To perpetuate this fundamental article of religious
belief among the descendants of Adam, some striking memorial
of the fall of man, and of the promised deliverance, would na
turally be appointed. And if we admit that this scheme of
Redemption by the death of the only-begotten Son of God was
determined from the beginning ; that is, if we admit that, when
God had ordained the deliverance of man, He had ordained the
means; if we admit that Christ was the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world; what more apposite memorial could be
devised than that of animal sacrifice? exemplifying, by the
slaying of the victim, the death which had been denounced
against man's disobedience : thus exhibiting the awful lesson of
that death which was the wages of sin, and at the same time
representing that death which was actually to be undergone by
the Redeemer of mankind ; and hereby connecting in one view
the two great cardinal events in the history of man, — the Fall,

IT. P. 48.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 157
and the Recovery ; the death denounced against sin, and the
death appointed for the Holy One, Who was to lay down His
life to deliver man from the consequences of sin." — " Abel, in
firm reliance on the promise of God, and in obedience to His
command, offered that sacrifice, which had been enjoined as the
religious expression of his faith ; while Cain, disregarding the
gracious assurances that had been vouchsafed, or, at least, dis
daining to adopt the prescribed mode of manifesting his belief,
possibly as not appearing to his reason to possess any efficacy or
natural fitness ;— in short, Cain, the first-born of the fall, ex
hibits the first-fruits of his parents' disobedience, in the arro
gance and self-sufficiency of reason rejecting the aids of Reve
lation, because they fell not within its apprehension of right.
He takes the first place in the annals of Deism, and displays, in
his proud rejection of the ordinance of sacrifice, the same spirit
which, in later days, has actuated his enlightened followers in
rejecting the sacrifice of Christ."1
XVII. " The other tendency," continues Dr. Stanley,
" is the profound moral instinct that the Creator of the world cannot
be pleased, or propitiated, or approached by any other means than
by a pure life and good deeds. On the exaggeration, on the contact,
on the collision of these two tendencies, have turned some of the
chief corruptions, and some of the chief difficulties, of ecclesiastical
history. The earliest of these we are about to witness in the life of
Abraham. There came, we are told, the Divine intimation, ' Take
now thy son,' &c. ; but the form taken by this Divine trial or
temptation was that which a stern logical consequence of the
ancient view of sacrifice did actually assume, if not then, yet cer
tainly in after ages, among the surrounding tribes, and which
cannot therefore be left out of sight in considering the whole his
torical aspect of the narrative. Deep in the heart of the Canaan-
itish nations was laid the practice of human sacrifice — on the
altars of Moab, of Phoenicia, of Carthage, &c, — this almost irre-
1 Aton. and Sacr. vol. i. p. 50 — 53. I recommend those of my readers who
may not know Archbishop Magee's work on the subject, to read it ; they
will find, in his sound and manly English style, a wholesome restorative, after
the mawkish, diluted Germanism to which we are being treated ' ad nauseam
usque.' They will also find, in Carpzovii Mantissa de Sacrificiis, Appar. Crit.
pp. 699 — 725, a full statement of the Divine institution of Sacrifices, with all
the arguments brought for or against it.

158 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
pressible tendency of the burning zeal of a primitive race found
its terrible expression. Such was the trial which presented itself
to Abraham." — pp. 48, 49.
Would not this have been called ' a sophism' by Aristotle ? But
ere we consider it, let us look at the note Dr. Stanley gives
on Abraham's trial or temptation. It runs thus (p. 48) :
" That this temptation or trial, through whatever means it was
suggested, should in the sacred narrative be ascribed to the over
ruling voice of God, is in exact accordance with the general tenor
of Hebrew Scriptures. A still more striking instance is contained
in the history of David, where the same temptation, which in one
book is ascribed to God, is in another ascribed to Satan : ' The
Lord moved David to say, Go, number Israel' (2 Sam. xxiv. 1).
' Satan provoked David to number Israel' (1 Chron. xxi. 1)."
First, I must vindicate Dr. Stanley from the great offence
some people seem to have needlessly taken at his calling God's
command to Abraham "a trial or temptation." 'Trial' and
' temptation' have the same meaning ; only ' trial' is Anglo-
Saxon, and 'temptation' is originally 'infima? Latinitatis' for
' tentatio.' In daily use these terms have come to be said, the
one for trial of strength, of patience, of faith, &c, and the
other for solicitation to sin ; but in either case it is a ' trial/
whether of strength or of spiritual life in resisting the voice of
the tempter. When grace within is the stronger of the two,
temptation becomes only a trial; if, however, sin within is
stronger than grace, then the trial ends in a breaking down.
In Hebrew 8D2, as in Greek irstgav, are used to express both
'trial' and 'temptation.' So that, when we read "that God
did tempt Abraham" (Gen. xxii. 1), it means simply that God
did try Abraham's faith. So also, when said of man towards
God, as in D^P^tf HiPp-plK 1D?p1 K7,1 oux hanip&nn
Kuptov tov 0eo'v o-oo, LXX., " Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy
God," it is said of trying God's patience and His forbearance
towards us, &c. And this, doubtless, is Dr. Stanley's meaning
in saying " trial or temptation ;" for he cannot have forgotten,
" Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God ;
' Deut. vi. 16.

II. P. 48, 49.] PHIL080PHV, OB TRUTH ? 159
for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any
man."1 And this, secondly, bears directly on the two passages Dean
Stanley compares together, in one of which (2 Sam. xxiv. 1)
the Dean, who overlooks the Hebrew, understands the words
"he moved David against them" to apply to "the Lord,"
the subject of the preceding sentence, but, against idiom and
grammar; whereas, in the parallel passage (1 Chron. xxi. 1),
Satan is expressly said to have " stood up and provoked David
to number Israel." If Dean Stanley had looked at the marginal
notes of his English Bible, he would have found there, in 2 Sam.
xxiv. 1, the shortest and best commentary on "he moved David
against them," viz., " Satan, see Chron. xxi. 1, Jam. i. 13, 14."
And to show that this comment is correct, the omission, or rather,
the ellipsis of ' Satan' before " he moved," is strictly according
to the Hebrew idiom, which often omits the subject or noun,
when plainly understood from the context. Thus, in Gen. xiv.
20, 7iDD"lK^a 'byrn, "And he (i.e., Abraham, proved by
Heb. vii. 4) gave him the tenth (or tithes) of all."
Likewise Gen. xli. 13, ,|15_7# yffi} Tlfc, "Me he (i.e.,
Pharaoh) restored into mine office."
Again, 2 Sam. iii. 8, " And Saul had a concubine whose name
was Rizpah, "ID^I, and he (i.e., Ishbosheth, which the Autho
rized Version rightly introduces into the text) said unto Abner,"
&c. This passage alone would prove the rule; for if these
words referred to Rizpah, we should have IDtffil fern, instead
of ""IDX'H masc.
A like instance occurs in 1 Kings i. 6 : Fn?] 1flkl, " And
she bare him after Absalom ;" ' she/ i.e., Haggith, who bare
him (Adonijah) after Maacah had borne Absalom, as stated in
2 Sam. iii. 3, 4.
So also in Job iii. 3 : " Let the day perish wherein I was
born, and the night in which "lDX (a man) said," &c. Also at
v. 20, JIT is said of ' God/ Who alone giveth light.
Again, Ps. cv. 40 : Y?t&> K^l 7K#, " he (i.e., the people)
asked, and He (i.e., God) brought quails," &c.
1 S. Jam. i. 13.

160 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
It would be useless to multiply examples of an idiom which
occurs frequently.1 These will suffice to show that Dr. Stanley
could never have called the apparent discrepancy between
2 Sam. xxiv. 1 and 1 Chron. xxi. 1, " a striking instance," had
he consulted the Hebrew. As it is, he seems to trust to
others ; and therefore, like everybody else who takes statements
second-hand, he is liable to make mistakes. For instance, the
ignorance of Hebrew grammar that applies ftD)'] " he moved"
to 'the Lord/ simply because this happens to be the sub
ject of the foregoing sentence, will do strange things with his
tory : it will make Josiah VtryP?}— VPfl&T ^TH kill Pharaoh-
Necoh at Megiddo (2 Kings xxiii. 29) instead of Pharaoh
Josiah; nay, it will make life death; for "when they arose,
early in the morning, "1)723 IQ^B^I behold, they were all
dead corpses," D^PID D'HJ? DvG, (2 Kings xix. 35 ; Isa.
xxxvii. 36) .2 This case, however, is very plain. The writer
of 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, writing when the event he described was still
fresh in the memory of the people, and never dreaming any
body would ever do else than allow the Lord the same autho
rity over Satan as in Job ii. 6, much less impute to Him the
moving of David to sin, left out the subject ' Satan ' before
PlD'l, 'and he moved;' whereas the writer of 1 Chron. xxi. 1,
who wrote much later, supplied the subject ' Satan' as being
the real author of the sin David committed, and of the calamity
that followed.3
XVIII. I have said that, according to Aristotle's definition
(R. vi., p. 10), Dr. Stanley's way of alluding to human sacri
fices in Canaan and elsewhere, in connexion with the sacrifice
of Isaac, would be called ' a sophism ;' because this bringing
together of these sacrifices of Isaac and of the Canaanites has
only a specious appearance of truth, without any regard what
ever to to" 1ha tou dvTog jj ov, to the peculiar circumstances that
1 See Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 803 ; Ewald, Heb. Gr. p. 644, sq. ; Glassii Philol.
Sacra, vol. i. p. 609, sq.
s Something like this occurs also in Greek ; e.g., evp6vres — jJT^o-airo Ui\drov
— us Se 4r4\e aav flmavra — KaBi\ovres — is said of the Jews, and IBriKav eis p.vn-
P-tluv of Joseph of Arimathasa and of Nicodemus, &c.
8 " Namaliter Deus tentat, aliter Diaholus. Diabolus tentat ut subruat, Deus
tentat ut coronet.'' S. Ambros. de Abrah. Lib. i. Tom. iv. p. 184.

II. P. 49.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 161
distinguish this sacrifice from all others. Since, in fact, the
sacrifice of Isaac, though it took place in Canaan, had no more
to do in intention, in spirit, in motive, in the object and in the
subject of it, with the passing of children through fire to Moloch
or to Adrammelech, than with the Irish La Baal tejnne, or with
the broiling of human hearts on the altar of Huitzilopochtli and
Tezcatlipuk.1 For, first, even Dr. Stanley admits that this practice of human
sacrifices "laid deep in the heart of Canaanitish nations," —
showed itself " if not then, at least in after ages." Abraham,
therefore, did not follow the example of others, but he set it to
them — a very different thing indeed, since his sacrifice of Isaac
is the first of the kind on record ; and the sacrifice of Iphigenia
(such as it was) ; of a man yearly to Chiun or Saturn in Phoe
nicia and at Rhodes; to Aphrodite in Cyprus; to Bacchus at
Chios and in Tenedos; to the sun at Heliopolis; to Mars at
Lacedsemon ; to Saturn at Carthage ; to Jupiter at Megalopolis,
in Arcadia ; of a boy to Wadd in Arabia, and other such, are all
of later date than that of Isaac.2
And secondly, not only was Abraham not a Canaanite, and
thus not only could he not have much in common with the
thirst for human blood laid deep in the heart of the Canaanites,
but, according to Dr. Stanley's own showing, he was on the
best of terms with them, bound to them by a " wide, all-em
bracing worship," of which, he also tells us, human sacrifices
formed as yet no essential rite. How then could " this almost
irrepressible tendency of the burning zeal of a primitive race"
be "the trial which presented itself to Abraham ?" especially
when, as we know, these same human sacrifices which these Ca
naanites may have copied from him, were among the abomina
tions that brought " the iniquity of the Amorite to the full,"
that made those nations accursed, and doomed them to utter
destruction ?
But I will hope that Dr. Stanley is less to blame than those
he takes as guides, for thus " darkening counsel by words with
out knowledge," as regards the most awful and the most touch
ing type in the Old dispensation ; a type so plain, so solemn, as
1 Help's Conq. of Amer. vol. ii. p. 335, sq.
2 Euseb. Prsep. Ev.p. 155—163; id. Theophan. Syr. Lib. ii. 54, sq.
M

162 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
to make us pause ere we even speak of it, while we look on this
bright picture of faith unfeigned and of obedience on Abraham's
part — of mercy, of pity, and of love towards us on the part of
the Father, Who wrought out the sacrifice, and of the Son,
Who gave Himself up for it on our behalf when He was stretched
on the wood of the Cross laid on this earth, His Altar. I
therefore pass by the Rabbis as either not to the purpose or ab
surd, and by the voice of the Church in all ages as unanimous
on this point, only to say that even Mahomedan writers men
tion this sacrifice of Isaac as one of the three things Xi>\ .JM
t_j3 J -xc Jjij " through which God did prove the faith of Abra
ham ; that is, his flight from his native land, circumcision, and
the sacrifice of his son ; though others say differently."1 And
Mahomet himself says of it,2 " Verily, this „jjaU *&>A\ jJ \ j»* yl
was for him a trial no one could mistake.3 Wherefore we have
left for him among the posterities, 'Peace on him !' 'Peace on
Abraham !' Thus do we reward them that do well."
XIX. Dr. Stanley then brings us to what he thinks was the
scene of the sacrifice : —
" It was not the place which Jewish tradition has selected on
Mount Moriah at Jerusalem ; still less that which Christian tra
dition shows, even to the thicket in which the ram was caught
hard by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre ; still less that which
Mussulman tradition indicates on Mount Arafat at Mecca. Rather
we must look to that ancient sanctuary of which I have spoken,
the natural altar on the summit of Mount Gerizim. On that
spot, at that time the holiest in Palestine, the crisis was to take
place. One, two, three days' journey from ' the land of the Philis
tines' — in the distance the high crest of the mountain appears,"
&c— p. 49.
The Dean seems very certain of what he asserts ; but, first —
where the ' land of Moriah' might be we know not. A. Ezra
I.e., Abarbanel,4 R. S. Jarchi I.e., Midrash Rabbah,5 wherein the
1 Abu'lf. Hist. A. I. p. 22. > Sur. xxxvii. 107.
3 Almost in the words of S. Ambrose: " Denique Deus probatos sibi tentat.
Et sanctum Abraham probavit ante et sic tentavit, ne si ante tentaret quam pro-
basset, gravaret." De Abrah. Lib. i. t. iv. p. 184.
4 Comm. in Pent. fol. 61, verso. 6 Fol. 61, sq.

II. P. 49.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 163
opinion of many Rabbis is found, all concur in applying the
term ' Moriah' either to the hill mentioned in 2 Chron. iii. 1, on
which the Temple was built, or in rendering PTHft by ' vision,'
in allusion to God appearing there to Abraham.1 Although
nothing is said of the sacrifice of Isaac either in the Samaritan
Chronicle, the Samaritan Hymns and Letters published by
Gesenius and by Cellarius, yet it is well known that the Sama
ritans apply Gen. xxii. 2 to Mount Gerizim.2
Secondly — the claim the Samaritans put in for Mount Ge
rizim to be Mount Moriah dates, as we have seen, only from
after the captivity.3 " However this may be," continues Mi
chaelis, "the Samaritans were not at enmity with the Jews
before the building of the Temple on Mount Gerizim, and until
then they would have common interests and common worship."4
But, after the Temple was built by Alexander's leave on Mount
Gerizim, on the site of the small place of worship that existed
there before that time, the Samaritans of Sichem arrogated to
their city the title of ' the Holy Place/ <^ jJL«J! c^jo, in op-
1 But rrifi could never come from rwj. The Targ. Onkelos and Targ. J. B.
Uzziel and Hieros. render it sorfriB Nfwft, ' land of worship ;' LXX. eU tV yhv
tV v4/r\Ki\v\ Pesch. and Saadias ]jJciLo|> p>i£>, 'into the land of the
Amorites ;' Samar. ?AfiT^J''e£ ' V\yVZ ; ' in terram visionis,' Vulg. : so
that interpreters are far from being agreed either on the meaning of the term
or on the site of the mountain.
2 Gesen. De indole Pentat. Sam. p. 33.
3 " Judaei," says J. D. Michaelis (Supplem. ad Lex. Heb. p. 1553) " montem
Moriam pro loco immolationis Isaaci destinato habuerunt ; ac nisi fallor et
Samaritani. Adscribo versionem Chaldaicam Chronicorum : in monte Moria, in
loco, ubi coluit et adoravit Abraham nomen Domini : Iste locus est terra cultus,
ubi coluerunt Jehovam omnes generationes, ibi guoque oblaturus erat Abrahamus
filium suum in holocaustum, liberavit vera eum verbum Domini, et oblatus est
aries loco ejus : ibi oravit Jacob, cum aufugeret ab Esavo fratre, ibi denique
adparuit angelus Domini Davidi. Hsec aut traditio aut sententia si vera ac
certa, aliquid sane faceret ad litem Samaritanorum et Judseorum de loco cultus
divini Deo placente, de qua mira tradit Josephus, Ant. xiii. 3, 4, in jure Mosaico,
§. 188, exposita, deliberata, dubitata."
4 And according to Makrizi \^} & \j^} j^] ^ ^Jj\Jo dJu|
<Ui *^>]j> UJi/^ti JW^ 4 i^i> (J^ uj-?*5^ " crowds of Jews
came to it to pray there ; they made pilgrimages to the temple on Mount Ge
rizim, and offered their sacrifices in it." (De Sacy, Chrest. Ar. vol. i. 112 and
301, sq.)
M 2

164 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
position to Jerusalem ; and afterwards they connected Mount
Gerizim with Abraham and with his sacrifice.1
The Samaritans called Mount Gerizim not only cJo^ jjb
'Blessed Mountain/ as we have seen, but also cjWI J^T
'the Mountain of Blessings/ .XjliSl Jjcj- fthe Mountain of
the Commandments;2 =J»ZV • AV31, 'the Hill of Eternity;'
Lft- ' AfrrS ' Beth-el ;' and in one of their letters to this country3
the Samaritans call it ' The Mountain of Inheritance/4 where
the presence of the Divine Majesty dwells ; the great and
chosen place, which God did choose ; the Gate of Heaven.5 All
this is on a par with the story already told, of Mount Gerizim
not having been even wetted by the waters of the Flood ; and
other like absurdities, for which there is not the slightest foun
dation. XX. Thirdly — according to Arabic writers, Isaac never was
sacrificed "on Mount Arafat at Mecca," as Dr. Stanley says.
Abu'1-feda tells us6 that " after Hagar's death at Mecca, God
commanded Abraham to sacrifice unto Him his son ; one is
doubtful whether it was Isaac or Ishmael, but God redeemed him
with a ram. Those who think it was Isaac who was offered in
sacrifice place the spot in Syria at two miles ^c ll^ij^> ,Ac
L/j«jJiil uu*jo ^Jbj IA>1 (or leagues) from iElia, which is Jeru
salem. Those, however, who think it was Ishmael ^\ Jjj
iiCoJ ,jl£ i_j3J say the sacrifice took place at Mecca." And
Masudi,7 after telling of the dismissal of Hagar, goes on to say
1 As we find from Asclepiodorus, who, speaking of Marinus, a philosopher,
native of Neapolis irpbs ipei — rtf 'Apyaplfy KaXovpeva near to the mountain
called ' Argarizus,' is called by Damascius Svao-e$)is Kal p\aff(pripiwv, ' impious
and blasphemous,' for adding that he saw on that mountain a temple Aibj
tyliriov of Jupiter Most High £• xaBieparo "AfSpa/nos 6 rwv ird\ai IjSpaW
irpiyovos, to whom Abraham, the father of the ancient Hebrews, was devoted
(as priest) ; and he adds : as avrbs eXeyev b Mapfoos, " as Marinus himself re
lates." (Damasc. ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 1055, ed. Roter.) This same Marinus, at
first a Samaritan, afterwards combated the Samaritan opinions, fire eis Kcworo-
pAav airb rrjs 'Aftpdp.ov Bvfflas, airoppvelffav, as being innovations from the sacri
fice of Abraham."
2 This, however, is said also of Mount Sinai in the Samaritan hymns.
3 Epistolce Samar. ad Job. Ludolph. Cizse. 1688, p. 1,6, &c.
4 Deut. iv. 20, sq.
6 Juynb. Comm. in Chron. Samar. p. 242.
6 Hist. A. I. p. 22. 1 Moroudj ez-zahab. vol. i. p. 87.

II. P. 49.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 165
that " God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, whom God
did redeem with a precious victim.1 The sacrifice of Abraham
has given rise to different opinions : some say it was Isaac,
others that it was Ishmael. If the command was given to
Abraham at Mina, then Ishmael was sacrificed, jUs~=l ^
jUssil Jji-OJ *! for Isaac never entered the Hedjaz ; but if
the command came in Syria, then it was Isaac, Jj^^ol .Jl\
*llM J-=>-J>J /i f°r Ishmael never entered Syria."
XXI. Fourthly — Dr. Stanley pretends to fix the distance
from "the land of the Philistines" to Mount Gerizim, by "one,
two, three days' journey." But he must, first of all, fix where
this land was ; whether it was the land of the Philistines during
their first or second settlements, and whereabouts in that land
Abraham was, that he should take three days to go to Mount
Gerizim. For unless we know the starting point, we shall find
some difficulty in measuring the distance. We read that, after
Abimelech and Phichol had made their covenant with Abraham
at Beersheba, Abimelech and his captain "returned into the
land of the Philistines,"2 i.e., to Gerar, his kingdom,3 between
Kadesh and Shur, further south than Beersheba. If so, then,
Beersheba could hardly be in ' Gerar/ where Abraham dwelt at
first ;* yet, for all that, still in the ' land of the Philistines.' If,
therefore, Abraham started from Beersheba for Mount Gerizim,
he could not reach it in three days of Eastern travel, he on his
ass, and Isaac and his two young men5 on foot.
As I did not travel for statistics, I never timed myself when
once on the march, which lasted every day, except Sundays,
from 3 or 4 to 9 or 10 a.m., and from 3 or 4 to 7 or 8 p.m. ; I
therefore borrow from Dr. Robinson's Itinerary6 the following
distances : — Hours. Min.
From Bir es-seba' (Beersheba) to Hebron . . 11 10
„ Hebron  „ Jerusalem . 8 15
„ Jerusalem .... „ Nablus . . 14 30

33 55

1 Cor. Sur. xxxvii. 10. 2 Gen. xxi. 33.
3 Gen. xx. 2. Hitzig. Philist. p. 118, sq. 4 Gen. xx. I.
6 Eliezer, who was then fifty .five years old, and Ishmael; according to tra
dition. 6 Res. vol. iii. pp. 66, 67, 81.

166 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
There are, then, thirty-four hours' march by the shortest route
from Beersheba to Shechem, or to Mount Gerizim ; that is, at
the rate of a little over eleven hours a day. But, since " on
the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar
off," went thither and returned to where he had left his ser
vants, he, being at least a hundred and fifteen or twenty years
of age (one hundred and thirty-six according to tradition), must
have journeyed from Beersheba to Mount Gerizim at the rate of
at least fourteen or fifteen hours a day, so as to accomplish the
distance from Beersheba to where he left his young men, thence
to Mount Gerizim, and back to them in three days — a thing
simply beyond the bounds of probability. And if we suppose
Abraham to have started from somewhere else than Beersheba
in the land of the Philistines, which at that time extended, pos
sibly, from Gerar to Ekron over the Philistine Pentapolis,1 we
can, of course, form no idea either of the distance or of the
situation of the mountain God did show Abraham ; for, as we
have seen, Mount Tabor, or Little Hermon, might have at least
as good a claim as Mount Gerizim to be classed among the
earliest places of worship in the land of Canaan.2
XXII. Then follows another of Dr. Stanley's careless ex
pressions : —
" The sacrifice was accepted — the literal sacrifice of the act was
repelled. On the one hand the great principle was proclaimed
that mercy is better than sacrifice," &c.
Where is that ' principle' proclaimed ? Nowhere do we find
that " mercy is better than sacrifice," leastways that this is a
' principle ;' for not only was ' sacrifice' in the case of Christ
necessary, and mercy could not then be shown, but ' sacrifice of
ourselves' is also required of us ere we can be acceptable unto
God. Did Dr. Stanley think of " Behold, to obey is better than
1 Josh. xiii. 3.
3 The real fact is that it is idle to speculate on the site of the mountain, on
which the sensible and profoundly learned J. D. Michaelis says (Supplem. ad
Lex. Heb. p. 1551) : "Totam denique historiam Gen. xxii. perlegenti videbitur
sacrificio Isaaci locum desertum destinatum fuisse, dumis horrentem, ubi nemo
illud spectaret, aut opem ferre posset : at mons Moria in vicinia Hierosolymse,
qure Abrahami jam tempore regem, et vero Dei veri sacerdotem, habebat, Mel-
chizedecum."

II. P. 49.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 167
sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams "?' that is to say,
the offering of ' self unto God, in obedience to His will, is the
real ' sacrifice' He looks to ; and being the ' real' offering, it is
better than the mere outward rite and worship without a willing
or an obedient heart, wholly given up to Him. For 'mercy'
is God's prerogative; 'obedience' and 'sacrifice' are man's part
and duty. Therefore does God say, PQT 87] ^V^Pl Ipn,
" I have taken pleasure in (or ' I delight in') mercy, and not in
sacrifice :"2 that is, He delights in exercising His prerogative of
gracious Sovereign, of tender and compassionate Father, when
ever it can be done without warping the eternal rule of justice.
He delights in showing mercy and pity for our infirmity, and in
not being "extreme to mark what is done amiss" in us, when
ever He finds an ' honest' and ' sincere' heart wholly given up to
Him ; for " He knoweth whereof we are made." And in this
sense is Hos. vi. 6 quoted in S. Matt. ix. 13, and xii. 7, as proved
by the context.
It is in displaying this power of showing mercy and pity when
ever justice allows, that God delights, rather than in victims,
since He says, " I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he
goats out of thy folds ; for every beast of the forest is mine, and
the cattle upon a thousand hills."3 But since1 mercy on God's
part presupposes a willing and obedient heart, though, may be,
with weak efforts or slender means on our part to work out our
intentions, ' showing mercy/ though inherent in God's nature,
becomes practically an accident as regards our being the objects
of it; since we can hope for no mercy at His hands unless we
have first made a whole sacrifice of our 'self/ body, soul, and
spirit unto Him, which is our reasonable service. This spiritual
sacrifice being indispensable, and mercy only dependent on it,
very far from " mercy better than sacrifice" being a ' principle,'
the only 'principle' in this case, both apx^i and o-toi^;e7ov, is that
of ' sacrifice of ourselves unto God.' Dr. Stanley's expression
is an oversight ; for had he carefully considered the matter, he
would have seen that in this case God showed Abraham mercy,
saying, " Because thou hast obeyed my voice ;" for without this
obedience there could have been no mercy shown him. Yet
1 1 Sam. xv. 22. 2 Hos. vi. 6. 3 Ps. 1. 9, 10.

168 philosophy, or truth? [lect.
Dr. Stanley's expression, misunderstood, might lead shallow
thinkers to the practical view of the words "mercy is better
than sacrifice" which Mahomedans take. They preface acts of
the grossest sin with ^J, t]]\, ' God is generous and merciful !'
XXIII. On the Phoenician sacrifices Dr. Stanley has this
note : —
"According to the Phoenician tradition, 'Israel, king of the
country, having by a nymph called Anobret [" the Hebrew foun
tain"] an only son, whom they called Ieoud, the Phoenician word
for an only son [so applied to Isaac, Gen. xxii. 2], on occasion of
a great national calamity adorned him in royal attire, and sacri
ficed him on an altar which he had prepared.' — Sanchoniathon :
see Kenrick's Phoenicia, 288."
Whereon I may remark, first — that this king was Saturn, called
' Israel' by the Phoenicians. Secondly — that ' Anobret' cannot
mean ' Hebrew fountain.' If so be av is (?) for ^V (rather aiv,
Alvwv for ]13iy) , ' Hebrew fountain' would be 'Avtfyia, PP")^ ]V
in Phoenician as in Hebrew.1 Thirdly — as to 'IsouS, Ewald2
says, very correctly, that it may be meant for ' Judah' rather than
for Isaac. Fourthly — that we have no reason to feel certain
this passage is from Sanchoniaton. It may be Porphyrius' own
composition. He was either from Tyre or from Batania (Ba-
shan), and is said to have been well versed in Jewish matters.
In the two following pages Dr. Stanley speaks of the object
of the sacrifice of Isaac, but in a manner on which I can only
remark, that it is far below the dignity and greatness of the
subject. He does not warm up to it ; what he says is timid,
cold, and lifeless, on the very subject of Life itself. And he
ends this lecture with these words, which are not quite so
clear : —
" Questions have often arisen on the meaning of the words
which bring together in the Gospel history the names of Abraham
and of the true and final Heir of Abraham's promises. But to
the student of the whole line of the Sacred History, they may at
1 Gesen. Mon. Phoenic. p. 443. Bochart (Phaleg. p. 712) proposes to read it
mm )n, Annobret, i.e., " ex gratis concipiens." Gesenius, however, " quem
donavit conceptrine." But then, what comes of n ? (Mon. Phoenic. p. 400.)
2 Weltshopf. Sanch. p. 52.

III. P. 54.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 169
least be allowed to express the marvellous continuity and com
munity of character, of truth, of intention, between this, its grand
beginning, and that, its still grander end."
Will Dr. Stanley know what this " marvellous continuity and
community of character, of truth, of intention" come from ? —
from Faith in the objective Truth of God's promises, in obedience
to His will.

LECTURE III.— JACOB.
I. Dr. Stanley opens this Lecture, which is generally speak
ing, well written and interesting, with an outline of Jacob's
character that calls only for one remark :
At p. 54 we read :
" Esau — caught — by the sight of the lentile soup — ' Feed me, I
pray thee, with the ' red, red pottage,' &c.' (Gen. xxv. 30, in the
original.)" The original does not say : " with the red, red pottage."
PITPJ tfTKn nrNFrp H3 W^Pl, Gen. xxv. 30, means, " sup
port" or " feed me, I pray thee with this red pottage," ' this
here red pottage/ or ' this very one ;' for I am faint, and cannot
wait for another. The article repeated twice, and the second
time with the demonstr. pron. gives it no other sense whatever ;
and shows that the stress was laid by Esau — not, as Dr. Stan
ley makes him do, on the colour — 'red, red,' but — on his being
hungry and on his wishing to have at once the pottage that was
being made for others, who might then wait for theirs. It is
a pity that Dr. Stanley, apparently no Hebrew scholar, did not
Consult some one able to advise him better ; or at least, that he
did not avoid quoting the original, which, it is evident, he does
not understand.
The Authorised Version, however, renders well this passage,
given more literally in the marginal note.
This first paragraph of Lecture III. ends with an excellent
remark :

170 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
" There is a nobleness in principle and in faith which cannot be
wholly destroyed, even though it be marred by the hardness of the
Jew, or the Jesuit, or the Puritan." — p. 59.
It is well Dr. Stanley should acknowledge this. May we all
bear in mind that ' principle and faith' may appear in others
than Jacob, and may show themselves as much in an honest
opposition at the University to dishonest statutes, and question
able divinity, as to the wiles of a Syrian father-in-law.
II. We now come to Jacob's progress through life ; begin
ning with his departure from Beersheba to go to Haran. "Was
the migration of Abraham to be reversed ?" asks Dr. Stanley.
How could it be ? But as Abraham though on such ' friendly
terms' with the Hittites and with the Canaanites, would not
take for his son a wife from among nations accursed, so also did
Jacob leave the daughters of Heth to his brother Esau, who
sold his birthright — and such a right, too — for a pottage of
lentiles; whatever happened, and at any cost of toil or of jour
ney, Canaanitish blood could not intermingle with the children
of the Promise ; for the Canaanites were doomed to be thrust
out of the land they had defiled, in order to make room for the
lawful heirs to it. It was God's ; and He gave it to His people.
The first halt of Jacob mentioned was at Bethel.
" On the hard ground he lay down for rest, and in the visions
of the night the rough stones formed themselves into a vast stair
case, reaching into the depth of the wide and open sky, which,
without any interruption of tent or tree, was stretched over the
sleeper's head." — p. 59.
Could Dr. Stanley be in earnest when he wrote this ? It
certainly never occurred to me, when I was at Bethel, neither
does it now, while I am looking at the sketch I took near 'Ain
Yebriid, that the stones and rocks lying about could ever be
made into " a vast staircase reaching into the depth of the wide
and open sky." It must be a dream indeed, not of Jacob, but
of Dean Stanley. There is not, anywhere near there what may
be called ' a rock' of any height. The ground is, indeed, rocky ;
as much like some parts of Cornwall as rocks of transition or of
secondary formation can be like primitive ground of that kind ;
but there is not any where near, a single rock even like that of

III. P. 60.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 171
Selah, which stands on the right, going from Michmash to
Anathoth. The ascent or descent of such a staircase as Dr.
Stanley makes out would have been very difficult indeed ; even
for angels.
III. Also the stone set up by Jacob, was not, as Dr. Stanley
insinuates, at p. 60, a building to be compared with "the walls
of Tyrins, or with a cromlech of Wales or of Cornwall." It
was a single stone, and that too, not a very large one, since he
had used it for a pillow ; it must have been a stone somewhat like
the stone " Samuel set up between Mizpeh and Shen, which he
called Eben-ezer," 1 Sam. vii. 12 ; it was, and could have been
no ' building ;n assuredly not like the walls of Tyrins I saw
and sketched, in which the stones are roughly cut to fit, very
much as in the walls of Volterra? ; leastways like a cromlech of
Wales or of Brittany, most of which were made up of stones too
large for one man to rear. Of all existing monuments I saw
that combine Nature with the most primitive workmanship, are
the ' Hdjar-Cham/ or ' Qima/ already mentioned at Malta.
They are real cromlechs2 that deserve all the attentive study of
men fond of antiquity.
IV. The whole of this paragraph pp. 60, 61, is worth read
ing; albeit Dr. Stanley, while speaking of Bethel, gives his
readers no details respecting the Phoenician /3«rruAia, xlSoug
eptyuxovg, ' animated stones/ wrought out by the god Ougavdg,
Uranus.3 These stones f3atTouXta or tSatTuXta, according to Da-
mascius, were seen in numbers by Asclepiades on Mount Liba-
nus, as well as by Isidorus.4 The account given by Damascius,
1 Whatever might have been ' the altar' Jacob built there afterwards, Gen.
xxxv. 3.
2 ' Crom,' bending in worship, ' leach,' stone ; i.q. ' hadjar,' stone, ' hdjar,'
stones, ' qima,' (of) worship.
3 Sanchon. p. 30, ed. Orell.
4 He probably alludes to the Phoenician legend in adding iepa yevea xaff
4ctuT?y Sie'fij filav 8eo<pi\TJ Kal evSalfiova, " that this sacred race of animated stones
led by itself a happy and religious life," (Damasc. vit. Isid. Ap. Phot. Bibl. p.
1049.) They are, however, of an erratic nature ; for Damascius says he once
saw, rbv PairtXiov Sia toO acpos Kivoijxevov, the Bsetulion that moved through
the air, carried by a physician, whose name was Eusebius, and who, when one
night he felt a sudden impulse to go out of Emesa towards the mountain — he
saw a globe of fire fall from heaven — he ran to it, to put out the fire, «al kgsto-
Xafie'iv airiiv oiaav rbv fiairiXtov, and he took it, and lo, it was a Bxtulion,

172 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
however, by no means settles the case of the Bsetulia ; for others
make them to have been square stones representing the world,
which of old was thought to be of that shape.1
From Bethel Jacob went on towards Haran, the city of Nahor.
The simple narrative of Scripture brings fresh to my memory
many scenes I witnessed when in Mesopotamia, and this side
' the River.' As, e.g., the large stones which in certain parts of
Syria, as at Dara near Aleppo, cover the mouth of wells, and
which are as spherical as rough hewing can make them, so as
to be 'rolled away/ (Gen. xxix. 2, 3,) though not by" one man;
for they are too heavy ; this being intended as a security against
water being stolen and strange flocks watered ; for whereas it
might often so happen if one individual alone could remove the
stone, it is less likely to be done when it requires several men
to help one another. I am also reminded of " Rachel coming
with her father's sheep," (Ib. v. 6,) by a sketch made on the
spot of the sheikh's daughter feeding her father's sheep, with
the well at which Eliezer tarried and the ruins of the city of
Nahor in the distance, — touches of Truth that tell more than
volumes of description. And, besides the figure of El-khalil, I
may fix on- some other sons of that desert as fit representatives
of Bethuel, of Laban, of Laban's shepherds with their flocks,
around the well's mouth or abroad on the plain. One sees ever
and anon, in that land, Laban with Jacob, and Jacob with Leah
and with Rachel, not only at Haran, but starting with his
camels and numerous herds and flocks lowing and bleeting, in
different to the bustle of the men who strike the tents, put
them up and lade the camels with them. Jacob's interview with
Esau is being acted every day in that country ; and the excite-
and he asked it of what god it was, and it replied, of the god Gennseus of Helio-
polis. He then describes it as a globe, whitish, about a span in diameter, more
or less, and sometimes reddish, &c. Kal ypd/xpiara av4Sei£ev ri/uv 4v rip \i$tp
yeypap.ii.lva, on which he showed us letters written. When he inquired of it
the stone gave an oracle — which he considers divine, but Isidorus thinks it
rather of the demon order. Elvai ydp riva Sai/iova, rbv Kivovvra abr6v. For it
must be some demon that sets it going, and Eusebius says that some Bsetulia
belong to certain gods as to Saturn, to Jupiter, to the Sun, and other such stones
belong to other gods." (Damasc. ibid. p. 1062, 1063.)
1 See Nork, Bibl. Mythol. p. 345—348, for his account of Jacob's ladder;
and in general, for a marvellous explanation of what he calls ' Biblical Mytho
logy.'

III. P. 60.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 173
ment produced in the camp, by the news that a hostile band is
at hand, is amusing when not carried too far.
It so happened to a friend of mine and to myself when among
the hills of Gilead, on our return from Rabbath Ammon; a
horseman arrived at full speed during the night of one of the
most fearful storms I ever experienced bringing the tidings that
a tribe with which my hosts were not on friendly terms was in
the neighbourhood. At dawn a council of war was held — a
most picturesque scene and among scenery then seldom visited
— a hundred horsemen were sent in one direction, and the
sheikh of the tribe under whose protection we had placed our
selves, took us by another way than he at first intended, to the
steep banks of the Jabbok, which we forded at what I must call
' Mahanajim/ i.e. two camps of a few black Arab tents that
were there on either side the torrent. A march of an hour or
two then brought us to the ruins of Djerash (Gerasa) which are
said to be more extensive and better worth visiting though less
interesting than those of Palmyra ; but these relics of Roman
art and splendour were as nothing, compared with the beauty
of the forests of Bashan and of the fine oaks, aged sons of
the earth in that land — among which we journeyed for a whole
day on our way to Gadara, the Jordan, Bethshan, and to Mount
Gilboah. I thought of Jacob, of his troops, and of his meeting with
Esau, every moment of the days we spent between the heights
of Gilead, the downs of Ammon, and the ford of the Jabbok.
The women looked like Leah, Rachel, and Deborah; the men
too, must have been the picture of Esau — wild-looking, dark
and shaggy, djerid in hand, flashing light from their piercing
eyes that whirled hither and thither from under their kafieh,
with long tresses of jet black hair they often wear, like women,
on each side the face — Samson's locks, probably, (Judg. xvi. 14,)
giving them a fierce and very remarkable appearance ; though
rough, yet harmless, civil and trustworthy if you place yourself
at their mercy, and converse with them yourself; but very much
the reverse if you do not, and if you hold intercourse with them
through an interpreter ; then hope for nothing, and trust them
in nothing. I travelled in the length and breadth of the land
with no other weapon than my pocket-knife ; I never took es-

174 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
corts but from among themselves, I went where I liked, and,
as independent as a patriarch, I pitched my tent and tarried at
pleasure where I listed ; and from ' Dan to Beersheba' I never
lost a thing, but on the contrary, I met every where with the
greatest civility ; most of all at Samaria itself, where, I was told
before I went, I should be murdered. I had interviews with
many an Esau ; but being myself a ' plain man/ dwelling in a
tent, and my servants like Jacob at Bethel, in the open air, we
always parted good friends — possibly, I own, because they judged
from my mode of travelling — the only one enjoyable — that I
was not a prize worth having.
Jacob's journey to Haran and his return thence through
the desert and the hills of Gilead to Salem or Salim, not far
from the banks of the Jordan, and thence again to Shechem,
Bethel, Hebron, and yet further south, become a reality for
such as have visited that ' Holy Land/ as they ought to visit
it, with their heart interested in it, their mind alive and their
eyes open — and themselves able to hold intercourse with their
hosts in their own tongue. For travelling among men with
whom you can hold no communication, is like visiting a gallery
of statues. This is often an advantage, I admit, when travelling
in Europe ; but it is a very great loss in the Land of all Lands,
the one best worth visiting ; where at almost every step you are
reminded of some incident in the Book you ought to love best ;
if so be you travel with intelligence and with a devout mind.
V. I feel satisfied, after having seen the patriarchal sepulchres
of Oorfa and others in the neighbourhood of Tyre, and beyond
Jordan at Heshban, that I have a far more correct idea of what
the cave of Machphelah must either have been or at present be,
than travellers who, having been at Hebron, did not after all
see it. Judging then from the conformation of those sepulchral
caves, several groundplans of which I have by me, Dr. Stanley
may, I think, be right in understanding Gen. 1. 5, "the grave
which I have digged for me in the land of Canaan," to mean
" ' the cell' that Jacob had digged for himself in the primitive
sepulchre of his fathers," p. 74. It is, however, very possible,
and even probable, that these words of Joseph to Pharaoh, espe
cially when compared with ch. xlvii. 29, may simply be an
Egyptian idiom. An Egyptian of Joseph's rank at the court of

IV. P. 76.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 175
Pharaoh, would naturally speak of ' hewing' or ' digging a cave
for himself/ as the wont of great and wealthy men was who
during their lifetime prepared for themselves the sumptuous
abodes, where their bodies were to rest in state until the final
transmigration of their souls.1
The procession which went with Joseph to Hebron is also
thoroughly Egyptian. It was doubtless a testimony of respect
on the part of the Egyptians, if not to Jacob himself, at least to
him as father of so great a man as Joseph. But this host was
also intended as a safeguard against the Hittites, and against
also, perhaps, the Amalekites, with which Egypt must have been
at war then, as it was at most other times; if not, the caravan
would have taken the shortest and best route, " by the way of
the land of the Philistines,"2 and not, as it did, partly by the
way Moses led the children of Israel eastward of the Dead Sea.
This route taken by Joseph, is by no means free from difficul
ties ; or rather, uncertainties, which shall never be cleared unless
some Egyptian authentic Papyrus, not yet discovered, and bear
ing on the subject, be brought to light.

LECTURE IV.— ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
I. "The appearance of Joseph in Egypt," says the Dean of
Westminster," is the first distinct point of contact between sacred and secular
history, and it is, accordingly, not surprising that in later times
this part of his story should have become the basis of innumerable
fancies and traditions outside the limits of Biblical narrative. The
feud of the modern Samaritans and Jews is carried up by them to
the feud between Joseph and his brethren." — p. 76.
Dr. Stanley quotes Dr. Wolff as his authority in this case.
It is doubtless correct, since the Samaritans claimed Jacob for
their father, (S. John iv. 12,) reckoned themselves of the tribe
of Ephraim, and have the sepulchre of Joseph and his portion
1 Diod. Sic. Lib. i. 91 ; Herod. Lib. ii. 148, sq, 2 Ex. xiii. 17.

176 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
of land among them; I can, however, find no allusion to this
statement in the authorities I have at hand.
II. Dr. Stanley further says :
" The history of Joseph and Asenath is to this day one of the
canonical books of the Church of Armenia."
This is again one of those statements that show Dr. Stanley's
carelessness about his authorities. Suspecting he might have
mentioned the subject in his Lectures on the Eastern Church,
I borrowed the book, and, accordingly, I found at p. 8 :
" Their (the Armenians') canonical Scriptures include two books
in the Old and two in the New Testament acknowledged by no
other Church ; the history of Joseph and Asenath, the Testament
of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Epistle of the Corinthians to S. Paul,
and the third Epistle of 8. Paul to the Corinthians,"
where " Curzon's Armenia, 225," is given as Dr. Stanley's
authority. It is, however, far from satisfactory. A writer who,
like Mr. Curzon, publishes a list of birds so full of mistakes as
he does at p. 150 of his work on Armenia,1 shows, at least, that
he cannot be very particular in ascertaining the truth of what
he states ; since, in a list of 176 birds of Armenia, there are no
less than 47 mistakes.2
III. The canonicity of a Book that rests upon a statement
twice endorsed by a Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History
at Oxford, is of sufficient importance to justify my giving in full
his authority for so doing.
"Among the Armenians," says Mr. Curzon, p. 225, " the Holy
Scriptures contain more books than those of the Western Churches.
1 Murray, 1854.
! To say nothing of such errors as " Insepores" for ' Incessores ;' " Palme-
pedes" for ' Palmipedes ;' " Deutirostres" for ' Dentirostres ;' " aquila fulvus"
for ' fulva,' &c, that betray great ignorance of even the rudiments of Latin.
But, such names as " F. Osalon" for ' F. CEsalon ;' " great strike, red-backed
strike, small Btrike," for ' great shrike,' &c. ; " curruca cineria" for ' C. cinerea ;'
"Phoen. tilkys" for ' Phoen. tithys ;' "Phoen. succica" for ' Phoen. suecica ;'
"Troglod. eusopaeus" for ' Troglod. europceus ;' "Lin. montulm" for 'Lin.
montium ;' "Corv. frugeleus" for ' Corv. frugilegus ;' " GSdienenuus" for
'. ffidicnemus ;' " Lim. melanolensa" for ' Lim. melanoleuca ;' " A. albifrous"
for ' A. albifrons,' &c, not only shake one's confidence in other things found in
the book, but also show how books are got up for the season and for the public.

IV. P. 76.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 1 77
In the Old Testament, after the Book of Genesis, occurs the
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the sons of Jacob ; then the
History of Joseph and his wife Asenath," &c. — " The Testament
of the Twelve Patriarchs, is well known ; but I am not aware that
the Book of Asenath has been printed in any European language.1
This curious book was translated into Italian, from an ancient
Armenian manuscript of the Bible in my possession, by an Ar
menian friend, and translated from the Italian into English by
myself : this I presume to be the only copy of the Book of Ase
nath in the English language. It is a work of considerable length
and is interesting, not only from the place it holds in the estima
tion of a numerous body of Christians, but also from the picture
it presents of the manners and customs of Egypt, at some remote
period when it was written," &c.
This is, indeed, a very slender foundation upon which to rest
the canonicity of any Book. We must, however, do Mr. Curzon
the justice to see that he does not say the Book is held for
'canonical;' but simply that the Holy Scriptures of the Ar
menian Church " contain more books" than those of the Western
Church. The canonicity of the book rests on Dr. Stanley's
construction of Mr. Curzon's statement. Dr. Stanley must,
therefore, also on the same principle, hold the Epistle of Bar
nabas, Hermas, &c, for canonical, since they are sometimes found
added to the canon of Scripture ; as e.g. in the Sinaitic MS.
At this rate the canon of Scripture may evidently be enlarged
almost to any extent.
But the history of 'Joseph and Asenath/ forms no part of the
Canon of the Armenian Scriptures. It is not even mentioned
either in the list of Canonical Books prefixed to the standard
and critical edition of the Armenian Bible printed by the Mechi-
tarists at Venice in 1805, for which the very best MSS. — thirty
in number for the New Testament — were used, or in the pre
face to it, in which the books are mentioned in detail, and rea
sons given for rejecting ' the Book of Sirach/ although it forms
a part of the Greek Scriptures. Neither is ' Joseph and Asenath'
alluded to in the edition of the Armenian Bible published in
1 Mr. Curzon may be forgiven for not knowing that the Book of Joseph and
Asenath is given in Greek and in Latin in Fabricii Cod. Pseudep. Vet. Test.
Vol. ii. p. 85—102; and Vol. i. p. 774—784. But we might expect Dr.
Stanley to have alluded to the fact. N

178

PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ?

[lect.

1817 at S. Petersburg under the patronage of S. Ephrem of
Estchmiadzin, Catholicos of all Armenia ; as the order of the
Books differs in each list, I give them both.

Venice

, 1805.

S. Petersburg, 18H

The Books of the Old Testament.

Genesis.

Genesis.

Exodus.

Exodus.

Leviticus.

Leviticus.
Numbers.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua.
Joshua.
Judges.
Judges.
Ruth.
Ruth.
Book of Kings
I.
Book of Kings I.
» »
II.
„ n.
» »
III.
,, ni.
» J)
IV.
>, iv.
„ Chronicles I.
„ Chronicles I.
» >!
n.
» n.
Ezra I.
Ezra I.
„ n. .
„ II.
Nehemiah.
„ III. (Nehem.)
Esther.
Tobith.
Judith.
Judith.
Tobith.
Esther.
Book of Maccabees I.
Book of Maccabees I.
» >»
n.
» n.
» "
in.
in.
Psalms.
Job.
Proverbs.
Psalms.
Ecclesiastes.
Proverbs.
Song of Songs.
Ecclesiastes.
Wisdom of Solomon.
Song of Songs.
Job.
Wisdom.
Isaiah.
Ecclesiasticus, or Sirach.
Hosea.
Isaiah.
Amos.
Jeremiah.
Micah.
His Lamentations.
Joel.
Baruch.
Obadiah.
Ezekiel.
Jonah.
Daniel.
iv. p. 76.]

PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ?

179

Nahum.

Hosea.

Habakkuls

Joel.

Zephaniah

Amos.

Haggai.

Obadiah.
Zechariah.
Jonah.
Malachi.
Micah.
Jeremiah.
Nahum.
Baruch.
Habakkuk.
Lamentations of Jeremiah.
Zephaniah.
Daniel.
Haggai.
Ezekiel.
Zechariah. Malachi.
Prayer of Manasseh.
Ezra IV.
The Books of the New Testament.
S. Matthew.
S. Matthew.
S. Mark.
S. Mark.
S. Luke.
S. Luke.
S. John.
S. John.
The Acts
The Acts.
Ep. of S.
James.
Ep. to the Romans.
„ S.
Peter I.
„ Corinthians I.
., II-
» II-
" s.
John I.
„ Galatians.
„ II.
„ Ephesians.
„ III.
„ Philippians. ¦
„ S, Jude.
„ Colossians.
Ep. to the Romans.
„ Thessalonians I.
»
Corinthians I.
II-
)7
II.
„ Timothy I.
»
Galatians.
» H.
S)
Ephesians.
„ Titus.
J)
Philippians.
„ Philemon.
J)
Colossians.
„ Hebrews.
»
Thessalonians I.
Ep. of S. James.
»
II.
„ S. Peter I.
))
Hebrews.
,. H.
J>
Timothy I.
„ S. John I.
))
„ II.
» II-
»
Titus.
„ HI.
77
Philemon.
„ S. Jude.
Revelation of S. John.
Revelation of S. John
N 2
180 philosophy, or truth ? [lect.
Venice, 1805.
Additional Books.
Sirach. Words of Sirach.
Ezra III.
Prayer of Manasseh.
Ep. of the Corinthians to S. Paul.
Rest (death) of S. John.
Supplication of Euthal.
The Books called ' additional' in the Venice edition, are not
considered Canonical ; and at the end of the list in the S. Peters
burg copy there is a note stating that the whole of the Old
Testament consists of forty-eight books, of which three, viz.
Ezra i. and iv., and Maccab. iii., are outside the Canon.1
Seeing how much the two standard editions of the Armenian
Scriptures vary in the list of their Canonical Books, and that-
neither one nor the other even mentions the history of ' Joseph
and Asenath/ whether as Canonical or as Apocryphal, the fact
of its being placed after Genesis in Mr. Curzon's MS. copy can
have no weight whatever, unless we know of what age is that
MS., and by whom revised and sanctioned. I should, there
fore, on this ground alone, consider the evidence conclusive
against the canonicity of ' Joseph and Asenath.' Yet, in order
to get at the truth — worth obtaining at any price — I wrote to
the Archbishop Hormuz, General Superintendent of the Mechi-
tarists of S. Lazarus at Venice, for further information respect
ing the canonicity of 'Joseph and Asenath.' He replied thus
through his secretary in a letter dated Venice, April 6th :
" L'Histoire de Joseph et d' Asenath n'a jamais ete rangee par
l'Eglise Armenienne dans les livres canoniques ; au contraire,
elle est connue comme une legende, dont on ne connait pas
meme le temps de la traduction." I wrote at the same time
to a friend of mine at Constantinople, an excellent Armenian
scholar, asking him to get me the best information he could on
1 The order of the Books in the Georgian Bible, Moscow, 1743, fol., is as
follows : The five Books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings I. II. III. IV.,
Chronicles I. II., Ezra I., Nehemiah, Ezra II. III., Tobith, Judith, Esther,
Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon,
Sirach, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Twelve Minor
Prophets, and Maccabees I. II. III. The order of the Books in the Slavonic
Bible, from which the Georgian list seems taken, is the same ; except that in it
Ezra III. is placed after the Maccabees.

IV. P. 76."] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 181
the subject. He writes in a letter dated Constantinople, April
16th : " I have made the inquiry which you requested in regard
to the Apocryphal books (Test, of the Twelve Patriarchs and
Joseph and Asenath) and in order to secure an answer from the
highest authority, I called on the Armenian Patriarch and di
rectly asked him whether they were regarded by the Armenian
Church as canonical books. He replied that they were not ; said
he had seen them in MS., but that they had never been printed."
This is, I trust, conclusive as to the claims of these two Books,
to a place in the Canon of Scripture of the Armenian Church.
But Dr. Stanley falls yet into another error, when he says,
that these "two Books of the Old Testament are acknowledged
by no other Church."1 The Syrian Church received ' Joseph
and Asenath' as much, or as little, as the Armenian Church ;
for among the Books of Ebed- Jesu, either of the Old Testament,
or about it, we find,2 *zia±* ja ii^^amo. 1Aj| AjJoIj tsAoo
" The Book of Asiath wife of Joseph the just, son of Jacob."3
Lastly, the original of this legend»ry tale of Joseph and of
Asenath, is probably the Greek of it given by Fabricius in Vol.
II. of his Codex Pseudepigraphus V. Test., to which Dr. Stanley
might have referred his hearers, both for this book and for the
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.* There they would find the
particulars of the day of Joseph's marriage, and of Asenath's
disposition and appearance, &c. She was in no respect like
Egyptian women ; but altogether like Hebrew ones : fj.eyaXr)
ouo-a £05 Xapa, xa) wga'ta dig 'Pep-fSexa, xa) xaXr) w; ' Pax^X, " tall
as Sarah, fair as Rebekah, and as handsome as Rachel."5
IV. Not more certain than this canonicity of ' Joseph and Ase
nath,' is Dr. Stanley's opinion, that —
" To the description of the loves of Joseph and Zuleika in the Koran,
Mahomet appealed as one of the chief proofs of his inspiration."
1 Lect. on the Eastern Church, p. 8. I have looked in vain in Dr. Stan
ley's work for an account of the Georgian Church. Can he have overlooked
it ? I hope shortly to publish a translation from the Russian of the history of
that Church. That translation is now nearly finished.
2 Assem. B. Or. Vol. iii. p. 7.
3 On which Asseman says: " Hujus libri quem Sobensis Josepho tribuit,.
nemo veterum meminit : nee quale fuerit opus, divinare possumus, quum nulla
id Bibliotheca, quod sciam, reprsesentet. Suspicor, historiam esse originis ges-
torumque Asenethae uxoris Josephi filii Jacob Patriarchse, ex fabulosis Judaeorum
narratiunculis consarcinatam, Flavioque Josepho, aut certe Gorionidi tributam."
4 As well as for the history of Melchizedek. 5 Vol. ii, p. 86.

182 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
I wish Dr. Stanley had stated his authority for this ; inas
much as I can find no traces of it. Sura XII. of the Coran is
called tJ-yj *.»-> " The Sura of Joseph," because in it is related
what Mahomet calls uaat\\ .....^ " the best of stories," the
history of Joseph told after Mahomet's own fashion, which
he received in the revelation of the Coran. In the whole
of that Sura, the name of Zuleikha LssjJj 1S not once men_
tioned ; neither can I find it any where else in the Coran. It
is, I believe, a name of Persian origin, become celebrated through
the poems of Nazami and of Jami. Zuleikha is, indeed, said
by the Persian author of the Borhan-i-qate', s.v. to have been
jo** jjic wj "the wife of 'Aziz of Egypt;" but the Arabic
historian Abulfeda1 who tells us that this 'Aziz who bought
Joseph was the intendent of the public granaries, calls his wife
JjUiU 'Ra'el/2 and says that Ra'el -wjj „-c <0'^Wj <&*&
showed an unlawful passion for Joseph, whose innocence was
proved in the end ; and he was put into the office which 'Aziz .
held. Mahomet, however, does not draw from this story a
greater proof of his inspiration than from that of Abraham, of
Noah, or of our Lord Himself; he simply says that in the
Book revealed to him the story he tells is found. As we believe
our history of Joseph because it is found in the Bible, and do
not believe the Bible because it tells us of Joseph, so Mahomet
laid higher claims than that to his inspiration. He never for
gets to tell us that he received it from the angel Gabriel and
from God Himself;3 in a tissue of falsehoods which are loath
some to read, although written in a magnificent tongue.
V. Speaking of Egypt, p. 77, Dr. Stanley has this note : —
" The Biblical names of Egypt are Misraim (possibly from the
two banks, or the upper and lower districts) and Ham (dark).
Traces of both remain — the one in the Arabic name of Cairo
Misr : the other in the word ' alchemy,' * chemistry,' as derived
from the medical fame of ancient Egypt."
There are in the Bible two more names for Egypt, Ti¥D
and, possibly, 3IT1 Ps. lxxxvii. 4, lxxxix. 11, Is. Ii. 9.4 T1¥D
» Hist. A. I. p. 28. * Not ' Rachel,' Jj^.
3 Sur. xxxv. and liii., &c.
4 According to Bochart, Phaleg. col. 259, ed. Leyd., who trusting to a Greek

IV. P. 77.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 183
the name of Egypt, occurs in 2 Kings xix. 24, Is. xxxvii. 25,
xix. 6, &C1 The etymology is uncertain and the meaning is
therefore doubtful. It may allude to the division of Upper and
of Lower Egypt, constantly mentioned even in some of the oldest
monuments of Egypt. But Upper Egypt in Hebrew is D11112
Pathros, nAOOTf pHC, ' the land of the south wind ;' and we
can hardly suppose the dual of the Hebrew term D^VP to refer
to the two banks of the Nile, inasmuch as in Lower Egypt which
was the real D^VP, there would have been ten or fourteen
such banks, two to every one of the five or of the seven branches
of the Nile, every one of which is a "|K\2
But ' Ham/ DHI, does not mean ' dark/ as Dr. Stanley says.
It only means ' hot.' The native name for Egypt was KAJtXG,
^X/£JUie, with the symbol of a crocodile's tail, the meaning of
which is ' dark/ in allusion to the colour, fj.eXag, of the soil of
Egypt ; hence called by Plutarch Xr^fda, of the colour of the
pupil of Egyptian eyes.3 It is therefore very possible that the
two terms DH and K4JUL6 or X**-**-6 might have been
mixed up together, from the similarity of sound.4
etymology for the nome "ABpi&is in Lower Egypt, will connect ' Rahab' with it,
and will find in ' Athribis' the Coptic P,R-& Dlfll. and in DL&.I, arn, which
he renders ' pear,' — the shape of Lower Egypt ; he also sees in the Arabic
<_ flJ ij, ' "' ') — a name of Egypt. All this erudite structure, however, falls to
the ground from the simple fact, that there is no word in Coptic like DI.S.I
for ' pear.' And the etymology pH-OYA.fi. for ' sacred' to the sun' offered
by Forster (in Jablonski Opp. vol. i. p. 228) is against the rules of the Coptic
language ; for it means ' sacred sun,' and not ' sacred to the sun.' But ' Athribis'
comes from the goddess ' Athor,' whose name is coupled with the standard of
the Athribite nome. (Brugsch. Geog. Denkm. i. p. 250.) So that 2rft for Egypt
must be looked for elsewhere.
1 It is by some derived from "fi2 and from fa, ' to fortify,' and ' to restrain
or confine ;' and by others from 120, so as to make "fen, n2n, b'San ; for the
dual of 1129 from "112, or from -ns must be crpa and not Enza.
2 This is not the place for more particulars than to refer the student chiefly
to Rodiger's art. am in Gesen. Thes. L. S. ; to Bochart, I.e., to Gesenius in v.
Dyi2D, to J. D. Michaelis' De nnso ^Egypto Grammatica ; Spicil. Geog. Pt. I.
p. 157, and to Reland's Patest. p. 62, sq.
5 De Is. et Osir. par. 33, p. 58, ed. Parth.
4 Hence, perhaps, xhp*ta, iepct rexvi) r\ rod apyipov Kal xpfoov Karao-Kevfi
Suidas s.v. — 'Apxyfdu ; non larb rSv. xvP-"" % X^driev ; potiiis a xin i-l-
xdo-Kovffa ; vel a x*M vel Xlpm propheta artis apud ^Egyptios ? (Vide sis celeb.

184 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? f_LECT.
VI. In describing the officers of Pharaoh's court at p. 78,
Dr. Stanley mentions the ' chief of the gaol/ whereon he says in
a note : —
" ' Chief of the round tower' or * castle ;' hence * chief of the
gaol."' It is not surprising that Dr. Stanley should here, again, fall
into error on the proper rendering of a Hebrew term; but
* round tower' for ""HlDll JV3 in Gen. xl. is bad grammar ;
even if "IPJD were an adjective, and not, as it is, a noun for
' tower/ ' castle/ ' round building/ — ' round house' would not
be "IliDn 1T3, but ")PJ& JT3, and ' the round house' would
be IliDn JV3i"7. For the description of Hebrew ' adjectives'
through a noun in construction with another, thus, EHpri J"^3,
'house of holiness/ i.e., 'holy house/ is, to say the least, a
clumsy contrivance to bend the genius of Shemitic construction
to Western ideas; for 'house of holiness' and 'holy house'
differ. Here, then, inDPT J"P3 can only mean the 'house' or
' place of the tower' or of the ' castle ;' if so be "lHD is a He
brew term. For A. Ezra says, I.e., UHpn pB^ N1PJ DK iHl *6
D"H¥0 ptf7 1& " it is not known whether this be a Hebrew
or an Egyptian word."1 But, whatever be the case as regards
Salmasium in Qusest. Plin. in Solinum, p. 772, sq., et Bochartum, Phaleg. col.
206, sq.) If it come from xui""^) tAcki), it must be written ' eAymistry,' and
it has nothing to do with colour, but only with the pouring out of juices ; if,
however, it come from the Egyptian word, it must be written ' cAemistry,' and
means 'the black art.' But why? These are interesting questions which it
would be foreign to my purpose further to discuss at present.
1 The Egyptian etymology, however, offered by Jablonski (vol. i. p. 321)
such as CUUItP,£.p.6P,> which is contrary to all rules and neither Coptic
nor Egyptian, is rightly condemned by J. D. Michaelis who says : " Verum
htec sors, hie morbus philologorum est quo minus linguae notum sit, eo plus
et audacius etymologise indulgeant;" for the Coptic has indeed suffered at
the hands both of men who knew it not, and of others who, even now-a-
days, make it answer every purpose of the most ungrammatical etymologies.
Without affirming that "Vp be an Egyptian term, it is impossible not to com
pare the words that follow Tterj viz. WtiDN 'qtert '"VDN-WSn tfpa "the place
where the king's captives were bound," added, it seems, by way of explanation
— with C*X!p and CP,D> frequent expressions in Egyptian. Speaking of

IV. P. 78.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 185
the etymology of Itlb, we see that JT3 is construed with it,
exactly as it is with D13H, TJPH, tlje vineyard, the forest, &c,
in ly'n'iT'S, ' the house of the forest or wood/ not the ' wood-
house' ; the ' house of the vineyard/ not the ' vine-house/ &c.
"inDil ITS, therefore, must be rendered 'the house of the
tower/ or the ' castle/ and not " the round house."
VII. Dr. Stanley, I am happy to say, does not, like V. Bohlen,
attempt to deny the authenticity of the chief butler's dream, as
being opposed to a disputed passage of Herodotus respecting
the existence of the vine in Egypt; but he mentions "the
vintage" as it is seen represented on the walls of several tombs
in Upper and in Lower Egypt.
VIII. In speaking of the "peculiar Hebrew name" for the
Nile, however, he says : —
" ' lor' and ' Sichor' {Sinai and Palestine, Appendix, § 36.) In
Egyptian it was ' hapi-mu,' the genius (Apis) of the waters (mu.y
The word 'Nile' is derived from an Egyptian word signifying
'blue.' Wilkinson, v. 57 ; Sharpe, 145."
Before I examine Dr. Stanley's statement, let me vindicate
Sir G. Wilkinson from an oversight he is too learned to com
mit. There is no 'Egyptian' word, as Dr. Stanley says, but
there is a Sanscrit one, ' nilas/ that means ' blue.' Accordingly,
Sir G. Wilkinson1 says : —
the enemies of the Sun or of Osiris, we read in the Ritual of the Dead, ch. xix.
1. 13, i.OT 3CCrT-OTq lift JQp C^p, ' and then all his enemies
(were) smitten down,' with the determinative of a man thrown down like a
prispner of war ; so that, whether we take C*X"P to ")e one term> (as Mr.
Chabas does, MS. Harris, Glossary s.v. and p. 21, 34, &c.) or to be 'Y'P
with the causative c prefixed— reading "XP C3GP in tue idiomatic way of
rin M — CP,p may be akin to "rt) and TlD to C*X]P' a captive, a prisoner, or
an enemy defeated and taken prisoner. See for CP.p. ' abigere,' with the de
terminative of a man condemned to death, &c, De Rouge's Et. d'une Stele, pp.
17, 18, 106, 107, &c. But I mention this only as a coincidence which may
deserve attention. The same expression, and others akin to it, occur in Ritual
ch. xv. 1. 35, xix. 1. 6, xxx. 1. 4, &c, and MS. Harris, p. i., 1. 3, 11, ii. 1. 9, &c.
1 Anc. Egypt, 2nd Series, Vol. ii. p. 57.

