257 
know perfectly well that what he wanted to show was that many anecdotes 
currently believed in cannot be true, while many others which appear to be im- 
possible, and which bear much upon history, are really true. In other words, 
he says : — “ Oh, infidel, great is thy faith ! You believe things which are 
in themselves absolutely incredible ; but you reject those things which are 
really capable of proof !” Lepsius, the Prussian, who wrote on Egypt and the 
Holy Land, says, in speaking of the Israelites on their journey to Palestine, 
that they lived upon manna, which he describes, not as “ angels’ food,” but as a 
natural exudation from the tamarisk. Fancy the absurdity of supposing that 
two millions of people could have existed upon the exudation of the tamarisk, 
which would not have served one half of them for one day’s luncheon. 
(Laughter.) This shows how credulous a sceptic may be on certain points. 
Then jou may find anecdotes, which apparently at first sight are very incre- 
dible, and yet, on examination, are capable of almost perfect proof. Any- 
body would suppose that the house of Simon the tanner in Jaffa would have 
perished out of the memory of man ; and yet, as Dean Stanley says, there is 
hardly any tradition which is so perfectly authenticated as that which 
points out the site of Simon’s house. A tanner requires fresh water for 
carrying on his trade, and there is only one well of fresh water 
in Jaffa, and that is in the courtyard of the house which is pointed 
out us the house of Simon the tanner, which must necessarily have stood 
there, unless, indeed, an earthquake had altered the face of the neighbour- 
hood. Then, there are many traditions which we know are not true ; take, 
for instance, the traditions with regard to our Saviour, and His appearance, 
and many circumstances which took place soon after His death. We reject 
altogether the miracles which He is said to have performed as a child, such as 
making clay birds and bidding them fly. We reject these things because 
they are childish, and there is no object in them. Again we have had hahded 
down to us the idea of our Saviour’s face and of His appearance, derived very 
much from a bas-relief which was supposed to have been sculptured in very 
early times, — at the time of His death, indeed,— and sent to Tiberius by 
Pontius Pilate, but, falling into the hands of Saladin, it came into Europe 
after many vicissitudes. It was carved on an emerald. I have also seen a 
bronze medal with a similar profile, of which nearly the same story is told. 
But we know that for many centuries after His death there was no likeness 
of Him at all, and that His disciples rather avoided touching on His 
crucifixion, which they considered a very degrading punishment; and in 
all the catacombs and the famous mosaics at Ravenna you find allegorical 
representations, but no portrait of our Lord as an individual until 300 
years after His death, and then it first occurs in the catacomb of 
St. Calixtus at Rome. We find that there is no proof whatever of the 
monkish traditions with regard to the early ages after the life of 
our Saviour. Again, take the case of Herodotus: we acknowledge that 
he was an historian who intended to speak the truth so far as he knew 
it, notwithstanding that he is called “the father of lies.” He no doubt- 
recorded an immense number of lies ; but he said, “ I do not say these things 
