1 10 79 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/174ca15410927466f33c298498f4bacd.pdf?Expires=1784764800&Signature=eamiql6LOjxPCy3hHqMxFplv5uDWrg4gvp8cTJOLa4PqRZanmuNnboxpCyOK56Rb14X1cHU93LJKWpgN5RE4tWw3uRyUBGFT9Qkm-iwGomu4WbQoiLGHpAFcjozlaQNLD1gvJIqj4D2u9pylR5DHhY1rV%7Er5owuObea-bGHFlVfg4n0VAQace5krtYpJpM86AqRi93hpXx1zBQzoRQuUBqun-1QYYMfwvktn7f0yLmndsyKI4ybwsd5hNx1-Ej4YQ8qIk01AjOYRVLnppcdChUjEujXW1pIr5cYcPlJsj2wJoep7fYYVGsT9vAmzUgXEU1YxPKrYI2M0-V7HRP9vZg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 6c7758f365dc711db5b3361c00d9d2f5 PDF Text Text “WHICH THINGS ARE AN ALLEGORY,” —Galatians iv. 24. PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, I I THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E. 1875. Price' Threep.ence. • �LORHON: PBIKTEB BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PBLTEKEY STREET HAYMARKET. �“WHICH THINGS ARE AN ALLEGORY.” Galatians iv. 24. ICH things are an allegory,” said St. Paul, but who believes him ? If modern expounders of Holy Writ would say so too, what a blessed change would come o’er the spirit of our Bible ! but no, everything must be taken literally. Abraham, “ the friend of God,” listens to his spiteful wife and turns his own child out of doors tn perish, for aught he knew, in the wilderness with poor Hagar, while we are called upon to admire this pat tern of believers and to thank God that his edifying sayings and doings have been transmitted to pos terity. Ask any Sunday-school scholar who Hagar and Ishmael were, and you will soon see that St. Paul has spoken in vain and that every child in the king dom is taught to look upon Hagar and Ishmael as real people. Three hundred foxes all stood still “ so nice and pretty ” to have their tails set on fire (the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is of later date) and full-grown men are required to hear the “inspired” narrative with holy awe, for Samson was a type of Christ, and though St. Paul might consider such things “an allegory,” they were a dread reality to the foxes and the Philistines. . God took such a lively interest in Ezekiel’s culinary �4 “ Which things are an Allegory? arrangements that He desired him to bake his cakes with human excrement, and we are required to read the filthy statement with becoming gravity and to exclaim “ How unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out ! ” Christians fail to see how wofully they are dis honouring God by their acceptance of a series of puerile fables alike unworthy of God and man ; they have less light than St. Paul, who saw in these things “an allegory.” Jews are supposed to have as much reverence for the Bible as Christians; but those on terms of intimacy with Jews—good strict Jews— who see them in the family circle and have frequent opportunities of studying them, are surprised and sometimes shocked at the very familiar use they make of Biblical expressions in ordinary conversation. “ Here I am, for thou calledst me,” as Samuel said to Eli; “I am not eloquent,” as Moses said to Adonai; “ Why eatest thou not? ” as Elkanah said to Hannah, etc. At first these constant allusions to a book Christians generally reserve for private perusal, and from which they rarely quote save on solemn occa sions, seem rather irreverent; but to many Jews the Scriptures are literally household words; whether in their case familiarity has bred contempt they are too cautious to discover. They certainly make very free and easy use of them, and are very fond of Bible riddles :—Which was the straightest man in the Bible ? Joseph, so they made him a ruler; which was the rudest girl in the Bible ? Ruth, because she uncovered Boaz’s feet and trod on his corn, etc. But strict, devout Christians take a very solemn view of the Bible ; poor Samson, with his pretty game of foxes’ tails, cannot win a smile from them. True, Sarah laughed at God himself and was not punished, but Christians dare not laugh at Ezekiel and his in viting repast lest God should be angry; for though �“ Which things are an Allegory A 5 David tells them that “ His anger endureth but a moment,” even they know better ; an unchangeable being cannot be serene one minute and furious the next; once angry always angry, so we had better not laugh; for though Sarah got off, poor Michal was severely punished for what we should call commend able ridicule of an indecent young man whose latter days were in perfect harmony with the indecorous scene which excited Michal’s contempt and derision and which cost her the joys of maternity. Christians never permit themselves to realise the scenes they read so often with such imperturbable gravity, and extremely interesting would it be to study the effect produced upon both Jew and Gentile by a modern Rabbi or Bishop who should conduct himself like Saul, David, or Ezekiel. When the Jews of old saw Saul quite naked they at once concluded that the Spirit of the Lord had. come upon him and that he was “among the prophets.” Would the modern Jews come to the same favourable conclusion if the Chief Rabbi at St. Helen’s were to act in the. same manner F No wonder there are infidels and atheists. Chris tians are unwittingly fighting against themselves, their Bible, and their God. By their ignorance, bigotry, and superstition, they are alienating more and more ’gentle and devotional souls who have no innate tendency towards infidelity, but who find in the current theology nothing elevating, edifying, or encouraging. Good well-meaning Christians are daily driving earnest inquirers into the boundless and attractive realms of free-thought, whereas, if their very rational questions could be sensibly, if not altogether satisfactorily answered, many of them might retain the main tenets- of a faith from which they have reluctantly drifted away never again to return. �6 “ Which things are an Allegory We may ask or guess Bible riddles, which, though not approved, may be endured, but we may not ask Bible questions in which there is no facetious element without being suspected or even positively accused of having “ got a twist.” Ask in a spirit of earnest inquiry where Mrs. Cain came from ; how God ful filled His promise to Ahab of bringing him back a glorious conqueror ; whether the command given to Hosea really came from God;—-you will be told that “ it is not for us to pry into God’s mysteries,” and that, “ if you go on like that you will soon be an infidel.” In all probability you wiZZ “go on like that,” and you will be an infidel, but who is to blame ? Surely not those who wish to “ prove all things and to hold fast that which is good,” rather those who would gloss over everything and hold fast much that is bad. The chief spoke in the religious wheel is indisputably the Bible, and how it is that the religious world is blind to a fact so obvious is wholly incredible. Holy and zealous people might so easily and so grace fully .avail themselves of the loop-hole afforded by St. Paul, “ Which things are an allegory; ” but no ! Jacob really came to fisty-cuffs with Almighty God, and would have done for him had not God hit upon a tender part of his body to grip hold of, and thus got free! Moses really was favoured with a private view of what the unscrupulous writer of the Penta teuch irreverently alludes to as God’s “ back parts,” —words which ^inspired writers hesitate to quote, which they would willingly soften down, but which students are forced to admit are correctly translated from the supposed original. Some of the language made use of in the Bible is so offensive to occidental ears that it would be an immense relief to discover a mis-translation or an interpolation which might save the reputation of the writers and screen the volume from the attacks of the enemy ; however it is of no use to talk in this strain to the orthodox, to whom �“ Which things are an Allegory.” 7 the whole volume is the “Word of God,” and con sequently must not be tampered with. It is of no use to tell them that Moses could not have seen what God has not got to show, “ parts” and that no whale could possibly swallow even a boy. They will tell you that “with God all things are possible,” and that child-like faith is all that is required of us. If the blessed day should ever dawn (as God grant it may) when the so-called Word of God shall be sifted as wheat and purged of its dross, what a tiny volume will remain ! But that they did it in ignorance, a heavy load of guilt lies at the Christians’ door. They have well-nigh smothered their God with Bibles, and have so effectually concealed his parental attributes, that they have succeeded in literally stamping out the idea of him in many a gentle and noble mind. A coarse, vulgar, revengeful God will not do for a refined, susceptible, and for giving man. Cultivated people must have a cultivated God. The Old Testament God may have done well enough for people in ancient times, but in .these days we cannot respect a God who “hisses,” swears in his wrath, curses, “ is furious,” enjoys the “ sweet savour ” of burning bullocks, shows his “ back parts ” to his favourites, and commands the wholesale slaughter of women and children. We want a God less like a devil than the bogy of the Old Testament. “ Better,” as Bacon says, “to have no opinion of God at all than one that is unworthy of him.” But, unfortu nately, people do not agree with Bacon any more than they do with St. Paul, and they strenuously resist any attempt to set a more dignified deity before their eyes, quite satisfied to adore what, by a happy inconsistency, they would shrink from imitating. However, there is a ray of hope gently glimmering from Natal. In the sixty-fifth Report of the Swedenborg Society recently published we read that Bishop Colenso “ has intimated his willingness to accept copies of such �8 “ Which things are an Allegory works as the Society might be pleased to grant him,” and the Rev. Thomas L. Marsden trusts that the one entitled “ Conjugal Love ” will be included in those selected ; the Report adds “ It is to be hoped that the Bishop will be led by the light shed on the letter of the Word in these works to see his way out of the difficulties which a literal interpretation has presented to his mind, and also to realise the truth that the letter killeth, but the spirit givethlife.” These things we sincerely hope are not “ an allegory,” we should be unaffectedly sorry if by any oversight “ Conjugial* Love ” should be omitted in the list prepared for Colenso. We hope it and all the seer’s lucid works already grace his book-shelves, for with such a man as Swedenborg for a master what may we not expect from such a pupil as Colenso ! * So spelt in Swedenborg’s book. I' 4 X ‘, U li, i ’ ?» • PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes. Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk. <img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource "Which things are an allegory." Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Title from Galatians iv, 24 and a plea for a more liberal interpretation of the Bible. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Thomas Scott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1875 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT135 Subject The topic of the resource Bible Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource [Unknown] Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a> This work ("Which things are an allegory."), identified by <a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a>, is free of known copyright restrictions. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Bible-Criticism Conway Tracts https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2862b427f7490e9e75f83b759bf37454.pdf?Expires=1784764800&Signature=MYJe75kh2Zda6vkME-1Bg5j-LSJnxiKJyMxvf7hXLbkeVHYFQ-o9YOlydgyYqborpDsLfJYsh9unsgL96CKD%7EMWinmhbuJRAiUtYkjlT7yeOsaJL6Dz38Q07rKWuS94n6Lxf8sKALpG7ptM4Gy1cMYUY4vB37Y5rigDhawqxv%7EIFTiVy%7ErXT8dNDG%7EEqey9L69pI41ipmfQYQgncgB06iE9w2YalCLg5eY0IE6jCyM6W8P%7Eta9qLoJ6Kv6JAa4Rs%7EPYAlgatJv0WCNj%7E7AVU-VnRUASr3PWGWeJ7Cslc38dbQwUHeeow85ApU9nL1PSWvfa7JuCdMXYX3K%7ERuOYVlg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ef7ddc38e5b576601c1c75ab00115e9a PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY ABOUT THE HOLY BIBLE. A LECTURE BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. In the nature of things there can be no evidence to establish the claim of inspiration. LONDON : R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. 1894. �LONDON : PRINTED BY G. W. FOOTE, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �CONTENTS. About the Holy Bible—Introductory The Origin of the Bible Is the Old Testament Inspired ? The Ten Commandments What is it all Was Jehovah a Worth ? God of Love ? Jehovah’s Administration The New Testament The Philosophy of Christ Is .Christ our Example ? Why should we Place Christ at the Top and Summit of the Human Race ? Inspiration The Real Bible 5 7 io 15 20 30 32 34 44 48 5° 53 58 �5 B’ �ABOUT THE HOLY BIBLE. There are many millions of people who believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God—millions who think that this book is staff and guide, counsellor and consoler; that it fills the present with peace and the future with hope— millions who believe that it is the fountain of law, justice and mercy, and that to its wise and benign teachings the world is indebted for its liberty, wealth, and civilisation— millions who imagine that this book is a revelation from the wisdom and love of God to the brain and heart of man— millions who regard this book as a torch that conquers the darkness of death, and pours its radiance on another world —a world without a tear. They forget its ignorance and savagery, its hatred of liberty, its religious persecution; they remember heaven, but they forget the dungeon of eternal pain. ��Aboîit the Holy Bible. 1 I. THE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. A few wandering families—poor, wretched ; without educa tion, art, or power; descendants of those who had been enslaved for four hundred years; ignorant as the inhabitants of Central Africa—had just escaped from their masters to the desert of Sinai. Their leader was Moses, a man who had been raised in the family of Pharaoh, and had been taught the law and mythology of Egypt. For the purpose of controlling his followers he pretended that he was instructed and assisted by Jehovah, the god of these wanderers. Everything that happened was attributed to the inter ference of this god. Moses declared that he met this god face to face; that on Sinai’s top from the hands of this god he had received the tables of stone on which, by the finger of this god, the Ten Commandments had been written, and that, in addition to this, Jehovah had made known the sacrifices and ceremonies that were pleasing to him, and the laws by which the people should be governed. In this way the Jewish religion and the Mosaic Code were established. It is now claimed that this religion and these laws were, and are, revealed and established for all mankind. At that time these wanderers had no commerce with other nations—they had no written language—they could neither read nor write. They had no means by which they could make this revelation known to other nations, and so it �Abolit the Holy Bible. remained buried in the jargon of a few ignorant, impoverished, and unknown tribes for more than two thousand years. Many centuries after Moses, the leader, was dead—many centuries after all his followers had passed away—the Pen tateuch was written, the work of many writers ; and, to give it force and authority, it was claimed that Moses was the author. We now know that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses. Towns are mentioned that were not in existence when Moses lived. Money, not coined until centuries after his death, is mentioned. So, many of the laws were not applicable to wanderers on the desert—laws about agriculture, about the sacrifice of oxen, sheep, and doves, about the weaving of cloth, about ornaments of gold and silver, about the cultivation of land, about harvest, about the threshing of grain, about houses and temples, about cities of refuge, and about many other subjects of no possible application to a few starving wan derers over the sands and rocks. It is now not only admitted by intelligent and honest theologians that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, but they all admit that no one knows who the authors were, or who wrote any one of these books, or a chapter or a line. We know that the books were not written in the same generation; that they were not all written by one person ; that they are filled with mistakes and contradictions. It is also admitted that Joshua did not write the book that bears his name, because it refers to events that did not happen until long after his death. No one knows, or pretends to know, the author of Judges ; �About the Holy Bible. 9 all we know is that it was written centuries after all the judges had ceased to exist. No one knows the author of Ruth, nor of First and Second Samuel; all we know is that Samuel did not write the books that bear his name. In the 25 th chapter of First Samuel is an account of Samuel’s death, and in the 27 th chapter is an account of the raising of Samuel by the Witch of Endor. No one knows the author of the First and Second Kings, or First and Second Chronicles; all we' know is that these books are of no value. We know that the Psalms were not written by David. In the Psalms the Captivity is spoken of, and that did not happen until about five hundred years after David slept with his fathers. We know that Solomon did not write the Proverbs or the Song ; that Isaiah was not the author of the book that bears his name ; that no one knows the author of Job, Ecclesiastes, or Esther, or of any book in the Old Testament, with the exception of Ezra. We know that God is not mentioned or in any way referred to in the book of Esther. We know, too, that the book is cruel, absurd, and impossible. God is not mentioned in the Song of Solomon, the best book in the Old Testament. And we know that Ecclesiastes was written by an un believer. We know, too, that the Jews themselves had not decided as to what books were inspired—were authentic—until the second century after Christ. We know that the idea of inspiration was of slow growth, and that the inspiration was determined by those who had certain ends to accomplish. �IO Abotit the Holy Bible. II. IS THE OLD TESTAMENT INSPIRED ? If it is, it should be a book that no man—no number of men—could produce. It should contain the perfection of philosophy. It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature. There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science. Its morality should be the highest, the purest. Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accom plishment of the ends desired. It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive, or infamous. It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy, and the spirit of liberty. It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity, and superstition. It should develop the brain and civilise the heart. It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest. It should be true. Does the Old Testament satisfy this standard? Is there anything in the Old Testament—in history, in theory, in law, in government, in morality, in science—above and beyond the ideas, the beliefs, the customs and prejudices of its authors and the people among whom they lived ? Is there one ray of light from any supernatural source ? �About the Holy Bible. 11 The ancient Hebrews believed that this earth was the centre of the universe, and that the sun, moon, and stars were specks in the sky. With this the Bible agrees. They thought the earth was flat, with four corners; that the sky, the firmament, was solid—the floor of Jehovah’s house. The Bible teaches the same. They imagined that the sun journeyed about the earth, and that by stopping the sun the day could be lengthened. The Bible agrees with this. They believed that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman; that they had been created but a few years before, and that they, the Hebrews, were their direct descendants. This the Bible teaches. If anything is, or can be, certain, the writers of the Bible were mistaken about creation, astronomy, geology; about the causes of phenomena, the origin of evil, and the cause of death. Now, it must be admitted that if an Infinite Being is the author of the Bible, he knew all sciences, all facts, and could not have made a mistake. If, then, there are mistakes, misconceptions, false theories, ignorant myths, and blunders in the Bible, it must have been written by finite beings; that is to say, by ignorant and mistaken men. Nothing can be clearer than this. For centuries the Church insisted that the Bible was absolutely true; that it contained no mistakes; that the story of creation was true; that its astronomy and geology �12 About the Holy Bible. were in accord with the facts ; that the scientists who differed with the Old Testament were infidels and Atheists. Now this has changed. The educated Christians admit that the writers of the Bible were not inspired as to any science. They now say that God, or Jehovah, did not inspire the writers of his book for the purpose of instructing the world about astronomy, geology, or any science. They now admit that the inspired men who wrote the Old Testa ment knew nothing about any science, and that they wrote about the earth and stars, the sun and moon, in accordance with the general ignorance of the time. It required many centuries to force the theologians to this admission. Reluctantly, full of malice and hatred, the priests retired from the field, leaving the victory with science. They took another position : They declared that the authors, or rather the writers, of the Bible were inspired in spiritual and moral things ; that Jehovah wanted to make known to his children his will and his infinite love for his children ; that Jehovah, seeing his people wicked, ignorant, and depraved, wished to make them merciful and just, wise and spiritual, and that the Bible is inspired in its laws, in the religion it teaches, and in its ideas of government. This is the issue now. Is the Bible any nearer right in its ideas of justice, of mercy, of morality, or of religion than in its conception of the sciences ? Is it moral ? It upholds slavery—it sanctions polygamy. Could a devil have done worse ? Is it merciful ? In war it raised the black flag ; it commanded the destruc �About the Holy Bible. 13 tion, the massacre, of all—of the old, infirm, and helpless —of wives and babes. Were its laws inspired ? Hundreds of offences were punished with death. To pick up sticks on Sunday, to murder your father on Monday, were equal crimes. There is in the literature of the world no bloodier code. The law of revenge—of retaliation—was the law of Jehovah. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a limb for a limb. This is savagery—not philosophy. Is it just and reasonable ? The Bible is opposed to religious toleration—to religious liberty. Whoever differed with the majority was stoned to death. Investigation was a crime. Husbands were ordered to denounce and to assist in killing their unbelieving wives. It is the enemy of Art. “ Thou shalt make no graven image.” This was the death of Art. Palestine never produced a painter or a sculptor. Is the Bible civilised ? It upholds lying, larceny, robbery, murder, the selling of diseased meat to strangers, and even the sacrifice of human beings to Jehovah. Is it philosophical ? It teaches that the sins of a people can be transferred to an animal—to a goat. It makes maternity an offence, for which a sin offering had to be made. It was wicked to give birth to a boy, and twice as wicked to give birth to a girl. To make hair-oil like that used by the priests was an offence punishable with death. The blood of a bird killed over running water was regarded as medicine. �r4 About the Holy Bible. Would a civilised God daub his altars with the blood of oxen, lambs, and doves ? Would he make all his priests butchers ? Would he delight in the smell of burning flesh ? �About the Holy Bible. 15 III. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Some Christian lawyers—some eminent and stupid judges— have said, and still say, that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of all law. Nothing could be more absurd. Long before these Commandments were given there were codes of laws in India and Egypt—laws against murder, perjury, larceny, adultery, and fraud. Such laws are as old as human society ; as old as the love of life; as old as industry; as the idea of prosperity; as old as human love. All of the Ten Commandments that are good were old; all that were new are foolish. If Jehovah had been civilised, he would have left out the commandment about keeping the Sabbath, and in its place would have said : “ Thou shalt not enslave thy fellow-men.” He would have omitted the one about swearing, and said : “ The man shall have but one wife, and the woman but one husband.” He would have left out the one about graven images, and in its stead would have said: “ Thou shalt not wage wars of extermination, and thou. shalt not unsheathe the sword except in selfdefence.” If Jehovah had been civilised, how much grander the Ten Commandments would have been. All that we call progress—the enfranchisement of man, of labor, the substitution of imprisonment for death, of fine for imprisonment, the destruction of polygamy, the establishing of free speech, of the rights of conscience ; in short, all that �*6 About the Holy Bible. has tended to the development and civilisation of man; all the results of investigation, observation, experience, and free thought; all that man has accomplished for the benefit of man since the close of the Dark Ages—has been done in spite of the Old Testament. Let me further illustrate the morality, the mercy, the philosophy and goodness of the Old Testament. THE STORY OF ACHAN. Joshua took the city of Jericho. Before the fall of the city he declared that all the spoil taken should be given to the Lord. In spite of this order, Achan secreted a garment, some silver and gold. Afterwards Joshua tried to take the city of Ai. He failed, and many of his soldiers were slain. Joshua sought for the cause of his defeat, and he found that Achan had secreted a garment, two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold. To this Achan confessed. And thereupon Joshua took Achan, his sons and his daughters, his oxen and his sheep—stoned them all to death and burned their bodies. There is nothing to show that the sons and daughters had committed any crime. Certainly the oxen and sheep should not have been stoned to death for the crime of their owner. This was the justice, the mercy, of Jehovah! After Joshua had committed this crime, with the help of Jehovah he captured the city of Ai. THE STORY OF ELISHA. “ And he went up thence unto Bethel, and as he was going up by the way there came forth little children out of �About the Holy Bible. i7 the city and mocked him, and said unto him, 1 Go up, thou baldhead.’ “ And he turned back and looked at them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tore forty and two children of them.” This was the work of the good God—the merciful Jehovah! THE STORY OF DANIEL. King Darius had honored and exalted LDaniel, and the native princes were jealous. So they induced the King to sign a decree to the effect that any man who should make a petition to any god or man except to King Darius, for thirty days, should be cast into the den of lions. Afterwards these men found that Daniel, with his face toward Jerusalem, prayed three times a day to Jehovah. Thereupon Daniel was cast into the den of lions j a stone was placed at the mouth of the den and sealed with the King’s seal. The King passed a bad night. Tbe next morning he went to the den and cried out to Daniel. Daniel answered and told the King that God had sent his angel and shut the mouths of the lions. Daniel was taken out alive and well, and the King was converted and believed in Daniel’s god. Darius, being then a believer in the true God, sent for the men who had accused Daniel, and for their wives and their children, and cast them all into the lions’ den. “ And the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces, or ever they came at the bottom of the pit.” B �i8 About the Holy Bible. What had the wives and little children done ? How had they offended King Darius, the believer in Jehovah ? Who protected Daniel? Jehovah! Who failed to protect the innocent wives and children ? Jehovah ! THE STORY OF JOSEPH. Pharaoh had a dream, and this dream was interpreted by Joseph. According to this interpretation, there was to be in Egypt seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph advised Pharaoh to buy all the surplus of the seven plentiful years, and store it up against the years of famine. Pharaoh appointed Joseph as his minister or agent, and ordered him to buy the grain of the plentiful years. Then came the famine. The people came to the King for help. He told them to go to Joseph and do as he said. Joseph sold corn to the Egyptians until all their money was gone—until he had it all. When the money was gone the people said: “ Give us corn, and we will give you our cattle.” Joseph let them have corn until all their cattle, their horses, and their flocks had been given to him. Then the people said : “ Give us corn, and we will give you our lands.” So Joseph let them have corn until all their lands were gone. But the famine continued, and so the poor wretches sold themselves, and they became the servants of Pharaoh. Then Joseph gave them seed, and made an agreement with them that they should forever give one-fifth of all they raised to Pharaoh. Who enabled Joseph to interpret the dream of Pharaoh ? �About the Holy Bible. 19 Jehovah ! Did he know at the time that Joseph would use the information thus given to rob and enslave the people of Egypt? Yes. Who produced the famine? Jehovah! It is perfectly apparent that the Jews did not think of Jehovah as the God of Egypt—the God of all the world. He was their God, and theirs alone. Other nations had gods, but Jehovah was the greatest of all. He hated other nations and other gods, and abhorred all religions except the worship of himself, �20 About the Holy Bible. IV. WHAT IS IT ALL WORTH? Will some Christian scholar tell us the value of Genesis ? We know that it is not true—that it contradicts itself. There are two accounts of the creation in the first and second chapters. In the first account birds and beasts were created before man. In the second, man was created before the birds and beasts. In the first, fowls are made out of the water. In the second, fowls are made out of the ground. In the first, Adam and Eve are created together. In the second, Adam is made; then the beasts and birds, and then Eve is created from one of Adam’s ribs. These stories are far older than the Pentateuch. Persian : God created the world in six days, a man called Adama, a woman called Evah, and then rested. The Etruscan, Babylonian, Phoenician, Chaldean, and the Egyptian stories are much the same. The Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, and Hindus have their Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life. So the Persians, the Babylonians, the Nubians, the people of Southern India, all had the story of the Fall of Man and the subtle serpent. The Chinese say that sin came into the world by the disobedience of woman. And even the Tahitians tell us that man was created from the earth, and the first woman from one of his bones. �About the Holy Bible. 21 All these stories are equally authentic and of equal value to the world, and all the authors were equally inspired. We know also that the story of the Flood is much older than the book of Genesis, and we know besides that it is not true. We know that this story in Genesis was copied from the Chaldean. There you find all about the rain, the ark, the .animals, the dove that was sent out three times, and the mountain on which the ark rested. So the Hindus, Chinese, Parsees, Persians, Greeks, Mexicans, and Scandinavians have substantially the same story. We also know that the account of the Tower of Babel is an ignorant and childish fable. What, then, is left in this inspired book of Genesis ? Is there a word calculated to develop the heart or brain ? Is there an elevated thought—any great principle—any thing poetic—any word that bursts into blossom ? Is there anything except a dreary and detailed statement •of things that never happened ? Is there anything in Exodus calculated to make men generous, loving, and noble ? Is it well to teach children that God tortured the innocent cattle of the Egyptians—bruised them to death with hailstones—on account of the sins of Pharaoh ? Does it make us merciful to believe that God killed the firstborn of the Egyptians—the firstborn of the poor and suffering people—of the poor girl working at the mill— because of the wickedness of the King ? Can we believe that the gods of Egypt worked miracles ? Did they change water into blood, and sticks into ser pents ? �22 About the Holy Bible. In Exodus there is not one original thought or line of value. We know, if we know anything, that this book was written by savages—savages who believed in slavery, polygamy, and wars of extermination. We know that the story told is impossible, and that the miracles were never performed. This book admits that there are other gods besides Jehovah. In the 17 th chapter is this verse : “ Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods, for, in the thing wherein they dealt proudly, he was above them.” So, in this blessed book is taught the duty of human sacrifice—the sacrifice of babes. In the 22nd chapter is this command : “Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits and of thy liquors : the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give unto me.” Has Exodus been a help or a hindrance to the human race? Take from Exodus the laws common to all nations, and is there anything of value left ? Is there anything in Leviticus of importance ? Is there a chapter worth reading ? What interest have we in the clothes of priests, the curtains and caudles of the tabernacle, the tongs and shovels of the altar, or the hair-oil used by the Levites? Of what use the cruel code, the frightful punishments, the curses, the falsehoods, and the miracles of this ignorant and infamous book ? And what is there in the book of Numbers—with its sacrifices and water of jealousy, with its shew-bread and spoons, its kids and fine flour, its oil and candlesticks, its cucumbers, onions, and manna—to assist and instruct man kind? What interest have we in the rebellion of Korah, �About the Holy Bible. 23 the water of separation, the ashes of a red heifer, the brazen serpent, the water that followed the people uphill and down for forty years, and the inspired donkey of the prophet Balaam ? Have these absurdities and cruelties—these childish, savage superstitions—helped to civilise the world ? Is there anything in Joshua—with its wars, its murders and massacres, its swords dripping with the blood of mothers and babes, its tortures, maimings, and mutilations, its fraud and fury, its hatred and revenge—calculated to improve the world ? Does not every chapter shock the heart of a good man ? Is it a book to be read by children ? The book of Joshua is as merciless as famine, as ferocious as the heart of a wild beast. It is a history—a justification—• a sanctification of nearly every crime. The book of Judges is about the same, nothing but war and bloodshed; the horrible story of Jael and Sisera; of Gideon and his trumpets and pitchers ; of Jephtha and his daughter, whom he murdered to please Jehovah. Here we find the story of Samson, in which a sun-god is changed to a Hebrew giant. Read this book of Joshua—read of the slaughter of women, of wives, of mothers and babes—read its impossible miracles, its ruthless crimes, and all done according to the commands of Jehovah, and tell me whether this book is calculated to make us forgiving, generous, and loving. I admit that the history of Ruth is, in some respects, a beautiful and touching story; that it is naturally told, and that her love for Naomi was deep and pure. But in the matter of courtship we would hardly advise our daughters to follow the example of Ruth. Still, we must remember that Ruth was a widow. �24 About the Holy Bible. Is there anything worth reading in the first and second books of Samuel? Ought a prophet of God to hew a captured king in pieces ? Is the story of the ark, its capture and return, of importance to us ? Is it possible that it was right, just, and merciful to kill fifty thousand men because they had looked into a box ? Of what use to us are the wars of Saul and David, the stories of Goliath and the Witch of Endor ? Why should Jehovah have killed Uzzah for putting forth his hand to steady the ark, and forgiven David for murdering Uriah and stealing his wife ? According to “Samuel,” David took a census of the people. This excited the wrath of Jehovah, and, as a punishment, he allowed David to choose seven years of famine, a flight of three months from pursuing enemies, or three days of pestilence. David, having confidence in God, chose the three days of pestilence ; and, thereupon, God, the compassionate, on account of the sin of David, killed seventy thousand innocent men ! Under the same circumstances, what would a devil have done ? Is there anything in First and Second Kings that suggests the idea of inspiration ? When David is dying he tells his son Solomon to murder joab—not to let his hoar head go down to the grave in peace. With his last breath he commands his son to bring down the hoar head of Shimei to the grave with blood. Having uttered these merciful words, the good David, the man after God’s heart, slept with his fathers. Was it necessary to inspire the man who wrote the history of the building of the temple, the story of the visit of the Queen of Sheba, or to tell the number of Solomon’s wives ? �About the Holy Bible. 25 What care we for the withering of Jeroboam’s hand, the prophecy of Jehu, or the story of Elijah and the ravens ? Can we believe that Elijah brought flames from heaven, or that he went at last to Paradise in a chariot of fire ? Can we believe in the multiplication of the widow’s oil by Elisha, that an army was smitten with blindness, or that an axe floated in the water ? Does it civilise us to read about the beheading of the seventy sons of Ahab, the putting out of the eyes of Zedekiah and the murder of his sons ? Is there one word in First and Second Kings calculated to make men better ? First and Second Chronicles is but a re-telling of what is told in First and Second Kings. The same old stories—a little left out, a little added, but in no respect made better or worseThe book of Ezra is of no importance. He tells us that Cyrus, King of Persia, issued a proclamation for building a temple at Jerusalem, and that he declared Jehovah to be the real and only God. Nothing could be more absurd. Ezra tells us about the return from captivity, the building of the temple, the dedication, a few prayers, and this is all. This book is of no importance, of no use. Nehemiah is about the same, only it tells of the building of the wall, the complaints of the people about taxes, a list of those who returned from Babylon, a catalogue of those who dwelt at Jerusalem, and the dedication of the walls. Not a word in Nehemiah worth reading. Then comes the book of Esther : In this we are told that King Ahasuerus was intoxicated ; that he sent for his Queen, Vashti, to come and show her self to him and his guests. Vashti refused to appear. This maddened the King, and he ordered that from �26 About the Holy Bible. every province the most beautiful girls should be brought before him that he might choose one in place of Vashti. Among others was brought Esther, a Jewess. She was chosen, and became the wife of the King. Then a gentle man, by the name of Haman, wanted to have all the Jews killed, and the King, not knowing that Esther was of that race, signed a decree that all the Jews should be killed. Through the efforts of Mordecai and Esther the decree was annulled, and the Jews were saved. Haman prepared a gallows on which to have Mordecai hanged, but the good Esther so managed matters that Haman and his ten sons were hanged on the gallows that Haman had built, and the Jews were allowed to murder more than seventy-five thousand of the King’s subjects. This is the inspired story of Esther. In the book of Job we find some elevated sentiments, some sublime and foolish thoughts, something of the wonder and sublimity of nature, the joys and sorrows of life; but the story is infamous. Some of the Psalms are good, many are indifferent, and a few are infamous. In them are mingled the vices and virtues. There are verses that elevate ; verses that degrade. There are prayers for forgiveness and revenge. In the literature of the world there is nothing more heartless, more infamous, than the 109th Psalm. In the Proverbs there is much shrewdness, many pithy and prudent maxims, many wise sayings. The same ideas are expressed in many ways—the wisdom of economy and silence, the dangers of vanity and idleness. Some are trivial, some are foolish, and many are wise. These pro verbs are not generous—not altruistic. Sayings to the same effect are found among all nations. �About the Holy Bible. 27 Ecclesiastes is the most thoughtful book in the Bible. It was written by an unbeliever—a philosopher—an agnostic. Take out the interpolations, and it is in accordance with the thought of the nineteenth century. In this book are found the most philosophic and poetic passages in the Bible. After crossing the desert of death and crime—after read ing the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles—it is delightful to reach this grove of palms, called the “Song of Solomon.” A drama of love—of human love; a poem without Jehovah—a poem born of the heart, and true to the divine instincts of the soul. “ I sleep, but my heart waketh.” Isaiah is the work of several. Its swollen words, its vague imagery, its prophesies and curses, its ravings against kings and nations, its laughter at the wisdom of man, its hatred of joy, have not the slightest tendency to increase the well-being of man. In this book is recorded the absurdest of all miracles. The shadow on the dial is turned back ten degrees, in order to satisfy Hezekiah that Jehovah will add fifteen years to his life. In this miracle the world, turning from west to east at the rate of more than a thousand miles an hour, is not only stopped, but made to turn the other way until the shadow on the dial went back ten degrees ! Is there in the whole world an intelligent man or woman who believes this impossible falsehood ? Jeremiah contains nothing of importance—-no facts of value; nothing but fault-finding, lamentations, croakings, wailings, curses, and promises; nothing but famine and prayer, the prosperity of the wicked, the ruin of the Jews, �28 About the Holy Bible. the captivity and return, and, at last, Jeremiah, the traitor, in the stocks and in prison. And Lamentations is simply a continuance of the ravings of the same insane pessimist; nothing but dust and sack cloth and ashes, tears and howls, railings and revilings. And Ezekiel—eating manuscripts, prophesying siege and desolation, with visions of coals of fire, and cherubim, and wheels with eyes, and the type and figure of the boiling pot, and the resurrection of dry bones—is of no use, of no possible value. With Voltaire, I say that anyone who admires Ezekiel should be compelled to dine with him. Daniel is a disordered dream—a nightmare. What can be made of this book with its image with a golden head, with breast and arms of silver, with belly and thighs of brass, with legs of iron, and with feet of iron and clay; with its writing on the wall, its den of lions, and its vision of the ram and goat ? Is there anything to be learned from Hosea and his wife? Is there anything of use in Joel, in Amos, in Obadiah? Can we get any good from Jonah and his gourd ? Is it possible that God is the real author of Micah and Nahum, of Habakkuk and Zephaniah, of Haggai and Malachi and Zechariah, with his red horses, his four horns, his four carpenters, his flying roll, his mountains of brass, and the stone with four eyes ? Is there anything in these “inspired” books that has been of benefit to man? Have they taught us how to cultivate the earth, to build houses, to weave cloth, to prepare food ? Have they taught us to paint pictures, to chisel statues, to build bridges, or ships, or anything of beauty or of use ? Did we get our �About the Holy Bible. 29 ideas of government, of religious freedom, of the liberty of thought, from the Old Testament ? Did we get from any of these books a hint of any science? Is there in the “ sacred volume ” a word, a line, that has added to the wealth, the intelligence, and the happiness of mankind? Is there one of the books of the Old Testament as enter taining as Robinson Crusoe, the Travels of Gulliver, or Peter Wilkins and his Flying Wife? Did the author of Genesis know as much about nature as Humboldt, or Darwin, or Haeckel ? Is what is called the Mosaic Code as wise or as merciful as the code of any civilised nation ? Were the writers of Kings and Chronicles as great his torians, as great writers, as Gibbon and Draper ? Is Jeremiah or Habakkuk equal to Dickens or Thackeray ? Can the authors of Job and the Psalms be compared with Shakespeare? Why should we attribute the best to man and the worst to God ? �3° About the Holy Bible. N. WAS JEHOVAH A GOD OF LOVE ? Did these words come from the heart of love ?— “When the Lord thy God shall drive them before thee, thou shalt smite them and utterly destroy them ; thou shalt make no covenant with them, or show mercy unto them.” 111 will heap mischief upon them. I will send mine arrows upon them ; they shall be burned with hunger and devoured with burning heat and with bitter destruction.” “ I will send the tooth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust.” “ The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin; the suckling also with the man of gray hairs.” “ Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow; let his children be continually vagabonds and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places; let the extortioner catch all that he hath, and let the stranger spoil his labor; let there be none to extend mercy unto him, neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.” “ And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body—the flesh of thy sons and daughters.” “ And the heaven that is over thee shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron.” “ Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.” “ I will make my arrows drunk with blood.” “ I will laugh at their calamity.” �About the Holy Bible. 3i • Did these curses, these threats, come from the heart of love or from the mouth of savagery ? Was Jehovah god or devil ? Why should we place Jehovah above all the gods ? Has man in his ignorance and fear ever imagined a greater monster ? Have the barbarians of any land, in any time, worshipped a more heartless god ? Brahma was a thousand times nobler, and so were Osiris and Zeus and Jupiter. So was the supreme god of the Aztecs, to whom they offered only the perfume of flowers. The worst god of the Hindus, with his necklace of skulls and his bracelets of living snakes, was kind and merciful compared with Jehovah. Compared with Marcus Aurelius, how small Jehovah seems. Compared with Abraham Lincoln, how cruel, how contemptible, is this god. �32 About the Holy Bible. VI. jehovah’s administration. He created the world, the hosts of heaven, a man and woman—placed them in a garden. Then the serpent deceived them, and they were cast out and made to earn their bread. Jehovah had been thwarted. Then he tried again. He went on for about sixteen hundred years trying to civilise the people. No schools, no churches, no Bible, no tracts—nobody taught to read or write. No Ten Commandments. The people grew worse and worse, until the merciful Jehovah sent the flood and drowned all the people except Noah and his family, eight in all. Then he started again, and changed their diet. At first Adam and Eve were vegetarians. After the flood Jehovah said : “ Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you ”—snakes and buzzards. Then he failed again, and at the Tower of Babel he dispersed and scattered the people. Finding that he could not succeed with all the people, he thought he would try a few, so he selected Abraham and his descendants. Again he failed, and his chosen people were captured by the Egyptians and enslaved for four hundred years. Then he tried again—rescued them from Pharaoh and started for Palestine. Then he changed their diet, allowing them to eat only �About the Holy Bible. 33 the beasts that parted the hoof and chewed the cud. Again he failed. The people hated him, and preferred the slavery of Egypt to the freedom of Jehovah. So he kept them wandering until nearly all who came from Egypt had died. Then he tried again—took them into Palestine, and had them governed by judges. This, too, was a failure—no schools, no Bible. Then he tried kings, and the kings were mostly idolaters. Then the chosen people were conquered and carried into captivity by the Babylonians. Another failure. Then they returned, and Jehovah tried prophets—howlers and waiters—but the people grew worse and worse. No schools, no sciences, no arts, no commerce. Then Jehovah took upon himself flesh, was born of a woman, and lived among the people that he had been trying to civilise for several thousand years. Then these people, following the law that Jehovah had given them in the wilderness, charged this Jehovah-man—this Christ—with blasphemy; tried, con victed, and killed him. Jehovah had failed again. Then he deserted the Jews and turned his attention to the rest of the world. And now the Jews, deserted by Jehovah, persecuted by Christians, are the most prosperous people on the earth. Again has Jehovah failed. What an administration ! �34 About the Holy Bible VII. THE NEW TESTAMENT. Who wrote the New Testament ? Christian scholars admit that they do not know. 1 hey admit that, if the four gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they must have been written in Hebrew. And yet a Hebrew manuscript of any one of these gospels has never been found. All have been, and are, in Greek. So, educated theologians admit that the Epistles, James and Jude, were written by persons who had never seen one of the four gospels. In these Epistles in James and Jude—no reference is made to any of the gospels, nor to any miracle recorded in them. The first mention that has been found of one of our gospels was made about one hundred and eighty years after the birth of Christ, and the four gospels were first named and quoted from at the beginning of the third century, about one hundred and seventy years after the death of Christ. We now know that there were many other gospels besides our four, some of which have been lost. There were the gospels of Paul, of the Egyptians, of the Hebrews, of Perfection, of Judas, of Thaddeus, of the Infancy, of Thomas, of Mary, of Andrew, of Nicodemus, of Marcion, and several others. So there were the Acts of Pilate, of Andrew, of Mary, of Paul and Thecla, and of many others. Another book called the Shepherd of Hermes. �About the Holy Bible. 35 At first not one of all the books was considered as inspired. The Old Testament was regarded as divine; but the books that now constitute the New Testament were regarded as human productions. We now know that we do not know who wrote the four gospels. ■ The question is, Were the authors of these four gospels inspired ? If they were inspired, then the four gospels must be true. If they are true, they must agree. The four gospels do not agree. Matthew, Mark, and Luke knew nothing of the Atone ment, nothing of salvation by faith. They knew only the gospel of good deeds—of charity. They teach that if we forgive others God will forgive us. With this the gospel of John does not agree. In that gospel we are taught that we must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; that we must be born again; that we must drink the blood and eat the flesh of Christ. In this gospel we find the doctrine of the Atonement, and that Christ died for us and suffered in our place. This gospel is utterly at variance with the other three. If the other three are true, the gospel of John is false. If the gospel of John was written by an in spired man, the writers of the other three were un inspired. From this there is no possible escape. The four cannot be true. It is evident that there are many interpolations in the four gospels. For instance, in the 28th chapter of Matthew is an account to the effect that the soldiers at the tomb of Christ were bribed to say that the disciples of Jesus stole away his body while they, the soldiers, slept. �36 About the Holy Bible. This is clearly an interpolation. It is a break in the narrative. The 10th verse should be followed by the 16th. The 10th verse is as follows : “Then Jesus said unto them, ‘Be not afraid ; go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.’ ” The 16th verse : “ Then the eleven disciples went away unto Galilee into a mountain, where Jesus had appointed them.” The story about the soldiers contained in the nth, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15 th verses is an interpolation—an afterthought—long after. The 15th verse demonstrates this. Fifteenth verse : “ So they took the money and did as they were taught. And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.” Certainly, this account was not in the original gospel, and certainly the 15th verse was not written by a Jew. No Jew could have written this: “And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.” Mark, John, and Luke never heard that the soldiers had been bribed by the priests; or, if they had, did not think it worth while recording. So the accounts of the Ascension of Jesus Christ in Mark and Luke are interpolations. Matthew says nothing about the Ascension. Certainly there never was a greater miracle, and yet Matthew, who was present—who saw the Lord rise, ascend, and disappear—did not think it worth mentioning. On the other hand, the last words of Christ, according to Matthew, contradict the Ascension : “ Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” �About the Holy Bible. 37 John, who was present, if Christ really ascended, says not one word on the subject. As to the Ascension, the gospels do not agree. Mark gives the last conversation that Christ had with his disciples, as follows : “ Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe : In my name shall they cast out devils ; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So, then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” Is it possible that this description was written by one who witnessed this miracle ? This miracle is described by Luke as follows: “ And it came to pass while he blessed them he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.” “ Brevity is the soul of wit.” In the Acts we are told that: “ When he had spoken, while they beheld, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight.” Neither Luke, nor Matthew, nor John, nor the writer of the Acts, heard one word of the conversation attributed to Christ by Mark. The fact is that the Ascension of Christ was not claimed by his disciples. At first Christ was a man—nothing more. Mary was his mother, Joseph his father. The genealogy of his father, Joseph, was given to show that he was of the blood of David. Then the claim was made that he was the son of God, �38 About the Holy Bible. and that his mother was a virgin, and that she remained a virgin until her death. Then the claim was made that Christ rose from the dead, and ascended bodily to heaven. It required many years for these absurdities to take pos session of the minds of men. If Christ rose from the dead, why did he not appear to his enemies ? Why did he not call on Caiphas, the high priest ? Why did he not make another triumphal entry into Jerusalem ? If he really ascended, why did he not do so in public, in the presence of his persecutors ? Why should this, the greatest of miracles, be done in secret in a corner ? It was a miracle that could have been seen by a vast multitude—a miracle that could not be simulated—one that would have convinced hundreds of thousands. After the story of the Resurrection, the Ascension became a necessity. They had to dispose of the body. So there are many other interpolations in the gospels and epistles. Again I ask : Is the New Testament true ? Does any body now believe that at the birth of Christ there was a celestial greeting; that a star led the Wise Men of the East; that Herod slew the babes of Bethlehem of two years old and under ? The gospels are filled with accounts of miracles. Were they ever performed ? Matthew gives the particulars of about twenty-two miracles, Mark of about nineteen, Luke of about eighteen, and John of about seven. According to the gospels, Christ healed diseases, cast out devils, rebuked the sea, cured the blind, fed multitudes with �About the Holy Bible. 39 five loaves and two fishes, walked on the sea, cursed a fig tree, turned water into wine, and raised the dead. Matthew is the only one that tells about the Star and the Wise Men—the only one that tells about the murder of babes. John is the only one who says anything about the resur rection of Lazarus, and Luke is the only one giving an account of the raising from the dead the widow of Nain’s son. How is it possible to substantiate these miracles ? The Jews, among whom they were said to have been performed, did not believe them. The diseased, thè palsied, the leprous, the blind who were cured, did not become followers of Christ. Those that were raised from the dead were never heard of again. Does any intelligent man believe in the existence of devils ? The writer of three of the gospels certainly did. John says nothing about Christ having cast out devils, but Matthew, Mark, and Luke give many instances. Does any natural man now believe that Christ cast out devils? If his disciples said he did, they were mistaken. If Christ said he did, he was insane, or an impostor. If the accounts of casting out devils are false, then the writers were ignorant or dishonest. If they wrote through ignorance, then they were not inspired. If they wrote what they knew to be false, they were not inspired. If what they wrote is untrue, whether they knew it or not, they were not inspired. At that time it was believed that palsy, epilepsy, deafness, insanity, and many other diseases, were caused by devils ; that devils took possession of, and lived in, the bodies of men and women. Christ believed this, taught this belief to �4° About the Holy Bible. others, and pretended to cure diseases by casting devils out of the sick and insane. We know now, if we know anything, that diseases are not caused by the presence of devils. We know, if we know anything, that devils do not reside in the bodies of men. If Christ said and did what the writers of the three gospels say he said and did, then Christ was mistaken. If he was mistaken, certainly he was not God. And if he was mis taken, certainly he was not inspired. Is it a fact that the Devil tried to bribe Christ ? Is it a fact that the Devil carried Christ to the top of the temple, and tried to induce him to leap to the ground ? How can these miracles be established ? The principals have written nothing, Christ has written nothing, and the Devil has remained silent. How can we know that the Devil tried to bribe Christ ? Who wrote the account ? We do not know. How did the writer get his information ? We do not know. Somebody, some seventeen hundred years ago, said that the Devil tried to bribe God; that the Devil carried God to the top of the temple, and tried to induce him to leap to the earth, and that God was intellectually too keen for the Devil. This is all the evidence we have. Is there anything in the literature of the world more per fectly idiotic ? Intelligent people no longer believe in witches, wizards, spooks, and devils, and they are perfectly satisfied that every word in the New Testament about casting out devils is utterly false. Can we believe that Christ raised the dead ? A widow living in Nain is following the body of her son to the tomb. Christ halts the funeral procession, and raises �About the Holy Bible. 4i the young man from the dead, and gives him back to the arms of his mother. This young man disappears. He is never heard of again. No one takes the slightest interest in the man who returned from the realm of death. Luke is the only one who tells the story. Maybe Matthew, Mark, and John never heard of it, or did not believe it, and so failed to record it. John says that Lazarus was raised from the dead; Matthew, Mark, and Luke say nothing about it. It was more wonderful than the raising of the widow’s son. He had not been laid in the tomb for days. He was only on his way to the grave, but Lazarus was actually dead. He had begun to decay. Lazarus did not excite the least interest. No one asked him about the other world. No one inquired of him about their dead friends. When he died the second time no one said : “ He is not afraid. He has travelled that road twice, and knows just where he is going.” We do not believe in the miracles of Mohammed, and yet they are as well attested as this. We have no confidence in the miracles performed by Joseph Smith, and yet the evi dence is far greater, far better. If a man should go about now pretending to raise the dead, pretending to cast out devils, we would regard him as insane; What, then, can we say of Christ ? If we wish to save his reputation, we are compelled to say that he never pretended to raise the dead; that he never claimed to have cast out devils. We must take the ground that these ignorant and im possible things were invented by zealous disciples, who sought to deify their leader. �42 About the Holy Bible. In those ignorant days these falsehoods added to the fame of Christ. But now they put his character in peril and belittle the authors of the gospels. Can we now believe that water was changed into wine ? John tells of this childish miracle, and says that the other disciples were present; yet Matthew, Mark, and Luke say nothing about it. Take the miracle of the man cured by the pool of Bethesda. John says that an angel troubled the waters of the pool of Bethesda, and that whoever got into the pool first after the waters were troubled was healed. Does anybody now believe that an angel went into the pool and troubled the waters ? Does anybody now think that the poor wretch who got in first was healed? Yet the author of the Gospel according to John believed and asserted these absurdities. If he was mistaken about that, he may have been about all the miracles he records. John is the only one who tells about this pool of Bethesda. Possibly the other disciples did not believe the story. How can we account for these pretended miracles ? In the days of the disciples, and for many centuries after, the world was filled with the supernatural. Nearly every thing that happened was regarded as miraculous. God was the immediate governor of the world. If the people were good, God sent seed time and harvest; but if they were bad, he sent flood and hail, frost and famine. If anything wonderful happened, it was exaggerated until it became a miracle. Of the order of events—of the unbroken and the unbreak able chain of causes and effects—the people had no know ledge and no thought. �About the Holy Bible. 43 A miracle is the badge and brand of fraud. No miracle ever was performed. No intelligent, honest man ever pre tended to perform a miracle, and never will. If Christ had wrought the miracles attributed to him; if he had cured the palsied and insane; if he had given hearing to the deaf, vision to the blind ; if he had cleansed the leper with a word, and with a touch had given life and feeling to the withered limb; if he had given pulse and motion, warmth and thought, to cold and breathless clay; if he had conquered death and rescued from the grave its pallid prey, no word would have been uttered, no hand raised, except in praise and honor. In his presence all heads would have been uncovered—all knees upon the ground. Is it not strange that at the trial of Christ no one was found to say a word in his favor ? No man stood forth and said : “ I was a leper, and this man cured me with a touch.” No woman said : “ I am a widow of Nain, and this is my son whom this man raised from the dead.” No man said: “ I was blind, and this man gave me sight.” All silent. �44 About the Holy Bible. VIII. THE PHILOSOPHY OF CHRIST. Millions assert that the philosophy of Christ is perfect— that he was the wisest that ever uttered speech. Let us see : Resist not evil. If smitten on one cheek, turn the other. Is there any philosophy, any wisdom in this ? Christ takes from goodness, from virtue, from the truth, the right of self-defence. Vice becomes the master of the world, and the good become the victims of the infamous. No man has the right to protect himself, his property, his wife and children. Government becomes impossible, and the world is at the mercy of criminals. Is there any absurdity beyond this ? Love your enemies. Is this possible ? Did any human being ever love his enemies ? Did Christ love his when he denounced them as whited sepulchres, hypocrites, and vipers ? We cannot love those who hate us. Hatred in the hearts of others does not breed love in ours. Not to resist evil is absurd ; to love your enemies is impossible. Take no thought for the morrow. The idea was that God would take care of us as he did of sparrows and lilies. Is there the least sense in that belief? Does God take care of anybody ? Can we live without taking thought for the morrow ? To plough, to sow, to cultivate, to harvest, is to take thought for �About the Holy Bible. 45 the morrow. We plan and work for the future, for our children, for the unborn generations to come. Without this forethought there could be no progress, no civilisation. The world would go back to the caves and dens of savagery. If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out. If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off. Why? Because it is better that one of our members should perish than that the whole body should be cast into hell. Is there any wisdom in putting out your eyes or cutting off your hands ? Is it possible to extract from these extrava gant sayings the smallest grain of common sense ? Swear not at all; neither by Heaven, for it is God s throne ; nor by the Earth, for it is his footstool: nor by ferusalem, for it is his holy city. Here we find the astronomy and geology of Christ. Heaven is the throne of God, the monarch ; the earth is his footstool. A footstool that turns over at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, and sweeps through space at the rate of over a thousand miles a minute ! Where did Christ think heaven was ? Why was Jerusalem a holy city? Was it because the inhabitants were ignorant, cruel, and superstitious,? Ifa man sue thee at law and take away your coat, give him your cloak also. Is there any philosophy, any good sense, in that com mandment ? Would it not be just as sensible to say : “ If a man obtains a judgment against you for one hundred dollars, give him two hundred ” ? Only the insane could give or follow this advice. Think not I am come to send peace on earth. I came not to �46 About the Holy Bible. send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother. If this is true, how much better it would have been had he remained away. Is it possible that he who said, “ Resist not evil,” came to bring a sword ? That he who said, “ Love your enemies,” came to destroy the peace of the world ? To set father against son, and daughter against father—what a glorious mission ! He did bring a sword, and the sword was wet for a thousand years with innocent blood. In millions of hearts he sowed the seeds of hatred and revenge. He divided nations and families, put out the light of reason, and petrified the hearts of men. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an .hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. According to the writer of Matthew, Christ, the com passionate, the merciful, uttered these terrible words. Is it possible that Christ offered the bribe of eternal joy to those who would desert their fathers, their mothers, their wives and children ? Are we to win the happiness of heaven by deserting the ones we love ? Is a home to be ruined here for the sake of a mansion there ? And yet it is said that Christ is an example for all the world. Did he desert his father and mother ? He said, speaking to his mother : “ Woman, what have I to do with thee ?” The Pharisees said unto Christ: Is it lawful to pay tribute unto Caesar ? �About the Holy Bible. 47 Christ said : “ Show me the tribute money. They brought him a penny. And he saith unto them : “ Whose is the image and the superscription ?” They said: “ Caesar’s.” And Christ said : “ Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Did Christ think that the money belonged to Caesar because his image and superscription were stamped upon it ? Did the penny belong to Caesar, or to the man who had earned it ? Had Caesar the right to demand it because it was adorned with his image ? Does it appear from this conversation that Christ under stood the real nature and use of money ? Can we now say that Christ was the greatest of philosophers ? �About the Holy Bible. IX. IS CHRIST OUR EXAMPLE? He never said a word in favor of education. He never even hinted at the existence of any science. He never uttered a word in favor of industry, economy, or of any effort to better our condition in this world. He was the enemy of the successful, of the wealthy. Dives was sent to hell, not because he was bad, but because he was rich. Lazarus went to heaven, not because he was good, but because he was poor. Christ cared nothing for painting, for sculpture, for music —nothing for any art. He said nothing about the duties of nation to nation, of king to subject; nothing about the rights of man; nothing about intellectual liberty or the freedom of speech. He said nothing about the sacredness of home; not one word for the fireside ; not a word in favor of marriage, in honor of maternity. He never married. He wandered homeless from place to place with a few disciples. None of them seem to have been engaged in any useful business, and they seem to have lived on alms. All human ties were held in contempt; this world was sacrificed for the next; all human effort was discouraged. God would support and protect. At last, in the dusk of death, Christ, finding that he was mistaken, cried out: “ My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me ?” We have found that man must depend on himself. �About the Holy Bible. 49 Île must clear the land; he must build the home; he must plough and plant ; he must invent ; he must work with hand and brain; he must overcome the difficulties and obstructions ; he must conquer and enslave the forces of nature to the end that they may do the work of the world. �5° About the Holy Bible, X. WHY SHOULD WE PLACE CHRIST AT THE TOP AND SUMMIT OF THE HUMAN RACE ? Was he kinder, more forgiving, more self-sacrificing than Buddha? Was he wiser, did he meet death with more perfect calmness, than Socrates ? Was he more patient, more charitable, than Epictetus? Was he a greater philosopher, a deeper thinker, than Epicurus? In what respect was he the superior of Zoroaster ? Was he gentler than Laotse, more universal than Confucius ? Were his ideas of human rights and duties superior to those of Zeno ? Did he express grander truths than Cicero ? Was his mind subtler than Spinoza’s ? Was his brain equal to Kepler’s or Newton’s? Was‘he grander in death—a sublimer martyr than Bruno ? Was he in intelligence, in the force and beauty of expression, in breadth and scope of thought, in wealth of illustration, in aptness of comparison, in knowledge of the human brain and heart, of all passions, hopes, and fears, the equal of Shakespeare, the greatest of the human race ? If Christ was in fact God, he knew all the future. Before him like a panorama moved the history yet to be. He knew how his words would be interpreted. He knew what crimes, what horrors, what infamies, would be committed in his name. He knew that the hungry flames of persecution would climb around the limbs of countless martyrs. He knew that thousands and thousands of brave men and women would languish in dungeons in darkness, filled with �About the Holy Bible. 5i pain. He knew that his Church would invent and use instruments of torture ; that his followers would appeal to whip and fagot, to chain and rack. He saw the horizon of the future lurid with the flames of the auto da fé. He knew what creeds would spring like poisonous fungi from every text. He saw the ignorant sects waging war against each other. He saw thousands of men, under the orders of priests, building prisons for their fellow-men. He saw thousands of scaffolds dripping with the best and bravest blood. He saw his followers using the instruments of pain. He heard the groans—saw the faces white with agony. He heard the shrieks and sobs and cries of all the moaning, martyred multitudes. He knew that commentaries would be written on his words with swords, to be read by the light of fagots. He knew that the Inquisition would be born of the teachings attributed to him. He saw the interpolations and falsehoods that hypocrisy would write and tell. He saw all wars that would be waged, and he knew that above these fields of death, these dungeons, these rackings, these burnings, these executions, for a thousand years would float the dripping banner of the cross. He knew that hypocrisy would be robed and crowned— that cruelty and credulity would rule the world ; knew that liberty would perish from the earth ; knew that popes and kings in his name would enslave the souls and bodies of men ; knew that they would persecute and destroy the dis coverers, thinkers, and inventors ; knew that his Church would extinguish reason’s holy light, and leave the world without a star. He saw his disciples extinguishing the eyes of men, flay ing them alive, cutting out their tongues, seaching for all the nerves of pain. �52 About the Holy Bible. He knew that in his name his followers would trade in human flesh; that cradles would be robbed and women’s breasts unbabed for gold. And yet he died with voiceless lips. Why did he fail to speak? Why did he not tell his disciples, and through them the world: “You shall not burn, imprison, and torture in my name. You shall not persecute your fellow-men.” Why did he not plainly say “ I am the Son of God,” or “lam God ” ? Why did he not explain the Trinity ? Why did he not tell the mode of baptism that was pleasing to him ? Why did he not write a creed ? Why did he not break the chains of slaves ? Why did he not say that the Old Testament was or was not the inspired word of God ? Why did he not write the New Testament himself? Why did he leave his words to ignorance, hypocrisy, and chance ? Why did he not say something positive, definite, and satisfactory about another world ? Why did he not turn the tear-stained hope of heaven into the glad knowledge of another life ? Why did he not tell us something of the rights of man, of the liberty of hand and brain ? Why did he go dumbly to his death, leaving the world to misery and to doubt ? I will tell you why. He was a man, and did not know. �About the Holy Bible. 53 XI. INSPIRATION. Not before about the third century was it claimed or believed that the books composing the New Testament were inspired. It will be remembered that there were a great number of books, of Gospels, Epistles, and Acts, and that from these the “ inspired ” ones were selected by “ uninspired ” men. Between the “Fathers” there were great differences of opinion as to which books were inspired; much discussion and plenty of hatred. Many of the books now deemed spurious were by many of the “ Fathers ” regarded as divine, and some now regarded as inspired were believed to be spurious. Many of the early Christians and some of the “Fathers” repudiated the gospel of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jude, James, Peter, and the Revelation of St. John. On phe other hand, many of them regarded the Gospel of the Hebrews, of the Egyptians, the Preaching of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabus, the Pastor of Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, the Revelation of Paul, the Epistle of Clement, the Gospel of Nicodemus, inspired books, equal to the very best. From all these books, and many others, the Christians selected the inspired ones. The men who did the selecting were ignorant and superstitious. They were firm believers in the miraculous. They thought that diseases had been cured by the aprons and handkerchiefs of the apostles, by the bones of the �54 About the Holy Bible. dead. They believed in the fable of the Phoenix, and that the hyenas changed their sex every year. Were the men who through many centuries made the selections inspired ? Were they—ignorant, credulous, stupid, and malicious—as well qualified to judge of “ in spiration ” as the students of our time ? How are we bound by their opinion ? Have we not the right to judge for ourselves? Erasmus, one of the leaders of the Reformation, declared that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul, and he denied the inspiration of Second and Third John, and also of Revelation. Luther was of the same opinion. He declared James to be an epistle of straw, and denied the inspiration of Revelation. Zwinglius rejected the book of Revelation, and even Calvin denied that Paul was the author of Hebrews. The truth is that the Protestants did not agree as to what books are inspired until 1647, by the Assembly of West minster. To prove that a book is inspired you must prove the existence of God. You must also prove that this God thinks, acts, has objects, ends, and aims. This is somewhat difficult. It is impossible to conceive of an infinite being. Having no conception of an infinite being, it is impossible to tell whether all the facts we know tend to prove or disprove the existence of such a being. God is a guess. If the existence of God is admitted, how are we to prove that he inspired the writers of the books of the Bible ? How can one man establish the inspiration of another ? How can an inspired man prove that he is inspired ? How �About the Holy Bible. 55 can he know himself that he is inspired ? There is no way to prove the fact of inspiration. The only evidence is the word of some man who could by no possibility know any thing on the subject. What is inspiration ? Did God use men as instruments ? Did he cause them to write his thoughts ? Did he take possession of their minds and destroy their wills ? Were these writers only partly controlled, so that their mistakes, their ignorance, and their prejudices were mingled with the wisdom of God? How are we to separate the mistakes of men from the thoughts of God ? Can we do this without being inspired ourselves ? If the original writers were inspired, then the translators should have been, and so should be the men who tell us what the Bible means. How is it possible for a human being to know that he is inspired by an infinite being ? But of one thing we may be certain : An inspired book should certainly excel all the books produced by uninspired men. It should, above all, be true, filled with wisdom, blossoming in beauty—perfect. Ministers wonder how I can be wicked enough to attack the Bible. I will tell them : This book, the Bible, has persecuted, even unto death, the wisest and the best. This book stayed and stopped the onward movement of the human race. This book poisoned the fountains of learning and misdirected the energies of man. This book is the enemy of freedom, the support of slavery. This book sowed the seeds of hatred in families and nations, fed the flames of war, and impoverished the �56 About the Holy Bible. world. This book is the breastwork of kings and tyrants— the enslaver of women and children. This book has corrupted parliaments and courts. This book has made colleges and universities the teachers of error and the haters of science. This book has filled Christendom with hateful, cruel, ignorant, and warring sects. This book taught men to kill their fellows for religion’s sake. This book founded the inquisition, invented the instruments of torture, built the dungeons in which the good and loving languished, forged the chains that rusted in their flesh, erected the scaffolds whereon they died. This book piled fagots about the feet of the just. This book drove reason from the'minds of millions, and filled the asylums with the insane. This book has caused fathers and mothers to shed the blood of their babes. This book was the auction block on which the slave-mother stood when she was sold from her child. This book filled the sails of the slave-trader, and made merchandise of human flesh. This book lighted the fires that burned “witches” and “wizards.” This book filled the darkness with ghouls and ghosts, and the bodies of men and women with devils. This book polluted the souls of men with the infamous dogma of eternal pain. This book made credulity the greatest of virtues, and investigation [the greatest of crimes. This book filled nations with hermits, monks, and nuns—with the pious and the useless. This book placed the ignorant and unclean saint above the philosopher and philanthropist. This book taught man to despise the joys of this life, that he might be happy in another—to waste this world for the sake of the next. I attack this book because it is the enemy of human �About the Holy Bible. 57 liberty—the greatest obstruction across the highway of human progress. Let me ask the ministers one question : How can you be wicked enough to defend this book ? �58 About the Holy Bible. XII. THE REAL BIBLE. For thousands of years men have been writing the real Bible, and it is being written from day to day, and it will never be finished while man has life. All the facts that we know, all the truly recorded events, all the discoveries and inventions, all the wonderful machines whose wheels and levers seem to think, all the poems, crystals from the brain, flowers from the heart, all the songs of love and joy, of smiles and tears, the great dramas of Imagination’s world, the wondrous paintings, miracles of form and color, of light and shade, the marvellous marbles that seem to live and breathe, the secrets told by rock and star, by dust and flower, by rain and snow, by frost and flame, by winding stream and desert sand, by mountain range and billowed sea. All the wisdom that lengthens and ennobles life—all that avoids or cures disease, or conquers pain—all just and perfect laws and rules that guide and shape our lives, all thoughts that feed the flames of love, the music that trans figures, enraptures, and enthralls, the victories of heart and brain, the miracles that hands have wrought, the deft and cunning hands of those who worked for wife and child, the histories of noble deeds, of brave and useful men, of faithful loving wives, of quenchless mother love, of conflicts for the right, of sufferings for the truth, of all the best that all the men and women of the �About the Holy Bible. 59 world have said, and thought, and done through all the years. These treasures of the heart and brain—these are the Sacred Scriptures of the human race. ��Works by Colonel R. G. Ingersoll. hy am Some Mistakes of Moses. WPart I. 2d. I The only complete edition in England. Accurate as Colenso, Why am I an Agnostic ? an Agnostic? Part II. 2d. and fascinating as a novel. ^3'2pp. Is. Superior paper, cloth is. od. Faith and Fact. Reply to Defence of Freethought. Dr. Field. 2d. A Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial God and Man. Second reply to Dr. Field. 2d. of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy. The Dying Creed. 2d. 6d. The Limits of Toleration. The Gods. 6d. Reply to Gladstone. With, A Discussion with the Hon. F. D. Coudert and Gov. S. L. Woodford. a Biography by J. M. Wheeler. 2d. Rome or Reason? A Reply The Household of Faith. to Cardinal Manning. 4d. 2d. _ Crimes against Criminals. Art and Morality. 2d. Do I Blaspheme? 2d. 3d. Oration on Walt Whitman. The Clergy and Common 3d. , Sense. 2d. Oration on Voltaire. 3d. Social Salvation. 2d. Abraham Lincoln. 3d. Marriage and Divorce. An Paine the Pioneer. 2d. Agnostic’s View. 2d. Humanity’s Debt to Thomas Skulls. 2d. Paine. 2d. The Great Mistake. Id. Ernest Renan and Jesus Live Topics. Id. Christ. 2d. Myth and Miracle. Id. True Religion. 2d. . Id. The Three Philanthropists. Real Blasphemydols. Id. Repairing the I 2d. Christ and Miracles. Id. Love the Redeemer. 2d. Creeds & Spirituality. Id. God and the State. 2d. London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C. THOMAS PAINE’S WORKS. The Age of Reason. New edition, with Preface by G, W. Foote. Is. Miscellaneous Theological Works, is. Complete Theological Works. (Including the Age of Reason.) Cloth, 2s. 6d. The Rights of Man. Centenary edition. With a Political Biography by J. 1VE. Wheeler. Is. j bound in cloth., 2s. London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C. �Vol. I., cloth gilt, 216 pp., 2s. 6d., post free, CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. BY G. W. FOOTE AND J. M. WHEELER. Hundreds of exact References to Standard Authorities. No pains spared to make it a complete, trustworthy, final, unanswerable Indictment of Christianity. Chapters :—1, Christ to Constantine; 2, Constantine to Hypatia; 3, Monkery; Pious Forgeries; 5, Pious Frauds ; 6, Rise of the Papacy 7, Crimes of the Popes ; 8, Persecution of the Jews; 9, The Crusades. “ The book is very carefully compiled, the references are given with exactitude, and the work is calculated to be of the greatest use to the opponents of Christianity.”—0. Bradlaugh, in National Reformer. “The book is worth reading. It is fair, and, on the whole, correct.” — Weekly Times. „ book has a purpose, and is entitled to a fair hearing.”—Hudders field, Examiner. “The work should be scattered like autumn leaves.”—Ironclad Aqe (U.S.A.). u London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C. 221 pp., bound in cloth, 2s. 6d., post free, FLOWERS OF FREETHOUGHT (FIRST SERIES) BY G. Old Nick Fire ! ! ! Sky Pilots Devil Dodgers Fighting Spooks Damned Sinners Where is Hell ? Spurgeon and Hell Shelley’s Atheism Long Faces Our Father Wait Till You Die Dead Theology Mr. Gladstone on Devils Is Spurgeon in Heaven ? God in Japan Stanley on Providence Gone to God Thank God W. FOOTE. Contents :— Judgment Day Huxley’s Mistake The Gospel of Freethought On Ridicule Who are the Blasphe mers ? Christianity and Com mon Sense The Lord of Lords Consecrating the Colors Christmas in Holloway Gaol Who Killed Christ ? Did Jesus Ascend? The Rising Son St. Paul’s Veracity No Faith with Heretics | The Logic of Persecu» tion Luther and the Devil Bible English Living by Faith Victor Hugo Walt Whitman Desecrating a Church Tennyson and the Bible Christ’s Old Coat Christ’s Coat, No. 2 Scotched, Not Slain God-Making God and the Weather Miracles A Real Miracle Jesus on Women Paul on Women Mother’s Religion London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C. �302 pp., superior paper, bound in cloth, 2s. 6d. post free, FLOWERS OF FREETHOUGHT [Second Series] BY G. W. FOOTE. Contents :— Christianity & Slavery Down Among the Dead Luscious Piety Men Christ Up to Date The Jewish Sabbath Secularism and Chris Smirching a Hero God’s Day Kit Marlowe and Jesus Professor Stokes ,on Im tianity Christ Altar and Throne mortality Jehovah the Ripper Martin Luther Paul Bert The Parson’s Living The Praise of Folly Converting a Corpse Wage A Lost Soul Bradlaugh’s Ghost Did Bradlaugh Back Christ and Brotherhood Happy in Hell slide ? The Act of God The Sons of God Keir Hardie on Christ Frederic Harrison on Melchizedek Atheism Blessed be ye Poor S’w’elp me God Save the Bible ! Converted Infidels Infidel Homes Forgive and Forget Mrs. Booth’s Ghost Are Atheists Cruel ? Are Atheists Wicked ? Talmage on the Bible The Star of Bethlehem Mrs. Besant on Death The Great Ghost Rain Doctors Atheism and the French and After Pious Puerilities Revolution “ Thus Saith the Lord ” The Poets and Liberal Pigottism Theology Believe or be Damned Christianity and Labor Jesus at the Derby Christian Charity Atheist Murderers Duel ng Religion and Money A Religion for Eunuchs An Easter Egg for Clotted Bosh Rose-Water Religion Christians Lord Bacon on Atheism London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-■street, E.O. Price Is. 6d., post free, ESSAYS IN RATIONALISM. BY CHARLES ROBERT NEWMAN (Atheist Brother of Cardinal Newman). With Preface by G. J. Holyoake, and Biographical Sketch by J. M. Wheeler. London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.O. �Handsomely bound in cloth, 7s. 6d., post free, BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FREETHINKERS OF ALL AGES AND NATIONS. J. M. WHEELER. The Dictionary has involved enormous labor, and the compiler deserves the thanks of the Freethought party.”—National Reformer. “ The work will be of the greatest value.”—Freethought. At last we have the long-wanted means of silencing those Christians who are continually inquiring for our great men, asserting that all great men have been on the side of Christianity.”— Truthseeker (New York). ‘ The most important Freethought work published this year.”—Re Rageraaa (Amsterdam). A good and useful work that was much needed.”—Commonweal. London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C. WILL CHRIST SAVE US? By G, W. Foote , A Thorough Examination of the Claims of Jesus Christ to be considered the Savior of the World. London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.O. Price Is. Superior Edition for Subscribers, bound, numbered, and signed, 2s., ’ VOLTAIRE: HIS LIFE AND WORKS. With some Selections from his Writings, by J. M. Wheeler and G. W. Foote. London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C. READ THE FREETHINKER. Edited by G. W. FOOTE. Published every Thursday. Price Twopence London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes. Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk. <img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource About the Holy Bible : a lecture Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 59, [4] p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. No. 1b in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available R. Forder Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1894 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N322 Subject The topic of the resource Bible Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a> This work (About the Holy Bible : a lecture), identified by <a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a>, is free of known copyright restrictions. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Agnosticism Bible-Criticism NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/02494a549a53981e33b33616d0386823.pdf?Expires=1784764800&Signature=fuASv2Zx2XF55pAyGXFO-joUzOcd6QiSIX7uxjgwsflF3ztxczoAx3S31XB1Qzbv1MPLtuN0YPj49F96HTKmN1apsIhHGQcUF9yiKyZk-UpKxRaLGRJ6zNT2Son-R9bSYIXchmYIR3vITbyRLj20F67jssp0aaXt58uX6wZ2FmztqXK10XF1JoHXeLiVtxO7OCpDxobSed1n7SWE5IasXMl0qCfB8NMNt90VVeDaeAKnjBgRAjfZ-wBQRE7-M0eLiijxON77mnS3nIh7UNftKvRvGhb6BN66tiyoVs8pMNTKaBq87MO2rktrjYcvvY7BdBT65foVvu93BfB1T3y3Og__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 65c9cb2c29c28069c34ae1ed23f67831 PDF Text Text IN REPLY TO ONE OF SPALDING. BY LUKE GRIFFIN. PRICE ONE PENNY. 1859. �AN ADDRESS IN REPLY TO ONE OF MR. THOMAS COOPER’S LECTURES. [Seeing from advertisements that Thomas Cooper was to deliver a course of lectures in Spalding, dn the 20th, 21st, and 22nd of January, I wrote to that gentleman to allow me, for twenty minutes, on the first evening, before 10 20, to explain the position we stood in as opponents to orthodox Christianity. Mr. Cooper replied, stating that he could not promise me twenty minutes, especially on the first evening, when his lecture would be very lengthy, because he would have to say as much in one evening as he usually said in two. In fact, I gathered from Mr. Cooper’s reply, that if I journeyed twenty miles to defend my principles, it would be more than probable that I should not have an opportunity of being heard. The remarks which I had prepared for the occasion were as follow;—] Ladies and C-ENtLEMENy—I believe that no On© present this evening froiild wish to occupy my place—to stand up in defence Of that which Christians term ‘ Infidelity.’ Be that as it may, I consider it my duty to be here, although, in many ways, my being here may injure me. The principle upon which I act is not that of expediency. I don’t always stay to inquire whether there will be any pecuniary gain from what I do, but I first ask whether the act will be right; if so, I do it, not caring so very much about the consequences. Now, my friends, this evening I shall address you as the jury who will a true verdict give according to the evidence brought before you. Many of you have been in our law courts. There you have heard the plaintiff’s counsel ably state a case, and call his witnesses to substantiate it; everything has appeared so clear and straightforward on behalf of the plaintiff that you have really thought that the verdict must be given in his favour. But when you have heard the defendant’s counsel state his case, and examine his witnesses, your views have been entirely changed. Mr. Cooper for the plaintiff, is much better qualified to speak than I am for the defendant, because he has had years of experience, whilst I am quite a novice. Then many may think it presumptuous in me to oppose a man like Cooper; be that as it may, I deem it my duty to oppose him, and I feel confident that if I do not succeed in gaining your verdict, it will be because of my inefficiency, and not because I have undertaken the defence of a weak or bad cause. I take it for granted that Mr. Cooper is honest and sincere, and that however strange his conduct may appear to his old friends, still his acts are those of an earnest evangelical Christian, whose chief aim is to do his duty. Whatever I may say, I wish to say courteously and kindly, so as to give no offence to any rightminded person. Methodists, Baptists, and Independent's, I believe that your views are injurious to the majority of mankind, inasmuch as they bring to them fears which destroy that peace of mind necessary to the enjoy ment of life. To the favoured few, to those who believe that they are born again, the Bible doubtless brings glad tidings of great joy, for it says that theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. But to the great mass of men—to those having no spirit bearing witness with their spirit that they are the children of God, to these the Bible, instead of bringing glad tidings of gteat ji>y, brings tidings of the greatest misery, for it says that they shall be cast into hell, there to remain for ever with the devil and his angels. You may reply that the road �3 to Heaven is open to ail, and if men will not enter in ajt the straight gate, they must expect to perish, beeause they have only to repent and to believe in order to be saved. Now, my friends, the great fact is patent to us all that the masses don’t believe, and what is more, there is every probability that notwithstanding all your preaching, praying, and lecturing, they won’t believe; consequently, according to your teaching, they must all likewise perish. I repeat, that these are to them tidings of the greatest misery, and what is more, they are not only lead to believe that they themselves shall perish, but from what they knew of their forefathers, their souls are now where the worm dieth not, and where the fire is not quenced. These thoughts to a sensitive mind are very painful, and as I firmly believe that your views are erroneous, as I totally disbelieve that a good God would punish His creatures eternally, as I thoroughly disbelieve the Bible to be inspired by God more than any other book, and as I am entirely opposed to the doctrine that man is born totally depraved, I consider it to be my duty to oppose you, and to make known to my fellow-creatures the reasons I have for being what is termed a Disbeliever. In doing this I believe that I am acting rightly, that I may be the means of rescuing thousands from the hell of apprehension, and that I shall bring glad tidings of great joy to the majority, because, if they believe and dis believe with me, they will no longer be enslaved and intimidated by the Bible. They will agree with the Secularist, that to do well is sufficient, believe what you may. They will place reliance where reliance ought to be placed—in good works, believing that if they work honestly, faithfully, and usefully, that that will save them. In all matters where positive truth cannot be arrived at, each party has reasons for believing, disbelieving, or remaining neutral. One argument or assertion made use of by some of you is, that supposing Christianity be not true, still it matters little, and will produce no evil in the end, and that, consequently, be it true or be it false, it is foolish and useless to oppose it* We will look at this for a few minutes. What does Christianity teaeh ? It teaches that there exists a Being creator of all things, that this Being governs the Universe, and, as the Governor of-the Universe, he will require an account of the lives of men Whilst upon earth, and according to his decision, one -part of the human family will enjoy endless happiness, whilst the other part will have to endure eternal misery. What is expected of men with regard to faith, it is allowed that not one-tenth of the human race has ever possessed, and, therefore, according to this teaching, nine-tenths of the human race will be doomed to everlasting woe. Now, some persons think with you, that there are sufficient reasons to believe this to be true, other persons believe with me, that it is false. Very well. We will now suppose a somewhat parallel case. A party in England have reasons to believe that the Emperor of France will shortly rule in this country, and that all who obey him he will reward with a life of ease and prosperity; but all who disobey him he will doom to slavery. Then supposing that ninetenths of the population of England would disobey him and thus become slaves, would it not be the duty of an opposite party, who had reasons for believing that it was all false respecting the conquest of this country by France, to disseminate their views as widely as �4 possible, thus removing the fears of the disobedient and giving them peace of mind ? The most orthodox Christian would say, certainly those who believe these notions about the Emperor to be false ought to oppose them—it is their duty to oppose them, and they will not be doing their duty as men if they do not oppose them. Well, just so it is with respect to Christianity. I believe that the Christian’s views respecting God, eternity, and everlasting punishment, are erroneous, and tend unnecessarily to intimidate mankind, consequently, I think it my duty to oppose you as Christians, and I should be liable to just censure if I did not oppose you. So much, then, fpr the course which I have taken, and I think that you will allow that if I have reason and the balance of evidence in my favour, that I am really justified in what I am doing. In this locality, had I seen religion subservient to good common sense, I should not have been so public in my opposition. But when upon every hand I hear preached doctrines threatening poor creatures with the most excruciating punishments, I think it my duty to inquire upon what basis these doctrines rest. I have no particular wish to interfere with the superstitious notions of men, so long as these notions simply console them; but when they produce benumbing terror, and incommodious fear amongst my friends and neighbours, I think that I should be highly culpable longer to hold my peace. I have no relish myself for passing my life in perpetual dread, and I consider myself justified in furnishing others with the means of escaping from the agony of mind under which they groan. Again, from the observations which I have so often heard from ministers and from Christians generally, I know that in their sermons they assume the absolute truth of their doctrines, and they urge that all, even those who are logically opposed to them, are so opposed because their deeds are evil, and because they wish to live in sin and wickedness. Believing that these assumptions are false, believing that there are many honest, industrious, truthful Freethinkers who are as good husbands, fathers, friends, and citizens, as the most devout Christians, and believing that these men have reasons for their rejection of orthodox Christianity sufficient to satisfy any earnest mind, I boldly stand forward in their behalf, and assert that they are conscientious in their disbelief, and that, consequently, they are as deserving of the respect, esteem, and goodwill oi their fellow-creatures, as those who call themselves Christians. In whatever I have said, or may say, I appeal to your moral sense, to those inward powers by which all good men claim to be judged, and if you decide in accordance with the same, I shall be quite satisfied with your decision. The character of God as represented in the Bible, instead of creating in me love, respect, or reverence, creates quite the opposite feeling. Commencing with the first and second chapters of Genesis, we find that an omnipotent and omniscient Being makes creatures, and places them in a position with such a temptation which he knew would cause their fall, and which he knew would bring misery to millions then unborn. Moreover, the temptation was of that character that until they had partaken of the forbidden fruit they did not know good from evil, so the book says, and not knowing good from evil, it would take a wiser person than myself to ascertain upon what grounds �| they could be held responsible for their actions. As Mr. Newman argues, if a youth who had been carefully brought up were to fall by the first temptation, the saying is, ‘ Behold the proof of the essential depravity of human nature.’ But Adam fell by the first temptation, what greater proof then of a fallen nature do you require than Adam’s, as it came from the hands of the Creator ? If God has so acted with man, and if angels also have fallen, why should not angels fall again ? Hence, in heaven we have no guarantee that we may not become disobedient, and be cast away. If angels now are so constituted that they cannot sin, why could not man have been so constituted, and thus have saved much wretchedness ? As we read od in the Bible we find this all-powerful God repenting that he had made man—yes, this all-wise Being repents, and is grieved at the heart, and he shows his repentance and grief by destroying all the human race with the exception of Noah and his family. But in the choice of Noah and his family God appears to have been truly unfortunate, for Noah was overtaken by drunkenness, and his descendants to this time have been far from correct in their conduct. Who can justify the partiality shown by God to Abraham and his seed ? In what way were they deserving of that partiality, especially the deceitful Jacob, who so cruelly robbed his brother Esau ? Yet we are told that God loved Jacob and hated Esau. The Bible also represents God as so inveterate in his hatred, that he instructs Saul to smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, camel and ass. To justify all this, Christians say that God is the Governor of the Universe, that he must preserve the harmony of his attributes, and that his perfect justice must be satisfied before he can shew mercy to the transgressor. To this our esteemed friend Thomas Cooper, some years ago, if not wisely, effectually replies:—‘ I hear thee, priest! We know thy solemn and mysterious croak well, old bo-peep behind the altar, where thou hast stood for ages affrighting grown up children with horrible pictures of a Divinity who, to preserve the harmony of his attributes, can plunge millions into the flames of endless torture, and be happy him self to all eternity; and who cannot admit any to share his happiness that have offended him, unless blood be shed as an atonement! He knows of the torture of hell’s helpless tenantry. He hears their weeping and wailing, He sees their gnashing of teeth, and He knows, of their remorse for guilt; but He is happy amidst it all. He cannot forgive them, they must burn and suffer for ever, for He must pre serve the harmony of his attributes.’ ‘ Strange harmony,’ continues Mr. Cooper. ‘ Does the most reprobate man that ever existed possess so horrible a nature ? What! be happy whilst helpless worms writhe in endless agony ? Worms that he brought into- existence without their will, who never asked to exist, and whom he knew would tenant hell-fire for ever, whilst he was creating them.’ After this forcible language from a man like Thomas Cooper, words from me would be powerless. This is a true picture of the evangelical Christian’s Deity, and, as I before stated, in him I see nothing to love, respect, or reverence; but plenty to loathe, hate, and abhor. How men who have correct ideas of the heavenly bodies—men who can tell you the size of the planets, and can calculate the immense �T* 1 • :.T wm .*• >»• ' —* 7??^’- *-• •* •.•/■ * • • v ■■’.ThT*r ■ < *'••vMtafrk.a j 6 distances of many of the fixed stars from the earth, men who have for years enjoyed a scientific education—how these men can believe the God of the Bible to be infinite in power, wisdom, and goodness, is a puzzle to me. They cannot have thoroughly investigated the subject, or if they have, there must be some powerful motives keeping them from speaking their convictions. Frankly I say that I don’t believe the Bible to be an infallible guide, because my opinion is, that by following many parts of it, men would be guided to do what their moral sense tells them is very wrong. For instance, we believe it to be very wrong to make slaves of our fellow creatures, still we find slavery sanctioned in the Bible, and not only sanctioned, but strict regulations are made by God him self relative to slavery. In the 25th chapter of Leviticus, from the 44th to the 46th verse, we read, ‘ Both thy bondmen, and thy bond maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn amongst you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them for an inheritance after you to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.’ What think ye to this, after the Christian world has been declaring over and over again that the Bible is a friend to liberty—liberty of the highest caste ? Why this one passage will do more to convince slaveowners that slavery is a divine institution, than volumes of anti- slavery writings will do to convince them to the contrary. Again, were we in a foreign country, and had borrowed of the natives various articles, we should think that we were morally bound to return them. How would it be if we were to consult the Bible first ? There we should find that the Lord commands the Jews, upon leaving Egypt, to borrow of their neigh bours, and to keep their neighbours’ gold, silver, and raiment. If we acted according to this example, we should do what our moral sense distinctly tells us to be wrong. Again, if I were going to send a message by any one, I should think it right to choose some one who would speak the truth; but, if I were to take the Bible as an authority, I might send a liar with intent to tell lies, seeing that God sent a lying spirit unto the prophets to deceive Ahab. What God did surely I might do. If our soldiers wished to know how they were to treat the Sepoys in India, by consulting the Bible, and following the examples there given, they would slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, because, as I have before told you, that Saul was instructed by God so to act. If a man wished to put away his wife, he must refer to Deut., c. 21, vv. x to xiv,andc. 24, vv. 1 and 2—and he will there find by the standard the easiest way of getting rid of her. If any one be anxious for information respecting the number of wives he may have, I would advise him to read the life of Solomon. By following the example set by Solomon he may place Brigham or any of the Mormon elders completely in the shade, saying nothing of Solomon’s concubines. Do you want to know how to treat your enemies upon your death-bed ? Turn then to the 1st of Kings, c 2, vv. viii and ix, and you will there find how the man after God’s own heart treated his enemies. He requested his son with �7 nearly his last breath to bring down to the grave with blood the hoary hair of one who had offended him. If we examine the New Testament, we find many reasons why we cannot accept its teachings as perfect. The story of the conception by the Holy Ghost is far too dreamy an affair for us. No one in his senses would credit the story if told now, respecting any young married couple; but this has not much to do with the perfection of the moral teachings. When we come to the sermon on the mount, we find many things said there which we are told are the perfection of wisdom, but which even pious Christians do not for a moment regard. We are told to resist not evil, and if any smite us on the one cheek we are to turn the other also. Who is there in this neighbourhood who does not resist evil ? Does not every good man think it his duty to resist evil ? And who turns the left cheek to the smiter, when smitten on the right ? No one with whom I am acquainted. Certain signs follow those who believe. Do they follow? Can believers snow the signs ? Will they handle serpents or drink poison, or can they by laying on of hands heal the sick? I am afraid not. Remember these signs were to follow them that believe, and if he that believeth not shall be damned is to follow as the punishment in our day, why should not the signs of belief follow likewise ? If the signs of belief had been the payment of tithes and church rates, and a blind deference to the opinions of the priests, every man who professed to believe would soon be tried by the standard of Christ. If a teacher of morality were to say these signs shall follow them that are moral— they shall not injure their fellow creatures, they shall pursue that course which is useful, etc., it would be just and logical to say if these signs did not follow, the man was not moral, and if it be just and logical in the one case, it is so in the other; therefore, I say, if the signs do not follow, according to the Bible, the man is not a believer. The fact is, the more I study the Old and the New Testament, the more I am convinced that the Bible is, like other books, fallible, full of errors, translators’ errors, printers’ errors, and hundreds of errors about which learned men have been and are still quarrelling—errors which have divided men into sects and parties, and which have made those who ought to have been friends the bitterest of enemies; but the time I , hope will shortly arrive when all intelligent men will be of the one opinion that conscientious .belief or disbelief ought always to be respected. Several persons, I know, will inquire what is my aim? They ask me whether I expect my views to become popular, and whether I think that all men will renounce their present belief in the Bible. My answer is, that I do not expect that my views will very soon, if ever, become popular, neither do I think that all men will very soon renounce their belief in the infallibility of the Bible ; but my aim is to give my neighbours some of the reasons I have for my disbelief, agreeing with Mirabaud, that so far as my views have the sanction of truth, they will gradually insinuate themselves into the human mind, become familiar to its exercise, extend their happy influence on every side, and finally produce the most substantive advantages to society. And, in fact, these views have already, to a large extent, insinuated themselves into the minds of thousands in this country, hence their �8 indifference to the speculative theories of our evangelical Christians, hence the apathy which we see amongst the congregations of our churches and chapels. The moral nature of men and women rebels against the infamous doctrine of eternal punishment, hence the number of moral people in our towns and villages who lay no claim to be religious—people who our preachers say are farther from godliness than many of the worthless wretches who lay no claim to virtue, but who weekly tremble at the denunciations of the pulpit. In point of numbers openly professing to be disbelievers, we may always be inferior to the Christian sects. We may probably never have a great many declaring themselves chiefly devoted to Secular matters, for not one in a hundred can see the benefit to be derived from openly asserting an opposition to the Christian doctrines, at the same time most can see a great loss in business and in social intercourse by so doing; because, whilst the disbeliever is generally shunned, a man who is known to be one of the greatest hypocrites and humbugs in existence, if he regularly attend a place of worship, and nominally profess to be a Christian, is taken by the hand and treated as a highly respectable member of society. Besides, we cannot expect to influence men the same as the parsons. We have no threats of hell or hopes of heaven. We cannot, neither do we wish, to frighten people into thinking as we think. We wish them honestly to inquire, and when they are satisfied of the truth of their principles, we like to see them faithful to them. Although our influence may not be so great in society as yours, still, my friends, we have an influence; although our hopes may not be so brilliant respecting a future state as yours, still our principles have given us great relief; for believing none of the stories about a future state, we have but few sources of anxiety on that account. To use the words of Joseph Barker, I say, ‘It is certainly no slight relief to the benevolent mind to be rid of the idea of an angry and revengeful God, of a great savage devil, of an eternal hell of fire and brimstone, and of countless hosts of fallen angels and damned spirits weltering together in the burning pool, weeping and wailing in infinite and hopeless agony. It is also no slight relief to be at liberty to study nature, and to receive her revelations, without being forced to reconcile them with the childish fancies of an indignant and superstitious people. It is a great relief to feel ourselves at liberty to despise old foolish and savage laws, to reject old monster fables, and to judge for ourselves what is true, and just, and good, on every subject.’ To those amongst you who wish to become thoroughly acquainted with the weighty reasons brought by disbelievers,against what is known as orthodox Christianity; I would recommend ‘ Parker on Religion,’ Newman’s ‘ Phases of Faith,’ ‘ The Bible and its Evidences,’ by R. Cooper, and the discussions between the Rev. Brewin Grant and Mr. G. J. Holyoake. I think that the perusal of these works will convince you that conscientious disbelief is possible and justifiable. --------These remarks are nearly word for word as I intended delivering them at Spalding. If only twenty minutes had been allowed me, I should have had somewhat to have condensed them. Upon the whole I think the foregoing would have been a fair, honest, and straightforward statement of the position we stand in as opponents to Christian doctrines. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes. Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk. <img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource An address in reply to one of Mr. Thomas Cooper's lectures, at Spalding. Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Thomas Cooper was a poet, Baptist and leading Chartist. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Griffin, Luke Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1859 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Holyoake & Co. Subject The topic of the resource Christianity Bible Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a> This work (An address in reply to one of Mr. Thomas Cooper's lectures, at Spalding.), identified by <a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a>, is free of known copyright restrictions. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G4957 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Christianity Free Thought Thomas Cooper https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5ea300c64407981f7141187f041feb0a.pdf?Expires=1784764800&Signature=i5n-4Sii8g4mGaV4XJA0aBY0C1ZE-wMYPoms%7EIZsv5mN145FMhcywHkzfeVWZ64j-krh669Sk29-va9uM25OimaaOGqVIglCHBIK2N0LLqoZc18mQaN3Cwe28t6p-NyZCexLCZe7da0H0e1e5aW02rMo1Hm9OINKyh9WJwggXNlqKTZE4Oz6XCr1QcQXrujMGGlLuJ2NuzawEzcLhUnbA3KZLCD6ITcbXWPqP9WDc8n2aS%7Es2x73UBllBKleN6llaUBp6o88ewKLHK5mVHa3aOUn%7EMyRT8qpv0e5qEVPYMlk64FwMyqOq45VGbfm9RaO9pZkpd9dsDW1RuufkARTLg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 1d905d310576fc679b33e2f64072b3b4 PDF Text Text AN “On Earth Peace, Good-will towards Men”; rescued from the New Testament Revision. Jetta DELIVERED BEFORE THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY, ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE, SUNDAY AFTERNOON, 19th FEBRUARY, 1882, BY A. ELLEY FINCH. bonbon: PUBLISHED BY THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY. 1882. PRICE THREEPENCE. �SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY. To provide for the delivery on Sundays in the Metropolis, and to encourage the delivery elsewhere, of Lectures on Science,— physical, intellectual, and moral,—History, Literature, and Art; especially in their bearing upon the improvement and social well-being of mankind. PRESIDENT. W. B. Carpenter, Esq., C.B., LL.D„ M.D., F.R.S., &c. VICE-PRESIDENTS. Professor Alexander Bain. Charles Darwin, Esq., F.R.S., F.L.S. Edward Frankland, Esq., D.C.L., Ph.D., F.R.S. James Heywood, Esq., F.R.S., F.S.A. Right Hon. Sir Arthur Hob house, K.C.S.I. Thomas Henry Huxley, Esq., LL.D., F.R.S., F.L.S. Benjamin Ward Richard son, Esq., M.D., F.R.S. Herbert Spencer, Esq. W. Spottiswoode, Esq., LL.D., Pres.R.S. John Tyndall, Esq., LL.D., F.R.S. THE SOCIETY’S LECTURES ARE DELIVERED AT ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE, On SUNDAY Afternoons, at FOUR o’clock precisely. (Annually—from November to May.) Twenty-Four Lectures (in three series) ending 23rd April, 1882, will be given. Members’ £1 subscription entitles them to an annual ticket, transferable (and admitting to the reserved seats), and to eight single reserved-seat tickets, available for any lecture. Tickets for each series (one for each lecture) as below,— To the Sixpenny Seats—2s., being at the rate of Three pence each lecture. For tickets, and for list of the Lectures published by the Society, apply (by letter) to the Hob. Treasurer, Wm. Henry Domville, Esq,, 15, Gloucester Crescent, Hyde Park, W. Payment at the door:—One Shilling (Reserved Seats);— Sixpence and One Penny. �The Society’s Lectures by the same Author, are—on “ Erasmus ; his Life, Works, and Influence upon the Spirit of the Reformation.” (Now out of Print.) “ Civilization : a Sketch of its Rise and Progress, its Modern Safe-guards, and Future Prospects.” “The Influence of Astronomical Discovery Development of the Human Mind.” in the “ The Principles of Political Economy ; their Scientific Basis, and Practical application to Social Well-being.” “The English Free-thinkers tury.” of the Eighteenth Cen “ The Science jof Life worth Living.” “ The Victories stition.” of Science in its Warfare with Super “ An Aspiration of Science : ‘ On Earth Peace, Good-will to wards Men;’ rescued from the New Testament Revision.” Price of each of the above Lectures 3d., or post free 3^d. “The Inductive Philosophy: including a Parallel between Lord Bacon and A. Comte as Philosophers.” With Notes and Authorities, (pp. 100, cloth 8vo., price 5s., or post free 5s. 3d.) “ The Pursuit of Truth : as Exemplified in the Principles of Evidence—Theological, Scientific, and Judicial.” With Notes and Authorities, (pp. 106, cloth 8vo., price 5s., or post free 5s. 3d.) Two vols. of Lectures (3rd and 4th Selection) cloth-bound, price 5s. each, or post free 5s. 6d., contain nearly all the society’s Lectures still in print, and some out of print. Tables of con tents of these vols. and lists of the separate lectures, sent on application to the Hon. Treasurer. The lectures can be obtained (on remittance, by letter of postage stamps or order payable Porchester Road, W.) of the JLon. Treas., W. Henry Domville, Esq., 15, Gloucester Crescent. Hyde Park, W., or at the Hall on the days of Lecture, or of Mr, J. Bumpus, Bookseller, 350, Oxford St., W., or Messrs. Cattell & Co., 84, Fleet Street, B. C. �SYLLABUS. Origin and history of the English authorised text (a.d. 1611) Luke ch. 2, v. 14, before quoted, and its Greek and Latin source8 since the invention of printing. Erasmus (1516). Tyndale (1534). R. Stephens (1551). Genevan-English Version (1557-60). Beza (1580). Our authorised form of this text not found in the great uncial Greek nor in the Latin Manuscripts, nor in the printed Latin Vulgate (decreed as authentic by the Council of Trent). Ambiguous evidence in support of this text as embodying an actual utterance by the heavenly host. Its inconsistency with the declaration of Christ (Matt. ch. 10, v. 34): “ Think not that I am come to send Peace on Earth,” &c. Its want of fulfilment as a prophecy. Hence probably ex punged by the Revisers. Divergent aims of Theology and Science—the one regarding the Glory of God—the other the Well-being of Man. Illustrations from some of the chief Theologies of the world, showing that the Well-being of Man is therein subordinated to the Glory of God. Hence the conflict between Theology and Science. Its rise and nature. The text explained as an Aspiration of Science. Illustrations of the primary care (good-will) of Science for Humanity from its discoveries, deductions, and teachings in re ference to (e.g.):—• 1. The Order of nature. 2. The Constitution of Man. 3. Health. 4. Education. 5. Morality (Virtue, Happiness). 6. Aversion from War. 7. International Arbitration. Concluding inferences. Editions Scriptures shown in Illustration of the Lecture: TheEditio princeps of the Greek New Testament, by Erasmus, in which the text ‘ good-will towards men ’ (ai>0pd>7rois eiboKia —hominibus bona voluntas) is first met with in print (Basilese, 1519). The first Bible in which the Scriptures are separated into verses, and the text “ towards men good-will ” first appears in the English language. (Geneva, 1560.) The Greek and Latin New Testament of Beza. (Editio tertia, 1580.) of the �AN ASPIRATION OF SCIENCE: “ON EARTH PEACE, GOOD-WILL TOWARDS MEN"; RESCUED FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT REVISION. T is a remarkable circumstance connected with the origin of the Christian Religion, that no authentic record of the Life and Doctrines of its founder should now exist, or ever have existed, written in the language of the country where Jesus lived and talked; the only language in which he could have been listened to and understood by the majority of his disciples, or the com mon people, who, we are told expressly, heard him gladly. This reflection must often have occurred to, and more or less embarrassed, the numerous scholars and critics, whose investigations into the authenticity and genuine ness of the New Testament Scriptures form so consider able a portion of the vast library of Christian theology and history. It is a reflection, moreover, that must be borne in mind when considering the value and authority of the various translations,, commentaries, and revisions that appear from time to time, and whose production indeed follows a natural law, arising as they do out of the necessity of accommodating these ancient writings to the continuous, however slow, progress of human thought and intelligence; that is to say, the spirit of the age requires to be read into them before it-can be read out. This view of the function of the commentator, trans lator, or reviser is not indeed quite obvious, nor is it the I �6 An Aspiration of Science, ostensible reason put forward for undertaking their work; that reason is invariably alleged to be, in order to make the translation or revision in question more accurate in reference to the original; a task which, if we only had the original as a standard to refer to, might be a not unprofitable proceeding, but any such original, in the sense I have adverted to, is not now, and never was, to be met with. For the New Testament Scriptures were at the very first written in a foreign tongue, that is, the Greek language. We cannot even except the Gospel according to St. Matthew, for, though there is a probable tradition that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Syro-Chaldaic dialect (the colloquial language of the Hebrews in Pales tine), this supposition can hardly be accepted as more than a tradition, since we have not only no positive proof of it, but not even such a consensus of biblical critics as might warrant our receiving such supposition as an admitted fact. Now the Greek version of the sayings and discourses of Jesus and others narrated in the Gospels, however ancient, can no more be regarded as the original of such sayings and discourses, than an Italian report of one of the splendid speeches of Mr. Gladstone could be regarded as the original of what that great English orator may actually have spoken. These reflections are especially applicable to the con sideration of the narrative which St. Luke gives in the second chapter of his Gospel, part of which, as English Protestants have hitherto understood it, I have taken for the subject of the present lecture. St. Luke, probably a Grecian, at any rate writing in Greek, tells us (according to our authorised version of the year 1611) that, shortly after the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, ‘ there were in the same country shepherds �An Aspiration of Science. 7 abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night, and lo! the Angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, and they were sore afraid. And the Angel said unto them, fear not; for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people, for unto you is born this day in the City of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And suddenly there was with the Angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying—Glory to God in the highest, and on earth Peace, Good-will towards men.’ We are now told, on the authority of the eminent scholars and divines constituting the company of the New Testament Devisers, that Luke’s relation of this remark able supernatural occurrence is not accurately given in our authorised version. That what Luke really wrote must be translated or rendered into English thus—‘ Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased.’ This correction, or corruption, of so venerable a text will be variously regarded, according to the critic’s point of view. To the pious mind, accustomed to revere the Scriptures as inspired Oracles, the shock must be great on finding that he has been imposed upon in being taught to believe that so sublime an utterance ever formed a genuine portion of the Gospels, and his dismay will hardly be diminished on finding further that it has long been, and will still remain, notwithstanding the revision, a matter of dispute amongst biblical experts what it really was that St. Luke actually wrote. The critical scholar, uninfluenced by dogmatic or doctrinal prepossessions, will still probably retain his sceptical ©pinion on the sub ject ; whilst the man of science must consider that what Luke may himself have written, if not a matter of con jecture altogether, can be of very little real importance, �8 An Aspiration of Science. seeing that he is no authority whatever for what the heavenly host did really say. For Luke was not present on the occasion, he does not allege that he received the report from those who were present, his account of it is therefore simply hearsay, and, whatever the very words were, it is morally certain they could not have been spoken in Greek, that being a language utterly unintelli gible, an unknown tongue indeed to the shepherds of Bethlehem, so that, putting it at the highest, if we were sure, or were agreed, that we were in possession of the exact language of Luke, it would only in itself amount to a version or translation of a non-existent, and long since vanished original. The man of science, however, will not care to reject the reviser’s alteration, for he knows that the sublime aspiration of our text enshrines a truth having higher intrinsic value than ancient manuscripts, or biblical critics can confer, and, that though it may henceforth cease to be received as part of authentic Scripture, it will live, where in truth it originated, in the noble inspirations of the human mind, yearning in its benevolence to ameliorate the lot of man. That it is one of those scientific forecasts which, flashing from human genius, are found in history sparsely strewed along the path of human progress, not confined to creeds, but illuminating the entire earthly highway towards that goal of human happiness which all good men are now striving to attain, for others as well as for themselves. Before finally parting with our text from the Scrip ture record, it may be interesting very briefly to trace its origin and history, to see how and when, in point of fact, it came to get into our authorised version of 1611. At the time of the birth of Jesus Christ the language of the Jews, the Hebrew language, had long ceased to be �An Aspiration of Science. 