186 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
" It is remarkable that the name Nilus accords so aptly with
the colour given him by the Egyptian artists. Nil, or neel, is the
word which still signifies blue in many Eastern languages. The
2Va7ghaut, or ' blue mountains ;' the 2Vi7ab, or ' blue river,' applied
to the Indus ; neeleh, the name of indigo in Egypt and in other
countries — suffice to show the general use of this word ; and its
application to the river of Egypt was consistent with the custom
of calling those large rivers blue, which from the depth of the
water frequently appear of that colour."
The name ' Nile' is, and must be, foreign, for it is never
called thus either in Coptic or in Egyptian ; a fact that shows
how vain are Jablonski's, and, after him, Champollion's1 efforts
to derive it from the Coptic rtei — A.XHI "certo et determinato
tempore adscendens;" seeing a name is not likely to be derived
from a language in which it never occurs.
IX. There are three foreign etymologies for NeiXo; : the Greek,
proposed by Herodotus and Diodorus Sic, derived from an
Egyptian king of that name; which is very improbable, seeing
NeiXog is not an Egyptian name. There is yet another, given
by Tzetzes,2 Tp'tTwv, b NslXo;, oti Tg); fj.sTWVop.dco-6rl. wpoTepov yap
'ilxeavbg av IxaXftTO' h-UTsgov ' ' AsTog, oti 6%emg lir'sppsure' Tgvrov
A'tyuirTog' to hi NeiXog vsov Iot»,3 sTUfMXoyoup.evov airb tou v'sav
xaraystv IXuv, xa) p£epo~o5f to ireXayog, yeyove NeiXo;, xara a-uvai-
pea-tv NeiXog x.t.X. " ' Triton' is the name given by Lycophron
to the Nile, because its name was changed three times. It was
first called ' Okeanos/ next 'AeTog, eagle, because of its rapid
stream ; then AlyuirTog, Egypt, (masc.) But the term ' Nile' is
more modern ; derived as it is from its bringing down fresh mud,
and turning sea into land, it became Nsixo;, and by contraction
NeiXog."* The next etymology is the Sanscrit ' nilas/ ' dark blue/ ' black
1 Jabl. Panth. Mg. pt. ii. p. 157 ; Champ. Eg. sous les Phar. i. p. 136.
2 Ad Lycophron. Alex. 119, ed. Pott.
3 The name Nei\os is not mentioned in Homer ; but Hesiod (Theogon. 338)
says : — TriBbs I? Tllceavif Xlora/iobs reKe Stvi'jevras
NeiXdv t' ^AXfyeiAv re Kal 'HpiSavbv fiadvSlvriv.
4 Tzetzes, however, explains it a little differently at v. 576, and J. Lydus says
(De Mensib. iv. 68, ed. Creuz.) that 'l\as was Svop.a r$ NelXa irp6repov, then
AXyimros, Xpvaop'p'das, and lastly, NfiXos, from a king of that name.

IV. P. 78.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 187
blue ;' but I leave others to derive ' Nile' from ' nilas/ Egypt
from 'agupta-s,' and, as do Hitzig and other German scholars
of the present day, a host of Phoenician and other Shemitic
names, from the Sanscrit. Once it was the fashion to make
Hebrew the mother of Latin, of course of Greek, and even of
Anglo-Saxon ; but that is naturally given up, and Sanscrit
now fulfils the office of Alma Mater to a very large family.
Her own children, however, are numerous enough, without her
being saddled with the responsibility of half the languages of
mankind. But etymologists, like all other ' ists/ will have their
hobby ; and, like all other hobbies, etymology is often ridden
very hard indeed.
The last foreign etymology offered for ' Nile' is, as we have
seen, the Hebrew 7H5, Nuchul, Nuhul, NeeX. But, seeing this
Hebrew term could not apply to the Nile in Lower Egypt, and
only by poetical licence, and under certain circumstances, to the
Nile in Upper Egypt, this etymology is not more satisfactory
than the others : so that we must be content to ignore it for the
present. As J. D. Michaelis says, speaking of D^"11?P> " non
multum ignorabo si id unum ignorem, unde nomen habeat."
X. Likewise *W] 'Ye' or/ 'lor/ is not "the peculiar He
brew name" for the Nile, as Dr. Stanley tells us, but it is the
Egyptian term for 'river/ adopted into the Hebrew language.
The word i.T"0"»p, £X)*rp, ' atur/ ' aur/ occurs in very old
Papyri, as, for instance, in the ancient fragments of the Ritual
of the Dead, in the Papyri d'Orbiney, Sallier, Anastasi, and
Harris, and on stone monuments. This £.OTp is the Sahidic
eiop, lop, whence "liT, and the Memphitic IA.po, and with
the article d>IA.po, " the River," xar' Ij-fop^v, the only name by
which "the River" is mentioned by Egyptians, from the old
kingdom to the litanies of the Coptic Church. Unless we hold
— but who would ? — that before the Hebrews had intercourse
with the Egyptians, ' the River' had no name in Egyptian, the
term "1^1 must be Egyptian, and not Hebrew.1 Its Egyptian
origin, however, is proved by the fact that in Hebrew l^1) is
1 Unless it be brought from the Vedic ' ir,' ' uru,' or from the Zend, ' yare' !

188 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
said only of 'the Nile/ and the plural DHk] only of the
branches of it, except in the Book of Daniel, where, for very
obvious reasons of custom, of time, and of place, several Egyptian
terms such as J^^IPIi WrUBrTJIi 1W, and others were
adopted by the author of that Book. And it is interesting to
see, from the common idiom of Egypt, how 'the river' was
identified with everything belonging to the people ; thus, e.g.,
2£II0p, lit. ' take the river/ means ' to cross' even the sea / and
with them IOJUL, ' sea/ and cpJOJUL, ' the sea/ were said not
only of the Northern Sea, but also of 'the river' when spread
over the land.2
XI. It was chiefly thus, as Parent of the Land, as the Maker
and Giver of Egypt, which was Iwpov tou Trorap-ou, " a gift of the
River,"3 that the Nile was worshipped by the Egyptians. He
was then styled g,£JlI-JU.UJOT or JULOT&.T, 'Hapi-mou' or
'muau/ from g^S-TO, to 'cover/ or 'covering/ and JULU5,
JUUUOY, or JU8.01fA.Tf, ' water.' As such he was said to be
1 As in Acts xxi. 2, &c.
2 As ifc] is the Egyptian (not the Hebrew) name of the Nile, so is ¦rtrpti,
lintf, and linfl, ' Sihor' or ' Shichor,' said by Rodiger (Thes. L. S. s. v. p. 1393)
to be the Hebrew for it. He derives it from irrai, ' black,' and connects it with
MeAos, Melo, &c, well-known epithets of the Nile. But (1) im? has other
meanings, e.g., ' to open,' ' burst,' &c. ; whence irrai, ' the dawn,' &c. (2.)
•flrroj, in Josh. xiii. 3, which Rodiger says means the Nile, as in Gen. xv. 18, is
given as the southern limit of the tribe of Judah, which Reland properly re
marks (albeit Rodiger overlooks it) never reached unto the Nile. 3. The autho
rity Rodiger adduces of the Arabic of Saadias rendering ¦firr-flS in Josh. xiii. 3, by
^a^i .JjJ ' Nile of Egypt,' must be compared with the Samaritan authorities
given (p. 129), which he also ignores. (4.) "vims, likewise, is said of the Belus,
near Aco, nja1) "rtrre, Josh. xix. 26, ' fluvius vitri,' " lente currens et limosus."
And (5) ' Sihor,' or ' Shichor' is by A. Ezra, Abarbanel, &c, always applied to
the ' torrent of Egypt,' at El-arish, &c. For more particulars compare Isa. xxiii.
3, Jer. ii. 18, Josh. xiii. 3, and 1 Chron. xiii. 5, and the commentators and Tar-
gums. One thing is clear, that it is not the exclusive name of the Nile, since it
is said of two other streams, Josh. xiii. 3, and xix. 26 ; and that it may be re
lated to the sense of ' bursting forth,' as torrents in the wilderness, as well as to
that of ' muddiness ;' especially as the Nile is muddy only during a portion of the
year. 3 Herod, ii. 5, 10 ; Strab. i. 29.

IV. P. 78.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 189
ItOTfrt, vouv, "the waters of the beginning," a/3ua-<roj / 2><LTtI-
JUtUJOTf-Tq IteTep-OT,2 'the covering water/ Hapi-moou,
'father of gods' (of certain gods only), such as frogs, fishes,
crocodiles, &c, and 'father of the gods' when identified with
Ra, the sun, and thus also with the worship of Osiris, who re
gulated its rise and overflow; qXAOY-Itq g^IU-JUU-OOT
JULIt JULi-T-OYq, " who, though unseen, yet gave orders to
Hapi-mou3 to go, spread abroad and fertilize the land." As
such, the Nile, 6 A'tyuirng, was worshipped as father in one
sense, and in another sense as husband of the land, r\ A'tyuirTog.
" What else is Egypt," asks Strabo,4 i) A"tyuirTog—irXr)v ^ iroTap-ia,
\v lirixXu^et to utiwp, " but the land on each side the River, which
the water overflows ?" 6 &sbg — $<*? A'tyuirrov shai Taurrjv ty)v b
Ns'tXog lirtwv aplst, " the god having declared that ' Egypt' is the
land which the Nile waters during the overflow."5
Therefore did they call to. ar^aTa t% uXrjg, the utmost borders
of the fertile soil, Ne$(iuv xa) TsXsuty]v, ' Nepthys' and ' the end ;'6
and thither repaired those who left the world, whether captives
to the quarries, or saints to their cells. One of these, living at
OJIHT", Shiet, near to the Natron lakes, and thus not far from
the cultivated soil, A.qJ&.U)K, "went," as we are told,? eKHJULG
ecu.I.S.'f" HOeiK, " into Egypt to exchange his stale bread for
new loaves." So true it is that, even to this day, Egypt proper
is physically that which is covered by the Nile during the over
flow ; and no more.
No wonder, then, if the Great Dragon, ?i^H D^fin,. the
Crocodile, which by a singular coincidence is called in Arabic
-c j ' Phra'un/ crouching among his rivers in Lower Egypt,
1 Horap. Lib.i. 21, ed. Leem.
2 Leps. Gotter Kr. p. 22, id. Vier Elem. p. 185, 207.
3 Ritual of the Dead, c. xvii. 1. 59. 4 Lib. i. u. 25.
5 Plut. de Is. et Os. c. 18. In the popular worship Hapi-mou was identified
with Osiris, and the land with Isis ; as Se NetXov 'OalpiSos hnrofyhofy, ovrms
"laiSos oSifm yrjv exovai Kal vofilfavai, " for as they look upon the Nile as flowing
from Osiris, so also do they call the land the body of Isis ; ov irairav iu' ^s b
NciAos eirifialvei' <rirepp.atvuv Kal p.iyvip.evos ; not the whole country, however,
but that only which the Nile overflows and fertilises." (Ib. c. 33.)
e Zoega Codd. Sahid. p. 310.
7 Plut. de Is. et Osir. c. 59.

190 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
should say, " My river is mine own, I have made it," alluding
to the canals he had dug;1 that the proud Ptolemies should re
ceive this boon of the River's overflow at the hand of their gods,
Ti-i «k ng^uu-JUioooTf orp p pjmne Tp-q,
"I (Chnuphis) grant thee, Ptolemy Euergetes, an abundant
Hapi-mou every year ;"2 and that to this day the people should
every year be told to pray for it on bended knees in the churches
of Egypt.3
XII. The popular worship of Egypt did connect, as we have
seen, the rise of Hapi-mou with Ra, the sun, or Osiris ; since the
rise of the River begins about the summer solstice, and falls
about the autumnal equinox. And the Egyptians chose among
the beasts of the land the kine, as living, every-day emblems of
their local worship. The bulls they consecrated, one to Ptah,
the other to Osiris, and the cows to Isis ; chiefly, however, in
Lower Egypt, where these animals and the green pastures on
which they feed are more common than in the Thebaid. Where
fore we find a bull on the standard of four nomes of Lower
Egypt, where Ki-KJUL, the ' Black Bull/ was as much honoured
as the eg,e-T Tttjp, the ' Red Cow/* that was also sacrificed
to Typhou ; while the hawk takes that place on the standards of
Upper Egypt. Even to this day the kine of ...j,^ Khais, in
the district of El-Hauf, near to Bilbeis and to Wadi Tumilat,5
' Ezek. xxix. 3, 9 ; xxviii. 2.
2 Champ. Gr. Eg. p. 398.
' Tcoftg, exe nxmjuiouji enajtui ftxe nn£.pujof
juuuuoot ^jert ta.1 pojmm o*.i frre n^c nermo-rf
cjulot epuooY rrreqenoT encgtoi * k«lt£. no-ran *
frreqi- jul nornoq jul ng,o juuiKi-g,! * rrrequLi.-
no-rajTert <£>£. mujHpi frre mpcojuu * frreqf
juifhrto&ejm. ft niTeftittJuo-in frreqx^- tteitrto&i
TL&.H e&oX. " Pray for the rise of the rivers of water (in) this year, that
Christ our God will bless them, and bring them up, according to their mea
sure ; that He will spread the joy they give all over the land ; that He will sup
port us and the children of men ; that He will save alive our cattle, and forgive
us our sins." (Miss. Copto-Ar. ed. Rom. p. 133.)
4 Rit. ch. 148 ; and 141,1. 17.
6 Possibly the Land of Goshen.

IV. P. 78.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 191
are celebrated as ,jlkj JjuW, ' the kine of Hauf/ for their
beauty and their fat. They are the living images of their pro
totypes, black, white, and red, painted on the walls of Prince
Mourhet's Tomb at the Pyramids / or on those of Menophre's,
where we have the fat kine marked as etU nqp, CTK niHIj
" good kine, king's houses, No. 43, 86," &c. ;2 or in those of
Menophth at Beni-hassan, where the pit 6U3 Itqp " name of
each good kine" is given.3
Throughout Lower Egypt especially Hapi-m5u was repre
sented and worshipped in the symbol of a bull, with special
rites as Hapi, or Apis, at Memphis ; and with other local differ
ences as Men, or Oer-meri, Mnevis, at On. The bull Apis was
styled &.T11 i.ttX-riU It TVT& CTIt « Te&ItCUOTfl tt&
ItTp, "Apis, the new life (incarnation) of Ptah, sovereign of
all cattle, divine ;"4 and ' Men, Oer meri/ Mnevis, had for his
distinctive epithet ^.It^-nJUl. It pi., ' Second or new life (in
carnation) of the Sun.'5 Whatever differences might at first
exist in the honours paid to these two bulls, owing to the sway
of Ptah at Memphis and to that of Atum or Osiris at On, they
had so many features in common, that, among the people espe
cially, these differences were by degrees lost in the practical,
popular worship of Hapi-mou connected with Osiris in the form
of a bull, and in that of the land, or Isis, in the form of a
cow.6 1 Osburn, Mon. Eg. vol. ii. p. 456.
2 Rosellini, Mon. Civ. vol. i. p. 243, sq. pi. xxvi.
3 Rosell. id. pi. xxxviii.
4 Brugsch. Mon. i. pi. ix. and p. 17.
s De Rouge, Etude d'une Stele, p. 65.
6 Thus we find worship paid to £.Cipl-£.ni> Osiris-Apis, (Brugsch. Mon.
i. pi. ix., Sir G. Wilk. 2nd Series Vol. iii. pi. 31,) who is also called K&.-K.AJL
' Bull of Egypt,' (Rit. of the D. c. cxlii. 1. 19,) as well as to Ptah-Sokaris-
Osiris, and to Osiris adorned with the Nilometer, the distinctive badge of
Ptah, (Sir G. Wilk. ib. pi. 23, 25, 33,) for ." most of the priests," says Plutarch,
els rb avr6 tpafft rbv "Oaipiv ffv/nreirXexBai Kal rbv^Airiv, il-riyoifievoi Kal SiSda-
Kovres Tip.as iis et/wpipov ehuya XP$ voptffiv rr)s 'Oolpttios tyvxris rbv TAiric,
" say that Osiris and Apis are woven into one, explaining and teaching us
thereby to consider Apis as a beautiful image of the soul of Osiris." (De Is. et
Osir. 29.)

192 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
The cows sacred to Isis were seven in number ; whether from
the number ' seven' being sacred, especially in Egypt, or from
the seven planets revolving round the sun, Ra, Osiris, Osiris-
Apis, or Hapi-(mou). It is impossible to follow all the details
of this worship, the broad features of which are very plain, — so
plain as to point out at once the object of Pharaoh's dream. But
I may be forgiven, perhaps, if I mention the delight, as well as
the surprise with which, in my study of the Ritual of the Dead, I
turned over the leaf that revealed to me Pharaoh's dream itself,
the seven sacred cows with the divine bull, from an original
drawing made, may be, before Pharaoh did dream of them.1 It
is, indeed, as I afterwards read in V. De Rouge's outline of the
Ritual,2 "une touche de couleur locale," a stroke of native
colouring ; a voice, assuredly from the dead, bearing witness, as
in the case of the vine and of other facts, to the Truth, to the
accuracy, and to the trustworthiness of the Sacred Text; and
despite all the garbled statements, all the mock scholarship, that
' free inquirers' bring to bear against it.
And it is no dead letter. There are the names of the seven
sacred cows (all of which I am not yet learned enough to read
safely), and the list of gifts of bread, haq, geese, &c, offered to
all the eight — T£--TIt, " given you," says the soul in trans
migration through the realms of Atum.3
The dreams Pharaoh dreamt were so thoroughly Egyptian in
all their particulars, as well as in their bearing, that they would
have had little or no significance for one who was not an
Egyptian. This might be an additional reason to make one
1 Dr. Stanley thus alludes to these cows in a note, p. 78, " There were seven
sacred cows in the Book of the Dead, c. 148."
2 p. 30.
8 Atum is thus addressed in behalf of that soul (Rit. ch. cxlviii. 1. 9,)
£.rrT-£,pK pi. irrp tict jut i-Trt-q i-itx ng,p jut
XP* a.ot -i-OTrqi-rvx •**-*- xoyt px prtK £.onr-q
PX OCT KeoTA. e&e-onr &«£. k*. «Lp t<l ta.-oy
(£,lt) 06IK (&It) £,K It ^ItX0"*-0"*- "Hail! *ou sun-God,
brilliant in his own orb, Life appearing on his mountain I this soul also (Aufanch
P. N.) declared just, knew thy name ; this soul knew the seven cows with the
Bull, to give them bread and haq, among the living."

IV. P. 79.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 193
doubt the commonly received opinion, mentioned by Syncellus,1
?ri sir) 'AQw<pewg r\p%ev 'Iwo-i)<p Ttjj A'tyuirrou, " that Joseph was
Ruler of Egypt in the days of Aphophis," that is, during the
Shepherd Dynasty. Yet, even if this Aphophis, or Apophis, be
the Apepj mentioned in the Papyrus Sallier as reigning at Auar
(Avaris) in the days of Ra-seqenen Tau-aa-qan, who worshipped
no other god but Set or Sutech, he might have imbibed Egyptian
notions and be well acquainted with Egyptian worship, seeing
he was the fourth king of his dynasty. Yet there are other
reasons in favour of the Pharaoh of Joseph not having been of
the Shepherd race ; and, after all that has been written on the
subject, all opinions for and against are little better than sur
mises ; so that we must wait for other documents than those
we possess ere we can speak of it with certainty.
XIII. In mentioning the seven years of famine (p. 79), Dr.
Stanley quotes Mr. Osburn's opinion that it was caused by the
bursting of an inland lake, of which he even gives a map,2 and to
which Orosius3 alludes, although not distinctly. The cause of a
famine, when it occurs in Egypt, is, we know, either the too
great or the too small elevation of the waters at the time of the
inundation: from fourteen to sixteen or eighteen cubits at
Cairo is the limit, beyond or below which the inundation cannot
take place without injury to the land and to the inhabitants.4
Therefore the famine foretold by Joseph must have been owing
to one or to the other of these, probably to the latter ; and all
other famines that have taken, or that will yet take place in
Egypt, must have the same cause ; from the first on record
under Ousertesen (or Usertesen) I., (not Sesortason I.), c.c.
2800 ? b.c. to the last famine heard of. But although the famine
itself was brought on by what are called ' natural causes/ yet the
foretelling of it was from God, to Whom Nature and all causes
obey. Orosius, following the opinion commonly received in his
day, tells us, " fuit itaque haec fames magna sub rege iEgypti-
orum Diapolita, cui nomen erat Amasis quo tempore Bakeus
Assyrios, Argivos Apis regebat,"5 very near the time of Ra-
seqenen Tau-aa-qan who defeated Apepj, during whose reign we
1 Chronogr. vol. i. p. 115, 204, ed. Dind.
a Monum. Eg. vol. ii. p. 133. 3 Hist. Lib. i. p. 13.
4 See Sir G. Wilk. Modern Eg. vol. i. p. 280—282. 5 Hist. Lib. i. p. 33.
0

194 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
have seen that Syncellus says all agree to think Joseph came to
Egypt. XIV. After describing Joseph's investiture with the golden
necklace — a ceremony which took place after every signal service
rendered by a man to the state, as, e.g., by Ahmes, who was re
warded seven times with it1 — with the golden ring and with the
state robe of fine linen, not necessarily white in the highest
officers of state,2 Dean Stanley continues —
" Before him goes the cry of an Egyptian shout (Abreeh .'), evi
dently resembling those which now in the streets of Cairo clear
the way for any great personage driving • through the crowd of
man and beast."
The Dean then tells us to compare about the " Egyptian shout"
" Wilk. ii. 24," where we read in a note :
" The word abrek *n2fc$ is very remarkable, as it is used to the
present day by the Arabs when requiring a camel to kneel and
receive its load."
We need not, however, in this case, appear to apply to
men what is said of darnels. Por, even though Sir G. Wil
kinson be of opinion that " when they kissed the firman, they
also bowed the knee," yet the only application of T'QN by
him is to camels, wherever these be loaded, whether in the
desert or in the khan ; whereas Dr. Stanley refers it to the
shout of those who cry in the streets of Cairo — or indeed of any
other Eastern city — to make way for some one on horseback.
It certainly never occurred to me, when I said i_Jv\> 'abrok/
i.e., ' bend the knee/ to the camel I rode across the Egyptian
desert, to compare this order to kneel with the shout of the
herald going before Joseph's chariot. Neither do I think it
need be compared. It is just such a coincidence as the Arabic
i^^jj\ ' Abib' and 3M3K, between words which have nothing to
do with each other, as I shall show regarding these terms.
The Arabic ^Jj, like the Heb. and Chald. "|")3, is said espe
cially of a camel bending the knee to drink or to be loaded.3
1 Tomb. d'Ahm. Inscr. 1, 2.
2 See Sir G. Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. vol. iii. p. 347, sq.
3 e.g., in this play upon the word i&j, Barakat or Baraka, the name of a

IV. P. 81.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 195
So also "iflS in Hebrew, whence nin3, ' a place where camels
kneel to drink/ ' a pool ;' the meaning of ' blessing* being se
condary. But T"Q^ cannot be a Hebrew form of "=J13 ; there
fore does V. Bohlen1 try to make it an inf. hiph. for "=["Pl!>
substituting ^ for H after the Chaldee; and he refers us to
Gesenius,2 who seems inclined to agree with V. Bohlen, and
who compares ^"QK with a like form, D\5$N, Jer. xxv. 3.
In his Thes. L. S. s. v., however, he is more in favour of an
Egyptian etymology. It would lead me too far to demonstrate
the futility of V. Bohlen's criticism in this case; but it is all of
a piece with what he says in the same page concerning the gold
ring, the gold collar, the robe of fine linen put upon Joseph, —
" that they are articles of luxury which betoken a much later
date." One wonders at a man, who valued his reputation for
learning, lowering himself to write in this wise. As if we had
not engraved records, as we have seen, of Ahmes, who lived
under Usertesen, long before Joseph's time, being honoured
seven times with the golden collar ; and as if we did not possess
the gold ring of Shuphu (Cheops) and the golden cup of
Thothmes III. ; to say nothing of a multitude of Egyptian gold
ornaments adorned with precious stones, tokens of luxury of a
still greater antiquity, discovered and published long before
V. Bohlen wrote his work.
Of course, the intention of V. Bohlen and of Gesenius, in en
deavouring to make out "=n.3Nl to be a Chaldaism, is, to try and
lower the date of Moses' writings. But as we have seen above
(p. 120), with regard to "1]"D, this argument concerning aira% Xs-
town built by a sultan of that name in Tartary, a traveller there says (V. Timur.
o. xiv. vol. i. p. 376) : * &ji i\>-\j ti Igj <*z^>)j ^«J
" Having heard that good was to be found in the deserts called after their sultan
Barakat, I made the camel on which I travelled to kneel (barraktu) by that
place ; but there I did not look on a single blessing (barakat)."
1 Genesis, p. 386. 2 Lehrgeb. p. 319, note 2.
o2

196 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
ydfj,sva'is utterly worthless. And the unfairness of classing a word
found in Genesis — a word, too, which Gesenius1 himself thought
never likely to be satisfactorily explained — with a similar form
occurring in Jeremiah, who lived in the time of the captivity,
must strike even the most superficial inquirer. What would be
thought of the Greek scholar who ascribed the Iliad to the time,
if not to the pen., of Quintus Smyrnseus, because there are cer
tain forms common both to the Homerica and to the Post-ho-
merica ? Even ' free inquirers' would disown him then, albeit
they welcome him when he does the same, or a worse thing,
towards the Bible. For, in order that, according to common
sense and to fairness of dealing, such argument hold good, as
affecting the age of a book, words of another date must occur
in it, not once, as in this case, but repeatedly, as in the writings
of Ezra, of Nehemiah, and of others. And V. Bohlen's attempt
to strengthen his position by bringing nJI/2 from the unknown
Shemitic W%, and taking no account of the n added by him to
this imaginary word, only shows to what shifts ' free inquirers'
scruple not to resort, in order to allure the unwary. Yet, what
ever be their creed, they should be — honest.
The most probable etymology for "=J"!5^ is the one offered by
De Rossi,2 viz. : <LTte-peK, ' ape-rek/ ' bow the head.' Both
these words are found in ancient Egyptian; and I thought I
had met with an illustration of this passage in Brugsch's Mo-
num. Egyptiens, vol. i. pi. xlvii./., reading it in his translation
" Abaisse la tete, 0 Roi d'Egypte," &c. But I cannot read and
render the original text otherwise than A.-OTX £,p-K CTIt It
KJU.6 (llK<L£,l), &c: "Ah! let thy face shine, 0 King of
Egypt," &c. There is, however, a yet better example in Sharpe's
Egyptian Inscriptions, pi. 40, 1. 21,3 which M. Chabas4 quotes
as the etymology of ^J"ONi, and which he renders "ape-rek,
tete basse !" There, four gods and two goddesses, Isis and
Nephtys, stoop with their hands down, and bowing their heads,
thus explained in the hieroglyphic text, Itrt ItTp-OT JUL C^Q*
or rut ^.-i-OT-cit (crt<Lf) ju. pK ^.n-oir-crt, &c. :
1 Thes. L. S. s.v. s Etymol. -Sgypt. p. 1, and 339.
8 And also pi. 64, first series. 4 Pap. Prisse, p. 6.

IV. P. 81.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 197
" these gods here represented (in this drawing) with their two
arms bowing their heads," &C.1
XV. " His (Joseph's) Hebrew name," continues Dr. Stanley. —
" disappears in the sounding Egyptian title, whichever version of
it we adopt, Zaphnath Paaneach, ' Revealer of secrets,' or Psonthom
Phanech, ' Saviour of the age,' or ' Peteseph.' "
The Dean of Westminster has a way of solving difficulties by
cutting them, which is more expeditious than philosophical. I
was not aware, until now, that these renderings were settled ;
and I thought that the fact of there being more than one ren
dering of the same title shows that the meaning of that title
was not yet ascertained.
Some, like Jablonski, think that the LXX. must have read
nJj72 J"12D¥ aright in rendering it $ov&ofj.$avr}x, or tyoQofj.-
Qavrix, on which L. Bos gives, from an Oxford MS., o so-tiv
o-wty)p xoa-fj,ou. b Supog sxei * eltiwg to. xpuirTa. Philo, xguir-
twv eupsTr)g, r) ovetpoxp'iTr\g, which means, ' Saviour of the world.'
The Syriac version has, 'He who knows hidden things.'
Philo, 'revealer or discoverer of secrets.' Both the Hebrew
and the Greek texts have tried to the uttermost the inge
nuity of critics, and will try it yet longer. For the Syriac
reads, 01^ <_»_L_. |AimO) " to whom secrets are revealed,"
i.q. Targ. Onkelos, T&)_ ]f?i fTP1^.- But TarS- Jon- B- Uzziel
has PFCnSP ll/P^, "who explains secrets."2 The Vulgate
omits the Egyptian name, and gives "Salvatorem mundi."
The Samaritan has All • r/rAMmtSV either 'Timirti gala/
'he discovered my secret/3 or better, and with a differ
ent reading, ' Timirte gale/ ' discoverer of secrets.' The
Arabic of Saadias follows the Samaritan, Chaldee, and Vul
gate, and reads LUUsM ^>iyc, "revealer of things hidden;"
whereas the Arabic published by Erpenius has, with nearly the
1 In another and anterior work (Inscr. Histor. de Seti ler. p. 36) M. Chabas
renders this text thus : " Ces dieux-ci, dans ce tableau, ont leurs mains baissecs
devant leurs faces," &c. But with deference to that excellent scholar, they are
'heads,' and not 'faces;' moreover, how is JUL OK. AJl-OT-CIt to be
rendered " baissees devant leurs faces ?"
2 Compare Dan. ii. 13, 27, 28. 3 Pfeiffer, Dub. Vex. p. 1074.

198 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
same meaning, jl-J) i-jLiiK, "revealer of secrets;" while the
Version of Abu Said renders it Ad] ia£ " treasury of science."
And lastly the Persian follows the Hebrew without rendering
the term ; while the Ethiopic, Armenian, and Slavonic Versions
follow the LXX., and the Georgian reads " Psom-panis."
Philo,1 speaking of Joseph, says the king changed his name
for one in the tongue of the country, am t% bveipoxptTtxr\g, re
lating to his interpretation of dreams ; and elsewhere2 he adds,
b 8e <f'ov()ofj.<t>avrix iroiog so-ti 6sao-dfj.sSa, ' let us see what this Pson-
thomphanech means :' it means, then, lv airoxpto-ei crofia xp'tvov,
' a mouth discerning in giving an answer.'3 Another author,
quoted by Eusebius,4 mentions Joseph as
'Iwo-ij<p, og bveipwv
Qea-irto-Tr}g, o-xr)irTOUx°S ^v Alyuirroto Spovoto-t.
" Joseph, who was interpreter of dreams, ruled over Egypt."
Josephus5 says that the king gave him the name 'ioiop.^avrix,
on account of his own wonderful intelligence; for this name
0-Yifj.aivet — xpuirTwv eupsTYpi, means ' discoverer of things hidden.'
According to Jablonski,6 Origen? renders it w airexaXu^Sij to
fj.eXXov, "he to whom the future has been revealed;" and
S. Chrysostom8 explains it twv xguirrwv yvwo-Tr,g " a man who
ascertained things hidden ;" and Theodoret,9 who read it tyop-eSbfj.
^>avsXs says that he was thus called twv umppr)Twv Igpjvsu'riji',
" Interpreter of Secrets," as having made known unto the king
his dreams.
It is evident that these several interpretations of ^oiofx^avifx
are one and the same, copied from one another originally, per
haps, from an allusion to Dan. ii. 47, v. 11, 12, and thence
through the Chaldee paraphrase and the Peschito. For we shall
see presently that the LXX. ~io6ofj.^avr]x or <Hovt>ofj.$avYix is no
transcription of the Hebrew ny/2 n^Slfi of which Bochart10
says, " Septuaginta interpretes qui versionem suam in iEgypto
ediderunt illud scribunt VovTOfj-Qavex (S1C) Sahatorem mundi, in-
terpretatur Hieronymus. At alii quos defendit numerus junc-
1 De Josepho, p. 543, ed. Par. * De Nom. Mutat. p. 1058.
8 Prov. xxiv. 26. 4 Prtep. Ev. p. 430.
• Ant. Lib. ii. c. 6, p. 59, ed. H. « Opp. vol. i. p. 207.
7 Hex. vol. i. p. 48. s Vol. iv. p. 606, ed. Montf.
0 Vol. i. p. 106, ed. Sch. «> Phaleg, Opp. vol. i. col. 59.

IV. P. 81.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 199
taque umbone phalanges, occultorum interpretem, vel futurorum
revelatorem."1 But F. Nork,2 who makes out Joseph's history
to consist wholly of mythic events, explains " Zaphnath Phenech"
to mean " Verborgen seyn des Phonix," " disappearance of the
Phoenix," and Asenath to be a daughter of Dinah by the god
Sutech ! If this be the kind of ' modern science' and of ' modern
philosophy' we are expected to reconcile with the Bible, our
task is hopeless. Although not quite so far gone, Van Bohlen
denies that there be any Egyptian element" in the history of
Joseph, but asserts that all "fremdartige Worter," all foreign ex
pressions in it are Aramaic ; he therefore derives3 ]"0S¥ from
)?y, verbergen, ' to hide/ and well known ; and 113172 from |J7S,
eroffnen, 'to open/ which, however, exists nowhere but in his
imagination, despite what Castellus says.4 Yet, not only does
V. Bohlen derive )"Dj7E from a fanciful verb, but he does so
against all rules of grammar, by adding f\, which is no suffix in
Hebrew, or in any other Shemitic tongue ; and he then proposes
to derive a'twv from eveh, the Coptic eiteg,, ' age/ (as being con
tained in n3jV2) ; thus taking off, in this instance, the same
aspirate which he adds in the other ! This is indeed what Ger
mans call ' Willkiihr/ arbitrary self-will ; but neither criticism
nor scholarship. It is ' free inquiry' with a vengeance ; so free
that, as we have seen that in another instance,5 it will not be
fettered even by the points of the compass, so also in this it
frames etymologies in which we may truly say that ' consonants
go for very little, and vowels for nothing at all' — anything, it
matters not what, so long as the Bible is attacked.
1 Others, like Vitringa (Obs. Sac. 1. i. dis. i. c. 6) endeavour to explain it through
JDS, ' to hide,' and roe, which is not Hebrew ; or like Simon, (Onom. v. i. p. 601 ,
sq.) who says of 1TOB rDDS " quod occulti revelatorem, sc. indicem significat, consen-
tientibus omnibus VV. Or. et Paraphrastis, a quorum consensu non esse disceden-
dum,rectejudicatGrotius." Dogmatic, but not logical. " Nomen rj5»B ut proprium
et rTOB rBB2 per intimum Paneachi (regis, qui Profanis Apachna) exponit Kohl-
reifgius. Singularis quoque est sententia H. Horchii in Textuum S. Fasc. i.
p. 12, cui rj»E idem est cum Hebrseo iron respondens, responsor, posito B pro
n ejusdem organi, sicut rnriB sit pro n»"in, pastor, Metaphor, rex ; et n pro
n ut in TOD pro nED, mop pro mBp." ' Singularis,' indeed, yet worthless.
5 Biblische Mythol. vol. i. p. 404, sq. 3 Genes, p. 387.
4 Lex. Heptagl. s.v. col. 3035.
6 See above, p. 50.

200 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
But real Hebrew scholars know better ; and A. Ezra1 says
rightly of TltyS D32V, " if this expression be Egyptian, "If DK
JlBTCa WT Vb JTMD lib®?!, we know not the meaning
thereof; pp\\ Dp t|jrp $b nDmnD KV7 DW, and if it
be a translation, we do not know Joseph's name." Abarbanel2
renders it ' Revealer of secrets/ adding, it is true, T7 pDDil isb
flf, "there is no doubt of it;" but he gives no proof of this, so
that S. Jarchi is a better teacher when, explaining it also " Re
vealer of secrets," he adds nevertheless, ]Tft7 \Hty5b is?
IfclpDD, "there is no example of rUtfE) in tne Hebrew text ;" and
R. S. Ben Melech,3 who compares fUj^S JT3£)¥ (which he says
is Egyptian) with the names Nebuchadnezzar gave Daniel and
his companions4 in Aramean, says also that " some have indeed
tried to explain it through the Hebrew," but adds, very sen
sibly, runs anpn piste c^ sip t» «in nnn that - it is a
wonder Pharaoh should have called him by a Hebrew name."
Of those who have looked for the meaning of \MofKpavijjc in
the Coptic, Kircher5 says that 'd/OItOOJUL means ' future/ and
IUHHK, ' an augur.' But he gives no proof of what he as
serts, neither can he ; for these terms, like others of his own
making, do not exist in Coptic. Pfeiffer6 justly finds fault with
him, and offers either nig/TOJUL IM.IUKA., a term that does not
exist; or COTl2Jt «&.ttjefieit, which he renders " desideratorum
augur," but equally absurd.? A. Gutbier8 proposed CLjettcpiT
IUUJIt^), which he renders 'relaxatio vitse;' but ttjett<b£.T
in Coptic means ' a kick/ and not ' refreshment/ and the com
bination of these two terms is against grammar. A. Mullet9
proposed ItlCCUItT, 'creation/ or 'mankind;' "inde ^ovrofj.-
$avr)x esse Salvatorem hominum." Forster10 offers a yet less
1 1. c. Comm. ed. Buxtorf. ¦ Comm. in Pent. fol. 90, vo.
3 Miclol Jophi, p. 14. 4 Dan. i. 7.
« Prodrom. Copt. c. v. p. 126. 6 Dub. vex. p. 187.
7 So also in his Exercit. quinta, p. 105, sq., he proposes CUOIlA.lt
IL&.ItIK£., also an offspring of his imagination. Indeed, at p. 1070, sq., he
shows evidently, by the way he wrote both Armenian and Coptic, that he knew
nothing whatever of either language.
8 Ibid. p. 1073. » Ibid. p. 1073.
10 Mantissa JEg. in his De Bysso Ant. p. 101, sq.

IV. P. 81.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 201
probable etymology, viz., CA^-TTrKnrf ILS.-eiteg,-I,^)j i.e.,
(as he fancies) 'the scribe of the divine, eternal Spirit.' But besides
that this term is simply an impossible compound, and against
all grammar, 1^ Eg. £.1^, very far from being only 'spirit/
means ' evil spirit ;' and thus it is always used for Satfj-wv and
Sa'tfMveg in the New Testament, and for ' pestilence' in Ps. xci. 6.1
La Croze thought that 20uq ItTe Tietteg,, which he renders
" caput sseculi," would do ; but 2£CJUq, ' his head/ is inadmis
sible in this place, the suffix q not being according to grammar
in such a case. Lastly, Bernard and Jablonski2 propose a better
etymology for VovQofj.Quvrix, viz., ITCCJUT JUL d)erteg,, " ' salva-
tio' vel ' salvator sseculi' ;" and Gesenius3 another for *oi>0o/x<pavfo,
viz., ncoitT JUL cbeiteg,, " ' sustentator' seu ' vindex mundi/
vel sseculi," &c.
But first — the meaning of the name given by Pharaoh to
Joseph is to be sought for, not in the language spoken under
the Ptolemies, but in that of the earlier Pharaohs. So true is
this, that
Secondly — the LXX. ^oSo^avrix and $!ovTO(j,$avr)x are no
correct transcription of the Hebrew letters. Allowing that
Qavijx renders rHI?2> 4»o6ov or ^ovtov does not express ]"IJD¥ ;
for no really Coptic term begins with ip", since 'd/OI for HCOI,
¦4/i.cpeq, for Itcicpeq, &c, date from the time when such
words as HIXOT^ for ' 6 dux/4 found their way into Egypt ;
but the real equivalent for V in Coptic is 2C, and ' t' or ' tf in
ancient Egyptian.
Thirdly — it stands to reason, that, if the Coptic translator or
translators had recognised in <f'o6ofj,<pavyx an Egyptian or a Coptic
term, or terms, they would have corrected it accordingly ; as they
1 Forster, however, offers a still more monstrous term, made up of Tl-P OltT
"vel coalescente scilicet n articulo et sequente O dpOItT [how and
when? since we find Il^OItX ftCOIt, 'the priest of On,' in this very
verse, and not cboitT"] ; et adeo Josephum, ut ipsius honori consulerent, ap-
pellarent ngpitT" JULCpi.eite2,-I^5 summum sacerdotem Spiritus
aterni." But JULcb£.eit6P. means, not ' sevi,' but ' sevi mei.'
s Opp. vol. i. p. 213. 3 Thes. L. S. s. v. ruDS, p. 1181.
4 Zoega Codd. Memph. p. 84.

202 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
did in other instances. Instead of only transcribing the Greek
which they, evidently, could not make out, they would have re
solved v|/ into IIC, since this 4/ is said to be for ITC in TTCCOT ;
but he or they, neither saw HC in \J/, nor COOT or COIIT in
tyo9, or in $ovt ; still less JUL in op., or TTeite£„ cpeiteg,,
in §avr)x' This seems to prove that we look in vain for the
meaning of <iobofj,§avr)x among Coptic etymologies ; for were
it to be found there, the Coptic version would have done so, and
would have told us what it meant in Coptic, instead of trans
cribing literally a Greek word without meaning. For it is not
reasonable to try and draw etymologies for a word from a lan
guage the native writers of which could make nothing of that
word. Fourthly — it is singular that one and all of the above ety
mologists have overlooked the ' a' in <pavfc ; for this ' «/ Copt.
£., is the hinge on which the whole name turns, and may be an
additional proof that Pharaoh, who alone could either create a
minister or give him a name, did so in gratitude for himself.
Admitting, for argument's sake (though it be not so really,) that
eiteg, ¦ age/ forms a part of H3J/2 it could not be Iteiteg,
' peneh/ as all these etymologists propose, with the def. art.
only ; but it should be with the relative or with the possessive
article Iii., both b tou and b p.ou ; so as to read ' paeneh,' a
word which renders and expresses better the Hebrew sounds,
and which means ' my age,' or ' of the age.' If it is to be
' Saviour/ it must be ' Saviour of my age/ and not of ' the
age;' for JUL W.&. (art. relat.) i.e. tou 6 tou, would hardly be
grammatical. But since we have, at least, the Hebrew letters which repre
sented the Egyptian name, when they were written, and since
we see the Greek ^oiopapav^x is not an exact expression of these
Hebrew letters, it seems that the only safe ground to work
upon, is the name as it stands in the Hebrew text. Now we
find that, as I have said, the Egyptian letter and articulation
best answering to )£ is t', tj, X, hierogl. a snake ; as e.g. 2£6Tq5
XCT, XATqi, xe, XOT, Sec.1
1 Champ. Gr. Eg. p. 40, id. Diet. Eg. p. 174 ; De Rouge", T. d'Ahm. p. 37,

IV. P. 81.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 203
And as to ]}, not only is it acknowledged on all hands that
it stands for a, as in DDD1H Ramesses, jn^COID Potiphera
(and not 'rah'), but better Potiphra, nA-TI-np<L or TipH,
d>pi. or cbpjt; ]$)£ 'Tsan/ rather than 'Tso'an/ Tanis;
|JW3 hierogl. Kanana, fee.,1 but also, the. syllable jV3 in 1131/2
shows clearly, that this term cannot be Hebrew ; for the syllable
jVS is almost impossible in Hebrew. It shows, therefore, that
since we find the simple Sheva, against analogy, placed under
the )} only, I may say, for the look of Hebrew orthography,
but to show the absence of a real vowel, the J4 here must be
pronounced a as in Ramesses DDPJVT where the }} has a patach
only because two shevas could not follow each other ; jV"1 being
ra'a, i.q. ra. We may then distribute the letters of rUl?2 fl32!f
with their Egyptian equivalents, thus :
n a v 2 n a 2 ¥
&X,& n *>¦ n$^I 'f'T n $ncJ *tjt
which might be read according to the above etymologists ;
Memph. xcbo-ftTe-cbeiteg,, Sahid. xno-rnre-nerteg,,
' born/ ' offspring of eternity/ ' Heaven-born ;' or • possession/
'boon/ 'treasure of the age/ 2£cboi-ItTe-d)eite£), 'arm/
' support of the age/ or ' world ;' but inasmuch as the second
word must begin with Pa, it cannot be neite£, the 'world' or
' the age ;' but rather TLS-It,^) ' the life/ or n<LA.It^ ' my
life ;' so as to read, 2£d;oi-ItTe-ITd.A.n^>, ' arm or stay of my
life;' or yet Memph. 2£I-dj>rtOT-f-ni.A.It^>, Sahid. ol1
nrtoTTe-iu.A.it2,, Anc Eg. XL-ir-nnTp-iu.rrx;> or
IU.A.IVX; or XA.T-niTT-IU.rvX; ' God has taken up, pre
served, or restored my life/ or ' the life' — of the people. Or
sq., and the sign read tja, more suitable to certain inscriptions. (Champ. Gr. Eg.
p. 547, et Diet. Eg. p. 180, but best explained by De Rouge, T. d'Ahm. p. 185,
sq.) The relative value of these letters is proved by several proper names, e.g.
Heb. $3 Tso'an, or Ts'an, Copt. 2£<LIte or 2f<LItI, hierogl. T<LItI
Tanis ; fmt Copt. i.q. Greek Cl^OOIt, hierat. tji\_du\na Sidon ; i« Copt. i.q.
Greek, TTfpOC. hierat. tjur, Tyre; nfftt hierogl. tjarpta, Zarephath, or
Sarepta, &c. Brugsch. Geogr. Denkm. vol. iii. p. 25, 42, 43, 44 ; vol. i. p. 10.
1 Brugsch. id. p. 10.

204 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
again, Memph. XHq-ItOTrf (for 2CHq cbrtOTrf) n£A.rt£
' God has redeemed, or, is near to, my life ;' if 2£Kq might be
construed without ^A., for q is the equivalent for 2 and also
for 1 suff.; or still, Memph. Xcbo-rtO'V'f-IU.A.rt,^, Sah.
2£no-nrtOTTe-TIAA.rt2,, ' gignit Deus vitam meam/ vel ' vi-
tam' sc. populi, &c.
I do not of course attach any great importance to these ety
mologies ; although they are according to grammar and, more
or less, to analogy. They are only meant to show that the
LXX. <f,o8ofj.<f>avi)x or ^ovrofLipav^x does not, and cannot repre
sent ri3y2 rUSVj since \J/ is not y, neither by conversion nor
otherwise ; and tyoQopt. is not fiJ2¥- Whence we gather that
the LXX. did not rightly understand the meaning of a term
which they rendered in their own way, into a word that does
not exist in the language in which it is assumed to have been
spoken. This is further proved by the Coptic version making
no sense out of what is given by the LXX. as Coptic or
Egyptian ; whence it appears that neither the LXX. nor the
Coptic translators understood it aright. Our only chance, there
fore, is to get at it through the letters of the Hebrew original.
Brugsch, I am happy to find, sanctions my reading of HJJ7D >
and refers it to the district of Memphis called anch-ta, or Ta-
pa'nch na,y2 rK2D¥) and proposes to read the name thus :
ns-pen-ta-p.anch, which he even gives in hieroglyphics,1 and
renders it, " dies ist der Gouverneur von Tapanch," ' this is the
Governor of Tapanch/ i.e. ' of the district of life.' In this
etymology, however, that great and thorough scholar, is at a
loss to account for ^ , which he owns " ist schwer zu sagen" is
hard to tell. It must be hard, indeed, if he, who shall live in
his works as long as Egyptian is studied, cannot find it out.2
On the other hand, M. Chabas, who is also as deep as he is
1 Geogr. Denkm. vol. i. Tab. xliii. 1114, and p. 237.
2 He wrote thus in 1857 ; but in 1850 he looked for the Egyptian words in
VoBopiipavfix which he divided thus : " tyo-(y)-9o-<pavrix, p.so-n-to-p.anch, c'est
& dire, ' princeps mundi vitte.' Le nom mundus vita se lit encore de les textes
hieroglyphiques ; c'est ici ou le soleil couchant {Toum, Atmou) se cache. C'est
ainsi qu'on lit dans le rituel fune"raire de Turin (c. 15, col. 43) Djet.f em saiou
Toum hotp.ef em (to) anc/i, &c, dicit (mortuus Osiris) ad celebrandum Deum
Turn occultantem se in mundo vitae," &c. (Lettre sur un MS. bilingue, p. 53.)

IV. P. 81.] PHILOSOPHY, OH TRUTH ? 205
conscientious and safe a guide in Egyptian lore, explains only
the first word HffiV wnicn ne Sives thus : " 2£qneiO 'les
delices de Neith.' Le nom donne a Joseph est ainsi parfaite-
ment en harmonie avec la sagesse dont il avait fait preuve."1
Thus, of these two great scholars, one hesitates about the
first word, which the other finds quite easy, saying nothing of
the second word, which is the only one the first scholar explains.
Surely this is enough to show how worthy, on the one hand,
are the efforts of those who labour honestly to arrive at the
Truth of the subject they treat, and, on the other hand, how
unworthy is the frivolity with which others treat that same
Truth. See R. ix. (d) p. 5, sq. To 8* aXrfi'ig, x.t.X.
In conclusion, we remark as regards " Zaphnath-Paaneah"
that (1) the LXX. ^ovSofj-Qavrix, renders not the Hebrew words ;
nor yet Coptic or Egyptian terms ; since the Coptic translators
did not recognise any, in the rendering of the LXX. (2) That
we must look to the Egyptian as rendered by the Hebrew words,
for the etymology thereof. (3) If we read the Hebrew with the
vowel points, it might be 2££.q-rt«LT-n<Lerteg„ Zaph-nat-
paeneh {'paeneah' as expressed in Hebrew), 'the God of the age
has possessed him.' But (4) inasmuch as n^erteg, is doubtful
as an Egyptian term, we had better take the Hebrew letters
alone at their real value, which is, either 2£q rtT-n£.rrx;,
' Zaph-nat-panch/ ' the God of Life has taken, or inspired him/
i.e. ' taught by the God of Life ;' or (but not so well) 2£q ItT
IU.-^X ' taught, inspired by the God of the House of Life.'2
Such an epithet is as much in Egyptian style, as that of ^ItC
g^-rtT-nfl, ' Chons-ha-nat-neb/ ' Chons, chief of all gods,"
the name of the High Priest or prophet of Chons, in De Rouge's
Et. sur une Stele, p. 19, &c.
As to the other Egyptian name of Joseph, Uetso-^, Peteseph,
which Dr. Stanley does not explain, mentioned by Chseremon3
in his account of the Exodus under the leadership of Moses and
of Joseph, whom he calls lepoypap.fj,aTeug, it is not easy to deter-
1 Pap. Prisse, p. 6, 7. 2 Or, ' sacred college.'
3 Chserem. Alex, in Fragm. Hist. Gr. ed. Miiller, vol. iii. p. 495, sq. Cory,
Fragm. p. 182, Jos. c. Ap. Lib. i. 32, p. 1358, ed. Huds.

206 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
mine the probable etymology of it. We may, however, com
pare this name which in Egyptian means, ' He of the Sword/
neTe or neT-e-cnq, (like neT-e or neTe-cbp^., < He of
the Sun/) in token, perhaps, of his office, with what Plutarch
says of Darius Ochus that the Egyptians exaXeo-av (auTov) fJ&xM~
pav — opyavw Qotvtxw irapstxatyvrsg, called him ' a sword/ (CHq
or Ciqi, ' Seph/ or ' Siphi/) likening him to a bloody instru
ment, as having killed many, even the god Apis.1 The same
reason cannot apply to Joseph ; but the sword was also an
emblem of rank, of justice, and of authority; so much so, that
a certain kind of sword or dagger, is constantly used in hiero
glyphics as a symbol of priority — g,OTeiT.2
XVI. Then Joseph—
" Becomes son-in-law of the High Priest of the Sun-God in the
sacred city of On, Petephre or Potipherah (' he who belongs to
the Sun'). He and his wife Asenath, the * servant of the goddess
'Neith' (the Egyptian Athene or Minerva), may henceforth be
conceived — looking — as in an Egyptian tablet, the type of the
solemn happiness of calm and stately marriage." — p. 81.
This connexion was, at that time, the highest Joseph could
have made, next to marrying one of the king's daughters ; but
he could not do this, not being either of royal blood or an
Egyptian. In marrying the daughter of n£,OItT It £.tt the
High Priest of the city sacred to Atum, the Evening Sun, the
Sun of Amenti, Joseph at once stood firm in the high station to
which God and Pharaoh had raised him. As to On or An it
was then, and it continued until the downfall of the Egyptian
kingdom, to be the most celebrated city of Egypt, not so much
in the world at large as in Egypt itself. I am not writing the
history thereof, for this would be out of place at present ; I
will only say that, not only did the Ramses bear, as we have
already seen, the title of £,K <LH, ' governor of On/3 but the
sacred character of the city was so interwoven with the history
1 Plut. de Is. et Osir., c. xi. p. 18 and 53, ed. Parth.
a Champ. Diet. Eg. p. 338, sq., Gr. Eg. p. 242.
3 Of this On, A.It JULgT. the Northern On, Heliopolis, not of On, £.It-
pHC the Southern On, Hermonthis, near Thebes.

IV. P. 81.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 207
and with the associations of the people of Egypt, that one can
hardly read a page of an Egyptian MS. or a column of an
inscription, without some allusion to On, the city of Atum, the
most sacred Sun ; the Sun of the Lower World.
There, at On, he was worshipped with the greatest pomp,
with the most devoted homage, and with all the learning of the
Egyptians ; there, were his praises sung, and prayers offered to
him for the souls in transmigration through his realms of light
— in strains full of stern, manly thought and beauty ; and often
so like passages from the Rig or from the Sama-veda to the
praise of Agni, as to show the unity of worship in days of yore
— proclaimed even from the abode of the Egyptian dead. I
will not now further allude to this interesting subject, bound as
I am not to swerve from the matter in hand ; especially as I
hope at some future time to publish parallel passages from both
Aryan and Egyptian lore, bearing on the Truth contained in
the Word of God— the Bible.
We have already had occasion to notice the regal dignity of
the High Priest in those days, when speaking of Melchizedek.1
Here, Potipherah is styled ]i"lS Ispsug only ; but this is merely a
generic expression, to mark his office, as devoted to the service
of Atum, apxtspsug being here meant by lepeug : in the same way
as Chseremon, speaking of Moses and of Joseph, calls them both
ypafj.fj.aTet;, ' scribes ;' but Joseph especially, legoygafj.fj,aTeug,
' a sacred scribe.'2 The lsps~t; were of different degrees, as e.g.
noTi.fi. &p<Li nJULi.ncuoTi, neq^iJULcyip, &c, the priest
of the altar, of the censors, &c. ; but they were all inferior in rank
to the irgo<pY,Tai ; ItTp-£,n-nOT, who were also of the first,
second, third, or fourth degree.3 They married, as we find
from the paintings and from the inscriptions of some of the
richest tombs of the Thebaid, hewn out by prophets of Amun-
1 See above, p. 145, sq. 2 See above, p. 205.
3 Thus we read in the tomb of Ichesiou at Thebes (Champ. Gr. Eg. p. 242, sq.)
mtTp-&rt or ng,rt g/rreiT rt <&.cipi oTit-noqp jul^
xott. n&rt -njuLg, & rt AJULrt-p^. ncT« rt rtp-ot
Cli.irtOCip. " Ounnophre, declared just, first prophet of Osiris. Phainophre
second prophet of Amun-ra, Sovereign of the gods ;" and others mentioned in
the same description as third and fourth prophets.

208 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
Ra : thus Petarphre says of himself, A.ttK £,« CI n&n OTtt-A.
g,n<L g,O0p JUL e&T (Tfii-Kr) " I prophet son of prophet,
am with Horus rejoicing in the city of Abydos."1 And on an in
scription of the Palace at Karnak,2 we read <LrtK nci tt£,n-ItOT
tti.i.T tt iJULtt g,I TiJULi.T Cr nOTi.fi., "I am son of
great prophets of Amun, and son of a priest on my mother's side,"
mentioning both the Upe~t; and the irpotpyTat, who were appointed
by the king as supreme ; and who exercised their priestly func
tions in families, handing their office down from father to son.3
We have among several documents, an interesting one bear
ing directly upon this subject. On a ' stele' erected to the
memory of Bak-en-Khensu,4 we read that he was OTi-fi.
' priest' at sixteen ; ttTp-i.Tq, ' holy father' at twenty ; ttTp
£,H IUUL£, V, ' third prophet' at thirty-two; ttTp g,It ttJULg,
fi ' second prophet' at forty -seven; and at fifty-nine he rose to
the highest rank of ttTp ^tt. iJie, ' head' or ' chief of the pro
phets' — probably apxtegeug, ttTp &K ng,OTeiT it iJULIt,
rtTp &rt i.ne rt i-M.n-pi. ctk nrp-oT, " first prophet
of Amun, chief prophet of Amun Ra, Sovereign of the gods."
The years of office of these High Priests, who were also comp
trollers of the king's household, and chiefs of other public de
partments, were recorded together with those of the king under
whose reign they lived.5
Dr. Stanley seems to consider ' Petephre' and ' Potipherah'
as one and the same name, since he adds, " he who belongs to
the Sun," as qualifying both alike. But he may be forgiven
for so doing, since a master in the art of ' Free Inquiry' makes
a worse mistake. I give his note on this subject, as another
example of worthless scholarship, if not of wilful perversion of
facts — which is far worse than either carelessness or ignorance.
XVII. He says:—
" On the identical form (Gleichformigkeit) of JHSFIpla (Poti
pherah) with Potiphar, Jablonski (Opusc. II. p.. 219 — read 215)
1 Champ. Gr. Eg. p. 248. 2 Champ. Gr. Eg. ibid.
3 Diod. Sic. Lib. i. c. 73. 4 Rev. Archeol. Janv. 1863.
5 See e.g. Etude sur une Stele, p. 184, sq.

IV. P. 81 .] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 209
explains Potipherah through II — hovr — tpprf Priest of the Sun;
and indeed, this name might be known, since the Jews had a
temple of their own at Heliopolis. V. Bohlen, Genes. Coram.
p. 387."He then refers us to his commentary on ch. xxxvii. 36,
where, speaking of "lEFEpIsi, he ridicules those who wish to
bring to Egyptian etymologies, names like these, which he
says, are after all, the offspring of late and degenerate idioms ;
witness 'HD*,£pi£3 which he, after Gesenius, takes to be an abbre
viation of ' Potipherah / and of even a later date.
The spirit of all this is plain enough ; it is to lower the Bible
in every possible way. If this were done with real learning, it
would command attention ; but done as it is, with rash and in
correct statements that go to prove the evil disposition of the
writer, it can only repel an honest mind.
First, then — will any honest scholar maintain that these
names were first known when the Jews had their temple built
at On, at the instance of Onias, and by Ptolemy Philometor's
leave ?
Secondly — Jablonski never once hints at Potiphar, and Pete
phre, or Potipherah being the same ; neither s.v. Petephre,1 nor
s.v. Potiphar,2 nor yet under Potipherah.3
Thirdly — V. Bohlen could know very little of Coptic if he
thought Jablonski's n-£,OItT-cbpR P-hont-phre,a.fiX etymology
for "l^tpiS or for ^12^13 Potiphar, or Potipherah.
Fourthly — his resting his criticism on the fact that the LXX.
renders both ' Potiphar' and ' Potipherah' by IlsTeQgr]g is worth
no more than the authority of the LXX. in other like cases —
that is, nothing at all. For as neTe$pr]g is the Hellenized form
of an Egyptian name probably in use at the time of the Ptole
mies, the LXX. seems to have thought it would be as good an
equivalent for ' Potiphar* and ' Potipherah/ as -\iovTOfj. or rpodojub
for PflXi ; nstSw for Dh? and 2s7rt?wpa for both TVSSi}
' Shiphrah/ and iTlSif ' Tsipporah ;'4 and so, indeed, it is ;
but quite as incorrect.
1 Opp. vol. i. p. 203. ' Ibid. p. 205.
3 Diss. viii. de T. Gosen, u. 4, p. 209—215 ; Panth. 138.
* Ex. i. 11, 15, ii. 21, &c. P

210 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
According to these free etymologists, the syllables "12, #"12,
and Dins phar, phera, phar'oh, or par'oh, in the three names
")2pi2, jn^piS, and ny"12, mean ' the Sun/ and are each
the Egyptian pi. or pH, with the art. cb, n ; ")2 phar, they say
is the short of JH2, joAera, and niTl2, par'oh, is the long of it,
and their disciples wonder. But there is probably no example
on record of $i.p being transposed into 4>pi., since it cannot
be ; still less of cbpi. being lengthened into cppi^. ; the Egyp
tians had too much respect for the name of their God to deal
thus with it. Not one instance of this occurs in the six hundred
and ten proper names given by Brugsch in his list -,1 neither
among the many names found in his Lettre sur un MS. bi-
lingue ; nor yet in his ' Sammlung Demotischer Urkunden."
Greeks did indeed mangle the names of the gods both of their
own country and of Egypt ; but Egyptians, never.
As a proof thereof, let us examine this IJeTe<pp^g of the LXX.
Usts is, properly, the Memphitic relat. pron. or adj. with the
def. article, n-€T6, neT6, ' is qui/ vel ' is quem/ (sc. dedit,
amat, &c.) ; and Qprjg is the Memph. <$>pi- or d)pH 'the sun/
with the Greek ending g. Such a compound as 'is qui sol/
' is quem sol' means, of itself, nothing without a complement.
neTe, therefore, which in Sahidic would be nttT, and in Old
Egyptian nrtTI cannot be the relat. pron. neTe in IIsTsQprig2
This, I believe, is proved to demonstration by the very examples
Champollion gives3 to show the contrary. At p. 306, sq., he
gives the various forms of nrtTI in hieroglyphic and in hieratic
characters, and at p. 310 he gives what he calls the contracted
forms of nrtTr used in the construction of proper names ; viz.
nT, nTOT, in which, however, he introduces the new symbols
of the so-called ' level' and of the ' hand holding it,' without
1 Demotisch. griech. Eigen. 1851 ; and Parthey, ^Egyptisohe Pers. nam. 1864.
2 We might, indeed, read neT-e-d)pK which is grammatical, for lit. 'is
qui ad Solem' i.e. ' Soli' (so. deditus est) ; but such a combination hardly seems
probable. This name is also written sometimes XJevTeQpfc. This in Coptic
would be ne- ftTe-Cppi. or cbpH ' He of the sun.'
3 Gr. Eg. p. 310.

