1
10
4
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/90fbbd460e4a1378317a42716292533b.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=qfF%7ERUix3rvKURITbM3r4t7y8NY6hCdu%7E0m6MmuDIRXcG9ESUn%7E0-ayfLPcVC-LLtQYE49CfrpQsExJYkykP-lVDMPSJbuVIJIK0YM2c9-LC43-qN4VJFXhbHb55cdY5mbhVmGgiNg39jXZUGbXAnjZw1KpWe1tbqskVZxjIYWdtebQlcsDx6JJfsewyV5J6lvB9VmoCHMsC-w%7Em3Yb6iOhGpN5%7Ez6fusrqRsEyoRv9WlBJcZJTL%7EMDeNW7a-Eeftb%7EzXPiwmBmvzP9XeGGAsE%7Es9LPqqVq4vNH-aKZ--ubsIS9-AO5bEN6PG8tnob5g3fmz1dMUOO-luvHO57Kosg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f0f7121a0d29afdaa7fc055d4b16f237
PDF Text
Text
�I sHiLr JBI
�$9+7
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE
GRAND OLD BOOK
A REPLY TO
THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE’S
“ THE IMPREGNABLE BOCK OF HOLY SCRIPTURE »
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1891.
�LONDON:
PRTNTED AND PUBLISHED DY G. W. POOLE
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�CONTENTS.
PAGE
PREFACE....................................................................... -
-
v
PRELIMINARY VIEW......................................................................... 1
THE CREATION STORY........................................................... 17
THE FALL OF MAN
------
THE PSALMS...........................................................
34
-
44
THE MOSAIC LEGISLATION -----
51
...
64
....
71
CORROBORATIONS OF SCRIPTURE
GLADSTONE AND HUXLEY
MODERN SCEPTICISM
-
�k
�PREFACE
There is something exhilarating in Mr. Gladstone’s
vivacity at an age when most men are but the relics
or shadows of their former selves. His restless
energy, and his unflagging interest in so many pur
suits, are at least the indications of a wide sympathy
and a strenuous intelligence. But nature, while
endowing him with a magnetic and commanding per
sonality, did not include originality in his intellectual
gifts. As a statesman he has always followed the
thought of his age, and as a theologian he lags
behind it.
The late Dr. Dollinger placed Mr. Gladstone in the
front rank of English theologians. “ I do not think,”
said the great German scholar, “ that you have in
your Church any superior to him.” But this state
ment should probably be taken with a large grain of
salt. When one Grand Old Man praises another
Grand Old Man, who happens to be his personal
friend and admirer, we must allow a liberal margin
for the warmth of sentiment. For our part, we should
say that Mr. Gladstone does not shine as a theologian,
although his style is prelatical enough for an arch
bishop. His early work on Church and State was cut
to mincemeat by Lord Macaulay. His famous pam
phlet on the Vatican Decrees was courteously, calmly,
but most remorselessly, reduced to shreds and tatters
by Cardinal Newman. His recent tilt with Colonel
�vi.
Preface.
Ingersoll was an egregious and almost ignominious
failure, while his controversies with Professor Huxley
have shown the futility of the methods of parlia
mentary discussion in the domain of science and
scholarship.
Assuredly there are better theologians than Mr.
Gladstone in England, but they are too discreet to
risk a battle for their faith. Mr. Gladstone rushes in
where they feai’ to tread. He is filled with a sense of
security because he does not understand the real
nature and force of sceptical objections. What is
admirable, is not his fitness for the task, but his
irrepressible courage. Even this has been questioned
by cynics, who point out that whereas his previous
defences of orthodoxy have been made in reviews
where he might be replied to, his latest defence has
been made in a religious magazine where reply is im
possible.
Mr. Gladstone’s articles in Good Words have been
collected, and published after revision and enlarge
ment in the form of a volume, called “ The Impregnable
Rock of Holy Scripture.” This is a sufficiently
sonorous title, which would sound well from a pulpit,
but it lies open to an easy criticism.
If the Rock of Holy Scripture is impregnable, why
is it so earnestly defended ? Who is anxious about a
really impregnable position ? All its occupants have
to do is to sit still and watch the enemy with amuse
ment. The moment fire is opened on the besiegers,
the impregnability of the position is surrendered—as
the position itself may be at the end of the battle.
Mr. Gladstone may reply that his object is not so
much to repel scepticism as to reassure belief; not so
much to thin the ranks of the enemy as to prevent
�Preface.
vii.
them from being swelled by deserters from the impreg
nable citadel. But his appeal cannot be so restricted.
It is necessarily made in the hearing of both forces,
and in so far as it fails to answer the arguments of
scepticism it will loosen the allegiance he seeks to
confirm.
In replying to Mr. Gladstone’s defence of Scripture,
a critic is entitled to lose sight of his eminence as a
statesman. There is equality of citizenship in the
democracy of thought, and there are no authorities in
the republic of reason. Nor does a writer’s eminence
in one department of mental activity give him a right
to be deferred to in another. Whoever publishes his
opinions, of necessity challenges criticism, and it is the
business of a true critic to be overawed by no man’s
greatness, but to canvas his views and arguments as
fearlessly and impartially as if they were advanced by
the humblest and most obscure controversialist.
This principle must be the justification, if any
justification is needed, for the freedom with which the
present writer has expressed himself in opposition to
Mr. Gladstone. If he has evei’ trespassed beyond an
allowable freedom, he begs pardon of Mr. Gladstone
and the reader. At the same time he ventures to
suggest that mere politeness is a virtue in which
knaves often excel; that it may be medicinal to
speak plainly when the flatterers of a great man
mislead him; and that the world is so much in need of
truth—the one sure friend of humanity—that a single
grain of it should outweigh all the dross with which it
happens to be surrounded.
��THE GRAND OLD BOOK.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY VIEW.
With an admirable and engaging ingenuousness Mr.
Gladstone tells us, at the outset, what are his quali
fications for the task he has undertaken. He does not
understand Hebrew, but that is a trifling disadvantage
in the present stage of controversy. There are very
few persons who understand Hebrew, and some of
them understand nothing else. Nor will the inspira
tion of Scripture, with the masses of thoughtful people,
stand or fall on the discussion of Hebrew texts. In
this country they think in English, and must be saved
or damned in English. The question will be decided,
so far as they are concerned, not on grounds of arch
aeology or minute scholarship, but on the broad ground
of science and common sense. Whitman’s advice to
every reader is, “ Dismiss what affronts your own soul,”
and men can and will do this while the pundits are
wrangling over textual obscurities and subtle problems
of syntax and style.
Secondly, Mr. Gladstone believes, what is true, that
“ there is a very large portion of the community whose
opportunities of judgment have been materially smaller
than his own.” But this is only saying that the oneeyed man will be king among the blind. Thirdly, he
has devoted a great part of his leisure during forty
years to “ the earnest study^of pre-historic antiquity
�2
The Grand Old Book.
and its documents in regard to the Greek race,” and
here he flings in the perilous statement that “ the early
Scriptures may in the mass be roughly called contem
porary with the Homeric period.” But the most pro
found study of Greek antiquities would scarcely confer
any special fitness for a judgment on the antiquities of
a people so dissimilar as the Jews. The real fact is
that Mr. Gladstone has the same qualifications, perhaps
a little heightened, as ordinary educated Englishmen.
He is at the mercy of specialists like the rest of us,
and only argues from the obvious results of their
labors.
A much less acute man than Mr. Gladstone would
see that those obvious results have effectually dispose d
of the doctrine of plenary inspiration. It is not sur
prising, therefore, that he warns the Spurgeon-Denison
school against their danger. He sums up the difficul
ties of their position under seven heads. He says
“ there may possibly have been ”—
1. Imperfect comprehension of that which was communi
cated.
2. Imperfect expression of what had been comprehended.
3. Lapse of memory in oral transmission.
4. Errors of copyists in written transmission.
5. Changes with the lapse of time in the sense of words.
6. Variations arising from renderings into different tongues,
especially as between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint,
which was probably based upon MS. older than the compilers
of the Hebrew text could have had at their command.
7. There are three variant chronologies of the New Testa
ment, according to the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and the Sama
ritan Pentateuch, and it would be hazardous to claim for any
one of them the sanction of a Divine revelation.
“ That in some sense,” Mr. Gladstone says, “ the
Holy Scriptures contain something of a human element
�The Grand Old Booh.
a
is clear, as to the New Testament, from diversities of
reading, from slight conflicts in the narrative, and
from an insignificant number of doubtful cases as to
the authenticity of the text.” This admission is honest,
but is made with considerable discretion. “ An insig
nificant number of doubtful cases” is a very judicious
expression; while “ slight conflicts in the narrative ”
is perhaps a trifle more than judicious. There are three
contradictory accounts, for instance, of such an ex
tremely important event as the conversion of Saint
Paul; and although the inscription on the cross of
Christ was written in Greek, as well as in Latin
and Hebrew, the Holy Ghost inspired the four evange
lists (in Greek) so accurately that they copied it in
four different ways. These instances are only a sample
of a monstrous mass of “ slight conflicts.” We must
further add that “diversities of reading” is a very
mild expression of the fact that there are a hundred
and fifty thousand various readings of texts even in
the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.
This does not exhaust Mr. Gladstone’s admissions.
He refers, with apparent approval, to Dr. Driver’s,
article in the Contemporary Review, in which it is
shown “ with great clearness and ability that the basis ”
of continental criticism is “ sound and undeniable.”
Then he writes as follows :
“ It has long been known, for example, that portions of the
historical books of the Old Testament, such as the Books of
Chronicles, were of a date very far later than most of the events
which they record, and that a portion of the prophecies included
in the Book of Isaiah were later than his time. We are now
taught that, according to the prevailing judgment of the learned,
the form in which the older books of the Old Testament have
come down to us does not correspond as a rule with their
titles, and is due to later though still, as is largely held, remote
�4
The Grand Old Booh.
periods; and that the law presented to us in the Pentateuch is
not an enactment of a single date, but has been formed by a
process of growth, and by gradual accretions.”
Mr. Gladstone says that these are “ disturbing an
nouncements/"’ and they would be far more “ disturb
ing ” if he made them as complete as he might find
warrant for in the pages of Dr. Driver, Canon Cheyne
and Archdeacon Farrar. Nevertheless, the Grand Old
Man does not lose his equanimity. He was brought up
a believer, he has lived a believer, and he will die a
believer. So far from being dismayed, he is in a per
fect state of jubilation. The more the old Book is
turned about in the kaleidoscope of scientific criticism,
the more it shifts into new forms, the better he likes
it. If the old arrangement showed it was inspired,
the new arrangement shows it still more. He rejoices
to think that no “ weapon of offence” has “yet been
forged ” which can impair the “ efficiency ” of Scripture
for “practical purposes.” Let destructive criticism do
its worst, we “ yet may hold firmly, as firmly as of old,”
to the impregnable rock.
Such words sound like and are a challenge “ to accept
the Scriptures on the moral and spiritual and historical
ground of their characters in themselves, and of the
work which they, and the agencies associated with them
have done and are doing in the world.” But this is
the introduction of a fresh argument. For the present
at any rate, Mr. Gladstone is bound to argue in the
light of Cardinal Newman’s aphorism, “ A true religion
is a religion founded on truth; a false religion is a
religion founded on falsehood.”
Mr. Gladstone goes even farther. He is ready to be
on with the new love as soon as he is off with the old
one. He surmises that “ this destructive criticism, if
�The Grand Old Booh.
5
entirely made good, would, in the view of an inquiry
really searching, comprehensive, and philosophical,
leave as its result not less but greater reason for
admiring the hidden modes by which the great Artificer
works out his designs.” In other words, the Lord
may have been keeping us in a fog for two thousand
years in order to make us appreciate the change when
he brings us into the daylight. But this is not the
method adopted by human parents towards their chil
dren ; and any Board School teacher who followed it
would be soon amongst the unemployed.
The argument indeed—if it be an argument—is a
pawky one ; for, if Mr. Gladstone thinks the new view
of the Bible is likely to increase our faith, why does he
not accept it unhesitatingly? His attitude is really
that of a man who has made up his mind to cling to
the Bible in any circumstances, and he is obviously
writing for readers who are filled with a similar deter
mination.
Mr. Gladstone is so far, indeed, from yielding with
out reserve to the conclusions of destructive criticism,
that he warns his readers against an excessive alarm.
“ Those conclusions,” he says, “ appear to be in a great
measure floating and uncertain, the subject of manifold
controversy, and secondly they seem to shift and vary
with rapidity in the minds of those who hold them.”
Then, with the dexterity of the old parliamentary
hand, he introduces a lecture by Mr. Margoliouth, the
Laudian Professor of Arabic at Oxford, who thinks it
possible to reconstruct the Semitic original of the Book
of Ecclesiastes, and who is for giving Rabbinical
Hebrew a greater antiquity than is usually assigned to
it. This would, of course, involve a greater antiquity
for Middle and Ancient Hebrew, and by such means
�The Grand Old Book.
the Pentateuch and the ‘k historical ” books might be
made a century or two older than is allowed in the
current chronology. Here, then, says Mr. Gladstone,
there is “ war, waged on critical grounds, in the critical
camp ”; and he thinks the spectator will be “ the more
hardened in his determination not to rush prematurely
to final conclusions.”
This bit of dexterity is perhaps an effective piece of
ad populum rhetoric. But is it worthy of Mr. Glad
stone I His friend, Professor Max Muller, in the first
volume of his Gifford lectures, utters an anticipative
protest against this infatuation. “ To say that critics
disagree among themselves/’ he remarks, “ and that
they need not be listened to till they agree, is one of
those lazy commonplaces which no true scholar would
dare to employ.” It is true that Mr. Gladstone does
not quite go to this length, but that is where his
observations will lead the orthodox reader.
We have called Mr. Gladstone’s attitude “infatua
tion.” It is a strong word, but is it not justified ? No
one doubts that critics disagree. But do they not also
agree ? Is it not a fact that, in the mass, they move
farther and farther from the orthodox position ?
Certainly they debate many points as they progress,
but they keep moving in the same direction ; and it is
worse than idle for Mr. Gladstone to obscure this fact
by directing attention to their discussions along the
road. He forgets that perfect harmony is not to be
expected. It has not been arrived at in regard to the
Greek classics—for instance, Homer—which have been
discussed with the greatest freedom, as well as by the
keenest intellects, ever since the Renaissance; and how
could it be hoped for in regard to the Bible, which has
only been scientifically studied during the last half
�The Grand Old Booh.
7
century 1 Another difficulty is that most of the critics
have eaten orthodox bread, and have thus been deterred
from free and fearless movement by the severe law of
self-preservation.
The word “ infatuation,” as applied to Mr. Glad
stone’s attitude, is further justified by a cursory view
of the problem which the critics are solving. The Old
Testament, if we except the so-called Apocrypha, is
the whole extant Jewish literature before the time of
Christ. Probably there were hundreds, posssibly thou
sands, of other writings, but they have all perished.
The consequence is that comparative Hebrew is a very
different study from comparative Greek. All the
Jewish books treat of one subject—religion. This
dreadfully narrows the field of research. And it is
stilP further narrowed, as well as obscured, by the
absence of a mass of contemporary writings in any one
age, that would throw light upon each other. Thus
the study of comparative Hebrew is almost entirely
internal to the Bible, and its difficulties are immense.
Were not the critics testing the foundations of the
greatest historic religion, their labors—so recondite, so
painful, and so minute—would be a frightful waste of
human energy.
Well, these critics, working at such a task, which is
not half finished, are not quite harmonious. But with
what an ill grace does this come from a politician like
Mr. Gladstone 1 The Irish problem, for intricacy and
obscurity, is nothing to the problem of the date and
authorship of the Old Testament books. Yet although
it has been before Mr. Gladstone ever since he entered
Parliament; although it has been a burning question
during the fifty years of his public life ; and although
the data for a solution were always at hand; he has
�8
The Grand Old Booh.
only “ found salvation ” at the eleventh hour. He
might reply, of course, that he has always been moving
in one direction. But that is precisely what may be
said of the body of destructive critics.
The very illustration Mr. Gladstone gives of the
“ floating and uncertain conclusions ” of these gentle-?
men is damnifying to his argument. Wellhausen, in
editing the work of Bleek, accepted “ in a great degree
the genuineness of the Davidic Psalms contained in
the First Book of the Psalter,” but he has since
abandoned this position, and he “ brings down the
general body of the Psalms to a date very greatly
below that of the Babyionic exile.” Now if Wellhausen
had first held the Psalms to be modern, and after
wards held them to be ancient, he would have served
Mr. Gladstone’s purpose. But Wellhausen’s move
ment has been in the opposite direction. Like other
Biblical critics, the farther he goes the farther he leaves
the orthodox position behind him. Surely the old
parliamentary hand must have nodded when he
introduced this fatal illustration.
But Mr. Gladstone’s girds at the critics are, after all,
only reassuring asides to his readers. He does not
seriously contest that the Bible must henceforth be
regarded in a new light, and he sets himself to the task
of showing that the grand old book is still as safe and
sound as ever. To this end he calls upon his readers
to (i look broadly and largely at the subject of Holy
Scripture.” “ I ask them,” he repeats,£< to look at the
subject as they would look at the British Constitution
or at the poetry of Shakespeare.” But this overlooks
the vast difference between revelation and the produc
tions of human genius. We may respect the British
Constitution as fairly good in the circumstances. We
�The Grand Old Book.
9
may revere the work of Shakespeare in spite of its
imperfections. But does Mr. Gladstone mean that we
can. adopt such an attitude towards the revelation of
God ? It is idle to tell us that God's method with us
is “ one of sufficiency not of perfection.” The Bible
is no more sufficient than it is perfect. It may, of
course, be sufficient for those who read into it the
mental and moral discoveries of later ages. But taken
as it stands it is clearly insufficient. Neither slavery
nor polygamy, for instance, does it ever mention with
the slightest disapproval. We have outgrown both,
not by means of the Bible, but in spite of it. On the
other hand, the “ sacred volume ” contains a host of
cruel, brutal, and filthy passages, which a wise and
good Being would never have inserted in a revelation
which he intended for future ages of refinement. This
is a truth which Mr. Gladstone perceives, and he
attempts to drown it in a torrent of rhetoric.
“ Even the moral problems, which may be raised as to
particular portions of the volume, and which may not have
found any absolute and certain solution, are lost in the com
prehensive contemplation of its general strain, its immeasurable
loftiness of aim,” etc., etc.
What is this, however, but a palpable evasion of the
sceptic’s argument ? Loftiness of aim is obvious in the
works of Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Spinoza,
and other great writers ; and “ immeasurable ” is simply
a question-begging epithet. Besides, no one contends
that the Bible was written for the purpose of teaching
immorality. Then, as to “ comprehensive contempla
tion,” we suspect it means seeing what you want to see,
and missing everything else. A prisoner in the dock,
charged with murder, and clearly proved guilty, might
demand to be tried by a “ comprehensive contemplation ”
�10
The Grand Old Book.
■of his whole life, and offer to produce a hundred
witnesses to show that on ever so many other days than
the one on which he committed the crime he was an
honest and respectable citizen. But the plea would not
prevent a verdict of Guilty.
It is a pity that Mr. Gladstone did not give a few
illustrations of this “ broad view ” and “ comprehen
sive contemplation.” He does, however, deal slightly
with the Book of Genesis.
“ With regal'd to the Book of Genesis, the admission which
has been made implies nothing adverse to the truth of the
traditions it embodies, nothing adverse to their antiquity,
nothing which excludes or discredits the idea of their having
formed part of a primitive revelation, simultaneous or succes
sive. The forms of expression may have changed yet the
substance may remain with an altered literary form, as some
scholars have thought (not, I believe rightly) that the diction
and modelling of the Homeric Poems is comparatively modern?
and yet the matter they embody may belong to a remote
antiquity.”
Now it is difficult to think that Mr. Gladstone, when
he wrote this passage, had the details of the problem
in his mind. If the Book of Genesis was written many
centuries after the time of Moses by unknown hands,
it is certainly open for any person to assert that its
statements may nevertheless be true. There is no limit
to the license of affirmation. But where is the evi
dence? We venture to say there is not a tittle. On
the contrary, there is the strongest negative evidence
against the assertion. Never once, in the history of
the Judges, or the reigns of the early kings, including
David and Solomon, is allusion made to the mythology
of Genesis, any more than to the Mosaic law. Mr.
Gladstone has therefore not only to produce some
�The Grand Old Book.
11
positive evidence of his “ may be/’ but to dispose of
the strong negative evidence to the contrary. For the
rest, “ traditions ” are not revelation, nor is their truth
proved by their “ antiquity ”; and a primitive revelation
is an idle dream in the light of Evolution.
Nothing is clearer than that the mythology of
Genesis and the chief part of the Mosaic law belong
to the post-exile period. The Jews were never an
inventive people. They did invent the synagogue,
which is the original of the Christian church or chapel;
but what else can they claim as theirs ? They con
tributed to Christianity its spirit of fanaticism and its
apparatus of the Sunday meeting-place. All the rest
was contributed, directly or indirectly, by Babylon,
Persia, Egypt, and Greece.
We can only stand aghast at the concluding state
ment that “the operations of criticism, properly so
called, affecting as they do the literary form of the
books, leave the questions of history, miracle, revelation,
substantially where they found them.” This is
equivalent to saying that writings which come into
existence hundreds of years after the events they
record are as good as contemporary documents. It is
like saying that traditions about Julius Caesar, written
down for the age of Charlemagne, would have the
value of Suetonius, the Speeches and Letters of
Cicero, and Caesar’s “ Commentaries.” It is, further,
an assumption, which is unspeakably monstrous, that
the gossip of centuries is excellent evidence of the
truth of a miracle.
We must likewise point out the wild rhetoric of the
assertion that “the Bible invites, attracts,and commands
the adhesion of mankind.” It does not command the
adhesion of Mr. Gladstone’s first political lieutenant,
�12
The Grand Old Booh.
Mr. John Morley. It does not command the adhesion
of 160,000,000 Hindus, 155,000,000 Muhammedans,
and 500,000,000 Buddhists. It does command the
adhesion—such as it is—of 350,000,000 Christians.
And that adhesion is “attracted” by the well-nigh
irresistible force of early training, and “invited” by
the political and social ostracism—if not the active
persecution—of every open dissenter. With such
advantages “ Jack the Giant Killer ” might command
the adhesion of mankind.
. Mr. Gladstone refers to the scepticism or indifference
of the working classes. There is an impression that
they have largely lost their hold upon the Christian
creed. But, while admitting that this is to some extent
true, Mr. Gladstone denies that, amongst us, they have
“ lost respect for the Christian religion, or for its
ministers; or that they desire their children to be
brought up otherwise than in the knowledge and
practice of it.” Their perversion simply means that
“their positive, distinct acceptance of the articles of
the Creed, and their sense of the dignity and value of
the Sacred Record, are blunted or effaced.” But this
is a grandiose way of saying that they are neither
Bibliolators nor Christians.
Curiously enough, Mr. Gladstone does' not find this
scepticism or indifference among the “leisured and
better provided, classes.” Surely he must be basking
in a kind of fool’s paradise. It may be that his
acquaintances are chary of troubling him with heterodox
opinions. Even Mr. Morley may eschew Diderot and
Voltaire in conversing with his orthodox chief. Yet it
is clear that educated society is honeycombed with
scepticism. And Mr. Gladstone has an inkling of the
fact. Why else should he refer to “ the wide dis
�The Grand Old Booh.
13
paragement of the Holy Scriptures recently observable
in the surface currents of prevalent opinion” ?
It is, indeed, to rebuke and diminish this “ wide
disparagement” of the Bible that Mr. Gladstone
assumes the role of Defender of the Faith. He
believes this disparagement to be. founded on “ sup
positions ” which are “ erroneous,” and he sums them
up under five heads for the purpose of refutation.
I. That the conclusions of science as to natural objects have
shaken or destroyed the assertions of the early Scriptures with
respect to the origin and history of the world, and of man, its
principal inhabitant.
II. That their contents are in many cases offensive to the
moral sense, and unworthy of an enlightened age.
III. That our race made its appearance in the world in a
condition but one degree above that of the brute creation, and
only by slow and painful but continual progress has brought
itself up to the present level of its existence.
IV. That men have accomplished this by the exercise of
their natural powers; and have nevei' received the special
teaching and authoritative guidance, which is signified under
the name of Divine Revelation.
V. That the more considerable among the different races and
nations of the world have devised, and established from time
to time, their respective religions; and'have in many cases
accepted the promulgation of sacred books, which are to be
considered as essentially of the same character with the Bible.
A sixth “ supposition ” is indicated, namely, that the
Old Testament books are not contemporary records,
but “ comparatively recent compilations from’uncertain
sources.” This has, however, been partially dealt
with already, although, as will be seen .hereafter, Mr.
Gladstone returns to it in a subsequent chapter.
These five “ suppositions,” set forth in extenso, are
what Mr. Gladstone promises to demolish. The wider
.suppositions of Atheism or Agnosticism are “ foreign ”
�14
The Grand Old Book.
to his “ present purpose.” Each of the fatal five has“ a
literature of its own, which may be termed scientific.”
Mr. Gladstone deems it necessary to say, therefore,
that while he hopes his remarks will be “ rational and
true,” they will not be “ systematic and complete, but
popular and partial only.” And, in a certain sense,
the description must be admitted. Mr. Gladstone’s
treatment of destructive criticism and its results is
certainly not “systematic and complete.” But it is
“ popular,” in its resemblance to partisan harangues
on political platforms, where the speaker voices the
prejudices of his audience, and is confident that all his
illogicalities and evasions will be taken in a lenient
spirit. Nor can it be disputed that his treatment is
ct partial.” It is not too much to say that Mr. Glad
stone’s method, apart from his literary style, is that of
the street-corner champions of orthodoxy. He betrays
hardly any acquaintance with the works and the points
of the chief destructive critics. Even Renan’s Histoira
du Peuple d’Israel, a recent and as yet uncompleted
work, at once learned and brilliant, and presenting
some of the best results of Biblical scholarship, is
utterly neglected; while, on the scientific side, suchauthorities as Darwin, Haeckel, Eyell, and Huxley, are
almost absolutely ignored, and appeals are made topurely orthodox authorities like Dana and Dawson,
without the least suggestion to the half-educated reader
that his ignorance and credulity are thus egregiously
imposed upon. This may, indeed, be the sort of
argumentation which is suited to party politics; but
who will seriously defend it as anything but repre
hensible when applied to the subject of the present
discussion?