9 current amongst the inhabitants of Syria, and their vernacular speech was that known to scholars as the Aramaen or Syro-Chaldaic, a dialect very little used as the vehicle of literature. Hence it happened that the written accounts or narratives of the life and discourses of Jesus Christ came from the very first to be composed in the Greek language ; that language being not only the language of the learned, but, dispersed through the con quests of Alexander, was very generally familiar to educated people of the ancient civilised world, even amongst the Romans, though their vulgar tongue was Latin, St. Paul, for instance, when writing his grand Epistle to the Romans, using the Greek and not the Latin language. In the earliest churches established after the death of Jesus and the spread of a knowledge of his religion, in the churches, for instance, of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Alexandria, and Rome, the Greek manuscript gospels had not only to be copied for the purpose of their dissemination, but, as regards Rome and Alexandria (Northern Egypt being then a province of the Roman Em pire), as the religion became dispersed amongst the people at large, the gospel had to be translated into the latin tongue, and such translation took place so early, and to so great an extent, that of the at present existing ancient manuscripts of the Scriptures the Latin are not only more numerous than the Greek, but it is by no means a matter of agreement amongst scholars which of such manuscripts are the highest in point of authority for what the orginal writings or autographs of the Apostles (long since utterly lost), actually contained. Protestant theologians and critics consider the Greek to be the higher authority. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church consider the Latin to be now the more reliable source. Amongst other arguments relied upon by the Roman �10 An Aspiration of Science. Church is this, that the most ancient existing latin manu scripts, even if not more ancient than the existing greek ones, are known to be recensions of a text that was re vised in the 4th century by St. Eusebius, and also by St. Jerome, through comparison with greek manuscripts con fessedly more ancient than any now existing, or of which we have now any other knowledge; and from that early period up to the time of the Reformation, that is for upwards of 1,000 years, the only Bible of western chris tendom was a latin book, generally known as the Latin Vulgate, the text of which was decreed to be authentic by the Council of Trent (in the year 1546). The first English translation of the New Testament of any note was that executed by John Wiclif (the gospel doctor, as the people called him) about the year 1380. This was evidently made from the latin version, such appearing to be the case, not only from internal evidence, but from the fact that at that time greek manuscripts were scarce in Europe, and a knowledge of the greek language rarely possessed by englishmen, and almost certainly not by Wiclif. His translation therefore simply followed the latin. Previously to the next stage in the history we are following there occurred two memorable events. The one was the invention of the printing press in the year 1440, and the very first book that was printed was the splendid latin bible of the Cardinal Mazarin. The other event was the taking of Constantinople by the Turks in the year 1453. Its immediate consequence was the diffusion of greek manuscripts, and greek scholars throughout the chief European cities. The first published New Testament in the greek lan guage, the Editio princeps, was compiled and edited by the illustrious Erasmus, being printed for him by Eroben of Basle in the year 1516. Erasmus’s second and �An Aspiration of Science. 11 greatly improved impression (which I possess here) being printed in the year 1519. Now it is observable that in none of the latin manu scripts, nor in the printed latin version of the Scriptures do we find the text “ good-will towards men.” The text of the latin version invariably runs thus: “ Peace on earth towards men of good-will.” The meaning of which, as seemingly held by the Roman Church, being, “ Peace of mind amongst true believers”; such being of course Roman Catholics. When Erasmus published his New Testament he gave to the world a version from Greek Manuscripts that could not be so rendered. Along with the Greek text he printed a literal latin translation of his own, differing greatly in many important particulars from the Latin Vulgate, and, in reference to the text we are considering, he gave in latin, more plainly to mark his meaning, the words ‘ hominibus bona voluntas’ ‘ good-will towards men.’ It is really then to this illustrious scholar, who, I venture to say, was, in learning and scholastic accomplishments, in liberal-mindedness, in large-heartedness, in love of toleration, and in disrelish of dogma, the very proto type of our late lamented Arthur Stanley, Dean of West minster—it is to Erasmus we really owe our first distinct knowledge of the sublime expression ‘ On Earth Peace, towards men Good-will.’ To those of you who are not acquainted with Greek it may be surprising to hear that the whole difference between the two renderings turns upon a single letter of a single word. That is to say, if the G-reek word were eiSoKla ending with the letter a, as it is found in some manuscripts, then the literal translation would be ‘ towards men good-will,” but if the word were euSoKtas, having the letter s, as it is found in other manuscripts, then the rendering would be ‘ towards men of good-will ’ or some �12 A n Aspiration of Science. equivalent phrase, even so far fetched, and apparently strained as that formulated by the Revisers, viz.: “ among men in whom he is well pleased.” From Erasmus we may at once turn to our great countryman and reformer, William Tyndale. He had probably become personally acquainted with Erasmus on one of his visits to this country. Tyndale being at Magdalen Hall, Oxford, whilst Erasmus was at Magdalen College. Tyndale had great admiration for the erudition of Erasmus, and had read his Greek Testament, for we find him paraphrasing the paraclesis prefixed to this impression of 1519. Tyndale, in his English Translation of the New Testament (first published in 1526), had evidently the Greek text of Erasmus in his mind, for his translation widely differs from the Vulgate Latin, and he renders our text thus—‘ Peace on Earth, and unto men rejoicing.’ Erasmus was more closely followed by Robert Stephens of Paris, who in his fourth edition of the Greek New Testament (published at Geneva in 1551) not only reprinted the Greek text of Erasmus with slight variation, but adopted his latin version verbatim. This Edition of Stephens is noticeable also as being the first in which the Scriptures were divided into verses, that is so numbered, not altogether broken up into verses; that was first done in the Genevan-English version which I am now going to mention. The Greek and Latin texts of Erasmus and Stephens are the foundation of the valuable translation of the New Testament executed by the English Exiles at Geneva in Queen Mary’s reign (in the year 1557). This, together with their English translation of the Old Testament pub lished in 1560 (the second year of Queen Elizabeth) formed for many years the favourite popular household Bible in in this country (I possess it here). Erasmus and Stephens �An A spiration of Science. 13 were also further followed on the Continent by the weighty authority of Theodore Beza, the eminent Genevan Reformer, and discoverer of the ancient uncial Codex Bezse, presented by him to Cambridge University, and whose Greek and elegant Latin Testament of 1580 I also have here. In the Anglo-Genevan version we meet with the text under consideration for the first time printed in the English language as it was subsequently given in the authorised version of 1611, the translators of which were commanded by King James to show especial regard to this Genevan-English version. Now such as we there find the text it has ever since remained, and been accepted by the Protestant English nation and all englishspeaking protestant peoples, until the revision of the New Testament published last year, that is from the year 1557 down to the year 1881, when we find this time-hallowed text expunged, and in place of it the strained expression I have already quoted, that the Peace on Earth, instead of being for all men, is only for those in whom he is well pleased; and thus we have the angelic announcement of ‘ good tidings of great joy to all people ’ cut down and narrowed by the utterance of the heavenly host (as interpreted by the revisers), to some portion only of the great human race. Now I must not be understood as dissenting from, or in any way presuming to criticise what the revisers have accomplished. Erom a doctrinal point of view, there were doubtless many inducements tempting them to tamper with the text, and to get rid if possible of the elevated conception primarily presented to us in print through the critical acumen of Erasmus. In the first place ‘ Peace on earth, Good-will towards men’ as general Christian sentiments, are strikingly inconsistent with the subse quent declaration of Christ himself. (Matt. ch. x. v. 34.) �14 An Aspiration of Science. “ Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth ? I tell ye, Nay, but rather division. Think not that I came to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at vari ance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-inlaw.” Then again, if regarded in any prophetic sense, the announcement has had no fulfilment. Indeed the history of the world since the coming of Christ fully and fear fully contradicts it. Not only has there been no increase of peace on the earth, there have probably been more wars and bloodshed arising out of Christianity, or since its birth, than ever took place before. An eloquent his torian has remarked ‘ That from the very commencement of the Christian era the sword has accompanied the Cross, a sword that has never found and never will find a scabbard, till superstitious creeds and immoral dogmas shall be abandoned as things invented in the dark ages of the world, as things directly calculated to sow the seeds of discord in society, create feuds between man and man, and perpetuate those animosities which turn the sweets of life into wormwood. This dogmatic Christianity has done in every age and in every country into which it has been introduced. Wherever the Cross has been raised thither have followed fire and sword, horrid burnings, brutal massacres. All history teems with accounts of its savage wars, its deluging bloodshed.’ Even at this very time our common humanity is being outraged by the atrocities of the Christian persecution of the Jews now being carried on in ‘ Holy’ Russia! From a theologian’s point of view therefore the authorized text of 1611 might well be considered as a stumbling block, and the reasoning above adverted to may not improbably have contributed, even unconsciously, to �An Aspiration of Science. 15 the decision which has now expunged, or attempted to expunge, the text, entirely from our English Bible. If however we are to lose the sublime sentiment of ‘good-will towards men’ from the gospel, it may be worth while to consider whether we are compelled to part with it altogether. If it be not inspired Scripture, and if dogmatic theology disown it, may it not find its true home to be with Science ? Let us consider shortly how this may be. The conspicuous conflict between Theology and Science which characterises our transitional progress from the age of Eaith to the age of Reason, when looked into with the object of ascertaining its less obvious causes, will be found to arise out of the divergent ends which each of these great systems of thought appears to be aiming at. Theology will be found to have for its ultimate realisation the Glory of Grod. The Aspirations of Science, on the other hand, are wholly directed towards the well-being of Man. I could give you abundant illustration of the aim of Theology taken from any of the great book-religions of the world enumerated in my lecture of last year, showing, as they unmistakeably do, that the glory of Grod and the well-being of Man are very often not altogether consis tent ; but it will amply suffice for my present argument to confine my illustrations to those two great Theologies the Jewish and the Christian, which are embraced in the single volume of the Bible, and in the creeds and con fessions of faith that have been deduced from its pages, and which are supposed, more plainly than Holy writ itself, to explain its meaning. In the very first book of that volume we find the Deity represented as cursing man and the whole human race his descendants on account of his having partaken of the forbidden fruit. The fearful fate thus decreed to man �16 An Aspiration of Science. kind universally, though subsequently a comparative few termed “the Elect” were excepted, is better known through the adroitly devised and necessarily subdued tone of it that has been evolved through ecclesiastical subtlety, such, for instance, as we find it moulded in that authorita tive theological standard the Westminster Confession of Eaith, presented by the Assembly of Divines to both Houses of Parliament in the year 1646, and wherein it is thus expressed: “ By the decree of God, for the mani festation of his glory some men and angels are predes tined unto everlasting life, and others foredained to everlasting death. God hath appointed the elect unto glory. The rest of mankind God has pleased, according to the unsearchable counsels of his own will, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice I ” I need hardly quote familiar passages from the book of Psalms and other books of the Old Testament showing the many fearful human calamities ordained or practised, even to the sacrifice of the lives of human beings, all for the glory of God! If we turn to the New Testament Scriptures the awful idea we are contemplating culmi nates in the appalling announcement of the everlasting punishment of Hell! Now the God of Theology is an idea of the human mind. Like the Poet’s, the Theologian’s eye “ Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven, And, as imagination bodies forth The forms of things unknown, the theologian's pen Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing A local habitation and a name.’' Even the ghastly conception of eternal torments, and the foredoomed fate of millions of human beings is all �An Aspiration of Science. declared by theologians to be for the glory of God. the grim irony of Burns expresses it— 17 As I Oh Thou, wha in the heav’ns dost dwell, Wha, as it pleases best thysel, Sends ane to Heaven, and ten to Hell A’ for thy glory, And no for ony guid or ill They’ve done afore thee.” If we turn from theological theory to the practice of theologians, as exhibited in history, we plainly perceive how their treatment of mankind has ever corresponded with the cruel character of their credentials. The reproachful summing up of their conduct by the learned historian Buckle is only too true. ‘ The theologians,’ he declares, ‘considered as a class, have in every country and in every age deliberately opposed themselves to gratifications which are essential to the happiness of an overwhelming majority of the human race. Eaising up a God of their own creation, whom they hold out as a lover of penance, of sacrifice, and of mortification, they, under this pretence, forbid enjoyments which are not only innocent but praiseworthy ... It must be admitted by whoever will take a comprehensive view of what they have done, that they have not only been the most bitter foes of human happiness, but the most successful ones. In their high and palmy days, when they reigned supreme, when credulity was universal, and doubt unknown, they afflicted mankind in every possible way, enjoining fasts, and penances, and pilgrimages, teaching their simple and ignorant victims every kind of austerity, teaching them to flog their own bodies, to tear their own flesh, and to mortify the most natural of their appetites.’ And Buckle emphatically warns us, ‘ that we shall assuredly sink under the accumulated pressure of our high and complex civilization if we imitate the credulity of our forefathers, �18 An Aspiration of Science. who allowed their energies to be cramped and weakened by those pernicious notions which the clergy, partly from ignorance, and partly from interest, have in every age palmed upon the people, and have thereby diminished the national happiness, and retarded the march of the national prosperity.’ As we are now accepting it as settled by the New Testament Revision, that the text ‘ Peace on Earth, Good-will towards men ’ was no part of original Scripture, and is discarded by theology, it becomes the privilege of Science, with the right hand of fellowship, to bid it wel come. It embodies indeed her most cherished aspirations, for we shall see that, as the ultimate end of Science is to bring about the greatest happiness of the greatest num ber, ‘ Good-will towards men,’ that is human well-being, and ‘ Peace on earth ’ have ever been objects Science has had nearest and dearest to her, are indeed of the very essence of her transcendent faith. And here I call to mind that the leading idea of my lecture was a few years since, with almost prophetic foresight of the work of the New Testament Revisers, shadowed forth in the luminous and lofty language of a pioneer of progress, one of the bravest and soundest of our sons of Science. In professor Tyndall’s Presidential Address on ‘ Science and Man,’ delivered before the Midland Institute in October, 1877, he asks “ Does the song of the herald angels ‘ Glory to God on the highest, and on earth Peace, Good-will toward men,’ express the exaltation and the yearning of a human soul, or does it describe an optical and acoustical fact, a visible host, and an audible song ? If the former, the exaltation and the yearning are man’s imperishable possession, if the latter, then belief in the entire transaction is wrecked by nonfulfilment. The promise of ‘ Peace on Earth, Good-will toward men’ is a dream ruined by the experience of �.An Aspiration of Science. 19 eighteen centuries, and in that ruin are involved the claim of the heavenly host to prophetic vision. But, though the mechanical theory proves untenable, the immortal song, and the feelings it expresses are still ours, to be incorporated, let us hope, in the poetry, philosophy, and practice of the future.” Now we seem to breathe the free atmosphere of Science; Science so variously defined, so differently understood in the past ages of the world. To us, Science, in its general sense, is simply real knowledge—know ledge that may be tested and known to be real by verifi cation through, or comparison with, the facts of Nature. This is no mere verbal definition, for, side by side with real knowledge has always existed the persuasion of false knowledge. This distinction helps to explain, too, how it has come to happen that Theology and Science are so often seen in conflict. To say, as is sometimes done, that Theology is based on supernatural knowledge, whilst Science is limited to knowledge that is natural, does not really solve the problem. It might account for difference in their respective degrees of knowledge, but not, if both be true, for downright contradiction between them. The conflict, in its present proportions, has really arisen in comparatively recent times, and we shall best get at its source and nature by glancing at it historically. In the ancient world, and throughout what might be termed the golden age of Theology, Science was very dif ferently conceived to what is now regarded as its right meaning. In that subtle dialogue of Plato,—Theaitetos, which is a discussion concerning what is meant by Science, (written nearly 400 years before the Christian Era,) we find that Socrates could only define or conceive Science as being the inmost perception of the mind, or inner consciousness, concerning any matter. He thought that there could be no external standard, and that what the �20 An Aspiration of Science. individual mind arrives at through pure reflection as true, must be regarded as the truth by that mind. Such was the only conclusion that consummate thinker could come to as to the nature of Science. In Plato’s more mature Dialogue ‘The Republic’ we again find the nature and end of Science repeatedly referred to. Thus, with reference to the Sciences of Arithmetic and Geometry, Plato thought nothing of any worldly use they might serve. The object of the study of the properties of num bers, he says, is to habituate the mind to the contempla tion of pure and abstract truth, and so to raise us above the material universe. In these writings of Plato we have then distinctly stated the end of Science, and also its method, as he regarded them; such method being, in the majority of instances, utterly fallacious, viz.:—That the intuition of the mind, or the idea which is subjectively conceived, is to be accepted as the equivalent or correlative of an objective fact. This fallacy may be detected underlying those metaphysical systems of philosophy that so authori tatively prevailed until they were displaced by the modern inductive method of research, which is based, not on mental intuitions, but on material facts, ascertained through the senses, and so marshalled as to constitute an objective criterion, to which speculative propositions may be referred, for the purpose of testing which are true and which are false. Now the Platonic idea of Science was very early pressed into the service of Theology. The late Bishop Hampden, in his learned lectures on the Scholastic Phil osophy, has acutely explained how this arose, and he remarks that its abstractedness from the visible world was one chief reason why Platonism became established as the orthodox system of the Western Church. This Platonic notion of Science, having thus become combined �An Aspiration of Science. 21 with, or subordinated to the dogmas of Theology, with its universal panacea of prayer, really continued, not always in practice, but, in intellectual theory, until the advent of our illustrious countryman Lord Bacon. Bacon, by the exercise of his marvellous insight, penetrated to the very core of real knowledge, showing, especially in that latin casket of scientific gems, the Novum Organum (published in 1620), that the first thing necessary in the search of truth is intellectual light—‘ lumen siccum ’ pure light, unobscured by the mists of superstition, passion, preju dice, or interest. But then he at once points out that the intellect left to itself, like the naked hand, can effect little, that it must be assisted by helps and by instru ments, and that its intuitions must be corrected, or duly verified by the observation, or interrogation through ex periment, of the facts of Nature. That ‘wre scire esse per causas scire ’—we only truly know anything when we know its cause. Utterly ignoring the jargon of theology concerning the Kingdom of Heaven, Bacon avowed his object was to establish on Earth the Kingdom of Man, whose sovereignty would rest on Science, which was not a thing to be demanded back from the darkness of antiquity, but must be sought from the light of Nature. That Science was not derived from human authority, but is the offspring or fruit resulting ‘ commercio mentis et rerum’ from the intercourse of mind and matter, or, as he quaintly phrases it, ‘ the happy marriage between the mind of man and the nature of things.’ But Bacon’s sagacious discovery, or, at least, his vigorous presentment in clear and cogent logic of the right method of arriving at the source of real knowledge, was only a portion, though a magnificently grand one, of the ser vices he has rendered to mankind. He proceeded further, and showed that the speculations of the ancient Philoso �22 An Aspiration of Science. phers were comparatively worthless, as not having in view the true end of Science, which was not, he averred, an intellectual pastime, or ‘ web of the wit,’ woven merely to amuse or mystify the dialectical faculties of the human mind, but was an investigation into Nature, in order to establish the well-being, and bring about the happiness of the human race. The end of Science was to consist in the multiplying of human enjoyments, and the mitigating of human miseries, concisely it was, to use his own preg nant words, ‘the relief of man’s estate’; and this is the sense in which we are to understand his often-repeated aphorism ‘ Scientia est Potentia,’ real knowledge is power —power enabling man to grapple with and overcome the evils of life. And thus, through the exhaustive exposition of Bacon, Science was no longer limited by the definitions or ideas of Plato, the human intellect became liberated from the bondage of verbal disputation, and Was turned to the con sideration of useful truths. Science came to be seen as we now know it, that is, as the process of discovery, by man’s natural faculties, of the order or laws of Nature. The laboratory of Science being, according to Plato, the inner sanctuary of the mind, and the materials of Science being, according to Bacon, facts, acquired through the senses, from the outer World of Nature. So con sidered, the sphere of Science comprehends everything that, by the constitution of the human faculties, can be positively known; the region of reality, as distinguished from the realm of visionary knowledge, that has been built up, by means of unverified mental intuitions, into theological and metaphysical systems. Now what the genuis of Bacon was so powerfully propounding in precept, others were almost simul taneously performing in practice. In our own country we find William Harvey, the �An Aspiration of Science. 23 friend and physician of Bacon, discovering, by the aid of experiment, the circulation of the blood, and, in his con cise ‘exerdtatio de motu Cordis et Sanguinis’, explaining this grand truth (published in 1628, two years after the death of Bacon), and also in his larger work ‘ de generatione Animalium ’ (published in 1651) we may, I think, perceive many passages proving the extent to which Harvey was indebted intellectually to his great predecessor Bacon. Another almost immediate result of the profound impression made upon thinking minds by the extra ordinary brilliancy of Bacon’s philosophical writings appears in the very striking treatise of Richd. Cumberland on the Laws of Nature, his ‘ de legibus Natures disquisitio’ (published in 1672). “In this work” (says Hallam) “ the Bathers and Schoolmen, the Canonists and Casuists, have vanished like ghosts at the first daylight.* The con tinued appeal is to experience, and never to authority, unless it be to the authority of the great apostles of experimental philosophy.” And thus piety was becoming purified from the dross of dogma, for with Science, ‘ laborare est orare ’—prayer consists in work, and the world was being aroused from the supineness of superstitious sloth to the activity of intelligent industry. And now we may distinctly observe what is the relation which the Baconian or Inductive Science holds towards Theology. I pass by the attempts that were made by the Church to strangle it in its birth. The persecution of Science by the Church when it possessed power, and of scientific men, the great men who have been the inter preters of Nature, “ Their only crime that they should dare To think, and then their thought declare ”— is indeed a theme painfully familiar, but happily it forms no part of my present argument. We are now only �24 An Aspiration of Science. referring to the intellectual influence of Science, which is by Buckle thus tersely summarised, and contrasted with Theology:— “ Inductive Science takes for its basis individual and specific experience, and seeks by that means to overthrow the general and traditional notions on which all church power is founded. Its plan is to refuse to accept prin ciples which cannot be substantiated by facts. In Theology certain principles are taken for granted, and it is deemed impious to question them. In England, the rise of the Baconian Philosophy, with its determination to subordi nate ancient principles to modern experience, was the heaviest blow which has ever been inflicted on the Theo logians, whose method is to begin, not with experience, but with principles which are said to be inscrutable. That is, they proceed from arbitrary assumptions, for which they have no proof, except by appealing to other assumptions equally arbitrary, and equally unproven. Over the inferior order of minds our clergy still wield great influence, but the Baconian Philosophy, bv bring ing their favourite method into disrepute, has sapped the very base of their system. From the moment that their method of investigation was discredited, the secret of their power was gone.” And the present attitude of the Church towards Science is thus graphically portrayed by Dr. Draper :— “ At length the Church has fastened its eyes on Science. Under that dreaded name there stands before it what seems to be a spectre of uncertain form, of hourly dilating proportions, of threatening aspect. Sometimes the Church addresses this stupendous apparition in words of courtesy, sometimes in tones of denunciation.” This mingled and trembling tone of courtesy and defiance, of welcome and of dread, may I think be detected in nearly all the great theological utterances going on around us. �An Aspiration of Science. 25 We however may in Science recognise the spirit that has promised to lead us into all truth, and we may hail as the children of light those who are endowed with the intelligence enabling them to follow whithersoever such spirit may lead, and therefore, when the Bishop of Man chester asks, as he did in his somewhat singular sermon preached before the British Association in August last —“ Is Science to tell me what I am to believe, and how I am to act,” let us, however respectfully, ask empha tically, Why not ? For it has now been demonstrated by experience, that only by belief in Science, and by acting in accordance with its teaching of Grood-will to wards man, can the great miseries of human life, its pinching poverty, its depraving intemperance, its de moralising vices, its agonising diseases, its premature deaths, with their attendant train of heartrending sorrows and corroding griefs, be banished, and life on earth ren dered tolerably happy. It is only by belief in Science, and by following its teaching, that wars will ever be abolished, and ‘ Peace on Earth ’ practically realised. I need not now dilate on illustrations of the primary care of Science for humanity, as manifested in its dis coveries, deductions, and teachings in reference to the Order of Nature, to the Constitution of Man. The great astronomical and physiological discoveries are more or less known to every one. On the subject of Health, so essential to our happiness, I will dwell for a few moments. The theological theory of disease (explained in my lecture last year) has been completely exploded from the creed of the educated classes, and it is now acknowledged that Health is entirely dependent on the observance of immu table and imperative laws of Nature. Diseases are now distinctly traceable to infringement of these laws, and several diseases are indissolubly associated with the poisonous nature of some of the food we �26 An Aspiration of Science. eat, and the liquids we drink. But the scientific knowledge of the subject requires diffusing, to be more generally taught, and brought vividly home to the reason and common sense of the people. Now, some of you may remember that in a former lecture I deplored the paucity of scientific tracts and texts or axioms disseminated amongst us, compared with the number of superstitious stories with which we are literally deluged by theological Societies. Yet I think that scien tific teaching might to a great extent be carried on in a similar manner. Let me hazard a suggestion, illustrative of my meaning. Some of you I dare say have observed the scripture text that is engraved above a drinking foun tain within a quarter of a mile from our doors : “ Whoso ever drinketh of this water shall thirst again, but whoso ever drinketh of the water I shall give him shall never thirst.” Now, don’t assume that I am quoting this text for the purpose of scoffing. I only now say, it is not Science, but it strikes me as pointing out to us a corresponding method of diffusing scientific knowledge, and that we might well have our fountains engraved with some scien tific axiom or truth in connection with their use. Thus, we might have written over them some such scientific axiom as the following : “ Whosoever drinketh of water polluted with organic germs shall be in danger of disease and death; but whosoever drinketh of water purified therefrom by Science shall escape taking thereby diarrhoea, dysentery, cholera, typhoid fever, diphtheria.” Going to the subject of Education I may point out that in our Great Schools and Colleges the curriculum of studies has been considerably changed since society has come to appreciate the educational value of the study of the Physical Sciences, not only as regards the real and useful knowledge thereby imparted of the material world �An Aspiration of Science. 27 and our actual mode of existence, but in reference to the discipline of the mental faculties involved in learning their precise and accurate methods of investigating and veri fying truth, and showing what concrete truth consists in. In the Parliamentary Report of the Public Schools Com mission published in the year 1864 we find Professor Owen, the late Sir Charles Lyell, and Professor Faraday, our esteemed President Dr. Carpenter, Professor Tyndall, and other eminent scientists giving the most clear and convincing testimony to the value of such study in training a class of mental faculties which are almost ignored by purely classical and mathematical culture; such as the dis tinguishing things from words ; the accurate observation, and classification of the facts of Nature, and the exercise of the reasoning faculties on such facts ; the teaching to the student the principles of real evidence; and how, in the unprejudiced pursuit of truth, to estimate correctly the weight of such evidence. But perhaps the greatest blow that enlightenment has publicly dealt to superstition in our day was inflicted by the Elementary Education Act of 1870—under which Board Schools have been so widely established for impart ing some amount of really useful secular common-sense knowledge to the children of the masses of our people, in the place of the Bible reading and Hymn singing, in the learning of which their precious time was so much consumed in the old Church Schools. By Sec. 7 of that Act of Parliament it is expressly provided, that no religious observance, or instruction in religious subjects shall be given during the necessary school hours. That no scholar shall be bound to attend any religious observance or in struction, and that it shall be no part of the duty of Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Schools to enquire into any instruction in any religious subjects given at such school, or to examine any scholar therein. Now, bearing in mind �28 An Aspiration of Science. that the term religious instruction used in the Act has especial reference to the jarring and discordant theologies of the rival religious sects, all of whom were contending to get the child under their special influence, and that the prohibition in the Act of Parliament of religious instruction was resorted to as the only practicable course of getting rid of the obstructive opposition of such sects; I don’t think I am going too far in characterising the enactment in question as the greatest legislative blow dealt at super stition since the passing of the Act of the 9th of Greo. II. which repealed that astounding statute of James I., which had actually recognised as realities the theological delu sions of witchcraft, conjuration, and dealing with evil and wicked Spirits, and authorised prosecutions, con victions, and the infliction of barbarous punishments, for the alleged commission of such purely imaginary crimes 1 Now we are all taught in our youth to believe that Theology or our Religious System is the source or sanc tion of all morality. If Boman Catholics we are taught that in matters of Faith and Morals the Pope is the in fallible authority; a dogma the more astonishing, inas much as it must be obvious to unprejudiced historical students that, as the power of the Pope has decayed, the moral tone of European society has improved. But, in the decomposition, or decline of theological belief every where going on, there must exist a danger that what has been supposed an essential part of its teaching may decline too. Hence has arisen the necessity of showing, as the fact is, that the true foundation of morality, or the right conduct of man towards man, is scientific or secular, and not essentially theological at all. Now, that pure morality is absolutely independent of all theology has been known to Science from the time of Aristotle, whose demonstration of the doctrine is con �An Aspiration of Science. 29 tained in his profound and sagacious treatise the Nicomachean Ethics. Turning then to the consideration of virtue, as the supreme moral end, we shall see what Science has dis covered and taught us as the indestructible basis of the duty of doing, not only what is just and right, but what is calculated for the happiness of mankind, all of which are comprehended in that felicitously compendious ex pression, ‘ good-will towards men.’ It is to the illustrious Grotius (whose great work on the principles of human conduct I somewhat fully referred to in my lecture of last year) that we are indebted, according to his able editor the late Dr. Whewell, for the first clear enunciation of the true source of moral science. Man, says Grotius, following the lead of Aristotle, is by his nature a rational and social being. He can only exist in the society of his fellow-creatures, and he must live with them, not anyhow, but according to his instincts, his faculties, and his desires, that is, peacefully and hap pily. Human Nature then is the mother of moral right, and the moral guilt or rectitude of any action is deter mined by its agreement or disagreement with our rational and social nature. These ideas of Aristotle and Grotius have been admirably developed by (amongst others) Jeremy Bentham, John S. Mill, and Herbert Spencer. ‘ Nature (says Bentham) has placed mankind under the government of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. The standard of right and wrong is fastened to their throne. In words a man may pretend to abjure their empire, but in reality he will remain subject to it all the while. The principle of utility recognises this subjection, and assumes it for the foundation of that system, the object of which is to rear the fabric of felicity �30 An Aspiration of Science. by the hand of reason and of law. Systems which attempt to question it deal in sound instead of sense, in caprice instead of reason, in darkness instead of light.’ This scientific foundation of morals, general utility, or the greatest happiness principle (adds John S. Mill) holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. This utilitarian standard, however, is not the agent’s own greatest happiness but, the greatest amount of happiness altogether. Utilitarianism there fore can only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character, and the multiplication of happiness is, according to such standard of ethics, the object of virtue. Thus it embraces not only our duties, but by what test we may know them. And the highest life, says Herbert Spencer, is that which includes the greatest happiness, and ‘that happiness is the supreme virtuous end is beyond question true, for it is the concomitant of that ultimate end which every theory of moral guidance has distinctly, or vaguely in view. Such shortly is the ideal of Science in regard to the true nature of virtue, but so backward is our present social state, that so far from our being able to realise such an ideal, the greater part of our present virtue consists in practising the duty of self-denial, lest the attempted gratification of our own faculties aud activities should interfere with corresponding gratifications on the part of others. For (says Herbert Spencer) the main tenance of equitable relations all round is the condition to the attainment of the greatest happiness of all.. There is probably no subject respecting which the teachings of Theology and Science are more at variance than in their respective views concerning the dreadful ordeal of War. You know, if you consult the pages of the Bible, you find that War is treated as almost, under �An A spiration of Science. 31 certain circumstances, a normal condition of human existence. I will not stay to quote texts illustrating this conclusion, in which the Deity is represented as the Lord of Hosts, as the Grod of Battles, as a Man of War, over and over again taking part in and encouraging warfare, and even expressly commanding Wars to be undertaken. What the human mind may be degraded into believing through the too exclusive study of Theology, and the too confiding credulity in all that we find written in the old historical books of the semi-barbarous Hebrews, may be gathered from a recent utterance of one of our learned Bishops, who declared that he believed War was one of the means by which the Almighty carried on the govern ment of the world, and promoted civilization! Now Science cannot conceive an Almighty power governing or encouraging a world of human beings through the dreadful horrors of war, and such power could not, in any scientific sense, be regarded as benefi cent, if he were really capable of coolly carrying on human government by means of the atrocious machinery of warfare. According to Science, such an idea can only be a delusion of the morbid imagination, enfeebled through unreflecting faith in the senseless suggestions of supersti tion. Science can indeed show that it is quite unneces sary to attribute war to the intentional Will of an Almighty Supernatural Being, for it can trace its causes to the passions of human nature, acting in ignorance or disregard of those preventives of war which the human understanding, enlightened by Science, has succeeded in discovering, and by following which wars might be alto gether banished from the face of the earth, or, at least, from amongst the Nations of Europe. Hence in nearly all such Nations have arisen Peace Societies, founded for the purpose of diffusing such intelligence amongst the people at large, that they, being instructed to recognise �32 An Aspiration of Science. that their true interest always lies on the side of Peace, may, through enlightened public opinion, bring pressure to bear upon their rulers, in order that Peace may be preserved, and the horrors of War avoided. That this could even now be effected, through the instrumentality of International Arbitration, can hardly be doubted by those who have considered the subject from a scientific point of view. I may now then conclude by affirming that the senti ments ‘ Good-will towards men ’ and ‘ Peace on Earth,’ though expelled from Sacred Scripture, and disowned by dogmatic Theology, are the inalienable heritage of Science, and under its guardianship will remain, to exemplify the sublime sympathies of those noble-minded men, whose fervent thoughts and dignified lives are devoted to the realisation of their spontaneous aspirations to improve, to lift up, and to sweeten the earthly lives of their fellow creatures ; aspirations which superstition has not suc ceeded in suppressing, because they are the natural promptings of the uncorrupted heart, and mind, and con science of man, civilized through Science. KENNY & Co., Printers, 25, Camden Road, N.W. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes. Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk. <img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource An aspiration of science : "On earth peace, good-will towards men", rescued from the New Testament revision. A lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, St George's Hall, Langham Place, on Sunday afternoon, 19th February, 1882 Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 32 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 5. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Finch, A. Elley Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1883 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Sunday Lecture Society Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G3429 Subject The topic of the resource Bible Science Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a> This work (An aspiration of science : "On earth peace, good-will towards men", rescued from the New Testament revision. A lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, St George's Hall, Langham Place, on Sunday afternoon, 19th February, 1882), identified by <a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a>, is free of known copyright restrictions. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Morris Tracts Science https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9ccd82b8df771631e645babee134bc5a.pdf?Expires=1784764800&Signature=R71DcJZTr63n8pIcii5Wc0EQv83gzU8yABan9JssVolYmQySGwF8HhtCGsn4r-tx8OEg1ksKlMxX8EBayCjbXXDDCeCl-IY2j%7ERtsr%7EYKFwJvgvQ5P1srPDhResp1im2pgP8Nd-qGZNTOgdABqHWGq6Kkvw6FGAnTWLCR3xpP3P-e7k3LKW4yGZZR3MuAv%7E60UUbFkgkH6NGrSnGD3M5-jmcbc-xGwh1WIZ5nqfh5GMqBOjnK5RUjFs7TQ%7Enp2jyPSNq-GaeDar%7EuntMzs3MZ3QFknUpH7JV%7ETQd9hkUsJRNf4eQdvZF-rbjaz7q1lxb0%7EdheJoFuaPJjZCW5I8D0A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 552d70e66c381cbf904d3061d50f5601 PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY * ’ - BIBLE HEROES « BY i' ll * FOOTE. G. W. lb 9 FIRST SERIES. LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. 1887. it. ��LONDON: PRINTED BY G. W. FOOTE, AT 14 CLERKENWELL GREEN, E.C. �— - — ....................... 1 1 �MR. ADAM. -------- 4--------- Science tells us that the human race has existed on this planet, ruder in form and character the further we go back, for hundreds of thousands of years. Long before “the grand old gar dener,” as Tennyson calls him. was cultivating his. green peas and asparagus in Eden, there were millions of civilised men in Egypt and India, and probably in Assyria and China; and long before that, in the obscurity of prehistoric ages, the earth was peopled by barbarians. These also were preceded by savages who, in their turn, had succeeded the ape-like progenitors of Mankind. Science and the Bible, however, disagree on this, as on so many other points. According to the book which Christians treasure without studying, and venerate without following, Mr. Adam was the first man that ever lived; and he was born, or rather manufactured, less than six thousand years ago. There are, indeed, a few Christians who believe that the world was inhabited before Jehovah made a clay man, hung him up to dry, and finally blew the breath of life into his nostrils. The theory of Pre-Adamite races was started in’1655 by Isaac de la Peyreira, a converted Jew, who argued that the beings created in the first chapter of Genesis were different from those created in the second. From the first set all the Gentiles have descended, while the Jews have issued from the loins of Mi’. Adam. Noah’s flood was only a partial deluge, and it was only the antediluvian Jews who perished in that catastrophe. But Peyreira’s book was burnt in Paris by the executioner, and he himself narrowly escaped the same fate. Since then his theory has always had some adherents, yet they have been an insignificant minority. Some Orientals also hold that there were men before Mr. Adam. One race of these were the “ fiat-heads ” of Ceylon, who sub mitted to him when he fell on their island after his expulsion from Paradise; and they really must have been flat-heads to truckle to such a nincompoop. Bishop South says that “An Aristotle was but the rubbish of an Adam.” In other words, Mr. Adam was perfect. So he was—a perfect fool. Like Charles the Second, in Rochester’s epigram, Mr. Adam never did a wise thing ; and, unlike the merry monarch, he never said a wise one either. A collection of his utterances, throughout a long life �BIBLE HEROES. extending to nearly a thousand years, would be the smallest and baldest treatise to be found in the whole world. It seems an insult to the deity to allege that he was unable to turn out a better specimen of his handiwork after six days’, apprenticeship on such a gigantic scale. Mr. Adam was made out of clay, or dust, or something of that kind, by Jehovah, who was his spiritual father. Carnally, the poor fellow was an orphan from birth. He never felt a mother’s kiss on his brow. He never climbed on his father’s knee. God was the only father he had, and his legs were too long; for if, as Jesus tells us, heaven is his throne and earth his footstool, there must be a frightful distance between his feet and the part he displayed to Moses on Mount Sinai. That the first man was made from earth is a very natural superstition. The Peruvians, Collas, Caribees, and North American Indians, believed that the first human beings sprang from the ground. In Egypt, India, China, and Mexico, they were believed to have been fashioned of earth by some superior power. According to the Chaldeans, man was made by the mixing of the blood of Belus with the dust of the ground; while the Per sians held that he grew from the soil which was impregnated with the seed of the man-bull Kaiomorts. Aristophanes, in * The Birds, calls men “ creatures of clay.”t According to Apollodorus, the first man and woman were formed of clay by Prome theus. It is absurd to suppose that these ancient and widely sundered peoples borrowed their notions of man’s origin from the Jews, especially when we know that Genesis is not an early, but a very late portion of the Hebrew scriptures, dating only a few centuries before Christ. The Mohammedans say that Mr. Adam’s body was made of clay brought by the archangels, Gabriel, Michael, Israfiel, and Asrael, from the four quarters of the earth. According to the Talmud the dust was collected from all parts. Rabbi Hoshea says his trunk was made of dust from Babel, his head of dust from Palestine, and the rest of his limbs from, the soil of other countries. Rabbi Acha adds that his seat of honor was made of clay from Acre.J When he was finished there was some dust left over, and of this God made locusts. Didron§ prints a copy of an Italian miniature of the thirteenth century, in which an angel is represented as modelling the rough figure of a man, while God Almighty is standing by, waiting to give it the finishing touches. God is also depicted as consulting the angels about the matter in a series of figures in the north porch of Chartres cathedral.* § * t J § Priaulx’s Questiones Mosazcce, p. 64. So Frere and Poyard. Hickie translates “ figures of clay.’ ’ Baring Gould, Legends of Old Testament Characters, vol. i., pp. 9, 13. Christian Iconography, vol. ii., p. 14. �MB. ADAM. 3 When God furnished his clay man with a soul, it entered his mouth and passed down into his belly, where to this very day the soul of many of his descendants continues to reside. His first motion was to sneeze and say “ Praise be to God.” Then he tried to get up and eat, but the soul had not yet ani mated his extremities, so Gabriel said “ 0 Adam, don’t be in a hurry.” We may here mention a curious idea referred to by Gerald Massey, who says that “ Epiphanius represents Elkesi, the Ebionite prophet, as teaching that Christ was the first created Adam, who returned as the second Adam. Photius also says Origen maintained that the soul of Jesus was the soul of Adam.”* Jehovah was not likely to turn out a mannikin, particularly M, according to Philo, he spent sixty days over the job. Besides, so long-lived a gentleman as Mr. Adam was naturally a good height. The Rabbis say that the tree of life was so big that it took a good walker five years to march round it, and Mr. Adam’s proportions were in keeping with this mighty bole. When ho laid down his body stretched from east to west, and when he stood up his head reached to the seventh heaven. Subsequently he became shorter. According to one Rabbinical story, the angels were afraid of him, and to abate their terror God put him asleep and pared him down; or, as others say, placed his hand on Mr. Adam’s head and flattened him down to a thousand cubits. A&Other story says that he shrank with horror at the death of Abel, and was never able to stretch himself out to his original dimensions. The Mohammedans assert that he lost his primitive size in yearly pilgrimages to Mecca, and finally retained the height of sixty ells. According to a fourth story, when Mr, Adam was all alone on a peak in Ceylon, he was so tall that the 8tm burnt his hair off. God mercifully ordered Gabriel to shadow the poor fellow’s head with his wings, and Mr. Adam dwindled under that curious umbrella till he was only ninety feet high. Saint Augustine thought Mr. Adam was thirty years old when he was born.f The Rabbis say he was superlatively beautiful. It is generally believed by the Jews that he was born circumcised, although he did his utmost to conceal the fact. J Therefore, if he was made in God’s image, God must be circumcised too. Both Mr. Adam and Mrs. Eve are drawn in pictures with navels. Test as they were not born in the ordinary way this “ cannot be showed,” says Sir Thomas Browne. His editor Ross, however, says that navels were given them as an ornament, in support of which opinion he cites the second verse of the seventh chapter * The Natural Genesis, vol. ii., p. 329. 1 Cor. xv., 45-47. f Sir Thomas Browne’s Works, (Bohn) vol. ii., p. 382. $ Calmet’s Dictionary of the Bible, and Bayle’s Dictionary. �4 BIBLE HEROES. of Solomon’s Song, where the hero describes that feature in his sweetheart as “ a round goblet.” . _ 'A'.That Mr. Adam was created an hermaphrodite is a widely received opinion. Gould reads Genesis I., 27 as “ male-female created he them.” As Butler says : “ Man was not man in Paradise, Until he was created twice, And had his better half, his bride, Carved from th’ original his side, T’ amend his natural defects, And perfect his recruited sex; Inlarge his breed at once, and lessen The pains and labor of increasing, By changing them for other cares, As by his dried-up paps appears.” Hudibras, Part III., Canto I., 761-770. Man’s rudimentary mammas are now explained by Darwin. They point back very much farther than the origin of the human race. Yet in more ignorant ages they naturally lent a color to the superstition in Butler’s verses. Many Jewish writers have asserted that “ man and woman were created in one body, united by the shoulders, having four feet, four hands, and two heads, alike throughout excepting sex; and that God having cast this compound figure into a deep sleep, divided it, and made two persons of it.”* Browne says that Marcus Leo, a learned Jew, affirmed that “ Adam in one swppositum, without division, con tained both male and female.”f Antoinette Bourignon, the mystic, held that Adam contained both sexes, and was able to produce his like without connection. Paracelsus maintained that the generative organs only appeared in our first parents after their sin. Some Rabbis have held that Adam was an elaborate Janus, male one side and female the other; Jeremiah Ben-Eleazer supporting this view by the text “ Thou hast fashioned me before and behind.” A similar legend is expounded in Plato’s Banquet, far more beautifully than in any Hebrew writings. It also appears in the mythology of India, China, Persia and Phoenicia. Every where men and women seek their joy in marriage, and out of this yearning grew the fancy of two divided halves of an original whole striving after their pristine unity. Mr. Adam being made in the image of God, it follows that Jehovah is androgynous too. This explains how he procreated his only begotten son without a wife; for the Holy Ghost can scarcely stand to him in that capacity, seeing it was the father of the Virgin Mary’s baby. Mr. Adam was a smooth-faced gentleman until he fell. After * Calmet. f Works, vol. i., p. 308. �MR. ADAM. a that event he sprouted a beard. According to the Mohamme dans, it was the result of excessive grief, but they do not explain the effect of sorrow upon the hair-follicles of the chin. Mr. Adam was an exception to the rule that grief has a tendency to make people bald. Tabari says that Mr. Adam remained five hundred years in Paradise, but several Rabbis assert that events moved far more rapidly. He was created on a Friday. God gathered the dust in the first hour; in the second he formed the embryo ; in the third the body was developed; in the fourth it was endowed with a soul; at the fifth it stood upright; at the sixth Mr. Adam named the animals ; at the seventh he married Mrs. Eve; at the eighth Cain and his sister were born; at the ninth he was warned against the forbidden fruit; at the tenth he fell; at the eleventh he was “ over the garden wall ” ; and at the twelfth hour he was toiling and sweating outside. This was a remark ably quick dispatch of business. During those eventful twelve hours poor Mr. Adam must have been puzzled to tell whether he was on his head or his feet. Mr. Adam was probably christened by his maker. But Priaulx points out that there is a sort of pun in the Hebrew—God formed Adam out of Adamah, which according to Josephus means red earth. The Chinese say that the first man was kneaded of yellow earth, because they are yellow themselves, and other people assert different colors according to their own skins. Sale says that Adamah is Persic, meaning primarily red earth; and that in all the oriental languages it means man in general, but eminently the first man. Parkhurst tries to derive the word from a Hebrew noun signifying likeness, but this is only to bolster up the theory of Mr. Adam’s being created “ in the like ness of God.” Gerald Massey says that “ the name of Adam occurs often enough in Inner Africa, to show Whence came the primal pail’ who were personified as the typical parents in Egypt, and continued in the sacred writings brought out of that land, by the Hebrews.”* He gives a striking list of several African languages in which the word Adam, with slight variations, means Male or Father in the generic sense like the Latin Vvr. There is a curious corroboration of his theory in the remark of a writer cited by Eusebius, who says that Protogonos, or the first made, is a translation into Greek of the Egyptian title of Adam, taken from the pillars of Thothfi However Mr. Adam obtained his name, it is certain that he had it engraved on his card and cut on his brass-plate. “ Mr. Adam, Gardener,” was properly exhibited on the gate of Eden. But where Eden was is another matter. According to Genesis it was “ eastward,” which is not very precise. Commentators Vol. ii., pp. 16, 17. f Calmet’s Dictionary. �6 BIBLE HEROES. advance all sorts of theories, their only point of agreement being that Eden was somewhere. Boss of this large establishment, Mr. Adam bnstled proudly about. He was monarch of all he surveyed, and his right there was none to dispute; except, perhaps, a big-maned lion with hot carnivorous jaws, a long-mouthed alligator, a boa-constrictor, a stinging wasp, or an uncatchable flea. Surveying his subjects, he saw that all the lower animals had partners. Some of the males had one wife, and some had a fine harem, but there was none without a mate. He watched the amorous couples frisking about, and the doves billing and cooing, and his solitary heart filled with an ineffable yearning. Lifting up his hands to the sky, from which his heavenly parent occasionally dropped down for a conversation, he cried aloud, in the words that were after wards used by poor diddled Esau, “ Bless me, even me also, 0 my father.” Poor Mr. Adam pined away. He lost several tons in less than a month, and the Devil had serious thoughts of offering to pur chase him as a living skeleton for his show in Pandemonium. At last God took pity on him. Forgetting that he had pronounced everything good, or not foreseeing that Moses would be mean enough to record the mistake, he said it was not good for Mr. Adam to be alone, and resolved to make the orphan-bachelor a wife. But how to do it ? God had clean forgotten her, and had used up every bit of his material. All the nothing he had in stock when he began to make the universe was exhausted. There was not a particle of nothing left. God was obliged to use some of the old material over again. Putting Adam into a deep sleep, he carved out one of his ribs. It was the first surgi cal operation under chloroform. With this spare rib God manufactured the first woman. Mr. Adam woke up minus a rib and plus a wife ; an awkward, yet after all a pleasant exchange. He had never seen a woman before, but he put his arm round her waist at once, and said “ You’re my wife; ” and Mrs. Eve blushed her consent to the engagement. It was the shortest courtship on record. Before Mrs. Eve appeared on the scene, it seems that God passed all the lower animals in review before Mr. Adam, expect ing him to choose a partner from some agreeable species. But not a single female made any impression on him. All he did was to give them their proper names. Mr. Adam was certainly a wonderful naturalist. He knew more than the Royal Society or the British Association. He excelled Buffon, Cuvier, and Darwin. It is a pity he did not write a Zoological Dictionary. Several writings are ascribed to him, such as the Book of the Generations of Adam, the Apocalypse of Adam, and the hundred and fourth Psalm. Why did he not leave us some more instruc tive productions ? How Mr. Adam got on with his wife, and how she got on with �MB. ADAM. 7 him, will be treated at length in my Bible Women. I also reserve for that volume the curious Rabbinical stories of Lillith, who is said to have been his real first wife before Mrs. Eve was created. The whole story of the Fall is already discussed in my Bible Romances. I shall therefore confine myself to Mr. A dam’a personal exploits. Having eaten of the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge, he proved himself a miserable coward by throwing all theblame on his wife. He was hardly the sort of man a woman could trust in the hour of danger. If Mrs. Eve had said to him ** Adam, my dear, there’s a noise in the passage; take the poker, a»d go down and see who’s about,” he would have carefully locked the door and covered his head with the bed-clothes. Cod Almighty should at least have turned out a man. A fellow like Adam was only fit to clean boots and carry slops. Certain Rabbis say that when Mr. Adam was cast out of Eden he fell right into Gehenna, but escaped to earth again by pro nouncing the mystic word “ Laverererareri.” According to the Mohammedans he fell upon mount Ser an dib, in Ceylon, while Mrs. Eve fell at Dgidda, a port of the Red Sea, near Mecca. Tabari says that the male apple-eater lay where he fell for a hundred years, bemoaning his dreadful fate. After another hundred years he met his wife again, and then they cried together. Mrs. Eve’s tears changed into pearls, and Mr. Adam snivelled so much that his briny drops formed the Tigris and the Euphrates. Defoe, in his witty and amusing History of the Devil, tells us that after Cain set up as a family man, Mr. Adam dwelt on “ the plains of Mecca in Arabia Felix.” The Mohammedans say he lived in Ceylon. Michaelis supposes that India was first peopled, and the reader in his turn can suppose anything else he pleases. When God told Mr. Adam that he should “ eat the herb of the field ” the poor fellow trembled all over, and exclaimed, “ O Lord of aD the world! I and my beast, the ass, shall have to eat out of the same manger !” But Gabriel gave him lessons in cooking, and the poor fellow got on very well at length, although at first, his badly-baked new bread gave him a frightful belly- Mrs. Eve being a good breeder, he had a numerous progeny. Before he died, his children, grandchildren, and great grand children, numbered something between twenty and seventy thousand, so that he was obliged to bless them in the lump when he shuffled off his mortal coil. English editor thinks the forbidden fruit poisoned Mr. Adam s blood, and wonders what an extraordinary age he might have reached if he had never eaten it. As it was he lived 960 years, which is an age we shall never attain to, though we refiain from apples all our days. Mr. A dam’s longevity is �•8 BIBLE HEROES. obviously mythological, for after the Deluge man’s life ig shortened, and as we approach the historical period it dwindles to three score years and ten. “ According to the traditions of the Lamaic faith,” says Priaulx, “ the first men lived to the age of 60,000 years.” Buckle tells us of two early Hindu kings, Yudhisther and Alarka, who reigned respectively 27,000 and 66,000 years. Both these unfortunate princes were cut off in their prime! Another king was 2,000,000 years old when he came to the throne; he reigned 6,300,000 years, and then resigned his empire, and lingered on for 100,000 years more. That tough old monarch took over a hundred of Mr. Adam’s lives to die in. Compared with him Mr. Adam was a chicken. Mr..Adam’s last will and testament, according to the Arabs, was dictated to the angel Gabriel, and sixty-two million angels were required to bring the pens and parchments from heaven. Seth was left as his sole executor. There is no account of Mr. Adam’s funeral, though it must have been a big affair’, and considering his height, his coffin must have been a fine line for the undertaker. Some ancient writers ■say he was buried at Hebron. Origen held that he was buried at Calvary, where Christ was crucified. Jerome, however, doubted it, though it was soothing to the popular ear. The Persians say he was buried in Ceylon, where his tomb used to be shown. Jewish traditions assert that his body was embalmed. It was taken into the ark by Noah, and afterwards buried at Jerusalem by Melchizedek. The skull was found in latei’ ages, and hence the spot was called Golgotha. Mr. Adam’s skull must have been pretty thick. Tatian and the Encralites were positive that poor Mr. Adam went to hell after all, but the Church condemned this opinion. The Fathers and the Rabbis say he did very hard penance and went to glory. Thus endeth the history of Mr. Adam. He was very little credit to his maker, and although the first of Bible heroes, the sects all agree that his example is to be shunned. The Adamites of the second century imitated him by going to church naked, and the Anabaptists were accused of similar extravagance. But sane people do not emulate his conduct, for what little the Bible records of him shows that he was a great booby, and it is really wonderful that God Almighty exhausted his strength over such a wretched production. �CAPTAIN NOAH. -------- ♦-------- Mr. Adam’s early posterity included two remarkable persons. One was Methusaleh who lived 969 years, and was thus older than the grand, old gardener himself. The other was Enoch, who never died at all, for he was so good that God had him con veyed to heaven by a special messenger. He appears to have ascended to glory, like Jesus Christ, body and soul together; and probably, as Jesus Christ sits at the Father’s right hand, Enoch sits on his left; unless the Holy Ghost occupies that seat, instead of perching on the Father’s shoulder. The next person of distinction is Captain Noah. Lamech, his father, was 182 years old when he begat our hero, who was pro bably his first-born, for no other child is mentioned, and gentle men who lived nearly a thousand years did not marry as early as we do. The word Noah means repose or rest. Perhaps Mrs. Lamech had a bad time in her confinement, and they called the bantling by that name to express their comfort that the job was over. Or may be it was a lazy baby, who sucked his thumb, stared into vacancy, and sat still wherever they placed him. Unfortunately the Bible is silent on these interesting points. Captain Noah lived 950 years in all, yet our record only covers one of them, during which he acted as a navigator. What he did in the first 600 years of his life, or what he did in the last 350 years, is an inscrutable mystery. God and Noah only know, and it is difficult to find either of them nowadays. Captain Noah became a navigator in his six hundredth year in this way. The Devil had so effectually planted the seeds of original sin in man that “ every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Things were so bad that God, who is unchangeable, “ repented that he had made man on the earth.” The Lord resolved to put all his business in this world into liquidation. It was a case of universal bankruptcy. All that was saved out of the catastrophe was a consignment of ■eight human beings, and an unknown number of elephants, crocodiles, horses, pigs, dogs, cats, and fleas. In short, God •determined to drown all his living creatures except some speci mens of each variety to start afresh with. Rabbi Johanan says that the very animals were demoralised as well as the men; but �10 BIBLE HEROES. neither he nor any other theological doctor explains why theLord kept samples of the old stock to breed from, instead of creating a brand-new set. Our hero was the only person who “ found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” He was “ a just man and perfect,” and he “ walked with God.” Yet we shall find that his history doesnot contain a single good action, while it contains at least two bad ones. If the Lord could not have selected a better man than Captain Noah the world must have been in a frightful condition indeed. Let us pause to inquire how it was that Noah was the only passable specimen of the human race. Original sin does not account for all their depravity, foi he had it as well as they.. * Some divines have found the explanation in the words “ the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair.” Reckoning ministers as sons of God, the fondness has continued ever since. The deluge itself could not wash out the amatory feelings with which they regard those sweet creatures who were supposed tobe the Devil’s chief agents. Even to this day it is a fact that courtship goes on with remarkable briskness in religious circles. Churches and chapels are places of harmless assignation, and many matches are made in Sunday-schools, where Alfred and Angelina meet to read the Scripture and flirt. The clergy arenotorious for their partiality to the fair sex. They purr round the ladies like black tom-cats. Some of them are adepts in the art of rolling on e eye to heaven and letting the other languish, on the fair faces of the daughters of men. It is also noticeable that the Protestant clericals marry early and often, and generally beget a numerous progeny; while the Catholic priest who, being celibate, never (well, hardly ever) adds to the population^ “ mashes ” the ladies through the confessional, worming out all their secrets, and making them as pliable as wax in his holy hands. Who the original “ sons of God ” were is a moot point. Many theories have been advanced by Jewish and Christian divines. According to some, the sons of God were the offspring of Seth, who was born in succession to righteous Abel, while the daughters of men were the offspring of wicked Cain. Among the oriental Christians it is said that the children of Seth tried to regain Paradise by living in great austerity on Mount Her mon, but they soon tired of their laborious days and cheerless nights, and cast sheep’s-eyes on the daughters of Cain, whose beauty was equal to their father’s wickedness. Marriages fol lowed, and the Devil triumphed again. According to the Cabbalists, two angels, Aza and Azael, com plained to God at the creation of man. God answered, “ You, O angels, if you were in the lower world, you too would sin.”" They descended on earth, and directly they saw the ladies they forgot heaven. They married and exchanged the hallelujahs of �CAPTAIN NOAH. 11 the celestial chorus for the tender tones of loving women and the aweet prattle of little children. Having sinned, or to use the vile language of religion, “ polluted themselves with women,” they became clothed with flesh. Trying to regain Paradise, they failed and were cast back on the mountains, where they continued to beget giants and devils. The latter were the Jins ■of Mohammedanism. Very soon the world was completely in their power. They ruled everywhere, and built colossal works, including the pyramids. The “ giants ” have been cleared out of our Revised Version. Probably the translators thought these mythical personages were too suggestive of Jack and the Beanstalk, so they have left the original Nephilim in the text. They know, as well as we do, that every nation on the face of the earth has similar legends of “ mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” They are conspicuous in the mythologies of Greece, India, China, and Scandinavia, and we find them also in the mythologies of America. Greybeards talk of the wonderful times when they were young, and nations prattle about the youth of mankind. Skies were bluer, the sun was brighter, the earth was more fertile, the men were bigger and braver and the women more lovely and loving, in the golden age. Boccaccio gravely relates, in his Genealoffia Deorum, that in his own time some Sicilian peasants discovered the body of a giant in a cave, and the staff of this wonderful being was fifteen hundred-weight! Girolamo Maggio affirmed that while he was a prisoner in Africa he actually saw the head of a giant, which was eleven palms in ■circumference I No doubt the fossil remains of large extinct * •animals gave color to the general superstition as to the enor mous size of primitive men. God told Captain Noah that he was going to drown the world, and ordered him to build a ship for his own family and a large menagerie. The “ ark,” as it is called, was to be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits broad, and 30 cubits high. Reckoning the cubit, which was the length of a man’s forearm, as eighteen inches, this would be 450 feet long, 75 feet broad, and 45 feet high. Anxious to make Captain Noah’s vessel as large as possible, Cruden says that “ Some are of opinion that the cubit which Noah made use of when he built the ark was equal to six com-mon -cubits.”! But why six ? Why not sixty, or six thousand ? Where there is absolutely no information, one man’s opinion is as good as another’s. Captain Noah must have been a first-rate shipwright to build ft Vessel of these dimensions. Did God inspire him for the pur pose ? And how is it that Captain Noah, who lived 350 years after the deluge, and his immediate descendants, lost the art of * Priaulx, Questiones Mosaicai, pp. 180,181. f Concordance, article “ Cubit.” �12 BIBLE HEROES. shipbuilding, which had to be rediscovered by their posterity ?' The ancient vessels in eastern stone-pictures were small, nearly always open, and rowed with oars, though sails were used in addi tion. Even in the days of Rome and Carthage very much the same kind of vessel was employed, and when Julius Cassar crossed from Gaul to Britain he required a tremendous fleet to convey his little army. Fifteen centuries later the Spanish galleons were floating castles, but the English ships were still small. Men like Drake and Raleigh crossed the Atlantic and fought naval battles in crafts of thirty, forty, and fifty tons. Hebrew is a curious language, being all consonants. The vowel points are a modern invention. The word translated “ ark” therefore is spelt tebeh, thebeh, or thebet. It only occurs twice in Scripture. The second time it is given to the ark of bul rushes, in which little Moses was concealed. It means something closed up, like a trunk. From the pictures of the ark in Calmet’s Dictionary, it seems to have been a floating house. Calmet’s English editor argues that it must have been flat, for if it were a keeled ship, its draught would have exceeded the fifteen cubits of water that covered the highest mountains, and it might have stranded on some rocky peak. Peter calls Captain Noah “ a preacher of righteousness,” and no doubt while he was building the ark he gave his neighbors many sermons, warning them to flee from the wrath to come. But they only mocked him, say the Mohammedans. “ They took their evening walks,” says Defoe, “ to see what he was doing,”* and laughed at his big boat that was to float over the hills. Eutychius, of Alexandria, who wrote in the tenth century, and probably quoted from apocryphal writings that are now lost, says that Captain Noah made a bell of plane wood, about five feet high, which he sounded every morning, noon, and evening to warn his neighbors that the deluge was coming, f Still they laughed at him, as we should do to-day; but when the deluge did come, they rushed to the ark in such multitudes that they would have crowded and sunk it, if the lions, tigers, and other ferocious animals had not fought them off the gangway. There was no room for these people. All the space, and a great deal more, was needed for the menagerie. Two of every species of beast, bird, and insect, went into the ark, accord ing to the sixth of Genesis; oi’ two of all unclean animals and seven of the clean, according to the seventh chapter. There are already known at least 1,600 species of mammalia, 12,500 of birds, 600 of reptiles, and of insects and other inferior creatures at least 1,000,000. Captain Noah’s menagerie was unique. It was absolutely complete, down to the smallest midge and the last variety of flea. Whether he collected them from all parts of the earth, or whether they came to him of their own * History oj the'JJevil, chap. viii. f Gould, vol. ii., pp. 109, 110. �CAPTAIN NOAH. 13 accord, is an open question, for either view is favored by the text. I have dealt with this, and the general scientific aspect of the deluge, in my Bible Romances, and I will not repeat myself here. But it must be stated, as a fact in Captain Noah’s career, that he was expressly told to “ gather ” food for his passengers, and of course he obeyed the divine command. What a tremen dous task this was may be easily imagined. For the rest I must refer the reader to the above volume; only adding that if, as legend says, it took sixty-two million angels to bring the materials for Mr. Adam’s last will, it must have taken all heaven, including the Trinity, to collect twelve months’ provender for this floating Zoo. Captain Noah, his wife, his three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth, and them three wives, were the only human beings who got into the ark and escaped the fate of drowning. But according to Eastern traditions, there was a ninth person who effected an entrance, namely our old friend the Devil. He caught hold of the donkey’s tail as that sedate quadruped stepped on the plank, and of course Neddy could not make much headway. “ Come in quick, you cursed one,” cried Captain Noah, who was anxious to weigh anchor and set sail. The donkey and the Devil were soon inside. But when the patriarch caught sight of Old Nick he exclaimed, “ Holla, what right have you in here ?” Whereupon the Devil replied, “ You said ‘ Come in, you cursed one,’ and here I am.”* Some Rabbis declare that the rhinoceros was too big to be admitted. Its head was taken on board, but its body swam astern. The rhinoceros was very much larger in ancient times, for Rabbi Jannai says he saw a young one, only a day old, whose neck was three miles long, and the river Jordan was actually choked by its excretions. Not only was the human race destroyed, but the giants also perished, with the single exception of Og. He was so tall that he stopped “ the windows of heaven ” with his hands, or the water would have risen over his head. The other giants took to swimming, but God made the water so hot that they were boiled to death. Og, however, swam beside the rhinoceros, where the water was kept cool. According to the Midrash, he climbed upon the roof, and when they tried to dislodge him he swore that if he were allowed to remain he and his posterity would become the captain’s slaves. Such a capital bargain was soon clinched, and Og’s daily rations were passed through a porthole. After the deluge Og must have been a more valuable servant than “ the drudging goblin ” of Milton’s L’Allegro. Considerable interest attaches to the fate of another character. According to our English Bible, Methusaleh died in the very year of the flood. The Midrash says that he expmed seven days * Gould, vol. i., . 112. �14 BIBLE HEROES. before it began, but Eusebius admits that “ according to all editions ” of the Septuagint he “ lived fifteen years after the Deluge, but where he was preserved through it is uncertain.”* Perhaps our ancient friend, like the Irishman’s ancestor who survived the flood, paddled his own canoe on that occasion. Captain Noah’s voyage could not have been a pleasant one. Some say he made the circuit of the globe, but he never touched at a port or sighted land, and the monotony must have been stupefying. Disgusting is a mild word for the stench,. from which there was no escape. The huge ship had only one window and one door, and apparently both were closed, for “ the Lord shut them in,” and perhaps the precaution was necessary to keep them from committing suicide. Surely the stoutest heart and the stoutest stomach would succumb in a twelve-months’ trip under such loathsome conditions. Where all the water came from is unknown, and it returned to the same place. Five months before Captain Noah got ashore, his ship “ rested upon the mountains of Ararat.” Scripture does not say upon how many of them. The highest peak of this range is 17,210 feet high, 14,320 feet above the plain of the Araxes. The people of the neigborhood point to a step on the mountain side, covered perpetually with snow and glacier, where they say the ark stranded. Josephusf said that the remains of this wonderful craft were to be seen in a good state of preserva tion. The Christian Fathers told the same fine story. Benjamin of Tudela says that the wood was all carried away by the Caliph Omar, in a.d. 640, and placed in a mosque he erected on an island of the Tigris. But Johann Strauss, in 1670, said he saw the ark grounded on the snow. Prevoux, another traveller, saw a large building at Chenna, said to have been built by Captain Noah, and a piece of the ark was exhibited through an iron grating. One of the beams is shown in the Lateran at Borne, and no doubt it is quite as authentic as other relics of Holy Mother Church. Captain Noah and all his menagerie, including the elephant, got down somehow. The animals all dispersed, after bidding each other an affectionate farewell. There was no food for them of course ; and how long the lion left the lamb at large, every true believer must settle for himself. Shem, Ham, and Japheth, with their three wives, whose names are not recorded (for women in the early part of the Bible are only regarded as breeding machines), “ overspread the whole earth;” that is, they peopled the whole world. Shem is thought to have appropriated Asia, Ham took Africa, and Japheth settled in Europe. America and Australia were not discovered when the Bible was written, or Captain Noah would have.had five sons instead of three. In religion, as in other things, we live and learn. Cited in Gould, vol. i., p. 105. f Antiquities, I., 3. �CAPTAIN NOAH. 5 John P. Robinson, he Says they didn’t know everything down in Judee. God Almighty chose Hebrew to write in, foi’ some purpose best known to himself; but it is so curious, or so obscure, that it often means anything or nothing. Shem is said by the doctors to mean—name, or renown, or he that places, or he that is placed. The reader pays his money and takes his choice. Japheth means —he that persuades, or is handsome. Either will do. Ham or Cham, means brown or black. More than once in the Psalms, Africa is called the land of Cham; and Plutarch, in his De Iside et Osiride, calls Egypt Chemia. Christians, who laugh at Darwinism, and assert that every species was created separate, should explain how the three sons of one father and mother have peopled the world with white men, yellow men, red men, and black men. The black races are so distinct that the Talmud tried to account for them by saying that Ham turned sooty in the ark through incontinence. Orient alists say his skin darkened when his son was cursed. Any theory is better than the cowardice of silence. The Bible does not inform us whether Captain and Mrs. Noah had any children after the flood. Perhaps they did, and perhaps they didn’t. Mrs. Noah was called Noriah by the Gnostics, and Jtfoerna or Tethira by some ancient Rabbis. She is called Nuraito in Syro-Chaldee. This name comes from a word signifying fire. Curiously this is the very meaning of Pyrrha, the name of the wife of Deucalion, who was saved from the flood sent by Jupiter, in a skiff which stranded on the top of Parnassus. * Being a very religious man, otherwise he would not have been spared in the deluge, Captain Noah’s first business on reaching terra firma was to pay his devotions to the Lord. He “ builded an altar ”; that is, probably, he made a heap of stones; on which he sacrificed of “ every clean beast, and of every clean fowl.” It was the biggest holocaust on record. Never was there so much meat, venison and poultry dressed for cooking; and if the animals were all slaughtered before they were roasted (let us hope they were), those eight butchers must have taken many days cutting their throats or wringing their necks. The “burnt offerings” were very acceptable to Jehovah, who “ smelled a sweet savor,” sniffing up the odor of this extensive cuisine with the greatest relish. His tough old heart mollified Wader the sweet influence, and he said “ I will not curse the ground any more, neither will I again smite everything living, as I have done” Perhaps he thought that if he gave way to histemper again, and made a clean sweep, there would be no more “ sweet savor ” for his holy nostrils. The next thing Captain Noah did was to make a vinery, and. a® goon as he brewed he drank deep of that liquor which, as the Lucian, De Dea Syria and Timon. Ovid, Metamorphoses, Bk. I. �16 BIBLE HEBOES. Bible says, “ cheereth God and man.”* The result was that the “just man and perfect” got beastly drunk. According to the Bible, this perfect performance went on in “ his tent.” The Hebrew word is aheteh, and Parkhurstf says it was “ a tent con secrated to divine worship,” so that Captain Noah was drunk in the synagogue. Parkhurst adds that the old salt had probably “ retired thither in expectation of a prophetic dream.” Perhaps the oracle did not work, and Captain Noah sought inspiration in the winecup. No doubt Bacchus gave him a prophetic dream, but it seems to have been something like a nightmare, for he awoke in a most abominable passion, and imitated his God by damning a third of his own posterity. Loosely clad in his flowing robe, the patriarch fell back in his inebriation, and was guilty of indecent exposure. Ham dropped in promiscuously, and witnessed this edifying spectacle. He went out and told Shem and Japheth, who took a garment and covered their father’s nakedness, walking backwards in order not to see his shame. When his booze was over, Captain Noah was wild at learning what had happened. Commentators say that Ham had scoffed at his governor, but the Bible does not cor roborate them. Anyhow Captain Noah swore, but he damned the wrong party. “ Cursed be Canaan,” he cried, “ a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” Michaelis hints that the text is corrupt, and that it should read “ Cursed be Ham, the father of Canaan.” But as the curse was clearly to be ful filled through the children, the emendation does not alter its iniquity. It is supposed that the Canaanites were the descen dants of Canaan, and that when the Jews dispossessed them by wars of unparalleled ferocity, the chosen people were only ful filling the just curse of an offended father on his son’s posterity ! Negro slavery has also been justified on the same foolish and wicked principle. Drunkenness, swearing, and injustice, are the only things recorded of this perfect man during the 350 years he survived the flood. There is not a single good deed or sensible word placed to his credit. He is the second Bible hero, but his example is better honored in the breach than in the observance. Captain Noah was probably buried. His tomb is shown at Mount Lebanon. It is an old aqueduct, over sixty feet long. Large as this is, they say the old fellow could not be buried at full length but had to have his legs doubled under his thighs. J And there we will leave him, like the dull old folio in Browning’s poem, to “ Dry-rot at ease till the Judgment Day.” * Judges ix., 13. f Hebrew Dictionary. J Thomson, The Land and the Book, vol. i., p. 353 �FATHER ABRAHAM. -------- ♦-------- Although the “ false prophet ” Mohammed asserts that Abraham was n either a Christian nor a Jew, but an orthodox Mussulman, it is perfectly clear, according to the Bible, that he was the founder of the chosen people. God selected him from all the in habitants of the world, four centuries after the Flood, to be the father of a special nation. Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob, Jacob begat a dozen from Reuben to Benjamin, and so they went on begetting each othei’ to the end of the chapter. Yet it is highly probable that such a person as Abraham never existed. Not only the Jews, but almost all the tribes and barbarous nations on earth, trace their descent to a common ancestor. * This useful fiction serves as a social bond, by giving a sense of kindred to members of the same community. But although Abraham is a myth, he is none the less a Bible hero. He en joyed the proud and unique distinction of being the friend of God.f His character, therefore, should be as perfect as human frailty will allow. But, alas, Abraham was like other Scripture worthies, and the most consummate sophistry cannot make him a pattern of excellence. This hero’s original name was Abram, which means “ high father.” After bearing it over a hundred years, he had it changed to Abraham, which means “ the father of a multitude.” His wife’s name was also changed from Sarai (my princess) to Sarah (the princess). Father Abraham is first mentioned at the end of the eleventh chapter of Genesis. He appears to have been the eldest son of Terah, who set up as a father at the age of seventy, and died at the ripe old age of two hundred and five. When Terah had joined the majority, the Lord called Abraham out from his kindred to the land of Canaan. He was then seventy-five years old. J But if his father was dead he must have been a hundred and thirty-five. St. Jerome and St. Augustine give up this diffi culty as in soluble. § Calmet, however, cuts the gordian knot. He surmises that Abraham was Terah’s youngest son, although Genesis names him the first, and therefore as the eldest. * f J § Tylor, Primitive Culture, vol. i., page 402 ; vol. it, p. 235. 2 Chronicles xx., 7 ; Isaiah xli,, 8 ; James ii., 23. Genesis xii., 4. Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, “Abraham.” �18 BIBLE HEROES. Among the Jews and Mohammedans there are many traditions of Abraham’s youth. Holy Scripture passes over his first seventy-five years at a single bound, but there must have been some remarkable incidents in the youth of such an extraordinary person. It is related that his birth was heralded by a star; that King Nimrod sought the young child’s life; that the baby was hidden by his mother, and protected by the angel Gabriel; that he was nourished in his concealment by milk, butter, honey, and date-juice, which flowed from his fingers as he sucked them; that he foiled all the armies that were sent to capture him; that he had an interview with Nimrod, when all the idols in the palace fell, and the king rolled from his throne in convulsions. As he grew older he played havoc with his father’s trade. Terah kept an idol-shop, and Abraham cried stinking fish to all the custo mers. One day he smashed all the paternal stock except the biggest god, in whose hands he placed the stick, and when the old man returned home to empty the till and found his business bankrupt, the pious young shopman swore that the surviving deity had demolished all the rest. Subsequently he refused to worship Nimrod’s gods, and was ordered to be cremated, but he remained in the fire for three days and nights without the slightest inconvenience. * When the Lord called Abraham into the land of Canaan, he made him many fine promises, all of which have been broken, although they were ratified again and again, “I will make of thee a great nation,” said Jehovah. " ■ the Jews never were a But ’ great nation, nor has Abraham’s seed become as “the dust of the earth” for number. The Jews are more numerous now than they ever were before, yet they boast only seven of the fourteen hundred millions on the globe. Jehovah also entered into an offensive and defensive alliance with Abraham, saying, “ I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee.” The natural laws of morality were henceforth to be suspended, and people were to be judged according to their sympathy or aversion for the Jews. A fur ther promise was, “ In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” What a splendid piece of impudence! Surely the Jewish historians must have strutted like turkey-cocks as they gloated over this passage. God promised Abraham the land of Canaan, but as he could not take possession of that fine property, he was glad to run down to Egypt to escape a famine. According to Jewish tradi tion, as he reached the river of Egypt, he for the first time in his life noticed the beauty of Sarah. His wonderful modesty kept him from looking her in the face, but he saw her features reflected in the water I f Fearing that her marvellous loveliness would set men’s hearts aflame, and that he might fare badly as * Gould, vol. i., pp. 171—186. f Gould, vol. i., p. 189. �FATHER ABRAHAM. 19 the Menelaus of this Helen, he persuaded her to pass herself off as his sister. Here is courage for you! Surely the Lord might have found a braver friend. Abraham’s solicitude was all about his own skin, his wife’s honor being a secondary consideration. The natural result was an infernal mess. The princes of Egypt went mad over Sarah’s beauty, and Pharaoh put her in his seraglio. What happened there the Lord only knows, but if Sarah had returned to her cuckold with a cracked reputation, he would have had no one to blame but himself. Pharaoh acted naturally. He admired beauty, and saw no harm in marrying another man’s sister. But Abraham’s friend was of a different opinion. The Lord “ plagued Pharaoh and all his house with great plagues,” and the poor king was glad to pack the precious couple out of Egypt by the next mail. How old does the reader think Sarah was ? Sixty-five at least. She was a second Ninon de l’Enclos. Or rather she resembled the Madame de Valentinois of Brantome, who, at the * age of. sixty-six, retained the beauty, the freshness, and the attraction of her thirtieth year, and was loved and served by a great and valiant king. Pharaoh gave Abraham a good scolding before he expelled him, but the lesson was lost on this friend of God. Twenty-five years later he passed his wife off as his sister a second time. Sarah was then ninety and pregnant, but her youthful charms fascinated Abimelech the King of Gerar, who “ took ” her, but in the elegant language of Scripture, was not allowed to “ touch” her. .The Lord not only watched over Sarah’s chastity, but as a punishment for the king’s folly in believing that the friend of God could speak the truth, he “ fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech,” and their sterility was only removed at Abraham’s intercession. The unfortunate monarch was naturally angry with the old fellow. “ Why,” he asked, “ did you not tell me she was your wife ? Why did you say she was youi’ sister ?” Thereupon the unvenerable hypocrite replied that she was his sister as well as his wife, being the daughter of his father by another mother. It is obvious, however, that he deliberately arranged with Sarah to pretend that they were not husband and wife; and, although the commentators have expended a good deal of ingenuity in palliating the offence, they cannot explain away the damning fact. This little trick appears to have run in the blood, for Isaac, who in this respect was a true chip of the old block, passed off Rebekah as his sister for a similai’ reason, namely to keep him self out of danger, f On all three occasions the godly liars were rebuked by the persons they deceived. But the Lord never reproached them, and it seems that morality was in a more Discours V. t Genesis xxvi., 6-11. �20 BIBLE HEROES. flourishing condition among the “ heathen ” than it was among God’s elect. Abraham was not even above profiting by his arrangement with Sarah. Pharaoh and Abimelech gave him sheep, oxen, asses, camels and slaves, while they were courting his “ sister,” and he was too much of a Jew to return those nice little presents when they discovered their mistake. Yet this cowardly huckster suddenly developed into a full blown hero when his nephew was taken captive in a big battle. Hastily arming three hundred and eighteen trained servants, he pursued the victorious armies of five great kings. Palling upon them by night, he smote them hip and thigh, rescued Lot with all the other captives, and recovered every bit of the spoil. Profane history furnishes no parallel to this heroic feat. Even the three hundred Spartans, who defended the pass of Thermopylae against the hosts of Xerxes, were less successful, for with the exception of one man they were all slain, while Abraham does not appear to have lost a single warrior. We must go to Scripture itself for similar prodigies of valor; where we find Gideon, who defeated a whole army with three hundred men armed with pitchers and lamps; and Samson, who slew a thousand Philistines with the jaw-bone of an ass. According to the Jewish legends, Abraham was deserted by his servants as they approached the enemy, but the patriarch fell upon the five armies alone, and with God’s assistance he polished them all off before daybreak. * On returning from the fight, Abraham met a gentleman named Melchizedek, who was “ priest of the most high God.” This worthy sky-pilot gave Abraham his blessing, and Abraham “ give him tithes of all.” Melchizedek is described by Paul as “ without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.”f Whenever we meet anyone who answers to that description, we will pay him tithes too. Probably the priests inserted this passage to give the highest autiquity to the ten per cent, business. Yet we need not go to the Jews for the origin of tithes, for the custom is widespread. The Greeks generally dedicated a tenth of their spoils to Apollo, but the Athenians to Minerva, and the Samians to Juno. The Carthaginians sent a tithe of their Sicilian spoils to Hercules, and the Arabians offered a tenth of their frank incense to Sabis.t The Persians, the Scythians, and the Romans also paid tithes to their gods.§ Superstitious people give presents to their deities to purchase their favor, and the priests of every religion have found a way to turn devotion into a duty.|| * Gould, vol. i., p. 194. + Hebrews vii., 3. J Selden, History of Tythes, iii. § Calmet, Tythes. || Hooker’s reason why a “ tenth of our wordly profits ” is the proper amount to give to the Church is very curious. Three is the number of the Trinity, seven the number of our spiritual perfections, and ten the �FATHER ABRAHAM. 21 Another part of religion which the Bible traces back to Abraham is the rite of circumcision. “Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin,” says Jehovah, “ and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you.”* This was rather an obscene token, but the Lord’s ways are not our ways. Abraham circumcised all the males of his household on one day. He was ninety-nine years old, and the surgical operation must have been trying at his time of life. Circumcision is no token of a covenant between Jehovah and Abraham, nor is it a special mark of the chosen people. Herodotus tells us that circumcision was practised by the Colchians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Syrians, nearly five centuries before Christ, when it was beginning to be discon tinued by the Phoenicians.f The rite obtains among the Arabs, the Abyssinians, and the Kaffirs; it was found by Captain Cook among the South Pacific islanders; a similar practice prevailed in Mexico^, and it existed among the aborigines of Australia.§ Such a widely prevalent rite, found in parts of the world that have no intercourse with each other, must have had a general origin. It is simply a relic of primitive superstition. The ancient priests of Rhea amputated their genitals altogether in honor of their goddess. What wonder, then, that a milder form of mutilation should have survived among whole nations. Both among the Jews,|| and among every other people, circumcision was effected with a stone implement.^ No doubt the use of this article, in accordance with the intense conservatism of religion, had survived with the rite itself from the Stone Age. All authorities agree in stating that circumcision was obli gatory on the priestly caste in Egypt. This is a further proof of its religious character. But many of the people also sub mitted to it, as a mark of purity and holiness. That the Jews, who had been in Egypt, should have borrowed this rite, is not surprising ; * but that the Egyptian priests, the hierophants of * a hoary creed and the leaders of a haughty civilisation, should have condescended to borrow it from their slaves, is absolutely incredible. Let us return to Abraham. His wife Sarah was barren, like all the other Bible women who were to give birth to miraculous children. She was anxious, however, that Abraham should have children by somebody, so she gave him her handmaid Hagai’ to breed from. Nothing loth, he “ went in unto Hagar, number of nature’s perfections as well as “ the highest we can rise unto, without iteration of numbers under it.” Here be reasons !—Ecclesiastical Polity, bk. 5, chap, lxxix., 6, 7. * Genesis xvii., 11. f Bk. II., 104. J Priaulx, pp. 381-9. § Tylor, Early History of Mankind, p. 219. || Exodus iv., 25: Joshua v., 2. Tylor, pp. 216-219. ** Joshua v., 9. �22 BIBLE HEROES. and.she conceived.” Eighty-five was his age; but there was life in the old boy yet. Hagar being in the family-way by her master, Sarah was expected to sing small; but the good lady’s temper was none of the tamest, and she bothered Abraham till he exclaimed, “Do as you like with her.” Sarah took full advantage of the permission, and Hagar ran away; but an angel persuaded her to return, and in due course Abraham was pre sented with a bouncing boy named Ishmael, who is supposed to be the father of the Arabians. Thirteen years later “the Lord appeared to Abram,” and said, “ I am the Almighty God.” Our hero fell on his face, and “ God talked with him.” This was no angel, but the great I Am himself. What a pity there was no photographer handy to take his likeness ! Oh, the joy it would be to have a portrait of God Almighty over the mantel-piece! But, alas! that pleasure is denied us. Photography was not invented then; and since the advent of modern science Jehovah has kept care fully out of the way. No Abraham has a chat with him, no Moses sees his back parts. Before leaving, the Lord promised that Sarah should be “ a mother of nations.” God said it, but Abraham thought his maker was joking. He “ fell upon his face, and laughed.” But the Lord paid him another visit, and ratified the promise. As he sat at his tent door in the heat of the day three men appeared. Either one of them was God, or God was with them, for all the conversation went on between Abraham and “ the Lord.” We are told that, after the three men went, “ Abraham stood yet before the Lord.” The text is very confused; but God was evidently there, and it has been suggested that the three visitors were Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. With Bedouin hospitality, Abraham said, Stop to dinner, and they accepted the invitation. Sarah baked cakes, while he pre pared the roast veal, which was served up with butter and milk. Fortunately Genesis preserves the bill of fare at God Almighty’s dinner. Should he ever favor us with a call, we shall know what to put on the table. Dinner being over, the Lord was in a good humor, for dyspepsia is unknown to his omnipotent stomach. Rubbing his hands together genially, he said to himself, “ I must do some thing for Abraham. Pool’ old fellow, he wants a boy, and hang it he shall have one, a real son and heir.” Certainly it did not look a very promising case. Abraham was a hundred, and Sarah was ninety. But, as the poet says, “ God moves in a mysterious way his wonders to perform.” 'Turning to his “friend,” the Lord said, “ Sarah, thy wife, shall have a son.” The old lady overheard this promise, but she was old enough to know better, so she “ laughed within herself.” The Lord has long ears, how ever, and he heard her smile. “ Abraham,” said his Godship, “ what is the old woman laughing about ? Does she fancy I �FATHER ABRAHAM. 23 can’t manage it ? ” Sarah overheard this too, and being a bit frightened, she said, “ I didn’t laugh.” “ You did though,” said the Lord, and the matter dropped. But when nine moons had rolled by Sarah had a baby, and they christened it Isaac. Many other barren women had babies at the same time, according to tradition, while the blind saw, the dumb spake, the deaf heard, the lame walked, crazy people recovered their senses, and the sun shone with forty-eight times his usual brilliancy. Alto * gether it was a fine old time, and we daresay there was a good deal of wetting the baby’s nose. Having one child, and perhaps thinking she was in for a good family, Sarah concluded that Hagar was de trop, so when the weaning feast came on she complained that the young minx laughed at her, and asked Abraham to turn her adrift. “ The son of this bondwoman,” said she, “ shall not be heir with my son.” Abraham was reluctant to turn the girl out of doors, but the Lord told him to obey Sarah, and early one morning he sent Hagar and Ishmael packing with some dry bread and a bottle of water. The pool’ mother and boy “ wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba,” their provisions were soon spent, and the pathetic picture of Hagar weeping over the imminent death of her child is enough to melt a heart of stone. An angel came to their assistance, but that does not diminish Abraham’s crime. Even if a man seduces a woman, and withdraws himself from her society afterwards to avoid further sin, he is bound to protect her from want and its many perils; and the obligation is, if possible, still deeper if she is the mother of his child. Theo logians, who seek to whitewash Abraham, and to justify Jehovah’s advice, have played fast and loose with the primary laws of morality; but every honest heart will feel that the “ father of the faithful ” was a contemptible scoundrel, or a hen pecked fool, or a damnable mixture of both. Having turned Ishmael out of house and home, to live or die, it is not surprising that Abraham readily obeyed the Lord when he was told to offer up Isaac as a burnt-offering. An altar was built, the wood laid in order, and Isaac bound as a victim for the sacrifice. Already the father’s hand, holding the fatal knife, Was raised to strike death into the heart of his son, when the tragedy was averted by a voice from heaven, telling him to spare the lad. “How I know that thou fearest God,” said Jehovah, “ seeing that thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.” Abraham was ready to commit a murder for his friend.” Not in act, but in intention, he had slain his son. And this readiness to perpetrate any crime at God’s instigation is hailed as a sovereign proof of his piety. Even in the New Testament, Paulf commends Abraham’s faith in offering up Isaac, and James declares that by such “ works ” his “ faith ” * Gould, vol. i., p. 206. t Hebrews xi., J 7. �24 BIBLE HEROES. was “ made perfect.”* When such frightful atrocities are sanctioned by the Bible, it is a sin to put it into the hands of children, and a scandal to call it the infallible Word of God. Neither Abraham nor Jehovah could dispense with a sacrifice of some kind, so a ram was immolated in Isaac’s stead. Tradition says that this opportune animal was brought from Paradise, and ever since the Lord God planted the Garden of Eden it had fed under the Tree of Life, and drunk of the river that waters its roots; and the Last Trumpets of the Day of Judgment will be made from its wonderful horns, t Sarah died at a hundred and twenty-seven, and aftei’ seeing Isaac settled, Abraham married Keturah, who with or without his assistance was the mother of six sons. Dr. Giles obsei’ves that Abraham had laughed at the notion of his being a father at a hundred, yet when he is thirty-seven years older he marries again and has six children. He surmises that Abraham was a polygamist, like Jacob, David and Solomon; that he had children by Keturah during Sarah’s lifetime; and that a late compiler “ ranges in successive dates events which really were contem poraneous.”! Abraham died at a hundred and seventy-five, and was buried in Sarah’s grave. The Mussulmans say he was the first man who ever had a white beard, and that God kissed him, and he gave up the ghost. § His tomb was “ discovered ” ever so many cen turies after the funeral, in a cave near Hebron. Isaac and Jacob were buried in the same hole, and all three bodies were in a fine state of preservation. The Christians built a church over the spot, but the Turks have changed it into a mosque, and for bidden Christians to approach it.|| Several books have also.been ascribed to Abraham. They were mentioned by the Rabbis, by Athanasius, and by Origen. Probably the old fellow would be as astonished as anybody to learn that he wrote them. We now take leave of this Friend of God. He was a liar, a coward, and a would-be murderer. His proper place would be in the Chamber of Horrors. But Jesus Christ tells us that he is in heaven, with Lazarus the sore-legged beggar in his bosom. May it never be our fate to pig with such company, for although Abraham was and probably is God’s friend, we decidedly object to spending our eternity inside the shirt-front of an elderly Jew.* § * James ii., 21, 22. f Gould, vol. i., p. 228. J Rev. Dr. Giles, Hebrew Records, p. 233. § Gould, vol. 1, p. 23G. || Calmet. �JUGGLING JACOB. -------- ♦-------- God was particularly fond of this Bible hero. Abraham was his friend, but he loved Jacob. How much reason there was for this affection will appeal’ in the course of our narrative. Jehovah himself was a desperately sharp shaver at a bargain, but Jacob beat him hollow in that line. He is the father of the great race of Jeremy Diddlers. He diddled everybody he ever met, in cluding God himself. His life was an uninterrupted career of jewing, save for one little affair, in which his uncle Laban diddled him. But, before we follow Jacob’s adventures, we wish to say a few words about our old friend Captain Noah. According to Scripture, Noah lived fifty-eight years after the birth of Abra ham, while Shem lived a hundred and ten years after the birth of Isaac, and fifty years after the birth of Jacob. How was it that neither Abraham, Isaac, nor Jacob knew either of them ? They were the most interesting and important men alive at that time; they had seen the world before the Flood; and one of them had seen people who knew Mr. Adam. Both of them had lived through the confusion of tongues at Babel, and were well acquainted with the history of the world. Yet they are never once mentioned during all the centuries they survived their exit from the Ark. Why is this ? Simply because the whole story is a myth. Each character plays his part, and when he is no longer wanted he is quietly dismissed from the stage. Up to a point, like the hero of one of Bret Harte’s poems, they are all alive and kicking; afterwards they still resemble that gentleman, who was knocked down in the spree, and “ the sub sequent proceedings interested him no more.” Isaac married at forty. His wife Rebekah was barren (of course), and Isaac had to pray hard before she got into the family-way. Naturally the result was twins. “ The children,” we are told, “ struggled together within her.” Rabbi Eliezer says that they carried on a theological discussion there. Another * Rabbi asserts that when Rebekah passed before a synagogue, Jacob tried to get born; and when she passed before an idol temple, Esau tried to do the same. Poor Rebekah “went to Gould, vol. ii-, p. 16. �2G BIBLE HEROES. inquire of the Lord ” about the matter. The answer was “ Two nations are in thy womb.” What a prospect! The poor young woman found to her cost that “ the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” Esau was born first. He was red, and “ all over like a hairy garment.” Jacob followed quickly; in fact “ his hand took hold on Esau’s heel,” and hence his name. Jewish traditions explain Esau’s redness in various ways. One says he was born under the ruddy planet Mars, another that he liked his meat under done, and another that he was red-haired. Rabbi Isaiah says he had a serpent coiled in his bowels, and surely that was enough to make him red in the face. * Isaac was seventy years old when the twins came to light. We presume, therefore, that he had been nearly thirty yearspraying for them. Scripture does not say whether Rebekah, according to the pious fashion of the age, lent him a handmaiden or two to try his luck with. “ The boys grew,” says Scripture. Of course they did. All boys, except Tom Thumbs, manage to do that. Esau became “ a cunning hunter.” The Rabbis say that he wore the leather suit which God made for Mi’. Adam.f This outfit was stolen by Ham from Noah. Ham gave it to Cush, and Cush to Nimrod. Esaukilled Nimrod and secured the God-made raiment, which gavehim success in hunting.^ Jacob dwelt in tents and minded sheep. He was “ a plain man,” and also “ a smooth man.” Smooth-skinned, smooth-tongued, and smooth-faced; plain and unsophisticated as the Heathen Chinee. One day this plain, smooth man was making lentil pottage, when Esau came in from the hunt, faint and weary, and ready to die of hunger. The starving hunter besought a little food of his twin-brother. Any man with a spark of natural feeling would have said, “ Eat, my brother, there is enough for both, and if not we will share it.” Sir Philip Sidney, mortally wounded on the field of Zutphen, was about to drink some water his friends brought him to appease his intolerable thirst; but seeing a poor soldier writhing in agony beside him, he put the precious draught aside untasted, saying, “ Give it to him; his necessity is greater than mine.” But Jacob was not a Sidney, although God loved him. Not even a brother’s necessity touched his selfish heart. His only thought was “ How can I make a profit out of his extremity ? ” Turning to Esau, he said, “ I’ll give you some of my pottage, but on one condition. Let me have your birthright, and you may take a spoon.” The condition was hard, for it meant that Esau was to resign all his rights of seniority to Jacob. But a perishing man cannot be fastidious. Esau was obliged to close with the offer. Yet, even then, Jacob * Gould, vol. ii., p. 17. + Genesis iii., 21. } Gould, vol. ii., p. IS. �JUGGLING JACOB. 27 would not let him eat until he had confirmed the bargain with an oath. “ Thus Esau despised his birthright,” says the Bible. Thus Jacob despised the common instincts of humanity,” says every honest reader. Isaac grew old, and “ his eyes were dim, so that he could not see.” Some Rabbis say that his eyes were dimmed by the tears of the angels falling in them when he was stretched on the altai’; others say that he was dazzled by looking on the throne of God; and others that he went blind through crying over Esau’s marriage with a Canaanitish woman. The old patriarch * thought his end was approaching, and having a weakness for venison, he sent Esau out to hunt some game, so that he might have a thorough good feast and give up the ghost on a full stomach. While the hairy man was away on this expedition, the smooth man played him a very dirty trick. Having sharped Esau out of his birthright, Jacob proceeded to cheat him of his father’s blessing. Rebekah, who was the worthy mother of such a son, put Jacob up to the contrivance. She cooked a kid to taste like venison, and put the skin upon Jacob’s hands and neck, to make him feel like Esau. Juggling Jacob took in the savory mess to his poor old father, who asked him how he had caught the game so quickly. This was a poser, but Jacob was equal to the occasion. “ Because,” said he, “ the Lord thy God brought it to me.” The rascally hypocrite mixed his piety with his cheating in the most exemplary manner. He was a fellow who could pick a pocket and say a prayer in the same breath. Being somewhat sceptical, Isaac said “ Come near that I may feel thee.” The blind old father felt him, or rather the kid skin, and was a little reassured. Still, he noticed that the voice was the voice of Jacob; so he asked him “ Art thou my very son Esau?” And Jacob, rolling up the whites of his eyes like a negro preacher, and in a tone that would have struck envy into the soul of Mr. Pecksniff, answered “ I am.” That was enough. Isaac tucked into the dinner, and afterwards gave Jacob the blessing he intended for Esau. “ Be lord over thy brethren,” said Isaac, “ and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee.” In patriarchal societies a father’s blessings and curses are “regis tered in heaven,” and this was equivalent to giving Jacob’s off spring a perpetual superiority over Esau’s. Presently Esau returned from the hunt, cooked his game, and invited his father to eat. “ Who art thou ?” said Isaac. “ I am thy son, thy firstborn Esau,” was the reply. Isaac “ trembled very exceedingly,” told Esau what had occurred, and added that he could not retract Jacob’s blessing. When Esau heard this, he “ cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry.” What a picture of anguish! The poor fellow was heart-broken. He pleaded * Gould, vol. ii., p. 15. �28 BIBLE HEROES. hard for a blessing too. “ Bless me, even me also, 0 my father,” he cried, and then he “ lifted up his voice, and wept.” The story is told with terrible pathos, and the Jews must have been blinded with, the spirit of nationality not to feel that Esau sustained a shocking injury, and that Jacob was a contemptible scoundrel. Naturally “ Esau hated Jacob,” nor is it surprising that he promised to slay this treacherous brother after their father’s death. Jacob was too cowardly to face Esau’s wrath, so by Rebekah’s advice he fled to his uncle Laban’s. During his journey he slept one night upon a pillow of stones. It was cal culated to give him the nightmare, yet he had a heavenly dream. He saw a ladder reaching from earth to heaven. The Lord stood on top of it, and said “ I am the Lord God.” Angels were ascending and descending it, though it is difficult to understand why these winged creatures should climb a ladder. Perhaps they were moulting. God shouted down from the top of that ladder all the fine promises he had previously made to Abraham, and when Jacob awoke he was in a very pious frame of mind. After saying his prayers he made this beautiful vow : “ If God will be with me, and will keep me in the way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, So that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God.” Jacob was a man of business. He was not going to worship any God for nothing. His terms were pretty high, however; and all he undertook to do, in addition to praising Jehovah, is expressed in this elegant offer. “ Of all that thou shalt give me,” said Jacob, “ I will surely give the tenth unto thee.” That is, if God provided him with unlimited capital, he would give God ten per cent, of the profits. The Arabs say that Jacob’s stone pillow is now at Jerusalem. It is also in Westminster Abbey. Somebody conveyed it to Scone, where it was used for the consecration of the Scottish king, and Edward I. brought it to London, where it remains till Jacob sends for it. * Jacob settled down at his uncle Laban’s, undertaking to serve him seven years for his younger daughter Rachel, with whom the runagate was desperately in love. When the term expired Jacob was married. There was a wedding feast, and he probably got fuddled. How else are we to explain his obtuseness ? When he awoke he found himself in bed with the wrong woman. He had slept with Leah instead of Rachel. Eor once in his life he was done brown. Laban explained that it was against the custom of the country to wed the younger sister before the elder, but he told Jacob that he might have Rachel too. Having served seven years for the woman he did not want, Jacob had to serve another seven years for the woman he did want. His * Gould, vol. ii., p. 21. �JUGGLING JACOB. 29 marrying two sisters is treated as perfectly proper. Yet the clergy say that marriage with a deceased wife’s sister is incest. Evidently the incest consists in taking two sisters in succession. Taking them both together is the good old Bible plan. Leah was fruitful, but Rachel was barren, like Sarah and for the same reason. “ Give me children, or else I die,” she exclaimed to Jacob. This put him in a passion, and he inquired whether he was God Almighty. Thereupon Rachel asked him to get children by her handmaid Bilhah. Soon afterwards Leah made the same request for her handmaid Zilpah, and Jacob obliged them both. Rachel appears to have owned Jacob and farmed him out. Leah’s eldest son found some mandrakes in the field and brought * them home. “ Give me some,” said Rachel to Leah, “ and Jacob shall sleep with you to-night.” The bargain was struck, and Leah posted off to meet Jacob. “ Thou must come in unto me,” she said, “ for surely I have hired thee with my son’s mandrakes.” Holy Scripture adds that “ he lay with her that night.” This is a very pretty story for parents to put in the hands of their daughters I Surely the Word of an all-wise God might teach something more useful and decent than the lesson to be derived from the story of a woman hiring her own husband to sleep with her. Thinking it high time to leave uncle Laban, Jacob asked for his discharge. Laban, however, desired him to remain on his own terms. Jacob stipulated that all the speckled and spottled cattle, all the brown sheep, and all the spotted and speckled goats, should be his, and all the rest his uncle’s. This was agreed to, and Jacob proceeded to breed the flocks and herds, so that all the stronger ones were of his variety, and all the feebler ones of Laban’s. How he did this is a wonderful specimen of Bible biology. When the animals were “ in the doing of the deed of kind,” as Shylock puts-it, Jacob placed pilled rods with white streaks before the lustier ones, and this enabled the females to bring forth “ cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.” Youatt, who is a high authority on breeding, attributes this result to “ the power of the imagination in the mother, carried to an extent the like of which is certainly not seen in the present day,” or to “some superior over-ruling agency.” f St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and St Isidore, who probably knew as much about sheep and cattle as about the Copernican astronomy, held that Jacob’s method of breeding was perfectly natural; but St * According to Calmet, mandrakes resembled the sexual parts of men, and were used as aphrodisiacs, especially in cases of barrenness. But, as Voltaire remarks (La Bible Enfin JExpliquee') this was an error of ancient medicine, like the belief in satyrion and cantharides ; and “ such fancies were only credited in great cities where debauchery supported charlatans ” f Youatt Sheep; their Breeds, Management, etc., p. 17. �30 BIBLE HEROES. Chrysostom, Theodoret and others, who were equally learned on the subject, held that it was “ something above nature.”* It is scarcely necessary to say that modern farmers are not in the habit of following Jacob’s methods. Those were Bible days, and Bible sheep and cattle. Jacob getting wealthy and Laban poor, they grew unfriendly, and our hero resolved to go home to Isaac. He had both Laban’s daughters, and all his sheep, cattle, and goats worth having, and there was nothing more to remain for ; so he levanted one night with all his belongings. But it was reserved for Rachel to put the finishing touch to Laban’s misfortunes. She actually carried off his images (terapliim, household gods, like the Roman senates'), and left her pool’ old father without a god to worship. This was more than flesh and blood could stand. Laban pursued the fugitives, and rated Jacob for sneaking off without saying good-bye; and “ wherefore hast thou stolen my gods ?” he inquired. Jacob denied the charge, told Laban to search for them, and vowed that whoever had them should be put to death. But Rachel had put the images in the camel’s furniture in her tent, and she sat upon them—hatching ! She escused her self from rising up on the ground that “ the custom of women ” was upon her. What a thievish, cunning slut this Rachel was ! She and her husband were fit for the shadiest business in Petti coat Lane. Twenty years had Jacob been away from home, and he was returning a rich and prosperous man. But his heart sank as he reflected that Esau’s anger might still be hot against him, and when messengers came to say that Esau was coming out to meet him with four hundred men, he began to taste the very bitter ness of death. His mercenary nature prompted him to try the effect of a bribe, so he sent forward “ a present unto my lord Esau ” of goats, sheep, camels, oxen, and asses. Injured, how ever, as Esau was, he did not cherish a spirit of revenge. He had forgiven Jacob, and only remembered that they were brothers. Putting aside the presents, with the generous remark, “ I have enough, my brother ; keep that thou hast unto thyself,” Esau embraced Jacob, and “ fell on his neck and kissed him.” What a noble picture of generosity and brotherly affection! Esau was large-hearted and magnanimous, while Jacob was base and sordid. One was a hero, and the other a skunk. Yet the Bible God says, “ Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”f While Jacob was in a funk at the thought of Esau’s approach, he had a marvellous adventure. Being alone by night at Jabbok brook, somebody “wrestled with him until the break ing of the day.” It was the longest and most stiffly contested Calmet, Jacob. f Romans is., 13; Malachi i., 2. �31 JUGGLING- JACOB. match on record. The mysterious person found he could not throw his man or shake him off. Jacob held on like grim death. His thigh was put out of joint, but he never relaxed his grip. “ Let me go,” said the stranger, “ for the day breaketh.” But Jacob refused to do so, unless he obtained a blessing. That was all the stranger had to give. Had he worn clothes, and keptany cash in his pockets, Jacob would have had that too. As it was Jacob got the blessing. His name was changed from Jacob to Israel. From a patriarch he became a prince. When the Stranger departed, Jacob called the place Peniel, for, said he, “ I have seen God face to face.” Supposing he was right (and the other party has never contradicted him), Jacob wrestled with God Almighty. The match was “ God v. Jacob.” It lasted all night; there was only one round; and Jacob won the stakes. This need not surprise the reader, for in a following chapter we are several times apprised that Jacob had interviews with his maker. God “ appeared unto Jacob again,” “God spake with him,” “ God said unto him, I am God Almighty.”