IV. P. 81.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 211
accounting for this supposed 'contraction' occurring only in
proper names, and only with these symbols. Now, it so happens
that these two symbols, in their symbolic as well as in their
phonetic capacity, always express Ti. or TI ' to give' or 'gift ;'
M. Chabas,1 it is true, seems to enlarge on Champollion's as
sertion in his Gr. Eg. p. 310 ; but, I think, by an oversight,
since most of the examples he gives prove my position, that —
since the ' level'2 generally stands at the head of inscriptions for
' I give' or ' I offer/ or ' gift/ ' offering,' &c, and that either
alone or ' in the hand' it means and reads, ' to give' or ' gift/
or even ' gifted/ as in Ti.-i.rtX 'gifted with life/ said of kings,
&e. — This said ' contraction' of nrtTI into nT by means of
these two symbols, is no contraction at all ; but reads n-Ti.
or ne, ni.-TI, ' the gift' (of), or ' the given' (of) ; so as to
read #"12X012 ni.-TI-d>pi., 'he whom the sun has given;'
M. Chabas himself seems to think so ; for he gives in hiero
glyphics3 neTI-cbpi. " Peti-phra, don de Phra, Heliodore,"
as the Egyptian for #"12X012.*
Yet, this etymology is not altogether satisfactory ; for the 1
is not well represented by the Eg. 'a' (the arm). This long
vowel 1, however, shows (1) that we must look for the equiva
lent of i£| in the Eg.5 ni. or in some other long vowel, and not
in the'indefinite sound of ne, or neT, neTe ; that, therefore,
1 Inscr.'d'Ibsamboul, Rev. Archeol. XVe Ann. p. 709.
2 If so be it is a ' level,' and not a kind of bread, offered to the gods at funerals
and at other seasons, in loaves, called KvXKr)o-ris or KoXKdaris, (Athen. Lib. x.
u. 4, p. 418, 447, ed. Cas. ; and Lib. iii. u. 30, 80, ii. 77.) Eg. J<p or
]<X-i.C-TI) i-e- ' cake- worthy,' or ' devoted — gift,' or ' funeral gift,' or ' offer
ing/ KXi.C-TI (Ritual c. xvii. 1. 7, and Diet. Eg. p. 450); further proved
by the Inscr. of Thothmes III. (Brugsch. Mon. vol. i. PI. xiii. 1. 4, near the
bottom,) where we have apparently one of these loaves, els o£A avTryfiePovs,
' brought to a point,' which Alyimrioi KaWiareh avi/ia^ov the Egyptians called
' callistes,' (Jul. Poll. Onom. vi. 73, p. 246, ed. Bek.) together with other kinds
of bread offered to Amun. If, however, it be not a Kowdaris, but really a
' level,' its symbolic meaning must be ' equity,' in offering suitable gifts either
to the gods or to men.
8 Papyr. Prisse, p. 7.
4 See also Rosell. Mon. Civ. Vol. i. p. 117.
5 Champ. Gr. Eg. p. 188, 264.
P 2

212 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
(2) the Greek nereQpris for ' Potiphar' and ' Potipherah/ is of
no more weight than the Greek rendering of ' Shiphrah' and of
'Tsipporah' by SeirQmgu, or that of ' Ap,ovopuTtog for 'Amun-
Hor;' for the LXX. could not render ifcD12 by IIsts except
through carelessness or indifference.1
Granting that #12 is the Memphitic d)pi. — for there were
dialectic idioms in those days as well as later — 12 in 12X012
cannot be the same word. But, and until a better etymology
can be offered, ' Phar' in ' Potiphar' may be, again in Memph
itic, dj>i.p — for we are now dealing with events in Lower Egypt,
for n-£,i.p, ' the Har/ Horus; (like d>KT for n£,HT, d>oOT for
n&OOT, &c.) e.g. 'Apwriptg £,p-OTep, ' Har, the elder' or 'the
great/ thus 'Potiphar/ 12X012 would mean, 'he that is given
by Horus / ni.-TI-n-&i.p, or ni.-TI-d>i.p. And, so far as
the dignity of the epithet went, there was not much to choose be
tween ' Potiphar' and ' Potipherah/ since Har, Horus, the sacred
Hawk of Egypt, was often identified with the Sun, and was
only another name for it. So much, at all events, for the
" Gleichformigkeif," or ' like construction/ as ' free inquirers'
call it, of these two proper names.
XVIII. V. Bohlen having thus made out to his satisfaction,
that ' Potipherah' and ' Potiphar' being one and the same (as
proved by neTetppyg) were first talked of when Onias had built his
1 The above was already written when I received M. Chabas' " Melanges
Egyptologiques, 2de Serie," and found therein at p. 26 the proof of what I
have just said, as to the carelessness of the LXX. in rendering proper names
not of Greek origin. For in a quotation he gives from Letronne's Recherches
pour servir a l'histoire d'Eg. p. 341, we find the proper names Xlerevirliris,
Uerevir^vis, Ylerefrnd/ievres, &c, that show that — when the relative n6T,
neT6 is made part of a proper name transcribed in Greek, it takes the ft, v,
without which it would not form a grammatical term ; e.g. Tlere-vo-firis, for
neTe-It-Ci.Te> &e. So that, the LXX. Tlereippfc, must either be, as I
have said, for neT-6-cbpK. ' is qui soli,' (sc. deditus est), a compound term
which does not recommend itself , or it must be for ni.-TI-d)pH, "HXtSSupos,
which is more probable j since neT-6-cbpK in the language of the Pharaohs
would be nrtTI-JUL-Cppi. or nttT-JUL-d^pi., Pnti, or Pnt-m-phra ;
less flowing than jntMpiB Pa-ti-phra. Yet, how little we know about it !

IV. P. 81.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 213
temple at Heliopolis, not two centuries before our Saviour's
birth, he does not actually, like Nork, make Asenath the daugh
ter of Dinah by the ass-headed god Sutech, but he nevertheless,
like Nork also, brings r^Dtf not from the Egyptian, but from
the Aramean. And with Nork, he quotes a passage of the
Talmud also given by Buxtorf,1 wherein it is said that at wed
dings the custom was to throw some barley brought from the
granary, KXjDN isnaya, into a cup or vessel called &n2X?S$
asintha, saying : " Grow and multiply like this barley" — which
when it had grown, was afterwards brought back to the married
pair, &c. We may, at all events, thank these ' free inquirers'
for affording us innocent amusement. Would they were always
as harmless, as when they tell us that Asenath, daughter of
Potipherah, Priest of On, was named after an iron or a copper
saucepan into which her Jewish parents cast a handful of barley
at her wedding ! Free, very free indeed.
The etymology alluded to by Dr. Stanley, however, is nearer
the truth. 'Asenath/ daughter of Potipherah, was like her
father, and in true Egyptian style, called after some divinity,
Asenath, possibly ' As-neith/ i.c-neiO, " le merite de Neith,"
as M. Chabas interprets it,2 was so called, as being, if not
sacred to that goddess, at least under her patronage. This
name is connected with Neitb, in like manner as As-esi i.c-HCI
is with Isis.3 Jablonski who offers Ccye-IteST for the ety
mology of ' Asenath' compares it with HarsveiT, (Gift of Neith)
the name of a priest of Neith.4 Seiffarth5 offers i.tti.IT-Xop
' power of Neith/ but like many of his renderings, it is far from
satisfactory as regards 2fop. Uhlemann, however, who belongs
to the same school, derives ' Asenath' from i.ttje-Itei€* ' Ashe-
neith/ and gives to i-tye the same meaning Champollion gives
to i.C.6 But the n * s ' in rODK can no more be transcribed
by cy ' sh,' than D in DDE#1 Barneses ; for they both render
the hierogl. s, or ' crook ;' so that even i.UJ-nei€> ' worshipper
1 Lex. Chald. col. 167. 2 Pap. Prisse, p. 7 ; but better, i.C-tti.T.
3 Champ. Precis S. Hier. Tab. p. 28.
4 Opp. Vol. ii. p. 209 ; Panth. p. 56.
5 Theol. Schr. .Eg. p. 100.
6 Isr. u. Hyksos. p. 45, et de Vet. vEg. Ling. p. 25.

214 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
of (i.e. ' caller upon') Neith' cannot be thought of for 'Asenath ;'
and M. Chabas' etymology, ' merits of Neith/ i.e. ' like Neith/
must be received as best for the name of the daughter of the
High Priest of On, Pa-Tum, the Holy City of Egypt. She
might be much of what her Greek biographer tells of her,1 a
damsel of high repute, as daughter of the greatest man in the
land, and second only to the king, ere Joseph was raised by God,
' to fill the heart of his sovereign/ JUL£, £,HT ft COTTert
in the language of his day, as wpu>Tog $lxog, as his Counsellor
and as Ruler of his land. He was blessed as God alone blesses ;
and his progeny was compared as Dr. Stanley says very well,
and much to the point —
" not to the stars of the Chaldean heavens, or to the sand of the
Syrian shore, but to the countless fish swarming in the great
Egyptian river."
XIX. After some good remarks, p. 84, the Dean of West
minster treats briefly of the stay of the Israelites in Egypt, and
of the different length of their sojourn there, according to either
the Hebrew, the Greek, or the Samaritan texts ; but he wisely
abstains from giving a decided view on questions which neither
Lepsius, De Rouge, Bunsen, Brugsch, Uhlemann, Chabas,
Knotel, Koch, Henry, Lesueur, Poole, Sharpe, Nash, Sir G.
Wilkinson, nor as many others as have written on the subject
have yet been able to settle. Neither will I, assuredly, offer
an opinion ; but I will only give the points I find sufficient for
my purpose, in endeavouring to fix landmarks in that broad
and hazy distance.
1. The Israelites can never have been the Hyksos of which
Manetho speaks. He says2 that ' Hyk' in the sacred tongue
means ' King ;' to 8s SflS irotp.r]v Io-ti xai irotuAvsg xaTa t\v
xoiv\v haXexTov, " but sos means ' shepherd' and ' shepherds' in
the common dialect," Not only is such an unusual combination
of the sacred and of the common idiom in one word, most sus
picious, but Josephus himself was not sure of it ; for he says a
little after, that in another copy ou fZao-tXeig <n)|U.atW0ai ha ty];
tou 'Tx irpoa-Yjyopla;, StXXa TOuvaVTtov alxfJ-a-Xuiroug SijAouo-flat irot-
1 plos 'AatvveB in Fabricii Cod. Pseud. V. T. Vol. i. 774, sq., ii. 85, sq.
2 Joseph. C. Ap. Lib. i. c. 14,

IV. P. 84.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 215
\j.evag, not '"kings' but 'captive shepherds' were described by
the term 'Hyk ;' to yap Tx iraXtv AlyuirTtaa-Tt xa) to Ax laauvd-
fuevov, alxp-aXwroug jirjTwg fj.Y{vuef for that ' Hyk' again in Egyp
tian and Ak aspirated, really mean ' captives.' " All this is
correct. ' Hyk' or ' Hak' occurs very frequently for ' governor,
ruler, or petty king/ as e.g. of the nomes of Egypt; ' Hak An/
the ' Governor of On/ also a title of Ramses ; and ' Hak' also
means ' captive ;' but though these two words be pronounced
alike they differ so completely in hieroglyphical, and therefore
also in hieratic writing, that neither Josephus nor Manetho
could have consulted the original copy. And as to SflS, sos,
it answers to the Coptic CLjCOC, rendered in Sahidic, ecjJULOorte
ttrtiecoOT " he who tends the sheep,"1 but the equivalent for it
has not yet been found in the old language. Sos has been
identified by some with the Sasii, a Nomadic people often men
tioned in Egyptian documents ; but they were of Arab descent.
So that, there may be some truth in the Arabic tradition re
corded by Abulfeda2 that the Pharaoh under whose reign Jo
seph came to Egypt was Er-Rajjan son of El-Walid, ^ %?-.
rJ u^ (*^ li^ C^*^ ^J li!"* c^^*1*^ " a man fr°m arnong
the Amalekites, who draw their origin from Amlak, son of Shem,
son of Noah ;" and elsewhere (p. 16) he reckons among the
many sons of Shem^ ^y J^Util f\ j£> ^jJl J^os^j ^
jaaj &lz\j&\j *l!uJlj i^lAasH u^J^ "Tasm and Amlek, who
is the father of the Amalekites; and from them descended the
Giants (D"IX21) of Syria and the Pharaohs of Egypt." So
that, whether ' kings' or ' captives' the Sasu could not be the
Israelites; not to mention the probable time of the two Hyksos
or Shepherd Dynasties, which could never be made to agree
with the thread of history to which the sojourn of the Israelites
in Egypt belongs.
But the real name for these irotfj.svsg was 'Mena-u/ (Copt.
JULOOtte ' to tend/ JULOOIt, JULi.rt-€COOT ' tend-sheep/ ' shep
herd/) and they are thus mentioned in several instances, as,
e. g., by Ahmes, who went to Avaris (?) with Ra-seqenen Tau-aa-
qan, fought and took it from Apepj II., and brought away thence
1 Zoega Codd. Sahid. p. 346. 2 Hist. A. I. p. 28.

216 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
a man and three women prisoners, fee.1 These Arab pastors
were long remembered and mentioned in Egyptian writings as
the 'pest' or 'plague/ Aat-u.
2. The Israelites are mentioned as Hebrews, 'Aperi-u/ or
' Aberi-u/ in several places in the Leyden Papyri, which I have
not, and cannot verify. I quote this on the safe and good
authority of M. Chabas.2
3. Following the letter of Scripture, that is, of the Hebrew
for the Old, and of the Greek for the New Testament, I find
that God said unto Abraham, Gen. xv. 13, " Know of a surety
that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and
shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred
years;" and that this statement is again repeated by S. Stephen,
Acts vii. 6, to show that not the 'sojourn/ but the 'affliction'
of Abraham's posterity was to last four hundred years. For
"now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in
Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years," Exod. xii. 40; a
statement which is further confirmed by S. Paul, Gal. iii. 17,
where he speaks of the Law being given four hundred and
thirty years after God's covenant with Abraham and with his
seed ; clearly reckoning from the time the validity of that cove
nant began as regards the children of Abraham, that is, from
the day they set foot in the strange land of Egypt.
4. From the tenour of the last chapter in Joseph's history
(Gen. 1. 14 — 26), it is very evident that the Pharaoh of whom
he asked leave through his ministers to go and bury his father
(v. 4) was not the same who had given him his ring and had
clothed him in fine linen. Joseph, though still a great man in
the land, was, it would seem, no longer in office ; while his last
words to his brethren, " God will surely visit you and bring you
out of this land," read not like the expression of faith only, but
also like the foreboding of coming sorrow, and like a feeling of
solitude in a land of strangers, and without a home anywhere.
Joseph, then, was seventeen years old when sold into Egypt ;
thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh (Gen. xli. 46) )
and thirty-nine (ch. xiv. 6) when Jacob and his family came to
Goshen; and as he died "a hundred and ten years old" (ch. 1.
1 De Rouge\ T. d'Ahmes, p. 171 j Chabas, Mel. Egyptol. p. 34, sq.
¦ Mel Egyptol. l"° se"rie, p. 42, sq. ; et W* se>ie,p. 143, sq.

IV. P. 84.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 217
36), be had spent ninety-three years of his life in Egypt, and
had seen, we may be sure, more than one Pharaoh on the
throne. The ' affliction' of Abraham's seed I therefore take to
have begun from the death or from the expulsion of the Pharaoh
who raised Joseph to honour ; when Joseph's influence at court
either fell or ceased altogether, and with it the favour shown to
his family. This is the more probable if we place the coming
of Joseph into Egypt according to the prevalent tradition under
Apophis, i.e., Apepj II., the last of the Arab, Sasu, or Ama-
lekite Dynasty, about the beginning of the XVIIIth Diospolite
Dynasty. And the new Pharaoh, who began the ' affliction' of
the children of Israel, may have been the Ra-seqenen Tau-aa-qan
whom Ahmes accompanied to Avaris, where Apepj II., whom
he deposed, had reigned, thirty years after the coming of Jacob
to Goshen, when Joseph was about seventy years of age. All
this would thus have taken place in the eighteenth century
before Christ, according to probability, and to the chronology
of the Authorized Version, of Chabas and of Brugsch — no mean
witnesses in such matters. These are, I know, mere surmises ;
yet they are better than many others rather taught as dogmas
than offered as mere opinions. Moreover they have this great
advantage, that they agree with the letter of Scripture, and with
the probable history drawn from Egyptian documents.
XX. "The land of Goshen," continues Dr. Stanley, "was
the frontier land, reckoned as in Arabia rather than in Egypt."
And on this he has the following note : —
" El-Arish is the traditional scene of the overtaking of Joseph's
brethren by Pharaoh's officers. (Denon. ii. 90.)" — p. 84.
What officers, and where? Dr. Stanley does not surely
mean, by " Pharaoh's officers," Joseph's steward, whom Joseph
sent after his brethren "when they were gone -out of the city,
and not yet far off." (Gen. xliv. 4.) This tradition, however,
has so little to recommend it, that one does not see (1) what
could induce Dr. Stanley to record it ; and (2) still less what
connexion there can be between these said " officers of Pharaoh"
pursuing Joseph's brethren, and the ' land of Goshen.' Such
confusion of ideas only creates error.
For, first — Joseph was at the seat of government; and if it

218 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT,
was not Memphis, it was assuredly Tanis or Avaris. But this,
the easternmost city that ever was a royal city in Lower Egypt,
was at several days' march from the site of El-Arish.
Secondly — the whole transaction of the steward following
after Joseph's brethren soon after dawn, when they were " not
yet far" from the city — their return to Joseph " who was yet in
the house" (v. 14), and not gone out to his public business,
from which he generally returned " at noon" (ch. xliii. 25) — his
making himself known unto them, and Pharaoh's interview with
him about them — all took place the same day (xliv. 3 — xiv. 24).
Thirdly — Goshen never reached to El-Arish. Jablonski
wasted a vast erudition in eight dissertations,1 to try and show
that Goshen was Kwx^f- or Kwx«>v, that is, the Heracleopolite
nome; Kwxdbp. being, as he thinks, Ki.£/-20UJUL, the ' land of
the strong/ i.e., Hercules. A great number of far better ety
mologies might easily be offered ; but it would lead to no result
beyond what is already obtained, viz., that the land of Goshen
was probably in the most fertile district of Lower Egypt, called
Wadi Tumilat, in the neighbourhood of Bilbeis, on the ancient
canal that joined the Nile with the Red Sea at Heroopolis, that
formed, as it were, the entrance town into the valley from the
desert side, and was also, possibly, the meeting-place (miiT?)
of Jacob and Joseph. (Gen. xlvi. 28.)2
XXI. An interesting representation3 of what — but for the date
thereof — might be taken for a family of Israelites coming into
Egypt, is found in the tomb of Chnumhoteph at Beni-Hassan.
It is dated the sixth year of Usertesen II., that is, some
say, about a thousand years before the time of Joseph. The
countenance of both men and women is Shemitic, and they
wear tunics embroidered in plain, formal patterns, that re
mind one of the later expression, DX?2 r\3r\3, the coat
of many colours, of coloured embroidery or patchwork, Jacob
gave Joseph. But, unless the commonly received opinion re
garding the Dynasty under which this painting was made be

1 Opp. vol. ii. p. 77—234.
3 See Brugsch. Geogr. Denkm. vol. i. p. 265, 298 ; Champoll. L'Eg. sous
les Pharaons, vol. ii. p. 87, sq.
3 Rosellini, Mon. Real. pi. xxvi., xxvii. ; Brugsch. Hist. A' Kg. p. 63.

IV. P. 84.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 219
altogether at fault, it can serve as no direct illustration of a
Scriptural narrative. We have,1 however, a scene of captives
&kt i.rt ft £,rtq p Ki.-TOT rtTp-£,i. i.Tq-q iJULit
taken and brought to Thebes by Thothmes III., building a temple
for his father Amun. Among them are, evidently, Shemites ; and,
seeing the children of Israel had been about two hundred years
in Lower Egypt, where they were enduring affliction, when this
building of Thothmes III. took place, there is nothing to hinder
us from recognizing in these Jewish faces some of the same
people who, two hundred years later, were evil-entreated by
Ramses II., and made to build for him his treasure-cities
Pithom and Rameses ; for the scribe Keniamen2 writes to his
master, an overseer of the household of Ramses- Meriamun, " that
he had given grain to the soldiers and to the Aperi-u (Hebrews)
who were drawing stone for the house of Ramses, south of
Memphis." In another Papyrus3 we have a description of the
Bekhen, or treasure city of Rameses ; and in another4 Pithom is
plainly alluded to. Yet these scraps only make one long for
more. It seems to us that at every line we must alight on
some familiar name, which, like a sunbeam on the dim page
of the history of those days, would guide us aright as to the
time, and link at once the heathen with the Sacred Records.
But, hitherto, we have only just evidence enough of this kind
to whet our inquiry and to try our patience; showing, as it
does, that we might have had it full, had not the very monu
ments we possess perished in part. A scrap of Papyrus is either
worn away or torn off in the midst of a sentence or of a name
which we long to see either finished or complete, and yet
cannot ; because we must be reminded at every step that, even
as regards the letter of the Word of God, we are to walk by
faith, and not by sight. If we had everything made so plain as
to require no searching, our Saviour would not have said,
" Search the Scriptures ;" for then we should walk, as it were, by
sight, and our faith, and with it our obedience, would be little
tried, because little required. But God wishes to see in us the
faith that searches His Word as an act of worship, and not as
1 Brugsch, Hist. d'Eg. p. 106.
! Papyr. Leyde, i. 349, Chabas, Mel. 2ie Serie, p. 144, sq.
3 Anastasi ii. and iv. 4 Anastasi vi.

220 philosophy, or truth ? [lect.
an effort of doubt. He has a right to require of us such homage.
If we render it, His Word bears us witness of itself; but if we
deny Him that obedient worship, our evil conscience there bears
us witness of the truth of that Word.
XXII. After giving a description of On that reads oddly while
one has present to the mind the sanctity of that City of the Sun,
and the profound veneration with which it is always mentioned
in Egyptian lore, as among the living on earth, so also by the
dead in Amenti, Dean Stanley says : —
"How important was that worship (of the sun) may be best
understood by remembering that from it were derived the chief
names by which kings and priests were called — ' Pha-raoh,' ' The
child of the sun,' ' Potiphe-rah,' ' The servant of the sun.' " —
p. 88.
This statement contains several oversights. First — even if
there were such a term as ' Pha-raoh/ ' pha' does not mean ' the
child/ nor ' raoh' ' of the sun.' Secondly — if there were such a
word as ' Potiphe-rah,' * potiphe' does not mean ' the servant/
neither does 'rah/ strictly speaking, mean 'of the sun.'
We saw,1 when speaking of the etymology of ' Potipherah/
that, according to these 'free inquirers/ the three words 12,
#12, and 1#12 Phar, Phera, and Par'oh are said to be one
and the same term for " the sun." Disciples of Hermogenes —
OTOto-t Soxsi o ti av Tig tw fliJTai ovopM, touto elvat xa) to opidv xa)
av aWig ye erepov p-eTa^YfTat — oillv y)ttov to ua-Tepov bgQwg exeiv T0"
irpoTspou xstfj.evou, wo~irsp T0~tg olxeratg Y)fj,s~tg fj.eTaTttl'ep.efta2 — " who
think that whatever name we give to a thing, even though we
change it as often as that of our servants, that name be, never
theless, the right one." To whom Socrates : co iralBeg 'Iinrovlxou,
iraXata irapotpJia "oti j£aAs5ra Ta xaXa Iotiv dirr\ e^ei fj,aQe~iv" xa)
h) xa) to irep) twv bvofj.dt.TWV ou a-fj,ixpbv Tuyx^vet ov fj.aSYjp.a'
"'Good things/ my children, 'are hard to learn/ said your
grandmother; and truly, there is yet something to teach even
about names." 'OpDwg 8q- The sun is represented in hiero
glyphic inscriptions as a disc, with or without the ' urseus' ; and
when the name either precedes or follows the symbol, it is
always written Ra; in Hebrew letters #1, ra; and the same
1 Above, p. 212. s Cratyl. 3.

IV. P. 88.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 221
thing takes place in hieratic MSS. when the definite article
' pe' or ' pa' is prefixed — in certain constructions only, since Ra,
like Zeug, is a common as well as a proper noun — we have pe
or pa-ra; Memph. phe or pha-ra, Heb. #12, 'the Sun;' and
with the possessive article or pronoun, pa or pha-ra, 'he of the
Sun/ or ' my Sun.'
As the King of Egypt was styled ' Son of the Sun/ Cl-pi.
si-Ra (seldom pi--CI), the Sun Ra formed part of the name
and of the surname of many Pharaohs, e.g., Ra-mses, or Ra
meses, ' Sun-born ;' Ra-seqenen, &c. And they were often
addressed by courtiers and by the people as, " 0 King of Egypt,
Sun of all nations," &c, as in CTIt ft KHJUL6 pi. It ITCT
IITT-OT1 said to Sethos I. Chevalier Bunsen, therefore, whom
certain men follow implicitly, makes a mistake when he says2
that kings of Egypt, to whose kingdom Ra had set no bounds
but those on which he shines,3 were not addressed as ' Sun/ but
as ' Son of the Sun' ; for, again, the messengers sent by the
King of Bekhten to Ramses III., address him thus : " Glory to
thee, pi. it HCT TITT-OT, 0 thou Sun of all nations, grant
us to live near thee !"4 And, again, Ramses-Meriamun is men
tioned as It-pi. — TirtTp &.^ "the Sun, the great God, life,
health, and strength be his ! the great Lord Ramses-Meria
mun ;"5 and thus repeatedly.
Some, like Rosellini,6 have attempted to draw the term i1#12
' Par'o/ Pharaoh, from #12, ' Phe-ra./ the Sun. So also M.
Chabas,? who gives Tie-pi. or npi. as the etymology of ' Pha
raoh ;'8 while Sir G. Wilkinson9 says of " Pharaoh". —
" that it is written in Hebrew Phrah, p?#12> and is taken from
the Egyptian word Pire or Phre (pronounced Phra), signifying
1 Brugsch. Mon. vol. i. pi. xlvii./. 2 JEg. Stelle, ii. p. 13.
3 Inscr. of Sethos I. in Brugsch, Mon. vol. i. pi. xiv. d.
4 Etude sur une Stele, p. 60.
6 Pap. Lee. 1. 2, and Pap. RoUin, 1. 2, 3, p. 170,173, in Pap. Harris, ed. Chabas.
6 Mon. Stor. vol. i. p. 115. 7 pap. Harris, p. 173.
8 But what are we to think of Mr. Sharpe proposing TU-i.-pH pi-a-re, for
the etymology of ' Pharaoh' ? in Rud. of a Vocab. of Eg. Hierogl. p. 68.
9 Anc. Egyp. vol. i. p. 43, note.

222 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [lECT.
the Sun, and represented in hieroglyphics by the hawk and globe,
or Sun, over the royal banners. But the word is not derived
from or related to ouro, 'king,' as Josephus supposes. Phouro is
like Pharaoh ; but the name is Phrah in Hebrew, and Pharaoh is
an unwarranted corruption."
I am sorry to have to differ from Sir G. Wilkinson, whose
opinion on Egyptian matters is worthy of all respect ; yet I am
afraid I must lean to the side of Ch. Bunsen, who, while saying1
— as we have seen, erroneously — that the kings of Egypt were
not addressed as " 0 Sun," adds, however, rightly, " Moreover,
the (I in Jl#12 is not accounted for, if Phre or Phra be the
etymology thereof. But whether ra, ' sun/ and ouro, ' king/
were or were not confounded together, certain it is that Pharaoh
comes from the root of ouro, and means the ' king.' " And
Ch. Bunsen, I think, is right.
Of those who agree with Cb. Bunsen, Josephus2 says : b 4>a-
pawv xaT AlyuirTtoug fiao-tXsa o-r)fj,aivst, "Pharaoh means 'king'
with the Egyptians." Geo. Syncellus3 alludes to this when he
says that the kings of Egypt, to irXsta-Tov 4>apaw Xsyovrat, are
mostly called Pharaoh, which was an epithet common to them
all. And Cedrenus* partly copies it, saying that Pharaoh was
a name common to all the kings of Egypt.5 Following this
track, Jablonski says :6 " Fuerunt eruditi qui veteribus, id me
morise prodentibus, fidem denegarent, aut rem in dubium vo-
carent. Sed frustra. Nihil sane verius — communi dialecto
fbOTpo regem significat ; et Theb. antiquissima nppo, quasi
dicas Parro, vel quod Mg. plane idem est 4j>ppo, Pharro."
Brugsch says :7 " revera vocem iEgyptiacam p.ara p.arai fontem
esse Grseci Qapaw maxime vox congrua Copticse affirmat, qua
rex eppo, OTpO nominatur." But in his Hist. d'Egypte8 he
1 JEg. Stelle, ii. p. 13. » Antiq. Lib. viii. c. 6, 2.
8 Chron. vol. i. p. 117, ed. D.
4 P. 73, ed. Bonn, und Mich. Glycas, p. 294
5 As it is given in a quotation falsely attributed to S. Jerome : "^Egyptiorum
reges omnes tunc Pharaones dicebantur non hoc proprium habentes nomen, sed
pro dignitate reges tunc utebantur hoc nomine, sicut apud nos Imperatores
Augusti appellantur," &c. (Taken from a note at the end of Euseb. Chron.
Armen. vol, ii. p. 309.)
6 Opp. vol. i. p. 374. 7 De nat. et ind. ling. ^g. p. 25.
8 P. 156.

IV. P. 88.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 223
swerves from the right path in offering per-aa, ' great house/ as
the etymology of ' Pharaoh !' Kosegarten1 quotes from Cham-
pollion's first edition of his Precis, p. 72, where he says : " Le
groupe hieroglyphique qui repond aux mots coptes prro, prra,
pouro — se lit simplement ra, ou bien avec l'article pra, et sig-
nifie tete, chef, Bashm. ra, Theb. ro. Ce groupe pris adjective-
ment veut dire principal, superieur, capital." In his second
edition, however, Champollion altered his opinion for the better
thus : " le groupe2 hieroglyphique repondant au mot copte n'est
autre chose que le nom hieroglyphique phonetique du Basilic
ou serpent royal, embleme de la souveraine puissance — dont nous
trouvons la transcription en characteres Grecs, OTPAI-og, dans
le texte d'Horapollon. L'image de ce serpent decorait exclu-
sivement le front des rois; c'est Ik l'origine de l'appellation
IIOTpo le basilic donnee aux souverains d'Egypte." Bochart's
etymology for ' Pharaoh/ ^jjci ' Phra'un/ ' a crocodile/ is
ingenious, like that of J. Simon,3 t j> 'Phar'un/ 'chief;'
Olderman's and Perizonius' nipcOJULIC, i.e., 'excellent/ and
Miiller's d)i.pru)T, ' patriae pater/ are absurd ; and V. Bohlen's
opinion that4 iilH2 appears first distinctly in later history and
in Ezek. xxxii. 2, and is thus formed in Hebrew to agree with
#12, ' princeps/ f\1#12 #123, Judg. v. 2, is specious, false,
and utterly unsound.5
But Ch. Bunsen and Champollion are right, the one in
pointing out the fact that those who derive H#12 from #12,
Ttpi., ' the Sun/ do not account for the H ; and the other for
giving the Egyptian i.pi-, 'basilisc/ the 'emblem of regal
power/ as the etymology of i1#12-
In this case it is right to go rather by the letters of H#12,
than by the vowel points, which are of a later date. Those
read Praa, or Pharaa, and seem to express exactly the oupaiog,
written i.pi.i. in Egyptian6 with the article ; so as to make of
H#12, Paraa, or Pharaa, b oupaiog, i.e., ' the king.' In this
1 De prisca .Eg. Lit. p. 18. 2 P. 124.
3 Onom. V. T. p. 355. « Gen. p. 163.
6 I wonder he never thought of the Burmese ' Pho-rah ;' Siamese ' Phrah,'
God, Superior.
" Brugsch, Gram. Dem. p. 24.

224 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
respect, however, the Hebrew should be written ##12, in
order to render the two 'a's' ('arms') with which i.pi. or
i.p<Li. are written. But if it were so, the two ## together
would in Hebrew create an articulation foreign to the Egyptian,
and to the orthography of i.pi.i. in the old language. So
another letter must be used to supply the place of the second
i. ; and as X would be against Hebrew analogy, jf was adopted
in accordance with it. Thus we have both # and ft accounted
for. The fact, nevertheless, abides, that we never find, either in
hieroglyphic inscriptions or in hieratic Papyri, or even in the De
motic monograms derived from the hieratic, the expression Hi.pi.
or IIi.p<Li. for 'the king;' but always CTtt, COTTGtt, 'ruler
or governor.' So that, while we cannot, consistently with fair
etymology, derive i1#12 from eboTpo or from TIppo, we may
yet do so from i.pi-, i.p<Li., as derived from an older form,
i.pi.p ; albeit we have not at present any certain clue to the time
when the fem. i.pi.p, i.p<Li., the symbol of heavenly power
over life and death, and thus of royalty, was used in the masc. for
' king/ and in the fem. for 'queen.' This symbol, however, was
worn by kings in their crown as ' sons of the Sun/ around which
it was coiled when mentioned as ' God' ; and thus were they looked
upon as his offspring on earth : for oupaiov, says Horapollo,1
o eo-Ttv 'EXXy]V10-t) f3ao-iXta-xo;2 xPvo~ouv irotouvreg, Qeolg ireptTt6eao-tv,
" they adorn their gods with an uraeus made of gold ; alwva 8s
Xsyouo-tv AlyuirTtot ha touIs tou Zpmu $r)Xouo-(lai, for the Egyptians
say that eternity is represented by this animal, which, of all
other serpents, is alone immortal. Wherefore, since it seems to
have power over life and over death, do they put it upon the head
of their gods." Although it is impossible to speak of such ety
mologies with certainty, yet it seems probable both that the
Greek oupaiog, which I can find only in Horapollo, was derived
at Alexandria, from OTpo, 'king/ and not from oupa, 'tail/ and
that TIi.pi. or Iti.pi.i- are the origin of Pt#12i inasmuch as all
these terms, ara, arar, araa, ourr, rro, ouro, ' urseus/ ' diadem/
and ' king' seem connected together.
1 Lib. i. u. i. ed. Leem. 2 Regulus, Plin. N. H. viii. 21, &c.

IV. P. 88.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 225
Anyhow, certain it is that Pharaoh does not mean ' Child of
the Sun/ as Dr. Stanley says, but simply ' the king ;' for pj#1
ean never be #T ; neither does ' Potipherah' mean ' servant of
the Sun'; but only 'he whom the Sun gave/ ' HXtdlwpog.
This divine origin of kings, in which every sovereign of
Egypt prided himself, calling upon the Sun as upon his father,
kept up throughout the kingdom a feeling of servile and cring
ing subjection on the part of the people, and of a haughty and
absolute despotism on that of the king. "Who is the Lord,"
said Pharaoh to Moses, " that I should let Israel go ? I know
not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go ;" language worthy of
a successor of Ramses II., who 81' aurwv 81 twv ulxf*.aXwTwv Zirxvra
xaTeo-xsuao-e,1 employed no Egyptians, but only captives in the
construction of his treasure cities ; among others, of Pithom and
of Rameses. " To please my master, Bek-en-Ptah," said the
scribe Kanisar, " I have obeyed the order my master gave me,
saying, Distribute rations to the soldiers as well as to the
Aperi-u (Hebrews) who draw the stone for the great Bekhen
(palace or royal treasure city) of King Ramses- Meriamun, lover
of justice, who are under the charge of the Madjai Ameneman.
I give them rations every month according to the excellent
directions my master gave me."2
This collateral witness to the bondage of the Hebrews is in
teresting, especially from the hands of one of the D^Ji'Ji, task
masters themselves, giving account to one of "Pharaoh's
officers" CXil-OT, D'HSiD, which, in Egyptian drawings, are
never absent from a scene of labour, or of corn and of wine
harvest. But as the term 'Aperi/ in which we may recognise
^"Q#, pi. 'Aperi-u/ occurs among a colony sent by Ramses
IV. into Southern Egypt, after the date of the Exodus, we must
in that case suppose that al) the Israelites did not leave Egypt
with Moses, but that detachments of them were drafted with
other captives into the interior of the kingdom. But, whether
in Lower or in Upper Egypt, they were both dreaded, detested,
and despised, until the hour of their deliverance came. Yet
this state of bondage, of a nationality crushed by oppression to
1 Diod. Sic. lib. i. 56.
5 Pap. Hierat. Leyd. i. 248, pi. 6, 1. 5, in Chabas Mel. Egyptol. p. 49.
Q

226 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
the lowest state of degradation, was, if I may say so, a necessary
antecedent to the display of God's power in delivering the He
brews from the iron yoke of such thraldom, to make them His
people. They were ever reminded of it. As Dr. Stanley says,
they were to let their servants rest on the Sabbath day, because
they themselves had also been slaves; and every fiftieth year
they were to return to their possessions, in token that they
were at first bondmen in Egypt, then God's servants, to whom
He gave the land which is His own.
XXIII. We cannot, therefore, agree with Dr. Stanley that —
" The bare desert and the bold hills of Palestine formed a whole
some and perpetual contrast to the magnificence of Egypt."
The children of Israel, indeed, when in the desert, longed for
the vegetables they had in profusion in Egypt, even in their ser
vitude ; but even these did not grow without their toiling hard
and long for them, as slaves do there to this day. " For the
land, whither thou goest in to possess it," said Moses to the
people, " is not as the land of Egypt, from whence ye came out,
where thou sowedst thy seed, and wateredst it with thy foot, as
a garden of herbs : but the land whither ye go to possess it, is
a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of
heaven : a land which the Lord thy God careth for : the eyes
of the Lord thy God are always upon it, from the beginning of
the year even unto the end of the year."1 Never was Egypt
thus spoken of; neither can we suppose that even the exuberant
growth on the plains of Egypt, that was doomed and destroyed
for the sake of God's people, could ever look like the " Promised
Land," " the land flowing with milk and honey," " which the
Lord careth for." It was enough His eye should be upon it.
His presence alone makes every desert to rejoice and every wil
derness to blossom as the rose. Where His presence goes with
His people there He gives them rest.
XXIV. Dr. Stanley then goes on to say —
" There were two other traces of their dependent position in
Egypt; — one is the disease of leprosy which for the first time
appears after the stay in Egypt ; — the other relic of repugnance
between the two races — is the ass — which was regarded by the
1 Deut. xi. 10—12.

IV. P. 95.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 227
Egyptians as the exclusive, the contemned symbol of the Nomadic
race who had left them." — p. 95, 96.
As regards the leprosy, the fact that it is mentioned only after
the stay of the Israelites in Egypt, is by no means conclusive
as to its having originated among them while there. For,
unless either Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, or some member of their
families had been leprous, there would have been no occasion
to mention it during their time. Likewise, unless Potiphar, his
wife, or Pharaoh, had been so afflicted, it could not have been
mentioned as regards Egypt; unless it had been sent as a
scourge, like the plague or famine. But it might exist among the
Egyptians in single cases, without being an epidemic ; and the
Israelites are as likely to have caught it from the Egyptians, or
from some other of the captive strangers then in Egypt, as these
from the Israelites. Moreover, the several words for 'leprosy'
and 'leprous' found in Coptic writings must, probably, have
their origin in some term of the Old language we may yet dis
cover, when the unknown diseases mentioned in the Berlin and
Ley den Medical Papyri have been ascertained and recognised ;
or when we get additional evidence on the diseases of Egypt.1
XXV. Still less is there to warrant our thinking the con
tempt with which Dr. Stanley says the Egyptians looked upon
the ass, a remnant of their hatred for the ' lepers/ meaning the
Israelites, whom Manetho says Amenophis expelled from Egypt.
Not only do we find asses forming a part of the stock of farms
in the days of Shuphu and of Assa before Abraham's time, but
we also find both Bal (Baal) and Sutech or Seth, the Typhon of
Egypt, represented as an ass, with his tail erect, in monuments
centuries older than the coming of Jacob's family into Egypt.
Dr. Stanley might as well attribute to the hatred of the Egyp
tians for the Hebrews, the obloquy in which the ass, as an
animal, is now, and has been in every country, — yea even in
Palestine, — as the contempt the Egyptians are supposed to have
had for it. Much rather, were the Hebrews, — perhaps as hav
ing at first come to Egypt on asses, or as using them rather
1 One of these Coptic terms CCWJSlP,i or COoHi-P, is, indeed, compared
with nDD ; but, besides such a comparison having little to warrant it, were it
true, it would refer rather to the itch than to the leprosy.
Q 2

228 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
than horses, during their bondage. — connected with Egyptian
ideas, associations and images already ripe and multiplied in
the land when they made their first appearance in it. Plutarch's
authority, which is always quoted in these matters, agrees
thereto i1 oXwg tov ovov ou xaQupbv aXXa laip.ovtxbv r\youvra\ %wov
etvat ha Tt)v irpbg Ixelvov (TuQwva) bfj,oidrr\Ta, " in short, and alto
gether, do the inhabitants of Busiris (in L. Egypt) and those of
Lycopolis (Siut. U. Egypt), look upon the ass, not as a clean
animal, but as upon one connected with the Evil Spirit (to
which they dedicate it, c. 50) from its resemblance to it." And
to show that, if so be the Hebrews were by the Egyptians con
nected with the contempt shown to the ass, the Hebrews only
came in for their share with others in that contempt, and were
not the sole objects thereof; Plutarch tells us (id. c. 31) that
twv Uepa-txwv f3ao-tXswv exfyrttvovre; fj.aXto-Ta tov *flxov ">S evayT\
xa) paapbv, ovov eirwvdp.ao-aV " hating Ochus most of all the Persian
kings, as accursed and abominable, they surnamed him ' the Ass ;'
when he, saying, This ass then shall devour your ox — slew Apis
on the spot; as Demon relates. But those who say that when
after the battle (with Osiris) Typhon fled for seven days on an
ass, and having escaped yswijo-ai iralSag ' lspoo-oXup.ov xai 'Iouhxiov,
auToSsv elo-) xajaSriXot to. 'Iouda'ixa. irap'sXxovTeg slg tov pjuhov, begat
his sons Hierosolymus and Judseus, show plainly that their
object is to drag Jewish affairs into this fable."
XXVI. As to the ' points of contact' between the Israelites
and the Egyptians of which Dr. Stanley speaks — there is, of
course, nothing to hinder Moses from having wrought imple
ments for the Tabernacle after the modified pattern of what he
had seen in Egypt. He was learned in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians, and he would, naturally, turn it to good account, as
a handmaid to his superior knowledge received from God.
Many well-intentioned people have taken needless offence at this
idea; but assuredly, and as S. Paul taught much later, that
every creature of God is good — when " sanctified by the Word
of God and prayer," so also there was nothing in the Egyptian
designs adopted by Moses that was in itself objectionable. The
use alone to which they were put, made them either good or bad.
XXVII. But as to ' points of contrast' between the Israelites and
1 De Is. et Osir. c. 30.

IV. P. 99.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 229
the Egyptians to which Dr. Stanley refers, they must have been,
as indeed they were, as many and as wide apart, as the grossest
idolatry and Revealed Truth can be. And it is hardly the work
of an earnest philosopher, whose business is with tw ovti y ov,
with the real character of the Egyptian and of the Hebrew
worships respectively, to find points of contrast between two
religions which can have nothing in common, save the one fact
that they each worship something. This system of a "wide,
all-embracing worship" is not true, and therefore not philoso
phical ; for how can Truth and error, light and darkness, exist
together? Neither can sound philosophy consider it from a
Christian point of view, except to see the disagreement of its
two principal categories ; the one to ov eu; aXyQsg that which is
— Truth; the other to fxr) ov, w; vf/sDSoj, that which is not —
falsehood. XXVIII. The following note, therefore, does not say much —
" If it be true that the Egyptian belief in a future state was
inseparably united with the belief in transmigration, and that from
this, sprang the worship of animals, then the exclusion of the true
doctrine from the Mosaic theology may have been occasioned by
the necessity of getting rid of this false excrescence — a remarkable
instance of primeval Protestantism. Bunsen's Egypt, iv. 649." —
p. 99. The Egyptians did believe both in the immortality and in
the transmigration of the soul; but their worship of animals
was in no wise connected with it ; since among the forms of
birds and of reptiles the soul in transmigration was allowed to
take, several never were worshipped; and other animals that
were worshipped are never mentioned as inhabited by a human
soul.2 Thus the Egyptians worshipped the seven sacred cows
and the bulls Apis and Mnevis, for reasons we have already
seen, as being the abode of the soul of Osiris.3 The he-goat of
} Arist. Metaph. iii. 2, 3.
2 Neither were they worshipped for the sake of their own soul, as Porphyrius
tells us, (De Abstin. 10), for at least as far as I know, we have not authentic
documents to show that the Egyptians believed that animals had souls, and
Porphyrius is often incorrect. But they were worshipped as living emblems of
some quality, or of some principle in nature ; if not consecrated to some god.
* Plut. de Is. et Os. 20, 29, &c, and above, p. 191.

230 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
Mendes was worshipped for a very different reason from that of
transmigration ; so also with the ram, sacred to Amun and wor
shipped in certain cities, yet eaten in one of them, as Strabo tells
us ;'the cat was held sacred for its having slain the serpent enemy
of the sun ; as we see in the XVIIth Ch. of the Ritual of the Dead,
and elsewhere repeatedly ; the dog was honoured for the sake of
Anubis according to certain legends preserved by Plutarch ; the
crocodile, the symbol of Egypt and of darkness, was like the
ram, worshipped in certain cities, yet eaten in others, as Hero
dotus tells us ; the lion and the jackal were also worshipped for
particular reasons ; the hawk was sacred to the sun, not because
of transmigration, but because it was thought to consist only " of
blood and of spirit" as Porphyrius1 tells us ; since the soul when
purified, took the form of a hawk, as being then fit to fly upwards
to the source of Light and Life ; the ibis was sacred to Thoth,
as frogs were to Kek the god of darkness, and as being thought
the symbols of the first matter uXi), of the male principle in
Nature ; so were serpents, which represented the female prin
ciple ; fishes of various sorts were sacred to some god or goddess ;
yet so little had they to do with the transmigration of the soul
into them, that one, the oxyrrhinchus, is the constant symbol of
the corpse ttJiJlTI or cyi.ItTOT after the soul and the human
germ have left it, and when lying on a litter; the common
beetle of Egypt, seen on every sand-bank working the ball that
contains its eggs, was sacred to the noonday sun as Cheper,
creator and vivifier, not assuredly, as at any time the abode of
man's soul ; and lastly the ass was alternately worshipped, hated,
dreaded, or despised, as the personification of Seth, Sutech,
and of Baal, and not as being the abode of a human soul.
But the Egyptian doctrine of transmigration such as we find
it taught in their Rituals, however philosophically impossible,
was nevertheless free from the absurdities with which it pleased
the popular conceit of the Greeks to clothe it, as being a doc
trine " of barbarians." Yet they were far in advance of the
Greeks; and Plato would, perhaps, never have written his
Phscdrus as' he did, had he not studied the wisdom of Egypt at
On ; for whatever be the errors the want of a Revelation made
them commit, it is certain that in Egypt both the immortality
1 De Abst. 9, ed. Mull.

IV. P. 99.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 231
of the soul, and the reward of the good, together with the
punishment of the wicked at the bar of the tribunal of Osiris,
in Amenti, were taught long before the times of Moses or of Jo
seph, and even before Abraham set foot at the court of Pharaoh.
Even then they taught at On that the world (xdo-fj.og) was
divided into Upper and Lower (£,p and'^Qp); the Upper
world consisted of the upper Nun, " the waters above the
firmament," deified as Nut, on the back of which, as on
the back of his mother, the Sun, Ra at, his rising, and
Cheper at noon, was supposed to sail in his bark. When he
reached the western horizon, he was then called Turn or Atum,1
and held even more sacred than during his course across the
upper heavens; for he was thought to be then passing on from
the world of the living to the world of the dead, Amenti, and
there to shine over the plains of Hatapham and on the fields of
Aalu,2 ploughed and sown by the souls in transmigration, and
watered by their Hapi-m5u after the manner of Egypt above.
Between these two upper and nether worlds, which were both
eternal, was this our earth, then thought immoveable, and every
thing in it that is liable to change or to decay.
Once free from its earthly body, the ' sekhu' — that is, the
soul with the human germ — was received at the gates of Amenti,
where it was supposed to reach by slow degrees what was called
Tl£,p JUL £,pOT,3 the ' manifestation of day,' that is, the en
tering into the region of pure Light and of Eternal Life. First
was set before him the ' crown of justification' given to those
who were proclaimed righteous, which made them friends of the
gods; and with that prize before him the sekhu began his
journey, beset with dangers from crocodiles, from serpents, and
from other monsters, from the lake of fire, from the billet on
which the condemned were beheaded, unto the hall of Osiris,
where the soul was put into one scale, Truth or Righteousness
into the other, and then weighed, ere it received its reward.4
1 The god of On. He was specially honoured there; whence the city was
called ' Pa-tum,' < Of Turn.' This is not the Pithom of Ex. i.
1 ' Alu' or ' Anru ;' the possible etymology of ' Elysian.'
3 Rit. ch. xvii., title, &c.
4 One of those dead told of a very different journey to S. Coluthus. See
Zoega Codd. Memph. p. 43.

232 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
During this progress the soul might at a certain point Ipi
^XTip-OT ItS. It JULp-TOT-q, assume whatever form it
liked, whether of a golden hawk, of a prince, of a god, of a
lotus-flower, of Ptah, of the Phoenix, or of the egret ; and lastly,
the form under which it is represented hovering over the
mummy of the body it had left, that of the divine hawk with a
human head, when tiXsa p.lv ouv ouo-a xa) hrTegwp.evr\ fj.sTswpompsl,1
"being perfected and gifted with wings, it flies upwards" to
Him who gave it, and whence, according to Egyptian notions, it
was to return after thousands of years to inhabit the same body
it once had on earth. Plato, therefore, does not represent cor
rectly the Egyptian doctrine, if he meant for it— ev9« xa) elg
iripiou f3iov avSpwirlvrj vj/uj^jj acptxvs'iTai, xa) sx Qrjgiou, og wots avipanrog
f,v, iraXtv elg av$gwmv2 — that there, at a certain stage of the
migration through ojSjjj, Hades, "the soul of man reaches the
life of some beast, and he that was once a man again out of a
beast into a man;" for, the assuming of these several forms was
at the option of the sekhu. It is tberefore more probable that
the soul should then put on the form of some object loved or
honoured during its former life on earth, than that it should first
honour that object during life, in order to inhabit it after death.
The worship of animals, therefore, was not so much connected
with the doctrine of the transmigration of the soul into the
form of an animal, psychologically absurd as it is, as this doctrine
was the result of the worship of animals for powers of nature
they were supposed to represent. We may, therefore, look upon
such stories as the dialogue written by iEneas Gazseus3 on
transmigration, as the offspring of Greek imagination, or as a
popular and erroneous opinion, rather than Truth, though it
were invented with a good motive.
Theophrastus — "The Egyptians seem to think that the same
soul puts on the body either of a man, of an ox, of a dog, of a
bird, or of a fish ; and so, according to them, now this soul
feeds on the ground like an animal, say an ant or a camel ; vuv
Se elg ij^fluv oAio-flijerao-a xy)to; i) fj,ept,f3pug yevofj.svY\ ty)v flaXarrav ev8u,
and then slipping into a fish, and becoming either a whale or a
sprat, it swims away into the sea."
1 Phasdr. 55, ed. Lond. * Ibid. 61.
8 Bib. Vet. Pat. vol. ii. p. 378, cd. Gall.

IV. P. 99.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 233
Alyuimog — $eu Trjj TepaToXoyiag' subatp.ovoir\v av el xctfj,r\Xo;, y)
fj.ep.fipa;, y) xoXotb; yevoi'/Mjv. The Egyptian — " For shame ! to
speak thus of such marvels. Happy should I be to become
either a camel, a sprat, or a jackdaw."
Axitheus — " But, 0 Egyptian, do you laugh ? For my part,
I wonder that Theophrastus, knowing these things, yet mixes
among Egyptians," &c.
XXIX. All this is very much, on the part of the Greeks, like
the connexion of the ass with Jews on the part of the Egyptians.
Yet, in fact, the Egyptian Rituals of the Dead, and their doc
trine of transmigration, — or, more correctly, of their passage
through the regions of Amenti, free as it is from all the sen
suality of other heathen creeds, stands in bright contrast to
them. Some of the chapters of the Ritual of the Dead remind
one of like passages in the Rig or in the Sama Veda ; but there
is a greater interest attached to these Egyptian Scriptures, in
that they place before us the actual creed, faith, and hope of
that wonderful people in a distinct and visible shape.
So entirely did a true Egyptian live in the future hope of his
safe passage through Amenti to the hall of Osiris, and thence to
final emancipation into the realms of eternal light, that, as Dio-
dorus tells us, tov p.lv ev tw £jjv x§°vov suTeXr] iraVTeXwg elvat vopJi-
tpuo-t, tov hi fueTa ty)v TeXeuTr)v Si' a.psrr)v fj.VYifJ.ovudYjiydij.svov irsg)
ttXs'io-tou iroiouvrat, " they held the time of their present life very
cheap, but prized most highly the time after death, if that was
to be remembered for virtue's or for merit's sake. Wherefore
they call the houses in which men live xaTxXuo-eig, ' lodgings' or
' inns/ on account of their short stay in them ; but they look
upon their sepulchres as eternal homes for the length of time
they are to spend in Hades."1 This their faith was indeed to
them " the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things
not seen ;" they made good proof of it by the contrast they esta
blished between the houses of their pilgrimage on earth, not
one of which subsists at present, and the houses eternal in their
heavens, which they prepared for themselves during their life
time, and which shall endure as long as their land exists. They
were, of all heathens, both the most religious and the most
practical of their faith. 1 Diod. Sic. Lib. i. <;. 51, 92, 93.

234 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
This faith led to their embalming of the body, which the soul
was to revisit after thousands of years,1 and which had prayers
said for its preservation during that time.12 There is something
very beautiful in this idea, if we could receive it ; but, especially
in that which Plato seems to have partly borrowed thence, avap.-
vr\o-tg Ixe'tvwv o wot' etdev i)fAwv y) *J/u%ij o-ufj.irogeuds~vxa &ew xa) uirept-
Soutra a vuv ehai Qap,ev, xa) avaxuvj/acra si; to ov ovTwg, " of the re
collection of those things which our soul once saw while it
walked with God, and both looked down upon the things we
say do now exist, and also looked up towards that which really
is," — Eternal Truth.3 Whatever truth or error there may be
in this, the very slight allusion to the resurrection of the body
— if this be what Dr. Stanley means by the " true doctrine" — in
the writings of Moses was assuredly not owing to any consider
ation he might have, one way or the other, for Egyptian ideas.
The theocratic government of the people of God was so peculiar
and so exceptionable, as to account for any deviation from what
we might think, d, priori, necessary for it. God spake unto
Moses, wrought wonders, gave His Law amid thunders and
lightnings, led His people by the cloud, — in short, was, so to
speak, present, though Himself not seen ; and being thus pre
sent, He required obedience to Him for the time being, and not
for the sake of promises yet afar off; so that the economy of
the Theocratic dispensation was, as indeed it might be, fully
wrought out, without allusion to another and future state, the
bliss of which would but be the presence of God which they
then enjoyed. It is therefore difficult to see what this " primeval
Protestantism" of Chevalier Bunsen, mentioned by Dr. Stanley,
can possibly mean ; since God's rule over His people, and His
laws for them, had no other reference to Egypt than to bid
them forget it, and abjure all they had seen and heard there.
It is one of those high sounding sentences, with more wind than
weight, that are written only to fill a line or to finish a period.
We might as well Bay, with even more truth, that the Egyptians
were the most orthodox Romanists of their time.
XXX. So, also, does Dean Stanley make a very good ending
of this lecture, by a description of the winged sun seen under
the portal and over the entrance of every temple in Egypt,
' Rit. ch. 89. 2 Ibid. ch. 45, 154. 3 Phted. c. 61,

IV. P. 100.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 235
which he understands to be an emblem of a beneficent overruling
Power —
"a direct expression of the feeling which has been made immortal
in the words ' Under the shadow of Thy wings shall be my
refuge.* "—p. 100.
I am afraid, however, that this beautiful imagery will hardly
hold together, and that the idea of ' protection' is very doubtful,
as connected with this symbol ; although ' protection' is very
plainly indicated through the vulture holding the symbol of life,
and overshadowing with his wings the person of the king, as
often represented in sculptures -,1 with which may be compared
the origin of the asTog, aeTwp.a, or dsXTa of Greek temples, which
some Corinthian architect — &ewv vaoio-tv olw-
vwv fiao-tXYpx 8180-
fJ.ov2 eDrjxe'3
although the symbolism of the vulture and of the eagle respec
tively be entirely different. But the wings added to the orb of
the sun on Egyptian buildings, both public and private, are the
wings of the common beetle (scarabeus sacer, L.), sacred to the
sun, and an emblem of it at noon, as Creator and Generator of
the world. Certain Egyptian paintings4 show this plainly,5 as
does also the woodcut given by Sir G. Wilkinson.6 Although
the idea of " protection of the Deity," as Sir G. Wilkinson says,
might be attached to this symbol, yet, if it was so, it was not to
the expanded wings, but to the Sun itself, as ' Cheper' in the
middle of the sky, as in the centre of a portal. For the real idea
of ' protection' for the Egyptians lay in their idea of ' heaven/
Which they represented as a woman crouching to feed and to
shelter her offspring — whence heaven is always feminine (ite-T,
TUG) ; and with the Hebrews such idea lay, individually, in
the familiar sight of a fowl, be it a hen or an eagle, sheltering
' As, e.g., on the Stele, in Ve. De Rouge's Etude sur une Stele, &c.
- i.e., one at each end of the building. 3 01. xiii. 29.
4 Such as Brugsch. Mon. i. pi. xviii.
6 And plainer yet, when compared with such passages as, e.g., Sama Veda, ii.
6, 2, 7, 2, " garb'he matuh," ityadi.
8 Anc. Eg. vol. v. p. 476.

236 PHILOSOPHY, ;OR TRUTH. [LECT.
her young under her wings,1 and generally in the Eastern idea
of ' heaven' as father and shield protecting the earth, found
from Aryana to Ultima Thule, " and made immortal," as Dr.
Stanley says, by the words, D\"ftx iTlfp |Jffl Ufc&, "The
Lord God is a sun and shield."2

LECTURE V.— THE EXODUS.
"The history," strictly speaking, "of the Jewish Church,"
says Dr. Stanley, " begins with the Exodus."
" In one sense, indeed, History herself was born on that night
when Moses led forth his countrymen from the land of Goshen.
(Bunsen's Egypt, i. 23.)"
Strange birth, which took place nobody knows when; yet
stranger beginning, which no one can point out ! ' History,'
lo-Topla, however, implies neither dates nor an unbroken thread
of events ; it is simply the knowledge of facts acquired by per
sonal inquiry, be the facts detached or connected. In this
sense, therefore, was history born long before the date assigned
to it by Chevalier Bunsen ; if not, how can he, speaking as he
does, ckim our belief in the ' endless genealogies' of his Egyp
tian gods, heroes, and kings, which he carries some thirty thou
sand years further back than the ' history' of which he gives
here the beginning, and than that of Genesis ? The marvel is,
how there can be men found to follow such a guide, who leads
them backwards and forwards, and who contradicts himself.
Common sense, however, tells us that 'history' begins with
the first authentic narrative of facts we have; and this, as
proved by its origin, by its own intrinsic evidence, and by the
unanimous voice of the Church of Christ, is — the Book of
Genesis. Chevalier Bunsen and his school will have long moul
dered into dust, and their voice will have long ceased to be
heard, when this Word will yet live, and yet speak.
1 Deut. xxxii. 11 ; Ruth ii. 12; Ps. xvii. 8 ; lxiii. 7 ; S. Matt, xxiii. 37, &c.
2 Ps. lxxxiv. 12.

v. p. 103.] philosophy, or truth ? 237
I. This, then, is the beginning of our history : —
"In THE BEGINNING GoD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE
EARTH." When ? — In the beginning.
"And the earth was without form and void, and darkness
was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved
upon the face of the waters."
When ? — When the earth was a preparing, both before and
according to some, during the periods of encrinites, palms,
ichthyosauri, iguanodons, anoplotheria, dinotheria, (Chev. Bun-
sen's early Egyptian dynasties,) &c. ; after the earth had set
tled in its present shape, while the surfaee thereof was being
prepared for man, and after the last great catastrophe that
led to its actual settled condition. Then followed the pre
sent creation and arrangement of our system, Gen. i. 3, sq. ;
when, possibly, the earth, which may have experienced a greater
nutation of her poles than at present, and which until then
might have moved in a wider orbit, began to revolve around the
sun, then made the centre of our planetary system. I am well
aware of the difficulties of this explanation ; but I find greater
ones in other theories. At all events, and until I can find some
thing on which I may rely with greater certainty, I will believe
that no display of God's Almighty power could be too great, in
creating, forming, arranging, and disposing a world like our
own, on which He was to place man, created after His own
image and similitude, and afterwards even send His own Son.
II. As with the world then, so also with the history of the Jewish
Church in the popular acceptation of the term ' History/ we can
hardly take for its origin one event more than another, unless we
can fix the date thereof, as a beginning. But the beginning must
be placed at the origin, and this origin at the first mention of the
man who is looked upon as the father of the people whose history
we study. The beginning of a stream is the spring thereof, even
though the stream disappear underground during some portion
of its first course. So also, as regards the Jewish Church, we
have seen that, albeit it could not be constituted into a ' church'
ere there were people enough born to form it, and until these,
again, were ostensibly brought out from among other nations,
yet that the Jewish Church, properly speaking, began in Abra-

238 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
ham, who was himself a more perfect type of what the Church
of God should be in the world, than even the people of Israel
when leaving Egypt. For this coming out of Egypt was but
the fulfilment of what God said to Abraham, after he had him
self been called out of Ur of the Chaldees. Until Moses ap
peared as deliverer, the Church of God had been first one man,
then a family, and continued as such more or less, until it was
finally constituted, after the departure from Egypt and the bap
tism in the Red Sea ; but whether a man, a family, or a people,
they were IxxXyitoI, ' called out/ separate and distinct, through
a special rite, inheritors of God's promises, and walking by faith
in them, as well on the way from Ur to Egypt as in the house
of Nymphas. Abraham is the pattern of every true member of
that Church, walking under God's eye; Moses is the pattern of
what every leader in that Church, frail and militant, should be,
in faith, in patience, and in long-suffering, for his Master's sake.
III. Passing over the mention of Moses by Strabo, and
Diodorus, Dr. Stanley professes to give the history of Moses,
" as it appeared to his nation at the time of the Christian iEra,"
(p. 105, sq.) We should never have done if we tarried by all
the traditions about Moses ; whether in the ' Life of Moses,'
fflDM ^131 or elsewhere. Keeping, therefore, to the Scripture
account as to the only narrative on which we can rely, we come
to the name of ' Moses' on which Dr. Stanley expresses himself
in this wise : —
" The child was brought up as the princess's son, and the me
mory of the incident was long cherished in the name given to the
foundling of the water's side. Its Hebrew form is Mosheh, from
Masah, 'to draw out' — because I have drawn him out of the
water. But this is probably the Hebrew termination given to an
Egyptian word signifying ' saved from the water.' "
And in a note to this :
" In Coptic, mo = water, and ushe = saved. This is the explana
tion given by Josephus (Ant. ii. 9. 6; c. Apion. i. 31), and con
firmed by the Greek form of the word adopted in the LXX.,
Maiiii^!, and thence in the Vulgate, Moyses, &c. Brugsch (Histoire
d'Egypte, 157, 173) renders the name Mes or Messon = child, borne
by one of the princes of Ethiopia under Ramses II., appearing also
in the names Amosis and Thuth-ATost's." — p. 106.