How far Mr. Gladstone’s purpose is served by these
�The Grand Old Book,
15
methods we shall see as we proceed.
Meanwhile
we must notice a point in his view of the spread
of scepticism in our midst. Mr. Gladstone is struck
by the fact that the “poor” who first welcomed
Christianity are now so indifferent to it. He says
it “ affords much matter for meditation.”
But
he has himself unconsciously solved the problem.
He remarks that there were few obstacles in the
way of the poor becoming Christians in the primitive ages.
“They had by contrast,” he says,
“ more palpable interests in the promise of the life tocome, as compared with the possession of the life that
now is.” Precisely so. They eagerly embraced the
fine promises of Christianity, and, as happiness seemed
impossible for them on earth, they welcomed the
prospect of it in heaven. Those who mourned and
those who hungered were to be comforted and filled—
in the sweet by-and-bye. But the “ poor ” have found,
out the trick; and now, instead of yearning for the
celestial shadow, they are trying to secure the earthly
substance. On the other hand, the wealthy are averse
to change. Many of them have as much “ faith ” as
the present writer, but they support Christianity as
the strongest conservative agent. They resemble old
Lord Eldon, who denied being a pillar of the Church,
and exclaimed, “No, I am a buttress, I prop it up
outside.”
Here we leave Mr. Gladstone standing on his im
pregnable rock. It has been disintegrated by all sorts
of mines and explosives during the past century;
Science, scholarship, morality, and common sense have
all been busily at work; and, although there is no great,
outward solution of continuity, and the rock will last
Mr. Gladstone’s time, the collapse is approaching.
�16
The Grand Old Boole.
.
*
Mi Gladstone hears the rumbling and cracking, or he
would not strive to reassure the faithful; and those
who are familiar with the agencies at work know that
the “ impregnable rock ” bears within itself all the
elements of ruin. Even its temporary defence must
be attempted on other principles than Mr. Gladstone’s.
A writer like the Rev. Charles Gore, the editor of
Lux Mundi, sees very clearly that a new theory of
Inspiration is the only means whereby the growing
dissatisfaction with large portions of the letter of the
Bible, even within the most orthodox Churches, can be
wholly or partially allayed. By thus altering their
theory so as to cover almost any amount of difficulty,
the more astute champions of the Bible may weather
their present embarrassments, although their security
can only be short-lived. But Mr. Gladstone’s method
■of defence is perfectly futile, and could never have
been selected if he had possessed a fuller acquaintance
with the real state of the controversy.
�17
The Grand Old Book.
CHAPTER II.
THE
CREATION
STORY,
The Creation Story is a subject which from the Chris
tian point of view is of the highest importance. This
story stands at the very threshold of the Bible, and if
it be a fiction it inevitably throws discredit on all that
follows. But this is not all, nor even the worst. The
story of Creation is inseparably connected with the
story of the Fall. They stand or perish together.
And if the Fall is to be regarded as a myth, what
becomes of Christianity? The Christian scheme of
salvation is unintelligible without the antecedent
doctrine of the fall of man. It is the Garden of Eden
which gives meaning to Gethsemane, the curse upon
Adam and Eve which gives meaning to the tragedy of
Calvary. Without the Fall, and the ensuing curse, the
Atonement is a baseless dogma, and the Incarnation,
the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection are but tre
mendous mistakes.
The Creation Story opens the first of the five books
commonly thought to have been written by Moses,
although, as Professor Max Muller says, no scholar
believes anything of the kind.
*
Even Mr. Glad
stone himself, who honestly disclaims any preten
sion to Biblical scholarship, does not venture to
speak of Moses as an author. He designates the
writer of the Creation Story as “ the Mosaist or the
Mosaic writer,” and thus leaves the whole question of
Natural Religion, p. 56.
B
�18
The Grand Old Book.
the date and authorship of the Book of Genesis to
settle itself as it can. Nevertheless he speaks again
and again of the Creation Story being a revelation to
“ primitive man.” This is a very misleading phrase.
Some readers will think it means Adam; or Cain,
Abel, Seth and the rest of the first human family,
according to the ethnology of Genesis. Others will
think it means the family of Noah, and still others the
Jews of the Exodus, while another class of readers will
think of the “ primitive man ” of Darwinism, and
wonder whether Mr. Gladstone fancies the Creation
Story was “ revealed ” when our far-off ancestors were
dodging the mammoth and disputing snug quarters
with cave bears and hyenas. It is difficult to believe
that so acute a man as Mr. Gladstone did not catch a
glimpse of this perplexity. We cannot help thinking
he felt the phrase to be a very convenient one, as sug
gesting a good deal without affirming anything, and
helping his argument without involving the necessity of
defence.
Suggestion, however, was not enough; it had to be
supported by something positive, for the antiquity of
the Creation Story is indispensable to Mr. Gladstone’s
argument. But the difficulties of such a theory are
immense. Supposing the story to have been “ revealed ”
to Moses, whether written down by him or transmitted
orally, it is astonishing that not a mention of it occurs
in the whole of the Jewish scriptures outside the Book
of Genesis, with the single exception of the Fourth
Commandment. This first piece of revelation, this
primary message of the divine Father to his children,
this record on which the whole institution of the
Sabbath jfis said to have been based, was treated by
Hebrew writers, century after century, with an un
�The Grand Old Book.
19
broken conspiracy of silence. Such is apparently the
fact, and it is too hard for flesh and blood to credit.
Mr. Gladstone sees this, and he argues that “ there are
signs in subsequent portions of the volume that this
tale of the Creation was regarded by the Hebrews as
authoritative and important.” But what are these
“ signs33
Surely they are the most marvellous
“ signs33 that ever signified nothing. Mr. Gladstone
finds them in Job xxxviii. and Psalms civ. and cxlviii.
He discreetly refrains from quotation, and we will follow
his example, though for a very different reason. We
merely ask the candid reader to turn to those chapters,
and see whether he can find the remotest allusion to
the Creation Story without putting on Mr. Gladstone’s
spectacles.
Mr. Gladstone may be a master of fence, but he
cannot resist the pressure of facts. The Jews were
never an inventive people, and it is now established
beyond dispute that their cosmogony was borrowed.
Some of it was the common possession of the Semitic
people, but most of it was derived from Babylon,
whence the Jews also took their weights and measures,
their period of work and rest, and other basic elements
of their post-exile civilisation. That something is due
to the shaping of Hebrew writers we are far from dis
puting ; but the Creation Story, the Fall, and even the
Flood were all writ large in the stone records of mighty
empires long before they were embodied in the Jewish
scriptures by an hierarchy which was able to pass off
new teachings as the voice of antiquity.
Not only does Mr. Gladstone fail to advance a single
valid argument in favor of the Creation Story, but he
.practically treats it as a fiction. He remarked some
time. ago,, in his discussion with Huxley, that the Story
�20
The Grand Old Book.
was not a treatise but a sermon. Since then he has
been working out this line of defence, and he now dis
closes it in a state of perfection. “ The conveyance of
scientific instruction,” he says, would not have been “ a
reasonable object for the Mosaic writer to pursue'’'’—a
statement with which we agree, for the Mosaic writer
had none to convey. His object, it appears, was two
fold. He did not say so, but apparently Mr. Gladstone
has some occult information as to his intentions. First,
he wished—or God wished through him—“ to teach
man his proper place in creation in relation to its several
orders.” Secondly, he wished to “ make him know and
feel what was the beautiful and noble home that he
inhabited, and with what a fatherly and tender care
Providence had prepared it for him to dwell in.”
Let us examine these reasons. We will take the
second first. The Mosaist’s object—that is, if the
story be inspired, God’s object—was to show how the
world had been prepared by the Heavenly Father as a
dwelling-place for his children. Now it seems to us
that Mr. Gladstone has lost all historic perspective
in this statement. The earth is at present very largely
made fit for man to live in, although, even in an old
country like India, thousands of persons yearly fall
victims to tigers and snakes. But so far as the earth
is made fit, it is perfectly clear that man himself has
done the work. He felled the forests, drained the
swamps, tamed the buffaloes, broke the wild horse,
domesticated the wolf, and bred sheep from a savage
stock. The Genesaic story of the animals passing in
meek review before Adam as the lord of creation, is a
pretty picture, but a pure work of imagination.
Primitive man was “ monarch of all he surveyed ” only
while he looked upon his squaw and his offspring, and
�The Grand Old Book.
21
the rough walls of the natural cave, or artificial hole
in the ground, where his highness lay sheltered from
his prowling subjects, who were seeking to dine on his
regal person. His faculties were sharpened through a
wild and terrible struggle for existence, and finally he
triumphed; but surely it is idle, in face of these facts,
to talk of the “ fatherly and tender care of Providence”
in preparing his dwelling-place.
Even if the facts were otherwise, it is strange that
God should have given this lesson as to his “ fatherly
and tender care ” for his children to a few semi-savage
and fanatical Jews, who kept the “ revelation ” strictly
to themselves, and never imparted it to the mighty
civilisations of Egypt, India, Phoenicia, Carthage,
Persia, and Assyria, to say nothing of the more modern
Greece and Rome.
But if the Mosaist’s first object was unhappy, his
second object was absurd. Man did not need a revela
tion to teach him “ his proper place in creation.” He
did not require to be told that he was superior to fishes.
Knowledge and vanity assured him that he was at the
top of the scale, although his “ dominion” was exceed
ingly precarious. When Ovid was versifying the old
Pythagorean philosophy he naturally placed the creation
of man at the end of the process.
A creature of a more exalted kind
Was wanting yet; and then was Man designed:
Conscious of thought, of more capacious breast,
For empire formed, and fit to rule the rest.
*
We utterly dissent,- therefore, from Mr. Gladstone’s
view that “ primitive man ” needed to or did receive
a conception, thoroughly faithful in broad outline, of
what his Maker had been about on his behalf.” Nor
* Ovid, Metamorphoses, bk. i. Dryden’s Translation.
r
«
�22
The Grand Old Book.
can we read without a smile his assertion that “ the
simplest phrases.” were so necessary “that the Maker
condescended “ even to represent himself as resting ”
after his work. The Hebrew, we understand, really
says that he “ took breath.”* This rendering is a still
more “ simple phrase ” than resting, and still more
illustrates the condescension of the Maker.
Following out his theory, Mr. Gladstone regards the
six days of creation, not as days of twenty-four hours,
nor as geological periods, but as “ Chapters in the
History of the Creation.” True, the text speaks of
“ evening and morning ” in connection with every day,
but that is only a rhetorical device to emphasise the
distinction between the chapters ; and just as day does
not mean day, so evening and morning do not mean
evening and morning. Mr. Gladstone, however, over
looks a very important point. Is there any evidence
that the Jews ever looked upon the “ days ” of Creation
in this light ? Did they not understand the expression
literally? Was it not the literal sense which gave its
sanction to the fourth commandment? Are we to
presume that God “ condescended ” to use “ simple and
familiar ” language for the sake of a handful of ancient
Jews, at the cost of misleading populous and more
civilised nations in future ages, or was this a necessity
of Almighty Wisdom ?f
* Sir William Domville, The. Sabbath, p. 54.
t The old commentators, such as Gill, Clarke, and Patrick, honestly
took the Bible to mean what it says. They had no doubt that God made
the universe in six days of twenty-four hours. Bishop Pearson, in a
work which is still a standard in our universities, dated the creation
“ probably within one hundred and thirty generations of men, most cer-*
tainly within not more than six, or at farthest seven, thousand years ago ”
{Exposition of the Creed, vol. i., p. 121). Dr. Kalisch, a Hebrew scholar
of the highest standing, declares that “ to interpret the term day as a
period, or an indefinite epoch,” is “inadmissible,” for “the metaphorical
use of the word is rendered impossible by the repeated phrase ‘and
evening was and morning was.’ ” {Commentary on Genesis'). .
�The Grand Old Booh.
23
Mr. Gladstone makes the extraordinary assertion
that “ no moral mischief ensues because some have
supposed the days of creation to be pure solar days of
twenty-four hours.” Certainly the belief in a literal
six days' creation does not prompt a man to pick
pockets or commit adultery. But is there no “ moral
mischief ” in hindering the progress of science, upon
which so much of our well-being depends ? Is there
no moral mischief in the persecution of those who are
afterwards seen to be our benefactors ? Was there
no moral mischief in the intimidation of Galileo ?
Was there no moral mischief in the murder of Giordano
Bruno ? Was there no moral mischief in the early
prejudices of Sir Charles Lyell against what he subse
quently recognised as truth, or in the insults heaped
upon him when he proclaimed it to the world ? Was
there no moral mischief in the bigotry with which the
clergy as well as their fanatical dupes treated the
teachings of Darwin 1 Is there no moral mischief in
wasting the working man’s precious day of leisure,
every week, in obedience to a Sabbatarian law which
is founded on the literal Story of Creation ?
We would also observe that Mr. Gladstone is
extremely vague, and, in so far as he is clear, inaccu
rate, in his remarks on the Sabbath. “ It seems also
probable,” he says, continuing his lessons of the
Mosaist, “ that the Creation Story was intended to
have a special bearing on the great institution of the
day of rest, or Sabbath, by exhibiting it in the manner
of an object lesson.” Now in the whole of the early
Jewish history there is no trace of a Sabbath. We
find it in the Mosaic Law, which is a post-exile con
coction, but not in the annals of the Judges and Kings.
Indeed, the very reference in the Fourth Command
�24
The Grand Old Booh.
ment to “ the stranger within thy gates,” shows that it
was not delivered to desert nomads, but to a people
settled down in Palestine and dwelling in walled and
fortified cities. For these reasons, or partly for these
reasons, Paley maintains that God “ blessed the seventh
day and sanctified it ” by a sort of historical anticipation.
But Mr. Gladstone would have us believe that “ Assyrian
researches ” have revealed traces of some primitive
“institution or command.” This is, however, the
veriest perverseness. What Assyrian researches have
shown is that the number seven was held sacred by the
masters of the Jewrs, and that they had a Sabbath, or
day of rest, long before the chosen people. Here again
the Jews were not inventors, but borrowers; and the
primeval sanctification of the Sabbath is one of the
many impostures of their priestly annalists.
The Egyptians had a periodic day of rest; namely,
one day in every ten ; but it appears that they were
also acquainted with the seven-days division of time.
The Assyrians, the Romans, and other ancient nations
had likewise their periods of rest and work. And
why? For the simple reason that the leaders of a
civilisation based upon slavery discovered the necessity
of a periodic rest to the laborer. Without it his
energies decayed. And that the time of rest, whatever
it was, should be associated with mythical events, was
only natural in a society in which every part of life
was under a religious sanction.
It is also clear that the sacredness of the number
seven, in Assyria as in scores of other parts of the
world, sprang out of natural reasons. Moon-worship
precedes sun-worship because man’s attention is excited
by the changeable rather than the regular. It was
discovered that the full lunation occupied twenty-eight
�The Grand Old Book.
25-
days. That number was halved, and the result was
fourteen. That number was halved again, and the
result was seven. But this number could not be
halved, or divided in any way; it was indivisible and
mysterious, and therefore sacred. Then there were
the seven planets, from which the days were named,
and this not only doubled but squared the sacredness
of the number seven. But behind this there is some
thing older and more vital. The covering of the
generative organs is often neglected by the males
among savages, but scarcely ever among the females.
That covering was the beginning of decency, and it
arose from the fact of menstruation. Now the sexual
periodicities throughout the whole animal world,
including the human race, run in seven days or
multiples of seven days. Let this truth, therefore, be
connected with the indivisible quarter of the moon’s
total phases, and the number of the planets, and you
have an importance, a mystery, and therefore a sacred
ness attaching to the number seven, which could never
attach to another number. This is the reason why the
number seven appears and reappears in all religious
systems. It is found among savages, and it asserts its
ancient and august claims in the teachings of Theosophy,
which talks learnedly, but after all superstitiously, of
the sevenfold nature of man. Thus religion is like the
mythical snake of eternity. Extremes meet, and the
head and the tail are united.
There is still another aspect of the question. It is
shrewdly observed by Renan, in his Histoire du Peuple
d’Israel, that the Sabbath could not have arisen among
nomads. Except when they shift their tents, and
travel to fresh pastures, they have nothing to do but
to sit and watch their flocks and herds. One day is
�26
The Grand Old Book.
exactly like another, and a day of rest would be unin
telligible. It is obvious, therefore, that the story of
the primeval sanctification of the Sabbath, and its
injunction in the Mosaic Law, belong to a much later
period than the Exodus. They belong, in short, to the
post-exile period. Every fact supports this theory,
and there is not a single fact which contradicts it.
Now let us return to the centre of Mr. Gladstone’s
argument. Everything turns upon his convenient
theory that the six days of creation are not six literal
days, but six “ chapters in the history of the creation.”
By this means he seeks to overcome the difficulty of
the fact that the order of creation in Genesis does not
properly correspond with the teachings of Evolution.
The Mosaic writer, it appears, anticipated the modern
fashion of writing history, of which we have the first
great example in Gibbon. His order is not strictly
chronological, but in accord with his subject matter.
Thus “ in point of chronology his chapters overlay.”
So that, if light exists three days before the creation
ef the sun, the explanation is that the Mosaist simply
puts them in different chapters, not for chronological
reasons, but for a special purpose. And what was that
purpose ? Mr. Gladstone says it was “ to convey
moral and spiritual training.” He goes to the length of
saying that “ the conveyance of scientific instruction ”
would not have been “ a reasonable object for the
Mosaic writer to pursue.” An ordinary person might
suppose the Deity capable of imparting scientific
instruction as well as moral instruction, and the Jews
capable of receiving the one as well as the other. Mr.
Gladstone’s theory implies a very serious limitation of
God’s power, or a no less serious misconception of the
causes of human progress. Is not science as necessary
�The Grand Old Booh.
27
as morality ? Is there much use in desiring the
welfare of mankind without the knowledge of how to
promote it ? Will a good-hearted doctor do a patient
any service if he is lacking in skill ? Buckle, indeed,
contended that civilisation was entirely owing to the
advance of the intellect, and very much the same con
tention was advanced by Macaulay. But here is Mr.
Gladstone arguing that “ moral and spiritual training ”
is most necessary, while mental training is so unim
portant that the Deity wisely refrained from taking
the trouble to assist us in that respect.
We have already said that Mr. Gladstone’s inter
pretation of the “ six days ” as “ six chapters ” is
arbitrary. Neither the chosen people, nor their in
spired teachers, ever understood their cosmogony in
that sense. They existed before the days of antagonism
between the Bible and Science, when new meanings
have to be discovered in every part of God’s Word.
They took the language of Genesis, as the Church of
England presents its Articles, in the plain, grammatical
sense of the words. It is too late to rescue the Mosaist
in Mr. Gladstone’s manner. The “ six chapters ”
theory is worthy of the old parliamentary hand, but he
himself perceives its inadequacy, or why does he
■endeavor to show that the chronological order of
creation is after all in harmony with the conclusions of
modern science?
Will it be believed that after
pressing his super-subtle argument through thick and
thin ; after declaring that day is not day, and morning
and evening not morning and evening; after claiming
that the Mosaist sacrificed chronology for the sake of
shaping his chapters so as to convey a moral and
spiritual and not a scientific lesson; will it be believed
that, after all this, Mr. Gladstone goes on to argue
�28
The Grand Old Book.
for so close an agreement between Genesis and Science
that nothing short of inspiration is adequate to account
for it ? Yet that is precisely what he does. “ The
Creation Story in Genesis,” he asserts, “ appears to
stand in such a relation to the facts of natural science
so far as they are ascertained, as to warrant our con
cluding that they first proceeded, in a manner above
the ordinary manner, from the Author of the visible
creation.” Or as he expresses it in his concluding
sentences, iC to warrant and require thus far the con
clusion that the Ordainer of Nature, and the Giver or
Guide of the Creation Story, are one and the same.”
This is clearly a complete change of front. The
“ six chapters ” theory is virtually discarded as useless,
and Mr. Gladstone proceeds to defend the scientific
character of Genesis. The Creation Story was a
scientific lesson after all, only it was skilfully disguised.
Moses anticipated Darwin; in fact, Moses is the
original author and Darwin is only the commentator.
Such is the true character of Mr. Gladstone’s theory,
and in arguing it he flounders, as might be expected,
in a morass of bad science, bold assumption, and wild
exegesis.
According to Genesis, the earth was at first “ with
out form and void,” a description hard to realise, and
“the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
Now Mr. Gladstone is aware that “ the Hebrew word
for earth means earth, and the word used for water
never means anything but water.” How then is this
to be explained away? Why easily. The Hebrew
word always means water, but the Mosaist meant
something else. He meant that the world was at first
fluid, and as the people he wrote for only knew of one
extensive fluid, namely water, he called it water to suit
�The Grand Old Book.
29
their comprehension. But in reality he was adum
brating the nebular hypothesis. That, at any rate, is
what Mr. Gladstone argues, and we will not venture
to refute him. We can only stare with astonishment
at his coolness—not to use a harsher word; and we
suspect that the writers of the Creation Story, if they
could live again and read Mr. Gladstone’s article,
would be quite as astonished as we are.
*
The Mosaist, it seems, not only sketched (in a very
occult manner) the nebular theory, but showed how
“ the chaos passed into cosmos, or, in other’words, how
confusion became order, medley became sequence,
seeming anarchy became majestic law, and horror
softened into beauty.” But chaos is not a doctrine of
science. It belongs to the old Pagan cosmogonies.
The laws of nature obtained in the fiery cloud whirled
off from the sun precisely as they do nowpt has cooled
down into a solid planet. According to Mr. Gladstone’s
science, if we may reason from analogy, there’is cosmos
in a cubic inch of cold water, and chaos in"a cubic foot
of steam.
With regard to the existence of light three days
before the sun, Mr. Gladstone tells us ’that it simply
means (observe how he knows what the Mosaist meant
but did not say) that the sun became visible in that
* It is amusing to turn from Mr. Gladstone’s labored argument that
water should only be regarded as fluid, to an old sermon by Archbishop
Tillotson on “The Being of God Demonstrated by Reason.” Tillotson,
of course, had no fear of the nebular astronomy before his eyes. He points
out that Thales was “ the first who asserted that water was the begin
ning of all things.” He brings in Aristotle as saying that the gods were
represented as swearing by Styx, because water was supposed to be the
principle of all things. But the clinching proof is that “ The Brachmans,
Indian philosophers, did also agree that the world was made of water ;
which exactly corresponds with Moses's account of the creation." Mr.
Gladstone finds a very different idea in Moses, because the exigencies of
■science have changed since the days of Tillotson. Thus, as Luther said,
the Bible is a nose of wax, which every man twists as he pleases.
�30
The Grand Old Book.
stage. The earth’s photosphere, or something, cleared
away, and “ the visibility of the sun was established ’*
—when there was no one to see it I The “ light-power’7
became “ concentrated by the operation of the rotatory
principle,” and —— But how on earth are we to go
on 1 Our gravity is not equal to Mr. Gladstone’s.
We require an interval for laughter.
It must not be supposed, however, that Mr. Glad
stone is broaching a novelty in this far-fetched exegesis.
Nearly fifty years ago the same vagaries were ridiculed
and corrected by Priaulx, who wrote as follows on the
“light” which Jehovah called from the primitive
darkness:—
“ What this light might be, has naturally exercised the
ingenuity of those learned commentators, who are as familiar
with the creation and the counsels of God, as though they had
been present at the one, and were often called upon to take
a share in the other. With some this first light is but a dim
glimmering, a sort of twilight or darkness visible ; with others
it is the bright Shekinah or the glorious presence; while with
a third party it is that light, run wild probably, which is
hereafter to be collected into sun, moon, and stars. It is a
light without a sun,—so much we know ; and such a light both
Menu and Zoroaster tell of. According to the one, Brahme
has but to appear and the gloom, is dispelled; and according to
the other, light is the dwelling place of Ormuzd, co-etemal
with him; Ormuzd in fact himself is light. Moses held then
on this point certainly no singular, and probably none but
popular, opinions.”*
Priaulx’s book is a monument of learning, patience,
candor, and sagacity. Had Mr. Gladstone studied it,
or even read it cursorily, it would have saved him from
many blunders and absurd speculations—and the book
was written fifty years ago 1 The fact is, apparently,
* Priaulx, Questiones Mosaics, pp. 14, 15.
�The Grand Old Booh.
31
that Mr. Gladstone has taken a brief for the Bible,
and argues it like a special pleader. He betrays no
knowledge of the leaders of scepticism and their
writings, but seems merely to have dipt into orthodox
writers like Dana, Stokes, and Dawson, for points that
would tell sufficiently with the jury before whom he is
pleading—a jury which believes his side of the case
already, and does not need to be convinced but only to
be reassured.
But let us return to the Mosaist and his story.
Modern science has told us the truth about the stars.
Outside our solar system there are other and mightier
systems. But it was natural for the Jews to regard
the stars as dots of light. The sun and the moon
were the “ two great lights/' and the stars were thrown
in with an “ also.” But “ relativity is the basis of the
narrative,” and the Mosaist wrote like an ignoramus,
not because he was not as wise as Herschel, but
because his readers were too thick-headed to learn the
truth. He was like the gentleman in the play, who
“ could an’ he would.” At least this is a fair summary
of Mr. Gladstone’s argument.
The Mosaist also tells us that not only grasses, but
the later fruit trees, grew before the sun shone upon
the earth. The nonsense was exposed by Professor
*
Huxley, but Mr. Gladstone has not profited by that
discussion. Assuming that the sun, in the Creation
Story, can be shuffled in before the earth, and that
our planet was veiled in vapor, he argues that “ there
were light and heat, atmosphere with its conditions
of moist and dry, soil prepared to do its work in
* Professor Huxley says it is “the apparently plain teaching of
botanical palaeontology that grasses and fruit trees originated long sub
sequently to animals ” {Nineteenth Century, Dec. 1S85).
�32
*
The Grand Old Booh.
nutrition,” and so the Mosaist is saved by the skin of
his teeth. But the argument is really too barefaced.
Fruit trees are not a part of the world’s primitive
fauna. They are probably latei’ than man himself.
Mr. Gladstone strains his faculties in vain to recon
cile the Creation Story with paloeontology.
He
cannot work in reptiles and marsupials, so he says
they did not come within the Mosiast’s “moral and
spiritual ” purpose. Then there is the difficulty that
fish and fowl are created on the same day, while
geology shows they are separated by millions of
years. But day does not mean day. The Mosaist
simply puts them in the same chapter, and he puts
tho fowl after the fish, and that is the right order 1 Of
course it is the right order; but how much inspiration
was required to enable a Jew to see that fowl were
superior to fish in the scale of existence ?