* Calmet informs us that authorities—that is, gentlemen who are perfectly ignorant on the matter—are divided as to whether Jacob’s thigh ever recovered from its dislocation. Some think he went about with a game leg for the rest of his days, and. others that he passed over Jordan safe and sound in everv limb. Isaac died, some time after Jacob’s return, at the ripe age of a hundred and eighty. Esau had several wives before, but after the old man was buried he took a fresh batch. Jacob, however, kept to Rachel and Leah. But as he enjoyed two of their hand maids, and perhaps a few more, he had a first-rate harem all the same. What became of Leah afterwards is not recorded. It is to be hoped she died, for she appears to have been buried, f Rachel died in giving birth to her second son, Benjamin. A tombstonewas fixed over her remains, and “ that is the pillar of Rachel’s-, grave unto this day.” The writer of this sentence should havebeen more precise. He ought to have put into the text, or a footnote, something like this—“ This is the 24th of so and so, in the year of the world so and so.” Then we should have known at what date the story was written, which is a great deal more than the cleverest commentators are able to say now. The remainder of Jacob’s life was chiefly spent in the land of Canaan, where he managed to set his own family by the ears through his doting fondness for Joseph, “ the son of his old age.” But that pretty story, and the strangely bestial doings of some of Leah’s sons, must be reserved foi’ our next chapter. Suffice it to say, that Jacob spent his last seventeen years in Egypt, where t Gen. xxxv., 7, 9, 11, 15. f Genesis xlW 31. �32 BIBLE HEBOES. Joseph had become Prime Minister; and that he died at the age of a hundred and forty-seven. On his death-bed he took to prophecy, foreshadowing in highly symbolical and oracular language the history of the future tribes of Israel. But as these prophecies were all written long aftei’ the events foretold, they were a remarkably easy form of composition. If Jacob uttered all that vaticination on his last feather-bed, we should like to know who took the shorthand notes. Jacob’s body was embalmed, and buried at Joseph’s expense in the cave of Machpelah. The Bible informs us that “ all the elders of the land of Egypt ” went to the funeral, which we respectfully beg leave to doubt. Nor do we believe that the whole Egyptian nation mourned the loss of Jacob for seventy days. This is, in our opinion, simply a bit of Jewish brag. The chosen people always had a miraculous opinion of themselves, which they have nevei’ induced other people to share; and their historians constantly flattered their national vanity. When we remember that the Jewish army thought nothing of killing a hundred thousand in battle, we understand that the homage, paid to Jacob by Pharaoh was all “ gas.” According to the Bible, Jacob nevei’ did a generous action. We must go to tradition to discover the single benefit he conferred on mankind. Before his time sneezing was fatal. The strongest men were killed by a single shock. But Jacob induced the Lord to relax this law on condition that everybody who sneezed should say “ God bless me.” * That apocryphal blessing is all we owe to Jacob. Throughout his long life he furnished an unbroken example of the meanest vices. He was a liar, a sharper, a cheat, a hypocrite, and a thief. God’s “ love ” did not save him from being a paltry wretch. As a Bible hero, he is contemptible. If he belonged to any other gallery of unhung scoundrels, he would be beneath our disdain. I* I Jesus Christ was good enough to say that “ many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” f With all humility we beg to be excused. Everlasting life would be a burden in such detestable company. It would be an eternal round of suspicion. Abraham and Isaac would always be trying to impose on our credulity, and it would tax our utmost vigilance to preserve our harp and crown from Juggling Jacob. Gould, vol. ii., p. 29. f Matthew viii,, 11. �MASTER JOSEPH. ------- -♦-------- Bible heroes have thus far been found a shady lot. But Joseph, the hero of the present chapter, is lauded as a model of every virtue. It is difficult, however, to discover reasons for this eulogy. Even the chastity for which he is famous is inade quately established. That he resisted the importunities of an amorous woman is indeed recorded, but we are not informed that she was young and beautiful; on the contrary, her advances were made with such brazen brutality that it might be conjec tured she was an old practitioner in sin, enamored of the fresh innocence of a pretty boy. Nor have we any means of judging the strength of the temptation on Joseph’s side. Whether his constitution was warm or cold, as well as the plainness or fasci nation of his mistress, should affect our estimate of his cha racter. But, on the other hand, we require no elucidations for a judgment on his conduct as Prime Minister of Egypt. Accord ing to the plain and circumstantial narrative of the Bible, he deliberately reduced a whole nation to slavery, which is the greatest crime that can be committed or conceived. The worst atrocities of war, the vilest deeds of the cruellest tyrants, sink into insignificance beside the premeditated villainy of Joseph who used the knowledge he obtained from God to cozen the Egyptians of their property and liberty for ever. Joseph was the first of Jacob’s two children by Rachel. The favorite wife of Israel was long barren, like all Bible women destined to give birth to wonderful children, until at last, in the graceful and expressive language of the Holy Ghost, “ God harkened to her, and opened her womb.” When we next meet this child of promise, he is seventeen years old, and his father’s favorite, “because he was the son of his old age.” The old fellow doted on the lad, and “ made him a coat of many colors,” so that he looked a regular “ masher.” How many Sundayschool children have dreamt of that variegated garment! But, alas, the Revised Version robs it of all its romance by stating that it was simply “ a long garment with sleeves.” ° Like other favorite children, Joseph was a bit of a sneak, and told tales of his brethren. When they remembered this,- and Saw him always in his best clothes, they “ hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.” This feeling was exasperated �34 BIBLE HEROES. by his vanity. He dreamed that he and his brethren were binding sheaves in the field, and their sheaves made obesiance to his. In another dream “ the sun and the moon and the eleven stars bowed before him.” This was too much even for Jacob, as it seemed to include Joseph’s father and mothei’ am on g his inferiors. He therefore reproved the youngster, yet he treasured the dream in his foolish old heart. Joseph’s brethren detested him, and he certainly gave them cause for the sentiment. . Presently their smoking hatred burst into flame. Jacob sent him to inquire after them and the flocks while they were pasturing at a distance, and when they saw him approaching they said to each other, “ let us slay him.” It was a cowardly proposal, for they were ten to one, Benjamin being probably at home; but their natures were fierce and bloody, and the ties of kindred were as straw to the fire of their passion. Their project was to kill him, fling his body into a pit, and tell Jacob he was eaten by a wild beast. But Reuben per suaded them not to shed his blood. He suggested that they should cast him into a pit alive, intending to release him after wards. This was agreed to. They stripped poor Joey, and cast him into a pit, or probably a well, though “ there was no wafegr in it.” An oriental tradition says there was water, but Jos^fli stood on a stone; while the Rabbis say it was dry, but full of scorpions and adders. Perhaps it was a rock-hewn cistern such * as abound in Palestine ; from which, as they are shaped like a bottle, with a narrow mouth, a prisoner could not escape with out assistance, f Pooi- Joey being “ in the belly of the earth,” as Jesus says, to dream at leisure, his tender-hearted brethren sat down to lun cheon. . While they were feeding, and toasting Joseph’s health, they spied a caravan of Ishmeelites going down to Egypt, and a bright idea immediately occurred to Judah. “ Let us sell him to the Ishmeelites,” he said. It was a capital notion, and worthy of the family. But what followed is very obscure. We had better give the text:—“Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver : and they brought Joseph into Egypt.”J Who can make head or tail of this jumble ? They drew Joseph up and sold him. Who, his brethren or the Midianite merchantmen ? The second they would seem to refei to the Ishmeelites who bought him; * yet the last verse of the chapter says that “ the Midianites sold him into Egypt.” Two chapters further on, it says that Potiphar bought Joseph “ of the hands of the Ishmeelites. ”§ Later, when he reveals himself to his brethren, he says “ I am Joseph your * Gould, vol. ii., p. 32 + Rev. Dr. Thomson, The Land and the Book, p. 168. t Genesis xxxvii., 28. § Genesis xxxix., 1. �MASTER JOSEPH 35 brothei-, whom ye sold into Egypt.”* The Midianites sold him, the Ishmeelites sold him, and his brethren sold him ! God help ns ! Our brain is reeling. Would that the Holy Ghost had written plainer, for this episode is like the peace of God, it passes all (our) understanding; and, unfortunately, we have not the dexterous faith of Dean Milman, who airily evades the difficulty by saying that Joseph was sold to “ a caravan of Arabian traders.”! It is usually held that Joseph’s brethren did sell him, and as they were Jacob’s sons it is highly probable. Josephus distinctly says they sold him for twenty pieces of silver.J The Hebrew and Samaritan give the same figure, but the Vulgate gives thirty, which brings Joseph and Jesus to the same price. The Septuagint gives twenty, but says the pieces were gold. According to the Targums, the brethren had two pieces each, with which they bought shoes. § But Zabulun, in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, denies that he shared the blood-money, though “ Simeon and Gad, and six other of our brethren, took the price of Joseph, and bought sandals for themselves, their wives, and their children.” jJacob’s sons were cunning villains. They dipped Joseph’s coat in goat’s-blood, took it to their father, and innocently asked what he thought of it, For their part, they had a notion it was Joseph’s, but they would defer to his opinion. The old man saw it was his son’s, and concluding that his favorite child was devoured by a wild beast, he grieved and wept, declaring that he would join his beloved in the grave. Thereupon the hypo critical scoundrels tried to comfort him. They had disposed of their brother for two “ shiners ” each, and now they wept crocodile tears over then- father’s bereavement. Reuben, how ever, must be exonerated for once. He tried to save Joseph by an artifice, but his strategy had failed. Eastern and Rabbinical traditions assert that Joseph’s face shone like the sun, and all the women and damsels ran out on the terraces to see the light, while the wealthy ladies of Helio polis sent their husbands or relations to bid for the beautiful youth.i| According to Genesis, he was purchased by “ Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard.” Josephus and the Testaments, however, style this gentleman the chief cook. Dr. Kitto calls him “ chief of the royal police,” while Dr. Taylor renders the original Hebrew as “ chief of the executioners.”^ Whoever wishes to know what Potiphar really was must pray for enlightenment from heaven. Joseph gained his master’s favor, and soon became his right* Genesis, xlv., 4. f History of the Jews, p. 23. I Josephus, Book II, c. iii. § Gould, vol. it, p. 35. || Gould, vol. ii,, p. 35. •f Rev. W. M. Taylor, D.D., Joseph, the Prime-Minister, p. 45. �36 BIBLE U EROES* hand man. Potiphar made him overseer of his estate, and “ the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake.” Now, Potiphar had a wife, and thereby hangs a tale. She also had a partiality for Joseph, who was “a goodly person, and well favored; ” indeed, the Orientals say he was so beautiful that he was called the Moon of Canaan. His mistress did not beat about the bush. First she “ cast her eyes upon Joseph,” and next she said, “ Lie with me.” But il casto Giuseppe declined her frank invitation. He reproved her immodesty, reminded her that she was his master’s wife, and refused to “ sin again st God.” Dr. Taylor argues that, besides the gratification of appetite, Joseph might expect “this intrigue meant also for him the putting of Potiphar ultimately out of the way, and his own elevation, in an easy and speedy fashion, to his master’s place.”* But we beg to differ. Egypt was a highly-civilised country, women were allowed great freedom, marriage was held sacred, and life was secure. It no more followed then than it does now, that a married woman who intrigued with a young fellow would also murder her husband. Josephus writes a long account of this wretched business.f The Arabs give it a romantic turn; Zuleika, in their story, being a very different character from the lustful quean in the Bible. The Testaments make pool’ Joseph groan “ She was wont to bare her arms, and breasts, and legs, that I might fall before her.” His mistress, then, was a thorough-going Lady Booby, and he was more sorely tried than Joseph Andrews. It is a great pity, however, that we have not Potiphar’s wife’s account of the affair. The poor lady is condemned unheard. She might give a very different version, showing that she played the Lucretia to his.Tarquin. Joseph and the Jews have made their affidavits, while Zuleika and the Egyptians have never been examined. Genesis, however, tells us that Potiphar’s wife pressed Joseph to comply with her desires, and one day, when they were alone, she “ caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me.” Josephus says she “had a mind to force him.” But Joseph fled, leaving his garment in her hands. Thus signally repulsed, her love soured to hate, and she accused poor Joey of having tried to violate her; whereupon Potiphar clapped the chaste youth in prison as a ravisher. The Rabbis give many amplifications of this pretty story,J and there is a version of it in the Koran, where it is said that Joseph “ would have resolved to enjoy her, had he not seen an evident demonstration of his Lord.” This is explained by the 1 earned Sale in a footnote to his translation. . “ Some suppose that the words mean some miraculous voice or appa rition, sent by God to divert Joseph from executing the criminal thoughts * P. 52. + Book ii.. chap, 4. f Gould, vol. ii., pp. 36, 37 �MASTER JOSEPH. 37 which began to possess him. For they say, that he was so far tempted with his mistress’s beauty and enticing behavior, that he sat in her lap, and even began to undress himself, when a voice called to him, and bid him beware of her; but he taking no notice of this admonition, though it was repeated three times, at length the angel Gabriel, or, as others will have it, the figure of his master appeared to him : but the more general opinion is that it was the apparition of his father Jacob, who bit his fingers’ ends, or, as some write, struck him on the breast, whereupon his lubricity passed out at the ends of his fingers.”* A pretty little story also hangs by Joseph’s garment. Potiphar’s wife’s cousin, who was then a baby in the cradle, cried out that if the garment was torn in front, the lady’s version was correct, but if it was torn behind the young man’s version was correct.f Potiphar obeyed the voice of the sucking child, and satisfied himself of Joseph’s innocence; yet to gratify his wife, or to wean her from her passion, he still kept him in gaol. Strange to say, this imprisonment was his first step to glory. He gained the good graces of his keeper, but that was little. “ The chief cause of his rapid rise to fortune and dignity,” as Milman observes, “ was his skill in the interpretation of dreams.” Joseph was a diviner, a walking dream-book. His sknl was first tried on Pharaoh’s chief butler and chief baker, who were in prison at that time. He interpreted their dreams with marvellous accuracy, predicting that the first would be restored to his post and the second hanged. Two years later Pharaoh had a wonderful dream, which troubled him greatly. All the magicians and wise men of Egypt were summoned to interpret it, but they could not, though they were very clever fellows, and could turn rods into serpents in a jiffey. There upon the chief butler, who was restored to his post, remem bered Joseph, and recommended him to the king. Accordingly our hero was brought out of prison, and aftei’ shaving and putting on a clean suit, he stood before Pharaoh and told him to fire away. Pharaoh related his dream, which we will not, and Joseph interpreted it as meaning that Egypt was to have seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. He also advised that a fifth part of the annual produce during the first period should be saved for the necessity of the second. Pharaoh was mightily pleased; he called Joseph a wise man, full of the spirit of God, and made him grand vizier of Egypt. Joseph now rode in a chariot, clothed in fine linen, with a gold chain round his neck, and Pharaoh’s ring on his finger. The king als(o gave him a new name, Zaphnath-paaneah, which Josephus writes as Psothom Phanech, or the reader of secrets. Pharaoh likewise “ gave him to wife Asenath, the daughter of Poti-pherah, priest of On.” Milman supposes that “ as inter+ Sale, footnote to the Koran, chap. xii. t Koran, chap. xii.; Gould, vol. ii., p. 37. �38 BIBLE HEE0E8. preter of dreams, Joseph, no doubt, intruded into the province ” of the priests, and the king married him to a priest’s daughter to “ disarm their jealousy.”* According to Josephus the name * of Joseph’s father-in-law was Petephres, and Whiston says the notion that he was Joseph’s old master is “ common to Josephus, to the Septuagint interpreters, and to other learned Jews of old time. ”f Many, says Gould, J suppose that Asenath was the daughter of Joseph’s old master Potiphar by Dinah! And she was as tall as Sarah, as comely as Rebekah, and as beautiful as Rachel. The Targums add that she was the daughter of Dinah by Shechem, and was adopted and brought up by Potipherah’s wife.§ But, according to other Jewish and Mussulman tradi tions, Joseph married the Potiphar’s wife who made love to him, after she became a widow; and the loves of Zuleika and Joseph are a popular subject for Eastern poets.|| ^Pharaoh’s grand vizier began to save corn against the famine. Josephus says that the Egyptians had no expectation of the drought, though Whiston considers this incredible. According to the Bible, Joseph “ gathered corn as the sand of the sea,” ana laid it up in granaries. The Jewish historian adds that he “ took the corn of the husbandmen, allotting as much to every one as would be sufficient for seed and for food, but without discovering to anyone the reason why he did so.”5[ This virtuous Joseph was therefore a regrator, or, as the Yankees say, “ a cornerer.” He monopolised grain to sell at famine prices. Yet his action is approved and praised by men who ask for laws against the same thing being done now. In fact, the Yankees have passed a law against it, though Joseph is still treated as a perfect saint in all the churches and chapels in the United States. When the famine came “ the dearth was in all lands ”; but we suspect it was like the darkness at the Crucifixion, which covered the whole earth, yet was invisible at a distance. The Egyptians were obliged to buy corn of Joseph, or else starve. At first he sold for money, but he soon had all their cash. Next he took their horses and cattle. Then he took all their land, and when the transaction was finished he said “ Behold, I have bought you this day and your lands for Pharaoh”** You and your lands I They had lost all their possessions, and had become slaves to boot; in other words, the poor Egyptians were thoroughly jewed. Joseph supplied them with seed to sow the land, of which they were no longer proprietors, on condition that the fifth part of the produce should be paid to Pharaoh Wishing to put a f Footnote to Josephus, bk. it, chap. 6. * Vol, ii., p. 46. § Ante-Nicene Library, vol, xxit, p. 73, footnote. || Gould, vol. ii., pp. 40, 41. Josephus, Bk. it, chap. 5. * Genesis xlvit, 23. * P. 25. �MASTER JOSEPH. 39 good face on. this affair, Josephus says that he “ gave them back the land entirely,” but Whiston is obliged to differ from his author. “ It seems to me,” he writes, “ that the land was now considered Pharaoh’s land, and this fifth part as its rent, to be paid to him, as he was their landlord, and they his tenants; and that the lands were not properly restored, and this fifth part reserved as tribute only till the days of Sesostris.”* Dr. Taylor says that Joseph “also gave them back their cattle,” but he draws on his fancy for the statement, as there is not a suggestion of it in the Scripture. Dr. Taylor offers a curious apology for Joseph. He contends that if the Egyptians had obtained corn for nothing it “ would only have demoralised them.” So he sold it to them, to prevent their becoming paupers, and transformed them into slaves! But was not Joseph a wise man? Did not God grant him super human knowledge ? Surely, then, he might have hit upon a more humane device. Had the people been properly warned of the approaching drought, and provision made in the public granaries, they might have maintained themselves during the famine. It is infamous to trade on a natural calamity. A nation reduced to want by continued drought is like a starving crew. Despotism would be necessary for self-preservation ; but what would be thought of a mercenary wretch who took advant age of the public starvation to reduce his fellows into a state of perpetual slavery or dependence ? Yet that is what Joseph did, if there is any truth in the story. He was as cunning and un scrupulous a minion as ever basked in the smiles of a king. Joseph dealt with the people he had “bought” in a high handed manner. He “ removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof.” Dean Milman insinuates that this was a method of protecting them from the overflow of the Nile, but he is obliged to allow that “ This has been supposed by some an arbitary measure, in order to break the ties of attachment, in the former possessors, to their native farms.”! Let it be observed that Joseph did not buy up the land of the priests, who were the highest caste, and in whom “ one-third of the whole land of the country was inalienably vested.”^ They were all supported gratis during the famine, yet Dr. Taylor does not hint that they were pauperised. The fact is, the priests were the real rulers of Egypt. They were not only the minis ters of religion, but public astronomers, geometricians, sur veyors, physicians, legislators, and judges; and the king was either selected from their body or enrolled in it before his coronation. They were too powerful even for Pharaoh’s grand vizier. Joseph could not browbeat or swindle them. Yet these * Footnote, Josephus, bk. ii., chap. 7. t P. 29. J Milman, p. 25. �40 BIBLE HEBOES. priests, altheugh they looked after themselves pretty sharply, seem to have connived at the spoliation of the people. Among those who were driven into Egypt by the famine were Joseph’s brethren. How he treated them roughly as strangers, and then revealed his identity; how he invited Jacob’s house hold into Egypt, and induced Pharaoh to let them settle there; is a story familial’ to all. It is related with exquisite pathos and simplicity, and merely as a story it may be compared with any domestic narrative in literature. The number of Jacob’s household is given as sixty-six and as seventy in two consecutive verses. Josephus says seventy, * without including Jacob. But Stephen, in the Acts of the Apostles, gives the number as seventy-five.f Probably he quoted from the Septuagint, which includes five descendants of Joseph not included in the Hebrew text. But the Holy Ghost should at least make the Old and New Testaments agree in their arithmetic, Sixty-six, seventy, or seventy-five, they settled down in Goschen. It was a particularly fine land for shepherds, for the grass grew to the height of a man, and so thick that an ox might browse all day without rising.J According to Genesis it was “ the best of the land.” The beggars in this case were choosers too, and in the midst of their excessive humility they kept a keen eye on the main chance. Nearly every Bible character has had some writing ascribed to him, and Joseph is no exception to the rule. Legend assigns him the authorship of Joseph’s Prayer, and Trimethius speaks of a magical book attributed to him, called Joseph’s Mirror.§ According to the Rabbis he had a tremendous voice, and would have made a fine open-air preacher. On one occasion his voice shivered a palace pillar into fine dust. Reuben’s lungs were still more powerful, for when he roared all the inhabitants died of terror within a radius of a hundred miles. || Joseph died at the age of a hundred and ten, and “ they em balmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.” According to the Targums, they sank the coffin in the Nile; but Exodus tells us that when the Jews left Egypt they carried Joseph’s old bones with them.^f Here endeth the history of Joseph. Fortunately for the honor of the human race, it is purely legendary. Egyptian history shows no trace of such occurrences. Joseph did not jew the Egyptians; and the story of a Hebrew slave lording it oyer the hereditary rulers of a mighty civilisation is simply a bit of J ewish brag. * Genesis xlv., 26, 27. f Acts vii., 14. § Calmet, Joseph. || Gould, vol. ii., pp. 43, 44. J Milman, p. 29. Exodus xiii., 19. �JOSEPH’S BRETHREN. Jehovah was always unlucky in the choice of his favorites, and the same misfortune attended his Son, for the twelve disciples of Jesus, when he was arrested, all “ forsook him and fled.” Probably the number of those valiant worthies was taken from the number of the sons of Jacob ; in fact, their Master distinctly told them that, when he came into his Kingdom, they should sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. That * precious promise has not been fulfilled, nor has the Lord accomplished the blessings he prophesied for the descendants of Joseph and his brethren. Perhaps he has repented, found second thoughts best, and privately resolved to violate his pledge. Nor can anyone bring him to task for the dereliction. The Lord ■swears, as the Bible frequently informs us, but as he swears unto himself he can easily obtain a release from awkward engage ments, without fearing a prosecution for perjury. Considering the stock they came from, the character of Jacob’s ■sons is not surprising. They possessed between them all the •qualities which endeared theii’ father, as well as Isaac and Abraham, to the God of Israel. Lying, theft, lust, incest, murder, and fratricide, appeared to run in the family. When Jacob lay on his death-bed, and dealt out his patriarchal blessings, he reminded his progeny of their crimes in magisterial tones; forgetting that what was bred in the bone would show in the blood. He blamed the branches, without reflecting that they shared the vices of the roots and stem. Reuben was Jacob’s eldest son by Leah. After Rachel died in giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob “journeyed, and spread his tent beyond the tower of Edar.” While he was residing there, doubtless mourning over the only woman he loved, his first-born played him a very dirty trick. “Reuben,” we are told, “ went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine.”f What an in©estuous beast! A concubine was not a harlot, nor even a kept mistress. She had a legal status, and was second only to the wife; indeed, she was a wife, though over the left shoulder. Calmet’s Bible Dictionary justly remarks that the term concubine, M in Western authors, commonly signifies a woman who, without being married to a man, yet lives with him as his wife : but, in the sacred writers, the word concubine is understood in another sense; * Matthew xix., 28 ; Luke xxii., 30. t Genesis xxxv., 22. �42 BIBLE HEROES. meaning a lawful wife, but one not wedded with all the cere monies and solemnities of matrimony; a wife of a second rank, inferior to the mistress of the house.” The Boman law regarded concubines in a similar light. Even the Christian law of Jus tinian recognised the right of a concubine’s offspring to a sixth part of the father’s estate; and, as Gibbon informs us, “ from the age of Augustus to the tenth century, the use of this secondary marriage prevailed both in the West and the East.”* Priests were allowed concubines after they were forbidden to marry, and according to the canon law, which is still unrepealed, there is nothing to prevent a clergyman from taking a concubine in preference to a wife,f although his bishop would probably in hibit him for doing so. Enough has been said to prove that Bilhah was a real, though an inferior, wife of Jacob’s. Yet we must not neglect a conclu sive piece of evidence. There is absolutely no distinction made between the children of his concubines and those of his legiti mate wives. They all rank according to the succession of their births, whether they are born of Leah or Rachel, or of Bilhah or Zilpah. Reuben’s crime was disgusting. It is not suggested that he was the victim of an irresistible passion, like Marc Anthony, who threw manhood and empire away on Cleopatra, playing the great drama of “ All for Love, or the World Well Lost.” Bestial concupiscence moved him. He had more than the incontinence of Jack Ealstaff, without a gleam of the fat knight’s wit. Like an animal, to use the simple language of Scripture, he “ went and lay with Bilhah.” She was probably a good deal older than himself, and as in oriental countries women age quickly, she could scarcely have been a very fascinating object. Above all, she was his father’s half-wife, and the mother of two of his own brothers. This Reuben was filthy and incestuous. Yet he was the eldest son of the man whom God loved, and the founder of the first twelfth of the chosen people. According to Revelation, there will be a hundred and forty-four thousand Jews around the throne in heaven, twelve thousand from each of the twelve tribes of Israel; every one a male, and every one a virgin. Surely, if there is any truth in heredity, it will be hard to find so many male virgins in the tribe of Reuben. An apocryphal book, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,. makes Reuben give his own account of the transaction. The author of this curious work was perhaps a Jew, who, having been converted to Christianity, employed the names of the patriarchs of Israel to win over his countrymen to the new faith. Where and when it was written is unknown, but it was quoted by Tertullian and Origen in the second century. Eoi’ many centuries afterwards its history is indefinite. There are * Decline and Fall, chap. xliv, f Rev. M Davies, Hagar. �JOSEPH S BRETHREN. 43 possible references to it in Jerome and Athanasius, and in the Canons of the Councils of Rome (a.d. 494) and Bracara (a.d. 563). In the middle of the thirteenth century it was brought to the knowledge of Western Europe by Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln. Matthew Paris, the chronicler, said it was “hidden through the jealousy of the Jews ” because it contained pro phecies of Christ. He also called it “ a glorious treatise,” cal culated to strengthen Christianity and confound the unbelieving Jews. Four Greek manuscripts of the Testaments exist. One is at Cambridge, one at Oxford, one at the Vatican, and another in the possession of Tischendorf, who discovered it in the island of * Patmos. We may add that this curious work, which we must draw from, is still regarded as canonical by the Armenian Church. According to the Testaments, which we suspect to be as true as Gospel, Reuben delivered himself in the following manner on his little affair with Bilhah, just before giving up the ghost in his hundred and twenty-fifth year : “ Pay no heed to the sight of a woman, nor yet associate privately with a female under the authority of a husband, nor meddle with affairs of Womankind. For had I not seen Bilhah bathing in a covered place, I had not fallen into this great iniquity. For my mind, dwelling on the Woman’s nakedness, suffered me not to sleep until I had done the abominable deed. For while Jacob our father was absent with Isaac his father, when we were in Gader, near to Ephrata in Bethlehem, Bilhah was drunk, and lay asleep uncovered in her chamber; and when I went in and beheld her nakedness, I wrought that impiety, and leaving her sleep ing I departed. And forthwith an angel of God revealed to my father Jacob concerning my impiety, and he came and mourned over me, and touched her no more.”f This is a poor apology. .Reuben offers, as a partial excuse, that he fornicated with his father’s concubine when she was dead drunk. He does not, indeed, say dead drunk, but he says drunk, and her obstinate sleep warrants the double epithet. Nobody but a beast would indulge his sensuality with a woman in such a nauseous condition. Waxing maudlin over his recollected sin, Reuben launches out into warnings against “ the beauty of women,” as though it were a .snare to any but lascivious fools. Fra Lippo Lippi, in Browning’s masterly poem, teaches a better philosophy : “ Suppose I’ve made her eyes all right and blue, Can’t I take breath and try to add life’s flash, And then add soul and heighten them threefold ? Or say there’s beauty with no soul at all— (I never saw it—put the case the same—) If you get simple beauty and nought else, You get about the best thing God invents. * Ante-Nieene Christian Library, vol. xxii. f Ibid, p. 15. I Robert Browning, Fra Lippo Lippi. �44 BIBLE HEROES. So speaks a glorious poet. But the Reuben of the Testaments breaks into a fit of foul-mouthed fury at the whole sex; and, alas, his view of women is pure Jewish and Christian too, other wise it would not have been written for the primitive Church. This is how he vomits his censure. “ Hurtful arejwomen, my children; because since they have no power or strength over the man, they act subtilly through outward guise how they may draw him to themselves; and whom they cannot overcome by strength, him they overcome by craft. For moreover the angel of God told me concerning them, and taught me that women are overcome by the spirit of fornication more than men, and they devise in their head against men ; and by means of their adornment they deceive first their minds, and instil the poison by the glance of their eye, and then they take them captive by their doings, for a woman cannot overcome a man by force. Flee therefore fornication, my children, and command your wives and your daughters that they adorn not their heads and faces ; because every woman who acteth deceitfully in these things hath been reserved to everlasting punishment.”* This grovelling, unnatural philosophy is fit for misogynists and eunuchs. To men it is an insult, and to women an outrage. Yet it might well satisfy a pious student of the Bible, wherein the “ weaker vessel,” as Peter calls her, is systematically degraded. How long are we to cherish the abject teaching of polygamists and harem-keepers ? Shall the Occident bow for ever before the worst features of the Orient ? The Arab, in Girardin’s story, is what the Jews were of old, and what the Christians were in spirit, if not altogether in practice. This gentleman of Arabia, being asked by Girardin why the Easterns did not allow their women more liberty, replied, “ You can look on them without perturbation, but we/”—adding in deeper tones, “ The very face of a woman1” The inflammable Arab would understand the Bible and the Testaments on the subject of women, though he would probably shrink from the company of an incestuous brute like Reuben. “ Israel heard it,” says Genesis, adding with ludicrous haste “ Now the sons of Jacob were twelve.” The old fellow apparently said nothing till he was in extremis, when he eased his mind on the subject. Addressing Reuben, he said, “ Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch.”t Jacob’s next sons were Simeon and Levi. The chief exploit of these worthies is circumstantially narrated in the thirty-fourth chapter of Genesis. Their sister Dinah is the only daughter of Jacob mentioned in Scripture, and she was the cause of a very pretty quarrel. She “ went out to see the daughters of the land,” which the commentators construe as gadding abroad. But perhaps she only visited hei’ female neighbors, and took five Ante-Nicene Library, vol. xxii., p. 16. t Genesis xlix., 4 �Joseph’s brethren. 45 ©’©lock tea with them, for want of sisterly company at home. Daring her rambles she fascinated Shechem, son of Hamor the prince of the Hivites, who “ took her, and lay with her.” Court ship in those days was not prolonged. Holy Writ goes at once to the fifth act of the play. Shechem’s love was not blunted by possession. He proposed to marry the girl, and it was really a capital match for a shep herd’s daughter. Hamor opened negociations with Jacob, offering a heavy dowry for his consent to the union; but Jacob’s virtuous sons protested against Dinah’s marrying a man who had “ defiled her.” They hated their own sins in another, and resolved to punish Shechem for their own offences as well as his. We cannot give our sister, they said, to one that is uncircum cised ; although, as Bishop Hall remarks, “ Themselves had taken the daughters and sisters of uncircumcised men; yea, Jacob himself did so.”* They pretended, however, that if Shechem and all his people would be circumcised, there would be no barrier to intermarriages of Israelites and Hivites. The hard proposal was accepted. Shalem, the city in which they dwelt, prepared for amputation, and on the selfsame day “ every male was circumcised.” It was a painful condition, and Shechem must have been very fond of Dinah, and the Hivites of Shechem, to undergo it. What follows is comedy and tragedy in one. “ On the third day, when they were sore,” the inhabitants of Shalem could not resist the assault of Simeon and Levi, who “ took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.” Dancy a whole city disposed of in this easy fashion 1 Though they were sore with circumcision, surely the men could have defended themselves against two assassins. But if not, the women could have fallen pell-mell upon the brace of bullies, and overwhelmed them with the kitchen furniture. The story is altogether too thin except for thickheads. We might say of Simeon and Levi, what the disciples said to Jesus about the two fishes that were to feed five thousand—“ What are they among so many ? ” Yet if their exploit was authentic, and not legendary, Simeon and Levi were a couple of scoundrels, guilty of treachery and murder. According to the sequel, they pillaged the Hivites’ property, taking all their sheep, oxen, asses, and other moveables, and making captives of “their little ones, and their wives.” What became of those poor creatures ? Were they kept or sold as slaves, or subjected to the lust of Jacob’s sons? The regard of Joseph’s brethren for the honor of their sister was compatible with the greatest contempt for the rights of other women. Dinah, it seems, was ready to marry Shechem, but Simeon and Levi ravaged and massacred a whole city for a punctilio. No Contemplations, book iii., 3. �46 BIBLE HEROES. wonder that Jacob, on his deathbed, exclaimed that “ instru ments of cruelty are in their habitations.” According to the Targum of Jerusalem and the Rabbis, who are followed by some ancient Fathers, the scribes and lawyers were of the tribe of Simeon. Probably they inherited the craft * of their progenitors, which induced Jesus to exclaim “Woe unto you lawyers.” Levi, on the other hand, was the pro genitor of the Levites, who were chosen by God for the service of his tabernacle and temple, and provided by law with tithes of corn, fruit, and cattle ; the tenth of which, again, was paid to the Aaronites who served in the sanctuary. Jacob’s curse, therefore, that the posterity of Simeon and Levi should be scattered, was fulfilled in a very agreeable manner. Punishment, in this case, is remarkably like reward. We come now to Judah, Jacob’s fourth son, of whom the old fellow’s valedictory words were, “ thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise.” Rising into prophecy, the dying patriarch ex claimed, “ The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a law giver from between his feet, unfiil Shiloh come; and unto him shall.the gathering of the people be.”f So runs the Authorised Version, but the Revised Version says that “ until Shiloh come ” may read “ until he come to Shiloh.” There are many other renderings—for Hebrew is a delightfully vague language—the principal ones being given in Calmet. Yet from this obscure, perplexed, and controverted passage, the Christians have derived a prophecy of Christ! He, they say, is Shiloh, and the sceptre departed irom Judah after his advent; although the Jews, who should be the highest authority on the meaning of their own Scripture, strenuously repudiate this interpretation. Shiloh was, in fact, the name of a place and not of a person. Joshua assembled the people there to make a second distribu tion of the Land of Promise.J There the Tabernacle was set up when the Jews were settled in Canaan.§ At Shiloh Samuel began to prophesy,|| and afterwards the prophet Ahijah dwelt there. T It is highly probable that this sacred place was in the writer’s mind when he penned the famous Shiloh passage in Genesis, although what he precisely meant by it will never be known till the Day of Judgment. If the reader will turn to the first chapter of Matthew, he will find that the genealogy of Jesus is traced back through Joseph, who was not his father, to Judah who “ begat Phares and Zara ofThamar.” How Phares and Zara were bastards, and their mother was a harlot, who committed incest with her father-inlaw. Jesus, therefore, was descended from Judah (if he was descended) in a most unfortunate manner. There was a frightful bar sinister in the family escutcheon. For our part we should - * Calmet, Simeon. f Genesis xlix., 10. § Joshua xix., 51. || 1 Samuel iv., 4. J Joshua xviii., 8-10. 1 Kings xiv., 2. �Joseph’s brethren. 47 never think of prying into a man’s family antecedents. Let every tub stand on its own bottom. But when an inspired biographer ostentatiously draws out a man’s genealogy before Our eyes, we can hardly refrain from remarking that “ all is not sweet, all is not sound.” Some time after Joseph’s brethren sold him, Judah left the family for a while, and lodged with an Adullamite gentleman named Hirah. Seeing there “ a daughter of a certain Canaanite ” who tickled his fancy, in the eloquent language of Scripture “ he took her, and went in unto her.” Whether he married her is an open question. She bore him three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah. Er growing to man’s estate, Judah found him a wife called Tamar; but Er was an erring youth, and “ the Lord slew him.” This was the first individual case of death from the visitation of God. According to the Jewish law, as Tamar was * left childless, her dead husband’s next brother was bound to marry her. Judah, therefore, plainly told Onan, “ Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed unto thy brother.” This order was obeyed in the lettei’ but not in the spirit. Onan frustrated his father’s intention by an unspeakable device, which is bluntly disclosed in the Bible; f and the name of Tamar’s second husband, by whom she was as childless as by her first, has become synonymous with self-pollution. Onan’s evasion displeased the Lord, who “ slew him also.” Thus two of the noble Judah’s three sons were declared not fit to live. Shelah was not yet old enough to marry, but Judah pro mised Tamar she should have 'him when he was “ grown.” But Judah was slack in fulfilling his promise, or he and Tamar differed as to Shelah’s ripeness for matrimony. Anyhow, the young widow resolved to stand no more delay, and finding that Shelah was not given to her embraces, she made up her mind to become a mother by Judah. Having married two brothers in succession, and while expecting the third, she determines to commit incest with her father-in-law ; being nearly, if not quite, as shameless as the daughters of Lot. Hearing that Judah was going to Timnath to shear his sheep, she flung off her widow’s weeds, dressed like a meretricious harlot, and sat “ in an open place ” by the way. Judah saw her, took her for a courtesan, and begged the hospitality of her tribe. Playing the prostitute to the letter, she asked his price for her favors, and he promised her a kid. But as the animal had to be sent on, she demanded a “ pledge,” having learned, Bishop Hall says, “ not to trust him without a pawn.” Judah gave her his signet, his bracelets, and his staff as security, and the precious pair adjourned to the nearest brothel. Scripture does not say so, but let us hope they had that decency. Judah, in the Testaments, says he was drunk, and “ recognised Jueuteronomy xxv., 5. f Genesis xxxviii., 9. �48 BIBLE HEEOES. her not by reason of wine ”—evidently considering this a pallia tion of his vice; and like Reuben, he launches into censures on the sex, as though they were not at least six to the women’s half dozen. The articles in pawn being probably more valuable than the kid, Judah sent the animal on by his friend Hirah, who could not discover the woman; indeed, the people straitly denied that there was a harlot in the locality. But three months afterwards Tamar betrayed the consequences of her filthy frolic, and it was told Judah, “ thy daughter-in-law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom.” This is plain enough, and short if not sweet. It worked on Judah like a tar antula. He boiled with rage at the wanton. His indulgence was venial, but hers was a mortal sin. Sternly, like a virtuous implacable judge, he cried, “ Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.” Tamar, however, quickly turned the tables on him. She pro duced the articles he left in pawn, and asked him whose they were. His guilt was then as obvious as hers. Did he straight way offer to share her pyre ? Oh no. Judah loved his own skin, and to save it he was obliged to spare Tamar’s too. He admitted, perhaps according to the tribal morality of the time, “ She hath been more righteous than I,” and then instead of punishing himself heavily and his accomplice lightly, he added, “ I’ll forgive us both.” Six months later the incestuous wanton gave birth to twins. Her confinement was a curious one, and Scripture relates it * fully, perhaps for the curiosity and amusement of children, The twins were named Pharez and Zarah, and from the first of this ill-begotten pair our Blessed Lord and Savior traced his holy descent; the illustrious line being also adorned by the chaste Ruth, the chaster Bathsheba, and apparently the still chaster Rahab, an ancient Mrs. Jeffreys of Jericho. There is little information as to the rest of Joseph’s brethren, except that they “ burked ” their own flesh and blood, and nearly brought their father’s grey head in sorrow to the grave. The only one described by Jacob, besides the four pre cious rascals we have anatomised, was his sixth son. “ Issachar,” said Jacob, “ is a strong ass.”f The old fellow ought to know, and we believe him. The family were mostly rogues, but there was one strong ass to give it variety. * Genesis xxxviii.. 27-30. f Genesis xlix., 14. �HOLY MOSES. “The history of Moses,” says Cardinal Newman, “is valuable to Christians, not only as giving us a pattern of fidelity towards God, of great firmness, and great meekness, but also as affording us a type or figure of our Savior Christ.”* Evidently, then, we have to do with a very important personage. It is a curious fact that Jesus and Moses are the only individuals in the Bible who are characterised by the epithet meek. Jesus said “ I am meek,”f and although that is the last thing we should believe of a man on his own protestation, we are bound to credit the state ment of Jesus, for he was God, and whoever disbelieves him will be damned. Fortunately Moses is not left to his own vindi cation ; his meekness is vouched for by the Almighty himself, who informs us, with the indisputable authority of omniscience, that “ the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.”J Yet the carnal mind would he slow to accept the description of either of these worthies if it were not dictated by infinite wisdom. It was a peculiar meek ness which prompted Jesus to ride into Jerusalem like a theatrical conqueror on a couple of requisitioned donkeys, amid the plaudits of an ignorant and fanatical mob ; which led him to assault the harmless money-changers and dove-sellers in the unsanctified precincts of the temple; and which inspired his scurrilous denunciation of his rivals. No less singular was the meekness Of Moses, who commenced his public career by assassinating an Egyptian, and ended it by ordering the wholesale robbery, violation, and slaughter of the Canaanites. But when Deity commands our reason must submit. Moses was the meekest man on earth. We make the admission freely, as we hope for grace. Yet the imp of scepticism dances in our brain, despite our efforts to suppress him, and cries out—Oh yes, Moses was meek, as you say; meek with the meekness of Byron’s Lambro, who was “ the mildest manner’d man That ever scuttled ship or cut a throat.”§ The life of our hero divides itself into three distinct chapters. * Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. vii., p. 118. + Matthew xi., 29. J Numbers xii., 3. § Don Juan, canto iii., 41. �50 BIBLE HEROES. He lived a hundred and twenty years in all. Forty years he spent in Egypt, the land of his birth; forty years he followed the avocation of a shepherd in Midian ; and forty years he led the wandering Jews in the wilderness, where three millions of them coiled and uncoiled like an aimless serpent, taking a whole generation to complete a month’s journey, and demonstrating once for all the asinine stupidity of making an excursion under the guidance of a missionary. Before Jacob’s favorite son had long been dead, a king arose in Egypt who “ knew not Joseph.” Regarding the Jews, who multiplied like rabbits, with the gravest apprehension, he appears to have withdrawn them from their pasturages and set them to task-work, which they have never relished from that day to this. According to their own account, which is probably a partial one, and certainly foreign to our historical notions of Egyptian manners, he served them “ with rigor ” and “ made their lives bitter with hard bondage.” Josephus says that he “ set them also to build pyramids.”* But this cannot be true, for the Bible states that they worked in brick, and the pyramids are built of stone. Pharaoh’s object seems to have been to wear them out, but they continued to increase amazingly, and he had recourse to stronger measures. If we may believe the Jewish historian, he commanded that every male child among the Hebrews should be cast into the Nile as soon as it was born; and in order that his edict might be carried out effectually, he instructed theEgyptian midwivestosee to its execution.! Milman follows Josephus on this point, and adds that “ the midwives, in this land of hereditary professions, were most likely a distinct class under responsible officers.”! But the Bible expressly says that Pharaoh gave the order to the Hebrew midwives. § Nay more, it gives us their names, Shiphrah and Puah. Jewish tradition says they were mother and daughter.|| No others are mentioned, and we must therefore conclude that two midwives sufficed for a population of a million or so, among whom there could not be less than a thousand births a week 1 According to the Rabbis, God came to the assistance of the Jewish mothers. They were delivered in sleep ; angels attended on them, washed and dressed the babies, and smeared their little hands with butter and honey, so that they might, in licking them, be fed and kept from crying. When Pharaoh’s emissaries followed their traces, the earth gaped and swallowed the little ones, who afterwards sprouted from the soil like flowers, and walked home unperceived.IT In the midst of this extraordinary rumpus, “ there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi.” * Book ii., chap. ix. J History of the ,Teios, p. 32. || Gould, vol. ii., p. 67. f Josephus, book ii., chap. ix. § Exodus i, 15. Gould, vol. ii, p. 70. �HOLY MOSES. 51 Their names, as we subsequently learn, were Amram and. ' * Jochebed. She conceived and bare a son, and seeing “ he was a goodly child, she hid him three months.” Judging from the narrative this was their first child, yet Moses had a brother three years older than himself, and a still older sister.f The Rabbis affirm that Jochebed was a hundred and thirty years old at the birth of Moses, yet as fresh and beautiful as when she left her father’s house.t According to Exodus (vi., 20) she was her husband’s aunt 1 The same verse informs us that Amram lived to the age of a hundred and thirty-seven. All this is hard to believe, but the penalties of disbelief are still harder. Josephus, no less than the Bible, dwells on the beauty of' Moses. Eine and large as a baby, he grew up tall and handsome, and people turned to look at him in the streets.§ This mar vellous child, say the Rabbis, was born at three in the morning, on the seventh day of the month Adar, in the year 2368 after the Creation, and 130 after Jacob’s descent into Egypt. Some say his parents called him Tobias (God is good), but others say he was called Johutiel (Hope in God).|| Clement of Alexandria,, however, affirms that he was named Joachim at his circumcision, although it appears from Exodus‘s that Moses was nevei’ circum cised at all, while in heaven he passes under the name of MeZcfei. ** Bishop Hall indulges in the natural reflection that it was a wonder Amram thought of procreating “when he knew he should beget children either to slavery or slaughter.” The Bishop’s explanation is that Amram thought “ his own burning a still greater evil, and “ he therefore uses God’s remedy for sin, and refers the sequel of his danger to God.”ff A most Chris tian and convenient philosophy! Our little hero being three months old, his mother despaired of hiding him any longer, and therefore resolved to throw all further responsibility for his safety on the Lord. She took an ark of bulrushes, daubed it with slime and pitch to make it. water-tight, put her baby in it, and launched it among the flags of the Nile, leaving her daughter Miriam to watch what would happen. As the river abounds with crocodiles it was a dan gerous experiment; but no doubt those voracious creatures werewarned off by the same God who “ spake unto the fish ” that swallowed Jonah. Presently Pharaoh’s daughter came to that very spot to bathe. “ Those.times,” says Bishop Hall, “looked for no great state.”’ But he is mistaken. Egypt was a mighty empire, Pharaoh was a powerful.and splendid monarch, at once priest and king; and the supposition that his daughter, apparently his only daughter, would bathe among the water-flags of the Nile, at a spot which* § * Exodus vi., 20. f Exodus vii., 7. J Gould, vol. ii., p. 71. § Josephus, book ii., chap. ix. || Gould, vol. ii., p. 72. T VI., 12, 30. ** Calmet, Moses. ff Contemplations, book iv., 2. �52 BIBLE HEROES. anyone was free to visit, and where a Hebrew slave conld watch, with impunity, is too absurd for serious criticism. Let the Jews believe it! as the Roman satirist exclaims. They were credulous enough for anything. But those who are acquainted with the manners and customs of the ancient Egyptians will regard the story with derision. According to Josephus the princess was named Thermutis. The Rabbis say that she had been married for some time to Chenephras, prince of a territory near Memphis, but was child less, although she fervently desired a son who might succeed hei’ father on the throne of Egypt. Any reader with half an * eye can see what is coming. Exodus tells us that Pharaoh’s daughter espied the floating cradle and sent a maid to fetch it. When it was brought the little urchin inside snivelled, and his tears touched her heart, although she saw it was a Hebrew baby. Thereupon Miriam came up and offered to fetch a nurse for the bantling. The offer was accepted, and of course Miriam fetched her own mother, who suckled her own offspring as a hireling. Josephus, who amplifies every Bible story, except those he prudently neglects, informs us that several Hebrew women were called before Joche * bed, but the baby would not patronise their feeding apparatus. Miriam then saw her chance; she brought her mother, and “ the child gladly admitted the breast. ”f Jewish traditions furnish many wonderful incidents in this story. God was then afflicting Egypt with intolerable heat, and the people suffered from grievous boils. Thermutis herself did not escape the malady. She usually washed in the palace baths, but on this day she performed her ablutions in the sacred Nile. Seeing the ark, she bade one of her maidens to swim out and bring it to the shore, but the other servants told her it contained a Hebrew child, cast out by the royal command, and ad * vised her not to oppose her father’s will. For this interference they were immediately swallowed by an earthquake, opportunely wrought by the angel Gabriel, who was hovering around. Meanwhile the princess, in hei' eagerness, had stretched out her hand towards the ark; by a miracle her arm was lengthened to sixty ells, and she lifted the child out of the water. She admired his beauty, but her compassion was chiefly excited by his tears, the angel Gabriel having boxed his ears to make him weep copiously.t But the most astonishing part of this romance is to come. The Bible gravely informs us that when this precious child was grown (no age is stated) he was brought to Pharaoh’s daughter “ and he became her son.” This is absurd enough, for Egypt was a land of castes, and the princess had no more power to break * Gould, vol. ii., p. 73. f Josephus, bk. ii., ch. ix. J Gould, vol. ii., pp. 73, 74. �HOLY MOSES. 53 through them than the meanest of her father’s subjects. But Josephus makes the monstrous addition that Thermutis adopted him as the “ heir to her kingdom,” * a statement which evinces the grossest ignorance. Fancy the Princess of Wales adopting a child from the Foundling Hospital with a view to its becoming King of England ! The fact is we are not dealing with history, although Christians deem it so, but with oriental romance. The Rabbis try to make the yarn more plausible by saying that Thermutis feigned a pregnancy, went through a fictitious con finement, and palmed off the little Hebrew as her own child ! f Let us pause for a moment to consider the change in our hero’s name. Henceforth he was called Moses. According to Dr. Lee, learned men differ as to whether the word is Hebrew or Egyptian.J Josephus says that “ Thermutis imposed the name Mouses upon him, from what had happened when he was put in the river; for the Egyptians call water by the name of Mo, and such as are saved out of it by the name of Z7ses.”§ The Abbe Renaudot, however, affirms that Mooou signifies water, and Si to draw or take out.|| The etymology is a little mixed, but near enough for any useful purpose. From this time till he attained to the age of forty,If the book of Exodus is silent as to his career. But Stephen says, in the Acts of the Apostles (vii., 22) that “Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” The Rabbis also relate that as a boy he played on Pharaoh’s knee, and one day he kicked over and danced upon the crown. All the king’s councillors cried ©ut for his immediate execution, but the angel Gabriel, assuming the form of a grave and reverend signior, advised Pharaoh to put before the lively youngster a bowl of precious stones and a bowl of live coals; if he took the jewels he would know what he was about, but if he took the fire he would be ignorant and innocent. Moses naturally thrust his hand towards the wrong bowl, but Gabriel, who had made himself invisible, directed it towards the red-hot coals. The poor boy burnt his fingers, and putting them to his mouth, he burnt his lips and tongue. ** Therefore he said in after years “ I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.”ff Josephus likewise informs us that Moses led an Egyptian army against the Ethiopians, signally defeated them, and married Tharbis their king’s daughter, who was enamored of his beauty.JJ But the Rabbis place these exploits after his flight from Egypt. They say that Moses assisted the king of Ethiopia against some rebels, and the monarch dying amidst the war, his subjects elected the valiant Hebrew as their king. He reigned over them * Book II chap. ix. f Gould, vol. ii., p. 76. t Hebrew Grammar, p. 153. § Book II., chap. ix. || Calmet, Moses. 1 Acts vii., 23. ** Gould, vol. ii., p. 77. ft Exodus iv„ 10. ++ Book II., chap. x. �54 BIBLE HEROES. for forty years, and. tlien resigned in favor of the legitimate heir to the throne. * According to Josephus, the real cause of the flight of Mosesfrom Egypt was the malice of the people, who envied the laurels he won in the Ethiopian war. They infected the king with theirenmity, and. Moses, on learning that his death was being com passed, “ went away privately ” to the city of Midian on the coast of the Red Sea. But this account is perfectly false, as Josephus must have known. The Jewish historian, whose honesty and accuracy were lauded by Scaliger as superior to that of the Pagan writers, composed his Antiquities with an eye to the Gentiles. He designed to give them an exalted idea of' his countrymen, and to this end he deliberately omitted several striking incidents in the J ewish scriptures, which might excite a.smile or a sneer at the expense of the heroes or the religion of’ his race. Josephus had the Book of Exodus before him; he knew that Moses fled from Egypt because he had slain a native; yet he never alludes to the circumstance, but throws the blame upon the Egyptians whose laws had been shamefully violated. The Bible informs us, as it informed Josephus, that Moses “ spied an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew.” They may have been quarrelling, for Hebrews could quarrel as well as Egyptians. Either may have been right, or either wrong. But Moses sided with his countryman. In the expressive language of Scripture, he “looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.”t Like all savages he was both sanguinary and cautious. “ He who commits such a deed,” wrote Goethe, “ approves himself a thorough barbarian.”J Milman himself is constrained to admit that Moses was “ guilty of a crime, by the Egyptian law, of the most enormous magnitude.”§ He had incurred “ the unpardon able guilt of bloodshed.” Subsequently, in dealing with the first plague, Milman allows that the Egyptians viewed murder with the greatest abhorrence, and that “ To shed, or even to behold blood, was repugnant to all their feelings and prejudices.”|| Always ready to supply the deficiencies of Scripture, the Rabbis pretend that an Egyptian taskmaster concealed himself ’ in the. house of a Hebrew in order to debauch his wife, and on his being discovered Moses was appealed to. The meekest man on earth raised a spade to strike the Egyptian dead. While the fell weapon was poised aloft Moses consulted the Lord. Jahveh told him to smite and spare not; whereupon the spade descended on the Egyptian’s skull, yet it did not kill him, for he fell dead at the sound of God’s name.If Our “ very meek ” assassin thought his deed of darkness would . * Gould, vol. ii., pp. 83—86. f Exodus ii , 12. J Notes to West-iistlicher Divan. § History of the Jews, p. 35. II P. 38. Gould, vol.ii., pp. 81, 82. �HOLY MOSES. 55 never be discovered. But he found, like many another homicide, that murder will out. The very next day he interfered between two quarrelling Hebrews, one of whom turned upon him, ex claiming, “ Who made thee a prince and a judge over us ? intendest thou to kill me as thou killedst the Egyptian ?” Holy Moses, what a mess! Yesterday’s crime was on the wings of the wind. Pharaoh heard of it and “sought to slay Moses.” Here again the Babbis step in, telling us that his execution was ordered, the headsman flashed the sword over his head, yet he was not slain, for the Lord turned his neck into marble. Some declare that Gabriel assumed the semblance of the executioner, transmogrified that worthy into the semblance of Moses, and cut off the headsman’s own head with his own sword ! * Moses was off. He and Egypt had had enough of each other. ■Somewhere in “ the land of Midian ” he “ sat down by a well.” The priest of that country (had it only one priest ?) had seven daughters, who were shepherdesses. They came down to this well to water their father’s flocks, but the men drove them away, and Moses stood up and helped them. This piece of gallantry deserves notice, a's such things are exceedingly rare in the Bible. The girls introduced Moses to their father Beuel, who is afterwards called Jethro. Our hero took up his residence with the •old man and married his daughter Zipporah. Had it been Jacob, he would have married the whole seven, and had a fresh wife for every day in the week, keeping the prettiest for ■Sunday. Here Moses lived in clover, and as the years rolled by his memories of Egypt must have grown dim. But he was fated to return thither, and leave again after a butchery compared with which his assassination of the Egyptian was child’s play. The old Pharaoh was dead, a new Pharaoh reigned in his stead, and the Lord had work for Moses in Egypt. God appeared to him one day at Mount Horeb in the form of a conflagration. Moses saw a bush burning without consuming, and anybody who sees a bush in that condition may he sure the Lord is inside. Presently the divine voice shouted, “ Moses, Moses I” and Moses said “ Here 1” Then the voice cried “ Take off your shoes, for the ground is holy,” and Moses was quickly unshod, which proves that people who converse with gods are soon bereaved of their understandings. “Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.” although he afterwards became very familiar with the deity, who “ spake unto Moses face to face, as man speaketh unto his friend.”t Cardinal Newman asserts that Moses was the only person before Christ who enjoyed that honor, but he forgets our old friend — * Gould, vol. ii., p. 83. + Exodus xxxiii., 11 ; Deuteronomy xxxiv., 10. �56 BIBLE HEROES. Jacob who had an equally close view of the divine counten * ance. This God in the bush informed Moses that he was to visit Egypt, bring the Jews out of bondage, and lead them to Palestine. This was a big undertaking. Moses viewed it with reluctance, and told the Lord he was unequal to the task. But the Lord persisted, and Moses tried another tack, “ Who shall I say has sent .me?” he inquired. “I Am that I Am,” was the reply, and its exquisite definiteness was enough to raise a smile on the face of a jackass. But Moses was too frightened to grin, and he listened patiently while “ I Am that I Am ” sketched out the plan of campaign. When Jahveh had finished Moses protested that nobody in Egypt would believe such a story. “ Cast your rod on the ground,” said Jahveh. Moses did so, and it became a serpent. Our hero scurried off, but he was ordered to take the reptile by the tail, and it turned into a rod again. “ Now put your hand in your bosom,” said Jahveh. Moses did so, and when he drew it out it was white with leprosy. He put it back, drew it out again, and it was perfectly sound. “ There,” said Jahveh, “ do that brace of tricks in Egypt, and my word for it they’ll believe you.” Yet Moses still objected that he was very slow of speech, and desired the Almighty to send another messenger. Then the Lord grew wild, but he restrained himself, and promised Moses the assistance of his brother Aaron, who was a good speaker. “ You shall be his god,” said Jahveh, “ and he shall be your telephone.”! Moses gave in. He said good-bye to Jethro, fixed his wife and sons on one poor donkey, and set out for Egypt. On the road he put up an hotel, where “ the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.” The Authorised Version calls it “an inn,” and the Revised Version “a lodging house.” But whether it was a drinking shop or a teetotal' establishment, whether its sign was “ beer and spirits ” or “ beds fourpence a night,” God Almighty attempted there the life of his own missionary. How did he seek to kill him ? Did Moses get wind of it and secrete himself? Did the Lord chase him from room to room ? Did he poison the prophet’s “ nightcap,” and was Holy Moses too robust to succumb ? Such questions might be elaborated ad infinitum. Meanwhile the fact remains, unless the Bible lies, that Infinite Goodness designed a murder and Infinite Power failed in its execution. The conclusion of this extraordinary business was that Zipporah took a sharp stone, cut off her Son’s foreskin, and cast it at his father’s feet with the remark that he was “ a bloody hus band.” Then, says the Bible, God “ let him go.” From this it would appear that the Lord was angry with Moses because he or his son was uncircumcised, but the deity knew that very well * Genesis xxxii., 30. f Exodus iv., 16. �57 HOLY MOSES. when he despatched him on his mission. The Hebrew text, how ever, is very obscure, though what glimpses we get of its mean * ing are most ludicrous. Perhaps the whole passage is an inter polation in the interest of circumcision. Let it be added that Josephus is silent on this absurdity, which would have excited the risibility of his Gentile readers. Here again it should be noticed that Zipporah circumcises the boy with a stone implement. We have already indicated the significance of this fact (p. 21), and it only remains to add that a stone knife was also used by the Egyptian embalmers. Calmet asserts that the rite of circumcision was not forgotten by the Jews in Egypt, but the statement is not warranted by the Bible. Moses distinctly tells God that he is “ of uncircum cised lips.” What can this mean but that he was uncircum cised ? Had he attached a sovereign importance to the rite he would not have neglected to perform it on his sons. Why, also, did the Jews disregard this token of God’s solemn covenant with Abraham in their forty years’ wanderings ? After the death of Moses they were all circumcised by Joshua. Does not this show that “ the covenant ” with Abraham was unknown to them ? There can be little doubt that the story of Abraham’s circum cision was got up by the priests, long after his time. Moses was met in the wilderness by his brother Aaron. On reaching Egypt they called a meeting of the Jewish elders, who were soon convinced by the serpent and leprosy tricks, and then they paid Pharaoh a visit. “ The kings of Egypt,” says Milman, “ probably held that sort of open court or divan, usual in Oriental monarchies, in which any one may appear who would claim justice or petition for favor. ”f Pharaoh was requested to let the Jews go into the wilderness for a feast, and the petition was preferred in the name of Jehovah. “ Jehovah 1” he sneered, “ who the devil is Jehovah ? I never heard of the fellow. Be off with you, and mind your business.” This rebuff was followed by fresh oppression. The Jews were ordered to make bricks as before, but to find their own straw, and their taskmasters were more rigorous than ever. This caused them to remonstrate with Moses for interfering, and he in turn remonstrated with God in very plain and disrespectful language. “Nonsense!” said the Lord; “now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh.” What God did do, how he afflicted the poor Egyptians with all sorts of filthy, disgusting, and terrible plagues, is related in my Bible Romances. The Ten Plagues were the work of Jehovah and not of Moses, who was only his instrument. Suffice it to say that Pharaoh was eventually glad to let the Jews go on their own terms, and Moses led them out of Egypt in one night. Three millions of people moved more rapidly than a disciplined * Calmet, Moses. t P. 37 �58 BIBLE HEROES. army. Not only the sound in wind and limb marched off for the land of promise, which they never lived to reach, but also the blind, the lame, the paralysed, the bedridden, women just con fined, and children newly born. What a wonderful troupe they must have been ! Yet Moses, although he was eighty years old, headed them with the greatest alacrity. Miriam was still alive and was now a prophetess. We read that she took a timbrel, followed by all the women of Israel with similar instruments, and dancing at their head, she sang a song of glory to the Lord for drowning Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea. What a lively old lady! She came of a long-lived family, and was juvenile and frisky when other women stoop and crawl. We shall not follow the Jews through their idiotic wanderings in the desert, but merely deal with those incidents that affect Moses or exhibit his character, and those transactions in which he played a conspicious part. In some respects Moses had a hard time of it. Whenever anything went wrong the Jews grumbled lustily, abused him to his face, and frequently threatened to stone him. But he en joyed many compensations. He still possessed the magical rod, with which he wrought miracles, such as bringing water out of rocks. He smote one rock at Horeb and produced enough water from it to supply three millions of people. Whiston, the trans lator of Josephus, says that “ This rock is there at this day, as the travellers agree, and must be the same that was there in the time of Moses, as being too large to be brought thither by our modern carriages.”* Simple Whiston 1 His logic is like that of the gentleman who proved the truth of his ghost-story by ex claiming “ Why, there’s the very house in which it happened 1” Moses also rejoiced in a most intimate communion with his Maker. When he suffered from hypochondria, when the Jews murmured against his leadership, or when he had any knotty point to resolve, he used to get assistance from the Lord. Several of these interviews are recorded, but they are too numerous for citation. We shall presently see that Moses had great influence over God; in fact, he played the part of a candid friend, and by judiciously reminding the Lord of his weakness he sometimes brought him down from a towering flight of passion. The chief interview between God and Moses took place on Mount Sinai Jehovah came down from everywhere to the top of this eminence,! a distance which has never been computed. His descent was made “ in the sight of all the people.” Moses received an invitation to come up and spend a few days with him, and they had so much to talk about that it was nearly six weeks before they separated. During this time the Jews were warned Josephus, bk. iii.. ch. ii., footnote. t Exodus xix., 11, 20. �HOLY MOSES. 59 off the mountain by thunders, lightnings, clouds, and clangorous teampets ; and whoever touched it incurred the penalty of death. Moses took with him “ Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel,” who for once in their lives had a view of the Almighty. “ They saw the God of Israel: and there was ttttder his feet, as it were, a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in its clearness. And upon the aohles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand : also they saw God, and did eat and drink.”* This is a little mixed, yet it seems clear that seventy-three Jews took luncheon with God. Such a gross piece of anthropomorphism is very amusing. Still more amusing is Milman’s attempt to explain away their viw of God’s feet as “ symbolic fire ” over “ what appeared like a pavement of lapis-lazuli, or sapphire, or the deep blue of the dearest and most cloudless heaven.”! Moses went up to the top of Sinai, where he and God were wrapt in a cloud for forty days and nights. What God said to Moses may be found in Exodus, from chapter twenty-five to Chapter thirty-one. Most of it is ecclesiastical stuff, of no interest except to priests and their dupes. At the finish Moses received ** two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.” We are told that “ the tables were written on both sides,” and that “ the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God.”{ This is supposed to have been the decalogue. God quarried the stones, chiselled and polished them, and graved the letters. Were they still in existence they would be the most precious objects in the world. But, alas, they were soon smashed. Something put the “ very ■meek ” Moses out of temper, and in his passion he eclipsed the greatest sinners on record, save himself, by flinging down the fables and breaking all the ten commandments at once. The Rabbis say that the holy writing flew away to heaven.§ While Moses was up in the cloud the Jews had resorted to Holatry, in circumstances which will be treated in our next chapter on Aaron. God saw their backsliding and boiled with rage. “ Let me alone,”|| he said to Moses ; “ I’ll kill the whole lot, and breed a fresh people from you.” But Moses advised him to sprinkle cool patience upon the heat and flame of his distemper. “ Remember your promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” said he; “ don’t act rashly; above all think how the Egyptians will laugh at you.” Then the Lord cooled down and Said he was sorry he lost his temper. Nor was this the only occasion on which Moses pacified Jehovah, and restrained him from violating his own sixth commandment on the most tremendous scale. A similar scene occurred when the Jews were * Exodus xxiv., 9-11. f Milman, p. 53. t Exodus xxi., 18; xxii., 16. § Gould, vol. ii, p. 105. || Exodus xxxii., 10. �60 BIBLE HEROES. -terrified by the report of the spies who returned from Palestine * with stories of giants beside whom men were like grass hoppers. When Moses descended from Sinai and saw what the Jews were doing he broke the tables he was carrying, and was obliged to go up again for facsimiles. But the Lord declined to supply the stone this time. Moses had to bring his own, and the Lord worked in the ten commandments again with his finger. This lumpy piece of literature was stowed away in the ark, and both have gone the way of other antiquities. They will be found when we discover the Twelve Tables of ancient Romef and the gold plates of Joe Smith the Mormon. Yet their loss is grievous, for as Bishop Hall exclaims, “ Any manuscript scroll, written by the hand of a famous man, is laid up amongst our jewels; what place then should we have given to the hand-writing of the Almighty 1” $ No passion distorted the face of Moses when he descended the second time from Sinai. His face shone so gloriously that even Aaron was afraid to come near him, and he was obliged to wear a veil. According to some Rabbis, he had seen the original light which God created, and by which Adam saw from one end of the earth to the other; others say he had seen the Shekinah,§ whose glory his face reflected as the moon reflects the sun’s. The Bible informs us that Moses had seen something more re markable. “ Show me thy glory,” he said to Jehovah, who replied, “ thou canst not see my face : for there shall no man see me, and live.” This flatly contradicts the statement in the pre vious chapter that “ the Lord spake unto Moses face to face,” but the Bible is full of such discords. According to this story God gave Moses a view of his “back parts.” We are not told what Moses thought of them. Of course the story is as true as gospel, yet if it had not appeared in the Bible we should have laughed at the notion of God Almighty exhibiting his posteriors to a gentleman who wished to see his face. During his two confabulations with the Lord on Mount.Sinai, which Josephus cunningly runs into one, to avoid mentioning the golden-calf business, Moses “ tasted nothing of food usually appointed for the nourishment of man.”|| So says Josephus, but the Bible says “ he did neither eat bread nor drink water.”5T The reasonable inference is that he fasted altogether, and was miraculously supported. Elijah also went forty days and nights without food, and the same feat is recorded of Jesus.ff But ** Moses takes the palm. He went through two periods of absti* Numbers xiv. f Maine’s Ancient Law, p, 14. t Contemplations, book v.. § 6. § Gould, vol. ii, p. 108. || Josephus, book iii., chap. v. Exodus xxxiv., 28; Deuteronomy ix., 18 ; x,, 10. ** 1 Kings xix., 8. ft Matthew iv., 2. �HOLY MOSES. 61 fiance, and beat all ancient and modern fasting-men hollow, by • dispensing with liquids as well as solids. Moses was so great a favorite with God that all who insulted or opposed him were badly punished. When he married an Ethiopian woman, Miriam and Aaron set their backs up, and sneeringly inquired whethei the Lord had not spoken by them * as well as by Moses. Scripture does not go to the bottom of this quarrel, nor tell us whether Zipporah was still alive. She may have been dead, or Moses may have taken another wife during her lifetime, for he was a lusty old fellow, and Zipporah’s withered charms must have lost their attraction. Be that as it may, Miriam and Aaron took to nagging. This is a common incident in domestic circles, and it was scarcely worth the fuss God made about it. He was especially angry with the female sinner, and punished her with the loathsome and ghastly disease of leprosy, which was only removed at her brother’s intercession. * Here, again, the Lord flies into a fury, and Moses has to cool him down. Subsequently there was a kind of sedition raised by Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. The first of this trinity, say the Rabbis, was very wealthy. Moses had obtained the philosopher’s stone from God. To use an Hibernicism, this stone was a plant which grew in abundance on the shores of the Red Sea. Moses revealed the secret to Korah, who used it to transform large quantities of base metal into gold. His wealth grew so pro digious that eventually it took sixty camels to carry the keys of his treasuries.! With his riches increased his pride, and when Moses ordered the Jews to wear blue, Korah habited all his servants in scarlet and mounted them on red horses. So far the Hebrew old-clothes-men. According to the Bible, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, headed an agitation against the tyranny of Moses. Followed by a number of the people, and two hundred and fifty princes, they expostulated with Moses and Aaron for “ taking too much ” upon themselves. Prime Ministers had, in those days, an easy method of disposing of the opposition. Moses appealed to God, and the judicious deity sent an earthquake which swallowed up all the ringleaders, as well as a fire which consumed two hundred and fifty men who presumed to worship in rivalry with Aaron.! Goethe held that these revolts, and the perpetual murmurings of the Jews, resulted from their leader’s bad generalship. He maintained that Moses was as pooi’ a military commander as he was a legislator, and that the preposterous wanderings of the Hebrews in the wilderness were occasioned by his lack of courage and address. Certainly our hero took care to keep out of danger. When the Jews fought the Amalekites, Moses left * Numbers xii. f Gould, vol. ii., pp. 120—123, t Numbers xvi. �62 BIBLE HEB0ES. Joshua to lead the troops and repaired to the top of a hill to pray for their success. This significant fact is obscured by a cloud of supernaturalism. Moses, we are told, lifted his hands to heaven, and while he remained in that posture the Israelites won, but when he dropped his hands through weariness the Amalekites prevailed. Seeing this, Aaron and Hur set him on a stone, and held up his hands on either side. Thus the Amalekites were * routed and slaughtered, while, according to truthful Josephus, not a single Jew was lost in the engagement.! During their wars the Jews fought with Og the King of Bashan,j whose subjects they exterminated without regard to age or sex. This king was the remnant of a race of giants. His bed was thirteen feet six inches long and six feet broad. According to the Rabbis, Og was much larger than this. The sole of his foot was forty miles long, and a chair was made out of one of his teeth. A single drop of sweat from his brow weighed thirty-six pounds, while at one meal he consumed a thousand oxen and a thousand firkins of liquor. This unparalleled giant was destined to feel the prowess of Moses. Seizing a hatchet, our hero made a prodigious jump in the air, and hit Og on the ankle. The battle concluded by Og getting his head im prisoned in a monstrous ant-hill, and exposing the rest of his person to the merciless hatchet of his enemy.§ But whethei’ valiant or the reverse, Moses is credited in the Bible with extraordinary ferocity. His war policy was extermi nation. Men, women, and children, were all put to the edge of the sword, except when the virgins were reserved for a darker fate.|| When the Jews fought the Midianites, defeated them, killed all the males, and took the women and children captive, Moses was wroth with them for being so merciful. “ Kill every male among the little ones,” he sternly ordered, “ and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”^ What devil could exceed this bar barity ? One’s hand falters in transcribing the bloody text. Holy Moses was a tough old fellow, and unless his days had been shortened by a miracle he might have lived till now. For one little slip he was doomed to die in the wilderness. Joshua was consecrated his successor, and Moses ascended Mount Nebo, whence the Lord gave him a bird’s-eye view of the promised land. He was still vigorous, though a hundred and twenty years old; his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated. ** Beginning his career at eighty, when most men who live SO long * Exodus xvii., 9-13. f Josephus, book iii., chap. ii. J Numbers xxi; Deuteronomy iii. § Gould, vol. ii., pp. 124, 125. || Deuteronomy xx. Numbers xxxi., 17, 18. ** Deuteronomy xxxiv., 7. �HOLY MOSES. 63 are decrepid, lie bore the burden and heat of a forty years’ leadership of the most stiff-necked race in history, and was still as game as ever. Surely he was the original Grand Old Man. But his time had come. Somewhere on that hill the Lord settled his hash. God “ buried him in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor : but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.”* Josephus, however, says he disappeared in a cloud, but wrote in the holy books that he died, lest the Jews should say he had gone to God.f The Rabbis say that Gabriel, Michael, Israfiel, and Azrael, who acted as sextons at the funeral of Moses, defend his grave till the Judgment Day.! Before or after the burial (God know which) the Devil appears to have put in a claim for the corpse, but he was defeated by Michael after a fierce dispute.§ This curious legend has been more useful than might have been expected, for it furnished Byron with the central idea of his Splendid Vision of Judgment. According to the Talmud, an attempt was once made, when the Persian empire was at its zenith, to discover the sepulchre of Moses. A host of soldiers ascended Mount Nebo, and when they reached the top they saw the sepulchre at the bottom, but when they descended to the bottom they saw it at the top. The search, therefore, had to be abandoned.|| Some, however, have maintained that Moses did not die, but shared the destiny of Enoch and Elijah. “ Our masters,” says Maimonides, “ have assured us that our master Moses is not dead, but ascended into heaven, where he serves God to all eternity.”1T Curiously, in the Gospel story of the Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah are brought together with Jesus in a visible bodily form. Sceptics have asked how the disciples, who saw ** the trio, recognised Moses and Elijah who had gone to glory so many centuries before. But the true believer regards this as hypercriticsm, and answers that all things are possible with faith. Like other Bible heroes, Moses has been credited with the authorship of several books. The passage about Michael and the Devil in Jude is from the Assumption of Moses, a work now lost, but which was quoted by Origen and othei’ early Fathers. There were also an Apocalypse and. a lesser Genesis ascribed to him, as well as the Testament of Moses and the Mysterious Books of Moses, ft The Jews, in addition, affirm that he wrote eleven of the Psalms (xc. to c.), and both Jews and Christians have always asserted that he wrote the Pentateuch. But modern scholarship • Deuteronomy xxxiv., 6. f Book IV., chap. 8. f Gould, vol. ii., p, 135. § Jude, 9. || Gould, vol. ii., p. 1.36. Calmet, Moses ** Matthew xvii„ 3; Mark ix., 4 ; Luke ix., 30 ft Calme4, Moses. �64 BIBLE HEROES. has justified the criticisms of Spinoza and Voltaire, and the * Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is now abandoned by every authority. Ministers still preach the falsehood from the pulpit, but they dare not defend it outside their churches. Every scholar knows that the Pentateuch is not the work of one hand, and that the Mosaic law cannot be carried beyond the time of Ezra, after the Captivity, when a mass of priestly teaching was incorporated with ancient legends and traditions, and presented as ordinances of Moses so as to give them the authority of antiquity which so imposes on the credulous conservatism of barbarians.f Moses is probably a mythical figure. The Jews themselves, judging from their so-called historical books, never heard of him for nearly a thousand years after his death. Manetho, the Egyptian historian, who is “refuted” by Josephus, declares that the Jews were originally a band of Egyptian lepers who migrated under the leadership of a leprous priest. The Jewish historian resents the statement as an insult, but the Jewish scriptures reveal the most extraordinary precautions against leprosy, although Josephus denied their liability to the disease. Whatever is the truth on this point, the Bible figure of Moses is unhistorical. Robert TaylorJ is doubtless wrong in confusing Moses with Bacchus, but he is quite right in indicating their points of similarity. Both were of Egyptian origin, both were brought up in Arabia, both crossed the Red Sea, both carried a miraculous rod, both fetched water from the rock, both led armies through deserts, both were legislators, both were priests, both were soldiers, both were magicians, both were married, and, adds Taylor, both of them wore horns. According to scripture, there arose not a prophet like unto Moses, and the Jews mourned for him thirty days. If he existed, and bequeathed the intolerant and bloody maxims of the Jewish law, mankind has mourned for more than thirty days on his account. From that law is derived the persecuting spirit of Christianity, as well as of Mohammedanism; a spirit which has destroyed the happiness of millions, built thousands of dungeons for honest thought, and lighted the fires of a myriad stakes for the glory and honor of God. * Philosophical Dictionary, Moses. + Dr. W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testameiit in the Jewish Church, gives a fair resume of the conclusions of European scholarship, although he does not go to the full length of his own principles. He has been cast out as a heretic from the Scottish Church, but his opponents are too sensible to attempt a refutation of his teaching. Their weapons are persecution and silence. J Devil's Pulpit, vol. ii., No. 20. �PARSON AARON. The Church, said Bishop Warburton, has been from of old the Cradle and the nursery of the younger aristocracy. When a young fellow, belonging to the upper ten thousand, is under the necessity of making his own nest, they send him into one of the professions if he possesses a fair share of brains; if he has only a moderate quantity of that article, they send him into the army; and if he has none worth speaking of, they send him into the Church. A living is procured for him, preferment may be expected in time, and at the very worst he lolls at ease in the sleepy hollow of a parson’s paradise. Churches are the supports of privilege, and therefore it is not surprising that they are filled with scions of the nobility. The altar and the throne have always been in alliance. Priests and kings are excellent friends. Both are leagued against the people. One teaches and the other rules, one inspires credulity and the other practises oppression, one deludes and the other plunders, one works the confidence trick and the other walks off with the spoil. Without priestcraft, neither kingcraft nor aris tocracy could exist. Minds must be devastated before bodies can be fettered. Poi’ this reason every true lover of his species will echo the prayer of Shelley— “ Oh that the wise from their bright minds would kindle Such lamps within the dome of this dim world, That the pale name of Priest might shrink and dwindle Into the hell from which it first was hurled, A scoff of impious pride from fiends impure.”* Those who understand the immemorial alliance between the spiritual and the temporal powers for the subjugation of the people, will appreciate the congruity of Parson Aaron being the brother of Holy Moses. These worthies were bound together by the closest tie of blood, and therefore they understood each Other thoroughly. Moses ruled and Aaron worked the oracle. Moses gave his orders like a despot, and Aaron blessed them and approved them with a text. Moses organised and A a,ran preached; and whenever a big miracle was to be wrought the two brothers acted together, so as to impose effectually on their credulous slaves. * “ Ode to Liberty.' �66 BIBLE HEROES. Aaron’s nane signifies lofty or mountainous; or, according to Saint J erome, a mountain of strength He was, indeed, a tower * of strength to Moses, for he almost uniformly confirmed his brother's mandates in the name of God; but there was nothing very lofty in his character, and the only thing mountainous about him was his impudence. Three years older than Moses, he was still several years younger than their sister Miriam. How he lived, what he did, and in what society he moved, before his eighty-third year we have no information. He took a back seat till he was wanted, like all the personages in the story-books. God sent him out into the wilderness to meet Moses when he was commissioned to bring the Jews from Egypt. As this necessitated a journey of two months, Calmet infers that Aaron’s circumstances were above those of the lower class of Jews, who were kept to their daily bondage; and that though his family “ had no pretension to sovereign authority by descent, yet they were of consideration among the Israelites by property, or by office, or by some othei’ way.” This learned writer also maintains that as Aaron and Moses do not seem to have been elected to represent the Jews, their reception by Pharaoh argues his recognition of their superior status. But Scripture tells us that the two brothers had a meeting with “ all the elders of the children of Israel,”! who credited their mission from God when they beheld the “ signs,” What is this but an equivalent to election ? Moses had no “ gift of the gab,” but Aaron could “ speak well.”! When they appeared before Pharaoh, therefore, Aaron did all the speechifying; otherwise there might have been a scene like that in the Merchant of Venice, where Launcelot Gobbo, assisted by his father, solicits a place of Bassanio. Moses’s rod turned into a serpent at the burning bush in Horeb, but it was reserved for Aaron’s rod to perform this elegant trick before Pharaoh. When the King of Egypt asked for a miracle in proof of their mission from Jehovah, Aaron threw down his rod and it became a serpent. Pharaoh smiled, and exclaiming “ Is that your trump card ? ” he beckoned to his magicians, who instantly “ did in like manner with their enchant ments.’^ Dean Milman shuffles out of this awkward contretemps in the following manner. “The dexterous tricks,” he says, “which, the Eastern and African jugglers play with serpents will easily account for this without any supernatural assistance. It might be done, either by adroitly substituting the serpent for the rod; or by causing the serpent to assume a stiff appearance like a rod or staff, which being cast down on the ground might become again pliant and animated.”|| But * Calmet, Aaron. § Exodus vii., 2. f Exodus iv., 29-31. J Exodus iv , 14. || History of the Jews, p. 3>. �PARSON AARON. 67 this pretty explanation might cover Aaron’s trick as well as the magicians’, and _ proving too much is as bad as proving too little. Besides the spirit of such an expla nation is utterly unhistorical. All ancient nations, like all modern savages, believed in magical arts, and in the power of sorcerers to transform one thing into another. Egypt * was certainly no exception to the rule.f Jehovah himself is represented as admitting the power of rival deities, but boasting his own superiority. “ Against all the gods of Egypt,” he says, “I will execute judgment:J am the Lord.”t Even the early Chris tians never denied the miracles of Paganism; the only ques tion in dispute was which miracles were divine and which were diabolical. Surely Milman must have been disingenuous, for in the very next chapter of Exodus it is recorded that the magi cians of Egypt turned water into blood, and brought swarms of frogs out of the river “ by their enchantments.” Was this also legerdemain ? Milman does not say. He does not even mention these wonders. Silence in such a case was discretion, but its honesty is more than questionable. Probably Moses and Aaron felt chagrined when they saw their serpent trick capped by Pharaoh’s magicians. “Holy Moses! ” the elder brother might have exclaimed, “ what on earth are we to do now ? Our performance seems stale in these parts. I fancy we shall have to learn some fresh 1 business ’ or throw up the sponge altogether. Hadn’t you better go back to the burning bush and ask Jehovah for a new wrinkle ? Or stay, there is the leprosy trick you spoke about. Thrust your hand inside your shirt-front, Moses, and pull it out white as snow. Depend upon it these infernal magicians will scampei’ like hares if you do, foi’ they are punctiliously clean, and some of the Brahmans of this country will not pass within half-a-mile on the leeward side of one of our holy race.” What answer Moses would have made to this appeal may be left to conjecture, for a fresh miracle speedily extricated the brothers from their unpleasant position. There are some scep tics, however, who deny that there was anything miraculous in what occurred; for Aaron’s was a Jewish rod, and if, when trans formed into a serpent, it swallowed up the others, this was no more than might have been expected. But whether a miracle or a natural occurrence, this event decided the contest, for it was obviously impossible for the swallowed serpents to swallow their swallower. Whether Aaron’s serpent digested the others or vomited them up again, we are not informed. If it ejected them, every Egyptian sorcerer doubtless got his stick back; if not, Aaron’s stick must have been remarkably stout when he * Tylor, Primitive Culture, chap. iv. f Lenorimant, La iVLagie chez les Chaldeens, p. 90. J Exodus, xii., 12. �68 BIBLE HEROES. left the palace. Jehovah was the lord of lords, and Aaron’s rod was literally the stick of sticks. Aaron’s part in the tragi-comedy of the Ten Plagues, as well as that of Moses, is dealt with in our Bible Romances. Keally the harrying of Egypt was the work of Jehovah and not of his intruments. He, therefore, must receive the full credit of its filthinesss and atrocity. .When the Jews were well out of Egypt, and encamped before Sinai, Aaron had the pleasure of accompanying Moses up that mountain,, where he had the further pleasure of lunching with God Almighty. Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders, “ saw God, and did eat and drink.”* There can be no doubt as to this remarkable repast, but unfortunately none of the guests preserved the bill of fare. Had they done so, and had the docu ment been handed down to this age in a good state of repair, it would certainly fetch an enormous price in the auction-room. We may presume that God wrote it himself, and if he graved the decalogue with his finger, he probably scrawled this less dignified document with his big toe. Parson Aaron did not stay with Holy Moses during his forty days’ confabulation with Jehovah. He descended to look after the chosen people, who had astonishingly short memories. They were always forgetting the miracles and mercies of Jehovah, and whenever Moses turned his back they were off in search of fresh gods. . Now, on this occasion, Moses turned his back for a very long time. His absence was protracted enough to try the loyalty and patience of the most devoted adherents. Day after day the Jews looked up to “ the mount of God,” but no Moses appeared, nor did they so much as catch a glimpse of his bald head behind a rock. All they saw was clouds, clouds, clouds; and by-andbye they concluded that Moses and Jehovah had both ended in smoke. In this predicament they naturally wanted a fresh leader and a fresh god. Savages are like sheep in following their chief, and without a deity to worship they are like fish out of water. The Jews, therefore, requested Aaron to take the place of “ this Moses ” who had gone aloft, and they begged him to make them a few gods to ease their religious desolation. Aaron accepted the offer with great alacrity. Possibly he shared the general belief in the collapse of Moses, or thought he might be able to establish his own authority before his brother’s return when he might successfully bid him defiance. Aaron was the elder brother, yet he had to play second fiddle; and as he was not yet consecrated high priest, he perhaps thought his own merits were not sufficiently recognised and rewarded. Here then was a glorious opportunity of promoting his own interest, and Aaron not unnaturally seized it. “ I’ve Exodus xxiv., 11. �PARSON AARON. 69 played second fiddle to Moses long enough,” he may have exclaamed, “ and if ever he returns he shall play second fiddle to me.” Jehovah does not appeal’ to have entered into our hero’s Calculations. That was not an age when religion presented only Hobson’s choice. There were many gods, all independent of each other, and all warranted sound. What wonder, then, if Aaron thought he might, like Cain, go out from the presence of the Lord, and worship another deity. Orthodox commentators, however, prefer the theory that Aaron was a coward. He had not the courage to resist the popular clamor, and he incurred the wrath of God sooner than face the wrath of the Jews, who on several occasions attempted to stone Moses himself when they were annoyed or disappointed, lor our part, we leave every reader to decide for himself. Having agreed to make the Jews some new gods, Aaron desired them to furnish him with the material. He could not make a god out of his own head, unless it was a wooden one. M Bring your gold,” said Aaron. Gold ! It is the first demand of priests in every age and clime. They love gold. Judging by their practice, gold is their god. The felicities of heaven are for their dupes; they themselves wish “ in health and wealth long to live.” They read their title cleai’ to mansions in the skies, but they prefer the actual possession of a snug rectory or vicarage in this miserable vale of tears. The Jews brought Aaron their golden earrings, which were worn by men and women alike With this precious metal he * made a golden calf; or rather, we suspect, with so much of it as was left after he deducted his own liberal commission. Before the calf he erected an altar. Religious worship went on merrily again. The people “ sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play ” ; their play apparently consisting in naked dances before the new god. The Jews took readily to the worship of the golden calf. Some people, indeed, say they worship it still. Perhaps the calf was an imitation of the Egyptian god Apis, and thus the Jews simply returned to the religion of their old masters. Long after this they affected calf-worship. Jeroboam set up.two golden calves at Dan and Bethel,f and these were worshipped by Jehu even after he had “ destroyed Baal out of Ifirael.”J When Moses came down from the clouds and witnessed the saltatory worship of this golden calf, he not only broke all the ten commandments, but burnt the calf, ground it to powder, mixed it with water, and made the Jews drink the potion. Metallurgists would like to know how this was done, but Scrip* Exodus xxxii., 2. fl Kings xii., 28, 29. I 2 Kings x., 28, 29. �70 BIBLE HEROES. ture, which tells us many things we could dispense with, neglects to inform us of many things we are anxious to learn. After drinking, this water, those who had kissed the idol were, according to Jewish tradition, marked with gilt lips. Another tradition says that their hair turned red, and that is the origin of red hair among the Jews; while a third tradition declares that this watei’ gave them the jaundice, which was then introduced for the first time, though it has remained ever since. * Moses instructed the Levites to slay the idolators. They did so, and “there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.” Aaron, however, was only expostulated with. The chief sinner was spared because he belonged to the leader’s family. During the colloquy between the two brothers, Aaron pre varicated in a manner worthy of his profession. “ Look here Moses,” he said, “ I didn’t make that calf. ’Pon honor! I just put the gold into the fire, and the calf came out of itself.”f Soon afterwards Aaron was consecrated high priest, and the office was to be hereditary in his family for ever. Even those who assisted in the ceremonies of Jehovah’s worship were to belong to Aaron’s tribe of Levi. The consecration was perfoimed .by Moses. Taking Aaron and his sons, he washed them with water, and we dare say they needed it. They were then dressed in the priestly paraphernalia. Aaron’s outfit was extremely fine. Not only were all his garments of the richest material, but he wore a splendid mitre on his head, and a golden breastplate in front, inwrought with the mystic Urim and Thummim. These words signify light and perfection, or revelation and truth.X The article itself consisted of twelve precious stones, by which undoubtedly the high-priest divined. This superstition connected with precious stones was common in ancient ages. No oracle was complete without them. Among barbarians the superstition is still rampant, and it lingers even among civilised nations. Thousands of people in our own country believe in the occult virtues of precious stones, and only two or three centuries ago each had its specific influence on human health and fate. Aaron was also anointed with oil.§ Some of it was mixed with blood from the altar, and the beastly mess was sprinkled on his and his son’s garments.|| But most of the holy oil was poured over Aaron’s head. According to the Psalmist, it ran down his beard and fell upon the skirt of his garments.^ Dripping with the holy macassar, Aaron looked a greasy priest, but the stuff sanctified him. Like Christ, he was the “ anointed,” or the begreased. Anointing is still retained in the Catholic Church, and both the Catholic and the Protestant Church retain * Gould, vol. ii., pp. 105-107. f Exodus xxxii., 24. I Whiston, footnote to Josephus. § Leviticus viii., 12. || Ibid, v. 30. If Psalms cxxxiii., 2. �PABSON AARON. 71 baptism. “ When we come into life,” says Robert Taylor, “ we WBt be baptised, when we go out of it we must be anointed. We are baptised into Jesus Christ and greased into the Holy Ghost.”* Besides this holy oil, Aaron had a sacred scent for use in the 'tabernacle. God gave the prescription for making it, and pro nounced a frightful penalty against anyone who violated the patent, f Henceforth Moses and Aaron pulled well together. Each had his eminent place, and they could exercise their respective authorities without conflict. Woe unto the Jews when they set up their backs against this worthy pair ! Eor murmuring after the settling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and the slaughter of two hundred and fifty worshippers in their rival tabernacle, no less than 14,700 were killed.^ To prevent any further rivalry with Aaron in the priesthood, ♦he brothers hit upon an ingenious device. Speaking as usual in the name of God, Moses ordered the princes and elders to bring a rod for each of the tribes. This made eleven, and Aaron’s rod for the tribe of Levi made the twelfth. All were to be placed in the tabernacle, and the rod of God’s choice for the priesthood was to blossom. The plan was tried. Twelve rods were laid before the Lord overnight, and in the morning when Moses entered to see the result, Aaron’s rod “ was budded, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds.”§ Aaron’s blooming rod settled this dispute for ever. Yet the princes and elders of Israel must have been remarkable flats to accept such a decision. Aaron and Moses had access to the tabernacle at all hours, though they had not; and what was easier than foi’ the confederate brothers to design and execute this pretty miracle themselves ? Aaron had one little quarrel, however, with Moses, and he Was joined by Miriam. Moses manned an Ethiopian woman; one of a people who, for some mysterious reason, are referred to in Scripture as unable to change their skin. This was against the Jewish law and custom. Aaron and Miriam, therefore, “ spake against Moses.” But their murmurings vexed Jehovah, fwho actually came down, stood in the door of the tabernacle, and read them a severe lesson.|| Miriam was punished with leprosy and excluded from the camp, where she remained seven days, after which the Lord healed hei’ at Moses’s intercession. Aaron suffered no othei’ punishment than a bad frightening. Evidently Moses was a terrible old fellow to interfere with. Miriam apparently did not long survive this ordeal. She died in the desert of Zin. In the same year, accordingyto Y • * Devil's Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 332. t Num. xvi., 49. § Num. xvii., 8. f Exodus xxx., 34-38. [I Num. xii., 3-5. Num. xxi. �72 BIBLE HEROES. * -Josephus, Aaron died also. Scripture is not so precise, but it records both their deaths in the same chapter. Surely their disappearance so soon after their quarrel with Moses looks some thing more than a coincidence. The Bible story of Aaron’s demise is very singular. God tells Moses to inform his brother that his time has come. Moses and Aaron, and Eleazar the latter’s son, ascend Mount Hor. Arrived at a convenient spot, Moses strips Aaron’s garments off and puts them on Eleazar; Aaron then accommodatingly dies, and the uncle and nephew descend. Josephus, perhaps thinking that the story looked ugly, says that the transference of the priestly garments, and the death of Aaron, took place in the presence of the people.f Now when we remember that Aaron had seriously crossed Moses, and that the “ meek ” man was capable of sticking at nothing to serve his purpose, is it absurd to suppose that Aaron was “ burked ” on Mount Hor, with or without the assistance of his son and heir ? Eleazar may have actively participated in the murder, or his father and uncle may have left him in some hollow while they went further, and on arriving at a likely situation Moses may have killed Aaron as he killed the Egyptian so many years before. According to a Mohammedan tradition, Moses was accused of murdering Aaron, but he was exculpated “ by the angels bringing his body and exposing it to public view, or, say some, by the testimony of Aaron himself, who was raised to life for that purpose.’’^ This, at any rate, is certain, if anything in the story is certain. Three men went up that mountain and only two came down. They reported that the third had died there; but one of them had seriously quarrelled with the deceased, and the other inherited his office and pro perty. Gould gives a long account of the Jewish traditions as to the death of Aaron. When they reached the summit of Mount Hor they saw a cavern, and inside they found a death-bed prepared by the angels. Aaron reposed on it and gradually gave up the ghost. The Mohammedan tradition, however, says that there was a sarcophagus, with the inscription, “ I am for him whom I fit.” Moses tried to lie down in it, but his feet hung out; Aaron then got in, and it fitted him exactly. Subsequently, say the Rabbis, Aaron’s coffin ascended in sight of all the people, borne by angels, who carried it to heaven.§ Whatever Aaron’s fate may have been after death, he certainly enjoyed a well-feed office on earth. Could he have managed it, he would doubtless be in the ten-per-cent, business still; but fortunately even priests must die, and “ go home ” to heaven or otherwise as destiny decides. * Book IV., chap. iv. JjSale's Koran, Ch. xxxiii., footnote. f Book IV., chap, v., § 7. § Gould, vol. ii., pp. 127—131. �GENERAL JOSHUA. ----------- «♦------------- After Jehovah had dispatched Moses and secretly buried him, as Moses himself had eighty years previously dispatched and buried the Egyptian, Joshua was appointed to succeed him as leader of the Jews. He was “ full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him.” No doubt Moses laid his venerable hands on Joshua’s head, for religious superiors have always transmitted holiness to their inferiors through the skull. Jesus Christ laid his hands upon the apostles, saying “ Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” and the same performance is gone through still at the ordination of priests. A bishop lays his hands on the would-be curate’s cranium, and discharges through that Osseous structure as much of the Holy Ghost as the young gentleman is capable of receiving. Joshua, it appears, was nominated for the leadership by Moses, but God readily accepted the nomination, and proceeded to in struct the new chief in his duties. He told him to be above all “ strong and very courageous,” and to fight the inhabitants of Palestine according to the law of Moses, a piece of advice which Joshua was the last man in the world to neglect. What was this law of Moses ? We have already seen (p. 62) how Moses commanded the massacre of all the captive Midianites except the young virgins, all of whom were reserved as food for the lust of his brutal soldiery, with the exception of thirty-two that were assigned to “ the Lord,” or in other words to the priests. Let us now turn to Deuteronomy, where we * shall find the war-policy dictated by Moses in the name of the most merciful God. “ When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the sgities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of * Numbers, xxxi., 29, 40. �74- BIBEE heroes. these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.”* Such were the bloody maxims of inspired war-! Yet when England was excited by the report of Turkish atrocities in Bulgaria, how the clergy, who frequently attended indignation meetings, denounced both the Turks and their creed; declaring that the Koran sanctioned, if it did not command, those infamies; and protesting that there was no hope for a nation which derived its politics from such an accursed book. Mohammed did, indeed, give savage counsels to his followers in respect to war, but they sink into insignificance beside the counsels of Moses. Allah was far less brutal than Jehovah. The whole range of history reveals no more ferocious cruelty than the Jews perpetrated in Canaan, when they took forcible possession of cities they had never built and fields they had never ploughed. “ How that red rain will make the harvest grow ! ” exclaimed Byron over the slaughter of Waterloo; and surely the first harvest the Jews reaped in Canaan must have been luxuriantly rich, for the ground had been drenched with human blood. Joshua was soon ordered to cross the river Jordan and begin the holy war. . But before doing so he dispatched two spies to recon noitre Jericho, which was the first place to be attacked. They reached this famous old city by night, and of course required lodgings. Instinct, or the Holy Spirit, led them to a brothel.f Mrs. Rahab, who presided over this Academy of Venus, proved a very good friend to the interlopers; for when their arrival was bruited abroad, and the king’s messengers came to arrest them, she hid them beneath a heap of flax on the roof, and declared they had just left. Pursue them quickly, she added, and you are sure to overtake them. These intelligent officers, without searching the premises, set out in chase of the imaginary runaways; and when the coast was clear Mrs. Rahab, whose house was erected on the town wall, let her two guests down “by a cord through the window.” But before they left she made a covenant with them. Like many other ladies of easy virtue, or no virtue at all, Mrs. Rahab was inclined to piety. She had conceived a great respect for Jehovah, and was assured that his people would overcome all their enemies. She had also a great respect for her own skin; so she.made the spies promise, on behalf of the Jews, that when Jericho was taken they would spare her and all hei’ relatives ; and they were to recognise her house by “ the line of scarlet thread in the window;” red, as old Bishop Hall says, being the saving color. Mrs. Rahab was clearly a traitress ,to her own countrymen. * Deuteronomy, xx., 10-16. f Judges ii., 1. �GENERAL JOSHUA. 75 She not only harbored the enemy’s spies, but actually made a profitable alliance with the invader. According to the law of all countries, whether barbarous or civilised, she was guilty of treason and deserved to be hung. But besides being a traitress she was also a harlot. Josephus judiciously describes hei as an * * innkeeper. Milman blandly says she kept “ a public caravansary.”f Whiston, with whom discretion was not altogether the better part of valor, tries to explain the harlotry away. *" Observe,” he says, “ that I still call this woman Rahab, an ■inn-keeper, not a harlot; the whole history, both in our copies, and especially in Josephus, implying no more. It was indeed so frequent a thing, that women who were inn-keepers were also harlots, or maintainers of harlots, that the word commonly used for real harlots was usually given them.”J But this is a Very lame apology for Mrs. Rahab. There is nothing in the ■“ whole history ” that contradicts her being a lady of pleasure; and as the Bible is not an ordinary book, but God’s Word, its language must be taken as it stands. If the Lord meant us to regard Mrs. Rahab as a virtuous woman, he would have em ployed another word than “ harlot.” Some indeed maintain that zona does not mean “ harlot ” at all, but it was so under stood by the translators of the Septuagint, and by St. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate. Our Authorised Version trans lates zona as “ harlot,” and thus it is allowed to stand in the Revised Version. Mrs. Rahab, traitress and prostitute, was duly saved from the sack of Jericho, She married Salmon, a prince in Israel, of very questionable taste. They begat Boaz, who begat Obed, who begat Jesse, who begat David, and so on to “ David’s greatei * ®on.”§ The blood of Mrs. Rahab, therefore, flowed in the veins of Jesus Christ. She was adopted into the holy line of the Savior’s ancestry, and both James and Paul have sung her praises.|| Each calls her a harlot, but one celebrates her ■“ works ” and the other hei “ faith,” and between them they * make her a most illustrious saint. Joshua’s two spies returned safely to the camp, and reported “ all serene.” The Canaanites were very much frightened, and their terror would render them an easy prey. The next morning Joshua got up early and told the Jews that God was going to do wonders. They wanted to get on the ■other side of Jordan, and the Lord intended to ferry them over. The river was swollen at that time and could not be forded, nor had the Jews any means of navigation. But God was with them, and he who had manipulated the Red Sea was quite equal * Book V., chap. i. f History of the Jews, p. 92. J Footnote to Josephus. § 1 Chronicles i.; Matthew i, || James ii., 25; Hebrews xi., 31. �76 BIBLE HEROES. to dealing with the Jordan. Forward went the priests, bearing the ark, followed by all the people; and as the holy feet of the men of God “were dipped in the brim of the water ” the river parted in twain; on one side the waters “ stood and rose up upon a heap,” while on the other side they “ failed and were cut off.” No miracle, however, was worked further up the river to stop the supplies, and therefore the “ heap ” must have been a pretty big one before the Lord let it fall. Standing in the river-bed “ firm on dry ground,” the priests kept the road clear while the Jews “ passed over right against Jericho.” They seem to have done this in less than a day, but three millions of people would require a week. Perhaps Old Nick was commissioned to accelerate their progress with his toothpick; or perhaps the Lord assisted them more comfortably, after the fashion of Richard Baxter, the famous author of Tike Saints’ Everlasting Rest, who wrote a tractate entitled “A Shove to a Heavy-A—d Christian.” When the Jews were over Jordan the “ heap ” of water tum bled down. Joshua and his people then encamped near Jericho, in readiness for still greater wonders. Three days afterwards the manna, on which God had fed the Jews for forty years, with such fatal results that only two of them survived the trial, was suddenly stopped. Manna is “ angel’s food,” made of the “ corn of heaven.”* It was good enough for the chosen people while they loitered in the wilderness, but henceforth J ehovah’s fighting cocks needed a more stimulating diet. The generation born in the desert had grown up uncircum cised, although it is difficult to understand how such a rite, if it was believed to be the mark of God’s covenant with the Jews, could ever have been neglected. Joshua, therefore, was ordered to amputate their foreskins, and he “ made him sharp knives ” for the purpose. According to the letter of the narrative he was the sole surgeon for a million and a half of patients. Allowing a minute for each operation, it would have taken him three years to complete the business, yet it appears to have been transacted in a single day. Samson’s jaw-bone was nothing to Joshua’s knife. Orthodox critics will, of course, contend that Joshua circum cised the Jews as a general victuals his army; that is, he simply caused it to be done; and no doubt this would be a rational interpretation of the text if Joshua were not a mira culous personage. Why should not a surgeon perform fifteen hundred thousand operations in one day as easily as an orator could address an audience of three millions ? This oratorical feat is recorded of Joshua. After the capture of Ai he gathered all the Jews together, men, women, and children, and even the strangers, and read to them all the law of Moses without omitPsalms lxxviii., 24, 25. �77 GENERAL JOSHUA. ting & single word. It must have been a long job, and Joshua * ffiittlt have been pretty dry before the finish. But the greatest marvel is how he made himself audible to three million people at once. Either their ears were very sharp or his voice was terribly loud. General Joshua could outroar Bottom the weaver by two or three miles. One wonders how a voice, which oould be heard distinctly on the outskirts of such a vast audience, did not break the tympanums of the front ranks. But perhaps they put the stone-deaf in the first rows, then the half-deaf, and then the hard of hearing, while those with more sensitive ears stood at a merciful distance. Soon aftei’ this wholesale circumcision, and while the Jews were thinking of going to Jericho, Joshua had a curious experi ence, exactly like the one that happened to Balaam’s ass. He saw “ a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand.” Joshua walked up and asked the stranger whether he was for or against them. I am “ captain of the host of the Lord,” was the reply. Good heavens! General Joshua was a “ big pot,” but here was a superior officer of the Lord of Hosts. Our hero immediately fell flat, and he was further ordered to take off his shoes. Moses was told to do the same thing when he met God in the burning bush. We may therefore presume that shoemakers will have to follow some other trade in heaven. _ From this celestial messenger Joshua received precise instruc tions as to the assault on Jericho, and it must be admitted that the Lord’s way of storming fortresses is unique in military literature. “ Ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams’ horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets. And it shall come to pass, that when they make a long blast with the rams’ horn, and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him.”f What general except Joshua ever received such extraordinary instructions from his commander-in-chief? God’s soldiers need no cannon or bomb-shells, nor even battering rams or catapults; all they require is a few priests—and that article never mna short—a few rams’ horns, and good lungs for shouting. God’s orders were obeyed. Six days in succession the Jews went round the wall of Jericho behind their tootling priests. Probably the garrison wondered why they did not come on, and felt there was something uncanny in this roundabout seige. On the seventh day the Jews went round the wall seven times, and either they must have had good legs or Jericho was very small for a capital city. Suddenly the priests trumpeted like mad * 'Joshua viii., 30-35. t Johsua vi., 3-5. �78 BIBLE HEROES. elephants, the Jews shouted like the Falls of Niagara, and the wall of Jericho fell flat—as flat as the fools who believe it. Will some inspired sky-pilot kindly inform me whether the whole wall fell flat, as seems implied by the text, “ the people went up into the city, every man straight before him.” If so, 1 should like to learn what became of Mrs. Rahab’s house which was “ upon the town wall,” and what was the use of her “scarlet thread m the window ” when her Academy of Venus was in ruins. Jericho was. in the hands of Jehovah’s bandits, and they carried out his bloody instructions to the letter. Even the passion of lust was not allowed to conflict with their prime duty of slaughter. The universal cry was “ Kill, kill, kill 1” God told them to “ leave alive nothing that breatheth,” and Joshua was there to see the command obeyed. The army of the Lord “ utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.”* Only Rahab and her relatives were spared; all the rest were massacred; and when the pall of night fell upon the doomed city it covered a scene that might have made the very devils shudder. Surely if the blood of man “ crieth from the ground,” here was enough to have sounded to the stars. Joshua and the priests understood each other. All the silver and the gold, and all the vessels of brass and iron, were “ put into the treasury of the house of the Lord.” Then Jericho was burnt, and Joshua laid a solemn curse on whomsoevei’ should rebuild it. But although “the Lord was with Joshua” the curse was futile. Jericho was rebuilt. The city existed in Jesus Christ’s time, and was next in importance to Jerusalem. A certain man travelling to Jericho fell among thieves; but if he or any other mortal ever fell among worse thieves than Joshua and his marauders, it would need a pen dipped in something worse than hell-fire to chronicle the encounter. When the Jews attacked Ai they were repulsed, and no less than thirty-six were killed. This prodigious loss melted their hearts and they became as water. Joshua rent his clothes, fell upon his face before the ark with the elders of Israel, and all of them, peppered their ■ greasy Hebrew locks with dust. After remaining in this position for several hours, Joshua expostulated with God, asked him whether he had brought his people over Jordan only to betray them to theii’ enemies, and expressed a hearty wish that they had never crossed at all. God, however, told him to get up. Some one had stolen a portion of the spoil of Jericho, all of which belonged to the Lord, or in other words ^e. pGests, who evidently concocted this pretty story. In quisition was made at once, and “ Achan was taken,” who con Judges vi., 21. �GENERAL JOSHUA. 79 fessed to having appropriated “ a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight.” His doom was swift and terrible; he was Stoned to death, and his body consumed with fire. Nor was he the only sufferer. Jehovah (or the priests) was not so easily appeased. Achan’s sons and daughters, and even his oxen, asses, and sheep, were served in the same manner. A cairn was raised over the cinders, and then “ the Lord turned from the fierceness of his anger.” This holocaust put him in a good temper, and the heathen felt the smart of his loving-kindness. Joshua captured Ai forthwith; all the inhabitants, from the oldest man to the youngest babe, were massacred ; and the city was burnt into a desolate heap. After this feast of blood Joshua “ built an altar unto the Lord God of Israel in Mount Ebal,” and Jehovah seems to have been mightily well pleased with the whole business. t The Gibeonites obtained a league by craft, but though their lives were spared they did not escape slavery. The five kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon, who united their forces, were defeated by Joshua; and as their armies fled from the field “ the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them,” killing more by this stratagem than the Jews slew with the sword. When we read that Pan fought with the Greeks against the Persians at Marathon, we must regard it as a fable; but when we read that Jehovah fought with the Jews against the five kings at Gibeon, we must regard it as historical truth, and if we doubt it we shall be eternally damned. But the most remarkable incident of this battle was Joshua’s miracle. For the purpose of enabling God and the Jews to kill all the fugitives, which could not have been achieved in darkness, he cried out, “ Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.” Those obedient orbs immediately stood still, the day was lengthened, and the slaughter of the enemy was completed. What Joshna stopped, if he stopped anything, was not the sun but the earth; and science tells us that a sudden arrest of the earth’s motion would generate heat enough to cause a wholesale conflagration. But nothing of the kind happened. Nor, indeed, has any ancient nation, except the Jews, preserved the slightest re cord of Joshua’s miracle. Josephus says that “ the day was leng thened,” but he of course borrowed from the Jewish scriptures. Whiston’s footnote on the story is perfectly nonsensical. Mil man discreetly commits himself to no opinion on the subject. Bishop Watson, in his reply to Thomas Paine, thinks it “ idle, if n©t impious, to undertake to explain how the miracle was per formed.” But he adds that, “ a confused tradition concerning Ws miracle ” was preserved by the Egyptians. The only evi * * Watson’s Apologies, p, 220. �80 BIBLE HEROES. dence he gives is a passage from. Herodotus about the sun having twice risen in the west and set in the east in Egypt. But wl^at has this to do with Joshua ? Such prodigies were common among credulous eastern peoples in ancient times. Even the Greeks believed that when Jupiter personated Amphitryon, and visited jhis bride Alcmena, the amorous god lengthened the night to prolong his enjoyment; and surely this story is quite as credible, and quite as moral, as the Bible story of Joshua's lengthening the day to prolong a massacre. While the Jews pursued their fugitive enemies the five con federate kings hid themselves in a cave. Joshua ordered the mouth to be closed with big stones until the pursuit was ended, when the poor devils were brought out and treated with great ignominy. Their necks were used as footstools by the captains of Israel, and afterwards they were hung on separate trees. This highly civilised treatment of prisoners shows that Joshua and the Jews were worthy of their God. General Joshua’s remaining career was one of uniform blood shed. The history, indeed, is monotonous in its brutality. Makkedah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir, and other cities were captured; and in every case the inhabitants were exterminated. Men, women, and children were involved in a promiscuous slaughter. Joshua “ left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God had commanded.”