V. P. 106.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 239
The Dean, I am sorry to say, makes several mistakes in these
few lines.
First — Mosheh does not come from masah, but from mashah.
Secondly — he copies the reading ' I have drawn' or ' I drew
him out' of the water, which the Hebrew does not clearly
mean. Thirdly — he makes another mistake in giving " Coptic mo =
water, and ushe = saved" as etymology for ' Moses' or ' Mosheh ;'
for ushe does not mean ' saved.'
Fourthly — Brugsch does not say ' Mes or Messon,' but " Mes
or Messou ;" both passive participles, one by position, the other
by termination.
Fifthly — when Dr. Stanley writes " Amosis and Thuth-
Mosis," what does he make of ' A' in 'Amosis,' which he writes
as a prefix to ' mosis ?'
The truth is, that, like 'i>ovbofj.§avr\x, Mwuo-Y\g has tried the
skill of critics, though hardly more successfully. I will briefly
mention the chief opinions. J. Simon1 remarks very justly that
TVyfo from ilti'O can only mean ' drawing' and ' extraction/
but not ' drawn ;' for this would be ^IV/D. Bochart2 contends
* T
for this Hebrew etymology on the strength of WTtyQ which
he renders * extraxi eum/ the more so as ilJfc'P is only said of
'water;'3 and he quotes also Is. xliii. 11, which, however, has
nothing to do with it.
Glassius4 says that since H^D means ' extrahens/ this name
was given him prophetically, as being he who was to bring the
Israelites out of Egypt. And as to an Egyptian etymology he
adds, "nugse hee sunt." Buxtorf fil.5 quotes Abarbanel, to
show that the etymology must be Hebrew. Hottinger6 quotes
R. Gedalia who taught that Moses' mother gave him the name
' Mosheh.'7 Hottinger also quotes the Syrian Isa Bar-ali, who
says that the name of Moses the prophet means |*io ,-Sd }^»
1 Onom. V. T. p. 240. 2 Geog. Sac. col. 59, ed. Leyd.
3 E.g. 2 Sam. xxii. 17, (i.q. Ps. xviii. 17.)
? Philol. Sac.i. p. 711, ed. D.
* Dissert. Phil. Theol. i. c. 46, ed. 1645. 6 Hist. Or. p. 76.
7 But he had many others such as Jared, Jedor, &c, mentioned by S. Jerome,
and also in the DWI nn "D p. 4, sq.

240 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
' taken out of the water ;' but, says the same author, he was
also called Paalthiel, Jamehil, &c.
Mahomet, of course, often alludes to Moses in the Coran.1
He does not explain his name ; but in Sur. xx. 33, sq., he
refers to a revelation from God to Moses' mother, in which
God commanded her to take and put him into an ark and to
throw him *jj| j 'into the sea/ which Abulfeda2 renders by
uJJi\ ti ' into the Nile.'3 Makrizi,4 however, mentions the
village of Shahran, on the eastern bank of the Nile, on the
borders of Tora, as the birthplace of Moses ; and that there he
was thrown into the sea (the Nile.) S. Ephrem5 only alludes
to the meaning of the name ' Moses' with a play upon the words,
very beautiful in the original, but that cannot be translated,
¦) iaioj ,-Ld ov^jAicl 1>our» 001 .]ooi It** l»ouo ]>01QJ
. JOOI <-i>A»] " He saw the light in the river ; he who had
been cast into it to be deprived of light." And S. Ephrem goes
on to give as his opinion that Moses had received his name from
his mother, &c.
As to the probable etymology of (1^23 J. D. Michaelis6 men
tions some of these opinions, but adds, that " he cannot deny
that an Egyptian etymology is the most probable. It may be,
however, that Pharaoh's daughter did give an Egyptian name
to Moses, which Moses rendered into Hebrew," &e. And on
these lines of the Sibylline oracle,7
— r)yr)Tripa xaTaa-Tr)a-et fj.syav avfiga
Mwa-rpi, ov trap' sXoug @ao-'iXio-o-' eupouo-' lxofJ.t^e —
Hottinger remarks : " illud tamen elucet, Judseorum testimonio
parentes Mosi nomen indidisse Hebraicum. Alterum Mose
iEgyptiacum est." In proof of which, Philo8 says Pharaoh's
daughter gave Moses a name according to etymology, as having
1 E.g. Sur. xix., xx., xxvii., &c. : Hist. A. I. p. 30.
3 Upon which Ibn Batutah enlarges, saying, ^^j A tAji] ^ L>ujJ
yjsi. ^ -ss^ " there is no other river in the world called ' sea' but the Nile."
He errs, of course ; since the Ganges is repeatedly called ' Ganga-sagara,' the
Ganges ocean, &c.
4 Hist. Copt. p. 37. 6 Comm. in Exod. vol. i. p. 198.
¦ Suppl. ad Lex. Heb. p. 1562. 7 Or. Sibyll. p. 305, sq. ed. Gale.
8 De V. Mos. p. 605.

V. P. 106.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 241
taken him out of the water, to yap 38«ip pjhg ovofj.aXfiuo-tv Alyuirrtoi,
x.t.X., for the Egyptians call the water ' mos.' And Josephus2
says, indeed, to yap uZwp p.w ol AlyuirTtot xaXouo-tv, uo% 8s Toug 1%
uSaroj o-w&evTag, that the Egyptians called the water ' mo/ and
those who are saved out of it ' uses' ; but he evidently knew
nothing about it, although Dr. Stanley relies on his authority ;
for elsewhere2 when refuting Manetho's name for Moses, ' Osar-
siph/3 he says that this name does not agree with ' Moses,'
Mwuo-r)g, as ' saved out of the water/ to yap ulwp ol AlyuirTtot
pJau xaXouo-tv, " for the Egyptians call the water moii ;" thus
contradicting himself when he says that, ' water5 which before
he, called p.w, is now jj.w'6 ; making nothing of otjj. ChaBremon,
however, who was an Egyptian, did not consider Mtowr%s an
Egyptian name ; for, as we have seen, speaking of the Exodus
under Moses and Joseph, he adds : Alyuima 8" auToig bvdp.ara elvat
tw fj.lv Mwuo-ri Tto-tilv, tw 8s 'Iwa-rprw ILeTea-fa, " their Egyptian
names were for Moses ' Tisithen,' and for Joseph 'Peteseph.'"
S. Clement of Alexandria4 agrees with Philo and partly with
Josephus, saying, the princess had given the child the name
' Moses/ for having taken him out of the water, to yap ulwp p.wu
ovopJtXfiuo-tv AlyuirTtot, "for the Egyptians call the water moii,"
and he further quotes the poet Ezekiel, who says :
ovop.a 8e Mwo~r)v wvop.aX,e, T0uxuglv
uypag aveTXe iroTap-tag air r)dvog.
" The princess called him Moses, because she rescued him from
the marshy bank of the river." This same poet is quoted at
yet greater length by Eusebius,5 who relates the story as told
by Artabanus (q.v.) that says, " Moses was called Mouo-aiog by
the Greeks, and that he was the teacher of Orpheus," &c.
Moses' origin is also probably alluded to in these Orphic lines
quoted by Eusebius,6 — eon be ttovtw;
Auto; hroupoLVtog — — coj 'VXoysvY)g hsTaijev
ex SedSev yvwp.aio-1 Xafiwv xaTa I'tirXxxx 8eo-fj,dv.
" He is everywhere, He Who lives in Heaven, — as Hylogenes
' Antiq. lib. ii. p. 76, ed. H. 2 C. Apion. c. 31.
3 C. 26. « Strom, lib. i. p. 348, ed. Co.
6 Prsep. Ev. p. 436, sq. 6 Prap. Ev. lib. xiii. p. 666.
R

242 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
(the one born of the mud) has taught in order by precepts,
having received them in two tables from God." We have seen
that Hermann and Gessner1 apply this uXoyevr]g to Adam ; but
the context clearly forbids it; wherefore some have proposed
vfoyevr}g and eXoysvr}g in its stead.
Jablonski2 dwelling on the Greek rendering of iltt^ Ma>uo%
alludes to the Coptic etymology mentioned by Salmasius,
JULUiOttfl, which he renders, ' taken out of the water ;' and he
offers instead of it AJLCOOT eye, ' coming out of the water/
which is no better. Kircher offers AJLCOOTCHC, which he ren
ders, ' saved out of the water/ but OfCHC is not Coptic. A.
Miiller3 proposes JU.GUO'if-CUJ'f' for ' redeemed from the water/
but no better. Lastly, comes Jablonski's own JULW-OtXe
for ' saved out of the water,' and, as he thinks, easily made into
Mwua-Y]g. But the tongue of the Pharaohs was no more Coptic
than Anglo-Saxon is English. Moreover, Oixe does not exist
in Coptic ; it is either OT2C6I, or OtXUi, ' to save/ ' salvation ;'
and X is no equivalent for $}, but for 5; ; since ' Ibsheus' for
TUfoeiC, ' the Most High/ ' the Lord/ is a common but vicious
and vulgar pronunciation. Mingarelli4 ends his remarks on
JULCOTCHC, saying, the name of Moses might be made up of
" JULCJUOY et ce, bibere, aut eye ire, abire." A. Georgi5 says
of JUKJOifCHC that it is "vere JSgyptum," and proposes
JULCUOYtfT or XI, ' aqu& sublatus / but it is ungrammatical in
this sense. Ig. Rossi6 offers the same, and thinks Moses was
written JULU30YXA.I vel JULU)0*CXe servatus ex aquis. Lastly,
Brugsch7 identifies ' Moses' with the Egyptian ' Mes/ ' Messon/
a word which means ' child/ (as he says), and a name borne
by one of the seven princes of Ethiopia under Ramses II. in the
days of Moses. But the learned German here overlooks the fact
that we have this same ' Mes' or ' Meses/ spelled DDP in DDQJT)
' Ra-mses,'8 so that evidently DDE ' Mses' is not il&D ' Mo-
1 Orph. Fr. ii. 1. 36, ed. Herm. s Opp. vol. i. p. 151, sq.
3 Gloss. Sac. p. 29. * iEg. Codd. reliq. p. cclxxi. sq.
« Fr. Ev. Joh. Pr»3f. p. cxliv. 6 Etym. Mg. p. 127.
1 Hist. d'Eg. p. 157. 8 Ex. i. 11, xii. 37, Gen. xlvii. 11.

V. P. 106.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 243
sheh ;' the less so, as the same hand wrote both these words,
and thus determined the articulation of each term, both in hie
roglyphics and in the spoken language, as being respectively
JULCC and JULcy, mss and msh.
To the above terms offered, several others, also in pseudo-
Coptic, might be added, all equally ungrammatical ; for in Coptic
there are no such compound terms as most of those above of
fered as etymologies ; but they are formed regularly ; e.g.
<$>ertcrtoq, ' shed-blood/ i.e. ' bloodshed/ fee.1
IV. In the word HVJD therefore, TV2? cannot be a past parti
ciple, even granting 1ft stands for ' water / but it must be a sub
stantive. Now CI or C6 Memph. eye, ' son/ is, in the ancient
tongue, placed either first or last in the compound term ; al
though in Coptic it comes first, as e.g. ajeitcott ' cousin/ for
eye ft COIt, cyeit£,£.pon ' son of Aaron' (prop, name), &c.
Thus in Egyptian we have, pi.-Cl or CI-p<L ' son of the sun/
a common epithet of the Pharaohs; OjOTf-CI, p£.-ttJOTf-CI,
cyOTf-CI-p^.,2 &c. : a good example of this occurs in ^JUtlt-
C6 JU.C £,p " Amun's son, born of Horus," said of Chons.3
As regards the Egyptian etymology of flSyO therefore, the
case seems to be this : (1) as in the matter of 9o6op.(f>avr)x, so
also in that of Mwuo-r\g, our only authority is not the Greek but
the Hebrew ;4 and this is proved by the conclusive fact that the
Coptic version instead of recognising an Egyptian or a Coptic
word in Mwuo-r\g, simply transcribes the Greek, as it does in the
case of 9o6ofj,<pav^x7 i*1'0 a term which has no meaning. (2.) The
Sacred Text, Philo, and S. Clement of Alexandria, both of whom
may have known the Egyptian tongue, lead us to find in the
syllable 1ft mo, JULtXJ, the term for ' water/ which is JULU),
JULOt&rt, or JULOJOT, mo, muau, or mou. (3.) Egyptian gram-
1 The only known exception to this rule is in the ancient tongue, in which
the verbs JUtei, JUULI ' loved,' ClWTH ' chosen,' and perhaps also UUTII
' devoted' are used as past participles and placed last in the compound ; perhaps
also JU.6C ' to be born ;' but more regularly JULCCOTT. ' born.*
2 Pap. Harris, p. 35. 3 In Etude sur une Stele, 1. 2, p. 25.
4 Since the Greek having no xo shin, OJ, changed it into to sin, or D, e.g.
' Sharon,' Sapava, fWOW • Shimshon,' Sa^xfiiiv, &c.
r2

244 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
mar and monuments also let us recognise in PJ&S' the Egyptian
CI, ce, and Memph. eye ' a son ;' and teach us also that this
CI, ce or eye may form a part of an Egyptian proper name.
(4.) As the events recorded in this 2nd chapter of Exodus, took
place in Lower Egypt, we may take the Memphitic or the Bash-
muric dialect for a guide ; we find accordingly JULA.T for
' water/ and ce or CH ' son/ and JUL£.T-ce or JULi/C-CK in
Bashmuric for H^D. But ce is eye in Memphitic, either for
C6 or for cynpe 'a son;' so that we have the Memphitic
JUUAXye or JU.OUOT-cye ' Moshe' or ' Moiishe/ as the Egyptian
for fltj^ft ' water-son/ or ' child of the water.'
But this Egyptian name does not agree with the reason given
for it lillTti'ft D^ftil'lft ^D rendered " because I drew him
out of the water." A. Vers. How then shall we reconcile this
apparent discrepancy ? Easily. Moses gives in Hebrew the
words spoken by the princess in Egyptian. She called him
' son of the water/ or ' water-child/ because, said she, I drew
him out of the water ; in other words, because he is a found
ling whom I saved from the water. His Egyptian name re
ferred, not to his being actually ' taken out' of the water, or
born out of it ; but to the fact that the water was figuratively
his mother ; and according to this view of the subject, this name
was given by the only one who could give it, — she who had
taken the child out of the river. In this case the coincidence
between the Egyptian JULUJcye, Ht^ft, and the Hebrew MlPNifa
as from Htt'D, would be only accidental as regards the pronun
ciation. A. Ezra, however,1 says that Htt'Q is the Hebrew translation
of the Egyptian DT^ID ' Monios/ the name given by Pharaoh's
daughter to Moses. But Abarbanel2 refutes him, saying that
proper names are never translated, even though the verbs from
which they are derived be translated ; e.g. the Targ. Onkelos
gives Ht^P but renders IPUTJi'ft by iTTuUti} which bears no
affinity to H^D ; likewise ' Zaphnath-Paaneah' is thus given
and not translated. He further asserts that Moses' name is
Hebrew ; and that it was given to Moses by his mother, re-
1 Ad 1. 'J Comm. ad loc. and Joh. Buxtorfii lil. Dissert. Philol. p. 486.

V. P. 106.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 245
marking very justly,1 that lilJTtt'P is not the 1st pers. sing.,
which is never written without a i after the fi> thus liTJTtJ'P,
vmrir, irnsjfo, mnro, vprarap, iirnWH, &c, but
that it is the 2nd pers. sing. fem. like ^JfnT Jer. xv. 10,
"•pfirOy Song of Solomon iv. 9 ; and says " that every feminine
J] in this 10th verse, is said of Jochebed, Moses' mother, who
brought the child to Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her
son. And she (Jochebed) called his name Mosheh, because she
said, Thou (Pharaoh's daughter) didst draw him out of the
water." Abarbanel has on his side grammar, which he rightly
calls 'regular/ while Gesenius2 calls it ' defective;' but both he
and A. Ezra omit to tell us the meaning of Jlt^ft in Hebrew.3
V. Leaving aside the traditions given by Dr. Stanley, we read
that, when Moses was grown up, seeing one of his brethren
ill-treated by an Egyptian, he slew the Egyptian ; and when this
came to the king's ears, Moses fled from court into the land of
Midian. Had the quarrel taken place between two Egyptians,
or had Moses been an Egyptian, he himself would have been
liable to be put to death, for not slaying the aggressor, if we
are to believe what Diodorus tells us. Speaking of the laws of
Egypt,4 he says that: lav 8e.tij lv blw xaTaTijv %cogav Idwv Qoveu-
fj.evov avQpwTrov, i] to xadoXou f3latdv ti irao-xovTa, fj.r) puo-airo duvaTog
obv, Qeaiarca 7rept7reos~iv wfyetXev, " if one saw on the road about the
country a man being killed or at all ill-treated, and delivered
him not, being able to do so, he was to be put to death." Such
may have been the law in theory ; but when carried out it seems
to have been different for the ruler and for the captive. 'Right
against might/ in writing ; but ' might against right' in prac
tice ; then, as also very often at present, wherever it may be.
Moses then fled, as it were to await in the grand, awful
scenery of the desert of Sinai the death of Ramses, and the seal
of his own mission. I cannot follow Dr. Stanley in his beauti
ful description of a country I was unfortunately prevented from
1 As indeed Pfeiffer (Dub. Vex. p. 214) also does.
2 Lehrgeb. p. 346, note 5.
3 We must remark that the question here lies only between the final >fi
and Fi ; for as we saw above (p. 159) the fem. preform, n of the verbs in this 10th
verse, need not all refer to the same person, according to Hebrew idiom.
4 Lib. i. u. 77.

246 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
visiting; I, therefore, return thence with him and Moses to
Egypt. Sent on his errand with his shepherd's staff, which
henceforth became " the rod of God wherewith to do signs and
wonders" — a fit emblem of the utter weakness of the instru
ments the Lord uses, that the glory be His and not our own —
and strong in the Revelation of the Eternal One, (not to ov ovrw;
according to Plato, but) 6 wv ovrw; according to Truth, 6 *HN
xa) b "HN xa) b 'EPXOMENOS, b IlANTOKPATilP, "Which
is, which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" — Moses
left his father-in-law and the desert of Horeb to return to Egypt.
As S. Paul went into Arabia after his call to the Apostleship, in
order to prepare himself for the life of toil, of trial, and of shame
— but after that of glory, that awaited him, so also Moses the
shepherd was schooled among the stern scenery of that same
country for his mission to the king of Egypt.
VI. Hitherto, he had worshipped the God of Abraham, of
Isaac, and of Jacob, ' El-Shaddai/ the God Almighty, ' El,'
the Mighty, 'Elohim/ the Awful, the worshipful One,1 the
Majesty of Heaven ; but now God had spoken with him ; he
was now endued with a power, and fraught with credentials at
which even the proud heart of Pharaoh, and the gods of Egypt
should bend. He was (2pa$uyXw<ro-o;,2 slow of speech ; but He
that made the mouth did send him, and He would teach him
how to use it ; or, He would make words for him, and a spokes
man to utter them ;3 he was a feeder of flocks, although once
at court in Egypt, and shy of returning thither ; but He that
sent him said He would be with him ; He would make him God
to Pharaoh, and make Egypt tremble at the wave of his shep
herd's staff. He was but a plain man after all, but the Lord
bis God was to be with him ; and with Him Moses would be
the Prophet, the Man of God ; the Deliverer at whose bidding
the sea would roll back ; the Leader of Israel's host at whose in-
1 Dr. Stanley says ' El,' ' Elohim,' ' the strong one,' ' the strong ones,' as if
' Elohim' were the pi. of ' El.' But the pi. of ta El is D^N as in Phoenician
and in Punic inscriptions ; and DVfrg is, of course, the pi. of 5fts or aftg pro
bably a radical term ; if not from rf&t inus. ' to worship.'
2 THv <f>us itpBirov, b.6parov, ItKar av6r)rov— £>s b PpaSoyXuaaos amypdijiaro ;
73" ftnjf* v 4<p' SSaaiv, obpavbv irdvvvev. Lucian Philopatr. p. 250, vol. ix. ed. Bip.
3 Aaron — rbv irpoipoptKbv \iyov. Philo. De Migr. Abr. p. 400, sq.

V. P. 116.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 247
stance Amalek would flee ; the Lawgiver who should receive his
tables at God's hand, and who should talk with Him as a man
with his friend ; at whose word, therefore, the rock poured forth
water, the heavens rained manna, the pestilence came and' re
treated, and the desert land yielded flesh to eat ; whose hand,
in short, nothing could stay — because the Lord was with him.
But the Lord is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever towards
them that fear Him and trust in His mercy. As He was with
Moses whom He raised for a special purpose, so He is also with
every one of His people who honestly fears and serves Him, not
hindered by the fear of man or by worldly reasons. Yea, the
humblest of His servants may yet sing, in the words of that
same Egypt : i.pieJULI ttj<5» ^IfPHX JJin.K£.£,I, X6 d/f
IT£M.<&.rt " Know ye even unto the ends of the earth, that the
Lord is with us."1
VII. So Moses, and Aaron who had gone to meet him, came
to Egypt; and in Egypt, to Pharaoh. Moses taught Aaron
what to say, and Aaron spake. But, " as time rolled on," says
Dr. Stanley —
" as the first outward impression passed away, and the deep, abid
ing recollection of the whole story remained, Aaron the prince
and priest has almost disappeared from the view of history : and
Moses, the dumb, backward, disinterested prophet, continues for
all ages the foremost leader of the Chosen People, the witness that
something more is needed for the guidance of man than high
hereditary office or the gift of fluent speech, — a rebuke alike to
an age that puts its trust in priests and nobles, and an age that
puts its trust in preachers and speakers." — p. 116.
Excellent words, that one likes to find uttered and written
by the Dean of Westminster. Would that his and all other
hearers did act up to them ; and did hearken to him in this re
spect, to see that they run not after the glitter of high position
and of fluency of speech, as they would after a will-o'-the-wisp ;
but compare what they hear with the only standard there is,
that of God's Word ; so that, at the last, they find themselves
having a " good assurance of hope /' and not be led astray.
There is too much at stake in this, to trifle with it; and to seek
man, and not the Truth, in what we hear.
1 Diurn. Copto-Ar. p. 198.

248 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
But Moses' words, though plain, were telling, because he
sought not his own, but spake as God bade him. " Go, stand
before Pharaoh, and thus shalt thou say unto him." And when
Pharaoh heard it, he trembled, and begged Moses and Aaron to
entreat for him the same God of whom erst he had said, " Who
is the Lord that I should obey His voice ?" The message de
livered was the message given ; it could not be sent and return
without effect ; but it wrought that whereunto it was sent. And
so it does to this day ; and so it shall do until no more messages
are sent ; when the trump of the archangel shall sound : Lo !
He cometh ; . make ready. Happy the messengers who will
then be found to have been faithful, honest and sincere ! Happy
they whose conscience will not accuse them in His presence, of
having sought their own glory, but only the glory of God ! For
that day is coming ; the day that shall try the work of every
one ; of what sort it is.
Therefore, Moses won his place in the goodly company of
Elijah, of Abraham, of the Lord Jesus Himself in glory, not
because he was a great man, not because he was brought up at
court by Pharaoh's daughter ; not because he was learned in all
the wisdom of the Egyptians ; not because he had wrought signs
and wonders, — since others will have prophesied and done many
wonderful works in the Lord's name, and yet after all be cast
out of the Kingdom,1 — but Moses is now in glory because " he
verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony
of those things which were to be spoken after." Taithfulness,
however, implies faith ; for no man can be faithful who seeks
his own glory. So then, " by faith Moses, when he was come to
years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter ; choos
ing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to
enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season ; esteeming the reproach
of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt ; for he
had respect unto the recompense of the reward" — and he has
his reward.
VIII. This is that Moses whom the Lord raised to deliver
His people out of captivity, with a mighty hand, and through
judgments against Pharaoh, his people, and their gods. Dr.
Stanley is much too brief on this subject ; and this is not the
».S. Matt. vii. 22.

V. P. 110.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 249
place to supply that which is lacking in him. He certainly
tells us that " it was not an ordinary river that was turned into
blood; it was the sacred, beneficent, solitary Nile" — but he
might have added that the miracle lay, not only in the blood,
but in the time of year. In Epiphi (or. June) the Egyptians are
accustomed -to see their river blood-red, yet wholesome to drink ;
but now, in Tybi (or January) was it, not only blood-red, but
loathsome blood. Yet they were not doomed to perish, as they
must have done if left seven days without water. The blow was
aimed at Hapi-mou, at the God Nile, £.T-q-q ft ItTp-OT
' father of gods,' and he alone suffered ; but where the water was
not visibly his, on the bed of sand and gravel below the muddy
deposit of the river, was the water good ; and there did the
Egyptians dig for it and find it.
"It is not an ordinary nation," continues Dr. Stanley, " that is
struck by the mass of putrifying vermin lying in heaps by the
houses, the villages, and the fields, or multiplying out of the dust
of the desert sands on each side of the Nile valley : it is the clean
liest of all the ancient nations," &c. — p. 110.
IX. The Regius Professor's ideas about frogs do not seem
very clear, if he classes them with vermin ; for, according to the
popular acceptation of the term, frogs are not, like vermin,
either ' noxious or small animals.' They are most harmless, and
some of them are of a large size ; especially in the land they
love best — Egypt. But in the days of Moses they were sacred,
not originally to the Sun, as the learned Bochart thought,
making them water-nymphs and prototypes of the Muses, but
they were sacred to Kek, the god of darkness; i.e., of the
primordial uAij, 'earthy matter/ as the male principle in nature.1
And albeit the monuments on which they are thus represented
are of the time of the Ptolemies, yet had not the frogs been thus
honoured, other symbols would have been chosen by the Egyp
tians, rather than those they actually did choose. This seems
proved by the frequent occurrence of the frog as a goddess,
Haqt, nb-t n-Hrur, ' Haqt Lady of Hrur/ a city of the Nome
Sah; in Upper Egypt.2 She was honoured at Hrur, in connec-
1 Leps. Gott. iv. El. p. 180, sq.
• Brugsch. Geog. Denkm. i. p. 227. I also nnd this goddess ' Haqt,' repre-

250 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
tion with Chmun, there represented as a ram; the heating,
generative power together with the vXyj, the matter that gene
rated. In this capacity is the frog also mentioned as a god,
' Ka/ i.q., ' Kek/ as given by Sir G. Wilkinson, pi. 25, 3, fol. 6.
From his explanation, however, at p. 256, 257, vol. iv., he
does not seem to have then read the name ' Hrur' as the city
where Haqt was adored, neither to have known what Lepsius
has shown — that this frog-headed god Ka (as named by the
'arms extended upwards') was the same as 'Kek;' and not
Ptah. Moreover, the legend given by Sir G. Wilkinson himself
reads iLi.1 i.T-q-q it ITTp-onf K«L, "generative power or
spirit, father of gods, Ka ;" and as a proof thereof the ' Cheper/
or beetle sacred to the Sun as creator, rests on the head of the
frog-god — a very perfect symbolism. As a symbol of the
primordial matter out of which the frog, haq-t, 2,K-T, so
called from the noise it makes, it was also reckoned a symbol of
regeneration — avr) avaf3two-ewg, fiaTgaxov — on the testimony of
Chseremon ;2 or of coming to life, according to Horapollo,3 who
tells us that the Egyptians represented by a frog a man as yet
unformed, lirsth) r) toutou (j3aTpaxou) y'eveo-tg ex ty); tou iroTajuou
tXuog caroTeXe~tTaf " since the frog is produced by the mud of the
river, oQev xa) sa-Q' ots bparat TaJ p.lv erepw p.epet auTou, f3aTpaxm, tw
8s Xotirw, yewh-t tiv) lp.ipepr);, wj xa) exXeimvrt tw iroTap.w, a-uvsxXei-
iretv " whence it sometimes appears partly frog and partly mud,
which disappears with the fall of the river." Hence the god
dess of Epiphi, the month in which the rise of the Nile begins,
had the head of a frog, as in that month the ground seems alive
with them ; hence, too, are tadpoles used as the symbol to express
[j.upia$ag, 'a hundred thousand/ an indefinite number.4 The
symbolism of the frog at the foot of the palm-branch, used to
represent years and periods of years, is thus evident ; both one
sented as a ' frog sitting' in the monuments of the oldest dynasties. (Leps.
Denkm. Abth. ii. pi. xxix., lxi., lxiv., Grab. 45, sq.)
1 Or JiAS in connection with the ram. Champ. Diet. p. 124 and 412.
3 I give this on the authority of M. Deveria (Notat. des centaines de mille,
p. 6), for I cannot find it in the fragments of Chteremon I have, ed. Miiller.
8 Hierog. Lib. i. 25.
* Th. Deveria, Notat des cent, de mille, p. 4, sq. Chabas, Etud. Egypt. 2'.
Mem. p. 10 ; and Brugsch. Monum. i. pi. xlvi. u.

V. P. 110.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 251
and the other were emblems of ' renovation/ (Heb. H]^* -*Eg«
pAXne,) the one of time, the other of existence.
The intention of the plague of frogs, therefore, was aimed,
first, at the worship of those reptiles ; secondly, at them, as off
spring of the River ; and thirdly, the miracle lay in their cover
ing the land in Tybi (January), when there are fewer of them
abroad over the land of Egypt than at any other time, owing to
the low level of the River in that month.
X. Likewise was the plague of lice aimed at the rites and
ceremonies of Egyptian priests, whose name and symbol in
Egyptian, OTA&, with water above and below, stands for
' purity/ or ' purification.'1
XI. So also was the 311jtf, the mixture or swarms of flies of
all sorts, intended to show the folly of worshipping chafers and
beetles of other sorts ; for, however much the learned among the
Egyptians might symbolize the worship of these creatures, the
common people saw no symbols in them, but worshipped what
they saw, whether beetles, bulls, the River, or frogs, fish, and
crocodiles in it.
" It is not the ordinary cattle that died in the field," continues
Dr. Stanley, " or ordinary fish that died in the river, or ordinary
reptiles that were overcome by the rod of Aaron. It is the sacred
goat of Mendes, the ram of Ammon, the calf of Heliopolis, the
bull Apis, the crocodile of Ombos, the carp of Eshneh."
On which Dr. Stanley adds this note : —
" The ' serpent' of Exod. vii. 9, 10, 12 (a different word from
that in iv. 3, vii. 15) is evidently a ' crocodile.' "
XII. The plagtfe of murrain had also a very plain object.
The Bull Apis figures already in tombs of the IVth Dynasty,2
under Choufou or Shufu, long before the days of Moses ; so
does Mnevis at On, and Ba-empi at Mendes; they died, as did
the horses, sheep, dogs, cats, and other animals that were
either prized or worshipped, while Egypt was being destroyed.
So also the turning of Moses' rod into a serpent, and that
1 •Kporifi.eovres KaBapol elvat 3) evirpeireffTepoi. Ol Se tpees {vpevvrat irav rb ffuifia
Sia rplriis T)p.epi\s, 'Iva nt)re ipBelp pJire &\\o fivaapbv fii)Sev iyylvryral a(pi Bepa-
¦Kevovai robs Beois. Herod. Lib. ii. u. 37.
2 Leps. Denkm. Abth. ii. pi. 15.

252 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [LECT.
again into a rod, had its own meaning. From Apap1 — the giant
serpent that was slain by the gods, and that still drags its huge
coils with a dagger stuck in each, on every Egyptian drawing —
to Sar, Hunti, Hai, Sapi, Nahavka, Mehen, Neb-hotp,2 and
other snakes of Egypt and of Amenti, with the 'Araa/ Ba<rt-
Xio-xoj, the symbol of ' God and King/ were aimed at in that
sign. It had a very different meaning from the tricks practised,
then as now, by serpent charmers of Pharaoh's court, as we
read in several parts of the Magical Papyrus published by M.
Chabas;3 as well as in Zoega,4 who speaks of one who .took in
his hands Iin&oq JU.lt IlKepACTHC JULIt ItOYO&e, 'ser
pents, and cerastes, and asps,' and tore them asunder without
any harm to himself.
XIII. But, although we read in Exod. iv. 3, vii. 15, that
Moses' rod was turned into a ' serpent' B'TO, and at ch. vii.
9, 10, 12, that it became a ' dragon' pill, and that plh may
mean a ' crocodile' — it does not follow that they were two dis
tinct signs. But, rather, we may see in this, another5 of those
intrinsic evidences of the authenticity of the narrative, as written
by one who was accustomed to Egyptian ideas and idioms. For,
in Egyptian, the symbol of Apap with its coils and daggers is
the determinative of other monsters of the serpent kind in
Amenti, as Tu-Katen, Ha, Her,6 &c, though not of ' crocodiles,'
which are always determined by a crocodile.7 .Further, aj. cn
cxxv. 1. 85 of the Ritual, this same Apap is the determinative of
CJULg,-£. £OOC_cnr> " I drown monsters" — also of the ser
pent kind ; alluded to and represented in the following chap
ters of the Ritual. But in Hebrew, whereas ti'TO would be
said of a serpent, such as the one which came of Moses' rod,
rSFl alone would be used in good Hebrew, for one of such
huge dimensions as Apap, which so often figures as determina
tive in hieroglyphical texts. Moses was learned in that lore ;
' Rit. ch. xxxix.
3 Pap. Harris, p. 74, 76, 164. Rit. c. xvii. 1. 54, 61, c. lxxxvii. 1. 33, 38, sq.,
&c. Brugsch. Geog. Denkm. vol. i. p. 277, 281, &c. Leps. Gbtt. iv. El. p. 1 84,
224, &c. Sharpe, Eg. Inscr. ii. 61, sq.
» Pap. Harris, p. 88, 133, &c. « Codd. Sah. p. 341.
a See above, p. 39, 40. 6 Pap. Harr. p. 81, 75, &c.
? Rit. ch. xxxi. — xxxvii.

V. P. 119.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 253
so that, when he used tl'llS in Exod. iv. 3, vii. 15, he alluded
to the ' serpent of a particular size ;' and when he adopted p3ft
in Exod. vii. 9, 10, 12, he spake of the ' serpent-kind in general,'
as determined in his thoughts by the ^Sil, ' monster' or ' dragon'
Apap, with which he was familiar.
XIV. As to " the carp of Eshneh," it is a myth ; and the Regius
Professor is not more fortunate with his fish than with his frogs.
First — Latopolis is not called ' Eshneh/ but ' Esneh/ or rather
'Esna/ \j^\.1 Secondly — the fish worshipped there was the XaTogi
' latus/2 which seems to have given its Greek name to the city,
since it was not Latona, Ayttw, that was worshipped there, but
'AQrjva xa) b XaTog,3 'Minerva and the latus-fish;' unless Strabo
makes a mistake. We do not know for certain what the Xang
was ; but, both from the representation of it in Sir G. Wilkin
son's Anc. Eg. v. 253, and from the -description of it in Athe-
nseus,4 where we read that the XaTog was caught "in the sea at
Scylla, as well as in the Nile, of two hundred pounds weight,"
it could be no 'carp.' Among other sacred fish was the so-
called 'lepidotus,' of which Sir G. Wilkinson gives a bronze
figure at p. 252. This, judging from the dorsal fin, would do
very well for ' a carp ;' yet this was not the fish worshipped at
Latopolis or Esneh. But for the dorsal fin, one might have
thought of the pJUL, afSpap-tg, 'bream,'5 or of the 'benny/
bynni, JuJU Copt. Ki.ItOTfqi. But it is impossible to speak
with certainty as to what species was the xLto;, without works
of reference which I have not.
" It is not an ordinary land," continues Dr. Stanley, " of which
the flax and the barley, and every green thing in the trees, and
every herb in the field, are smitten by the two great calamities of
storm and locust : it is the garden of the ancient world," &c. —
p. 119.
XV. The mere destruction of exuberant crops, and with them
of the land of Egypt for that year, is not the point ; and Dr.
Stanley ought to have dwelt at greater length on this plague,
1 Abulf. Mg. p. 23, ed. J. D. Mich.
2 Strabo, Lib. xvii. u. 40. 3 Ibid. c. 47.
4 Lib. vii. c. 17, p. 311, ed. Cas. 6 Champ. Gr. Eg. 74.

254 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [lECT.
which is the nail, as it were, that fastens to all time the month
of the Passover. A work of this kind is not the place to enter
into details, especially as I have already written at length upon
the subject.1 I must, however, mention a few facts with refer
ence to the plague of hail and to that of locusts, which cannot
be overlooked.
We read in Exod. x. 31, 32, that " the flax and the barley was
smitten ; for the barley was in the ear and the flax was boiled,
but the wheat and the rie were not smitten : for they were not
grown up. Heb. hidden or dark." A. V.
No sooner has the Nile retired into its bed, than the seed is
sown all over Egypt. Prosper Alpinus,2 who resided long at
Cairo, says " that all crops grow so fast and reach to maturity
so soon, that by the end of November the flax which is sown in
November, in lands on which the water dwells longest,3 in many
places is in blossom, and the clover is already fit to cut. Cereals
are in the ear generally about Christmas, and the harvest of
them takes place at the beginning of March." He repeats this
at p. 176, adding: "Omnes segetes — toto mense Februario per-
fectatn maturitatem nanciscuntur," " all crops ripen during the
whole of February." So also Shems ed-din Abilsoriir,4 who
fixes sowing time in Athor (Oct. — Nov.), and in Choiak (Nov. —
Dec), and the beating of the flax in Pharmuthi (March — April),
says that " barley is sown before wheat and all other crops," and
is reaped " trente jours plus tot que le ble," thirty days before
wheat.5 Forskal6 says, " Hordeum cum mense Februario ma-
turatur; triticum ad finem Martii persistit, barley ripens in
February, but wheat towards the end of March." And Sir G.
Wilkinson7 says, "Barley and wheat, which are carried, the
former in the fourth, the latter in the fifth month, are sown
about the middle of November; the time, however, greatly de
pends on the duration of the inundation." And at page 458 he
adds "that some barley is also reaped at the end of ninety
1 Vindication of the Authorized Version, pp. 11 — 52.
5 Hist. Nat. jEgypti, p. 6, ed. 1735.
" Flore Eg. in Descr. de l'Eg. p. 11, sq.
4 Extr. des MSS. vol. i. p. 252.
8 Flore Eg. in Descr. de l'Eg. p. 11, sq.
6 Flor. JEg. p. xliii.
' Mod. Eg. and Thebes, Append, i. vol. i. p. 456.

V. P. 119.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 255
days," and that wheat, of which he enumerates five varieties,
" is reaped at the beginning of April." To this I may add my
own experience of Sir G. Wilkinson's accurate statement, and
the conclusive testimony of Philo,1 who lived in Egypt, and who,
speaking of the season of the Passover, says : " It is placed be
yond doubt by the fresh ears brought as first-fruits on the
second day of the feast, as offerings to the priests, L. ^iSing
<t-uiJiuiiiuti tf.uipnt.VL 4" •' for the spring is the season of
harvest." XVI. It would be needless to multiply authorities in order to
show, from what I have just said, that the hail which smote " the
barley in the ear, (2"QN) and the flax already boiled," (7JQ3)
must have fallen, in an average year, between, the first and the
third week in Mechir, that is, in the early part, or towards the
end of February. Then the wheat (which is always sown and
reaped later than the barley), and the rye ? HDDS, fitu*f" ?2
(whether oXupa, Xj-a, 'durrah/ or sorgho, I do not wish here to
discuss3), were not smitten, because they were n?1^ 'hidden,
dark/ not yet come up, but under ground. It must have been
so, otherwise the hail that smote "every herb of the field"
would have smitten the wheat and the rye had they been above
ground. These two sprouted up after the hail, and ere the
locusts came a few days after to eat them up, until Egypt was
" destroyed." Whether the hail fell a week earlier or not, mat
ters little; it is enough to notice that it happened within a
month's time of the night of the Passover, which was on the
fourteenth moon of ^^SH UHp, the month of the first ripen
ing ears ; that is, on the fourteenth of the month answering to
our March of that year.4 For here H'D^C ^HIR cannot apply
to the second crop of green ears, i.e., of wheat ears, but it must
apply to the first crop, to the first ears approaching to maturity,
1 Qusest. in Exod. in Paralip. Armena. p. 444.
* Rosell. Mon. Civ. vol. i, p. 276, sq., and pi. lxvii. sq.
3 See, however, Salmas. Hyles iatrica, cp. lvii. p. 68, sq., for fea, S\vpa,
o-e/itSaXis, Sec.
4 Wlaprltp rb. irpu>r6roKa. ry id' rovrov rod /Jijvbs ffKvXevffavres robs Alyvirrlovs
4£rj\Bov, npoari£ei Oeov rovro TeiroiriK6res. Cedrenus, Hist. p. 88 ; and Mich.
Glycas, Annal. ii. p. 290, ed. Bonn.

256 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [lECT.
viz., to barley ears, three weeks or a month before wheat ears
ripen and are gathered.
Since then, when the wheat is 2"Qtf, approaching to ma
turity, but yet green, soft, and succulent, the barley harvest is
over, it is then literally ' harvest time ;' for harvest begins with
the first sheaf of barley in February, and lasts until the wheat
is carried, early in April. It stands to reason, therefore, that
since the Passover took place on the fourteenth day of the
month of green or first ripe ears, this is said of barley, and it
must have been within a very short time of the hail, which
did not hurt the wheat that was not grown up. This proves
clearly that, although in the revolution of years this ££'1.1
^^Nlil happened one month earlier or later, so as to necessitate
the occasional intercalation of Veadar, or thirteenth month, yet
that this first Passover did take place — as, indeed, it was meet
the first beginning of a new year, and with it of a new life,
should take place — as early in that year as it ever could do.
This was prepared by a good inundation the year before; for
had it been either too high or too low, the seed could not have
been put in in time, or if put in, would not have prospered.
Thus, while Moses was peaceably feeding his flock in the de
sert of Horeb, and ere God spake to him in the bush, was the
River rising at God's behest, to brood over the land, so as to
prepare food for His people and for their deliverance. In
Goshen there was no hail ; and as the children of Israel had
left Egypt ere the wheat harvest could have set in had there
been no locusts elsewhere in Egypt, the children of Israel must
have made the dough they bound in their kneading troughs,
and of which they baked unleavened cakes, of the barley of that
year, just reaped.1 The sign of the hail and of thunder, then,
did not consist in the fall of hail at that season in particular,
since Ptolemy, in his Calendar,2 puts down for the sixth of
Pharmuthi, or March, Xi4» r) vdng >) j£aXatJei, "south-west or
south wind, or it hails," as also in the preceding month ; but no
such hail had ever before been seen for the ravages it caused.
XVII. Likewise, the locusts are a frequent visitation, but they
1 Compare the •'barley loaves' at the same season ; S. John vi.
5 <paa. airhdvav, ed. Halma, vol. iii. p. 47.

V. P. 119.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 257
are in general brought by the south and south-west winds from
the deserts of Libya. They follow in the train of Thueris,
OOTpHC, the burning wind of the south, as one of its dreaded
scourges; but this happens later in the year. It was a sign
and a wonder that the ' east wind/ the wind most favourable in
Egypt should bring them, and that a west wind should arise to
send them back whence they came, and cast them into the ' tank
of Punt/ the Red Sea,1 with other enemies of the land.
XVIII. Thus, if we study the features of these judgments of
God, we shall see His finger in every one of them. " It is the
finger of God" were the Egyptians constrained at last to say.
Even if we look upon them as aggravated forms of "calamities
natural to Egypt," yet either the aggravation, or the time of
year, or the point of every judgment, showed whence it came.
"Woe unto us!" said the terrified Philistines, "woe unto us!
Who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods ?
These are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the
plagues in the wilderness." (1 Sam. iv. 7, 8.) I cannot, how
ever, agree with Dr. Stanley that the darkness was an aggra
vation of the "darkness of the sandy wind;" for, first, that
wind never blows before the middle or the end of March, and
secondly, even if it had been such a darkness of sand raised by
the Khamseen winds, how does Dr. Stanley account for wind,
sand, and darkness being only on the Egyptians, and light,
without either wind or sand, on the children of Israel? Such a
miracle would have been, if possible, greater than the " dark
ness that might be felt" during three days, at the time, too,
when the moon should be bright in the heavens as one eye of
Osiris, the other by day being the sun in all his splendour. Of
all the wonders and of all the judgments wrought or sent to
break Pharaoh's heart and to terrify his people, this last warn
ing was by far the most awful. The Lord's rights, avenged in
the death of the first-born, caused "lamentation, and wailing,
and woe ;" but the death of Osiris and of Isis at once, neither Sun
nor Moon seen in the Egyptian heavens for three days, was, in
sooth, the doom of the living and of the dead, — the doom at
once of Isis; of Ra, Cheper, Atum and Shu-si-Ra, Har and
1 Rit. ch. xvii. 1. 66. cyHI It (and not rTTl) TIOIfltT"; as by a mis
take at p. 126.

258 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
Harmachu, yea, even of Nut his mother; of Osiris, the father
of all gods ; the supreme Lord of Egypt and Judge of Amenti.
In vain did the priests of On, astonied at this long night,
pour forth their terror in earnest litanies to their god : " Hail,
0 son of Phra! born of Turn himself; self-existent, without
mother ; real Lord of Righteousness and Truth, Sovereign Ruler
of the gods ! xp-K cyirr-Ti. coit ft-K &.tik-t
JUL pit-K noiri ft xp eyitT-XA..
0 thou that scatterest the storm, shine, 0 shine through this
desolation, in thy name of Shent-Ta" (Lord over the storm, lit.,
storm destroyer.)1 But, whether of Baal on Carmel, or of Atum
at On, there was no voice, no answer; for this was the judg
ment of the Lord on that god; and "the Lord, Hois God."
XIX. " There are some days," says Dr. Stanley at p. 120,
" of which the traces left on the mind of a nation are so deep, that
the events themselves seem to live on long after they have been
numbered with the past. Such was the night of the month Nisan
in the eighteenth century before the Christian era."
Thus is the Passover announced ! Small praise this from a
herald of Him Who was then ushered in as "a Lamb without
blemish and without spot," until His Church should hear that
He is " the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the
world;" fore-ordained even then, but made manifest in these
last times, that our faith and hope might be in God. Event,
forsooth ! the type of that for which alone this world was made,
and by which alone it stands. Event, at which angels fall
down and worship, and saints in heaven sing praises around the
Throne : " Unto Him that loved us and washed us from our sins
in His own Blood ; and hath made us kings and priests unto God
and His Father; to Him be glory and dominion for ever and
ever. Amen." It is an ' event' indeed, but one which no heart
that is touched by that event can think of, much less mention,
except in the strains of the deepest and most humble worship.
This event, however, did not take place in the month Nisan,
1 Pap. Harr. pi. i. 1. 8, sq. ii. 5, 6, 8, 9 ; and Chabas, Melanges Egypt. 24e
Ki-ric, p. 100, sq.

V. P. 120.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 259
*
for there was then no such a month. jD^, the origin of which
is uncertain, appears for the first time after the captivity, Neh.
ii. 1 ; Esth. iii. 7. But, until Moses, the Israelites had no
reckoning of their own; no other than the tropical year of their
masters : even the ' vague year' was beyond them. Therefore
does God call the month in which the Passover and the Exodus
took place the " month of the green ear," ITQ&I ^IH ; and
this He told Moses should be to them ZPUftH ttfXI, "the head
of new moons," or ' months' (Exod. xii. 2) instead of Thoth, the
first Egyptian month. Their reckoning of time could only date
from their existence as a people ; and this, again, only from the
day they were set free from bondage.
Some careless, and other shallow scholars have imagined
they had made a great discovery in the coincidence between the
Arabic L .-m) ' Abib/ the tenth month of the Egyptian Calendar,
and the Hebrew word 3^3N ; and heedless of Hebrew grammar,
of facts, and of everything else, some free handlers of the Bible
have thought themselves clever, in attempting to identify
3\2K, which they take for a proper name, against all grammar,
with the Copto-Arabic i  ,jj| Abib, eiXHIl, 'Ennpl, Epiphi;
thus either putting the Exodus in the hottest month of the
Egyptian summer, or shifting the place of the month of Epiphi,
Abib, from where the Copts have ever kept it in their Calendar.
Yet those critics never made a real use of their discovery, neither
have they seen that, if it were true, it would at once give them
the date of the Exodus to within a day. For, if so be 3^3^
is like L -u|. Epiphi, and is a proper, and not a common
name ; and if so be Abib and Epiphi are the same as ^IlNt, we
have only to follow up Mr. Biot's calculations of the 'vague
year' until Epiphi happened in that part of the Tropical year in
which barley ripens in Egypt, and that will give the date of the
Exodus. But all that rests on no foundation whatever. In Hebrew,
proper names never take the article, but are placed in construc
tion without it. Thus ITT 1T3, 'the house of David/ &c„
and not 1111 fTS. So with the names of the months, thus :
s 2

260 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
IP"1? ttfTha, 'in the month Nisan/ Neh. ii. 1; rOC? BNl,
'the month Thebeth/ Esth. ii. 16; 111? Bhft, id. iii. 7, 'the
month Adar;' ]VO #lh, id. viii. 9, 'the month Sivan;' IT HT,
'the month Ziv/ 1 Kings vi. 37 ; "713 1TT, ' the month Bui,'
id. ver. 38 ; viii. 2 ; Neh. i. 1, &c. But when the term ' month'
or ' moon' is in construction with a common term, be it adjective
or substantive, this always takes the article; e.g., ^11*13
]P1? ttfTTtfin pttfiTin, Esth. iii. 7, where the adjective takes
the article, but the proper name does not. So also tiHH
WpITl, i&'bUi?n, yQ^il, ' the seventh, the third, the ninth
month/ &c. ; as with a noun, e. g., PUJ^il ^1)1 bbb, 'for all
the months of the year/ 1 Chron. xxvii. 1, where the common
noun in construction with J^lh takes the article. Likewise
MNd ttfTft, 'the month of ITON,' i.e., 'of green ears/1 and
not " the month Abib," as rendered by the A. V. against the
grammar of the language. As I have demonstrated in my Vin
dication of the A. V. that l_^jj1, Abib, is simply the Arabic
pronunciation of eiXHTl, Epep, Epiphi, which Arabs could not
pronounce otherwise than ' Abib/ changing ' p' into ' b' and ' e'
into 'i/ I will only here add, that a convincing proof of the
shallow scholarship of those who identify ^_^u^ with the ficti
tious ' month Abib/ 3*0$, is, that the LXX., writing in Egypt,
rendered 3>l3^ everywhere by twv vscov sc. xapirwv, which the
Coptic Version translates TlLS-fLox JULfLepi, "the new month."
Now GIlHTt, 'EirtQl, appears in almost every Greek and Demotic
Papyrus or Greek MS. of the time of the Ptolemies; anterior to
the time at which it is first mentioned in 3 Maccab. vi. 38. If,
therefore, there were, or could be, any shadow of resemblance
between ITQN and eHHTl, 'Eirt$l, would not the LXX. have
noticed it, and have translated DBS, Abib, by 'Em<Jsi, and the
Coptic translators by eiXHTl ? If they did not, it is because it
never occurred to them that ^IlK could be 'Emi$l, or that the
Passover could ever have been in 'Eirnpl, Epiphi, the month of
' drought/ and not of ' green ears ;' no, nor indeed to any one
1 As proved by Ex. ix. 31, and Lev. ii, 14 comp. with 2 Kings iv. 42, &c. ;
and explained at length in my Vindication of the Authorized Version, p. 40, sq.

v. p. 120.] philosophy, or truth ? 261
else but to those who are ever casting about for some new sub
ject, be it ever so absurd and unscholarlike, whereby they may
hope to gainsay the Truth of the Bible with an appearance of
learning which they feel confident few will care to look into.
So little did the Egyptian Church look for the Passover in
their hottest summer month, Epiphi, and so utterly worthless
is the assumption of these ' Abibites/ that S. Cyril of Alex
andria, speaking in a sermon of the kingdom of Christ,1 says :
ney^xe nerrc\&.nxoeic *ooq JuuuuuTfCHC, xe <Lpicyi.
rt«Li ncyojULtrr itK£.ipoc Tepojuuie, ^qnecy tg-
pojuuie ecyamirrr itoTtort. £.picy<L tt<Li nexi.q
JL«.neiioT- nilppe Jw.n.Ju.itTAqr'e Jt*.noo£, jui.TU.p-
JUtOTfTG — " The word which our Lord Most High spake unto
Moyses : ' Make Me a feast three times in the year/ dividing
the year into three parts. ' Make Me/ said He, ' the feast of
the first month which is the fourteenth moon of Parmuti.'"
m^iloT- d>^.pju.oTrei eqruxnrurrefL e^ortt e'f-
poJLR.ni JUtiiepi — "the month Pharmuthi, which passes into
the new year."2 Parmuti, Pharmuti, or as the Copts who
speak Arabic pronounce it, 'Barmudeh/ beginning, according
to the Alexandrian Calendar, on the 27th of Dystras (Macedo-
Syrian reckoning), and from the 23rd to the 27th of March.3
This is sufficient to show that Epiphi, Copto-Arab. Abib, never
was the month of the Passover in Syria, or in Egypt where the
first Passover took place ; for S. Macarius, himself also an
Egyptian, tells us4 the children of Israel left Egypt, lv tw pjvl twv
avQwv, ore irpwTov liriQa'tvsTat to ijSiarov sap, "in the month of
flowers, when sweetest spring begins to break forth."5
1 Zoega Codd. Sahid. p. 615. a Id. Codd. Memph. p. 24.
3 So also Apollinarius, Bishop of Hierapolis in Syria (Halma's ed. of Ptol.
vol. vi. irepl rov iraax-) : b awriip rjp.ii/ — &s a.Xii6r)s apvbs MBr) imep T\p.5iv iv
7]fiepa irapaffKewj rrj iS' rov irp&rov ptrjvbs rrjs ffe\l\vr]S — Kal avecrtj rfj ir' rod
irp&Tov p.7jvbs tt)s ffe\i\VT)S iv rt Kal rb Spayfia vevop-oBerryro Tipoo~<pepeiv rbv lepea'
" Our Saviour — as the true Lamb — was slain for us on the preparation day,
the 14th of the first month of the moon ; and He rose again on the 16th of the
first month of the moon, in the which it had been established by law, that the
heave-offering of first-fruits (Spaypia, ^^<}) should be offered by the priest."
4 Homil. xlvii. p. 533, ed. Prit.
s "In mense maturescentis frugis" (Munster) ; " Spicarum, i.e., mense quo
spicte exeunt e calamis, nam vox Hebraa *™proprie calamum in cujus summi-

262 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
Therefore was the intercalary month Veadar occasionally ne
cessary, aoNfi pn riD2n pprr&> n^. "y» <«*» that,"
says Eliah B. Mosheh,1 " the Passover should always be in the
time of the green ears," and also -|tWJ iltihV/12 PUtf IVWih
ptwnn enm rrnsn irrw ti; own, " in order to make
the year of thirteen months, so as always to manage that
the green ears, or first fruits, 3"ON, be in the first month."
And Maimonides :2 " Wherefore, then, is this Veadar intro
duced ? rraNPl pT ijaa. Because of the time of the first
fruits; that the first month be in the time of them." And
since, from natural causes, the date of the Passover must thus
vary within the course of a whole moon, whereas some writers
speak of it and of 3"Q&1 StH.n ' the month of green ears/
as generally in April, others, both Jews and Gentiles, place it in
March, the date of the first Passover.3
But it is like lighting candles to the sun to adduce more
proofs of a thing so plain. The Passover was instituted with
regard to the season, and not to the month. The breaking
loose from a grinding bondage into a new state of existence,
into a new being, as a type of another and a better life, could
fate spica est significat ; hoc in terra promissionis fit mense Martio, vel in prin-
cipio Aprilis.'' (Fagius et Vatablus.)
So, again, Stephanus Gobarus (in Phot. Bibl. p. 891, ed. Rot.) says that the
Annunciation took place iv rip \j.r\vl t&v vetcv — otov ompiKXiy iv oi efipaXoi viaav
xaXovoc "in the month of the new fruits, that is, April, which the Jews call
Nisan ;" — the month of the new creation.
And " God," says Philo, (Qutest. i. in Exod. in Paralip. Arm. p. 445,) "dis
tinctly fixed the month of the first-fruits as the beginning of months, lest the
children of Israel jkif_[iu£uiuigi_nijfi h-pP-ftgtrli pjutnJLbiujjr
luiphiiup^pu Itnqut p^jui£jni_P ktulj undnpnt-fd-kuiJp.
pMiup,bujfji * should return to Egyptian (habits), misled by that to which
they had been accustomed during their stay in Egypt."
1 In Joh. Seldeni Diss, de Ann. Civ. Jud. p. clxi.
2 De Sanctif. Novil. c. iv. in Ugolini, vol. xvii. p. 233, sq.
1 Thus Theodorus Gaza (De Mensib. xiv.) says, vepl rov nao-\a\lov firivbs —
&s rr)v p.ev ipxV ^XE1 K0T'k T^v to" Mopriou iirivbs rf, rb Si r£\os Kara rr)v tou
'Airpi\lou e', " concerning the Pasohal month, that it begins on the 8th of March,
and ends on the 5th of April." While Josephus (Antiq. Lib. ii. u. 14, 6) says
" that the Passover was by God's order prepared from the 10th to the 14th toO
UavBiKov iinvbs — oj irapa piv Alyvmiois $app.ovBl Ka\e~irai, Nitric Be wop'
'EjSpafoit, of the Macedonian month Xanthicus, which is called Pharmuthi by the
Egyptians, and by the Hebrews Nisan."

V. P. 121.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 263
only take place when nature itself breaks forth into a hymn of
praise unto Him Who made it, for the freshness and for the
beauties of spring. And so it did. No month was then men
tioned, because, had it been mentioned by name, the Passover
would often have been in the time of harvest, and not in that of
the very first fruits — as it must have been. The season alone
was stated, the month of the first fruits, whatever the name of
it be; and that month was of course to be the first of months.
New birth, new life, new reckoning, beginning with the new
month, or month of the new fruits ; for, in sooth, old things
were about to pass away for ever, and behold, all things were to
be new. " Principium enim omnium," says Procopius Gaza^us,1
"et in principio omnium esse Christus secundum seternam ex
Patre generationem ab initio ad finem usque sanctificans nos.
Et in mense novorum fructuum celebratur festum. Nam prsete-
rierunt Vetera, et ecce omnia ut inquit Paulus, nova facta sunt."2
Therefore was it not, at Dr. Stanley says, in the month Nisan,
which did not then exist, that the children of Israel kept the first
Passover, but in the first month, the month of first fruits. In
that month, and on that day too, was Christ our Passover
sacrificed for us, to redeem us from the thraldom of sin, of the
world, and of death, and to give us everlasting life — a night, a
sacrifice, a deliverance, and a triumph over His and our foes, to
be observed and remembered indeed for ever, even in Heaven.
XX. Therefore, to tell us, as the Dean of Westminster does,
p. 121, that—
" The animal slain and eaten on the occasion was itself a me
morial of the pastoral state of the people" —
is to think and to write unlike a philosopher, without regard to
tw ovti rj ov of so sacred a type; thus taking a mean view of it.
So the Lamb foreordained, and slain even before the foundation
1 Comm. in Exod. p. 246.
2 And S. Cyril (Comm. in Exod. Lib. ii. p. 267, ed. Par.), referring it, as of
course, to Christ, says, avaipepovres eh Xpurrbv, opi^erai roivvv iv apxji rov
erovs iv r$ irpibrip p.i\vl rr/s iepovpylas 0 Kaip6s, "the season is fixed at the be.
ginning of the year, in the first month of the religious service ; fcaitep iv p.-r\vl
rav vewv t) iravfiyvpis' wherefore is the solemn assembly in the month of the
new fruits, for old things are passed away, as S. Paul says, behold all things are
become new ; and man's nature springs and blossoms afresh towards its first
origin in Christ," &c.

264 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
of the world, was so prepared because Jacob's son3 were to be
shepherds! We had thought, on the contrary, and we still
think, that a lamb without blemish was appointed for the
Paschal Sacrifice, as the only fit emblem of the Lamb op God,
without blemish and without spot, "Who knew no sin, but was
made to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness
of God in Him." Therefore did thousands of angels around
the Throne say with a loud voice, " Worthy is the Lamb that
was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength,
and honour, and glory, and blessing." And therefore did the
earth answer, " Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be
unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for
ever and ever." And under the whole heaven was heard —
"Amen."1 XXI. Israel then was ready — if ' ready5 may be said of a
rush through the prison gates burst open by a flood or by an
earthquake, — and in that memorable night was the start made
from Rameses, — whether this be Belbeis, according to Makrizi,2
or Sedir, Sadr, or Abukesheid, according to Abusaid and others,
in Wadi Tumilat, the possible site of Goshen. This is not the
place to treat fully this subject on which volumes have been, and
will yet be, written, every one advocating some fresh discovery
of his, from the downright infidel, who like Dubois-Aime3 calls
the cloud " un tourbillon de sable," a ' whirlwind of sand/ and
treats the whole narrative of the Exodus, as " faits dictes par
l'orgueil national" — to the blind or ignorant who think thought
and research unnecessary. I will only point out, that so en
tirely were the children of Israel under God's guidance, that
Moses at starting did not know what awaited him and the
people ; for they started for three days' journey into the wil
derness urged by the Egyptians and with Pharaoh's leave, with
their wives and children and with much cattle, to hold a feast
uDto the Lord. Moses, therefore, could not and did not, watch
the day and hour of the tide as certain • philosophers' have
fondly asserted ; for it was not until after Moses and the people
were encamped at Etham, that the Lord commanded them " to
' Rev. v. 12—14.
a Mem. Geogr. sur l'Eg. vol. i. p. 61, 62.
3 Descr. de l'Eg. vol. ii. p. 309, sq.

V. P. 127.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 265
turn,"1 and encamp before Pi-ahiroth — a place of herbage and
of fresh water — " between Migdol and the sea, over against Baal-
zephon." ' To turn' here could not, of course, mean to retrace
their steps; but rather, perhaps, to take the usual route from
Egypt into Arabia across the sea. Therefore was it told Pharaoh
" that the people fled," because they were gone in another di
rection than either they or himself at first expected ; for neither
he nor the Egyptians could think they had fled, if they had gone
"into the wilderness," as understood by Pharaoh and by his
people, i.e. into the wilderness of Egypt, beyond the borders of
the cultivated soil, at Etham. Here did the Egyptian host over
take the children of Israel ; and here did these " see the salva
tion of the Lord," who wrought and fought for them. Por He
commanded Moses saying: "Lift thou up the rod — 'the rod
of God' — and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it :
and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the
midst of the sea." " And Moses stretched out his hand over
the sea ; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong
east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the
waters were divided."2
XXII. As I have discussed this subject elsewhere,3 1 will now
only briefly remark on these words of Dr. Stanley : —
" Whichever these (routes followed by the Israelites) be, the
narrative compels us to look for the passage somewhere near the
head of the then gulf, whence the width would be such as to allow
the host to pass over in a single night, and the waters to be parted
by the means described, namely, by a strong wind, or by the short
ness of the distance required for the Israelites to escape the pur
suers." — p. 127.
On which Dr. Stanley adds to " strong wind" the note : —
"Not necessarily 'east.' See LXX. (Ex. xiv. 21) and Philo.
V. M. i. 32."
Here Dr. Stanley simply repeats what his masters say, un
fortunately without caring to search into the truth of it ; there
fore at a risk. R. viii. p. 4. But, really, such scholarship seems
so poor, that one feels it no credit to have to refute it.
i aw, Ex. xiv. 2. 2 Ch, xiv. 13, 16, 21.
3 Vindic. of the A. V. pt. 1.

