Pharaohs, whose especial glory it was to boast themselves 
in “ solar titles ” ? 
We have a good instance of a name which has a very 
mythical look at first sight, in Ur, Abram’s birthplace. 
This, however, is happily tied hard and fast to this world 
by the bricks of which it is built, which bear the name of 
the town as well as of the god. 
The local and personal names of holy Scripture will yield 
rich results under reasonable inquiry. 
(B.) But I turn from philology to psychology, which is made 
responsible for this line of explanation. 
Now the characters and doings of these old fathers and 
their wives and families are so thoroughly human, so very 
various, yet each so consistent in itself, bearing such marks 
of truthfulness under the touchstone of human experience, 
that this kind of exposition in the hands of such men as the 
late Professor Blunt lias acquired a very distinct and acknow- 
ledged value. I appeal from psychology beside herself to 
psychology sober as a very credible witness to the genuine 
historical character of the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 
(C.) Then again, historical research is daily adding fresh 
confirmation to our trust in the sacred records. Something 
of this kind I hope to bring before you presently. Look, for 
instance, at the episode of Elam. The world had nothing to 
show of this old powerful highland monarchy conquering as 
far as the Egyptian borders, except in closest relation to the 
life of Abraham, and so only through Lot. 
But now we read the story in quite a consonant sense in 
C'haldaean muniments. 
What right have we to rend out the figure of Abram from 
the canvas, leaving the Amorite chiefs, on the one hand, and 
the allied kings of the East, on the other ? 
(D.) But this form of credulous scepticism is, most of all, a 
violation of the spiritual consensus of the whole Hebrew and 
the whole Christian Church. 
Professor Goldziher has nowhere so utterly wandered, as 
in his opinions on religion, whose genesis he thus explains 
(p. 218) : — “ It must be regarded as established and certain 
that the psychological process of the origin of religion, a 
process influenced only in its most advanced stages by ethical 
and aesthetic forces, is, in the first instance, developed out of the 
older mental activity which resulted in the creation of myths.” 
Now this is tho very inversion of the order of things 
established alike by Scripture and archaeology ; that the 
spiritual faculties which cry out for the living God germinated 