After all this special pleading, the credit of the
Mosaist being saved at every point by incessant
assumption and forced logic, Mr. Gladstone advances
to his triumphant conclusion. The Creation Story
is a perfect miracle of scientific anticipation, and if
God did not write it who did ? But it will be
observed that the old parliamentary hand is silent as
to the creation of man. “ As the objector is silent,”
he says, “ I remain silent also.” The objector silent,
indeed 1 Whatever objector has Mr. Gladstone in
his mind? The account of Adam and Eve is the
most difficult, and the most ludicrous, part of the
Creation Story. Up to that point the writer pre
serves a certain grandeur, however mistaken ; but the
narrative of Adam’s production from dust, and Eve's
production from one of his ribs, to say nothing of the
farce of the Fall, and the six thousand years’ chronology,
�The Grand Old Booh.
33
is positively food for mirth. For nine years the great
Darwin has lain in his grave, yet Mr. Gladstone writes
as though the Newton of biology had never been born.
Still Mr. Gladstone’s “ silence ” is not without its
eloq uence. It shows that the champion of the Creation
Story must avoid Darwinism. In the light of that
great doctrine, which has revolutionised the world of
thought, the Creation Story is an old fable, the drama
of Eden a Semitic fiction, the Fall a fallacy, and the
foundation of the Christian creed a mere fragment of
oriental mythology.
Mr. Gladstone has an astonishing postcript to his
chapter on the Creation Story. Assuming what is
opposite to the teaching of Evolution, and disregarding
the many traces of Jewish polytheism in late portions
of the Old Testament, he argues that it was the
Creation Story which, a thousand years after Moses,
placed “ the chosen people in a state of security from
this insidious mischief.” Genesis set God outside his
creation, distinct, unapproachable, supreme; and this
laid a firm foundation for the Incarnation. But this
is really arguing backwards. It is deducing the truth
of the Creation Story from the doctrine of the Atone
ment. Surely Mr. Gladstone must see the illegitimacy
of such an appeal, if he is making it to unprejudiced
minds. Probably, also, he will see on reflection that
the Semitic mind, mainly owing to its environment,
has a general tendency to Monotheism. Christianity,
when permeated with Aryan thought, set up a new
Polytheism under the disguise of the Trinity, and
fortified it with a subordinate pantheon of saints;
while it was left for Mohammedism, which like
Judaism is a Semitic faith, to hold up the banner of
the one indivisible God.
o
�34
The Grand Old Book.
CHAPTER III.
THE FALL OF MAN.
Mr. Gladstone’s third chapter is disappointing. He
fulfils none of the promises with which he set out. No
attempt is made to answer the sceptic’s objections.
We have simply a theological essay, restating the
orthodox view of the Bible, and abounding in evasions
and assumptions. A certain pomposity of style, familiar
to Mr. Gladstone’s readers, gives his article a fictitious
air of importance; but in substance it is remarkably
poor, and its argumentation is such that if it were
displayed on any other topic it would expose him
to derision. What else, indeed, can be said of one
who, so many years after Darwin’s death, writes
as though Darwin had never lived; of one who, in
an age in which Evolution has overrun every field
of research and speculation, writes as though Evolution
had never been heard of? If, on the other hand, Mr.
Gladstone knows something of Evolution, and simply
ignores it, he might give points in ludicrousness to the
proverbial ostrich with its head in the desert sands.
Why on earth—we say it in all seriousness—does not a
confidential friend break through the ring of flatterers,
and save a statesman, in whose reputation we are all
interested, from himself and the editors with cheque
books who are anxious to trade upon his name ? Mr.
John Morley could hardly do it; his heterodoxy would
throw suspicion on his advice. But there is Professor
Stuart. He knows a thing oi' two, and his scepticism
�The Grand Old Booh.
35
is only ankle-deep. Could he not contrive to drop a
whisper into Mrs. Gladstone’s ear, and even in a round
about way spare us the necessity of laughing at one we
would fain reverence ? For risibility is an imp who
will not be baulked; when he scents antics he will
take a ticket for the spectacle.
The very opening of Mr. Gladstone’s third chapter is
what is vulgarly called “ a caution.” In face of all he
has written before he says it is “ likely that the Creation
Story has come down from the beginning.” He even
talks of “ the corroborative legends of Assyria.-” Nay,
he declares, with a wonderful equanimity, which we
are unable to emulate, that “ we now trace the pro
bable origins of oui' Sacred Books far back beyond
Moses and his time.” In other words, Mr. Gladstone,
at this time of day, fancies the antediluvian patriarchs
were actual and not mythical personages, who had the
Creation Story revealed to them, and passed it down
to their descendants.
*
Despite the fact, too, that all
savages—and the ancient Jews were savages—trace
their descent from a common ancestor, for the simple
reason that they cannot understand any but a blood
relationship; despite the fact that Romulus, the
mythical founder of Rome, for instance, is now seen to
be as real a character as Tamoi of the Brazilians, or
Unkulunkulu of the Zulus f; Mr. Gladstone takes
Abraham quite seriously, regards his “ call ” as a fact
* The Principal of Pusey House, the Rev. Charles Gore, who is better
informed and more sagacious on this matter than Mr. Gladstone, gives
up (practically) the historical character of all the Bible narrative before
the time of Abraham. He asks whether the “ earlier narratives ” are not
“ of the nature of myth,” and whether ‘‘ those great inspirations about
the origin of things ” are not “ conveyed to us in that form of myth or
allegorical picture, which is the earliest mode in which the mind of man
apprehended truth.”—See article on “ The Holy Spirit and Inspiration.”
in Lux Mundi, p. 357.
t Tylor, Primitive. Culture, vol. i., pp. 399-405.
�36
The Grand Old Book.
like that of the last clergyman who had a call to a
richer living, and bravely declares that “ Of all great
and distinctive chapters in the history of the human
race we have here perhaps the greatest and the most
distinctive.” Why, the very circumcision which
Jehovah fixed as his special brand upon the Jews,
beginning with Abraham, is older than the earliest
trace of the Jews in history. It was practised on
religious grounds by the priestly caste in Egypt. It
was common among the Semites, of whom the Jews
are a branch. It has been found in various parts of
the world that had no communication with each other,
such as South Africa, the South Pacific Islands, and
Mexico. Jehovah’s trade mark was a plagiarism, a
violation of an old patent, and he would have been non
suited in any action he took to assert his exclusive rights.
But let us come to Mr. Gladstone’s account of the
Fall. He starts with setting up an “ Adamic race,”
of whom we suppose he implies that Adam was the
first progenitor. Now the science of ethnology is
pretty well established, but its records will be searched
in vain for any Adamic race. Mr. Gladstone has
developed this race from the depths of his inner con
sciousness. Elsewhere he speaks of the Fall as “ intro
ducing us to man in his first stage of existence—a stage
not of savagery but of childhood.” Such a remark is
childish. There never was such a stage of humanity.
Not childhood, but sheer savagery, was the original state
of every people in history.
*
Mr. Gladstone may talk
* “The evidence that all civilised nations are the descendants of
barbarians, consists, on the one side, of clear traces of their former low
condition in still-existing customs, beliefs, language, etc.,- and on the
other side, of proofs that savages are independently able to raise them
selves a few steps in the scale of civilisation, and have actually thus
risen.” Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 146.
�The Grand Old Book.
37
as he pleases, but on this question he is no greater
authority than the man in the street. Behind history
lies anthropology, and the verdict of anthropology is
decisive. Man is of animal origin. He was neither
made from earth nor dropped from the skies. This is
proved. Even Dr. Wallace can no longer withhold
his assent. Despite himself he now admits that the
evidence for man’s “ descent from some ancestral form
common to man and the anthropoid apes ” is “ over
whelming and conclusive. ”* Thus the Adamic race,
and the primitive state “ not of savagery but of
childhood,” are both figments of theological imagination.
They would vanish to-morrow if they were not main
tained by the Black Army in the interest of their
dogmas.
Mr. Gladstone sums up the purport of the Old
Testament as “ a history of sin and redemption.” Of
course the second depends upon the first. Man is an
awful sinner, a fallen being. That is the first state
ment of Christianity, and it is a falsehood. Evolution
proves the ascent, not the descent, of man; that he
has risen from a low estate to a high one, and from
small things to great. On the other hand, the least
knowledge of human nature shows us that man is not
half as black as the parsons paint him. It is absurd
to talk of “ the preponderance of moral evil in the
world.” Human society could not exist under such
conditions. Nor is it sensible to ask, “ Are we as a
race whole, or are we profoundly sick?” We are
neither the one nor the other. Man is neithei' an
angel nor a devil. But there is surely a preponderance
of good in his composition. His heart is better than
* Dr. A. R. Wallace, Darwinism, p. 461.
�38
The Grand Old Book.
his head. No doubt there is a sad spectacle for the
philanthropist in the oppressions of the world, for the
honest man in its crimes, for the good man in its vices,
and for the truthful man in its lies and hypocrisies—
after all these millenniums of religion. But what the
world at large does not see, what the newspapers do
not report, is deeper and more common than these
things ; and the homes of the people, where they really
live their lives, are perpetually made fragrant by the
“ little unremembered acts of kindness and of love.”
And sometimes a splendid deed of heroism, wrought by
one great heart, thrills the hearts of millions, expands
our moral horizon, and shames the whining of dastard
priests.
What is sin ? That’ must be answered before we
discuss redemption. Mr. Gladstone calls it “a de
parture from the will of God.” Later on he describes
it more fully as “ a deviation from the order of nature,
a foreign element not belonging to the original creation
of Divine design, but introduced into it by special
causes.”
But how came man to depart from the will of God ?
How can there be a departure from the order of
nature ? Who introduced a foreign element into
God’s creation? What special causes lie outside the
sphere of Omnipotence ? To say that man’s free-will
“ frustrated ” God’s “ attempt ” is to say that God did
not foresee the result of his own action, or that he
deliberately endowed man with a faculty that would lead
him astray. “ Foreign element ” and “ special causes ”
are polite circumlocutions for the Devil. But who
made the Devil ? The only answer is—God. Finally,
therefore, the Christian has to face these dilemmas.
Either God can stop the Devil or he cannot. If he
�The Grand Old Book.
39-
cannot he is not all-powerful, if he will not he is not
all-good. Either God knew the Devil would pervert
Adam or he did not. If he did not, he is deficient in
foresight; if he did, he had no right to be angry at the
inevitable.
Mr. Gladstone speaks of 44 the revolt of man’s lower
nature against its higher elements.” How came there
to be 44 lower elements ” in a divine production ? Higher
and lower can only be explained by evolution. The
lower is the blind animal passion inherited from our
brutish progenitors. The higher is the governing
reason and conscience developed in countless ages of
social growth.
With regard to the story of the Fall of Man in
Genesis, Mr. Gladstone takes a position commonly
called sitting on the fence. He 44 deals with it as a
parable,” but adds 44 I do not mean to make on my own
part any definitive surrender of the form as it stands.”
But the Fall is either history or romance. There can
be no medium. If it be a parable, it is absurd to talk
of it as a fact; if it be a fact, it is idle to talk of it as
a parable.
Adam and Eve are placed in the garden. They are
the work of an Omniscient Designer, but they are
incapable of knowing good from evil. They cannot
appreciate a moral code. God 44 has laid upon them a
law of obedience.” Like stupid, wilful parents he says
44 Don’t do that, because I tell you not to.” He does
not give them a comprehensive view of their duties to
each other. His law is 44 simply a rule of feeding and
not feeding.” He governs them through their stomachs.
What a noble view of our first parents I What a
tribute to the wisdom and goodness of God !
. The law of obedience involves the law of punishment.
�40
The, Grand Old Booh.
In eating what he is told not to—that is, in gratifying
the appetite God gave him—man becomes “ a rebel,”
and is justly punished as such. But is there any justice
in the case ? Is not everything arbitrary ? Man does
what his nature instigates, and God chooses to chastise
him. God is witness, counsel, judge, and executioner,
and gives penal servitude for life for a first offence.
Mr. Gladstone wrastes his time in trying to show the
similarity of punishment and consequence. One is
arbitrary, the other is natural. If I put my hand in
the fire, it burns me. That is consequence. It is
indifferent to morality. There is no discrimination.
The hand may be an honest man’s or a scoundrel’s. If
I think for myself under the Inquisition I am burnt at
the stake. That is punishment. The two may run
parallel, but they have no connection. If I steal I
injure my fellow men and debase my own nature.
That is consequence. If I am found out I am sent to
prison. That is punishment.
Adam and Eve did not injure each other, nor did
they injure God. Consequently they did not sin. A
child does not sin in eating w’hat he is told not to,
unless he knows he is stealing or depriving someone
else of food. He means no harm, and the action does
not deteriorate his nature. Is it not absurd, then, to
affirm that God’s treatment of Adam and Eve is “ in
accordance with the laws of a grand and comprehensive
philosophy ” ? Mr. Gladstone says that sceptical ob
jections to the Fall are “the product of narrower and
shallowei’ modes of thought.”
We reply that his
“ grand and comprehensive philosophy ” overlooks the
most obvious facts.
Mr. Gladstone calls the Fall “ a gigantic drama.”
It seems to us a petty farce. The people who lived in
�The Grand Old Booh.
41
the ages of Miracle Plays took it seriously, but what
educated man of the present age—unless he keeps a
dark room for theology in his brain—can regard it
without smiling? Of course imagination can make
anything gigantic. It can turn a white rag into a
ghost, or a donkey’s head into the Devil. But imagina
tion is powerless to exaggerate when you see the objects
as they are.
Mr. Gladstone’s imagination tells him that the Fall
“ wisely teaches us to look to misused free-will as the
source of all sin, and of all the accompanying misery.”
It is rather cool to assert this in the face of St. Paul,
St. Augustine, Martin Luther and John Calvin; in face
of the Church of England Articles and the West
minster Confession of Faith. If an unbeliever treated
the Bible in this way, putting his own private inter
pretation on every text, heedless of the settled interpre
tation of the Churches, Mr. Gladstone would stigmatise
him as ignorant or insolent. We do not say a man has
no right to his private interpretation. We claim it for
him. But we say that when he is opposed to a great
historic school of interpretation he is bound to give his
reasons. This Mr. Gladstone avoids. He simply
dogmatises. The proper answer, therefore, is to defy
him to show a single allusion to free-will in the story
of the Fall, or a single text in favor of free-will from
Genesis to Revelation.
Let us follow Mr. Gladstone still farther. “ The
original attempt,” he writes, “ to plant a species upon
our planet, who should be endowed with the faculty
of free-will, but should always direct that will to good,
had been frustrated through sin.” How this happened,
or how it could happen if God were all-wise and allpowerful, is not explained. Mr. Gladstone introduces
�42
The Grand Old Booh.
“ sin ” as though it were an entity. Sin is a quality of
actions. To make “ sin ” the cause of actions is an
absurdity. The ultimate question is—why did Adam
go wrong? To that question Mr. Gladstone never
addresses himself.
God’s “ original attempt ” having been “ frustrated ”
—somehow, by somebody—the all-wise and all-powerful
ruler of the universe set about a remedy. His opera
tions were so slow that, fifteen hundred years after
wards, the world was so hopelessly corrupt that he lost
patience and drowned the lot, with the exception of
eight persons, not one of whom was worth saving.
Afterwards the Almighty began to work in a small
way. He chose the most insignificant people on earth,
visited them occasionally, and gave them a little
heavenly illumination. Why he chose the Jews is a
mystery. Mr. Gladstone admits the choice was not
what reason would expect. It was not made on moral
grounds. The Jews were distinctly inferior to the
primitive Greeks, as Mr. Gladstone proves at consider
able length. And finally, when the Redeemer came,
after nearly two thousand years of preparation, the
chosen people crucified him between two thieves, as a
warning to other gentlemen in the same line of busi
ness. Nay more, after the Redemption has been
actively operating for another two thousand years,
there is still “a preponderance of moral evil in the
world.” Thus the Almighty and Omniscient God is
able to make a world and pronounce it “ good,” but
utterly unable to keep it good, or to repair it when it
falls out of order. Indeed the longer he tries to im
prove it the worse it gets. All this is asserted or
implied in Mr. Gladstone’s argument. It is a queer
compliment to God, and a flat contradiction to his
�The Grand Old Booh.
43
attributes. Either God is very weak, or the Devil is
very strong, or man is very “ cussed." We leave Mr.
Gladstone to say which. Meanwhile we must observe
that his exposition and vindication of the story of the
Fall is a shocking example of how devotion to an
inherited creed will make even a great man wallow in
absurdity. Tycho Brahe, the great astronomer, kept
an idiot, and watched his lips for words of inspiration.
Mr. Gladstone, the great statesman, finds infinite
wisdom in an old Jewish story, which is less moral and
entertaining than “ Jack the Giant-Killer.” Not even
the genius of Milton could invest it with grandeur.
He who lavished his sublimity on the inmates of hell,
and his beauty on two unsophisticated human beings in
a lovely garden, turned a prosaic moralist and a
pedantic quibbler in his efforts to “ justify ” the
theology of the Fall.
�44
The Grand Old Booh.
CHAPTER IV.
THE PSALMS.
The poetry of the Old Testament is to be found in
parts of Isaiah and Ezekiel, in the Song of Solomon, in
the Book of Job, which is simply a dramatic poem,
and in the Book of Psalms. The last is a collection
of sacred chants used in the Temple worship. All of
them abound in Chaldee words, which is a proof that
they were at least redacted at a late period of Jewish
*
history.
The ascription of most of them to David is
an arbitrary absurdity. Every scholar is aware that
the superscripture of the Psalms is misleading. Just
as the national collection of Proverbs was ascribed to
Solomon, because of his traditional wisdom, the national
collection of Psalms was (chiefly) ascribed to David,
because of his traditional love of music. But the royal
authorship of these collections is now discarded by
every scholar of the slightest standing.
When and where the various Psalms were written
is not and never will be known. Bleek may think this,
and Canon Cook may think that, with respect to par
ticular portions, but opinion on this subject is little
else than conjecture. It is only a speculation that the
Psalter contains any Davidic element. Mr. Gladstone
is anxious to maintain its antiquity, but it is idle to cite
the “ authority” of this or that orthodox or semi
orthodox critic, while the equal “ authority ” of
heterodox critics may be cited in opposition.
* Rev. Dr. Giles, Hebrew Records, p. 201.
�The Grand Old Book.
45
Certainly, if the historical books of the Old Testa
ment are to be relied upon, David could not have com
posed the finest Psalms. His people were on a level
with the Zulus, and he himself was on a level with
Cetewayo. The finest Psalms were beyond his mental
and moral scope. If his hand is to be traced in the
collection, the murderer of Uriah, the bloody and
remorseless victor of the Ammonites, is most likely to
be detected in the cursing Psalms, for which Mr Glad
stone pens a sophistical defence.
Whether the Psalms are relatively ancient or modern
cannot decide the question of their inspiration. Nor
does it avail to say that they are “ unparalleled,” or
that they are “the prime and paramount manual of
devotion ” to Christians as well as Jews. Christians
have been trained in the use of the Psalms. Yet their
inadequacy for the expression of Christian sentiment
is proved by the vast collections of hymns in use
among the various denominations. On the other
hand, the excellence of the Jews in the composition of
devotional pieces is by no means miraculous. Among
the Greeks and Romans, as Mr. Gladstone observes,,
the “ rise of intellect was the fall of piety.” Such a
calamity did not befall the Jews, There was never a.
“ rise of intellect ” amongst them. Piety was there
fore the exclusive object of their cultivation. They
were without science, art, philosophy, or secular litera
ture ; all of which made [heavy drafts on the mental
powers of the Greeks and Romans. Consequently
the whole of their genius ran in one narrow channel,
and ploughed it deeply. If therefore the Psalms
are “ unparalleled ” there is nothing supernatural in
the fact, unless it is miraculous for a nation to excel in
the one direction to which it bends its whole faculties.
�46
The Grand Old Book.
But, after all, such terms as unparalleled and un
approachable, in these matters, are terms of taste,
sentiment, or prejudice, rather than of scientific pre
cision. Translation, too, counts for a great deal. The
Psalms were translated by masters of simple, vigorous,
poetical English. To compare with the best of them,
a fine passage of the Vedas, or of JEschylus, Sophocles,
Euripides, or Pindar, must be translated by a Max
Muller or a Matthew Arnold. Mr. Gladstone selects
the “ marvellous ” forty-fourth Psalm, and declares it
to be “ lifted as far above the level of any merely
human effort known to us as the flight of the lark,
‘ hard by the sun,’ is lifted above the swallow, when it
foresees the storm and skims the surface of the
ground.” But see how tastes differ, and on what a
narrow ledge of personal preference Mr. Gladstone
builds his towering structure of dogma ! This very
forty-fourth Psalm, which he regards as immeasurably
above all merely human efforts, seems to us distinctly
inferior to many a passage of uninspired literature.
Not to cite Shakespeare—the sovereign soul of this
planet—let us go back to an old Greek and take the
following religious extract:
“ Oh ! that my lot may lead me into the path of holy inno
cence of word and deed, the path which august laws ordain,
laws that in the highest empyrean had their birth, of which
Heaven is the father alone, neither did the race of mortal men
beget them, nor shall oblivion ever put them to sleep. The
power of God is mighty in them, and groweth not old.” *
Undoubtedly the forty-fourth Psalm is more stormy
and popular; but the Greek poet puts intellect and
measure into his piety, and is more edifying and
inspiring. Mr. Gladstone, of course, is entitled to his
* Arnold’s translation, Essays in Criticism, First Series, p. 222.
�The Grand Old Book.
47
preference; but a difference of taste is hardly the
ground for a supernatural distinction.
•
“ John Bright has told me,” Mr. Gladstone says,
“ that he would be content to stake upon the Book of
Psalms, as it stands, the great question whether there
is or is not a Divine Revelation. It was not to him
conceivable how a work so widely severed from all the
known productions of antiquity, and standing upon a
level so much higher, could be accounted for except by
a special and extraordinary aid calculated to produce
special and extraordinary results.”
John Bright never expressed himself in that way.
But supposing he communicated the substance of this
paragraph to Mr. Gladstone, what in reality does it
prove ? John Bright was nurtured on the Bible and
Milton. What was his acquaintance with “ all the
known productions of antiquity ” ? Did he ever read
the Vedas, the Babylonian Hymns, the Egyptian Book
of the Dead, or the Greek poets ? He had little taste
for Shakespeare, and he praised some very mediocre
versifiers of his own generation. Perhaps he was “ a
very capable judge of the moral and religious elements
in any case,” but who in a state of sanity would accept
his dictum as to the inspiration of a particular writing ?
Submit the Psalms to a Hindu and he will tell you
they are human compositions. He is not to be imposed
upon by such writings. He knows what is inspired.
He has heard more convincing arguments in favor of
the inspiration of the Vedas than any Mr. Gladstone
offers on behalf of the Psalms.
“As soon as the Vedic religion became systematised, and
had to be defended against the doubts of friends and foes, the
Brahmans elaborated an apologetic philosophy which seems to
me unsurpassed in subtlety and acuteness by any other defence
�48
The Grand Old Booh.
of a divinely-inspired book. The whole of the Veda was
represented as divine in its origin, and therefore beyond the
reach of doubt. It was not to be looked on as the work of
men, but only as seen by inspired poets.”*
The fact is that Mr. Gladstone will only prove the
inspiration of the Psalms to those who are already
convinced. His arguments are excuses rather than
justifications. Rhetoric is substituted for logic. Appeals
to orthodox emotion serve instead of definition and
evidence.
Mr. Gladstone’s defence of the imprecatory Psalms
is an elaboration of the latest plea of hard-pressed
Bibliolators. “ They are not the utterances of selfish
spite,” says the editor of Lux Mundi, “ they are the
claim which righteous Israel makes upon God that he
should vindicate himself.”f In the same way Mr.
Gladstone furbishes up the Hebrew Old Clothes. He
takes this verse, for instance :—“ And of thy goodness
slay mine enemies, and destroy all them that vex my
soul, for I am thy servant.”^ And this is how he
defends it:—
■" The Psalmist pleads that he is engaged in the service of
God; that in this service he is assailed and hindered; that,
powerless in himself, he appeals to the source of power; and
that he invokes upon the assailants and hinderers of the Divine
work the Divine vengeance, even to their extinction.”
Now this is the very essence of fanaticism. When
a man calls on God to extinguish the life of a fellow
man, he is only one step from murder; the wish is.
there, and only the opportunity is lacking.
It is refreshing to turn from Mr. Gladstone’s ob
servations to the “Holy Willie’s Prayer” of honest
* Max Muller, Natural Religion, pp. 233, 234.
t P. 350.
J Psalm cxliii., 12.
�49
The Grand Old Book.
Robert Burns. The hero of that poem talks like the
Psalmist, and defends himself on the lines of Mr.
Gladstone, but the poet depicts him as a fanatical
hypocrite.
We are told that Jesus Christ forgave his enemies
and bade us do the same. How is it possible, then, for
a Christian to recognise the voice of God in the fol
lowing curses which the writer of the hundred-andninth Psalm pours upon his enemy ?
“ Let his days be few, and let another take his office. 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 strangers spoil his labor.
Let there be none to extend mercy unto him : neither let there
be any to favor his fatherless children.”
More infamous words never came from the mouth of
man. If this indeed be the language of inspiration;
if this is how a pious man may sp?ak when under the
influence of the Christian Deity; we had better re
turn to the glad and gracious paganism of Greece, and
worship the kindlier deities of its lovely Pantheon.
Or let us adore the friendly Penates, whose worship,
as Shelley paid, is neither sanguinary nor absurd.
*
Mr. Gladstone seems to have misgivings as to the
soundness of his defence of these imprecatory Psalms.
He falls back, therefore, upon a hackneyed stratagem.
Just as he bade us take a “ grand and comprehensive
view ” of the science of Genesis, he now tells us that
“ the Psalms, like other productions, are to be judged
by their general character.” True, if they are human
productions, but not if they are divine. Such a plea
can only be advanced on behalf of a being who is a
* Letter to T. L. Peacock, July 17, 1816.
D
�50
The Grand Old Book.
mixture of good and evil, wisdom and ignorance,
strength and frailty. It is virtually asking us to make
a debit and credit account, and strike a balance;
and while this is just and natural in the case of a man,
it is absurd and even blasphemous in the case of a
God.
�The Grand Old Book.