266 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
First — We saw above, p. 51, sq., that owing to the difference
in the situation and in the physical conformation of Egypt and of
Palestine, the meteorological phsenomena of wind and rain, &c,
are also equally different in each country. In Palestine the
' west wind' or ' wind of the sea' D1 HIT and DHfJ H11 the
'front' or 'east wind/ are the two prevailing and the two strongest
currents of air. In Egypt, these are, as indeed they must be,
the north and the southerly winds.
Secondly — In Palestine, the east wind, owing to the quarter
whence it blows, 131/20 from the wilderness, Hos. xiii. 15,
is either ' strong' i"TTj7 Ex. xiv. 21 ; ' hot and soft' JTtt^in
Jonah iv. 8 ; ' blighting' ilSlttf Ex. x. 13 ; Ez. xvii. 10, xix. 12 ;
' hot and drying-up/ H^IPQ, 2131110 Hos. xiii. 15 ; ' inj urious
to health/ Jonah iv. 8, and Job xv. 2, from the effect it pro-
- duces ; ' violent, rooting-up/ Job xxvii. 21 ; Ps. xlviii. 7 ; Jer.
xviii. 17, &c. But in Egypt, this same east wind 1>*A\, JjJiJI
is, on the contrary, <JLcU soft, favourable, and wholesome, ac
cording to Abdollatif, who tells us,1 that
" Upper Egypt suffers from being deprived of this wind, \xA\ ,J
U& f\ j^]\ <LJW *£J>lc *-^fr> ^b $-=^ f^ij\ f°r tQe east
wind is warded off from its inhabitants by the eastern chain of
mountains called El-Mokattem ; which, indeed, hinders that fa
vourable wind from reaching that land ; so that it blows on the
inhabitants not with free breath, but as it were sideways. Where
fore the ancient Egyptians chose to fix the seat of government at
Memphis, and to remove it so that it be to the west of that eastern
mountain ; likewise the Greeks chose Alexandria, and avoided the
parts about Eostat because it is near to the Mokattem ; for that
mountain shelters more those who live close to it than those who
are farther off — so you will find that those places in Egypt which
are exposed to the east wind are more healthy than the rest."
Thirdly — We find from the meteorological calendar of Pto
lemy made chiefly at and for Alexandria,2 that owing to the sea-
coast stretching there east and west, this east wind seldom blows
1 jEgypt. p. 10, ed. Wh. s CI. Ptolem. ed. Halma, vol. iii. p. 47.

V. P. 127.] PHILOSOPHY, OR' TRUTH? 267
at Alexandria ; and we also find by comparing that same calendar
for every month in the year, with the observations made at
Cairo by the French expedition in 1800, 1801,1 that, as we might
expect from the different and more inland situation of Cairo, the
climate, and the winds, rain, and meteorological phsenomena are
to some extent modified.
From all this, however, we gather the facts, that, whereas in
Palestine the chief currents of air are east and west because ' the
sea/ if &aXao-o-a, lies north and south — in Egypt, ' the sea,' ^
HaXao-cra, Lj^m*^ a*)\ js*d\ lying east and west, causes the
principal winds to be north and south. The north or Etesian
winds are favourable ; but the vdrog, the south, and Xtf3avoTog,
and Xity, the south-west winds are dreadful in their effects.
" About the spring equinox," says Mr. Reynier,3 " a southerly,
burning wind called ' Khamseen' blows first for three days, and
more or less for fifty, the atmosphere is of a purple tint, all
plants and animals suffer much, some even die; the plants,
however, suffer more than the animals ; if the first gusts happen
when the grain is formed and nearly ripe, the wind hastens its
maturity ; if, however, they happen when the grain is yet un
formed, the crops are withered and lost." I can bear witness to
such a wind in the second week in April ; so violent, and raising
such clouds of fine red dust that I was unable to travel for two
days, until it had fallen. These winds are called Khamseen,
fjSMJ*cu&. i.e. ' of fifty' (days) as lasting periodically more or less
that time ; but by the Copts, they are called -uj-cJl ' Marisi/
i.e. ' southern/ from JULi.pHC, ' south ;' and TOTpHC, ©OTf-
pKC, OHonrpHC, * south wind ;' possibly 0our,ptg of which Plu
tarch speaks,4 as of Typhon's concubine, both symbolized by
Jablonski5 into Typhon, the D"Hj?, and Bouygig, the south wind.
But most of his Coptic etymologies are worth very little ; and,
as to symbolism, it is often made doubtful when, as in this
case, it is not clearly defined. It is possible, however, that
1 Descr. de l'Eg. vol. ii. p. 322.
5 Lit. ' surrounding,' but also applied to the Mediterranean in Egypt.
3 Agricult. de l'Eg. in Mem. sur l'Eg. vol. iv. p. 15, sq.
4 De Is. et Osir. c. 19.
5 Panth. jEg. pt. iii. p. 85, sq.

268 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LEGT.
DIIUSi Pathros, may come from H<&--T"Onf pHC ' the parts of
the south wind/ the south of Egypt. Be this as it may, we
have the same parallelism in the principal winds in Palestine
and in Egypt ; only from different points of the compass. In
Palestine, from the east and from the west ; in Egypt, from the
north and from the south ; and as the west sea-wind is welcome
in Palestine, so is also the north sea-wind equally welcome in
Egypt; as the Etesian wind Itq ItXM. JUL AX-gJT 'the sweet
pleasant, north wind/ as it is called in several inscriptions ; the
gift of Apis at Memphis, and of Osiris at Thebes.1 So also in
Palestine, is the north wind welcome in summer as blowing
from Lebanon ; e.g. Song of Solomon iv. 14, " Awake, 0 north
wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden." No
Hebrew poet would have said : ' Awake, west wind, and come,
thou east wind ;' for this would have been too warm at Jeru
salem, or it would have withered the plants and blighted the
fruit.2 We see then, again plainly, that the LXX. being written by
Alexandrian Jews, and for Jews in Egypt, these were obliged to
render CI)? or fflj? HII, not by ' east wind/ but by the effects
of that wind in Palestine which belong only to the south wind
in Egypt ; otherwise the Greek Vulgate would not have been
understood, if, rendering the Hebrew literally, it had for instance,
told the Egyptians that ears of corn were blasted with the ' east'
wind, when that wind in Egypt rather helps them to grow ; and
is counted a blessing and not a curse. But they were obliged
to leave this as it were open, and simply said avsp.d$tJopoi, leaving
the Egyptians to ascribe the effect to their TOTpKC or south
wind. Hence comes that, as we have already seen, they ren
dered CI)? and its effects by fSlatog, xauo-wv, voto;, &c, and by
any thing except the literal term a7rr}XtwTYi;, or avaToXr), which in
this case was inadmissible, because it would not have been un
derstood. 1 Brugsch. Monum. i. pi. viii. and xvii.
2 But, the LXX. were correct in rendering the Hebrew literally in this place :
iley4pBi\ri Bo^o, ko! tp%ov Ndrt, Kal Bidirve vaov Kfjir6v p.ov, as the north wind in
Egypt is, we see, welcome and agreeable ; and the south wind is often fresh, if
not very cold, \ j^ ifjjj. Abdollat. JEg. p. 12.

V. P. 127.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 269
XXIII. Therefore, conclude these ' philosophers' who trouble
themselves very little about to aXYjdeg, the truth of this ov rj ov, par
ticular case and peculiar circumstances — since the LXX. render
DHj? and DHj? rill ' east wind' by ' strong/ ' hot/ ' stormy/
&c, and ' south/ therefore does t!F*T£ ' east/ mean either ' south/
' strong,' ' north/ ' hot/ or * stormy ;' — with what knowledge,1
others may judge. Thus we have the amusing sight of two of
these ' philosophers' contending about this verse, Ex. xiv. 21, —
the one V. Bohlen, who tells us that HHJ2 is " eine Irrthum," a
mistake I1 and that " sollte Siidwind heissen," it should be
called south wind ;2 and the other, that it must have been " a
strong north-east wind."3 They lay themselves open to ridi
cule, and they deserve it. If they were what they profess. to be
— philosophers — they would see that D^lj? from its etymology
and from its use, never loses the meaning of ' fronting/ i.e.
' east.' For when a term is so used as to be capable of only
one rendering, that rendering must, of course, be the to ov fj ov,
to aXydsg, the real, intrinsic, original sense of the term, and all
other meanings thereof must be figurative or secondary. Now,
in Ezek. xiii. 10, where mention is made of the four winds,
C"[|"? Ill ' east wind' stands for ' east/ and can be interpreted
in no other way. This then, must be its real meaning ; as real
for one who wrote in the Hebrew of Palestine, as that of ' sea' for
D\ nS*1 when it is used for ' west.'
t' t t
Local idioms of this kind belong to every country ; and if no
account is to be taken of them when translating from one text
into another for the use of the people, a literal rendering will
often be mere nonsense. Thus as we have seen D*1 ' sea/4 means
T '
1 Comm. in Gen. p.. 381. 2 Genes. Introd. p. lxxxiii.
3 Dr. Robinson, Researches, vol. i. p. 83, 1st ed. Journal of Sacred Litera
ture, Oct., 1854, p. 116, sq. So also J. Cleric, ad 1. Quatremere Mem. sur le
lieu oil les Isr. traverserent la Mer Rouge, in Mem. des Inscr. et B. Lettres,
1851, vol. xix. p. 45, sq.
4 In Egyptian, IOTJUL^., Copt. l&JLK, IOJUL ' sea/ was like d; said
of ' the sea' or of ' a sea or lake' with regard to any given locality ; thus rrW Dt
the sea of Chinnereth or Galilee ; and niJULUJrr ftTe cblOJUL, Egypt.
£,IR-T* JUL niO*Jf JULi. ' the way of the sea,' whereby is meant the port
of Berenice on the Red Sea, for the miners of Radesieh (Chabas, Mem. des

270 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
' west' of the land of Palestine ; and D1 1111 or ' sea wind/
means there, ' west wind.' But, in Egypt ' the sea' ^ajjJl
means 'north/ and a^jJl -^ 'sea wind' means 'north
wind/ eTr]o-iog avep.og, ' northern/ soft, agreeable, and welcome ;
likewise <_$SSs 'fronting' means 'south' in Egypt, because it
is towards the Qibla of Mecca; whereas DHj? 'fronting'
in Palestine meant ' east/ as being the side towards which
they looked at sun-rise. Again, if these terms are to be
divested of their home- meaning when used in«other countries,
what are we to make of, e.g. Numb. iii. 23, where it is said, the
Gershonites were to encamp Hfp) " towards the sea." What
sea ? They had the Mediterranean, or • western sea/ to the
north, the Hefoopolite gulf to the west, and the iElanite to the
east : and let us suppose that the Egyptian translator had ren
dered it literally -ssJil! H 'seawards' (instead of i-^idl ^J\
'westwards') it would mean 'northwards' instead of 'west
wards.' Now if we argued from this rendering of PIS'1 by
(—ijx<l] i^]] 'westwards/ that U], Dv, MS^ never meant
'seawards/ but always 'westwards,' we should make strange
sense of such passages as Josh. xvi. 3, 8, 1 Kings v. 9, where
the cedar trees instead of being brought from Lebanon ' to the
sea/ would have to be taken from Lebanon to the coasts of Tar-
shish. Yet this is what they do, who argue from the necessary
meaning given in Egypt to a Hebrew term, that it must have
that same meaning in Palestine also, under totally different cir
cumstances. But, as they have not the courage to go so far as to render
fljtf D"H|? H113 'by a strong south' or 'north wind/ they
render it as does Dr. Stanley, "by a strong wind," leaving out
D"Hp altogether ; and shutting their eyes to these two facts :
First — that since the east wind in Egypt is generally aLslj
Mines d'Or, letter M. on the plan. Pap. Harris, p. 17.) It was also said of the
Nile when ireA.ayffoji', both in Egyptian, in Hebrew, and in Coptic, as now in
Arabic. But when ' the sea' was thus alluded to without qualification, both in
Hebrew, in Coptic, and in Egyptian, as now in Arabic, it meant the Mediter
ranean, (see p. 51.)

V. P. 127.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 271
' soft and favourable/ it was purposely made il$y * strong' by
the Divine will ; therefore — secondly — that since it was found
necessary to employ the wind which is naturally soft, and to
make it strong, contrary to its habitual nature, and for a par
ticular purpose, it shows that this wind, and no other, was the
one that should do that work.
XXIV. And so it was. No other wind could have ' cleft
asunder' (J/p3) the sea; for either the north or the south wind,
by blowing upon the length of the gulf instead of upon the width
thereof, would have simply pushed back the waters before it,
but never so as to make them a wall on the right hand and on
the left. This could be done only by a wind blowing athwart
the gulf in one particular spot, so as to make a way in the
midst of the sea. And He Who made it blow could well make
it blow how and where He would. Therefore, and to conclude,
not only was it a strong ' east wind/ but, reasonably speaking,
it could be no other; and, as I have said, until we find D'Hj?
predicated of either north, south, or west, we will continue to
believe it inseparable from its radical meaning of 'fronting/
that is, ' east ;' and, leaving these ' philosophers' to settle be
tween their ' north' and ' south/ we will, with Scripture, take the
mean, and hold that God did cause a " strong east wind" to
blow all that night, so as to cleave the sea in two, raising on
each side the waters 1IT1Q3 ' like a heap/ as He did at the
passage of His people through the Jordan, under Joshua.
For, as in that case it was meet that death, eager to swallow them,
should be apparent, and apparently restrained by the command of
Jesus the son of Nun, who brought them into the Promised Land ;
so also in this case it was necessary that, in order to be constituted
a Church, a people set apart from the world by a rite of conse
cration, the children of Israel should be "baptized unto Moses
and in the sea." But they could not have been ' baptized/ i.e.,
' buried' unto death to Egypt, and ' come out' of the water in
token of their new birth to altogether a new kind of life, had not the
waters 'been made to stand/ as the Scripture says, on the "right
and on the left," and to rise above the heads of the host passing
through them on the dry ground. Here, then, to talk of ebb and
flow, of moon and tides, of north and south wind, of anything,

272 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
in short, but what the Scripture of Truth says concerning this
grand miracle, this glorious display of God's might in behalf of
His people, is so derogatory from the course a real philosopher
would take in considering to aXrjSeg, the Truth of the subject,
that I will only refer my readers to the whole literature there is
written on it from Clericus, Goldsmid, Jurke, Lessing, &c,
downward ; the more so as I have elsewhere exposed the worth
less scholarship of one who attempted to gainsay the Scripture
account and the Authorized Version thereof.1
XXV. But among sundry good remarks — though not up to
the subject — with which Dr. Stanley closes this lecture, the fol
lowing words deserve notice, as they might easily be miscon
strued. At p. 129 Dr. Stanley says : —
" In later times Religion has been so- often and so exclusively
associated with ideas of order, of obedience, of submission to
authority, that it is well to become occasionally reminded that it
has had other aspects also. This, the first epoch of our religious
history, is, in its original historical significance, the sanctification,
the glorification of national independence and freedom."
The intention of the Dean of Westminster in this passage
is very far from clear.
First — whence does Dr. Stanley derive the term ' Religion ;'
' a relegendo/ from vain repetitions, or ' a religando/ from its
holding the heart captive ? Secondly — deriving the term * re
ligion' 'a religando/ we may notice — "that it has been asso
ciated with order and obedience" not " in later times only," as
Dr. Stanley teaches, but from the very first. By faith Abel,
Enoch, and Noah obeyed God; that was their religion. By
faith Abraham left his home and country, and, in obedience to .
God, wandered as a stranger in a land not his own, during a
hundred years of his life ; that too was his religion. By faith,
also, Isaac and Jacob were led, and did walk in obedience to
God, as religious men. By faith, likewise, did Joseph with
stand the temptations of Potiphar's house, kept by his religion
from yielding to the solicitations of lust, and thus made to act
in the fear of God, and in that only. By faith also " Moses,
when he was come to years, refused to be called the son
1 Vindication of the A. V. Pt. i. p. 3—162.

V. P. 129.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 273
of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with
the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a
season ;" that was his order and his obedience. " Esteeming
the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of
Egypt, for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward ;"
that was his faith. "By faith he forsook Egypt, not fear
ing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him
Who is invisible;" that was his subjection to that authority.
" Through faith he kept the Passover, and the sprinkling of the
blood"-^as subject, obedient and religious — " lest he that de
stroyed the first-born should touch them." " By faith they
passed through the Red Sea as by dry land" — subject, orderly
and obedient to Him Who led them — "which the Egyptians
assaying to do were drowned." Thus deriving ' religion/ not
' a- relegendo' — for we have no proof to show that the patriarchs
could read — but ' a. religando/ we find the best examples of it
in good olden times.
Thirdly — looking at "this the first epoch of our religious
history," we can find no greater proof of order, of obedience,
and of submission to authority, no grander example of entire
dependence upon God, and of devoted service to Him, than in
this departure from Egypt. It was not "national independ
ence," that is, irresponsibility to any one ; neither was it " free
dom;" but only escape from bondage. For 'freedom' means,
as we saw at page 13, entire independence from others ; but in
this case the children of Israel only exchanged their bondage
to the Egyptians for their service to God. They were His ser
vants, whom He redeemed from servitude to other masters,
and whom He made His people when He constituted them into
a nation, with Him at the head as King, Who gave them His
laws, which He enacted thus : Do this, and thou shalt live ;
" but cursed be he that continueth not in all the things written
in the book of the law, to do them." To which the people
answered, Amen.
This does not look much like national independence; neither
was it much like ' freedom' to have to receive laws and statutes
from such absolute authority. Neither, indeed, was it freedom.
It was a state of servitude no longer to the Egyptians, it is true,
but to the Lord of heaven and earth, of life and of death,

274 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
Who gave them His orders, and Who parcelled out to them
His land under certain conditions. So thoroughly conditional
was their tenure of that land, and so little was it their own
freehold property, that they were reminded of it even in their
deeds of sale. yiKil "^p3 JlJlOV1? 1??^ *fr YWJ]
P1S)>V D$K DO^ini Witt "The land shall not be sold
unreservedly," said the Lord, "for the land is mine, and ye
are strangers and sojourners with me. For unto me the chil
dren of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I
brought forth out of the land of Egypt. I am the Lord."1
XXVI. Whatever amount .of civil statute law there might be
mixed up with these injunctions to the Israelites as ' people of
God,' the principle on which they were made to rest, is the
same now as it was then : it is that of absolute and entire sub
jection and obedience to God as Creator, Father, and Lord
Supreme — subjection not conditional, and obedience not op
tional, but whole, humble, and devoted. Without this there
can be no religion ; neither euo-sfista, Qsoo-sfisia, nor even bpYpxeia.
Cicero, to wit : " Qui sancti ? qui religionum colentes ? nisi qui
meritam diis immortalibus gratiam justis honoribus et memori
mente persolvunt."2 So spake even a heathen of what he called
religion and the worship of his gods. What shall we say, we
Christians ? Even that eXeuQegwQsvre; am ty); aputpTtag, louXw-
deVTe; Ss tw &ew, "being made free from sin, and become servants
of God, we have our fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting
life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is
eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord."3
This is our faith, and the hope that is set before us ; this is
our religion and our bondage^ We are free, yet servants ; free,
in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free — freedom,
indeed, compared with the yoke of bondage to the old ordi
nances of the Law. Yet, although free, we are " not to use our
liberty for a cloke of maliciousness ;" but as the servants of
God. This is the check on our freedom to sin ; but it is the
charter of our freedom to do good as free citizens of " a better
country, that is an heavenly." With it we study to " purify our-
1 Lev. xxv. 23, 55, and 41, 42, sq. 2 Pro Plancio, 80, ed. Em.
3 Rom. vi. 22, 23.

V. P. 129.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 275
selves, even as He is pure," by obeying Him, and for His sake,
those whom He has set over us as lords temporal and spiritual.
We therefore honour the Sovereign because we fear God ; we
are " subject to the powers that be as ordained of God," whether
to the worst, as were the saints at Rome ; or to the best, as those
in England who love " religion, order, and obedience" are to the
Queen. XXVII. But this religious principle of faith in God and of
obedience to Him, which is the only foundation of all good pre
sent and to come, forbids the setting up of our own will in op
position to His; leastways our arrogating to ourselves either
wisdom, intellect, or power apart from Him. Wisdom, indeed !
" Where is the wise ? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of
this world ?" And did not he who was said by the oracle to be
the wisest of men, not only declare that human wisdom is worth
very little, but that the superiority of his own wisdom, such
as it was, lay in that — oti ol p.r) dlSa, ouSl o'iop.at s'Mvat — "he did
not pretend to know what he did not know." This ireiroir\xe to
ovop.a " made his fame," as he confessed, "ta-wg p.lv 8o£a> tio-)v irai^etv,
not without an inward smile.1 Human wisdom, we see, does not
reach very far. Intelligence or intellect, do you say ? Who
first gave it to man ? Yet now, fallen as it is, dimmed and
lowered by him to whom it was given for the highest end — to
understand God — this intellect seeks to set itself free from all
allegiance to Him Who had made it perfect, by refusing Him
submission and obedience in a path which this intellect is now
too dull and too weak ever to find out of itself. Plato felt this
when he longed to have the film removed from his vast intel
ligence, if by any means he might become a better man. Let
certain Christians who have the light of the Truth, learn of him
who only felt after God if haply he might find Him ; lest, after
all, the first should be last.
And, as to our having any power of our own, apart from God
— what power had the children of Israel when told " to stand
still and see the salvation of the Lord ?" Our help, then, is
also in the Name of the Lord, " Whose strength is made per
fect in our weakness." Our only strength is in the promise,
1 Apol. Socr. 6, 5, 9, &c.
T 2

276 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH. [LECT.
" As thy days so shall thy strength be. The Eternal God is
thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms."1
Feeling, then, as we do, we should indeed be sorry to say or
to think that at any time Religion — that is, true Religion — can
possibly be independent of order and of obedience; neither
would we uphold in unqualified terms " the sanctification, the
glorification of national independence and freedom," lest these
words might be mistaken, and we understood to advocate more
freedom, either ecclesiastical or civil, than is meet and con
sistent with religion, order, and obedience to authority. For
this is the only safe road to lasting prosperity on earth, and to
happiness hereafter, because it is the only wav to it ordained of
God.
We should be afraid to appear as if glorifying our own pride,
our own independence, and our own conceit/more than any
thing else; as if slackening instead of straitening the bands of
Religion and thus destroying it; and as if throwing down all
fences in the Church, and a good many in the State ; always
provided we ourselves might stand. But, rather, we feel per
suaded, from all the examples of true Religion we have seen,
that Religion cannot exist without faith, order and obedience to
God in all things, and for His sake to those whom He has ap
pointed to be instruments in His hands, and ministers of His
will in matters ecclesiastical and civil, which hinder neither prin
ciple nor the conscience; that is, which do not interfere with
our duty to God.
XXVIII. And here I must take leave of the Dean of Westmin
ster. I have purposely examined the first part of his work, and no
other, lest I should appear to have chosen the portion or portions
most open to criticism. And I have endeavoured to remark
upon it fairly; pointing out the many passages in the work
which commend themselves by their thoroughly good English
taste and feeling, with as much pleasure, as I felt of disappoint
ment at having to advocate with him the cause of Truth against
the invasion of erroneous or foreign teaching. I might say
much; but my respect for the position he occupies in the
Church forbids my doing more than express a hope that, when
he again writes for candidates for Holy Orders, he may bear in
1 Deut. xxxiii. 25—27.

V. P. 129.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 277
mind that the nature of their calling and the importance of
their office requires at the hands of their teachers a lore alike
sound and accurate.
No man can reach unto the highest of earthly positions, that
of a real scholar, or of a real philosopher and friend of the
Truth, which is the same thing, if he do not value Truth to
aAijfley abstractedly, for its own sake, and the Truth, ty)v aXrfietav,
above everything else. Without this ruling principle within
him, he is constantly in danger of being, as Plato says, QiXofoS-o;,
more fond either of his own opinion or of that of others, than
QtXoo-oQog, a lover of truth, of the Truth and of wisdom. This
very motive must often warp his judgment and mislead him into
arguing after the manner of those whom both Plato and Aristotle
called o-oipio-Tag, sophists, because they presented their Truth, and
argued upon it from their own view of it only, and not on true
principles. But this depends, of course, on the irpoatpeo-tg tou
fitou, on our individual disposition, and on the choice of what
we propose to ourselves as the aim and object of life ; whether
to serve and to please men, or to serve and to please God ; whe
ther to shape the Truth so as to meet their wishes, or honestly
to labour at it as an act of homage to God, and of worship of
Him Who is the God of Truth, careless of men's wishes about
it ; since they neither make Truth nor the Truth. For Truth
is a gem they are allowed to find by searching for it as for hid
treasures with their limited efforts, in the little World in which
they live ; while ' the Truth' is the pearl of great price, for which
we shall seek in vain in the earth ; it is given of God from above.
"There is in the world," says Hooker, "no kind of knowledge,
whereby any part of truth is seen, but we justly account it pre
cious ; yea, that principal Truth, in comparison whereof all know
ledge is vile, may receive from it some kind of light ; whether it
be that Egyptian or Chaldsean wisdom mathematical wherewith
Moses and Daniel were furnished, or that natural, moral, and
civil wisdom, wherein Solomon excelled all men," &c, — " to de
tract from the dignity thereof were to injure even God Himself,
Who being that Light which none can approach unto, hath sent
out these lights whereof we are capable, even as so many sparkles
resembling the bright fountain from which they rise."1
1 Eccles. Pol. Bk. iii. ch. viii. sq.

278 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [LECT.
However much we may grieve or smile at the conceit or at
the ignorance of men who treat this Truth as if it were of their
own choice or making, and who handle the Bible in which it is
revealed to men with less veneration, perhaps, than some of
their own writings ; we must nevertheless see with satisfaction
that, if we are to judge of their learning and scholarship by the
samples thereof we have just examined, both the Truth and the
Bible are safe from their attacks. If such teaching has a baneful
influence, it can only be over the mind of superficial men, who
let others think for them, or over that of men who, being neither
ignorant nor superficial, trust their accredited leaders with ge
nerous confidence, and take all they say for granted ; but such
lore is utterly powerless over men who know what to believe
and what to doubt, who take no statements upon trust, and
who, in all matters of intellectual knowledge, require proofs, and
not assertions only. This ought, then, to induce the Clergy to
revive Biblical studies among themselves; not only that of
Divinity, but also the study of Hebrew and of Shemitic litera
ture that bears upon it; for without such knowledge they are
entirely at the mercy of the first comer who may attempt to
gainsay the witness of the Old Testament.1
They can, of course, bestow their energies on no better
object than on the study of the original texts, and of the
Truth they contain ; bearing in mind what the holy Apostle
said to a bishop who had no New Testament : " All Scripture
is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ; that the
man of God may be agTto;, perfect — irpb; iroai egyov uyaObv e%r\prto--
fj.svog, thoroughly furnished unto every good work — studying to
be approved of God ; epya.Tt\v avsiraio-x^vTOV , bghoTop.ouvTa tov Xoyov
TY\g aXrjisiag, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth ;" and withal " shunning fZefZrjXovg
xevoQwvlu; — or xaivofywvla; — profane and vain — or new-fangled
— babblings ; for they will increase unto more ungodliness."2
1 Every Clergyman need not know Hebrew, for all have not the requisite
ability for such study ; but there ought at least to be one Hebrew scholar to
every five Clergymen, all of whom are expected to have mastered the Greek of
the New Testament.
s 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17; ii. 15, 16.

v. p. 129.] Philosophy, or truth ? 279
And such exist, it appears, in all countries, though with less
harm, perhaps, than in this; because there is here in general
such solidity of character, such earnestness of purpose, and so
much more real religion than elsewhere, that opposition thereto
is the more keenly felt. Even from Egypt we hear —
Murad. " To tell you the truth, I have been in the company
of many elderly men whom we call ' ulemas/ learned doctors and
dignitaries ; but never have I heard them say much to the pur
pose." AIL " If, then, our ' ulemas' do not know what they ought
to know, what use do they make of the books they carry about
with them, and read all the -day long?"
Murad. "None whatever. Don't you know the common
saying, jjj- AA\j ^XdJ\ Jlc *f«U£!j ^\Jl\ JJLo *^<V.^C
<dl! ' Their turbans are like towers, and their sleeves are like
hampers, and the learning is — with God' ?"
Ali. " You are right. Many of them LLxi <3aiu £iU*j
i_q ii-L Jjic hide a light mind under a heavy turban, and carry
in their sleeves books they do not understand."
Murad. " Well, they are not all alike."1
No; and real "intellect, ability, and learning," with whom
soever they be found, are worthy of great homage for their own
sakes, as the brightest and best of earthly gifts. But light
seldom praises itself — it shines.
1 .-J^Wl iSJjslsyo (j m a conversation between two scholars; Savary's
Dial. Ar. d'Eg. p. 448 and 330.

PLAIN WOEDS ON QUESTIONS OF THE DAY
RESPECTING
FAITH, THE BIBLE, -AND THE CHURCH.

I. We may, then, keep the Bible. — Yet, the thought must
have occurred to others as well as to myself, in hearing all
this talk about the philosophy we are told to reconcile with
the Bible, though we cannot ; what — in the estimation of
these philosophers, and if their philosophy be true — is to be
come of poor, simple-minded and ignorant people, of the mul
titude, in short, who cannot understand all this wisdom ? Or
yet, of other plain, straightforward men, whose philosophy
goes not beyond common sense, who therefore, will none of
this new teaching at any price, but will have plain sound
English sense, that they can understand, and sound old-fashioned
doctrine withal ; not only of the days of Jewell, Hooker, and of
other such pillars of the Church, but even older than they — as
old as the Apostles, the prophets, and the patriarchs ? what is
to become of them if this philosophy be the only right thing ?
Or, have these philosophers, perhaps, " taken away the key of
knowledge" — the Word of God1 — " shutting up the kingdom
against men, neither going in themselves nor suffering them
that are entering to go in ?" Or, is it that they " desire to be
teachers of the law ; understanding neither what they say, nor
whereof they affirm ?" — " But we know that the law is good, if
1 " Claves autem quibus aut claudere regnum coelorum aut aperire possint,
ut Chrysostomus ait, dicimus esse scientiam Scripturarum : ut Tertullianus,
esse interpretationem Legis : ut Eusebius, esse verbum Dei. — Cumque clavis,
qua aditus nobis aperitur ad regnum Dei, sit verbum Evangelii, et interpretatio
Legis et Scripturarum ; ubi non sit verbum, ibi dicimus non esse
clavum." Apologia Eccles. Anglic. J. Juell. p. 15.

282 philosophy, or truth ? [belief
a man use it lawfully." We know that there is, and that there
can be nothing better than ' real' philosophy — if <ptXoo-o<pia r)
aX^r);, as S. Chrysostom calls it1 — which, for a Christian, con
sists in searching, in thinking and in reasoning, as a Christian
ought to search, to think and to reason, that is — not backwards,
from himself to God, as heathens did, and as certain philosophers
of the day will do ; but forwards, from God as revealed in His
Word, to himself. And this Christian philosophy as it is found
in the Gospel of Christ is, a,t once, so deep that no human in
tellect can search it out — since even angels desire to look into
it — and yet so simple, that " the common people heard gladly"
the Founder of that philosophy, when He silenced Herod, re
buked lawyers, convicted Pharisees, and "preached the Gospel
to the poor." Let us then, for awhile, leave those philosophers
to their philosophy ; and talk plain, common sense, for plain
people.
BELIEF AND FAITH.
II. Aristotle tells us that ' good' is the end to which most
things tend, the object most men set before themselves in their
thoughts, and in daily life. They connect this idea of ' good,'
some with one thing, others with another ; so that, heathen and
other philosophers did set about trying to find out, both wherein
this idea of good consists, and wherein the ' greatest good' for man
lies. Some placed it in the gratification of the senses and of the
appetites; others in virtue; others, again, like Plato, put the su
preme good for man, in drawing as near as in him lies to ' that
which really is/ to ov, whereby he understood — God. But those
men not having a Revelation, were so completely in the dark as
to the actual fallen and degraded state of man's nature, that
Marcus Varro2 reckoned two hundred and eighty-eight different
sects of philosophers, either existing, or possible, whose object
was to set this nature a task to fulfil in endeavouring to better
itself, for which it has neither ability nor power. I need hardly
point out that with those men, as with the philosophers of the
present day, those who either could not or would not receive their
teaching were altogether shut out from all hope of sharing in the
benefits their philosophy was said to confer. The poor, the igno-
1 De Sacerd. lib. i. t. 1 2 S. August. Civ. Dei. lib. xix. c. 1.

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 283
rant, the renitent, therefore, had then, as they now have, no hope
whatever, consistently with that teaching, if we are to receive it.
III. But we do not. Common sense alone tells us that our
human nature must be of two things one — either sinless or
sinful ; either in its original state of innocence, or fallen from
it. Except we be past feeling or grossly ignorant, however, our
own experience, every moment in the day, teaches us, apart from
Revelation, that our nature is fallen very low indeed, from its
exalted origin, to which it must be restored, or, if not restored,
continue as it is, degraded. Our own sense, further, tells us
also, that our human nature having thus fallen by depriving
itself of certain powers and of certain attributes it had originally,
cannot possibly of itself and with its own efforts, regain those
lost privileges. — A broken limb cannot set and mend itself;
and being of our nature " dead in trespasses and sins," we cannot
be further " alienated from the life of God"1 than we are. Our
fallen nature then, must receive from without power to restore
itself, that is — from God; and thus be restored by Him. ,
And here again, simple, unassisted reason teaches also that
under such circumstances, a good, merciful, and gracious God,
could not and would not so word His offer and promise of eternal
happiness, as that few of His creatures could understand H ; and
so describe the way He has made for the restoration of our human
nature to its former estate, — yea, even to a higher one — as that
fewer still of those creatures should be able to make out that way
and to walk in it ; and thus be virtually shut out from the happi
ness promised. We believe, on the contrary, that, however men
may either from conceit, ignorance or self-righteousness darken
God's counsel with words without knowledge, God's offer of
reconciliation, and His promise of eternal life, must be told in
terms so plain, that the simplest and most ignorant may under
stand and receive them.
IV. And so it is. As " the world by wisdom knew not God,
it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that
believe ;"2 thus, practically " making foolish the wisdom of this
world,"3 that is — showing the plain and only way to eternal
good, which the joint wisdom of the whole world had not been
able to devise or to find out. Even Plato yearned after the very
1 Eph. ii. 1—3, iv. 18. " 1 Cor. i. 21. 3 ibid. 20.

284 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
Word which is now preached to the poor, and, in his own way,
sought the kingdom promised " to the poor in spirit.''
For such is God's plain dealing with His people at all times.
While He says : " I am the Lord that maketh all things : that
turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge fool
ish,"1 He also says: "I am found of them that sought me
not ;" " to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of
a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word,"2 adding, " Blessed
are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."3
And pointing to the way thither, He said, of old — " This com
mandment which I give thee this day, is not hidden from thee,
neither is it far off. It is not in heaven that thou Bhouldest
say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that
we may hear it, and do it ? But the word is very nigh unto
thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and
evil."4 And in later times, no longer of shadows, but of light
and of realities, those same plain words were made plainer still,
and placed within the reach of all by the Holy Apostle, when he
says : "The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy
heart : that is, the word of faith, which we preach ; that if thou
shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe
in thine heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness ;
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."5
V. Here, then, is this plain way ; not the " wisdom of words,"
nor "the wisdom of this world," nor yet 'philosophy/ but —
" the word of faith," to be confessed with the mouth as an ex
pression of the heart, irgo<popixbg Xoyog, and believed with the
heart — ttj xaplia. — " unto righteousness," by simple and gentle,
ignorant and learned alike; "for with God there is no respect
of persons."6 Faith,7 then, iria-Ttg, is this principle brought to
1 Is. xliv. 24—26 ; I Cor. iii. 19, 20. s Is. lxv. 1, Ixvi. 2.
> S. Matt. v. 3 ; Ps. Ii. 17. * Deut. xxx. 11—15.
b Rom. x. 6 — 10. 6 Rom. ii. 11 ; 2 Chron. xix. 7.
1 I use the term ' Faith' throughout — except where otherwise explained — to
mean what S. Paul does, " belief with the heart unto righteousness" in objective
Truths revealed by God to us in His Word, delivered to the Catholic Church
and necessary unto salvation, as distinguished from mere 'belief,' in the sense
of — ' assent of the intellect to things of the intellect,' vorird and vooip.eva. Like-

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 285
light by the Gospel, that was altogether unknown to the wise
men of heathendom, and new to their wisdom. Why ? because
Faith, which is " a fruit of the Spirit,"1 and therefore under
' spiritual' influence — or ' spiritual/ as distinct from mere intel
lectual assent or ' belief/ is said to be " the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."2 These "things
not seen," and these " things to be hoped for" then, must be
made known ere Faith in them can exist. But we are told that
" these are things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither
have entered into the heart of man, which God hath prepared
for them that love him."3 Since then " these things never en
tered into the heart of man," man's heart or man's intellect would
weary itself, as, indeed, it has ever wearied itself in vain, in trying
either to devise them, or to find them out. Therefore must they
be made known to man by some one else than himself, ere he
can hear or think of them ; in other words, they must be ' re
vealed' to him by God who has both prepared and promised
them. " Wherefore are we told," says Philo,4 " not that
Abraham saw God, but that God appeared, or revealed Himself
unto him ; for it was impossible that a man should of himself
xaTaXaf3s~tv to irpbg aXifietav ov, comprehend that which really is,5
fj.r) iraga$r\vavTog Ixs'tvw sauTo xa) irapalel^avTog, unless that Truth
(God) had shone in his presence and had shown itself to him."
Therefore also, is Faith said " to come by hearing, and hearing
by the Word of God,"6 in which God has revealed to man the
things He has prepared for him, and which He promises; toge
ther with the conditions on which His promise is to be ratified
and those good things are to be inherited.
wise are the terms ' spirit,' ' intellect,' ' soul,' and ' body,' taken here through
out in their plain and practical sense : ' spirit' (irvevp.a'), as the feature in our
nature most resembling the image of God, and the means of direct intercourse
and of impressions from Him to us ; and in this respect distinct from the "in
tellect,' (yovs), which consists in our thinking and understanding faculties ; while
the ' soul,' (<|>vx^)i is understood in Aristotle's sense of it, and also in that of
Philo, to include not only affections, feelings, and passions, but also the intellect ;
and lastly the flesh, adp(, or the body, <rap.a, as the abode of the spirit and the
soul. 'Gal. v. 22. 2 Heb. xi.l.
3 1 Cor. ii. 9. * De Abrah. p. 361, D. ed. Par.
5 Whereby Philo, like Plato, understood God, 6 S>v.
5 Rom. x. 17.

286 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
"For," says S. Cyril of Jerusalem, " we may neither deliver nor
maintain the least part, to rvxdv, of the mysterieB of the Faith
without the Holy Scriptures ; nor yet misrepresent them either
through bare probability, or with wisdom of words; neither
oughtest thou to believe me teaching thee these mysteries, unless
thou canst draw from the Holy Scriptures proof of what I say.
fH awrnpia ryap avrri t«9 7rt<rrews rjfiwv, ovk e£ eiipeffiXoryias, aWa eg
airoheigeuis tuiv Oeluiv iarl r/pa</)wv. For the very preservation of
our Faith does not depend on the witty inventions and on the
wisdom of men's words, but it rests on proof given by the Holy
Scriptures." — Catech. iv.
VI. But, inasmuch as " the things which God hath prepared
for them that love Him," partake of the nature of Him Who
' is Spirit;' they are not of the intellect, intellectual, but of the
spirit, spiritual, and are therefore, " spiritually discerned."1
And here, in order the better to understand this, yet without
entering into the scientific details of a subject which only shows
we are, in sooth, " fearfully and wonderfully made," and a mys
tery to our own selves2 — let us bear in mind S. Paul's plain and
practical distribution of our nature into " spirit, soul, and
body ;"3 ' the body' of the earth, earthy, and for a time the
abode of .' the soul,' which according to Aristotle, to Plato, Philo,
&c, consists of the intellect, understanding, or mind, and its
faculties, such as reason, the will, &c, of feeling and of lust
or desire ;4 and the spirit which is the best part of man, since it
is that in which he bears the greatest resemblance to the image of
God, "Who is Spirit." Man's nature then, may be practically
represented by three circles intersecting one another at the
centre ; the one uppermost in this figure being the ruling power
in man for the time being ; whether it be the spirit over the
> 1 Cor. ii. 14.
' Delitzsch, die falsche u. die wahre Trichotomie in Bibl. Psychol, p. 84, sq.
» 1 Thess. v. 23.
4 Tp(o 8" iarlv iv rp i|»uxj? ra Kipia irpd^eas «ol aXi)6etas, ctfffflrjim, vovs,
fpeits. — Tlpd$eo>s p.ev olv apxh irpoalpeais, SBev r) kIvt\o-is 4AX' o\>x ov *v*Ka,
irpoaip4o-eus Be Spelts Kal \6yos b HveKd rtvos- Sib otfr' avev vov koI Siavolas oSt'
tvev ijBiKrls iarlv 2{e»J h irpoatpeffis'—Stb ^ hpeKTmbs vovs y irpoalpeais tj i!pf{is
Stavorirtieh, (fal i) roiairv apxh Mpteiros, K.r.X. (Eth. Nic. vi. 2, 1 , sq.) Tptp.e-
povs yfiuiv T7JS iJ'uX'i1 VTrapxovai)*, rb p.ev vovs Kal \6yos, rb Be BvpAs, rb Se iiriBv
fila KeKKrtpao-Bai \4yerai. (Philo de Confus. Lgg. 9, p. 323.)

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 287
soul and body ; or the soul over the body and spirit, or yet the
flesh 'or body over the soul and spirit ; the soul in this, being
wonderfully connected with the body by means of the blood ;
with the spirit through its intellectual and moral faculties ; and
the spirit being thus joined with it, and with the body by dwell
ing therein.
VII. In man's original state of innocence, the spirit with
which Adam held intercourse with God, had dominion over both
his soul and body ; and Adam was thus a spiritual man ; that
is, his body and soul were under the influence of his spirit.
But, by sin he upset that fabric, which then fell : Gob's image
in the spirit was tarnished, and Adam's intercourse with God
through it was broken ; then Adam's spirit thus losing its power
over his soul and body, no longer held the uppermost room in
him to sway from thence his whole being, but it fell lower;
when the soul assumed its place, and then ruled the body of
man and held his spirit in bondage ; and Adam became a natural
man, ^uxtxbg avSpwirog.1 So true is this, practically, that neither
Aristotle nor Plato, nor any philosopher of that age, had any
clear idea of what the spirit — to irvsup,a — of man is, or of the
place and office it once held. They either identified it with the
breath, or, seeing the soul holding the uppermost rank in man,
they attributed to it gifts that belong exclusively to the spirit,
such as, intercourse with God, and through it, the restoration
of our sinful nature to a better state. It was only later, and
probably through the influence of the Septuagint and of the fre
quent mention therein of " the Spirit of God," irvsup.a Bsou, and
of " the spirit of man," irvsiifj,a avQpwirou, that ' the spirit' (irveup.a)
in man came to be fairly mentioned as distinct from the intel
lect (voug) ; as, for instance, by Philo who, though he does not
adopt the same distinction as S. Paul of " spirit, soul and body,"
nor yet " divides soul and spirit," as the word of God does,2
expresses himself nevertheless on the subject more clearly than
his predecessors.3
1 1 Cor. ii. 14. 2 Heb. iv. 12.
* He says, for instance, " every one of us is twofold, Jwop re Kal HvBpairos, both
animal and man. To each of these was allotted congenial faculties of the soul ;
to the first the faculty of life (feoT(«i) Bivapus) whereby we live ; to the second the
faculty of reason (Xoynci) Sivapiis) whereby we are made reasonable. The faculty

288 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
VIII. We may thus understand the practical distinction made
by the Apostle between (1) " the carnal mind," Qpovrfpux ri\g o-agxdg,
when the body with its appetites predominates in man, " which
is enmity against God ; for it is not subject unto the law of
God, nor indeed can be: so that they that are in the flesh
cannot please God ;"1 (2) the natural man, tpu^ixoj avdpwirog,
that is, man under the sole influence and rule of his soul, and
guided only by intellect, reason, will, feeling, &c. ;2 and (3) "the
spiritual man," irveufj,aTtxbg avSgwrog, who is being restored to
his former estate of intercourse with God, " being led by the
Spirit of God, that bears witness with his spirit."3
Hence, on the one hand, the struggle that takes place when
the Grace or Spirit of God beaming within us, and infusing
a new life into our spirit, recalls it to its former estate, and
kindles in it heavenly fires that had died out. Our spirit, thus
called to a life congenial to itself, to instincts long since dor
mant or dead, endeavours to resume its energy and also its do
minion over the body and the soul ; an authority which neither
of these will readily give up. It was this struggle that made
S. Paul exclaim, " O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver
me from the body of this death ?" " For we know that the law
is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin ;" and " to be car
nally minded, to $pdvr)(j,a Tr)g a-apxd; is death, but to be spiritually
minded, to §povr\p.a tou meufj-arog, is life and peace." " I
thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord." So then with
the mind — tw fj.lv voi, that is, with the intellect or understand
ing and will, under the growing influence and dominion of the
spirit in relation with the Spirit of God — " I myself serve the
law of God ; but with the flesh the law of sin."4
of life received the blood as essence or being, in common with irrational animals ;
i) Be rqs x.<>7iKi)S aTOp'p'veTo-a miyijs, rb vvevpia — r vttov rtva Kal \apaKTTJpa Betas
Svvdfiews, V iv6p.ari Kvpltp MaiOcrijs elxSva KaXet — rb tjjs ^vxr\s apiarov eiSos,
but the faculty that flows from the spring of Reason, received ' the spirit' — which
is by way of being an impression of the Divine power, which Moses calls by
the proper name of ' image' — the best form of the soul, described as vovs Kal
\6yos, intellect and reason." (Philo, De eo quod deter, p. 170.) This definition
of irvevfia as rrjs <('«x'is apiarov etSot, seems to answer practically to Plato's
Beari)s vovs, contemplative intellect, as tyvxys Kvfiepvi)ri]s, as guide steering the
soul to the presence of God — avaxityao-a els rb tv ivrus. (Phsedr. 58, 62.)
1 Rom. viii. 7, 8. 2 1 Cor. ii. 14.
" Rom. viii. 8—16 ; 1 Cor. ii. 15. 4 Rom. vii. 24, 14, viii. 6, vii. 25.

AND faith.] philosophy, OR TRUTH ? 289
Hence also, on the other hand, the reason that makes the
natural man, tyux'xbg avtipwirog, assert and endeavour to establish
the supremacy and dominion of his intellect and reason; because
not only does this favour his natural pride, but it involves no
struggle whatever with himself, no surrender of ' self/ soul and
body, to the new and powerful influence of God's Spirit, that
comes to disturb through the spirit of man the good under
standing which hitherto existed between his soul and his body.
It is so much easier and so much more gratifying to the na
tural man to continue such, and to be intellectual rather than
spiritual, that he, like the Pharisees of old with the Law, will
invent and go into all manner of subtilties respecting his reason
and his intellect, rather than surrender them, and receive the
kingdom of God — that is, the rule of God's Spirit within him —
like a little child, and live thereby.1 Thus we see clearly the
worthlessness for real practical good, of all moral treatises for
the improvement of man's nature that start from purely natural
principles, apart from the influence and energy of God's Spirit.
They look for a new life where they are told there is death,
since we are by nature " dead in trespasses and sins, and chil
dren of wrath ;"2 and they strive to grasp with their natural
faculties things higher than they, and foreign to them. There
fore does the holy Apostle say, "The natural man" — that is,
the man under the influence of his soul only, tyux'xb; avdgwirog —
" receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ; for they are
foolishness unto him ; neither can he know them, because they
are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual" — that is, he
that is led by the Spirit of God — "judgeth (or discerneth) all
things, yet he himself is judged of no man ;"3 meaning, that
the principles, motives, and wishes wrought in him by the
Spirit of God are so entirely different from those of man in his
natural state, that another man is unable to judge' or to discern
them with his natural faculties alone.
IX. How then, and when, does the Spirit of God quicken
the spirit of man, hold intercourse with, it, and through it
1 iirel Kal 7) rrjs air\6rriTes irlaris, " for the faith of simplicity," says S. Atha-
nasius (Contra Arian, Orat. iv. vol. i. p. 454), fleXrtav earl ri)s «k irepiepyao-ias
¦KiBavoXoy'ias, "is better than the plausible talk of meddlesome inquiry."
2 Eph. ii. 1, 3. 3 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15.
U

290 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
so far influence man's whole being, as to ' renew' him, and to
make of him gradually a " new creature ?" S. Paul answers :
" In whom (Christ) after that ye believed, irto-Teuo-avrsg,
ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise."1 It is,
then, through Faith. But what is Faith ? Faith, irto-Ttg, con
sists in receiving with trust and confidence the witness God
gives in His Word. By this act on our part we make ourselves
over to God wholly and unreservedly, when we believe Him
and His witness true ; since Faith, which is trust, implies belief.
"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is
greater ; for this is the witness of God which he hath testified
of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the
witness in himself;" this witness being — "the Spirit of God
bearing witness with our spirit that we are the children of
God,"2 being " reconciled to him by Jesus Christ," " Who
gave power to become sons of God to as many as received
him ;"3 to those who " receiving his testimony set to their seal
that God is true."4 Whereas " he that believeth not God hath
made him a liar, because he believeth not the record that God
gave of his Son."5
X. But, inasmuch as " perfect love casteth out fear, because
fear hath torment," and "he that feareth is not perfected in
love,"6 we neither can trust God, irio-Tsuetv awS, if we are afraid
of Him, nor love Him if we be at enmity with Him. Therefore
the first act of Faith is, as it were, to throw itself into God's
arms, saying, Abba, Father, through the spirit of adoption it
gives ; overcoming all objections, and in token, no longer of fear
or of bondage, but of reconciliation with Him through His be
loved Son. And this is done assuredly, not in the intellect, but
in the spirit ; since Faith is " a fruit of the spirit," and not of
the intellect, and therefore reaches as much higher than the
intellect as the spirit soars beyond it7 — even into the presence of
God, Who " is Spirit," and Who therefore is to be worshipped
1 Eph. i. 13. 2 Rom. viii. 16.
8 2 Cor. v. 18 ; S. John i. 12. 4 S. John iii. 33.
6 1 S. John v. 10. 6 1 S. John iv. 18.
' " Quia quod credimus excedit meutem nostram : sed fide attingimus : et
sic hoc modo totum tenemus fide quod credimus : etsi mente non totum com-
plectimur." S. Athanas. De Fide Sua Lib. ix. Vol. ii. p. 585.

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 291
" in spirit and in truth,"1 albeit no intellect can grasp or under
stand Him ; whence Faith brings back tidings of the good things
" that never entered into the heart of man, which God hath
prepared for them that love him," and at once kindles in man's
heart a hope of them.
This, and this alone, is the starting-point of the renewal of
our nature, since " every man that hath this hope in him puri-
fieth himself even as he is pure."2 Wherefore, " Blessed are the
pure in heart, for they shall see God."3 It is the beginning of
our will acting no longer at variance with our spirit, but in har
mony with it, under the influence and guidance of God's Spirit,
" to fulfil the work of faith with power,"4 which is, " to work
out our salvation with fear and trembling ;"5 " making our call
ing" through faith, " and our election" — the final setting apart
of us unto eternal life — " sure,"6 through the power of the Holy
Ghost " guiding us," by means of our spirit, " into all Truth."
But, evidently, nothing of all this can take place, except we be
first reconciled to God ; not only passively, on His part towards
us, but of course actively on our part towards Him. It is not
enough He should love us, as He always did in His Son ; we
must love Him too, if our love of Him in us is to bring us to
Him, and make us obey Him. Yet no reconciliation, no love,
no obedience can exist in the heart that does not first " believe
with the heart" the witness God gives in His Word of His
having wrought this reconciliation in Christ. All this struc
ture, then, rests on the foundation of Faith, which is the sur
render of our whole ' self with trust and confidence to God>
through " believing" His witness " with the heart ;" not merely
through the assent of the intellect, which is mere ' belief/ but
through " the giving of the heart" to Him,7 with all its affections,
in token of the reality of that belief, and as a necessary conse
quence thereof. " Not that God," says Hooker,8 " requires no
thing unto happiness at the hands of men saving only a naked
belief (for hope and charity we may not exclude) ; but that with-

1 S. John iv. 24. = 1 S. John iii. 3.
3 S. Matt. v. 8. 4 2 Thess. i. 11.
6 Phil. ii. 12. 6 2 S. Pet. i. 10.
7 Prov. xxiii. 26. " Eccles. Pol. Bk. i. ch. xi. 6.
U2

292 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
out belief all other things are as nothing, and it the ground of
those other divine virtues."
XI. In order to make us understand both the nature and the
workings of Faith, God ceases not in His Word to compare
Himself to a Father, and us to His children. "Like as a
father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear
him."1 "I will receive you and will be a Father unto you,
and ye shall be my sons and my daughters, saith the Lord
Almighty."2 " Neither pray I for these alone," said He Who
suffered and died to reconcile us unto His Father, " but for
them also which shall believe on me through their word ; that
they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in
thee, that they also may be one in us."3 " And if children,
then heirs ; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ,"4 " in
the kingdom of Christ and of God."5
Whereon, then, does a child's love for his father and his
obedience to him rest ? On his belief that such a man is his
father. Has he any proof thereof? None, beyond the testi
mony of his father, or of others respecting his fajher. Yet this
belief acts in him morally, so far as to make God compare our
relation and duty to Him to that of one of our children to our
selves. For the child trusts his father, and believes in his pro
mises, even if they refer to a long time to come; promises
which, therefore, the child can neither know nor understand in
detail, but to which he looks forward, hopes for, talks of; in
which, in short, he lives in proportion as he believes them.
He therefore waits patiently ; patience resting on trust and
love; so that if anything should delay the fulfilment of his
father's promise, he does not for all that doubt his father, but
waits longer. Destroy the child's belief in his father, you destroy
at once all his love, his trust, and his obedience to him. Then,
comparing things temporal with things spiritual, the same takes
place in us spiritually towards our Heavenly Father, through
Faith in the witness He gives of Himself — first in His works, to '
which our intellect assents at once ; for we cannot picture to our
selves the state of a mind so brutish as to deny the presence of
1 Ps. ciii. 13. s 2 Cor. vi. 18.
3 S. John xvii. 20, 21. 4 Rom. viii. 17.
6 Eph. v. 5.

and faith.] philosophy, or truth ? 293
God in Nature as Creator and as Ruler thereof; and which He
gives, secondly, — in His Word. For, once His existence allowed.
His revelation to man becomes not only possible, but a necessary
consequence of His being Creator and Father of a creature
made after His own image and similitude, which has estranged
itself from Him through disobedience and sin, but with which
He longs to hold an intercourse of love and of reconciliation, in
order to bring it back to His eternal kingdom, whence it had
been driven. But, inasmuch as, being estranged from Him by
sin, and thus become dead in "trespasses and sins," and "by
nature children of wrath, even as others,"1 we are no longer in
our own right His children spiritually ; He adopts us back. He
is, therefore, said " to have begotten us again unto a lively hope
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inherit
ance incorruptible and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven
for us,"2 " Goo having sent forth his Son to redeem them that
were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
And because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his
Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father ;"3 and hath thus
" made us accepted in the Beloved."4
We cannot possibly receive this witness of God through Faith,
— that is, " believe it with the heart," — without our heart, our
whole moral being, feeling at once swayed spiritually by this
Faith, and therefore showing it outwardly by our words and by
our actions ; as children towards a Father " who commendeth
his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us," and " when enemies, were reconciled to him by
the death of his Son."5 Such Faith, once in us, can no more
remain idle than fire in fuel. If true and sincere, it must show
itself in its works ; if it work no works in us, it is neither true
nor sincere, but dead.6 On the other hand, if we do not " be-
1 Eph. ii. 1—3. 2 1 S. Pet. i. 3—8.
» Gal. iv. 4—6. 4 Eph. i. 6.
5 Rom. f. 8—10.
6 S. James ii. 26. " Quamvis autem dicamus, nihil nobis esse prsesidii in
operibus et factis nostris, et omnem salutis nostra rationem constituamus in
Solo Christo ; non tamen ea causa dicimus, laxe et solute vivendum esse, quasi
tingi tantum et credere satis sit homini Christiano, et nihil abeo aliud expectetur.
Vera fides viva est, nec potest esse otiosa." Apologia Eccl. Angl.
J. Juell. p. 23.

294 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
lieve with the heart"1 this witness, not only do we "make him
a liar by not believing the record that he gave of his Son,"2
but we shut ourselves out from the promises made in Christ,
which are to be inherited by Faith in them, " hoping unto the
end." In very deed then it is true that, " being justified by
faith," — that is, being accounted righteous for receiving God's
witness of His Son, — " we have peace with God through our
Lord Jesus Christ : by whom also we have access by faith
into this grace wherein we stand and rejoice in hope of the
glory of God."3
XII. Those, therefore, do greatly err, both as regards them
selves and others, who, either through ignorance or conceit,
attempt to make a way for themselves to God, and to " come
unto the Father" otherwise than through Faith in the recon
ciliation wrought for us by Christ. They either overlook or
deny what the Apostle says, " By grace ye are «aved through
faith ; and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God : not of
works, lest any man should boast."4 "By grace" — not assur-
1 Delitzsch explains (Biblische Psychologie, p. 145) xapSla irurreverat, Rom.
x. 10, "with the heart man believeth," to mean that the act of faith (see below
p. 299) takes place in the innermost recesses of man's being. This, however
can scarcely be said of KapSta iriareierai, v. 10, which clearly states the instru
ment, KapSta, although it may be said rightly of v. 9, iav — rriarevaits 4v rfj
KapSta aov: "if thou shalt believe in thine heart." All difficulty, however,
disappears, and both passages may be taken literally, if we take iriareieiv, fPSv1
in its right etymological sense of ' tojbelieve,' i.e. to allow, or surrender, from
the A. Sax. jelypan, and this from the Goth. T\- AAnKQAN
' to trust to,' from AAUKGAN ' """ a%a*n' " not or'SmaHy A.flK-
G/VlL ' to love,' being at least related to it. In common use ' to believe'
means only ' to assent' even with ' doubt,' i.q. ' to think' or ' presume.' Yet it
means in reality ' to allow' or to surrender to another, if from the A. Sax.
jelypan ; but if, as more probably it is, from the Gothic AAnKQAN)
AflKQA^L tnen ' t0 DelieTe m G°D' really conveys the truth it implies,
' to trust with love ;' yet, seeing the popular acceptation of ' to believe,' ' faith,'
i.q. ' fides,' is a better term to render irlaris than 'belief.' For ' faith' is the
turning of the heart towards God with trust, therefore with belief in Him and
with love for Him, both inseparable from ' trust.' So then it is true that ' faith'
is ' believing' both " in the heart" and " with the heart ;" for our feeling of
surrender to God with confidence and love, proceeds from the heart, and is
wrought out with the heart, that trusts and loves.
' 1 S. John v. 10. 3 Rom. v. 1,2. * Eph. ii. 8, 9.

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 295
edly for any merit or merits of our own ; for what merits can a
creature " dead in trespasses and sins" have, or what claims,
but to the free, gracious, and magnanimous pity of the Creator ?
So then, " God commendeth his love, in that, when we were
thus dead in sins, he quickened us together with Christ, and
when we were enemies, we were reconciled to him by the death
of his Son."1 "Through faith" — for clearly, if we do not
believe God's free offer of pardon to us and of reconciliation
with us, He in vain makes us that offer ; " and that not of our
selves ;" for " who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ?
and what is man that he should be clean ?" asks Job ;2 he " in
whom dwelleth no good thing."3 " Not of works," then — for
not only " are we all an unclean thing, and all our righteous
ness as filthy rags,"4 but also " whatsoever is not of faith is
sin."5 For there is, and there can be, no merit whatever in our
works themselves, since they are acceptable unto God only as a
token of our love for Him, wrought by Faith in our being re
conciled to Him through His Son. Of course the contrary
doctrine, namely, that of self-righteousness, which is false, is
far more convenient, and is the only one acceptable to the
natural man. Not only does it flatter his pride, but it enables
him, by applying to his actions the crooked or pliable rule of
' self/ to shape them, not in conformity to the higher, unflinch
ing, and better will of God, but to his own ; thus obeying no one
but himself, and yielding to no one but to himself ; though liable,
as he is, to continual aberrations, weaknesses, failings, offences,
and sins. Can he, thus halting to the right and to the left,
ever reach the end of his course; and can this save him ? No
more than a corpse can raise itself to life. Faith is the gift
of God.6
" If it were not a strong deluding spirit," says Hooker, " which
hath possession of their hearts, were it possible but that they
should see how plainly they do herein gainsay the very ground of
Apostolic faith ? Is this that salvation by grace, whereof so plen
tiful mention is made in the Sacred Scriptures of God ? Was this
their meaning which first taught the world to look for salvation
1 Eph. ii. 5; Rom. v. 8—10. a Job xiv. 4; xv. 14.
3 Rom. vii. 18. 4 Isa. lxiv. 6.
5 Rom. xiv. 23. « Eph. ii. 8.

296 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [BELIEF
only in Christ ? By grace, the Apostle saith, and by grace in
such sort as a gift ; a thing that cometh not of ourselves, nor of
our works, lest any man should boast and say, ' I have wrought
out mine own salvation.' "1
So also do greatly err those who limit Faith to mere 'belief;'
to the assent of their intellect only to what they either see or
understand, and go on trying to establish their own righteous
ness, if not of the law, perhaps, at least of the intellect. For
Buch a faith is not the Faith that is " a fruit of the Spirit," and
that " worketh by love ;"2 it is not the Faith that saves us, by
keeping our eyes and our heart fixed on God's promises, and
thus bringing us safe to the end of our pilgrimage on earth ;
bidding us " look unto Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our
faith," and leading us to "walk even as he walked."3 But
such faith is the barren belief of the intellect, that begets neither
love nor trust, but only dread ; that works no works, bears no
fruit, and is dead. It is the faith " of the devils which also
believe and tremble."4
"''Apa ovv apxet rb irtarevaai eh tov Ylov, (prjai, irpos to gayqv
i%eiv ai^'viov ; OvSaiiuj?. Is it, then, enough only to believe on
the Son to haye life ? By no means," says S. Chrysostom.6
" Yea, hearken to Christ Himself saying, ' Not every one that
saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven.' For even if we believe rightly in the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost, yet lead not an upright life, it will not
profit us unto salvation." "But rather, begin at once," says
S. Cyril of Jerusalem, " to work the works of faith, and abide
therein ; do not, like the foolish virgins, put off buying thine
oil; fir) Qapanaryi Sri fiovov KOTe'^ets rrfv "XdfiiraSa, aXXa Siarypijaov
airi)v Kaiofievrjv. Rely not on thy having the lamp only, but keep
it burning, that thy light may shine before men, and that Christ
be not blasphemed on thine account."6
XIII. It is then, assuredly, a fond conceit to assert, as some
do, in order to lower Faith to the province of the intellect, that
" faith with S. Paul is almost always synonymous with the ad
mission of the Gentiles."
1 Serm. ii. 34. J Gal. v. 6.
• Heb. xii. 2 ; 1 S. John ii. 6. 4 S. Jam. ii. 19.
'• Horn. xxxi. in Joh. 6 Catech. xv.