* Dumb animals, also, were treated with equal cruelty; the horses, for instance, being maliciously houghed,f and allowed to perish by a slow and agonising death. When Jehovah’s bandits had obtained possession of Palestine by wars of unparalleled ferocity, General Joshua gave up the ghost at the age of one hundred and ten.J He was buried at Timnath. Josephus says he led the Jews for twenty-five years.§ General Joshua’s father was called Nun; his mother’s name is unknown, but according to a Jewish tradition the lady who had the signal honor of bringing this pious murderer into the world was Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron.|| Neither the Bible nor any other authority assigns him a wife; and, indeed, it is highly probable that such a slaughterer of his kind was a total stranger to the domestic sentiments. We may presume that he gratified his lust on some of the captive females, who were unfortunate enough to survive the massacre of their fathers and brothers, and to fall into the hands of the vilest horde of cut-throats that ever polluted the earth. Scripture tells us he was “ full of the spirit of wisdom,”*T but the inspired narrative [ of his career exhibits a moral monster whose effigy merits a conspicious place in the Chambei’ of Horrors.* § * Joshua x., 40. f Joshua xi., 6. 9. f Joshua xxiv., 29. § Josephus, bk.v., chap. i. || Gould, vol. ii.,p. 138. Deut. xxxiv., 9. �JEPHTHAH & CO. After the death of General Joshua the Jews “ forsook the Lord and worshipped Baal and Ashtaroth.” Baal was identical with Bel of the Babylonians, and with Moloch, although in the course of time he improved, and became “ no longer the god of destruc tion and death in nature, but the father of life, the supreme dispenser of light and heat, the principle and cause of the Renewing which yearly clothes the earth with luxurious vegeta tion.”* This Baal was evidently the sun. Ashtaroth was a feminine deity, better known as Astarte, representing the moon, whose periodicities are intimately associated with those of the human sexual system. She was the goddess of voluptuousness and fecundity, as Baal was the god of strength and virility. Their worship included the most incredible lasciviousness, but Who can wonder that an amorous people like the Jews should constantly turn their backs on the stern Jahveh, and court the Softer deities of Syria ? Their bacchic strains at midnight were better than the horrid shrieks of human sacrifice; the fever of lust was less awful than the rage of murder. But if the Lord thought otherwise, why did he not take pre cautions against their natural tendency ? He clearly foresaw the mischief, for he purposely left in the promised land “ five lords of the Philistines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, * and the Hivites that dwell in Mount Lebanon,”f in order that his chosen people might be tempted into idolatry. They were left to “ prove Israel, whether they would hearken unto the commandments of the Lord,” as well as “ to teach them war, at the least such as before knew nothing thereof”; a proceeding Which strikes the carnal mind as simply infamous. With all their fondness for fighting, the Jews were less san guinary than Jehovah, and they intermarried with the remnants of the native population. This displeased the Lord, who objected to the spoiling of their precious blood, which had “ rolled through rascals ever since the Blood.” But he was still more displeased when the Jews “ served Baalim and the groves.”}: That was an unpardonable sin, for what god could ever stand rivalry in the Opea market ? Therefore the Lord “ sold them ” into the hands of * Jules Soury, The Religion of Israel, p. 53. t Judges iii, 3. t For “ groves ” the Revised Version substitutes ‘‘ Asheroth,” which were phallic emblems. s. �82 BIBLE HEROES. the king of Mesopotamia, who ruled them for eight years. “ Sold them ” is a capital phrase. Sooner or later the gods always sell those who are foolish and weak enough to trust them. During several generations there was a perpetual alterna tion of loyalty and treason on the part of the Jews. Foi’ long periods they were punished by subjection to their enemies; then the Lord took pity on them, and “ raised up ” Judges to deliver them. The first important Judge was Ehud. He was a Benjamite and left-handed, and he delivered Israel in a very left-handed fashion. Under pretence of bringing a present to Eglon, the king of Moab, to whom the Jews were then subjected, he obtained a private interview. “ I have a message from God unto thee,” said Ehud. Eglon rose from his seat, and being “ a very fat man ” he displayed a fine abdomen, into which Ehud imme diately thrust God’s message in the shape of a dagger. It pene trated so deeply that it could not be withdrawn, and in the beautiful language of Scripture “ the dirt came out.” Ehud escaped, gathered the Jews together, and fell upon the soldiers of Moab, all of whom perished in the battle. They were ten thou sand in all, and “ not a man escaped.” God’s chosen people, and especially their scribes, had mar vellous notions of arithmetic. Ten thousand Moabitish soldiers had sufficed to overawe for eighteen years a people numbering three millions with six hundred thousand men of arms 1 It could scarcely be done even now when trained soldiers with rifles have such immense advantage over undisciplined and ill armed multitudes; and how much less when the weapons and methods of warfare were rude, when men fought mostly hand to hand, and one man was as good as another. As the Lord “ raised up ” this “ deliverer,” we are justified in assuming that he instigated the assassination. According to Scripture, therefore, the assassination of obstructive monarchs is a virtuous deed. Christian apologists, who make rich capital out of the French Revolution, have wasted much denunciation over the guillotining of Louis XVI., conveniently forgetting the story of" Ehud, who slew Eglon treacherously, whereas the execution of Louis XVI. was at least a formal act after a public trial. Eighty years’ rest followed Ehud’s performance; then the Jews went wrong again, and were oppressed by the Philistines. Once more the Lord raised them up a deliverer, whose whole history is told in a single verse. His name was Sham gar, and * he “ slew of the Philistines six hundred men with an ox goad,” probably skewering them like cat’s-meat. Milman describes this formidable weapon as “ a strong pike, eight feet long, and pointed with iron.”f Shamgar was a tough fellow, his ox goad Judges iii., 31. f History of the Jews, p. 106. �JEPHTHAH AND CO. 83 was tough, the story is tough, and it requires a tough throat to swallow it. After this “ the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord,” who once more “ sold them” to Jabin, king of CaBftan. This monarch “ mightily oppressed them,” for he had nine hundred chariots of iron. How many soldiers he had we are not informed. But unless they were a great army, it is difficult to understand how they could mightily oppress a nation, as populous as Scotland is now, and nearly as populous a® England was in the reign of Elizabeth. Our surprise is in creased when we subsequently read that his iron chariots, his army, and his great captain Sisera, were all overcome by Barak ten thousand Jews. A woman stirred Israel up to fight. She was called Deborah, and her husband’s name was Lapidoth. Doubtless he was merely ft necessary appendage to his wife. She was a prophetess, and gh® “judged Israel at that time.” She “ dwelt under the palmteee of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in Mount Ephraim ; and the children of Israel came up to hei’ for judgment.”* Clearly ih® was a Sibyl,f who told fortunes and revealed the secrets of futurity. People who practise that business now are sent to gaol, but in ancient times they were honored and trusted, as they still are among savages. At her instigation Barak, the son of Abinoam, collected ten thousand men to fight Jabin ; and Sisera gathered together all his chariots and warriors to put down the impudent rebel. But the Lord took part in the battle, and the Canaanites were utterly discomfited. Every man of them was slain, except Siiera himself, who alighted from his chariot and fled on foot towards the tent of Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite, who was OU terms of friendship with king Jabin. Jael came out, proffered him shelter, gave him refreshment, covered him with a mantle, invited him to sleep, and promised to watch for the enemy While he slumbered. Relying on her good faith, the weary general sank into repose, and when he was unconscious his treacherous . hostess, violating the sacred laws of hospitality, gmote a nail into his temples and fastened his head to the ground. Then she went out to meet Barak, brought him into her tent, and showed him his enemy treacherously and brutally assassinated. A generous soldier would have revolted at the infamous spectacle, but Barak and Deborah sang a long duet, in which they said, “ Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be.”J Blessed forsooth 1 Surely a woman who inveigles a hunted man into her tent, pretends old friendship for him, lulls him into a false security, and murders him in his sleep, is a fit mate for the Devil; nay, a fit spouse for Jehovah * Judges iv., 4, 5. f Tylor, Primitive Culture, vol. ii., pp. 215—228. J Judges v., 24. �84 BIBLE HEROES. himself, who might have bred from her many a “ man after his own heart.” Coleridge has expended some fine eloquence on Deborah, calling her “ a high-souled, heroic woman,” and the “ Hebrew Bonduca.”* But her pious rejoicings over the treachery of Jael, and the cold-blooded assassination of a fugitive general after the extermination of his army, reveal a dark and ferocious temper. Israel had rest another forty years, but they went wrong again, and the Lord “ delivered them into the hand of Midian.” But these Midianites had been utterly destroyed by Moses; their cities were burnt, their males and married women were slain, and the young virgins reserved for a darker fate.f Yet here they are again, stronger than ever, and able to oppress the Jews for seven years! Gideon was “ raised up ” to deliver the Jews from this thraldom. Visited by an angel, who wrought miracles for a sign of his divine mission, Gideon demolished his father’s altar dedicated to Baal, and prepared for war with Midian. But before commencing the campaign he demanded a supreme sign of God’s favor. Laying a fleece of wool on the ground at night, he found it in the morning wet with dew while the ground was dry. The following morning the ground was wet and the fleece dry. What a pity that fleece was not preserved, like the blood of St. Januarius in the bottle at Naples; and as the congealed blood liquefies annually under the hand of a priest, so the fleece might still exhibit its miraculous character. Unfortunately, it is lost. The priests fleece their pious sheep, but they never show them anything so wonderful as Gideon’s fleece. Gideon’s army numbered thirty-two thousand, but the Lord reduced it to ten thousand, and finally to three hundred, by “ a singular process, of which it is difficult to discover the meaning.” J Brought down to the river to drink, some of the army lapped the water like dogs, and they were selected. Gideon and his doggish three hundred advanced by night against the Midianites, who were multitudinous like grass hoppers, and their camels as the seashore sand. Each Hebrew soldier carried a lamp in a pitcher. Nearing the enemy, they broke the pitchers and flourished the lamps in their left hands, while in their right hands they blew their trumpets. The Midianites were scared and thrown into great disorder. They fought each other by mistake and then fled, the Jews _ pursuing them with hideous slaughter, and bringing back to Gideon the heads of two princes as trophies of victory. Jehovah’s prize fighters were on a level with the Zulus. Imagine the French beating the Germans, and bringing the heads of Bismarck and Moltke to Paris ! Even the French “infidels” would scarcely do * Confessions of an Enquiring Spirit, Letter iii. J Milman, p. 110. f Numbers xxxi. �JEPHTHAH AND CO. s> * that but God’s favorites thought it a glorious part of war, and he never taught them better. Having killed 120,000 Midianites, Gideon captured two cities, and punished Succoth for refusing him assistance by whipping its elders with thorns and briars. Being invited to rule the * dews, he declined, but at length consented on condition of re ceiving all the golden earrings taken from the 'slaughtered Midianites, and other precious spoil. With a portion of this treasure he “ made an ephod,” and put it in his own city, Ophrah; where “ all Israel went a whoring after it,” a circum stance which is difficult to understand, as an ephod was not an idol, but a costly, ornamental part of the priestly raiment. Israel had rest for another forty years. Why forty ? Because that was a sacred number, and we are not reading history but romance. Gideon lived to a good old age and left a numerous family. Like all God’s favorites he was a thorough-going poly gamist. He had l£ many wives ” and at least one “ concubine.” They bore him seventy-one sons, and perhaps as many daughters. Gideon was succeeded by Abimelech, who put his seventy brothers to death; and he was followed by Tola, who ruled for twenty-three years, and added thirty male children, and God knows how many female children, to the population. When Tola died the Jews indulged in a perfect carnival of idolatry. They worshipped the gods of all their neighbors with the utmost impartiality; which so provoked the Lord that he let the Phili stines and the Ammonites oppress them until they repented, when he raised them up a deliverer in Jephthah the Gileadite. This worthy was the son of a harlot, and being driven from his father’s house by the legitimate children he had taken to the life of a freebooter. But he was elected chief by the elders of Gilead when they resolved on war with Ammon. Before going out to battle, “ the spirit of the Lord ” being upon him, he vowed that if he returned victorious he would offer whomsoever came out of his own house to meet him as a burnt offering. The Ammonites were smitten with immense slaughter, and Jephthah returned to Mizpeh, where his daugher, who was ignorant of his vow, came out to meet him with dance and song. The pious father was very sorry, for “ she was his only child,” but he kept his promise to God, and after allowing the unfortunate girl two months to bewail her virginity, he “ did with hei- according to his vow.”f Ordinary Christians shrink from the literal horror of this story, and welcome every attempt of modern commentators to explain it by the subterfuges of a later faith. But a slight acquaintance with ancient creeds would diminish their surprise. Human sacrifice is almost invariably found in certain Stages of religious culture. No matter where we turn * Judges viii, 16. t Judges xi., 30-40. �86 BIBLE HEROES. —to Phoenicia, Carthage, Assyria, Arabia, Gaul, Rome, Greece, India, Mexico, or Peru—this dark and bloody rite has prevailed; * and it has been found in recent times among various African tribes, in the South Pacific islands, and among the Mongols and the American Indians, f All the great Semitic gods, from Moloch downwards, were ravenous for human victims, and there is nothing overstrained in the terrific thirteenth chapter of Flau bert’s Salam/mbd. Nor was the God of Israel an exception to the rule. “ There is, indeed,” says Professor Soury, “ no doubt that human victims were offered to Jahveh” in primitive times.J Like Moloch, Jahveh claims his first-born. “ The first born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me,” he says, “ foi’ all the first born are mine.”§ And Jephthah’s fulfilment of his vow was in accord with the text in Leviticus (xxvii., 28-29), which declares that both beast and man devoted to the Lord shall not be redeemed, but “ shall surely be put to death.” Not until the twelfth century of our era, when Rabbi Kimchi wrote on the subject, was there any attempt to dispute the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter. Josephus distinctly says “ he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering.” || St. Ambrose deplores Jephthah’s cruelty; St. Jerome says that God permitted the sacrifice to punish the imprudent father for such a rash vow; St. Chrysostom expresses a similar opinion, which was also adopted by Justin Martyr and Theodoret; and the great St. Thomas, while censuring Jephthah’s rashness, acknowledges that the faith and devotion which inclined him to make this vow proceeded from God.TT Rabbi Kimchi proposed to read, “ It shall be consecrated to the Lord if it be not fit for a burnt offering,” or “ it shall be offered for a burnt offering, if fit for it.” Simon Patrick ** followed this line, but confessed that the stream of interpreters ran in the contrary way. Adam Clarkeff takes the same position, but he supports it with a priori reasons of no weight against the text, which, as Lnther says in his marginal note, “ stands there clear.” Our Authorised Version shows “ a distinct disposition to tone down the meaning of the original,” says the Rev. Dr. Wright, who alleges that the Hebrew “ whosoever goeth out from the doors of my house,expressly refers to a person, and not to an animal. This agrees with Oalmet, who says “ Observe, he does not say the first thing, or the first animal, but the first person.”* § * H. 0. Trumbull, D.D., The Blood Covenant, pp. 105, 106, 157, 166, 174, 277. t C. S. Wake, .Evolution of Morality, vol. i., pp. 161, 324, etc. J Jules Soury, The Religion of Israel, p. 46. § Exodus xiii., 2; xxii., 29; Numbers ill., 13. || Book V., chap. vii. Calmet, Jephthah. ** Commentary, 17 Go. tf Commentary, Judges xi., 31. British and Foreign Evangelical Review, July 1884, p. 61. �JEPHTHAH AND 00. 87 This great Catholic commentator adds that “ I will offei’ him up as burnt offering to the Lord, eum holocaustum offeram Domino,” is the true meaning of the text, and they pervert it who say she was redeemed. Exactly the same view is expressed in the latest English commentary, edited by Canon Cook. The original Hebrew, we are told, means whosoever, and “ these words prove ©Oaelusively that Jephthah intended his vow to apply to human being-s not animalsthe same writer adding, still more strongly, that the words “ preclude any other meaning than that Jephthah contemplated a human sacrifice.” * The words “ and she knew no man,” which end the story of Jephthah’s vow, have induced some apologists to pretend that his daughter was not burnt, but devoted to perpetual virginity. The words, however, stand in our Revised Version “ and she had not known man ” ; that is, says the Speaker’s Commentary, “ in the mind of the writer her virginity was an aggravation of her Orue! fate.” Besides, as Milman observes, “ it is certain that vows of celibacy were totally unknown among the Hebrews, and belong to a different stage of society. Another objection of Michaelis is fatal to these views. The daughter could not be Consecrated to the service of the high priest, for the high priest and the ark were then at Shiloh, in the territory of Ephraim, with whom Jephthah was at deadly war.”f Well might Bishop Warburton exclaim, “ Solutions like these expose sacred scrip ture to the scorn and derision of unbelievers. There cannot be a reasonable doubt that Jephthah’s daughter was sacrificed as a burnt offering to the Lord. But the ques tion remains, Did the Lord accept the present and sanction the sacrifice ? First, let it be noted that “ the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah ” § before he made his fatal vow; nor is there any sign that the holy spirit deserted him before its com pletion. .Next, there is absolutely no censure of Jephthah’s Conduct in any part of the Bible. Lastly, he is mentioned by Paul |j .as a worker of righteousness through faith. Jephthah’s vow did not, therefore, displease the Lord, who continued to speak through prophets and apostles for more than a thousand years without expressing the slighest disapprobation ; and even When he distinctly praised Jephthah through the inspired pen Of St. Paul, [he neglected to mix any censure with his pane gyric . Jephthah’s vow was not without a parallel among pagan nations. Agamemnon, who led the Greeks in the war against Troy, immolated his daughter Iphigenia to appease the gods, and. procure favorable winds for the fleet which was detained * f t | The Speaker’s Commentary, Judges xi. History of the Jews, p. 112. Divine Legation of Moses, vol. ii., p. 698 (Tegg). Judges xi., 29. || Hebrews xi., 32. �88 BIBLE HEBOES. at Aulis. According to. the Greek legend, Iphigenia’s inno * cence excited the compassion of Diana, on whose altar she was to be sacrificed; and when the knife was descending into her devoted bosom the goddess miraculously snatched her away, and substituted a handsome goat for the maiden. This escape, however, is probably later than the original story of her immo. lation. Like the modern theories of the escape of Jephthah’s daughter, it was the product of an age which had grown ashamed of the brutalities of primitive faith, and learnt to sub stitute animals for human victims on the altars of the gods. Jephthah subsequently, at the head of his victorious Gileadites, warred with the tribe of Ephraim, of whom, after the battle, he slew forty-two thousand in cold blood. After this he judged Israel for six years, during which time his deeds are not recorded. Being dead and buried, he left a name illus trious for filicide, massacre, and no virtue except animal courage. The Book of Judges ends worthily in a tornado of bloodshed and lust. There was a Levite who became priest to one Micah, a fellow who robbed his mother, got wealthy, set up gods for himself, and kept his own parson, who acquired such a reputa tion that the Danites stole him. This Levite had a concubine who played him false and decamped. He fetched her back, and on his way home he stayed a night at Gibeah, which was in habited by Benjamites. Just as in the case of Lot’s visitors, the people came to the Levite’s host and demanded his guest. The old man quietly refused, but offered them instead his own daughter (a maiden) and the Levite’s concubine, whom they might abuse as they pleased. In the end, the poor concubine was thrust out to the lustful crowd, who treated her so brutally that in the morning she lay dead at the door. Then the Levite cut her up into twelve pieces, and sent one to each of the twelve tribes, who inflicted such vengeance on the Benjamites that only six hundred escaped alive out of twenty-six thousand^ All the women seem to have perished, and the tribe of Benjamin was threatened with extinction. But the fugitives soon received the gift of four hundred virgins spared in a religious massacre at Jabesh-gilead ; and afterwards they made a Sabine rape upon the daughters of Shiloh while they were merrymaking. What a horrid story of unnatural passion, brutal lust, awful bloodshed, and weltering anarchy! No wonder Josephus, for the honor of his nation, passes it all over in silence. God’s chosen people, on their own showing, were an abominable crew; while their Judges were but savage chieftains, whose only vir tue was physical bravery, and their highest happiness to possess a harem and procreate like barn-yard cocks. * Lempriere’s Classical Dictionary, Iphigenia; Euripides, Iphigenia in ■lulis. f Judges xix.-xxi. �PROFESSOR SAMSON. -------- ♦-------- Milton’s sublime genius has invested the story of Samson with a fictitious grandeur. Omitting the ludicrous incidents of his hero’s career, by taking it at the point where it became tragic, he produced a noble drama in the Greek style. But the real hero of Samson Agonistes is Milton himself. All those pathetic lamentations and noble resolves flowed from the depths of his own sorrow and courage, when in blindness and solitude he grieved ovei' the dead Commonwealth, which his pen had de fended and adorned, and reflected on the moral profligacy and political baseness of the Restoration. No trace of the poem’s tender beauty or heroic splendor can be found in the old Hebrew story, which was the occasion but not the source of his inspiration. Samson’s history is vulgar and absurd. “ As in those of the Grecian Hercules and the Arabian Antar,” says Milman, “ a kind of comic vein runs through the early adventures of the stout hearted warrior, in which love of women, of riddles, and of slay ing Philistines out of mere wantonness, vie for the mastery.” * This is mild criticism _ indeed. Samson is nothing but a great bully, alternately courting, swaggering, fighting and drinking. He is described as a teetotaller, but sevei’al texts show that he shared Jack PalstafPs partiality to good liquor, though he never displayed a scintillation of his wit. His one virtue, if it may be called so, was his miraculous strength, in which he excelled Hercules himself. Were he alive in this age of exhibitions, he would realise a colossal fortune by his public performances. Professor Samson would be “ all the rage,” and his gymnastic exploits the talk of the town. ° Myth and tradition seem to have been clumsily blended in Samson’s history. We have seen that Shamgar slew six hun dred Philistines with an ox goad; and Dr. Oort surmises that the achievements of this hero were woven into a solar myth.f As to the solar myth there can be no doubt. The reader will meet with abundant evidence as we proceed. Meanwhile let two facts be noted. Samson’s name is never mentioned in the whole of the Jewish Scriptures except in the four chapters devoted to his career. It is also remarkable that while the * History of the Jews, p. 113. t Bible jor Young People, bk. ii., chap. xx. �90 BIBLE HEBOES. other Judges fight at the head of armies, Samson fights alone like Hercules, opposing his enemies single-handed, and slaying thousands without arms. Samson is introduced to us in the thirteenth of Judges. His father’s name was Manoah, but his mother’s is not revealed, from that perverse contempt of women for which the Bible is conspicuous. Like other Bible women who gave birth to wonderful children, she was unfortunately barren. But Manoah was not the only person of the male persuasion. She was visited one day by an angel, who promised her a son. Naturally he called when Mr. Manoah was out; and, according to Josephus, his appearance was that of a beautiful, tall young man. His * intervention was very effectual, and in due course she produced a sturdy baby, who became the champion athlete of the world. Mrs. Manoah told her husband, and Josephus relates that her encomiums on the visitor’s beauty raised a storm of jealousy in the good man’s breast. But this passion was allayed by the angel’s return. They invited him to dine with them, but he refused, and even declined to tell them his name. Mr. Manoah sacrificed a kid to the Lord, and the angel “ did wonderously,” though the details of his performance are omitted. Finally, when the flame rose from the altar he ascended with it, and vanished from their sight. This convinced them it was an angel, and they fell on their faces, exclaiming, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God.” f Now, who was this visitor ? From the Hebrew it appears that Mrs. Manoah addressed him as “ thou God of visibility,” and the “ angel of the Lord ” is said to be equivalent to “ the Messiah.” According to the Rev. W. A. Scott,J it was “ the Great Judge.” Gill § says it was “no less than the Son of God,” and Adam Clarke || says it was “ no other than the Second Person of the ever-blessed Trinity.” If these learned commen tators are right, this was the first appearance of Jesus Christ on earth, or his first appearance without the other two partners of the firm. Yet the visitor may have been the First Person of the ever-blessed Trinity, old Jahveh himself, in the guise of a “ masher ” ; for he who appeared to Moses in a burning bush, showed him on another occasion his holy posteriors, and habitually conversed with him face to face, might very well call on the Manoahs, who belonged to the same chosen stock. Mrs. Manoah was ordered by this visitor—whether an angel, Jesus Christ, God Almighty, or even the Holy Ghost—not to eat grapes, nor to drink wine or anything “ short,” for the child was to be a Nazarite from the womb. No razor was to “ come on his head,” though nothing was said about scissors. And when* § * Bk. v., chap. viii. f Judges xiii., 22. t The Great Judge; or the Story of Samson (San Francisco. 1858 ) § Bible Exposition, p. 57. [] Commentary, Ju. xiii., 3. �PROFESSOR SAMSON. 91 the child grew up he was to redeem Israel from the Philistines, by whom they were then oppressed. One part of this prediction is very suggestive. How could the boy be a Nazarite, when that sect certainly did not exist until many centuries after the date of the Judges ? The Nazarites were teetotallers apd strict ascetics, which Samson was not. Why, then, is he called a Nazarite? Because he had long flowing hair, like all the members of that sect, who eschewed the razor and all its works as affronting the decrees of God, and gave unlimited hospitality to as many of his crea tures as chose to nestle in their hirsute adornments. But Samson’s luxuriant curls have really a different reason. They amounted to seven, which was a sacred number with the Jews. * They were his glory, like the shining locks of Apollo; and his strength lay in them, as is the case with all the solar gods; for that abundant hair represents the sun’s rays, which are resplen dent in summer, shorn in the winter, and renewed in the spring. It is possible, however, as Gerald Massey argues, that the num ber seven in this, case is derived from the lunar myth; seven being the indivisible quarter of one moon.f The very name of this miraculous child betrays his mytholo gical character. Samson, or Shimson, means sun-like, according to Gesenius;^ their sun, according to St. Jerome; little sun, according to Adam Clarke ;§ and his sun, according to Calmet.|| Dag, or fish, gave Dagon, or fish-god; and from Shemesh, the sun, was derived Shemesh-sun, or sun-god. We find the first syllable retained in many biblical names, such as Shem, Shemuel (Samuel), Shemida. Shemiramoth, and Shemezar. The Phoeni cian sun-god, Baal, who. was notoriously worshipped by the recreant Jews, leaves similar traces in the names of the sons of Saul and David—Eshbaal, Meribaal, and Baalyadah, as preserved in Chronicles, but changed by the Kabbi compilers of Samuel into Ishbosheth, Mephibosheth, and Elyadah. There were also two places in Palestine, one in Dan and the other in Naphthali, called Beth.-shemesh, or Ir-shemesh; that is, “ house of the sun ” or “ city of the sun.” Dr. Oort well remarks of Samson’s adventures that “ a solar myth doubtless lies at the bottom of them, as we may see by the very name of the hero, which signifies sun-god. In some of the features of the story, the original meaning may still be traced quite clearly.’W The same view is admirably developed and supported by Professor Steinthal, in his appendix to Goldziher’s Valuable Mythology of the Hebrews ** Gerald Massey, however, contends with some reason, that the legend of Sam son is not f Gerald Massey, Luniolatry, pp., 11, 12. I Hebrew Lexicon. § Commentary, Ju. xiii, 24. || B. Diet., Samson. IT Vol. II., p. 226. ** English Translation (Longmans, 1877). * Judges xvi., 19. . aA-' A. r �92 BIBLE HEROES. entirely solar, but is “ the Hebrew version,of the Egyptian myth of Khunsu, the luni-solar hero, who slays the giants—or Phili stines—and overcomes the powers ofMpJfcpess.”* Samson’s thirty companions, and their thirty changes of raiment, are “the thirty days to the month in th^e ''soli4unar reckoning.” These sun-gods—with or without njbcfc myths—are found among all peoples who have advanced beyond fetishism. The mighty orb was an object of wonder and praise, and was personi fied and worshipped. Light, heat, and life sprang from the be nignant god of day, and all their fluctuations were reflected in his career. Sunrise and sunset, the war of light and cloud, the fecund power of spring, the consuming heat of summer, and the blighting approach of winter, were all symbolised in his birth, battles, triumphs, defeat, death, and resurrection. How Samson’s youth was spent we are not told. The Bible says he “grew,” but most children do that. We are also informed that “ the Lord blessed him,” but not what the blessing was worth. We picture him as a boisterous lad, fond of exer cising his raw strength; pulling cats’ tails, robbing orchards, fighting his playmates, and “ cheeking ” his elders. While still young he entered the camp of Dan, and there “ the spirit of the Lord began to move him at times.” One movement of the spirit sent him after a Philistine young woman at Timnath. Returning home in hot haste, he told his parents to go down and secure her for his wife. They desired him to choose a wife from his own tribe, but he cut them short. “ She just suits me,” said he, “ so fetch her at once.” This was rather undutiful, but “ it was of the Lord.” So the old people gave in and set out for Timnath, with the young fellow on their track. As Samson approached Timnath, “ a young lion roared against him ” most uncivilly, and our hero made a first display of his prowess by slaying the offensive brute with “ nothing in his hand,” just as Hercules slew the Nemean lion without a weapon. Samson kept his exploit secret and went on to his young woman. Shortly after, on passing the spot again, he found a swarm of bees in the lion’s carcase; and taking a couple of handfuls, he ate some himself, and gave the rest to Mr. and Mrs. Manoah. This worthy couple had made arrangements for the wedding, and thirty young men came to share the festivities. By way of killing the time, Samson propounded a riddle. If they solved it in seven days, he was to give them thirty sheets and thirty changes of raiment; if not, they were to give him the same articles. The riddle was, “ Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness.” After trying six days to solve it, but in vain, they threatened to murder Mrs. Samson and all her family unless she wormed the answer out of her husband. She coaxed him, wept like a thunder-shower, and Luniolatry, p. 10. �PROFESSOR SAMSON. 93 “ lay sop® Upon him,” until he told her the answer, which she conveyed to his friends, who won the bet. Samson delicately taunted them with having “ ploughed with his heifer,” and then absconded, leaving his wife for his bosom friend; and “ the Spirit Of the Lord,” coming upon him again, he went to Ashkelon and slew thirty men. Josephus says “ he divorced this wife; and the girl despised his anger, and was married to his companion.”* Samson’s riddle remains a riddle still, except to the mythologistg. Bees do not build in dead flesh, for their wax and honey would be spoiled by putrefaction. Virgil, indeed, describes them as breeding in the carcase of an ox ;f but he places the event in Egypt, the motherland of superstition. The whole story is mythological. Hercules slew his lion ; and the sun-god Sandon, of the Assyrians and Lydians, was likewise a lion killer. The lion is also found as the animal of Apollo on the Lycian monu ments as well as at Patara. “ Hence it becomes clear,” says Steinthal, “ that the lion was accepted by the Semitic nations as a symbol of the summer heat. . . . ‘ Samson, Hercules, or San don, kills the lion,’ means therefore, ‘He is the beneficent saving power that protects the earth against the burning heat of Summer.’ Samson is the kind Aristeeos who delivers the island of Keos from the lion, the protector of bees and honey, which is most abundant when the sun is in the lion.”J This is mostly true, but it is pointed out by Gerald Massey that, on this theory, Samson “ in killing the lion would be only slaying the reflection of himself.” Regarded, however, as a luni-solar-god, Samson is relieved from this suicide. Mithraic monuments depict the lion with a bee in its mouth. Sekhet, the she-lion, was an Egyptian figure of fire; her name was also the name for the bee, which was the royal symbol of Lower Egypt; and the bee denotes the sweetness in the lion. When her heat, at the time of the annual inundation, became often fatal, the luni-solar hero, as Khunsu, Hercules, or Samson, was the conqueror in the cool of the night. Further, the full moon rose when the sun was in the sign of the lion, and “ As the moon was the bringer of the waters, and the breath of life in the coolness and the dews of night, the lunar hero was not only credited with drawing the sting of Sekhet; but with extracting honey from the dead lion.”§ Having satiated his anger, Samson remembered the young woman at Timnath, and at harvest time he paid her a visit. Like the rude lover in Voltaire’s L'Ingenu, he walked towards her bedroom, hut her father barred his way. “ No, no,” said th® old man, “ that game won’t do now, Samson; the girl’s another man’s wife, so hands off; but here’s her sister, a fine handsome girl, and you can have her if you like.” Samson de* Book V., chap. ix. J Goldziher, p. 396. f Georgies, iv. § Massey, p. 11. �94 BIBLE HEI.OES. dined the offer, and bolted in a passion. Catching three hun dred foxes, he tied them in pairs by their tails, stuck firebrands between their tender buttocks, and sent them into the standing corn of the Philistines. Terrible destruction ensued, and the e iraged Philistines burnt the young woman of Timnath and her father to death. This was a clumsy stratagem, and rough on the foxes, to say nothing of the Philistines. Samson might have kindled a con flagration more easily had the Lord provided him with a few gallons of paraffin oil, a patent sprinkler, and a box of fusees. The word rendered “ foxes ” is also rendered “jackals.”* Dr. Oort considers that “ in the reddish-brown jackals, with torches between their tails, .we may easily recognise the lurid thunder cloud, from the projecting points of which the lightning-flashes seem to dart.”"f' Gerald Massey says the jackal was an Egyptian type of darkness ; and Samson’s chastisement of the Philistines is similar to the struggle between Horus and the jackal-headed Sut-Anap.J Prom a natural point of view, Samson’s feat is in credibly absurd. He might have burnt down the Philistines’ corn in less time than it takes to catch one fox or jackal; yet, on the other hand, had he acted sensibly he would not have been Samson. After smiting the Philistines hip and thigh, Samson retreated to the rocky fastness of Etam, though it is strange that such an irresistible warrior should hide himself from his enemies. His own people sided with the Philistines, and he grimly allowed them to bind him with new ropes and deliver him to the foe. But as they shouted he broke his bonds like tinder, and attacked them with the jawbone of a jackass (probably Balaam’s) that happened to be lying about. When he stopped slashing a thousand corpses were piled in heaps. Surely the Philistines were jackasses _ too. They must have stood and waited their turns. Why did they not skedaddle, and leave him to cut slices in the air ? According to Herodotus,§ Hercules had a similar adventure in Egypt, where the inhabitants tried to offer him as a sacrifice to Jupiter. Fora while he submitted quietly, but when they led him to the altar he put forth his strength and slew them all. . Samson was dreadfully thirsty after completing his tally of victims, and being ready to die, he called on the Lord, who clave a hollow in the jawbone and brought forth water. One commentator suggests that the socket of a tooth became a well. What a monstrous ass! The Revised Version puts the jawbone in the margin, and says “ God clave the hollow place that is in Lehi.” Calmet and others argue that the jawbone was the name* § * Revised Version, margin. f Vol. II., p. 233. § Book II., chap. xlv. J P. 13. �PROFESSOR SAMSON. 95 of a hill or pass, and Maktesh, or jaw-tooth, the name of a sharp rock. But in any case there was a miracle, and why stickle for niceties in the presence of Omnipotence ? Hercules was favored with a similar miracle. After slaying the dragon of the Hesperides, he was in danger of perishing from thirst in the scorching deserts of Libya, but the gods caused a fountain to spring from a rock which he struck with his foot. Dr. Oort considers both the jawbone and the spring as mythical, the former being the jagged thunder-cloud, from which the lightning shoots, while the latter is the rain that pours out of it as the sun-god triumphs. * This tremendous massacre of Philistines appears to have gained Samson the Judgeship, which he held for twenty years; but the dignity of this position did not restrain his fondness for escapades. Going to Gaza once for a spree, he stayed at a brothel with “ an harlot,”f and the Gazites laid in wait for him, intending to kill him in the morning. But at midnight Samson went out for a stretch, probably bilking his fancy woman; and lugging off the city-gates on his shoulder, he carried them to the top of a hill, and perhaps took salvage for bringing them down again. His next amour, for like Hercules he had many, was with Delilah. She dwelt in Nachal Sorek. or the Vine Valley. This may be a mythical trait, representing the sun-god’s zealous wooing of the vine ; or it may imply that Samson was anything but a Nazarite. Delilah’s name, according to Ewald,| means Auiiress; but the generally accepted meaning is languid, delicate, triste. Gerald Massey compares her with the Egyptian Ishtar, the female moon, who as the year wanes is accused of robbing the sun-god, Izdubar, of his virility.§ ° As Omphale befooled Hercules, so Delilah befooled Samson. Milton treats her as his wife; but she was evidently a profes sional beauty; indeed, Calmet plainly calls her “ a prostitute.” Hex- countrymen, the Philistines, offered her a heavy bribe to reveal the secret of Samson’s strength. Thrice he tricked her, but the fourth time she succeeded. Finding that his strength lay in his hair (as the sun’s power is in his beams), she 'made him “ sleep upon her knees,” and called in a barber, who shaved his head as bald as a plate. The traitress then delivered him to the Philistines, who bound him with brass fetters, put out his eyes, and made him grind corn in their prison house.j| But Samson’s turn was coming. His death was to be more marvellous than his life. He was destined to make positively * Vol. II., p. 233. f Ju. xvi , 1. J History of Israel, vol. ii., p. 407. § P. 13. || Calmet says that “ some commentators ” find an “ obscene sense ” in Samson’s occupation there; but we may be excused from fathoming the Bible cloaca too deeply. �96 BIBLE HEROES. his last appearance in the fifth act of the play, to eclipse all his previous efforts, and literally bring down the house. The Philistine lords fixed a public holiday to celebrate Sam son’s capture, and to honor their god Dagon for delivering him into their hands. When their hearts were merry they called for Samson to make them sport like a circus-clown. They should have been more careful, for his hair had begun to grow again, and his pate “ showed like a stubble land at harvest home.” Why did they not give him a clean shave every morning ? Samson leaned against the two middle pillars supporting the temple-roof, on which three thousand men and women were assembled, in addition to those inside the edifice. Suddenly he clasped the pillars, prayed for divine assistance, bowed himself with all his might, and brought down the whole structure in shapeless ruin. Thus Professor Samson avenged himself, and perished under a mountain of his enemies. St. Augustine, St. Bernard, and others, have discussed whether Samson was justified in killing himself; but they exculpate him on the ground that he was moved by the Holy Ghost. Mytho logically, .his suicide is easily understood. “ The sun-god,” says Steinthal,” “ in fighting against the summer heat is fighting against himself; if he kills it, he kills himself.”* Hercules also destroyed himself, but arose out of the flames to Olympus. The Phoenicians, Assyrians and Lydians also attributed suicide to their sun-gods; yet these did not actually die, but renewed themselves like the phoenix. According to Josephus, Samson was too easily seduced by wicked women, though “ in all other respects he was of extra ordinary virtue.”! Very extraordinary ! Show us a single wise word or good deed he ever said or performed ? Compared with the heroic age of Greece, that of the Jews was barren and brutal. Adam Clarke is obliged to admit that “ if we regard what is called the choice of Hercules, his preference of virtue to pleasure, we shall find that the heathen is, morally speaking, vastly superior.”^ Yet St. Paul classes Samson with the heroes of faith,§ and Adam Clarke says he is “ supposed to be a most illustrious type ” of Jesus Christ. Surely this is a libel on the Prophet ofNazareth, who bore little resemblance to the mythical Jew, who drank, spreed, raked, fought, and murdereu wholesale. Our hero is rather an “ illustrious type ” of God the Father, between whom and himself there was a striking likeness. Old Jahveh is the head of the house, but Professor Samson is a cadet of the family and shares the blood. * Goldziher, p. 397. I Commentary, Ju. xvi. f Bk. V., chap. viii. § Hebrews xi., 32. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes. Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk. <img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Bible heroes Description An account of the resource Edition: First series Place of publication: London Collation: 200 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Incomplete copy - lacks p.97-200. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RA423 N226 Subject The topic of the resource Bible Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a> This work (Bible heroes), identified by <a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a>, is free of known copyright restrictions. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Bible NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/930287db88e8ca77edbb60dcda3f6fe6.pdf?Expires=1784764800&Signature=anYM90dRpu8slXCK--3Hy%7E4K9N45YwYaRU8fSPZu8VMxHgIncw5-XfB%7EbIvr%7ESkcfV0hkRnFK45DrJPQsO1oSKiTbuEe0QYBxZhxABUS4P-Ub2Co6OptYUjvDVtjUbgCzIvCOLhcvkkxqznPwZ9zBqvXEMDz%7E7sLh9unXx1eYDqo-HhwhD6PgP56KzVeiyX9nC2X642yOGaB0iVxR38zk4xOcLzLqzL4PmNaAnaj%7EzLBmlENp-1AWMFxXLVTyifo-6yK-ClUlduwDU%7EDZTvhX1IOGVZnmq3%7EJs6Tq5eJNpd0A42jKGUqCM8ns3SGHxM42xwrxS8%7E6lHy7wIS0636NA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c92da0312d9e19449d22e0e3dcd68c3d PDF Text Text BIBLE HORRORS; OR, TRUE BLASPHEMY. BY ARTHUR B. MOSS. LASPHEMY is a peculiar offence : only a believer in the being whose reputation is attacked can commit it, even then time and circumstance have to be taken into account. The Jew cannot blaspheme the Christian God, because he does not believe in him ; the Christian may say what he likes against the gods of the Brahmin and Buddhist; and the Mohammedan may speak disrespectfully of all the gods of the nations of the earth save his own. All, how ever, must be careful that they give utterance to their blas phemous expressions at the proper time and place. The Jew must not attack the Christian Deity in an English church, nor the Christian sneer at Jehovah in a Jewish synagogue, nor either of them ridicule the Mohammedan Deity in a moslern in Turkey ; but in their own city, and at the proper season, each may blacken the deity of the other. Ridicule has always been considered a powerful weapon in eradicating false impressions from the human mind, though some pious persons now declare it to be a crime when it is used to show the fallacy of their own belief. Do not the religious ridicule the opinions and cherished beliefs of Freethinkers ? Did they not laugh immoderately at what seemed to them the monstrously absurd notion of the late Charles Darwin, that man had evolved from a lower for-m of being? Did they not ridicule the Materialist when he declared that he believed that the laws of nature were sufficient to account for “all phenomena without the meddling of the gods”? Then why should Freethinkers abstain from using a weapon which has proved effectual in many a controversial encounter ? The statesman uses it, Band �2 BIBLE HORRORS; the historian wields it, the social reformer does not disdain to employ it, and the popular orator knows its wonderful power in exploding false notions. But real blasphemy is an attack by a believer upon the reputation of his deity. It matters not that he does it to flatter the power or vanity or the capriciousness of his god : the blasphemy is none the less real. Did it never occur to the Christian that his Bible teems with such blasphemy— indeed, is as filled with it as some of the numbers of a blasphemous publication (in the eyes of Freethinkers) called the War Cry. The cry of the Christians was always a cry for blood : their appetite for it is much stronger than that of the general occupants of the gallery at third-rate theatres during the representation of a drama in which several murders occur in each act and a frightful slaughter at the end of the play. Look into the Bible, my readers, for the record of human bloodshed. In early times the earth was a slaughter-house and Jehovah a mighty butcher. Take the merciless slaughter of the Egyptians, and see if it finds its parallel in profane history. Not content with depriving the Egyptians of water by causing Moses to turn it into blood ; not satisfied with afflicting an unoffending people with plagues of frogs, lice, and flies ; not satisfied with destroying harmless cattle with a grievous murrain ; not content with supplementing these with frightful plagues of hail, locusts, darkness, and the slaughter of the first-born, this Bible God allowed the Israelites to utterly “ spoil the Egyptians,” robbing them of jewels and other valuable pro perty, and ultimately bringing them to the Red Sea to perish in the waves, that the Israelites might exult over their death. And what was the cause of all this ? What had the Egyptians done ? That God had hardened “ Pharoah’s heart ” is the only explanation vouchsafed to us respecting this Bible horror. And so the poor Egyptians had to suffer, not through any fault of theirs or of Pharoah’s, but through a fault attributable to God alone. Barbarous deeds recorded in the Bible are of two kinds —those perpetrated by the bloody hand of Deity himself and those to which he gave explicit sanction. The slaughter of the Amalekites by Joshua had the approval of the Deity; the uplifted hands of Moses, tightly clutching the “ rod of the Lord,” was enough to win the support of Jehovah, who was always on the side of injustice and tyranny. This, in �OR, TRUE BLASPHEMY. 3 all conscience, was frightful enough. But mark what soon follows. Moses, Aaron, and seventy elders have had an interview with the Lord. From the summit of an exceed ingly high mountain they are witnesses of his great glory. They behold the feet of the Infinite God ! Moses even receives the Commandments, written by the finger of God upon great tablets of stone. While Moses is thus “ inter viewing ” the great God of the Jews, Aaron is among the people seeking to satisfy their craving for a real god—one they could see and handle, and who could assist them in time of trouble; for their minds were sorely disturbed by great doubts and misgivings concerning the God whom Moses had spoken of so often, but who appeared to be so far above the clouds that nobody could get at him. Aaron, with Jewish simplicity, thought that a golden god was the most appropriate for the children of Israel; he, therefore, beset himself the task of making a Golden Calf. Retribu tion came quickly ; but, as is usual in Biblical matters, it fell on the wrong shoulders. No sooner did Moses discover that the “ God in the skies ” was doubted than he took a most effective way of removing all scepticism—a method which has often been imitated since his day. “ Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord’s side ? Let him come unto me. And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel : ‘ Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses, and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men” (Exodus xxxii. 26 — 28). Well might Jehovah, in his Commandments, say: “I am a jealous God, who visits the sins of the fathers upon the children.” And might he not have added, “ The sins of the priests upon the people ” ? But this is not all— “ On horror’s head horrors accumulate.” Turn over the leaves of your Bible, and read how God com manded Moses to war against the Midianites, slaying them without mercy, and preserving only the maidens, that they might satisfy the lustful craving of a brutal horde of soldiers Numbers xxxi. 7—18). Read this for yourselves ; con �4 BIBLE HORRORS ; template these wicked horrors, and say if it is not a libel upon a wise and good God to allege that he ever com manded such wanton barbarity ! And let me abjure you not to pollute your lips with Bible obscenities; do not allow your children to read them either at home or at school. They were written in a barbarous age by an ignorant people, and they are fit only for brutal barbarians grovelling in a very atmosphere of licentiousness. lhe books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are filled with stories of murders and aggressive wars, to which Jehovah always gave his approving smile. Percy Bysshe Shelley was an Atheist: Atheists are all supposed to be wicked, heartless men ; yet Shelley, in his “ Declaration of Rights,” says : “ Man has no right to kill his brother. It is no excuse that he does so in uniform—he only adds the infamy of servitude to the crime of murder.” Was Shelley a greater lover of humanity than the God who is alleged to have made us all? Is the Atheist more deeply touched by human sorrow and pain than the Christian God ? Or are these records of bloodshed and crime, said to have been committed at the express will of the “ Heavenly Father,” but a long tissue of falsehoods, written in the dark nights of ignorance and superstition ? Among Bible horrors the second class of crime is to give sanction to the perpetration of barbarous deeds. This the Christian God has frequently done, so that in all ages the Bible has served as a text-book to which the believer could refer to find justification for the committal of all sorts of horrible crimes. In Leviticus xxiv. 16 we find these words: “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord he shall surely be put to death ; and all the congregation shall cer tainly stone him, as well the stranger as he that is born in the land, when he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall be put to death.” This passage has incited fathers to destroy their own children ; it has induced men to break their fellow creatures upon the rack ; to stone, to imprison, to crucify, or consume them at the stake. No suffering has been too intense for the blasphemer. And yet blasphemy is a priest-invented crime, which no unbeliever ever has, or ever can, commit. Again, in Deuteronomy xiii. 6—io we read: “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend which is as thine �OR, TRUE BLASPHEMY. 5 own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers —namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth—thou shalt not consent unto him nor hearken unto him ; neither shalt thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him. But thou shalt surely kill him. Thine hand shalt be first upon him to put him to death, and after wards the hands of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” Could wickedness go farther? Under this injunction the bravest thinkers, the most heroic men that have adorned the world, have suffered inexpressible torture. Socrates despised the gods of his time. That noble philosopher suffered death like a hero and martyr rather than be false to conviction. Even though he was broken with age, he had courage enough to bear without a murmur all the tortures to which his enemies subjected him. Bruno, Vanini, and a multitude of men and women less known to fame, have perished under this wicked command. No wonder that human progress was slow while a passage like this could be effectively appealed to ; no wonder that while religion was strong science was weak. As long as the Church had power the people were steeped in ignorance. Every martyr and every hero have made the path smoother for subsequent pioneers of progress. Let us remember this, and let the heroism of our tortured and persecuted ancestors give inspiration to our every thought and deed to-day. Probably the two passages which have wrought the most evil in the world are these : “ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live ” (Exodus xxi. 18); “ Both thy bondmen and bond women which thou hast with thee shalt be of the heathen round about you, and they shalt serve thee for ever ” (Levi ticus xxv. 44, 45, 46). The first passage was the court of appeal in all cases of alleged witchcraft. Learned judges, whose common sense in most matters was keen enough, were, nevertheless, led to believe—upon no other authority than this infamous passage from the alleged inspired word of God—that witches had a real existence, and entered into the bodies of men for evil purposes. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries more than a hundred thousand persons were put to death in Germany alone as witches. In the first year of the reign of James I. in England an Act was �6 BIBLE HORRORS; passed defining the crime of witchcraft with wonderful minuteness. It says : “ Any one that shall use, practise, or exercise any invocation of any evil or wicked spirit, or con sult or covenant with, entertain or employ, feed or reward, any evil or wicked spirit to or for any purpose, or take up any dead man, etc., etc., such offenders, duly and lawfully convicted and attainted, shall suffer death.” Soon after the passing of this Act the popular delusion spread like an epidemic, devastating many parts of England ; and under this statute hundreds of men, women, and children were mercilessly murdered with the full sanction of the people, who were completely saturated with superstition. But if the people were ignorant, if the judges’ minds were warped by theological prejudice, can it be said that the Infinite Ruler of the Universe was no better able to discriminate between prevailing delusions and eternal truth? Is the wisdom of God the same as the ignorance of man ? Did a “ God of love ” look down upon this earth, and compla cently watch the transactions of Matthew Hopkins, the “ witch finder,” and his cowardly set of colleagues? Did “ our Father who art in heaven ” give these deeds of blood his warm approval, as though he had heartily declared “my expressed will is being done”? If he did not sanction these atrocious crimes, done in his name for his glorification, why did he not stretch forth his almighty arm, and thwart the wickedness of his followers ? What shall we say of slavery ? What of a God who describes one class of men as the “ money ” of another (Exodus 20, 21)? There are no words in the English lan guage strong enough with which to characterise him if it were true ; but it is not true—it is all a libel : it is the believer’s blasphemy of a God he pretends to worship. The Christian has yet to learn that his highest conception of Deity is but a reflection of himself; that no God has ever possessed loftier sentiments or grander characteristics than the people out of whose fertile imagination he grew. Indeed, men have in all ages been god-makers, giving to “airy nothing a local habitation and a name.” rl he New Testament is not exempt from the charge that is here made against the other fragmentary essays which go to make up what in this country is called the “Holy Bible.” Jesus, who is elevated by the priests to the position of an Infinite Deity, is recorded to have said: “ If any man come �OR, TRUE BLASPHEMY. 7 unto me and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters—yea, and his own life also—he cannot be my disciple” (Luke xiv. 26). Can it be true that a God of wisdom and goodness would have us hate those who are near and dear to us, and sever ourselves for ever from them, in order that we might render service or pay homage to one of whom no man has the smallest know ledge ? Is it not blasphemy to suppose that a loving God would say to his children : “ Think not that I am come to send peace on earth ; I came not to send peace, but a sword ” (Matt. x. 24) ? The mission of a Devil could not be more evil in intention. It must never be forgotten that it is in the New Testament where the appalling doctrine of everlasting burning in hell for unbelievers is first announced as the distinct teaching of Jesus. Vindictive women, stirred by the irresistible passion of jealousy, have conceived the wicked idea of torturing and disfiguring their enemies or rivals by throwing over them a quantity of sulphuric acid ; fiendish men have, in a moment of madness, pushed a fellow-creature into a vat of boiling oil; and a drunken parent has been known to hold his child’s hand in a fire for some moments. These fearful agonies have been endured long enough in all conscience, though only for a few brief hours; yet the New Testament tells us that there is a loving father in heaven who will suffer some of his children to pass an eternity in hell, ceaselessly tormented by the flames, but never consumed. I will not, I cannot, believe it; and, though my countrymen may punish me for my unbelief, though they may fine and imprison me, I shall still main tain that a God of goodness could never be guilty of such infinite wickedness. To say that God will punish men endlessly in hell has always been considered man’s feeble way of expressing his admiration of God’s justice; to deny that he would perpetrate such a gigantic and unpardonable crime has ever been considered the greatest blasphemy. Number me with blasphemers, from Socrates downwards : it is an honour to be in such company ; and with them I am prepared to stand or fall. That the Bible teems with records of immorality and obscenity, which it is a criminal offence to print in all their naked ugliness, everybody knows full well: and yet this book is read in our national schools, and there are good men and women who declare that they would sooner �;\z BIBLE HORRORS; 8 OR, TRUE BLASPHEMY. have their children remain in the direst ignorance than have them brought up without a full knowledge of the contents of the Bible. Let us charitably suppose that they speak in ignorance—that they really have not diligently perused the Bible themselves. It is readily acknowledged that the Bible is not an altogether bad book, that it contains passages of rare beauty, of lofty sentiment, and profound wisdom ; but it can never be taken as a text-book, because it abounds in contradictions and absurdities ; and it were far better that man should thrust it aside for ever than that he should accept it as containing “the beginning and end of all wisdom ”—as a book written at the special command of a wise and good God. Let the Christians improve their Bible ; let them eliminate these barbarous things from its pages ; let them proclaim their belief in a nobler God and a loftier creed. The pure, the good, the just, and the beautiful the Freethinker will never attack ; but all that is cruel, wicked, impure, and unjust he will always condemn, whether it be said to come from God or from man. ' 1 - THE SECULAR REVIEW. A JOURNAL OF DAILY LIFE. Edited by ... Charles Watts & Saladin. The Secular Review is strictly a Freethought Journal, representing all phases of Advanced Thought. It also con tains authentic information as to the progress of liberal views in America and oil the Continent. To order, of Newsagents, or direct from 84, Fleet Street, London. Published every Thursday, price Twopence. WATTS & CO., 84, FLEET STREET, LONDON. —PRICE ONE PENNY. mJ- � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes. Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk. <img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Bible horrors; or, true blasphemy Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Moss, Arthur B. Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Two marginal marks in pencil. Date of publication from KVK (OCLC WorldCat). Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [Watts & Co.] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1885] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5780 Subject The topic of the resource Blasphemy Bible Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /> This work (Bible horrors; or, true blasphemy), identified by <a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a>, is free of known copyright restrictions. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Bible Blasphemy https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/01445ca0e8c72a4f0b8b4be09e0b17e4.pdf?Expires=1784764800&Signature=kf7gt172WNWcr911tZtO-w11qreCxgItD7Z2ZSms-Pt5%7EP3Xra6nu88oBwwx230QVi2hcKo%7E%7ESvP%7EJUFVz%7EyFc3J%7Ez6RJ8Bk21v7v4eiCtxvZiCnBQncqlaEKPl3tmraoLOeeX07j7sJ1e9Hfm4LBiqry-ywNEIX4vqyXLKsU3lRgbWvA4u2wMnIflmDDsY9vOv7Ctv5JjnE6kyAI9672BTGLo95MAOJ7253psgE6ADQP-5l8lhg55SNnG4PB04r6G9iU-YWtFhPiJWc5jsYuKoAmUsBvKf4mnk2dul-NUaYKaM0N1KhRcnBvxWCTEnMEIYMrVI3768FKCyHC-F6rA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 7d31400272d5c17196bd7550965e7f6b PDF Text Text BIBLE MORALITY. 'Secularists have no desire to extol the Bible above its merits, nor to depreciate it below its deserts. We gladly admit that it contains some useful precepts; but these, as a rule, are intermixed with so many teachings of an in jurious character that their beauty is often overshadowed and their utility annulled. Its coarse language in many places renders it unfit for general perusal, and destroys its value as a standard for every-day life. The true worth of literature should be its moral tone. Novels are appreciated by the intelligent reader in proportion to their being “ adorned ” with a moral. And dramas fail to gain the approval of the thoughtful public unless virtue is inculcated in a chaste form. So with the Bible : if in its ethical tone it is defective, or if it is questionable in its injunctions or indelicate in its records, it cannot with advantage be accepted as an absolute monitor in human conduct. All correct codes of morals should be clear in their authority and practical in their application. This is the more necessary when severe penalties—as in the case of Christian ethics—are threatened for non-acceptance and dis obedience. Now, the ethics of the Bible are both contradic tory and impracticable. The same line of conduct is enjoined in one passage, and just as explicitly prohibited in another. One man is blamed because he is not cruel enough, and will not go on slaying the Lord’s enemies; another man’s chief glory consists in being a mighty man of war and a great destroyer of men, women, and children; while other passages proclaim, “Thou shalt not kill,” and enjoin mercy and “loving-kindness.” The most absolute rest is enjoined on the Sabbath, and the fiercest denunciations are hurled at the most vigorous Sabbatarian. Retaliation for wrong is counselled, and forgiveness is enjoined. We are told to “ love one another,” and we are commanded to hate our �2 BIBLE MORALITY. own flesh and blood. Industry is advised and also dis couraged; lustful pursuits are condemned and also permitted. Thus Biblical morality is destitute of the first fundamental condition of all just ethics. Among the general principles taught in the Bible and ex pounded by orthodoxy in this country is that belief, not conduct, is the foundation of virtue, and that uncharitable ness towards opponents is justifiable. One of the first in structions which a parent should enforce upon a child is never to impute bad motives in matters of belief or non belief. No lesson is more valuable than this, none more calculated to render the child’s life happy and unsuspicious, and to make its influence in the world more useful and beneficial. The Bible permits just the opposite. Accord ing to Christian teachings, if a man does an act of kindness, we are not to accept it with gratitude simply as an act of kindness, but we are to judge from the motives of his con duct. Did he perform the act from love to God, or did he do it only from respect for his fellow man ? If the former, his services will go up as a sweet smelling offering to Deity; if the latter, he merely performed a “ splendid vice.” The motive, not the act, is the thing to be considered. If men slay, ravish, and destroy for the glory of God, the motive not only condones, but consecrates, the act. Hence, in the early history of Christianity, the practice of lying for the good of the Church was not only allowed, but considered praiseworthy. To require universal belief in one particular faith, and to condemn to eternal perdition those who are unable to comply therewith, is not the most moral doctrine. Truly, a book that teaches that “many are called but few are chosen,” or, in other words, that the majority of our fellow creatures are to be cast into a burning lake, cannot assist to promote the happiness and good of mankind. The tendency of such teaching as this cannot have a beneficial effect, inasmuch as it often produces mutual hatred between man and man. Artificial and unjust distinctions of govern ment and of classes have often produced ill-feeling between man and man; but that evil has been increased by the religious distinctions based upon Biblical teaching. The natural law of love is simple and clear. It is a duty to love all men until we have reason to believe that the trust is mis placed or abused. It then becomes necessary to slightly �BIBLE MORALITY. 3 modify our conduct as an act of self-defence; hence the enactment of laws for the repression of crime and the curtail ment of injury. If a man’s belief teaches him that he can persecute, we have a right to be upon our guard, for we know from bitter experience that such belief has frequently shaped itself into conduct. But whatever man believes about matters that do not affect his conduct should produce in us neither love nor hatred towards him. His belief may be ever so curious, absurd, unreal, and fantastic, ever so ridiculous and self-contradictory, and in proportion of its partaking of those qualities it may excite and amuse us; but it ought not to make us respect or dislike him one whit more. With the Bible it is quite different: its defect con sists in its teaching us to love and respect certain people who believe certain things which have no direct beneficial bearing on their conduct; while we are to avoid those whose lives may be a model of purity and benevolence, but who cannot subscribe to a certain faith. The great principle of Bible morality is supposed to be contained in the Ten Commandments. The Decalogue, we are assured, enunciates moral lessons, against which no sub stantial objections can be brought. There are two versions of the Decalogue given in the Old Testament, varying in certain not unimportant particulars. Moses brought down, we are informed, the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai, where he had been having a tete-d-tete with the Lord. They were written on stone, and were copied off for future generations in Exodus xx. They are also given in Deuter onomy v.; but that was merely from memory, when Moses had become somewhat advanced in age. It is not surpris ing, therefore, that he should insert certain interpolations in the second giving of the law which are absent from the first. How this incongruity can be reconciled with the doc trine of the Divine inspiration of the Bible may be left for Christians to decide among themselves. The Decalogue is divided into two parts : that which relates to man’s duty to God, and that which relates to the mutual duties of man to man. It is worthy of notice that, although the second half contains six commands, and the former half only four, nevertheless the first half is a great deal longer than the second. Most of the commands of the second half are con tained in the most condensed form. The second, third, �4 bible morality. and fourth Commandments are all developments of the first. 7 he first really contains or assumes the three which succeed it. The first? which is, “ Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” of course involves the second against idolatry, the third against blasphemous swearing, and the fourth en joining restful remembrance of the creation of the world by God. It is curious, while God in these Commandments had so much to say in giving a complete code of conduct to his creatures, and confining himself as he did within the limits of a certain number of Hebrew characters, written on a stone small enough for a man to carry down the side of a steep mountain, that he should have wasted so much time in telling them how to behave to him, and have left so little space to contain what was far more important—viz., the rules to regulate our conduct to each other. The whole prescribed duty of man to man is contained in seventy seven words. The second Commandment brings out that particular character of the Christian God which is so con spicuous in other parts of the Bible. We are not to make and bow down to images. Very good advice, we readily admit. But why are we not to do so ? Is there any appeal to the generous and reverential sentiments of the human heart ? Surely a noble and good God would have said something similar to this : “ Thou shalt not bow down thy self to them, nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a great, beneficent, and generous God, with a wide, allembracing love. Thou shalt not degrade thy soul nor debase thy being by worshipping the gods of the heathen. I am your only father, who made and cares for you, and your place of reverence and trust is in the all-sustaining hollow of my hand.” Had the Deity said this, and proved his sincerity by appropriate actions subsequently towards his subjects, it would have done more to have won the affec tions of his children to him than the whole of his present recorded sayings contained from Genesis to Revelation. But no; we find that a sordid appeal is made partly to the mean fears, and partly to the paternal affections, of the Jews. They are forbidden to worship other gods: “ For I, the ILord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of rthe fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.” Fancy a great, Almighty (God, creator of the earth, being jealous of the estranged �BIBLE MORALITY. 5 affection of an unfortunate Jew! But this is in keeping with the general character of the Christian Deity, and most of his particular and immediate acquaintances. The part of the Decalogue which has reference to us, as members of society, is so brief, in comparison to that which has been occupied by theology and the requirements of God, that little room is left for the introduction of rewards and punish ments which are to follow the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of so important a behest as “ Thou shalt not kill.” But the punishment of idolatry, a most cruel, unjust, and revengeful one, is given at full length. The fifth Commandment, “ Honour thy father and mother,” is certainly, as far as it goes, an excellent one. It comes home to the heart of everyone who has the feelings of love and duty within him. We can take no possible exception to its request. But the reason given for its fulfilment is as selfish as it is untrue. Yielding to no one in the belief that filial affection and re verence are not only duties, but carry with them (as all virtues do to some extent) their own reward in the satisfac tion of an approving sense of right, it has yet to be shown that the keeping of the first part of this command will secure the accomplishment of the second. Honouring parents does not invariably carry with it the fulfilment of the pro mise, “ Thy days shall be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” The best of sons have frequently been called upon to pay the last debt of nature when still in the bloom and vigour of their manhood, while some of the worst of characters live to a comparatively old age, a grief to their parents and a disgrace to themselves. Though, therefore, we would echo the command, “ Children, obey your parents,” we would also say : Do so, not from any selfish hope of personal gain or long life, but for the love you should have for those who have toiled for and protected you through years of infancy and helplessness. Duty, gratitude, and affection should be the inspiration to obedience, not the grovelling incentive given by the Bible. But may not this be taken as a fair sample of Bible teaching ? When ever we discover a noble thought, a just precept, or a gener ous sentiment, we generally find it surrounded by much that is impracticable, misleading, and fallacious. The sixth, seventh, and eighth Commandments call for no special remark, save that, when they point out the extremes of �6 BIBLE MORALITY. certain vices, and forbid their indulgence, they fail to state how far persons may go in their direction without commit ting fatal errors; and this difficulty is all the greater when we reflect that these were the very Commandments which most of God’s favourites had the greatest predilection for break ing- The chief object of the ninth Commandment is its limitation. Why should the word “ neighbour ” be intro duced in the prohibition of false swearing? It is equally a wrong to swear falsely against a stranger as against a neigh bour. The tenth Commandment is the only one of the second part of the Decalogue which errs by excess of Puri tanism. There can be no harm, for instance, in coveting a neighbour’s house if sufficient compensation is offered to in duce him to give up the lease; and, if we did not occasionally covet our neighbour’s oxen, beefsteaks and surloins would be even more scarce among the working classes than they are at present. Speaking broadly, the one great objection to the Decalogue is the absence of any noble, inspiring principle of conduct. It teaches no real love, no true charity; it is a penal code, not a rule of life. Orthodox believers are continually proclaiming that love is the foundation of Biblical ethics; the fact is, however, that, if human actions were regulated by some teachings of the Bible, there would be but few manifestations of love. To kill the inhabitants of a conquered city, and to save none alive (Deut. xx. io-i6),is a peculiar mode of exhibiting love to our fellow men. The conduct of Christ was not calculated to inspire us with a superabundance of love when he said: “Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my father which is in heaven ” (Matt. x. 33); or when he stated : “ But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me” (Luke xix. 27). Here we have an indication of that unforgiving and revengeful spirit which destroys true affection. If there be any truth in the popular notions of sin and forgiveness, it was not moral for Christ to act as he did when speaking in a parable to his disciples. They, not being able to understand him, asked him for an explanation of what he then said. His reply was : “ Unto you is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but, unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables; that seeing, they may see and not perceive, �BIBLE MORALITY. 7 and hearing, they may hear and not understand, lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven them ” (Mark iv.). This is not only partial and unjust, but a planned determination to teach so mysteriously that people should not learn the truth, in case they should thereby be saved. Such a mode of advocacy would be deemed in jurious, indeed, in these days, and is only equalled by the following “ inspired ” information to certain persons : “ And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteous ness ” (2 Thess. ii. n, 12). We are advised to be holy, even as God is holy; but what is holiness according to Bible morality? If a “Divine” sanction to a thing constitutes it holy, then deceit, murder, lying, and the deepest kind of cruelty are allied with Scriptural holiness. In 2 Kings x. God is represented as rewarding the following crimes, and thereby giving the Bible sanction to the worst kind of im morality. Jehu, having become King of Israel, commences his reign with a series of murders. Having resolved upon the destruction of the house of Ahab, Jehu commences his task in a manner possible only to those who fight with the “ zeal of the Lord.” Killing all who were likely to obstruct him in the carrying out of his base object, he arrived at Samaria, his purpose being to slay all the worshippers of Baal. In order, therefore, that he might entrap them all into one slaughter house, he announced that he was a great worshipper of Baal, and that he had come to offer a mighty sacrifice to this idol. By this craft he succeeded in drawing all the worshippers of Baal together. When the unfortunate victims were assembled, tendering their sacrifices, Jehu ordered his captains to go in and slay them, allowing none to escape. Accordingly, they were all sacrificed to the treachery of this “ servant of the Lord.” And this conduct is approved by God; for in verse 30 is recorded : “ And the Lord said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in mine heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel.” Bible morality is further illustrated in the case of Samuel (1 Samuel xvi. 1-4). This prophet is commanded by God to go on a certain mission under false �8 BIBLE MORALITY. pretences, and with a direct falsehood upon his lips. Now, is it moral to deceive and murder ? If not, why did God command and encourage such vices ? And why should men be invited to imitate the example of one who practised such immoralities ? Biblical ethics are alleged to be based upon the “holiness of God.” In order to ascertain what that “holiness ” really is, it is only necessary to read Genesisxxx. and xxxi., where immorality, ingratitude, deceit, and theft are found to be ascribed to Jacob, who was encouraged and beloved by God; Exodus ix. 13-16, where people are' seen to have been raised up by God for the very pur pose of being “cut off from the earth;” Exodus xxxii., for an account of the anger, injustice, and cruelty of Moses, culminating in the slaughter of thousands of human beings at the command of God ; Joshua vi., viii., and x., for a record of his reckless murder of thousands of human beings, among whom were men, women, and children, at the special command of God; 2 Samuel xii. n-31, for adultery and cruelty in connection with David; and then peruse Psalms xxxviii. and cix. for a confession of a life of deceit, lying, and licentiousness. Yet we are told that David “ was a man after God’s own heart,” and that he “kept God’s com mandments, and did that only which was right in his eyes ” (1 Kings xiv. 8). Such maybe Biblical morality; but it is certainly opposed to Secular ideas of ethical philosophy. The teachings of the Bible in reference to slavery are barbarously unjust. According to its permit, men and women can be bought and sold like cattle, the weak being compelled to serve the strong. In Exodus xxi. 2-6 we have a most cruel law for regulating this “ Bible institution,” the cruelty and injustice of which law are two-fold. First, if the slave when he is bought be single, and if, during his seven years of slavery, he marries and becomes a father, then, at the expiration of his time, his wife and children are his master’s, and the slave goes out free. Is this moral ? What becomes of the poor man’s paternal affections ? Isthe love for his wife nothing ? Is he to be separated from that he holds dear, and to see the object of his affectionsgiven to the man who for seven years had robbed him of his independence and his manhood? If, however, the poor victim’s love for his wife and children be stronger than his desire for liberty, what is his fate? He is to be brought �BIBLE MORALITY. 9 to the door, have his ear bored with an awl, and doomed to serve his master forever. Thus Bible morality makes per petual slavery and physical pain the punishments of the exercise of the purest and best feelings of human nature. Where is the moral lesson in the statement: “ And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after; for oxen or for sheep, or for wine or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth ; and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thine household ” ? If this is not giving a license to the worst of passions, words have no meaning. But Bible morality strikes at the manhood and happiness of man. It stifles our tenderest affections, and urges the exercise of the cruellest passions by teaching that a man may kill the wife of his bosom if she dare to entice him secretly from his God (Deut. xiii. 6-9). Where is the man who will so far belie his nature as to accept such morality as this ? Unfortunately, Bible teachings have frequently caused a complete severance and breaking up of the ties of affection in families. The Bible commands its believers to leave father, mother, sister, and brother to follow Christ. According to its teachings, it is justifiable to break up a certain and a human bond that we may get a problematical chance of a problematical blessedness in a problematical future. There are few, doubt less, who have not learned in their own sad experience how the family tie has been often disunited by Christian teach ings. Brothers and sisters have been separated for years from the home of their childhood because they dared to emancipate themselves from the shackles of the prevailing faith. Accepting the term “ moral ” as expressing whatever is calculated to promote general progress and happiness, what morality is contained in the following passages from the Bible : “ Take no thought for your life “ Resist not evil “ Blessed be ye poor“ Labour not for the bread which perisheth “ Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward “ Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called“ Submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake “ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God............ Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the �IO BIBLE MORALITY. ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to them selves damnation”? Were these injunctions obeyed, health, independence of character, and political progress would be ignored. For the reforms we have hitherto secured we are indebted to men and women who practically disregarded the Bible, and based their conduct upon the principle of utility. To teach, as the Bible does, that wives are to be subject to their husbands in everything (Eph. v.); to “set your affections on things above, not on things on the earth ” (Colos. iii.); to “ love not the world, neither the things that are in the world ’* (i John ii.); to “ lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth” (Matt, vi.), is not to inculcate the principle of equality, or to inspire man with a desire to take an interest in “the things of time.” Whatever service the Bible may render in gratifying the tastes of the superstitious, it cannot, to men of thought and energy, be of any great moral worth. To persecute for non-belief of any teaching, but more particularly of speculative questions, is not in accordance with ethical justice. Is it true that the Bible encourages persecution for the non-belief in, or the rejection of, its teachings ? If yes, so far at least is its moral worth lessened. For belief in the truth of a doctrine, or the wisdom of a precept, is, to the honest inquirer, the result of the recogni tion on his part of sufficient evidence in their favour. When ever that evidence is absent, disbelief will be found, except among the indifferent or the hypocritical. Now, in the Bible there are many things that the sincere thinker is com pelled, through lack of evidence, to reject. What does the New Testament inculcate towards such persons? When Christ sent his disciples upon a preaching expedition he said (Matt, x.) : “Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city shake off the dust of your feet.” This, we are informed by Oriental writers, was a mode in the East of showing hatred towards those against whom the dust was shaken. The punishment threatened those who refused the administra tions of the disciples is most severe, for “ it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.” In St. John xv. we read : “If a man abideth not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” This accords with the gloomy �BIBLE MORALITY. II announcement (2 Thess. i.): “ The Lord Jesus shall be re vealed from heaven, with his mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power, when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe.” Again (Mark xvi.) : “ He that believeth not shall be damned.” St. Paul exclaims (Gal. i.): “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” He also says (1 Tim. vi. 3-5): “ If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ ....... he is proud, knowing nothing......... From such withdraw thyself.” “ Of whom is Hymenseus and Alexander ; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1 Tim. i. 20). In these passages persecution and punishment are clearly taught for disbelief. And that such teaching has had an immoral tendency the excommu nications, the imprisonments, and sacrifice of the lives of heretics in connection with the history of Christianity abun dantly prove. Orthodox Christians contend that the Bible is a necessary factor in the educational system of all nations. While admitting the necessity of instruction in the affairs of daily life, they allege that a question of far greater importance is the preparation for existence “beyond the grave.” They profess to be impressed with the notion that there is a city of refuge in store for them when they arrive at the end of life’s journey; and, having to encounter many storms and difficulties ere they reach this supposed haven of rest, they feel assured that the Bible is a sufficient guide to carry them safely over the sea of time, and land them securely in the harbour of eternity. They therefore rely on this book as if it were unerring in its directions and infallible in its commands. Now, there is ample reason to doubt the capability of this Christian guide. Its inability, however, as an instructor and guide does not arise from any lack of variety of contents. The Bible contains a history of the cosmogony of the earth, and the story of man’s fall from what is termed his first estate of perfection and happiness. Then we have the �12 BIBLE MORALITY. history of God’s chosen people, from their uprise to their national extinction, with a record of the Jewish laws, speci fying those acts most calculated to propitiate the favour and secure the rew’ard of heaven, and those which are con demned, with their appropriate and stipulated punishments. We have also glimpses of the histories of other nations, the causes of their fall, and the account of their national sins, which drew down upon them that wrath of heaven which extinguished or sorely punished them. Following this, there is the story of Job—the lessons to be derived from the sudden collapse of his worldly greatness, and his soliloquies upon the mysteries of nature and of providence. Next come the Psalms—a copious manual of praise, prayer, cursing, and penitence, followed by the woes, lamentations, and mis fortunes of a host of prophets—some practical, some mystical, and some evangelical—together with the four different versions of the life, actions, and death of Christ; a short account of the early doings of the Church, recorded in several epistles written by sundry apostles, culminating in the strange and extraordinary nightmare of St. John the Divine. Now, any man who fails to discover in so large a field materials by which to regulate his life must do so, not from the scarcity, but the valuelessness, of the article supplied. In estimating the real value of the Bible as a moral guide it must be taken as a whole, by which is meant those books of the Old and New Testaments which are bound together and commonly called the Word of God. And here a ques tion arises that, if the knowledge of the whole Bible be necessary to our future happiness, which according to St. John it is, why is it that so many of the books that originally constituted the Bible are lost ? If the testimony of the book itself can be accepted, we have only a portion of what at one time composed the Bible. In Numbers a quotation is given from a book called “ The Book of the Wars of the Lord;” in Judges and Samuel we read of “The Book of Jasher;” in Kings mention is made of “The Book of the Acts of Solomon and in Chronicles of “ The Account of the Chronicles of King David.” We further read of “The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah ” and “ The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.” Allusion is also made to “ The Book of Nathan the Prophet ” and to �BIBLE MORALITY. 13 “The Book of Gad the Seer.” Notwithstanding the loss of these books, Christians exclaim, How wonderfully their book has been preserved ! Even the portions that are re tained are so full of mistakes, errors, and corruptions that its intelligent supporters are compelled to give the greater part of it up as incapable of defence, while those who still contend for its “ divinity ” hesitate to come forward and support it in public debate. Another question suggests itself: Are we to consider the Old. Testament as the Word of God ? If so, upon the Christian hypothesis, its teachings are equally as deserving of our respect as are those of the New Testament. If, on the other hand, the Old Testament is not intended for our acceptance, why is it preached and enforced as God’s Word ? True, it is sometimes stated that the Hebrew writings are useful for instruction, although they are not of the same authority with Christians as the New Testament. But here it is overlooked that the New Testament is founded upon the Old, and often appeals to it to corroborate its statements. Furthermore, the New Testament distinctly says that the Old was written by good and holy men for our instruction, etc. Besides, does not Christ emphatically state that he did not come to destroy its authority ? “ Think not,” says he, “ that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven ; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Here is a command not to break even one of the least of the com mandments. Again, Christ says: “The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat; whatsoever they bid you ob serve, that observe and do.” Among a collection of Chris tian stories occurs the following anecdote :—A person once asked a poor, illiterate old woman what she deemed to be the difference between the Old and New Testaments, to which she replied : “ The Old Testament is the New Testa ment concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testa ment revealed.” This has been triumphantly quoted by Christian writers to show the harmony existing between the �14 BIBLE MORALITY. two books. But it is absurd and contradicts facts. The assumption is, that the Old Testament is the partial statement of a body of truths, from which the New Testament differs not in kind, but only in degree. It is supposed that nothing in the New Testament contradicts what is stated in the Old, but only reveals and amplifies with a clearer light what had already been stated partially and under allegorical semblance in the Old. Now, so far is this from being correct that it would be difficult to find any two alleged bodies of sacred truths which differ from and contradict each other more than the divine revelation made through Moses and the prophets, and the revelation made through Christ and his Apostles. For instance, Moses taught that retaliation was a duty, while Christ strictly prohibits it. With Moses persecutors were put to the edge of the sword; with Christ, however, they were to be blessed. Under the old system, good works and a virtuous life were the conditions of Divine favour and reward, and bad works and a vicious life were to incur Divine disfavour and punishment. Under the new system, faith is the all-in-all, the essential condition of salvation. A proof of the inadequacy of the Bible as a guide and instructor is furnished by what are termed the “ liberal Christians.” Here we have men of the best intentions and of high intellectual acquirements refusing to accept the Bible as an absolute guide, or as an infallible instructor. With such persons the Bible has no value as “ infallible revela tion.” If, however, the Bible is not an infallible record, it is simply a human production, and has no more claim upon us, except what its merits inspire, than any other book. Is it not rather inconsistent to contend, as these liberal Chris tians do, that certain portions of the Bible are “ divine,” while the other parts are simply human ? If every Chris tian sect put forward similar contentions, there would be but few parts of the “ Holy Scriptures ” that would not be divine and human at the same time, according to the respec tive opinions of different classes of believers. But how are we to decide what is “ divine ” and what is human ? To what standard shall we appeal ? What criterion have we by which to test its genuineness ? Shall we accept the authority of the Protestant or the Catholic Church ? Shall we judge from the standpoint of the Trinitarians or the Unitarians? For the Bible to be trustworthy as a guide it should be �BIBLE MORALITY. 15 reliable in its statements and harmonious in its doctrines. That it is not so will be evident from the following reference to its pages. The Bible teaches that God is omniscient and omnipresent; yet in Gen. xi. 5 we read that the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of menbuilded; and in Gen. xviii. 20, 21: “And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me ; and, if not, I will know.” It teaches that God is immutable ; yet, on several occasions, we find him changing his mind, repenting, and sometimes turning back from his repentance; as in the great instance (Gen. vi. 6) : “ And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart ” (also 1 Sam. xv. 10, 11). God told Balaam to go with the men (Num. xxii., 20), and was angry with him because he went (Num. xxii. 21, 22). It teaches that God is invisible, yet we read (Gen. xxxii. 30) : “And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved and (Ex. xxiv. 9, 10): “Then up went Moses, and Aaron, and Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and they saw the God of Israeland, again (Ex. xxxiii. 11,23): “ And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend....... And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen and, finally (Gen. xviii.), we have the remarkable though perplexed account of the Lord paying a visit to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, and eating with him of cakes, butter, milk, and veal. It teaches that God is all good ■, yet we read (Isa. xlv. 7): “I form the light and create darkness : I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things and (Lam. iii. 38): “ Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good ?” and (Ezekiel xx. 25): “ Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.” It teaches that God is no respecter of persons ; yet we read (Gen. iv. 4, 5): “And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering ; but unto Cain and his offering he had no respect;” and (Ex. ii. 25) : “ And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them;” and (Rom. ix. 11-13) : “For the children being not yet �16 BIBLE MORALITY, born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth ; it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” And, in fact, nearly the whole Bible story is that of a chosen people, preferred above all other nations, surely for no superior goodness on their part! It teaches (Ex. xx. 5) that God is a jealous God, “ visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;” yet we read (Ezekiel xviii. 20): “ The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.” It teaches that Christ is God (John i. 1, 14; Heb. i. 8); yet we read (John viii. 40) : “ But now ye seek to kill me, a man that has told you the truth, which I have heard of God;” also (1 Tim. ii. 5): “ One mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” It teaches (John x. 30) that Christ and his father are one ; yet we read (John xiv. 28): “For my father is greater than I.” It teaches (John xvi. 30; Col. ii. 3) that Jesus knew all things ; yet we read (Mark xi. 13): “And seeing a fig-tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon; and, when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet■” and, far more significant (Mark xiii. 32) : “ But of that day and that hour knoweth no man ; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” It teaches of Jesus (John viii. 14): “ Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true; for I know whence I came, and whither I go ;” yet we read (John v. 31): “ If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.” It teaches further (1 Tim. ii. 6) that he gave himself a ransom for all; yet we read (Matt. xv. 24): “ I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel;” and (Mark vii. 26, 27): “The woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled; for it is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it unto the dogs.” It teaches that miracles are proofs of a divine mission (Matt. ix. 6; John v. 36 ; Heb. ii. 4); yet (Deut. xiii. 1-3; Matt. xxiv. 24; 2 Thess. ii. 9) warns against false prophets and anti-Christs, who shall show great signsand wonders. It teaches in many passages of the New �BIBLE MORALITY. 17 Testament that the end of the world is at hand, as in Matt, xxiv., 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52; 1 Thess. iv. 15; 1 Peter iv. 7; yet we read (2 Thess. ii. 2, 3): “ That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means.” Further, on this subject, we read (Matt. x. 23), in which Jesus is addressing the Apostles he sent forth : “Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be comeyet we read (Matt. xxiv. 14) : “ And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come and, similarly (Mark xiii. 10): “And the gospel must first be published among all nations.” It teaches (Luke i. 33 ; Heb. i. 8) that the kingdom of Christ shall endure forever; yet we read, in one of the most remarkable passages of the New Testament (1 Cor. xv. 24, 25, 28) : “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet........ And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all-in-all.” It teaches that the Holy Ghost is God (Acts v. 3, 4); yet we read (John xv. 26): “ But when the Com forter is come, whom shall I send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father and, again (John xiv. 16): “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter and, again (Acts x. 38); “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.” Finally, it teaches that “ all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable” (2 Tim. iii. 16); yet we read (1 Cor. vii. 6, 12): “ But I speak this by per mission, and not of commandment....... But to the rest speak I, not the Lord and similarly (2 Cor. xi. 17) : “ That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were fool ishly, in this confidence of boasting.” The foregoing are but a few of “ apparent discrepancies,” or, as we call them, direct self-contradictions; and, be it remembered, they concern the essentials of Christianity— the three persons of the God, the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and the end of the world. The Bibliolater may �18 BIBLE MORALITY. be encouraged in the endeavour to reconcile them by the assurance that an indefinite further number, just as perplex ing, await solution. Those Christians who are too enlightened to accept the Bible, as it has chanced to come down to us, as in every word the very Word of God, and too free-minded to submit to the authority of a tradition which has varied with all climes and ages, or a Church whose history is a record of blunders, compromises, falsifications, self-contra dictions, probably unequalled in the annals of any merely secular institution whatever, manage to remain, in their own estimation, Christians, by believing that God’s saving revela tion to mankind is made in the Bible, and that everyone may read it for himself if he studies the volume in a re verent and prayerful spirit. They admit many errors of copyists, reject many passages, and even books, as decidedly spurious, and regard many others as doubtful; yet maintain that, all deductions made, there is left a clear and sufficient Divine message, whose essential character is untouched by .any of the errors or defects, and unchanged by any of the various readings. Now, this theory is certainly the most illogical which a Christian can hold ; for that of the thorough Bibliolater is consistent in its blind submission of reason to faith ; and the Roman and Church views are equally consistent in their blind submission to faith and tradition and ecclesiastical authority; while this new theory seeks and pretends to •conciliate things which are essentially irreconcilable—reason and faith, freethought and revelation, liberty and servitude, the natural and the supernatural. But, as it is the theory of some of the best and ablest of our religious fellow-citizens, and of those who are most heartily with us in much sound Secular work, it practically claims a fuller consideration here than it intrinsically merits. In the first place, it is evidently open to the fatal objec tion that it makes man the measure and standard of his God, setting up certain Scriptures as supernatural and Divine, then subjecting them to the arbitrament of human nature, the reason and conscience of the creature. Each of those who hold it says in effect: “ Here are books pur porting to contain the Word of God, and I believe they do contain it, but mixed with many vain words of men; �BIBLE MORALITY. 19 therefore, what suits me I shall consider Divine, and what does not suit me I shall reject.” Numerous clever attempts ■have been made to smooth away this sharp self-contradic tion ; but, so far as we are aware, and as was to be expected, not one that can be deemed even plausible by any candid outsider. There is but one mode of getting rid of it—a mode swift and effectual, obvious, and facile in theory; but, as long experience proves, very hard to put into practice— .and this is to surrender the initial claim of Divine inspira tion of the books, when, of course, it would be quite natural and consistent to sit in judgment on them, as on any other human writing, welcoming what in them we find good and true, rejecting what we find bad and false. It is indeed alleged that the special grace of the Holy Spirit always illumines and guides every one who studies these books in the proper frame of mind; but, as we find, in fact, that no two serious students read quite alike—each .reading in accordance with his peculiar temperament, intel lect, training, and circumstances, precisely as he would read were there no Holy Spirit in question—the said special grace, having no perceptible effect, may be safely left out of the calculation. Innumerable sectaries, all alike devout and sincere, all alike drawing their inspiration from the Bible, have differed widely on the very fundamental doc trines of Christianity; and we never heard of the Holy Spirit doing anything towards bringing these brethren into unity. A Christian eclectic submits the Bible to the test of his own reason and conscience, which have been educated and purified, not by the book itself, nor by any supernatural grace, but by the results of a long and gradual progress in secular enlightenment and civilisation ; which progress has been at nearly every step opposed on the authority of the book, and in the name of the religion founded on it. Doc trines that now revolt the common conscience did not in former centuries revolt the consciences of men who were taught by the book and purified by the Holy Spirit. It is not by special grace, nor revelation of the Holy Scriptures, but by critical scholarship, that men have come now to decide as to the genuineness and authenticity, the date and authority, of the various portions. Until free learning was revived at the classical or heathenish Renaissance, the Holy Spirit was content to leave all the most pious Biblical �20 BIBLE MORALITY. students in very deep darkness as to nearly all the points ott which our eclectic Christians are now so clearly enlightened. The family ideal set forth in the Bible is certainly not one of a high ethical nature. The domestic relationship of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon could not be emulated to-day without practising gross injustice,and submitting to utter moral degradation. The IndoEuropean race has developed in morals as in knowledge, and two thousand years ago, when Germanicus led the Roman legions, he beheld with wonder the respect with which the ignorant, rude, and warlike Germans treated their wives and daughters. It is an insult to civilised women for any one to commend the family ideal of those who made woman a slave. Even Christ is represented as treating women as if they were necessarily inferior to men ; while his conduct to his mother, his commendation and personal practice of celibacy, and his encouraging others to renounce their own obligations to their families, are not calculated to shed a halo of peace and happiness within the home circle. Moreover, St. Paul’s doctrine of the absolute submission of wives to their husbands can hardly be offered us to admire as an ideal. The Secularist family ideal is far superior to that of the Bible, inasmuch as it is on a level with the ethics of our societarian development. It teaches that marriage should be the result of mutual affection, and that such a union creates the responsibility of undivided allegiance, mutual fidelity, and mutual consideration. It affirms that in the domestic circle there should be no one-sided, absolute authority; that husband and wife should be partners in deed, not only in theory, animated alike by the desire to promote each other’s happiness. The basis of Bible morality, being God’s will, is very delusive, for the simple reason that, if such a will has been recorded, it is not known to us; and the conjectured repre sentations of it given to us by theologians of all ages are impracticable and conflicting. In the Bible there is not to be found only one will ascribed to its Deity, but many; and those are as contradictory as they are various. For instance, murder, adultery, theft, deceit, and other crimes can be proved from the Bible to be opposed to the expressed desire of God, as given in the Scriptures; while upon the �BIBLE MORALITY. 21 same authority these crimes can be shown to accord with God’s will. The result is, it is impossible to regulate human conduct upon the sanctions of either the “ inspired ” records. It is this peculiar nature of Bible teachings which was, prob ably, the cause of the early Christians lying for the glory of the Church (see Mosheim’s “ Ecclesiastical History ”), and of Christians at a more modern period robbing and murder ing those whom they termed heretics. In doing what they did in this persecuting business, the Bible believers, no doubt, thought that they were acting in accordance with •“God’s will,” as set forth in the “ Divine revelation.” The founders and promoters of those body-and-mind-destroying institutions, the Inquisition and the Star Chamber, were in all probability sincere, and many of them in the affairs of every-day life, apart from theology, good men. In religious matters, however, they were cruel and inhuman in the extreme. Why was this ? Because, no doubt, in punishing even to death those who opposed the true faith, they thought they were following the Bible as a guide (see Deuteronomy xiii. 6-9). The acceptance of the Bible as a standard of morality involves also the recognition of teachings and doctrines that are conflicting and impracticable. In one place we are told that faith alone will save us (Romans iii. 27, 28); while in another portion of this same “ authority ” we are assured that works are necessary to secure salvation (James ii. 24). In St. John we read, “No man cometh unto the Father but by me ” [Christ] (xiv. 6); and in the same gospel it is recorded, “ No man can come to me [Christ] except the Father draw him ” (vi. 44). This makes salvation depend, not upon man, but upon God. In John it is written, “ For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one while Timothy states distinctly that “ there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” The New Testament teaches that Christ brought glad tidings for all men ; yet we are assured that he came but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel—that many are called, but few are chosen. In one chapter we learn that all sin can be forgiven, while in another part of the same book it is said that the sin against the Holy Ghost is never to be for given. In Timothy we read : “ For this is good and accept �22 BIBLE MORALITY. able in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all mento be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.’7' But this cannot be if it is true that “ for this cause God shall send them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie.” If the delusions are sent by God, and if in conse quence mankind believe a lie, and get punished hereafter for such belief, it is only fair to suppose that God’s will was that they should not come to a knowledge of the truth; which contradicts what is stated in Timothy. John assuresus that “ whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer; and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” This is very consoling when we read the following : “ If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters—yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” To be a disciple of Christ you must hate your brother ; you are thus a mur derer, and “no murderer hath eternal life.” If you wish, therefore, to have eternal life, you must not become a dis ciple of Christ. Martyrdom by death may not always be the best way to advance a principle, inasmuch as more good can generally be done by living for a cause than by dying for it. But Christians say the martyrdom of the early Christians proves the truth of their doctrines, and in support of their contention they quote the words of Jesus : “ And I [Jesus] say unto you, My friends, be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.” These words, it is thought, prove that Jesus taught and held life cheaply, in order to advance more readily his doctrines. It appears, however, from John that Christ did what many of his followers now do—taught one thing and practised another; for on one occasion John says, “ Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.” What are we to do in this case—follow Christ’s teaching, or his example ? To follow both is impossible. Some persons condemn all war upon the ground that it is anti-Scriptural, and in their justi fication they quote Matthew, where he says : “ Then said Jesus unto them, Put up again thy sword into its place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” The soldier, on the other hand, tells the peace man that we ought to possess swords ; for in Luke it is said : “ He that hath no sword let him sell his garments and buy one.” �BIBLE MORALITY. 23 Both would be equally justified, and both would be equally condemned, by the New Testament—a very perplexing position to be in. But the man fond of fighting would keep his sword, believing that the more Christianity became spread the more use there would be for the sword, as Christ declared: “ Think not that I am come to send peace on earth : I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” If Christ had succeeded in his object -—and he has partially—the advocate of the sword would have had good grounds for justification. St. Paul considers charity the highest of virtues, without which all other acquirements are as nothing. But then he immediately destroys the efficacy of such teaching by the following command : “ As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” We are told that “ wisdom is the principal thing, therefore get wisdom.” But we are also assured that in much wisdom there is much grief, and that he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. It is folly to guide man to wisdom, telling him that it is better than riches, while he is taught that “ the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God.” Where is the incentive for a youth to acquire knowledge when St. Paul says, “It is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the pru dent ” ? From these samples of the incoherent nature of Bible statements and teachings, it will be seen how impossible it is to rely implicitly on such a book as a guide in human conduct. True, Christians may urge that there is no con tradiction in the cases cited; that the Bible is God’s Word, and must therefore be all true. It is in vain that the student points out that this revelation abounds with impos sibilities and absurdities, for he is reminded that with God all things are possible, therefore let “ God be true, and every man a liar.” It is further urged that the mistakes occur through our lack of comprehension ; that the Scrip tures would be plain enough if we could only “ see our way clear ” to accept them as gospel; and that the depravity of our nature prevents us viewing revealed truth in a spiritual �24 BIBLE MORALITY. light. These are the sentiments of many who profess to accept the Bible as a guide. Truly, we must become as little children if we endorse the doctrine of Scriptural infalli bility. The conduct of those who, in the face of such incon sistency, contend for Bible infallibility is something more than foolish; it is criminal. To shelter all that the Bible contains under the halo of “ divinity ” is to pay homage to the worst of human weaknesses. If a man is to pursue an intellectual career; if he is to foster a manly independence; if he is to live a life of integrity, he must not be bound either by ancient folly or modern orthodoxy; but, unfettered, he should learn the lessons afforded by a knowledge of the facts of nature, and from the discoveries of science acquire those rules which through life will be a surer counsellor than the Bible, and a safer guide than theology. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes. Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk. <img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Bible morality Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Watts, Charles Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: From the NSS pamphlet collection. Title in KVK given as 'Bible Morality: Its Teachings Shown to be Contradictory and Defective as an Ethical Guide'. Publication given in KVK as London : Watts and Co., [19--]. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Watts & Co. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [19--] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RA1582 N658 Subject The topic of the resource Bible Ethics Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /> This work (Bible morality), identified by <a href="www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a>, is free of known copyright restrictions. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Bible-Criticism NSS Philosophy and Religion https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/14a0f7b4f20932b2b4e6584db3d9991a.pdf?Expires=1784764800&Signature=jSRq2mNkRyALHID488xZcWNMbeSTdmDGpa23RqpnjlWR38GDsR-6g3Rsm7h4I8QKpqaL9wFVb%7ESBwgmz43LBN4JKb0YJ1NubvA87lKZOpk0S0uPjXhyZXFMTwYaDn4ES38Yh3U5dW5fVckp3YfOIUYLTj-TyLYUEJr2ypKmWJ%7Ez-q6zRGvl-LIXixdQpF4CrsxrMTsDJ39%7EYCHsF4JDTQec6YGGSIpesadFoY-9uVO2hlcwJmw4wxWKVFixGpD17slIxboErmFObngdkX9lQaBQ8VYdU0vhJKTBOXvVTT6xWh6f1PY2SRAZKGB-bmmJKCecOZdcbW6jkCO8N%7E8OJIg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 9edfc26c5efedbeae9ec083b9a5cc5f1 PDF Text Text BY G, W, FIRST PRICE A FOOTE, SERIES. SHILLING. LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. ��BIBLE ROMANCES—1. THE CREATION STORY. By G. W. FOOTE. The Book of Genesis is generally thought, as Professor Huxley says, to contain the beginning and the end of sound science. The mythology of the Jews is held to be a divine revelation of the early history of man, and of the cosmic changes preparatory to his creation. The masses of the people in every Christian country are taught in their childhood, that God created the universe, including this earth with all its flora and fauna, in five days ; that he created man, “the bright consummate flower” of his work, on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh. Yet every student knows this conception to be utterly false; every man of science rejects it as absurd ; and even the clergy them selves mostly disbelieve it. Why, then, do they not disabuse the popular mind, and preach what they deem true, instead of what they know to be false ? The answer is very simple. Because they feel that the doctrine of the Fall is bound up with the Genesaic account of Creation, and that if the latter be discredited the former will not long be retained. The doctrine of the Fall being the foundation of the scheme of Atonement, the clergy will never admit the Creation Story to be mythical until they are forced to do so by external pressure. At any rate they cannot be expected to proclaim its falsity, since by so doing they would destroy the main prop of their power. What the recog nised teachers of religion will not do, however, should not be left undone, especially when it is so needful and important. Men of science, by teaching positive and indisputable truths, are gradually but surely revolutionising the world of thought, and dethroning the priesthoods of mystery and superstition. Yet their influence on the masses is indirect, and they do not often trouble themselves to show the contradiction between their dis coveries and what is preached from the pulpit. Perhaps they are right. But it is also right that others should appeal to the people m the name not only of science, but also of scholarship and common sense, and show them the incredible absurdity of much that the clergy are handsomely paid to preach as the veritable and infallible Word of God. • Creation Story, with which the Book of Genesis opens, is incoherent, discrepant, and intrinsically absurd, as we shall attempt to show. It is also discordant with the plainest truths of Science. Let us examine it, after casting aside all prejudice and predilection. If the universe, including this earth and its principal inhabitant, �2 ' The Creation Story. man, was created in six days, it follows that less than six thousand years ago, chaos reigned throughout nature. This, however, is clearly untrue. Our earth has revolved round its central sun for numberless millions of years. Geology proves also that millions of years have elapsed since organic existence first appeared on the earth’s surface, and this world became the theatre of life and death. Darwin speaks of the known history of the world as “of a length quite incomprehensible by us,” yet even that he affirms “ will hereafter be recognised as a mere fragment of time ” com pared with the vast periods which Biology will demand.. The instructed members of the Church have long recognised these statements as substantially true, and they have tried to reconcile them with Scripture by assuming that the word which in the History of Creation is rendered day really means a period, that is an elastic space of time which may be expanded or contracted to suit all requirements. But there are two fatal objections to this assumption. In the first place, the same’word is rendered day in the fourth commandment, and if it means period in Genesis, it means period in Exodus. In that case we are commanded to work six periods and rest on the seventh, and each period must cover a geological epoch. How pleasant for those who happen to be born in the seventh period, how unpleasant for those born in one of the six! The lives of the one class all work, those of the other all play ! In the second place, the account of each day’s creation concludes with the refrain, “ and the evening and the morning were the first (or other) day.” Now evening and morning are terms which mark the luminous gradations between night and day, and these phenomena, like night and day; depend on the earth’s revolving on its axis, and presenting different por tions of its surface to the sun. Evening and morning clearly imply a space of twenty-four hours, and the writer of Genesis, whoever he was, would probably be surprised at any other inter pretation of his words. It is sometimes argued, as for instance by Dr. M’Caul, that these primeval days were of vast and unknown duration, the evening and the morning not being dependent on their present causes. But this supposition could only apply to the first three days, for the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day, expressly “ to rule over the day, and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness.” The fifth and Bixth days, at least, must be understood as of normal length, and thus the chronological difficulties remain. All animal life was brought into existence on the last two days, and therefore the Bible still allows an antiquity of less than six thousand years for the world’s fauna. Geology and Biology allow millions of years. Here then Science and the Bible are in flagrant and irreconcilable contradiction. The fact that the writer of Genesis represents light as existing three days before the creation of the sun, the source of light, has �The Creation Story. 3 frequently been noticed. One learned commentator supposed that God had infused a certain “ luminosity ” through the air, which was not exactly the same as the light of the sun. But light is not a thing; it is a phenomenon caused by definite laws of astronomy and optics. Such explanations are but fanciful refuges of superstition. “ God said let there be light and there was light,” is not the language of science and history, but the language of poetry. As such it is sublime. We find a similar expression in the Vedas of the Hindoos: “He thought, I will create worlds, and they were there ! ” Both become ridiculous when presented to us as a scientific statement. The physical astro nomer knows how worlds are formed, as well as how their move ments are determined; he knows also the causes of light; and he knows that none of these processes resembles the accounts given in the Creation Stories of the Hebrews and the Hindoos. Science knows nothing of six creative epochs, any more than of six creative days; and it is quite certain that the order of Creation given in Genesis differs widely from the revelations of Geology. For instance (and one instance in such a case is as good as a thousand), fish and fowl are said to have been created on the same day. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that day means period. The conclusion still is that fish and fowl were created together. Starting from this conclusion, what should we expect to find in our geological researches? Why, the fossil remains of fish and of fowl in the same epochs. But we find nothing of the kind. Marine animals antedate the carboniferous period, during which all our coal deposits were laid, but no remains of fowl are found until a later period. Now the carbo niferous period alone, according to Sir William Thompson, covers many millions of years; so that instead of fish and fowl being contemporaneous, we find them geologically separated by incon ceivable spaces of time. Here again the Bible and Science fatally . disagree, Even if we admit that the fifth day of creation -was a period, the chronology of the Bible is still fatally at variance with fact. With respect to the antiquity of the human race, it is precise and unmistakable. It gives us the age of Adam at his death, and the ages of the other antediluvian patriarchs. From the Flood the genealogies are carefully recorded, until we enter the historic period, after which there is not much room for dispute. From the creation of Adam.to the birth of Christ, the Bible allows about four thousand years. The antiquity of the human race, ' therefore, according to Scripture, is less than six thousand years. Science, however, proves that this is but a fragment of the vast period during which man has inhabited the earth. There was a civilisation in Egypt thousands of years before the alleged creation of Adam. The Cushite civilisation was even more ancient. Archaeology shows us traces of man’s presence, in a �4 The Creation Story. ruder state, long before that. The researches of Mr. Pengelly in Kent’s Cavern proved that cave-men lived there more than two hundred thousand years ago ; while geological investigations in the Valley of the Somme have established the fact that primitive men existed there in the tertiary period. Professor Draper writes: “So far as investigations have gone, they indisputably refer the existence of man to a date remote from us by many hundreds of thousands of years. It must be borne in mind that these investigations are quite recent, and confined to a very limited geographical space. No researches have yet been made in those regions which might reasonably be regarded as the primitive habitat of man. We are thus carried back immeasurably beyond the six thousand years of Patristic chronology. It is difficult to assign a shorter date for the last glaciation of Europe than a quarter of a million of years, and human existence antedates that." The chronology of the Bible is thus altogether obsolete. The idea of a seven-days’ creation was not confined to the Jews: it was shared by the Persians and Etruscans. The division of the year into months and weeks is a general, although not a universal practice. The ancient Egyptians observed a tendays’ week, but the seven-days’ week was well known to them. The naming of the days of the week after the seven Planets was noted by Dion Cassius as originally an Egyptian custom, which spread from Egypt into the Roman Empire. The Brahmins of India also distinguish the days of the week by the planetary names. This division of time was purely astronomical. The Jews kept the Feast of the New Moon, and other of their ceremonies were determined by lunar and solar phenomena. We may be sure that the myth of a seven-days’ creation followed and did not precede the regular observance of that period. There is one feature of the Hebrew story of creation which shows how anthropomorphic they were. The Persians represent Ormuzd as keeping high festival with his angels on the seventh day, after creating all things in six. But the Hebrews represent Jehovah as resting on the seventh day, as though the arduous labors of creation had completely exhausted his energies. Fancy Omnipotence requiring rest to recruit its strength! The Bible, and especially in its earlier parts, is grossly anthropomorphic. It exhibits God as conversing with men, sharing their repasts, and helping them to slaughter their foes. It represents him as visible to human eyes, and in one instance as giving Moses a back view of his person. Yet these childish fancies are still thrust upon us as divine truths, which if we disbelieve we shall be eternally damned! Let us now examine the Creation Story internally. In the first place, we find two distinct records, the one occupying the whole of the first chapter of Genesis and the first three verses of the second, at which point the other commences. These two / �The Creation Story 5 records belong to different periods of Jewish history. The older one is the Elohistic, so called because the creator is designated by the plural term Elohim, which in our version is translated God. The more modern one is the Jehovistic, in which Elohim is combined with the singular term Jehovah, translated in our version the Lord God. The Elohistic and Jehovistic accounts both relate the creation of man, but instead of agreeing they widely differ. The former makes God create man in his own image ; the latter does not even allude to this important circum stance. The former represents man as created male and female at the outset; the latter represents the male as created first, and the female for a special reason afterwards. In the former God enjoins the primal pair to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth; ” in the latter there is no such injunction, but on the contrary, the bringing forth of children in sorrow is imposed upon the woman as a punishment for her sin, and she does not appear to have borne any offspring until after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Lastly, the Elohistic record makes no mention of this Paradise, in which, according to the Jehovistic record, the drama of the Fall was enacted, but represents man as immediately commissioned to subdue and populate the world. Such discrepancies are enough to stagger the blindest credulity. We now proceed to examine the Jehovistic account of Creation in detail. We read that the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, the Hebrew word for which is adamah. The word Adam means “ be red,” and adamah may be referred to the red soil of Palestine. Kalisch also observes that man may have been originally called Adam on account of the red color of his skin. The Chinese represent man as kneaded of yellow earth, and the red Indians of red clay. The belief that man was formed of earth was not confined to the Jews, but has been almost uni versal, and undoubtedly arose from the fact that our bodies after death return to the earth and resolve into the elements. The Lord God placed this forlorn first man in the Garden of Eden, with the command to till it, and permission to eat of the fruit of all its trees except “ the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” How Adam trespassed and fell, and brought a curse upon him self and all his innocent posterity, we shall consider in another pamphlet. The story of the Fall is infinitely curious and diverting, and must be treated separately. Adam’s first exploit, after he had taken a good look round him, was very marvellous. All the cattle and beasts of the field and fowl of the air were brought before him to be named, and “ whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” This first Zoological Dictionary is unfortunately lost, or we should be able to call every animal by its right name, which would doubtless gratify them as well as - ourselves. The �6 The Creation Story. fishes and insects were not included in this primitive nomencla ture, so the loss of the Dictionary does not concern them. . The Lord made the animals pass before Adam seemingly with the expectation that he would choose a partner from amongst them. Nothing, however, struck his fancy. If he had fallen in love with a female gorilla or ourang-outang, what a difference it would have made in the world’s history ! A ftftr this wonderful exploit u the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam,” who surely must have been tired enough to fall into a good sound natural sleep, without a heavenly narcotic. While in this state one of his ribs was extracted for a purpose we shall presently refer to, and which he discovered when he awoke. This curious surgical operation involves a dilemma. If Adam was upright after it, he must have been lopsided before; if he was upright before it, he must have been lopsided after. In either case the poor man was very scurvily treated. It has been maintained that God provided Adam with another rib in place of the one extracted. But this is a mere conjecture. Besides if the Lord had a spare rib in stock he might have made a woman of it, without cutting poor Adam open and making a pre mortem examination of his inside. The divine operator’s purpose wa,s a good one, whatever we may think of his means. He had discovered, what Omniscience would have foreknown, that it was not good for man to be alone,, and had resolved to make him a help-meet. Adam’s “ spare-rib was the raw material of which his wife was manufactured. The Greenlanders believed that the first woman was fashioned out of the man’s thumb. The woman was brought to Adam, who said _ “This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” Not a word did he say about “ soul of my soul.” Perhaps he suspected •she had none, and with some truth, if we go no further than our English version. When the Lord God made man, he ‘‘breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul, but apparently no such operation was performed on Eve. Indeed it is very difficult to prove from the Bible that woman has a soul at all. Women should reflect on this. They should also reflect on the invidious fact that they were not included in the original scheme of things, but thrown in as a make-weight afterwards. Let them ponder this a while, and the churches and chapels in which this story is taught would soon be emptied. The majority of those who occupy seats in such places wear bonnets, and most of those who don’t, go there for the sake of those who do. _ When Adam had thus accosted his bride he grew prophetical. “Therefore,” said he, “shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” In his desire to give the institution of marriage the highest sanction, the writer of this story perpetrated. a gross anachronism. Adam had no parents, nor any experience of �The Creation Story. 7 marriage. Unless, therefore, we credit him with superhuman prescience, it is absurd to make him talk in this way. Eve’s name, no less than Adam’s, betrays the mythological character of the story. It means the “ mother of all,” and was evidently applied to her by the Jewish writers in order to signify her supposed relationship to the human race. While God was engaged in the work of creation, why did he not make two human couples, instead of one ? The arrange ment he adopted involved the propagation of the human species through incest. Adam and Eve’s sons must have had children by their sisters. If two couples had been created, their families might have intermarried, and mankind would not then have sprung from the incestuous intercourse of the very first genera tion. Surely omnipotence might have obviated the necessity of a crime against which civilised consciences revolt with unspeak able disgust. Adam and Eve were placed by God in the Garden of Eden. “ Eden,” says Kalisch, “ comprised that tract of land where the Euphrates and Tigris separate ; from that spot the ‘ garden in Eden’ cannot be distant. Let it suffice that we know its general position.” Its exact position can never be ascertained. What a pity it is that Noah did not occupy some of his leisure time, during the centuries he lived after his exit from the ark, in writing a typography of the antediluvian world! The Greeks placed Paradise in the Islands of the Blessed, beyond the Pillars of Hercules in the western main. The Swede, Rudbeck, asserts that Paradise was in Scandinavia ; some Russian writers supposed it to have been in Siberia; and the German writers, Hasse and Schulz, on the coast of Prussia. Eastern traditions place it in Ceylon, and regard the mountain of Rahoun as the spot where Adam was buried. Some old Christian writers hazarded the theory that Paradise was beyond the earth altogether, on the other side of the ocean, which they conceived to encircle it, and that Noah was conveyed to our planet by the deluge. Kalisch gives a long list of ancient and modern authorities on the sub ject, who differ widely from each other as to the actual position of Eden, their only point of agreement being that it was some where. The Creation Story of the Bible cannot be considered as any thing but a Hebrew myth. Scholars have abundantly shown the absurdity of supposing that Moses wrote it. Doubtless, as a piece of traditional mythology, it is very ancient, but it cannot be traced back in its present literary form beyond the Babylonish captivity. Men of science without exception disbelieve it, not only with regard to the world in general, but also with regard to the human race. In his famous article on “The Method and Results of Ethnology,” Professor Huxley made this declaration :— “ There are those who represent the most numerous, respectable, �8 The Creation Story. and would-be orthodox of the public, and who may be called ‘ Adamites,’ pure and simple. They believe that Adam was made out of earth somewhere in Asia, about six thousand years ago; that Eve was modelled from one of his ribs; and that the pro geny of these two having been reduced to the eight persons who landed on the summit of Mount Ararat after an universal deluge, all the nations of the earth have proceeded from these last, have migrated to their present localities, and have become converted into Negroes, Australians, Mongolians, etc., within that time. Five-sixths of the public are taught this Adamitic Monogenism as if it were an established truth, and believe it. Z do not; and I am not acquainted with any man of science, or duly instructed person, who does.” The clergy, then, who go on teaching this old Creation Story as true, are either unduly instructed or dis honest, ignorant or fraudulent, blind guides or base deceivers. It is not for us to determine to which class any priest or preacher belongs: let the conscience of each, as assuredly it will, decide that for himself. But ignorant or dishonest, we affirm, is every one of them who still teaches the Creation Story as a record of actual facts, or as anything but a Hebrew myth. The origin of the human race is far different from that recorded in Genesis. Man has undoubtedly been developed from a lower form of life. The rude remains of primitive men show that they were vastly inferior to the present civilised inhabitants of the world, and even inferior to the lowest savages with whom we are now acquainted. Their physical and mental condition was not far removed from that of the higher apes; and the general opinion of biologists is that they were descended from the Old World branch of the great Simian family. There is, indeed, no absolute proof of this, nor is it probable that there ever will be, as the fossil links between primitive man and his Simian pro genitor, if they exist at all, are most likely buried in that sunken continent over which roll the waters of the South Pacific Ocean. But as the line of natural development can be carried back so far without break, there is no reason why it should not be carried farther. The evolution theory is now almost universally accepted by men of science, and few of them suppose that man can be exempted from the general laws of biology. At any rate, the Bible account of Creation is thoroughly exploded, and when that is gone there is nothing to hinder our complete acceptance of the only theory of man’s origin which is consistent with the facts of his history, and explains the peculiarities of his physical structure. PRICE ONE PENNY. London: Fkeethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES.—2. NOAH’S By G. W. FLOOD. FOOTE. The Bible story of the Deluge is at once the biggest and the most ridiculous in the whole volume. Any person who reads it with the eyes of Common sense, and some slight knowledge f science, must admit that it is altogether incredible and absurd, and that the book which contains it cannot be the Word of God. About 1,656 years after God created Adam, and placed him in the garden of Eden, the world had become populous and extremely wicked ; indeed, every thought and imagination of man’s heart was evil continually. What was the cause of all this wickedness we are not informed ; but we are told that the sons of God took unto them wives of the daughters of men because they were fair, and we are led to suppose that these matches produced giants and other incurably wicked offspring. No physiological reason is assigned for this strange result, nor perhaps was there any present to the mind of the writer, who probably had witnessed unhappy mariages in his own family, and was anxious to warn his readers, however vaguely, against allowing their daughters to be inveigled into matrimonial bonds with pious sniffling fellows, who professed themselves peculiarly the children of their Father in heaven. However, the narrative is clear as to the fact itself: men had all gone irrecoverably astray, and God had repented that he ever made them. In such a case an earthly human father would naturally have attempted to improve his family ; but the Almighty Father either was too indifferent to do so, or was too well aware of the impossibility of reforming his own wretched offspring ; and therefore he deter mined to drown them all at one fell swoop, just as cat-loving old ladies dispose of too numerous and embarrassing feline pro geny. Bethinking him, however, God resolved to save alive one family to perpetuate the race; he was willing to give his creatures another chance, and theD, if they persisted in going the wrong way, it would still be easy to drown the lot of them again, and that without any reservation. He had also resolved at first to destroy every living thing from off the face of the earth ; but he afterwards decided to spare from destruction two of every species of unclean beasts, male and female, and fourteen, male and female, of all clean beasts and of all fowls of the air and of every creeping thing. Noah, his wife, his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and their wives (eight persons in all), were the only human beings to be preserved from the terrible fate of drowning �10 Noah's Flood. Noah was commanded by God to build an ark for the reception of the precious living freight, the dimensions of which were to be, in English measure, 550 feet long, 93 feet wide, and 55 feet deep. Into this floating box they all got; the flood then came and covered the earth, and all besides were drowned. Now this is a very strange, a very startling story; it seems more like a chapter from the “ Arabian Nights ” or the “ Advenventures of Baron Munchausen” than from the sacred Scriptures of any Religion. Carnal reason prompts us to ask many ques tions about it. 1. How did Noah contrive to bring these beasts, birds, and insects all together in one spot ? The task seems superhuman. Some species could be found only in very remote places—the kangaroo only in Australia, the sloth only in South America, the polar bear only in the Arctic regions. How could Noah, in those days of difficult locomotion, have journeyed in search of these across broad rivers, and over continents and oceans? Did he bring them singly to his dwelling-place in Asia, or did he travel hither and thither with his menagerie, and finish the collection before returning home ? There are, according to Huvh Miller, 1,658 known species of mammalia, 6,266 of birds, 642 < f reptiles, and 550.000 of insects ; how could one man, or a hundred men, have collected specimens of these in those days, and in such a brief space of time ? The beasts clean and unclean, male and female, might be got together by means of terrible exertion, but surely to assemble the birds and reptiles and insects must trans cend human capacity. Some of the last class would of course not require much seeking ; they visit us whether we desire their company or not; and the difficulty would not be how to get them into the ark, but how on earth to keep them out. Others, however, would give infinite trouble. Fancy Noah occupied in a wild-goose chase, or selecting specimens from a wasps’ or hornets’ nest, or giving assiduous chase to a viligant and elusive blue bottle fly! But suppose Noah to have succeeded in his arduous enterprise, the question still remains, how did he keep his wonderful zoological collection alive ? Some of them could live only in certain latitudes; the inhabitants of cold climates would melt away amidst the torrid heat of Central Asia. Then, again, there are some insects that live only a few hours, and some that live a fewdajs at the utmost; what means were adopted for preserving these ? Some animals, too, do not pair, but run in herds ; many species of fish swim in shoals ; sometimes males and sometimes females predominate, as in the case of deer, where one male heads and appropriates a whole herd of females, or in the case of bees, where many males are devoted to the queen of the hive. These could not have gone in pairs, or lived in pairs; their instincts pointed to another method of grouping. How did �Noah’s Flood. 11 Noah provide for their due preservation ? When these questions are answered others speedily arise ; in fact, there is no end to the difficulties of this marvellous story. . 2 Whence and how did Noah procure the food for his huge menagerie? That he was obliged to do so, that the animals were not miraculously preserved without food, we are certain ; for he was expressly commanded by God to gather food for himself an for them. “ Take thou unto thee,” it was said to him, “ of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee ; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.” What provision was made for the carnivorous animals, for lions, tigers, vultures, kites, and hawks? Some of these would require not simply meat, but fresh meat, which could not be provided for them unless super fluous animals were taken into the ark to be killed, or Noah had learned the art of potting flesh. Otters would require fish chameleons flies, woodpeckers grubs, night-hawks moths, and humming-birds the honey of flowers. What vast quantities oi water also would be consumed ! In fact, the task of collecting food to last all the inmates of the a>k, including the eight human beings, for more than a year, must have been greater even than that of bringing them together in the first place from every zone. The labors of Hercules were mere trifles compared with those of Noah. Poor old patriarch! He amply earned his salvation. Had he been possessed of one tithe of Jacob’s cunning and business sagacity, he would have struck a better bargain with God, and have got into the ark on somewhat easier terms. Few men would have undertaken so much to gain so little. _ 3. How were all the animals, with their food, got into the ark f The dimensions as given in the Bible would be insufficient to accommodate a tithe of them ; the ark could not have contained them all, if they were picked together like herrings or sardines. Even if they were so packed, space would still be required for their food ; and for what a vast quantity ! An animal even with man’s moderate appetite would consume in the course of twelve months solid matter to the extent of four or five times its own weight, and some animals are of course far more voracious. This difficulty as to stowing the animals and their food into the ark is quite insuperable ; it is not to be obviated by any employ ment of miraculous intervention. Not even omnipotence can make a clock strike less than one, and God himself must fail to make two things occupy the same space at the same time.. 4. How were the inmates of this floating menagerie, sup posing them got in, supplied with fresh air? According to the Bible narrative the ark was furnished with but one window of a cubit square, and one door which was shut by God himself, and it may be presumed, quite securely fastened. Talk about the Black-hole of Calcutta, why it was nothing to this! What a scramble there must of been for that solitary window and a �12 Noah’s Flood mouthful of fresh air! Lions, tigers, jackals, hysenas, boa-con strictors, kangaroos, eagles, owls, bees, wasps, bluebottles, with Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and their wives, all in one fierce melee. But the contention for the precious vital air must, how ever violent, have soon subsided: fifteen minutes would have settled them all. Yet curiously enough the choking animals suffered no appreciable injury ; by some occult means they were all preserved from harm; which furnishes another illustration of the mysterious ways of God. What powerful perfumes, too, must have arisen from all those animals! So powerful indeed, that even the rancid flavor of foxes and skunks must have been undistinguishable from the blended scents of all their fellow passengers. Those who have visited Wombwell’s menagerie, or stood in the monkey-house of the Zoological Gardens, doubtless retain a lively recollection of olfactory disgust, even although in those places the most scrupulous cleanliness is observed ; but their experience of such smells would have been totally eclipsed if they could but for a moment have stood within Noah’s ark amidst all its heterogeneous denizens. However the patriarch and his sons managed to cleanse this worse than Augean stable passes all understanding. And then what trampings they must have had up and down those flights of stairs communicating with the three storeys of the ark, in order to cast all the filth out of that one window. No wonder their children afterwards began to build a tower of Babel to reach unto heaven; it was quite natural that they should desire plenty of steps to mount, so as to gratify fully the itch of climbing they had inherited from their parents. 5. Where did all the water come from ? According to the Bible story the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days, and covered all the high hills and mountains under the whole heaven. Now mount Ararat itself, on which the ark eventually rested, is seventeen thousand feet high, and the utmost peaks of Himalaya are nearly twice as high as that; and to cover the whole earth with water to such a tremendous height would require an immense quantity of water; in fact, about eight times as much as is contained in all the rivers, lakes, seas, and oceans of our globe. Whence did all this water come ? The Scripture explanation is sadly insufficient; the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened, and the rain was upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. The writer evidently thought that there were great fountains at the bottom of the sea, capable of supplying water in unlimited quantities from some central reservoir; but science knows nothing whatever about them; nay, science tells us that the internal reservoir, if there be one, must contain not water, but liquid fire. If this great reservior poured its contents into the sea, the result would be similar to that frightful catastrophe �Noah's Flood 13 imagined by the Yankee who wished to see Niagara Falls pour into Mount Vesuvius. , The supply from that quarter thus failing, we are forced oacK upon the rain which descended from the windows of heaven, wherever they may be. It rained forty days and forty nights. Forty days and forty nights ! Why forty million days and. nights of rain would not have sufficed. The writer was evidently in tota ignorance of the laws of hydrology. The rain which falls from the clouds originally comes from the waters of the earth, being absorbed into the atmosphere by the process of evaporation. The utmost quantity of water that can thus be held in suspense throughout the entire atmosphere is very small; in fact, if pre cipitated, it would only cover the ground to the depth of abou five inches. After the first precipitation of rain, the process oi evaporation would have to be repeated ; that is, for every addi tional descent of rain a proportionate quantity of water would have to be extracted from the rivers, lakes, and seas below. surely every sane man must perceive that this pretty juggle could not add one single drop to the previously existing amount or water, any more than a man could make himself rich by taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. . The fab e man who is reported to have occupied himself with dipping up water from one side of a boat and emptying it over on the other, hoping thereby to bale the ocean dry, must have been the real author of this story of Noah and his wonderful ark. Some Christian writers, such as Dr. Pye Smith, Dr. Barry, and Hugh Miller, have contended that the author of the book of Genesis is describing not a universal but a partial deluge ; not a flood which submerged the whole earth, but one that merely covered some particular part of the great Central Asian plains. But surely, apart from any consideration pertaining to the very emphatic language of the text, rational men must perceive that the difficulty is not obviated by this explanation, but rather increased. How could the waters ascend in one place to the height of seven teen thousand feet (the height of Mount Ararat) without over flowing the adjacent districts, and, indeed, the whole earth, in conformity to the law of gravitation ? Delitzch is bold enough to assert that the flood of water was ejected with such force from the fountains beneath that it assumed quite naturally a conical shape. But then, even supposing that this explication were anything but sheer silliness, which it is not, how would the learned commentator 'account for the water retaining its conical shape for months after the force of upheaval had expended itself ? These explanations are entirely fanciful and groundless. The language of the narrative is sufficiently explicit. “ And all flesh died that moved upon the earth “ all in whose nostrils was the breath of life;” “and every living substance was de stroyed which was upon the face of the groundand Noah only �14 Noah’s Flood. remained alive and they that were with him in the ark.” Such are the precise unmistakeable words of Scripture, which no sophistry can explain away. But even if the contention for a partial deluge could be made good, the fundamental difficulties would still remain. As Colenso observes, the flood, “ whether it be regarded as a universal or a partial deluge, is equally in credible and impossible.” Geology absolutely contradicts the possibility of any such catas trophe as the deluge within the historic period. According to Sir Charles Lyell, no devastating flood could have passed over the forest zone of AL tn a during the last twelve thousand years ; and the volcanic cones of Auvergne, which enclose in their ashes the remains of extinct animals, and present an outline as perfect as that of AEtna, are deemed older still. Kalisch forcibly pre sents this aspect of the question : “ Geology teaches the impos sibility of a universal'deluge since the last six thousand years, but does not exclude a pattial destruction of the earth’s surface within that period. The Biblical text, on the other hand, demands the supposition of a universal deluge, and absolutely excludes a partial flood.” 6. What became of all the fish? In such a deluge the rivers and seas must have mingled their waters, and this in conjunction with the terrific outpour from the windows of heaven, must have made the water brackish, too salt for fresh-water fish, and too fresh for salt-water fish ; and consequently the aquatic animals must all have perished, unless, indeed, they were miraculously preserved—a contingency which anyone is free to conjecture, but no one is at liberty to assert, seeing that the inspired writer never even hints such a possibility. Now there is no evidence whatever that Noah took any ffh with him into the ark ; under natural circumstances they must have perished outside; yet the seas and rivers still teem with life. When did the new creation of fish take place ? 7. What became of all the vegetation ? Every particle of it must have rotted during such a long submergence. But even if mysteriously preserved from natural decay, it must still have been compressed into a mere pulp by the terrific weight of the super-incumbent water. Colenso estimates that the pressure of a column of water 17.000 feet high would be 474 tons upon each square foot of surface—a pressure which nothing could have resisted. Yet, wonderful to relate, just prior to the resting of the ark on Mount Ararat, the dove sent out therefrom, returned with an olive leaf in her mouth just pluckt off. A fitting climax to this wonderful story. Finally the story relates how the ark rested on the top of Mount Ararat, whence its inmates descended to the plains below, which were then quite dry. Mount Ararat towers aloft three thousand feet above the region of eternal snow. How the poor �Noah's Flood. 15 animals, aye, even the polar bear, must have shivered! And what a curious sight it must have been to witness their descent from such, a height. Often have I speculated on the probable way in which the elephant got down, and after much careful thought I have concluded thus : either he had waxed so fat with being fed so long on miraculous food that he rolled pleasantly down like a ball, with no other injury than a few scratches ; or he had become so very, very thin with living simply on expecta tions, in default of more substantial fare, that he gently floated down by virtue of levity, like a descending feather. And then what journeys some of the poor animals would have to make ; the kangaroo back to Australia, the sloth to South America, the polar bear to the extreme north. How they lived on the road to their ultimate destinations the Lord only knows. There was no food for them; the deluge had destroyed all vegetation for the herbivorous animals, all flesh for the carniverous. Not even a nibble was left for the sheep. As for poor Noah, the first thing recorded of him after his watery expedition is that he drank heavily of wine and got into a state of beastly inebriation. And who can wonder that he did so ? The poor old man had floated about on oceans of water for more than a year, and probably he was heartily sick of his watery prospect. The astonishing thing is that he did not get water on the brain. It was quite natural that he should swill deep potations of some stronger fluid on the first available opportunity. Surely he had water enough during that twelve months to last a lifetime ; enough to justify his never touching the wretched fluid again. While Noah was dead drunk, his second son, Ham, saw “the nakedness of his father,” and reported the fact to his two brethren, who took a garment and, walking backwards, so that they might not see, covered the patriarch’s nudity. On recover ing from his drunken stupor, Noah discovered “ what his younger son had done unto him,” and proceeded at once to vigorous cursing. Ham was the offender, if there was any offence at all, which is not very clear; but punishment in the Bible is generally vicarious, and we read that the irate patriarch cursed Canaan, the son of Ham, for his father’s misdemeanor. Flagiti ously unjust as it is, this proceeding thoroughly accords with Jehovah’s treatment of Adam’s posterity after he and Eve had committed their first sin by eating of the forbidden fruit. Before Noah got drunk he had received from God the assur ance that the world should never more be destroyed by a flood, As a perpetual sign cf this covenant the rainbow was set in the heavens. But the rainbow must have been a common sight for centuries before. This phenomenon of refraction is the result of natural causes, which operated before the Flood, as well as after. The earth yielded its fruits for human sustenance, and �16 Noah's Flood. therefore rain must have fallen. If rain fell before the Deluge, as we are bound to conclude, the rainbow must have been then as now. The usual practice of commentators is to explain this portion of the narrative by assuming that the rainbow was visible before the covenant with Noah, but only after the covenant had a special significance. But, as Colenso observes, the writer of the story supposes the rainbow was then first set in the clouds, and is evidently accounting for the origin of this beautiful phenomenon, which might well appear supernatural to his unin structed imagination. Besides the manifold absurdities of this story there are other aspects of it even more startling. What a picture it presents of fiendish cruelty and atrocious vindictiveness ! What an appalling exhibition of divine malignity ! God, the omnipotent and omni scient ruler of the universe, is represented as harboring and executing the most diabolical intentions. He ruthlessly exter minates all his children except a favored few, and includes in his vengeance the lower animals also, although they were innocent of offence against his laws. Every creature in whose nostrils was the breath of life, with the exception of those preserved in the ark, was drowned, and the earth was turned into a vast slaughter-house. How imagination pictures the terrible scene as the waters rise higher and higher, and the ravening waves speed after their prey ! Here some wretched being, baffled and hopeless, drops supinely into the raging flood ; there a stronger and stouter heart struggles to the last. Here selfish ones battling for their own preservation; there husbands and wives, parents and children, lovers and maidens, affording mutual aid, or at last, in utter despair, locked in a final embrace and meeting death together. And when the waters subside, what a sickening scene presents itself! Those plains, once decked with verdure, and lovely in the sun and breeze, are covered with the bones of a slaughtered world. How can the Christian dare to justify such awful cruelty ? The God of the Pentateuch is not a bene ficent universal father, but an almighty fiend. This story of Noah’s Flood is believed still because people never examine what is taught them as the word of God. Every one who analyses the story must pronounce it the most extra ordinary amalgam of immorality and absurdity ever palmed off on a credulous world. PRICE ONE PENNY. London: Progressive Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES—3. EVE AND THE APPLE. By G. W. FOOTE. Christianity is based upon the story of the Fall. In Adam all sinned, as in Christ all must be saved. Saint Paul gives to this doctrine the high sanction of his name, and we may disregard the puny whipsters of theology, who, without any claim to in spiration, endeavor to explain the Genesaic narrative as an alle gory rather than a history. If Adam did not really fall he could not have been cursed for falling, and his posterity could not have become partakers either in a sin which was never committed or in a malediction which was never pronounced. Nor can Original Sin be a true dogma if our first parents did not trans mit, the germs of iniquity to their children.. If Adam did not fall there was bo need for Christ to save us ; if he did not set God and man at variance there was no need for an atonement; and so the Christian scheme of salvation would be a fiasco from beginning to end. This will never do. No Garden of Eden, no Gethsemane! No Fall, no Redemption! No Adam, no Christ! . Mother Eve’s curiosity was the motive of the first trans gression of God’s commandments in the history of the world, and the whole human race was brought under the risk of eternal perdition because of her partiality to fruit. Millions of souls now writhe in hell because, six thousand years ago, she took a bite of an apple. What a tender and beautiful story! God made her to be Adam’s helpmeet. She helped him to a slice of apple, and that soon helped them both outside Eden. The sour stuff disagreed with him as it did with her. It has disagreed with all their posterity. In fact it was endowed with the mar vellous power of transmitting spiritual stomach-ache through any number of generations. How do we know that it was an apple and not some other fruit? Why, on the best authority extant after the Holy Scrip tures themselves, namely, our auxiliary Bible, Paradise Lost; in the tenth book whereof Satan makes the folio-wing boast to his infernal peers after his exploit in Eden:— “ Him by fraud I have seduced From his Creator, and, the more to increase Your wonder, with an apple.” �2 Eve and the Apple. 'x'i Yet another authority is the profane author of “ Doh Juan,” ■who, in the first stanza of the tenth canto, says of’Newton: “ And this is the sole mortal who could grapple, Since Adam, with a fall, or with an apple. ” Mil ton, being very pious, was probably in the counsel of God. Ib>w else could he have given us an authentic version of the long colJnquies that were carried on in heaven ? Byron, being very profane, was probably in the counsel of Satan. And thus we have the most unimpeachable testimony of two opposite sources to the fact that it was an apple, and not a rarer fruit, which overcame the virtue of our first parents, and played the devil with their big family of children. This apple grew on the Tree of Knowledge, which God planted in the midst of the Garden of Eden, sternly enjoining Adam and Eve not to eat of its fruit under pain of death. Now the poor woman knew nothing of death and could not understand what i dreadful punishment it was ; and there was the fruit dangling before her eyes every hour of the day. Is it any wonder that <he brooded incessantly on the one thing forbidden, that her /-Oman’s curiosity was irresistably piqued by it, and that at last her longing grew so intense that she exclaimed, “Dear me! I can’t refrain any longer. Let the consequences be what they will, I must have a bite.” God made the woman ; he knew her weakness; and he must have known that the plan he devised to test her obedience was the most certain trap that could be in vented. Jehovah played with poor Eve just as a cat plays with a mouse. She had free-will, say the theologians. Yes, and so has the mouse a free run. But the cat knows she can catch it again, and finish it off when she is tired of playing. Not only did God allow Eve’s curiosity to urge her on to sin, he also permitted the serpent, “more subtil than any beast of lhe field,” to supplement its action. This wily creature is popularly supposed to have been animated on the occasion by the Devil himself; although, as we shall explain in another Romance en titled “ The Bible Devil,” the book of Genesis makes not even Ahe remotest allusion to such a personage. If, however, the iempter was the Devil, what chance had the poor woman against Bus seductive wiles ? And even if he was only a serpent, he was very “ subtil ” as we are told, and able to talk like a book, and we know that these creatures have fatal powers of fascination. Surely Mother Eve was heavily handicapped. God might have given her fair play, and left her to fight the battle without fur nishing auxiliaries to the strong side. The serpent, we have said, could converse in human speech. His conversation and his conduct will be dealt with in the Romance yust referred to. Suffice it here to say that he plainly told the woman that God was a liar. “He,” said the tempter, “has said ye shall surely die if ye touch the fruit of this tree. Don’t �Eve and the Apple. 8 believe it. I tell you, ye shall not surely die.” What could poor Eve think ? In addition to her native curiosity here was another incentive to disobedience. Which of these two spoke the truth? There was only one way of deciding. She stretched forth her hand, plucked an apple, and began to eat. And immediately, says Milton, “ Earth felt the wound, and nature from her seat, Sighing through all her works, gave signs of woe That all was lost.” What a rumpus about a trifle ! It reminds us of the story of a Jew who had a sneaking inclination for a certain meat prohibited by his creed. One day the temptation to partake was too strong; he slipped into a place of refreshment and ordered some sausages. The weather happened to be tempestuous, and just as he raised his knife and fork to attack the savory morsel, a violent clap of thunder nearly frightened him out of his senses. Gathering courage, he essayed a second time, but another thunderclap warned him to desist. A third attempt was foiled in the same way. Whereupon he threw down his knife and fork and made for the door, exclaiming “What a dreadful fuss about a little ' Eve’s transgression, accordingto the learned Lightfoot, occurred “about high noone, the time of eating.” The same authority informs us that she and Adam “did lie comfortlesse, till towards the cool of the day, or three o'clock afternoon." However that may be, it is most certain that the first woman speedily got the better of the first man. She told him the apple was nice and he took a bite also. Perhaps he had resolved to share her fortunes good or bad, and objected to be left alone with his menagerie. Lightfoot describes the wife as “ the weaker vessell,” but a lady friend of ours says that the Devil stormed the citadel first, knowing well that such a poor outpost as Adam could easily be carried afterwards. Haying eaten of the fruit, and thus learned to distinguish between good and evil, Adam and Eve Quickly discovered that they were naked. So they “ sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” We are not told who gave them lessons in sewing. Perhaps they acquired the art through intuition. But the necessary implements could not have been gained in that way. Dr. Thomas Burnet, whose mind was greatly exercised by the astounding wonders of the Bible, very pertinently asked “ Whence had they a needle, whence a thread, on the first day of their creation? ” He, however, could give no answer to the question, nor can we, except we suppose that some of the female angels had attended a “ garden party” in Eden and carelessly left their needles and thread behind them. Any reader who is dissatisfied with this explanation must inquire of the nearest parson, who, as he belongs to a class supposed to know almost everything, and �4 Eve and the Apple. believed to have access to the oracles of God, will doubtless be able to reveal the whole gospel truth on the subject. A little later, God himself, who is everywhere at once, came down from everywhere to the Garden of Eden, for the purpose of taking a “ walk in the cool of the day,” He had perhaps just visited the infernal regions to see that everything was ready for the reception of the miserable creatures he meant to damn, or to assure himself that the Devil was really not at home; and was anxious to cool himself before returning to his celestial abode, as well as to purify himself from the sulphurous taint which might else have sent a shudder through all the seraphic hosts. Apparently he was holding a soliloquy, for Adam and Eve “ heard his voice.” Colenso, however, renders this portion of the Romance differently from our authorised version—‘-And they heard the sound of Jehovah-Elohim walking in the garden in the breeze of the day.” Delitzsch thinks they heard the sound of his footsteps, for God used to visit them in the form of a man! Could the force of folly farther go ? Any devout Theist, who candidly thought over this petty fiction, would find its gross anthropomorphism inexpressibly shocking. Knowing that God was everywhere, Adam and Eve nevertheless “ hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.” But they were soon dragged forth to the light. Adam, who seems to have been a silly fellow, explained that he had hidden himself because he was naked, as though the Lord had not seen him in that state before. “ Naked!” said the Lord, “Who told thee that thou wast naked. Hast thou eaten of that tree, eh?” “ O, Lord, yes,” replied Adam; “just a little bit; but it wasn’t my fault, she made me do it, O Lord! O Lord ! ” Whereupon God, who although he knows everything, even before it happens, was singularly ill-informed on this occa sion, turned fiercely upon the woman, asking her what she had done. “ Oh, if you please,” whimpered poor Eve, “ it was I who took the first bite; but the serpent beguiled me, and the fault you see is not mine but his. Oh dear I oh dear ! ” Then the Lord utterly lost his temper. He cursed the serpent, cursed the woman, cursed the man, and even cursed the ground beneath their feet. Everything about at the time came in for a share of the malison. In fact, it was what the Yankees would call a good, all-round, level swear. * The purse of the serpent is a subject we must reserve for our pamphlet on “The Bible Devil,” The curse of the woman was that she should bring forth children in pain and sorrow, and that the man should rule over her. With her present physiological condition, woman must always have suffered during conception as she now does ; and therefore Delitzsch infers that her structure must have undergone a change, although he cannot say in what respect. He dwells also on the “ subjection ” of woman, which “ the religion of Revelation ” has made by degrees more endur- �Eve and the Apple, 5 able; probably forgetting that the Teutonic women of ancient timfis were regarded with veneration, long before Christianity originated. Besides, the subordination of the female is not peculiar to the human race, but is the general law throughout the animal world. Adam’s curse was less severe. He was doomed to till the ground, and to earn his bread by the sweat of his face. Most of us would rather take part in the great strenuous battle of life, than loll about under the trees in the Garden of Eden, chewing the cud like contemplative cows. What men have had to com plain of in all ages is, not that they have to earn their living by labour, but that when the sweat of their faces has been plenteously poured forth the “bread” has too often not accrued to them as the reward of their industry. Orthodox Christianity avers that all the posterity of Adam and Eve necessarily participate in their curse, and the doctrine of Original Sin is taught from all its pulpits. Only by baptism can the stains of our native guilt be effaced; and thus the unbaptized, even infants, perish everlastingly, and hell, to use the words of a Protestant divine, holds many a babe not a span long. A great Catholic divine says—Hold thou most firmly, nor do thou in any respect doubt, that infants, whether in their mothers’ wombs they begin to live and then die, or when, after their mothers have given birth to them, they pass from this life without the sacrament of holy baptism, will be punished with the everlasting punishment of eternal fire.” Horror of horrors ! These men call sceptics blasphemers, but they are the real blasphemers when they attribute to their God such supreme injustice and cruelty. What should we think of a legislator who proposed that the descendants of all thieves should b.e imprisoned, and the des cendants of all murderers hung ? We should think that he was bad or mad. Yet this is precisely analogous to the conduct ascribed to God, who should be infinitely wiser than the wisest man and infinitely better than the best. The crime of our first parents was indeed pregnant with the direst consequences. It not only induced the seeds of original sin, but it also brought death into the world. Milton sings— “ Of man’s first disobedience, and the fruit Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste Brought death into the world." And Saint Paul (Romans v., 12) writes “ As by one man sin came into the world, and death by sin.” Now this theory implies that before the Fall the inhabited por tion of the world was the scene of perfect peace. Birds lived on seeds and eschewed worms, and the fierce carniverous animals’ grazed like oxen. The lion laid down with the lamb. “ Waal,’ said the Yankee, “ I don’t doubt that, but I rayther guess the lamb was inside." The fact is that most of the carnivorous �6 Eve and the Apple. animals could not live on a vegetable di*et; aad therefore they must either have subsisted on flesh before the Fail, which of course involves death, or their natures must have undergone a radical change. The first supposition contradicts scripture, and the second contradicts science. Geology shows us that in the very earliest times living creatures died from the same causes which kill them now. Many were overwhelmed by floods and volcanoes, or engulphed by earth quakes; many died of old age or disease, for their bones are found distorted or carious, and their limbs twisted with pain ; while the greater number were devoured, according to the general law of the struggle for existence. Death ruled universally before the human race made its appearance on the earth, and has absolutely nothing to do with Eve and her apple. Adam and Eve were warned by God that in the day they ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge they should surely die. The serpent declared this to be rank nonsense, and the event proved his veracity. What age Eve attained to the Holy Bible saith not, for it never considers women of sufficient importance to have their longevities chronicled. But Adam lived to the remarkably good old age of nine hundred and thirty years. Like our Charles the Second he took “ an unconscionable time a-dying.” One of his descendants, the famous Methusaleh, lived thirty-nine years longer; while the more famous Melchizedek is not even dead vet, if any credence is to be placed in the words of holy Saint Paul. But all these are mere lambs, infants, or chicken, in compari son with the primeval patriarchs of India. - Buckle tells us that, according to the Hindoos, common men in ancient times lived to the age of 80,000 years, some dying a little sooner and some a little later. Two of their kings, Yudhishther and Alarka, reigDed respectively 27,000 and 66,000 years. Both these were cut off in their prime ; for some of the early poets lived to be about half a million ; while one king, the most virtuous as well as the most remarkable of all, was two million years old when he began to reign, and alter reigning 6,300,000 years, he resigned his empire and lingered on for 100,000 years more. Adam is not in the hunt with that tough old fellow. On the principle that it is as well to be hung for a sheep as a lamb, faithful Christians should swallow him as well as Adam. When the throat of their credulity is once distended they may as well take in everything that comes. W hat followed the Curse clearly shows that man was not origi nally created immortal. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden expressly in order that they might not become so. God “drove them forth” lest they should “take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.” Many orthodox writers, who have to maintain the doctrine of our natural im mortality, preserve a discreet silence on this text. Our great Milton, who has so largely determined the Protestant theology �Eve and the Apple. 7 of England, goes right in the face of Scripture when he makes God say of man, “ I at first with two fair gifts Created him endowed, with happiness And immortality. ” The fact is, the Book of Genesis never once alludes to any such thing, nor does it represent man as endowed with any other soul than that “ breath of life ” given to all animals. It is also certain that the ancient Jews were entirely ignorant of the doctrine of a life beyond the grave. The highest promise that Moses is said to have made in the Decalogue was that their “days should be long in the land.” The Jews were a business people, and they wanted all promises fulfilled on this side of death. Nor is there any real Fall implied in this story. God himself says that “ the man,” having eaten of the forbidden fruit, “ is become as one of us.” That could scarcely be a fall which brought him nearer to God. Bishop South, indeed, in a very eloquent passage of his sermon on “Man Created in God’s Image,” celebrates the inconceivable perfection of the first man, and concludes by saying that “ An Aristotle was but the rubbish of an Adam, and Athens but the rudiments of Paradise.” But a candid perusal of Genesis obliges us to dissent from this view. Adam and Eve were a very childish pair. Whatever intellect they possessed they carefully concealed. Not a scintillation of it has reached us. Shakespeare and Newton are an infinite im provement on Adam and Eve. One of the Gnostic sects, who played such havoc with the early Christian Church, utterly re jected the idea of a Fall. “ The Ophites,” says Didron, “ con sidered the God of the Jews not only to be a most wicked but an unintelligent being............ According to their account, Jaldabaoth, the wicked demi-god adored by the Jews under the name of Jehovah, was jealous of man, and wished to prevent the progress of knowledge; but the serpent, the agent of superior wisdom, came to teach man what course he ought to pursue, and by what means he might regain the knowledge of good and evil. The Ophites consequently adored the serpent and cursed the true God Jehovah.” ’ Before expelling Adam and Eve from Eden, the Lord took pity on their nakedness, and apparently seeing that their skill in needle-work did not go beyond aprons, he “ made coats of skins, and clothed them.’’ Jehovah was thus the first tailor, and the prototype of that imperishable class of workmen, of whom it was said that it takes nine of them to make a man. He was also the first butcher and the first tanner, for he must have slain the animals and dressed their skins. Lest they should return he “ placed at the east of the Garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every �8 Eve and the Apple. way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” As this guard seems never to have been relieved, profane wits have speculated whether the Flood drowned them, and quenched the flaming sword with a great hiss. Ezekiel describes the Cherubims with characteristic magnificence. These creatures with wings and wheels were “full of eyes round about.” And “ everyone had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.” What monsters! No wonder they effectually frightened poor Adam and Eve from attempting a re-entrance into the Garden. Perhaps the reader would like to know what became of the Tree of Knowledge. One legend of the Middle Ages relates that Eve along with the forbidden fruit broke off a branch which she carried with her from Paradise. Planted outside by her hand, it grew to a great tree, under which Abel was killed; at a later time it was used in building the most holy place of Solomon’s temple; and finally it yielded the beams out of which the cross was made ! Another legend says that, after the Fall, God rooted out the Tree of Knowledge, and flung it over the wall of Paradise. A thousand years after it was found by Abraham, none the worse for its long absence from the soil. He planted it in his garden, and while doing so he was informed by a voice from heaven that this was the tree on whose wood the Redeemer should be crucified. Space does not allow us to dwell at length on the Paradise Myths of other ancient peoples, which singularly resembled that of the Jews. Formerly it was alleged that these were all cor ruptions of the Genesaic story. But it is now known that most of them date long anterior to the very existence of the Jewish people. As Kalisch says, “they belonged to the common traditionary lore of the Asiatic nations.” The Bible story of Paradise is derived almost entirely from the Persian myth. It was after contact with the reformed religion of Zoroaster, during their captivity, that the remnant of the Jews who returned to Palestine collated their ancient literature, and revised it in ac cordance with their new ideas. The story of Eve and her Apple is, as every scholar knows, an oriental myth slightly altered by the Jewish scribes to suit the national taste, and has absolutely no claims on our credence. And if this be so, the doctrine of the Fall collapses, and down comes the whole Christian structure which ie erected upon it. [PRICE ONE PENNY.] LaiijnoN : Frbkthought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter Street, Farringdon Street, E.O, �BIBLE ROMANCES,—4, THE BIBLE DEVIL. By G. W. FOOTE, The Christian Godhead is usually spoken and written of as & Trinity, whereas it is in fact a Quarternion, consisting of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, and God the DeviL The Roman Catholics add yet another, Goddess the Virgin Mary. God the Devil, whom this Romance treats of so far as his history is contained in the Bible, is popularly supposed to be inferior to the other persons of the Godhead. In reality, however, he is vastly their superior both in wisdom and in power. For, whereas they made the world, he has appropriated it almost entirely to himself; and, whereas they who created all its inhabitants, have only been able to lay down a very narrow-gauge railway to the Kingdom of Heaven, he has contrived to lay down an exceedingly broad-gauge railway to the Kingdom of Hell. Few passengers travel by their route, and its terminus on this side is miserably small; but his route is almost universally patronised, its terminus is magnificent, and there is an extraordinary rush for tickets. According to the Christian scheme, the Devil tempted Adam and Eve from their allegiance to God in the form of a serpent. He played the devil with Eve, she played the devil with Adam,' and together they have played the devil with the whole human race ever since. But let any unbiassed person read the Genesaic story of the Fall, and he will certainly discover no reference to the Devil. A serpent is spoken of as “more subtle than any beast of the field;” it. is throughout represented simply as a serpent; and nowhere is there the faintest indication of its possessing any supernatural endowments. The Story of the Fall contains clear relics of that Tree and Serpent worship which in ancient times prevailed so extensively over the East. The serpent was formerly regarded as the symbol of a beneficent God. In Hindustan, says Maurice, “the veneration of the serpent is evident in every page of their mythologic history, in which every fabulous personage of note is represented as grasping or as environed with a serpent.” According to Layard, the word which signifies “ life ” in the greater part of the Semitic languages signifies also “a serpent.” And Jacob Bryant says that the word “Ab,” which in Hebrew means Father, has also the same meaning as the Egyptian “Ob,” or “Aub,” and signifies “ a serpent,” thus etymologically uniting the two ideas. The Tree and the Serpent were frequently associated, although they were sometimes worshipped apart. The Aryan races of the �26 The Bible Devil. Western world mostly worshipped the Tree alone. The Scan dinavians had their great ash “ Yggdrasill,” whose triple root reaches to the depths of the universe, while its majestic stem overtops the heavens and its branches fill the world. The Grecian oracles were delivered from the oak of Dodona, and the priests set forth their decrees on its leaves. Nutpi or Neith, the goddess of divine life, was by the Egyptians represented as seated among the branches of the Tree of Life, in the paradise of Osiris. The “ Hom,” the sacred tree of the Persians, is spoken of in the Zendavesta as the “ Word of Life,” and, when consecrated, was partaken of as a sacrament. An oak was the sacred tree of the ancient Druids of Britain. We inherit their custom of gathering the sacred mistletoe at Yule-tide, while in our Christmas Tree we have a remnant of the old Norse tree worship. During the Middle Ages the worship of trees was for bidden in France by the ecclesiastical councils, and in England by the laws of Canute. A learned antiquary remarks that “ the English maypole decked with colored rags and tinsel, and the merry morice-dancers (the gaily decorated May sweeps) with the mysterious and now almost defunct personage, Jack-in-thegreen, are all but worn-out remnants of the adoration of gods in trees that once were sacred in England.” Now the serpent and the tree were originally both symbolic of the generative powers of nature, and they were interchange able. Sometimes one was employed, sometimes the other, and sometimes both. But in that great religious reformation which took place in the faiths of the ancient world about 600 years before the time of Christ, the serpent was degraded, and made to stand as a symbol of Ahriman, the god of evil, who, in the Persic religion, waged incessant war against Ormuzd, the god of bene ficence. The Persian myth of the Fall is thus rendered from the Zendavesta by Kalisch:— “The first couple, the parents of the human race, Meshia and Meshiane, lived originally in purity and innocence. Perpetual happiness was promised them by Ormuzd, the creator of every good gift, if they persevered in their virtue. But an evil demon (Dev) was sent to them by Ahriman, the representative of every thing noxious and sinful. He appeared unexpectedly in the form of a serpent, and gave them the fruit of a wonderful tree, Hom, which imparted immortality and had the power of restoring the dead to life. Thus evil inclinations entered their hearts ; all their moral excellence was destroyed. Ahriman himself appeared under the form of the same reptile, and completed the work of seduction. They acknowledged him instead of Ormuzd as the creator of everything good ; and the consequence was they for feited for ever the eternal happiness for which they were destined.” Every reader will at once perceive how similar this is to the Hebrew story of the Fall. The similarity is intelligible when we remember that all the literature of the ancient Jews was put �The Bible Devil. 27 into its present form by the learned scribes who returned with the remnant of the people from the Babylonish captivity, and who were full of the ideas that obtained in the Persian religion as reformed by the traditional Zoroaster. As we have said, the Hebrew story of the Fall contains clear relics of Tree and Serpent worship. There is also abundant proof that during the long ages in which the Jews oscillated between polytheism and monotheism this worship largely pre vailed. Even up to the reign of Hezekiah, as we find in the Second. Book of Kings, the serpent was worshipped in groves, to the great anger of the king, who cast out the idolatry from among his people. Having explained the subject thus, let us now assume with orthodox Christians that the serpent in Eden was animated by the Devil, or was indeed the Devil himself incarnate. We have already observed that the Devil excels his three rivals in wisdom and in power. While they were toiling so strenuously to create the world and all that therein is, he Quietly stood or sat by as a spectator. “All right,” he might have murmured, “ work away as hard, as you please. You ve more strength than sense. My turn will soon come. When the job is finished we shall see to whom all this belongs.” When the work was completed and they had pronounced all things good, in stepped the Devil, and in the twinkling of an eye rendered im perfect all that they had so labored to create perfect; turning everything topsy-turvey, seducing the first pair of human beings, sowing the seeds of original sin, and at one stroke securing the wholesale damnation of our race. What were they about, to let him do all this with such consummate ease ? Surely they must have slept like logs, and thus left the whole game in his hands. He made himself the “prince of this world,” although they created it; and if those may laugh who win, he was entitled to roar out his mirth to the shaking of the spheres. Besides being the prince of this world and of the powers of darkness, the Devil is described as the father of lies. This, however, is a gross libel on his character. Throughout the contest with his rivals he played with perfect fairness. And from Genesis to Revelation there can be adduced no single instance in which he departs from the strict line of truth. On one occasion when Jehovah desired a lying spirit to go forth and prophesy falsely to his people, he found one ready to his hand in heaven and had no need to trouble Satan for a messenger. The Lord God had told Adam, “ Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” “Nay,” said the Devil, when he began business “ye shall not surely die ; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Every word of his speech was true. Instead of dying “ in the day” that he ate of the fruit. Adam lived to the fine old age of nine hundred and thirty years. �28 The Bible Devil. And after the “fall” the Lord God said, “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” The Devil’s truth fulness is thus amply vindicated. Satan’s visit to Eve was paid in the form of a serpent. She manifested no astonishment at being accosted by such a creature, fbe ^h°le, menagerie of Eden spoke in the human 6’ and Bala.am ® ass was only what the biologists would most of°X °lrsyrsion *? th/ primitive type. Jofeptae and most of the Fathers, conceived of the serpent as having had SnaU\a\uma? voice and legs; so that if he could not have walked about with Eve arm in arm, he might at least have accompanied her in a dance. Milton, however, discredits the legs and represents the serpent thus:— ° “Not with indented wave. Prone on the ground, as since, but on his rear, Circular base of rising folds, that towered Fold above fold, a surging maze, his head’ Crested aloft, and carbuncle his eyes 5 With burnish’d neck of verdant gold,’erect Amidst his circling spires, that on the grass Floated redundant.” Very splendid 1 But the doctors differ, and who shall decide ? .What foliowed the eating of the forbidden fruit we have dealt with in Eve and the Apple.” We shall therefore at once come to the curse pronounced upon the serpent. “ And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: and 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.” J ’ The final portion of this curse is flagrantly mythological. Among the Hindoos, Krishna also, as the incarnation of Vishnu is represented now as treading on the bruised head of a con quered serpent, and now as entwined by it, and stung in the heel. In Egyptian pictures and sculptures, likewise, the serpent is seen pierced through the head by the spear of the goddess Isis. The enmity ” between mankind and the serpent is, how ever not universal. Amongst the Zulus the snake is held in great veneration, as their dead ancestors are supposed to reappear in that form ; and in ancient times, as we have already observed serpents were actually worshipped. * ’ The middle portion of the curse has not yet been fulfilled. The serpent lives on more nutritious food than dust. Tn the Zoological Gardens the inmates of the serpent-house enjoy a more solid diet The fact is, we have here an oriental Sr?tlOv uKS1SCh p0Ults out that “the great scantiness of h the s®rPent can subsist, gave rise to the belief, entertained by many Eastern nations, that they eat dust.” This �The Bible Devil. 29 belief is referred to in Micah vii., 17; Isaiah lxv., 25, and else where in the Bible. Among the Indians the serpent is believed to live on wind. That the serpent “goes” upon its “belly” is, of course, a fact. Before the curse it must have moved about in some other way. Milton’s poetical solution of the difficulty we have already given. During the Middle Ages those seraphic doctors of theology, who gravely argued how many angels could dance on the point of a needle, speculated also on the serpent’s method of locomotion before the “fall.” Some thought the animal had legs, some that it undulated gracefully on its back, and others that it hopped about on its tail. The ever-bold Delitzsch decides that “its mode of motion and its form were changed,” but closes the controversy by adding, “ of the original condition of the serpent it is, certainly, impossible to frame to ourselves a conjecture.” All this is mere moonshine. Geology, as Colenso remarks, shows us that the serpent was the same kind of creature as it is now, in the ages long before man existed on the earth. Why the serpent was cursed at all is a question which no Christian can answer. The poor animal was seized, mastered, occupied, and employed by the Devil, and was therefore abso lutely irresponsible for what occurred. It had committed no offence, and consequently the curse upon it, according to Christian doctrine, was a most brutal and wanton outrage. Having done such a splendid stroke of business in Eden, the Devil retired, quite satisfied that the direction he had given to the affairs of this world was so strong and certain as to obviate the necessity of his personal supervision. Fifteen centuries later the human race had grown so corrupt that God (that is, the three persons in one) resolved to drown them all; preserving, however, eight live specimens to repeople the world. How the Devil must have laughed again! He knew that Noah and his family possessed the seeds of original sin, which they would as suredly transmit to their children, and thus prolong the corruption through all time. Short-sighted as ever, Jehovah refrained from completing the devastation, after which he might have started afresh. So sure was the Devil's grip on God’s creation that, a few centuries after the Flood, there were not found ten righteous men in the whole city of Sodom, and no doubt other cities were almost as bad. According to the Bible, the Devil’s long spell of rest was broken in the reign of • King David, the man after God’s own heart, but a very great scoundrel nevertheless. The Second Book of Samuel (xxiv., 1) tells us that “Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.” Now the First Book of Chronicles (xxi., 1) in relating the same incident says, “And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.” Who shall reconcile this discrepancy? �30 The Bible Devil. Was it God, was it Satan, or was it both ? Imagine David with the celestial and infernal powers whispering the same counsel into either ear! A Scotch minister once told us that this diffi culty was only apparent. The Devil, says he, exercises only a delegated power, and acts only by the express or tacit permis sion of Godso that it matters not which is said to have provoked David. Yes, but what of the consequences ? Because the king, despite all protests, took a census of his people the Lord sent a destroying angel, who slew by pestilence seventy thousand of them. Where, in the whole history of religion, shall we find a viler sample of divine injustice ? +hPT^eS’ if theDeVi.1 actrs in a11 ,cases onlY by God’s permission, the latter is responsible for all the former’s wrcng-doino-. The principal, and not the agent, must bear the guilt. And this suggests a curious problem. Readers of “Robinson Crusoe” inll remember that when Man Friday was undergoing a course of theological instruction, he puzzled his master by asking why God did not convert the Devil. To his unsophisticated mind it was plain that the conversion of the Devil would annihilate sin ^°b“ison Crusoe changed the subject to avoid looking foolish but Man Friday s question remains in full force. Why does not God convert the Devil? The great Thomas Aquinas is re ported to have prayed for the Devil's conversion through a whole long night. Robert Burns concludes his “Address to the De’il ” with a wish that he ‘ wad tak a thought an’ men ’ ” And bterne, m one of his wonderful strokes of pathos, makes Corporal Irim say of the Devil, “He is damned already, your honor •” whereupon, “I am sorry for it,” quoth Uncle Toby. Why oh why, we repeat, does not God convert the Devil, and thus put a stop for ever to the damnation of mankind? Why do not the clergy pray without ceasing for that one object? Because they dare not. The Devil is their best friend. Abolish him, and disestablish hell, and their occupation would be gone. They must stick to their dear Devil, as their most precious possession, their stock-in-trade, their talisman of power, without whom they were worse than nothing. J The Devil’s adventures in the Book of Job are very amusing. One day there was a drawing-room or Zevee held in heaven. The sons of God attended, and Satan came also among them. He seems to have so closely resembled the rest of the company that only God detected the difference. This is not surprising, for the world has seen some very godly sons of God, so very much like tne Oevil, that if he met one of them in a dark lane by night, he might almost suspect it to be his own ghost. God, who knows everything, as usual asked a number of questions. Where had Satan been, and. what had he been doing ? Satan replied, hke a gentleman of independent means, that he had been going t0 andiro in the earth’ and walkinS up and down in it. “ Well ” t “Jiav(l you. observed my servant Job ? What’a good man! perfect and upright. I’m proud of him.” Oh yes, �The Bible Devil. 31 Satan had observed him. He keeps a sharp eye on all men. As -old Bishop Latimer said, whatever parson is out of his parish the Devil is always in his. “Doth Job fear God for nought?” said Satan. “He is wealthy, prosperous, happy, and respected ; you fence him about from evil; but just let trouble come upon him, and he will curse you to your face.” This was a new view of the subject; the Lord had never seen it in this light before. So he determined to make an experiment. With God’s sanction Satan went forth to afflict Job. He despoiled his substance, slaugh tered his children, covered him with sore boils from head to foot, and then set on his wife to “nag” him. But Job triumphed; he did not curse God, and thus Satan was foiled. Subsequently Job became richer than ever and more renowned, while a fresh family grew up around his knees. “ So,” say the Christians, “ alls well that ends well!” Not so, however; for there remains uneffaced the murder of Job’s children, who were hurriedly despatched out of the world in the very midst of their festivity. When the celestial and infernal powers play at conundrums, it is a great pity that they do not solve them up above or down below, and leave the poor denizens of this world free from the havoc of their contention. , In the New Testament, as in the Old, the Devil appears early ■on the scene. After his baptism in Jordan, Jesus was “led up of the spirit in the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil.” When he had fasted forty days and nights he “was afterward an hungered.” Doctor Tanner overlooked this. The hunger of Jesus only began on the forty-first day. The Devil requests Jesus to change the stones into bread, but he declines to do so. Then he sets him “ on a pinnacle of the temple ” in Jerusalem, and desires him to throw himself down. Jesus must have been exceedingly sharp set in that position. Meanwhile, where was the Devil posted ? He could scarcely have craned his neck up so as to hold a confabulation with Jesus from the streets, and we must therefore suppose that he was sharp set on another pinnacle. A pretty sight they must have been for the Jews down below! That temptation failing, the Devil takes Jesus “up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.” This is remarkably like seeing round a corner, for however high we go we cannot possibly see the whole surface of a globe at once. “ All these things,” says Satan, “ will I give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” What a generous Devil! They already belonged to Jesus, for doth not Scripture say “ the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof ”?—a text which should now read “ the earth is the land lords’ and the emptiness thereof.” This temptation also fails, and the Devil retires in disgust. What a pretty farce! Our burlesques and pantomimes are nothing to it. Satan knew Jesus, and Jesus knew Satan. Jesus knew that Satan would tempt him, and Satan knew that Jesus knew it. Jesus knew that Satan could not succeed, and Satan �32 The Bible Devil. knew that also. Yet they kept the farce up night and day for no one knows how long; and our great Milton in his “Paradise Regained ” represents this precious pair arguing all day long Satan retiring after sunset, and Jesus lying down hungry cold and wet, and rising in the morning with damp clothes to renew the discussion. Soon after Jesus went into the country of the Gergesenes where he met two fierce men possessed with devils which he determined to exorcise. The devils (for the Devil had grown numerous by then), not liking to be turned adrift on the world without home or shelter, besought Jesus to let them enter the bodies of a herd of swine feeding by. This he graciously permitted. The devils left the men and entered the swine whereupon the poor pigs, experiencing a novel sensation, never having had devils inside them before, “ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.” Whether the devils were drowned with the pigs this veracious history saith not. But the pigs themselves were not paid for. Jesus wrought the mn-ade at other people’s expense. And the inhabitants of tnat part took precisely this view of the case. For “ the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they be sought him that he would depart out of their coasts.” No doubt they reflected that if he remained working miracles of that kind districtGnd °f a WGek nOt a ShlgIe Pig W°Uld b6 left aUve in th® Entering in Genesis, the Devil appropriately makes his exit in Revelation. The twelfth chapter of that holy nightmare describes mm as “a great'red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns and seven crowns upon his heads; and his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth ” What a tail! The writer’s ideas of size were very chaotic Bringing a third part of the stars of heaven to this earth is much like trying to lodge a few thousand cannon-balls on the surface ot a bullet. Finally the Devil is to be “bound for a thousand years” in nefl Let us hope the chain will be strong; for if it should break, the pit has no bottom, and the Devil would go right through, coming out on the other side to renew his old tricks buch is the Romance of the Bible Devil. Was ever a more ludicrous story palmed off on a credulous world? The very clergy are growing ashamed of it. But there it is, inextricably interwoven with the rest of the “ sacred ” narrative, so that no skill can remove it without destroying the whole fabric. The Devil has been the Church’s best friend, but he is doomed, and as their fraternal bond cannot be broken, he will drag it down to irretrievable perdition. PKICE ONE PENNY. Freethought Publishing Company, 28 Stonecutter Street, London. �BIBLE ROMANCES —V. THE TEN PLAGUES. By G. W. FOOTE. If a man who had never read the Bible before wished to amuse himself during a spare hour among its pages, we should recom mend him to try the first fourteen chapters of Exodus. A more entertaining narrative was never penned. Even the fascinating Arabian Nights affords nothing better, provided we read it with the eyes of common sense, and without that prejudice which so oftens blinds us to the absurdities of “ God’s Word.” At the end of the fourteenth chapter aforesaid, let the book be closed, and then let the reader ask himself whether he ever met with a more comical story. Two hundred and fifteen years after the arrival of Israel in Egypt, God's chosen people had fallen into slavery. Yet they were exceedingly prolific, so that “ the land was filled with them.” Afraid of their growing numbers, Pharaoh ‘‘spake to the Hebrew midwives ” and told them to kill all their male children at birth and leave only the daughters alive. This injunction the midwives very properly disobeyed. Had they obeyed Pharaoh, the Jewish race would have been extinguished, and Judaism and Christianity never heard of. But the comical fact as to these midwives is that there were only two of them, Shipprah and Puah. What a busy pair they must have been! What patterns of ubiquitous industry! When the Jews quitted Egypt they mustered six hundred thousand men, besides women and children. Now, supposing all these were collected together in one city, its size would equal that of London. How could two midwives possibly attend to all the confinements among such a population ? And how much more difficult would their task be if the population were scattered over a wide area, as was undoubtedly the case with the Jews! Words fails us to praise the miraculous activity of these two ladies. Like the peace of God, it passes all understanding. One of the male children born under the iron rule of Pharaoh was Moses, the son of Amram and Jochebed. The incidents of his eventful life will be fully recorded in our series of “ Bible Heroes.” Suffice it here to say that he was adopted and brought up by Pharaoh’s daughter; that he became skilled in all the learning of the Egyptians; that he privily slew an Egyptian who had maltreated a Hebrew, and was obliged therefore to flee to the land of Midian, where he married Zipporah, a daughter of Jethro the priest. At this time Moses was getting on to his eightieth year. Nowadays a man of that age sees only the grave before him, and has pretty nearly closed his account with the world. But in those days it was different. At the age of �34 The Ten Plagues. eighty Moses was just beginning his career. He was indeed a very astonishing old boy. One day Moses was keeping his father-in-law’s flock near Mount Horeb, when lo 1 a strange vision greeted his eyes. The “ angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush,” which burned without consuming. By “angel” we are to understand a vision or appearance only, for the being within the bush was God Almighty himself; and throughout the rest of the narrative the word “angel” gives place to Lord or God. Moses approached this wonderful sight; but the Lord called out to him, “Draw not nigh hither : put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” Thereupon Moses hid his face “forhe was afraid to look upon God.” Could anything be more ludicrous ! Fancy God, the infinite spirit of the universe, secreting himself in a bush and setting it on fire, just to make a little display for the benefit of Moses 1 Our wonder, however, is presently lessened; for this God turns out to be only Jehovah “The Lord God of the Hebrews,” a mere local deity, who cared only for for his own people, and was quite ready to slaughter any number of the inhabitants of adjacent countries, besides being bitterly jealous of their gods. He had heard the cries of his people and had determined to rescue them from bondage. Fie had also resolved to give Pharoah and the Egyptians a taste of his quality, so that they might be forced to admit his superiority to their gods. “ I will let them know,” said he to Moses, “ who I am, and you shall be my agent. We’ll confound their impudence before we’ve done with them. But don’t let us be in a hurry, for the little drama I have devised requires a good deal of time. You go to Egypt and ask Pharaoh to let my people go. But don’t suppose that he will consent. That wouldn’t suit my plans at all. I have decided to set you two playing at the little game of “pull Moses, pull Pharaoh,” and 1 shall harden his heart against your demands so that there may be a fierce tussel. But don’t be afraid. I am on your side, and just at the end of the game I’ll join in and pull Pharaoh clean over. And mind you tell him all along that my power, not yours, works all the wonders I mean you to perform, for you are only my instrument, and I want all the glory myself. Play fair, Moses, play fair! ” Moses was not unwilling to engage in this enterprise, but like a prudent Jew he required certain assurances of success. Fie therefore first raised an objection as to his own insignificance— “Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh? ” To which God replied, “ Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee : When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.” Moses, however, required a much less remote token than this; so he again objected that nobody would believe him. There upon the Lord bade him cast his rod on the ground, and lo! it became a serpent. Moses very naturally fled before it, till the �The, Ten Plagues. 35 Lord told him not to run away but to take it by the tail. He did so, and it became again a rod in his hand. Then the Lord bade him put his hand in his bosom, and on taking it out he found it was “leprous as snow.” Again he put it in his bosom, and when he plucked it out once more it was sound ‘and well. “There,” said the Lord, “those signs will do in Egypt. When you show them nobody will doubt you.” Moses still objected that he was very slow of speech, and frankly desired the Lord to send some one else. The Lord grew angry at this per sistent reluctance; yet he restrained himself, and informed Moses that his brother Aaron, who was a good speaker, should accompany him. The prudent prophet seems to have been at length satisfied. At any rate he made no further objection, but after a little conversation with the Lord, who was very talkative, he set forth on his journey to Egypt. Singular to relate, the Lord met Moses at an inn on the road, and sought to kill him. What a strange God, to be sure 1 Why -did he want to kill his own messenger ? And why, if he wanted to kill him, did he not succeed in doing it? Truly the ways of God are past finding out. The only reason discoverable for this queer conduct is that Moses’ boy was uncircumcised. Zipporah, his wife, took a sharp stone and performed the rite of circum cision herself, casting the amputated morsel at the feet of the boy’s father, with the remark that he was “a bloody husband.” The Lord’s anger was therby appeased, and the text naively says that he then let Moses go. Prompted by the Lord, Aaron went out into the wilderness to meet Moses, and they soon appeared together before “all the elders of the children of Israel,” who readily believed in their mission when they heard Aaron’s account of the Lord’s conversation with Moses, and saw the wonderful signs. Afterwards the two brothers visited Pharaoh, but God had hardened his heart; so he ■denied all knowledge of the Lord, and refused to let Israel go. On the contrary, he commanded the taskmasters to be even more rigorous with them, and, instead of giving them straw to make bricks, as theretofore, to make them gather straw for themselves. And when they complained, Pharaoh replied that they were an idle lot, and only wanted to go out and sacrifice to the Lord in order to avoid work. Whereupon they remonstrated with Moses for his interference, and he, in turn, remonstrated with God in very plain and disrespectful language. “Nonsense!” said the Lord, “now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh.” Again Pharaoh was visited by the two brothers, who this time ■commenced to work the oracle. Aaron cast down his rod, and it became a serpent. But the magicians of Egypt, who were present by the invitation of the king, were in nowise astonished. “ Oh,” said they, “is that all you can do? ” Then every man of them threw dowh his rod, and it also became a serpent. That was indeed an age of miracles ! The magicians of Egypt wrought this wonder without any help from the Lord, and solely “with �36 The Ten Plagues. their enchantments.” Here then was a pretty fix! So far neither side had any advantage. But, presently, Aaron’s serpent—which thus proved itself a truly Jewish one—created a diversion by swallowing all the others up. We must suppose that it after wards disgorged them, or else that Aaron’s rod was exceedingly stout when he got it back. Pharaoh’s heart remained obdurate, notwithstanding this sign, and he still refused to let the people go. And then the plagues commenced. The first was a plague of blood. Aaron stretched forth his rod, and all the waters of Egypt, the streams, the rivers, the ponds, and the pools became blood. Even the water in vessels of stone and wood was ensanguined. The fish all died, and the river stank: and “there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.” This was a good start, but the magicians of Egypt beat it hollow ; for after Aaron had turned all the water of Egypt into blood, they turned all the rest into blood. No wonder that Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened! He quietly walked into his house and let the subject drop. Seven days later Moses went again to Pharaoh and said, “Thus saith the Lord, let my people go.” And Pharaoh said, “I won’t.” “Won’t you?” replied Moses, “we shall see.” Forthwith Aaron brandished his rod over the streams, rivers, and ponds, and brought on the second plague in the shape of frogs, which swarmed all over the land. They entered the houses, penetrated to the bed-rooms, mounted the beds, slipped into the kneading-troughs, and even got into the ovens, although one would expect frogs to give such hot places a very wide berth. What a squelching of frogs there must have been ! The Egyptians could not have stood absolutely still, and the land was covered with them. Again the magicians, “with their enchantments,” followed suit, and brought up frogs too. Yet, as the land was already covered with frogs, it is difficult to see how the new comers found room, unless they got on the backs of the others, and went hopping about in couples. Pharaoh now relented. He called for Moses, and said, “Intreat your Lord to take away these nasty frogs, and I will let the people go.” “That will I.” said Moses, “ and you shall know that there is none like unto the Lord our Gocl.” The next day the frogs died out of the houses, villages, and fields, and were gathered into heaps, so that, again “the land stank.” But when Pharaoh saw that there "was respite he hardened his heart again, “ as the Lord had said.” The third act of this tragi-comedy was decisive in one sense, for in it the magicians of Egypt were obliged to retire from the competition. Aaron stretched forth his rod again and smote the dust of the earth, all of which instantly became lice, in man and in beast. Before this dirty miracle the magicians of Egypt shrank dismayed. They made a feeble and altogether unsuccess ful attempt to imitate Aaron’s performance, and then drew back, declining to continue the contest. Tho lice settled them. �The Ten Plagues. 37 “This,” said they, “is the finger of God.” When they saw the lice they knew that the Lord was shaking himself and meant business. But Pharaoh still refused to knuckle under. Even ao-ainst the force of this supreme wonder his heart was steeled. °So the fourth plague came. A grievous swarm of flies descended on Egypt, so that “the land was corrupted” by reason of them. But not a single fly crosses over into “the land of Goshen” where the Jews dwelt. Thereupon Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, and told them he was willing to let their people go and sacrifice to the Lord for three days, but not outside Egypt. Moses reiterated his demand for a three days’ journey into the wilderness. Whereto Pharaoh replied that they might go, but “not too far.” Moses then undertook to banish the flies. And he was as good as his word; for he made such a clean sweep of them that “not one remained.” This precious narrative always runs to extremes. Egypt without a fly in it would be in a very abnormal condition. At ordinary times the land is infested with flies; and large numbers of the people suffer from diseased eyes, in consequence of these insects incessantly fastening on the sores caused by the irritating sand which fills the air. It was absurd for this Hebrew story-teller to scotch the last fly; he should have left sufficient to maintain the character of the country. Again Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and when the flies were banished he refused to “ let the people go.” So the fifth plague came. A “very grievous murrain,” which spared the cattle of Israel, broke out on the cattle of Egypt, and with such virulence that they all died. Pharaoh found on inquiry that there was “ not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead,” yet for all that his heart was hardened and he would not let the people go. So the sixth plague came. Aaron took “ handfuls of ashes of the furnace,” which Moses sprinkled towards heaven, and “it became a boil breaking forth with blains upon man and upon beast.” Even the magicians were afflicted. Now the reader will bear in mind that all the cattle of Egypt were killed by the fifth plague. What beasts, then, were these tortured with boils ? Were they dead carcasses, or were they live cattle miraculously created in the interim ? From the serpent of Eden to Jonali’s whale, the animals of the Bible are a queer lot. Pharaoh’s heart remaining still hardened, God commanded Moses to make a special appeal to him, and to get up early in the morning for that purpose. So Moses stood before Pharaoh and said “ thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews, let my people go, that they may serve me. If you refuse I shall plague you and your people worse than ever, and so teach you that there is none like me in all the earth. You had better cave in at once.” But Pharaoh would not harken. He tacitly declared that the Lord God of the Hebrews might go to Jericho. So the seventh plague come. A fierce, hail, accompanied by fire that ran along the ground, smote all that was in the field, both man and beast. It smote also every herb of the field and �38 Tice Ten Plagues. brake every tree of the field. Only those were saved who “feared the Lord” and stayed indoors _ with their servants and cattle. J ortunately the wheat and the rice were spared, as they were not grownup; or there would have been a famine in Egypt com pared with which the seven years of scarcity in Joseph’s time had sunk into insignificance. Pharaoh now relented and re pented. “I have sinned this time,” he said, “the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked.” And Moses, seeing that the king had recognised Jehovah as the true cock of the theological walk, procured a cessation of the thunder and the hail. But lo 1 when Pharaoh perceived this, he hardened his heart again, and “ sinned yet more.” So the eighth plague came. After a day and night of east wind, a prodigious swarm of locusts went up over the land of Egypt’ covering the face of the whole earth, and darkening the ground’ they “did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had spared.” But we were told that the hail smote every herb, and brake every tree. What then was left for the locusts to eat ? The writer of. this narrative had a very short memory, or else a stupendous power of belief. Agaiii 1 haraoh confessed that he had sinned. The locusts were cleared away, and so effectually that “not one remained.” But “the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart ” for the eighth time, and he refused to let the people go. Whereupon Moses brought darkness over the land of Egypt, a thick darkness that might be felt. I his thick darkness lasted in Egypt for three days, during which time the people “ saw not one another, neither rose any from his place.” We presume, therefore, that they all starved for that time. Poor devils 1 What had they i ?e • b.e treated thus ? All the children of Israel, however, had light in their dwellings. Why then did they not avail them selves of such a fine opportunity to escape ? It was a splendid chance, yet they let jt slip. Perhaps Moses did not give the word, and they were like a flock of sheep without him. Perhaps they wished to stay and see the rest of the fun. For more was coining, although it was anything but fun to the poor Egyptians. Io them indeed it was an awful tragedy such as we lack words to describe. Moses commanded the Jews to take a male lamb for each household, to kill it, and to daub its blood over the two side posts and on the upper door-posts of their houses. The flesh they were to eat in the night, roasted with bitter herbs, and nnleavened bread, as the inauguration of the passover. The Lord meant to pass through the land in the dark, and slay all the first born m Egypt; and lest he should make some mistake he required the Jews’ houses to be marked with blood so that he might distinguish them. We should expect God to dispense with such “aids to memory.” What followed must be told in the language of Scripture: “At midnight the Lord smote all the ist born m the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh �The Ten Plagues. 39 that sat on the throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.” The reader’s imagination will picture the horror of the scene. That “great cry in Egypt ” arose from a people who were the first victims of God’s hatred of all who stood in the way of his chosen “ set of leprous slaves.” And in this case the tragedy was the more awful, and the more inexcusably atrocious, because God deliberately planned it. He could easily have softened Pharaoh’s heart, but he chose to harden it. He could have brought his people owft of Egypt in peace, but he preferred that they should start amidst wailings of agony, and leave behind them a track of blood. Yet in the tragedy there is a touch of comedy. Those beasts that were first killed by the murrian and afterwards plagued by the boil, at last lose their firstborn by the tenth plague. Besides, there is a touch of the ludicrous in the statement that every house had one dead. All the firstborn of such a large population could not have been present at that time. Some might have left Egypt for purposes of trade, and others would certainly have been cut off before by death. It is an interesting question, too, what the Lord did when the firstborn happened to be twins. Pharaoh and the Egyptians were now anxious to get rid of the Jews. So God’s people departed in haste. They took good care, however, not to go empty-handed. They “borrowed” of the Egyptians, without the remotest intention of ever paying them back, jewels of silver, jewels of gold, and raiment. In fact they “ spoiled the Egyptians.” In recent times the modern Egyptians have wiped off that old score by spoiling a few Jewisli money lenders. God led his people past instead of through the land of the Philistines, lest they should be frightened by war, and wish to return to Egypt. He does not seem to have known their character, considering the delight with which they subsequently warred against their enemies, and the joy they took in wholesale massacre. Moses carried off the bones of Joseph, which must have been rather stale by that time. And God went before the huge host of six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children, and a mixed multitude of followers; by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way, and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light, until at length they found themselves encamped before the Red Sea. In the meanwhile God had again hardened Pharaoh’s heart, for the express purpose of killing some more Egyptians and getting more honor to himself. The Israelites soon heard that Pharaoh was pursuing them with an army, and they remembered his dreadful war chariots. They found themselves between the devil and the deep sea. Whereupon they murmured against �Moses for bringing them out into the wilderness to die. But he disregarding them, stretched forth his miraculous rod over the sea, and lo! the waters parted, forming a wall on either side of a safe passage, through which the Jews travelled with dry feet Pharaoh and his host, however, attempting the same feat, were overwhelmed by the down-rushing sea-ramparts, and all drowned. There remained, says Exodus, not so much as one of them. AVe have heard a different account of this affair. A ne°TO preacher once explained that the Red Sea just at that time, was a little bit fiozen over, and the Jews carrying only what they had borrowed “frum the Gyptians,” crossed the ice safely but " hen 1 haraoh came with his thundering war-chariot-s, the ice broke, and “ dey all was drown’d.” But a nigger in the audience objected that the Red Sea is “in de quator,” and is never frozen over. “War did you larn dat?” asked the preacher. “In de jogiafy, was the reply. “Ah,” was the ready retort, “dat's war you made de mistake; dis was a very long time ago, and dere was no jografy and no quator den.” That nigger preacher’s explanation seems quite as good as the one given bv “Moses.” J We leave the Jews with their Lord God on the safe side of the Red Sea, where Moses heads the men in singing a joyful song of praise, and Miriam the prophetess heads the women with timbrel and with dance. Jehovah has ended his plaguing of the Egyp tians, after more than decimating them. He has covered his name with terrible splendor, and proved “that there is none like him to a world which is very happy to be assured of the fact. 1 wo such monsters would make earth a hell. Reader! did you ever meet with a more extraordinary story than this of the Ten Plagues; and can you regard the book which contains i as Go d s Wor ? PRICE ONE PENNY. London : Fbeethovght Publishing Company, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES—VI. JONAH AND THE WHALE. By G. W. FOOTE. We have often wondered whether Shakespeare had the story *t)f Jonah in his mind when he wrote that brief dialogue between Hamlet and Polonius, which immediately precedes the famous closet-scene in the Master’s greatest play— Hamlet.—Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel ? Polonius.—By the mass, and ’tis like a camel, indeed. Hamlet.—Methinks it is like a weasel. Polonius.—It is backed like a weasel. Hamlet.—Or like a whale p Polonius.—Very like a whale. Having, however, no means whereby to decide this question, we must content ourselves with broaching it, and leave the reader to form his own conclusion. Yet we cannot refrain from expressing our opinion that the story of the strange adventures of the prophet Jonah is “ very like a whale.” In another of Shakespeare’s plays, namely “ The Tempest,” We find a phrase which exactly applies to the romance of Jonah. When Trinculo discovers Caliban lying on the ground, he proceeds to investigate the monster. “ What,” quoth he, ■“ have we here ? a man or a fish ? dead or alive ? A fish: he smells like a fish ; a very ancient and fish-like smell.” Now this is a most admirable description of the Book of Jonah. It has “ a very ancient and fish-like smell.” In fact, it is about the fishiest of all the fishy stories ever told. Sailors’ “ yarns ” have become proverbial for their audacious and delicious disregard of truth, and the Book of Jonah is “ briny ” from beginning to end. It contains only forty-eight verses, but its brevity is no defect. On the contrary, that is one of its greatest charms. The mind takes in the whole story at once, and enjoys it undiluted; as it were a goblet of the fine generous wine of romance. Varying the expression, the Book of Jonah may be called the perfect cameo of Bible fiction. When the Book of Jonah was written no one precisely knows, nor is it discoverable'who wrote it. According to Matthew Arnold some unknown man of genius gave to Chris tendom the fourth gospel, and with sublime self-abnegation allowed his name to perish. A similar remark must be made concerning the unknown author who gave to the world this racy story of Jonah and the whale. We heartily wish his name had been preserved for remembrance and praise. Our marginal Bibles date the Book of Jonah b.c. cvr. 862. Other authorities give the more recent date of b.c. 830 as that of th® events recorded in it. This chronology will suggest an important reflection later on. �42 Jonah and the Whale. The wonderful story of .Jonah and the whale begins in this wise :—“ Now the word of the Lord came unto Jonah, the son of Amittai, saying, Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.” Who Amittai was, and whether man or woman, is a problem still unsolved; but it is reasonable to suppose the name was that of Jonah’s father, as the ancient Jews paid no super fluous attentions to women, and generally traced descent from the paternal stem alone. Amittai belonged to a place called G-athhepher, “ the village of the Cow’s tail,” or, as otherwise interpreted, “ the Heifer’s trough.” Jonah’s tomb is said to have been long shown on a rocky hill near the town ; but whether the old gentleman was ever buried there no man can say. The word Jonah is said to mean a dove, and is by some derived from an Arabic root, signifying to be weak or gentle. Another interpretation, by G-esenius, is a feeble, gentle bird. This refractory prophet was singularly ill-named. If his cog nomen was bestowed on him by his parents, they must have been greatly deceived as to his character. The proverb says it is. a wise son that knows his own father ; and with the history of Jonah before us, we may add that it is a wise fathei' who rightly knows his own son. The solicitude of “ the Lord G-od of the Hebrews ” for the welfare of the Ninevites is to the sceptical mind an extra ordinary phenomenon. It is one of the very few cases in which he shows the slightest concern for any other people than the Jews. His ordinary practice was to slaughter them whole sale by pestilence or the sword; and it is therefore very refreshing to meet with such an instance of his merciful care. For once he remembers that the rest of Adam’s posterity are his children, and possess a claim on his attention. Jonah, however, did not share this benign sentiment; and disrelishing the missionary enterprise assigned him, he “rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord.” Jehovah does not seem to have been omnipresent then; that attribute attaches to him only since the beginning of the Christian era, when he assumed universal sway. Long before the time of Jonah, another man, the first ever born in this world, namely Cain, also “ went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the Land of Nod; ” probably so called because the Lord was not quite awake in that locality. No one knows were Nod was situated, nor can the most learned archieologists denote the actual position of Tarshish. These two places would be well worth study. A careful examination of them would to some extent reveal what went on in those parts of the world to which G-od’s presence did not extend; and we should be able to compare their geological and other records with those of the rest of the world. No doubt some striking differences would be perceptible. Jonah determined to voyage by the Joppa and Tarshish line. So he went to the former port and embarked in one of the Company’s ships, after paying his fare like a man. �Jonah and the Whale. 43 Staving a perfectly untroubled conscience, and no apprehen sion of his coming troubles, Jonah no doubt felt highly elated at having done the Lord so neatly. Perhaps it was this elation of spirits which safe-guarded him from sea-sickness. At any rate he went “ down into the sides of the ship,” and there slept the sleep of the just. So profound was his slumber, that it was quite unbroken by the horrible tempest which ensued. The Lord had his eye on Jonah, for the prophet had not yet reached the safe refuge of Tarshish; and he “ sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was likely to be broken.” The mariners “ cast forth the wares that were in the ship ” to lighten her, and toiled hard to keep afloat; but their efforts were apparently fruitless, and nothing lay before them but the certain prospect of a watery grave. The reader will be able to imagine the tumult of the scene; the dash of ravening waves, the fierce howling of the wind, the creaking of masts and the straining of cordage, the rolling and pitching of the good ship and the shifting of her cargo, the captain’s hoarse shouts of command and the sailors’ loud replies, alternated with frenzied appeals to their gods for help. Yet amidst all the uproar Jonah still slept, as though the vessel were gaily skim ming the waters before a pleasant breeze. Let us pause here to interpose a question. Did the “ great wind sent out into the sea ” by the Lord confine its attentions to the immediate vicinity of Jonah’s ship, or did it cause a general tempest and perhaps send some other vessels to Davy Jones’s locker ? As no restrictions are mentioned, we pre sume that the tempest was general, and that the Lord’s wind, like the Lord’s rain referred to by Jesus, fell alike upon th© just and the unjust. This circumstance very naturally heightens our previous conception of his righteousness. That the Lord, or some other supernatural power, caused the tempest, the mariners of Jonah’s ship and their captain never once doubted. Living as they did, and as we do not, under a miraculous dispensation, they attributed every unusual, and especially every unpleasant, occurrence to the agency of a god. The idea of predicting storms, with which the civilised world is now familiar, they would doubtless have regarded as blasphemous and absurd. It is, therefore, by no means wonderful that every man on board (except Jonah, who was fast asleep) “ called unto his god.” Ignorant of what god was afflicting them, they appealed impartially all round, in the hope of hitting the right one. But the circle of their deities did not include the one which sent the wind ; so the tempest continued to prevail, despite their prayers. In this extremity a happy thought occurred to the “ ship master.” It struck him that the strange passengei’ down below might know something about the tempest, and that his god might have caused it. Forthwith there dawned within him a recollection of words which Jonah had uttered on em barking. Had he not told them “that he fled from the �44 Joliah and the Whale. presence of the Lord?” “Dear me,” the captain probablysaid to himself, “ what a fool I was not to think of this before. That chap down below is the occasion of all these troubles ; I’ll go and hunt him up, confound him ! ” Thereupon he doubtless slapped his thigh, as is the wont of sailors when they solve a difficulty or hit on a brilliant idea; after which he descended “ into the sides of the ship,” whither Jonah had gone. There he found the prophet slumbering as peacefully as a weanling child, with a smile of satisfaction playing over his Hebrew features. We can imagine the captain’s profound disgust in presence of this scene. He and his men had been toiling and praying, and alas ! pitching the cargo overboad, in order to save their skins ; and all the while the occasion of their trouble had been lying fast asleep ! Preserving an out ward decorum, however, he accosted Jonah in very mild terms. “ What meanest thou, 0 sleeper ? ” said he, “ Arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not.” What exquisite simplicity! It reminds us of the childlike and bland Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, when he opposed Mr. Bradlaugh’s entry to the House of Commons. That honorable champion of the Almighty objected to Mr. Bradlaugh on the ground that he acknowledged no God, and was thus vastly different from the other members of the House, all of whom “ believed in some kind of deity or other.” You must have a god to be a legislator it seems, even if that god is, as the Americans say, only a little tin Jesus. So the captain of this tempest-tost ship desired Jonah to call upon his god. He made no inquiry into the character of the god, any more than did Sir Henry Drummond Wolff on a later occasion. It was enough to know that Jonah had “ some kind of deity or other.” Any god would do. Now comes the most remarkable episode in this wonderful story. The captain and the crew were aware that Jonah had “ fled from the presence of the Lord,” because “ he had told them; ” they had, therefore, every reason to believe that Jonah’s god had caused the tempest. Yet, curiously enough, instead of at once proceeding on this belief, “ they said, every one to his fellow, Come, and let us cast lots, that we may know for whose cause this evil is upon us.” This wholly superfluous procedure may, perhaps, be attributed to their ex ceptional love of justice. They wished to make assurance doubly sure before they “ went for ” Jonah. And with sweet simplicity they had recourse to the casting of lots, in which their wills would be inoperative, and the whole responsibility of deciding be thrown on the gods, who alone possessed the requisite information. The lot of course fell upon Jonah. Any other result would have spoilt the story. “ Then,” continues our narrative, “ said they unto him, Tell us, we pray thee, for whose cause this evil is upon us ? What is thine occupation ? and whenco comes t thou ? what is thy country ? and of what people art thou ? �Jonah and the Whale. 45 And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew, and I fear the Lord, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land. Then were the men exceedingly afraid, and said unto him, Why hast thou done this ? For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the Lord, because he had told them. Then said they unto him, What shall we do unto thee, that the sea may be calm unto us ? for the sea wrought and was tempestuous. And he said unto them, Take me up and cast me forth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you : for I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you.” We are almost dumb with astonishment before this act of self-sacrifice on the part of Jonah, for which his previous history left us quite unprepared. Who would have thought him capable of such disinterested conduct ? His unselfish ness was assuredly heroic, and may even be called sublime. No doubt the captain and crew of the ship were as much astonished as we are, and their opinion of Jonah went up several hundred per cent. They resolved to make a last supreme effort before turning him into fish-bait. But all their gallant endeavors were discovered to be futile and a mere waste of time. So the men, more in sorrow than in anger, finally took Jonah up and threw him overboard. They had done their best for him, and now, finding that they could do no more except at too great a risk, they sadly left him to do the rest for himself. Immediately, we are told, “ the sea ceased from her raging.” Jonah was oil upon the troubled waters. What an invaluable recipe does this furnish us against the dangers of the deep sea ! The surest method of allaying a storm is to throw a prophet overboard. Every ship should carry a missionary in case of need. It would, indeed, be well if the law made this com pulsory. The cost of maintaining the missionary would be more than covered by the saving effected in insurance. Here is a splendid field for Christian self-sacrifice ! Hundreds of gentlemen who are now engaged in very doubtful labor among the heathen, might engage in this new enterprise with the absolute certainty of a beneficent result; for poor ungodly mariners would thus be spared a hasty dispatch from this world without time to repent and obtain forgiveness, and be allowed ample leisure to secure salvation. When the men saw that “ the sea ceased from her raging ” on Jonah’s being cast into her depths, “ they‘feared the Lord exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the Lord, and made vows.” To the sceptical mind it would seem that they had much more reason to “ fear ” the Lord during the continuance of the tempest than after it had subsided. It also seems strange that they should have the means wherewith to offer a sacrifice. Perhaps they bad a billy-goat on board, and made him do duty, in default of anything better. Or failing even a billy-goat, as the Lord God of the Hebrews could only be propitiated by the shedding of blood, they perhaps caught and immolated a stray rat. Th© nature of their “ vows ” is not '' J �4t> Jonah and the Whale. recorded, but it is not unreasonable to assume that they swore never again to take on board a passenger fleeing “ from the presence of the Lord.” Meanwhile, what had become of poor Jonah ? Most men would be effectually settled if thrown overboard in a storm But there are some people who were not born to be drowned' and Jonah yas one of them. He was destined to another fate’ The Lord, it appears, “ had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah, ’and the feat was of course duly performed. Our narrative does not describe the character of this “ great fish ” but light is cast on the subject by another passage of Scrip ture. In the twelfth chapter of St. Matthew, and the fortieth verse, Jesus is represented as saying, “ For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly ; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth ” Lhe great fish was then a whale. Jesus said so, and there can be no higher authority. Sharks and such ravenous fish have an unpleasant habit of “ chawing ” their victims pretty con siderably before swallowing them ; so, on the whole, we prefer to believe that it was a whale. Yet the Levant is a curious place for a whale to be lurking in. The creature must have been miraculously led there to go through its appointed per formance. It must also have been “prepared,” to use the language of the Bible, in a very remarkable way, for the gullet of a whale is not large enough to allow of the passage of an object exceeding the size of i.n ordinary herring. Swallowing Jonah must have been a tough job after the utmost prepara tion-. With a frightfully distended throat, however, the whale did its best, and by dint of hard striving at last got him down. Jonah could never afterwards say to that hospitable fish, “ I was a stranger and ye took me not in.” Having properly taken Jonah in out of the wet, the poor whale doubtless surmised that its troubles had ended. But alas they had only just begun! Swallowing a prophet is one digesting him is another. For three days and nights the whale struggled desperately to digest Jonah, and for three days and nights Jonah obstinately refused to lie digested filler m the entire course of its life had it experienced such a difficulty. During the whole of that period, too, Jonah carried on a kind of prayer meeting, and the strange rumbling in its belly must have greatly added to the poor animal’s dis comfort. At last it grew heartily sick of Jonah, and vomited him up on dry land. We have no doubt that it swam away into deep waters, a sadder but a wiser whale; and that ever afterwards, instead of bolting its food, it narrowly scrutinised every morsel before swallowing it, to make sure it wasn’t another prophet. According to its experience, prophets were uecidedly the most unprofitable articles of consumption. We are of course aware that the narrative states that “ the Lora spake unto the fish, and it vomited Jonah upon the dry land. But this we conceive to be a mere pleasantry on the part o the unknown author. The idea of the Lord whispering into a �Jonah and the Whale. 47 whale’s ear is ineffably ludicrous: besides the whale had a very natural inclination to rid itself of Jonah, and needed no divine prompting. Jonah’s prayer “unto the Lord his God out of the fish’s belly ” is very amusing. There is not a sentence in it which bears any reference to the prophet’s circumstances. It is a kind of Psalm, after the manner of those ascribed to David. Our belief is that the author found it floating about, and thinking it would do for Jonah, inserted it in his narra tive, without even taking the trouble to furbish it into decent keeping with the situation. The word of the Lord came unto Jonah a second time, and presuming no more to disobey, he went to Nineveh. It is to be supposed, however, that he first well-lined his poor stomach, for both he and the whale had fasted three days and nights, and must have been sadly in want of victuals. Nineveh, according to our author, was a stupendous city of “ three days’journey.” This means its diameter and not its circumference, for we are told that Jonah “ entered into the city a day’s journey.” If we allow twenty miles as a moderate day’s walk, Nineveh was sixty miles through from wall to wall, or about twenty times as large as London ; and if densely populated like our metropolis, it must have contained more than eighty million inhabitants. This is too great a stretch even for a sailor’s yarn. Our author did not take pains to clear his narrative of discrepancy. In his last verse he informs us that the city contained “more than six score thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left.” If this number is correct Nineveh was a large place, but its dimensions were very much less than those stated in the Book of Jonah. Jonah obeyed the Lord this time and began to preach. “ Yet forty days,” cried he, “ and Ninevah shall be over thrown.” How the prophet made himself understood is an open question. Either the Lord taught him their language, or he miraculously eUabled them to understand Hebrew. Further, they worshipped Baal, and Jonah preached to them in the name of his foreign God. According to ancient, and to a large extent modern custom, we should expect them in such a case to kill the presumptuous prophet, or at least to shut him up as a madman. Yet they did nothing of the kind. On the contrary, “ the people of Ninevah believed God.” Even the king was converted. He covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. He also decreed that neither man nor beast in the city should eat or drink anything ; but, said he, “ let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way.” What an enormous consumption of sackcloth there must have been ! The merchants who sold it did a surprising business, and no doubt quotations went up immensely. We wonder, indeed, how they managed to supply such a sudden and universal demand. And what a sight was presented.by the whole popu- �48 Jonah and the Whale. lation of the city 1 Men, women, and children, high and low, rich and poor, were all arrayed in the same dingy garments. Even the horses, cows, pigs and sheep, were similarly attired. What a queer figure they must have ent 1 And what an aston ishing chorus of prayer ascended to heaven 1 According to the text, the beasts had to “ cry mightily ” as well as the men. Since the confusion of tongues at Babel, neither history nor tradition records such a frightful hubbub. Their supplications prevailed. God “ saw their works, that they had turned from their evil way ; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.” Immutable God changes his mind, infallible God repents 1 God spared Nineveh, but only for a brief while, for it was destroyed a few years later by Arbaces the Mede. The merci ful respite was thus not of long continuance. Yet it “ dis pleased Jonah exceedingly.” He had been suspicious from the first, and he only fulfilled God’s mission under constraint. And now his worst suspicions were confirmed. After he had told the Ninevites that their city would be overthrown in forty days, God had relented, and utterly ruined Jonah’s reputation as a prophet. So he made himself a booth outside the city, and sat in its shadow, to watch what would happen, with a deep feeling, which he plainly expressed to the Almighty, that now his reputation was gone he might as well die. The Lord considerately “ prepared a gourd,” which grew up over Jonah’s head to protect him from the heat; at which the sulky prophet was ” exceedingly glad,” although it would naturally be thought that the booth would afford ample protection. He, however, soon found himself sold; for the Lord prepared a worm to destroy the gourd, and when the sun arose he sent “ a vehement east wind” which beat upon poor Jonah’s head, and made him so faint that he once more asked God to despatch him out of his misery. Whereupon the Lord said coaxingly, “ Loest thou well to be angry?” And Jonah pet tishly answered, “ Yes, I do.” Then the Lord, with a wonder ful access of pathos, altogether foreign to his general character, twitted Jonah with having pity for the gourd and none for the inhabitants of “ that great city.” With this the story concludes. We are unable to say whether the poor prophet, so wretchedly sold, ever recovered from his spleen, or whether it shortened his days and brought him to an un timely grave. The Book of Jonah is as true as Gospel, for Jesus* endorsed it. The Bible contains the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So without expressing any sceptical senti ments, we will end by repeating Byron’s words, “ Truth is strange—stranger than fiction.” PRICE ONE PENNY. London : Freethought Publishing Company, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, EC. �BIBLE ROMANCES.