51
CHAPTER IV.
THE MOSAIC LEGISLATION.
Mr. Gladstone’s fourth chapter is on “ The Mosaic
Legislation.” Its object is to show that the Pentateuch
is older than the “ negative ” critics allow, and that in
any case the hand of Moses is obvious in the Law
which is called by his name.
Incidentally he makes some very questionable state
ments. For instance, he speaks of Moses as the person
by whom the books of the Pentateuch “ profess to have
been written.” If he means that this authorship is
asserted in the very texture of the books we think he
is mistaken, and if he means that the name of Moses
is affixed to them he is guilty of triviality. “We are
not told,” says Professor Max Muller, who is not a
destructive critic, “ that Moses consigned the Old
Testament to writing.” Again, he declares that “ no
scholar would suppose that Moses was even the author
of the Pentateuch. ‘ The Books of Moses’ were to
the more orthodox Jews the books telling of Moses,
not the books written by Moses, just as (the Book of
Job’ was the book containing the story of Job, not a
book written by Job.”*
Mr. Gladstone also asserts that “the existence of
Moses is even better and far better established than
that of Lycurgus.” Whether that he so or not is of
little consequence. “With regard to Lycurgus, the
Natural Religion, p. 556.
�52
The Grand Old Book.
lawgiver,” says Plutarch, “ there is nothing whatever
that is undisputed.” Surely Mr. Gladstone does not
think the “ negative ” critics have agreed to stand
sponsors for this ancient Spartan. He will find that
Lycurgus is given up as a legendary character by the
most sober historians. What Mr. Gladstone thinks it
“ irrational ” to do is actually done by Sir G. W. Cox
in a General History of Greece for the use of colleges.
He need not be surprised, therefore, if the still more
“ irrational ” act of treating Moses as legendary is
performed in the more advanced schools of criticism.
It would be well for Mr. Gladstone to explain the
statement that “ in the case of Moses we have much
evidence independent of, and anterior to, the institu
tions in their historic form.” Where is this “much
evidence ” to be found ? Certainly not in profane
history; as certainly not in the Jewish historical books,
which ignore Moses and all his works.
There seems no limit to the license of affirmation on
the orthodox side. Let a Christian write for orthodox
readers, in a magazine where he cannot be replied to,
and he will apparently invent as much as he can palm
off, or restate without the slightest qualification any
number of time-honored falsehoods, however frequently
they have been challenged and exposed.
We must also say that Mr. Gladstone is playing to
the gallery in his remarks on the differences among the
“ negative ” critics. “ Speaking at large,” he says,
“ every imaginable difference has prevailed among the
critics themselves as to the source, date, and authorship
of the books.” This is like the objection that the
Bible chronology must be true because the geologists
are not agreed as to the precise age of the earth's
strata, although to a sensible man it is ^quite enough
�The Grand Old Booh.
53
that they do agree on an immense antiquity. Similarly,
the “ negative” critics of the Pentateuch are not
agreed as to the date and authorship of every part;
for it is one thing to produce a forgery, and quite
another to unravel it, more than two thousand years
afterwards, so as to be able to say, this was written by
such a hand, and that was written at such a time.
But there is a point of agreement among these critics,
and it is a very important one. As Mr. Gladstone says,
they have brought the Books of Moses “ gradually
towards later epochs: to Samuel, to the age of David,
to the severance of the Kingdoms, to Josiah, to the
Captivity, and those who followed it.” How absurd,
then, is the statement that it is “ difficult to learn
whether there is any real standing ground which the
present negative writers mean not only to occupy but
to hold.” They occupy and hold this ground—that the
Pentateuch is not the work of Moses. This is esta
blished by a thousand reasons, linguistic, historical, and
sociological. Who wrote the various parts, when they
were written, and where they were written, are different
and difficult questions. They are partially answered;
but even if they should never be answered completely,
it is certain that Moses was not and could not have
been the author.
Suppose we take the case of the forged Parnell
letters. Reasonable men might have been perfectly
satisfied that Mr. Parnell did not write them without
discovering who did. The negative evidence might,
have been overwhelming. The positive evidence was
furnished, under pressure, by the forger himself. But
suppose Pigott had died before he could be crossexamined, instead of blowing his brains out afterwards;
it might never have been possible to ascertain all the
�54
The Grand Old Book.
details of the forgery, yet the forgery itself might
still have been incontestible. In the same way we may
Satisfy ourselves that the Pentateuch was the work of
many hands in many generations, without being able to
put the forgers in the witness-box and wring from them
a full confession.
’ There is one point, however, on which Mr. Gladstone
is entitled to praise. Contending, as he does, that
“the heart and substance” of the Mosaic Law is
authentic, he repudiates all sympathy with temporisers
like Mr. Gore, the clever editor of Lux Mundi. These
writers plead for a possible “ Mosaic germ ” of Jewish
legislation, but allow that it was developed through
centuries by the priesthood, which ascribed its own
work to the ancient Jewish leader.
*
Now Mr. Glad
stone remarks that “ Those are doubtless perfectly
sincere who represent this as a method of progressive
revelation. But there are also those who think that
such a progressive revelation as this would for over two
thousand years have palmed upon the whole Jewish
and Christian world a heartless imposture.” On another
page Mr. Gladstone urges the impossibility of regarding
such an imposture as harmless. “ If the use of his
[Moses's] name was a fiction,” he declares, “it was
one of those fictions which are falsehoods, for it altered
essentially the character of the writings to which it
was attached.”
This explicit statement is very much to Mr. Glad
stone's credit. Yet it would not be difficult for Mr. Gore
to show that Mr. Gladstone has his own way of evading
the hardest task of his position. Mr. Gore puts forward
a comprehensive theory, which, if accepted, provides
* Lux Mundi, pp. 352, 353. (Seventh, edition).
�The Grand Old Booh.
55'
for all difficulties. He works on wholesale principles.
Mr. Gladstone employs another theory, which is open
to as grave objections. He would have us believe that
“ it is the legislation, for which in the sacred text itself
the claim is constantly made of being due to direct
communication from above, while no corresponding
assertion in general accompanies the historical recitals.”
This, he appears to think, enables him to ascribe any
quantity of Bible blunders to the “ probable imperfec
tions of the text.” But if imperfections crept into
one part of the text, is it impossible that they crept
into the other ? If the historical text is corrupt, may
not the legislative text be also corrupt? Is it con
ceivable, Mr. Gore might urge, that a God of infinite
wisdom and power would make a positive and exact
revelation of his will, without taking the precaution to
preserve it in its original purity; or would he allow it
to be associated, nay interwoven, with human writings,
and thus inevitably to share tlie suspicion and discredit
of such productions in future ages of scientific criticism?
And if, Mr. Gore might continue, you abandon the
plenary inspiration of the text, as you obviously do,
you are bound to formulate another theory of inspira
tion or let the text go altogether. To pick and choose
at your own pleasure is arbitrary. Formulate your
theory, and let us see whether it differs essentially
from mine.
Such a challenge Mr. Gladstone would be bound to
accept; and if he did so he would probably discover
that Mr. Gore’s theory-—which, by the way, is. not
original—is the only one that will leave a Protestant
any hold on the Pentateuch as inspired; a slender
hold, it is true, but the only one possible in the cir
cumstances.
<
�56
The Grand Old Booh.
Mr. Gladstone advances five arguments to prove the
antiquity of the Mosaic Law, and we shall proceed to
discuss them. But before doing so we must make this
observation. Not one of his arguments would carry
the Law back to the time of Moses. They might, if
they were sound, carry it back beyond the Captivity,
but this is many hundreds of years from the death of
the supposed lawgiver. It appears to us, indeed, that
Mr. Gladstone is playing on his readers’ lack of historic
perspective.
First A rgument.—The early ages of the Jews were
purer and nobler, and less idolatrous, than the later;
it is therefore “ a paradox, and even a rather wanton
paradox, to refer the production of those sacred Mosaic
books, which constituted the charter of the Hebrews
as a separate and peculiar people, to the epochs of a
lowered and decaying spiritual life.”
Surely Mr. Gladstone has read Jewish history upside
down. Where in the narrative of the wandering in
the desert, of the rule of the Judges, and of the early
Kings, shall we find this heightened spiritual life ?
Look at the hideous story of the Levite and his concu
bine in the Book of Judges, and see what kind of
private and public life existed in the “ good old times.”
Then turn to the best parts of the Book of Isaiah, and
see the immense improvement in every respect. If
the Mosaic Law shows a high spiritual culture (which
for the moment we neither affirm nor dispute), as Mr.
Gladstone alleges, it was more likely to have originated
in the later than in the earlier ages of Jewish history.
Second Argument.—From about 300 b.c. the Jews
paid great reverence to the sacred text, and took pain
ful precautions to preserve its integrity. Is it possible,
therefore, that the ostensible editors were really the
�The Grand Old Book.
7
authors ? And was there not “ something like hallu
cination on the part of a people that accepted such
novelties as ancient?”
This is a skilful, but not very ingenuous, appeal to
the ordinary readers of to-day, who may well doubt
the possibility of such an imposition being now success
ful, and who have neither the knowledge nor the
imagination to weigh the probability of its success in a
very different state of society, when there was no
printing-press and no general circulation of literature,
when the masses were grossly ignorant, and all the
knowledge that existed was monopolised by the
theocracy.
Let us take a couple of illustrations of how people
can be the victims of “ something like hallucination ”—
one from profane and one from sacred history.
.During the mediaeval period the Arthurian legends
grew up in Western Europe. They were most circum
stantial, as works of imagination are apt to be; witness
the marvellous details of Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe or
his History of the Great Plague, or, in our own day,
the minute Dutch painting of Dickens. When we
read the Arthurian legends in Sir Thomas Mallory’s
great book they seem like actual occurrences. It
requires an effort to realise that they are purely
romantic; and they have still enough life-blood in
them to give an air of reality to Tennyson’s more
shadowy Idylls of the King. Centuries ago those
legends were real- history. They were as true as
Gospel. Now we know they are products of imagina
tion. The famous Round Table was the dream of
poets’ brains. The gallant knights and lovely ladies
were fictions. Arthur himself seems never to have
existed. Like Willian Tell, another purely romantic
�08
The Grand Old Booh.
• creation, who has figured so prominently in Swiss
history as an actual hero, Arthur has melted away
in the light of modern criticism. Nor is it anything
but foolishness to lament the “ loss,” for if history
becomes more scientific, the poetry of the old legends
remains as an imperishable possession.
Our second illustration shall be taken from the New
Testament. In the Epistle of Jude a quotation is
made from “ Enoch, the seventh from Adam.” Now1
this quotation is really taken from the Book of Enoch,
a work which is ascribed by some authorities to the
first, and by others to the second, century before Christ.
That is the highest antiquity claimed for the book by
any competent scholar. Yet here, in the Epistle of
Jude, we have a Christian writer of probably the second
century after Christ, citing the work as written by the
Enoch who lived before the Flood. In other words, a
work not four hundred years old, and perhaps not
three hundred, was honestly taken to be older than
Moses, older than Abraham, older than Noah. Was not
this “ somethiug like hallucination ” ? And if a Chris
tian writer could be so deceived, was it impossible for
Jewish readers to be the victims of a less colossal
deception ?
Before dismissing this second argument we must
remark that Mr. Gladstone exaggerates its basis. He
asserts that the Massoretes, or official guardians of the
Hebrew text, were a body “ without a parallel in the
history of the world.” They counted the words and
the very letters of the text, and Mr. Gladstone calls on
the negative critics to say whether this “ profound and
exacting veneration ” is consistent with the Books of
the Pentateuch being recent concoctions.
•' Mr. Gladstone’s statement, as to the unparalleled
�The Grand Old Book.
5&1
character of the Massoretes, was challenged in the"
Jewish Chronicle. But one of Mr. Gladstone’s foibles
is infallibility, and although he is obviously mistaken,
he declares in the Preface his belief that his readers
“ have not been misled.” With respect to the Hindus,
he says, “ I understand it is stated that they counted
verses, words, syllables, and letters; but it does not
appear that this statement is one historically authenti
cated.”
We beg Mr. Gladstone’s pardon, but it does appear
to be historically authenticated. Speaking of the Vedic
hymns, Professor Max Muller says that they “ must at
a very early time have become the subject of the most
careful study. Not only every word, but every letter
and every accent were settled in the teaching of the
schools, and the only marvel is that so many irregular
forms should have escaped the levelling influence of
teachers from generation to generation.” The Pratis^khyas “ show us with what extraordinary minute
ness the hymns of the Veda had been analysed.” “ In
the hymns themselves,” he observes, “ the poets speak
of their thoughts as God-given—this we can understand
-—while at a later time the theory came in that not
the thoughts and words only, but every syllable, every
letter, every accent, had been communicated to half
divine and half-human prophets by Brahma, so that
the slightest mistake in pronunciation, even to the
pronunciation of an accent, would destroy the charm
and efficiency of these ancient prayers.”*
Now Mr. Gladstone admits that he has not “ the
^slightest pretension to speak with authority upon this
subject,” while Professor Max Muller is a specialist of
* Natural Religion, pp. 297, 558.
�60
The, Grand Old Booh.
European fame in this department of study. The
reader will therefore have little difficulty in forming a,
judgment.
Third Argument.—If the Jewish hierarchy composed
the Pentateuch, and ascribed it, or at least the legis
lation, to Moses, the forgery was unaccountably
unscientific. The books are 44 rather crude and irre
gular,” they 44 have not that consistency which belongs
to consecutiveness of form.” Yet the priests had
44 unbounded freedom of manipulation,” and there was
every condition to44 favor the production of a thoroughly
systematic and orderly work.”
Now this argument proceeds on two false assump
tions ; first, that the whole Pentateuch was concocted
at one time by one set of hands—say like our Revised
Version of the Bible; secondly, that the priests were
skilful enough to anticipate the severity of modern
criticism. The first assumption would be scouted by
the whole school of 44 negative ” critics ; the second
would be derided by every person with a grain of
common sense.
The fact is, the forgers were skilful enough for their
own necessities. They had merely to deal with the
circumstances of their own time. And if the circum
stances had not changed, as they did not until the
modern invention of printing, and the growth of exact
knowledge, the forgery would still hold its ground. It
imposes on ordinary people still, and apparently it
imposes on Mr. Gladstone. But it did not impose on
Spinoza, who viewed it as a man of genius, a mathe
matician, and a scholar; it did not impose on Colenso,
who examined it with more than the minuteness of
Sii’ Charles RusselFs examination of Pigott; it does
not impose on the great textual and historical critics
�The Grand Old Booh.
61
of Germany, Holland and France ; nor does it impose
on English writers like Dr. Robertson Smith and the
editor of Lux Mundi. We may add that it did not
impose on the critical sagacity of Voltaire and Thomas
Paine.
Fourth Argument.—The exclusion of the doctrine
of a future life discredits the idea of the Law being
framed immediately before or after the Captivity, as
the Jews had then become familiar with the “ idea of
a future life and an Underworld, as held both in the
East and in Egypt.”
But was not Moses “ skilled in all the learning of the
Egyptians/-’ and was not the belief in a future life a
profound conviction among the Egyptians long before
his birth? Why then did he exclude it from the
Law ? Mr. Gladstone says it was because he wanted
to draw a sharp line between the Hebrews and other
nations. But why could not the same motive prevail
with the post-exile hierarchy ? Do we not know that
they were passionate Judaists? Were they not the
nurses of a patriotism far narrower and intenser than
that which obtained in the age of Solomon 1
Fifth Argument.—The Samaritan Pentateuch is a
proof of the antiquity of the Mosaic Law. “ How is
it possible,” Mr. Gladstone asks, “ to conceive that it
should have held as a Divine work the supreme place
in the regard of the Samaritans, if, about or near the
year b.c. 500, or, again, if at the time of Manasseh
the seceder, it had, as a matter of fact, been a recent
compilation of their enemies the Jews
This argument, if valid, would not carry the Penta
teuch back to the time of Moses, which is what Mr.
Gladstone undertakes to prove. At the utmost it could
only establish the fact Jhat the Pentateuch was] in
�62
The Grand Old Book.
existence before the Captivity, when the old Hebrew
character was in use among the Jews ; and it does not
require all the statistical power of Mr. Gladstone to
see that a book might exist 700 years before Christ
and still not exist 1,500 years before Christ. We are
accustomed to cutting big slices out of ancient chrono
logy, but really the years followed each other one at a
time, and many things happened in the course of
twenty generations.
Mr. Gladstone’s argument, however, is fallacious.
The Samaritans were not harder to impose upon than
the Jews, and however great their hostility, they had
a common interest in Moses and the founders of the
race.
Mr. Gladstone is curiously silent about the strong
objections to the antiquity of the Samaritan Penta
teuch. We have no space to enter upon them here,
but they are of a very pregnant character, and Mr.
Gladstone has perhaps shown a wise discretion in
avoiding this awkward branch of the subject.
Having gone through Mr. Gladstone’s arguments,
which we have drawn out in numerical order for the
sake of clearness, we proceed to remark that they are
all of an a priori character. He judiciously evades all
the positive facts of the case. He does not touch a
single internal difficulty. He does not explain, for
instance, how “ the stranger that is within thy gates ”
was inserted in the Fourth Commandment while the
Jews were desert nomads dwelling in tents; nor does
he give the slightest hint as to how the Mosaic Law
coidd have been carried out in the desert, or why it was
so utterly neglected during the rule of the Judges, and
plainly violated during the reign of the early Kings.
No one but a priest was to presume to offer sacrifice;
�The Grand Old Book.
63
yet we see David sacrificing, and at the opening of the
Temple we see Solomon officiating as High Pontiff.
The only concessions to rational criticism that Mr.
Gladstone deigns to make are these. There is a “ pro
bable imperfection of the text ”—a phrase wide enough
to cover anything—and numbers may have gone wrong
in transcribing; which again is a convenient method
of reconciling the wildest contradictions, and simply
involves the re-editing of the Pentateuch.
We have read that a famous grande dame (not one
of Brantome’s grandes dames de par le monde let us
hope) has written to thank Mr. Gladstone for the great
comfort and support she has derived from his defence
of the Bible. We do not envy him such praise. When
a man of his standing enters the lists, it should not be
to make a reassuring display to his lady friends in the
grand stand, but to grapple in deadly earnest with a
serious foe. This he has not done. He had enough of
Professor Huxley, and too much of Colonel Ingersoll.
For this reason, perhaps, the articles collected in the
volume we are criticising were contributed to Good
Words. It is a party magazine and no reply is per
mitted. He wins an easy victory who stalks into the
arena alone and fights an imaginary opponent. He may
gain the applause of those who wear his favor, but men
of honesty and discernment will lift their eyebrows at
the spectacle.
�64
The Grand Old Booh,.
CHAPTER V.
THE CORROBORATIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
Mr. Gladstone’s sixth chapter is on “Recent Corrobo
rations of Scripture from the Regions of History and
Natural Science/’ In the preliminary section he
refers to evolution as “ confirming the great argument
of design ”; but as, in this respect, he differs from
John Stuart Mill, and even from Darwin himself, his
mere ipse dixit counts for nothing. Mr. Gladstone
also observes that “ the doctrine of birth-sin, as it is
sometimes called, is simply the recognition of the
hereditary disorder and degeneracy of our natures ; and
of all men the evolutionist would be the last to estab
lish a title to object to it in principle.” Here again
Mr. Gladstone shows a curious ignorance of evolution.
Darwinians do not believe in the “ degeneracy ” of
human nature; on the contrary, they assert its slow
but constant improvement. They do not teach the
fall of man, but the rise of man. The Darwinian law
of heredity and the Christian doctrine of original sin
have absolutely nothing in common; and whoever
asserts that they have, understands neither the one nor
the other.
Never has it been our misfortune to read a more
extravagant piece of special-pleading than Mr. Glad
stone’s section on the Assyrian and Hebrew myths of
the Deluge. He does not dispute that the Assyrian
tablets deciphered by the late Mr. George Smith were
“ composed more than 2,000 years B.c. ” ; that is, five
�The Grand Old Book.
65
hundred years before the alleged date of Moses. Yet,
in the face of this chronology; in face of the lack of
all reference to the Deluge in the Jewish historical
books before the Captivity; in face of the great
influence which contact with Babylon indisputably
exercised on the Jewish people ; Mr. Gladstone asserts
that the Hebrew and Assyrian flood-stories are “ derived
through independent channels,” that “ the one comes
through a powerful and civilised empire, the other
through an obscure nomad family.” Surely Mr. Glad
stone must see that he is begging the whole question.
He has first to establish the fact—if it be a fact—that
the flood-story was known to the pre-Mosaic Jews;
whereas he has nothing but assumption to show that
it was even known to the pre-Exile Jews.
Everything Mr. Gladstone has to say on the subject
is based on this simple trick of begging the question.
He starts from a premiss, which is the very proposition
in dispute, and at the finish he blandly desires his
opponents to admit his conclusion.
First, he says the Jewish account of the Flood is
monotheistic; which, by the way, it is not, for there
are two accounts purposely disguised in our English
version, in one of which the deity is called by the
single name of Jehovah, and in the other by the plural
name of Elohim. On the other hand, he says, the
Assyrian account is polytheistic; and he argues that
the simpler form is nearer to the original source. But
does not Mr. Gladstone see that all this is consistent
with the position of the “ negative ” critics, who assert
that the Jewish flood-story was borrowed from Babylon
when the Jews were monotheistic 1
Secondly, he asserts that the absence of local
coloring in the flood-story of the Jews is natural if it
E
�66
The Grand Old Book.
was derived from a simple nomad people like Abraham?
his ancestors and his posterity. But is it not just as
natural, on the theory that it was doctored by the later
Jewish priests for their own people ? Would they not
cut away everything that gave the story a foreign air ?
Even, however, if Abraham and his family picked
up a knowledge of the flood-story while they hovered
on the skirts of the Chaldean civilisation, or brought it
away with them from “ Ur of the Chaldees,” there is
no disputing the fact that the legend existed among the
Chaldeans before the basis of the Jewish nation was
laid.
Let us now see how Mr. Gladstone disposes of
Professor Huxley. Does he reply to Huxley’s argu
ments against any such deluge as is related in Genesis?
Not a bit of it. He declares with a not too ingenuous
modesty that he has “ no capacity to handle 33 such a
controversy, although Huxley’s argument against a
partial deluge, in any wise resembling the Bible story,
was level to the most ordinary intelligence, and based
on geographical and physical truths which are taught
to school-boys. Mr. Gladstone does not refrain, how
ever, from sneering at Huxley’s “ magisterial ” tone;
and for the rest, he plays off against him the autho
rities of Mr. Ho worth, the Duke of . Argyll and Sir J.
Dawson. But Mr. Howorth’s evidence only shows that
there were catastrophes in the earlier ages of the earth,
which no one need dispute ; and Dawson, in one of his
Religious Tract Society pamphlets, distinctly argues
that the Deluge was only one of the many disasters
that have happened in geological history.
*
What on
* “ The cataclysm,” says Dawson, “ by which these men were swept
away may have been one of those submersions of our continents which,
locally or generally, have occurred over and over again, almost countless
times, in the geological history of the earth.”—Revelation and Science
�The Grand Old Booh.
67
earth has this to do with the flood which occurred in
the historical period, a huge mass of water kept standing
on the sloping plains of Mesopotamia, an ark containing
specimens of all forms of life, and the destruction by
miracle of all the human race with the exception of
eight persons ?
Mr. Gladstone is a better writer than the ordinary
Christian apologist, but his method of controversy is
no whit superior. He thinks to settle disputes by
quoting opinions from orthodox and semi-orthodox
scholars. But this is not the way'to end controversy,
or to establish any satisfactory conclusion. Nor is it
exactly honest to neglect to inform the reader that the
scholars quoted are orthodox or semi-orthodox, and to
refrain from indicating the great authorities whose
opinions are of an opposite character.
Is it not astoundingly cool of Mr. Gladstone to say
that “ the Hebrew story of the Deluge has long been
supported by a diversity of traditions among nations
and races of the world”1 What he should have said
is simply this, that flood-legends are almost universal.
That they “ support ” the Hebrew story is a monstrous
misstatement. The probability, in our opinion, is that
all these flood-legends are connected with traditional
reminiscences of inundations in prehistoric times, when
men were without the resources of science, and were
the helpless victims of calamity. Mr. Gladstone .cites
Lenonnant as contending that these flood-legends point
to some “ cataclysm that took place at a spot near the
primeval cradle of humanity,” though the phrase
“a spot” is not in the original French, and seems
(Religious Tract Society), p. 43.—Thus the positive certainty of Genesis
turns to a “ may have been,” and the miracle of the Flood becomes a
natural and common occurrence.
�68
'J he Grand Old Houk.
introduced on the usual principle of orthodox transla
tion. But neither Mr. Gladstone nor Lenormant
knows the “ spot” where humanity was first cradled,
and if there be any truth in the modern scientific
teaching as to the antiquity of man, there is a vast
interval between the oldest myths and legends and the
ape-like progenitors of the human race.
Mr. Gladstone talks as though the flood-story were
accepted as “ history ” by the generality of Christian
scholars and scientists. But it is not so accepted by
Professor St. George Mivart, the Catholic; by the
Bishop of Carlisle and Archbishop Farrar, of the
Church of England ; or by many a critic in the ranks
of Nonconformity. The tendency is to explain the
story as a legend, with a spiritual lesson, or to whittle
it down to the proportions of a local flood; and we may
ultimately learn that Noah’s Flood is an exaggeration
of a village deluge that washed away three kittens and
a blind puppy.
Much unprofitable “learning” is devoted by Mr.
Gladstone to showing how the human race descended
from Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Even if these names
are symbolic of the white, yellow and black races, they
do not give the Bible any claim to inspiration; for
these great diversities were well-known, and the legend,
whenever it was developed, would naturally follow
them. But the American and Australian races were
not known, and precisely as the Bible leaves them out
does Mr. Gladstone leave them out. He quietly
sacrifices two continents for the sake of the Pentateuch.
With respect to the Sinaitic journey of the Jews,
nothing could be more simple than the remark that
the names of places, the distances, and so forth, prove
the narrative of Exodus to be “a contemporary record
�The Grand Old Book.
69
of the events to which it relates.” Is Mr. Gladstone
so innocent as to imagine that the Jewish writers of
the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries before Christ
were unable to obtain any information about the
frontiers of Egypt and the coast of the Red Sea?
Did not Solomon marry an Egyptian princess ? Were
not the .Jews fighting in alliance with Egypt when the
hosts of Sennacherib were destroyed ? It really seems
as if nothing were too childish for a Christian apologist
to advance on behalf of the Bible.