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 297
First — it does not appear how there can be two sorts of
Faith, one for nations and one for individuals ; for Faith must be
right or wrong in either case : so that, even if Faith with S.
Paul applied to the Gentiles as distinguished from the Jews, the
Faith right or true for ' the Gentiles' in general must also be
right or true for every individual ' Gentile' in particular.
Secondly — S. Paul makes it plain enough that he did not
view Faith in that light, for that " Abraham believed God, and
it was counted unto him for righteousness. How was it then
reckoned ? When he was in circumcision or uncircumcision ?
Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received
the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith,
which he had being yet uncircumcised : that he might be the
father of them that believe, though they be not circumcised ;
that righteousness might be imputed unto them also."1 " For
there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek ;"2 " so,
then, they that be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."3
" Faithful" — why ? because " he believed God," and showed his
Faith by his works, " and by works was faith made perfect."4
This took place, and Abraham became " the father of them that
believe," ere there existed any distinction between Jew and Gen
tile ; " but the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the
promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that
believe;"5 "seeing it is one God which shall justify the cir
cumcision by faith, ex irio-Tswg, and the uncircumcision through
faith, ha TYig irio-Tswg."6
XIV. Nothing can prove more clearly that there is no dis
tinction, between man and man, Jew and Gentile, but that the
righteousness of God which is by Faith of Jesus Christ is unto
all and upon all them that believe ; " for there is no difference."7
In other words, "that without faith it is impossible to please
God ;"8 but that, in order to please Him, young and old, igno
rant and learned alike — since " there is one Lord, one Faith, one
God and Father of all, and one hope of our calling"9— all of
1 Rom. iv. 3, 10, II. « Rom. iii. 22 ; *. 12.
3 Gal. iS. 9. *" S. Jam. ii. 14—26.
6 Gal. iii. 22 ; Rom. xi. 32 ; iii. 9—31. 6 Rom. iii. 30.
? Rom. iii. 22. a Heb. xi. 6.
» Eph. iv. 4—6.

*98 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
us must " draw near with a true heart," p.sra aXr,fovr)g xapl'tag,
with no selfish or after thought, but with a heart honestly and
wholly turned to God in answer to His call to us to ' come/ and
" in full assurance of faith," lv irXrigoQop'ia irio-Tewg, in the recon
ciliation made for us by His Son.1 But since, among them
that by God are called to believe through His Word — and all
of us are called — some " draw back unto perdition," while
others believe "to the saving of the soul,"2 it shows evidently,
first — that man's salvation depends wholly on his answer to the
call from God, through Faith, as Abraham did ; and then on
the active influence of that Faith, which makes him start and
walk towards Him Who calls, and towards His promises, as
Abraham did towards the Land of Promise ; not through intel
lect assuredly, since he understood it not, but in Faith. Yet,
albeit he did not understand all the details of the promise, he
believed it, and trusting God, he showed by his works that his
Faith was true, and by his works it was made perfect.
" Our doctrine is," says Hooker, "that a man doth receive that
eternal and high reward, not for his works, but for his faith's sake,
by which he worketh ; whereas, in truth, our doctrine is no other
than that which we have learned at the feet of Christ, namely,
that God doth justify the believing man, yet not for the worthi
ness of his belief, but for his worthiness which is believed. God
rewardeth abundantly every one which worketh, yet not for any
meritorious dignity which is or can be in the work, but through
His mere mercy, by Whose commandment he worketh."3
It shows, secondly — that, under such circumstances, Faith is
not optional on the part of man ; it is not left to him to believe
or not, as he likes, as if no consequences were to follow ; but
Faith is necessary, indispensable, and obligatory on all who
value the salvation of their soul, as the only means thereto,4
since we are plainly told to " fear, lest a promise being left us
of entering into his rest, any of us should seem to come short
of it. For unto us is the Gospel" — the Word of God —
" preached, as well as unto them, but the Word preached did
not profit them, not, being mixed with faith in them that heard
1 Heb. x. 22. 3 Heb. x. 38, 39. 3 Serin, ii. 33.
1 " Credere tibi jussum est, non discutere permissum est," says S. Ambrose
(De Fide, Lib. i. c. 5).

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 299
it."1 Faith does, of course, begin with ' belief/ " for he that
cometh to God must believe that He is."2 But that belief is
only the beginning, " the foundation of faith," $ep.sXtov— irio-Tewg
lir) 6edv3 and the "coming to God," towards His promises,
" seen afar off," as Abraham did, through Faith, is to mere
'belief what a long pilgrimage is to the start for it; what the
plodding course of a ship over the trackless deep by night and
by day, through stormy and fair weather, making incessantly
for one unseen object, is to its weighing anchor and leaving the
shore. The sailing and arriving of that ship are the conse
quence, the working out and perfecting of its leaving the har
bour, and starting therefrom. So Faith takes mere belief for
granted ; it leaves it, as it were, behind, though resting thereon,
and reaches unto things that cannot be ' believed/ because they
can neither be seen nor understood ; but in which Faith trusts
wholly and unreservedly, because they are promised by God.
XV. " Salvation," says Delitzsch,4 " moves from afar to
wards man. How then is it brought home to him ? Through
faith. Holy Scripture ascribes sundry energies and conditions
of faith both to the spirit5 and to the soul,6 yet nowhere is it
said that ' the spirit believes/ or that ' the soul believes / be
cause faith (irto-Teuetv, ^PXPl) is an active energy of man's ' self/
distinct from his spirit, his soul, and his body. Holy Scripture
indeed says, that 'with the heart man believeth' (xaptila irto--
TEueTai, Rom, x. 10), for that faith is an inner, yea, the inner
most energy in man ; yet, for all that, our believing and trust
ing ' self,' in us, is distinct even from our ' heart.' For nowhere
are the nature and the essence of faith more clearly stated than
in Ps. lxxiii. 26, where Asaph says, ' My flesh and my heart
faileth, but God is the strength (or rock) of my heart, and my
portion for ever.' His ' self did abide trusting in God, even
when his flesh and his heart, that is, his natural (\J/u^)»ov) and
his spiritual being — in other words his outward and his inward
man — failed; even then did he hold fast by God, as by the
Rock that stands when everything else totters and falls ; and as
1 Heb. iv. 1,2. 2 Heb. xi. 6.
3 Heb. vi. 1.
4 Die Verheissung u. der Glaube. Biblische Psychol, p. 145, 2nd ed.
6 Ps. cxliii. 7 ; lxxviii. 8 ; li. 12. " Ps. cxvi. 7 ; cxxxi. 2.

300 PHILOSOPHY,' OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
by the Portion that he keeps when he has lost everything else.
He held by Him, being himself immortal, because one with Him
Who abideth for ever. Faith is— to rush for refuge to God the
Saviour, through all contradictions, through sin, through suf
fering, through death and hell ; faith is— that earnest, longing
desire towards God's free, pitiful love, as manifested in His
Word, and of which this desire lays hold ; faith is — that sigh,
heaved in secret, unselfish, and rejoicing only in the promised
grace of God ; faith is — every ray of light that beams forth
from God's love as reconciled to us ; faith is — the application
and appropriation to ourselves of the Word of grace, from our
being fully persuaded thereof, and longing for salvation. Faith
is, in essence, the recipient of the Word of Promise ; a means of
again drawing nigh to God, which, together with the Word of
Promise itself, is rendered necessary, owing to our estrange
ment from God through sin ; since faith has to trust in that
Word of Promise despite all that which man can neither under
stand, see, nor feel. All reciprocal actions of sentiment are not
of the essence of faith. Faith is in its essence actio directa, a
direct act ; that is, flducia supplex, beseeching confidence."
XVI. Not only, then, is it impossible, in our present condition
of estrangement through sin to draw nigh unto God or to please
Him without Faith, but, thirdly — it cannot be otherwise, rea
sonably speaking. For it would be derogatory from the majesty
of the Ruler of the Universe that any creature therein should
be free and independent of Him ; leastways the creature made
by Him after His own image and similitude. Yet, if our intel
lect could span eternity and understand God, we should then
walk by sight — for ' to perceive/ elUvat, is ' to see,' vid-ere,
with the eyes of the mind — :and as regards the knowledge of
things at present hidden from us, we should then feel indepen
dent of God. But our intellect, fallen as it is, lies prostrate,
compared with the height to which it would have to soar into
God's presence in order to see and to understand Him. Yea,
even ere it fell from its original estate, it was subject unto God
through oneness of will and through communion with Him.
For within the realms of the Almighty "by whom and for
whom are all things," He must be, and He is, all in all. If
man, then, was dependent on God when created upright, much

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OB TRUTH ? 301
more dependent and subject is he when fallen. And since his
intellect can no longer reach unto God, but falls infinitely short
of Him, the only way in which he can hold intercourse with
his Maker is, through the spiritual energies, and active antici
pations of Faith that reaches beyond, turning man's heart and
mind on heavenly things, and setting his affections upon them.
XVII. Thus then, he that walks by Faith has no ears for
those who, worshipping the gods of this world, ask him to join
them, and to come and enjoy with them what they see and
touch ; instead of as they say, looking ever forward to things
unseen, unheard, and which are yet to come. But he hearkens
not. His Faith is more precious to him than all that the world
offers him ; he therefore, like Abraham, leaves behind all that
would hinder him from walking forward towards the promises ;
which being God's promises are more abiding and more sure than
the flitting shadows and cheating appearance of a world that soon
passes away. And because his Faith bears witness of itself that
it is true ; as true as the objects to which it looks, and as firm
as the promises on which it rests, it is said to be " precious."1
" Therefore," says Philo,2 "is faith, which is trust in God, p.dvov
atysullg xa) (Hefiaiov aya$dv, the ODly good that disappoints not,
but is solid; it is the comfort of life; the filling up of our best
hopes ; it wards off evils and secures blessings to us ; it keeps
evil spirits at a distance, and makes us know what piety means ;
eulatp,ov'tag xXr)po;, it gives us happiness as our inheritance, lv
airao-t f3eXTtwo-t;, and it enables us to make the best of every
thing, stayed as it is on the Cause and Author of all things, who
is able to do all things, yet only wills what is good." Thus
spake of Faith, a man who knew nothing of the ground of Faith
— reconciliation with God through Christ.
How much more precious must then Faith be to him who feels
that by virtue of his being reconciled to God, " he now has
boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him !"3 But
for that, this world would be for him a barren place and his life
in it an exile, had he not a home to look to when his race is
over, " a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."4
He therefore, studies " to hold that faith and a good conscience,"
.» 2 S. Pet. i. 1. 2 De Abrah. p. 387.
3 Eph. iii. 12, ii. 18. " 2 Cor. v. 1.

302 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
walking heavenwards as Abraham did towards the Land of Pro
mise — " hastening thither, not like a man leaving his home for
a foreign land, but xadanreg airb Tr\g %eVY\g el; Tr)v olxe'tav siravlwv,
like a man going back from a foreign land to his own home."1
On his daily walk thither, he proceeds as it were, from " faith
to faith" — airb tou ellsvat slg to ytvwo-xstv — from a mere percep
tion to a greater knowledge ;2 his Faith being to him, in sooth
" the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen." " What can one reckon more profitable and more worthy,"
says Philo, tou Is irto-reuetv 0ew xa) ha TravTog tou fitou xa'Pe,v xa^
bpav ae) to ov, " than to have faith in God, and during one's
whole life to rejoice and to see Him that is ?"3
XVIII. Faith, then, is — definite, in God as Father reconciled
through the Atonement of Christ ; it is — unfeigned, it gives
up 'self wholly to God, and embraces Christ's Atonement in
all its extent and bearings, bringing in naught of ' self,' but
gratitude, love, and obedience ; it is — firm, it really baffles the
intellect, that requires to see ere it yields, and reasoning, that
will understand everything. As S. Athanasius4 says beautifully,
outs yap irtcrTig xaTa $r)Xou tpatvofj,svr) irlo-Tig av XeyotTO, " Faith in
what we see cannot be called faith ; but that is faith y) to alu-
varov lv l~uva.fj.st irta-reuo-aa-a which relies on the possibility of what
is impossible; xa) to ao-Qevlg lv io-^ui, on the strength of that
which is weak ; on the feeling of what is impassible ; on the
endurance of what must perish ; xa) to 0v>jtov, lv a$ava<ria, and
on the immortality of that which is to die." Faith is "the trea
sure of life ;" 6rjo~avgbg £corjj vuv trot irapslo\, " the treasure of life
is given thee in trust," says S. Cyril of Jerusalem, " keep it
until the appearing of the Master Who will require this talent
of thee."5» And lastly, Faith is— " most holy." "Our faith
most holy !" says Hooker. " O that our hearts were stretched
out like tents, and that the eyes of our understanding were as
bright as the sun, that we might thoroughly know the riches of
1 Philo. de Abrah. p. 358.
2 yiviiaxetv, h.l. (Joh. x. 14) ut ssepius in N. T. sicuti w habet significa-
tionem amandi, &.c. Fried. Miinter, Symbol, ad Interpr. Ev. Joh. p. 17 j and
Bp. Bull, Harmon. Ev. vol. iii. p. 213.
3 De Proem, et Poen. p. 914. See above, p. 285, note 5.
1 De Salut. Adv. J. Christi, vol. i. p. 642. « Catech. v.

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 303
the glorious inheritance of saints, and what is the exceeding
greatness of his power towards us, whom he accepteth for pure,
and most holy, through our believing I"1 Such Faith, then, is
indeed precious : it stays and bears up the faithful and earnest
disciple of Christ in his trials, — for when most tried then he is
most blessed, — it gives him strength in weakness, patience in
suffering, and joy in tribulation ; and it gilds his life with a
perpetual sunbeam. In trouble it says : Faint not ; but look
unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of thy Faith — He is near ;
and in the hour of death, Faith alone has power to say : " I
know whom I have believed ; I have fought a good fight ; I
have finished my course, I have kept the faith, henceforth
there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the
Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day."2 For
" this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith ;"3
— not our intellect. Therefore does Faith leave intellect on the
earth to seek the living among the dead ; and spreading her wings
heavenwards, exclaim : " Who shall separate us from the love of
Christ ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine,
or nakedness, or peril, or sword ? Nay, in all these things we
are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I
am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor prin
cipalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come ;
nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to
separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our
Lord."4 XIX. Such is Faith. Faith hears the call of God's pre
venting grace, trusts Him that calls, and for His sake believes
in His promises ; turns towards Him, walks thitherwards, and
thus — saves man, by making him lay hold on and apply to him
self, the salvation wrought for him by the Father, through the
birth, the life, the sufferings, the death, and the resurrection of
Jesus Christ, His Beloved Son. This belief and trust acts,
as it must needs do, on the whole being of man through his
spirit turned towards God and in communion with Him, the
moment the heart has received God's witness of Himself in His
Son, which He gives in His revealed Word.
1 Sermon vi. 28. 2 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8.
3 1 S. John v. 4. 4 Rom. viii. 35, 39.

304 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
But also, the moment this takes place, all the other faculties
of man begin to rebel against the intrusion among them of this
new principle that overrides them, and sets at defiance all their
claims. The first that disputes this authority is the intellect :
accustomed to rule in the intellectual though natural man, it
says : I yield to none ; and I accept only what I can grasp and
understand. Faith replies : But thou art fallen, fallen from the
height at which are things thou canst neither attain unto nor
think; but which I see and to which I look. — Then arises
doubt, " the daughter of Satan, a spirit of the earth weak and
powerless," as Hermas calls it.1 But Faith silences every whisper
thereof with these words: "all the promises of God in Christ
are yea, and in him Amen ;"2 therefore " hold I fast my pro
fession without wavering," because " he is faithful that pro
mised ;" " being fully persuaded, that what he hath promised
he is able also to perform."3 — Then reason steps in, and claims
its rights : but Faith asks, how is it possible to reason on
" things that never entered the heart of man which God hath
prepared for them that love him," since He says and proves
withal, " that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with
him ?"4 — After this comes the will, stiff, proud, and unbending,
ready to assert its independence and its mastery. But Faith
answers : " It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,
but of God that showeth mercy."5 — Then the soul with her
affections, asks if she cannot love God and hate evil, of herself
alone ? To which Faith replies : Love God from whom thou
hast estranged thyself through sin, with Whom thou art at
enmity, and from Whose presence thou wast driven for thy
disobedience to His will ? or, hate sin wherein thou livest ?
Not alone, indeed; only by the help of His Spirit teaching
thine own. — At last the body follows, with its lusts and appe
tites. But ere it speaks, Faith warns it that it must die, and
be remade ere it can enter into the presence of God.
XX. No sooner has Faith overcome all these faculties and
attributes of the natural man, and gained the mastery over them,
than they all receive a new life and a new direction, by being
1 Herm, Vis. V. Mand. 9. ' 2 Cor. i. 20.
3 Heb. x. 23, Rom. iv. 21. * 1 Cor. iii. 19.
* Rom. ix. 16.

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 305
turned the way Faith has her eyes fixed, heavenwards ; and thus
placed under the influence, and guidance of the Spirit of God
in intercourse with man's own spirit. Hitherto man was like a
ship in a fog without a compass : now he receives a compass
that points unerringly to the happy end of his course, with a
preserving charm against all dangers and perils of every kind.
Then is the flesh crucified with its affections and lusts ; the
body is "kept under,"1 and the soul is "kept in life," and
" her desire is in the name of the Lord ;"2 the will is brought
into subjection to the will of God ; reason then receives fresh
powers ; and starting from the only true principles there are, in
God, reasons soundly and correctly, from premisses that are
eternal and true ; while doubt hides itself, from the light of the
Spirit, and the intellect, instead of roaming aloft as before —
like a bubble in the wind, without aim or object, works with
renewed energy, with one aim and one object, to know God as
far as it can and to glorify Him. Such is the work of Faith.
XXI. And what of the intellect ? it is for this world, and for
the things of this world, for which it was given to man and in
which it works wonders, as being at home therein. Intellect
was put into man, as instinct was into animals, for self-preser
vation, and for the due discharge of the functions and of the
work attached to the rank and to the place each occupies in the
world : man as a rational being and vice-regent of his Creator
over the brute creation, and animals as active inhabitants of this
world. Intellect then is in the same relation to man's nature
as instinct is to that of animals ; and a merely intellectual man
does no more relatively to his human nature as such, than an
animal does in following its instinct. So true is this, that a
man who acts against the dictates of reason fares as an animal
would, which acted against the laws of instinct ; but when do
we see this on the part of animals ? And, whereas intellect
works as animals apparently cannot work, that is, with reason
and with reflexion, and arrives at results in knowledge of which
they are incapable, yet their instinct baffles man's intellect, and
does in the simplest things, what no amount of intellectual skill
could ever do.
Compare, for instance, the fine silken threads of which the
1 Gal. v. 24 ; 1 Cor. ix. 27. ' Ps. lxvi. 9 ; Isa. xxvi. 8.
X

506 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
woof of a spider's web is composed, with the finest twist wrought
by hand ; and try with this, to make a web for a spider, and to
make the spider use it. So far then, man as a merely intel
lectual being is, in the results of his intelligence both above and
below the animals among which he lives, and of whose nature
he knows so little. Did he teach the bee to frame her hexagon
cells, and to place them in the comb the one against the other,
so that the flooring of every cell be supported by the meeting
joint of the three cells beneath ? Or did he not rather learn
from this small insect, both how to occupy most room in the
least space, and to rear the most solid edifice of the kind ?
That, however, is only the bee's instinct, though it may surpass
man's intellect, both in the gathering of the material — wax, and
in the construction of the comb with it ; it is only the work ap
pointed to the bee, and to the bee's place in Nature.
Yet the bee has neither man's intellect nor his spirit; the
spirit that tends upwards, as originally come from thence ; the
best part of man, yet enthralled by man's natural will, and thus
kept prisoner until Faith in revealed Truth breaks asunder the
bands and sets it free to soar on high — to God who gave it.
Then is the spirit called " the spirit of the mind,"1 because the
nobler and the better of the two — said to be "renewed," when
instead of being chained on earth to things of the intellect, which
are foreign to its nature, it wings its flight by Faith to whence it
first came, and brings back thence ttf man, new ideas, new
thoughts, new hopes, new joys, and to his soul, a new source of
life. This is what Faith does, and what Faith alone can do ; this
is also what intellect does not, because it cannot ; nay, intellect
tries to keep man from the Faith, jealous as it is of the power
of that Faith, which, being of the spirit, spiritual, reaches up to
where intellect alone cannot go. Whence then, comes this Faith,
so powerful, so precious ? " Faith," says the Spirit, " cometh
by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."2
XXII. It is then evident, that as regards Him Who is Spirit,
and infinite, and past finding out, man's intellect, which is not
spirit, but finite and fallen, cannot find Him out. How, indeed,
can it rise with its maimed wings, above earth's attraction, into
1 rb irvevna rov vois, Eph. iv. 23. iOTD irn Job xx. 3.
J Rom. x. 17.

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 307
God's presence ; into the dazzling glare of His light and glory,
poor denizen of the earth as it is ? There is for it no other way
to the realms of the Majesty on High, to the Presence before
which even angels veil their faces — than " by the new and living
way" which Jesus, the Lord of those realms, " has consecrated
for us, through the veil, that is to say his flesh."1 None.
Man's intellect lives on earth and for the earth which it adorns
and beautifies, and in which it delights ; but it dares not look
earnestly beyond. Either in life it trembles in doubt, or it
quails at the gate of death, where Faith and Hope stand, the
one firm, the other unmoved ; Faith prying into the very lair of
the king of terrors, whom the Leader of Heaven's hosts did
slay for our sakes; and Hope looking across the chasm on to
the dawn that glimmers beyond the everlasting hills on our
heavenly Home.
XXIII. But intellect alone understands none of all this, and
reason is at a loss to think it. Where Faith prevails, intellect
doubts ; and. where Hope is triumphant, reason fails. 'O Ss
TeXeuraiov lt$8ey%aT0, *fl Kp'tTwv, e$r), tw ' Ao-xXYprtw 6<f>etXofj.ev
aXexTgudva, aXX' airddoTe, xa) fir) ufj.eXr)a-riTe. " His last words
were : 0 Criton, we owe a cock to Esculapius ; mind and forget
not to offer it."2 That was the last effort in death of tins intel
lect of the wisest of men. But here is Faith —
" I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand
at the latter day upon the earth : and though after my skin
worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God ; whom
I shall see for myself; and mine eyes shall behold and not
another."3 And here is the Truth —
"I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE; HE THAT BE
LIEVETH IN ME, THOUGH HE WERE DEAD, YET SHALL HE LIVE ;
AND WHOSOEVER LIVETH AND BELIEVETH IN ME, SHALL NEVER
DIE." XXIV. What, then, made such a great difference between
the philosopher and the patriarch ?. The philosopher, after dis
coursing in a very remarkable manner on death which he saw
coming apace, and on the immortality of his soul, had neverthe-
1 Heb. x. 20. 2 Phsedo. 155.
3 Job xix. 25—27. x 2

308 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
less, at the very last, such misgivings in the yearnings of his
own intellect, and in the inklings of his reason, that by his last
act he made his death a warning. Whereas, the patriarch, so
sorely tried as to loathe his life, yet spake, and yet acted as an
example to be followed unto all generations — of Faith that defies
death, and of Hope that " is firm unto the end."
This great difference lay in that, the philosopher had no
revelation, no knowledge of the Truth revealed by God to man,
and therefore had to look within himself for the Truth he could
not find there ; whereas the patriarch had that Revelation, and
with it, that knowledge : " what is man that he should be clean ?
or he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous ?"
But " I know that my Redeemer liveth !" That Faith in the
Truth revealed was to him in sooth, the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. He therefore be
lieved, hoped and triumphed ; while the other could not trust
even his own reasoning.
Aootv yag baregdv sctti to TeSvavat — " to be dead is of two
things one," said Socrates, " either fi,r$lv elvat, to cease altogether
to exist, or peTafioXY) xa) p-eToixtjo-tg a change and a transmigra
tion of the soul hence elsewhere. If death be a state of fj.rfcp.loc
aio-b-qa-ig, of no feeling whatever, it is a great gain. If, however,
death be a removal from this place to another xa) aA»j0ij !<rri Ta
Xsydfj.eva, and the things we are told be true, that all the dead
are there, what greater boon can there be ? Once in Hades,
and rid of men who here call themselves judges, he will find
real and righteous ones who, they say, sit there in judgment,
Minos and Rhadamanthus, and iEacus and Triptolemus, xa)
aXXot do-ot twv Yifj-tQswv hxatot lyevovTo lv tw lauTwv fiiw, and such
other of the demi-gods as were righteous in their life; dpa
tpauXYi av sT>j i) airolffp-la ; will any one say the change would be
for the worse ? What would you think of being in the com
pany of Orpheus, of Musseus, of Hesiod, and of Homer? lyw
p.lv yag iroXXaxtg eflsAco Tehdtvat, el TauT lorTtv atojflij. For my
part, I would gladly die more than once, if such things.be true ;
for, what a wonderful existence for me yonder, where I should
meet Palamedes, Ajax, and Telamon, and any other of the an
cients who may have died the victim of an unjust judgment;
but where, especially, I might inquire, and, Comparing those

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 309
that live there with them that live here, be able to find out
which of them are wise, and who it is that thinks himself wise,
but is not I"1
Such was the hope and the consolation the wise man had in
death ; this is the hope Faith in God's witness does give :
" O death, where is thy sting ? 0 grave, where is thy victory ?
But thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our
Lord Jesus Christ." "Who shall lay anything to the charge
of God's elect ? it is God that justifieth. Who is he that con-
demneth ? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen
again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh
intercession for us."2
How then, can man any longer halt between intellect and
Faith ?
XXV. Yet, that is what the natural man, ipuxtxb; avhgwiro;
does, who looks within himself for that which nothing can give
him, but a firm Faith in certain Truths God sets before him in
His Word, as objects on which to fix his eyes, " hoping unto
the end," for the enjoyment of them, as Abraham did for the
Land of Promise. Conceive Abraham refusing to leave Ur,
until he ' understood' what the land was like, which God did
promise him ; or, debating within himself whether he had better
go thither or perhaps wend his way northwards to the hills of
Pontus, or eastward to those of Cardu ! Such halting between
two opinions, such doubt would not have been imputed to him
for righteousness, neither would he have been called " the Friend
of God." He indeed, used his intellect, to find the best and
the shortest way to Canaan ; but only when, through Faith in
God's promise he had determined to leave his native land, to go
" he knew not whither," — that is, he knew not the details of
the promise, and the nature and the features of the land to
which he was going; in other words, he started without 'under
standing' the promise God made, but relying upon it in Faith
for God's sake.
But Abraham was not a natural but a spiritual man. He did
not choose what he would have ; he received and took what God
gave him, and as He gave it. Not so, however, with those who
call ' Faith/ the mere assent of their own limited and often dull
1 Apol. Socr. 32, p. 359, ed. L. ! 1 Cor. xv. 16, 58 ; Rom. viii. 31—39.

310 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [BELIEF
intellect ; who thus, will accept only what they see and what
they understand ; and who look to themselves and into them
selves, for what they call the Truth, instead of receiving what
God gives them as such ; forgetting that in "a heart which is
deceitful above all things and desperately wicked,"1 "there
dwelleth no good thing," save what God puts therein. " But
they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing them
selves among themselves, ou o-uvtouo-tv, are not wise ;"2 and thus,
they either gainsay or reject a part or the whole of God's Word,
because there are in it things against which their intellect rebels.
XXVI. But, after all, what does their intellect really under
stand, that it should take the place of Faith, in things belonging
to God ? As regards their own selves, for instance : — as regards
the first beginnings of their existence and formation; the con
nexion between their soul and the life that throbs in their veins,
and what takes place in all this at the hour of death— does their
intellect go much beyond their microscope and their knife ?
The experiments of such men as Bischoff, Pouchet, Carus, and
others, do not seem to prove it. How many men care to inquire
why they are left or right-handed ? How then can man's in
tellect which helps him so little beyond mere experiments, into
the causes of things, pretend to search into those which " eye
hath not seen, neither ear heard, and which have not entered
into the heart of man, which God hath prepared for them that
love him ?" 3
Even as to those that are seen, not only can the intellect not
fathom them, but it cannot even give the causes of a defective
sight. Can it tell, for instance, how and why some men are
more deficient in this sense than even inferior animals, and can
judge neither of colour, of form nor of distance ? and thus how
it is that in this as in thousands of other cases, man's intellect
sinks below animal instinct, and his physical organisation below
that of brutes ? But if with eyes that can see, and a mind that
can think, we look above — can intellect determine why the earth
and the other planets, revolve so wonderfully, each in its orbit,
as if that orbit were marked out in space, and how they all are
poised there? Intellect answers: by the laws of attraction.
What are these laws ? only the uniformity of results observed
1 Jer. xvii. 9. ' 2 Cor. x. 12. 3 1 Cor. ii. 9.

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 311
by man. And what is * attraction ?' it is only the name we
give to the ' result/ to the effect of a ' cause' that can be no
where but in the wisdom, in the Supreme Intelligence, and in the
Almighty power of God.
And, if that be too high, take a leaf out of the hedge and look
at it : can intellect understand why it is of that particular shape,
and constantly so in the same plant ? and while lost in admi
ration at the marvellous construction of that leaf, at the several
tissues thereof; at the upper surface smooth and close to let the
rain run off, at the under surface open to inhale the moisture
from the earth and to breathe thereby ; at the maze of the web,
and at the mathematical combination of forces in the form and
in the arrangement of the stem and in the so-called nerves of
that leaf, can intellect search into the causes of all these things ?
The pollen of one tree is wafted over miles of desert land to
fructify another tree so distant, and no other ; we notice it, but
can intellect explain how or why, and lay bare the causes thereof?
XXVII. And as to the things we hear — can intellect tell why
certain musical sounds affect the ear, and through it the whole
being of man, in a particular way ? Why some men are no more
capable of appreciating sounds than a blind man colours ; and
how the vibrations of the air of musical notes, act upon the nerves
of the ear, so that the ear winces at a few vibrations more or less
than the just number for every note ? We know and feel it is
so ; and we explain it our own way ; "yet unless we can enter into
the causes thereof, and say why it is so, our knowledge reaches no
further than our experiments. Mechanical science and skill,
that work wonders around us, are nothing more than the appli
cation and combination of certain forces to certain objects. But
intellect cannot go into the causes of either the forces or the
materials. So also with chemistry, physics, &c, our utmost
science and skill are, at the best, only of experiments. So ut
terly subservient is the intellect and so little has it at command
the very forces it handles or the materials it uses so dexterously,
that it cannot invent or effect perpetual motion ; and so little
does it know of causes, that the aggregate intellect of mankind
could not make an oak leaf, nor put in a wing to a fly.
XXVIII. In vain, then, will this poor intellect seek a way to
the Supreme Intelligence of Him Who made it ; in vain will

312 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
it look into things invisible, spiritual, and eternal, when it is
baffled by the very things among which it moves ; things we
see and touch. What, then, is its office ? — The office of this,
the most precious, the most brilliant of earthly gifts, is to make
men intellectual ; to raise them above their gross appetites ;
above the love of eating, of drinking, and of money ; above the
pomps and vanities of this wicked world and other such occupa
tions and pursuits which only tend to lower man, and to hinder
him from rising up to the higher level of his nature. " That
the soul be without knowledge, it is not good," says the Word of
God,1 and it is the part of the intellect to find out and to supply
,such knowledge ; in short, to raise the natural man as high as
he can be raised as an intellectual being in a fallen state ; to
give him, therefore, the highest enjoyment of which human
nature alone in its present condition, is capable.
XXIX. But all this does not make a man spiritual ; no
more spiritual than instinct makes an animal intellectual. Man's
intellect is of the soul, iiuxtxdg, but his spirit comes from higher,
and has higher aspirations ; it is intended to draw upwards the
soul of man, and with it his body, through intercourse with
Him Who " is Spirit," and Who is to be " worshipped in spirit
and in truth." This intercourse, as we have seen, however, does
not take place at haphazard ; but only under certain conditions.
A man, in order to receive of God's Spirit, must place himself
in active communion with Him through Faith in the reconcilia
tion wrought for him by Jesus Christ, our Saviour ; since
we are accepted only " in him the Beloved;" He alone is "the
Way, the Truth, and the Life," and " no man cometh unto the
Father but by him." Then, but only then, does " the Spirit
bear witness with our spirit"2 — not with our intellect — " that
we are the children of God ; and if children, then heirs ; heirs
of God, and joint heirs with Christ ;"3 and thus, by degrees,
and through the intercourse of that Spirit with our spirit, do we
" put off the old man," " cease to be conformed to this world,"
and are transformed in the renewing of our mind, " that we may
prove what is that good, and acceptable and perfect will of God."4
XXX. The lawful use of our intellect then, is to lead us to
1 Prov. xix. 2. ' Bp. Bull's Discourse, III.
3 Rom. viii. 16, 17. 4 Rom. xii. 1, 2.

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 313
seek after God ; since the heathens were held " without excuse,"
for not having made that use of it.1 It cannot bring us to find
God ; but it ought to lead us GoD-wards. If properly trained
and lawfully used, it raises us so far above the earth and the
gross occupations thereof, as to give us glimpses of better things
beyond, which, however, it cannot see, "since they are spi
ritually discerned." Our intellect is thus used for the noblest
of purposes, as a handmaid to Faith which takes us by the hand
where intellect must leave us, and carries us to the realms of
"things above and invisible which are eternal, where Christ
sitteth at the right hand of God ;" and on which it bids us
" set our affections."2 Such is the lawful use of the intellect,
since it is, as it were, the remnant of a refined instinct that
marks its origin ; but few there be that make such use of it.
Small natural intellects are conceited, and pretend that their
wings can bear them upwards. And really great intellects feel
so mortified at finding that there is a world of eternal things
good and holy, higher than that to which they can reach, that
they either gainsay or deny that world, in order to limit the
circle of existence to what their intellect is able to grasp, and
to no more. Thus, at least, may we explain the intellectual
phenomenon, if not rather, the mental aberration, of men who
having all their life long studied the wonderful works of God in
Nature, live as materialists and die as infidels.
XXXI. But with the spiritual man, irvsup-aTixb; av&gwiro;, that
is, with him who allows himself to be led by the Spirit in his
passage through life, the intellect is turned to the most worthy
purpose. It helps his spirit to discern things of daily life — the
spirit spiritually for heaven, and the intellect intellectually as
regards this world; it leads him to search into useful knowledge,
to delight in it and to value it; to be earnest and conscientious
in his studies, not for show, but for reality. Intellect helps him
into the study of the very letter of God's Word. It makes him
say, " The righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting : 0
grant me understanding, and I shall live ;"3 that is, make me to
understand, not the mysteries of Thy law, which are not yet for
me, but the things revealed in it, that I may be an intelligent
servant of Thine, " ready always to give an answer to every man
1 Rom. i. 20. 2 Col. iii. 1—3. 3 Ps. cxix. 144.

/

314 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
that asketh me a reason of the hope that is in me."1 The in
tellect rears, as it were, the scaffolding, and the spirit builds
therefrom the spiritual house, a holy temple unto the Lord.
It makes intelligent the man, whom the spirit makes good,
and it adorns with its manifold gifts the worth and the merits
which the spirit imparts ; it works and polishes the gem that
shines all the brighter for it.
Intellect, in short, enables the man who is led by the spirit
to judge justly of things of which the Spirit teaches him to judge
rightly. Even as regards the Revelation of God to man in the
Bible, whereas the natural or only intellectual man rejects it,
because of the motes he sees floating in that beam of heavenly
Light, the spiritual and intelligent man makes no more of such
iragspya, of such accessories, than does that Revelation itself.
And as to the particles of human or of earthly matter which
have clung to it during its stay in the earth, he looks upon such
motes as no part of the Light, but as of the earth, earthy; as
some of the dust of the world in which he lives ; and, as inde
pendent of the Light he sees, he knows, he loves, and in the
warmth and health of which he ceases not to rejoice. He knows
that in another world that same light will be brighter, for it will
shine alone.
XXXII. Do, then, Faith, love, and obedience forbid or hinder
inquiry ? and is the faithful Christian doomed to a vegetative
existence ? They indeed forbid a free, fearless, and rash inquiry
into things holy and spiritual; but they expect and require a
modest and respectful inquiry ; not once, but always. Can he
who holds, through Faith, communion with Him Who is Light
and Life, be less active, less intelligent, less in earnest, less
hopeful than a man who, yet faithless, aimless, and hopeless,
either gropes among the inextricable mazes of his own fancies,
or is carried hither or thither by every wind of doctrine? But,
inquiry depends on the irgoaigeo-ig tou filou, on the aim and
choice of the man. The Christian or real philosopher, starting
from the only true principle, God, as He reveals Himself in
His Word, as Creator and Father reconciled through His Son,
and holding intercourse with him through his spirit, goes forward
in his inquiry, irpoxdirret, as Simplicius says ; he advances, pro-
1 1 S. Pet. iii. 15.

AND faith.] philosophy, or truth ? 315
ceeds from God down to himself. His inquiry is neither arrogant
nor impertinent; it is therefore neither 'free' nor 'fearless.'
Hence his learning is not empirical, but, as far as it goes, sound
and real. As he beholds the marvellous mechanism of the visible
world, and wonders at the display of boundless love and of settled
design, of immutability of purpose, of almighty power in the
working out of that purpose, of infinite wisdom in devising
things that baffle man's understanding, the Christian philo
sopher, having begun with Faith, and firm therein, and through
it in communion with God in the spirit, makes his inquiry into
God's nature and attributes, in the light of Revelation — an act
of the profoundest and most devoted worship. Feeling both
how little he knows of the inexhaustible riches of God's love
and attributes, yet how true is the little he knows, " he walks
humbly with his God." " What is man," he says to himself,
"that thou art mindful of him; or the son of man that thou
so regardest him ?"• and as he thus humbly, at God's footstool,
" acquaints himself with Him, he is at peace."2
The sham philosopher, on the other hand, who starts, not from
God as He reveals Himself to us in His Word, as from the only
true principle, but from himself, walks backwards in his in
quiry; therefore neither advances nor profits. How, indeed,
can he ? He takes himself, his own person and nature, which
he does not, after all, fully understand, and which is not under
his own control — since he knows not the hour of death — and
from this one small bone he makes up a monster of his own
imagination ; with this one cog in the splendid machinery of
the visible and of the invisible worlds, he sets about constructing
that marvellous mechanism after his own fancy. Who would
trust him ? Who would follow him in such fruitless efforts to
create in his own fashion what He " Whose thoughts are not as
our thoughts" devised and did from everlasting ; or to find a
way heavenwards other than the one made and appointed by
Him " Whose ways are not as our ways ?"3 How, then, is it
that those two hundred and eighty-eight sects of philosophers
have tried, and are yet endeavouring to make that way for them
selves, if it were to be made by them ? And do they not them
selves, without God's help, " make their own wisdom foolish,"
1 Ps. viii. 4. 2 Job xxii. 21. "s Isa. lv. 8, 9.

316 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
and ratify the words of the Apostle, that cpao-xovTeg ehat o~o<po)
sp-wpavbrjo-av, that " thinking themselves to be wise, they became
fools" ? There is only one way to God. " I am the Way, the
Truth, and the Life," says God, manifest in the flesh and justi
fied in the Spirit ; " no man cometh unto the Father but by
me."1 He is " the Door of the sheep," and " whosoever climb-
eth up some other way is a thief and a robber," first of his own
soul, and then of the souls of others whom he deludes into free
and fearless inquiry respecting that which two hundred and
eighty-eight sects of philosophers have not found, — and will
never find.
Whereas if, laying down our pride, our vanity, our self-con
ceit, we, like sensible men, do not run headlong into systems
made up by others, but calmly sit down and see how utterly
helpless we are of ourselves to find our way to God ; and then
come to Him through Faith by the way He has made, namely,
Christ ; and then, being thus justified by Faith, have peace
with Him ; we may start thence on our inquiry, in which we
shall have made but little way when summoned to exchange our
Faith for the sight of things " eye hath not seen nor ear heard,
neither have entered into the heart of man, things which God
hath prepared for them that love him."2 If we look up and
lose ourselves among the brilliant worlds of which we learn
little else than our own utter mean and frail estate, we rest in
the thought that reaches beyond our sight : My Father made
them all ; I shall know about them another day. If we look
down upon the earth, and see it full of His riches, stand aghast
at His manifold works, all made in wisdom, and find our intel
ligence baffled by a blade of grass or a tiny fly, again we say :
Here He is ; only look at His works, how marvellous and per
fect ! And if we look within ourselves, and can trace a change
wrought by His Spirit on our own evil nature, through new feel
ings, new hopes, new tastes, which He gives, we think the
wonder no less. We may then inquire how it is wrought, and
find that, plain as the way is, the wisdom thereof is past finding
out. Thus will our inquiry, not free, but guided by Faith — not
fearless, but carried on with awe — begin indeed, but never end
1 S. John xiv. 6 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16. 2 1 Cor. ii. 9.

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 317
until inquiry is no longer needed, " and we know even as we are
known." We will not then, like some, look for another Truth
— there is none ; nor for another Revelation — it could not be
plainer; nor yet for another Gospel — we could receive no
gladder tidings than that we are freely forgiven, reconciled,
accepted. We will leave others to try and make things more
easy, and to make one world of this and of heaven — that seems
to be the object of their inquiry ; meanwhile we will walk in the
way God has made, and by which He calls us ; and we bid
them to the same, and come with us to Him.
XXXIII. It is not, however, likely that questions or matters
of such vital importance as these should, if I may use the expres
sion, have been left to take care of themselves ; and that man,
though fallen from his first estate, yet still the masterpiece of
his Creator's work, should alone be subject to no rule of go
vernment, but be left to wander uncared for in the world. For
in the realms of Him " Who spake the Word, and the worlds
were made," and Whose will they follow ever since ; Who span
gled the heavens with brilliant worlds in patterns they dare not
break, since more than once He took them as witnesses of His
unchangeable purpose — -independence and self-will cannot be.
He receives homage and subjection from the whole of Nature ;
but from man, created by Him after His own image and simi
litude, He requires, what such a being is bound to yield — love,
obedience, and worship.
Yet, since neither love, obedience, nor worship could be ren
dered to an authority only either fancied or absent, " He left not
himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain
from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with glad
ness."1 And He makes His Presence known not only through
such tokens of His visible power as Ruler of the universe, but
through His government of man, suited to man's being, both
moral and temporal. By moral government we understand the
immutable, uniform connexion between certain causes and their
effects affecting the moral being of man, that may be noticed by
the least intelligent minds in what happens daily; so that they
are without excuse who do not notice such things : as, for in
stance, crime and punishment, vice and misery, &c, and who
1 Acts xiv. 17.

318 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
do not draw thence the existence of the moral government of
God. But, in like manner as man's moral being is practically
inseparable from his body while he is in life, so also we may
safely think that, generally speaking, the broad, universal fea
tures of the laws drawn for the well-being of civil states, what
ever be the details of features ascribed to each severally, do
attest the Presence of God as Temporal Ruler of the world, be
cause He is also the Moral Ruler of it.
XXXIV. Every part of man, then, is placed under control by
God. His body, as temporary abode of his soul and spirit, is
liable to the laws of health and of disease, and is at God's mercy,
Who alone has power over life. And, in order to prevent his in
tellect from running riot, and from setting for itself its own fancies
as objects of pursuit, God laid on it the stern, unflinching rule and
iron yoke of the universal principle of ' that which is,' to ov, as
regards everything on which it is capable of thinking. This
principle asserts its authority by its own laws of Truth, to aXrfieg,
in the abstract; to which man's intellect is made to bow, to
yield, and to obey, under the penalty of rebellion or folly. And
this applies to everything of the bare intellect, to. vor\Ta, con
sidered as subjects on which the intellect is able to work until
it has ascertained the Truth regarding them.
XXXV. But as regards things spiritual, which are not of the
intellect, because they are of the spirit, it is evident that to ov,
the reality of these is beyond the scope and reach of the under
standing alone, which on that account can ascertain, to aX>j8e^
Truth as regards them, only so far as they concern the in
tellect — that is, of course, very little, since their sphere lies far
beyond it. This Truth regarding things spiritual — that is, the
idea and the perception of them suited to our present earthly
state — must therefore of necessity be transmitted to man from
beyond the range of his intellect ; in other words, it must be
made known or revealed to him. But since Truth in this case
is not about matters of the intellect and for the earth, but about
matters of the Spirit and for heaven, wherein our supreme hap
piness consists, it therefore is ' the Truth' rj aXrj&eta x«t ifojpjv —
" that principal Truth," says Hooker, " in comparison whereof
all other knowledge is vile."1 It is the highest Truth of all,
1 Eccles. Pol. Bk. iii. ch. viii. 9.

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 319
the Truth of things spiritual, invisible, and eternal. Thus,
while the part of man's intellect is to find out Truth in the ab
stract, as the expression of that which is, to ov, in things within
the range and compass of its faculties, the spirit of man taught
from his home, heaven, . receives by revelation, and through
Faith in it, the Truth, tjjv aXrfietav, as the expression and will of
b"flv, of Him Who says of Himself, "I am."
XXXVI. It is, then, evident that man only shows his weak
ness and his vanity when he pretends to look within himself for
the Truth. He cannot make it, for it exists independently of
him ; he cannot reach it, for it lies far beyond his conception
and the grasp of his intellect. All he can do is to receive it
by Faith, and to act upon it. Therefore have we yet to learn,
as regards our salvation and our own active part in it, what
' subjective Truth/ of which some men talk, can possibly mean,
' beyond the witness which the Truth when received — not made
— bears of itself in the heart that has welcomed and received it.
For, if there could be such a thing as Truth either made by man
or to be found within him — " wherein dwelleth no good thing"
— apart from God's Truth revealed in His Word, and imparted
through the Spirit of Truth, which is given by God as a seal1 of
acceptance with Him through Faith in His promises ; and if
man were thus really able to find within himself ' the Truth' to
which he is bound, at the risk of his soul, to give allegiance, all
obedience to God, all need of a Revelation, and therefore all
Faith in Him, and with it all hope in His promises, would cease,
and man would walk on earth, no longer by Faith, as becomes
him, poor, fallen creature as he is, but he would then walk by
sight — a state of things as regards him, in his present depend
ent condition, utterly at variance with the majesty of God's
spiritual rule. But " matters of Faith," says S. Cyril of Jeru
salem, " were not arranged according to the fancy of men ;"
aXX' ex iraa-Y\g ypacprjg Ta xaipiwTara o-uXXex^svra, pJtav avairXt)-
poi ty)v Tr\g iritTTewg hdacrxaXtav — " the principal Articles were
gathered from the whole Scripture, and make up the one doc
trine of Faith."2 In other words, in order to keep man's eyes
fixed in the same direction towards his home, God has set before
him, as before Abraham, certain Truths as objects pointing that
1 Eph. i. 13. 2 Catech. v.

320 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [BELIEF
way, to which he is to look steadfastly as to the end where his
course on earth will finish — objects and promises made known
to us in His Word.
XXXVII. Thus are we told that, of old, those whose hope was
set on high "died in faith, not having received the promises,
but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and
embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pil
grims on the earth." If men did so " of whom the world was
not worthy," and who, though " having obtained a good report
through faith, yet received not the promise ; God having pro
vided some better thing for us, that they without us should not
be made perfect" — what else ought we to be than " followers of
them who through faith and patience inherit the promises V'1 —
the promise of His heavenly kingdom, to which He brings us,
in fulfilment of His promise to send His Spirit, " the Spirit of
Truth, to guide us into all Truth," on our way thither. But
His Spirit does not come at random to all. He is sent as Guide
and as Comforter only to those who, keeping their eyes fixed on
the Truths He sets before them, walk with humble but firm
Faith " as their provision by the way during life,"2 towards the
better country they seek. " Wherefore God is not ashamed to
be called their God, fqr he hath prepared them a city."3
XXXVIII. We then see clearly, first — that it is impossible
either to come to God or to please Him otherwise than through
Faith; and secondly — that Faith cannot exist except in objects
set before it on which to look, and for which to hope. And
this makes it necessary that these objects should be shown and
pointed to by God Who wrought them. Therefore is a Reve
lation from God to man not only possible according to God's
nature, but it is, as we have seen, rendered necessary through
God's love towards man, who is estranged from Him and fallen
through sin, and thus unable to find within himself the means
of returning to God, or the way thereto. The very first ray of
God's light into man's heart shows him his real state; and
from that moment Faith receives not only thankfully, but also
most humbly, the message sent from God, and embraces the
Truths and the Promises revealed to us in His Word. Whereas
1 Heb. xi. 13, 39, 40 ; vi. 11—15.
2 4tp6Siov— S. Cyril. Hier. Cat. v. 3 Heb. xi. 14—16.

AND FAITH.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 321
the intellect, ere it yield obedience to Faith, and be governed
thereby, will naught of revelation, because it does not either see
or feel its natural fallen estate; but, self-sufficient and self-
willed, it attempts to assert its own independence; and flaps
its broken wings in order to fly upwards— but only to fall back
with its own weight to the earth.

REVELATION AND THE BIBLE.
XXXIX. Those, then, do indeed wander away from the Truth
who, through either conceit or ignorance, deny their depend
ence, and pretend to put their reason and their understanding
in the place of God's revelation to us. The whole tenour of
Plato's deep, solemn, often touching language, shows that, like
Columbus, he felt there was a land of realities (not Atlantis)
beyond the reach of his splendid genius, which made him sigh
for that which he felt he could not reach. When, for instance,
he describes the soul as led by the best part thereof, which he
calls voug xufiepvrjTrjg, the intellect guiding her nearer into the
presence of God, whence, avaxtyao-a elg to ov ovtw;, looking up
wards into Eternal Truth, it looks down, xadopwo-a, upon the
things of the world,1 he could hardly go further with his un
aided intellect ; but he seems to speak as of what he had seen,
though how dimly, he was the first to acknowledge, since he
longed to have the film, ap^Xuj, removed from the eyes of his
understanding, that he might see more clearly, and be made a
better man.2 And he has left on record, in the most touching
words, " that since, to p.lv o-acplg ellsvat lv tw vuv fi'tw r) aluvarov
elvat r) irayx^eirdv ti, it is either impossible, or at least most diffi
cult, in this life to know what concerns our future existence,
none but the most craven or the weakest of men, iravu p.ax9axou
slvat avlpd;, would either refute or deny what was said on the
subject, without having first well considered it in all its bear
ings. For, concerning such weighty subjects, of two things one
must be done : >} p-aielv oirri %xet \ supeiv, either to learn or to
find out how the matter stands ; or if this be impossible, then to
take the best opinion of men, and the reasons least likely to be
gainsaid ; and thus carried, to risk oneself on that w; irep lir)
1 Phajdr. 62, sq. 2 Alcib. sec. 23, sq.

322 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
o-x&'ta-g xivloveoovTa, as on a raft, and so cross the ocean of life ;
el p.i) Ttg SuvatTO ao-QaXso-Tspov xa) axtvduvdregov eir) fSe^atoTepoo
°xVaT0J % hdyou belou Tivbg hampeuQrjvat, unless one might be
transported more safely and with less danger on a more solid
craft, or on some divine word."1
We Christians have this " Divine Word," the Word of Gop
revealed to us from heaven. What, then, are we to think of
those who wish to set it aside, and to bring us back to Plato ?
Plato himself would none of us; he was much too wise for such
folly. He indeed was wise in what he did, because he made
full use of the light he had, and reached upwards as far as his
understanding could go ; though " by his wisdom he knew not
God," as God is, and fell short of what he sought after. But
what was wisdom in a man without revelation is folly in men
who have it — since through it " God hath made foolish the wis
dom of this world ;"2 — and who practically, setting aside that
Revelation, attempt to do, with only a portion of Plato's ability,
what he could not accomplish with his mighty mind. If, how
ever, such men be honest, they must either deny the Revelation
come from God, and thus abandon their claim to Christianism,
or they must receive that Revelation, and abandon the ridiculous
pretensions of their Rationalism — of all ' isms,' the most unrea
sonable. XL. Our own sense, then, tells us, that whatever message
of reconciliation God sent to man must be so plain, that
" he may run that readeth it," and he that readeth may under
stand. And such is revelation ; it reveals, draws aside the cur
tain that was between man and God, so as to make known to
man what God is, and what man's position and duty are to
wards Him as a fallen, sinful creature, " dead in trespasses and
sins," yet freely forgiven, reconciled and restored to the state
whence it fell, and even higher.
1 Phsedo. 78. This \6yos Belos, " divine word,'' has been explained away by
some to mean ' divine reason ;' but the unsoundness of this shows itself in that
although Plato had more ' reason,' and more of the so-called ' divinity' thereof,
than other men, he yet found it insufficient. By others this passage is thought
to be interpolated. But first — it is much too good Greek to have been written
by any one else than Plato ; and secondly — Plato could not write otherwise,
having arrived at the uttermost limits of his reason ; whence he heard, it seems,
echoes from a better world.
2 1 Cor. i. 20.

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 323
Like the light of the sun, Gob's Word bears witness of itself,
and the same witness also to all alike, whether high or low,
ignorant or learned ; for again, " with God there is no respect of
persons." It shines, it warms, it quickens. It does not require
of all those who come under its influence that they should be able
to analyze it, and to reason thereon ; it leaves this task to those
whose special office is to search into its constituent parts and
properties, so that they may, first for themselves and then for
others, learn and know the wonders of this Divine Light re
vealed to us from heaven. But, practically, these men, how
ever learned in it they be, benefit no more from the bright
ness, the warmth, and the life this Light gives, than do those
who know no more about it than that it is light. They see it,
they admire it, and they rejoice in it ; it bears witness of itself
to them, it lightens, it warms, it comforts them ; and they
would rather behold the light of that Sun, and bask in his
beams, than shut themselves out from it. They do not care
whether it reach them through undulation or through irradia
tion ; when it reaches them they at once feel it is ' true Light,'
and they neither can understand the existence of another light,
nor even wish for it. It is " the Word of God that worketh
effectually in them that believe."1
XLI. Yet so true and so searching is the witness of that
Light revealed from heaven, that its presence alone convicts
those who try to go from it. Yea, " this is the condemnation,
that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather
than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that
doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh he to the light, lest
his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh
to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are
wrought in God."2 And this is the only reason that makes men
either reject altogether, or gainsay the Bible : they hate the
light it brings, by which their works are reproved. Were it not
so, they would receive it, and gladly come to it. But the
' argumentum ad hominem' brought by light to weak or sore
eyes, is a convincing witness at once of the brightness of the
light and of the soreness of the eyes.
XLII. But, those who gainsay Revelation on the ground
that it is supernatural — that is, above natural reason and in-
1 1 Thess. ii. 13. 2 S. John iii. 19, 20.
Y 2

324 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
telligence — outwit themselves in so doing. Real philosophy
teaches us that there is, and that there can be, nothing in itself
supernatural ; since what we, owing to our limited intelligence,
call ' laws of nature/ are only the result of our own observation,
and the effects of causes which we can find nowhere else than in
God. Assuredly not in matter itself; where else, then, than in
Him Who made all things, and " by Whom all things consist ?"
Nothing good can be above God's nature and attributes ; and
since He is Almighty, there can be for Him nothing either
supernatural, wonderful, or miraculous. These are only terms
relative to ourselves, and to our fallen estate.
The miracles wrought by our Lord, then, were proofs, not of
His Divine Nature only, but also of our human nature before it
fell through sin, and thereby lost powers, energies, knowledge,
and an intimate acquaintance with the spiritual world, and with
these said ' laws of nature/ which, being only the obedience of
matter to the supreme will of the Creator, may be stayed, hin
dered, enacted by Him, and followed by that matter at His
bidding, and thus appear sometimes as if out of the track we
call ' natural.' Real philosophy, therefore, knowing this, won
ders at none of the so-called signs and miracles ; because these,
while they attest the power of God, also tell us of what our
own power might be, if, instead of being degraded from what
we originally were, we now enjoyed the state of existence of
Adam before the fall. Neither does real philosophy stagger at
a Revelation ; since it looks upon it only as the making known
to man things which are above his nature thus fallen, and which
on that account appear to him supernatural. But they are na
tural to God.
XLIII. So-called philosophers, however, who try to explain
away miracles as supernatural, do not see that, by so doing, they
deny to their human nature the superior condition which it once
had, and of which it will once more be rendered capable in a
future existence. On the one hand they affect to doubt or to
deny everything they do not understand ; and sooner than admit
the possibility of agencies to us apparently supernatural, yet
within the capabilities of our human nature restored to its origi
nal state, they would readily deny these capabilities to that nature,
and thus lower it to the standard of their limited and often misty

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 325
understanding; and this only in order to gainsay Scripture.
We, therefore, who believe the Bible and the miracles told
therein, honour human nature more than they; and we do not
explain away what appears to us supernatural or miraculous,
not only because we think nothing impossible to God, but also
because we like to be thus reminded of some of the powers which
of right belong to our nature, which it once had, and which it
will once more possess.
So true is this, that when these philosophers set about ex
plaining away direct interpositions of God's will and power, —
as, for instance, in the passage of the Red Sea, they fail not to
make themselves ridiculous by their inconsistency. We saw
erst how some will insist on the ' east wind' having been a ' north
wind/ and how others say it can have been no other than a ' south
wind ;' but I did not then mention the fact, that one of them,
who will explain away the miracle so as not to disturb ' the laws
of nature/ — which he must then think inherent in matter, —
gravely tells us that the neap-tide, which he says Moses con
sulted ere he led the children of Israel through the sea, was felt
all along the Red Sea as far as the Straits of Bab-el-mandeb;
this disturbance, in the opinion of that philosopher, being less
than the staying of the tide during a few hours in the compara
tively insignificant gulf of Suez ; especially at the place where
the passage probably took place. If such men were more con
sistent with themselves, very far from denying or explaining away
miracles or wonders, and thus dooming their human nature to
no greater capabilities than it now possesses, they would rather
multiply tokens of what we now call supernatural agencies.
But, in fact, miracles are only one of the many pretexts such
men choose in order to gainsay Revelation. They would sooner
lower their own nature and themselves with it, than not do what
they can to revile the Light they hate.
XLIV. As we might expect, they of course deny, or explain
away the mode of revelation adopted by God towards us ; that
is, through inspiration ; through the Holy Ghost teaching cer
tain men what to say and what to write, as a record of God's
Will and Counsel. Some deny it altogether, others only in
part. They parcel out the Bible according to their fancy, into
what they think ' inspired' and what they do not ; but even the

326 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
portions they consent to call ' inspired' must suit their ideas of
what inspiration is, in order to have a claim to such distinction.
This is not the place, neither is it my intention to discuss or to
refute the tenets of such philosophers ; for time and labour would
be wasted in noticing the various absurdities by which men, who
thought themselves wise, have at sundry times laid open their
folly. But, as I am writing plainly for plain people, I will only
mention two or three considerations which common sense alone
suggests, as regards the revelation of God to man in His Word.
XLV. First — this message of reconciliation, become neces
sary through man's estrangement from God, must, in order to
be understood by man, be written in man's words, with man's
ideas, but not with man's mind ; for then it would be man's
message, and not God's, and it could then reveal to man no
thing that was not human. Neither could it be written by
angels ; for if so, another Revelation would be required, in order
to explain the first; but it must be written by the Spirit of
God with the pen and with the words of men.
XLVI. Secondly — although this Revelation must be written
in human words, yet, as it is addressed to all men alike, its pur
port and meaning must be independent of the idiom and of the
form of words used to express it.
I mean that — whereas the oracles of God were dictated by
the Holy Ghost to men, who wrote them either in Hebrew or
in Greek, if God sanction the translation of those oracles into
any other language, as He evidently did in the case of the Sep
tuagint, He shows clearly thereby that He never meant to re
strict inspiration to the form, to the sound, to the etymological
meaning, or to the grammatical construction of the Hebrew and
of the Greek words in which the originals were written. Other
wise either no translation of them would be allowable and effec
tual, or all men who are to be benefited by the inspired words
should have to read them in the Hebrew of the Old Testament
or in the Greek of the New. Since, however, we see that trans
lations are multiplied, and that all, even defective ones, do
more or less the work whereunto they are sent, in carrying to
the heart of man the power of God's teaching unto salvation ;
and, since we may hold as an axiom, that no language can fully
render another language, translators not being inspired, some

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 327
of the inspiration of the original terms never reaches those who
use translations.
Neither does it altogether reach those who read the original
texts, which are written in languages now dead ; for no dead
language is ever fully understood. Yet the proportion of the
original inspiration of the Hebrew and of the Greek texts which
is transmitted through whatever language, is sufficient to bring
salvation to those who hear or read it. This evidently shows
that, if God's inspired Word were addressed only, or chiefly, to
the intellect of man, — that is, with mathematical precision, — it
could be so only through the languages of the original auto
graphs of the sacred writers ; languages which, on this account,
must have continued living languages; for none but a living
language speaks accurately and fully to the mind of them that
speak it ; since it is only in proportion as we identify ourselves
with a people that we understand the language thereof. But,
since we find that this Revelation, written in languages now
dead, nevertheless accommodates itself to every idiom, we see
plainly that it is addressed chiefly to that part of man which is
bound by no such formulas as the etymology, form, and con
struction of words, namely, to his spirit, and through that to his
moral being ; the nature and constitution of which is the same
in all, whatever be their language.
It is well to bear in mind this important fact, that seems
generally overlooked, because it explains at once several circum
stances which have been seized by gainsayers as arguments
against the Bible.
XLVII. Considering the scope and object of the Bible, we
must see that it may be quite consistent with the teaching of
the Holy Ghost, that men taught by Him what to write with
regard to the aim and intention of the whole Book, should men
tion by the way, things that were and that could be true, only
at the time they were written; things, therefore, as regards
ourselves, irrelevant to the main object. Likewise, and for the
same reason, many words and ideas may be inspired that lead
neither to salvation nor to any particular good for man ; because
they were intended only as collateral information necessary, at
the time the Book was written, for the credibility of that Book.1
1 " The several books of Scripture having had each some several occasion and

328 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [REVELATION
Thus, passages like : " And Gera, and Shephuphan, and Hu-
ram,"1 and thousands more such, are practically, to us, of no
use whatever, though necessary as links of evidence to entitle
the writing to credit at the time it was written. Yet, being in
spired, and forming part of the Sacred Canon, they are for us
' sacred.' XLV1II. For men, writing in human words and with human
ideas, though under divine influence and control, wrote, of course,
so as to be understood in all the details of their writing, by the
men who lived at the time they wrote, and to whom their words
were immediately addressed : but, on that very account, likely
to be understood, by men who were to come after them, or who
lived in other countries, only in the portions of those writings
which impart information, or Truths, intended for all time.
Thus, for instance, Job alludes to a custom of his day, but that
no longer obtains, when he says : " Oh that my words were now
written ! that they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the
rock for ever 1" words, however, that convey a Truth which is
our comfort in death, and the warning of our Church to her
children around the grave : " I know that my Redeemer liveth,
and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth !"2
Thus, it is, also, quite consistent with inspiration that Joshua,
relating the slaughter of the five kings of Canaan, who were cast
into the cave at Makkedah, should say that the stones rolled at
the entrance of the cave, " remain there until this very day,"3
though it be no longer true.
Likewise, it was apparently true and according to the notions
of the time, but of no importance whatever to the main object
of the Bible, that " the sun did stand still ;"4 and it could not
have been stated or written otherwise. Had Joshua been taught
by inspiration the actual fact, that the earth and not the sun
must have then stood still, and had he so stated it, no one
would have either understood or believed him ; because it would
particular purpose which caused them to be written ; the contents thereof are
according to that special end whereunto they are intended. Hereupon it groweth
that every book of Holy Scripture doth take out of all kinds of truths, natural,
historical, foreign, supernatural, so much as the matter handled requireth."
Hooker, Eccles. Pol. Bk. i. ch. xiv. 4.
1 1 Chron. viii. 5, &c. a Job xix. 23—27.
3 Josh. x. 27. * Josh. x. 12, sq.