—VII. THE WANDERING JEWS. By G. W. FOOTE. The Middle Ages had a legend of the Wandering Jew. This person was supposed to have been doomed, for the crime of mocking Jesus at the crucifixion, to wander over the earth until his second coming. No one believes this now. The true Wandering Jews were those slaves whom Jehovah rescued from Egyptian bondage, with a promise that he would lead them to a land flowing with milk and honey, but whom he compelled to roam the deserts instead for forty years, until all of them except two had perished. Of all the multitude who escaped from Egypt, only Joshua and Caleb entered the promised land. Even Moses had to die in sight of it. These poor Wandering Jews demand our pity. They were guilty of many crimes against humanity, but they scarcely de served such treatment as they received. Their God was worse than they. He was quick-tempered, unreasonable, cruel, re vengeful, and dishonest. Few of his promises to them were performed. They worshipped a bankrupt deity. The land of promise was a Tantalus cup ever held to their lips, and ever mocking them when they essayed to drink. God was their greatest enemy instead of their best friend. Their tortuous path across the wilderness was marked by a track of bleaching bones. All the evils which imagination can conceive fell on their de voted heads. Bitten by serpents, visited by plagues, cursed with famine and drought, swallowed by earthquake, slain by war, and robbed by priests, they found Jehovah a harder despot than Pharaoh. Death was to them a happy release, and only the grave a shelter from the savagery of God. Commentators explain that the Jews who left Egypt were unfit for the promised land. If so, they were unfit to be the chosen people of God. Why were they not allowed to remain in Egypt until they grew better, or why was not some other nation selected to inherit Canaan ? At the end of our romance of “The Ten Plagues” we left the Jews on th© safe side of the Red Sea. We must now ask a few questions which we had no space for then. How, in a period of two hundred and fifteen years, did the seventy males of Jacob’s house multiply into a nation of over two millions? Experience does not warrant belief in such a rapid increase. The Jewish chroniclers were fond of drawing the long bow. In the book of Judges, for instance, we are told that the Gileadites, under Jephthah, slew 42,000 Ephriamites; and that the Benjamites slew 40,000 Israelites, after which the Israelites killed 43,100 Benjamites, all of these being “men of valor” that “drew the sword.” The book of Samuel says that �50 The Wandering Jews. the Philistines had 80,000 war chariots, and that they slew 30,000 footmen of Israel. The second book of Chronicles says that Pekah, king of Israel, slew of Judah in one day 120,000 “ sons of valor,” and carried away 200,000 captives ; that Abijah’s force consisted of 400,000, and Jeroboam’s of 800,000, 500,000 of whom were killed! At the battle of Waterloo the total number of men killed on our side was 4,172. The statistics of slaughter in the Bible were clearly developed from the inner consciousness of the Jewish scribes • and no doubt the same holds good with respect to the statistics of the flight from Egypt. This view is corroborated by a singular statement in the third chapter of Numbers. We are there informed that when the census was taken “All the first-born males, from a month old and upwards of those that were numbered, were twenty and two thousand two hundred and three score and thirteen.” Now as there were about 900,000 males altogether, it follows that every Jewish mother must have had on an average for ty-two sons, to say nothing of daughters ! Such extraordinary fecundity is unknown to the rest of the world, except in the region of romance. The Jews bragged a great deal about Jehovah, and they appear to have obtained some compensation by bragging a great deal about themselves. How did the Jews manage to quit Egypt in one night ? There were 600,000 men on foot, besides women and children, not to mention “the mixed multitude that went up also with them.” The entire population must have numbered more than two millions, and some commentators estimate it at nearly three. They had to come in from all parts of Goshen to Barneses, bringing with them the sick and infirm, the very old and the very young. Among such a large population there could not have been less than two hundred births a day. Many of the Jewish women, therefore, must have been just confined. How could they and their new-born children have started off in such a summary manner ? Many more women must have been at the point of confinement. How could these have been hurried off at all? Yet we are told that not a single person was left behind! How were the flocks and herds driven out in such haste ? There were about two million sheep and two hundred thousand oxen. The sheep alone would have required grazing land as extensive as the whole county of Bedford, besides what would have been needed for the oxen. Is it credible that all these animals were collected together from such a wide area, and driven out of Egypt in one night ? Yet we are told that not a single hoof was left behind I How did the huge multitude of people march? If they travelled fifty men abreast, as is supposed to have been the practice in the Hebrew armies, the able-bodied warriors alone would have filled up the road for about seven miles, and the whole multitude would have formed a dense column twenty-two �The Wandering Jews, 51 miles long. The front rank would have been two days’ journey in advance of the rear. How did the sheep and cattle march ? How was it possible for them to keep pace with their human fellow travellers ? They would naturally not march in a compact array, and the vast drove must therefore have spread widely and lengthened out for miles. What did the drove live upon during the journey from Raineses to Succoth, and from Succoth to Etham, and from Etham to the Red Sea? Such grass as there was, even jf the sheep and cattle went before the men, women, and children, could not have been of much avail; for what was not eaten by the front ranks must have been trodden under foot at once, and rendered useless to those that followed. After they “ encamped by the Red Sea,” on the third day, there was no vegetation at all. The journey was over a desert, the surface of which was composed of hard gravel intermixed with pebbles. After cross ing the Red Sea,their road lay over a desert region, covered with sand, gravel, and stone, for about nine miles; after which they entered a boundless desert plain, called El Ati, white and painfully glaring to the eye, and beyond this the ground was broken by sand-hills. How were the two million sheep and two hundred thousand oxen provisioned during this journey ? What did the Jews themselves live on? The desert afforded them no sustenance until God miraculously sent manna. They must, therefore, have taken a month’s provisions for every man, woman, and child. How could they possibly have provided themselves with so much food on so short a notice ? And how could they have earned it, seeing that they were already burdened with kneading-troughs and other necessaries for domestic use, besides the treasures they “borrowed” of the Egyptians? How did they provide themselves with tents ? Allowing ten persons for each tent, they must have required two hundred thousand. Were these carefully got ready in expectation ? In the land of Goshen they lived in houses with “lintels” and “side-posts.” And how were the tents carried? The Jews themselves were already well loaded. Of course the oxen remain; but, as Colenso observes, they were not trained to carry goods on their backs, and were sure to prove refractory under such a burden. Whence did the Jews obtain their arms? According to Exodus (xiii., 18) “the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt.” The Hebrew word which is rendered “harnessed” appears to mean “armed” or “in battle array” in all the other passages where it occurs, and is so translated. Som e commentators, scenting a difficulty in this rendering, urge that the true meaning is “by five in a rank.” But if 600,000 men marched out of Egypt “ five in a rank,” they must have formed a column sixty-eight miles long, and it would have taken several days to start them all off, whereas they went out altogether “ that self-same day.” Besides, the Jews had arms in the desert, and how could they have possessed them there unless they �52 The Wandering Jews. obtained them in Egypt? If they went out of Egypt “ armed ” why did they cry out “sore afraid” when Pharaoh pursued them ? According to Herodotus, the Egyptian army, which formed a distinct caste, never exceeded 160,000 men. Why were the Jews so appalled by less than a third of their own number? Must we suppose, with Kalisch, that their bondage in Egypt had crushed all valor and manhood out of their breasts? Josephus gives a different explanation. He says that the day after Pharaoh’s host was drowned in the Red Sea, “Moses gathered together the weapons of the Egyptians, which were brought to the camp of the Hebrews by the current of the sea and the force of the wind assisting it. And he conjectured that this also happened by Divine Providence, that so they might not be destitute of weapons.” But, as Colenso observes, though body armor might have been obtained in this way, swords,spears and shields could not in any number. The Bible, too, says nothing about such an occurrence. We must therefore assume that 600,000 well-armed Jews were such utter cowards that they could not strike a blow for their wives and children and their own liberty against the smaller army of Pharaoh, but could only whimper and sigh after their old bondage. Yet a month later they fought bravely with the Amalekites, and ever afterwards they were as eager for battle as any Irishman at Donnybrook fair. How can this difference be accounted for? Could a nation of hereditary cowards become stubborn warriors in the short space of a month ? Let us now follow the Wandering Jews through the Desert which they should have crossed in a week or two, but which they travelled up and down for forty years. People who want to make an expeditious journey had better do without a divine guide. Coming to Marah, they found only bitter water to drink, at which they began to murmur. But the Lord showed Moses a certain tree, which when cast into the water made it sweet. It must have been a wonderful tree to sweeten water for two millions of people. Bitter water, also, quenches thirst more readily than sweet, and it stimulates the appetite, which would be highly desirable under a fierce relaxing sun. A ^nth after they left Egypt they came to the wilderness of bin. There they began to murmur again. Finding themselves without food, they remembered “the flesh pots” of Egypt, and reproached Moses with having brought them into the desert to die of hunger. Both Moses and the Lord seem to have thought it unreasonable on their part to ask for something to eat. Oliver I wist was stared at when he asked for more, but the Jews surprised God by asking for something to begin with. Yet reflecting, perhaps, that they were after all unable to live without food, the Lord rained down manna from heaven. After the dew evaporated in the morning, they found this heavenly diet lying on the ground. It was “ like a coriander seed, white; and the �The Wandering Jews. S3 taste of it was like wafers made with honey.” No doubt the angola subsist on it in paradise. Moses preserved a pot of it for tihe instruction of future generations. The pot has, however, not been discovered up to the present day. Some future explorers may light upon it “in the fulness of time,” and so help to prove the historical character of the Pentateuch. The manna, as might be expected, had some peculiarities. No matter how much or how little he gathered, every man found on measuring that he had exactly an omer of it. Although it fell regularly every week day, none fell on Sunday. A double quantity had, therefore, to be gathered on Saturday. It melted in the sun, but could nevertheless be baked and seethed. Any of it left overnight stank in the morning and bred worms. For forty years “the children of Israel did eat manna.” But more than once their gorge rose against it. Manna for breakfast, manna for lunch, manna for dinner, manna for tea, and manna for supper, was a little more than they could stand. The mono tony of their diet became intolerable. Accordingly, we read in the twenth-first chapter of Numbers, that they complained of it and asked for a slight change in the bill of fare. “ There is no bread,” said they, “neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light food.” This small request so incensed the Lord that he sent a lot of fiery serpents among them, which bit them so that “much people of Israel died.” Like Oliver Twist, the Jews quickly repented their presumption.. They humbled themselves before Moses, and he interceded with God for them. The prophet then made a brass serpent and set it on a pole, and on looking at it all who had been bitten recovered. On another occasion, as we read in the eleventh of Numbers, they were guilty of a similar offence. This time it was the more surprising, as God had just burnt a lot of them up with raging fire for “ complaining.” They remembered “the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely ; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick.” “Now,” said they, ‘ ‘ there is nothing at all, besides this manna, before our eyes. Who shall give us flesh to eat?” The Egyptian bill of fare was certainly enough to make their mouths water, and it proves that if Pharaoh made them work hard he did not starve them, as Jehovah very nearly succeeded in doing. They were so. affected by their recollection of the luscious victuals they enjoyed in Egypt, that they actually cried with sorrow at their loss. Moses heard them weeping, “ every man in the door of his tent.” This put the Lord in a very bad temper; and Moses, who seems to have been much less irascible than Jehovah, “also was dis pleased.” God determined to give them a surfeit. “ Ye shall,” said he, “ not eat flesh one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days nor twenty days ; but even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and be loathsome unto you.” Thereupon the Lord sent a wind which brought quails from the sea. They were so plentiful that they fell in heaps two cubits high for about twenty miles around the camp. That worthy commentator, �54 The Wandering Jews. the Rev. Alexander Cruden, says that the miracle of this occur rence consisted, not in the great number of quails, but in their being “brought so seasonably” to the Jewish camp. The quantity did not trouble his credulous mind. “ Some authors,” says he, “affirm that in those eastern and southern countries quails are innumerable, so that in one part of Italy within the compass of five miles, there were taken about an hundred thousand of them every day for a month altogether; and that sometimes they fly so thick over the sea, that being weary they fall into ships, sometimes in such numbers, that they sink them with their weight.” The good man’s easy reliance on “some authors, ’ and his ready acceptance of such fables, show what credulity is engendered by belief in the Bible. The Jews gathered quails for two days and a night, and ioyfully carried them home. But “while the flesh was yet between their teeth,” the Lord smote them with a very great plague so that multitudes of them died. Poor devils 1 They were always in ' hot water. J How the sheep and cattle were provisioned the Bible does not inform us. There was scarcely a nibble of grass to be had in the desert, and as they could not very well have lived on sand and pebbles, they must have been supported miraculously. Perhaps the authors of the Pentateuch forgot all about this. Not only were the Jews, like their flocks and herds, miracu lously supported; they were also miraculously found in clothes. For forty years their garments and shoes did not wear out. How was this miracle wrought? When matter rubs against matter, particles are lost by abrasion. Did the Lord stop this process’ or did he collect all the particles that were worn off during the day, and replace them by night on the soles of shoes, on the elbows of coats, and on the knees of pantaloons ? If the clothes never wore out, it is fair to suppose that they remained abso lutely unchanged. Imagine a toddling urchin, two years old at the exodus from Egypt, wearing the same rig when he grew up to manhood! Justin, however, says that the clothes grew with their growth. Some Jewish rabbis hold that angels acted as tailors in the wilderness, and so the garments were all kept straight . But Augustine, Chrysostom, and other Fathers abide by the literal interpretation that, through the blessing of God, the clothes and shoes never wore out, so that those who grew to manhood were able to hand them over, as good as new, to the rising generation. According to this theory, everybody must have had a poor fit, unless there was a transference of garments every twelve months or so. The history of the Wandering Jews is full of miracles and wonders. It says that all the congregation of Israel, numbering over two millions, assembled at the door of the Tabernacle. As the whole width of the Tabernacle was eighteen feet, only nine men could have stood in front of it; and therefore the warriors of Israel alone, to. say nothing of the rest of the population, if we allow eighteen inches between each rank of nine men, would �The Wandering Jews. 55 have formed a column nearly twenty miles long! We find also that Moses, and Joshua after him, address not only the whole congregation of Israel, including men, women, and children, but the mixed multitude ” of strangers as well. Their voices were distinctly heard by a crowded mass of people as large as the entire population of London. They must have had stentorian lungs, or the people must have had a wonderful sense of When the Jews were encamped, according to Scott’s estimate, they lived in a sort of “ moveable city, twelve miles square,” nearly as large as London. The people had to go outside this vast camp every day to bring in a supply of water and fuel, after cut ting the latter down where they could find it I All their rubbish had to be carried out in like manner, for Jehovah used sometimes to take a walk among them, and he was highly displeased at seeing dirt. Every man, woman, and child, including the old, the sick, and the infirm, had to go outside the camp to attend to the necessities of nature ! All the refuse of their multitudinous sacrifices had to be lugged out of the camp by the three priests, Aaron, Eleazer, and Ithamar. Colenso reckons that the sacrifices alone, allowing less than three minutes for each, would have occupied them incessantly during the whole twenty-four hours of every day. The pigeons brought to them daily as sin offer ings must have numbered about 264, and as these had to be con sumed by the three priests, each of them had to eat 88 pigeons a day, besides heaps of roast beef and other victuals! Soon after the first fall of manna, the Jews murmured again because they had no water. Whereupon Moses smote a rock with his magical rod, and water gushed from it. The precious fluid came just in time to refresh them for their fight with the Amalekites. These people were very obstinate foes, and it required a miracle to defeat them. Moses ascended a hill and held up his hand. WTile he did so the Israelites prevailed, but when he let down his hand the Amalekites prevailed. To ensure victory, Aaron and Hur stood on either side of him, and held up his hands until the sun set. By this means Joshua discomfited the Amalekites with great slaughter. Moses built an altar to celebrate the event, and God swore that he would “have war with Amelek from generation to generation.” .As Jehovah’s vengeance was so lasting, it is no wonder that his worshippers carried on their wars ever afterwards on the most hellish prin ciples. In the thirty-first chapter of Numbers we read that .12,000 Israelites warred against Midian. The brag of the chronicler is evident in this number or in those which follow. This little army polished off all the kings of Midian, burnt all their cities and castles, slew 48,000 men, and carried off 100,000 captives, besides 675,000 sheep, 72,000 oxen, and 61,000 asses. What prodigious spoil there was in those days! Of the captives Moses ordered 48,000 women and 20,000 boys to be massacred in cold blood; while the remaining 32,000 “women that had not known �56 The Wandering Jews. man by lying with him ” were reserved for another fate. The Lord’s share of these was thirty-two ! They were of course handed over to the priests as his representatives. Parsons, whorail against the immorality of scepticism, say that this is all true. . These Midianites were a tough lot; for although they were all. hilled on this occasion, and their cities and castles burnt, we find them a powerful nation again in the sixth of Judges, and able to prevail against the Jews for seven years. Another people badly punished by the Jews were the inhabitants of Bashan. All their cities were destroyed to the number of sixty. Their king, Og, was a gigantic fellow, and slept on an iron bed twelve feet long. The cities of Heshbon were destroyed in the same way. All the men, women, and children, were slaughtered. Not one was spared. We shall hereafter follow the Jews under Joshua. For the present we must content ourselves with a last reference to their wanderings. under Moses. While they were encamped round Mount Sinai, their leader received an invitation to go up and visit God who had been staying there for six days. They had much to talk about, and the interview lasted forty days and forty nights. At the end of it Moses descended, carrying with him the Ten Commandments, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone. In his absence the Wandering Jews had given him up as lost, and had induced Aaron to make them a god, in the shape of a golden calf, to go before them. This image they were worshipping as Moses approached the camp, and his anger waxed so hot that he threw down the tables and broke all the Ten Com mandments at once. He then burnt the calf in fire and ground it to powder, mixed it with water and made them drink it. He also sent the Levites among them, who put three thousand men to the edge of the sword. God wanted to destroy them alto gether, but Moses held him back. “Let me alone,” said the Lord. “No, no,” said Moses, “just think what the Egyptians, will say ; they’ll laugh at you after all as a poor sort of a god ; and remember, too, that you are bound by an oath to multiply your people and to let them inherit the land of promise.” So the Lord cooled down, and wrote out the Decalogue again on two fresh tables of stone. This Decalogue is supposed to be the foundation of morality. But long before the time of Moses moral laws were known and observed in Egypt, in India, and among all the peoples that ever lived. Moral laws are the per manent conditions of social health, and the fundamental ones must be observed wherever any form of society exists. Their ground and guarantee are to be found in human nature, and do not depend on a fabulous episode in the history of the WanderingJews. PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by H. A. Kemp, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES.—VIII. THE TOWER OF BABEL. By G. W. FOOTE. The Bible, it is frequently asserted, was never meant to teach us science but to instruct us in religion and morality ; and therefore we must not look to it for a faithful account of what happened in the external world, but only for a record of the inner experiences of mankind. Astronomy will inform us how the heavenly bodies came into existence, and by what laws their, motions are governed; Geology will acquaint us with the way in which the earth’s crust was formed, and with the length of time occupied by the various stages of the process; and. Biology will tell us all about the origin and development of living things. God has given us reason, by exercising which we may gather knowledge and establish sciences, so as to explain the past, illustrate the present, and predict the future ; and as reason is sufficient for all this there is no need of a divine revelation in such matters. But as reason is insufficient to teach the will of God and the laws of morality, a divine revelation of these is necessary, and the Bible contains it. . . This plausible contention cannot, however, be maintained, lhe Bible is not silent with respect to astronomy, geology, or biology. It makes frequent and precise statements concerning them, and in nearly every instance it contradicts scientific truth, as we have amply proved in previous numbers of this series. . The eleventh chapter of Genesis gives an explanation of the diversity of languages on the earth. It does this in the truest spirit of romance. Philologists like Max Muller and Whitney must regard the story of the Tower of Babel, and the confusion of tongues, as a capital joke. A great many paisons may still believe it, but they are not expected to know much. One fact alone is enough to put the philology of Genesis out of court. The native languages of America are all closely related to each other, but they have no affinity with any language of the Old World. It is therefore clear that they could not have been imported into the New World by emigrants from the plains of Central Asia. The Genesaic theory is thus proved to be not of universal application, and consequently invalid. Let us come to the Bible story. Some time after the Flood, and before the birth of Abraham, “the whole earth was of one language and one speech 5” or, as Colenso translates the original. “ one of lip, and one of language.” . This primitive tongue must have been Hebrew. God spoke it in Eden when he conversed with our first parents, and probably it is spoken in heaven to this day. For all we know it may be spoken in hell too. It probably is, for the Devil and his angels lived in heaven before they were turned into hell, and we may conclude that they took their native �58 The Tower of Babel. language with. them. It was spoken by Adam when he named his wife in Paradise ; by Eve, after the expulsion when she gave names to her sons, Cain and Seth; by Lamech, shortly before the Flood, when he explained the name of Noah; and indeed, as Colenso observes, “it is obvious that the names of the whole series of Patriarchs from Adam to Noah, and from Noah onwards, are in almost every instance pure Hebrew names.” Delitzsch, however, thinks it comparatively more probable that the Syriac or Nabatsean tongue, preserved after the dispersion at Babylon, was the one originally spoken. Yet he dismisses the possibility of demonstrating it. He supposes that the names of Adam and the other patriarchs have been altered, but not so as to lose any of their original meaning; in other words, that they have been, by God’s grace, translated with perfect accuracy from the primeval speech. But Colenso very justly remarks that the original documents do not allude to a process of translation, and that we have no right to assume it. He also adds that “if the authority of Scripture is sufficient to prove the fact of a primeval language, it must also prove that this language was Hebrew.” Yet the Bible is wrong, for Hebrew could not have been the primitive speech. It is only a Semitic dialect, a branch of the Semitic stem. Sanscrit is another stem, equally ancient; and according to Max Muller and Bunsen, both are modifications of an earlier and simpler language. Neither has the least affinity with Chinese, which again, like them, differs radically from the native dialects of America. As Hosea Biglow sings, “ John P. Robinson, he Says they didn’t know everything down in Judee.” And most certainly they did not know the true origin and development of the various languages spoken by the nations of the earth. The people who dwelt on the earth after the Deluge, and all spoke one language, journeyed from the east, found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt there. Shinar is another name for Babylon. After dwelling there no one knows exactly how long, “they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.” The writer of this story was very fond of short cuts. It took men a long time to learn the art of making bricks ; and the idea of their suddenly saying to each other “ let us make brick,” and at once proceeding to do so, is a wild ab surdity. Having made a lot of bricks, they naturally wished to do some thing with them. So “ they said, Go to, let us build a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven ; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” How could making a name, for the information of nobody but themselves, prevent their dispersion ? And how could they resolve to build a “city,” when they had never seen one, and had no knowledge of what it was like ? Cities are not built �The Tower of Babel. 5J n this manner. ‘‘Rome wasn’t built in a day” is a proverbwhich applies to all other places as well. London, Pans and Rome, are the growth of centuries, and the same must have been true of ancient capitals. . . The reason assigned by Scripture for the work of these primi tive builders is plainly inadequate. A more probable reason is that they mistrusted God’s promise never again to destroy the earth with a flood, and therefore determined to build a high tower, so that, if another deluge came, they might ascend above the waters, or, if need be, step clean into heaven itself. 1 hen lack of faith is not surprising. We find the same characteristic on the part of believers in our own day. They believe m God s promises only so far as it suits their interest and convenience. Scripture says, “Whoso giveth unto the poor lendeth unto the Lord.” Yet there are thousands of rich Christians who seem to mistrust the security. . How high did these primitive builders think heaven was . According to Colenso, they said, “Come, let us build for us a city, and a tower with its head in heaven." Did they really they would ever succeed in building so high. Perhaps tey did, for their Natural Philosophy was extremely doubtless imagined the blue vault of heaven as a solid thing, in which were stuck the sun, moon, and stars, and no higher than the sailing clouds. , . Their simple ignorance is intelligible, but how can we explain the ignorance of God ? Their project alarmed him Ide actually “came down to see the city and the tower which the children ot men builded.” Heaven was too distant for him to see from with accuracy, and telescopes were not then invented. A close in spection led him to believe that his ambitious children would succeed in their enterprise. They thought they might bund intoheaven, and he thought so too. What was to be done ? if they once got into heaven, it might be very difficult to turn them out again. It took several days’ hard fighting to expel Satan and the rebellious angels on a previous occasion, and these new comers might be still more obstinate. In this dangerous extremity, “the Lord said [unto whom is unknown], Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language ; and this they begin to do . and now nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another s speech. Why did the Lord resolve to take all this trouble ? Had he forgotten the law of gravitation and the principles of architec ture ? Was he, who made the heaven and the earth, ignorant of the distance between them ? He had only to let the people go on building, and they would eventually confound themselves ; for, after reaching a certain height, the tower would tumble about their ears. Gravitation would defeat the cohesion of mortal’. Why did not God leave them alone ? Why did he take so much unnecessary trouble ? The answer is that this “ Lord was only “ Jehovah ” of the Jews, a tribal god, who naturally knew no �<30 The Tower of Babel. more about the facts and laws of science than his worshippers who made him. The Lord carried out his resolution. He “confounded their language,” so that no man could understand his neighbors. Probably this judgment was executed in the night; and when they awoke in the morning, instead of using the old familiar tongue, one man spoke Chinese, another Sanscrit, another Coptic, another American, another Dutch, another Double Dutch, and so on to the end of the chapter. According to the Bible, this is the true philology. No language on the earth is more than four thousand years old, and every one was miraculously originated at Babel. Is there a single philo logist living who believes this? We do not know one. The result of this confusion of tongues was that the people “left off to built the city,” and were “scattered abroad on the face of all the earth.” But why did they disperse ? Their common weakness should have kept them together. Society is founded upon our wants. Our necessity, and not our self-sufficience, causes association and mutual helpfulness. Had these people kept company for a short time, they would have understood each other again. A few common words would have come into general use, and the building of the tower might have been resumed. How was their language “confounded”? Did God destroy their verbal memory ? Did he paralyse a part of their brain, so that, although they remembered the words, they could not speak them? Did he affect the organs of articulation, so that the sounds of the primeval language could not be reproduced ? Will some theologian kindly explain this mystery ? Language is not a gift, but a growth. Different tribes and nations have had different experiences, different wants, and different surround ings, and the result is a difference in their languages, as well as in their religious ideas, political organisations, and social customs. Before we leave this portion of the subject, we beg to introduce Milton again. In the last Book of “Paradise Lost” he adds from his fertile imagination to the Bible story, and supplies a few deficiencies about which the mind is naturally curious. He makes the Archangel Michael tell poor Adam and Eve, as part ■of his panoramic description of future times, that a mighty hunter shall arise, claiming dominion over his fellows, and gather under him a band of adherents. This is clearly Nimrod. Milton separates him and his subjects from the rest of mankind, and represents them as the people who settled on “ the plain in the land of Shinar.” According to our great poet, therefore, the confusion of tongues applied only to them, and the other inhabitants of the earth retained the primeval language in all its original purity. This detachment, says Michael— Marching from Eden towards the west, shall find The plain, wherein a black bituminous gurge, �T/ie Toiler 0/ HabeZ. 81 BA A underground, the mouth of Hell: Of brick and of that stuff they cast to build A chyTAd a tower, whose top may reach to Heaven; And get themselves a name, lest, far dispersed In foreign lands, their memory be lost, Regardless whether good or evil tame. But God, who oft descends to visit men Unseen and through their habitations walks S mark their doings, them beholding soon, Comes down to see their city, ere the tower Obstruct Heav’n-tow’rs, and in derision sets Upon their tongue a various spirit to rase Quite out their native language and instead To sow a jangling noise of words unknown. Forthwith a hideous gabble rises loud Among the builders; each to other calls Not understood, till hoarse, and all in rage,. As mock’d they storm: great laughter was m heaven, And looking down, to see the huBbub strang And hear the din; thus was the building left Ridiculous, and the work Confusion named. W?ce was “ called Babel.” The Hebrew root is not however, that from which the word “Babel is deriveu. Rawlinson, suppose it be a compound of El , nase “ Bab-El” means the “ Gate of God. It is evident that the story of the Tower of by the Jehovist author of this part of Genesers of ■of the famous unfinished Temple of Belus 9^ KRh._ .antiquity. Birs Nimroud is thus described by Kahsch. “The hugh heap, in which bricks, stone, marble, and basa t, are irregularly mixed, covers a ^ac® off to ioO^eHn chief mound is nearly 800 feet high, and from 200 to 400 feet m width commanding an extensive view over a country of utter •desolatior^^he Jwer consisted of -ven ^tin" platforms, built of kiln-burnt bricks, each about twenty teetmgn, gradually diminishing in diameter. The upper pa ?ork hi a vitreflef appearance ; for it is ^PP»sed « the Babylonians in order to render their edifices more durable, sud Stted them to toe heat of the furnace ; and large fragments 0 �62 The Tower of Babel. such vitiefied and calcined materials are also intermixed with therubbish at the base. This circumstance may have given rise to or at least countenanced, the legend of the destruction of the Tower by heavenly fire, still extensively adopted among the Arabians The terraces were devoted to the planets, and werediffeiently colored m accordance with the notions of Sabsean astrology—the lowest, Saturn’s, Hack; the second, Jupiter’s • the third Mars’s, red ; the fourth, the Sun’s, wZZow • the thehMoon^sSS’ w?wZe{/rthe si^th’ Mercui'.y,s) blue; the seventh, it % 11 nF" T. Mero„da9h-afan-akhi is stated to have begun tv n’C’-k j K pfinished five centuries afterwards by Nebuchadnezzar who left a part of its history on two cylinders which have lately been excavated on the spot, and thus decip hered by Rawlinson ‘The building, named the Planisphere which was the wonder of Babylon, I have made and flashed Ki? ’ nhedwith laPis lazuli- I have exalted its head. Behold now the building, named ‘‘The Stages of the Seven Spheres, which was the wonder of Borsippa, had been built bv k h1ad comPleted forty-two cubits of height"• ririled dl ThOt fSnif1 tl}e ,h,;ad- From the lapse of time it beclme ruined. They had not taken care of the exit of the waters • so the ram and wet had penetrated into the brickwork. The casing of burnt brick lay scattered in heaps. Then Merodach my great lord, inclined my heart to repair the building. I did not change its site, nor did I destroy its foundation-platform. But, m a fortunate month, and upon an auspicious day, I under took the building of the raw-brick terrace and the burnt-brick casing of the Temple. I strengthened its foundation, and I placed a titular record on the part which I had rebuilt. I set my hand to build it up, and to exalt its summit. As it had been in ancient times, so I built up its structure. As it had been in former days, thus I exalted its head.’ ” • Pr®fe®sor Kawfinson assigns b.c. 2300 as the date of the build ing of the Temple. But as Colenso remarks, his reasoning is very loose. His date however, is antecedent to the supposed fame of the building of Babel, and according to his own chrono logy the latter may have been a tradition of the former. Add to this that the rums of Sirs Nimroud are extant, while there is no vestige of the rums of Babel. According to Kalisch’s chronologyBits Nvmroud was built long after the supposed time of Moses ’ and it wrote the Pentateuch our position cannot be mainpaiHed- But he did not write the Pentateuch or any portion of it Ihe writer of the Jehovist portion of Genesis, which con tains the story of the Power of Babel, certainly did not flourish before the time of Solomon, about b.c. 1015—975. Here then is an interval of a century. That is a short period for the’' growth of a legend. Yet, as Colenso observes, “as the tower was apparently an observatory, and the fact of its being dedicated o the seven ancient planets shows that astronomical observations had made considerable progress among the Chaldeans at the lme when it was built, the traditions connected with it may have �The Tow&r of Babel. 63 ■embodied stories of a much earlier date, to which the new buildinThrTemSpleCUo7ejupiter Belus with its tower was partially destroyed by Xerxes b.c. 490 ; upon which says Kalisch, the fraudulent priests appropriated to themselves the lands an enormous revenues attached to it, and seem, from this reason to have been averse to its restoration.” A part of the edifice still ■existed more than five centuries later, and was mentioned by Pliny But the other part was, in the tune of Alexander the Great a vast heap of ruins. He determined to rebuild it, but desisted from the enterprise, when he found that ten thousand workmen could not remove the rubbish m two months. Ben iamin of Tudela described it in the twelfth century, after which, for more than six hundred years, it remained unnoticed and unknown. The ruins were rediscovered by Niebuhr m 17o6, subsequent explorers more accurately described them; and they were thoroughly examined, and their monumental record deciphered, about thirty years ago. _ a « Knlisch observes The myth attaching to it is not unique. As Kalisch observes, “most of the ancient nations possessed myths concerning im pious giants, who attempted to storm heaven, either to share it with the immortal gods, or to expel them from it And even the orthodox Delitzsch allows that “ the Mexicans have a legend of a tower-building, as well as of a Flood. Xelhua, one of the seven giants rescued in the flood, built the great pyramid o Cholula, in order to reach heaven, until the gods angry at his audacity, threw fire upon the building, and broke it down whereupon every separate family received a language of its own To lessen the force of this, Delitzsch says that the Mexican legend has been much colored by its narrators, chiefly Dominicans and Jesuits ; but he is obliged to admit that there is great significance in the fact that the Mexican terrace-pyramid closely resembles the construction of the Temple of Belus. No argument can vitiate the conclusion that as similar myths to that of Genesis abounded m ancient times, it is highly illogical to attach particular important? to any one of them. If one is historic, all are historic. justified in holding that the Jewish story of the Tower of Babel is only a modification of the older story of the Temple of Belus. We will conclude this Romance by mentioning a few facts, not speculations, which are exceedingly curious, and which present grave difficulty to the orthodox believer. . . According to the Bible, in Abraham s time, not four centuries after the Deluge, the descendants of Noah’s three sons had mul tiplied into the four great kingdoms of Shmar (Babylon), Egypt, and Gerar, besides a multitude of smaller nations Does any instructed man believe in the possibility of such multiplica tion? It is altogether incredible. . . ... Some of these nations had reached a high degree of civilisa tion. Indeed, the temples, tombs, pyramids, manners, customs, .and arts of Egypt betoken & full-grown nation. The sculptures •of the Fourth Dynasty, the earliest extant, and which must be �64 The Tower of Babel. assigned to the date of about 3500 B.c., are almost as perfect as those of her Augustan age, two thousand years later. Professor Rawlinson seeks to obviate this difficulty by appealing to the version of the Seventy instead of to the Hebrew text by which he obtains the remote antiquity of 3159 b.c., instead of 2348, for the Deluge. But this chronology does not reach within four hundred years of the civilisation denoted by the sculptures referred to! And there must have been milleniums of silent progress in Egypt before that period. On the ancient monuments of Egypt the negro head, face, hair, iorm, and color, are the same as we observe in our own day. Consequently, the orthodox believer must hold that in a few generations, the human family branched out into strongly marked varieties. History discountenances this assumption, and Biology plainly disproves it. Archdeacon Pratt supposes that ohem, Ham, and Japheth “had in them elements differing as widely as the Asiatic, the African, and the European, differ from each other. ’ He forgets that they were brothers, sons of the same father and presumably of the same mother. Such extra ordinary evolution throws Darwinism into the shade. Noah lived fifty-eight years after the birth of Abraham, bhem lived a hundred and ten years after the birth of Isaac, and au yearsTafter th*3 birth of Jacob. How was it that neither Abraham, Isaac, nor Jacob knew either of them. They were the most interesting and important men alive at the time. They had seen the world before the Flood. One of them had seen people who knew Adam. They had lived through the confusion of tongues at Babel, and were well acquainted with the whole history of the world. Yet they are never once mentioned in Scripture during all the centuries they survived their exit from the ark Why is this ? Noah before his death was the most venerable man existing. He was five hundred years older than any other man. He must have been an object of universal regard. Yet we have no record of the second half of his career • no account is given of his burial ; no monument was erected to bis memory. Who will explain this astounding neglect? The Bible is a strange book, and they are strange people who believe it. PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by H. A. Kemp, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES—IX. BALAAM’S ASS. By G. W. FOOTE. -------- ♦-------- Thf ass has figured extensively in romance. His long ears and peculiar bray are explained by a story which goes back to the Flood On that occasion, it is said, the male donkey was inad vertently left outside the ark, but being a good swimmer he nevertheless managed to preserve his life. After .many despera e efforts he at last succeeded in calling out the Pat™rch s name, as nearlv as the vocal organs of a jackass would allow. No-ah, No-ah” cried the forlorn beast. Noah’s attention was at last aroused and on looking out of window to see who was calling, he -perceived the poor jackass almost spent and faintly battling with the waves. Quickly opening the window, he caught Neddy by the two ears and hauled him in. This he did with such vigor that Neddy's aural appendages were considerably elongated , and ever since7donkeys have had long ears and 1brayed ‘‘No ah No-ah” at the approach of wet weather. Jor the sake oi Christians who are not well acquainted with Gods Word, we add that, this storv is not in the Bible. Classical scholars and students of modern literature know . ow the ass has been treated by poets and romancers. The stolid animal has generally been made the subject of comedy.. Drunken and impotent Silenus, in the Pagan mythology, joins m the pro cessions of Bacchus on a sober ass, and the patient animal staggers beneath the heavy burden of a fat-paunched tipsy god.. Apulius and Lucian transform the hero of their common story into an ass, and in that shape he encounters the most surprising experiences. Voltaire makes an ass play a wonderful part m his Pucelle. And in all these cases it is worth noticing how the profane wits remember the ass's relation to Priapian mysteries, from his fabled interruption of the garden-god’s attempt on the nymph Lotts downwards, and assign to him marvellous amatory adventures. Erasmus, in his “Praise of Folly,” does not forget the ass, with whom he compares the majority of.men for stupidity, obstinacy,, and lubricity: noris the noble animal forgotten by Rabelais,, who cracks many a joke and points many a witticism at his expense.wn humorist) Charles Lamb, confesses however to a deep tenderness for Neddy, and dwells with delight on the pro tection which his thick hide affords against the cruel usuage of man. He has, says Lamb, “a tegument impervious to ordinary stripe®. The malice of a child or a weak hand can make feeble impressions on him. His back offers no mark to a puny foeman. To a common whip or switch his hide presents an absolute insen- �66 Balaam’s Ass. sibility. lou might as well pretend to scourge a schoolboy with a tough pair of leather breeches on.” Lamb also quotes the following passage from a tract printed in 1595, entitled “The Noblenesse of theAsse ; a Work Rare, Learned, and Excellent.” : “He refuseth no burden; he goes whither he is sent, without any contiadiction. He lifts not his foote against any one • he bytes not; he is no fugitive, nor malicious affected. He doth all things in good sort, and to his liking that hath cause te employ him. If strokes be given him, he cares not for them.” True the ass is not much given to kicking or biting, but he has an awk ward knack of quietly lying down when he is indisposed to work and of rolling over with equal quietude if a rider happens to be on his back. But the old author is so enchanted with the 44 asse ” that he does not stay to notice this scurvy trick. He even goes on to express his liking for the ass’s bray, calling Neddy “a rare musitian, and saying that “to heare the musicke of five or six voices chaunged to so many of asses is amongst them to heare a song of world without end.” umueriv? “Sentimental Journey,” has a chapter entitled 1 he Dead Ass, wherein the animal is lifted into the sphere of pathos. And lastly, Coleridge has some very pious musings on an ass, wherein the animal is lifted into the sphere of religion. how, dear reader, you begin to see the drift of this long exordium, although my purpose was indeed twofold. First I wished, after the example of my betters in literature, to give you a slight glimpse of the immense extent of my learning. Secondly 1 wished to lead you through the various stages of literary treat ment of the ass, from the comic to the pathetic, and finally to the religious, m order that you might approach in a proper frame of mind the consideration of Balaam’s ass, who is the most remarkable of all the four-legged asses mentioned in the Bible 1 here were others Asses were being sought by Saul, the son oi Kish when he found a kingdom of subjects instead. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on an ass, and also apparently on a colt, having probably one leg over each. With the jawbone of an ass bam son slew a thousand Philistines ; and if the rest of the animal accorded with that particular bone, he must have been a ough ass indeed. But all these are of little interest or importance beside the- wonderful ass of the prophet Balaam, whose history is contained, with that of his master, in the twentysecond, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth chapters of the Book of Numbers. Soon after the Wandering Jews in the desert were plagued by “fiery serpents” for asking Moses to give them a slight change in their monotonous bill of fare, they warred against the Amorites and pretty nearly exterminated them. Whereupon Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, grew “ sore afraid.” He called together the “ elders of Midian” with those of Moab, and said that in his opinion the Jews would lick them all up as the ox lick ed up the grass of the field. �Balaam’s Ass. 67 Against such a ferocious gang as the Jews, with a bloody God of Battles to help them, human valor promised little success; so Balak resolved to solicit supernatural aid. Accordingly he sent messengers unto Balaam the son of Beor, a renowned and potent soothsayer, desiring him to come and curse the people of Israel. The king had implicit confidence in Balaam. “Whom thou blessest,” said he, “is blessed, and whom thou cursest is cursed.” This great prophet must have wrought prodigious wonders in his time to gain so magnificent a reputation; and if the king’s panegyric on him was true, he must have been a dangerous person to those who annoyed him and made him swear. The “elders of Moab and the elders of Midian,” who were Balak’s messengers, went to Pethor, where Balaam resided. As the reader might expect, they did not go empty handed, but took with them “the rewards of divination.” What these were we are not told. No doubt they were very handsome. The pro phetical business requires large profits to compensate for the absence of quick returns; 'and in any case it is not to .be sup posed that a man who can do what no one else can, will begin work without a heavy retaining fee. We conclude that Balaam, like nearly every prophet mentioned in history, had a good eye for the main chance, and did not trust very much in the bounty of the gods. He was never hard up for bread and cheese while other people were hard up for divine assistance, and as that was an ignorant and credulous age, we presume that his larder was well-stocked. He must, indeed, have had a fine time, for he was the biggest pot in his own line of business in all that district. Balaam kuew his business well. It would never do for a prophet, a soothsayer, a wizard, or a diviner, to give prompt answers to his applicants, or even to make his answers plain when he does give them. That would render the profession cheap and rob it of mystery. So Balaam, therefore, said to the messengers, “Lodge here this night, and I will bring you word again, as the Lord shall speak unto me.” Now this reference to the Lord is very surprising. The Moabites worshipped Baal, and no doubt they had the utmost contempt for Jehovah. Yet Balaam, who was a prophet of their religion, tells them that he will consult the god of Israel on the subject of their visit! This is one of the self-contradictions with which the Bible abounds. The next incident of the story is no less remarkable. God, the infinite spirit of the universe, paid Balaam a visit; and although he knows everything, past, present, and to come, he asked the prophet “What men are these with thee?” Balaam gave a straightforward reply, for he doubtless knew that prevarication and subterfuge were useless with God. Said he, “Balak the son of Zippor, King of Moab, has sent unto me, saying, Behold there is a people come out of Egypt, which covereth the face of the tarth : come now, curse me them; peradventure I shall be able io overcome them and drive them out.” The precisiog. of �68 Balaam s Ass. Balaam’s language is admirable, and so it its accuracy. He neither desired to keep the Lord in suspense, nor to leave him in ignorance of necessary details. God’s answer was equally brief and perspicuous : “ Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people : for they are blessed.” This interview between God and Balaam, like the following ones, occurred in the night. The Lord seems to have been always afraid of daylight, or else to have had a peculiar fondness for the dark. Perhaps he thought that during the night there was less chance of the conversation being interrupted, and it is well known that the Lord loves privacy and does not like conversing with more than one at a time. He agrees with us that “two’s company and three’s none.” In the morning Balaam got out of bed and told Balak’s messengers to return and say that the Lord would not let him come ; and they at once set out for the capital. Balak, however, was not to be so easily put off. He seems to have regarded the prophet’s talk about the Lord’s prohibition as “all my eye.” “Perhaps,” said he to himself, “my messengers were small fry in the sight of Balaam, and he is therefore dis pleased. My presents also may have been too small. I should have recollected that Balaam has a very exalted opinion of him self, and is renowned for his avarice. What a stupid I was to be sure. However, I’ll try again. This time 1’11 send a deputa tion of big guns, and promise him great wealth and high position in the state. He can’t refuse such a tempting offer.” Straight way he “ sent yet again princes, more and more honorable ” than those who went before, and commanded them to urge Balaam to let nothing hinder him from coming. Balaam slightly resented this treatment. He told the messengers that if Balak would give him his house full of silver and gold, he could not go beyond the word of the Lord, to do more or less. Yet he apparently deemed it politic to make another trial. He was, of course, quite aware that God is unchangeable, but some how he thought the Lord might alter his mind. So he bade the messengers to tarry there that night while he consulted God afresh. Balaam’s expectation was realised. The Lord did change his mind. ‘ ‘ He came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do.” So the prophet rose up in the morning, saddled and mounted his wonderful ass, and went off with the princes of Moab. Poor Balaam, however, did not reflect that as the Lord had changed his mind once he might change it twice, and the omission very nearly cost him his life. He was unfortunately ignorant of what happened to Moses on a similar occasion. After the Lord had dispatched the Jewish prophet to Egypt to rescue his people from bondage, he met him at an inn, where perhaps they botjj put up for the night, and sought to kill him. The same �@9 Balaam’s Ass. thing happened now^ No sooner^ £eU™’y Ms Xi - “ veer God andi dreadMly hard, to please. If you don’t obey ^^nd^^Xd chance of beinf murdered ^The only safe^ourse is to get out of his way and odf° toS” stood^n sTVy drawn sword in his hand, ready to P -g^ nejther crime was having done exac y w ,p, however, had Balaam nor his two servants saw he had a better eyesight. Being only ass’a^dli^g\Sok of this greater aptitude for seeing angels A wav ^to a field, formidable stranger, Neddy bolted fX±ior XptTeer per Balaam, who saw no reason for such behaviOT except^s^^^p^o verseness, began to whack bis ass s forcible argument and the right road, Neddy s-cumhedto to«tly, in the logged on again, lhe angel oi w.e . , J? His intention meantime, made himself invisible even J fata] stroke in was ultimately to kill Balaam, bu X. , foresaw. Going order to make the most of the come y vineyards, a wall a little in front he “stood in a path »f ight of being on this side, and » A'^bolt in the field, the angel again, and being unable -Ralaam’s foot a good he lurched against the wall and §ave+ ®a aa“ine out of the scrunching. Still the prophet suspected noth S poor common, for that was an ordinary trick of refractory a • J Neddv therefore, got another thrashing, lhen tne angei KeZfarther, and “ stood in a. narrowr plane, where there was no way to turn either to the rig 0 proceed and Neddy estimated the certain penalty of r®ffu®in§ ^aring them the probable penalty of going forward After c0“Pa idgdown. he decided to stop where he was, amXthiacy, Balaam’s anger was once more. kindled y P and he whacked the ass again with his stall. Then the Lord intervened, and brought about the most^ S„dXo“,"fa“Zead-• ZKtX SZAe, “thatthou hast S^XtdtoXthat^o^ had held many a conversation before. ln the “ ±^d XgXZf EdenXeXs not at , serpent surprised, * BalaamTs ass was a cc nkn ” Knf flip sftx is immaterial, and. as we ’ “ she, but tne sex is im , commenced with the masculine gender we will continue witn �70 Balaam's Ass. but went on with the colloquy as though talking serpents were common things If a dumb animal were nowadays to address tmrT/|WltK +HOuW d°? ” he.would certainly be very much startled , but when the same thing occured in the old Bible you8?”^6 maU °nCe replied’ “ Very well, thank you, how are Balaam promptly answered the ass’s question. “Because” said he, ‘‘thou hast mocked me : I would there were a sword in hand for now would I kill thee.” Then the ass rejoined Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day ? Was I ever wont to do so unto thee ?” This was a poser Balaam scratched his head and reflected but at last he was obliged to say “Nay.” ’ Neddy had so far the best of the argument. But Balaam had the practical argument of the stick left, and no doubt he was about to convince the donkey with it. All arguments practical or otherwise would however have left the dispute exactly where it stood A eddy saw the angel, and that was enough for him Balaam did not see the angel, but only Neddy’s obstinate stupidity In short, they reasoned from different premises and could not therefore arrive at the same conclusion.P They might have argued till doomsday had not the Lord again intervened th! T A°P/nfd Balaams eyes>” 80 that he also “ saw the angel of idle Lord standing m the way, and his sword drawn in his hand ” Then Balaam “bowed his head, and fell flat on his face ” and there he and Neddy lay side by side, two asses together. ’ Now, dear reader, you will observe that the ass, being indeed dSiTotTJt?6 uand that Balaam’ awLeman, did not see the angel until his wits were disordered by the wonder renirk thatS“ in°afl D?rt tWS beaT out S'reat Bacon’s remark that m all superstititon, wise men follow fools ” 9 And may we not say, that if asses did not see angels first, wise men would never see them after ? ’ on^his fTc?el«°w?e said *0 Balaam, while he remained flat timni ? h h m heref°re hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me: and the ass saw me, and turned from me t?soSei hid TS:+bnleSS Sie had turned from me> ^ely now • +i lam thee’ and saved her alive.” The moral of this is that asses stand the best chance of salvation, and that wise men run a frightful risk of damnation until they lose their tin^^T recognised the awfd mess he Was in, and being, b thig ne as limp as a wet rag, he made the most abject apology. “ T wayagTnstme" &Th’ “ t” 1 UOt tbat thou ^des/in th J how the Tuhlf reasoning shows still more clearly notT sinned°nt had ^ken leave of his senses. He had lor wTit hVf’ strictly obeying God’s commands; When the T r d lUt that,the angei remained so long invisible, then the Loid opened his eyes,” and made his vision like unto �Balaam s Ass. 71 th® vision of an ass, he saw the angel plainly enough ; and how could he possibly have done so before ? “I’ll go back,” added Balaam, thinking that if he sinned so greatly in going forward, he had better return home. But the angel of the Lord, who had intended to kill him for advancing, now told him to “go with the men.” And Balaam went with them, keeping his weather eye open during the rest of the journey. ,-,17 Balak was heartily glad to see Balaam. The prophet had been a long time coming, but better late than never. The next day they went “up into the high places of Baal,” from which they could see “the utmost part of the people ” of Israel. “There they are,” said Balak, “confound them! leprous slaves out of Egypt, bent on stealing other people’s lands, and sticking to all they can lay hands on ; bloodthirsty vagabonds, who fight people with whom they have no quarrel, and kill men, women, and children when they are victorious. h\ow, Balaam, do your duty. Curse them, and lay it on thick.” • Seven altars were built, and seven oxen and seven rams sacri ficed on them. But all this good meat was wasted, for when Balaam “went to an high place,” God met him, according to agreement, and told him what to say. And lo ! when the prophet returned to the king, he blessed the Jews instead of cursing them. “Hullo, Ballam, what’s this?” cried the king. “ I asked you to curse my enemies and you’ve gone and blessed them. What d’ye mean?” “True,” answered Balaam, “ but I told you that I could only speak what the Lord put into my mouth.” Balak appears to have been just as sceptical as Pharaoh about the God of the Jews. He attributed his disappointment to a freak of the prophet, and not being easily baffled he resolved to try again. So he took Balaam up another high place, and built seven fresh altars, and sacrificed on them seven more bullocks and rams; after which he repeated his invitation. Again Balaam went farther to consult the Lord, whom he found waiting for him; and received his instructions. And lo ! when he returned to Balak he again blessed the Jews instead of cursing them. Balak resolved to try again. He took Balaam to another high place, built seven more altars, and sacrificed seven more bullocks and seven more rams. But again the prophet blessed Israel, and a third time the king was sold. Then he gave it up, and Balaam and his ass went home. What became of the ass is unknown. Perhaps he went into the prophetical business himself, and eventually retired on a very handsome fortune. Perhaps he went about as a preacher of the gospel as it was then understood; in which case, judging from the rule of success in later ages, we have no doubt that he attracted large audiences and delighted all who were fortunate enough to sit under him. And when he died all the two-legged asses in Moab probably wept and refused to be comforted. Balaam’s end was tragic. The thirteenth chapter of Joshua �72 Balaam’s Ass. informs us that he was eventually slain by the very people he had thrice blessed. After an account of one of the bloody wars of Jehovah’s bandits we read that “ Balaam also the son of Beor, the sooth-sayer, did the children of Israel slay with the sword among them that were slain by them.” The angel of the Lord spared him, but God’s butchers cut his throat at last. On the whole he might as well have cursed the Jews up and down to Balak’s satisfaction, and taken the handsome rewards which were offered him on such easy terms. Here endeth the story of Balaam’s Ass. I hope my reader still believes it, for if not, he will be reprobate while he lives and damned when he dies. PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by H. A. Kemp, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES—X. GOD’S THIEVES IN CANAAN. By G. W. FOOTE. --------- 4---------- Some years ago the righteous indignation of England was roused by the daily record of atrocities perpetrated in Bulgaria by the Turkish bashi-bazouks. Men were wantonly massacred, preg nant women ripped up, and maidens outraged by brutal lust. Our greatest statesman uttered a clarion-cry which pealed through the whole nation, and the friends of the Turk m high places shrank abashed and dismayed before the stern response of the people. Many clergymen attended public meetings, and denounced not only the Turks, but also their Mohammedanism. They alleged that the Koran sanctioned, even if it did not com mand the horrors which had been wrought in Eastern Europe, and they declared that there was no hope for a country which derived its maxims of state from such an accursed book, lhose denunciations did honor to their hearts, but very little to their heads For every brutual injunction in the Koran, twenty might be found in the Bible. Before the clergy cry out against the Scriptures of Islam, they should purge their own of those horrid features which are an insult to man and a blasphemy against God Mohammed gave savage counsels to his followers with respect to waging war, but these sink into insignificance beside the counsels given to the Jews by Moses in the name of God. Bible romances are generally comic, but this one is infinitely tragic. The whole range of history affords no worse instances of cold-blooded cruelty than those which God’s theives, the Jews, perpetrated in Canaan, when they took forcible possession of cities they had not built and fields they had never ploughed. “How that red rain will make the harvest grow! exclaims Byron of the blood shed at Waterloo; and surely the first harvests reaped by the Jews in Canaan must have been luxuriantly rich, for the ground had been drenched with the blood of the slain. Before Moses died, according to the Bible, he delivered an elaborate code of laws to his people in the name of God. lhe portions referring to war are contained in the twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy. Here they stand in all their naked hideous- ae*‘SWhen thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the Pe<T^ that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war againt thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the �74 God’s Thieves in Canaan. Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword : But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto ail the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them.” Such were the fiendish commands of Jehovah, the bloody maxims of inspired war. Let us see how the Jews carried them out. Duiing the lifetime of Moses they made a good beginning! for in their war against Midian they slew 48,000 men, 48,000 women, and 20,000 boys, and took as spoil 32,000 virgins. But they did much better under Joshua. After God had dispatched Moses and secretly buried him, so that nobody should ever discover his sepulchre, Joshua was appointed leader in his stead. He was “full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him.” Then, as now, ' religious superiors transmitted holiness to their inferiors through the skull. God accepted the nomination of Moses and instructed Joshua in his duties. He told him to be above all “ strong and very courageous,” and to fight the enemy according to the law of Moses. Joshua was not the man to neglect such advice. Joshua was soon ordered to cross the river Jordan and begin the holy war. But before doing so, he dispatched two spies to reconnoitre Jericho, the first place to be attacked. They reached the city by night, and of course required lodgings. Instinct led them to the house of Rahab, the harlot. She proved a very good friend; for when messengers came from the king in the morning to inquire about them, she said that they had gone, and advised the messengers to go after them, which they did. Meanwhile she hid the spies under some flax on the roof of her house, and at night “ let them down by a cord through the window, for she dwelt on the town wall.” Before they left, however, she made a covenant with them. Like many other ladies of easy virtue, or no virtue at all, Rahab was piously inclined. She had conceived a great respect for Jehovah, and was assured that his people would overcome all their enemies. But she had also a great re spect for her own skin ; so she made the two spies promise on behalf of the Jews that when they took Jericho they would spare her and all her relatives ; and they were to recognise her house by the “line of scarlet thread in the window.” They got back safe to Joshua and told him it was all right; the people were in a dreadful funk, and all the land would soon be theirs? Joshua got up early the next morning and told the Jews that w the Lord was going to do wonders. They wanted to get “ on �God’s Thieves in Canaan. 75 the other side of Jordan,” and the Lord meant to ferry them across in his own style. Twelve men were selected one from each tribe to follow the priests who bore the ark m front, and all the Jewish host came after them. As it was harvest time, the river had overflowed its banks. When the priests’ feet “ were dipped in the brim of the water,” the river parted in twain ; on one side the waters “ stood and rose up upon an heap, while on the other side they “failed and were cut off.” As no miracle was worked further up the river to stop the supplies the “ heap must have been a pretty big one before the play ended. A clear passage having been made, the Jews all crossed on dry ground. Thev seem to have done this in less than a day, but three millions of people could not march past one spot in less than a week. Perhaps the Lord gave them a shove behind. The twelve selected Jews, one from each tribe, took twelve big stones out of the bed of the river, which were “pitched in Gilgal” as a “memorial unto the children of Israel for ever. For ever is a long time and is not yet ended. Those stones should be there now. Why don’t the clergy try to discover them? If brought to London and set up on the Thames embank ment they would throw Cleopatra’s needle into the shade. When God had ferried the Jews across, and picked out the twelve big stones as aids to memory, the “heap” of water tumbled down and overflowed the banks of the river Joshua and his people then encamped near Jericho, in readiness for greater wonders to come. , . Three days afterwards the manna ceased. Jehovah s fighting cocks wanted a more invigorating diet. This time they did not ask for a change, but the Lord vouchsafed it spontaneously. All the males, too, were circumcised by God’s orders. This Jewish rite had been neglected during the forty years’ wandering in the wilderness, but it was now resumed. From the text it seems that Joshua circumcised all the males himself. As they numbered about a million and a half, it must have been a long iob. Allowing a minute for each amputation, it would in the natural course of things have taken him about three years to do them all; but being divinely aided, he finished his task m a single day. Samson’s jaw-bone was nothing to Joshua’s knife. Soon after Joshua, being near Jericho, like Balaam’s ass saw an angel with a drawn sword in his hand. When he had made obeisance, by falling flat and taking off his shoes, he received from this heavenly messenger precise instructions as to the capture of the doomed city.. The Lord’s, way of storming fortresses is unique in military literature. Said he to Joshua— “ Ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams’ horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and -the priests shall blow with the trumpets. And it shall come to pass that when they make a long blast with the ram s horn, and �76 God's Thieves in Canaan. when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him.” Did ever another general receive such extraordinary in structions from his commander-in-chief ? God’s soldiers need no cannon, or battering rams, or bomb-shells; all they require is a few rams’ horns and good lungs for shouting. God’s orders were obeyed. Six days in succession did the Jews march round the walls of Jericho, no doubt to the great bewilderment of its inhabitants, who probably wondered why they didn’t come on, and felt that there was something uncanny in this roundabout siege. On the seventh day they went round the city seven times. How tired they must have been! Jericho, being a capital city, could not have been less than several miles in circumference. The priests blew with the trumpets, the people shouted with a great shout, and the walls of Jericho fell flat— as flat as the simpletons who believe it. A scene of horror ensued. The Jews “ utterly destroyed all there was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” Only Rahab and her relatives were spared. The silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, were put into the Lord's treasury-—that is, handed over to the priests; and then the city was burnt with fire. God commanded this, and his chosen people executed it. Could Jericho have been treated worse if the Devil himself had planned the fight, and the vilest fiends from hell had conducted it? Rahab the harlot, being saved with all her relatives, who were perhaps as bad as she, dwelt with the Jews ever afterwards. Whether she continued in her old profession we are unable to say. But it is certain that the Jews soon after grew very corrupt, and the Lord’s anger was kindled against them. The first result of God’s displeasure was that the Jews became demoralised as warriors. Three thousand of them, who went up against Ai, were routed, and thirty-six of them were slain. This seems a very small number, but, as we have already observed, the Jewish chroniclers were much given to bragging. Their losses were always very small, and the enemy’s very great. After this rebuff the Jews funked; their hearts ‘ ‘ melted and became as water.” Joshua rent his clothes, fell upon his face before the ark, and remained there until the evening. The elders of Israel did likewise, and they all put dust on their heads. To conclude the performance Joshua expostulated with God, asked him whether he had brought his people over Jordan only to betray them to their enemies, and expressed a hearty wish that they had never crossed the river at all. The Lord told Joshua to get up, as it was no use lying there. Israel had sinned, and God had determined not to help them until they had purged themselves. Some one, in fact, had stolen a portion of the spoil of Jericho, all of which belonged to the �God’s Thieves in Canaan. 77 Lord that is to the priests, who evidently helped to concoct this nrettv story Joshua forthwith proceeded to hunt the sinner out. C meS was very singular. He resolvedto £ — twelve tribes until the culprit was found, I he tribe ot juuan was examined first, and luckily in the very first family Acha was taken,” although we are not told how he was spotted Achan confessed that he had appropriated of the spoil a_ •Rabvlonish o-arment, and two hundred shekels of ®-iver> .ana a weta ” f grid of fifty shekels weight,” which he had hidden under his tent His doom was swift and terrible ; he was stoned t"^ his body burnt with fire We>maythin^: Mspunish went severe but we cannot deny his guilt, tie, ^°wevei, “oTthe only sufferer. Jehovah was not small quantity of blood. Achan s sons and daug™8 we stoned with him, and then^bodies «ne A^eaFheap’of’stones was raised over their cinders, “jehorah “ the Lord turned from the fierceness of his anger. Jehovah acted iustlike the savage old chieftain of a savage tribe As irascible tempers do not improve with age X 9till asnennerv as ever. Yet we are asked to lov , > , wSshipP ®s brutal being, as the ideal of all that >s merciful, jUtaed?aWy after Joshua sent thirty thousand menmgainst Ai, which they took with great ease. All its mhabitan , oldest ma? to the youngest babe were '“^red. Tim city itself was burnt into a desolate heap. The King reserved to furnish the Jews with a little extra sport, by w^y dessert to the bloody feast. He was hanged oni a^ntil eve tide when his carcass was taken down and buried under a n ;al If stoles.” Joshua -‘then built a tapmto the Lord God of Israel in Mount Ebal,” who appears to have been mightily we pleased with the whole business. _ i a o-athered all Joshua’s next exploit was indeed miraculous He gathered the Jews together, men, womeni, children, and even the,trang, and read to them all the laws of Moses, wl^XXtliroat must word. It must have been a long job, and Joshua s ttooa have been rather dry at the end. But the greatest^o^er is he made himself heard to three millions of people at1 1 other orator ever addressed so big an audience E1^er“e^e in were very sharp, or his voice was terribly loud. The people The front rank must have been nearly stunned with the sound. Joshua could outroar Bottom the weaver by two or^iee^e’d The people of Gibeon, by of irSSeng^± couX themselves off on Joshua as strangers from a. distantcou t y, contrived to obtain a league whereby their livee When their craft was detected they were sentenced to become hewers of wood and drawers of water to the Jews; m other words, ^AdonLztdec, king of Jerusalem ; Hoham, king of Hebron ; �78 God’s Thieves in Canaan. Piram king of Jarmuth; Japhia, king of Lachish; and Debim king of Eglon ; banded themselves together to punish Gibeon for making peace with the Jews. Joshua went with all his army to their relief. He fell upon the armies of the five kino-s dis comfited them with great slaughter, and chased them along the way to Beth-horon. As they fled the Lord joined in the hunt. He cast down great st.ones from heaven upon them ” and killed a huge number even “more than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.” When we read that Pan fought witfi the Greeks against the Persians at Marathon, we must regard it as a fable ; but when we read that Jehovah fought with the Jews against the five kino-s at Gibeon we must regard it as historical truth, and if we doubt it we shall be eternally damned. Not only did the Lord join in the war-hunt, but Joshua wrought the greatest miracle on record by causing a stationary body to stand still. He stopped the sun from “ going down ” and lengthened out the day for about twelve hours, in order that the Jews might see to pursue and kill the flying foe “ The sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.” What Joshua really stopped if he stopped anything, was the earth, for its revolution, and not the motion of the sun, causes the phenomena of day and nio-ht Science tells , us that the arrest of the earth’s motion would generate a frightful quantity of heat, enough to cause a general conflagration. Yet nothing of the kind happened. How is it too, that no other ancient people has preserved any record of this marvellous occurrence ? The Egyptians, for instance, carefully noted-eclipses and such events, but they jotted down no memor andum of Joshuas supreme miracle. Why is this? How can Christians explain it ? When Jupiter personated Amphytrion, and visited his bride Alcmena the amorous god lengthened out the night in order toprolong his enjoyment. Why may we not believe this ? Is it not as credible, and quite as moral, as the Bible story of Jehovah s lengthening out the day to prolong a massacre ? Were the Greeks any bigger liars than the Jews ? It has been suggested that Joshua was so elated with the victory that he drank more than was good for him, and got in at k j Str,e that in the evening’lie saw two moons instead of one Nobody liked to contradict him, but the elders of Israel to’ harmonise their leader’s vision, declared that it comprised’the sun and the moon, instead of two moons, which were clearly absurd. The court poet improved on this explanation, and com posed the neat little poem which is partially preserved by the Jewish chronicler, who asks “ Is not this written in the book of Jas ier. The waggish laureate Jasher is supposed by some profane speculators to have got up the whole miracle himself. The five kings fled with their armies and “hid themselves in a cave at Makkedah.” Joshua ordered the mouth to be closed �God’s Thieves in Canaan. - ' 79 ■with big stones until the pursuit was ended. At last they were brought out and treated with great ignominy. Their necks were made footstools of by the captains of Israel, and they were afterwards hung on trees until the evening, when their carcasses were flung into the cave. After this highly civilised treatment of their captives, the Jews took all the capital cities of these five kings and slew all the inhabitants. Then they desolated the hills and vales. Joshua “ left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.” Hazor and many other places were also treated in the same way, “ there was not any left to breathe.” Jehovah was not, however, able to execute his intentions com pletely. The children of Judah could not drive the Jebusites out of Jerusalem; nor could the children of Manasseh entirely drive out the Canaanites from their cities. After Joshua’s death, as we read in the book of Judges, “ the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain ; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” Iron chariots were too strong for the Almighty! Yet he managed to take off the wheels of Pharaoh’s chariots at the Red Sea. Why could he not do the same on this occasion ? Were the linch-pins too tight or the wheels too heavy? Joshua died at the ripe old age of a hundred and ten. What ever else he may have been, he was certainly one of the gamest fighting cocks that ever lived. Jehovah never found a better instrument for his bloody purposes. They buried him at Timnath-serah. Joseph’s old bones, which Moses brought out of Egypt, were buried at Shechem. Had they been kept much longer some Hebrew “old-clo’ man” might have carried them off and made an honest penny by them. After Joshua’s death, the tribe of Judah fought against Adonibezek. When they caught him they cut off his thumbs and his big toes. He acknowledged the justice of his punishment, and admitted that God had served him just as he had himself served seventy kings, whose great toes he had cut off, and made them eat under his table. Kings must have been very plentiful in those days. During Joshua’s lifetime the Jews served God, and they kept pretty straight during the lifetime of the elders who had known him. But directly these died they went astray; “they forsook the Lord and worshipped Baal and Ashtaroth.” God punished them by letting their enemies oppress them. “Nevertheless,” says the story, “the Lord raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them. And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them; and they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the Lord; but they did not so. .... And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in �80 God's Thieves in Canaan. following other Gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way.” God’s selection of the Jews as his favorite people does not seem to reflect much credit on his sagacity. All who came out of Egypt, except two persons, turned out so badly that they were pronounced unfit to enter the promised land, and doomed to die in the wilderness. The new generation who entered Canaan,, after being circumcised to make them holy; after seeing the miracles of Jordan and the valley of Ajalon; after having gained a home by God’s assistance in a land flowing with milk and honey; this very generation proved worse than their fathers. The original inhabitants of Canaan, whom they dispossessed, could hardy have surpassed them in sin and iniquity; and therefore the ruthless slaughter of their conquest was as un reasonable as it was inhuman. So much for “ God’s Thieves in Canaan.” PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by H. A. Kemp, 28 Stonecutter Street,'; London, E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES—11. CAIN AND ABEL. By G. W. FOOTE. God completed the immense labors described in the first chapter of Genesis by creating man “in his own image,” after which he serenely contemplated “ everything that he had made, and, behold it was very good.” Yet the first woman deceived her husband the first man was duped, and their first son was a mur derer. God could not have looked very far, ahead when he pro nounced everything “very good.” It is clear that the original nair of human beings were very badly made. As the Lord was obliged to take a rest on the seventh day, it is not unreasonable to suppose that he was pretty tired on the sixth, and scamped the work All the sin and suffering in this world is the conse quence of man having been the fag-end of creation. If the Lord had rested on the sixth day and created man on the seventh, how different things might have been ! The Devil would probably have done no business in this world, and the population of hell would be no more now than it was six thousand years ago. After leaving the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, having no fear of Malthus in their hearts, began to “ multiply and replenish the earth ” When their first child was born, Eve said, “ 1 have gotten a’man from the Lord,” poor Adam’s share in the youngster’s advent being quietly ignored. She christened him Cain a name which comes from a Hebrew root signifying to acquire. Cain was regarded as an acquisition, and his mother was very proud of him. The time came when she wished he had never been born. . , Some time after, but how long is unknown, Eve gave birth to a second son, called Abel. Josephus explains this name as meaning grief, but Hebrew scholars at present explain it as mean ing nothingness, vanity, frailty. The etymology of Abel’s name shows conclusively that the story is a myth. Why should Eve give her second boy so sinister a name ? How could she have so clearly anticipated his sad fate? Cain’s name has, too, another significance besides that of “acquisition,” for, as Kalisch points out it also belongs to the Hebrew verb to strike, and “ signifies either the man of violence and the sire of murderers, or the ancestor of the inventors of iron instruments and of weapons of destruction.” . Cain and Abel had to get their own living. Being born after the Fall they were of course debarred from the felicities of Eden, and were compelled to earn their bread by the sweat of their �82 Cain and Abel. brows, in accordance with God’s wide-reaching curse. Both, so to speak, were forced to deal in provisions. Abel went in for meat, and Cain for vegetables. This was an admirable division of labor, and they ought to have got on very well together; one finding beef and mutton for dinner, and the other potatoes and greens. They might even have paid each other handsome compli ments across the table. Abel might have said, “ My dear Cain, these vegetables are first-rate,” and Cain might have replied, “ My dear Abel, I never tasted a better cut.” Delitzsch, whose criticisms are huge jokes, frowns on this picture of fraternal peace. He opines that Cain and Abel were vegetarians, and never enjoyed a beef-steak or a mutton- chop. Abel kept only small domestic cattle, such as sheep and goats, whose woolly skin might be used to cover “their sinful naked ness.” The utmost Dtlitzsch allows is that they perhaps drank milk, which, although animal nutriment, is not obtained through the destruction of animal life. But, as Colenso observes, animals were slain for sacrifices, and they may have been killed also for eating. Besides, even a vegetable diet involves infinite destruction of minute animal life. On the whole we prefer to disregard Delitzsch in this matter, and to stand by our pleasant picture of the two first brothers at dinner. Their admirable arrangement, however, brought mischief in the end. It was right enough so far as they were concerned, but it worked badly in relation to God. They liked a mixed diet, but the Lord was purely carnivorous and liked all meat. He devoured Abel’s provisions with great relish, but turned up his nose at Cain’s vegetables. The mealiest potatoes, the tenderest green peas, had no charm for him ; and even the leeks, the garlic, the onions, and the cucumbers, which were afterwards so beloved by his Jewish favorites, were quite unattractive. In the language of Scripture, “ Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering : But unto Cain and to his offering he had no respect.” Elsewhere in the Bible we read “ God is no respecter of persons,” but Scripture is full of contradictions, and such things present no difficulty to the spirit of faith, which, like hope, “ believeth all things.” Why was Cain’s offering slighted? The Bible does not tell us, but many reasons have been advanced by commentators. The Talmud supposes that Cain did not offer his best produce, but only the inferior kinds, thus giving God what he did not require himself, and treating the holy rite of sacrifice as a means of working off his refuse vegetables. Kalisch waives this theory, and thinks it probable that Cain’s sin was primarily not against God, but against man. “ The supposition,” he says, “ is obvious that envy and jealousy had long filled the heart of Cain, when �Cain and Abel. 83 contrasted his laborious and toilsome life with the pleasant hi, brother Abel. With incjant exerton, tormented by anxiety, and helplessly dependent on the of the skies he forced a scanty subsistence out ot the woin Bp heart He beheld the happiness of his brother with the feelings an enemy. The joy at the «uooeM ot his own labor, was embittered by the aspect of Ms brother’s greater could God look with delight upon an offering which the offerer himself did not regard with unalloyed satisfaction ? How cou he eoeonrege by bis applause a man whose heart was poisoned by the mean and miserable passion of envy f But all this is gratuitous and far-fetched. Cam yas not afflicted with so laborious an occupation. Adam supported hi self and Eve and all Cain had to do was to provide himself, and perhaps Abe’l with vegetables. Nor could Abels occupation have been light, for flocks and herds require a good deal of attendance and in those early days they needed vigilant protecSoeagX’t“be ravage, of irild beasts. . Abel’s ta.k.mote have been quite as heavy as Cain’s. Our opinion is that the Lord showed his usual caprice, hating whom he would and lovmg whom he would. Jehovah acted like the savage hero ot M . browning’s ‘ Caliban on Setebos,” who sprawls on the shore watching8a line of crabs make for the sea and squashes the twentieth for mere variety and sport. If Jehovah is ^es to explain his loves and hates, he answers with Shylock, it is my whim.” It was his whim to love Jacob and hate Esau, and it was no doubt his whim to accept Abel’s offering and reject ^Mythologically the acceptance of Abel’s offering and the rejec tion of Cat’s are easily intelligible. The principle of samfice was deeply imbedded in Judaism. Without shedding ofblood there could be no remission of sin. Under the Levitical law the duties of the priesthood chiefly consisted in offerings of the people. It is. therefore, not difficult to unde stand how the Jewish scribes who wrote or revised the Penta teuch after the Babylonish captivity should give thl? the narrative of Genesis; nor is it hard to conceive that for centuries before that date the popular tradition had already, under priestly direction, taken such a color, so as t g oldest and deepest sanction t > the doctrine of animal sacrifice. It must also be noticed that Abel, who found favor with God, was “a keeper of sheep,” while Cain, whose offering was con- �84 Cain and Abel. temned, was “ a tiller of the ground.” This accords with the strongest traditional instincts of the Jews. The Persian religion decidedly favors agriculture, which it regards as a kind of divine service. Brahminism and Buddhism countenance it still more decidedly, and even go to the length of absolutely prohibiting the slaughter of animals. The Jews, on the other hand, esteemed the pastoral life as the noblest, and the Hebrew historian very naturally represented it as protected and consecrated by the blessing of Jehovah, while agriculture was declared to have been imposed on man as a punishment. The nomadic origin of the Jews accounts for their antipathy to that pursuit, which sur vived and manifested itself long after they settled in Palestine, devoted themselves to the cultivation of the soil, and enacted agrarian laws. They always esteemed agriculturalists as inferior to shepherds ; men of superior attainments in their histories and legends rose from pastoral life ; and kings kept their flocks. David, the man after God’s own heart, and the national hero of the Jews, was a shepherd, and the Lord came to him while he was keeping his father’s sheep. Moses was keeping his fatherin-law’s sheep when God appeared to him in the burning bush at Mount Horeb ; Jacob kept his uncle Laban’s sheep when he fled from Esau ; and Abraham, the father of the faithful, was rich in flocks and herds. To recur to our story. Abel probably enjoyed the conspicuous mark of divine favors conferred on him. Cain, however, ex perienced very different feelings. He “ was very wroth, and his countenance fell.” Whereupon the Lord somewhat facetiously asked him what was the matter. “ Why,” said he, “ art thou wroth ? and why is thy countenance fallen ? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” This was all very well, but as a matter of fact Cain’s offering had already been rejected, and according to the Bible he had done nothing to deserve such harsh treatment. The Lord’s final words on this occasion read thus in our English Bible : “ And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt, rule over him.” These words are construed as applying to Cain s mastery over Abel, as the elder brother; but they seem, quite unmeaning in that connexion ; for Abel left no offspring, and the prophecy, if such it were, was never fulfilled. Kalisch throws light on this obscure passage. The Lord, he says, was referring not to Abel but to Cain’s secret sin, and the passage should read “And to thee is its desire, but thou shalt rule over it.” Cain then “talked with Abel his brother.” Geseniussupposes that he communicated to him the words of God, and; treats this as the first step towards a reconciliation. However that maybe, we hear nothing more of it, for the very next words relate the murder of the younger brother by the elder. “ And it came to �Cain and Abel. 85 pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose np against Abel his brother, and slew him.” Kalisch This abrupt narrative certainly requires explanatio . seems to think that Cain went about his work after the inter view with God, in a better frame of mind; but whilehe.toiled hard “in the field” he became incensed at the sight ofAbel loafins under a fine umbrageous tree and calmly watching h flock Forgetting the divine admonitions, and listening on y the voice of passion, he madly killed his only brother, and made himself the first murderer. The Talmud gives several legends about the hatred between the two brothers. <One imP"tes ^he ference to Cain’s avarice, another to his ambition, another to his taXtonlne.., and another to hi. envy and jedony ££ -n1int of Ab. l’s wife. The last of all seems the truest, namely, S” they differed - in their view, regarding Provide..., th. moral government of the world, and the efficacy of virtuous deeds for happiness.” This idea informs Byron s tragedy on the subject In “ Cain ” the younger brother’s offering is burnt up with supernatural fire, while the elder’s altar remains unkindled, whereupon Cain inveigh, again,! God’, partiality the bloodv sacrifice which finds greater favor than his own peaeefnl tribute of fruit and flower,. He * scatter the relic, of Abel’s offering from the altar, thwarted bv his brother who resists the sacrilege. Abel is teiiea in the struggle, and Cain, who had no intention of killing him, flnds himself an actual murderer before his brother s corpse.. We are bound to conclude that the first quarrel in the world, like nine-tenths of those that have occurred since, was abouJ-re ligion. Cain thought God should be worshipped in one way Abel thought he should be worshipped in another; and they settled the question, after the manner of religious diputants m all ag bv the stronger knocking the weaker on the head. In religion there is no certitude on this side of the grave; if we are> ever destined to know the truth on that subject we must, die to find it out We may therefore argue fruitlessly until the day or judgment. The only effectual way of settling a religious pro blem is to settle your opponents. , , , After the murder the Lord paid Cam another visit, and asked him where Abel was. Cain replied that he was not his brother s keeper and didn’t know. He does not appear to have thought Goda particularly well-informed person. Then the Lord s that Abel’s blood cried unto him from the gr<>und; now,” he continued, “ art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother s blood from thy hand; when thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be on the earth. And Cain said unto the Lord, my punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this �86 Cain and Abel. day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid, and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass that every one that fiodeth me shall slay me. And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark on Cain, leBtany finding him should kill him. And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.” Now let us examine this story. Why was Cain so solicitous about his safety ? Why did he fear that everybody would try to kill him ? He had slain his brother, and his father and mother were the only people in the world besides himself and per haps his sisters. Kalisch suggests that he apprehended the future vengeance of mankind when the world grew more populous. But how, in that case, could a distinctive mark be any pro tection ? It would publish his identity to all beholders. Be sides, one would suppose that Cain, the first man ever born into the world, would always be well known without carrying about a brand like a special wine or a patent edible. And what was the maik ? Kalisch thinks it was only a villainous expression. Others think it was the Mongolian type impressed upon the features of Cain, who became the founder of that great division of the human race. A negro preacher started a different theory. When the Lord called out in a loud voice, “ Cain, where is thy brother Abel,” Cain, who was a black man, like Adam, turned pale with fear, and never regained his original color. All his children were pale too; and that, said the preacher, ‘‘accounts for de white trash you see ebery war in dese days ” How did Cain manage to go “ out from the presence of the Lord,” who is everywhere ? Satan does the same thing in the Book of Job, and Jonah tries to do it later on. Jehovah was clearly a local as well as a visible God, and not the infinite spirit of the universe. Where was the land of Nod situated ? East of Eden, says the Bible. But nobody knows where Eden was. As we pointed out in “The Creation Story,” scores of different positions have been assigned to it. The only yoint of agreement among the commentators is that it was somewhere. All that can safely be affirmed, then, is that Nod was east of Somewhere. The name itself is very appropriate. No douot the Lord was not quite awake in that locality, and hence we may explain how Cain managed to go “ out from his presence.” In this strange land of Nod, Cain “ knew his wife.” Who was she ? Probably his own sister, but the Bible does not tell us anything about her. Their first son was called Enoch. Cain then “ builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.” But this is directly opposed to the curse, “ a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.” �Cain and Abel. 87 Delitzsch notices this, and, as usual, seeks to explain it away. Cain he says, “ in this way set himself against the divine curse, in order to feel it inwardly so much the more, as outwardly he seems to have overcome it.” To which we reply—first, that there is no evidence that Cain felt the curse “ more inwardly after he built the city ; and, secondly, the idea of a man success fully setting himself against an omnipotent curse is a trifle too absurd for credence or criticism. Now Adam and Eve, when Cain fled after the murder of Abel, were left childless, or at least without a Bon. But it was neces sary that they should have another, in order that God’s chosen people the Jews, might, be derived from a purer stock than Cain’s.’ Accordingly we read that Adam, in his hundred and thirtieth year, “ begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth.” Why was not Cain begotten in the same way? Had he been so, the cradle of the world might not have been defiled with the blood of fratricide. Seth being the image ” of Adam, and Adam “ the image ” of God, Seth and the Almighty were of course very much alike. He was pious, and from him were descended the pious patriarchs, including Noah, from whom was descended Abraham the founder of the Jewish race. God’s chosen people came of a good stock, although they turned out such a bad lot. From Seth to Noah there are ten Patriarchs before the flood. This is clearly mythological. The Hindus believed in ten great saints, the offspring of Manu, and in ten different personifica tions ’of Vishnu. The Egyptians had ten mighty heroes, the Chaldeans ten kings before the Flood, the Assyrians ten kings from Ham to Ninyas, and as many from Japhet to Aram; and Plato enumerates ten sons of Neptune, as the rulers of his imaginary Island of Atlantis, submerged by the Deluge. Cain’s descendants were of course drowned by the Flood, but they did a great deal more for the world than the descendants of pious Seth, who seems to have done little else than trust in God. The Cainites laid the basis of civilisation. One of them Jabal, founded cattle-keeping; his brother, Jubal, invented musical instruments; and their half-brother Tubal-cain first practised smithery. Seth’s descendants had nothing but piety. Even their morals were no better than those of the Cainites ; for at the Flood only eight of them were found worthy of preserva tion, and they were a poor lot. Noah got beastly drunk after the waters subsided, and one of his three sons brought a curse on all his offspring. What then must we think of the rest? Tuch excellently explains the mythological significance of the story of Cain and Abel and Seth. “There lies,” he says, “in this myth the perfectly correct reminiscence, that in the East ancient nations lived, under whom in very early times culture and civilisation extended, but at the same time the assertion, �88 Cain and Abel. that these could not prejudice the renown of the WesternAsiatics, since the prerogatives, which their descent from the first-born would secure to them, were done away through God’s Curse, which lighted on their ancestor Cain. Thus the East is cut off from the following history, and the thread fastened on, which carries us on in Genesis, right across through the nations to the only chosen people of Israel.” The entire history of the world before the Flood is dismissed in five chapters, and that from the Flood to Abraham in two more. After that the mighty antique civilisations are never noticed except so far as they affect the history of the Jews. The ages of the Patriarchs also dwindle down from nine centuries in the beginning to almost the normal longevity in the semi-historical period. Could anything more conclusively prove the mythical character of the narrative ? One of the Patriarchs descended from Seth, namely Enoch, which singularly enough is also the name of Cain’s eldest son, never died. We read that “ he was not, for God took him.” It is about time that the Lord took the whole lot out of his Word, and gave us a little ancient Azstory instead. We want a revised Bible in the fullest sense of the word. The old book needs to be completely rewritten. How thankful we should all be if the Lord inspired another “Moses” to rectify the errors and supplement the deficiencies of the first, and to give us scien tific truth instead of fanciful myths about the early history of our race ! But the Lord never inspires anybody to do a useful piece of work, and our Darwins will therefore have to go on with their slow and laborious task of making out a history of mankind from the multitudinous and scattered traces that still survive the decay of time. PRICE ONE PENNY. London: Progressive Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.G. �BIBLE ROMANCES.—12. L 0 T’S WIFE. By G. W. FOOTE. Lot and his family were a queer lot. Their history is one of the strangest in the whole Bible. They dwelt amongst a people whose debauchery has become a byword, and in a city which has given a name to the vilest of unnatural crimes. Lot, his wife, and their two unmarried daughters, were the only persons preserved from the terrible fate which Jehovah, in one of his periodic fits of anger, inflicted upon the famous Cities of the Plain. They witnessed a signal instance of his ancient method of dealing with his disobedient children. In the New Testa ment, God promises the wicked and the unbelievers everlasting fire after they are dead ; in the Old Testament, he drowns them or burns them up in this world. Lot and his family saw the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by “brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven and they, four persons in all, just half the number that survived the Flood a few centuries before, were the only ones that escaped. God specially spared them. Yet Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back as she fled from the doomed city, and the old man himself soon after got drunk and committed incest with his daughters. From this crime sprang Moab and Ammon, the founders of two nations who became for many centuries the most implacable enemies of God’s chosen people. Why did the Lord spare these four persons? Why did he not profit by the lesson of the Flood? The eight persons rescued from drowning in that great catastrophe were infected with original sin, and the consequence was that the world peopled from their stock was a great deal worse than the ante diluvian world. It would clearly have been better to destroy all and start absolutely afresh. The eight rescued persons were apparently just as bad as those who were drowned. So with the four persons spared at the destruction of Sodom. The people of that city could hardly have been much worse than Lot and his children. The Lord appears to have been as stupid in his mercy as he was brutal in his wrath. Lot was Abraham's nephew, and evidently came of a bad stock. The uncle’s evil career will be sketched in our series of “Bible Heroes.” For the present we content ourselves with the remark that no good could reasonably be expected from such a family. Lot’s father was Haran, a son of Terah, and brother to Abraham. He “ died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.” A city was called by his name in the land �90 Lot's Wife. of Canaan, and Terah and the family dwelt there after they left Ur, until the patriarch died and Abraham was called out from his kindred to found a new house. The “father of the faithful ” took his orphaned nephew with him. Lot accompanied his uncle on the journey to Egypt, where Abraham passed his ■wife off as his sister, and showed his natural bent by lying right and left. Soon afterwards we learn that Abraham and Lot had grown very rich, the former “in cattle, in silver, and in gold,” and the ■latter in “ flocks, and herds, and tents.” Indeed “ their sub stance was so great that they could not dwell together, and there was strife between the herdmen of Abram’s cattle, and the herd men of Lot’s cattle.” Whereupon Abraham said, “ Don’t let us quarrel within the family, but let us part. You can go where you like. If you go to the right I’ll go to the left, and if you go to the left I ll go to the right.” It was necessary to separate Lot from the fortunes of Abraham, in order that God’s dealings with the latter might be uninterrupted and his family kept distinct; and so the Hebrew chronicler very naturally separates them here, in a manner which reflects great credit on Abraham, and exhibits him in a most amiable light. Cunning Lot took full advantage of the offer. He “lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, even as the garden of the Lord.” So they parted, and Lot “pitched his tent towards Sodom,” whose inhabitants, says our naive story, “were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” Commentators explain that Lot’s approach to such a detestable sink of iniquity indicated the native corruption of his heart, or at least a sad lack of horror at the sins which made the place stink in the nostrils of God. In the next chapter we find Lot living in Sodom, although we are not told when he moved there. Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal “king of nations,” made war with Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the “king of Bela, which is Zoar.” A great battle was fought in the vale of Siddira, which is alleged to be now covered by the Dead Sea. The four kings were victorious over the five. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and the victors spoiled their cities, taking with them many captives, among whom was “Lot, Abram’s brother’s son.” How Abraham went out with a handful of men, defeated the triumphant forces of the allied kings, and rescued his nephew, is a pretty little story which we reserve for our fife of that patriarch. All the other captives were rescued also, and Lot, returning with his friends, continued to dwell in Sodom as before. We hear no more of him for a considerable time. During the interval Abraham has a child by Hagar. Ishmael, with the rest of the patriarch’s household, is circumcised. And finally the Lord visits Abraham again to tell him that, notwithstanding their �Lot’s Wife- 91 advanced ages, he and Sarah shall yet have a son. What hapnaned during the interview properly belongs to the hie of Abraham, but we shall here consider so much of it as relates to ^The^Lord °compiained that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was “very grievous,” and said that the great cry of it had Reached him in heaven. Being much concerned about the r “ o-oino-s on,” he had resolved to drop down and see for h™self if they°were really as bad as he suspected. “ If not, said he, «I will know.” In the Old Testament, God, who knows every thing', is always seeking information. Abraham surmised that the Lord meant to play the devd with the Sodomites, and he was anxious about Lot who dwelt with them. So he began a parley. “Now, my Lord, said Abraham “vou surely don’t mean to destroy indiscriminately; you, the judge of all the earth, must act on the square. Suppose there are fifty righteous men in Sodom, won’t you, just for their sake snare the place?” Knowing that there were nothing like fifty righteous men in Sodom, the Lord promptly acceded to Abraham s reouest • so promptly indeed that Abraham smelt a rat, and SeSkel to drive a^loser bargain So he asked the Lord to knock off five. “Very well,” was the reply, “ if I find fortyfive righteous men I’ll spare the city.” Abraham was still suspicious. He knew that Jehovah loved a bit of destruction and was not easily moved when he had once made up hiss mind, to indulge himself. So he returned to the charge. I beg pardon,” said he, “for troubling you so but dojou mmd knocking off another ten, and rnakir-,; thirty of it? Not at all,” answered the Lord, “ we’ll say thirty. Abraham felt there was something wrong. This amiable readiness o o' thoroughly perplexed him. If the Lord had hagg e ov thirty, he would have known that there was about that number of righteous men in the place; but in the actual condition of affairs, he felt that he had considerably overshot the mark. The game was very dangerous, but he decided to renew it My Lord,” he began, “I’m a dreadful bore, but Im not quite satis fied with our contract and should like to re-open it. I don t wish to be importunate, but you will knock off another ten . “With all my heart,” replied the Lord, “well say twenty. Still dissatisfied, Abraham resolved on a final effort. “My good Lord,” said he, “ this is really the last time of asking. I promise to bother you no more. Will you knock off another ten. “All right,” was the reply, “anything to oblige. Well say ten altogether. If there are so many righteous men in Sodom 1 u spare it. Good afternoon, Abraham, good afternoon. An the Lord was off. ' Abraham ruefully watched the retreating figure, perfectly assured that the Lord had got the best of thebargain, and that he himself had been duped, worsted, and befooled. „ , , , , . God did not go to Sodom himself, but sent two angels to- �92 Lot's Wife. inspect it. They reached its gate in the evening, and found Lot sitting there. In eastern towns the places before the gate are the appointed localities for meetings ; and in ancient times they were used for still more extensive purposes. There the judge pronounced his decisions, and even kings held there occasionally their courts of justice; there buying and selling went on; the people assembled there to see each other and hear the news; and almost all public affairs were transacted there, from religious worship to the smallest details of civil life. It is not surprising, therefore, that Lot should be sitting in the gate when the two strangers arrived at the city. Some commentators have even conjectured that he went out to meet them; but others object that this is contradictory to the narrative, which does not exhibit Lot as recognising the angels, and that it implies “too ideal a notion of his virtue.” Some have supposed that Lot had attained to the dignity of a judge, and that he was sitting to act in that capacity on this occasion; but later circumstances refute this supposition; for, in the quarrel which ensued, the people of Sodom reproached him as “ a stranger ” who set himself up as a judge of their conduct. Lot advanced to the strangers, greeted them with a profound bow, addressed them as “my lords,” and asked them to stay over night at his house, where he would wash their feet, give them something to eat, and find them a bed. They declined his frank hospitality, and said they meant to pass the night in the streets. Kalisch observes, as though he knew all about their motives, that “it was their intention to try his character, and to give him an opportunely of showing whether his generosity was merely a momentary emotion, or had become a settled feature in his character.” He also dismisses the idea that they wished to remain in the streets or to study “ the moral state of the Sodomites,” as they required no such knowledge, for “they were not only the angels of God, but God himself acted in them.” But Kalisch should bear in mind that God told Abraham he was going on purpose to “ see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it and that, as the angels could not know more than God, it was after all necessary that they should make inquiries. Lot, however, “ pressed upon them greatly,” and at last they entered his house. Hethen “made them a. feastf which seems to have consisted of nothing but unleavened bread. Perhaps the angels, who had dined heavily with Abraham on veal, butter, and milk, were afraid of bad dreams, and only wanted a light supper before going to roost. They were, not however, destined to enjoy a good night’s sleep. Before they “lay down,” the men of Sodom “compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in unto thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” �Lot's Wife. 93 *"£rty lonM two strangers ? The°story Y^ neighbors F0T XTto the nineteenth chapter of Judges, where the men we must go to the nine r men q£ Sodom clamor for of Gibeah clamor for the Le offers them instead his own XtXYneTto X The man’s right of possession gave it all its importance worth he rebuked Lot went out and shut t wickedly,” and immediately his neighbors for desiring y thought perfectly made them an offer which he seems to n daughters ^KbX^Xn^^.^ 8tbem- of my roof." Th? laws of hosptohty area^ * WeSmOmOTentcnred law Instead of strenuously opposing the committal of one crime, heproposes ^ther ^ hemous & The Sodomites scorned his otter. ±ney v massssgs called hi strangers, and on+nallv nressed so sore upon him that with the actually pressea s r they “ came near to break tk<? ,00J’’. wer. They “ put forth thXhSXa^dpunedL^ te ho°iw 4S?bKneSJ both' small and^eat^so that they wearied themselves to find the.door it £aligch XUSep^l"iX by ititut&g “blind eon- fUTre’Xls““tod to act promptly. Ttey- informed Lot +n his “sons-in-law, which married his daughters, Lot spoke to ms sons m m , Early in the morning ltagered- They laid h01d t �94 Lot's Wife. of his hand, his wife’s, and his two unmarried daughters’, led' them outside the city, and said, “ Escape now for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape tothe mountains lest thou be consumed.” Lot did not relish this prospect of a hard climb. He therefore asked the angels to let him flee unto the city of Zoar, because it was near and “a littleone.” That is what the servant girl said to her mistress when she confessed to an illegitimate child, “ please’m, it’s only a very little one.” She thought that a small illegitimate baby wasn’t as bad as a big illegitimate baby, and Lot thought that a little wicked city wasn’t as bad as a big wicked city. Lot’s request was granted, and he was told to look sharp. He inade good speed, and reached Zoar when “the sun was risen.” “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven ; and he over threw those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.” It is a mistake to suppose that brimstone and fire are characteristic of hell, for the Lord evidently keeps a large stock of those commoditiesin heaven. Nor must it be supposed that Lot was spared be cause he was righteous. He was spared because the Lord “ was merciful unto him.” His virtues, Kalisch remarks, were not sufficient for his salvation, which he owed to “the piety of Abraham.” Abraham may have had “piety” enough to save a Lot, but he had scarcely “ virtue ” enough to save a mouse. Kalisch says that “ about the situation of Zoar there remains littie doubt.” He identifies it with “the considerable ruins found in Wady Kerek, on the eastern side of the Dead Sea.” But he has no such assurance as to the situation of Sodom. Hedeprecates De Saulcy’s assumption, that Sodom is traceable in the heap of stones found near the Salt Mountain, Udsum; and adds—“We may hope rather than expect, that authentic ruins of the four destroyed towns will ever be discovered. Biblical historians and prophets already speak of them as localities utterly and tracelessly swept away; and the remark of Josephus, that ‘ shadows ’ of them still existed in his time, is vague and doubtful.” In the South of Palestine there is an extraordinary lake of mysterious origin. It is about thirty-nine miles long, and from eight to twelve miles broad. It is fed by the river Jordan, and drained by the evaporation due to a fierce and terrible sun. Its water is clear and inodorous, but nauseous like a solution of alum; it causes painful itching and even ulceration on the lips, and if brought near a wound, or any diseased part, produces a most excruciating sensation. It contains hydrochloric and sulphuric acid, and one-fourth of its weight is salt. No fishes live in it; and according to tradition, which however is not true, birds that happen to fly over its surface die. Near it is said to grow the Apple of Sodom, beautiful in appearance, but containing only ashes. This lake is appropriately called the Dead Sea. �Lot’s Wife. 95 The natives say that at low water they glimpse fragments of 'buildings and pillars rising out of the bottom of the lake. But -this is only a fancy. Yet beneath the waters of the Dead Sea are thought to lie the Cities of the Plain. The northern part of the lake is very deep, the southern part very shallow. The bottom consists of two separate plains, one elevated, the other depressed. The latter is by some held to be the original bottom of the lake, and the former to have been caused by the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. But this also is only a fancy. The bitumen, which is found in such large quantities in and near the lake, is a symptom and remnant of the volcanic nature of the region. . Several lines of earthquake are traced from it in a north-eastern direction; and it is conjectured that the three lakes, Merom, Tiberias, and Asphaltites, together with the river Jordan, are the remaining traces of the huge gulf once filled by the Dead Sea before the land was lifted by a geological catastrophe. Volcanic action has caused all the remarkable phsenomena of the district, which was of immemorial antiquity thousands of years ago; and the story of the Cities of the Plain is only one of the legends which ancient peoples associated with every striking aspect of nature. Let us recur to Lot. His sons, his married daughters, and their husbands, perished in the deluge of brimstome and fire. He and his two unmarried daughters fled to Zoar as fast as their legs could carry them. But his wife was less fortunate. She ran behind Lot, and with the natural curiosity of her sex she looked back on the doomed city. For this violation of the angels’ orders she was turned into “a pillar of salt.” Some -commentators try to blink this unpleasant fact by artful transla tions ; such as “ she fell into a salt-brook,” or “ she was covered with a salt crust,” or she was “ like a pillar of salt.” Josephus pretended to have seen this old woman of salt, but others have been less lucky, although many travellers and pilgrims have searched for it as for a sacred relic. But let us not despair Lot’s wife may yet be discovered and exhibited in the British Museum. What became of Lot and his daughters? Fearing to dwell in Zoar, they left it and “ dwelt in a cave.” The damsels, who had heard their father offer them to the promiscuous embrace of a lustful crowd, could not be expected to be very scrupulous in their conduct. They were alone, without husbands to make them mothers, and to be childless was a calamity and a reproach; so they put their heads together and devised a nasty scheme. Two nights successively they made their father blind drunk, and got him to commit incest with them. This is very beastly and very absurd. Lot was old; he was so drunk that he knew nothing of what happened; yet he got two virgins with child 1 The porter in “ Macbeth ” would have laughed at such a ridiculous .story. These improper females were by no means ashamed of their �96 Lot’s Wife. action ; on the contrary, they boasted of their bastards; and the historian does not utter a word in condemnation of their crime. Lot was the father of his own grandchildren; his daughters were the mothers of their own brothers ; and his other children were destroyed by heavenly brimstone and fire.- Were they not, as we said at the outset, a queer lot? But the queerest lot was Lot’s wife. Whatever may be said of the rest of the family, no one can say that she was not worth her salt, for the Lord thought she was worth enough to make a pillar. Let us hope that the old lady will some day be discovered, and that her pillar of salt may yet, to the confusion of sceptics, stand as a veritable pillar in the house of God, and there defy the attacks of all the infidel Samsons, world without end. Amen. PRICE ONE PENNY. Freethought Publishing Company, 28 Stonecutter Street, London. �national secular society BIBLE ROMANCES. BY G. W. FOOTE. [SECOND SERIES.'] Price Ninepence. ----------- -♦>------------ LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.O. 1885. �mmi �BIBLE ROMANCES—XIII. DANIEL AND THE LIONS. By G. W. FOOTE. Daniel is a very important character in the Bible. He plays the chief part among the Jews during the Babylonish captivity. His history perhaps is not very instructive, but it is certainly enter taining. As for “ The Book of Daniel,” it has beer the cause of much waste of learning and good paper. Nearly all the prophe tical rubbish ever written has been based upon it. It evidently inspired the book of “ Revelation,” and is thus responsible for most of the works on that puzzling subject which “either finds a man cracked or leaves him so.” Daniel was one of the children brought away from Jerusalem to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. The mighty king meant to have these Jew boys well fed and well taught, so that at the end of three years they might “ stand before him. Daniel received the new name of Belteshazzar, but as that is a huge mouthful we shall drop it, and call him by his original name. Three other lads of the same tribe of Judah were his companions. They are better known by their Chaldean names—Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. As they grew up all four proved un common men. Daniel could not be eaten by lions, and the others were incombustible. Nebuchadnezzar ordered them meat and wine, but they would not “ defile ” themselves with these, as they were vegetarians and teetotallers. By special favor of the prince of the eunuchs, they were allowed to live on pulse and water, which made them fat and fair. Daniel, however, appears to have relinquished his dietary principles in after years, for we find him saying that when he “ mourned three full weeks ” in the reign of Cyrus, he “ ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth.” Pro bably his stomach and his mind were carnal together, and he only recurred to vegetarianism in his fits of piety. The four children became skilful and learned and wise. Daniel in particular “had understanding in all visions and dreams.” That is, he told people what was in their heads better than they knew it themselves, and explained the meaning of all the curious ideas that haunted their skulls at night. No doubt he could pre dict what would happen if a man dreamt about a dog, an old lady about a cat, or a young one about a mouse. Probably he �98 Daniel and the Lions. edited an astrologer’s almanack, or a “ Book of Fate,” a copy of which may yet be brought to light. Daniel was the most know ing Jew, but his three friends also were excellent, and the king “ found them ten times better than all the magicians and astro logers that were in all his realm.” We shall presently give a specimen of Daniel’s skill in that line, but before doing so, we mean to go to the “apocryphal ” “ History of Susanna,” which Protestantism has wrested from the beginning of the “ Book of Daniel.” In the course of this Romance we shall refer to two other “apocryphal” books— “ Bel and the Dragon ” and the “ Song of the Three Holy Chil dren,” which are quite as good history Daniel, and much better fun. In the “ History of Susanna ” Daniel is described as “ a young youth,” but he turns out an “ old file.” What “ a young youth” exactly means we are unable to say. It cannot mean a person “ born young,” for Daniel seems to have come into the world with his wisdom teeth already cut. Yet it must mean something. We shall strenuously and earnestly pray for enlightenment on this point, so that in our next edition we may be able to give the precise character of “a young youth.” We may also be able to state how the young may become youths, and how youths may become young. Daniel the “young youth,” to use Shakespeare’s words, “ came to judgment.” Two elders lusted after Susanna, the wife of Joacim, “ a very fair woman and one that feared the Lord.” They secreted themselves in the garden, rushed out upon her when she was alone in her bath, and threatened that if she did not yield to their desires they would declare that they had detected her in an intrigue with a young man. But her virtue was impregnable to their seductions. That scamp, Lord Byron, says of sweet Donna Julia : Wedded she was some years, and to a man Of fifty, and such husbands are in plenty ; And yet, I think, instead of such a one ’Twere better to have two of five-and-twenty. How shocking ! But there is perhaps some truth in the French wit’s remark that Susanna’s virtue might have run more risk from one young man than two old ones. These disreputable elders were as bad as their word. They lied about poor Susanna, and being pious they were of course believed. She was condemned to death. But just at the critical moment young Daniel intervened. Taking the elders separately, he asked each under what tree he saw the paramours “ companying together.” One said a mastick tree, and the other an holm. This discrepancy convinced everybody of their falsehood, and they were put to death instead of poor Susanna. “ From �Daniel and the Lions. 99 that clay forth,” says the story, “ Daniel was had in great repu tation in the sight of the people.” If so, he earned it very cheaply. The two elders must have been fools as great as they were rogues if they could not rebut his little argument. There was really nothing in it. They might have answered that a difference on such a minor point did not vitiate their testimony as to the main facts. The Jews were thankful for very small mercies in the shape of wisdom, and anybody with half a head could get a big reputation in those days. Nebuchadnezzar “ dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.” Perhaps the poor monarch was overburdened with the cares of empire. Perhaps he drank bad wine or ate pork for supper. This happened “ in the second year of his reign.” But there is clearly a mistake in the date; for Daniel and his friends had been fed and taught by his orders for three years before he “ communed with them,” and these bad dreams plagued him after that. This, however, is a mere nicety of criticism. No pious mind will stumble over such a trifling difficulty. Nebuchadnezzar called in all the magicians, astrologers, and soothsayers, and bade them explain his dream. They answered, “Tell us the dream, and we will interpret it.” “Nay,” he rejoined, “ I can’t do that, the thing is gone from me ; you must interpret the dream, and find it out too. If you succeed I’ll reward you handsomely, but if you fail I’ll just cut you into mince-meat. The trembling wizards protested that this was absurd, and that no king had ever asked the like before. “So much the worse for you,” roared Nebuchadnezzar; “ what use are you if you can’t do this ? Don’t I clothe you, house you, and feed you on the fat of the land? You know I do; and I tell you plainly I want something for my money. If you can read the future, you can also read the past. So just tell me my dream straight, or I’ll hang you all as a set of liars and thieves.” Here was a pretty pass I Those “ wise men ” were flummuxed. Whichever way they turned the prospect was black with des pair. Wise men ! They were great simpletons. As the king had forgotten his dream, why did they not invent one, and unanimously swear that was it? Our modern wizards would have obliged him, and saved their own bacon, in less than five minutes. Nebuchadnezzar grew furious and ordered all the “ wise men ” to be slain. Daniel and his friends were among the crew. But before the royal decree could be executed the four young Jews put their heads together, and the “ young youth” went to the king and told him his dream and its interpretation. The Lord God of Israel helped him at the pinch, and revealed to him what all the gods of Babylon could not or would not reveal to the other mystery-men. Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and �100 Daniel and the Lions. worshipped Daniel; told him that his God was a God of gods, yards taller than all the rest; gave him many great gifts, and made him “ ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men.” “Good!” thought Daniel, “ this business pays.” Neither were his three friends neglected; they were “set over the affairs of the province of Babylon.” Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was about a great image, and soon afterwards he tried to realise it. He made an image of gold, sixty cubits high and six cubits broad, and set it up in the plain of Dura. But this colossus could not have been solid gold. We have no doubt it was a gilded affair, like the statue of Prince Albert in Kensington Gardens, which we owe to the wifely affection and exquisite taste of our noble queen; all glitter and dazzle outside and worthless within, after the fashion of most monarchs in this priest-ridden and king-deluded world. Having set up his big toy, Nebuchadnezzar gave a monster concert, and invited all the nobs and swells. All the various peoples of Babylon—natives, immigrants and captives—flocked out to see the show; and at the herald’s proclamation, every body fell down and “ worshipped the golden image.” Nebuchadnezzar was delighted. He was not only a great king but he had actually made a god. Yet his pleasure was soon damped by “ certain Chaldeans ” who came and informed him that three scurvy Jews—Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego— would neither serve his gods nor worship his image. Full of rage and fury, he had the trio brought before him, and told them that if they would not serve “ his gods ” and worship “ his image” he would roast them alive. “ And,” said he, “I should just like to see the God that will deliver you out of my hands.” They replied that they had a God of their own, a iirst-class Jewish God, warranted sound in every respect, and they meant to stick to him. “ Very well,” said he, “ then into the oven you go.” What silliness! Only a short time before the king praised Daniel’s God as the mightiest and the best, and now he con demns three Jews for worshipping him! Either Nebuchad nezzar or the scribe who wrote this romance must have had a very short memory. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were bound in full dress, and flung into a “ burning fiery furnace ” made seven times hotter than usual. According to the “ Song of the Three Children,” rosin, pitch, tow, and small wood were used as fuel; and the flames streamed forth forty-nine cubits so that lots of the Chaldeans were burnt. Our “Book of Daniel” says that “ the flame slew those men who took up ” the three Jews. But to the intended victims it was rare fun. They were incombustible and fireproof. Flames had no terror for them. Even in Hell �Daniel and the Lions. 101 they would just have gone up and warmed their hands at the fireplace. The Apocryphal book states that the angel of the Lord came •down to keep them company, and blew the flames away with “ a moist whistling wind ; ” and they all four sang a song of praise to God forty-one verses in length. Nebuchadnezzar was astonished. He had cast in three men bound, and lo! four walked about loose, the last being “ like the son of God.” He shouted to them to come forth, and it was found that not a hair of their heads nor a thread of their clothes was singed. Then Nebuchadnezzar said “ blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego ; there’s no God like him; and if any persons speak amiss against him I’ll cut them in pieces and make their houses a dunghill.” It will thus be seen that belief in the Jew ■God did not tame the king’s ferocity nor make him tolerant. Belief in the Jew God never had that effect on anybody, and never will. Nebuchadnezzar the king, whose wits appear to have been disposed to wool-gathering, dreamed again. He assembled once more the magicians, the astrologers and the soothsayers; but although this time he told them his dream, they could not interpret it. Why did he not send straight for Daniel ? Because the man who wrote this story was a Jew, and his object was to show how the Lord’s prophet could succeed after all the “wise men ” of Babylon had failed. “But at the last,” of course, “Daniel came in,” and he ex plained the king’s dream. The idea that a dream was not prophetic never crossed their minds. God’s servants, like their superstitious neighbors, never doubted that the future lay folded up in night-visions. The only thing doubtful was how to interpret them. The interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was that he should be driven from men and dwell with the beasts of the field, eating grass with them, until he recognised and humbled him self before the most High. And all this came to pass. At the end of twelve months, as the king gloried in his greatness, a voice from heaven announced that his kingdom had departed from him ; and the same hour “he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws.” Now we take it that poor Nebuchadnezzar simply went mad, and wandered about like other oriental lunatics, playing all sorts of pranks. This view is borne out by his own statement soon after—“ Mine understanding returned unto me.” He was crazed like our George III.; and the Jews, when they returned from captivity in Babylon, made out that their God turned him loose as a punishment for his pride. �102 Daniel and the Lions. Nebuchadnezzar recovered and died in the purple. He was succeeded by Belshazzar, who also brought misery on himself by insulting the Jew God. One night, at a great feast which he gave to a thousand of his lords, he ordered out the golden and silver vessels that his father had taken from the temple in Jeru salem. This awful sacrilege was swiftly punished. A super natural hand wrote on the wall of the banquet chamber the mystic words—Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. Dreadfully alarmed, the king called for the “wise men” to explain the writing, but they could not understand it. Of course not; else what was the use of the great Jewish wizard ? Daniel solved the riddle. His explanation was not flattering to Belshazzar. It was that he had been weighed and found wanting, and that God had given his kingdom to the Medes and Persians. And “in that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain, and Darius the Median took the kingdom.” What a wonderful prophecy!' But it appears very simple when we know that it came after the event. The “Book of Daniel ” was concocted by Jewish scribes at a much later period, in order to glorify themselves at the expense of their old captors, and to exalt the majesty of theirown God. Change of empire did not affect Daniel. He might have sung “For kings may come and kings may go But I go on for ever.” Darius set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty princes, and over these three presidents, of whom Daniel was first. This pre ference rankled in their hearts, and they resolved to “burke ’’him by some means. Accordingly they devised a nice little scheme to ruin him. But they reckoned without their host, or rather with out the Lord of hosts. They got the king to sign a decree, “ according to the law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not,” that whoevershould ask a petition of any god or man, save of the king, for thirty days, should be cast into the den of lions. Then they went and caught Daniel on his marrow-bones supplicating his god, and reported it to the king, at the same time demandingthat he should be lawfully punished. Darius was sore dis pleased ; he was fond of Daniel; and he labored to save him until sunset. But his efforts were all in vain. Like Shylock, the statesman of Babylon “stood for law” and would have it~ So .Daniel was cast into the den of lions. Poor Daniel I But wait awhile. Heroes don’t die in that fashion. While Daniel and the lions are settling matters, let us statethat the apocryphal “ History of Bel and the Dragon” gives a different account of the enmity of these Chaldeans. Daniel, it appears, had played the devil with their god Bel and his priests. Bel the idol had “spent upon him every day twelve great' �Daniel and the Lions. 103 measures of fine flour, and forty sheep, and six vessels of wine.’' The king (who is Cyrus here) one day asked Daniel why he did not worship Bel, who was a living god, for see. said the king, “ how much he eateth and drinketh every day.” Daniel answered that the provisions were really consumed by the seventy priests and their families. Then the king determined to test the question. The meat and wine were set in the temple and the door was sealed. But the priests had “ a privy entrance ” under the table, and they laughed to themselves. Daniel, however, soon made them laugh on the other side ot their mouths; for he strewed ashes over the floor, and in the morning the footsteps of men, women, and children betrayed the fraud. The king slew the priests, and Daniel demolished Bel and his temple. That was bad enough. But Daniel did still worse. He under took to slay without sword or staff a great dragon which the Babylonians worshipped. Taking pitch and fat and hair he “did seethe them together, and made lumps thereof; this he put in the dragon’s mouth, and so the dragon burst in sunder ”—we sup pose with disappointment and spite. This was more than the Babylonians could stand. They told the king he was become a Jew, and threatened to destroy him and his house if he did not hand Daniel over. The king, being afraid, let them have their way; and they “ cast him into the lion’s den, where he was six days.” During all that time, the lions were starved in order that they might devour the meddlesome Jew. But if the lions starved, Daniel didn’t. There was a prophet in Jewry, called Habbacuc, who was carrying some pottage out to his reapers in the field, when an angel of the Lord appeared and told him to take it to Babylon and give it to Daniel. “ Baby lon ! ” said Habbacuc, “ I never saw it, and I don’t know where the den is.” Whereupon the angel caught him by the hair and sailed off with him to Babylon. What a comfortable way to travel! We should just like to see some modern prophet, say Mr. Spurgeon, do a thousand miles in that style. • What would the angel have done if Habbacuc had been bald ? And how did the half-scalped prophet get the pottage into the den ? If the lions respected Daniel, they might show him less courtesy; and while Daniel was dining off the pottage they might dine off Habbacuc. However, it was done, and Daniel cleaned out the bowl. Then the angel lugged Habbacuc back to Jewry, no doubt clasping the bowl, which was very likely used afterwards for col lections instead of Habbacuc’s hat. “ Bel and the Dragon ” says that the king came on the seventh day to bewail Daniel, and found him still alive and flourishing. But our Bible says that he went the very next morning. The Lord had saved him by shutting the lions’ mouths; not with good meat, but with lockjaw. These poor animals were the real victims. Imagine their disgust when they prowled around the �104 Daniel and the Lions. nice well-fed prophet and couldn’t open their teeth for a bite I Daniel was fished or forked out; and as the king thought the lions wanted feeding, he threw in Daniel’s accusers. Perhaps they deserved it, but their wives and children were thrown in too ; and, although Daniel was such a pious fellow, he never observed anything improper in this treatment of innocent people. To finish the pretty drama, the king “ wrote unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth (what a stretch 1) commanding them to “ tremble and fear before the God. of Daniel,” as though he ran a god of his own. Neither God’s prophets nor heathen kings ever thought the people had any rights. They just ordered them about like dogs, one day com manding them to worship this god, and the next day another,, until the people didn’t care a cent which it was. After these adventures, Daniel, who was so good at interpret ing dreams, took to dreaming himself. “ The visions of my head,” he says, “ troubled me.” The fact is he was old and in his dotage, like nearly all the learned divines who have wasted their time over his fancies. Once he “ fainted and was sick cer tain days.” Another time he was in a deep sleep on his face, and a mysterious hand plucked him up and set him on all-fours. He was evidently graduating fast for a lunatic asylum, and we have no doubt that he died as insane as any prophet could wish to be. What became of his incombustible friends we are not told, so all are free to guess, for our part, we believe they went into the stoking business down below, as they were well able to stand the heat; and if any Christian denies this we defy him to disprove it. Here endeth the true story of Daniel and the Lions. Let us pray ! PRICE ONE PENNY. London: Fkeethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.C. �NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY BIBLE ROMANCES.—XIV. THE JEW JUDGES. By G. W. FOOTE. ---------------- The Jews were never a happy family. They were nearly always fighting other people or each other. Whenever their chroniclers say “ there was peace in the land ” for a few years, they seem to regard it as an extraordinary occurrence. But the Lord is largely to blame for this. He selected the Jews from among all the peoples of the world, and had extensive and almost exclusive dealings with them. Yet he never managed to civilise them, although he could easily have done so ; for the power which produced the universe out of nothing was surely capable of reforming a few of the inhabitants of this little world. The natural consequence of this neglect was that when the Lord sent them his only begotten and dearly beloved son, they crucified him right away. After the death of that wonderful fighting-cock, Joshua, the chosen people forsook the Lord and worshipped other gods. They knew that he was very jealous, and that he was able to torture and kill them if he liked, yet they were utterly careless whether they pleased him or not. The Bible explains this by saying that they were stubborn and stiff-necked. That is, they were jackasses, who might have taken lessons in sensible be havior from Balaam’s “moke.” Why then did not the Lord choose a wiser nation ? The Jews “ forsook the Lord and worshipped Baal and Ash taroth.” Baal was identical with Bel of the Babylonians and with Moloch, although in the course of time he improved and became, as Soury says, “ no longer the god of destruction and death in nature, but the father of life, the supreme dispenser of light and heat, the principle and cause of the renewing which yearly clothes the earth with luxuriant vegetation.” This Baal is evidently the sun. Ashtaroth was the feminine deity, better known as Astarte. She was the goddess of voluptuousness and fecundity, as Baal was of virility and strength. Their worship included the most incredible lasciviousness, and it is not wonder ful that an amorous people like the Jews should turn their backs on the stern Iahveh, and court the softer deities of Syria. Their bacchic strains at midnight in the sacred groves were better than the horrid skrieks of human sacrifice, and the fever of lust was less awful than the rage of murder. �106 The Jew Judges. But if the Lord thought otherwise, why did he not take pre cautions against their natural tendency? He clearly foresaw all the mischief, for he purposely left in the promised lancl “ five lords of the Philistines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hivites that dwelt in Mount Lebanon in order that his chosen people might in the first place be tempted, and in the second place be punished when they went astray. These were left “to prove Israel, whether they would hearken unto the commandments of the Lord,” as well as “to teach them war, at the least such as before knew nothing thereof.’’ 'Ihis strikes the carnal mind as simply infamous. Why did not the Lord give them entire possession, so that they might have lived in peace with their neighbors, and in pious obedience to him ? The only answer is that he loved war and bloodshed, and looked forward to plenty of fine sport in that line. The children of Israel, we are told, intermarried with the •Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. This displeased the Lord. He wanted to keep a pure stock, like a good breeder. He knew that crossing would make them too human for his purpose. He objected to the spoiling of Abra ham’s blood, which, like that of Pope’s hero, “had rolled through rascals ever since the flood.” But Israel did still worse. They “ served Baalim and the groves.” This was an unpardonable sin. The Lord hated com petition. He knew there was little chance for him in the open god-market, where people paid their money and took their choice, and he was resolved to retain the Jews by hook or by crook so that he might boast of having a people of his own. He had brought them out of Egypt with a high hand, had helped them to overcome all their enemies, had worked any number of miracles for them, and had actually sent them down vast •quantities of “ angels’ food” from his celestial larder. And now they disowned him altogether. What god could be expected to stand such scurvy treatment? So “ the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Chushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia; and the children of Israel served Chushan-rishathaim eight years.” What a neat phrase I The Lord sold them. That does not mean that he took money from the king of Mesopotamia and handed them over like a flock of sheep at so much a head. It means that the Lord, who had promised to preserve them a mighty nation, and to let them live for ever on the fat of the land, allowed the foreigner to oppress them and make them half-starved slaves ; thus selling them meanly and detestably, as the gods always have sold those who were weak and foolish enough to trust them. After eight years of bondage, the Jews were delivered by �The Jew Judges. 107 Othniel, the son of Kenaz, •whom the Lord “raised up” for the purpose. The spirit of the. Lord came upon him, and he judged Israel, and the land had rest forty years. But the good men of Israel went wrong again after his death, and the Lord “ strengthened Eglon the king of Moab ” against them. He “ went and smote Israel, and possessed himself of the city of palm trees ” devoted to the worship of Baal and Ashtaroth. And the unfortunate Jews served him eighteen years. In their distress they cried unto the Lord, who heard their prayers, and raised them up another deliverer in “ Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamite, a man left handed.” Ehud was left handed in more senses than one. He “ delivered ” Israel by assassina tion. After preparing a big two-edged dagger, which he con cealed under his clothes, he paid a visit to the king. Under pretence of offering a present, and of having some secret news to communicate, he obtained a private interview, and stabbed poor Eglon, who was a very fat man, in the stomach, so that the dagger stopped in and his bowels came out. This little perform ance being safely completed, Ehud made off. He then gathered the Israelites together and fell on the soldiers of Moab, all of whom were put to death. They were ten thousand in all, and “ not a man escaped.” What a pretty story 1 Ten thousand Moabitish soldiers had sufficed to keep in subjection for eighteen years a people number ing more than three millions and with at least six hundred thou sand men of arms I It could not be done even now when trained soldiers with rifles have such immense advantage over undisci plined and ill-armed multitudes; and how much less could it have been done when the weapons and methods of warfare were rude, when men fought mostly hand to hand, and one man was just as good as another. Ehud assassinated Eglon for ruling over the Jews, and as the Lord raised him up “ a deliverer,” while the narrative seems to approve his conduct, we must conclude that in those days the Lord sanctioned such an act. Assassination of obstructive monarchs is, therefore, according to Scripture, a virtuous deed. How do the clergy reconcile this with their talk about Freethought brandishing the regicidal steel? After the disembowelling of poor fat-bellied Eglon “theland had rest fourscore years.” So the third chapter of Judges should have ended. But some later Jewish scribe has tacked on another verse about “ Shamgar the son of Anath, which slew of the Philistines six hundred men with an ox goad.” Like the peace of God, this passes all understanding. The Philistines must have taken a long time to kill, unless they stood in single file for the J ewish warrior to spear them one by one. Shagmar was a tough fellow, his ox goad was tough, the whole story is tough, and it requires a very tough throat to swallow it. �108 The Jew Judges. After the death of Ehud “the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord,” who once more “ sold them ” to Jabin, King of Canaan. This monarch “mightily oppressed them,” for he had nine hundred chariots of iron. How many soldiers he had we are not told. But unless they were a vast host, it is difficult to understand how he could mightily oppress a nation as populous as Scotland is now, and nearly as populous as England was in the reign of Elizabeth. Our surprise at Jabin’s mighty oppression of Israel is increased when we read that his iron chariots, his army, and his great captain Sisera, were all overcome by Barak and ten thousand Jews! It was a woman that stirred Israel up to fight. She was called Deborah. Her husband was one Lapidoth. No doubt he was merely a necessary appendage to his wife who ruled the roost. Deborah was a prophetess, and she “judged Israel at that time.” She “ dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Beth-el in Mount Ephraim; and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.” This is very significant. Deborah was clearly a Sibyl, who told fortunes and revealed the secrets of futurity. People who practise that business now are sent to jail, but in ancient times they were honored and trusted. This Jewish prophetess uttered her oracles under a palm-tree, the reason being that groves were dedicated to religious worship, and the rustling of tree-tops was deemed the whispered revela tions of divinity. There can be little douht that Deborah kept a sacred grove, and that her oracles were nothing but wind. At her instigation Barak, the son of Abinoam, collected ten thousand men to fight Jabin; and Sisera gathered together all his iron chariots and all his warriors to put down the impudent rebel. But the Lord fought for Israel, as Pan fought for the Greeks at Marathon, and the result was that the Canaanites were utterly discomfited. Every man of them fell under the swords of the Jews, except Sisera himself, who alighted from his chariot and fled. There was a Kenite called Heber, of the children of Hohab the father-in-law of Moses, who had a wife named Jael. This woman was a crafty wretch, and she settled Sisera’s hash with all the cunning of her kind. She invited him into her tent, gave him some milk to drink, covered him up with a mantle, and advised him to go to sleep. “ My husband and your king Jabin,” said she, “ are very good friends, and I will shelter you from the Jews, if they come and ask after you, I’ll say you are not here, and I’ll stand in the door of the tent to keep anybody from look ing in. Now, my dear sir, you may sleep in safety. Trust to me, and I’ll see that all is right. Shut your eyes and have a good nap.” Poor Sisera did so. And when he was sound asleep the treacherous cat took a big hammer and a long tenpenny nail and fastened his head to the floor. �The Jew Judges. 109 Then she went out to meet Barak. “ Good day,” said she, ■“you seem very eager, whom are you looking for?” “Why Sisera, to be sure; has he passed this way?” “ Oh dear no, he’s in my tent, sound asleep: just come and see.” So they went in, and there lay Sisera in the sleep of death. That is how the Lord fights. With him all is fair in war. He smiles on assassination and treachery between allies. His prophetess Deborah and his general Barak sang a long duet over their victory, in which they said “ Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be.” Blessed, forsooth 1 A woman who violates the sacred laws of hospitality, inveigles a hunted man into her tent, pretends old friendship for him, lulls ■him into a false security with her deceit, and then treacherously murders him, is a fit mate for the Devil. Jabin was soon disposed of after the murder of Sisera, and Israel had rest another forty years. But they went wrong ^again, and the Lord “ delivered them into the hand of Midian seven years.” Now if the reader will turn to the thirty-first chapter of Numbers he will find that the Midianites were utterly destroyed by the Jews u*der Moses. Their cities were burnt; all the males, the married women and the children were slain; and the young virgins reserved for a worse fate. Yet here are the Midianites again, stronger than ever, and able to oppress the Jews for seven years! These fatherless and motherless Midianites, who apparently sprang from the ground or dropped down from the skies, played the very devil with the Jews, stealing their harvests, and driving them into dens and caves, so that they once more “ cried unto the Lord ” for help. Then the Lord sent down an angel, who took up his residence under an oak tree. Having secured lodgings, he visited Gideon the son of Joash, whom he found threshing wheat on the sly to ■cheat the Midianites. He accosted him very abruptly but very cunningly, calling him a “ mighty man of valour,” and saying “ the Lord is with thee.” Now Gideon, although he was hiding him self from the enemy, took the personal compliment with the greatest complacency. But he scouted the idea of the Lord being with the < >ws. “Nay, nay,” said he, “that’s a trifle too thin. How can the Lord be with us while he leaves us in this mess ? The Lord indeed 1 Where is he? What has become of him? Our fathers used to talk about his miracles. We have never seen one. No doubt it was all a joke.” Then the angel “looked upon him,” as much as to say “Oh Gideon, Gideon!” And opening his holy lips he said “thou shalt save Israel from the Midianites.” “ Come, now,” said Gideon, “ that’s a good one. What’s the use of talking such nonsense to a poor fellow like me ? ” “ Nay,” answered the angel, “ I’m not joking; you shall �110 The Jew Judges. do it.” But Gideon, like every other Jew, was a canny person^ and he required a sign to warrant the angel’s statement. He put some flesh and unleavened cakes on a rock, and drenched them with broth; whereupon the angel brought fire up out of the rock which burnt them up. That settled it. He was an angel. But before Gideon would assault the Midianites he demanded another sign. He laid a fleece of wool on the ground, and in the morning it was wet with dew while all the ground was dry. Thatmiracle, however, did not suffice him. So the next night he spread the fleece again, and in the morning it was dry while all' the ground was wet. That fleece ought to have been preserved like the blood of Saint Januarius in the bottle at Naples. And just as the con gealed blood liquefies once a year under the hand of the priests, we have no doubt the fleece would still exhibit its miraculouscharacter. Unfortunately it is lost. The priests fleece their pious sheep, but they never show them anything so wonderful as Gideon’s fleece. Gideon gathered together a decent little army, but this dis pleased the Lord. “No,” said he, “that won’t do. If you defeat the Midianites with such an army, the Jews will boast that they have won the victory themselves. Now I want the glory myself, and I mean to let everybody see that I am run ning this campaign. So please send away a lot of your men.” Obedient Gideon dismissed twenty-two thousand, and retained only ten thousand. “That’s still too many,” said the Lord;, “just take them down to the water to drink; those who stoop down to drink you may send home, but those who lap the water like a dog you may keep.” Only three hundred passed in this examination. ^Gideon and the doggish three hundred went up against the Midianitish army, which was exceedingly numerous, like grass hoppers or the sand by the sea shore. Each of them carried a lamp in a pitcher. When they drew near the enemy they broke the pitchers and flourished the lamps in their left hand, while with their right hands they blew their trumpets. The Midianites were scared and thrown into great disorder. They fought each* other by mistake and then fled, the Jews pursuing them with great slaughter, and bringing back to Gideon as trophies of victory the heads of two princes. Jehovah’s prize-fighters were not very refined. Imagine the French beating the Germans and bringing the heads of Bismarck and Moltke to Paris ! Even the French “ infidels ” would scarcely do that, but God’s favoritesthought it a glorious part of war, and he never taught them better. Having killed 100,000 Midianites, Gideon went on with histhree hundred men, defeated another army of fifteen thousand,, and despoiled two cities. Is it not strange that men of such �The Jew Judges. Ill prowess could be oppressed repeatedly, and for years together, by their neighbors? The Jews then desired Gideon to rule over them, but he knew Them too well and declined the honor. He requested instead seven hundred shekels of gold and other precious spoil of war. With a portion of his treasure Gideon made an ephod, and put it in his own city, Ophrah; and “ all Israel went a whoring after it.” That is, they went after other gods as soon as they had got ■all they wanted from the Lord. The land had now another rest of forty , years 1 Why forty •each time ? Because that was a sacred number, and we are not reading history but romance. Gideon lived to a good old age and left a numerous family. He had seventy sons and perhaps as many daughters. Like all God’s favorites he was a thorough-going polygamist. He had “ many wives ” and at least one “ concubine.” No doubt with the wealth and the women he had a fine time. As soon as he was dead, the Jews “went a whoring after Baalim.” Abimelech, the son of Gideon by his concubine, put his seventy brothers to death and ruled over Israel for three years, until in one of his wars a woman broke his skull with a millstone and let daylight into his silly brains. He was followed by Tola, who judged Israel twenty-three years ; after whom came Jair, who judged for twenty-two years, and who had thirty sons who “ rode on thirty ass colts.” They •and their sisters, with the old man and his wives, must have made a nice little tea-party. When he died, the Jews “went it blind.” They worshipped •all the gods of all their neighbors with the utmost impartiality; which provoked the Lord so that he let the Philistines and the Ammonites oppress them until they repented, when he raised them up a deliverer in Jephthah the Gileadite, a great fighting man and the son of a harlot. Before going out to fight the Ammonites, he vowed that on his return he would offer up to the Lord as a burnt offering the first thing that came out of his own doors. The Ammonites were smitten with immense slaughter, and Jephthah returned to Mizpeh. His only daughter, who knew nothing of his vow, came out to meet him with dance and song. The pious father was very sorry, but he kept his promise to God, and after allowing his daughter two months to bewail her virginity, he “ did with her according to his vow.” This tragedy being finished, Jephthah and the Gileadites quarreled and fought with their brethren of the tribe of Ephraim, and slew forty-two thousand of them. This man of blood judged Israel six years. He was succeeded by Ibzan, who judged for seven years ; Elon, ten years; and Abdon, eight years. All recorded of them besides is that they had plenty of wives, children and donkeys. After these came Samson, the mighty, �112 The Jew Judges. the valiant, the wonderful, whose career we reserve fora separate number of this Series. In the seventeenth chapter of Judges we come to the Levite, whose concubine was so horribly abused. He became priest to one Micah, a fellow who robbed his mother, got wealthy, set up gods for himself and kept his own parson. But the Danites stole the Levite and made him their priest. Clericals appear to have been scarce then. Now-a-days the market is glutted with them. This Levite had a concubine who played him false and left him, He fetched her back, and on his way home he stayed a night at Gibeah, which was inhabited by Benjamites. Just as in the case of Lot’s visitors, the people come to the Levite’s host and demanded his guest. The old man quietly refused, but offered them instead his own daughter (a maiden) and the Levite’s con cubine, whom they might abuse as much as they pleased. In the end, the poor concubine was thrust out to the lustful crowd, and so brutally treated by them that in the morning she lay dead at the door. Then the Levite cut her up into twelve pieces and sent one to each of the tribes of Israel, who assembled and, after severe loss to themselves, so punished the Benjamites that only six hundred out of twenty-six thousand escaped. What a horrible story ! Yet this record of unnatural passion, brutal lust, and awful bloodshed is part of God’s Word, and is put into the hands of children to make them pure and kind and good! The fugitive Benjamites had no wives, and it seemed that one tribe would utterly perish. But they soon received the gift cf four hundred virgins who were spared in a religious massacre at Jabesh-gilead; and not long after they stole a lot of the daughters of Shiloh while they were merrymaking. The rape of the Sabines is of course mythical, but this is veritable history, and all who doubt it will be damned. The fact is, we have here a trace of that old system of wife-stealing so prevalent amongst savages. God’s chosen people were ignorant, superstitious, idolatrous, lustful, and cruel; while their judges were no more than savage chieftains, whose noblest virtue was physical courage, and their highest happiness the possession of many wives and the procreation of many children. The Zulus are just as civilised as they were; yet how Christians would laugh if they were told that God had chosen the Zulus to be the re cipients of his messages to the world, and the ultimate producers of the universal Messiah. PRICE ONE PENNY. London: Erejethought Publishing Company, 2d, Stonecutter St., E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES-XV. SAINT JOHN’S NIGHTMARE. By G. W. FOOTE. Let me hope, dear reader, that your head is strong and sound ; I Q for we now approach that great subject, the interpretation of < the Apocalypse, which,, as Bishop South said, generally finds a 5^ I man cracked or leaves him so. It has occupied the attention of thousands of crazy enthusiasts, and has- occasioned the writing of a whole library of books, which are a monument of learned imbecility. While the world has unconcernedly pursued its business and pleasure, a host of demented Christians have tried to foretell the course of events from a study of one of the maddest productions of the human brain. All their predictions have been falsified, but the prophets are never discouraged, and they begin their vaticinations with renewed confidence after every fresh exposure. ,S The Apocalypse forms a fit end to the Christian scriptures f 0 $ ) “ for-as the book of Genesis commences the Bible by outraging . L, science,ithe book of Revelation concludes it by defying common• sense. ^No-better title could be devised for it. than Saint Johnr’s 1 -Nightmare. It is the work of some early Jew-Christian, whose brain was addled with superstition, his heart inflamed by the sufferings of his co-religionists, and his imagination excited by the delusion of the immediate second coming of Christ. There is a cause for everything, including lunacy. How came John to suffer from nightmare ? The easiest supposition is that he ate a pork supper, but this is excluded by the fact that he was a Jew. A careful perusal of the Apocalypse discovers the correct answer. John had imitated, and even excelled, a curious feat of the prophet Ezekiel. That heady Jew, in order to qualify himself for the business of prophecy, ate a roll; and John, for the same purpose, ate a loaf. This language must, however, be taken figuratively. Ezekiel’s roll was of parchment, and John’s loaf was a book of the same material. In both cases the food was “in the mouth sweet as honey;” but in John’s case he himself says “ as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter ;” and we should judge that Ezekiel’s luncheon had much the same .» effect, as he certainly behaved like a man with a bad-bellyache. Now a parchment book is a pretty tough meal, enough to cause indigestion in the stoutest stomach, and so we ea» understand $ the origin of Saint John’s Nightmare. The authorship of Revelation has been much discussed. Luther deemed it to be “ neither apostolical nor prophetic.” A thousand years before, Dionysius of Alexandria, a disciple of �114 St. John's Nightmare. Origen, mentions that some objected to the whole work as with out sense or reason, and as displaying such dense ignorance, that an apostle, or even one in the Church, could not have written it; and they assigned it to Cerinthus, who held the doctrine of the reign of Christ on earth. It was not in the cata logue of the Council of Laodicea. Nor was it the only work of the kind ; for the Ante-Nicene library gives apocryphal Revela tions of Moses, Esdras, Paul, and John the Theologian; while Tischendorf, in his Prolegomena, gives an abstract of the Revelations of Peter, Bartholomew, Mary, and Daniel. There was also a Revelation of Thomas, now known only by the decree of Pope Gelasius ranking it as apocryphal. One half of Luther’s dictum is open to question. Our Apo calypse may be apostolic after all. Justin Martyr, one of the earliest fathers, evidently refers to it as the work of “ John, one of the apostles of Christ.” But the word apostle was employed very loosely in that age, and it is possible that the real author of Revelation was Presbyter John. However that may be, it is certainly one of the earliest pieces of Christian literature extant^ 9, and ft affords a good idea of the mental state of true believers in I the infancy of the faith. The author of ^Supernatural R> lig-ionn considers it the only apostolic book we have. He ascribes it to John, the brother of James; and no one can deny that it breathes the very spirit of those Sons of Thunder, who asked Jesus to call down fire from heaven to destroy the unbelieving Samaritans. Whether Apostle John or Presbyter John, the author was assuredly a Jew. He is very wroth with men who have the impudence to “say they are Jews and are not.” His view of angels, spirits, and demons is Jewish. His doctrine of the millennium, as Gfrorer has shown, was held by many of the Rabbins. His grammar is execrable, and his style, as Davidson remarks, is “ so thoroughly Hebraistic as to neglect the usual rules of Greek.” His elegant Jewish idioms, borrowed from the worst parts of the prophets, are another proof that he was one of the “chosen people.” He makes God Almighty, for instance, tell the Church of Laodicea “ because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." No Greek would have written in that style. Another proof is the writer’s evident hostility to the move ment for converting the Gentiles. Renan and the author of ■^Supernatural Religion,** both agree that Paul is referred to in the passage about those who say they are apostles, and are not, but are liars. Let us further notice that the sealed elect are all •of the twelve tribes of Israel; that the heavenly city is called the New Jerusalem; that the twenty-four elders make up the number of the Jewish Sanhedrim; that the outer court of the temple of God in the New Jerusalem, like that of Herod’s second temple, is “given unto the Gentiles;” that only Jews cat of the fruit of the tree of life, while the other nations drink �St. John’s Nightmare. 115 a decoction of the leaves; that the ark of the covenant is seen in the heavenly temple; that those who were victorious over the Beast “ sing the song of Moses and that the author ends his Nightmare with a fine piece of Jewish “cheek,” promising the most diabolical plagues to anyone who should add to it, and eternal damnation to anyone who should take away a single word. The “Speaker’s Commentary” says that “the conception of the sanctity and symbolical dignity of numbers^2jsdie.therderived by-the-Jews from-their heathen neighbors” or not, is “re flected from the pages of the Old Testament.” We find it on almost every page of Revelation. Numbers Three, Four and Forty are duly honored, but the greatest regard is shown to the most sacred number Seven. There are seven spirits before the throne and seven lamps burning there, seven golden candle sticks, seven churches, seven stars in the Son of Man's right hand, the book of fate is sealed with seven seals, the Lamb has seven horns and seven eyes, and seven angels pour out seven golden vials full of the wrath of God. What Professor Moses Stuart well calls the “numerosity” of the book is conspicuous throughout/ * aad; the very number of the Beast is a crowning proof of its Jewish origin. There yet remains the fact that a great deal of the language and imagery of Revelation is borrowed from Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and, above all, from the book of Enoch. As in dreams we have usually a kaleidoscope of our waking ex periences, so in Saint John’s Nightmare there is a jumble of recollections. Almost everything is second-hand. The only original image is that of the Sixth Seal, and even its conclusion is marred by an obvious plagiarism from -Jesus. The four beasts in the fourth chapter are accurately stolen from Ezekiel, being simply the great prophet’s cherubim in a new position. We have already referred to the eating of the roll. The fine excla mation over the fall of Babylon, who “ made all the nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication,” is a slight spoiling of one of the superbest verses in Jeremiah ; while the title, “ Mother of Harlots,” is clearly adopted from the older prophets who were extremely fond of such language. John purloins pretty freely also from the book of Enoch, which was written during the century before Christ, and became so quickly accepted that the author of the Epistle of Jude actually quotes it as the work of old translated Enoch the “ seventh from Adam.” Many of the New Testament writers are indebted to this remarkable book, which anticipates some of the doctrines and maxims ascribed to Jesus, and more than foreshadows the dogma of the Trinity. But no other writer drew from it so extensively as John. He transcribed whole passages with the most unblushing licence. His oft-quoted phrase, “King of kings, L >rd of lords,” is taken from Enoch. His theory of the Jewish saints in heaven not having been �116 St. John’s Nightmare. “polluted with women” is derived from the same source, as well as the ‘ ‘ ten thousand times ten thousand ” before the throne. Enoch also furnished him with the lake of brimstone, the last judgment, the tree of life whose fruit is given to the elect, the book of life, the living fountains, the new heaven and earth, the great white throne, and the “Ancient of Days, whose head was like white wool.” If John paid back to Enoch, Ezekiel, Jere miah and Daniel, all he stole from them, he would be completely bankrupt, and his remaining assets would not redeem him fro m the lowest poverty. The date of Saint John’s Nightmare is difficult to fix. Lardner placed it at the year 95-96, but more recent critics shift it back nearly twenty years. Davidson thinks the book was composed about 68-69, and it bears internal evidence of having been written soon after the death of Nero, and either when the fall of Jerusalem was imminent or directly after it occurred. Now let us examine the book as it stands. John, like all primitive Christians, believed in the immediate second coming of Jesus, who has not been seen or heard of yet. The end of the world was drawing near, and John was commissioned to show the “things which must shortly come to pass.” His exordium ends with the significant words “for the time is at hand.” This craze has periodically afflicted the Christian world. Paul believed in the speedy return of the crucified Savior, no less than John. The early Church, knowing that the Son of Man was coming like a thief in the night, lived in daily expectation of his appearance through the clouds. Gradually, however, the belief declined; but even in the third century there was a fierce controversy about the millennium ; Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, writing a treatise in support of the idea, and Origen opposing it with the greatest warmth. Six hundred years later the doctrine revived, and all Christendom expected that the world would come to an end with the tenth century. But the world con tinued to roll along as before, and never troubled itself about prophets and fools. Since then the madness has broken out from time to time, but it is now dying away like many other pestilent disorders of the great Age of Faith. Dr. Cumming fore told the end of the world several times, but the event never came off, and he went to his grave a discredited prophet. We have still a pious charlatan who plays the old game, although he has often been found out. He wrote an elaborate treatise to prove that the late Louis Napoleon was the destined Antichrist. A few months ago he proved from Saint John’s Nightmare that Gambetta was the forerunner of Antichrist, who was clearly Prince Jerome. He has now a fresh interpretation quite as true as the rest; hundreds crowd to see him cast the political horoscope; and he edits a religious journal, which boasts of a hundred thousand readers—mostly fools. " John’s Revelation is addressed to the “seven churches which �St. John’s Nightmare. 117 are in Asia.” He does not appear to have thought that Christi anity would ever extend beyond those limits. Now Ephesus, bmyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, were very closely situated. What a small conquest in forty years by a God-supported creed 1 ItdAalmost as though the approaching dissolution of all things were addressed “ to the seven churches which are in Highgate, Epping, Woolwich, Brompton, Richmond, Hammersmith, and Kilburn.” John’s Nightmare happened “ on the Lord’s day.” The first thing he heard was a tremendous voice like a trumpet, and the first thing he saw was seven golden candlesticks. If John had lived in the nineteenth century he would have seen gasaliers or electric burners. In the midst of the candlesticks was a person like the Son of Alan, dressed in a kind of nightshirt, with feet u 6 burniQg brass, flaming eyes, and a fine woolly head of hair. He held, seven stars in his right hand, and a sharp two-edged sword with his teeth, and his voice was like the falls of Niagara. This was God the Son in a new character. Poor John was horribly frightened, but the Lord reassured him, and explained that the seven candlesticks were the seven churches, and the seven stars their seven angels. Before this heavenly visitor had spoken two minutes he called Paul a liar, said that some pretended Jews were of the synagogue of the Devil, and twice declared his hatred of the Nicolaitanes. These people were a Christian sect accounted heretical by John. Irenaeus traces its origin to Nicolaus, one of the seven deacons mentioned in the sixth of Acts. Tertullian says it was a sect of Gnostics. If his surmise be correct, it shows that Gnosticism probably existed before Christianity. Orthodox John hated all heretics, and of course he made God hate them too. When the Lord had ended his message to the seven churches, John saw a door opened in heaven, whether front or back he does not say. Then a voice like a trumpet called him up, and he went up. God Almighty, like a big stone of jasper and sardine, sat on a throne, which was arched by a green rainbow. Round the throne were seated twenty-four elders (the exact number of the Jewish Sanhedrim), dressed in white and wearing golden crowns. Prowling round the throne as a body-guard were four wonderful beasts with eyes in their heads and eyes in their posteriors, and six wings apiece. The description of these animals is borrowed almost word for word from Ezekiel’s account of the cherubim. They were a strange collection of pets, and they justify Heine’s witticism about all the menagerie of the Apocalypse. If lhirnum eould only purchase one-of them for his show, he- would jeturn Jumbo to the Zoological Gardens, and countermand his order to the King of Siam for a white elephant. Ifdie could also secure Alother- Eve’s serpent, Balaam’s ass, and Jonah’s whale, he might reckon on making a million a year as long as the-show-lasted. These beasts lead a very monotonous life. They sing day and �118 St. John's Nightmare. night, without any rest, “ Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.” After their song, the twenty-four elders fall down and sing, “ Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” And . this concert goes on for ever and ever. How sick the elders and the elderly beasts must be of the dreary per formance ! And unless the Lord is infinitely vain, he must be as sick as thejj/ John next saw Jesus Christ, in the form of a slain lamb, with seven horns and seven eyes, take a book out of God’s hand and loose its seven seals. Later on we read of the marriage supper of this juvenile sheep, but the author does not record whether the lamb himself was served up with mint-sauce. Four horses appeared on the breaking of as many seals. The second, third, and fourth were red, black, and pale, signifying slaughter, famine, and death. The first was white, signifying the purity of the Gospel, and its rider went forth conquering and to conquer. This exactly resembles the Kalki avatar of Vishnu. Whatever John’s faults were, he was certainly a good borrower. When the fifth seal was broken John saw “ under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God and when the sixth was broken, the sun turned black and the moon red, the stars tumbled down on the earth, the sky rolled up, and all the human race ran and hid themselves in rocks and dens. In fact, it was what the Yankees call an almighty smash. Then four angels kept the four winds from blowing, and another angel sealed a hundred and forty-four thousand elect, who were all Jews and all virgins “not defiled with women.” Considering the profligacy of the Jews at that time, we should have thought it impossible to find so many. But truth is always strange, stranger than fiction. The primitive Christians were evidently Essenean Jews; they contemned marriage, and' regarded virginity as the highest virtue. These elect Jews surrounded the elders and the beasts, and only they could learn the song. All the Gentiles who were saved had back seats, and aS"the French say, they “assisted ” at the. performance. We must passover the extraordinary locusts, with men’s faces, women’s hair, and lion’s teeth, who came out of the bottomless pit; the great army of two hundred million horsemen ; and come to the woman who gave birrh to a man-child that was pursued by a great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, and a tail that whisked down a third part of the stars. What a tail 1 The woman, we take it, means Judaism ; the man-child, Christianity ; and the dragon, the Devil. This eminent personage was to league with the Beast, oppress the saints, set up a universal kingdom, blaspheme God, and gather all the kings and armies of the world to the great battle of Armageddon, where they were �St. John's Nightmare. 119 to be defeated by Jesus Christ and the hosts of heaven. This battle has not been fought yet, but as Armageddon is the valley of Megiddon mentioned by Zeckariah, the reader will know where to expect it; although as to when it may be looked for we have no information. The Devil is to be chained in the bottomless pit fora thousand years, during which time those who have not worshipped the Beast are to reign with Christ, and everybody will be happy and wise and good. Why doesn’t the millennium come at once ? When the thousand years are expired, the Devil is to be loosed agaiu, and allowed to deceive the nations, until he is cast into the lake of fire and brimstone with the Beast and false prophet, and tormented day and night for ever. Poor Devil! Then cometh judgment day. The saved go to heaven and the damned IbQl (Ml• Who the Devil was we know, but who the devil was the Beast? Undoubtedly Nero, whose holocaust of Christians at Rome, for the suspected crime of burning the city, had filled the Church with hatred and dismay. Not daring to write Nero’s name, any more than that of Borne, John put it between the lines. “There are,” he says, “seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come ; and when he cometh he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.” The seven kings, we hold, meant seven Roman emperors ; and the eighth, who had already reigned but was to reign again, meant Nero. Suetonius relates that, long after the tyrant’s death, many believed that he was still alive, and would * ] soon reappear and avenge himself on his enemies. Renan calls the Nero fable ‘ cette ideejmere de I Apocalypse'^—the germ idea 1 of the Apocalypse; and he.is supported by Volckmar, Ewald Reville, Scholten, Reuss, Krenkel, and a host of others. ’ The,number of tiie Beast, too, was 666, and the letters of the tyrant’s name in Hebrew (Csesar Nero) just make it up. There have, of course, been thousands of people, from whose names the number of the Beast could be made up. Napoleon was one of them, and Euglisb Tories used to think him Antichrist. They now fancy it is Air. Gladstone, whose name does just as well. John had neither of these in his mind. He meant Nero who was to return, to regain his throne by the helo of the Parthians to set up as Antichrist, to persecute the faithful, and finally to be overthrown by Jesus Christ at the great battle of Arma geddon. Babylon unquestionably means Rome. There is no mistaking the seven-hilled city, or the great harlot, arrayed in purple and scarlet, and “ drunk with the blood of the saints.” But John’s prophecies have not been fulfilled. He could see no farther through a millstone than his neighbors. Rome has not been “ utterly burned with fire,” nor are the voices of craftsmen and musicians dumb in her streets. �120 St. John's Nightmare. i John’s description of the New Jerusalem is very amusing. It is fifteen hundred miles in length, and the same in breadth and height—a heavenly cube. Hell is much larger, but that is natural, for the Christian scheme damns the many and saves the few. Why-are the celestial mansions fifteen hundred miles high? We expect that when the city was laid out, no space was reserved for the angels to practise flying, and they were therefore pro vided with lofty domes, so that they might exercise their wings inside, on wet days as well as dry. Had John been a Greek or a Roman, he would have imagined an artistic heaven, full of splendid architecture, noble statues, and glorious pictures. But being an unartistic Jew, he could imagine nothing but heaps of gold and precious stones. The same defect is still apparent in the “chosen people.” Their women revel in showy dress, and their men delight in gold . /, rings, gold studs, and gold watchchains big enough to cable the-^.rM'r “ Great Eastern;’4 _ The Jew comes out in another circumstance. The founda tions of the New Jerusalem bear the names of the twelve Apostles; but the twelve gates, each a pearl, bear the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. The Bible is a Jew-book from beginning to end, and we civilised Europeans still go about in what Carlyle called Hebrew Old-Clothes. We have no room to notice the many Protestant divines who have exercised their ingenuity in showing that Saint John really prophesied the iniquitous life and awful death of the Catholic Church; since we are fully persuaded that he could not look so far ahead, and that he expected a universal flare-up soon after his Nightmare was written. But we may observe that the Catholics have begun to round on. the Protestants ; and that Signor Pastorini, for instance, applies the sounding of the fifth trumpet to Luther who, renouncing his faith and vows, may be said to have fallen ; and when he opened the door of hell there issued forth a thick smoke, or a strong spirit of seduction, which had been hatched in hell. May this noble game of tit-for-tat con tinue ! It will be a glorious sight for the sceptic to behold the two great halves of Christendom proving each other’s depravity from the silly Nightmare of Saint John. The sceptic cannot decide between them. He is obliged to act like Voltaire who, when he heard two old women vilifying each other, said—I be lieve them both. PRICE ONE PENNY. London: Fbbbthought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES—XVI. A VIRGIN MOTHER. By G. W. FOOTE. --------- -0.---------- There is nothing new under the sun, said the wise king. This observation is peculiarly true with respect to religion. Modern creeds are simply old ones in a new guise, and Christianity itself is a patchwork of cuttings from the religious wardrobe of antiquity. Patchwork requires much labor and time, and Christianity was slowly constructed. Many of its essential features were unknown to the primitive Church. The apostolic writings, for instance, do not mention or allude to the subject of this romance. Neither Paul nor John knew anything of the miraculous birth of Jesus. The Gospels belong to a much later date. In the second century Christianity grew by incorporating to itself the most venerated dogmas of other superstitions. Our Gospels were written when the process was nearly completed, more than a hundred years after the death of Christ. The mighty river of every great system is formed gradually. Its nominal source is perhaps a trickling rill in some remote and well-nigh inaccessible region ; as it runs it is. joined by other streams, many of them larger than itself, until at last it gains the level ground, and flows on through a broad deep channel to the sea. The grand river, with ships on its bosom and cities on its banks, bears no proportion or resemblance to the mountain rill whence it derives its name. And so with Christianity, which is unlike its spring, the man Jesus. It has flowed through centuries, and received tribute from innumerable streams on either side ; Egyptian myth, Greek philosophy, Essenean doctrine, and Oriental legend. Its like ness to its founder is little else than in name. The Immaculate Conception was borrowed from the mytho logy of Egypt. No deity was more idolised by the multitude than the virgin mother of Horus. Juvenal remarked, at the end of the first century, that the Roman painters almost lived on the goddess Isis. “Such,” says Sharpe, “was the popularity of * that most winning form of worship, which is still continued there in the pictures of the Virgin Mary with the infant Jesus in her arms.” The same author, after describing a representation of the birth of King Amunothph III., says that “In this picture we have the Annunciation, the Conception, the Birth, and the Adoration, as described in the first and second chapters of Luke’s Gospel; and as we have historical assurance that the chapters in * “Egyptian Mythology,” p. 86. �122 A Virgin Mother. Matthew’s Gospel, which contain the Miraculous Birth of Jesus, are an after addition not in the earliest manuscripts, it seems probable that these two poetical chapters in Luke may also be unhistorical, and borrowed from the Egyptian accounts of the miraculous birth of their kings.” * We may observe that the drawing referred to was on one of the walls of the Temple of Luxor. The god Thoth announces to the maiden queen that she should “bring forth a son” who would be a ruler in the land. Then the gods Kneph and Athor take her by the hand, and place in her mouth the symbol of the child’s life. Next come the midwives in attendance on her labor, and the nurses with the infant just born. Finally a number of sages pay adoration to the wonderful baby. All this takes us- back to the myth of Isis and Horus, and shows us how greatly it influenced the Egyptian mind. On the temple of the goddess at Sais there was the inscription, “The fruit which I have brought forth is the sun.” Plutarch, in his De Iside, states that “This Isis is the chaste Minerva, who, without fearing to lose her title of virgin, says she is the mother of the sun.” She was styled Our Lady, the Queen of Heaven, the Star of the Sea, the Governess, the Earth Mother, the Rose, the Mother of God, the Savior of Souls, the Intercessor, the Sanctifier, the Immaculate Virgin, and so forth. All these titles have been applied by Christians to the Virgin-Mary. Her symbol was the Sistrum. The bars across the opening signified virginity. “ The goddesses,” says Bonwick,f “ to whom the instrument was dedicated, though always mpthers, were ever virgins. The sistrum was, therefore, the symbol of the Celestial Mother.” It is at least six thousand years old. The doctrine of the incarnation and immaculate conception were thus well estab lished in Egypt some time before Adam dug potatoes in Eden, and millenniums before Jesus Christ was born or thought of. The child Horus went through a career like that of Jesus. He had a miraculous birth, death and resurrection. He is usually depicted as an infant in his mother’s arms. Bonwick observes that “ the earliest representations of the Madonna have quite a Greco-Egyptian character, and there can be little doubt that Isis nursing Horus was the origin of them all.” J Another notable point is that black Madonnas used to be common in Europe. Now there was a black Isis too, supposed to symbolise not only the Mother of the Gods, but the primeval darkness which preceded light, and gave birth to all things. The glorified Horus carried his mother to heaven, as Ariadne was carried by Bacchus, and Alcmense by Hercules. Christianity very soon demanded the same honor for the mother of Jesus. The Collyridians and Marians distinctly deified her; while the Melchites, at the council of Nice, contended that the true Trinity * Ibid, p. 19. f “ Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought,” p. 215. $ Ibid, p. 142. �A Virgin Mother. 123 was the Father, the Virgin Mother Mary, and the Son Jesus. This heretical sect, which got suppressed, had a more intelligible notion of the Trinity than the Christians who triumphed. Father, mother, and son, we can all appreciate; but the three m one, who are neither one nor three and yet both, are so mysterious that, like the peace of God, they pass all under standing. Bonwick says we have the best testimony that the worship of Isis was early transferred to the Virgin Mary. Higgins, how ever, thinks it was the Roman worship of Juno which Chris tianity borrowed. According to this learned writer, “The * goddess Februata Juno became the Purificata Virgo Maria. The (nd Romans celebrated this festival in precisely the same way as the moderns—-by processions with wax lights, etc., and on the same day, the second of February. The author of the Perennial Calendar observes, that it is a remarkable coincidence that the festival of the miraculous conception of Juno Jugalis, the blessed Virgin, the Queen of Heaven, should fall on the very day the modern Romans have fixed the festival of the conception of the blessed Virgin Mary. Being merely a continuation of an ancient festival, there is nothing remarkable in it.” Probably the truth is that both Egypt and Rome contributed to the Christian mythology. The Madonna and Child were copied from Isis and Horus ; and the festival of Juno was trans ferred to the Virgin Mary during that period when the Church stooped to conquer, and won over the multitudes of Paganism by appropriating nearly all its rites and celebrations. Let us now glance at another aspect of the question The gods of antiquity were a lustful crew. They were very fond of the fair daughters of men. Ovid and other poets give us a lively description of their doings. Many wonderful personages in the heroic age were born of ladies who conceived by holy ghosts. The illicit offspring of minor deities were very numerous. But the greatest rake of all was Jupiter. He who brandished the lightning and hurled the thunderbolt from Olympus ruling both gods and men, frequently gave Juno the slip and came down on the spree. Lovely damsels and handsome spouses were his sport; and they were soon won, for he laughed at locks and bolts, and was always ready to eke out persuasion with force. In pursuing his amours he adopted many disguises. He courted Antiope as a satyr, Europa as a bull, and Leda as a swan, while Alcmense was betrayed by his assuming the form of her husband. How different from Jehovah, who hated women, and cared for nothing but orgies of blood! Yet the greatest misogynist has his moment of weakness. Jehovah yielded at last to the charms of Mary. He who never felt the tender passion in his lusty youth eventually broke his own seventh commandment, and in ins dotage carried on an amour with a carpenter’s wife. * “ Anacalypsis,” vol. iii., p. 82. �124 / > ■ * * A Virgin Mother. We say he broke the seventh commandment, but true believers think differently. Sovereigns and deities were chartered liber tines. It was once deemed a greater honor to be a king’s mistress than a common man’s wife, and the highest of all honors to be the mistress of a god. Many heroes boasted of their descent from such unions, and they were regarded as superior to their fellow men. There was even a religious side to all this gallantry, and it was common to ascribe virginity to the young ladies who were impregnated by celestial lovers. The world was full of such notions. Fohi, in China, was miraculously conceived by a nymph who bathed in a river, and whose garments were touched by a lotus plant, the emblem of love. He became a founder of religion, a warrior, and a lawgiver. Codom was born on the shores of a lake, between Siam and Camboya, of a virgin who became pregnant by the sunbeams. She was translated to heaven, but the boy was found by a hermit, and grew up to be a great sage and worker of miracles. Archer, in Corea, was born in the same fashion. Huitzilipochtli, in Mexico, was given birth to by a woman who caught in her bosom a feather ball which descended from the heavens. In a legend of the Apaches, rain caused a supernatural conception; in Tahiti it was the shadow of a bread-tree leaf which Taaroa passed over Hina. The mother of the first Mandan chief conceived by eating the fat of a bison cow. Many other instances might be cited, but these may suffice. In historical times we have Buddha miraculously conceived, and even in the most cultivated period of Athenian history a legend grew up that Plato was born supernaturally, the god Apollo having visited his mother as the Virgin Mary was visited by the Holy Ghost. It is a singular fact that the early Christians never disputed the Pagan mythology. On the contrary, they appealed to it in support of their own superstitions. Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, addressed to Antoninus Pius, furnishes a striking illus tration. “ When,” he wrote, “we say also that the Word, who is the first birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing dif ferent from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribe to Jupiter. Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; 2Esculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven ; and Bacchus, too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, the Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danse; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.” In other words, Justin says: You have men born of gods, just like our Jesus Christ, and �A Virgin Mother. 125 though you revile us, we are really all in the same boat. The testimony of credulous writers like this is all Christians have to warrant the monstrous legends of their faith. The date assigned for the birth of Jesus is another proof that the story is mythical. On the 25th of December the zodiacal sign of the celestial Virgin shows on’ the eastern horizon, the sun has then risen one degree above the solstitial point, and the year is just born. The Romans observed this day as a festival, and it was the birthday of all the great sun-gods of Egypt) Persia, India, and Greece. Our first Gospel significantly relates that the star of the nativity was perceived by the worshippers of Ormuzd. Persian magi, or wise men from the east, first saw the portent of the Son of God’s birth, and brought the news to King Herod. The Jews had not noticed the shining wonder. We have here a trace of astrology, or the superstition that events on earth are decided or heralded by the motions of the stars. The same Gospel says that the wise men followed the star they had seen in the east, until it stood over the place where little Jesus was doing his first crow. What an absurdity ! Fol lowing a star is ludicrous enough. It is like chasing the moon, a diversion affected by children and lunatics. But imagine a star resting over a particular chimney-stack! The writer of “ Matthew ” knew nothing of astronomy, or he would not have perpetrated such a silly blunder. The stars are so distant that a few hundred miles at this end make no difference in the angle of vision. _ Of our four Gospels only two, Matthew and Luke, record the birth of Jesus. Both Mark and John are silent about it. They evidently thought the prophet of Nazareth was born in the usual way. No one during the life of Jesus ever hinted at his super natural origin. His countrymen asked, “Is not this the car penter’s son ? ” and nobody answered that he was the son of the Holy Ghost. Now Luke was confessedly not an authority on the subject. He merely undertook to write what the early Christians gene rally believed. Only the first Gospel remains, and that was never written by Matthew. According to primitive tradition Matthew did write a Gospel, but in Hebrew. Our Gospel of Matthew is in Greek. Its author, too, was evidently not a Jew. He utterly misunderstood Jewish idioms, and seven times in the first four chapters he drags in prophecies which any Jew would see had absolutely no relation to the matter in hand. With respect to the birth of Jesus, these two Gospels differ on every point. Matthew omits the Annunciation, and says that Mary’s pregnancy was revealed to Joseph in a dream. Luke lets the poor cuckold find it out himself. And while stating that angelic visitors appeared to shepherds who were watching their flocks, he never once refers to the star, or the wise men, or the jealousy of Herod, ot the questions put to the priests and scribes, �126 A Virgin Mother. or the journey into Egypt, or the massacre of the innocents. These two witnesses flatly contradict each other, and being both on the same side of the case, they must be ruled out of court. They also stumble over the date of the baby god’s birth. Both say it was in the reign of Herod the Great, but Luke fixes it at the time of the taxing, when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Now this gentleman was not appointed to the office till long after the death of Herod, and his census did not take place till about ten years after the time when Jesus is supposed to have been born. O Luke, Luke 1 You should have kept quiet over that little affair of the taxing, for it completely upsets your evidence. Out you go, arm in arm with Matthew, and don’t appear in court again. Our Gospels tell us very little about Mary, but there are two apocryphal Gospels that supply the deficiency. The first is the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, which was received as genuine and authentic by several, of the early sects. The second is the Proto evangelion, which was ascribed to James the brother of Jesus. It was frequently referred to by the Fathers, and it obtained a very general credit in the Christian world. Mary, they say, was the daughter of a rich man named Joachim, sprung from the royal family of David. Her mother’s name was Anna. She was born at Nazareth, and educated in the Temple at Jerusalem. Her origin was miraculous. Joachim and Anna for a long time had no children. She prayed hard to the Lord for a baby, and he skulked away from the gibes and jeers of his fellows into the wilderness, where he fasted forty days and forty nights. That was a poor preparation for becoming a father, but an angel came and set matters right. Joachim went home, and in due course little Mary came to light. This wonderful maiden walked nine steps when she was nine months old. At the age of three years she was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, where she mounted the stairs like a grown woman, and danced a jig to the admiration of all Israel. Her. parents left her there to be brought up with the other virgins. As she grew in years she grew in grace. She enjoyed the conversation of angels, and received visitors from God every day. _ The priests, however, seem to have mistrusted this chaste virgin, for at the age of fourteen they resolved to marry her to prevent mischief. Her blood was perhaps more like lava than ice. It may even be true, as some have suspected, that the priests had initiated her already into the mysteries of Venus, and were anxious to father the fruit of their pious labors on some simple layman. At any rate, they summoned all the mar riageable men of the house of David to appear and go through a kind of raffle for the girl. The Lord directed the game, and Joseph won. He begged to be excused, on the ground that he was an old man. Perhaps the poor fellow smelt a rat. How ever, he had to submit, and Mary became his wife. A French �A Virgin Mother. 127 wit says that a young husband may have a child, but an old one is sure to. Joseph left his dear young virgin wife at home while he went abroad carpentering. When he returned she was in the family-way. What was the cause of Mary’s misfortune ? Bishop Talley rand, in a letter he is said to have written to the Pope after their quarrel, states that the Roman authorities discovered that Mary had an intrigue with a Roman soldier named Panthera. In the second century Celsus twitted the Christians with worshipping the bastard child of a virgin who had been forced by a Roman soldier of the same name. The Sepher Toldeth Jesu, an ancient Jewish story, describes Joseph Pandera, not as a Roman soldier, but as an idle profligate belonging to the fallen tribe of Judah He was a man of fine figure and rare beauty. By the assistance of Mary’s mother he was introduced to her one Sabbath evening • and she, thinking he was her betrothed Jochanan, yielded herself to his desires. There is a striking agreement in these stories as to the name of Mary’s seducer. We are loth to defame the young lady’s character, but we cannot help thinking that where there is so much smoke there must be some fire. The “ Protoevangelion,” like the Gospel of Luke, gives a story of the Annunciation. An angel tells Mary that, while continuing to be a virgin, she shall conceive and bring forth a son. This heavenly messenger was the archangel Gabriel. Mary was then only fourteen. That was a youthful age for a mother, but the Holy Ghost was in an eager mood, and could brook no delay. When Joseph “ returned from his building houses abroad,” he found the Virgin “grown big.” As in Matthew, Joseph decided to put her away privily. But the angel paid him a visit one night, admonished him to keep the young woman, and told him that what was within her was “ the work of the Holy Ghost.” Joseph of course gave in. The priests, however, were not so easily satisfied. They made him drink some of the rot-gut water of trial; but as it had no evil effect on the old fellow, they exonerated him from the charge of having taken his young bride’s virginity. Pious Christians have written vast quantities of obscene rub bish on this subject, most of which must be left in the obscurity of a dead language. French writers imagine the Holy Ghost hovering over Mary, as Jove in the shape of a swan overshadowed the charms of Leda. The speculations of Saint Ambrose cannot be translated from the Latin. His least indecent theory is that Mary was impregnated through the ear. Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin to the end of the chapter. The Gospels mention the brothers of Jesus but Christian piety assumes that they were sons of Joseph by another wife. Apocryphal writings inform us that Mary died soon after the crucifixion. One document states that she was attended in her last moments by the twelve A.postles two of whom were raised from the dead to be present. Another docu- �-128 A Virgin Mother. ment states that her body was taken to heaven by angels in the presence of Thomas, and that the brethren who would not believe it reopened the tomb and found the corpse of God’s mother missing. This Christian fable of the Virgin Mother is still devoutly believed by millions of. sane, men, who have accepted it on grounds of faith, and are entirely ignorant of its real origin. We have proved that the superstition is far older than Chris tianity. We have shown that Paul and the Apostles khew nothing of it; that it was incorporated into the Christian religion after their time,; and that the strongest evidence in support of the miraculous birth of Jesus, is a probably interpo lated chapter in a Gospel supposed to have been written by Matthew, but which was most certainly not written by a Jew nor even in existence until long after all the contemporaries of the Prophet of Nazareth had mouldered into dust. Whoever persists in believing the fable after learning these facts is a slave to faith, and on the broad road to Colney Hatch.. If a pious young lady were now to give birth to a child, and protest that she knew nothing about it except that one night an angel told her that she was - to become a virgin mother, would her parents and friends believe the story ? And if she went into a court declaring that the third person of the Christian Trinity was her partner in the business, would any magistrate make an order against the Holy Ghost for the maintenance of the child/? Jesus Christ is said to have had no father. Thousands of other boys have been in the same plight. There is no miracle in that. If the founder of Christianity wished to prove his super natural origin, he should have “gone the whole hog,” and dispensed with a mother too. That would have been a real miracle. But at present his divine paternity is more than dubious. If there is a mother in the case, depend upon it there is a father somewhere. That which is born of the spirit is spirit, not flesh and blood ; and the Holy Ghost is far too shadowy a person to be the father of a lusty boy. We feel sure that Jesus.Christ.was born like other men, and we decline to believe that God Almighty ever stooped to debauch an old man’s wife. The whole story is a fable. There never was in this world, and there never will be such a monstrous absurdity as a Virgin Mother. l’RTCE ONE PENNY. London: Freethought Publishing Company, 28,Stonecutter St., E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES-XVII. GOD IN A BOX. By G. W. FOOTE. > What blasphemy! the pious ■will exclaim. God in a box I How shocking! The wretch who dares to utter such-language should be severely punished; the wretch who dares to write it should be hung. Nay, hanging is too good for him. .He ought to be burnt, broken on the wheel, or slowly tortured to death. But soft a while, ye loving followers of the meek and lowly one ! The blasphemy is not mine. I did not put God in a box; the Jews did it. They were very free with gods. They nailed up one, as a farmer fixes a bat or a weasel on the barn-door ; and centuries before that, they carried about his father in a travelling trunk. Whatever blasphemy is implied in the title ofthis Romance must be charged to their account. The Bible warrants every statement I make, and I challenge, contradiction. I found God in a box and did not put him there. I merely lift the lid and show him inside. It is a veritable fact that Jehovah of the Jews, who became God the Father of Christianity, was originally a lump of stone, or some other fetish, enclosed in a wooden box His devotees carried him with them in all their wanderings. When they fought, they took him into the battle to ensure victory. He was their star of fortune, their, glory, and their pride. While they retained him, and kept him good-humored, they were prosperous in peace and war ; when they,provoked him, they were chastised with famine, plague, and slaughter; when they lost him, they sank under the frown of fate, and became the prey of foreign conquest or civil dissension. They gave him, as meat and drink, the flesh and . blood of animals ; and sometimes his altars were polluted with a darker sacrifice of human life. Like all fetishes, he was tabu except to the priests. . No layman was suffered to approach him. Invading his privacy was sacrilege, and punished with instant death. When the Jews carried and carted Jahveh from place to place, they were in a very low state of culture. They had not ad vanced beyond fetish-worship, which is the primitive form of religion. The word Fetish comes from the Portuguese fetiqho, and signifies a charm. We find traces of fetishism in the most advanced crgeds. Savages treasure a curious stone, a piece of ivory, a fish-tooth, a rare shell, a mineral, or a gem ; and Euro peans still wear bone or metal crosses, attached to a string of shining beads, which are told over during prayer; while an occult virtue is ascribed to different jewels in every civilised country. AmoDgst the vulgar, throughout Christendom, amulets �130 God in a Box. are still worn, and often secreted next the skin. They are held to bring luck, and as sovereign against danger. Even the worship of images is preserved in the Catholic adoration of saints. Nor are the most austere Protestants free from this superstition. Their great fetish is the Bible. They reverence its very leaves and cover ; they damn everybody who doubts it; and they kiss it as a token when they are obliged to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It might easily be inferred, from the fourth verse of the third chapter of Hosea, even if there were no other evidence, that the worship of teraphim, or images, was a feature of primitive Judaism. But we are not confined to this source of information. When Jacob made tracks from uncle Laban’s, with both his daughters and all the sheep and cattle worth having, the old man had to go a seven days’ journey after them to recover his gods. Rachel, who seems to have been just the right wife for Jacob, had stolen the whole lot, without leaving her father a single god to worship. Laban hunted high and low for his tera phim, but never found them ; for his cunning slut of a daughter covered them over, and while he searched her tent she sat upon them—hatching. Jahveh also was no doubt a portable family god. He first calls himself the god of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. After wards he calls himself the god of Israel—that is, of the descend ants of these patriarchs. He never calls himself the god of all mankind. On the contrary, he admits the existence of other gods, and is openly jealous of them. The Jews, in turn, always speak of him as our god. He was their own Jahveh. They '■ ran ” him, and were ready to back him against the field. We are first introduced to God in a Box in the twenty-fifth of Exodus. Jahveh was sick and tired of roaming about, and having casual interviews with his prophet, in a burning bush, in a public-house, or on the top of a hill. He determined to settle down and dwell with his people. Accordingly, Moses was instructed to build him a residence. He was to have a tent all to himself, a first-class article, made of the very best stuff; fine linen of various colors, badgers’ skins, rams’ skins, and goats’ hair ; with brass and silver for the fittings, and gold and jewels for the decorations. Inside the tent, which our English version dignifies with the name of tabernacle, there was to be placed a nice snug box for him to lie in, instead of squatting igno miniously on the floor. The Bible calls it an ark, but the Hebrew word so translated, means a box, a mummy case, or a treasure chest. He was also to be supplied with furniture and domestic utensils; a wooden table overlaid with gold, three feet long, eighteen inches broad, and two feet three inches high, with golden dishes, covers, spoons and bowls; and a golden candlestick bearing seven lights, with golden tongs and snuff-dishes. Altogether it was a very genteel establishment for a bachelor god. When Jahveh came to inspect it, he said it �God in a Box. 131 would do capitally, and took immediate possession. Directly he entered the place was filled with smoke, a fact which surprises those who fancy the Devil is the sole dealer in that commodity. No doubt he found it very useful. His priests, who were accustomed to incense, could stand the fume, but intruders were soon smoked out. The priests were ordered to keep some shewbread always on that table, so that he might have a snack at any time. This is a common thing with fetish worshippers. Tylor says that pots and other necessaries are put in the fetish huts still, but “ the principal thing in the hut is the stool for the fetish to sit on, and there is a little bottle of brandy always ready for him.”1 Probably, although it is not so stated, the Jewish priests gave Jahveh a drop of something to drink; for it was a thirsty climate, and the old fellow often betrayed a sanguinary violence of temper which usually results from intoxication. There is, indeed, a suggestion of this in Judges ix., 13, where we read of “wine which cheereth God and man.” The dimensions of the table were in keeping with those of the ark, which was three feet nine long, two feet three broad, and two feet three deep. That was the old fellow’s size ! We might wonder how Christians could think that God Almighty ever got inside such a box, if we did not know that they still imagine him to be in a little piece of bread. What is too great for the faith of people who, as Browning says, see God made and eaten every day ? Now what was really inside that box ? I will not indulge in conjecture, nor cite “ infidel ” authors, but go at once to a great Dutch scholar, who has recently lectured on the religions of the world before the elite of Biblical students in London and the University of Oxford. Kuenen says: “When we observe how the ark was treated and what effects were ascribed to it, it becomes almost certain that it was held to be the abode of Jahveh, so that he, in some way or other, was himself present in it Then only is it that we can explain the desire of the Israelites to have the ark with them in the army, their joy at its arrival, and its solemn conveyance to the new capital of the empire in David’s reign. Now was the ark empty, or did it contain a stone, Jahveh’s real abode, of which the ark was only the reposi tory? This we do not know, although the latter opinion, in conjunction with the later accounts of the Pentateuch, appears to us to possess great probability.” 2 .More orthodox English writers treat the subject with euphe misms. Eadie says : “ This sacred chest was the awful emblem of the Jewish religion.” The Speaker’s Commentary says: “.Now he was ready visibly to testify that he made his abode with them. He claimed to have a dwelling for himself.” Old 1 “ Primitive Culture,” vol. ii., p. 144. 2 “Religion of Israel,” vol. i., p. 233. �132 God in a Box. Bishop Patrick says: “It was his cabinet, as we now speak, into which none entered but himself.” Kuenen’s surmise is strengthened by all our knowledge of fetishism. At each end of the ark was a cherub, evidently a sacred fowl of some kind, facing inwards, and bending down over the ark. This is the attitude of worship. They were adoring the image within. Being covered with gold, the ark looked like solid metal, though it was really made of shittim wood, according to Jahveh’s directions. The reader must not expect a long disserta tion on shittim wood. Kimchi says it is the best kind of cedar. Aben Ezra says it is a sacred wood that grows in the wilderness by Sinai. Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” describes it as an acacia. Jerome, in his commentary on Isaiah xl., calls it lignum imputribile, an incorruptible wood. If he is right the ark may yet turn up, unless it has “ gone to smash.” The ark was topped by a mercy seat of pure gold. “There,” said the Lord to Moses, “ I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims.” And in David’s time he is described (2 Samuel vi., 2) as “ the Lord of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.” Clearly he fixed himself there at communion time. Now what was the mercy seat? It was simply the lid of the box. The Hebrew Kapporeth means to cover, and in the First of Chronicles xxviii.* 2, the holy of holies is called the house of the Kapporeth. Here then the whole case lies in a nutshell. If Jehovah and God the Father are indeed the same, we may say to the Chris tians—Your God was once carried about in a box, and he used to get out and sit on the cover. It is highly probable that the Jews borrowed their idea of an ark from the Egyptians, whom most nations have found, as Fuseli said of Blake, “ damned good to steal from.” Sir John Gardner Wilkinson, in his “Manners and Customs of the Ancient. Egyptians,” says that “one of the most important ceremonies was the procession of shrines,” which is mentioned in the Rosetta stone, and frequently represented on the walls of the. temples. The lesser shrine was a sort of canopy ; the great shrine was an ark or sacred boat. Like the Jewish ark, it was borne by priests. It was also carried in the same way, by means of staves passed through metal rings at the side. Wilkinson further remarks that the wings of two figures of the goddess Thmei or Truth, overshadowing the sacred beetle of the Sun, contained in some of the Egyptian arks, “ call to mind the cherubim of the Jews.” The chosen people seem to have “ bor rowed of the Egyptians ” in more senses than one. The Bible is remarkably precise in its details as to the ark. It even informs us who made it. There was only one man in all Israel whom Jahveh thought fit for the job. This was Bezaleel. of the tribe of Judah, a kind of jack-of-all-trades, and what he �God in a Box. 133 did not know the Lord taught him. He wove the linen, tanned the skins, carved the wood, made the brass fittings, beat the gold, cut the stones, and fixed everything up. In theatrical par lance, he was a first-class utility man. It is an astonishing thing that, many centuries later, when Solomon built the first temple at Jerusalem, he found no Jew able to do the metal work, and had to send to Tyre for a competent artist. The Jews were not a progressive people. In this respect, at least, they seem, like Hamlet’s crab, to have walked backward. Most fetishes are used for divination, and Jahveh was no exception. He piloted the Jews about the wilderness, and with such extreme accuracy that it took them forty years to do a month’s journey. The priests carried him in front. When he stopped, all the people halted and pitched their tents until he chose to move on again. Sometimes he rested a couple of days, sometimes a month, and sometimes a year. Except when engaged in bloodshed, he was the laziest god that ever lived. He relished an occasional massacre, but for the rest he held with Tennyson’s lotos-eaters that “ there is no joy but calm.” Moses had to keep this drowsy deity up to the scratch with shouting. When the ark set forward, he cried, “ Rise up, Jahveh, and let thine enemies be scattered;” and when it rested he cried, “Return, O Jahveh, unto the many thousands of Israel.” God in the box was of great service to the Jews in crossing Jordan. The river was swollen witfi the spring freshet, and the question of transport was very difficult. But Jahveh was equal to the emergency. The priests marched boldly along with the ark, and when their feet touched the brim of the water, Jordan disparted, the waters that poured down from above standing up in a heap. They held Jahveh in the bed of the river until all Israel had crossed safely, after which they followed suit, and Jordan flowed on as before. ' ’ Savages frequently take their gods into battle, and so did the Jews. General Joshua found old Jahveh of immense aid in the conquest of Canaan. The priests carried him for a whole week round Jericho, which so weakened its walls that, when the Levites trumpeted and the people shouted, they fell down flat. _ There can be no doubt that the Jews relied on their fetish for victory. When the men of Ai repulsed their attack, Joshua rent his clothes and prostrated himself before the ark, where he remained for many hours, until the Lord revealed the secret of their defeat. On a previous occasion, during the lifetime of Moses, a detachment of Jews were smitten and pursued by the enemy, because they went up a hill while Jahveh staid at the bottom. When Canaan was conquered, Jahveh’s tent was set up at Shiloh, whence he was fetched to Eben-ezer in the days of Eli Whether the ark remained there all that time is an open question’ We read of a place called Bethel in the book of Judges and Bethel means the “ house of god.” ’ �134 God in a Box. The adventures of Jahveh and his box in the war with the Philistines under Eli are very lively and amusing. He appears to have been neglected by the Jews, and not without reason, for his virtue was temporarily exhausted. But after their heavy defeat by the Philistines, they resolved to fetch the ark from Shiloh, and give old Jahveh another trial. When their fetish arrived they made the earth ring with their shouts, on hearing which “the Philistines were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp/’ Being, however, a warlike race, they soon regained courage ; and they acquitted themselves so well in the next battle, that the Jews were utterly routed with the loss of thirty thousand men. The Philistines found plenty of loot, and amongst the spoil of war was old Jahveh in the box. When Eli, the aged high priest, heard that the ark had fallen into the hands of the uncircumcised, and that his two sons, its custodians, were slain, he fell off from his seat backward, and broke his neck. Poor old fellow 1 Would our Archbishop of Canter bury be affected in that way? We suspect not. He would probably go on living, and stick to his fifteen thousand a year. When Phineas’ wife, Eli’s daughter-in-law, heard the news, she was seized with sudden travail, and died after giving birth to a son. Her last words were, “The glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken.” The fetish was their pal ladium, and with it disappeared all their hopes. Being strangers to the bigotry of monotheists, the Philistines treated old Jahveh with great respect. Although a foreigner, he was still a god, and they were ready to adopt him. Savages often act in that way. Waitz tells us, in his “ Anthropology,” that the Fan tees, for instance, even “ purchase gods which have acquired a certain celebrity. The gods are put on their trial, to see whether they are more powerful than others, and if they prove themselves so, obtain preference and a higher rank above other gods.” Jahveh was taken on trial. The Philistines put him in their joss-house beside their own god Dagon. It was a dangerous ex periment, for two of a trade seldom agree. During the day Jahveh behaved himself decently, but in the night he got out of bis box and “ went for ” Dagon. Now poor Dagon was taken at a disadvantage. Being a fish-god, he hadn’t a leg to stand on, and he was soon sprawling on the floor. Jahveh then retreated into his box, where the Philistines found him placidly reposing m the morning, as though he knew as little about the night’s mischief as the heathen Chinee knew about euchre. They set Dagon up again. All went well during the day as before, but in the night old Jahveh again slipped out of his box and assaulted his rival. This time he was in deadly earnest. He broke Dagon’s head off, amputated his hands, and left nothing but the stump. In the morning the Philistines beheld this doleful spectacle, and yet the author of it all lay stone-still in his box, looking as childlike and bland as ever. �God in a Box. 135 But this did not suffice. Old Jahveh’s blood was up. He smote the men of Ashdod with emerods. The most superficial reader® of the Bible, when they remember what a lousy victory the Lord gained over the magicians of Egypt, will readily con ceive that this was a very dirty disorder. It was the bleeding piles or worse. Perhaps the sweet Psalmist had this incident in mind when he sang that the Lord “smote his enemies in the hinder-parts : he put them to a perpetual reproach.” The Ashdodians were disconcerted by this attack in the rear, and at a public meeting on the question, they decided to pass old Jahveh on to the next city. But the men of Gath fared no better, for “ they had emerods in their secret parts.” The Ekronites also had a turn, and after great suffering and loss of life, they sent old Jahveh and his box back to the Jews with their compli ments, and a peace-offering of five golden mice and five golden emerods. Parallels to this story exist in Pagan writings. Herodotus gays that Venus afflicted with “ emerods ” the Scythians who plundered her temple. Grotius relates a similar fiction as to the institution of the Phallica. When the Athenians ridiculed some images of Bacchus, the god sent them a genital disease, and to prevent its depopulating the city, they received his images with pomp, and displayed Thrysi with figures of the afflicted parts bound to them. The men of Beth-shemesh, where the ark first stopped on Jewish soil, welcomed it piously ; but they were rash enough to look into it, and their profane curiosity so enraged old JahveL. that he slew fifty thousand and seventy of them. This is a good illustration of the idea of tabu, and a signal instance of his love of butchery. They passed the ark on to Kirjathjearim, where it remained for twenty years, until David ordered its removal to Jerusalem. Its journey to the capital was, however, arrested at Nachon's threshing-floor. Just there the oxen shook the ark badly, and a man called Uzzah put forth his hand to steady it. His object was to save Jahveh from the ignominy of being tossed out in the dust. Nevertheless the fetish took it as an insult, and immediately killed poor Uzzah, either by a kind of torpedo shock or by a blow on the head. This is a further illustration of tabu. David was highly displeased with the Lord for this “ breach Upon Uzzah:” and being afraid that his turn might come next ho left the ark at the house of Obed-edom, and went to Jerusalem alone. But when he heard that it brought a blessing to its lucky guardian, he fetched it away to the capital, and put it in a brand new tent. The pious king was so overjoyed that he danced naked before the ark, and his wife rebuked him for his indecent exposure. Soon afterwards David resolved to do the Lord a good turn. Here am I, said- he, dwelling in a fine cedar house, while dear old �136 God in a Box. Jahveh lives in a tent:, it isn’t fair; I’ll build him a house. But the Lord declined the offer. No, no, said he ; don’t you go building me a new-fangled shanty : I’ve lived in a nice, airy, well-ventilated tent ever since I can remember, and I mean to go on living in one ; just mind your own business and let me bide. Yet the Lord relented in Solomon’s reign, and allowed himself to be placed in the temple, although he insisted on being supplied with exact copies of his old furniture. .When the priests opened the ark, according to the First of Kings viii.-)(>9, they found nothing inside “save the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Ho'reb.” The fetish had disap peared. Probably they had by that time grown ashamed of it; yet as religion cannot advance by too great leaps, they kept the box, called it the ark of the covenant, and treated it simply as an oracle. Many years later the box itself became an oppro brium.. The great prophet Jeremiah declared that the time would come when- “they shall say no more, the ark of the covenant of the Lord: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it: neither shall'they visit it: neither shall that be done any more.” The author of “Hebrews” does not quite agree with the book of Kings. He states, in chap, ix., 4, that irn addition to the tables of stone, the ark contained a specimen pot of that wonderful manna, and Aaron’s blooming rod. What finally became of the ark? Josephus says there was no such thing in the second temple. The apocryphal book of Maccabees states that the prophet Jeremy, being warned of God, hid it in a cave on Mount Pisgah, and sealed up the entrance, so that those who followed him could not find it; and that its resting-place is to remain “unknown until the time that God gather his people again together.” The Jews still believe it will come with the Messiah. We fervently hope he will bring the box in its original state, with Jahveh inside. Archaeologists would be delighted to examine such a famous old fetish; and if the Messiah is anything like other Jews, he will no doubt accept the handsome price which the trustees of the British Museum would gladly give for such an interesting relic of antiquity. PRICE ONE PENNY. London: Freetblought Publishing Company, 28, Stoneeutter St.,E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES.—XVIII. BULLY SAMSON. By G. W. FOOTE. -------- ♦-------- Milton’s sublime genius has invested, the story of Samson with a fictitious grandeur. He saw that it contained materials for a tragedy in the Greek style, and this plan enabled him to sub ordinate those ludicrous incidents which would have degraded a modern tragedy on the subject. The hero’s thraldom and blindness suggested his own ill fortune and loss of sight, and the final triumph over the Philistines gave him an opportunity to vindicate - himself. The real hero of “Samson Agonistes” is John Milton.' All those pathetic lamentations and noble resolves flowed from the depths of his own sorrow and courage. No trace of his tender beauty or heroic splendour can be found in the story which was the occasion and not the source of his inspiration. The Bible- story of Samson is vulgar and absurd. We can only account for it by supposing that myth and tradition were clumsily blended. Samson is nothing but a great bully, ex tremely fond of women, and always swaggering and fighting. It is also pretty clear that he was addicted to drink. He is described as a teetotaler, but a close examination of several texts shows that he was in all probability as partial to good liquor as Jack Falstaff. Would he had the fat knight’s spirit and wit I In the last verse of the third of Judges £here is mention of Shamgar, the son of Anath, who slew six hundred Philistines with an ox goad; very probably by skewering them together like cat’s-meat; and Dr. H. Oort surmises that the exploits of this hero have been woven into a solar myth, and thus made to form a new history. His conjecture is highly credible. As to the solar myth there can be no doubt. The reader will meet with abundant evidence as we proceed. But there are two facts which should be stated now. Samson’s name is never mentioned in the whole of the Jewish Scriptures outside the four chapters devoted to his career ; and this renders it probable that the legend was borrowed somewhat late,’ and incorporated into the earlier narrative. It is also remarkable that while all the other Judges fight at the head of troops, Samson combats his enemies single-handed, and slays thousands without arms. They obtain occasional assistance from heaven, but his achieve ments are all supernatural. We are first introduced to Samson in the thirteenth chapter of Judges. His father’s name was Manoah, but his mother’s name is hidden, in consequence of that perverse contempt of women which is so conspicuous in God’s Word. The good lady was un- �138 Bully Samson. fortunately barren. She expected never to have a child. But never is a long time, and the chapter of accidents is fruitful in surprises. Manoah was not the only person of the male per suasion. One day a “ man of God ” appeared on the scene when she was alone, as men of God generally do, and promised her a son. His intervention was very effectual, and in due course she produced a sturdy baby, who grew up the champion athlete of all time. How strange it is that barren wives were so often selected by the Lord to become the mothers of prodigies I Sarah was barren, and ninety before she had Isaac. Rachel was long barren before the advent of Jacob, although cross-eyed Leah was very prolific. Hannah was barren, and fretted by the taunts of her productive rival Peninnah, until the Lord sent her Samuel. And the apocryphal gospels represent Saint Ann, the grandmother of God, as twenty years barren before she gave birth to the Virgin Mary. Mrs. Manoah went home and told her husband, who besought the Lord for further information, and desired that the man of God might come again. His request was granted. The welcome visitor appeared once more to the lady in her hus band’s absence. This time she ran and fetched Manoah, to whom the announcement was repeated. They invited the stranger to dine with them, but he refused, and equally declined to tell them his name. By his advice, Manoah burnt a kid as an offering to the Lord. He “ did wondrously ” while the happy couple looked on, doubtless performing some celestial tricks ; and when the flame rose from the altar he ascended with it, and vanished from their sight. Then they knew it was an angel, and they fell on their faces, exclaiming, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God.” Now who was this visitor? From the Hebrew it appears that Mrs. Manoah addressed him as “ thou god of visibility.” The “ angel of the Lord ” is said to be equivalent to “ the Messiah.” According to the Rev. W. A. Scott, it was “the Great Judge;” Gill says it was “no other than the Son of God;” and Adam Clarke says it was “no other than the Second Person of the ever-blessed Trinity.” If these learned commentators are right, this was about the first appearance of Jesus Christ on earth. On the other hand, the visitor may have been the First Person of the ever-blessed Trinity, old Jahveh himself. This is not a wild supposition ; for he who appeared to Moses in a burning bush, showed him on another occasion his posterior, and habitu ally conversed with him face to face, might very well call on the Manoahs, who belonged to the same chosen stock. Mrs. Manoah was ordered by the stranger, whether an angel, Jesus Christ, or God Almighty, not to eat grapes, nor to drink wine or anything “short,” for the child was to be a Nazarite from the womb. No razor was to come on his head after he saw daylight, from which we infer that the fashion of that time �Bully Samson. 139 was a remarkably close crop ; and when he grew up he was to redeem Israel from the hand of the Philistines, a people who were continually oppressing the Jews, and who seem to have been preserved by the Lord for that very purpose, so that he might occasionally strike in, and as they say, “ show the strength of his muscle.” One part of this prediction is very suggestive. How could this boy be a Nazarite, when that sect was in all probability not in existence until hundreds of years after the date of the Judges ? The Nazarites were teetotalers and strict ascetics, which Samson most assuredly was not. Why then was he called a Nazarite ? Because he had long flowing hair, like all the members of that sect, who eschewed the razor and all its works as affronting the decrees of God. But his luxuriant curls have a different reason. They amounted to seven, which was a sacred number with the Jews. They were his glory, like the shining locks of Apollo ; and his strength lay in them, as is the case with all the solar gods, for that abundant hair represents the sun’s rays, which are resplendent in summer, shorn in the winter, and renewed in the spring. The very name of this miraculous child betrays his mytho logical character. Samson, or Shimshon, means sun-like accord ing to Gesenius ; their sun according to Saint Jerome ; and little sun according to Adam Clarke. Bag, or fish, gave Dagon, or fish-god; and from Shemesh, the sun, was derived Shemesh-sun or sun-god. We find the first syllable retained in many Biblical names, such as Shem, Shemuel (Samuel), Shemida, Shemiramoth, and Shemezer. The Phoenician sun-god Baal, who was notoriously worshipped by the recreant Jews, leaves similar traces in the names of the sons of Saul and David, Eshbaal, Meribaal, and Baalyadah, as preserved in Chronicles, but changed by the Rabbi compilers of Samuel into Ishbosheth, Mephibosheth, and Elyadah. There were also two places in Palestine, one in Dan and the other in Napthali, called Bethshemesh or Ir-shemesh, that is “ house of the sun ” or “ citv of the sun.” J Dr. Oort well remarks of Samson’s adventures that “a solar myth doubtless lies at the bottom of them, as we may see by the very name of the hero, which signifies sun-god. In some of the features of the story, the original meaning may still be traced quite clearly.”1 The same view is admirably expanded and supported in a disquisition on 'l The Legend of Samson,” by Professor H. Steinthal, of the University of Berlin, which forms an appendix to Goldziher’s very valuable “ Mythology of the Hebrews.” J These sun-gods are found among all peoples who have ad vanced beyond fetishism. We have Apollo in Greece, Ra in Bgypt, Surya in India, and Balder in Scandinavia. The mighty 1 “ Bible for Young People,” vol. ii., p. 226. �140 Bully Samson, orb was an object of wonder and praise, and soon personified and worshipped. Light, heat, and life sprang from the benignant god of day; and all their fluctuations were reflected in his career. Sunrise and sunset, the war of light and cloud, the fecund power of spring, the consuming heat of summer, the blighting approach of winter, were all described in his birth, battles, triumphs, defeat, death and resurrection. Samson was the Jewish Hercules, although, as Dupuis remarks, he was a poor copy. Adam Clarke, who noticed the resemblance, insinuated that Hercules was copied from Samson, an idea which every scholar would now regard as absurd. We shall find many points of likeness as we proceed- with the review of our hero’s career. How Samson’s youth was spent we do not know. The Bible says that he “ grew,” but most children do that at some rate or other. We are also informed that “ the Lord blessed him,” although not in what way. We imagine him as a boisterous lad, fond of exercising his raw strength; pulling cats’ tails, poking out dogs’ eyes, robbing orchards, thrashing his schoolfellows, stealing old men’s sticks and lame men’s crutches, making fun of females, and “cheeking” his elders. All these characteristics may be inferred from his behavior in after life. He entered the camp of Dan, it seems, while still young, and there “ the spirit of the Lord began to move him at times.” An early movement of the spirit sent him after a young woman at Timnath, a daughter of the Philistines. He returned home in sharp haste, and told the old people to go down and get her for his wife. They very properly desired him to choose a wife from his own tribe, but he cut them short. “ She just suits me,” said he, “ so you’d better fetch her at once.” This conduct was very undutiful, but then “ it was of the Lord.” On this occasion, as on every other, Samson went courting amongst aliens, in direct violation of God’s law; but as the Lord prompted him to the first offence, we presume that he is equally responsible for all that followed. Hercules slew the lion of the Nemean forest without any weapon, and Samson first displayed his prowess by slaying a young lion with “ nothing in his hand.” We are left to con jecture how the feat was performed, but religious artists have not hesitated to supplement the Bible narrative. There is one picture which represents Samson with the lion between his legs, while he wrenches open its jaws with his two hands. If that young lion’s teeth were in good order, it must have been rough work for his fingers, unless the Lord specially hardened them as he did Pharaoh’s heart. Samson kept his exploit secret and went on to his young woman. Shortly after, on passing the spot again, he found a swarm of bees and honey in the lion’s carcase. He took a couple of handfuls, of which he ate some himself, and gave the rest to his parents. The wedding was arranged, and thirty young men �Bully Samson. 141 ■came to share in the merriment. By way of killing the time, Samson propounded a riddle. If they solved it in seven days, he was to give them thirty sheets and thirty changes of raiment; if not, they were to give him the same articles. The riddle was, “ Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness.” For six days they tried to crack this hard nut, and on the seventh they threatened Mrs. Samson that if she did not worm the answer out of her husband, they would murder her and all the family. She coaxed the great bully, wept all day like a thunder-shower, and “lay sore upon him,” until at last he told her the answer, which she conveyed to his friends, who ■of course won the bet. Samson delicately taunted them with having “ ploughed with his heifer,” and then absconded, leaving his wife for his bosom friend. Being in a dreadful rage, he went to Ashkelon, and killed thirty men to cool himself down. A passage in Virgil’s fourth Georgic indicates the ancient belief that bees might be engendered in the carcase of an ox. It was, however, a mere superstition, involving a physical im possibility. Bees do not build in dead flesh, for their wax and honey would be spoiled by putrefaction, and Samson’s riddle is a riddle still. The slaying of the lion is mythological. We have already mentioned Hercules, but more remains. The Assyrians and Lydians, Semitic nations like the Jews, worshipped a sun-god named Sandan or Sandon, who was also a lion killer. The lion is found as the animal of Apollo on the Lycian monuments as well as at Patara. “ Hence,” says Steinthal, “ it becomes clear that the lion was accepted by the Semitic nations as a symbol of the summer heat............. ‘ Samson, Hercules, or Sandon, kills the lion ’ means therefore ‘ He is the beneficent saving power that protects the earth against the burning heat of summer.’ Samson is the kind Aristaeos who delivers the Island of Keos from the lion, the protector of bees and hives of honey, which is most abundant when the sun is in the lion.” Having satiated his anger, Samson remembered the young woman at Timnath, and at harvest time he went down with a nice present. Like the rude lover in Voltaire’s “L’lngenu,” he walked to her bedroom, but her father barred his way. “No, no,” said he, “that little game won’t do now, Samson ; the girl’s another man’s wife, so hands off ; yet there’s her sister, a fine handsome girl, and you can have her if you like.” Samson said he would see him in Hades first, and bolted in a tempest of passion. He caught three hundred foxes, tied them in pairs tail to tail, stuck firebrands between their rumps, and sent them into the standing corn of the Philistines. Terrible destruction en sued, and the enraged Philistines burnt the young woman of Timnath and her father to death. Samson must have been a dexterous sportsman to catch three hundred foxes. Some commentators try to evade the difficulty ■by maintaining that the word staaKm means handfuls or sheaves �142 Bully Samson. of corn, instead of jackals or foxes ; but the word rendered as caught never means simply to get, but always to seize by strata gem. We learn from Ovid’s “Fasti” that it was a Roman custom in April to let loose a number of foxes in the circus with lighted flambeaux on their backs ; and the people took pleasure in seeing the poor animals run about until they were roasted by the flames. Dr. Oort considers the whole episode as mythical, and states that “in the reddish-brown jackals, with torches between their tails, we easily recognise the lurid thunder-cloud, from the projecting points of which the lightning-flashes seem to dart.” In any case Samson’s feat is incredible. He must have been as wily as the Devil to catch so many foxes, and three hundred could not be collected without attracting atten tion. Nor could they make much progress if the couples were fairly matched, and pulled in opposite directions. Our opinion is that Samson could have burnt down all the Philistines’ corn in less time than it takes to catch one fox ; but, on the other hand, if he had acted like a sensible man, he would not have been Samson. After smiting the Philistines hip and thigh, Samson retreated to the rocky fastness of Etam, although it is strange that so irre sistible a warrior should hide himself from his enemies. His own people sided with the Philistines, and he grimly allowed himself to be bound with new ropes, and delivered up to the foe. But as they shouted he broke through his bonds like tinder, and went for them with the jawbone of a jackass that happened to be lying about. When he stopped slashing, a thousand corpses were piled in heaps. Those Philistines must have been jackasses too. They must have stood and waited their turns. Why did they not skedaddle, and leave Samson to cut slices out of the air ? According to Herodotus, Hercules had a similar adventure in ■®gypt> where the inhabitants took him to offer as a sacrifice to Jupiter. For awhile he submitted quietly, but when they led him up to the altar, he put forth his strength and slew them all. The charming old raconteur points out, however, that the Egyp tians were not guilty of human sacrifices. Samson was dreadfully thirsty after completing his tally of victims, and being ready to die, he called on the Lord, who clave a hollow in the jawbone and brought water from it. One com mentator suggests that the socket of a tooth became a well. What a monstrous ass ! Hercules was favored with a similar miracle. After slaying the dragon of the Hesperides, he was in danger of perishing with thirst in the scorching deserts of Libya, but the gods caused a fountain to issue from a rock which he struck with his foot. Dr., Oort considers the jawbone and the spring as mythical; the former being the jagged thunder-cloud, from which the lightning shoots, while the latter is the rain that pours out of it as the sun-god triumphs. �Bully Samson. 143 This tremendous massacre of Philistines appears to have gained Samson the Judgeship of Israel, which he held for twenty years. Such a strong fellow no doubt found very few who dared to disobey him. With Samson it was a word and a blow, and no one that felt his fist once ever lived to feel it twice. His next exploit was that of a perfect bully. He went down to Gaza for a spree, intending to stay all night at a brothel. While he sported with his harlot the Gazites heard the news, and they laid in wait for him, so as to kill him in the morning. But they were woefully disappointed, for at midnight Samson grew restless, and wanted to stretch himself. He sallied out, pro bably without paying his score, lugged off the gates of the city on his shoulders, and carried them up to the top of a hill. How they got them back is a knotty question. Perhaps they induced Samson to convey them back, and in return settled his account with “ the harlot.” His next amour, for like the pagan Hercules he had many, was with Delilah. She dwelt in Nachal Sorek, that is, the Vine Valley. This may be a mythical trait, representing the zealous wooing of the vine by the sun-god ; or it may imply that Samson was anything but a Nazarite. The word Delilah, according to Ewald, means traitress; but the generally accepted meaning is languid, delicate, triste. Great bullies are usually enamoured of frail little women. As Omphale befooled Hercules, so Delilah befooled Samson. Milton treats her as his wife, yet it is pretty clear that she was a professional beauty. The Philistines offered her eleven hundred pieces of silver to find out and reveal the secret of Samson’s strength. He tricked her thrice, but the fourth time she had him. He told her that his strength lay in his hair, and that if it were shaven he would become as weak as another man. She made him “ sleep upon her knees ” a sleep so profound that it was probably the result of drunkenness and exhaustion; called in a barber, who shaved off his seven locks and left him bald as a plate; and then handed him over to the Philistines, who bound him with brass fetters, put out his eyes, and made him grind in their prison house. But Samson’s turn was coming. His death was to be more marvellous than his life. In the fifth act of the play he was to make positively his last appearance, to eclipse all his previous efforts, and literally bring down the house. The Philistine lords arranged for a public holiday to celebrate Samson’s capture, and to honor their god Dagon for delivering him into their hands. When their hearts were merry, they called for Samson to make them sport, from which it would appear that they had turned him into a kind of clown. They should have been more careful, for Samson’s hair had begun to grow again, and his p ite “ showed like a stubble land at harvest home.” Why did they not keep a barber to give him a clean shave every morning ? Very dearly did they pay for their negli- �144 Bully Samson. gence. Samson got his keeper to let him lean for rest against the two middle pillars that supported the great roof of the temple, on which there were about three thousand men and women. Then he clasped the pillars with either hand, prayed the Lord to let him avenge himself on the Philistines for the loss of his eyes, bowed himself with all his might, and brought down the whole structure in shapeless ruin. Thus Bully Samson sank, terrible in death, surrounded by great heaps of slain enemies. His people searched out his corpse, and buried it in the family vault. Samson’s suicide is capable of a mythic interpretation. Her cules also destroyed himself by burning, but arose out of the flames to Olympus. “The sun-god,” observes Steinthal, “in fighting against the summer heat is fighting against himself; if he kills it, he kills himself.” The Phoenicians, Assyrians and Lydians attributed suicide to their sun-gods, for only thus could they understand the sun’s mitigation of its own heat. Yet they did not suppose that the god actually died, but only that he renewed himself like the Phoenix. In this respect the story of Samson seems to lack a fitting conclusion ; but it must be re membered that the Rabbis did not intend it to be regarded as a solar myth, that it contains a mixture of elements, and that, as Ewald holds, the present version was probably based on an earlier work. Bully Samson’s history has not a single redeeming feature. He judged Israel for twenty years, but that post did not require much virtue, and it was often occupied by sturdy rogues. Adam Clarke admits that “ if we regard what is called the choice of Hercules, his preference of virtue to pleasure, we shall find that the heathen is, morally speaking, vastly superior.” Yet this learned commentator elsewhere says that “a parallel has often been drawn between Samson and our blessed Lord, of whom he has been supposed to be a most illustrious type.” This brings the Prophet of Nazareth very low indeed, and classes him with the gutter-crowd of Bible worthies. Jesus Christ was not, in our opinion, so transcendently good and wise and great as his followers assert; but he certainly deserves to be rescued from the critical violence of Doctor Adam Clarke. He in nowise resembles the mythical Jewish hero, who drank, spreed, raked, fought, and murdered wholesale. It would be more truthful to say that he is an “ illustrious type ” of God the Father, for there is a most remarkable resemblance between the characters of Jehovah and Samson. Old Jahveh is the head of the house, but Bully Samson is a cadet of the family and shares the blood. PRICE ONE PENNY. London: Fkeethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES—XIX. GOSPEL GHOSTS. By G. W. FOOTE. --------- ♦--------- The belief la ghosts is rapidly dying out. They are scarcely ever heard of in towns, except in a forlorn condition at Spiritist Seances, where they are at the beck and call of professional mediums, and reduced to playing tricks for their sport and profit. Most surviving ghosts lurk about villages and lonely homesteads. The reason of this is obvious. Life and society quicken the intellect in towns, while the quiet and solitude of the country stimulate the imagination. And ghosts are entirely a matter of fancy. Like miracles they depend on faith. If you believe in them you you may see them ; if you do not you never will. The superstitious man might behold one in a dimly-lighted room, but a sceptic would sot perceive one in a dark churchyard. Ghosts are pure illusions. They are literally, to use a slang phrase, “ all my eye.” Yet the Bible abounds with these phantasms. They are of Various kinds, from little spectres to the great Ghost, commonly called Holy, who himself appears in a variety of forms. Such a feet is, however, not surprising when we consider that God s Word is full of the grossest superstitions. Its very author, when he came on earth in the person of Jesus Christ, actually thought that mad people had devils in them, and were to be cured by the exorcist instead of the doctor. Nothing unscientific or absurd need therefore surprise us in his writings. We ought rather, in read ing them, to be thankful for the smallest mercies in the shape of knowledge and common sense. Gospel Ghosts are the subject of this Romance, but I cannot treat them without some preliminary words on those of the Old Testament. We are very early introduced to one of these. The second verse of Genesis says that “ the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” But as there were no eyes to view this ocean traveller, the very fish not being then in existence, we have no notion of its form or feature. All we can say is that it was the loneliest ghost on record, with the most miserable occupation. It was worse off than Noah, for although he sailed the seas for twelve months without sight of land, and must have been heartily «ick of so much water, it is not unreasonable to suppose that he had a drop of “ something short ” inside his floating menagerie ; especially when we reflect that the first thing he did after the Flood, directly he had offered his burnt offering to the Lord, was to get dead drunk, which seems to show his ardent love of the cratur. The next ^host was “ the Lord God,” whom Adam and Eve heard “ walking in the garden in the cool of the day.” Scripture �146 I “l ill I Gospel Ghosts. states that they heard his voice, so he was probably holding a conversation with himself, as persons of weak intellect often do. This is quite in keeping with the sequel, which displays him in a dreadful passion at occurences which anyone but a fool would have naturally expected. Yet this ghost is, in a manner, an advance on the first, having passed, as Herbert Spencer would say, from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous state, from the simple to the complex. The “ Spirit of the Lord ” appears to have been a gaseous body, if I may so speak of a ghost; but the “ Lord God ” has a voice and a walking apparatus, and is therefore organic, I wonder how long this process of development took. The ghostly biologist who answers that question will settle a puzzling problem in chronology, namely, the interval of time between “ in the beginning ” and the creation of Adam. After the Flood, and until the Jews settled down in Palestine, the Lord frequently appeared again. He visited Abraham several times, and on one occasion stopped to dinner. Two of his angels, or himself divided into two, called on Lot at Sodom, and put up with him for the night. He met Jacob near Jabbok brook and held a wrestling match with him, in which, after many hours’ rough sport, he was at last defeated, although he dislocated his adversary’s thigh. Moses saw him in a burning bush, in a public house, and up a mountain, where he spent forty days with him and had a panoramic view of his “ afterwards.” Altogether Jahveli was a pretty busy ghost, until he found it more respectable and prudent to cultivate a retiring disposition. Lastly, there were many angelic ghosts in the Old Testament who played various parts, such as heavenly messsengers, pro misers of children to barren wives, (these were doubtless young and good-looking), lying prophets, and wholesale murderers. But the most remarkable angels were those sons of God who saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and who were appa rently the progenitors of a mongrel race of giants. It has, how ever, been suggested that this narrative was written by a subtle satirist who sailed as close to the wind as he could; that these sons of God were priests, a class always fond of the fair sex; and that the mongrel offspring wrere the bastard children they pro created. The first Bible ghost, in the more modern sense of the word, is that of the prophet Samuel, who was raised by the witch of Endor. This old lady kept a “ familiar spirit,” and no doubt a bristly tom-cat. Her trade was summoning ghosts in the dead of night. She was one of the survivors of a numerous tribe of witches and wizards whom Saul had rooted out of the land in his vigorous and sensible reign ; but in his decline, when the priests and conjurers were all against him, and he was himself troubled with fits of melancholy and superstition, he paid this old Hecate a visit. Apparently ashamed of his weakness, he went in disguise, and asked her to bring up Samuel. There was much haggling before she would begin the performance, for according to the �Gospel Ghosts. 