The last “ corroboration” of Scripture is that the
world, in the late Dr. Whewell’s opinion, will end with
a catastrophe. Mr. Gladstone is informed on “ high
authority ” that this is the “ established conclusion of
astronomers ” ; and this is also “ the emphatic declara
tion of the inspired Word.” Peter prophesied it.
And where? Why in the Second Epistle of Peter,
which scholars do not allow to be his at all I Yet on
this basis Mr. Gladstone proclaims that “ the Galilean
fishermen knew what all the genius and learning of the
world for thousands of years failed to discover.” For
our part, we have a great distrust of Mr. Gladstone’s
“high authority.” In any case, this questionable
“ established conclusion of astronomers ” has no relation
to the prophecy of Peter, for this gentleman did not
mean the absolute destruction of the earth (as we read
his words), but rather a renovation of it, as the dwelling
of righteousness. The writer of the second epistle of
Peter refers to a supernatural catastrophe, which was
to occur shortly, or at any rate before the end of the
human race; and only the most Jesuitical special
pleading could torture this into harmony with any
scientific speculations as to the ultimate fate of our
globe.
�70
The Grand Old Book.
Sir Isaac Newton was a great scientist. He also
wrote in defence of the Bible. Where are those
writings now ? Ask the amateurs of curious literature.
Mr. Gladstone is a great statesman. He also writes in
defence of the Bible, and we believe that his apologies
will share the fate of Newton’s. They display what is
too often “the last infirmity of noble minds.”
�The Grand Old Book.
71
CHAPTER V.
GLADSTONE AND HUXLEY.
In his concluding chapter Mr. Gladstone breaks a
lance with Professor Huxley, whom he calls “ the
Achilles of the opposing army,” and in whom we ven
ture to say Mr. Gladstone has not yet found the
vulnerable point.
Professor Huxley has argued that the Mesopotamian
plain was an unfortunate spot for Noah's Flood, since
it slopes to the extent of nearly six hundred feet, and
a body of water high enough to carry the Ark—to say
nothing about covering all “ the highest hills under
heaven ”—would rush down in a furious torrent, and
the fate of the floating menagerie may be left to
imagination. Now Mr. Gladstone has made inquiries
of “ an engineer who is in charge of a portion of one
of our rivers,” and he is informed that “ a fall of one
in 3,420 would probably produce a current of two
miles an hour.” And if “ instead of taking an ordinary
English river we remove the banks, and suppose the
stream indefinitely widened, the fall remaining the
same, the rate of the current would not be increased
but slackened.”
Upon the strength of this “ information ” Mr.
Gladstone reads Professor Huxley a solemn lesson in
circumspection, advising him to be more “ precise " in
future, and not to call a placid stream “ a furious
torrent.
It does not occur to Mr. Gladstone, who is
confessedly ignorant of physical science, that he is
�72
The Grand Old Booh.
taking a dangerous course in giving the author of
Physiography instruction in “elementary hydraulics.”
A little reflection would show him that he has forgotten
an all-important point. He takes into calculation the
fall of the stream and the banks, but omits the other
end. The current of a stream, which is continuous until
it joins the sea, is only superficial; while a body of
water, such as Professor Huxley contemplates, would
move in bulk at the lower end with terrible force.
It is not Professor Huxley, therefore, but Mr. Glad
stone, who needs to be told that he “ should take
reasonable care to include in his survey of a case all
elements which are obviously essential to a right
judgment of it.”
Like an old parliamentary hand, Mr. Gladstone
avoids answering Professor Huxley’s question as to how
such a depth of water was kept standing for several
months on a sloping plain. This question, which is
far more important than the velocity of Noah’s Ark, is
quietly ignored.
Mr. Gladstone is equally discreet with respect to the
miracle of the demoniacs and the swine in the New
Testament. He has a wonderful faculty, in these dis
cussions, for pursuing side issues, to the complete
neglect of the central points of the problem. This may
be the art of a rhetorician, but it will not convince
“ the opposing army,” or make a favorable impression
on impartial spectators.
A discussion as to the Gardarean swine took place
between Professor Huxley and Dr. Wace in the Nine
teenth Century, and Mr. Gladstone remarks that on
this occasion the Professor “ touched lofty ground
indeed,” as though only clergymen or Christian laymen
had a right to approach it.
�The Grand Old Booh.
73
“ Mr. Huxley, as a physiologist,” says Mr. Glad
stone, “ disbelieves in demoniacal possession.” True
*
And does Mr. Gladstone believe in it? Well, he will
not say. “ Such a physiological judgment,” he mockmodestly declares, “ it is not for me to discuss.” But
that is the vital point at issue. It is that alone which
gives the story the slightest interest to people living in
the nineteenth century. If demoniacal possession be a
fact, the science of this age is woefully mistaken ; if it
be not a fact, Jesus could not have ordered devils to
leave the possessed at Gadara. In that case the evan
gelists put into his mouth words that he never uttered.
If they did this in a single case they may have done it
a hundred times, and their credibility is gone for ever.
This was clearly set forth by Professor Huxley, and
it must be obvious to Mr. Gladstone. We therefore
conclude that, when he ignores the devils and fastens
his attention on the pigs, he is aware that demoniacal
possession is indefensible. But what is obnoxious to
reason is often embraced by faith, and Mr. Gladstone
appears to accept the story of the devilled swine of
Gadara by the operation of what he calls “ the organ
of belief,” which seems to be a faculty that enables
him to cling to superstition in spite of his intellect.
Mr. Gladstone allows that Professor Huxley “ very
properly touches the question of the injury inflicted by
the destruction of the swine, which was due to our
Lord’s permission.” Nevertheless he falls into a furious
passion, which is ill-disguised by the temperate form of
his speech.
u So then, after eighteen centuries of worship offered to our
Lord by the most cultivated, the most developed, and the most
progressive portion of the human race, it has been reserved to
a scientific inquirer to discover that he was no better than a
�74
The Grand Old Book.
law-breaker and an evil-doer. It 10 sometimes said that the
greatest discoveries are the most simple. And this, if really a
discovery, is the simplest of them all. So simple that he who
runs may read, for it lies on the very surface of the page. The
ordinary reader can only put the wondering question, how, in
such a matter, came the honors of originality to be reserved to
our time and to Professor Huxley.”
Were Mr. Gladstone better acquainted with “ nega
tive ” criticism, he would know it was not reserved for
Professor Huxley to discover that the drowning of the
Gardarean swine was a “ wanton destruction of other
people’s property.” The objection has been common
for generations. Nor is it easy to pardon Mr. Glad
stone for raising the odium theologicum against his
adversary. Professor Huxley did not charge Jesus
Christ with being “ a law-breaker and an evil-doer.”
He distinctly declared his disbelief of the story. It is
those who believe it that are concerned to reconcile the
destruction of the swine with the common ethics of
civilised society.
The reconcilement attempted by Mr. Gladstone is
extremely curious. He says the country of the
Gadarenes was “ apparently part of the land of the
Girgashites, one of the seven Canaanitish nations, and
was subject, therefore, as a matter of religious obliga
tion, to the Mosaic law,” which prohibited the use of
pork. Mr. Gladstone is so sure of this, that he charges
Professor Huxley with not having “ encumbered him
self with the laboi' of inquiring what anybody else had
known or said about it.” Such a charge is positively
grotesque. Professor Huxley is a careful student and
an omnivorous reader, and has since shown a perfect
familiarity with all that is “ known or said about ” the
city of Gadara, which he gives excellent reasons for
regarding as a Greek city. Mr. Gladstone himself
�The Grand Old Booh.
75
allows that “ some commentators ” are of the same
opinion, thus exposing his own dogmatism on a contro
verted subject.
Mr. Gladstone's contention is that the Gadarenes,
being (somehow) under the Mosaic law, had no right
to keep pigs, and were simply treated like smugglers
caught with brandy-casks. But he forgets two things :
first, that Jesus was not a J ewish official, and had no
legal right to confiscate swine, or plague them with
devils ; and secondly, that the Jews were not forbidden
to keep pigs. Swine were unclean in Egypt, but they
existed there; they were unclean also to the Jews,
but they as clearly existed in Palestine; and the Jews
were allowed to sell unclean meat to the Gentiles, just
as they were allowed to lend them money on usury.
So far, therefore, from Professor Huxley’s reasoning
being “ hand-over-head,” we think it is Mr. Gladstone
who is open to the accusation.
Setting aside the subsidiary points of this story,
which is told by three of the evangelists, we have to face
—and Mr. Gladstone has to face—the central point of
demoniacal possession. It is an aspect of the same
superstition which gave birth to the injunction in
Exodus—“ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live ”—an
injunction which has cost at least nine millions of lives.
It is part and parcel of a great supernatural theory,
which existed ages before the time of Christ, and still
prevails in savage countries where Christianity is
unknown. Looked at in this light, it assumes a tragic
importance, and the question arises—Does Mr. Glad
stone believe it ? If he does not, he should plainly say
so. If he does, he is one of those who, “ with their
backs to the sunrise worship the night.”
The “ mighty Julius,” the first Caesar, the greatest
�76
The, Grand Old Booh.
of earth’s rulers, who swayed the destinies of the
civilised world before Christ was born, was far above
the superstitions of his age—above the superstition of
all ages. Could he “ revisit the glimpses of the moon,”
and behold a great English statesman gravely discuss
ing a story of devils being turned out of men and sent
into swine, he would wonder what blight had fallen
upon the human intellect in two thousand years. And
were he to learn that such stories are contained in a
book which is regarded as divine, which is placed as
such in the hands of our children, which is paraded in
all our courts of justice, and is deemed the very basis
and security of our civilisation, he would be at no loss
to understand why the greatest rulers and statesmen
of modern Europe look small and effeminate beside the
best emperors of pagan Rome.
�The Grand, Old Book.
77
CHAPTER VI.
MODERN
SCEPTICISM.
A portion of Mr. Gladstone’s last chapter is con
cerned with Scepticism and its causes. After quoting
a jubilant sentence from Mr. Karl Pearson as to the
decadence of Christianity, he remarks that we have
heard this kind of thing often enough before, and
immediately plunges into an historical disquisition on
Freethought. Bishop Butler’s preface to the Analogy
is cited to show that “ a wave of infidelity was passing
over the land ” in his day; but, according to Mr.
Gladstone, it “ dwindled and almost disappeared,” and
at the time of Johnson’s social predominance it had
“hardly left a trace behind.” Now this is a most
amazing blunder. The A nalogy was first published in
1736. Nearly twenty years later were published the
philosophical works of Bolingbroke, which were exten
sively read and very influential. The works of Chubb
and other Deists were widely read in more popular
circles. Presently the sceptical writings of Voltaire
were translated into English ; and it was in the very
days of Johnson that Hume’s masterly essays on
Miracles and Religion saw the fight. Surely this is a
remarkable “ disappearance ” of scepticism, and the
“ hardly a trace behind ” is positively ludicrous. As a
matter of fact, it was just at this very time that
Freethought penetrated to the multitude. Hence
forth, instead of merely affecting fashionable and
literary coteries, it was destined to influence the
�78
The Grand Old Booh.
working classes, and the movement thus began never
abated to the day when John Bright told the House of
Commons that the lower classes cared as much about
the dogmas of Christianity as the upper classes cared
about its practice.
Mr. Gladstone is similarly mistaken about the
results of the French Revolution in England. He
says it “generated a distinctly religious reaction,’-’
which is quite true, though only half of the truth.
The Revolution stimulated advanced thought with the
same intensity as it stimulated conservatism in Church
and State. Wordsworth and Coleridge went one way,
but Byron and Shelley went the other way. Paine’s
Age of Reason was devoured by myriads of readers,
and a host of Freethought works swarmed from the
press of Richard Carlile and his brave colleagues who,
amidst calumny and imprisonment, made such a gallant
stand for the liberty of the press. From that time to
this there has been no real break in the progress of
Freethought.
Were Mr. Gladstone’s history as correct as it is
false, there would still be no force in his contention
that scepticism is subject to mutation or hazard, for no
great movement of the human mind ever goes forward
with an equable pace. The French Revolution was
followed by reaction in France, but its ideas did not
cease to operate. Restorations took place, and Napoleon
the Little’s empire succeeded in less than half a
century the empire of Napoleon the Great. But after
each disaster the Revolutionary idea gathered fresh
strength, and the present Republic has been able to
maintain itself against all its enemies. Similarly, if
English Freethought has had its moments of rebuff
and delay, it has nevertheless advanced in the main,
�The Grand Old Book.
79
as a stream flows on with varying, but on the whole
ever-increasing, volume and power.
We must also smile at Mr. Gladstone’s view of the
function of scepticism. He imagines it is designed in
“ the counsels of God ” in the interest of faith. Its
purpose is “ to dispel the lethargy and stimulate the
zeal of believers,” and to “ admonish their faith to
keep terms with reason, by testing it at all points.”
But as scepticism is impossible without sceptics, and
sceptics are liable to damnation, it would seem that Mr.
Gladstone’s deity moves in a mysterious way his
wonders to perform. One might imagine that faith
could be stimulated and enlightened by a less cruel or
perilous method. The poor sceptics are like the fire
flies of Sumatra, which are stuck on spits to illuminate
the ways at night.
“Persons of condition,” says
Carlyle, “can thus travel with a pleasant radiance,”
but—it is very awkward for the fire-flies 1
Anyhow, we find Mr. Gladstone admitting, what no
man in his senses can dispute, a “ sti'ong and wide
spread negative movement among our countrymen
during the latter portion of this century.” And how
does he account for it? Why, in the old-fashioned
way, though in a less offensive manner. The main
cause of “ the growth of negation ” is “ not intellectual,
but moral.” Are sceptics, then, less moral than
believers ? No, says Mr. Gladstone; to say that would
be “ untrue, offensive, and absurd.” “ Had I ever been
inclined to such a conception,” he adds, “ the experience
of my life would long ago have undeceived me.”
What, then, does Mr. Gladstone mean ? We gather
the following points from his rather diffuse explanation.
Unbelievers do not become immoral, because they
inherit the advantages of the Christian tradition.
�80
The Grand Old Booh.
“Many who have abjured Christianity,” he says,
“know not that in the best of their thought, their
nature, and their practice, they are appropriating its
fruits.” But this argument may be retorted on the
Christian. The sceptic might tell him that his practice
is determined, not by the doctrines and maxims of his
creed, but by the mental and moral atmosphere which
is generated by a thousand secular influences of science,
art, literature, politics and social life. The Christian
tradition was the same three centuries ago as at present,
but what a difference in our ethical ideals as well as in
the constitution of society !
Mr. Gladstone would parry this by comparing our
condition with that of “ the Greeks of the fifth century
before Christ, or the Romans at the period of the
Advent.” But this is a most fallacious test. Had
the comparison been challenged a century or two ago
—still the best part of two thousand years after Christ
—it is very doubtful if an unprejudiced arbiter would
have given the palm to Christendom. Europe, as a
whole, was far less civilised than Greece or Rome;
negro slavery existed in English and French colonies,
political freedom was almost unknown, the masses were
ignorant and degraded, and the brutality of the poor
and the profligacy of the rich were almost incredible.
Vast progress has been made in the last hundred and
fifty years, but to claim this as in any sense a product
of Christianity is to fly in the face of history and
common sense.
There is more force in Mr. Gladstone’s next sug
gestion, that scepticism has increased because the
world has grown more absorbing. The root of “ the
mischief ” he finds in the increase of wealth and enjoy
ment. “ It is the increased force within us of all that
�81
The Grand Old Book. ■
is sensuous and worldly,” he says “ that furnishes every
sceptical argument, good, bad, or indifferent, with an
unseen ally, and that recruits many a disciple of the nega
tive creed.” This language is invidious, but it expresses
a certain truth. This life and the next have always
been in conflict. As the one grows the other dwindles.
And as science makes this life better worth living, and
humanitarianism ennobles it with an ideal glow, the
“ world to come ” fades from our mental vision. In
this sense it is perfectly true that seculai’ progress is in
itself an enemy to religion.
Mr. Gladstone would have us rectify “ thisworldism ” by cultivating the “ organ of belief,” which
is probably our old friend “ faith ” under an alias ; and
he justly regards himself as possessing a higher
development of this organ than was,^>und in the late
Mr. Darwin. But when Mr. Gladstone goes on to
read the public its duties in regard to belief he runs
counter to all the principles which guide him in
politics. He declares the presumption to be in favor
of what is received, and that “ it is doubt and not
belief of the things received which ought in all cases
to be put upon its defence.” What a rubbing of
hands there would be in Tory circles if Mr. Glad
stone talked in this fashion from political plat
forms ! Then again, he tells us that inquiry is an
excellent thing, but it should only be undertaken
“ when it can be made the subject of effective prosecu
tion.” Whstt is this, however, but an ill-disguised plea
for handing over religion to professional experts?
But this is not Mr. Gladstone's policy in other
matters. When he stumps the country he appeals to
“ the masses,” and tells them they are the very persons
to form a sound judgment. “ Multitudes of men,” he
F
�l
r he Grand Old Booh.
complains, “ call into question the foundations of our
religion and the prerogatives of our sacred books,
without any reference to either their capacities or their
opportunities for so grave an undertaking.” But were
a Tory orator to speak thus—as many Tory orators
have spoken—of some effete institution, Mr. Gladstone
would reply that the people are quite competent to
form a judgment on broad issues. And it is just on
those broad issues that the “ multitudes of men ” who
think at all do form a judgment. They get hold of
certain great ideas in politics, ethics, or religion, and
by those ideas they judge institutions, customs, and
creeds. Such is the inevitable law of the popular
mind, and if Mr. Gladstone’s religious hopes are based
on the expectation that this law is to be reversed, or
set aside, in the /^terest of Christianity, we venture to
say he is building on a foundation of sand.
In a footnote to an earlier chapter Mr. Gladstone
draws attention “ with deep regret ” to the fact that
in the French census of 1881 no less than 7,684,906
persons “ declined to make any declaration of religious
belief.” It would, perhaps, be inaccurate to allege
that all these are pronounced unbelievers. Some of
them may merely hold that the state has no concern
with their religious opinions. But a very considerable
proportion must remain, who stand outside every form
of Christianity. Many are Voltairians, rejecting
revealed religion, while retaining a vague Deism.
Others are Atheists or Agnostics, who have discarded
all kinds of supernaturalism, and largely regard religion
as a mixture of mental disease and priestly imposture.
Such is the state of France, the radiating centre of
European ideas. England is proverbially slow though
tenacious. Our people are more open to practical
�The Grand Old Booh.
83
appeals than to appeals of principle. Their wits and
imaginations are less active than those of the French.
But they are daily becoming more accessible to ideas.
Their passion for truth is increasing. More and more
they ask whether principles and statements are true,
not whether they are old and venerable, or useful on
some ground of compromise where falsehood is recon
ciled with beneficence. Bogie, in short, is gaining a
stronger hold on the English mind; and as our people
begin to think, without respect to the ill consequences
that are always prophesied by the upholders of existing
institutions, they will investigate foundations as the
French are doing. Woe betide, then, the hoariest
superstitions I Everything will disappear that cannot
stand the test of what Cardinal Newman dreaded—
“ the restless intellect of man.” ^'Electric search
lights will play upon every corner of the present under
the rule of the past. There will be a flight of a
monstrous brood of tyrannous lies to the realm of
Chaos and old Night; and man, with clarified intellect
and purified heart, having freed himself from the yoke
of imposture, and learnt the manly lesson of selfreliance and self-control, will recognise the pinnacled
truth which all religions have obscured, that virtue is
the offspring of wisdom, and happiness the child of
both.
But this process will necessarily be gradual. Revo
lutions in human affairs are only believed in by those
who have read history on the surface, and never
penetrated to the great causes of intellectual and moral
movements. The advance of Humanity is an evolution.
This is the reason why “no one ever sees a religion die.”*
*PIeSnallt_ remark by the late Charles Bradlaugh, in a public debate
with a Newcastle clergyman.
�84
The Grand Old Book.
It required centuries to dethrone the gods of
Olympus. During the first three hundred years of its
propaganda, Christianity only succeeded in converting
a twentieth part of the inhabitants of the Roman
Empire. And Christianity underwent a change in
triumphing; it stooped to conquer; in overcoming
Paganism it became Paganised itself. Nor is it even
now free from the law it then obeyed. Success has its
conditions. Life itself is a constant adjustment. “ To
live,” said Cardinal Newman, “ is to change.” And
Christianity changes in order to exist. Except in
the periodical manifestoes of the Papacy, couched
in the pompous Latin of a bygone age, where
shall we find the note of sovereign authority in
its deliverances? It explains, apologises, heightens,
softens, and evi^i beseeches.
More and moi’e it
*
assumes the tone of a supplicant. And the changed
tone is accompanied by an altered teaching. Awk
ward doctrines may not be absolutely abandoned,
but they are minimised, while emphasis is laid on more
plausible tenets. In the schools called “ liberal,” or
“ advanced,” or “ forward,” the harsher features of thf|
old faith are softened, and sometimes explained away.
A new theory of the inspiration of Scripture is taught.
To use a phrase of Coleridge’s, we are to accept as
inspired what “ finds ” us. Some go to the length of
dismissing three-fourths of the miraculous element of
the Bible. Nor are the concessions confined to Reason.
Conscience is accommodated by various admissions.
Religion, instead of being the basis of morality, is
declared to be its crown. A good life is allowed to be
possible without “ faith.” Future rewards and punish
ments are given a new meaning. Heaven is widening,
and Hell is contracting. Every doctrine of Chris
�The Grand Old Book.
85
tianity is receiving a fresh explanation. And this is
the real victory of Scepticism. It cannot suddenly
destroy Christianity, but it abolishes it slowly by a
process of dilution. The name remains, but the sub
stance changes. Christianity is like a sack of salt in
running water. Little by little the contents are
washed away, although the brand looks as brave as
ever. By and bye the sack itself will collapse, and
join the flotsam and jetsam of the ocean of time.
Mr. Bradlaugh’s aphorism that “ no man ever sees a
religion die ” is literally true, but it has its limitations.
No man, except the great general, sees the whole of a
single battle; and who can see, in the span of a life
time, the whole of a battle which rages through
generations, and perhaps through centuries? Yet
history, and imagination working upon its revelations,
come to our aid and enable us to see “ in the mind’s
eye ” what is invisible to the organ of sense. Thus
the long death of a religion may be witnessed, every
phase of its dissolution followed, and the point discerned
when its epitaph may be written.
The student of history knows that the Christian
religion has been breaking up ever since the Revival of
Learning. Just as Christianity arose in the twilight
of Pagan civilisation, and flourished in the succeeding
night, so it began to wane in the young light of a new
day. Centuries have since rolled by, and Christianity
is still here; and, sustained by this knowledge, the
Christian may wreathe his lip with scorn. But did
not Pagamsm survive for centuries the knell of its
doom, outliving the bribes and proscription of Constan
tine and his successors, and lurking in the very magic
and witchcraft of the Middle Ages ? Smitten as it
was before the star of Bethlehem appeared, Paganism
�86
The Grand Old Book.
seemed little affected for centuries. Its temples con
tinued to lift their columns in proud beauty, its priests
were still numerous and powerful, and everything went
on as though the old system were as secure as the
everlasting hills.
Sacrifices were performed, the
victims’ entrails were inspected, the oracles gave forth
their dubious prophecies, and wealth was poured into
the hands of a multitude of priests.
One need not be surprised, therefore, at the present
condition of Christianity. It is enormously rich, and
its power is apparently tremendous; but the sphere of
its influence is in reality ever contracting. The Papacy
is shorn of half its power. Freethought is rampant in
France and Germany, and spreading like wildfire even
in the cities and universities of Spain. In England
the State Church feels that its life is threatened. The
Nonconformist bodies have crowds of ministers and
large incomes, but they are always sounding notes of
alarm. They hear the approach of the strong man
who is to take their possessions. It is the mind of man
the creeds have now to face—the Spirit of the Age,
whose presence is obvious in a thousand directions. A
sermon cannot be read, nor a religious paper scanned,
without seeing that all the Churches are aware of the
terrible foe who is winding about them like an invisible
serpent.
There is but one method of temporary salvation.
That method is adjustment. Under the stern law of
Natural Selection, which governs all—aqjmals, men,
gods, and creeds—everything must adjust itself to live.
A species may not vary for millenniums, and a creed
may change but little for centuries. But when the
environment alters, the species, or the creed, must
adjust itself—or die.
�The Grand Old Book.
87
Mr. Gladstone himself, though stiffly orthodox in
Comparison with many Christian writers, is obliged to
practise- this adjustment. Catholics like Professor
Mivart are pursuing it with amazing diligence. The
Romish Church, indeed, has a great advantage over
the Protestant sects, for it infallibly interprets the
infallible Bible, and is able to make it suit the
exigencies of the moment. Professor Mivart is ready
to find Darwinism in the Bible. He is also ready to
find that all the absolute Word of God it contains
might be written in a waistcoat pocket-book.
This clever trick of Catholic exigesis will not succeed
with strong-minded people, who know that infallible
Churches are as absurd as infallible Books. Nor will
it succeed with those who are familiar with ecclesiastical
history, and who know that the infallible Church has
often blundered, often contradicted itself, often been
torn with internecine strife, and has sometimes put
in the papal chair, as God’s vicegerent on earth, a
very monster of lust, avarice, and cruelty. But the
majority of men are not strong-minded, and have little
acquaintance with history. They are without that
knowledge of the past which Mr. Morley says “ saves
us from imposture and surprise.” It will not, therefore,
be astonishing if many of them who are too ignorant,
weak, and timid to think for themselves, should accept
the Catholic adjustment to the conditions of modern
thought, letting the Church decide for them how the
Bible is to •be read and understood, reposing their
faithful heads on the bosom of their Holy Mother, and
heeding her dogmatic voice as the perennial oracle
of God.
But the Protestant sects are doomed, and their
members will ultimately choose between Rome and
�88
The Grand Old Booh.
Reason. Minds of - ordinary calibre cannot be satisfied
with apologetics like Mr. Gladstone’s, which bring the
Bible into harmony with modern thought by a perpetual
torture of its language. The reflection must arise, that
if the Bible does not mean what it says, no one can
tell what it does mean. And no one can tell, exclaims
the Catholic, except the Church, the living voice of
God.