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 329
have been, not only against the notions of the time, but also
against the appearance of the miracle, wrought, as much for the
appearance as for the reality ; as much in order that the sun
should be seen standing still, as that Joshua should have time
to achieve his victory. The question at issue was not, of course,
whether the earth or the sun stood still ; and it might be believed
or not according to the times of those who heard or who read
the account. In this case, as in that of the defeat of the five
kings at Makkedah, the question was, to give instances of God's
power when fighting for His people ; and this shall remain true
as long as His Church is militant in earth ; however differently
His power and deliverance may be both displayed and described
according to the times in which He acts.
XLIX. So also, as the Bible was not intended to give us
lessons in geography, in geology, in physics, in astronomy, nor
in any of the sciences which depend on experimental knowledge,
and that improve as knowledge increases, according to the pro
phecy of Daniel,1 in all such matters2 the Bible speaks, as it must
needs have spoken, after the manner of the times in which its
several parts were written. And this, very far from invalidating
its witness in the slightest degree, is an internal evidence of the
authenticity of its several Books. Were they all written exactly
alike, speaking precisely the same language, with no traces
whatever of the human hands that wrote, though under the
guidance of God's overruling Spirit, yet purposely, as of ne
cessity they must have written in them, according to the notions
of the several ages in which they wrote, things to us apparently
irrelevant — then, indeed, we might suspect collusion and impos
ture. Whereas, the very discrepancies we find in the style, the
words, the ideas, and the expressions of the several writers of
those Books, attest the genuineness of their writings, however
much these peculiarities may differ one from the other, and all
of them from our own way of thinking. All this simply forms
a plain proof of the oneness of intention, of aim, of -object, of
purpose in the writers, who while writing at times distant from
1 Dan. xii. 4.
3 It is evident that this holds good only in matters of custom, opinion, no
tions, &c. In matters of faith, as for instance, in that of the creation, as we
shall see below, the case is different.

330 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
each other, wrote so as to be understood by their own country
men, at the time they wrote; and so as to convey information
and to impart Truths that were to remain true for those who
came after. The human element, — and by this I mean, for in
stance, the difference of style, of ideas, of handwriting, &c, of
the several writers, therefore attests the guidance of the Spirit
which did not allow these human forms of style, of ideas, and of
expressions, to affect the general even tenour of the whole Book,
which centres on one subject — the call of God's Church from
out the world, and the Redemption of that Church through the
Blood of Christ.
L. But this view of the subject which is correct, because
consistent with common sense and with Truth, does not, of
course, suit those whose object is to find fault with the Bible,
in order, by all means to gainsay it. They wilfully shut their
eyes to the fact, that these differences of style, ideas, &c, are
not only consistent with the economy of inspiration whieh is
addressed to the spirit rather than to the intellect of man, but
that they are so many proofs in favour of it. And assuming
the sophism that, 'if the Book is inspired it can contain no
discrepancies of any kind whatever/ they take advantage of every
one of these details irrelevant to the main object and indepen
dent of it, in order to impugn the whole ; and this argument
specious as it is, though unsound, succeeds in deceiving many.
Such men act the part of a hodman who, while carrying mortar
upon the scaffolding around S. Paul's, would run down the skill
and the genius of Sir Christopher Wren, because he discovers a
crack or a flaw in one stone or another. He argues, plausibly
to himself, that Sir Christopher Wren could not be the man
people think, otherwise there would not be this flaw or that
crack in this stone ; that, in short, he does not think such an
architect did ever live, whatever they may say ; for that, he,
hodman though he be, would be more careful of his work, if
they would but give it him to do. So reason many philosophers
of the day. We who are more simple, however, look upon this
flaw or that crack in the stone only as a proof of the perishable
nature of that stone ; and we conclude, as we think, rightly,
that — since after such a length of time this crack or this flaw is
no worse, the workmen who chose the stone, and the architect

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 331
who overlooked the whole, must have been, the one very careful
and the other very clever. So that, reasoning only according to
our own sense, we say : Sir Christopher Wren must have made
use of the materials he had ; so that, but for his presiding genius
all the stones in the building, and not a few only, would show
signs of decay. He therefore deserves great praise for his work.
And it would be contrary to common sense, when applying
this reasoning to the edifice of God's Word, to say — that God
might have used what materials He pleased. So, of course, He
might ; as He might have chosen to cause His Word to be
written by Angels ; but that Word being addressed to men, it
was to be written after the manner of men, though by the wis
dom of God. Therefore, do these touches of humanity in the
writings of the Prophets and of the Apostles, attest the means
used and the presiding and overruling Spirit of Him Who used
them. These apparent defects are allowed to remain as tokens
of the hand that stayed them from affecting the beauty and the
solidity of the whole.
LI. This, I ween, is the view to take of the passage often
misunderstood : " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine," &c. We all admit ' inspiration'
to mean : ' the Holy Ghost teaching or moving men to speak
or to write ;' and we also admit that whole chapters of genea
logies, rolls of Levites, &c, were thus ' inspired ;' but we cannot
say that such chapters or verses are " profitable for doctrine, for
reproof," &c, for anything, in short, but to fill up a list of
names, which to us however are of no service whatever. It is
clear, therefore, that S. Paul could not have such chapters or
verses in view in applying the latter part of this and the follow
ing verse (v. 17) to "all Scripture is given by inspiration of
God." But he evidently said Tlao-a ygacpij (iedirveuo-To; of the
whole, and wcpeXifj.og irpbg dtdaa-xaXiav, x.t.X., only of portions
thereof ; using iraa-a in this case, as irav in irav to lv p,axeXXw
irwXoufj.evov hrUsre, " Whatsoever," or, all that, " is sold in the
shambles, that eat;"1 for all that is sold there is not eatable,
though it be lawful to eat it. S. Paul then, leaves a wide
margin for what is not "profitable," &c, in "all Scripture
given by inspiration," as he leaves out many things that cannot
1 1 Cor. x. 25.

332 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
be eaten, in " whatsoever is sold in the shambles," &c. ; which
is precisely what I meant to express. He, therefore, that would
deny the inspiration of these rolls and genealogies, &c, because
they are not " profitable," would be as far from right, as he
who would allegorize or spiritualize them, because they were
written by men inspired ; in the same way as he who would
abstain from certain meats as unlawful, would be as far from
understanding S. Paul's meaning as he who would undertake to
eat the whole and everything sold in the shambles, because it is
said, " Whatsoever is sold, that eat," &c. In the words of
Archbishop Laud, already quoted in the preface, " all proposi
tions of Canonical Scripture are alike firm, because they all
alike proceed from Divine Revelation ; but they are not alike
fundamental to the Faith ;'n being all equally " given by inspira
tion," though not all equally " profitable for doctrine, for in
struction," &c.
There is a wide gap from this clear and true statement of the
actual fact to the sophistry that " some Books of the Bible are
less inspired than others," as some men assert who arrogate to
themselves the power and assume the right of deciding for
themselves and for others also, ' the much' or ' the little' of this
inspiration ; thus evidently making a Bible for themselves, in
stead of bowing and of submitting themselves to the Bible as
God gives it. For unless we receive it whole and in its in
tegrity, our obedience to it is a pretence, and our obedience to
our own ' self is a reality ; since we practically choose for our
selves those parts of it that suit us, and reject the rest. But
real philosophy teaches otherwise. It teaches that the inspira
tion is the same, whether of the Books of Ruth, of Esther, Ezra,
&c, or of the Psalms, the Proverbs, or of the Song of Songs ;
whether in the burden of Nahum, in the narrative of Jonah, or
in the prophecies of Isaiah or of S. John ; due regard being had
to the time, to the purpose, to the object for which these Books
were severally inspired and written.
L1I. This touches another question, that of ' verbal inspira
tion / which is, also, I fear, mistaken by many. Strictly speak
ing, 'verbal inspiration/ as some people understand it, no longer
exists. The only documents that might with justice be said to
1 Relation of a Conference, &c, p. 27, sq.

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 333
be " verbally inspired," that is, every word of which was in
spired — were the autographs of the holy men who wrote, as
moved by the Holy Ghost. But the very first copy made
from those autographs, introduced some mistakes, and so far,
destroyed the ' verbal inspiration' of those copies ; that is, the
inspiration of every word in them. These mistakes increased
more or less in after copies ; so that their number is now con
siderable. And yet, considerable though it be, in the originals
both of the Old and of the New Testament, their aggregate
influence on the sense, meaning, power, and authority of those
texts, amounts to little or nothing; to no more than to the
effect the spots on the sun have in lessening its bright light
and genial warmth, that is — not at all. The light of both the
sun and of the Bible outshine all spots or other supposed defects
in them.
Secondly — as we have remarked when alluding to the Septua
gint,1 the undeniable fact, that no language can be fully and
adequately rendered into another, does away at once with
what, strictly speaking, can be called ' verbal inspiration,' by
which is also understood, — the whole amount of the inspiration
contained in the words of the original texts, transmitted through
translation ; a thing simply impossible. As an example of this,
I went into detail — but, now-a-days, few care for such details —
in the Notes to my Translations of the Gospel of S. John,2 in
order to show that, for instance, in these words — 'Ev icpxy %v b
Xoyo;, xa) b Xoyo; r\v irpb; tov Bebv, xa) Bsb; r)v b Xoyog — not
only is apx*l not well rendered through " beginning," but the
def. art. ' the' used with it in the translation gives a meaning
very different from the Greek ; since ' the' points to a beginning
that never existed. -Eternity has no beginning ; and since the
Word was God, and was with God from all eternity, it was so,
not ' in the beginning,' but rather ' on principle' — that comes
nearest the Greek. I also pointed out that in this verse ^v is
not fully expressed through ' was ;' nor Xoyo; through ' word ;'
nor yet xa), irgb;, Bed; through ' and/ ' with/ and ' God,' re
spectively ; to say nothing of the use of the definite article with
i See p. 17.
2 The Gospel according to S. John, translated from the eleven oldest Versions,
except the Latin, &c, Notes p. 1—14.

334 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
' God' in Greek, which has precisely the contrary effect in Eng
lish ; so that, the only two words in this verse that may be said
to render the original correctly are perhaps ' in' for lv and ' the'
for 6. This may apply, more or less, to every verse in the Bible ;
and that too, on the supposition of only one Version in the
same language.
But in most countries that have not the advantage of an Au
thorised Version, and even in this, there is more than one trans
lation from the originals ; how then shall we measure the rela
tive degree of inspiration transferred into one or the other
rendering of the same original words, since those renderings
differ ; and to which will the term ' verbal inspiration' apply ?
As an instance of this I quoted1 from among many other pas
sages : eyw ykp ex tou Bsou l$;rjx8ov xa) rjxw' ouSe yap air ep.aurou
eXrjXuQa, S. John viii. 42, and asked which of these two render
ings — "for I proceeded forth, and came from God, neither
came I of myself," A. V., or " for I proceeded forth, and am
come from God, for neither am I come of myself," R. V., is
best, since both are incorrect, and can hardly be made better ;
for r]xw and eXr)Xu&a convey, each, a very different idea to the
mind, and should not both be rendered alike. Where, in this
and in thousands of other such cases, is the ' verbal inspiration'
in the English rendering of the Greek ? Nowhere.
LUI. Yet, let no one be startled at this. These apparent
flaws and imperfections are, nevertheless, a strong argument
to show the real divine origin and inspiration of the Bible, and
the presence of the Holy Ghost in it, as proved by the work
He does in the heart of man through that Book, and in spite of
such apparent defects. Seeing the Word of God — and by
' Word of God' I mean the whole Sacred Canon of Scripture —
brings to man a Revelation of things " which never entered into
his heart," and which, therefore, are not to be either found out
or attained by his intellect alone — the subject as well as the
object of that Revelation are both spiritual rather than intel
lectual. The subject — God " is Spirit," not ' Intellect,' and
" they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in
Truth," and not in ' intellect,' since intellect alone cannot reach
Him. And in His Word He reveals Himself to man, as " mani-
1 Preface to S. John, p. xiii.

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 335
fest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit;" not in the ' intellect ;'
as " Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to
the Greeks foolishness." But unto them that are called — the
power of God, and the wisdom of God. " Because the foolish
ness of God is wiser than men." "For it is written: I will
destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the
understanding of the prudent : where is the wise ? — hath not
God made foolish the wisdom of this world ?" All this shows
how little the burden of this Revelation is in accordance with
human wisdom, that is, intellectual ; so that both cannot hold
together the same place. Therefore, " Let no man deceive him
self. If any among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let
him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of
this world is foolishness with God. For it is written : He
taketh the wise in their own craftiness." And again : " The
Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
Therefore let no man glory in men."1
There is in all this, assuredly, very little room left for man's
intellect, reason and philosophy, as substitutes for Faith, be
cause —
Secondly— the object of this Revelation is not man's 'intel
lect/ but man's ' spirit ;' it is addressed to the spiritual and
moral part of man, and to his intellectual faculties only in so
far as his intelligence is connected with his spirit, and thus with
the beginning of his Faith. However it may tax our intellect
either to study the very letter of God's Word, and to seek to
understand the whole economy of His love towards us, of our
redemption by our Lord Christ, and of our sanctification by
the Holy Ghost, the object and intention of the Bible is not to
make of us learned or scientific men, clever engineers or pro
found naturalists ; but it is to make us better men morally, — to
transform us from being natural men, \J/u^utoi av&pwiroi, who,
however intellectual perhaps, yet " receive not the things of the
Spirit of God," which they cannot know naturally, — that is, in
tellectually, — "because they are spiritually discerned," into men
spiritual, who may discern all things and judge of them ; being
guided into all truth by the Spirit of Truth. Now this Spirit
is, we are told,2 the seal set by God on our Faith in the witness
1 1 Cor. i. 18—28 ; iii. 18—21. * Eph. i. 13 ; iv. 30.

336 philosophy, or truth ? [revelation
He gives of Himself in His Word. " For by a like Faith,"
says S. Cyril of Jerusalem,1 "are we reckoned' children of Abra
ham ; and like Him also do we, through Faith, receive tt)v irvsu-
fj.aTixr]v a-cppayiSa, the seal of the Spirit, being circumcised hy
the Holy Ghost, 8ia tou Xourgou, by means of the washing"
(of water, or of regeneration)2; since "the fellowship of the
Spirit is given to every man, xaTa avaXoy'tav t>js ir'to-Tsw;, in pro
portion to his Faith,"3 which Faith rests, as we have seen, " not
on the wisdom of words, aXX' 1£ amfoij-ew; twv Selwv Io-t) ygacpwv,
but on the witness of the Holy Scriptures, and on proofs drawn
from them,"4 whose infallibility, as Word of God, is, Archbishop
Laud says, "a Prime Principle of Faith."5 For while "the
things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God," yet " as

1 S. Cyril, Catech. iv. 2 Eph. v. 26 ; Tit. iii. 5.
3 Id. Catech. i. * Id. Catech. iv.
3 Relation of a Conference, &c, p. 28, and 46, sq. " To the question in
hand then : Suppose it agreed upon, that there must be a Divine Faith, cut
aubesse non potest falsum, under which can rest no possible errour, That the
Books of Scripture are the Written Word of God : If they which go to the tes
timony of the Holy Ghost for proof of this do mean by Faith, Objectum Fidei,
the Object of Faith that is to be believed, then, no question they are out of the
ordinary way. For God never sent us by any word or warrant of His, to look
for any such special and private Testimony to prove which that Book is, that we
must believe. But if by Faith they mean, the Habit, or Act of Divine infused
Faith, by which vfirtue they do believe the Credible Object, and thing to be
believed ; then their speech is true, and confessed by all Divines of all sorts.
For Faith is the gift of God, (1 Cor. xii. 3, 4,) of God alone, and an infused
Habit (datur nobis a Deo, &c. S. Aug. in Ps. 87) ; in respect whereof the soul
is meerly recipient ; and therefore the sole Infuser, the Holy Ghost must not
be excluded from that work which none can do but He. — So that Faith, as it
is taken for the vertue of Faith — though it receive a kind of preparation, or
Occasion of Beginning from the Testimony of the Church, as it proposeth, and
induceth to the Faith i yet it ends in God, revealing within that which the
Church preached without. For till the Spirit of God move the Heart of man,
he cannot believe, be the Object never so credible." (The capitals and italics are
Abp. Laud's.)
" In Scripture," says Hooker, (Eccles. Pol. Bk. iii. ch. iii. 3,) " hath God
both collected the most necessary things that the school of nature teacheth unto
that end (the knowledge of salvation) and revealeth also whatsoever we neither
could with safety be ignorant of, nor at all be instructed in but by supernatural
revelation from him. — All such things if Scripture did not comprehend, the
Church of God should.not be able to measure out the length and the breadth of
that way wherein for ever she is to walk, heretics and schismatics never ceasing
some to abridge, some to enlarge, all to pervert and obscure the same."

AND THE BIBLE,] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 337
many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God ;"i
and thus, through "the Spirit of God bearing witness with our
spirit that we are children of God," our mortal " body is quick
ened by that Spirit," and then offered as "a spiritual" and a
" living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God, which is our rea
sonable service," — that is, the service which, according to reason,
it becomes spiritual creatures to render to a spiritual God.2 And
this service is not only reasonable, but also rational ; for, says
Hooker :
" As it were altogether bootless to allege against the impious
adversaries of the Church, what the Spirit hath taught us, so like
wise even to our own selves it needeth caution and explication
how the testimony of the Spirit may be discerned, by what means
it may be known ; lest men think that the Spirit of God doth
testify those things which the spirit of error suggesteth. — Where
fore albeit the Spirit lead us into all truth and direct us in all
goodness, yet because these workings of the Spirit in us are so
privy and secret, we therefore stand on a plainer ground, when
we gather by reason from the quality of things believed or done,
that the Spirit of God hath directed us in both, than if we settle
ourselves to believe or to do any certain particular thing, as being
moved thereto by the Spirit."3
Thus only can man be sanctified wholly, and his " whole spirit,
soul and body, preserved blameless unto the coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ."4 And this is the intention of God's Re
velation to us.
LIV. Therefore " to the poor is the Gospel preached," — to
those who, whatever be their 'intellect/ are equally endowed
with " the spirit of man that goeth upward,"5 and are; there
fore, fit subjects for the spiritual and moral influence of a
spiritual and moral teaching. Therefore did S. Paul remind
the brethren at Corinth " of their calling ;" " how that," in the
midst of that large, intellectual, and refined city, "not many
wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,
were called," from among her illustrious people.6 Therefore,
1 1 Cor. ii. 1 1 ; Rom. viii. 14.
3 Rom. viii. 16, 11 ; IS. Pet. ii. 5 ; Rom. xii. 1.
3 Eccles. Pol. Bk. iii. ch. viii. 15. * 1 Thess. v. 23.
5 Eccl. iii. 21. 6 1 Cor. i. 26.
Z

338 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
also, did our Saviour say to His disciples, "Verily I say unto
you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom as a little child
shall in no wise enter therein ;"1 for He did not then mean bap
tism, which He had not yet formally instituted as a Christian
rite; but He meant the childlike simplicity and ready faith of a
child, as applicable to the kingdom of God.2
LV. Therefore, also, since the main business of Revelation is,
if I may so speak, with the spirit of man, and not with his in
tellect, which is for the earth, earthly, the spirit and power of
that Revelation, which are one and the same for all and unto all,
must yet be such as to adapt themselves to the circumstances
and to the peculiarities of all nations; and thus far be inde
pendent of the peculiar features of race or nationality of the in
tellectual channels through which they are conveyed to man.
Thus, whether the Greek —
Ev apxfj %v b \o'ryos, Kal b \o'fyo« ?jv w/oos tov Qebv, Kal Qebs ?jv b
\oiyos'
or the English —
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God ;"
or yet the Mandchu —
" Toktan de Gisun bihe ; ere Gisun apkai Etchen de bihe ; ere
Gisun utkhai apkai Etchen inu ;"
all convey the same Truth, though it be through different ideas,
and by means of words etymologically wide apart. How then
shall we measure the relative degree of inspiration in these two
translations ? In no wise ; neither need we. They are each a
fair and conscientious rendering of the original words — even
" in the beginning" has long done duty for lv apxy — and al
though they are not the originally inspired Greek words, yet
they impart enough of the same Truth to do the same good as
they. Since, then, both the English and the Mandchu minds
receive the same Truth, though not in the same way intellec
tually, the inspiration of the words lies, for each, in the Truth
conveyed, and in its influence over the spirit of man, which is
the same in all ; and not in the form of ideas or of the words,
1 S. Luke xviii. 17 ; S. Matt, xviii. 3. 3 See p. 289, note.

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 339
which differ more or less in all nations and in all languages.
For if it lay in these, it either would vary with the language,
or require always the same language to convey it to the mind and
to the heart.
LVI. And if we be told that such is the case with every
kind of knowledge that is thus conveyed through translations,
whether of natural, physical, and other like sciences, we reply,
that all these differ altogether from the kind of knowledge to be
conveyed through translations of inspired words. In purely in
tellectual knowledge, as that of certain branches of mathematics,
the numbers and the formulas convey their own witness, inde
pendently of words : in other branches of mathematics applicable
to physics, astronomy, &c, experiments and demonstration
supply the lack of words ; and in natural history, no knowledge
is worth much that does not rest on personal experience and
observation. Whereas, as regards the knowledge of spiritual
things to be conveyed through translations of inspired records,
as they are matters of Faith, and not to be mathematically or
experimentally demonstrated, the knowledge of them imparted
or received depends entirely on the words used ; the chief diffi
culty being in either finding, or coining terms and expressions
in every language, as the Apostles did in Greek, capable of trans
mitting the inspired Truth. Yet, with all this, the result is all
over the world the same ; and in every part of the earth the
same moral good and transformation of the natural man into
one spiritually minded is wrought through the same means.
LVII. It is therefore, but natural to think, that since even
at the present day the inspired Truths contained in the Canon
of Scripture, adapt themselves, not in substance only, but even
in the outline of words, to peoples of all manner of languages,
and of a greater variety of habits, customs, and associations, than
ever they did before, — that the Canon itself, written at different
times and by different men, though in the same languages — the
Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New in Greek — may show
signs of the same adaptation to times and to circumstances in
the letter thereof. And so it is. We find in it, and consistently
with the economy of Inspiration, collateral statements, things
of secondary importance, others of no importance to us at pre
sent, yet necessary at the time they were written for a right
z2

340

PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION

conveyance of other important or vital Truths. We therefore
must expect to find, and we do find, as part of those several
inspired records, matters of mere belief, as distinct from Faith ;
statements of opinion, allusions to customs and to a state of
knowledge which altered with the times ; of necessity mentioned
by the writer or writers without comment, in order to be under
stood by those for whom he or they wrote ; but assuredly not
intended as rules of either opinion, customs, or knowledge for
us to follow. Thus do we frequently find polygamy and other
social abuses mentioned in connexion with the best men of old,
though without remarks thereon ; because they are simply al
luded to as customs, and stated as facts, and remarks on them
would often be foreign to the subject in hand. But when directly
treated, God institutes and blesses marriage with one wife only
to every man, and curses whoredom and adultery.
LVIII. Practically then, our position towards God's Word,
the Canon of Holy Scripture is this : — To look upon it as
" all given by inspiration of God," and to venerate, love, and
worship every word of it for His sake ; not blindly, but admitting
that there are in it many things irrelevant to the main object
but relevant to the object the several writers had in view, to
the persons for whom, as well as to the times in which they
wrote; the whole being for us both holy and sacred. The
parts which belong unto our spirit and unto the life thereof,
being by comparison 'holy;' and those which are only collateral
and complementary being also ' sacred,' by reason of the Book
in which they are found, and of Him at Whose bidding they were
written. Very far from wishing it otherwise, we take such fea
tures as additional proofs of the authenticity of the several
writings contained therein, as showing unity of object and of
purpose without combination on the part of the writers. We
know, of course, that the several parts thereof have suffered
from the wear and waste of time, because the words though
inspired, were written on perishable materials ; yet less so than
any other Books of the same ages, extant : the authenticity and
the credibility thereof also rest on a foundation laid deeper and
firmer than those of any other Book or Books of the same re
spective age or ages. This so far satisfies our intellect, as to
make it assent to the credibility of that Book, and receive it,

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 341
even on that ground alone. But when opened, it bears witness
of itself and of its origin ; it finds its way straight through the
spirit to the heart, as objects in the light do through the eyes
to the mind. It speaks for itself ; it says : I am the Truth :
as light says : I am light ; and we feel it.
It is, if I may use such an expression, the Bread of Life ;
the bread is so far not pure, as there are mingled with it par
ticles of earthly matter that have clung to it during its stay
in the earth ; but it is suited to this our present earthly state.
When we are fitted for the company of angels, we shall have
food suited to that state also, the same Truth, but brighter and
clearer ; because we shall then understand all things, know God
as we are known of Him, and see Him as He is. For the pre
sent, and seeing we can find spiritual food nowhere else, we re
ceive this bread with thanksgiving, and as we eat it we subsist
thereby. Some of our fellow men, will none of it as it is given
them, but attempt to do what no man can do, and insist on ex
tracting from it, after their own fashion, what they call the ' flour'
alone whereof they say that bread consists ; meanwhile they
starve themselves, because they refuse to eat ; but we live, be
cause we partake of it. Others treat it even less reverently, and
as if it were no bread. All we can say with our Master, is :
" Father, forgive them ; for they know not what they do."
But, for our part, we receive it whole as it is ; we will not,
and we dare not, lay hands on any one part or parts thereof,
because the whole is holy and sacred ; and because it is not for
us to pretend to know better than it does, things which we do.
not understand. We then receive, love, and worship, the Bible,
as " all given by inspiration of God," and we bow to it as such ;
feeling persuaded that as regards that Book and things pertain
ing unto God, in Whom we believe, although we neither see nor
understand Him — we shall sooner be forgiven for having be
lieved too much of things we cannot know at present, out of
love, trust and worship for Him, than too little, from lack of
Faith, and from self-conceit or unbelief.
LIX. Time would fail in rehearsing the several objections
raised at divers times by philosophy against the Bible. But
some of them are more popular, because better known, than
others. Among these are the Creation as recorded in the first

342 philosophy, or truth ? [revelation
chapter of Genesis ; which is either cavilled at, or often entirely
set aside by " modern science and philosophy."
But, it was not God's good pleasure to give us a treatise on
geology, otherwise we should have it, for ever to lay the dust of
man's reasonings on the subject, and to teach true science ; that
is, things as they were and as they are, and not as we fancy
them to have been or to be. Whereas we are left in a matter of
this kind, of very inferior importance compared with the object
of God's Revelation to man, to gather our information from
facts that fall under our observation. These, however, are so
few, and the space on which we can observe them, is so limited
in comparison with the size of the globe on which we must bring
to bear the conclusions we draw from our slender premisses, that
no prudent or sound-headed man will think himself justified in
hastily forming his judgment on the subject.
God tells us plainly what He would have us know with cer
tainty, and what we should never have known unless He had
told it us, namely — that in the beginning He " created the
heavens and the earth ;" and that He alone, " is worthy to re
ceive glory, and honour, and power ; for He hath created all
things, and for His pleasure they are and were created."1 So
true is this, and so necessary was it to establish it as a fact
against all the fanciful systems of philosophy both old and new,
that it is made a matter of Faith : " through Faith we under
stand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that
things which are seen, were not made of things which do ap
pear."2 And as the Spirit of God foresaw that this teaching
would be doubted and gainsaid, we are further warned that —
" there shall come in the last days scoffers — willingly ignorant
of this, that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and
the earth standing out of the water and in the water."3
When, then, was " the beginning ?" God does not say. If
we are to believe in the successive convulsions that brought
this earth to its present state, and made it fit for man, these
several formations must have taken place between the first and
the second verse of Genesis ; without for all that, destroying
the witness of Scripture ; and " the beginning" must be thrown
1 Gen. i. 1 ; Rev. iv. 11. " Heb. xi. 3.
3 2 S. Pet. iii. 5.

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 343
back to an indefinite period. But if we adopt the far more
probable system of the Flood having caused the phsenomena
we notice in the crust of the earth, then " the beginning" would
be far more recent.
However this be, the argument sometimes brought forward that
since " by man came death" the animals we find in a fossil state
in strata which might thus be younger than the first and older
than the second verse of Genesis, cannot have then existed —
will not hold good. For, the same authority tells us, that brute
beasts " were made to be taken and destroyed ;"1 whereas man
was created after the image and the similitude of God, to
live for ever ; therefore does " the spirit of man go upward ;
and the spirit of the beast downward to the earth."2 Death
brought in by man, could not, then, be said of the cessation of
existence of creatures made ' a priori' to be taken and destroyed-;
but it must refer only to the death of man as " wages of sin."
There is then, nothing to hinder one who will not swerve from
the word of Scripture even in matters Scripture was not intended
to teach us — from admitting, if need be, the possibility, or even
the probability of these anterior creations, until he, with his
own eyes, see lying in rocks, shells, fishes, reptiles, trees, and
quadrupeds, which existed ere the last time when "the earth
was without form and void." Then may have followed this, the
last creation and arrangement of the present system. Night
was before light, and light was before the sun, which only on
the fourth day was made the centre of light, and possibly, also
of our system. And, only after that, began the appearance of
life on the earth ; first the animal world; and then, at last, man.
LX. Albeit there is nothing said in Scripture to hinder us from
carrying back the first verse of Genesis, if not to an indefinite
period, at least to a time anterior to the second and the follow
ing verses of the same chapter — yet it seems illogical to argue,
as some do, from what takes place on the surface of the globe,
now in a settled state, to what did take place when the earth
was being prepared and moulded into its present shape — nearly
that of a mass either liquid or plastic, revolving on its axis, as
does the earth.3
1 2 S. Pet. ii. 12. 2 Eccles. iii. 21.
3 Since the earth is an oblate spheroid, it is clear that its shape is in relation

344 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
Yet, after all, what does our real knowledge of the conforma
tion of the earth amount to? If we take a lump of clay, shape
it like a sphere eight inches in diameter, ^ flatter at the poles
than at the equator, then bake it; paste on that a strip of
brown paper one-third of the circumference wide, on each side
the equator, so as to cover two-thirds of the sphere between the
poles with brown paper ; then paste on it a hair, and a grain of
sand ; these will be to that sphere what the highest mountains
are to the earth. Then mark out on the brown paper a spot
the size of a penny, and riddle it with holes made with a pin,
— that will answer to Europe and to the mines and coal-pits
in it ; make also a few hundred more pin-holes elsewhere on
the brown paper, and these will answer to the mines, &c, out of
Europe, as the brown paper will represent the earth's crust known
to geologists, through those pin-holes. Would anyone argue
deliberately from the accidents of wear and tear to that hair, or
from the knowledge of the crust derived from those pin-holes,
to what took place in the mass ere it was being finally moulded
and baked ? or would he measure the time it took to mould and
to bake that mass, from the time it would take wind and rain
to leave traces on that grain of sand or ou that hair ? So then,
when we hear from trustworthy observations, what alterations
have taken place in the diameter of the earth at the equator
within the last six or four thousand years, we may then begin
to think this globe is in a gradual state of either formation,
transition, or decay. Till then, we must consider the present
state thereof as stationary ; as the state of the period " when
to its rotation. If after having calculated accurately from the data we have,
the probable density of water at the depth of 3980 miles, the mean half-diameter
of the earth, the centripetal and the centrifugal forces acting upon a liquid
decreasing in density from that depth to the surface, and then describe the exact
shape such a mass of liquid the size of the earth would take ; then compare that
with its actual shape, and with the influence both sun and moon would exercise
on the liquid mass in rotation, we might possibly come at some data as to the
time the earth, which seems to have experienced greater nutations of the poles
than at present, was made to revolve regularly round the sun. If it were also
possible to ascertain whether tbe primitive formations by fire or by water, such
as gneiss, granite, &c, partake of the exact shape of the globe, or whether the
secondary formations have a share in swelling the diameter of the earth at the
equator, it might be possible perhaps to form some definite theory respecting the
Deluge and other questions relating to it.

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 345
God gave to the sea His decree, that the waters should not pass
His commandment"1 — a fact we see proved by every map we
look at — until the final overthrow, for which, according to the
Word of God, it is reserved.
LXI. Still, we cannot look up on a clear night, to the brilliant
worlds that spangle the firmament of heaven, and think that
this our earth, which is invisible from the nearest of them, is,
after all, but an atomic speck in the Universe, without our mind
at once attempting to soar above and ramble among those worlds,
wondering what they and the state of them can be. Yet, if
such thoughts do aught else than raise us higher towards God
who rules over those countless worlds, they only tend to raise
within us questions which can never be answered in this world.
We may be sure that if it were necessary for the better know
ledge of our present or of our future existence, that we should
know more of the condition of those worlds, that knowledge
would have been granted. As it is, however, the sight of God's
glory which the heavens declare, and the language they speak,
bid man " walk humbly with his God." — " O Lord, our Lord,
how excellent is thy Name in all the earth ! who hast set thy
glory above the heavens." — No observations will penetrate be
yond that ; no thought even, can reach it. — " When I consider
thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars,
which thou hast ordained ; what is man that thou art mindful
of him, or the son of man that thou so regardest him ?" "For
thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast
crowned him with glory and honour — thou hast put all things
under his feet." " I have created him for my glory," saith the
Lord, " I have formed him ; yea, I have made him."2 This is
the task set us by our Creator — to glorify Him ; and whether
or not He have done the same for other worlds, is idle for us
to inquire; inasmuch as we shall answer for ourselves and not
for them.
LXII. So also as regards the pre-Adamite existence of man,
as it is called. It is diametrically opposed to the words of Scrip
ture that " in Adam all die." Our local knowledge of the crust of
1 For the local trifling encroachments of the sea or of the land, are of no ac
count, when compared with the whole surface of the earth and of each continent.
3 Isa. xliij. 7.

346

PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION

the earth is as yet so limited, and we are thus so far from being
able to draw safe and settled conclusions from the little we know,
that no cautious mind will be in a hurry to do so, and to com
mit itself to the fallacy of judging of a period of catastrophes by
a period of rest. When, as was said just now, we have ascer
tained to what extent the diameter of the earth has either in
creased or altered during the last six thousand years, we may
then make up our mind as to whether or not we be in a transi
tion state, as regards the formation of this earth. And when,
moreover, undoubted human remains proved to be anterior to
the Adamite period — nay, to the Noachic Deluge — are found,
it will then be time enough for men to decide, who wish to hold
by the Bible, without shutting their eyes to matters of fact.
For, indeed, we cannot be expected to put faith in pre- Adamite
specimens and in pre-Adamite speculations, of which we know
nothing, until we see brought forward well authenticated re
mains of the human race which we know to have existed ere it
was destroyed by the waters of the Flood. Let us first have
this well established by proofs which ought to be forthcoming
somewhere, in recent strata or even in the ' diluvium / and
when we have set before us one whole and perfect fossil human
skeleton to every thousand human beings who lived in the days
of Noah, we may then proceed to consider the other so-called
remains of another period several thousand years older.
We have all the more right to claim such undeniable proofs
of the assertions of geologists, ere we change our mind, as
" modern science" as it is called, argues for a local Deluge.
Since then, even under this supposition the whole race of man
which was then destroyed, must have been limited to one country
of no very great extent, human fossil remains of that date,
cannot be past finding out, if all the theories, the assumptions,
and the systems founded on modern discovery be correct. On
the contrary ; if everything were so sure and so clear as certain
theorists affirm, and if results were logically deduced from the
causes or premisses they pretend to have established, fossil
human remains ought to be at least as plentiful and as well
preserved as those of plesiosauri and of iguanodons, said by
them to be immeasurably more ancient, or as the delicate fresh
water molluscs in a fossil state, which they tell us are more recent.

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 347
LXIII. The truth is, that geology which of all sciences is one
of observation, is as yet in its infancy, and from the very nature
of its subject matter and of the circumscribed limits of its obser
vations, it bids fair never to grow up to childhood. It is easy
to make diagrams of small localities, — but to reason on these,
and to infer from these particulars to the whole is too illogical
to suit a well constituted mind. Hence the infinite variety of
theories, and the yet greater variety of deductions from them
and of opinions about things which after all, we cannot know
with any certainty.
And lest I should be thought prejudiced in favour of my own
way of thinking, I will give a better opinion than mine, that of
a very able naturalist who, while he denies * creation' by God as
we who receive the Bible believe it, and attributes the formation
of vegetables to the bare and accidental combination of ' natural
causes' independent of the Creator's will — nevertheless bears
unconsciously witness to the record of Holy Writ.
"As long," says M. Raspail,1 "as geology limited itself to
the study of the nature and of the order of the strata that cover
the crust of the earth, it brought about results which cannot be
gainsaid. But, the mind of man does not long tarry in the
study of details ; it soon wearies of mere classification — and not
only wishes to know what every being is, but also whence it
comes; and here it is that difficulties in geology increase. —
Every step it makes must be first dug by hand ; and science,
that does not create but only observes, had not a sufficient
number of bands able to dig into this immense labyrinth ;
whence it happens that the amount of our knowledge in geology
is next to nothing, compared with what we do not know, which
cannot even be guessed at. We have found that the surface of
the earth known to geologists, is to the globe, as a pin's head
is to a sphere sixteen feet (seventeen English feet) in diameter.
Now, if one gave a chemist a fragment the size of a pin's head,
broken off a sphere sixteen (seventeen) feet in diameter, and
asked him to tell the substance of the whole from the analysis
of this one fragment, he would assuredly answer, that the in
ference from the one to the other would be very rash. And if
instead of only one fragment, we gave him three, broken off at
1 Nouveau Systeme de Physiologie Vegetale, vol. ii. p. 320, sq.

348

PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION

various parts of the. sphere, and all these fragments differed
in some respects the one from the other, he certainly would say
that the process by which one would pretend to judge of the
whole sphere from these three specimens, was wrong.
" Modern geologists, however, have not been so wise and so
cautious in their theories about the successive catastrophes of
the globe. A somewhat hasty survey of about twenty quarries
in the neighbourhood of Paris was enough for Cuvier to enable
him to tell us the history of the primitive world.1 There is
nothing algebraical in his calculations, and his demonstrations
are plain enough. He counts the number of species found in
each layer, and enrolled in our lists. When a certain number
of species occurs constantly in several layers or strata, one over
another, he makes a formation of these several strata ; and thus
divides the series of geological strata into several formations,
characterized only by the presence of the same animal species.
Then, finding that, according to his view of the case, the species
found in an upper formation do not occur in a lower one, he
concludes that, at the time of the lower formation, the animal
species of the upper formation did not exist. On this hypo
thesis he held in his hand the genealogical table of animals, and
the order in which they had appeared ou the surface of the
globe ; and he showed that oviparous animals preceded the vivi
parous, since the crocodiles of Honfleur lie under the chalk,
the seals and grampuses in the shell limestone; while land mam
malia appear only in strata above the coarse limestone, that is,
in the gypsum or ' plaster of Paris' formation, in fresh water and
alluvial deposits.
"Thus zoophytes, molluscs, and crustaceous animals, with
trilobites, appear in transition strata ; from the old red sand
stone to the lias the strata contain vertebrated animals, sau-
rians, turtles, &c. Then come the ichthyosauri, and in the
chalk sharks' teeth, encrinites, &c. ; as in tertiary formations
remains of birds and of mammifera. Then, however, salt and
fresh water covered alternately the same soils ; in flowed the
sea, slowly to deposit the chalk; and after that fresh- water
lakes to line it with plastic clay. Back came the sea to cover
this with coarse limestone, and then it retreated before the fresh
1 Ossemens fossiles, Discours pr&im.

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 349
waters that deposited the gypsum. These again withdrew before
the sea that brought the thin layer of oyster-clay of Mont-
martre ; and at last fresh waters returned, and remained there
to leave calcareous marls and millstone grit, with fresh-water
shells analogous to those of our own lakes : and last of all came
man. Such was the system of Cuvier. Astronomers, into
whose hands the sea did not play as into his, laughed in secret
at his system, which only in 1829 was declared to rest on false
premisses." — " He wrote as if nothing could happen to upset
his fabric ; whereas every day tended to contradict it. The ver-
tebrated animals of the gypsum have been found in plenty with
fresh-water shells in coarse limestone, as they had before been
found in chalk ; and sea and fresh-water shells were found to
gether elsewhere frequently. All this tended to modify the
system, which, however, many would not give . up ; and fossil
botany, like fossil zoology, at first thought settled, has since
been repeatedly taken to pieces.
" This comes from our trying to measure the vast and over
whelming catastrophe to which we succeeded from the paltry
results of our local meteorology. We have seen the whole
world in the small corner of earth we scrape with our feeble
hands ; we have drawn up the geography of the primitive world
after the scale of a few square miles ; we have rebuilt the ancient
world with four or five specimens brought from the museum
of the Geological Society; in short, we, as it were, witnessed
' en famille' what took place at the Creation. But let us return
to facts recorded in Nature, and to logic.
1. "Were the geological strata deposited on the crust of
granite, according to laws different from existing ones ? — No ;
for we may reproduce them over a few feet square of ground,
with all their characteristic features. Yea, even in a tumbler
we may trace from the same liquid as many as five distinct
layers or deposits, always in the same order — that of the specific
gravity of their respective particles. These layers may again be
multiplied through the reaction of some ingredient likely to
produce it, and as it would take place in still water. But the
waters of an overflow, that would sweep everything before them,
stirring up the mud of such a sediment, and carrying it thus
distributed within them down to a lower level, when, meeting

350 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
with some obstacle, and thus for a moment being at rest, would
deposit their contents according to the relative gravity of these,
the sand at the bottom, and organic matter at the top ; and if,
the moment the sand was deposited at the bottom, the waters
again brake through their temporary obstacle, they would then
leave as deposit only the layer of sand perfectly clean, and carry
with them .every other particle of mud. Only look at the sand
left by the tide on the strand, and at the mud the same tide
deposits when at rest, in docks or in a close harbour. More
over, since the laws of physiology are dependent on physical
laws, and inseparable from them, if beings either identical with
those which exist at present, or like them, existed then, the
conditions of the atmosphere, &c, must have also been the
same as now.
2. " Does the greater or less thickness of strata overlaying
one another imply a longer or a shorter time for their respec
tive formation ? — By no means. It is of course evident that
the deepest layer was deposited first, and the next after it, and
so on ; but it is easy to conceive that the greatest number of
strata observed on a given point of the globe might have been
deposited within the narrow space of one astronomical day ; all
that is required is, to grant to the wave or waves that brought
them adequate power for it. Count, on a vertical section, the
various strata left one over the other by an inundation, such as
those which often occur in France ; you will frequently find the
number of them equal to that observed on the highest moun
tains, only you will find the substance and the proportions of
them infinitely smaller. Nevertheless, the aggregate of this
diluvium will sometimes amount to several metres. Now con
sider : this torrent which has just overflowed the land in one of
these inundations was hardly one hundred metres in length ;
and, admitting that its deposit would be one metre thick, how
many metres thick of deposit would such an overflow two hun
dred leagues (six hundred miles) in length leave after it?
Nearly thirty thousand feet in depth; that is, considerably
higher than the highest peak of the Himalayas, or of the Andes.
Yet such an overflow would hardly cover the country that
stretches between the Pyrenees and the Alps ; and the geology
of pre-historic diluvia implies much more extensive and more

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 351
powerful currents. Still, that geology hardly likes to face such
a mass of water and the results thereof; it finds it easier to
make a world after its own fancy, than to explain the one that
is on a scale too great for its narrow sight.
3. " Does the difference in texture and in chemical nature of
the several- strata imply that each is the deposit of a distinct
current, or of a special overflow ? — No ; since from the same
liquid we obtain deposits in several layers of different thickness
and of a different chemical nature. It is true that we find in the
earth the same layers separated by thick strata of a different
kind; but the same occurs in every inundation. Such a tor
rent is not like a river flowing quietly in its bed ; it is rather a
tumultuous concourse of currents, of counter currents, and of
eddies, which are less and less rapid as they are further from
their starting point. Meanwhile the counter currents tend to
quiet the effect of the overflow, until a fresh wave come to put
again the whole mass in motion. Since the deposits depend on
these several causes, the eddies and the counter currents will
leave deposit over deposit in a spiral shape, if followed from end
to end, although in a vertical section they look as if they were
overlaid ; while on each side of the eddies currents will have left
deposits of a different nature and texture. When we think of
currents and of counter currents six hundred miles in length,
we cannot wonder at regular and homogeneous stratifications of
more than a hundred and twenty miles in extent.
4. " The fact of a layer being without organic remains does
not prove that it contained none when formed, inasmuch as
there are numberless organic beings, both animals and plants,
with a soft skeleton which rapidly decays; as we see it take
place in certain soils and in lime. Thus vegetables soaked in
water, and deposited in a limestone or chalky formation, would
decay as completely as zoophytes, worms, molluscs, &c, in the
course of a few years. Whence it follows, that the number of
organic remains found in geological strata does not represent
anything like that of the beings that were then overwhelmed.
At one and the same time the same wave of the overflow might
both cover a space with sand or gravel and bury a forest, the
remains of which are seen in our coal-beds.
" Hence it appears that all the animals and all the vegetables

352 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
found in the strata of the earth existed at the same time, and
all perished in the same overthrow, from the ox, the elk, and
the elephant, to the belemnite and the trilobite, and to man
himself. Man was witness of this catastrophe, and his remains
must be found some day, as well as those of the horse and of
the camel that did him service in those days."
LXIV. I regret that I cannot, in these few pages, give at
length the whole of a very clear and logical statement, wherein
the writer evidently considers Noah's flood as the catastrophe that
produced the geological phsenomena of the crust of the earth. At
all events, and without adopting the cant phrase of " adapting
geology to Scripture," he accounts satisfactorily for facts re
specting which men the most versed in the science differ from
each other widely and essentially. We can quite well under
stand, according to his view of the subject, the formation of
certain intricate deposits, their breaking asunder by their own
weight, and thus presenting the appearance they do, which it
is vain to attribute to general upheavings after formations made
by water in a state of rest. We really have, on the whole, so
very little knowledge of the subject that is not empirical, that,
amid the confusion of systems, of opinions, of assumptions, of
doubt, and of absolute ignorance of the real state of the case,
we may at least adopt the most simple as well as the most
plausible explanation of the phsenomena we see, in the small por
tions of the surface and of the eight thousandth of the diameter
of our globe, accessible to us. This system at least gives us a
rational idea, almost in the words of Scripture, of the awful up
turning and overwhelming catastrophe, which we cannot picture
to ourselves apart from our faith in " the fountains of the great
deep being broken up,"1 and in " the windows of heaven being
opened ;" when the waters of the great deep mingled with those
of heaven in chaotic confusion, to leave after-traces of their cur
rents, counter currents, and eddies rushing from north to south,
in the ridges of mountains, the outline of continents, and in the
principal currents of the sea, now comparatively at rest. The
words of Scripture are of course explained away by many theo
rists in their own way ; nevertheless the most reasonable study
of the present physical aspect of the world brings us back to
1 Gen. vii. 11.

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 353
those very words, which tell us very briefly of the most awful
convulsion our planet ever experienced, and explain the causes
of certain results which, apart from those sacred words, we can
not account for.
LXV. With this question is connected that of the formation
of species, lately revived in this country, and, like that of the
Creation and of the Diluvial overthrow, treated at variance with
the letter of Scripture. This is not the place to enter fully into
the subject. I will only state what appear to me to be objec
tions to such propositions.
First — we have no warrant in Scripture for such a formation
or filiation of species as that proposed.
Secondly — the fact that certain species which we know to
have existed before they were fossilized/both among molluscs
and Crustacea, fishes, saurians, and mammals, as well as among
the vegetables of the then world, being lost, and no longer
existing, is against the supposition of the development of an
indefinite number of species from the same type, apart from
the overruling will and wisdom of the Creator. For if, in the
space of four thousand years, this pretended endless formation
of species, though always formed with regard to the one original
type, which is like the centre from which they start, and around
which their successive formations are said to revolve, has not
returned to the type or species lost, we are indeed reasoning in
a circle, to no purpose whatever. Whereas certain species; we
see and know, do disappear, yet not to return ; despite the type
of them, said to exist.
Thirdly — our experience only goes to show that the very, very
rare instances in which this mixture of species, or this growth
of one species out of another, may, perhaps, be said to exist in na
ture, are only exceptions that prove the rule of God's infinite va
riety of design, as well as of immutability of purpose in Creation.
Not only is this evident tio our senses, but we have monuments
thereof in the drawings of plants and in the mummies of birds
upwards of three thousand years' old — the same then as we now
find growing and alive. The insignificant proportion of from
forty to fifty hybrids in nature among plants, to the myriads of
known species, and the fact of such a case hardly ever occurring
in the animal world, are assuredly sufficient proofs of the Will
A A

354 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
and of the Order that reign throughout ; especially when we
descend as far as we can from the mere outward appearance of
Nature into the marvellous harmony and incomprehensible wis
dom of its most minute and hidden details.
Fourthly — the influence of climate alone may, and does, affect
the growth and physiological functions of plants and of animals,
but does not change one species into another; although it may
effect varieties which do not propagate by seed. On the con
trary, facts show that plants depend mostly on the soil and on
the temperature, without which they cannot live. Thus may
we draw a line across a continent north or south of which the
vine or the olive will not grow. On the other hand, the same
species may reappear in totally different climates and localities ;
showing how little there is of accident and how much of wisdom
and of Providence in the distribution of both vegetable and
animal life all over the world, according to the requirements of
every climate or country. Thus the curlew does not become an
ibis in Egypt, neither does the Ibis falcinellus become a curlew
in England. The hooded crows I fed every morning in Bengal
were the same species that I see in the North of Scotland ;
the Alcedo Smyrniensis, which I kept for weeks in India, in
company with the A. Bengalensis, is precisely the same species
that I shot on the banks of the sea of Galilee ; the kite of Bengal,
the kite of Palestine, and the kite of England are the same species ;
the- Pier is Daplidice, Pol. Phlteas and Virgaurea, Corydon and
Alexis I caught at Tyre, and on the hills of Galilee, were exactly
the same one may catch in England also ; the silvery tufts of Bry.
argenteum and Grim, pulvinata I often noticed at the Cape cer
tainly struck me as the same I had found in this country, until
I discovered a slight difference in the leaf; likewise the Ophr.
Apifera, or bee-orchis of Galilee and of the neighbourhood of
Jerusalem, is the same as that of the chalky neighbourhood of
Dorking ; so also specimens of Papaver, Echium, Lycopsis, and
several other species are found the same in Palestine, on the
banks of the Tigris, in the South of France, and in England.
LXVI. When we see instances of this in Nature, side by side
with plants that would die under the same circumstances, and
wheat, which, being necessary to man, not only is of most
climates and soils, but also preserves its vitality for thousands of

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 355
years, while other seeds, not so useful, lose it by the mere touch
of the hand, we see therein no accident, but a reason, even if we
cannot always find it out. Yea, orchids, the very plants chosen
as an example, show, by the rare instance of hybrids among them
when growing wild, despite the complicated mode of their fecun
dation, that, but for the overruling Will of the Creator, Who
gave a place and Who set a work to do to every member of His
wonderful household, the Universe — which for us especially, is
the earth — hybrids and all manner of such confusion would be
the rule, instead of being the very rare exception. And, to
reason from what takes place in plants in the artificial state of
cultivation, when God's laws are thwarted by man's fancies,
to what takes place in Nature when such plants are left free to
obey those laws, or to what might happen if things were different
from what they are, is really to reason about ' ifs' and ' ands' to
very little purpose. We might as well argue that, since certain
plants, like certain animals, may be propagated by cuttings, that
depend entirely on their physical organization, therefore cut
tings are the normal and general mode of reproduction, instead of
the seed made for that purpose, and common to all vegetables —
as to reason from the capabilities of organic bodies tried and
proved in a garden, to what is found in Nature, acting in obe
dience to her Creator's Will. But such reasoning is neither
logical nor sound. Nay, such a generation of fictitious species, as
a general rule, is not only shown to be impossible by facts, that
prove such abnormal beings to be seldom capable of reproducing
themselves and their confusion of species, but it seems also to
be a theory — it is no more — against the words of Scripture,
" that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that
things which are seen were not made of things which do ap
pear,"1 as well as in direct contradiction to the positive state
ment that at God's bidding " the earth brought forth grass, and
herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit,
whose seed is in itself, after his kind : and God saw that it was
good." " And God made the beast of the earth after his kind,
and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon
the earth after his kind : and God saw that it was good."2
So true is this> and so inherent in every organic being is the
1 Heb. xi. 2. 2 Gen. i. 11, 12, 20—25.
A A 2

356 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
law by which it perpetuates its existence, according to the ge
neral type or pattern set to it by God, that, no sooner has man
through cultivation succeeded in destroying the order and har
mony of Nature by, for instance, transforming necessary organs
into superfluous ones, as in the case of double flowers, than the
plant ceases to be able to reproduce itself naturally. And when
no organs are thus destroyed, but only a variety of either fruit
or flower is produced by gardening, the seed of the fruit or
flower thus treated tends to reproduce the original type of the
tree or of the plant ; as in the case of grafted trees, the seed of
which yields wild fruit-trees, that require grafting ere they can
be available for man. Yet, in the face of such, and of other
like facts that prove the truth of the words of Scripture, which
alone explain the common phsenomena of organic Nature, "mo
dern science and philosophy" tell us that, at first, and ere the
rock of which the surface of the earth consists became coated
with soil, it got gradually covered with vegetable substance like
unto green mould, wrought by natural causes, such as damp,
heat, and other agencies ; and that this rudimentary vegetable
gradually developed itself into all the various plants and trees
that adorn the earth ! Animals then grew by ' a similar pro
cess/ something like the rats of Herodotus, half rat, half mud ;
and as to man, he was originally, according to an Italian ' phi
losopher/ a fish that swam ashore, where its fins and tail gra
dually altered into hands and feet; while others find in mon
keys and gorillas types of themselves ! Rightly, perhaps ; since
'philosophers' of this sort not only prove the words of the
Apostle true, that, " professing themselves to be wise, they be
came fools,"1 even humanly speaking, since they argue for a
fact psychologically impossible, but they also, says a higher
authority than mine,2 besides being infidels, " muss sich selbst
erst griindlich verthiert haben," must have thoroughly brutalized
themselves ere they can arrive at such a conclusion.
We may, indeed, smile, or perhaps feel interested, when we
read in Tibetan annals of the sweet, cream-like substance which
at first covered the earth, and out of which the Lha-mas of Lha-sa
grew like so many sugar-canes. But when the same sort of
1 Rom. i. 22.
3 Delitzsch, Der Mensch als Ziel, &c. Bibl. Psychol, p. 59.

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 357
lore is taught in a Christian country, in the full blaze of re
vealed light and knowledge, one hardly knows whether most to
pity the ignorance, or to wonder at the folly of men who seem
bent on stultifying themselves, by ascribing to what they call
" natural agencies," ' natura naturans,' facts and results which
cannot be, apart from the Will and the Wisdom of an overruling
and Almighty Creator. But when, further, we are told to
reconcile this " modern science and philosophy" with the Bible,
— that is, to bring the Bible to it, and not it to the Bible,—
we are at a loss to know what those who say that think of their
intellect, ability, and learning, or of our own. We will examine,
search, discover, and admire the marvellous wisdom of God in
His works, as an act of worship ; but shut our eyes to His Pre
sence among them, and ascribe them to chance, and with " mo
dern science and philosophy" to reconcile darkness with Light.
Not as long as we retain our faculties ; when bereft of them,
possibly we may. Till then, we will keep to the words of Scrip
ture, as to the only true, sensible, and intelligent statement of
existing facts.
LXVII. It is also, I may add, against my whole experience
to see aught in Nature but the working together in perfect har
mony of the Almighty Will, Infinite Wisdom, Absolute Rule,
and Supreme Intelligence of Him Who made all things good.
Taking pleasure as I do in the study of God's works, I col
lected very many birds, insects, plants, and other inmates of
this beautiful world, and I observed wherever I went, East or
West ; but never, as far as my observation goes, have I found a
feather out of place in a bird, so as to confound one species with
another, nor a hybrid among insects I caught, nor yet among
the flowers I gathered. I have always found the characters of
the species and those of the genera constant. Only once did I
see a S. hippophaes, a B. pudibunda, and a Noctua, exhibit a
'lusus natures'; but they had been reared in captivity, and the
mode of transformation of insects- may render such cases less
impossible than in other orders of animals. Yet these amount,
of course, to no more than to monstrosities of double birth in
animals, or of abnormal excrescences in sundry umbelliferse,
ferns, mosses, &c, allowed as examples to show what a scene of
confusion Nature would be, but for the Ruler thereof. I have,

358 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
like everybody else, met with accidental varieties, chiefly in the
want of colouring matter of the tissues, as among certain animals
and often among birds ; as, e.g., a white pipit, a starling speckled
with white, &c. ; and I had last spring a black and white black
bird on my lawn, that reared in the adjoining shrubbery a nest of
four young ones, all, however, of the orthodox brown and black.
It certainly never occurred to me to look upon these as upon
the beginning of a new species ; any more than one white egg
among four other blue ones in a dunnock's nest struck me as
introducing a new colour among the dunnocks, or the winter
dress of ptarmigans, &c, a new fashion among those birds. But,
when I invariably found the grey variety of the cuckoo's egg in
the nest of the common wagtail, and the brown variety in the nest
either of a land or of a wood-lark, so that these birds might sit
without suspicion upon the egg, not their own, introduced into
their nest, I saw therein neither chance nor accident, but a sin
gular proof of sagacity in the bird that lays the egg, and then
carries it to the nest of eggs best agreeing in colour with its
own ; and one of the innumerable instances of God's Presence
among His works, shown in the instinct He gives to His crea
tures, from the least even unto the greatest, and which is past
finding out.
With Eusebius,1 then, with Linnseus, and with many more
great and sensible men, we may look upon the constancy of
species, as an evident proof of God's Rule, and of His Presence
in Nature. We can only wonder and adore, and with the Psalm
ist say, " 0 Lord, how manifold are thy works ! in wisdom hast
thou made them all ; the earth is full of thy riches." And we
may safely leave philosophers who pretend to know better, to
find out and tell us, for instance, by what law of Nature inherent
in matter the same kind of oak grows year after year out of the
same kind of acorn, and does not gradually become either a
beech, a hazel, or a chesnut, all of the same family ; also why
the feet of the bee, like those of the wood-louse, are always all
of even length, and as perfect in all their parts as their own feet,
or as those of the elephant.
LXVIII. In fact, life is too short to enable us to go deep
into the marvels of this visible world, on which God has written
1 Theophan. Syr. Book i. 10, sq.

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 359
His Name in a wonderful manner, and which He alone rules
and governs. Our intellect has more than enough to do, baffled
as it is almost at every effort, to study and try to understand
the things we see, and hear, and touch, without turning from
these, its first object, to raise itself against the Word and the
Wisdom of Him Who says to man : Understand these things of
to-day first, then try to understand Me, Who am past finding
out. For the intellect, we have seen, cannot enter into the
very commonest things of life; neither has it yet discovered
anything of positive knowledge that proves any important record
of the Bible untrue. All that sound reason can do as regards
geology is to collect specimens, class them, observe and study
the order and formation of strata. Yet so little do we know
positively even of this, that to reason thence to the whole is un
sound and empirical. We know it not ; and, most assuredly,
shall never know it in this world. How far may, for instance,
geology expect to penetrate into the interior of the earth ? — at
the utmost, say two miles. Even then, what is that to the
three thousand, nine hundred and ninety odd miles left of the
half diameter of the globe ? And when will those who talk so
big of " modern science and philosophy" know anything at all
of the rocks underlying the mighty deep, that they should 'have
the assurance to raise their discoveries and their knowledge —
which are as ' nothing' to what yet remains to be discovered and
known — in opposition to Holy Scripture and. to the Faith, re
verence, and worship we poor weak human beings, creatures of a
day, owe to that Word of God ? So, then, neither geology nor
any other theoretical or empirical science, nor yet questions be
longing thereto, put and answered thereby, that bind God's
power with human cobwebs, need disturb the Faith of any one
man in the Bible. He may collect his fossils in peace, and
gather his plants with delight ; they are intended as a link in
the chain that binds him to God, for they are His work.
LXIX. But enough of this. The truth is, that if the Bible
were any other book — if it did not bear witness of itself and of its
divine origin ; such witness, too, that a man must either love or
hate it — men would worship it for the beauty of its diction, for the
sublimity of its ideas, for the purity of the precepts it teaches, for
the greatness of its morality, for the glory of its promises and

360 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [REVELATION
for the value of the history which it alone imparts. They would
grant it all the respect which the proofs of its authenticity and
the marvellous agreement of the whole command, written as it
has been at various times, extending over nearly two thousand
years, by men of different countries and of different minds. All
this combined would lead thinking men to conclude that such a
Book cannot be human, but that its origin is from a higher
region than mere human intellect, and that there must have
been some divine element at work in it.
For we may well ask, where is there a book to be compared
with it, even in a literary point of view? We admire some of
the Vedic hymns, as well we may, at least in their own unrivalled
idiom ; some of the oldest parts of the Avesta have a peculiar
beauty of their own ; some also of the Egyptian hymns sung to
Atum or to Osiris, in the days of Abraham and of Joseph, are
invested with a mixed feeling of wonder and of veneration,
owing a little to their beauty, but chiefly to their being, as it
were chanted from the tombs. Many passages in Confucius, in
Lao-tsze, and in Manu, are beautiful and touching, as are also
very many found in Plato. But they are all lifeless and dead.
They attempt to describe a God they know not, and they can
not impart a life they have not ; and however we may and
ought to admire them as relics of olden time, and as reflecting,
to a certain extent, the glimmer of refracted Truth, yet they are
in themselves helpless for real good. They speak, some to the
intellect, others to the imagination, and some to neither; but
they are one and all powerless to reach the heart.
How is it then, that the Bible should be singled out even by
some of those who profess to believe it, as the butt of their
bitterest invectives and of their untiring hatred and aversion ?
Simply for this reason — that the other books, being helpless
and harmless, assert no authority, and exercise no real influence
over man ; whereas the very sight of the Bible exercises its own
silent influence and asserts its own calm authority over the heart
and mind, even of him who hates it and who tries to gainsay it.
But with what success and with what result, besides an evil
conscience, and remorse at having done so, those enemies of the
Truth may confess, who are not yet past feeling. There is no
better practical proof — and one worth a host of arguments — of

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 361
the Divine origin and spiritual authority of the Bible, than the
untiring efforts of its adversaries to gainsay it. A Bengalee
proverb says : " No one throws stones at a tree that bears no
fruit ;" no ' philosophers' would throw their stones at the Bible
if it did not bear fruit which they dislike, because of the pride
and of the conceit of what they call their " intellect, their ability,
and their learning ;" as if the intellect were such that does not
lead man towards God ; as if his ability deserved the name,
unless it helps him the better to study God's Word ; and as if
that was good learning and real, that is not fit to be laid as
an offering at the foot of our Saviour's Cross !
The same man, for instance, who expatiates on some common
place remark of Plato or of Cicero will call the Book of Proverbs
"the work of an apostate king who was in advance of his age."
In advance so far, that he never has been reached by any of his
followers. It may be, that, quite apart from Faith or no faith,
one mind cannot enter into the ways of thought of another mind
differently constituted. One may not therefore understand,
how a man, who calls himself a Christian and may be, holds a
high office in the Church, can bring himself to express such a
sentiment. My experience, I must confess, leads me to the
very opposite conclusion. I have invariably found when com
paring the sayings of heathen philosophers with the Proverbs,
that these were, to use the words of an Indian poet, like " a
topaz, giving lustre to bits of glass brought close to it."1 One
has real worth, and carries authority and conviction ; the other
only gives pleasure in proportion as it coincides with its model
or prototype in Eternal Wisdom. For as there is only one
centre of light in our system, so also there is only one Truth,
one Wisdom, one Faith ; and nothing is wise or true that does
not come from thence and return thither.
LXX. The Christian philosopher then, whose principles apx*i,
whose elements or articles of Faith oroi^eTa are in God, and
1 During the course of my reading I have collected several thousand passages
from Mandchu, Chinese, and other Asiatic writers, to illustrate parallel passages
of the Proverbs. If this should meet the eyes of the dignitary who is reported
to have made use of the expression above quoted, and he happens to have tra
velled over the same road I have as regards that Book, I shall feel greatly
obliged to him for allowing me to compare his notes with mine, that I may see
how it is we arrive at such opposite results of the same experience.

