32 



be to invalidate all history. We Have no stronger assurance 

 that Caesar invaded Britain than that God brought the 

 Israelites out of Egypt and through the Red Sea. We have 

 no better proof of the result of the Battle of Agincourt than 

 we have of the overthrow of the Ammonites, Moabites, and 

 the people of Mount Seir by their own swords. 



Thus, by a long series of carefully-recorded events, we find 

 the reality of a divine rule of man is attested, and in our 

 present condition we have abundant proof that it is neither 

 relaxed nor restricted. We cannot remove our body from the 

 operation of the physical laws of the Creator, nor can we take 

 our soul out of the control of His moral law, or prevent a 

 single action of our life from recording its moral verdict in 

 our nature itself. To submit to this rule insures our highest 

 good, because it is that of the Father of our spirits, who can 

 have no purpose adverse to us, and because it enlists the 

 authority, power, and wisdom of the Author and Ruler of the 

 Universe for the accomplishment of our desires and the im- 

 provement of our nature. But to resist and rebel is to oppose 

 our highest interest, and can only result in degradation and 

 ruin : " Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the 

 earth," but " woe unto him that striveth with his Maker." 



The CHAIRMAN (Mr. W. N. WEST). Had the author of the paper been pre- 

 sent instead of in the southern hemisphere, it would have been a great pleasure 

 to have accorded him in person a vote of thanks for having favoured us with 

 so interesting a paper, and I am sure all feel that such a vote should be 

 accorded. We have to thank Mr. Dent for his kindness in reading the 

 paper, and we shall now be happy to hear any remarks that may be offered. 



Rev. J. J. LIAS, M.A. (in responding to a call), said, I feel that I am 

 in the position of an advocate who has no case to argue against. I regard 

 the paper as an extremely able one. What strikes me with regard to the 

 papers read before this Institute as a rule is, that it does not seem desirable 

 for us to indulge in anything like microscopic criticism as to an expression 

 used here, or a remark made there, which might either have been improved, 

 or which might have been omitted. We ought, I think, to have regard to 

 the whole drift of the paper, which, I think is, in this case, one likely to 

 advance the cause we all have at heart. (Hear, hear.) It certainly seems to 

 me that the points the author has brought under our notice are well 

 deserving of consideration, and that this is especially the case with regard 

 to one or two of the matters he has discussed. A few days ago I happened 

 to be present at the reading of a paper in the Divinity School at 

 Cambridge, written by Professor MacAlister, a learned man of science, 

 who has devoted himself, among other things, to the study of Egyptian 

 antiquities. The paper he then read was a very remarkable one on 

 the "Ritual of the Dead," as employed in the early Egyptian religion, and 