■
Here, then, is safety for timid and superstitious
souls. But the Protestant quits this land of Egypt,
with its proud Pharaoh, and its pyramid churches, and
its swarming priests, and all the leeks, the onions, the
garlic, and the cucumber. He dares the desert in
search of a better land. Yet he wanders eternally,
subsisting on droppings from heaven, and chance
streams in the thirsty soil. Courage fails hirff at sight •
of the Promised Land, though tempted By the verdant
soil, and the rich dark clusters of the glorious vines.
Back he hies to the desert, until the old dread of Egypt
returns, and once more he approaches the Promised
Land, only to be driven back again by his craven fears.
But this will not go on for ever. Many are already
returning to Egypt, others are crossing the Jordan,
and a clear field will ultimately be left for the mighty
struggle between Catholicism and Freethought, in
which more will be decided than the fate of the Pro
testant fetish; for the conflict is between Reason and
Faith, the natural and the supernatural, reality and
fable, truth and falsehood, day and niglfb, the living
present and the dead past, the rights of man and the
claims of gods, the priest's dogma and the child’s
freedom, the tomb of yesterday and “the prophetic
soul of the wide world dreaming on things to come.”
���
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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span><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" /></span>
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
The grand old book: a reply to the Rt. Hon. W.E. Gladstone's "The impregnable rock of Holy Scripture"
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: vii, 88 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Stamp of M. Steinberger,4, 5 & 6 Great St Helens, London E.C., on front cover. Title handwritten on cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
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
1891
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1436
N242
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><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The grand old book: a reply to the Rt. Hon. W.E. Gladstone's "The impregnable rock of Holy Scripture"), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
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
Authority
Bible-Evidences
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Free Thought
Gladstone
NSS
W.E. (William Ewart)
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4167df897e3d0a833a9effd6a9ec672e.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=g2MdpTVuZxd1ECo6GJLZbvNgmMuv1WLJg7789V9YWvilIodUYNcp%7ERBiSlu0JiavikvmzkvpGSblk45BWbIDtPEn7QTzXFBDG5DxGMHo1kCyNdvwbeJjwCI9aGrS-YYiNuOtLoJ%7EQHzN-7qvofa%7EzSteaj6hGBEbMWXwUWPOn6FxwKfKm8iewm67ebogJ7RlEKP8JL8P2skXabtr6pEnNKtuRQrkwdMpDHfJmtS5eHuHfF7WG58EguFarfr1XoaOfGFBX-xV6gxaF%7EmR4Bdx5wAtnPRdCnoLRjeSvDgqjJ3V7PzTEXjrWW7dcTIG9e0uDcyfGnM9dSxSGSERtz%7E3uA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4d9d63a3a632046cf6fdadfbed1b4fd1
PDF Text
Text
THE
FINDING OF THE BOOK;
AN ESSAY
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE DOGMA OF INFALLIBILITY,
BY
JOHN ROBERTSON,
COUFAB ANGUS.
“ It is better to speak honest error, than to suppress conscious truth."
“ I know of but one thing safe in the universe, and that is truth; and I know of
but one way to truth for an individual mind, and that is unfettered thought; and I
know but one path for the multitude to truth, and that is thought freely expressed."
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
1870.
�' KIMJI iihwoc
�TO
f
S^taiib
Wllta
of
Whom I honour and esteem as foremost among modern
Apostles and Prophets of Divine Truth, and whom I
regard with gratitude and love, as one of those Leaders,
to whose guidance, under God, I am largely indebted
for the enlightenment of my mind, and for my estab
lishment in the Christian Faith, by my deliverance from
the darkness of that superstitious bondage to the letter,
in which I was brought up, and in which I for many
years vainly struggled to find fight, this rude essay—a first
attempt—is, without his knowledge or permission, very
humbly dedicated by
THE AUTHOR.
��PREFACE.
The Brahmins, the Parsees, the Budhists, the Jews,
the Christians, the Mohammedans, and several other
denominations, have their canonical books of revela
tion, which are in each case regarded as a supreme
external authority dictated or communicated to man
by God.
Thus, for example, the “Bana,” signifying the Word,
is the sacred book of the Budhists, containing the dis
courses of their great original, Gotama Budha, who was
born, as appears to be historically ascertained, at least
624 years before the Christian era, so that he was pro
bably a contemporary of king Josiah and of the prophet
Jeremiah. These discourses, however, were not written
down in a collected form, till about three hundred
years after the death of the great teacher, and critics
have questioned the purity and genuineness of their
previous transmission, but the vast multitude of ortho
dox Budhists have never for a moment entertained
any such doubt. The degree of authority ascribed to
this revelation may be judged of from the very high
estimation in which its author is held. “ Gotama
Budha is worshipped as a divine incarnation, a god
man, who came into this world to enlighten men, to
redeem them, and to point out to them the way to
eternal bliss.”* The favourite theme of the very
numerous Budhist authors is accordingly said to be
the praise of the Bana, in the expression of which the
* “Faiths of the World,” vol. i., p. 399.
�VI
Preface.
most exalted and devout figures of speech are employed,
such, for instance, as these:—“ The discourses of
Budha are as a divine charm to cure the poison of
evil desire; a divine medicine to heal the disease of
anger; a lamp in the midst of the darkness of igno
rance ; a ship in which to sail to the opposite shore
of the ocean of existence; a collyrium for taking away
the eye-film of heresy; a succession of trees bearing
immortal fruit, placed here and there, by which the
traveller may be enabled to cross the desert of exis
tence ; a straight highway by which to pass to the in
comparable wisdom; a flavour more exquisite than any
other in the three worlds; a treasury of the best things
which it is possible to obtain; and a power by which
may be appeased the sorrow of every sentient being.’"
*
It is computed that adherence to this system of
religion is professed by no fewer than 369,000,000
of human beings in India, China, Tartary, Thibet, and
Burmah; while nominal Christians, of all countries and
all creeds, are reckoned tonumber about 256,000,000,
of whom about 60,000,000 are called Protestants.
But Budhism, though now nearly twenty-five cen
turies old, was the Protestantism of a reformation
from Brahminism, the antiquity of which is much
greater; and no less than 150,000,000 of the Hindoos
still adhere to the old religion, believing in the infal
libility of the four “ Vedas,” or sacred books, of which
it appears to be undisputed that one is at least as old
as the time of Moses, while all the four are very
ancient. “The language in which the Vedas are
written is the Sanskrit, which the Hindoos seriously
believe to be the language of the gods, and to have
been communicated to men by a voice from heaven,
while the Vedas themselves have proceeded from the
mouth of the Creator.” t
An intelligent Hindoo thus expresses his views of
* “Faiths of the World,” vol. i., p. 279.
f “ Faiths of the World,” vol. ii., p, 54.
�Preface.
vii
theology :-“We really lament the ignorance or un
charitableness of those who confound our representa
tive worship with the Phoenician, Grecian, or Roman
idolatry, as represented by European writers, and then
charge us with polytheism, in the teeth of thousands
of texts in the Puranas”—(sacred poems of the Vedas)
__ “declaring in clear and unmistakable terms that
there is but one God, who manifests himself as
Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, in his functions of creation,
preservation, and destruction.”*
■ All his conceptions of God are thus moulded and
regulated by the Vedas, which contain for him the
authoritative and infallible revelation of trinity. in
unity, to doubt or deny which is for him infidelity.
He finds God in the book, and must believe that God
is exactly as there represented, or not believe at all;
for the book is to him God’s revelation of Himself.
So also the Parsee catechism teaches the doctrine
of plenary inspiration, in terms remarkably similar to
those which our most orthodox Churchmen are wont
to employ:—
“ Q. What religion has our prophet (Zoroaster or Zurthost) brought to us from God ?
“A. The disciples of our prophet have recorded m several
books that religion . . .We consider these books as
heavenly books (the ct Zendavesta ”) because God sent the
tidings of these books to us through the holy Zurthost.
“ Q. What commands has God sent us through his pro
phet, the exalted Zurthost ?
11 A. To know God as one; to know the prophet, the
exalted Zurthost, as the true prophet; to believe the religion
and the Avesta brought by him as true beyond all manner
of doubt; to believe in the goodness of God; not to disobey
any of the commands of the Mazdiashna religion ; to avoid
evil deeds ; to exert for good deeds; to pray five times in
the day; to believe in the reckoning and justice on the
* From an English lecture by a Hindoo, quoted in “ Chips
from a German Workshop,” by Prof. Max Muller, p. xvu.
(preface) ; quoted also by Dr. Norman Macleod, in “Good
Words,” February 1869, p. 100.
,
�viii
Preface.
fourth morning after death ; to hope for heaven and to fear
hell; to consider doubtless the day of general destruction
and resurrection; to remember always that God has done
what he willed, and shall do what he wills; to face some
luminous object while worshipping God,” &c.
*
If the Parsee cannot or dare not doubt nor dispute
the dogma, that the message which contains these tid
ings was communicated by God to Zoroaster, who
lived, according to the best authorities, about eight
hundred years before Moses;—if he must, per force
of religious training and tradition, believe that this
revelation comes to him through Zoroaster from God;
—then it is clear that he must accept whatever this
revelation tells him as the word of God, and, there
fore, “beyond all manner of doubt,” authoritatively
true, in the strictest and fullest sense, in every parti
cular of its contents, and in every expression which it
uses. The Parsee, accordingly, regards the Zendavesta
as the revealed will of God for his conduct in this
life, and for his salvation here and hereafter; and
he adheres to its doctrines and precepts, however un
intelligible these may be, because he submits his rea
son to the authority of the book, in which he believes
that God speaks to him. He, therefore, closes his
mind against all argument of error or imperfection in
the book; and when told of historical or other diffi
culties which stand in the way of his belief, he boldly
argues, to the complete satisfaction of those who hold
the same opinion, that faith must overcome the difficulties of reason, and that sceptical criticism is a
temptation and a snare. A confirmed belief of this
kind is proof against all the attempts of the Christian
missionary to convince the Parsee that his rites and
ceremonies and superstitious beliefs are doctrines and
commandments of men. For him they have the same
authority and certainty as the revelation of God’s
existence. He is under mental bondage to the Zen* “Chips from a German Workshop,” vol. i.,pp. 174, 175.
�Preface.
ix
dayesta in every word and letter of its contents, and
all its doctrines and laws alike command his unwav
ering acceptance and profound submission. He has
nothing else on which to trust for welfare and for
happiness, but on the doctrines and laws which are
written in that book. To deny or to cast off these, is
to him atheism and infidelity. To believe and obey
them is religion. Every ceremony and observance of
his sacred law is, therefore, to him a sacred duty. He
believes all these things, not because he discerns or
perceives their inherent truthfulness and reality, but
because they are written in God’s book. He holds
that this revelation is the authority which warrants
and enables him to believe in the existence and good
ness of God, and in the duty or privilege of worship,
and obedience to be rendered by men. If he be a
strictly orthodox Parsee, he will hold that the Zendavesta is the only true revelation, and that God can
be truly and acceptably worshipped in no other way
but according to the doctrines and observances which
it makes known. If, however, he be somewhat latitudinarian in his views, as most of the young Parsees
now are, he may, as many of them do, admit that the
Brahmins, Christians, Mohammedans, and Jews,
‘among whom he lives, may have their several revela
tions, good enough for those to whom they have been
given, and all in some sort making known the One
Great Ormuzd, but none of them intended nor suit
able for the Parsee, none of them at all approaching
in excellence to the incomparable Avesta, and none
of them possessing any merit except in so far as they
all more or less distantly resemble it.
If his mind has been still further enlightened by
education and reading, or by intercourse with edu
cated and intelligent men, of whom there are said to
be now a good many among the Parsees, he may per
haps be able to comprehend that Zoroaster must have
been a wise man, who meditated much upon God as
�X
Preface.
revealed in his own reasoning soul, and in all those
other scarcely less wonderful manifestations of creative
wisdom and power, with which God had enabled that
soul to become acquainted, especially as revealed in
the Sun, which was to him the visible and sensible
source of light, heat, motion, life, and happiness; and
he may thus see that the grand distinction of the
Prophet was only his ability to discern and to know,
more clearly than his contemporaries, those things
which every enlightened mind may and ought to infer
from its own perceptions. While profiting much by
all that is pure and good and true in the pages of the
ancient sage, he may thus feel himself perfectly at
liberty to reject any or all of those doctrines, laws, or
ceremonies which to his modern mind appear false,
foolish, evil, or unjust, however reasonable, right, and
true these may have been thought in the days of Zoro
aster, and during all the long ages of the ancient Per
sian empire. For the Parsees of our day are the descen
dants of the faithful remnant of the ancient Persian
people, who refused to be converted by the conquering
sword of Islam, and who chose rather to suffer exile from
the country than to forsake the religion of their ancestors.
We may well suppose, I think we may be sure,
that Zoroaster wrote because he believed, and in
tended thereby merely to assist or enable his disciples
and followers to discern for themselves, as he did, the
goodness and the truth of what he taught them; but
the religion of the Parsees, resting on the authority of
a book, has, like every other such religion, largely
degenerated towards a worship of the letter—bibliolatry—a faith in the book, and has served as a veil
to hinder and obscure the revelation of God in the
soul. If we have to argue with a bigoted adherent of
the conservative orthodox school, which is still the
most numerous among the Parsees, including nearly
all their priests, we may expect to find him main
taining that, apart from his book of revelation, there
�Preface.
X1
can be no sufficient evidence nor true knowledge of
the existence of God, of His character, nor of His will
concerning man’s duty.
This religion has unquestionably been useful in
preserving its votaries, through many generations,
from falling into the grosser forms of image worship,
from the extreme moral degradation with which these
are generally associated, from atheism on the one
hand, and from polytheism on the other. The Zendavesta has thus been the vehicle of light and instruc
tion to the minds of countless millions through thou
sands of years; but, however beneficial its influence
may in these respects have been, it now stands to many
as a barrier in the way of intellectual development and
mental progress, because the infallibility ascribrd to it
renders them blind to the immediate present fact that
God is in and around them, and that He their Creator
has endowed them with faculties, capable of indefi
nitely great cultivation and improvement, and exactly
adapted for the reception and interpretation of the
great revelation of Himself, which with His own
hand He hath written on man, and on every other
thing which He hath created and made. The Zendavesta is indeed a revelation in a way, for, along
with much error, it teaches great truths; but the
belief of these truths on its authority, being insepar
able from the belief of much else that it contains,
necessarily implies ignorance of that which alone
deserves the name of revelation, the realising dis
cernment that the things are true.
It is a most pregnant and wise remark, and may be
appropriately quoted here, that “ the real problem is,
not how a revelation was possible, but how a veil
could ever have been drawn between the creature
and the Creator, intercepting from the human mind
the rays of Divine truth.”* Even a belief in the
* From a lecture on the “ Science of Religion,” by Prof. M.
Muller, at the Royal Institution, as briefly reported in the
Scotsman newspaper of 1st March 1870.
�existence of God, when that belief rests on the autho
rity ascribed to prophet, priest, church, or book,
becomes a veil to obscure more or less that revelation
which may be read, in God’s own handwriting, on
every page of the great volume of Nature with which
we are surrounded, and the authentic transcript of
which is “ written not with ink, but with the spirit of
the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy
tables of the heart,"—the tablets or faculties of the
mind (2 Cor. iii. 3).
Precisely such a veil was thick upon the minds of
the Jews, at the time when Jesus of Nazareth lived
and died as a witness for the truth, denouncing and
rending the veil which concealed it, that God dealeth
with us as with sons, and that He hath abundantly
revealed Himself as our wise, holy, and loving Father.
It was precisely the adherence of the Jews to the
letter of their written revelation, which had blinded
the eyes of their minds to the spiritual light of the
truth which that revelation contained; and thus
those who were converted to Christianity are, most
suggestively, said to have had their eyes opened—to
have had their sight restored—to have been turned
from darkness to light, that they should serve God in
newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter,
for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life and
light to discern our Father’s will, that we should be
merciful as He is merciful, that we should love truth,
and peace, and justice, and all our fellow-men, and
that we should do good, as knowing that we are
•“ children of the Highest, who is kind even unto the
unthankful and to the evil.”—(Luke vi. 35, 36.)
The superstitious reverence in which such veils are
held by those whose minds are obscured thereby, and
the many fond prejudices which are invariably fos
tered in the shade thereof, constitute the most stub
born and insurmountable of all obstacles to the reception of the Gospel of light. It is well known, and
�Preface.
xiii
might, if necessary, be abundantly proved, that it is
more difficult and more expensive to convert one
Brahmin, Budhist, or Parsee, to Christianity, than it
is to convert ten of the far mote degraded fetish
worshippers of Africa, or savages aind cannibals of the
Pacific; and need I say how few and far between are
the trophies of success, resulting from our missions to
the Jews and Mohammedans'?
There may be some among my readers whose minds
are blinded by such a veil, remaining, for them as for
the Jews, “ untaken away in the reading of the Old Testa
ment,'” (2 Cor. iii, 14-18); so that they regard it as
their duty to God to submit their reason to the autho
rity of that book, and to believe that its legendary
and miraculous stories, that its incongruous, inaccu
rate, and even contradictory histories, and that the
idolatrous and superstitious rites and beliefs, of which
in many passages it expresses approval, are all alike
no less certainly and infallibly true than are its decla
rations that God is good to all men, righteous in all
His ways, and holy in all His works; feeling as if
there could be no religious peace nor comfort for them,
unless they by faith be able to surmount the difficul
ties of reason, and to believe everything, which the
Book says is true, as they believe its most indubitable
verities; for, as it is written that by faith the walls
of Jericho fell down, so it is said that by faith must
all such intellectual difficulties be overcome, though
to reason they may appear insurmountable as walls
built up to heaven.
It is my solemn conviction that this notion of
Scriptural infallibility or supreme authority is essen
tially anti-christian; and that those whose minds are
fettered or blinded by any of its various modifications,
are excluded thereby from that liberating and en
lightening influence, which is again and again declared
to be the most essential and distinguishing feature of
�xiv
Preface.
spiritual Christianity (Matt. vi. 22, 23; John viii.
32, 33, 36; Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. v. 1, 13, 14.)
My chief purpose and earnest desire is to show to
such persons that the veil, on which they look with so
much veneration, is utterly devoid of the clearness,
the certainty, and the harmony of truth, which they
persuade themselves that it infallibly presents to their
view, even in those portions of it where their fallible
vision can discern nothing but mystification, error,
injustice, or sin; that its texture, when closely
examined, is found in many parts to consist of the
most unreasonable and irreconcilable products of
human ignorance, error, and time-serving policy; and
that it is, therefore, when viewed as a whole, notwith
standing the majesty, truth, and beauty of very many
passages, entirely destitute of anything like that in
fallibility or supreme authority, which it nowhere claims
for itself, but which has been, through ignorance or
superstition, or both, erroneously ascribed to it, and
by the ascription of which it retains its false dominion
over their minds, as if it were the Word of God.
I hope, by an examination of the structure of the
veil, in the earliest stages of its development, to show
that a belief in its divine origin, authority, and per
fection, is as unreasonable and false as any supersti
tion to which the human mind has ever been in sub
jection.
Whatever opinion my readers may form, I can and
do say for myself that I have studied what I have
written with profound reverence and love for the
truth, with much earnestness of thought and purpose,
and with a feeling which I cannot better describe than
by calling it a delightful sense of spiritual guidance
and enlightenment as I proceeded with my work.
The essay was commenced without the slightest idea
of publication in February last year, for the purpose
of sifting, maturing, and linking together in my own
�Preface.
XV
mind numerous detached notes and queries, which I
had jotted down during a previous course of biblical
reading and study.
I have been encouraged to publish it by the opinion
of some friends, and by my own hope that it may be
useful and helpful to some who, like myself, are earnest
inquirers after truth.
Forfar Road, Coupar Angus,
lsi June, 1870.
�TRUTH is the “Supreme Authority,” or “ Standard”
to which, as to “ the Word of God,” an appeal is made
in this essay. The enduring power, efficacy, and
sufficiency of this standard are well described by the
poet Milton in the following extract from “the
noblest of his prose works.”
“ Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play
upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously,
by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength.
Let her and falsehood grapple ; who ever knew Truth put
to the worse in a free and open encounter ? Her refuting
is the best and surest suppressing. He who hears what
praying there is for light and clear knowledge to be sent
down among us, would think of other matters to be con
stituted beyond the discipline of Geneva, framed and fabricked already to our hands. Yet when the new light which
we beg for shines in upon us, there be who envy and oppose,
if it come not first in at their casements. What a collusion
is this, whenas we are exhorted by the wise man to use
diligence, ‘ to seek for wisdom as for hidden treasures,’ early
and late, that another shall enjoin us to know nothing but
by statute! When a man hath beeh labouring the hardest
labour in the deep mines of knowledge, hath furnished out
his findings in all their equipage, drawn forth his reasons,
as it were a battle, ranged, scattered, and defeated all objec
tions in his way, calls out his adversary into the plain,
offers him the advantage of wind and sun if he please, only
that he may try the matter by dint of argument; for his
opponent then, to skulk, to lay ambushments, to keep a
narrow bridge of licensing where the challenger should pass,
though it be valour enough in soldiership, is but weakness
and cowardice in the wars of Truth. For who knows not
that Truth is strong, next to the Almighty ? She needs
no policies, nor stratagems, nor licensings, to make her
victorious ; those are the shifts and the defences that error
uses against her power ; give her but room, and do not bind
her when she sleeps.”
�CHAPTER I.
THE FINDING OF THE BOOK—INTRODUCTION.
b.c. 623.
*
,
2 Kings xxii. 8,10, 11.—“ And Hilkiah the high priest
said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the
law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book
to Shaphan, and he read it. . . . And Shaphan the
scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath
delivered me a book, and Shaphan read it before the king.
And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of
the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.”
2 Cheon. xxxiv. 14, 15, 18, 19. — “ And when they
brought out the money that was brought into the house of
the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the
Lord given by Moses. And Hilkiah answered and said to
Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the
house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to
Shaphan. . . . Then Shaphan the scribe told the king,
saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And
Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass,
when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent
his clothes.”
The discovery here recorded was a most momen
tous event, and the account of its occurrence, and of
its attending circumstances, is one of the most in
teresting and suggestive passages in the early history
of the Bible. Its happening seems to have been so
fortuitous and unexpected, and its import so over
whelming and amazing, that the king in his penitent
* The dates and periods of time, when not specially ex
plained, are all taken from or founded on the generally
accepted chronology, as given in “Bagster’s Polyglot Bible.”
B
�18
Introduction.
terror rent his clothes, and in his perplexity com
manded some of the chief priests and scribes,
saying:—
2 Kings xxii. 13.—“ Go ye, enquire of the Lord for
me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the
words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of
the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers
have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do
according unto all that which is written concerning us.”
The light of such a lamp, thus suddenly rekindled,
must have immediately thrown, as the contemplation
of it still does throw, a most peculiar and instructive
reflection upon the previous history of the nation. It
was found that God had given to their ancestors,
eight centuries before then, a miraculous, infallible
code of laws, of which no distinct trace, recollection,
nor tradition had come down to them, and of which
the true character and record had remained for ages
lost, unknown, and forgotten, until this single copy
happened at last to be turned up from under the
accumulated dust of centuries in the temple.
We should, therefore, expect to find in the writings
and histories of those preceding centuries, clear evi
dence, if not distinct record, of the sudden disappear
ance or gradual neglect of the book, and of the
consequent tendency of the priests and people, with
each succeeding wave of change, to diverge further
and further from the laws, ceremonies, and institu
tions of that Levitical code, which had now so
strangely come up as a witness against a generation
of men, to whom, and to whose fathers, it had been
unknown (Deut. xxxi. 26). We should expect to
find, in each receding period before the reign of
Josiah, clearer and clearer traces of its observance,
more and more complete conformity to its ceremonies
and arrangements, and more and more accurate de
tails regarding the classification, duties, privileges,
and provision of its elaborate hierarchy. We should
�Finding of the Book.
J9
expect to find the distinctness of this recognition
increasing with each step backwards, until we should
arrive at a point where we should discern, by the
notices and instances of its observance, or of its guilty
and known neglect, that the old law in its complete
form was then in the hands of the priests and in the
minds of the people.
If we shall find, on the contrary, that in each
receding period, prior to the alleged discovery, there
was less and less recognition of the law; if we find
that, instead of being gradually disused and lost
sight of, the law, through a series of reformations
and changes, became gradually more and more de
veloped, so that in each earlier reformation the code
of religious observances and of ecclesiastical enact
ments was notably further from being complete than
it was in each later reformation ; if we find that the
historical period which approaches nearest to the
date of Moses, to whom the authorship and promul
gation of the entire law is ascribed, is precisely the
period in which there appears no trace whatever of
the Levitical law, no record of its observance, nor re
proof for its neglect; and if we can thus trace the law
in its growth, from rude and primitive times of be
ginning, through several clearly marked stages of
progressive development, we may in that case find
ourselves shut up to the conclusion that Hilkiah’s
production was only a new, or final, phase of the long
continued growth, and that, whatever may be the
merit or the demerit of the Levitical code, it must in
its complete form stand or fall, apart from the sanction
of Mosaic authorship, and of divine inspiration through
Moses.
In order to guard against this inference, and to
evade the difficulties which to their minds it suggests,
some commentators have thought of lessening the
importance of the discovery, by assuming that the
book which was found was only that version or com-
�20
Introduction.
pendium of the law which is given in the book of
Deuteronomy; but this hypothesis cannot be recon
ciled with the account given of the celebration of the
passover in Josiah’s time.
2 Kings xxiii. 21, 22.—“And the king commanded all
the people, saying, keep the passover unto the Lord your
God, as it is written in the book of this covenant. Surely
there was not holden such a passover, from the days of the
judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of
Israel, nor of the kings of Judah.'1'
Now the laws relating to the passover in Deuter
onomy are very brief and incomplete (Deut. xvi. 1-8);
while the full instructions regarding this observance
are to be found in other portions of the Pentateuch
(Exod. xii. 1-20 : Num. xxviii. 16-25); so that the
discovery of Deuteronomy alone would certainly not
have incited nor enabled Josiah to celebrate the
passover better than the pious and zealous reformers
and kings of earlier date might and would have done,
if they had possessed the other books.
The historian in Kings makes the discovery of the
book antecedent to the reforms instituted by Josiah;
while, in Chronicles, it is represented as subsequent
thereto.
2 Chron. xxxiv. 8.—“Now in the eighteenth year of
his reign, when he had purged the land and the house, he
sent Shaphan the Scribe, &c.”