362 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
who, by means of the Spirit of God brought into communion
with his spirit through Faith — kvaxu^ag elg to ov ovrwg — looks,
as it were, into the Truth as regards himself and his position
towards God, understands both. As regards himself — his own
consciousness tells him he is a fallen creature ; and his intellect,
striving to grasp that which ever escapes it, confesses itself
limited, weak, and as helpless to find the way to God, as his
unaided moral being is powerless to keep to it. He therefore
admits honestly, that " in him dwelleth no good thing." And
his position towards God, is — that of a creature wholly depen
dent on its Creator, whom it had offended past reconciliation on
its part, but to whom it has been reconciled freely, frankly, and
fully on God's part through His Beloved Son.
And he feels, and indeed sees, that the part and duties of this
dependent condition are, to obey without saying a word or even
thinking it ; it is, therefore, to trust without after thought or
misgiving ; and as proof of this filial love, to await the Father's
orders ; to receive them unconditionally, and to yield to His
will in all things ; — it is his Father's will ; that is enough.
This begets, if I may so speak, mutual confidence between the
Father and His child ; and this confidence is the reward of
Faith and of obedience, through which the child proves the love,
the faithfulness, the mercy, the pity, the justice and the wisdom
of his Father ; — and this is to him the source of a " peace that
passeth all understanding," that keeps the child's heart under
his Father's smile, and gives him a foretaste of Heaven. His
Father's Word " is a lamp unto his feet and a light unto his
path." He does not question that light ; it is his only real com
fort in sorrow, his peace in trouble, his guide in difficulty, and his
hope in distress. True, there are in it things which he does not
understand ; but, what else does he really understand in this his
earthly state, as yet away from his home, a pilgrim heavenwards ?
His eyes are dim,* and he is now dull of understanding; he
will therefore, judge nothing before the time, but he will wait,
until his fallen nature be risen again glorious, until he see what
he now hopes for; until he know as he is known. Meanwhile,
his Father's Word is for him holy and sacred, ayiog. He re
spects the things in it which he does not yet understand out of
love for those he knows; and from a firm Faith in his Father's

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 363
kindness, wisdom, and faithfulness, at no price will he lay an
impious hand on so sacred a trust ; it is holy, unto the Lord.
He might question, inquire, doubt, — but no ; never, as regards
his Father, or His Word. He knows his place is, to walk by
Faith, that is — to obey, making his Father's will his own,
trusting in His promises, and in a sure hope of eternal life —
and he does it. Such is his philosophy ; it is reasonable, for it
is the philosophy of Faith; it is true, for it begins with God, it
rests in God, and it ends in God ; and it is enduring ; for the
end thereof is Everlasting Life.
LXXI. Far from this are philosophers whose wisdom is their
own, whose philosophy begins with them, rests on them, and
ends in them ; whose will is to follow their own ; whose obe
dience is, practically, to themselves alone ; whose only light is
the glimmer of their own intellect ; whose hope is ill-defined
because it is not sure. No wonder; they will none of Faith.
If ever they acknowledge themselves fallen creatures, they cer
tainly do not act as if they did ; but they are evermore striving
after what they never will obtain with their own efforts ; they
are, as the Buddhist tells them, "like bees buzzing in a glass
case," yet thinking all the while they are flying upwards. In
reality, the God they seek, is the God they fancy; not the Per
sonal and spiritual God who reveals Himself in His Word ; for
they gainsay or doubt, or despise this Word. They acknowledge
no guide but what they call their Reason ; they obey no laws
but those of their own will ; they cast off all Rule of Faith,
all creed, all dogma, as not made for them ; they are, in reality,
and whatever they may think, like men sailing in a mist, with
out compass, chart, or time-keeper.
As our Faith, so is our Hope. Ask them what hope they
have ? Whether they " have confidence towards God," or that
peace of mind and of conscience which nothing gives but the
surrender of ' self and of ' self-will' through humble Faith and
obedience to God ? Therefore do such philosophers ill brook to
see others who, knowing how utterly helpless is their own in
tellect, their ability, or their learning, to secure them a moment's
happiness, seek it elsewhere, and find it in walking by Faith ; in
studying to forget themselves and in actively placing themselves
at God's mercy. The dry, lifeless philosophy of intellect has

364 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
nothing in common with this. What then can such men do ?
Too proud or too vain to acknowledge either their error, or the
utter inability of their intellect to satisfy the natural cravings
of their spirit after better things — they set about trying to de
stroy the Faith and the Hope of those whom they see happier
than themselves, so as to bring them into their own ways ; as
a quieting thought to their uneasy conscience — that when so
many either think or walk alike, they must all of course, be
right. Such philosophers strive to raise themselves, not by rising
higher, but by lowering others to their own level ; for a man
lowers himself who descends from Faith to mere belief — from
the child's Faith to " the faith of the devils who believe in God
and tremble" — and from belief to Reason ; since Faith is, as
we have seen, a fruit of the Spirit ; but mere belief is of the
intellect, and Reason, that is, Rationalism, is of neither.
Such philosophers must of course make disciples, but among
whom ? Certainly not among the really intelligent who make
the best use of their intellect — which is to learn to know them
selves — and who are thus brought by their intellect alone, well
directed, to seek God otherwise than through themselves. Nei
ther among the really able is this philosophy successful ; for
real ability consists in making the only right use of the powers
we have received from God, to grasp as mueh of His Truth, as
human nature can hold; nor yet among the really learned
will the mean scholarship of some of these men carry much
weight ; for scholarship does not depend on the man that deals
it, neither is it mere opinion ; but it consists in certain facts
brought together with judgment to bear on one subject ; and
learning is the knowledge of those facts.
LXXII. Learned or really well-informed men, then, who will
think — have, therefore, nothing whatever to fear from such phi
losophy. But the effect of it is great for evil on the ignorant,
the thoughtless or careless, on the clever intellectual artisans,
who seldom perhaps hear of Faith, of Hope, and of Charity,
and whose spiritual good has been, or is, neglected. Such are
too glad to follow any leaders whom they can make responsible
for their opinions, be these what they may. But as the multi
tude is led by feeling and by opinion either for good or for evil,
and neither by scholarship, by learning, nor by reasoning, it is

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR- TRUTH ? 365
evident, that if they see the Bible attacked or gainsaid, the
worship of God and His Church lowered before them by men
to whom they naturally look up as to their guides — they lose at
once, there and then, the only guarantee for their individual,
and thus also for their national - good conduct and morality —
the fear of God and reverence for His Word. The multitude
stands, practically, towards the Bible as towards a clock. Not
one in a thousand of those who look at the town-clock to guide
them in their daily business knows anything of its construction.
Watch-makers and a few others know it, and may reason upon
the combined forces of the mechanism of that clock. Yet, after
all, even these derive no greater practical benefit from it than
those who even, perhaps, think the clock alive — and that benefit
is — to know the time. What should we think of one of these
watch-makers, not only stopping the town-clock, but taking it
to pieces, and throwing the works at the feet of the people, say
ing : We have all been wrong in keeping time hitherto ; we had
better go by the sun — whether it shines or not ? Those who
had watches or clocks in their own homes, might be independent
of such wanton mischief; but what state would the people of
the town be in ? To say the least, would it be sensible, judicious^
kind, and considerate towards them ?
LXXIII. Likewise does the Bible guide and influence the
multitude unto salvation by teaching the Truth, right feeling, and
morality, never taught by intellect and philosophy. This is its
work, whether with the learned or with the ignorant ; and the
work it does, is its own witness. There is not much intellect at
work in the poor cottager who opens the Word of God, and
reads out of it to his children around him. The amount of
understanding brought to bear on the reading, whether from
the father or from the children, is very small indeed ; yet who
will deny that the moral effect thereof is great, — the greatest, —
for good ? But if they be told by men whom they trust that it
is not the Word of God, what will become of the moral good it
might have worked on those souls ? To the poor the Gospel is
preached, " and to the poor in spirit belongs the kingdom of
heaven ;" and whosoever directly or indirectly robs them of that
inheritance, has a Judge who will judge him, when He avenges
their rights, and sifts every man's work to reward him accord-

366 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
ingly. God has entrusted the people to His Church, and in
the Church to her pastors and teachers, and He will require at
their hands the souls who perish either from want of knowledge,
or through false teaching. These pastors and teachers ought
to discuss certain things among themselves, as their duty is to
do, and as indeed they may, with profit to themselves : but
there is a wide difference between this and acting without re
morse the part Ham acted to bis brothers. If those who
boast "of their intellect, ability, and learning," choose so
far to waste these good gifts in turning them- from their lawful
use — the service of God and the salvation of their own souls
and of those of others — the fault is theirs, and they will either
receive or not the reward of their works. " But these sheep,
what have they done ?" — Why should the poor, the ignorant,
the careless, who ought to be taught aright, be further led
astray, by the worse than careless doings of many of those who
are set to watch over them, but who seem to take pleasure in
the mischief they do, by raising doubts which neither they nor
wiser men than they can settle ? Apologues are not wanting to
teach us that division among the chiefs is the death of the
people. Especially in matters of Religion. For, as Locke says :
" Most of the people reason thus : ' The founders or leaders of
my party are good men, and therefore their tenets are true ; — it
is the opinion of a sect that is erroneous, therefore it .is false ; — it
hath been long received in the world, therefore it is true ; — or, it
is new, and therefore false.' These, and many the like, which are
by no means the measures of truth and falsehood, the generality
of men make the standards by which they accustom their under
standing to judge. And thus they falling into a habit of deter
mining of truth and falsehood by such wrong measures, it is no
wonder they should embrace error for certainty, and be very posi
tive in things they have no ground for."1
Such being the case as regards by far the majority of men,
by which we understand the people or society — it is little else
than suicidal folly to teach or to preach aught either untrue,
or which from being, perhaps, only partly understood, will sap
in them the only foundation there is of moral worth — " The
fear of the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom, and the
knowledge of the Holy which is understanding." And this
1 Cond. of Underst. Sect. vi.

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 367
foundation must go if God's revealed Word is gainsaid in the
ears of the people, and His Truth wantonly disparaged.
LXXIV. The practical unsoundness of such philosophy, how
ever, is nowhere so apparent as in the sophisms and in the illo
gical shifts to which its advocates are driven in order to defend it.
A favourite argument with them in behalf of themselves is, that
they have made assertions which no one has answered ; but they
do not say whether it be owing to the wisdom or to the folly of
the assertions. We know, for instance, who may throw into
a well a stone, which many wise men may not draw out.
Does this prove the wisdom of the action or the folly of the
wise men ? Likewise a man may think himself very clever in
talking of, or in making plausible assertions respecting, things
about which no one either knows or can know anything, and
which, therefore, no one can contradict ; and because no one
can deny facts no one knows, but only the greater or less,
irt&avdv, probability of them, he in his wisdom thinks them
proved. Yet who will think so, but he and friends equally wise ?
So also with regard to the Word of God, by which I mean the
Canonical Books of the Old and of the New Testaments; a
child, or one even less wise than a child, may ask questions and
make assertions which no one can answer, simply because it
pleased Him Who caused those Books to be written for a par
ticular purpose, that such questions or assertions should be un
answerable, consistently with His own counsel respecting both
the Bible and those for whom it was caused to be written.
Thus, for instance, a man may say he will not believe in the
Pentateuch, or, at least, only in certain portions of it, because he
believes that, very far from Moses having written it, it was
written by from five to fifty different writers. The futility of
such argument appears in that, whereas all these philosophers
are one in saying they will believe what Moses wrote, hardly
two of them agree as to what portions Moses did actually write.1
This plainly shows that since their assumptions can be neither
1 " Verum, 6 Deus bone, quinam isti tandem sunt, qui dissentiones in nobis
reprehendunt ? — Cur Albertus Pighius a Cajetano, Thomas a Lombardo, Scotus
aThoma, Ochamus a Scoto, Alliensis ab Ochamo, Nominales a Realibus dissen-
tiunt ? Vix enim unquam inter se conveniunt, nisi forte, ut olim. Pharissei et
Sadducsei, aut Herodes et Pilatus, contra Christum. — Eant ergo sane, et pacem
potius inter suos domisanciant." — Apologia Eccles. Anglic, auctore Joh. Juello,
olim episc. Sarisb. p. 27, sq.

368

PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION

proved nor disproved, even by themselves, there is no reality, no
truth, in such assertions. They must, of course, have been
foreseen, but at the same time also deemed worthless, and thus
unlikely to shake the Faith of sensible men in these Books ;
otherwise they would have been answerable. For even such
inquirers grant that Faith is due to certain portions of those
Books ; only they can neither tell nor agree among themselves
as to which they be.
LXXV. But, in sooth, a man of sense will reason otherwise.
He will at once submit himself to the evident, tangible fact that
moral being created for another and a better existence, is under
the immediate, temporal, moral, and spiritual government of
his Creator. Even the beasts of the field and the birds of the
air acknowledge God's government as regards themselves and
their condition. Is it, then, reasonable to admit the moral and
spiritual government of a spiritual Creator over His creature,
partly earthly and partly moral and spiritual, without admitting
at the same time that this Creator, Who is Spirit, infinite, in
visible, eternal, has a full and unconditional right not only to
do with His creature what the potter does with the clay, but
also to govern that creature after His own will and judgment ?
Yea, rather, it is reasonable to think that such a government
exercised, as it is, over a creature both natural and spiritual, in
which " that is first which is natural, and afterwards that which
is spiritual,"1 should be temporal for the natural part of that
creature, and spiritual for the moral and spiritual part thereof?
And so, indeed, it is. This creature is governed, that is, placed
partly under the influence of temporal things that are seen,
being themselves overruled by God, and partly also under the
guidance and influence of things spiritual, which are not seen,
and eternal. But, since these are, like the Spirit that created
and that guides the spirit created and guided, as yet invisible,
this moral and spiritual government therefore, also unseen, is
acknowledged on our part only by Faith in Him that is invi
sible; since such a government of necessity implies mutual in-
1 oi irparov rb irveviiariKbv, i.\Xa rb tyvxtKbv, heira rb irvevfiariKo'v, 1 Cor.
xv. 46. Vuy.ucby Se Kal itve v/iariKbv o&x irepov BeUvvtri oGbpia. rb (ikv irpan-ov,
lv i^ovaia /cal (picrei if/vx^s, 8'^ lyVXtxiv rb Be Seirepov, iv i^ovala Kal ^»!cre
irvei/iaros, Sib irvevp.nTM6v. S. Athanas. De Incarn. Chr. vol. i. p. 620.

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 369
tercourse and relation. If we be reasonable, then, we must
either deny the existence of a spirit in us, and that of the Spirit
Who made and guides us, and thus degrade our nature through
our own folly ; or else we must admit both the existence of this
temporal, moral, and spiritual government, and that we can be
duly ruled thereby only through Faith in Him Who governs.
And God reminds even the dullest intellect of His supreme
and absolute Rule, and that, even in every-day life, man must
feel he is not his own, but under authority. He knows not the
hour of his death, nor yet how long he has to live, because his
life is in God's hands ; so that he cannot even make plans for
the- morrow without saying, " God willing," since no man may
" boast of to-morrow, for he knoweth not what a day may bring
forth."1 How could God better and oftener teach man that he
is to walk by Faith, in trust, and in hope, even as regards his
daily ways, than in making him feel he is in God's hands for
them ? But men heed not such warnings. They live, and
traffic, and make plans, as if they were their own masters, until
death takes them unawares as a fowler in his net. But the
earnest Christian, far from forgetting that he walks by Faith,
loves to be reminded of it, so as to trust his Father in all things,
" without Whose Will not a sparrow falleth to the ground ;"
asking Him to give him strength unto his day, to teach him
the way he should go, and to make it plain before him.
LXXVI. But it is also very clear, first — that, consistently with
this moral and spiritual Rule through Faith, had God made all
things plain for us, there would be no room for the exercise on
our part of Faith in Him, and through Faith, of trust, and
through trust, of obedience, and through obedience to Him in
things which He alone sees and knows, of the surrender of our
will to His will in all things, as becomes creatures to their
Creator. If we saw and read everything as it was, as it is, and
as it is to be, we should then no longer be governed spiritually
and morally by Faith, but altogether by intellect and sight ; ..
and thus as we have already seen, we should be raised above the
position of entire dependence which alone befits the fallen crea
ture of a pure and holy Creator. Neither is this dependent
state in which it reasonably befits us to live the result of mere
1 Prov. xxvii. 1.
B B

370 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [REVELATION
accident, or the simple consequence of the relation between the
creature and the Creator, for we might have been created inde
pendent of Him if He had willed it so. But this our state of
dependence, and therefore, this evident call for the exercise of
Faith, of trust, and of obedience on our part, is a further proof
of His moral and paternal government, through which He con
tinually reminds us how thoroughly " we live and move, and
have our being in Him," both temporally and spiritually; so as
to straiten the bonds of protection and of love that unite us
together. Even the heathen, looking up to heaven said :
" Mad'hu Diau-r-astu na : Pita ! May Heaven, Father, be gra
cious to us!"1 Zsu irareg —
— X*ptv Xoiffig o-u Si'Sou cPpeo-)v alo-tfia iravra,
xa) fiiov eudup.oio-iv ae) baXXovra Xoyio-fiolg,2
as an echo of prayers long since forgotten ; and as an instinct of
prayers once more to be offered in the bond of filial affection, where
by we are taught to say : Our Father which art in heaven.
LXXVII. Therefore, we conclude, that it is reasonable to ex
pect — because it is in accordance with God's spiritual govern
ment of us — that there should be things connected with His Re
velation to us, which we do not and cannot yet understand, as well
as questions which we cannot and shall not answer this side the
grave; so that, unless we receive God's Word on His own
terms, we must reject it altogether ; since He alone has a right
to make the conditions relating thereto. But, if we reject it,
we must also with it deny our spiritual nature and God's
spiritual government of us. For, things that should be plain
are made so plain in the Bible " that he may run that readeth
it." " The secret things," said Moses to the children of Israel,
" belong unto the Lord our God : but those things which are
revealed, belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we
may do all the words of this law."3 On the other hand, things
that should be kept hidden for the present, and until we ex
change Faith for sight, are so told and so hidden as purposely
to try our patience to the uttermost. " For who hath known
the mind of the Lord ? or who hath been his counsellor ?"4
1 Rig-V. i. 6, xvii. 7. > Orph. Hymn. 19.
8 Deut. xxix. 29. 4 Rom. xi. 34, 35.

AND THE BIBLE.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 371
And God is not bound to reveal unto us as much as we wish ;
but He reveals to us as much as He thinks proper, and as much
as He knows to be necessary for us in this our present state.
The whole tenour of His dealings with His Church, from
Abel to our own selves, and as exemplified especially in Abraham
is — that we should walk by Faith. Were it not so, our Saviour
would not have said to His disciples, " In patience possess ye
your souls ;" for patience which " must have her perfect work,"
is made up of Faith ; therefore of trust, and of love. However
impatient our natural intellect may often feel at being thus kept
in suspense, or at being denied so much it wishes to penetrate ;
our place is nevertheless — to wait ; to wait in Faith, and pa
tiently, until the scales fall from our eyes at the revelation of
Jesus Christ. Until that day, or rather, until we rest in sure
and certain hope of that day, we can, we shall, understand very
little of " things which never entered into the heart of man,"
but we shall have to dwell on them by Faith ; not only in the
promises themselves, and on the Truths revealed to us, but we
shall have also to take in Faith even the very Word that brings us
tidings of those promises by teaching us those objective Truths.
LXXVIII. True, we might wish to have the autographs of the
Prophets and of the Apostles. We may imagine what sensation
would create the news that Moses' autograph of the Pentateuch,
or even of one of the Bopks thereof, was at last discovered, as well
authenticated as Papyri of his age or anterior to him. Or if
even one of S. Paul's autograph epistles were brought to light,
would not the Faith of some in those Books, and through them
in the whole Canon of Scripture be strengthened ? Why then;
were those autographs, written on durable materials, and held in
greater veneration than any other Books ever written before or
after, allowed to perish and our Faith be deprived of that stay,
while documents inscribed on most perishable substance, and
others even recovered from their own ashes, were allowed to
subsist ? The reply to this is very plain. " My word," saith
the Lord, " that goeth out of my mouth shall not return unto
me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall
prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."1 Once uttered, the
Eternal Truth of that Word could never die; it defies time,
waste, wear and decay, and even if the letter of it perished the
1 Isa. lv. 10, 11.
B B 2

372' PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [THE CHURCH
spirit thereof would live evermore. But it may also be, that
comparing the weighty burden of the Scriptures with the light
matter of other works, documents of no importance whatever com
pared with the writings of the Apostles and Prophets, as regards
them it matters comparatively little whether our belief in them be
weak or strong. Whereas, we are told by revelation — yea, we
feel our own selves, that our calling is so high and so spiritual,
and the promises set before us so far above our intelligence,
that, it could not be that we should be allowed to walk towards
them by sight. Faith is for us, as it was for Abraham, our first
motive ; once held, it begets in us as it did in him, Hope ; yea
" a Hope that maketh not ashamed ;" all which, Faith and
Hope, for us, as also for Abraham, rest entirely on God's Word ;
and which in us, as in him, bear witness of the immutable Truths
that are the subject of the one and the object of the other ;
making Faith " more precious to us than gold that perisheth"
since " the end of it is the salvation of our souls ;'n and giving
us Hope as " the anchor of the soul sure and stedfast," through
all the storms of life; until we reach our Father's home.
But Faith is an act of submission to the witness God gives
us in His Word ; an act which implies * self-denial/ — the self-
denial of letting Faith take the first rank and intellect only the
second. 'Self-denial/ however, is the last act to which the
natural man will consent. Thus it happens that " all men have
not faith ;" and that so many go on trying to establish their
own intellectual righteousness — and fail. Therefore also does
S. Paul after having shown to the saints of Achaia that " the
wisdom of the world is foolishness with God," give them this
solemn charge : " Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the
faith : prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves,
how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates ?"2

THE CHURCH AND CLERGY.
LXXIX. And lest, either through dimness of intellectual
sight, or through some other individual frailty, man should mis
take some of the objects thus set before him by God, as landmarks
on his way to Heaven, and as beacons thitherward, God has
1 1 S. Pet. i. 7, 9. a 2 Cor. xiii. 5.

AND CLERGY.] PHILOSOPHY, ORTRUTH? 373
made His " holy Catholick and Apostolick Church" warden of
those plain, distinct, and objective Truths ; Truths on which rests
His Church both in earth and in heaven. Whatever a man
may build thereon, whether he, as a wise master builder, build
with gold, silver, and precious stones, or with wood, hay and
stubble — yet " other foundation can no man lay than that is
laid, which is Jesus Christ."1 On this foundation rests the
household of God ; built upon the foundation of the "Apostles
and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner
stone ; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth
unto an holy temple in the Lord ; in whom we are builded
together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."2
This Church, exxXr\o-ia, " the blessed company of all faithful
people"3 is in the Earth like leaven which is to leaven the whole
lump, and to spread in the mass, until the Church has called all
her members from out of the world into one flock — the flock of
Christ, and that flock into one fold — the fold of Him who is
the Good Shepherd.
She is in the world, yet not of the world ; and as being dis
tinct from it, she makes her members also separate therefrom.
They are called, by virtue of their rights to that call, as being
before chosen of God to it ; so that their call from out of the
world, like that of Abraham out of Ur, is a token of their elec
tion, sxXoyr], to eternal life ; — for since " the gifts and calling of
God are without repentance,"4 we cannot understand their being
called by God without an intention and purpose of salvation on
His part. In token of this they are washed with the water of
Baptism — a seal of their death unto sin and of a new birth unto
righteousness, and thus made one with the Body of Christ the
Church, in order to draw thence both His Spirit and His Life.
1 1 Cor. iii. 11, 12.
2 Eph. ii. 19 — 22. "Credimus unam esse Ecclesiam ' Dei, eamque non ut
olim apud Judseos, in unum aliquem angulum aut regnum conclusam ; sed Ca-
tholicam atque universalem esse et diffusam in totum terrarum orhem ut nulla
nunc natio sit quse possit vere conqueri, se exclusam esse, et non posse ad Ec
clesiam, et populum Dei pertinere. Earn Ecclesiam esse Regnum, esse Corpus,
esse Sponsam Christi ; ejus regni Christum solum esse Principem, ejus corporis
Christum solum esse caput ; ejus Sponsse Christum solum esse Sponsum."— -
Apologia Eccl, Angl. J. Juell. p. 13.
3 Second Collect before the Doxology in the Communion Service.
4 Rom. xi. 29.

374 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [THE CHURCH
Yet this is only the beginning of their struggle as members of
the Church militant. But as their ultimate safety, or salvation,
depends on that struggle being honestly carried on by every
member for himself against sin, the world, and the devil, and
on his enduring unto the end — the Head of the Church, Christ,
is present in her through His Spirit, the Comforter, the Spirit
of Truth, to guide her sons into all Truth, to help them in their
infirmities, and to enable them to " make their calling and
their election sure" — so as not to fall from grace, nor to grieve
or quench the Spirit in them, but to be so faithful to Him and
to her, as that at last, they may be chosen as fit inheritors of the
kingdom of Heaven. In other words, that Spirit so trains
them, that they may be found worthy to enter with the Church
triumphant into the joy of her Lord, as having been faithful
soldiers and servants of that Church militant here in earth.
Yet, inasmuch as among those who are thus called into the
Church, many faint in the struggle, fall off and go back to the
world — " draw back unto perdition," says the Apostle, while
others " believe to the saving of the soul ;'n and thus many make
their latter end worse than their beginning, while others make
it better : her Lord provides for them in the Church to which
He calls them, channels through which He communes with
them, if I may use the term, — officially ; means of grace through
sacraments, through the ministry of the Word committed to
men duly appointed thereto according to His will ; through
offices and in a worship which the Church, as a family, renders
Him together. The spiritual life of all these means of grace,
however, is imparted only to those who open their hearts thereto,
through Faith in Him who is present, in His Church, and
through Faith in the Sacrifice of Himself once offered for her
redemption from the world. In like manner then, as " they are
not all Israel, which are of Israel," " for he is not a Jew that is
one outwardly, — but he is a Jew which is one inwardly;"2 and
since the " Israel of God"3 is " that which is of the faith of
Abraham, who is the father of us all,"4 in vain shall we say :
" We have Abraham to our father,"5 unless we bring forth fruits
meet for repentance ; in vain shall we say, We are of the Church
1 Heb. x. 39. 2 Rom. ix. 6 ; ii. 28, 29. » Gal. vi. 16.
4 Rom. iv. 14, 16. 5 S. Matt. iii. 9.

and clergy.] philosophy, or truth ? 375
of Christ, unless we be members of it inwardly, by having the
Spirit of Him "whose words are spirit and are life,"1 and
without whose Spirit in us we are none of His.2 In vain,
then, shall we, in this country, claim to have for a whole life
enjoyed the priceless blessings of the purest, and of the most
faithful of all Churches built on the foundation of the Apostles ;
of having had the daily use of her Ritual made up of the best
and simplest portions of others, yet free from their dross ; and
in vain shall men say they were bred, brought-up, and buried
in this Church ; all these invaluable privileges will only add to
their condemnation, unless they lived by Faith in the Truths
held by the Church, and in the Spirit they had the best means
of receiving through her from her Head, Christ.
LXXX. To His Church has Christ given in trust certain de
finite Truths, Rules and Articles of Faith, drawn but of His Word
revealed to man ; Truths without which neither Faith nor Church
can be said to exist. The Church holds, keeps and defends
these Truths, but does not make them ; she has the authority,
but not the power to enforce them beyond the power inherent in
the Truths themselves ; for as her Lord said : " My kingdom
is not of this world," albeit His Church is militant in it, He
clearly meant to give her no temporal nor secular power, beyond
the resistless influence of the Truth she holds and teaches.
Hence the struggle she has had to sustain from the first with
the world without; and often within, from men who called
themselves her sons. The Truth like light, bears witness of
itself. And the Truth held by the Church Catholic is, if I may
use such an expression, so true, and it is so impossible it should
be otherwise, that those who will not receive it, feel themselves
self-convicted thereby. And that feeling of inward conviction
from which they cannot flee — since conscience follows us every
where — has always shown itself, in various ways, indeed, but
with the same spirit — that of hatred for the Truth. This spirit
is the same, whether in the taunts, the revilings, the open enmity
or the persecution of the world without in olden and in modern
times, or in the attempts of her sons from within, to throw
down her fences, setting at naught her teaching or denying
her doctrines. The Truth is hated, because it is the Truth;
1 S. John vi. 63. a Rom. viii. 9.

376 philosophy, or truth ? £the church
and because, like light, it convinces and bears witness of
itself, and thus asserts its authority, whether over the intellect
which pretends to set aside all dogmas and to look within itself
for the Truth, so as to shake off allegiance to the Truth that is,
and to be master of itself — or, over ignorance and prejudice,
both of which do precisely the same thing, though from different
motives. Yet, all this is no more than the Church militant has
a right to expect. Her Lord went not up to joy but first He
suffered pain ; and she too must suffer affliction ere she can
enter into the joy of her Lord. But, the very gates of hell
shall not prevail against her. In Him and through Him she
lives, " Who gave Himself for her," and who said to her at the
beginning of her struggle: "Ye shall have tribulation
TEN DAYS ; BUT BE THOU FAITHFUL UNTO DEATH, AND I WILL
GIVE THEE A CROWN OP LIFE."1

LXXXI. If we turn from these general facts to what is taking
place at our own doors, we find the Church of this country at
present on her trial — yea, even sorely tried ; yet, perhaps no more
than she has often been before. Error is abroad in the land, and
scepticism is on the increase ; and if we were to judge of the
public feeling towards the Church from certain publications said
to represent it, we should say it was hostile and not friendly to
her ; but the real feeling and sense of the nation are so often
better than what they are said to be, that we believe the
Church and the nation to be one. Then, free, loose, and ration
alistic opinions put forth by writers more self-sufficient than
either able or wise, and eagerly taken up by men fond of novelty,
or by others who would rather let go the anchor of the soul,
Hope, than be bound by the Faith that holds it — already begin
to bear fruit in the swerving of many from the Faith, in the
estrangement of some, in a growing indifference to religion, and
in the disaffection of the youth of England from the Church, as a
profession. While the minds of very many of her worthy sons,
whom neither the State nor the Church can spare, is so rudely
shaken by the late Judgment of the Privy Council, as perhaps
1 Rev. ii. 10.

AND CLERGY.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 377
to take a needlessly gloomy view of the present state of things,
and to overlook the wonderful reaction for good produced of late
years in the Church, through fresh energy, devotedness, and life.
We will try and look at it calmly.
LXXXII. Whatever view men may take of that Judgment,
there remains this fact which a hundred columns of newspaper
homiletics, or any other kind of reasoning will not alter — that
the Church of England has received a blow at which her enemies
rejoice. Whether it was aimed or intended, seems irrelevant
to the question, and is for those alone who ruled the Judgment,
and not for others, to determine; but that the blow was given,
there is no doubt. Neither will any quibble or other specious
writing succeed in convincing sensible men that — a judgment
that practically makes neither error nor heresy amenable to the
law of a State that legislates for the Church, can be otherwise
than important ; explain it as you will. It does not, assuredly
touch, affect or reach the Truth, the Spirit and the life of the
Church ; it cannot do that; for the Truth were not itself if it
could be touched by men ; yea Truth and the Truth exist, stand
and will ever abide, in spite of all that man may say or do
against it.
But, if the late Judgment does not injure the Spirit of the
Church, it certainly affects her humanity. It affects deeply —
and more so, probably, than the framers of the Judgment ever
dreamt of — the minds of many members of the Church. It
sanctions the holding of error, even among teachers whose heads
are not clear enough to distinguish error from the Truth ; and
among others who are weak enough to leave their conscience in
charge of their friends. It weakens the confidence of earnest,
able, and good men, who are as loyal subjects as they are good
Churchmen, in the intentions and in the rule of the State; it
makes others doubt whether they may continue in a Church
thus treated ; it has, in short, so rudely shaken the whole fabric
of the English Church, as to crack some of the stones thereof,
and to loosen the joints of many more. It has created a general
deep feeling of grief, of disappointment, and of distrust, which
nothing but a ' Judgment reversed' would allay ; while the effect
of .that Judgment on other countries which are unable to form a
correct idea of the ' ins' and ' outs' of the case, is the broad fact

378

PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [THE CHURCH

damaging to the English Church, that— as they interpret it—
the Church does not believe in hell, and denies everlasting pun
ishment. In vain will any Society try to lengthen her cords
abroad, or to seek fellowship with other Churches, in the face of
such an opinion of her present Creed as by law allowed ; and
the effect thereof on the good opinion of the English name
among men abroad whose friendship is worth having, and who
used to say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and under
standing people" — cannot be denied.
LXXXIII. It is not therefore to be wondered at if, in a
Judgment which engrosses the minds and the hearts of so many,
some should have inquired into the e%ig — into the habit of mind
likely to have influenced such a Judgment ; yet one cannot but
regret that there could be some show of reason for such a ques
tion to be raised, not by a few thoughtless individuals, but by
thousands of grave and earnest men. For whatever one's private
opinion may be, it seems very undesirable to discuss publicly a
matter of this kind, which is, to say the least, derogatory from
the dignity of an English tribunal and from the importance of
the case. Besides, the fault lies less, perhaps, with the judges,
than with the anomalous constitution of the tribunal set up to
decide such matters. There is a wide difference between up
holding the Royal Supremacy in such a case, of which there
can, of course, be neither doubt nor even a wish to doubt, and
paying the same respect to the Judgment of the heterogeneous
Court into which that Royal prerogative in such matters has
practically dwindled. One cannot but think that it must have
been an oversight, and that it has only to be noticed in order to
be rectified — like, for instance, the law to which Townley owes
his life — not from any particular love to the Church, but from
a mere sense of justice and fair play, that allows appellants to be
judged by a tribunal and by judges suited to their appeal. It
is the principle that has made English justice and fair play
famous over the world; and which could never be abandoned,
especially in matters of such paramount importance as Faith and
Doctrine, except by an oversight, to which the best heads and
the best intentions are everywhere liable. A court wholly eccle
siastical, to decide on such matters, would be neither advisable
nor practically beneficial ; for the best legal advice and opinions

AND CLERGY.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 379
as regards mere technicalities and points of law could not be
dispensed with. But we may easily understand how a tribunal
set up to judge of Faith and Doctrine, should in all fairness have
Ecclesiastical Judges, with legal assessors ; and not, as at pre
sent, Civil Judges with or without any Ecclesiastical assessors at
all.1 It is therefore, needless to attempt a defence of the present
Bystein of appeal ; we can only look at the Judgment as a matter
of fact, which cannot,, at present, be undone ; and briefly con
sider both its bearings and our own conduct under it.
LXXXIV. Granting, then, to some, that it is an affront to the
Church ; beyond that, what does it amount to ? To this — that
a Clergyman may hold and preach error freely and with impunity,
so far as the State is concerned. The mischief of this is, of course,
practically, very great ; but it lays no blame on the Church — it
is entirely a civil act. It does not force any one to teach and to
preach erroneous doctrines ; it does not affect in one tittle the
real teaching of the Church, neither does it fetter the conscience
of a single Clergyman, nor impose upon him the burden of hold
ing anything that is not in strict accordance with the Formu
laries and with the Faith of the Church. The Church, there
fore, is left untouched by this Judgment, since it does not
alter either her Creed or the Articles of her Faith. How could
it, indeed! It is simply a civil act on the part of the State,
whereby it affects to loosen, as more convenient, instead of
straitening, as more wholesome, the bands of Religion and its
hold on the conscience. The consequences of this, whatever
they be — and great they will and must be — will recoil on the
State. The Church is in no wise to blame; she only suffers
from it as a State Church.
LXXXV. Yet, perhaps, even less than she thinks. If it be an
affront, her Lord was treated so when arraigned before the High
Priest;2 but how did He bear it ? He bore it, not only as for
giving it at once, but as showing that such an affront recoils on
him that offers it; and as having, therefore, taught His dis
ciples, when they are smitten on the one cheek, to offer also the
other.3 It is a blow, and we feel it : how, then, shall we act
1 See a temperate and sensible article on the subject of Final Appeal in the
Saturday Review, Dec. 17.
2 S. John xviii. 22, 23. 3 S, Luke vi. 29.

380 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? [l'HE CHURCH
under it ? Resent it ? No ; bear it. Bear it as a trial of our
Faith and of our patience; and "hear the rod, and him who
hath appointed it." Surely it was allowed to be, and to create
all the grief, all the sorrow it has caused in thousands of honest
and true hearts, for some good reason. Therefore ought we to
check every feeling of anger or of irritation towards the instru
ments of the trial. Hezekiah did not revile the messengers sent
by Rabshakeh, but he " received the letter at their hands and
read it ; and then went up into the temple of the Lord, and
spread it before the Lord, and prayed before the Lord."1
We know the issue, let us do the same ; we have the same
Throne of Grace, the same help at hand, in our need. But we
must nevertheless " read the letter" sent. Are there not many
grievous sins of worldliness among the chiefs of the Church, of
worldly-mindedness among her dignitaries, to be visited ? No
nepotism, no filthy lucre, no abuses, whereby thousands of her
children are denied their bread, and are left to starve, while
others are over-fed ? None of her servants, honest, hard-work
ing, and devoted, whose life, however, seems to be to grapple
day by day with the woes and with the throes of a bare exist
ence at the gate of richer, though perhaps, less worthy brethren,
who do little or nothing, and yet fare more or less sumptuously ?
No conformity with the ways of the present world, beyond the
Hecessary requirements of society, for fear of being seen bearing
the Cross — although it be the honour and badge of a servaut of
the Crucified ? No sins of idleness, of indifference, of lazi
ness, of intemperance, of carelessness as to Truth and error, and
of ignorance among servants who ought to eschew these things,
and "endure hardness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ?"
If there be none of these things in the Church, then the blow is
harmless, and the letter sent has no meaning. If, however,
there be such things in the Church, then the blow should be
felt, and the letter should be read and understood.
And the burden of the letter is, " Be watchful, and strengthen
the things which remain, that are ready to die ; for I have not
found thy works perfect before God. Remember, therefore, how
thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent."2
LXXXVI. But seeing that, from the very constitution of the
1 2 Kings xix. 14, 15. 2 Rev. iii. 2, 3.

AND CLERGY.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 381
Church and of the parochial system, the amendment where
needed, and the healthiness of the whole, depend chiefly on the
individual life, energy, and work of every member of that
Church in particular, but especially of her Clergy — let us set to
and correct what is lacking in every one of us individually ; let
us show by our greater union in spirit and greater unanimity of
purpose, by our renewed attention to studies likely to furnish us
unto our work, by fresh efforts in doing good for our Master's
sake, by our honest and humble conversation, and by our de-
votedness to the people committed to our charge, that we have
" heard the rod, and him who hath appointed it ;" and that no
Judgment can either touch or harm us, because we be followers
of that which is good.
LXXXVII. Those, then, do greatly err, I ween, who in their
grief, or in their zeal, would either advise or look to a schism in
the Church on account of the Judgment of the Privy Council.
Such a step would be unconstitutional, unphilosophical, and
unwise. It would be unconstitutional — for, since the Church is
by the Constitution joined to the State, as the State is to the
Church, a schism in the Church, however little cared for, per
haps, by the State and by the world in general, would never
theless be as much against the Constitution as a schism in the
State itself.
Secondly — a schism in the Church would be unphilosophical,
in that, a nation is but a multiple of persons, each individually
consisting of body and spirit. As the body is dead without
the spirit, so also is the nation dead without a Church, that
should hold in the body of the nation the place of the spirit in
that of man. But, inasmuch as a spirit without a body is a
being not intended for every-day life in this world, so also a
Church existing alone and independent of all humanity is at
best a vision of the Church, not as it must be here on earth, but
as it will be when all error and all divisions have ceased. The
mission of the Church on earth is to bring souls to Christ by
gathering them from the world; not by absorption, but by fetch
ing them, by blending herself with the body corporate of so
ciety, not in grave State matters only, but in small matters of
every-day life ; exactly as the spirit influences, in great and in
small things alike, the soul and the body of man.

382 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [THE CHURCH
To sever the Church from the State, then, would be to
part asunder our body and spirit; thus dooming the one to
death, and the other to uselessness in the world. The Church
here in earth has, and must have, a human side ; she must be
practical, not merely as a spiritual hierarchy, but as a body
militant, since she cannot do her work without having to fight
against her spiritual enemies ; and there is nothing so matter-of-
fact as warfare. It is her lot ; therefore does she need the help,
the support, and the countenance of the civil powers as much as
the spirit of man requires the help of the body to do aught
good in life. Even heathens made their worship a part of their
State duties, from Egypt that raised her high-priests almost to
the throne, to Greece and Rome, downwards. So also in Chris
tian States; and so wise is the combination, and so much ac
cording to what is suitable for the present state of things in
earth, that no other arrangement succeeds. Only look at a
State, if I may so say, all Church — Rome, which after having
flourished only through clerical tyranny, ends at last in effete
decrepitude. And look on the other side, at a State, with no
Church — America ; and see to what lengths a nation can go with
talent, intelligence, energy, and enterprise, but without National
Religion, because without a National Church.
Then look at England; and think of the twenty thousand
churches and more, in which on the same day, at the same hours
the same inspired words are read, and the same solemn and
earnest prayers are offered by the same intelligent people and
orderly congregations, worshipping according to the same Ritual
—the purest and best of all, East or West — in strains understood
of the people, who learn from childhood to love, to respect, and
to breathe them for the same object, to the same Father — and
say those supplications can rise into Heaven and not be heard
nor answered in blessings on those who pray, and for their sakes
on the nation at large ? Is she not at peace and prosperous ?
Things are so here, but here only ; because here only do the
Church and the State walk together ; because here only the en
lightened, innate good sense, the reverential and religious feeling
of the better part of the nation is that it should be so. Who then,
in his sober senses would wish to substitute for this time-honoured,
holy and venerable Church, a voluntary system of chance-

AND CLERGY.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 383
preachers — every one coming with his own words, and turning
the House of God and of prayer, into the house of man and of
preaching ? and who would thus wish to give to this great nation
a multitude of sprites instead of her one Good Spirit ? Let us,
then, if we can, learn to value our blessings ere we have lost them.
LXXXVIII. And since in our present human state, we can
hardly suppose the possibility of a Church so constituted as to
benefit a whole nation, and yet be independent of the State — an
'imperium in imperio' that would not last long — so also, thirdly
— a schism in the Church on account of the Judgment of the
Privy Council, would be most unwise, and would, probably, do
more harm than ever that Judgment can or will do. Does
any one think that a Free Church would in reality be purer,
more orderly, more at unity with itself, and more free from
human infirmities ? At first, perhaps it might look as if it
were ; while her men, forgetting our Lord's warning to let
tares and wheat grow together in His field until the reapers
come to sever them, worked hard at plucking one by one every
suspicious blade of grass — thus making many, many mistakes.
But a man must know very little either of human nature or of
Church history who thinks that such a Church should long con
tinue to stand. Yea, rather, it might happen, as it has hap
pened more than once already, that human passions being under
little or no control, would exert themselves within that Free
Church with a freedom that would lead to anything rather than
to good and to edification. In such Establishments, despotism
often takes the place of government ; and tyranny that of rule ;
and being clerical — not to say spiritual^they are of all the most
absolute. Practice in this case, too often differs from theory ; and some
of the clergy may often forget the words of S. Paul of which
S. Chrysostom1 reminds us, saying : Touto yap xa) b 8aup.ao-tog
Ixeivog o\vr)p o-ovei§wg KoptvQiotg eXsyeV ou yap xugieuop.ev up.wv Tr)g
irio-Tswg,. aXXa o-uvegyot lo~p.sv Trjg x^Q*? up.wv. MaXta-Ta p,lv yap
airaVTWv xp'°~T"lcV0~tg oux ecpenat irpbg (3'tav liravopQouv to. twv ap.ag-
ravdvrwv irTa'10-fj.aTa' " That wonderful man understanding all
this, said to the Corinthians : ' Not for that we haveldominion
of your faith, but are helpers of your joy.' For to Christians
1 De Sacerd. lib. i. 3.

3°4 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [THE CHURCH
especially, it is not lawful to redress the failings of sinners by
force ;" the less so, as very few sensible men, who will not be
driven, will refuse to follow a leader whom they can trust. In
short, so great would the harm be to the nation from another
schism in the Church, that we could not reasonably expect a
Free Church formed under such circumstances, to be likely
either to inherit or to vouchsafe a blessing. It will be time
enough for such -a separation when we are by law made to preach
or to teach error ; then let us break off at once. Meanwhile,
let us abide faithful. A schism in whatever shape, is oftener
than not, a cloke for much of human pride and self-will, in
dulged under the pretence of conscience. We do better work,
both for ourselves and for others, in bearing and forbearing
much that we dislike — so that it be not against God's will and
the Truth — than in breaking asunder, because we chafe under
the rod. We shall not escape it by so doing : our only way is
to " hear it, and him who hath appointed it."
LXXXIX. At present, then, the duty of every earnest servant
of the Church lies before him. It is not, assuredly, to forsake her
in her trial ; but it is to rally round her, to stand by and to de
fend her. However much we may feel it, we must, nevertheless,
lay to our account, that her lot is to be tried, and ours is also,
to be tried with ber. We may, of course, picture to ourselves
how pleasant it would be if all relationship between the State
and the Church were on a friendly footing ; if instead of being
often attacked she were always befriended ; if the arm of the
State instead of being shortened, were always stretched towards
her, either to support her, or effectually to mend her abuses ;
to see that all her revenues flowed in their rightful channels,
and that at least a crumb of her loaves were given to every one
of her children ; so that, instead of being as she is practically,
to a great extent, a stranger to her people, she were indeed,
what she was meant to be, the nursing Mother of it ; making
that people yet better and greater, by being one with it through
her spirit and through the life that is in her; living in the
people, and the people in her.
We can easily fancy what such a state of things would be ;
and how easy her warfare would prove under such happy cir
cumstances. But that would be a time of rest ; which is not

AND CLERGY.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 385
yet. Meanwhile we, her clergy, may do much to bring about
such a state of things, by " making full proof of our ministry"
— " giving no offence in anything that it be not blamed : but in
all things approving ourselves as ministers of God in much pa
tience, in afflictions, in labours ; by pureness, by knowledge, by
long-suffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love un
feigned, by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the
armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, by
honour and dishonour ; by evil report and good report ;"1
"for in doing this we shall both save ourselves and them that
hear us."2 The more earnest we are in our work, the more
also do we receive as our first reward, the respect, the good-will,
and the confidence of all in the land that are right-thinking,
sensible, and worthy ; while in the narrow little sphere of our
several parishes, our poor live in us ; their affection and their
love cluster around ' their clergyman,' if he but do his duty by
them, and love them as he ought for Christ's sake ; and what
little good he may do them, is amply repaid into his bosom,
not only by his Master, but by the very work itself. It keeps
him up to the mark of reality in his own religion, while he
rallies his people around the Cross, to the blessed Name of
Jesus ; giving them Faith in Him, Hope of Heaven, and Charity
towards men; and thus sprinkling with salt the mass of the
nation, that the good therein may not perish, and that what is
worse in it be made better.
XC. In this only is the real strength of the Church, and
with it of the nation. Though " it be not for us to know the
times and the seasons which the Father hath put in His own
power,"3 yet we may see around us signs of "the time of
the end ;" when " many shall run to and fro, and knowledge
shall be increased ;" when " many shall be purified, and made
white, and tried, but the wicked shall do wickedly ; and none of
the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand ;"4
when "many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many;
and because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax
cold ;"5 so that he alone " that shall endure unto the end shall
be saved." We already hear of wars and rumours of wars,
1 2 Cor. vi. 3—8. 2 1 Tim. iv. 16. 3 Acts i. 7.
4 Dan. xii. 4, 10. s S. Matt. xxiv. 11, 12.
C C

386 philosophy, or truth ? [the church
though we are told " the end is not yet ;" and nation rises
against nation, as if the foundations of the earth were out of
course. Yet, in the midst of these rumours of wars all round,
this little island is living at peace, and thriving with unparalleled
prosperity. Who gives her peace ? Who sends her prosperity,
but "he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, that taketh
up the isles as a very little thing, before whom the nations are
counted as the small dust of the balance, and who bringeth the
princes of them to nothing Vn
But if, in order to try what life and strength there really be
in the Church, — and if, in order to visit the nation for the
great, the special, yet ill-requited blessings of which she is the
object, — " for to whom much is given, of him shall much be re
quired" — He were to give the word, to blow against her ships ;
and if, instead of speeding them to the ends of the earth, He
were to bring those of other nations to her shores, and the hand
were seen writing against the wall, " Thou art weighed in the
balance, and found wanting," — how would certain writers alter
their tone ; how would senators, perhaps, recall to their memory
sundry councils both public and private, and certain laws
enacted, perhaps, as if He, like Baal, were absent, and as if His
Word were not true ! How would the affrighted nation, on
bended knees and with trembling lips, beseech Him again to
cover her island with the broad shield of His protection !
Since, then, peace, prosperity, and plenty are His gifts, and are
national blessings, the only sure way to secure them is, as a
nation, to fear and to serve Him ; to give all honour unto His
Name ; to worship Him ; to give Him thanks ; to reverence,
and not to slight or to gainsay His holy Word, but to show
Him, as a nation, that His blessings are received at His hands,
and are used with a thankful heart. As long as England does
so, no foes shall prevail against her.
With us Clergymen, then, and in the full discharge of our
work, lies the duty of reminding the people of these things ; of
teaching them how to secure these blessings, and to acknowledge
them when received ; to love and to fear God, and thus to lessen
among them the woes of immorality and vice. At all events,
let us see that we do our duty, " as having to give account."
1 Isa. xl. 12—23.

AND CLERGY.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 387
But that duty is often far from easy. We have not only to
teach the poor and the simple-minded, who receive all we tell
them ; but now especially we may have to contend with error,
and with " the opposition of a science falsely so called," because
it opposes itself to the Truth. Error will ever be in the earth ;
yet it prevails only as long as Truth is not brought face to face
with it. Still, unless we acquaint ourselves with that Truth,
and search into it, not instinctively, but earnestly and learnedly,
we cannot compare it with error; neither can we think our
selves furnished unto every good work of our ministry, and our
selves "workmen that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing
the Word of Truth."
The days of dry moral essays in the pulpit, ' all for God, and
against the devil/ as the common saying is, are gone. Our
preaching should be, of course, suited to our congregations, yet
always plain — so plain, as to leave a distinct impression on the
mind of our hearers ; and it should be more intelligent than
intellectual. It should be to teach them the Truth intelligently,
showing, first, that we know and understand it for ourselves ;
and secondly, that we are able to impart it to them : remember
ing what Aristotle tells us (R. vi. a. p. 3), that our being able
to teach is a proof of our own knowledge. Then, let us think
less of ourselves, and of the impression we are likely to make on
our audience, than of the burden of the message we bring, and
of the good we ought to do. We cannot, indeed, think too
humbly of ourselves, or too highly of our office, as messengers
of God to the people ; ever bearing in mind that we are our
selves beset with infirmities, and that " we have this treasure in
earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God,
and not of us,"1 and that as shepherds of the flock we are ser
vants of our people for our Master's sake. Therefore, "if any
man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God ; if any man
minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth."2 No
thing will be required of us but what was given us ; but that much,
at least, will be required. Surely it is enough to keep, us active
and humble in teaching and admonishing, " not as being lords
over God's heritage, but as being ensamples to the flock ;"3 and
in preaching, not as into the air, but as we ought "to preach the
1 2 Cor. iv. 7. MS. Pet. iv. 11. s IS. Pet. v. 3.

388 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [THE CHURCH
Gospel ; though not with wisdom of words^lest the Cross of
Christ should be made of none effect."1
XCI. But "who is sufficient for these things?"— "Not that
we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves ;
but our sufficiency is of God."2 This is our strength for our
daily work, according to the promise, " As thy day, so shall thy
strength be ;" a promise that never fails. Even he who was
taken to the third heaven, " where he heard unspeakable words,
which it is not lawful for a man to utter," was kept from being
exalted above measure on that account, and ever reminded of
his own weakness by Him Who said, " My grace is sufficient
for thee : for my strength is made perfect in weakness." " Most
gladly, therefore," says the holy Apostle, " will I rather glory in
mine infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon

me."3 With such promises and with such an example, how can so
many as we hear of, halt between two opinions, and hesitate in
their choice to enter the Church and to serve Christ therein ?
No ability, says one — but we are " to minister as of the ability
that God giveth." For with our Master, if there be first a
willing mind, " it is accepted according to that a man hath, and
not according to that he hath not;"4 and He is sure to find
work for a willing mind to do. No interest, says another — but
make interest with Him Who sends His workmen to His vine
yard, and Who allots to every one his work. If He give the
work, He will also give the wages ; for He is faithful that pro
mised. He "that hath ordained that they which preach the
Gospel should live of the Gospel,"5 will not think of it for some
and forget it for others, whenever the service of Him in His
Church is undertaken for His sake.
XCII. But the cause of disappointment in this respect is owing
to this — that Holy Orders, being a sacred profession and a spiri
tual calling, and secular only in so far as the Church is militant
in earth, those who look upon her service only in a secular point
of view make a great mistake. Then, either they are allowed
to reap from her only the secular advantages of slender means,
1 1 Cor. i. 17. -1 2 Cor. ii. 16 ; iii. 5. 3 2 Cor. xii. 4, 9.
1 2 Cor. viii. 12. » 1 Cor. ix. 14.

AND CLERGY.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? 389
albeit with a better social position than any other richer profes
sion would give ; or, if they have taken upon them the sacred
vows of their office from family motives, convenience, or inte
rest, apart from a real calling thereto from within, disappoint
ment follows even then ; not from want, perhaps, but from
regret, — from a feeling of utter unfitness for the work, — from a
distaste for it, and, worse than all, from the inward, crushing
weight of an awful responsibility, lightly undertaken and never
discharged. On the other hand, no man ever yet entered the
Church from conscientious and devoted motives, who felt dis
appointed at having done so. The work well done brings its
own reward, even for this world — in the esteem and in the respect
of our fellow-men ; in a social position which very many covet
as a lift into society ; in the affection of the people, and in the
conscience of doing good in our generation ; may be, unknown
of men and uncared for by the world, but known of our Master,
and cared for by Him. He watches over His faithful servants,
and sees that, according to His promise, " they shall want no
manner of thing that is good" for them : while their reward in
Heaven is to be, that those whom they had made " wise, shall
shine as the brightness of the firmament;" and themselves, "as
the stars for ever and ever," for having made others wise " by
turning them to righteousness."1
XCIII. But the chief reason which at present thins the ranks
of the Clergy is, perhaps, the strife of tongues and the clashing
of opinions abroad in society. Yet, if they find themselves thus,
like children " tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine by
the sleight of men,"2 it is all the more important they should
see to it, even for themselves; lest haply, "having swerved
from the faith and turned aside to vain jangling"3 about mat
ters of greater moment than the things of this world, and re
garding which every man will have to give an answer for him
self, they slight that which they ought most to mind, and at the
last, " concerning the faith, make shipwreck."4 As we should
not know light but for darkness, so also we should not be able
to value the Truth as we ought, if it were not for error waging
war against it. Is it, then, the part of wise and understanding
1 Dan. xii. 3. s Eph. iv. 14.
3 1 Tim. i. 6. 4 1 Tim. i. 18—20.

390 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ? [THE CHURCH
men to think lightly of things on which hang either their eternal
life in God, or their eternal death away from Him ? It will not
do to leave it to others to settle such things for us, seeing that
on these things rests all our hope ; and that they alone are to
be either " the prize of the high calling of God in Christ
Jesus;"1 " the salvation of the soul;" the wreath of immortality
given " to every one who will so run that he may obtain"2 — or
the woes of the bitterest disappointment for every one who, bent
on gaining this world and the praise of men, finds at last, that
for it he has lost his own soul.
Very far, then, from turning away from the Church as a pro
fession, and leaving the defence of the Truth, that requires Faith,
intelligence, learning, ability, courage, and manliness, to men
who may lack these gifts —
6 fj,eya; Se xivlu-
vog avaXxiv oil <£«S-
t« Xap.fZa.vst'
some of the generous and manly youth of England ought to set
themselves with a good heart to what will make their country
yet greater and yet better — to the service of God in the Church
and to the defence of the Truth as taught by this Church ;
making full proof among the people of the Spirit of Christ
breathed in her formularies, in words which, being His, " are
spirit and are life ;" and thus working as wise master-builders,
or as good workmen, at strengthening the only foundation there
is for the real and lasting greatness of the nation. The service
is not hard ; it is that of a good Master, Christ, Who, wishing
to show Peter how best he could prove his love for Him, said to
that Apostle: "Feed my sheep/' and the reward is great,
both here and hereafter, XaXsmg b xatpbg, " these are hard
times," said S. Basil to S. Chrysostom, when advising him to
take Orders,3 oi lirtfiouXeuovTe; iroXXo), to ty,; ayanrr\; yvrprtov aird-
^«jXsv, aVTeio-YjXTai 8s o ty); fiao-xavla; oXeSpo;. lv pueorw iray'&wv
hafiaivofj-ev, xa) Im hraX^ewv iroXswv iregtiraToufj,ev. ol p.lv eToifiot
Tol; r)fj,STspoi; l$Yio-Qr]vai xaxoi;, siitots Ti o-up.(ia'ir}, iroXXo) 8s iroXXa-
XO&ev l<psa-Tr)xaa-tv " many there are that plot against us ; genuine
' Phil. iii. 14. 2 1 c0r. ix. 24.
3 De Sacerd. lib. i. 4.

AND CLERGY.] PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH? 391
love has perished, and malice and envy reign in its stead ; we
walk in the midst of snares, and watch night and day on the
parapet of our walls ; many there are ready to rejoice at evils
that may befall us, should anything happen ; and we are sur
rounded by them on all sides ; there is no one to take our part,
few as these are at all times. Beware then lest, if we be dis
united — we cause the adversary to rejoice, and we ourselves
suffer loss even greater than their rejoicing."
Words almost written for the present time. For we are, it
seems, threatened1 probably by men who seek their own and not
the nation's good, with a kind of " wide, all-embracing wor
ship," which will do away with all dogmas, all Truth ; with
everything, in short, except what each individual thinks and likes
for himself. God, Revelation, the Truth, the Church, Faith,
Hope and Charity, Heaven and Hell, are too old-fashioned, it
appears, for the " intellect, the ability, and the learning" of the
present generation, that installs Reason and ' self in their stead.
If the heart did not sicken at such folly, one would smile at the
sight of poor human beings — not one of which can with all his
philosophy lengthen one moment the short span of his life,
or tell what will befall him on the morrow, — attempting to ar
range as they like the immutable counsels of the Most High,
and to set up their wisdom above His ! Yet, that they should
go so far as even to think of such a thing, is enough to set us on
the watch, to abide by the Truth, and to defend it at all events.
The struggle, let us remember, is not of our own seeking : we
were enlisted for it " by Him who called us to be soldiers" of
His Church militant here in earth, and to be with her humbled,
tried, reviled, and even hated for His Name's sake — but after
that, also " glorified with him."
" Wherefore," says the Holy Apostle, " take unto you the
whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the
evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having
your loins girt about with Truth, and having on the breastplate
of righteousness ; and your feet shod with the preparation of the
gospel of peace; above all taking the shield of faith, wherewith
ye shall be able to quench the fiery darts of the wicked. And
1 See Mr. Keble's letter in The Times for September 22, compared with
the last article in the same paper for March 9.

392 PHILOSOPHY, OR TRUTH ?
take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which
is the word of God : praying always with all prayer and suppli
cation in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all persever
ance."1 The Captain of our salvation sets us the example ;
He leads the way, and holds our reward. Let us then look
unto Him, the " author and finisher of our faith," and fight
under His banner "the good fight of faith;" not as beating
the air, but as with Him and for His Church.
The struggle is short, but the rest is — for ever. Yet, no
fight, no victory ; no victory, no triumph ; no cross, no crown.
1 Eph. vi. 10—18.

JOSEPH MASTERS AND SON, PRINTERS, ALDEHSGATE STREET, LONDON.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

i.
PERSOMACHE HERODOTICA; a Tabular Analysis of
Herodotus. Oxford: Graham. 1836.
II.
AN OUTLINE OF BISHOP'S COLLEGE, and of its
Missions in the Neighbourhood of Calcutta. 18mo. James
Burns. 1843. III.
A PLAIN EXPOSITION OF THE APOSTLES' CREED.
12mo. Crewkerne : Pulman. 1847.
IV.
A LIST OF BRITISH BIRDS, Latin and English, accord
ing to the System of C. J. Temminck. Van Voorst. 1848.
v.
A SYSTEMATIC CATALOGUE of the Eggs of British
Birds. Van Voorst. 1848. vr.
WHO IS GOD IN CHINA; SHIN OR SHANG-TE?
Remarks on the Etymology of D'rfts and of @e6s, and on the ren
dering of those terms into. Chinese. Bagater and Sons. 1855.
8vo. VII.
THE THREEFOLD SAN-TSZE-KING, or Tri-literal
Classic of China, as issued (1) by Wang-po-keou ; (2) by Pro
testant Missionaries in China ; (3) by the Rebel Chief, Tae-ping-
Wang; put into English, with Notes. D. Nutt. 1856. 8vo.
VIII.
A VINDICATION OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION
OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE, from Charges, brought against
it by Recent Writers. Parts I., II., III. Bell and Daldy.
1856. 8vo. ix.
A LETTER TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE
EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, President of the British and
Foreign Bible Society, &c, on the Pantheistic and on the Bud
dhistic tendency of the Chinese and of the Mongolian Versions of
the Bible published by that Society. Bell and Daldy. 1856.
8vo.

X.
APHORISMS ON DRAWING. Longmans. 1856. 8vo.
XI.
MAGDALA AND BETHANY. A Pilgrimage. Masters.
12mo. 1857. XII.
THE COASTS OF TYRE AND SlDON. A Narrative.
Masters. 12mo. 1857; XIII.
LETTERS TO A YOUNG MISSIONARY. Masters.
8vo. 1858. XIV.
PRAYERS AND THANKSGIVINGS FOR THE HOLY
COMMUNION, translated from Armenian, Coptic, and other
Eastern Rituals. For the use of the Clergy. Masters. 18mo.
1859. xv.
MEDITATIONS ON A PRAYER OF S. EPHREM, for
every Wednesday and Friday in Lent. Translated from the
Russian. Masters. 1859. Post 8vo.
XVI.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. JOHN, translated
from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin, viz., the
Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Sahidic, Mem
phitic, Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Arabic, and Persian ; with Foot
notes to every Translation, and a Criticism on all the 1,340 Alter
ations proposed by the Five Clergymen in their Revision of that
Gospel. Masters. Demy 4to. 1862.
XVII.
PREPARATION FOR THE HOLY COMMUNION,
translated from Coptic, Armenian, and other Eastern originals.
For the use of the Laity. Masters. 1863. 12mo.
XVIII.
MEDITATIONS ON OUR LORD'S PASSION, trans
lated from the Armenian of Matthew, Vartabed. Masters.
1863. 12mo. xix.
A MANUAL OF DAILY PRAYERS, translated from
Armenian and other Eastern originals. Masters. 1863. 32mo.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 3461