147 law her life was in danger, but at last she brought the old fellow up. Probably as business had been dull of late, she had grown unused to ghosts ; at any rate, when she saw Samuel she screamed, and fancied she saw streams of spectres issuing from the ground. Samuel wore a mantle, so there are clothes in the spirit world, as the Spiritists of to-day aver, although some of their lady mediums have been detected playing the ghost themselves with devilish little on. Samuel’s ghost spoke, and all other ghosts indulge more or less in the same diversion. They generally talk utter nonsense, although Samuel’s language was rather wicked than absurd. I should like to know what sort of voice he had. Superstition generally ascribes to ghosts the ghost of a voice. Savages describe the spirit-voice as a chirp or murmur, and the classic descriptions of Homer and Ovid are very similar. Shakespeare makes the King’s ghost in Hamlet speak monotonous lines which we naturally associate with subdued accents; and the low mysterious tone is still affected by the “ familiar spirits ” of modern mediums. A screaming ghost would be a screaming farce. Those who wish to find the explanation of this and many other facts of Animism should consult Mr. E. B. Tylor’s magnificent work on “Primitive Culture.” Now let us make a leap to the time of Elijah, who played an extraordinary trick with a ghost. He was lodging with a widow at Zarephath, and living on her miraculous barrel of meal and cruse of oil, which never failed, but gave forth perennial supplies of pancakes. This fortunate lady’s boy fell ill and died, and she reproached the prophet with being the cause of her loss. He in turn gave the Lord a lecture on the subject, and asked what he meant by slaying the poor woman’s son. Then Elijah carried the little corpse up into the garret he occupied rent free, laid it on his bed, “ stretched himself upon the child three times.” and besought the Lord to let its soul come back. His prayer was heard, the third stretch was lucky, “ the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.” Curiously there is a similar feat recorded of Elisha, who inherited Elijah’s mantle, and pro bably all the rest of his paraphernalia. His hostess, however, was not a widow but a wife. Her husband was old, and she had no child when Elisha first came to their house, but that little defect was soon remedied. She had a son and heir, who grew big enough to carry his father’s dinner to the reaping field, where alas ! he was killed by a sunstroke. Elisha operated on the corpse as Elijah had done before him. He stretched himself on the child, mouth on mouth, eyes on eyes, and hands on hands, gave it a good warming, and then went downstairs to get up the steam again, perhaps over a bottle of inspiration. Being well primed, he ascended and gave the corpse another middle. This effort was crowned with complete success. The child’s soul returned, he sneezed seven times, and opened his eyes, no doubt, thinking Elisha had been giving him snuff. �148 Gospel Ghosts. What a fine example of barbaric superstition I Among savages, such as the ancient Jews undoubtedly were, it is a common belief that the soul leaves the body when a man faints or dies, and may sometimes be brought back by calling on it; and thus, says Tylor, “ the bringing back of lost souls becomes a regular part of the sorcerer s or priest's professions." Elijah and Elisha seem to have both been in this line of business, and these two cases may have been recorded merely as specimens of their skill. And how interesting and instructive is that incident of the child sneezing seven times ! The breath and the soul were the same thing, and both passed through the nose. God breathed into Adam’s nostrils the breath of life. At the Flood all in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. Jacob, as Tylor says, prayed that man’s soul might not thenceforth depart from his body when he sneezed. It has been a general custom to utter a pious ejaculation on sneezing; and when, after a good sneeze Christians say “God bless me !” they are unconsciously performing an ancient religious rite. Sternutation is widely associated with demoniacal possession. The idea appears among peoples so diverse as the Hindus, the Persians, the Kelts, the Kaffirs, and the Jews, not to mention a number of other races. The Messalians, an heretical sect, used to spit and blow their noses to expel the (lemons they might have drawn in with their breath. There are pictures of mediaeval exorcists driving out devils through the patients’ nostrils; and centuries earlier Josephus told of his seeing a certain Jew, named Eleazar, cure demoniacs by drawing the demons out through the same channel. Yes, the nose is as prominent in religious history as it is on our faces, and its intimate connection with the soul may explain why the priests have always led us by this particular organ. Elisha s bones, although they could not resuscitate themselves, had the power of reviving others. A corpse dropped hurriedly into his sepulchre stood up alive and kicking. Ezekiel saw a whole valley of dry bones start into life again. Probably the old ghosts were ready to resume their bodies at a very short notice, for they were supposed to haunt the place of their burial. Quite another kind of ghost was the one that passed before the face of Eliphaz in the dead of night and made the “ hair of his flesh ” stand up like quills upon the fretful porcupine. Unfortunately we have no description of it; yet, as it preached a long sermom, we may conjecture that it was the ghost of a parson looking out fo<’ a fresh pulpit. * This preliminary dissertation on the apparitions of the Old Testament has proved longer than I expected ; but it is necessary to my purpose, and it will enable the reader to understand the Gospe Ghosts. Jesus Christ himself was considered a ghost by some of the early heretics. They could not conceive that Deity was born of a woman, ate, drank, and slept, and suffered an ignominious death ; so they held that the Messiah was not a being of flesh and blood, but a phantasm. There is something to be said for this opinion �Gospel Ghosts. 149 for the same Jesus who was crucified and buried ascended into heaven ; and does not St. Paul say that “ flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God ?” But on the other hand there are the very plain unequivocal words which Luke puts into the mouth of Jesus on his appearence to the eleven, “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. ’ This seems decisive. Yet those fastidious heretics may be met half way, for if Jesus was not a ghost, he was the son of a ghost. With the exception of those spirits Jesus was in the habit of casting out from people who never possessed them, a sprightly variety of which he sent into the Gadarean swine, the first authentic ghost he took in hand was that of Jairus's daughter. Some critics, among whom is Olshausen, throw doubt on this how ever. When Jesus came to raise the girl from the dead, in other words to call her ghost back, he said “ the maid is not dead, but sleepeth.” Those critics take this language literally, and assert that it was not a case of resurrection at all. When the doctors differ who shall decide? No doubt this is a very important ■question, but somehow the world is quite content to leave it unsettled, even though it remain open till the day of judgment. Matthew, Mark and Luke narrate this story, but John does not. Mark and Luke both say that Jesus, after restoring the maid to her friends, charged them that they should tell no man, while Matthew says that “ the fame hereof went abroad into all that land.” This is a good illustration of Gospel Harmony. Yet it is fair to say that the different stories may be reconciled by ■supposing that Jesus told a white lie. He might have asked them to keep the miracle a secret, in order to get it well published. Jesus raised up more than one person from the dead, as indeed was to be expected, for Rabbi Acha in the Talmud only expressed the general belief when he said that “ in the Messianic time God will wake the dead, as he did before by Elijah, Elisha and Ezekiel.” The second case was that of the widow's son at Nain. Jesus resuscitated him publicly before “ much people ” as he was being carried to the grave. Of course the young man, like the young maid, was never heard of again; and although the “ rumor went forth through all Judaea,” it never reached the ears of Matthew, Mark and John. Josephus did not hear of it, nor even Paul, for he told Agrippa that Christ was the first that rose from the dead, and in Corinthians (xv, 20) he calls him “ the firstfruits of them that slept.” For any useful result, or any conviction it produced, this miracle was as barren as the figtree. Philostratus relates a similar story of Apollonius of Tyana, who met one day in the streets of Rome a damsel carried out to burial, followed by her betrothed, and by a weeping company. He bade them set down the bier, saying he would staunch their tears; and having enquired her name, whispered something in her ear, and then, taking her by the hand, he lifted her up, and she began straightway to speak, and returned to her father s house. This story is quite as beautiful as Luke's, and probably quite as true. �150 Gospel Ghosts. Professor Rhys. Davids and other Buddhist scholars narrate it with slight varia tions, but it is more finely rendered by Mr. Edwin Arnold in his noble poem “ The Light of Asia.” A young mother brings theMaster her dying child, bitten by a poisonous snake, and implores, his aid. Gazing at her with his gentle eyes, and laying on her his patient hand, he says that there is one thing which might heal her grief and the boy’s wound, if she could find it; a black mustard-seed, taken from a house where no father, mother, child or slave has died. But she seeks it in vain, for although those of whom she begs kindly offer her the seed, she cannot take it, because every house bears the taint of death ; and she returns tothe pitiful wise Master with the sad news. A far more beautiful story is told of Buddha. “ My sister! thou hast found,” the Master said, “ Searching for what none finds—that bitter balm I had to give thee. He thou lovedst slept Dead on thy bosom yesterday : to-day Thou know’st the whole wide world weeps with thy woe: The grief which all hearts share grows less for one. Lo ! I would pour my blood if I could stay Thy tears and win the secret of that curse Which makes sweet love our anguish, and which drives— O’er flowers and pastures to the sacrifice— As these dumb beasts are driven—-men their lords. I seek that secret bury thou thy child. How pathetic, yet how sane! How far above Luke’s story of' Christ, which teaches no lesson and touches no eternal problem ! Yet Buddha was a “ heathen moralist,” who lived centuries before Christ was born. Luke claims to have had “ perfect understanding of all things from the very first,” and he certainly beats the other evangelists in his account of the ruler’s daughter. Yet he yields to reporter John in the case of Lazarus; in fact, John, beats all three of his rivals hollow, for while he hunts up all the details of the gentleman's resurrection, they never once get on, the scent. Lazarus was loved by Jesus; he lived and died, rose from the tomb, and lived and died again, unless he is still roam ing the earth; yet Matthew, Mark and Luke never heard of him.. What makes this ignorance still more striking is that John repre sents the raising of Lazarus as the fact which provoked the resent ment of the chief priests and Pharisees, and led to the crucifixion of Christ. Jesus knew that his friend Lazarus lay dying, but would not save his life, because he meant to work a bigger miracle. When he arrived at Bethany, Martha and Mary were surrounded with sympathetic friends, and weeping over their brother’s grave. Thescene was so affecting that “ Jesus wept ” too, although he knew,, which they did not, that in less than a minute Lazarus would be restored to life. Jesus is called “ the man of sorrows,” and not without cause, for he could pipe his optics on the smallest provo cation. �Gospel Ghosts. 151 Lazarus had been dead four days, and his flesh was rather high. Martha said “he stinketh ” ; and St. Ambrose wrote that the smell was like Egyptian darkness, so thick that it could be felt. But Jesus, being the son of Jahveh, and used to the sickly odor ■of burnt offerings, was not deterred by such a trifle. Approaching the tomb, he first asked his celestial parent to back him up, and then shouted “ Lazarus, come forth!” Whereupon the corpse started up all alive, but not kicking, for it was bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and must have looked remarkably like a bale of bacon. Lazarus was soon unpacked, and then he walked away into infinite space, for he was never heard of afterwards. Many people saw this miracle, but it was not mentioned at the trial of Jesus before Pilate. What a strange omission 1 If Lazarus had been produced in court, with the witnesses of his resurrection, is it likely that Pilate would have sentenced Jesus to death ? Or, if the chief priests and Pharisees believed in the miracle, would they have tried to kill one who had proved him self the master of Death ? Why did Jesus shout “Lazarus, come forth”? Would not a whisper have done as well ? There is a theatrical air about the whole performance. Renan suggests that it was all a trick, got up between Lazarus and Jesus, when the latter’s head was turned and his conscience perverted by the Messianic delusion. Dr. Davidson saves the credit of his Savior by impeaching John’s accuracy, and charging him with “ converting the Lazarus of the parable in Luke into a historical person.” Keim also holds that “ not a doubt can remain of the spuriousness of the whole story.” A host of Biblical critics agree with this view, including Schenkel Strauss, Baur, Weisse and Hilgenfeld. What became of Lazarus after his resurrection ? Scripture is silent, but tradition says he became Bishop of Marseilles, which is no doubt as true as that he wrote the wrote the “ Marseillaise.” Epiphanius relates that he lived thirty years after his “ second birth.” What a pity he did not occupy some of that time in writing his autobiography 1 The history of the four days he spent God knows where would have been the best bit of literary property in the market. There is a tradition that the first thinoLazarus asked on coming to, was whether he should die aoaimand on being told “ Yes,” he never smiled more. Had he 'then’ like Jesus a little later, spent those four days in Hell ? Or had he been to Heaven, and finding it dismally monotonous, as Revelation depicts, was he terrified at the thought of returning, and dwelling for ever with what Heine called “ all the menagerie of the Apocalypse ” ? Robert Browning has brought great learn ing and subtlety to bear on this subject, in his Epistle of Karshish the Arab Physician, but of course he is a poet and not a theologian. Jesus Christ's ghost will be dealt with in my next Romance which I shall devote entirely to his resurrection and ascension.’ I conclude this one with a few words on the great ghost, the �152 Gospel Ghosts. ghost of ghosts, the Holy Ghost. Let us, dear reader, approach this mystical spirit with fear and trembling; for blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is a sin that will never be forgiven us in this world or the next. It leads as surely to the pit as jumping from the gallery of a theatre ; and is all the more to be dreaded because nobody knows exactly what it is. Men have speculated whether this being should be called he she, or it. But the incidents treated in my Romance of “A Virgin Mother ” decisively settle that question. Mary “ was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” What shape the heavenly father of Jesus took when he visited Joseph s young woman is a moot point. Protestant writers shirk the subject, but Catholics go in for the dove or the pigeon. They ridicule the pagan story of Jove’s making love to Leda in the form of a swan, and becoming the father of Castor and Pollux. But what difference is there between these two myths except in the size of the bird ? Yet to laugh at the one is legitimate fun, while to laugh at the other is unpardonable sin. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost depends on a mere point in ornithology. There is no doubt as to the Holy Ghost's form on his next appearance. When Jesus was baptised “ he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.” This is Matthew's account. Luke goes farther. He writes as though all the bystanders witnessed the marvel as well as Jesus, “ The heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove.” Fancy such an avatar occurring to day, and some pious sportsman taking a pot shot at the sacred bird, and eating the Holy Ghost for supper. Fortunately the age of miracles is past, and we need not fear such a catastrophe. The last appearance of the Holy Ghost was on that famous day of Pentecost, when he came in the form of tongues of fire on the heads of the twelve apostles. The effect of this visitation was singular : they all began to jabber strange tongues. Some of the auditors thought they were filled with the spirit, and others said they were drunk. A similar diversity of opinion haj obtained since. Many men have been “ filled with the Holy Ghost,” like those captains of the first Salvation Army, have talked with strange tongues, have seen visions and dreamed dreams ; and while some people have thought them inspired, others have thought them delirious. This latter class have ever, as in the Acts, been stigmatised as “ mockers,” but their number is rapidly increasing in this age of science and common-sense. They have always had the laugh on their side, and now the world is coming over too. A mighty roar of laughter is shaking the realms of superstition, flutteringall the ghosts, warning them to melt into thin air, and “ like the baseless fabric of a vision faded, leave not a wrack behind.” PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by Ramsey and Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES—XX. A RISING GOD. By G. W. FOOTE. -------- ♦------We now approach the Romance of the Resurrection and the strange exploits of the famous Jerusalem ghost. Singular as it. may appear, the “ greatest religion in the world ” is founded on the history of this phantom. For eighteen centuries it has rested the eternal welfare of mankind on a fable. Ever since St. Paul wrote “If Christ be not risen then is our preaching vain,” Christianity has staked everything on a mythical story, no more respectable than that of the Cock Lane ghost. The wild delu sions of an hysterical woman, communicated to a multitude of others by a well known process of infusion, originated that Gospel of the Resurrection which is described as the Christian’s support in life and consolation in death, and without which none of us should see salvation. In the previous Romance of “ Gospel Ghosts ” I prepared the ground for this, and considerable space was devoted to the Old Testament ghosts because their treatment was essential to my purpose. My readers can now estimate the statements of Canon Westcott on this subject, and see through his sophistries. In his “ Gospel of the Resurrection ” he contends that Christ s disciples were not likely to have been deceived, because “there was no popular belief at the time which could have inspired them with a faith in an imaginary Resurrection.” This writer presumes on his readers’ ignorance. The resurrection of the dead was a. primary doctrine of the Pharisees, and distinguished them from the Sadducees. These parties were the two great religious divisions of Judaism, the former representing popular Dissent and the latter the orthodox State Church. When Paul stood before the Sanhedrim, and was in danger for reviling the high priest Ananias, he dexterously availed himself of their jealousy by crying, “ I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee : of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” This; clever evasion set them by the ears at once, and “there arose a dissension.” On a former occasion the Pharisees cornered Jesus with a puzzle that turned on their favorite doctrine.; they asked him whose wife a woman seven times married would be at the resurrection. Canon Westcott’s statement is thus belied by his own Scripture. And it is further belied by history, for the sect, of Essenes, to which Jesus himself probably belonged, joined with the Pharisees in their opposition to the Mosaic doctrine of the Sadducees, and their acceptance of the belief in a future life.. We have also seen that the raising of persons from the dead was-, not uncommon in the days of the prophets, that Jesus several �154 A Rising God. times performed the same feat, and that the Jews fully expected the Messiah to revive corpses after the manner of Elijah. The learned Canon merely alludes to these significant facts, -and then tries to nullify them by arguing that “ the belief in the resuscitation of the dead to the vicissitudes of ordinary life would indispose for the belief in a rising to a life wholly new in kind and issue.” Perhaps so, but what new feature was there in the story of Christ’s resurrection ? It is beyond all dispute that he was believed to have risen in the body. Beyond a certain capacity for mysteriously appearing and vanishing, and floating •through closed doors, he displayed all the characteristics of a human being. He walked, talked and dined; and when the -apostles imagined him a spirit, he repudiated the idea, and invited them to feel his muscle. True, he ascended into heaven before their eyes, but it was in a bodily form; and they were ■quite prepared to see him levitate, for Enoch and Elijah had gone aloft in that way, and could the Messiah do any less ? The idea of a lost leader’s return is not novel. Witness the legends of Arthur, Arminius, Barbarossa, and Napoleon. Even Nero, as Suetonius relates, was expected to come again and resume his throne. And to this day the crazy Southcotians believe that their Joanna will revisit the earth. But perhaps the most signal parallel to the apostles’ frame of mind is to be found in the story of Omar, who, when the report of Mohammed’s death was brought, drew his scimitar, and swore he would kill the wretch who dared to say that the prophet of Allah could die. Let it not be said that it was impossible for a legend concern ing Jesus to grow up during the lifetime of his disciples. Light foot well says that the Jews were perhaps the most superstitious people that ever lived. With equal truth Iienan asserts that “ Palestine was one of the countries most in arrear in the science ■ of the day; the Cali beans were the most ignorant of all the inhabitants of Palestine, and the disciples of Jesus might be leckoned among the most stupid Galilseans.” There was nothing too. extravagant for their credulity. Sixteen centuries later a similar legend to that of Jesus Christ arose among the followers ■of one of his compatriots. Sabbathai Sevi, in 1666, proclaimed himself the Messiah, and attracted a crowd of disciples. Being seized by the Sultan, who would not tolerate his vagaries, he had to face the grim alternative of making a summary exit from this world or becoming a Mussulman. He preferred conversion to ■execution, and lived until 1676, when he succumbed to a colic instead of the bowstring. “ It might have been expected,” says Milman, “ that his sect, if it survived his apostacy, at least would have expired with his death ; but there is no calculating the ■obstinacy of human credulity: his followers gave out that he was transported to heaven like Enoch and Elijah ; and notwithstand ing the constant and active opposition of the Jewish priesthood, the sect spread in all quarters.” Now if, in the seventeenth cen tury, such a legend could arise respecting a man -who publicly �A Rising God. 155 apostatised, and who, instead of suffering martyrdom, died of flatulence ; how much more easily, in the first century, might a similar legend gather round the memory of a nobler character, whose tragic end is one of the most pathetic episodes in human history. Having in another volume admitted that our four gospels can not be traced back farther than the second half of the second eentury, Canon Westcott is obliged to make much of the earlier epistles of St. Paul. The First of Corinthians is universally allowed to be authentic, and in the fifteenth chapter the great apostle gives his “testimony to Christ’s resurrection.” Paul writes that “ he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures : And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve : After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once ; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen of James ; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also’ as of one born out of due time.” There is no idealism about this, says the learned Canon; it is purely historic. He then arbitrarily fixes the date of Paul’s conversion at “ ten years after the Lord’s death,” and concludes that we have the unimpeachable witness of a contemporary. What marvellous logic! What astounding ignorance of the laws of evidence ! Paul was not an actual witness of the Resurrection; and as. there is not the slightest evidence that he ever saw Jesus in the flesh, how could he recognise his apparition ? For ten years after the crucifixion Paul disbelieved the story of the risen Christ, and persecuted those who embraced it. He was not a dolt, but a man of sharp, inquiring intellect; and surely he examined the story before he rejected it. Investigation and argument never convinced him of its truth ; it required a miracleio persuade him. And even that is open to doubt, for there are many who hold that he was converted by a sunstroke. On the road to Damascus, where he intended to ferret out the Christians, “ suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven T and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ?” This was not a case of sun stroke, say the apologists, for the narrative states that “ the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.” But Paul himself, in relating the adventure (Acts xxii., 9), says that they “ saw indeed the light, and were afraid ; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.” On the whole it is clear that he only heard the voice, while neither he nor they beheld any apparition. It was clearly a case of sun stroke attended with hallucination. Paul may be pardoned for yielding to delusions at a time of intense excitement, but there ©an be no excuse for the Christian apologists who share them in ©old blood. Paid obviously considers this “ appearance B of Christ of the same kind as the others. He made no distinction between sub- �156 A Rising God. jective and objective experiences. Of what value, then, is his testimony ? And how can he stand sponsor for the other witnesses he enumerates but does not produce ? Who were the “ five hundred brethen ” that saw the risen Christ? Why did not Paul record their evidence fully? Why were not the survivors brought before a responsible committee, and their examinations taken down and preserved ? And how did there happen to be “five hundred brethren” assembled in one place, when the disciples, immediately after the Ascension “ together were about an hundred and twenty ” ? Did Jesus descend again from heaven, and give another farewell perform ance, positively for the last time ? Now let us come to the four gospels. These were not in existence until long after Jesus and all his disciples had mouldered to dust. They are not contemporary witness, but the voice of tradition, put into a literary form by unknown writers. As might be expected, they agree considerably as to the sayings of Jesus, but differ widely as to his doings; and their disagreement is naturally greatest with respect to the supernatural portions of his history. Matthew states that at the crucifixion there was darkness over all the land for three hours. Luke says it extended “ over all the earth.” Mark and John never heard of it, nor did Josephus, who was also a Jew. It also escaped the notice of every profane historian. Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus and Plutarch do not mention this extraordinary occurrence, although two of them carefully recorded prodigies and wonders. Matthew also states that the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. Luke of course agrees, and Mark and John are again silent. An earthquake is introduced to account for this rent, but how could an earthquake tear a soft, flexible substance without throwing down the solid structure to which it was attached ? Matthew further alleges that this capricious earthquake opened the graves, and that many of the sleeping saints arose and strolled into Jerusalem. Mark and John are again silent. Even Luke throws up the sponge, and leaves Matthew in possession of the field. Earthquakes were cheap enough in that superstitious age, and ghosts were as plentiful as blackberries. No wonder the Christians borrowed a few for their Savior's death. How could they do less, when as much was done for Pagan kings and emperors ? Shakespeare, who let nothing slip, notices how “ In the most high and palmy state of Rome, A little ere the mighty Julius fell, The graves stood tenantless and the sheeted dead Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets.” Why are not the prodigies related of the death of Caesar as cred ible as those related of the death of Christ ? Matthew’s use of the word “ saints ” in this story is very singular. As they died before Jesus, they were not redeemed �A Rising God. 157 by his precious blood. Perhaps it is true, as Irenaeus asserts, that Jesus lived till fifty ; and thus a crowd of disciples might have gone to their graves before he gave up the ghost. And what became of the “ saints ” after their resurrection? Why did aot Paul produce a few of them instead of vaguely alluding to those “ five hundred brethren ” ? According to Eusebius, Quadratus presented an apology to the Emperor Hadrian about A.D. 120, in which he asserted that some of them were still surviving ! Many of the biggest lies on record were told by those early Christians ; and if the Devil is the father of liars as well as lies, they have a good claim to be considered his eldest children. In what condition did the “ saints ” arise ? Were they stinking like Lazarus ? They were not spirits, but resuscitated bodies. Did they return home “ like ghosts to trouble joy,” as the Lotos Eaters say in Tennyson’s poem ? Surely there must have been great confusion. The late Mr. Solomons probably found Mrs. Solomons married again to Mr. Isaacs, and so reconciled to her lot as to resent his impertinent intrusion. Jesus would of course be obliged to act as umpire ; and in deciding whose wife Mrs. Solomons-Isaacs was, he would be unable to resort to the evasion with which he baffled the Pharisees. “ Don’t tell me that in the kingdom of heaven there is neither marrying nor giving in mar riage,” roars Solomons, “ this ain’t heaven; and I want my wife.” “ No, no,” shrieks Isaacs; “ he shan’t have her. Send that preposterous fellow back to his grave, and tell him to lie there quietly, without plaguing his old neighbours, or there’ll be a breach of the peace, Mr. Jesus.” Let us draw a veil over the dreadful scene. It has been doubted whether Jesus actually died on the cross. Crucifixion was very slow murder to a man in the prime of life. The victims sometimes lingered for days, perishing at last from sheer exhaustion. Jesus was only on the cross for a few hours, and when Joseph of Arimathsea applied for the body “Pilate marvelled if he were already dead.” This is Mark’s version. John, however, says that he was hastily removed with the two thieves, “ that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day.” Considering these facts, some have held that Jesus did not die then, that the resurrection and ascension were “ a plant,” arranged between him and the disciples, and that he retired to an Essenian monastery, where he spent the remainder of his days in quiet obscurity. Matthew describes the burial. Joseph of Arimathsea, lays the body in a new tomb, rolls a big stone against the entrance, and goes home to supper. In that sepulchre Jesus performed the marvellous feat of remaining three days between Friday night and Sunday morning. Perhaps he reckoned the nights as over time, but even then his arithmetic was rather elastic. . While Jesus was putting in three days’time between Friday night and Sunday morning, the chief priests and Pharisees were also acting in an extraordinary way. They went and told Pilate �158 A Rising God. that Jesus had promised to rise again after three days, and asked him to take precautions against his disciples’ playing thepart of body-snatchers. He gave them a watch of soldiers, and they made the sepulchre still surer by sealing the stone. But in the night there was another earthquake ; an angel flew down from heaven and rolled back the stone, sat on it, and frightened the keepers into fits. In the confusion Jesus picked himself up and walked off to borrow a suit of clothes. The watch then went and told the chief priests and elders, who gave them “large money,” asked them to say that the disciples came by night and stole the body while they slept, and promised to make it all right with Pilate. Was there ever a sillier story? The big-wigs of Jerusalem had executed Jesus as “a deceiver.” Surely, then, when they found he was not, when they learnt that he had angels in his retinue and was lord of death, they would have trembled with fear, and repented in sackcloth and ashes. Deceiving the people in this extremity was simply asinine, for that would be no pro tection against him. Nor is it likely that the soldiers would say they had slept at their posts, when it was an offence punishable with death. The promise to pacify Pilate was all fudge, for the Governor and the Sanhedrim lived in a constant state of mutual enmity. Regard it how you will, this story is absurd. It is the work of a man who knew nothing ahout the political and social condition of Jerusalem. But this is not all. How did the priests come to know that Jesus prophesied his resurrection? His very disciples were ignorant of the fact (John xx., 9) and how could the priests be aware of what was unknown to them ? Fortunately, there is a little sentence in Matthew’s narrative which throws a flood of light on the whole affair. The saying that the disciples stole the body, he says, “ is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.” Until this day ! Does not this show that the story was written long after date ? Does it not allow scope for the introduction of any quantity of legend and mythology ? .The contradictions of the four gospels now come fast and thick. In their stories of the visit to the sepulchre, of Christ’s first appearance, of his subsequent interviews with his disciples,, and of his final ascension to heaven, they differ hopelessly. Such conflicting evidence would be laughed out of any court of law, and shall it be accepted in the high court of reason ? These inspired writers scarcely agree on a single point, while their dis agreements are numerous and essential. I cannot deal with them all, but I select a few typical cases. Matthew brings two women to the tomb, Mary Magdalene and “ the other Mary.” Mark brings these two with a third called Salome. Luke ignores Salome, and brings a third called Joanna, with “ other women ” whose names are not mentioned. John brings Mary Magdalene alone. Here is gospel harmony for youf However, they all agree that mad Mary Magdalene was there if �A Rising God. 159 anybody was. Jesus had cast seven devils out of her ; in other words, she was afflicted with hysteria; and it is quite possible that she invented the whole story of the resurrection, and forced it on the disciples by mere force of impudence and iteration. Matthew says there was an earthquake, and that an angel rolled away the stone and sat on it. Mark says the women saw no angel, but the stone was rolled away, and on looking in they saw a young man in white. Luke also omits the angel, but he places two men in shiny suits in the sepulchre. John merely says that they found the sepulchre open, without seeing any angel or man, although two angels were there afterwards when Mary Magdalene came the second time. The wonder is that the crazy creature did not see a million. Matthew says that Jesus appeared first to the women. Mark says that he appeared to Mary Magdalene alone. Luke says that his first appearance was to two of the disciples as they were walking to Emmaus. John agrees for once with Mark. Matthew says that the angel told the disciples to go into Galilee, where they should see their Master; and Mark agrees with him. Luke omits this message, and keeps the disciples in Jerusalem. John also omits the message, although he takes Jesus and the disciples to Galilee. And right on the heels of John pomes the Acts, stating that Jesus and his disciples never went into Galilee at all, but that he expressly “ commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem.” Gospel harmony is like Dutch harmony, in which each man sings his own tune, without caring a curse for his neighbors. We have had some good illustrations already, but they are tame to those that follow. The gospels differ as to the subsequent appearances of Christ as well as about the first. Matthew says that he appeared only ■once, just before going aloft. A lark says he appeared three times : to the women, to two disciples as they walked, and to the eleven. Luke says he appeared twice : to the two pedestrians, and to the eleven in a room. John says he appeared four times : to Mary Magdalene, to the disciples in a room without Thomas, to the same again with Thomas, and to the same once more at Tiberias. John only tells the dramatic story of doubting Thomas Didymus, and of course he is the only evangelist who introduces the spear-thrust. It was necessary that when sceptical Tom wanted to plunge his hand in his Savior s entrails, he should find a ready-made hole. When Jesus appeared to the eleven in a third-floor back he must have floated through the door or crept through the keyhole. Yet he gave them ocular and palpable proof that he was not a spirit, but good solid flesh and bone. Luke and John both make him eat broiled fish and honeycomb with his disciples, the un digested remnants of which he appears to have carried in his stomach to heaven. I now come to the Ascension, or the flight of the Jerusalem �160 A Rising God. ghost. Of course the Christians were obliged to get rid of their “ resurrected ” Savior in some way. They could not produce him when people began to inquire, and so they had to account for his disappearance. Only one resource was possible. They reported that he had “ gone up.” But they did this in the clumsiest fashion, and their various accounts are a remarkable instance of “ gospel harmony.” Matthew (that is, the first gospel; for Matthew had as much to do with it as the man in the moon) does not even narrate the ascension. He vaguely hints that Jesus evanesced after appearing to the eleven disciples who were left after Judas stretched his own neck, up “ a mountain ” somewhere in Galilee. John (or the fourth gospel) breaks off with a fine piece of bun combe, and leaves Jesus flitting about in the world like a dis consolate bat. The whole positive story of the ascension lies between Mark and Luke. Luke says that Jesus ascended from Bethany, a short distance from Jerusalem, on the very day of his resurrection, or, at the latest, the next morning. Mark, on the contrary, without any precision as to time, distinctly states that he ascended from Galilee, at least sixty miles from Jerusalem. It cannot be said that they agree as to time ; it can certainly be said that they differ as to place ; and this difference puts them both out of court until one or the other can find a corroborating witness. There is only one more witness to examine—the anony mous author of the undated “ Acts of the Apostles.” He agrees With Mark as to the place, but differs from both Mark and Luke as to the time ; for he plainly says that Jesus spent forty days (off and on) with his disciples before levitating through the clouds. There is a significant statement in this last account. Jesus was “taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight.” That is, he was lost in a cloud, just as they were. With a little licence in metaphor, we might say that the whole thing concluded in smoke. And this is the end of the Rising God. PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by Ramse^ and Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.O.j �BIBLE ROMANCES—XXI. THE BIBLE MENAGERIE. By G. W. FOOTE. Menageries are delightful places to visit. The objects of the show are not only interesting but alive. It is not art but nature. The animals do not keep one posture and a fixed gaze. They exhibit the varying emotions of conscious vitality, in limbs, features and eyes. Unfortunately, however, the Bible menagerie is cold and dead. Many of its specimens, it is true, belong to species which still inhabit the earth; but others alas! are with out any living counterparts, and there are sceptics wicked enough to suggest that they are artificial products of a pious imagination. The first animals specifically mentioned in the Bible are “ great whales.” God made a quantity of these on the fifth day of creation out of the same material from which he manufactured everything else, namely Nothing. The Revised Bible calls them “ great sea-monsters.” Calvin translates the Hebrew word tannin as tunny fish. Patrick thinks it means the crocodile, and Adam Clarke any large aquatic animal. What a beautifully clear language Hebrew is, and what a happy family are the commen-, tators! Job is supposed to refer to one of these “great whales ” in his fantastic description of leviathan, a creature which the Revised Bible degrades into a crocodile. Rabbi Kimchi says it is the same animal mentioned in the Creation story, and the largest fish in the sea. But whether leviathan was a whale or a crocodile there are no specimens of either now extant in the least resem bling Job’s, with its “comely proportions,” its pyrotechnic “neesings,” its eyes “like the eyelids of the morning,” and its breath that could light a fire without matches. The author of the Book of Job was a poet, and he seems to have used all the license of his tribe in this piece of description. If he were alive now he might earn a good living by drawing up the adver tisements for Wombwell’s menagerie or the Bank Holidav announcements for “the Zoo.” J A still more distinguished member of the “ great whale ” family was the interesting mammal that so obligingly took in Mr. Jonah out of the wet, when he was literally about to perish from water on the brain. We have already related the prophet’s adventures and.at present we are only concerned with his three-days’ com panion. How the hospitable creature got Mr. Jonah down is a debateable question. Without a miracle, the gullet of a whale will only accommodate an ordinary herring. What a distention its poor throat must have suffered! In every way it was a frightful �162 The Bible Menagerie. stretch. The Talmudic writers give many interesting details of this animal’s character. They say it possessed seven eyes, one for every day in the week. They also assert that it was a male, and that Mr. Jonah, finding its entrails rather restricted, besought Jehovah to change his quarters. He was then transferred to a female; but as she was in an interesting condition, Mr. Jonah found his accommodation still more limited; and he was therefore compelled to ask Jehovah to shift him back to his original apart ments. Whether male or female, the poor whale must have been sadly punished by entertaining a man in its belly for three days and nights. What a horrid stoppage of the bowels! There was plenty of emetic in the shape of salt water, but it would not operate until the Lord’s time was come. Some Arabic writers, in opposition to Jesus Christ and the book of Jonah, assign forty days, instead of three, as the period of Mr. Jonah’s residence in the whale’s interior. The supposition is too cruel. Anyhow, it was a wonderful fish ; and any aquarium that possessed one like it, as well as a preacher who could stand being swallowed and vomited, would soon make a large fortune. There might be a performance twice a week, and man and whale could have Sunday to themselves for rest and devotion. The Book of Jonah describes the animal that took him for a deep-sea excursion as “ a great fish,” and Bochart and other commentators have opined that it was a shark, some of that species being quite capable of swallowing and containing a man. But sharks have an awkward habit of “ chawing” with their for midable rows of teeth ; and Mr. Jonah’s condition, after passing that ghastly barricade, would defy surgery. Fortunately we have the authority of Jesus Christ for saying that the animal was a whale. Yet this makes the Bible contradict science or itself, for a whale is not a fish, although it lives in the sea. Mr. Adam and Mrs. Eve are the next animals the Bible mentions. One was made out of mud, and the other out of a spare rib. Both were modelled like their maker, who is there fore, we presume, bisexual. With the scripture in their hands, the Christian priests still maintain that man is the image of God. If the Almighty is like some of them he is very ugly. Mr. Adam doubtless differed a good deal from the men of to-day. He lived nine hundred and thirty years, and according to Jewish tradition he was several hundred feet long. His skeleton, if it is ever discovered, will tax the resources of our largest museums. The Bible menagerie is well supplied with serpents. One of these is a truly remarkable creature. It held a conversation with Mrs. Eve, and introduced her to the forbidden fruit. She was not at all astonished at its powers of speech, and we may infer that serpents talked in those days. God was asleep or off duty at the time. When he discovered the serpent’s trick, he cursed it, dooming it to go upon its belly and eat dust all the days of its life. Clearly, therefore, Mrs. Eve’s serpent must have peram- �The Bible Menagerie. 163 bulated on its back, its head, or its tail; unless we allow, with Josephus, that it walked on legs, besides possessing a human voice. Adam Clarke, in a learned disquisition on the many renderings of the Hebrew machash, concludes that it means an ape, and perhaps an orang-outang. What a pity the world has lost the primitive zoological dictionary! It was compiled by Mr. Adam, who gave names to every beast of the field and every fowl of the air as the Lord paraded them before the grand stand. No doubt the volume was ornamented with cuts by the old man or one of the boys, who had plenty of leisure for the work. If it existed now, it would not only be the most precious of ancient relics, but throw a clarifying light on the vexed question whether Mrs. Eve succumbed to a serpent or a monkey. Mrs. Eve’s tempter is not the only talking animal in the Bible menagerie. There is at least another, namely Balaam’s ass, whose exploits we have already narrated. This four-legged wonder, like most asses, had a faculty for seeing angels. The Lord opened its mouth, as he has the mouth of many an ass since. From this fact we judge it was not a loquacious animal, like its modern successors. According to the story, its elo quence required to be stimulated with a stick: an excellent hint to congregations that are troubled with a dull preacher. Recurring to serpents, the Lord sent some fiery ones to bite the Jews for murmuring against his commissariat. The bite of this reptile was mortal to “ much people.” Some of them, how ever, recovered by a sort of homoeopathic treatment. They looked at a serpent of brass stuck on a pole, and were healed. We commend this remedy to the attention of the British Govern ment in India. It would probably save the lives of thousands of Hindoos. Should there be any difficulty in finding a brazen serpent, any Christian church or Missionary Society could easily furnish one, and between them they might supply every district with one of its own. We may add that the fiery serpents in Numbers are serpentine seraphim. They are mentioned by Paul (Hebrews i., 7), and by Isaiah (vi., 2), who locates them with the Lord of Hosts and gives them hands and speech. God’s command to Moses is not “ Make thee a fiery serpent,” as the Bible renders it, but “Make thee a seraph.” The whole legend is probably connected with animal worship. The Egyp tians adored the ibis, the cat and the crocodile, and the Jews who had resided in the Nile valley were naturally infected with the same superstition. When Jehovah and Moses had apparently ended in smoke at Mount Sinai, the chosen people called on Aaron to make them a new god, and he obligingly made them a golden calf (out of their metal, of course, not Ais), which they danced round naked, to the great disgust of Moses, although he had just viewed the Lord’s seat of honor. Aaron’s calf is very suggestive of the Egyptian worship of Apis. The Jews have had a sneaking fondness for the golden calf ever since. Even so late �164 The Bible Menagerie. as the reign of Jeroboam (1 Kings xii., 28, 29) they worshipped two golden calves at Dan and Beth-el, and the brazen serpent remained till the time of Hezekiah. According to the Bible (2 Kings xviii., 4) it was the original article manufactured by Moses. Hem I J Related to the fiery serpents are the dragons which are men* tioned fourteen times in the Bible. The best description we know of this fabulous monster is in the eleventh Canto of the first Book of Spenser’s “ Faerie Queene ”; a work no less romantic than the Bible, and far more delightful. Dragons could walk or fly; their shape was something like a lizard’s ; they were covered with hard scales ; their tails were long and powerful; they had “ deep devouring jaws ” with several ranks of terrible teeth; and their claws were viciously keen and strong. Fourteen times does the word of God certify to this animal’s existence, and who shall eliminate it from the Bible menagerie ? Perish the thought! Whoever doubts the existence of dragons is an unbeliever, and all unbelievers shall have their portion in the lake that burneth with brimstone and fire. The most remarkable dragon was the one seen by St. John in his holy nightmare. It was “ a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth. AVhat a tail! And what a tale ! St. John shines forth as the boss stretcher, and O Arabian Nights and Baron Munchausen, hide your diminished heads. Another flying animal is the Columba Paracletus, the holy dove or pigeon, the third person of the blessed Trinity—in short the Holy Ghost. It moved over the face of the waters in the reign of “ Chaos and old Night,” and visited the Virgin Mary after the manner of Ledas swan. Jove, however, like his bird, was the more powerful, or his mistress was the more fruitful; for twins sprang from his embrace, while Jahveh’s only produced a lacka daisical youth with corkscrew curls. Flying also, and serpentine, is the cockatrice, -which the Revised Bible has changed to a basilisk, although they are the same thing.. This marvellous creature is several times mentioned in holy writ. Sir Thomas Browne makes it the subject of a chapter in his “ Vulgar Errors.” “ Such an animal there is,” he says, “ if we evade not the testimony of Scripture.” The quaint and learned old doctor gives a list of profane writers who have mentioned it, from Pliny to Scaliger, and gravely asserts on the latter’s authority that “ a basilisk was found at Rome in the days of Leo the Fourth.” The modern basilisk, according to Browne, “ is generally described with legs, wings, a serpentine and winding tail, and a crest or comb somewhat like a cock. But the basilisk of elder times was a proper kind of serpent, not above three palms long.” Winged or not, it had two peculiarities. It killed with its glances, and it was hatched by a toad or a serpent from �The Bible Menagerie. 165 a cock’s egg. We should like to see such a cock. It would be * a knowing old bird. The only cock, in our opinion, likely to do the feat, was the one that crowed at Peter ; and we daresay the apostle would share our view of that astonishing fowl. It is certainly surprising that the Bible menagerie should contain a cockatrice, but we need not wonder at the ancient Jews believing in the existence of such a creature, for Mr. B. H. Cowper justly remarks that “ The race of Rabbis delighted in creating animals otherwise unknown in heaven above or earth below.”f They sported a wild cock, whose feet rested on the earth while its head touched heaven ; and a bird called the zig, of such magnitude, that when it spread out its wings it caused an eclipse of the sun. Another extraordinary fowl was so colossal that one of its eggs, dropping on the earth, submerged sixty villages, and broke down three hundred cedars. Eggs like that would be dirt cheap at thirteenpence a dozen. Among the unclean animals forbidden to the Jews by the Levitical law were “ fowls that creep, going upon all four.” These four-legged birds would be very interesting to the ornithologist. Two verses farther (Leviticus xi., 21) we are introduced to creeping things “which have legs above their feet.” What a delightful novelty it would be to discover some of the creeping things, suggested by this text, with their feet above their legs I Locusts, beetles and grasshoppers are not considered edible now, but Moses recommended them to the Jews. Yet he prohibited jugged hare on the ground that the hare “cheweth the cud” and is therefore unclean. This is one of the Mistakes of Moses. The hare is not a ruminant. No doubt the inspired penman observed that the hare has a habit of moving its jaws when, resting, and thus fell in to a very natural error. But why did not the Lord set him straight on this point? And why also (we may inquire) did the Lord take so much trouble in the time of Moses to decide what animals were clean and what unclean, when the distinction was well known before the Flood ? (Gen. vii., 2). May we not, after all, conclude that the Levitical law with respect to clean and unclean animals was borrowed from Egypt? Porphyry tells us that “ the Egyptian priests abstained from the flesh of all solid-hoofed quadrupeds, which had toes and no horns, and from all birds of prey and from fish.” Lane says that the modern Egyptians will not eat fish without scales. According to Josephus, Manetho accused the Jews of being turned out of * So late as 1710 the French Academy received a memoir from M. Lapeyronie, of Montpellier, on some “ cock’s eggs ” brought to him by a farmer. Some learned blockheads examined one, and found no yolk, but a colored particle in the centre, which they took to be the young serpent. The cock was dissected, but the farmer brought more eggs. They were laid by his hens 1 f Article on the Talmud, Journal of Sacred Literature, Jan. 1868 �166 The Bible Menagerie. Egypt because they were leprous and impure. Pig’s flesh was said to promote skin disease, and the Jews were stringently for bidden to touch it. Abstention from pork has ever since been a prune article of their faith. But whose were those swine into which Jesus sent a legion of devils? Perhaps the animals were bred for the export trade, as the Jew butchers in Russia sell ke slier meat to their co-religionists and dispose of all the bad to the Gentiles. Yet the miracle was rather rough on the unfortunate porkers, and Jesus Christ evidently did not agree with Charles Lamb on the subject of Roast Pig. Among the very small animals, smaller than locusts, beetles and grasshoppers, the Lord’s peculiar favorite is the louse ; and perhaps it was for this reason that the pious genius of Robert Burns immortalised the creature. The magicians of Egypt kept up with Messrs. Moses and Aaron in their first three perform ances. They turned their rods into serpents; after all the water in Egypt was turned into blood, they turned the rest into blood; and they brought up frogs galore as well as their opponents. But when the Hebrew conjurors turned all the dust of Egypt into lice, the native magicians gave up the competition. “ This is the finger of God,” they cried. They recognised his trade mark. When they saw the lice they knew the Lord was shaking himself to some purpose. We come now to the cherubim, a curious kind of fowl, gene rally depicted by Bible illustrators with plenty of head and no tail, all stem and no stern. They are graphically described by Ezekiel (x., 12, 14). They had four faces, which is twice as many as some Christians have; a cherub’s, a man’s, a lion’s and an eagle’s. Their bodies, backs, hands and wings were covered with eyes, so that there was no getting round them. Saint Tohn (Revelation iv., 6—8) improves upon Ezekiel by splitting this composite creature into four separate ones, omitting the cherub however, and substituting a calf. These four beasts have six wings each, and are “ full of eyes before and behind.” They are a sort of body-guard to the Lord, and protect his throne against Republicans and Socialists. No doubt they face the in habitants of the New Jerusalem, and turn their many-eyed pos teriors to their sovereign, who probably dotted them with optics in that quarter to break the monotony and give the surface an air of intelligence. We presume it would be blasphemy to com pare these creatures with Argus of the Greek mythology, who had a hundred eyes, only two of which slept at a time. What a price Barnum would give for a couple of cherubim I He might sell Jumbo and the white elephant, and make a magnificent fortune on the Hebrew wonder. Walk up, walk up ! ladies and gentlemen; see the four-headed marvel with one leg and two million eyes, just purchased at immense cost from Messrs. Ezekiel and St. John, head keepers of the Bible menagerie, and warranted by the Pope of Rome and the Archbishop of Canterbury. �The Bible Menagerie. 167 We dare say Barnum would offer a good price for a pair of unicorns. This animal is mentioned seven times in the Bible. Daniel’s bear (vii., 5) with three ribs in its mouth, would also be a catch; or one of Isaiah’s satyrs (xiii., 21) which the Revised Bible rashly changes into he-goats ; or the horses of fire, like the flaming steeds of Apollo, that carried Elijah to heaven ; or Aaron’s blooming rod that turns into a serpent and swallows other reptiles like greased lightning. A few specimens from what Heine calls the Menagerie of the Apocalypse would also be a great attraction. The Son of Man (i., 13-16) with white woolly hair, brass feet, a voice like a cataract, and fiery eyes, doing the sword trick. The lamb (v., 6) with seven horns and seven eyes. The locusts (ix., 7-10) shaped like horses, with men’s faces, women’s hair, lion’s teeth, scorpion’s tails, iron breast-plates and golden crowns. The leopard (xiii., 1, 2) with bear’s feet, a lion’s mouth, seven heads and ten horns. To these curiosities might be added one of the antediluvian giants (Genesis vi., 4). These personages undoubtedly existed, although the Revised Bible is ashamed of them, and hides them behind the Hebrew Nephilim. They are such monsters (Numbers xiii., 33) that ordinary men look like grasshoppers beside them. There might also be included a specimen or two of those hardy Egyptian cattle that were first killed by the murrain, then plagued with boils, and after wards killed again with fiery hail (Exodus ix). Behemoth might likewise have figured in the collection, if it had not been degraded into a commonplace character in the Revised Bible. Our juvenile imagination was inflamed by the extraordinary description in the fortieth chapter of Job. “ Behold now behemoth,” exclaims the Lord, and we pictured an animal as big as a cathedral. Alas for the romantic fancies of youth! Behemoth turns out to be merely our old friend the hippopotamus. It must, however, have suffered an alteration since the days of Job, for we do not find at present that “his force is in the navel of his belly.” We may here observe that many animals in the Bible menaferie. are wrongly ticketed, especially those in the eleventh of ieviticus. The eagle should be the vufiure, the vulture the kite, the kite the red kite, the owl the ostrich, the nighthawk the owl, the cuckow the gull, the ferret the gecko, the chameleon the frog, the mole, the chameleon, the bittern, the porcupine, the swan the ibis, the heron the grasshopper. At least this is what we gather from the Revised Bible and the commentators. There is a dog in the Bible menagerie but it is treated with great contempt. “By the law,” says Cruden, “it was declared unclean, and was very much despised among the Jews: the most offensive expression they could use, was to compare a man to a dead dog.” What disgusting ingratitude to one of man’s best friends! The dog has played an important part in the history of civilisation, and is held in esteem by nearly every people �168 The Bible Menagerie. except the Jews. The Zend Avesta enjoins kindness to our •canine companions, because he who made man made the dog also. Compare this with Paul’s selfish exclamation “ Doth God care for oxen?” (1 Corinthians ix., 9). Before Christians are able to display any care for the lower animals, they must neglect the teachings of the Bible, and expel the virus of Judaism from their blood. The most noble and pathetic lines on a dog in the English language were written by the sceptical Byron. The last animals we can refer to in the Bible menagerie are angels. What their exact shape is no man knoweth, but as they are usually represented with wings, we may regard them as a species of fowl; although, curiously enough, Jacob saw them, in his dream, climbing a ladder. But perhaps, as the schoolboy said, it was moulting time, and the angels were disabled from flying. According to the Psalms (lxxviii, 24, 25) they live on manna, a large supply of which was sent down to the wandering Jews from the heavenly larder. They are not, how ever, incapable of eating a meat dinner, for two of them (Genesis xviii.) sat down with Abraham and the Lord to a succulent repast of roast veal. But there is no such savory dish in heaven ; the menu is most monotonous—manna for breakfast, manna for dinner, manna for tea, and manna for supper. No wonder the Jews tired of it, and longed for the fleshpots of Egypt. Add to this that angels have no sex, and neither marry nor give in marriage, and you will be able to form some idea of the happy prospect in store for you when you join the heavenly band. It is true that the sons of God, in Genesis, who saw the daughters of men that they were fair, have been regarded as angels by some subtle commentators, who could see as far into a millstone as most of their neighbors ; and undoubtedly there is a good deal to be said for the conjecture. But, on the other hand, nobody is bound to believe it; and, besides, even if angels went courting in those days, there may have been a revolution in their physi ology since, or the Lord, being a jealous God, may have un manned his courtiers, to prevent their fawning on any objects but himself. From the language of Jesus Christ and the revela tion of Saint John, we infer that Paradise is filled with angelic •eunuchs, eating manna **and singing psalms for ever and ever. Oh what must it be to be there 1 PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London. �BIBLE ROMANCES.—XXII. THE CRUCIFIXION. By G. W, FOOTE. ------- ♦------The poet Wordsworth pictures a “fingering slave,” so eager in the pursuit of science, and so lost to all sense of decency, that he “ would peep and botanise upon his mother’s grave.” There are also many orthodox Christians who will start at the idea of the Crucifixion of their blessed Savior being included in these Bible Romances. Nothing is sacred to a sapper, says the French song; and these irate believers will exclaim that nothing is sacred to a, Freethinker. Some of them will go farther and indulge in ■epithets and expletives that leave Wordsworth’s reprobation far behind. Let me, however, beseech my ruffled critics to pause and reflect. I do not propose to laugh at the Crucifixion, or to treat it as a subject for jest; for the tragedies of life are truly sacred, whether enacted in a palace or a cottage, or under the infinite cope of heaven. I would no more mock Jesus on his ■cross than I would mock Prometheus on his rock. My purpose is different. I wish to show that the Gospel story of the Cruci fixion is pure romance from beginning to end; that the evangelists are hopelessly at variance with each other; that their narratives betray a gross ignorance of Jewish law and custom; and that if Jesus Christ did “ suffer under Pontius Pilate,” there is no authentic history of how and why his sufferings were inflicted. My space does not allow me to go into all the details of this sub ject ; I shall therefore be obliged to deal with its broad features and salient points. According to the story, why did Jesus go to Calvary ? Hix preaching, miracles and popularity, had excited the enmity of the priests. These Jerusalem sky-pilots knew he was master of Life and lord of Death, for they were apprised of his having raised corpses from the tomb, and restored them to their old board and lodging. Yet, with these facts before their eyes, or in their minds, they sought to put the miracle-worker himself out of the way ; and a greater marvel still, they succeeded in doing it. He was per fectly well-known, yet they paid one of his disciples to point him out; and they arrested him in the garden of Gethsemane, although the mere sound of his voice flung his apprehenders on their baeks. Nay more, when peppery Peter drew a sword, and cut off an ear of one of them, Jesus actually picked it up and fastened it on again. Most men would be inclined to let such a miraculous person alone; but those obstinate Jews persisted in their design in �170 The Crucifixion. spite of heaven and hell. They were always a stiff-necked and perverse people. i Matthew, Mark and Luke, represent Jesus as brought before Caiaphas for examination, while John places the trial in the house of Annas. Whichever place we take, the story is equally incred ible. The Judges who were trying the culprit would certainly not walk about the room with the witnesses, the servants, and the crowd ; much less would they spit upon and revile ’him. There remains a still more fatal objection. Jesus could not have j been tried by priests, whether they were high or low. Let us ; hear a learned Jewish rabbi on this point“ The whole trial from the beginning to the end, is contrary to Jewish law and custom as in force at the time of Jesus. No court of justice with jurisdiction in penal cases could or ever did hold its session in the place of the high priest. There were three legal bodies in Jerusalem to decide penal cases : the great Sanhedrim, of seventyone members, and the two minor Sanhedrim, each of twenty-three members . The court of priests had no penal jurisdiction except in the affairs of the temple service, and then over priests and Levites only.”* How then,. Christians will ask, did the Jewish writers of the Gospels fall into such a glaring error ? The answer is simpleThe Gospels were not written by disciples of Jesus, or by Jews at all. They were composed in Greek, nobody knows where . or by whom, more than a hundred years after the alleged Cruci fixion.! The subsequent trial before Pilate is also full of fancies. We pass by the absurd statement that the Roman governor at Jeru salem sent a prisoner to Herod who ruled in Galilee merely because. the man was born there; which is as silly as the supposition that a Frenchman who committed a murder in England would be sent for trial to Paris. Pilate’s wife sent to her husband on the judgment-seat to say that she had suffered a bad dream about Jesus, and that he was innocent and should be acquitted. A very likely message to a Roman governor in the reign of Tiberius ! Pilate himself “ finds no fault ” in Jesus, and afterwards sentences him to death. Another likely circum stance ! He exculpates himself by washing his hands in public, to symbolise his guiltlessness of the man’s blood, and to throw it upon the Jews. What transparent absurdity! Such an act would be meaningless to a Roman, and it was more than Pilate’s life was worth to show such contempt for the imperial law. Tiberius would have whipped off his head in a jiffy. * Rabbi Wise, “ Martyrdom of Jesus of Nazareth," p. 66. t “ There is no evidence that either the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, or the other writings, as we have them, existed within a hundred and twenty years after the Crucifixion.’’—Rev. Dr. Giles “ Christian Records,” p. 9. �The Crucifixion. 171 When did the Crucifixion occur ? Matthew, Mark and Luke, distinctly assert that Jesus had already eaten of the Passover. The festival had therefore begun. But this exposes the evangelists’ ignorance of Jewish customs. Rabbi Wise says that “ In the first place, the Jews did no public business on that day; had no court sessions, no trials, and certainly no executions on any Sabbath or feast day. And in the second place, the first day of the Passover never was on a Friday, and never can be, according to the established principles of the Jewish calendar.”* The fourth Gospel is later than the other three, and the work of a more learned pen. The author silently corrects his predecessors’ mistake, and makes Joseph of Arimathsea bury Jesus before the Passover begins. The evangelists differ as to the hour of execution. According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus gave up the ghost about the ninth hour, or three o’clock in the afternoon ; and Mark states definitely that Jesus was crucified about the third hour, or nine o’clock in the morning. According to Luke, however, the trial did not begin till the morning after the arrest; and there must have been a very sharp despatch of business to get Jesus nailed up by nine o’clock. John is even more irreconcileable with the other writers, for he distinctly says that Pilate’s court was still sitting at mid day, three hours after Jesus (according to Mark) was on the cross. According to John, Jesus carried his own cross from the preetorium to the place of execution. But Matthew, Mark and Luke, say that, owing to his prostrate condition, it had to be carried for him by Simon of Cyrene. The Lord only knows who Simon was. From the narrative as it stands, without any other light, he appears to have turned up promiscuously, as such handy people always do in romances. One of the early Christian sects, the Basilidians, made this utility-man play a further part in the drama. They denied that Jesus was crucified in person, and asserted that he only suffered by proxy, poor Simon having been tucked up in his stead. /That profane wit, the Rev. Robert, Taylor, imagines a conversation between the original and the substitute. Simon reproves Jesus for letting him be crucified ; it was carrying the simulation a great deal too far. But Jesus replies “ Oh no, Simon, my boy ; you may as well die for me as I for you.” We may add that Muhammed evidently accepted the heretical notion of some victim having suffered for Jesus. A phantom or a criminal, the Kuran says, was substituted on the cross, and the innocent Jesus was translated into the seventh heaven. Another Christian idea was that Judas Iscariot had to act as proxy. This is a funnier notion, and involves a sort of poetical justice. It might be called “ Judas for Jesus, or the biter bit.” * “ Origin of Christianity,” p. 30. �172 The Crucifixion. The Synoptics represent Jesus as failing under the burden of the cross, and Christian artists picture him tottering, with a great wooden structure on his shoulders, heavy enough to tax the strength of a giant. But this is all imagination. What the prisoner had to carry was not the upright part, which was a fixture at the place of execution, but simply the cross-piece, or patibulum; and the obligation was imposed, not as a physical labor, but as a moral indignity. — There have been hot disputes whether the feet as well as the hands of Jesus were nailed to the cross. Some rationalists have contended that he did not actually die, and his feet being uninjured, he was able to walk about after “ the resurrection.” But Luke (xxiv., 39) makes Jesus show the disciples his hands and feet to prove his authenticity. John, however, omits the feet, and mentions the hands and side. But John was up to something, as we shall see presently. Pilate set an inscription on the cross in three languages, and the evangelists read it so clearly that they write it in four different ways. Matthew says it was “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.” Mark says it was “ The King of the Jews.” Luke says it was “This is the King of the Jews.” John says it was “ Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.” This is a beautiful instance of Gospel Harmony. Anybody can see that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were inspired to write the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Three hundred years after the Crucifixion, the very cross on which Jesus suffered was found by St. Helena, the mother of Constantine, together with the crosses that bore the two thieves. The novel explorer was turned eighty, and very much in her dotage. She went to Jerusalem on purpose to find the cross, and it was not likely that the bishop and his clergy would let her go away disappointed. The authentic nature of Christ’s cross was shown by its working miracles, while the others were no more efficacious than ordinary wood. Helena took a part of the true cross to Constantine ; the rest she enclosed in a silver box, and left in care of the bishop of Jerusalem, who periodically exhibited it to the faithful, for a consideration. Afterwards little bits of it were sold, and in a short space of time the sacred wood was “ spread all over the earth.” To account for this extra ordinary distribution, it was asserted that the true cross was like the widow’s cruse of oil; the more there was taken from it the more there was left. Calvin said that if all the pieces in Europe were collected into a heap, they would form a good shipload. Crowds of monkish pedlars lived on the cross, who never could live on the square. The historians of Saint Helena’s lucky “ find ” say that the true cross bore the very title affixed to it by Pilate. Yet by some unfortunate accident the clergy of Jerusalem omitted to copy it. We are therefore unable to decide between the different versions �The Crucifixion. 173 of the four evangelists. Alack and alack ! And now the age of I miracles is flown, and the true cross, with many other pious relics,' has melted into “ the infinite azure of the past.” Crucifixion is said to have produced an agony of thirst, and John makes Jesus suffer from this craving. “ I thirst,” cried the victim, and they gave him a sponge full of vinegar; perhaps the posca, or vinegar and water commonly drunk by the Roman soldiers. The other evangelists mention a different concoction, which was offered to Jesus as he reached Golgotha. Matthew says it was vinegar and gall, while Mark says it was wine mingled with myrrh ; two very delectable drinks. According to Matthew and Mark, although Luke and John do not mention the tremendous circumstance, Jesus shrieked on the cross, Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani—My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? Whereupon, say the evangelists, some of the by standers remarked “ This man calleth for Elias.’ Moonshine! The writers were ignorant of Hebrew. If the by-standers were Romans, they knew no more of Elias than of Tobit. If they were Jews, they could not have confounded Eli with Elias, for the words differ very widely in their pronunciation. The tag to the exclamation is obviously the work of men who knew nothing of Hebrew, who saw that Eli and Elias were alike to the eye, without knowing how they differed to the ear. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? It is the first verse of the twenty-second Psalm. What a terrible cry! Abandoned by disciples, mocked by enemies, and forsaken by God. Where are the legions of angels that should come to the rescue ? Are all the armies of the ghosts no match for a com pany of Roman soldiers? Blood trickles from the thorncrowned brow; the body strains against the cruel nails in the gory hands and feet; the throat and lips are parched with thirst; and overhead shines the implacable Syrian sun, every beam like a sword of fire. There is no help on earth, and none in heaven. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? Yet with this terrible cry ringing in their ears, the Chris tians assert that the man who uttered it was “ very God of very God.” Surely it is the dying exclamation of a deluded enthusiast! And the speaker was of less heroic mould, if the story be true, than many a martyr of liberty and progress. Giordano Bruno languished for seven years in a loathsome dun geon. He was tortured—no one knows how often—by the fiends of the Inquisition. At length he was sentenced to be burnt alive. But captivity had not broken his proud spirit, and he said to his judges: “ I suspect you pronounce my sentence with far more fear than I hear it.” The fire shrivelled his body, and with inconceivable pangs turned the noblest heart on earth to dust, but it could not wring a single plaint from the scorching lips. Bruno stood alone against the world with no hope of assistance from heaven, and no expectation �174 The Crucifixion. of a martyr’s crown. Truth was his goddess, and he served her with a noble devotion. Unlike Christ, who quailed under the frown of Death, he met it with a serene smile; for he had that within him which Death might extinguish, but could not terrify a daring fiery spirit that out-soared the malice of men, and out shone the flames of the stake. Various versions are also given of Jesus’s last words According to John, he said “ It is finished ” immediately before expiring; and hundreds of sermons have been preached on this enigmatical sentence. According to Luke, however, he said “ Father unto thy hands I commend my spirit.” Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, simply say that he uttered a loud cry and gave up the ghost. Another instance of Gospel,Harmony! J Mark adds that a Roman centurion, who was standing by, when he heard Jesus cry out, exclaimed “ Truly this man was the son of God.” Whoever knew such a little evidence go such a‘very long way ? Was there ever another man in the world so easily satisfied ? The exclamation is simply impossible ; its meaning is so absolutely foreign to the Roman mind. Matthew chronicles the same event, but he throws in an earthquake and the resurrection of “ many bodies of saints,” besides the loud cry of Jesus, to account for the centurion's conviction. Differences obtain also as to who were the friendly spectators of the Crucifixion. Matthew says that Jesus was watched from afar by Galilean women, who had traipsed after him to Jerusalem including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses’ and the mother of Zebedee’s children, a female apparently with out a name. Mark’s account is similar, but he introduces a lady called Salome. Luke says that Jesus was followed by a great crowd of both sexes. But John artistically excludes the tag-rag and bob-tail. of true believers ; gets up a pathetic scene between Jesus, his mother, and the beloved disciple ; and brings on Mary Magdalene and another Mary to fill up the stage. On the other hand, John’ barely alludes to the two malefactors who were crucified with Jesus ; while Matthew and Mark made them mock their companion. Luke works up a more striking scene. One thief mocks Jesus, and is rebuked by the other ■ and the Savior as a reward for the man’s generosity, says, “ To day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.” We wonder how Jesus kept his promise. According to the Apostles’ Creed, he descended into hell for three days after the Crucifixion, on which occasion we presume, he “ preached to the spirits in prison.” After his resurrection also, as we read in John, he forbade Mary Magdalene to touch him, saying, “ For lam not yet ascended to my Father.” On the whole, we conclude that, owing to a lapse of memory on the part of Jesus, the penitent thief had to hang about the gates of Paradise for forty days before he could walk in with Jesus. John, or whoever was the author of the fourth Gospel, tells us something else about these two thieves and Jesus. The Jews �The Crucifixion. 175 requested Pilate to let all three be taken down before the Sabbath began, and he dispatched some soldiers for that purpose. They broke the legs of the two thieves, but finding Jesus already dead, they left his continuations alone. One of them, however, prodded him in the side with a spear, and “forthwith came there out blood and water.” What arrant nonsense! If Jesus had been dead for any time, the spear would have drawn no blood. If he were alive, it would draw blood, but no water, unless he suffered from dropsy. Why did that soldier prod Jesus with his spear? And why is not the incident related by the other evangelists ? Because John required it as a preparation for another incident as to which they are equally silent. After the Resurrection, Jesus desires doubting Thomas Didymus to thrust his hand in his Savior’s side, to satisfy himself that it was all correct. John introduces the spear-thrust, which Matthew, Mark and Luke knew nothing of, simply to have a hole ready for Tom’s fist. Now we come to a matter on which John is silent while the other three evangelists prattle. During the Crucifixion there was darkness over all the land for the space of three hours. The Pagan historians, as well as John, knew nothing of this marvellous eclipse. It happened in the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, each of whom, says Gibbon, “ in a laborious work has recorded all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect.” Yet these writers never heard of the supernatural dark ness of the Passion. To meet this difficulty, the early Fathers discovered a passage in Phlegon, which states that the greatest eclipse ever known occurred in the two hundred and second Olympiad. But, as Gibbon ironically observed, the passage “ is now wisely abandoned,” and at the present day no apologist of Christianity thinks of defending it. It was nothing but a fraud, devised to buttress a tottering fable. Matthew mentions another circumstance, which is omitted not only by John, but also by Mark and Luke. In addition to the eclipse, there was an earthquake, which shook the temple, rent its holy veil in twain, and opened the graves of many saints, who quietly got up and walked into Jerusalem. Having already dealt with this piece of fiction in my romance of “ A Rising God,” I shall content myself with asking why Matthew only, of all the four evangelists, heard of this tremendous occurrence. A no less curious fact is, that the Jews who witnessed these extraordinary events never believed them; and as Diderot said, the transcen dent wonder of wonders is not the miraculous career of Christ but the incredulity of the Jews. Imagine such a story as that of the Crucifixion under exami nation in a court of law. How the opposing counsel would badger the witnesses. How he would expose their mutual con tradictions on every important point. How he would gloat over �176 The Crucifixion. the fact that some of them saw and heard the most startling occurrences, while others never noticed them, although they were present. How confidently he would ask the court to treat the evidence of such witnesses as altogether unworthy of credit. When we turn to the rest of the New Testament we find grave reasons for doubting whether Jesus was crucified at all. Paul preached “Christ and him crucified,” and the very emphasis seems to show that there was an opposite school. His great rival, Peter (Acts v., 30), speaks to the Jews soon after the alleged Crucifixion, of “Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree ”; and again at Caesarea (Acts x., 39) he speaks of Jesus and the Jews in the third person,” whom they slew and hanged on a tree.” Peter further says (Acts xii., 29>, “they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.” And in his first epistle he speaks of Jesus “ Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” Peter does indeed, refer twice in the second of Acts to Jesus as “ crucified,” but it is in a long-winded speech, which was probably com posed for him by the author. Curiously too, Paul himself (Galatians in., 13) sides for once with Peter. “ Christ,” he says, “ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us ; for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.” On the whole, it is impossible to decide whether Jesus was crucified or hung. The reader buys his Bible and takes his choice. Whoever wishes to read more on this subject should refer to the “ Jewish Life of Christ,” which I edited in collaboration with my friend Mr. Wheeler. He will there find that the Taimuds speak of Jeshu, by whom Lardner says is meant our Jesus, as having been hung. This much, however, is certain : the cross on which Jesus was, crucified, if he suffered that death, was not shaped Eke the cross we see in religious pictures. It resembled a big letter T, and there was no extension of the upright beam above the cross piece.. The true cross was an ancient phallic symbol. It was used in Egyptian hieroglyphics as the sign of life. When Con stantine aboEshed the punishment of crucifixion, the Roman cross ceased to be famihar, and the Christian priests were therefore able to confound it with the most venerated symbol of ancient faiths. They thus artfufiy transformed an executed rebel into a sacred figure, radiating the mysticism of aU the creeds. PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes. Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk. <img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Bible romances Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 176 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Inscription in ink on t.p.: Joseph Mazzini Wheeler. First series (p.1-96), Second series (p.[97]-104). Contents: The Creation Story; Noah's Flood; Eve And The Apple; The Bible Devil; The Ten Plagues; Jonah And The Whale; The Wandering Jews; The Tower Of Babel; Balaam's Ass; Cain And Abel; Lot's Wife; Daniel and the Lions. Bible Romances; The Jew Judges; Saint John's Nightmare; A Virgin Mother; God in a Box; Bully Samson; Gospel Ghosts; A Rising God; The Bible Menagerie; The Crucifixion. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1884-85 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N227 Subject The topic of the resource Bible Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a> This work (Bible romances), identified by <a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a>, is free of known copyright restrictions. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Bible NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7d677a7b95d19ab0f5c98f04773d69a6.pdf?Expires=1784764800&Signature=kG0ifNVU0KV-95g1i0pmk7lR4MceyBd-Ra2G7dReexPNAvq7xDkAfoI5SRgxI0FhTmi8kqPJFtvT5hNvwARClY25bZMaW8FhfJZwEaRyGJwdgfK%7ET6lJN-AoWS2dvce4c%7EqqNvtsEkqEOMmCe-6z4LvaHOeF0HVVXQgHXFtbUTHl46rjmx6Mmc4bL8jle00doeHAyg36O%7Ej1CHYquBUP-c6ibBFboHo5p09PXb87rDO0jLoU7SiwntMszfw1G2tUsTGMOnUhTwlhBli%7EC5GmRDDWENArqY-ozdhmYptXnHdk8zkHIMYcK-Aj-5gxPETCr5Vo8My5JoAWt6mZDJ1%7ExA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 52b3769024839cb7f639e2ed304bac4f PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY libit tasus C iliilisatinn: AN APPEAL TO THE PIOUS. BY “G. F. S.” “Rivers of THY LAW.”—Ps. waters cxix., run down mine eyes, because they 136. LONDON: A. BONNER, 63 FLEET STREET, 1889. E.C. keep not ��& WibU tom 0 i bi Its atf ott. In his time, old John Bunyan grieved that religion went in silver slippers. What would he say now were he alive? We no longer respect the God we profess to worship, but have gone after the luxurious idol of civilisation. Civilisation is replacing God in our hearts and lives; we are casting out the Almighty from among us, and following other lights than His. It is time to rouse ourselves and begin to read the Bible, which we pretend to reverence, though we neglect to make ourselves acquainted with its sacred pages. If we profess godliness, let us have the decency to follow the precepts of our God. It is true that He has said “ An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, and because it suits our social arrangements the murderers among us are made to suffer the just penalty of their evil doings. But God has also said “ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”, and if God had not known that witches existed He would not have given such a terrible command. So explicit is His will in this matter that not only is death the prescribed punishment, but the precise manner of it—a bleeding shuddering death by stoning—is com manded. Yet we, glorying in our pretended enlighten ment, decide we know better than our God, defy him, and speak with horror of the near date of 1722, when the last witch was burnt in Scotland by Captain Ross, Sheriff-Depute of Sutherlandshire! Who are we that we should change the decrees of Omnipotent Wisdom, creatures of a day who cannot fathom his awful designs? We cry Lord! Lord! and do not his com �4 BIBLE V. CIVILISATION. mands, but allow ourselves to be softened and beguiled by our humanity into the ways of the Secularists. That holy man John Wesley said that the giving up of witch craft was in effect the giving up of the Bible. “ I can not ”, said he, “give up to all the Deists in Great Britain the existence of witchcraft till I give up the credit of all history, sacred and profane.” There is nothing in which we have more treacherously forsaken our religion than in our way of treating heresy. We even pride ourselves on our toleration, and look back upon the past “ persecutions”, as we irreligiously call them, with horror and disgust. Yet if we believe our religion to be the only true one (as who among us does not ?), what is our duty respecting the heretic, the man or woman whom we believe to have forsaken the only true God ? Does the Almighty whom we worship command us to tolerate such, to live harmoniously with such, bearing with them, praying with them, and beseeching our God to turn their hearts unto Himself ? Not so. God knows the spiritual leprosy which will infect us if we live with heretics, and in His awful wisdom he says the heretic shall be cut off from the land of the living. “ If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other Gods . . . . thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him : but thou shalt surely kill him ; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones that he die ” (Deuteronomy xiii, 6—io). ‘ We cannot do this thing ’, we cry ; ‘ we cannot obey here ’ ; spare us, O Lord, we say; or, worse, we try to explain away the com mand, saying Christ’s mission has changed all that. This is sheer self-indulgence. We either are to obey the Unchangeable, or we are not. “ Thus saith the Lord ! ” We cannot escape the fact that if we profess godliness we must, at any cost or pain or distress, obey the mandates of our God; and they are rigid. What matter how flesh and heart shrink from casting out the �BIBLE V. CIVILISATION. 5 wife of our bosom and seeking her death, if only our conscience is at peace ? Do we not extol the great and beautiful obedience of Abraham in his willingness to slay his beloved son ? Do we say he ought to have disobeyed his God ? And who are we that we shall dare with impunity to disobey explicit commands ? Friends, we try in vain to fit our modern ideas to our God-given ancient religion. How are we better than the Secularists ? They ignore the Bible ; we pretend to worship its precepts, and blasphemously neglect its severe demands. We pick and choose as we like, and obey only such of the Almighty’s laws as fit our modern civilisation, which boasts that it “has assisted,. if, indeed, it may not claim the main share, in sweeping away the dark superstitions, the degrading belief in sorcery and witchcraft, and cruel intolerance ”. Alas, is not our science sweeping away our ancient and divinely-inspired religion ? To take up a specially modern delusion, does a reverent and earnest study of God’s dealings with the ancient peoples show him to be such as our nineteenth century sentiment imagines—a God of love, a heavenly Father ? It is very charming to think of Him as such, no doubt ; our duty, however, is not to find the charm ing, but to search the true. Do we not read of very frequent and terrible massacres of men, women, and children by His direct commands ; though sometimes virgins were spared as booty for God’s priests ? “ But Sihon, king of Heshbon, would not let us pass by him; for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate that he might deliver him into thy hand .... and we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men and the women, and the little ones, of every city ; we left none to remain” (Deuteronomy ii, 30, 34). This is one of many similar cases. And do we not see God’s anger — his great majestic anger — raised against all flesh from time to time, until we feel that punishment, not love, is the garment of the Almighty ? From the unsinning cattle which died of hailstones (Exodus ix, ig, 23, 25) to the preachers, 450 in number, of a false religion, who had to be slaughtered by God’s true clergy, the one penalty �6 BIBLE V. CIVILISATION. of exciting the divine wrath is—death. This thought naturally does not please us; we do not care to enter tain it ; we seek other writings to contradict it ; but it remains. It is of the Lord ; His law is eternal ; let Him do what seemeth Him good. Shall not He do with His own as He will ? The God of Nature and the God of our beloved Bible are not opposed. They are one. We can, as that pious soul Cowper said so truthfully, “Look from Nature up to Nature’s God”. The law of destruction so noticeable in Nature is also God’s law as expressed to us in his earliest written revelation. . How little the Christ realised God’s spirit is shown in the opposition of his teaching to His Father’s. “ Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you,” is Christ’s teaching. Something very different was the treatment which the Almighty commanded his Chosen Ones to exercise towards those nations with whom they had dealings. “ So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings : he left none remaining ; but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded ” (Joshua x, 40). ‘‘And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the souls that were therein ; he let none remain ” (Joshua x, 28). The celebrated French divine Bossuet, one of God’s most eminent modern servants, shows how deeply he has studied the method of the Eternal, when he says, “ God has all hearts in His hand ; sometimes He holds back the passions, sometimes He gives them the rein. Does He wish to make legis lators ? He sends them His wise spirit and foresight. He warns them of the evils which threaten states, and establishes public tranquillity. Knowing human wisdom to be limited, He enlightens it, extends its powers, and then abandons it to its ignorance. He blinds it, over turns it, confounds it by itself. Its own subtleties embarrass it, and its precautions are its snare. When God wishes to destroy empires, He weakens counsel. Egypt, once so wise, becomes drunken, stupid, and tottering, because the Lord has spread the spirit of �BIBLE V. CIVILISATION. 7 folly in its councils. But let not men deceive them selves. God restores the lost faculties when it pleases Him. It is thus that our God reigns righteously over the peoples.” God and Nature are not in opposition ; the severity of Nature is the expression of his Omni potence—his Power. Are not “ the scorpion’s sting, the cobra’s poison, the ferret’s teeth, the tiger’s claws, and the eagle’s talons ” part of His divine design ? Is not the law of the forest, is not the law of the ocean, rapine and destruction ? Creation must be an expression of the Creator—His thought. Let us who are believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses not try to escape, by the road of evolution, from the fact that God is the maker of all created things, and that He has Himself given the instincts to each creature, whether it is the instinct of the cat to torture the mouse ere killing it, or the instinct of the male rabbit to devour its offspring, or that of “ the wasp bringing in the caterpillar for its young, and stinging it enough to paralyse, but not to kill ”. Is it not enough for us to know that since God designed “ animals to prey upon each other for food, and then pronounced the system of almost universal carnage ‘very good’,” as a living writer expresses it, it is the Father’s will ; and we ought to forbear making comparisons between our petty ideas of goodness and the divine conceptions. Let us beware of mental pride in such matters, and bow our spirits before the Inscrutable. In the light of these conclusions as to the unity of God and Nature, marriage, the central social institu tion, can be better understood. Our modern European notion of monogamy being the highest form of union between man and woman, leads us to assume that it is of divine institution. We resent any tampering with it, as immoral and contrary to the will of God. But were not God’s chosen friends polygamists, and of a most pronounced type ? Had not Abraham his Sarah, Hagar, Keturah, and concubines besides ? Jacob married two sisters and their two maids, and “ God hearkened to Leah and Rachel and gave them sons”, as indeed he also blessed their maids. David had his Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam, and “ four more wives and �BIBLE V. CIVILISATION. concubines out of Jerusalem ”, God blessing .six of the seven with children. May we not therefore infer, since Abraham and David were so close to God, and intimate with His counsels, that polygamy is more in accordance with His will than monogamy ? Indeed, do we not altogether misunderstand the relative importance of man and woman as demonstrated in the Holy Scrip tures ? Surely even the Mohammedans read God’s pleasure on this point better than we, His apostate children who lightly preach the equality of the sexes ? And our very notions of illegitimacy are completely opposed to the cherished biographical facts of the greatest of the Bible heroes. God, like Nature, mocks at our little social ceremonies and upstart ways, and bids us back to our noble Old Testament to see what manner of men were “ after his heart ”. One last word. Let us cast from us, O friends, the silver slippers John Bunyan dreaded so much, and which have beguiled our steps too long into the wide sweet pastures of godless tolerance and civilised chari ties. Beautiful to look at, luxurious to worship, as is the idol of civilisation, which makes a virtue of for bearance and a merit of Samaritanism, it is at our soul’s peril we pay homage at that shrine. The Eternal’s dealings with, and instruction to, His own people, must be our guide; and may we bravely, and at whatever cost or heart-break, fulfil His awful Will. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes. Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk. <img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Bible versus civilisation : an appeal to the pious Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: By 'G.F.S.' [from title page]. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available A. Bonner Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1889 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N572 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource G.F.S. Subject The topic of the resource Bible Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a> This work (Bible versus civilisation : an appeal to the pious), identified by <a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a>, is free of known copyright restrictions. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Bible NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a23bab24c7f801996b78c48a5980b5f6.pdf?Expires=1784764800&Signature=BjM4abe8VkBT1c5YBdGEjYRNOfButPmMpXFjy4U9IWOrKwgJK7Wn3NoT5HWL-rSvq8siH8YJFIu0a1k6rn8UOyAgVHG6h3rcrTBIxC9PA9-3OM8NUjlN4ElXJOCTd6FhSiOgucAzK5dElIUBgpJiwDZDP0IKGyAEC0CT-Akd21w0VemXZ5J-lkOTWNqmERxmJrwOZrqXbmFowWczktfQPsLyhwIlfPaPhftfOg0e3HIEeOkBt0XJCGtHX5J2Xsl7L4HAH550PP4gzrY0woVVRs0buD70ZwOiUjAH6iD4Lrtoxa9j-IS5WJKN7VC7Y-8Y2jDDm-qCKYX3Gv8d11U1Ag__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 1a6cbf8707dd7b0b2aade17c51c38a63 PDF Text Text NATIONAL MAKERS RUTH, SAMUEL, DAVID SOLOMON & OTHERS MOSES JOSHUA AND JUDGES Jk BY ARTHUR B. MOSS. London: WATTS & Co., 84, FLEET STREET, E.C. Price One Penny. ��BIBLE-MAKERS. ------- u ... j -n'I. oil n3XGVA,ni.?.9ffj;. , Git*, !Rrri»rf fBiw fritH MOSES. ‘ ‘ 1 J Emerson says that “the sacred books of each nation express for each the supreme result of their experience.” This is undoubtedly true. By reference to the sacred writings of a people we can, to a very large extent, form a correct estimate of their intellectual and moral ad vancement. A Bible, in fact, should be the result of the joint labours of the best scientist, moralist, social reformer, historian, poet, dramatist, and novelist of the time in which it is written. Not that these eminent personages collaborate to produce a book, as dramatic authors now-a-days do to produce a play, one supplying the plot, the other the dialogue, and in some instances a third being called in to compose some music for a song or two, introduced for the special reason of giving the hero or heroine a chance of displaying his or her vocal talent, and relieving, in some degree, the heavy character of the piece; but each writer supplying, independent of the other, essays on those subjects with which he feels himself most conversant, sometimes venturing an opinion on matters upon which his knowledge is of the scantiest kind. Moses, or whoever the author of the Pentateuch may have been, belonged to the class of versatile writers sometimes to be found on the staff of our daily journals, who feel themselves competent to write on all subjects in heaven above and earth beneath; who can with ease polish off an article either to refute Darwin, turn Mill’s logic inside out, expose its many weaknesses, and, as a light diversion, pulverise the arguments in Mr. Glad stone’s latest speech into the most minute particles of rubbish it is possible to conceive, and with one whiff of journalistic wisdom scatter all that remains to the four winds of heaven. Accordingly, we find Moses figuring �4 BIBLE-MAKERS. first as a scientist, then as a historian, then as a bio grapher ; next, after bringing the children of Israel out of Egypt safely through the Red Sea, as a poet; and lastly as a moral teacher. Of course, it would be unreasonable to expect Moses to write ahead of the knowledge of the times in which he lived, unless, like the theologian, we credit him with being divinely inspired—a claim which, as far as I can judge, he never put forward on his own behalf. jr When Moses, on his own responsibility, made Jahveh create the earth in six days, throw into the infinite expanse the sun, moon, and stars, and finally make man and woman after his own image, he merely reflected'the current beliefs of the best informed persons of the time. Had he done more than this, he would not have succeeded in pleasing the people for whom he wrote ; and to be a successful man even in one’s own day is no small task : it is indeed to gain a position after which many strive very arduously, but which few manage to attain. To be successful through ages, to win the admiration, of the fWpeople as they increase in wisdom and goodness, is given only to a few men of rare genius, whose works shed im perishable lustre upon the nation in which they are born, only that it may be spread through various sources to all the peoples of the earth. “ Sufficient for the day is the success thereof” is the motto of most men of the world. A popular dramatist, upon being spoken to by a friend, a short time ago, anent the unenduring character of his work, and asked why he did not consider the judgment posterity would pronounce upon it, caustically replied : “ What do I care for posterity ? Posterity does not pay me.” And Moses and others among the Biblical writers regarded posterity with the same air of ’supercilious disregard, having seem ingly much more care for the certain popularity of the hour than the enduring regard of subsequent generations. Not alone in his unscientific disquisitions did Moses show that he did not possess an idea above the common pre vailing sentiments of the Jewish people, but he told them to act towards slaves and blasphemers in precisely the' way we may fairly suppose they would have chosen to act when left to be guided by tl^gir own uncultivated �BIBLE-MAKERS. 5 feelings and judgment. He told them to buy slaves “ of the heathen round about them,” and to brutally ill-treat them, if it pleased them so to do. He commanded them not to “ suffer a witch to live,” and to barbarously stone blasphemers to death. Mohammed, in establishing a new religion many years later, was equally careful in the Koran (chapter entitled “ The Cow ”) to warn his fol lowers of the fate of unbelievers, who, he said, would not believe, whether they were admonished or not. Fr; In his poetical efforts Moses was singularly tame : he sang not the song of love or labour, but of strife and warfare; and it lacked the true poetic ring. But, if his poetry was bad, his history was worse. When he records the doings of the Israelites, even though he himself is commander-in-chief, priest, and deliverer, he writes a comedy of errors, which at last degenerates into the broadest of farce. His tragic seriousness is drily and un-consciously humorous, so much so that I can fancy the late Mr. Compton causing shouts of merriment over the solemn delivery of Moses’ inimitably grotesque’ account of the plagues. Even when he is describing such a sad and shameful occurrence as the flood—a god-wrought crime unparalleled in the history of the world for its vindictiveness and cruelty—he gives Noah the stupendous task of collecting all the animals prior to packing them “ close as herrings ” in the ark, and the tragedy is un necessarily delayed while this unspeakably cornig, busi ness is enacted. As to Moses’s biographical sketches, they are sadly wanting in many important respects. He does not give us a particle of information concerning the earlier life of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, though we should be much better able to estimate their qualities if we knew howr they were trained, who were their instructors and companions, and what were the social conditions by which they were surrounded. He gives us an account of such unimportant affairs as the quarrels of Abraham’s and Lot’s servants, of Jacob’s dream, and of the angel’s acrobatic performances on the ladder; but of the career of the magnanimous Esau he supplies us only with the faintest possible out line. '.uo.' ..i ;• ■ As a writer of unconsciously grotesque and amusing �6 BIBLE-MAKERS. narrative, Moses was, perhaps, the equal of any of the Biblical writers. Nothing can surpass in this respect the story of Balaam’s visit to Balak on his talkative donkey, except it be the candid account of his own death and burial. But, taken altogether, spite of its many imper fections of style and its ludicrous stories, its tales of vice and crime and bloodshed, the Pentateuch is exceedingly interesting reading, especially to the Freethinker, who, discarding the silly notion of Divine inspiration, is better able to estimate its true value as indicating the moral and intellectual advancement of a people who, though they plume themselves on being the “chosenchildren of God,” have been one of the most unfortunate among the races of men. JOSHUA AND JUDGES. Many things, it will be admitted, are extremely doubtful in reference to the authorship of the books of the Bible; but no manner of doubt can, I imagine, exist in any thoughtMamind that Joshua was no more the writer of the book that bears his name than Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. For the purpose of having names to refer to as the accredited authors of the various books of the Bible, it will be convenient to assume that these persons were in reality responsible for the books of which they are the alleged authors. And it may at once be said that the contents of the Book of Joshua show that that personage entertained not only a very good opinion of himself, but a very poor one of everybody else. When an author is writing reminiscences of his career as a general, and describing, in vivid language, the rapine and murder of which the soldiers under his command were guilty, it is positively in bad taste to say a word on his own behalf, as though pleading for promotion or a pen sion, and to declare that “ his [Joshua’s] fame was noised throughout all the country.” Joshua seemed to think that fame and notoriety were much the same.. In this, however, as in most other things, he greatly erred. Any murderer may get notoriety if he only display enough brutality or callousness in the execution of the deed ; but fame can be achieved only by meritorious conduct, and �BIBLE-MAKERS. 7 we have no evidence that Joshua understood even what that meant. Being the successor of Moses, he thought it incumbent upon him to imitate, as far as possible, the deeds of wanton cruelty, deceit, and villainy which cha racterised his predecessor. Or, supposing that Joshua did not do these things, but merely recorded them as having happened for the edification of future generations, then he must have imagined that the people would be satisfied with stories of bloodshed, or of wonders wrought by the Lord for the special behoof of his chosen people. He must have thought, too, that the credulity of his readers was practically unlimited, and that it did not matter much how stupid the event was that he recorded, so long as something similar was said to have occurred before, or that nobody could doubt that such and such a miracle had been performed, if only the Lord could be placed in the background—behind the curtain, as it were —to act as the performer. As a historian Joshua was a dead failure. He was too ignorant to understand even ordinary events, and extraordinary occurrences simply bemuddled what little reason he may have possessed. Like all careless students of nature, he was prone to grossly exaggerate the things he saw, and to exaggerate still more mon strously the things that he did not see, but only heard spoken of by his friends and co-workers. He would have done very well for the war correspondent of the Daily Telephone ; for his special telegrams of one day could have been very easily contradicted on the day following by some other correspondent who was an “eye witness ” to the event recorded, but did not see it “ in the same light ” of the gentleman who did the special. In point of truth, Joshua was one of that class of writers —always assuming that he wrote anything at all—who could have done his correspondence, and appeared to have been on the field, just as well in the back parlour of a Fleet Street restaurant as in a rude tent near the seat of war. When Joshua wrote the account of the sun standing still upon Gideon, and the moon in the valley of Ajalon, he forgot for the nonce in which department of the literary staff of the said journal he was engaged, and thought �8 BIBLE-MAKERS. that his views on astronomical phenomena would be quite as acceptable to the Jewish public as his opinion on the best method of decapitating the Midianites. It was as though the sporting correspondent of a paper had ventured to send in, unsolicited, a descriptive account of an archbishop’s last sermon, or the musical critic had supplied an article on the “ germ theory of disease.” If Joshua meant that the sun stood still in order to allow him to win a battle, he must have been joking; for, as every little boy now knows, the sun, so far as this earth is concerned, never moves. But what about the moon ? Was not the light of the sun enough? Did Joshua imagine that a night-light would be of assistance in the daylight—a rushlight an important auxiliary to the sun ? If we suppose that Joshua tried to be poetic in referring to the sun and moon, his figurative language must have got slightly mixed-—he made too much of the moon. As Thomas Paine pointed out, as a figurative declaration Joshua’s is inferior to one by Mohammed, who, when a person came to expostulate with him upon his doings, retorted : “ Wert thou to come to me with the sun in thy right hand and the moon in thy left, it should not alter my career.” For Joshua to have eclipsed Mohammed he should have put the sun in one pocket of his waistcoat and the moon in the other, and used them as watches—one to time his doings by day, the other to regulate his conduct by night; or, as Paine remarks, “ carried them as Guy Fawkes carried his dark lanterns, and taken them out to shine as he might happen to want them.” In addition to being special reporter, historian, poet, and commander for the Israelites, Joshua varied these occupations by occasionally acting as executioner. Among his many achievements I find that he burned the city of Ai and hanged the king, and performed the office of executioner (without a special request) to five other crownedheads. I must not, however, dwell atgreaterlength upon the writings or doings of Joshua, but come at once to the gentlemen who describe themselves as “Judges.” What these persons were judges of we have no means of knowing. It is pretty clear, however, that they could not very well have been judges of a man’s capability, A �BIBLE-MAKERS. 9 single-handed, of destroying brute beasts or his fellow creatures, else they would not have favoured us with the silly account of Samson’s encounter with a lion, or his great feat with a jawbone. As a profane wag once re marked, if Samson could have slain a thousand people with another ass’s jawbone, it is extremSy difficult to understand why he could not have done it with his own. On the subject of dreams the Judges were authorities. If any wandering lunatic dreamed a dream, these writers were sure to allow it to come true. Indeed, a very large portion of the Bible is made up of accounts of religious dreams, and the “ Bible makers,” being themselves mostly dreamers, attached great importance to the interpretation of visions which the dreamers themselves had half for gotten. And so, in the seventh chapter, we are told that when Gideon had come into the city of the Midianites “ there was a man that told a dream unto his fellow, and said, Behold, I dreamed a dream, and, lo, a cake of barley bread tumbled into the host of Midian, and came unto a tent, and smote it that it fell, and overturned it that the tent lay along. And his fellow answered and said, This is nothing else save the sword of Gideon, the son of Joash, a man of Israel; for into his hand hath God delivered Midian and all the host.” The writers of the book of Judges then proceed to show that the barley loaf in the dream did really mean the sword of Gideon; and though no tent was overturned by either the loaf or the sword, nor even the walls of the city, the Midianites were put to flight, pursued, and those of them that were unfortunately overtaken were mercilessly slain, even to the princes who were taken prisoners. Judges, with its stories of dreams, battles, and the man whose strength lay in his hair, may be considered very good pabulum upon which to feed religious babes and sucklings ; but it is decidedly poor stuff upon which to rear children of a large and more vigorous growth ; and of such are the children of earth. RUTH, SAMUEL, AND DAVID. Sandwiched between Judges and Samuel is the book of Ruth. How it came to be incorporated in the Bible �IO BIBLE-MAKERS. it would be difficult to tell, without great faith and a prayerful spirit; and, unless we suppose that some lewd fellow, thinking that a little more pruriency would be an improvement, by some dexterous and surreptitious means slipped the book in, there is no accounting for its appear ance among the sacred writings at all. It is, however a pretty love-story. It tells of a poor simple girl from the country, who came up to town to see her cousin, Boaz, and, having successfully repelled the advance ments of numerous young men who were infatuated with her charms, steals slily to bed with her cousin, who blesses her for her unselfish kindness, and ultimately rewards her by making her his wife. As no more mention is made of them, we will be generous enough to suppose that they lived happily ever after. If Miss Ruth, however, wrote this brief autobiographical sketch, it must be ^confessed that she was as candid in revealing her failings as Jean Jacques Rousseau was in revealing his, if, indeed, she meant this little business with her cousin to be considered as an iniquity at all. We come now to Samuel. He was the son of Elkanah. He wrote a book, or a number of books, and followed his predecessor, Moses’s, example in being careful to give a full account of his own death and burial. His father he described as “ a certain man of Ramathaim Zophim and Mount Ephraim.” Most fathers are “ certain men.” He gives an account of a man named Saul, who was seeking his father’s asses, which had gone astray. The children of Israel at the same time were in search of a king. The asses were found; so was Saul, who was at once anointed king by Samuel, who, from an early age, was a prophet of the Lord. His early appointment to this profession took place in this wise: he received a “ call ” from the Lord, who, hiding himself in an obscure corner of the sky, had an inoffensive game at bo-peep with the child Samuel, and, after allowing the lad to make a couple of wrong guesses as to who it was that had called him, permitted him to guess correctly the third time, and thus save his bacon, and become a per petual prophet of the Lord of Hosts ever after. Samuel faithfully recorded the lives of such illustrious kings as Saul and David ; gave a graphic description of �BIBLE-MAKERS. II the unequal encounter between David and Goliath, in which he showed how easy it was for a little boy with a sling and a stone to kill a giant; and, further, how diffi cult it is for a harpist—a Jew-harpist—by dulcet strains of music to soothe the savage breast of a king, after having taken from him the favour of the people. Samuel also demonstrates that a high degree of mental culture was not an indispensable accomplishment of a prophet. David prophesied upon a harp ; many of the people prophesied with cymbals and with song; and some, no doubt, produced the same result upon the bango, or with the bones ; but King Saul put them all to the blush. Finding that everybody was going in for prophesying, he divested himself of all his raiment, and lay on his back and prophesied as hard as any of them. This, as an honest historian, the prophet Samuel has faithfully set down, not in a spirit of malice or uncharitableness,Jbutj in that of candour and truth, that ordinary folk might understand the strange doings of the godly. Samuel’s account of the life of David is filled with interest. Thackeray’s “ Four Georges ” or Carlyle’s “ Cromwell ” are not more graphic. If only the letters of David to his various mistresses had been preserved, what a splendid addition they would have made to this fascinating biographical sketch ! Great affection, unselfish devotion, David unquestionably displayed towards Jona than ; but how infinitely small it was compared with the unbounded love he showed towards the wives of Nabal and Uriah. David robbed, outraged, and murdered wherever he went; and, in true prophetic strain, Samuel describes him as a “ man after God’s own heart,” clearly showing that he knew the character of God very well; he, therefore, represented David as much “ after the image of his maker ” as possible. It is said that David, at the end, repented ; so, too, did Charles Peace—at the rope’s-end. Worthy couple! The books of Kings and Chronicles, which are merely a combination or repetition of the stories of Samuel, I pass over, as also the book of Job, a Gentile production which deserves to be considered on its merits, apart altogether from the place it occupies in men’s minds on account of being one of the books of the Bible. �12 BIBLE-MAKERS. We come now to the Psalms of David, which throw a flood of light upon the inner life of the king and prophet. They are a collection of songs—not comic; mostly expressive of praise to Deity. What many-sided ness of nature ffihese poetic expressions disclose ! What infinite piety,jjhombined with consummate rascality— what unctuousness, covering the imperious dogmatism of a king and a priest! How anxious David is that the religious shall have no “ fellowship with the ungodly that the Lord shall rebuke the unbeliever, and afflict him with great suffering ! David’s God was essentially a butcher and a king. Give heed to this poetic strain :— O clap your hands, all ye people ; shout unto God with the voice of triumph. For the Lord Most High is terrible ; he is a great king over all the earth. He shall subdue the people under us, and the nations under our feet. He shall choose our inheritance for us, the excellency of Jacob whom he loved. Selah. (Psalm xlvii.) As for the Atheist, David loathed him with every drop of his blood. He regarded him as a fool, and said as much. Most people call those persons names whom they cannot answer :— The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity : there is none that doeth good. (Psalm liii.) In a more humble mood was the Psalmist when he penned the following :— Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty ; neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. Surely I have behaved and quieted myself as a child that is weaned of his mother : my soul is even as a weaned child. Let Israel hope in the Lord from henceforth and for ever. (Psalm cxxxi.) But in his true colours David is seen when, from the lowest depths of his fiendish heart, he gives vent to his views as to how God should treat those who had been his (David’s) and God’s enemies :— Set thou a wicked man over him, and let Satan stand at his right hand. �BIBLE-MAKERS. I When he shall be judged let him be condemned, and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and let another take his office ; let his chil dren be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath, andi^et the strangersspoil his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him ;* reither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off, and in the generation following let his name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord, and. let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. ' u Oh, what a difference between the sentiments of the Atheist poet, Shelley, and the Theist poet, David ! The one wrote for the ignorant and cruel and despotic people of ages that have gone ; the other, in incomparably grand verse, breathed the pure and lofty sentiments of the humanity of the future. SOLOMON AND OTHERS. Interspersed among much that was unwittingly funny, and more that was deliberately barbarous, it was only natural that the Bible-makers should supply a few chapters of gloomy sermonising, to lend a kind of moral respectability to the whole work. King Solomon wa|f ♦ therefore, specially retained to supply the article. Credited with almost unlimited knowledge and wisdom, but pos sessing, if we may judge from his writings and conduct, a very infinitesimal quantity of either; a notorious man of the world; devoid altogether of principles or sincerity —a more appropriate person could scarcely have been chosen for the task. No men are more prone to preach —and sometimes very good sermons too—than those whose practice is in flagrant and diametrical opposition to their teachings. From the judge upon the bench to the unpaid magistrate in an obscure country town, or from the opulent bishop to the poor underpaid curate, we have hundreds of examples of men who, in their official position, give admirable lessons to the public as to how they should conduct themselves morally—lessons which they themselves not only never attempt to put into �14 BIBLE-MAKERS. practice, but which they persistently and deliberately disregard. The Spartans, it is said, used to make a slave drunk, and set him before their sons, so that the exhibition might disgust them, and thus influence them against the excessive use of intoxicating drinks. Solomon seems to have '^een chosen as a contributor to the pages of the Bibl,|j^n the same principle. Having divided his attention?, mainly between wine and woman, espe cially the latter; monopolising several hundred wives and three hundred concubines, he was considered to be a high authority upon the things of life in general, and upon women and wine in particular. And a very gloomy opinion it was—pessimistic to the last degree. The reclaimed drunkard is often considered the best advocate of temperance; the converted burglar the most admirable teacher of morality; the reformed prize fighter the best example of the influence of the meek and lowly Jesus. In Solomon the qualities of all these persons were combined. He had had experience of life in all its varied aspects ; he had prostituted his physical and mental faculties for the sake of transitory pleasures; and at last, when he had become a decrepit, used-up debauchee, he yelled out, in the agony of his despair: “ Vanity—all is vanity !” To Solomon childish laughter seemed fiendish, innocent playfulness agonising folly, honest toil madness; and he summed up life as com prising nothing but “ vanity and vexation of spirit.” He had wasted his life, and he longed for death to escape from wThat, to him, was a dreary and miserable existence. And while he was in this unpleasant mood he contributed twelve chapters to the Holy Bible, for which the long-faced, lugubrious gentlemen of orthodoxy will ever thank and praise him. Having finished Ecclesiastes, Solomon apparently rested for a time, and then rushed into song, which, being written when the author was in a better state of mind—in fact, in quite an affectionate mood—with, doubtless, one of his many wivd^gitting upon his knee caressing him, are, therefore, much more pleasant, though not altogether decent, compositions. The meta phor, at times, is very coarse, as the reader will see, if he glance cursorily over chapter seven and the first few �BIBLE-MAKERS. i5 verses; and one cannot avoid the conclusion that the writer was inebriated at the time with something of a stronger nature than exuberant verbosity. The book of the prophet Isaiah follows. Isaiah was a dreamer, and all the terrible events which ^e foresaw as certain to happen he had had revealed to him in a vision. Many of these predictions were perfectly safe. They were not to take place till the “ last day,” and, as that interesting period is unlikely to come very soon in a world that is, as the Prayer Book properly says, “ without * end,” the events are not likely to be carefully verified. When we are assured that “ it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all the nations shall flow into it,” we can only remark that, if ever the mountain of the House of Lords—or Lord’s House, which is the same thing—should get elevated at all, it is not unlikely that it will be exalted much higher than the hills— probably elevated off the face of the earth • and so that prophecy will be fulfilled. As to the composition itself, I think it may not unfairly be said that it is the most in coherent and meaningless jargon to be found in the Bible, save and except, perhaps, the ravings of St. John, the divine maniac, in the book called Revelation, which reveals nothing but the hopeless imbecility of the writer. . • <■“ > Prophesying was once a good businessW^Every priest practised it, and every ignoramus believed in it. Old women of both sexes gave it their countenance and support. The Bible-makers knew the importance of it, and so, to every single historian or poet on the staff, they kept four prophets. After Isaiah come Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the former of which contains nothing of importance, and the latter only a parable concerning a boiling pot and a faithful narrative of the disgusting practices of Aholah and Aholibah, two painted harlots of Babylon. These, with Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Zechariah, and Malachi, and one or two others that are never read, complete the first part of the Bible. Most of these last-named writers were in the prophetic line, and their prophecies need a �16 BIBLE-MAKERS. revelation before they can be understood. I don’t profess to understand them, and I do not know any sensible person who does; but, if there are any who understand them, or think they do, they are sure to be numbered among the Bible-makers of the future. .’zui.wiil otd- 7. TU'vJtol. ■■ *; U ‘ 1 vh- YR jj i-•> : G'hi 1 j:.d - ■' lid • r hWi t.’f.ij c.i ,, . JJJ. U- JJ jTpW C'?' fr<-'..b-- ..-I'* .J . : v;i IO iMLhlL'on: ulj ' ■ '-■Ji r ’ *t. i'? W ' ' i i< ALSO BY THE SAME AUTHOR. m' ' .TfR ■ ; 7 ..... , ; . I ,7U C-’L ' i- SOCRATES, BUDDHA, AND JESUS ............................ o i THE MIRROR OF FREETHOUGHT ............................ x o THE BIBLE GOD AND HIS FAVOURITES .. .. ox FICTITIOUS GODS................................................................... ox CHRISTIANITY UNWORTHY OFGOD.............................. ox THE SECULAR FAITH ...................................................... ox IS RELIGION NECESSARY OR USEFUL? .. ox HEALTH, WEALTH, AND HAPPINESS........................... ox THE OLD FAITH AND THE NEW .. .. .. o i BRAIN AND SOUL .. .. .. ................ ... o i BIBLE SAINTS AND SINNERS....................................................ox AND ' WAS JESUS AN IMPOSTOR? (One Hundred Pages. In Boards. Price One Shilling.) A Discussion between two Freethinkers—-Agnes Rollo Wilkie and Arthur B. Moss. The most blasphemous book of the age. Freethinkers enjoy it ; Jews like it amazingly ; Christians detest it. It strikes at Jesus the God, demonstrates the hollowness of his pre tensions, shows that he deceived himself and his followers, and that through them the world has been deceived ever since. Jjrm .It GUO Pt inted arid Published by Watts R Co., 84, Fleet Street,. EXS i � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes. Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk. <img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Bible-Makers: Moses, Joshua and Judges, Ruth, Samuel, David, Solomon & others. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Moss, Arthur B. Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: List of works by the same author available from Watts & Co. on back page. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Watts & Co. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1885] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N498 Subject The topic of the resource Bible Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a> This work (Bible-Makers: Moses, Joshua and Judges, Ruth, Samuel, David, Solomon & others.), identified by <a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a>, is free of known copyright restrictions. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Bible-O.T.-Criticism NSS