If it were necessary to decide which of these is the
true account of the matter, probability would favour
the narrative in Kings; because it is more reason
able to suppose, that Josiah became acquainted with
the law, before he obeyed it, than that he so far ful
filled it first, and then discovered it afterwards.
Having been sent to “ inquire of the Lordf
2 Kings xxii. 14.—“ Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam,
and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asaiah, went unto Huldah
the prophetess, the wife of Shallum, the son of Tikvah, the
�Finding of the Book
2I
son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe ; (now she dwelt in
Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her.”
And she commenced her reply by announcing
dreadful judgment on the people and on the place,
because of their idolatry,—even “ all the curses that
are written ip the book,” says the record, according
to which Josiah had just made an end of purging the
land from idolatry. But, as for Josiah himself, the
prophetess concluded,—
2 Kings xxii. 18, 20; and 2 Chron. xxxiv. 26, 28.—
“Thus saith the Lord God of Israel. . . . Behold I will
gather thee to thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered to
thy grave in peace.”
This is the only original prediction by Huldah, which
has come down to us ; and it will not stand the test,
which the Pentateuch instructs us to apply to all such
prophetical utterances.
Deut. xviii. 21, 22.—“And if thou say in thine heart,
How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not
spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the
Lord, if the thing follow not nor come to pass, that is the
thing which the Lord hath not spoken; but the prophet
hath spoken it presumptuously ; thou shalt not be afraid of
him.”
Instead of being gathered to his grave in peace, the
next chapter of each narrative contains the account
of Josiah's death,-—killed in battle with Pharaoh
Necho, king of Egypt. (2 Kings xxiii. 29 ; 2 Chron.
xxxv. 23, 24.)
Huldah’s reply seems, however, to have been re
ceived as a valid and sufficient confirmation of the
authenticity of the book which had been found ; and
it was accordingly publicly acknowledged as that con
cerning which—
Deut. xxxi. 25, 26.—“ Moses commanded the Levites
which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,
Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark
�22
Introduction.
of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there
for a witness against thee.”
The consultation with Huldah appears to have been
the only form of inquiry which was considered neces
sary for testing the claims of the book. No one seems
to have thought of employing the outward and ordi
nary means for ascertaining whether or not it was
what it professed to be, or rather what its promul
gators declared that it was. We have no record of
any kind of critical examination, comparison or re
search ; and, so far as we can learn from the two his
tories, there was not even a doubt nor a question of
this kind suggested by king, priests, prophets, or
people. If any one conceived a doubt about the
genuineness of the book, prudence would seem to have
counseled such a one to keep his doubts to himself;
for, if any were disposed to ask troublesome questions
instead of promptly assenting and submitting to the
new confession of faith, and to the new claims of the
ruling hierarchy, means certainly would not be want
ing to silence such presumptuous scepticism; and so.
we read that “ all the people stood to the covenant.'”
In my opinion, there is here a subject for enquiry,
too much neglected by the biblical commentators
with whom I am acquainted; and it appears to me
strange that, while so much has been written, and so
much ingenuity employed, both in the attack and in
the defence of the Pentateuch itself, so very little
attention seems to have been bestowed upon this
most suggestive and important episode in its trans
mission to us. This book, which was found, was and
is the only link, through which, at that point in its
history, the Pentateuch stands connected with our
modern systems of theology. Well might good old
Matthew Henry exclaim, in his Commentary on this
incident—“ If this was the only authentic copy of
the Pentateuch then in being, which had, as I may
say, so narrow a turn for its life, and was so near
�Finding of the Book.
perishing, I wonder the hearts of all good people did
not tremble for that sacred treasure, as Eli’s for the
ark; and am sure we now have reason to thank God
upon our knees for that happy providence, by which
Hilkiah found this book at this time; found it when
he sought it not ! ”
We are told very particularly when the book was
found-, but this immediately suggests another most
important and interesting question, when was it lost ?
and unless the clue, which this question supplies, can
be successfully followed up, the history of the book
must remain incomplete and unsatisfactory. I pro
pose, therefore, in the following chapters, to pursue
this line of enquiry, directing attention chiefly to
the Scriptural narratives, of the times preceding
the discovery. Taking the discovery itself as my
starting point, I shall endeavour to prosecute a search
backwards, so far as may be found necessary or pos
sible, for any traces in the history which may throw
light upon the question as to the time when the book
was lost; or which may seem to account for its pro
duction at the time when it is said to have been found.
In endeavouring to present a clear and connected
view of the events and characters bearing upon the
subject of inquiry, it will suit best to examine the
history of Judah alone, hoping that much of the per
plexity and confusion may thus be avoided,. which
must arise from the mixing up of two histories and
of two dynasties, (those of Judah and of Israel), and
from the alternate introduction of scraps from the one
and from the other.
It is superfluous to say, that I have no new dis
coveries to boast of; and that my desire and aim is
only to arrange and present those materials, with which
every reader of the Bible is or ought to be acquainted,
in such a manner, as to throw the greatest amount of
light upon that event which is the subject of this essay.
�24
When was the Book Lost ?
CHAPTER II.
SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE OF THE PREVIOUS EXISTENCE,
OR OF THE LOSS OF THE BOOK.
HEZEKIAH TO JOSIAH.—B.C. 726 TO 641.
In accordance with the plan which has been indicated,
our search, for such traces as may be found of the Book
which had been lost, is first to be directed to the period
which immediately preceded its alleged discovery;
commencing with the accession of King Hezekiah,
who had been the last predecessor of Josiah in the
work of reformation.
Hezekiah’s reign began eighty-five years earlier
than that of Josiah, or one hundred and three years
before the finding of the Book; and he reigned
twenty-nine years; so that, between his death and
the discovery, there intervened only seventy-four
years; and, as that was a long-living time, we may
presume that old men heard the reading of the new
found book, who in their youth had witnessed the
reforming zeal of Hezekiah. Many, at least, must
have been present on the later occasion, who had
heard from their fathers all that was most interesting
about the good old times. From this consideration,
and from the words of King Josiah—
2 Chron. xxxiv. 21—“Great is the wrath of the Lord
that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not
kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in
this book”—
as also from the surprise and dismay with which the
very unexpected announcement was received by the
king, insomuch that he rent his clothes; there seems
to be a primfr facie probability that, within the com
paratively brief and recent period which we are now
�Hezekiah to Josiah.
25
considering, we shall fail to find any traces of the
Book’s previous existence; because, if it had been
known and obeyed in the time of Hezekiah, it seems
impossible that king, priest, and people should so
entirely have lost all knowledge of it in the interval;
and Josiah’s exclamation implies that, so far as he
knew, the fathers of his generation, at least, had
known nothing of the Book. It is, however, none
the less necessary to examine this period as much as
any other; and, even should we fail to find clear
traces of the Book, we may fairly expect to notice
various things which may be useful in the further
prosecution of this inquiry.
It is interesting to observe the difference of tone
between the earlier and the later narratives, in the
accounts which they respectively give of the reign of
Hezekiah; although there is no contradiction, nor
■any discrepancy, which cannot be easily explained or
reconciled.
According to the earlier Book, which, in this part,
has much internal evidence of being written by the
prophet Isaiah, this was the very first monarch
who ventured to remove the high places.
2 Kings xviii. 4.—“ He removed the high places, and
brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in
pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto
those days, the children of Israel did burn incense to it:
and he called it Nehushtan (a piece of brass).”
It is rather startling to learn from this passage that
Hezekiah was also the first king who entirely put
down the worship of images, which would seem to
have been only partially accomplished by the reformers
of earlier times, who must, at least, have spared the
brazen serpent. But he was, notwithstanding his
piety and faithfulness, exposed to misfortune; for we
learn that he was forced to pay a humiliating tribute
to the king of Assyria.
�26
When was the Book Lost ?
2 Kings xviii. 13-15.—“Now, in the fourteenth year of
King Hezekiah, did Sennacherib, king of Assyria, come up
against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them. And
Hezekiah, king of Judah, sent to the king of Assyria, to
Lachish, saying, I have offended: return from me: that
which thou puttest on me I will bear. And the king of
Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah, king of Judah, three
hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. And
Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the
house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s
house.”
In this narrative, the celebration of the Passover is
not mentioned; and, indeed, we have nothing at all
about priests or Levites; but many things said and
done by the Prophet Isaiah (chap, xix.)
In the later account, the picture has a totally
different appearance. Now we find only one in
cidental notice of Isaiah :—
2 Chron. xxxii. 20.—“And for this cause Hezekiah, the
king, and the Prophet Isaiah, the son of Amoz, prayed and
cried to heaven.”
But we have three chapters (xxix., xxx., xxxi.) of
purely Levitical matter, with a detailed account of
the Passover, which is here mentioned for the first
time in the whole history.
2 Chron. xxx. 21, 23, 26.—“ And the children of
Israel that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of un
leaven bread seven days with great gladness: and the
Levites and the priests praised the Lord day by day, singing
with loud instruments unto the Lord .... And the whole
assembly took counsel to keep other seven days; and, they
kept other seven days with gladness .... So there was
great joy in Jerusalem ; for, since the time of Solomon, the
son of David, King of Israel, there was not the like in
Jerusalem.”
We have detailed lists of priests and Levites, with
many particular ceremonial observances; and, most
notably, we have here a distinct mention of tithes,
�Hezekiah to Josiah.
which we cannot find in the history of any of the
earlier kings :—•
2 Chron. xxxi. 4-6—“Moreover he commanded the
people that dwelt in Jerusalem to give the portion of the
priests and the Levites, that they might be encouraged in
the law of the Lord. And as soon as the commandment
came abroad, the children of Israel brought in abundance
the first fruits of corn, wine, and oil, and honey, and of all
the increase of the field, and the tithe of all things brought
they in abundantly : and concerning the children of Israel
and Judah, that dwelt in the cities of Judah, they also
brought in the tithe, &c.”
In the history of the earlier reigns, we find no
mention made of tithes \ from which it would appear
that the wealth and bounty of the kings, with the
abundance of the sacrifices, had then sufficed for the
support of the priesthood; and the only collections
from the people, which are recorded, were for the
purpose of building and decorating the temple, and
were not for the priests. In the Book of Chronicles
the humiliation of Hezekiah is not related, perhaps
because such a calamity, to such a pious king, would
not harmonize with the historian’s idea of the divine
government; but it is very interesting to _ observe
that this more recent history has a modernized ver
sion of the miraculous discomfiture of Sennacherib,
when that king came a second time against Heze
kiah, modified apparently by the information which
the scribes of Ezra’s time, to whom the authorship of
the Books of Chronicles is generally attributed, had
derived from Babylon:—
2 Chron. xxxii. 21.—“ And the Lord sent an angel, which
cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and
captains in the camp of the King of Assyria: so he returned,
with shame of face, to his own land.”
This is one of very few and similar cases in
which the later historian seems to be more credible
�28
When was the Book Lost?
than the early narrators, when the two authorities
differ:—
2 Kings xix. 35.—“ And it came to pass that night that
the Angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of
the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand, and
when they arose, early in the morning, behold they were all
dead corpses! ”
In Chronicles, it is not stated, but seems to be
assumed and implied that Hezekiah destroyed the
images, and removed the high places, as, according to
this Book, two former kings had, in their respective
times, done; namely, Asa and Jehoshaphat.
We cannot learn from either of the narratives, nor from
the prophecy of the earlier Isaiah (Isa. i.-xxxix.),
that the Sabbath-day was known or observed at this
time; nor the Sabbatical year; nor the jubilee; nor
the commandment to write and read the law.
Deut. xvii. 18—“ And it shall be when he sitteth upon
the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of
this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests
the Levites.”
Deut. xxxi. 10, 11.—“And Moses commanded them,
saying, at the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of
the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all
Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God, in the
place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before
all Israel, in their hearing.”
The negative proof of this ignorance is as complete
■as it could possibly be; and positive evidence of such
a negation can scarcely be expected. But, with re
gard to the Sabbath-day, we find something nearly
approaching to positive proof, that it was unknown.
2 Chron. xxix. 16,17.—“ And the priests went into the
inner part of the house of the Lord, to cleanse it, and
brought out all the uncleanness that they found. . . . And
the Levites took it to carry it out abroad into the brook
Kidron.
“ Now, they began on the first day of the month to
sanctify (cleanse), and on the eighth day of the month came
�Hezekiah to Josiah.
29
they to the porch of the Lord: so they sanctified (cleansed)
the house of the Lord in eight days; and, in the sixteenth
day of the first month, they made an end.”
And there is also some positive evidence, of an in
direct kind, that the Sabbatical year was not at this
time observed, which in the reign of such a zealous
and reforming king implies that the law regarding it
was not known.
2 Chron. xxxvi. 20,21.—“ And them thatescaped from the
sword carried he away into Babylon, where they were ser
vants to him and his sons, until the reign of the kingdom
of Persia.
“ To fulfil the Word of the Lord by the mouth of Jere
miah, until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths : for as long
as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfil threescore and
ten years.
Exod. xxiii. 10, 11.—“ And six years thou shalt sow
thy land, and gather in the fruits thereof: but the seventh
year thou shalt let it rest and lie still.”
The land had to lie desolate for seventy years, to
make up for the number of neglected Sabbatical years,
so that this neglect is computed by the prophet Jere
miah, as quoted in Chronicles, (in the book of
Jeremiah the prediction seems to have no relation to
the Sabbatical year, Jer. xxv. 12,) to have lasted for
four hundred and ninety years before the time of the
captivity, which leads us back to the reign of Saul,
the earliest period whence the continuous history is
traced : and we must infer that all the good kings,
whose piety and zeal are so much extolled, knew
■nothing about this law, or they could not have so
entirely neglected it. (Compare Nehem. viii. 14
and 17.)
1 Kings xv. 5—“ Because David did that which was
right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from
anything, that he commanded him all the days of his life,
save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”
The computation of Jeremiah receives confirmation
�30
When was the Book Lost?
from the fact, that there is not to be found in the
whole history of the monarchy any trace of the observ
ance. of the Sabbatical year, nor of the reading of the
law in that year, which proves, almost to demonstra
tion, that the existence of this law was unknown.
Hezekiah was the third of the four great reformers,
of whom Asa had been the first, and Jehoiada the
second. Each of the four arose immediately after a
period of gross declension; and, in each case, the heat
and brightness of the rising sun seems to have been
in proportion to the length and darkness of the pre
ceding night. Hezekiah succeeded Ahaz, who had
reigned sixteen years; and who had been not only an
idolater, but a warlike and vigorous king, and zealous
in his heathenish worship.
2 Kings xvi. 3 — “ Yea, and made his son to pass
through the fire, according to the abominations of the
heathen.”
And the long suppressed zeal of the orthodox party
was most vigorously displayed in the very first year
of the new king, who threw himself into the work of
reformation with all the ardour of youth.
2 Chron. xxix. 3—“ He, in the first year of his reign,
in the first month, opened the doors of the house of the
Lord and repaired them,” &c.
Not content with merely returning to the standards
of the old reformers, which .King Ahaz had set aside,
he proceeded to establish innovations, which must
have been rather startling in their time ; and thus,
while the more recent narrative attributes to him the
first celebration of the Passover, the earlier emphati
cally extols him as the first who destroyed all the
images, and took away the high places.
These two measures would naturally go together,
or at least the one must soon have followed as the
complement of the other; for, when it was forbidden
to worship anywhere except at Jerusalem, it would be
�Hezekiah to Josiah.
3l
expedient or necessary that some great festival should
be instituted, at which the worshippers from all parts
of the country might be invited to meet. Let us not
forget, as we are apt to do, that the removal of the
high places was no mild measure, but one that must
have been felt and regarded as harsh in the extreme
by those who, residing in places distant from Jerusalem, had never before been thus interdicted from
worshipping at the altar which they found in their
neighbourhood, as their forefathers had done; and
as they might plead that they were justified in doing,
by the examples of Samuel, David, and Solomon.
1 Sam. ix. 12—“ Behold he (Samuel) is before you:
make haste now, for he came to-day to the city ; for there
is a sacrifice of the people to-day in the high place,” &c.
1 Chron. xxi. 25, 26, 29—“ So David gave to Oman for
the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight, and David
built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burntofferings. . . . For the tabernacle of the Lord, which
Moses made in the wilderness, and the altar of burnt-offering,
were at that season in the high place at Gibeon.”
1 Kings iii. 3—“And Solomon loved the Lord, walking
in the statutes of David his father: only he sacrificed and
burnt incense in high places.”
If we only reflect on some of the hardships which
are implied in the total abolition of local worship by
the strong arm of the civil power; or, if we try to
realise the compulsory operation of such a measure
among ourselves, we shall cease to wonder that the
worshipping in high places was a sin, if sin we are to
call it, into which the people were constantly prone
to fall back. The new law most probably proceeded,
in some degree, from a real desire to maintain purity
and uniformity of worship ; but was unquestionably
also designed to magnify the office, and to increase
the emoluments of the temple priesthood.
This reign, we may rest assured, was not a time
when the book of the law could in any sense be lost;
and, if Hezekiah had such a book, it must, under his
�32
When was the Book Lost?
administration, have assumed or resumed such import
ance in the minds of the people and of the favoured
priesthood, that we cannot conceive it possible for all
trace and recollection of it to have been lost in the
two generations which intervened between his death
and the time of the discovery.
Some commentators, however, have tried to solve
the difficulty, by assuming that the wicked Manasseh,
who succeeded Hezekiah, may probably have caused
the suppression of the book ■, and, to many superficial
readers, this explanation has, doubtless, appeared
satisfactory. But Manasseh had seers (probably
Nahum and Joel) who seem to have spoken to him
fearlessly in the name of God (2 Kings xxi. 10-15);
and some considerable time before his death, Manasseh
repented, turned from his idolatry, prayed to God,
and was forgiven.
2 Chron. xxxiii. 15-17.—“ And he took away the strange
gods, and the idol out of the house of the Lord, and all the
altars that he had built in the mount of the house of the
Lord, and in Jerusalem, and cast them out of the city. And
he repaired the altar of the Lord, and sacrificed thereon
peace-offerings and thank-offerings, and commanded Judah
to serve the Lord God of Israel.
“ Nevertheless the people did sacrifice still in the high
places, yet unto the Lord their God only.”
If Manasseh had been guilty of destroying or of
suppressing the book, such guilt must have been
known to the outspoken prophets, and to the ortho
dox priests of his time; and must have been indig
nantly denounced, and certainly recorded, as his other
crimes, some or all of which were of minor import
ance, have been. Restitution also would, in that
case, have been the first fruits of his repentance, and
it cannot be supposed that restitution was impossible,
or even that it would be attended with any serious
difficulty.
Twenty-three years before the commencement of
�Hezekiah to Josiah.
33
Manasseh’s reign, Samaria had been taken, after a
siege of three years, by Shalmanezer, king of Assyria,
who carried the Israelites away into Assyria, and, in
stead of them, placed foreigners in the cities of Israel.
He did not, however, prevent the Israelites from wor
shipping according to their conscience, but, . on the
contrary, sent back a priest from the captivity to
Samaria, that he might teach the foreigners located
there how to worship the true God.
2 Kings xvii. 27, 28.—“Then the king of Assyria com
manded, saying, Carry thither one of the priests, whom
ye brought from thence", and let them go and dwell
there, and let him teach the manner of the God of the land.
Then one of the priests, whom they had carried away from
Samaria, came and dwelt in Beth-el, and taught them
how they should fear the Lord.”—(Compare Ezra iv. 2.)
Even supposing, therefore, that Manasseh had
destroyed every copy of the book of the law, on
which he could lay his hands, there would still have
remained others in Samaria, and among the captive
Israelites, which must have been entirely beyond his
control; and this would have made restitution easy,
when the days of repentance and reaction came.
But of any such suppression or restoration—of any
such duty, desire, or intention to restore;—of any such
law in the hands of the captives—of the supposed or
possible existence of any other copy, besides that which
Hilkiah discovered, there is not, in the whole narra
tive, the remotest hint, nor any trace to be found.
Between the death of the repentant Manasseh, who
had reigned fifty-five years, and the accession of Josiah,
there intervened only the two years’ reign of Amon.
2 Chron. xxxiii. 22-24.—“ But he did that which was
evil in the sight of the Lord as did Manasseh his father; for
Amon sacrificed unto all the carved images which Manasseh
his father had made, and served them; and humbled not
himself before the Lord, as Manasseh his father had humbled
himself; but Amon trespassed more and more. And his
C
�34
When was the Book Lost ?
servants conspired against him, and slew him in his own
house.”
The warnings and exhortations addressed to Man
asseh ; the influence which at length brought about
his conversion, and his actions which followed thereon;
the fate of Amon, and the training of Josiah, are all
proofs that the orthodox priesthood, the true pro
phets, and the faithful worshippers of Jehovah,
though oppressed and persecuted, had not been rooted
out; nay, the result soon showed that persecution
had produced its usual results : had deepened their
former convictions, and intensified their former zeal.
Was it in such a time that they, or their children,
were likely to lose all knowledge and all memory of
the book which they would so highly have prized and
revered ? Nay, is it not rather certain that, if they
had possessed, or had even known of the existence of,
such a book, it would in such times as these have been
their chief care to treasure and to preserve it, or, if
lost, promptly to set about recovering or restoring it
among themselves? Would it not have been be
queathed as a sacred trust to their children, as a pre
cious inheritance for the comfort, direction, and
encouragement of all the true persecuted Church ?
And would not Josiah have been from his youth
initiated therein by his pious teachers, instead of
being left to find it, as if by accident, in the twenty-,
sixth year of his age and the eighteenth of his reign?
And, even supposing that Manasseh had actually
destroyed every copy in all Judea, would not the first
righteous impulse of the young Josiah, and of those
who trained him in the knowledge of God, and who
were his advisers, have been to seek by every means
in their power to repair such a serious loss, which, as
we have already shown, could not have been very
difficult ?
In Hezekiah’s reign, several things may be noticed,
which seem to indicate that he must have been ac-
�Hezekiah to ’ osiah.
J
35
quainted with the book ; but there are also many
other circumstances and indications which are opposed
to that conclusion. If, however, Hezekiah had the
book, it must have been left by him in dignity and
safety; and we have seen that, between his reign and
that of Josiah, it could not have been lost. We are,
therefore, forced to conclude that the loss of the
book, if loss there were, did not happen during this
period, which we have been examining, but must, at
least, have taken place before the time of Hezekiah.
The reformation accomplished by Josiah, like all
the three preceding reformations of Asa, Jehoiada,
and Hezekiah, thus immediately succeeded, and may
perhaps be said to have resulted from, a reign of
■mixed worship and of heresy, which had, in this case
been both more gloomy and more lasting, than any of
the former dark intervals had been; and, as we have
seen that the reforming zeal of young Hezekiah led
him to the adoption of bolder measures than those of
the old and cautious Jehoiada had been; so also now,
when, by the accession of the pious and youthful
Josiah, the orthodox priesthood found the pressure
removed, and free scope allowed for the recoil of the
spring, that recoil was in proportion to what the pres
sure had been; their zeal went far beyond the zeal
of Hezekiah; and, instead of being satisfied with
merely restoring what had been gained in the former
reformations, they, in a few years, produced and en
acted, as derived from heaven, a code of infallible and
immutable laws, so very comprehensive and minute,
including so very much of everything which, to their
sacerdotal minds, appeared most desirable, so hedged
round with inviolable sacredness, and with such claims
to the sanction of remote antiquity, as to preclude, so
far, at least, as priestly foresight could, the desire or
the possibility of any further advance in the same
direction for all future time. The priesthood which
�36
When was the Book Lost ?
was typified in Eli and in Samuel, and which was
established by Solomon at the opening of the temple,
had now developed the wonderful extent of its arro
gance and of its claims. The tithes, of which no trace
can be found in the history of David, Solomon, or
Asa, were, in Jehoiada s tune, two hundred and fifty
years before the finding of the book, dimly fore
shadowed by a contrivance, which has often since
then been imitated with more or less success :
2 Kings xii. 9.—“ Jehoiada the priest took a chest, and
bored a hole in the lid of it, and set it beside the altar, on
the right side, as one cometh into the house of the Lord.”
The temple at that time stood in need of repairs,
which the king was desirous should be done without
delay:
2 Kings xii. 4-8.—“ And Jehoash said to the priests:
All the money of the dedicated things that is brought into
the house of the Lord, even the money of every one that
passeth the account, the money that every man is set at,
and all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring
into the house of the Lord, let the priests take it to them,
every man of his acquaintance; and let them repair the
breaches of the house, wheresoever any breach shall be
found. But it was so that, in the three and twentieth year
of king Jehoash, the priests had not repaired the breaches
of.the house. Then king Jehoash called for Jehoiada the
priest, and the other priests, and said unto them, Why re
pair ye not the breaches of the house ? Now, therefore,
receive no more money of your acquaintance, but deliver it
(what they had already received) for the breaches of the
house. And the priests consented to receive no more money
of the people, neither to repair the breaches of the house.”
So that the priests would seem to have claimed and
kept all that, during many years, had been contri
buted ; and yet were not to do the work for which it
had been given; but they were to receive no more,
except
2 Kings xii. 16.—“ The trespass-money and the sinmoney was not brought into the house of the Lord: it was
the priests’.”
�Hezekiah to Josiah.
$7
-Here it is evident that the contributions of the
people were chiefly voluntary, and not at all in. the
form of tithes; and it also appears that the priests
were at that time dissatisfied with their allowances,
which they sought to increase by questionable means.
In Hezekiah’s time, as we have seen (p. 27), accord
ing to the narrative in Chronicles, the provision for
the priests is called the tithes; but the language em
ployed seems to indicate rather a discretional and
semi-voluntary contribution, than a regular impost of
the tenth part; and this view is supported by the
subsequent context:
2 Chron. xxxi. 14, 15.—“And Kore the son of Imnah the Levite, the porter toward the east, was over the
free-will offerings of God, to distribute the oblations of the
Lord, and the most holy things. And next him were Eden
(and six others named) in the cities of the priests, in their
set office, to give to their brethren by courses, as well to
the great as to the small.”
That these contributions were voluntary, is further
confirmed by the silence of the earlier historian
(2 Kings xviii.), who, though not caring to write
about Levitical matters, would certainly not have
omitted to notice the institution, or the restoration,
of such an important tax as the tithe. We may there
fore, with tolerable certainty, infer that, while Heze
kiah made some provision for the priesthood, more
liberal and more regular than that which had been
made in Jehoiada’s time, it was left for Hilkiah and
Josiah, at the time of their great discovery, to place
the matter on a thoroughly satisfactory and perma
nent footing, by what would, in our days, be called
the “ Tithes Consolidation Bill.”
Lev. xxvii. 30-33. —“And all the tithe.of the land,
whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree,
is the Lord’s; it is holy unto the Lord. And if a man will
at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the
fifth part thereof. And, concerning the tithe of the herd,
or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod,
�38
When was the Book Lost ?
the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord. He shall not search
whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it; and
if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof
shall be holy: it shall not be redeemed.”
Num. xviii. 21.—“And, behold, 1 have given the child
ren of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for the
service which they serve.”
The violent innovations of Hezekiah for the abolition
of all local worship, heresy, and nonconformity, were
restored by Josiah with far more than their original
force.
Deut. xii. 13, 14.—“Take heed to thyself that thou
offer not thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou seest:
but in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy
tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, and there
thou shalt do all that I command thee.”
Lev. xvii. 8, 9.—“Whatsoever man there be of the
house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among
you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice, and bringeth
it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to
offer it unto the Lord, even that man shall be cut off from
among his people.”
And instead of the one great festival which was
celebrated in Hezekiah’s time, the law was now to
be—
Deut. xvi. 16, 17.—“ Three times in a year shall all
thy males appear before the Lord thy God in the place
which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread,
and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles:
and they shall not appear before the Lord empty: every
man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of
the Lord thy God, which he hath given thee.”
So absolutely unfettered by any restraint were the
sacerdotal party under Josiah, that, not content with
the enforcement of such practical measures as these,
they felt themselves at liberty to enact a thousand and
one other things of a vexatious and oppressive kind,
some of which were so absurd and unpractical, that
we may wonder whether they ever were observed at
�Hezekiah to Josiah.
39
nil: as, for example, the Sabbatical year? which has
already been noticed in this chapter. Of this intoler
able legislation, no words can convey a more concise
and pithy denunciation than those of the Apostle
Peter :—
Acts xv. 10.—“Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, to
put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our
fathers nor we were able to bear ? ”
We need not wonder so very much at the reception of
the book. When the priests and the king had resolved
on its enactment, the matter was settled. Of course
it contained much which the people already knew or
believed to be correct. Most of its leading features
must have had some sort of foundation, or at least of
germ, in the customs and traditions of the.nation;
and for the rest, we must remember that in those
days, and for ages afterwards, both priests, and people
were very innocent in the matter of criticism, as now
understood, and that the people had not, as we have,
the book in their hands, but only had it. read m
their hearing. Nor must we forget to consider how
very vague and superstitious were the notions of
Divine inspiration which prevailed in those early
days, when we find the more recent historian writing
: as follows:—
2 Chron. xxxv. 20-22.—“After all this, when Josiah
had prepared the temple, Necho king of Egypt came up to
fight against Charchemish by Euphrates: and Josiah went
out against him. But he sent ambassadors to him, saying,
What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah ? I come
-not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith
I have war; for God commanded me to make haste; forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he
destroy thee not. Nevertheless, Josiah would not turn his
face from him, but disguised himself that he might fight with
him, and hearkened not unto the words of Necho from the
mouth of God.”
If Josiah’s death, and the non-fulfilment of Huldah’s
�40
When was the Book Lost?
prophecy regarding his peaceful end are thus regarded
as a judgment on him, for refusing to listen to the
words of a heathen king 11 from the mouth of God:” how
shall we wonder that the “ book of the law of the
Eord, which Hilkiah the priest produced, which was
vouched for by Huldah the prophetess, and then
acknowledged by the king, was received by the
people with entire submission to the high authority
which its authors assumed for it ?
J
CHAPTER III.
SEARCH CONTINUED.
JEHOIADA TO HEZEKIAH.—B.C. 878 TO 726.
Continuing our search backwards, the next period
which we come to examine is that which immediately
preceded the accession of Hezekiah, and which we
shall regard as commencing with the reformation
efiected under the powerful, zealous, and orthodox
priest-regent,. Jehoiada, in whose hands the civil
and ecclesiastical authorities were united, for the first
time since the days of Samuel, having been seized by
him, after a successful conspiracy, and the assassination
of Queen Athaliah; thus clearing the way for young
Joash (or Jehoash), the rightful surviving heir, then
only seven years of age, who had been reared secretly
m the temple, and who now ascended the throne under
the tutelage of his guardian, the great priest.
2 Kings xi. 17.—“And Jehoiada made a covenant ber 6 ,Lo*d and the kLn^ and the people, that they
should be the Lord’s people: between the king also and thepeople.”
. 2 Chron. xxiv. 2, 3.—And Joash did that which was
right in the sight of the Lord, all the days of Jehoiada the-
�Jehoiada to Hezekiah.
41
priest. And Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he
begat sons and daughters.”
. , , ,,
2 Chron. xxiii. 18.—“ Also Jehoiada appointed the offices
of the house of the Lord, by the hand of the priests the
Levites, whom David had distributed m the house of the
Lord, to offer the burnt-offerings of the Lord, as it is
written in the law of Moses, with rejoicing and with singing,
as it was ordained by David. ’
Here we find several things which seem to imply
that Jehoiada must have had the book of the law, if
the language does not directly assert that he had,
but, then, how can we reconcile this with the state
ment of the earlier historian ?
2 Kings xii. 2, 3—“And Jehoash did that which
was right in the sight of the Lord, all his days, wherein
Jehoiada the priest instructed him. But the Ingh places
were not taken away: the people still sacrificed and burnt
incense in the high places.”
Did the zealous Jehoiada knowingly and wilfully
transgress, or suffer others openly to transgress, the
laws regarding high places, which we have quoted
in the foregoing chapter (p. 38), the observance of
which was afterwards to be regarded as one of the
chief tests of orthodoxy, and the neglect of which was
to be recorded as a grave reproach against him and
others ? Had he never read, in the book of Joshua,
the story of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of
Manasseh, in whom the mere appearance or sus
picion of transgressing this great law was, according
to the narrative, sufficient to rouse the pious indigna
tion of all Judah f
Josh. xxii. 29.—“God forbid that we should rebel against
the Lord, and turn this day from following the Lord, to
build an altar for burnt-offerings, for meat-offerings, or for
sacrifices, beside the altar of the Lord our God, that is be
fore his tabernacle.”
Deliberate transgression, and wilful neglect of God s
law in this particular, would be quite opposed to the
�42
When was the Book Lost ?
piety and zeal which are ascribed to this reformer •
and thus we are forced to conclude that he had no
knowledge of such a law.
Jehoiada, or his pupil-king, repaired the temple
reorganized the priesthood, and renewed the covenant
to worship God alone ; but his reformation fell short
of Hezekiah’s in two most important respects, the
removal of the high places, and the institution of the
Passover; of which latter we find no trace at this
nor at any earlier historic time; and the same may
be said of the observance of the Sabbath-day, the
Sabbatical year, the public reading of the law. &c.
. We learn very clearly, from both narratives, that
m Jehoiadas time the power of the priesthood was
greatly increased or restored, and that he did his
part wisely and well, living to a very great age, and
thus contributing his full share to the elevation and
establishment of his own order, while probably adding
not a little to the fabric of Levitical law.
&
2 Chron. xxiv. 15, 16.—“But Jehoiada waxed old,
and was full of days when he died; an hundred and thirty
years old was he when he died. And they buried him in
the city of David among the kings, because he had done
good m Israel, both toward God, and toward his house.”
But, being an old man before he came to power,
he seems to have ventured on no such startling
innovations as those which were afterwards intro
duced by Hezekiah and Josiah. From the narrative
in Kings, we may infer that he was desirous to secure
a larger and more regular provision for the priesthood;
in which, however, he seems to have been only partially
successful; and, certainly, fell far short of establishing
anything like the tithe-law (p. 36).
King Joash reigned forty years, living twenty
years after the death of Jehoiada.
2 Chron. xxiv. 17,18.—“Now after the death of Jehoiada,
came the princes of Judah and made obeisance to the king;
then the king hearkened unto them. And they left the house
�Jehoiada to Hezekiah.
43
of the Lord God of their fathers and served^groves and
idols: and wrath came upon Judah and Jeiusalem fo this
their trespass.”
The earlier narrative relates the calamity, but not
the sin; and, on the death of Joash, we read :
2 Kings xii. 21.—“ And they buried him with his fathers
in the city of David.”
Whereas the later historian says :—
2 Chron. xxiv. 25.—“And they buried him in the city
of David; but they buried him not in the sepulchre of the
kings.”
Although the law of Moses is mentioned by the
later authority as the rule which guided Jehoiada
and Jehoash in their restoration of the orthodox
worship, we have found, on the other hand, muci
evidence that they did not possess the book of the
law as it afterwards came to be known; but, at all
events, if they did possess it, we are not at liberty to
suppose that it was suppressed or destroyed m their
time, whatever the sins of Jehoash may have been;
because we find it again referred to as a rule of con
duct in connection with his successor, Amaziah, m a
■passage which is nearly the same in both narratives.
“2 Kings xiv. 5, 6; 2 Chron. xxv. 3, 4.—And it came
to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand,
that he slew his servants, which had slam the king his
father: but the children of the murderers he slew not; ac
cording unto that which is written in the book of the law
of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers
shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children
be put to death for the fathers ; but every man shall be put
to death for his own sin (Deut. xxiv. 16).”
In Chronicles, this passage may be regarded as
containing a moral reflection or paraphrase, by the
comparatively recent historian; and, in Kings, as an
interpolation from the later narrative. That it is an
-anachronism, as applied to Amaziah, can easily be
�44
When was the Book Lost?
sh°wn, inasmuch as it attributes to him a higher
standard of morality than was known in his days ■
and, for which at that period, we look in vain, even
where we should most expect to find it fully displayed.
lhe account of the divine appointment of Jehu, to
destroy the family of Ahab, may be taken as a good
illustration of the real lowness of moral sentiment
which prevailed m those days.
W®, read (2 Kings ix.), that Elisha the prophet sent
one of the sons of the prophets to go to Jehu, who
was one of the chief captains of the army of Joram,
son of Ahab king of Israel, and the young prophet
delivered his message thus :—
1
Kl^GS,ixPoured the oil on his head, and
said unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I have
anointed thee king oyer the people of the Lord, even over
Israel. And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy
Master that I may avenge the blood of my servants the
prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the Lord.”
In the following chapter we have some details of
the manner m which Jehu proceeded to carry out the
prophet s instructions :—
? ^I?GS X'
And Ahab had seventy sons in Samaria,
and Jehu wrote letters and sent to Samaria, unto the rulers
children” t0
elderS’ and to them that brought UP Ahab’s
^eMers were not explicit; but, when
obedience had been promised, his further instructions
were plain enough, and were promptly carried out
2 Kings x. 6, 7.—“ Now the king’s sons, being seventy
persons, were with the great men of the city, which brouqht
them up. And it came to pass when the letters came to
them, tha,t they took the king’s sons and slew seventy perJezreef”^
^eads
baskets, and sent them to
. The first idea suggested by this is one of indigna
tion against Jehu, for so horribly misinterpreting and
�Jeboiada to Hezekiah.
45
exceeding the instructions which he had received;
but we are compelled to abandon this view :—
2 Kings x. 30.—“ 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 gene
ration shall sit on the throne of Israel.”
While the massacre of so many young persons and
children, for the sins of others, was thus regarded as
right in the eyes of God; it is impossible to believe
that the more humane law was known, by which
Amaziah is said to have been guided.
If he had really merited praise for the respect
shown by him to the law, we should certainly have
had some further and fuller proof of it:—
2 Kings xiv. 4.—“ Howbeit the high places were not taken
away; as yet the people did sacrifice and burn incense on
the high places.”
The very special importance assigned by the his
torians to this matter of the high places, and the
scarcity or absence of other criteria, force us to
regard it as the great comparative test of orthodoxy ;
and Amaziah’s failure on this point, with the negative
proof of silence that he knew nothing of the passover,
of the Sabbath-day, nor of the tithe-law, must be
sufficient to make us doubt whether he really had the
book of the law of Moses; even although we are told
that his leniency in punishing crime was dictated
by his obedience to that book. But, though we can
not be sure that Amaziah had the book, we may be
quite sure that it was not lost in his time; and that,
if he possessed it, it was by him safely bequeathed,
after he had reigned twenty-nine years, to his son
Uzziah or Azariah, who succeeded him :—
2 Kings xv. 3, 4.—“ And he did that which was right in
the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father
Amaziah had done; save that the high places were not re-
�46
When was the Book Lost?
moved: the people sacrificed and burnt incense still on the
high places.”
Uzziah’s wealth and prosperity and success in war,
are described in fulsome terms by the historian in
Chronicles (xxvi.); but only serve to magnify the
humiliation to which he had to submit, when he pre
sumed to usurp the priests’ office by entering the
temple, himself to offer sacrifice :—
2 Chron. xxvi. 16-18.—“But when he was strong his
heart was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed
against the Lord his God, and went into the temple of
the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And
Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore
priests of the Lord, that were valiant men. And they with
stood Uzziah the king and said unto him, It appertaineth not
unto thee Uzziah to burn incense unto the Lord; but to
the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn
incense: go out of the sanctuary, for thou hast trespassed.”
Uzziah was wroth, and persisted in his purpose;
but was humbled and set aside, being miraculously
smitten with leprosy. So great had the power and
arrogance of the priests become under the fostering
influence of royal favour, which they had now for a
century enjoyed.
What would have become of the priest who should
have ventured so to oppose David when he assumed
the priest’s dress and the priest’s office ?
2 Sam. vi. 13, 14.—“And it was so that, when they
that bare the ark of the Lord had gone six paces, he (David)
sacrificed oxen and fatlings. And David danced before the
Lord with all his might; and David was girded with a
linen ephod.”
If any one, at that time, had said, ‘ It appertaineth
not unto thee, David,’ there can be little doubt that
his blood would have been upon his own head.
The good priest-ridden king Uzziah, after a long
reign of fifty-two years, was succeeded by his son
Jotham.
�Jehoida to Hezekiah.
47
2 Chron. xxvii. 2.—“ And he did that which was right
in the. sight of the Lord, according to all that his father
Uzziah did: howbeit he entered not into the temple of the
Lord. And the people did yet corruptly.”
It is clear
lesson which
and that in
trifled with ;
that Jotham
that he was not allowed to forget the .
had been so firmly taught to his father,
his days the hierarchy were not to be
but we are not, on this account, to infer
was a weak prince.
2 Chron. xxvii. 6.—“ So Jotham became mighty, because
he prepared his ways before the Lord his God.”
Strange, that up to Jotham’s time, and even then,
when the priesthood had so long been in possession
of power, and when the kings did that which was
right, at least so far as they knew, there is not any
recorded celebration of the Passover, but, on the con
trary, we read :—
2 Kings xv. 34 and 35.—“ And he (Jotham) did that
which was right in the sight of the Lord : he did according
to all that his father Uzziah had done. Howbeit the high
places were not removed; the people sacrificed and burnt
incense still in the high places.”
Jotham is the last of the good or orthodox kings,
against whom this reproach is recorded, under which
all his predecessors, without exception, lie; and when
we consider the amount of reforming zeal, and of
priestly power, often manifested in Jotham’s and in
earlier reigns, we are forced to conclude that the wor
ship in high places which had all along been prac
tised and tolerated, was not known to be sinful, and
that those kings and priests were not acquainted with
the law, by which all local worship was afterwards
suppressed as intolerable heresy.
• After reigning sixteen years Jotham died, leaving
the priesthood, we cannot doubt, in a condition of
power and of prosperity, which, for a time at least, must
have ensured for them toleration under the new king
Ahaz, who is represented as an idolater.
�48
When was the Book Lost?
2 Kings xvi. 3.—“ But he walked in the way of the
kings of Israel, yea and made his son to pass through
the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen.”
2 Chron. xxviii. 25.—“ And in every several city of
Judah, he made high places to burn incense unto other gods;
and provoked to anger the Lord God of his fathers.”
Isaiah, his contemporary and survivor, accuses him
only of want of faith in God, which the prophet
sought to stimulate.
Isaiah vii. 10-12.—“ Moreover the Lord spake again unto
Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God ; ask it
either in the depth or in the height above. But Ahaz an
swered, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord.”
And, though noticing many prevailing sins, Isaiah
nowhere mentions nor alludes to the sacrifice of chil
dren, as a crime existing in his days,
But however much Ahaz himself may have sinned,
there is nothing recorded either by the historians or
by the prophet which can warrant us in supposing
him guilty of persecuting the orthodox worshippers,
or of suppressing or destroying the book of the law.
We learn that some of the priests were willing to
share in his irregular worship.
2 Kings xvi. 11, 12.—“ And Urijah the priest built
an altar, according to all that king Ahaz had sent from
Damascus. . . . And, when the king was come from Dam
ascus, the king saw the altar : and the king approached to
the altar, and offered thereon.”
But this incident, being a reproach against the priest
hood, is not noticed in the Book of Chronicles, while
for Ahaz himself the chronicler has no such tenderness,
exhibiting him in a much worse light than does the
historian in Kings.
2 Kings xvi. 7-9.—“ Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglathpilezer, king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy
son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of
Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise
up against me. And Ahaz took the silver and gold that
was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of
�"Jehoiada to Hezekiah.
49
the king’s house, and sent it for a present to the king of
Assyria. And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him :
for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took
it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew
Bezin.”
whereas, in the later narrative, we read
2 Ciiron. xxviii. 20, 21. — “ And Tilgath-pilnezer, king
of Assyria, came unto him, and distressed him, but strength
ened him not. Foi’ Ahaz took away a portion out of the
house of the Lord, and out of the house of the king and of
the princes, and gave it unto the king of Assyria: but he
helped him not.'''
And the discrepancy between the two reports of his
burial exhibits the same bias on the part of the
Chronicler.
2 Kings xvi. 20.—“ And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and
was buried with his fathers in the city of David.”
2 Chron. xxviii. 27.—“ And Ahaz slept with his fathers
and they buried him in the city, even in Jerusalem: but they
brought him not into the sepulchres of the kings of Israeli
After reigning sixteen years, Ahaz was succeeded
by his son Hezekiah, who, in his very first year, pro
ceeded to inaugurate the third great reformation of
the Jewish worship, so that he must have been pre
viously educated thereto by orthodox instructors;
and this consideration, taken along with the absence
of intolerance, persecution, or suppression, either im
plied or recorded during the preceding reign, com
pletely excludes the idea that the loss of the book of
the law may be attributed to King Ahaz; and we
may therefore be certain that it was not lost during
the period which in this chapter we have examined.
We have, however, discerned somewhat of the
growth of the claims, the arrogance, and the intoler
ance of the temple priests, ripening for the notable
and definite advance -which they were now about to
achieve under Hezekiah, and only the more stimulated
D
k
�5°
When was the Book Lost ?
by their sixteen years’ exclusion from the favour and
support of the civil power during the reign of the
idolatrous Ahaz; stimulated both by their zeal for the
worship of Jehovah, and by their jealousy for the
sacred privileges and the prosperity of their own order;
—which two strangely mingled motives may, and
ought to, be recognised in every step of their history.
CHAPTER IV.
SEARCH CONTINUED.
ASA TO JEHOIADA.—B.C. 955 TO 878.
As the two periods of time, which we have already
examined, commenced each with a national reforma
tion and a renewal of the national covenant; so the
third period, which in the course of our search for
traces of the existence, or of the loss, of the book, we
now come to consider, shall be regarded as commencing with the first reformation and the first covenant,
of which we have any account in the historic books.
King Asa succeeded Abijah, the grandson of
Solomon, and, like all the other reformers, he came
after a period of heresy and idolatry. It does notappear
that, in the preceding reigns, the worship of Jehovah
had ever been suppressed or abandoned; but the
laxity of mixed worship, which Solomon in his old
age had encouraged, had been continued by his suc
cessors. Yet, though latitudinarianism and general
toleration had prevailed, there is no evidence that the
temple itself, or the temple priesthood, had up to this
time been polluted with the worship of other gods ;
as they afterwards were, in the reigns of Ahaz and of
Manasseh. The high places and altars which Solomon
had built for various heathen gods, (1 Kings xi. 6-8),
were allowed to stand, and whoso would might wor
|
�Asa to Jehoiada.
51
ship there ; but such heathen worship was not allowed
to usurp the altars of Jehovah, for, in the time of
Rehoboam, we read that, when the idolatrous king of
Israel, Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, had cast off the
Levites in his dominions from their office of priests
unto the Lord, they left their possessions, and came
to Jerusalem.
2 Ciiron. xi. 16—“And, after them, out of all the
tribes of Israel, such as set their hearts to seek the Lord
God of Israel, came to Jerusalem to sacrifice unto the Lord
-God of their fathers.
So that the liberty of worshipping according to con
science, which, in the neighbouring kingdom of Israel
was denied, seems to have been extended, in the
kingdom of Judah, to all religions alike ; and this was
the state of matters, so far as can be known, up to
the time of King Asa.
1 Kings xv. 11, 12, 14 — “ And Asa did that which
was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father.
And he took away the Sodomites out of the land, and
removed all the idols that his fathers had made. . . .
But the high places were not removed; nevertheless Asa’s
heart was perfect with the Lord all his days.”
Regarding the high places, we must in this case
accept the testimony of the earlier historian in pre
ference to that of the writer of the Chronicles, because
the latter contradicts himself.
2 Chron. xiv. 2 and 3—“ And Asa did that which was
good and right in the eyes of the Lord his God: for he took
away the altars of the strange gods, and the high places, and
brake down the images, and cut down the groves.”
2 Chron. xv. 17—“ But the high places were not taken
away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was per
fect all his days.”
Although the authorities thus differ as to Asa’s
removal of the high places, and although we can,
almost with certainty, discern that they were not
removed till the reign of Hezekiah, when, for the first
�52
When was the Book Lost 2
time, the earlier book relates their removal ■ yet it is
here very worthy of notice, that both our authorities
agree in attributing to Asa the destruction of images,
and the abolition of idol-worship ; and that Asa is the
first king to whom this merit is ascribed. But we must
remember that there was at least one image, which
even Asa spared, and whose worship still continued.
2 Kings xviii. 4.—“ Hezekiah brake in pieces the brazen
serpent, which Moses had made: for, unto those days, the
children of Israel did burn incense to it.”
The worship of the serpent, being in some way or
other, connected with the worship of Jehovah, was not
interfered with, while the altars and images of other
gods were destroyed. From the brief narratives of
Asa’s long reign, we learn that he was a warlike, and,
on the whole, a prosperous king; who ruled his
subjects with a vigorous and somewhat despotic sway.
So far as can be ascertained from either history, there
had hitherto, all along been some degree of toleration
for the differences of religion; but Asa seems to have
despised such weakness; and to have resolved that
all his subjects should be converted, whether they
would or not.
2 Chron. xiv. 4, 5.—“ And he (Asa) commanded Judah
to seek the Lord God of their fathers, and to do the
law and the commandment. Also he took away out of all
the cities of Judah, the high places and the images ; and
the kingdom was quiet before him.”
And, being not only strong in purpose, but filled with
energy and zeal for the orthodox worship,
2 Chron. xv. 12-14.—“ They entered into a covenant to
seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart, and
with all their soul; that whosoever would not seek the Lord
God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great,
whether man or woman. And they sware unto the Lord
with a loud voice, and with shouting, and with trumpets,
and with cornets.”
This is the first National Covenant of which we read
�Asa to 'Jehoiada.
53
in either of the histories. There may have been
covenants in the wilderness five hundred years earlier,
as we are told in the Pentateuch ; but it may also be
that covenants are so often described in the book of
the law, just because that book was composed, or
compiled, in the later covenanting times ; and this
view is strongly confirmed by the terms of some of
those Mosaic covenants; in Jacob’s, for example, one
great feature is:—
Gen. xxviii. 22.—“ And of all that thou shalt give me, I
will surely give the tenth unto thee.”
Here we have, apparently, a very ancient sanction
for the institution of tithes, of which, however, we
have been able to trace the germ and the growth
under Jehoiada, Hezekiah, and Josiah; and of
which, in the time of Asa or his predecessors, no
trace is to be found.
At all events, this is the first time, -sincr the tribes
became a nation, that we have any record of the people
entering into a covenant with the Lord—-of the
nation becoming a church : and it is strangely in
teresting to observe, that the national covenant of
those ancient Jews produced, (or was produced by ?)
the same spirit of intolerance and notion of infalli
bility, as the national covenants of our own Scottish
reformers. Of this, it would be easy to find ample
historical illustration, but it is not even necessary to
refer to history, for we have the illustration as clear
and full, in the present day, as it was in the days of
Asa, only that happily the modern Asas cannot
enforce their doctrines with pains and penalties, as
the ancient Asas did.
The “ Original Secession Church ” is a small, but
very zealous body of Scotch Presbyterians; still
maintaining the permanent obligation of the national
covenants, which they from time to time renew; and
rigidly adhering to the doctrinal standards of the old
Covenanters.
�54
When was the Book Lost ?
From the Original Secession Magazine for January
1869, page 37, I quote the following extract of an
address delivered by a professor of theology, to the
students preparing for the ministry, and attending
the “Divinity Hall,” in connection with that Church.
“ By our profession of faith in His Word, we solemnly
declare to the world that God himself is a participa
tor in our views and sentiments, that these are de
rived from Him, and express His mind, and that He
is of the same judgment with ourselves, in attaching
importance to what we adhere to, and in lightly
esteeming what we regard with indifference.' In a
word, our profession of faith must be regarded, not
only as our declaration of our own sentiments, but also
of the mind of God.”
The only recorded fruit of Asa's religious zeal,
being the inauguration of intolerance, and the sum
mary extirpation of all heresy by the civil power, we
are very doubtful, whether such a change ought to be
styled a reformation ; and it has only been after much
hesitation, that we have felt constrained to rank Asa
as the first great reformer of the Jewish faith;—con
strained by the reflection, that so many great refor
mers, to whom the title cannot be denied, have un
happily been intolerant and persecutors.
Asa is the earliest persecutor, on account of either
true or false religion, with whom we become acquaint
ed in the historic books of the Bible. Perhaps he
had a clearer and more intense conviction of God's
unity and omnipresence, than any of his predecessors
had enjoyed ; and he acted according to his light, he
put forth all his strength in furtherance of the cause
of truth. Perhaps his own mind was so filled with
the great truth that God is One,—he had so thoroughly
cast out the idea that there could be any other gods,
that he could not admit, and would not tolerate, the
�Asa to 'Jehoida.
55
right of any other mind to entertain that idea, or to
recognise either more or other gods than Jehovah.
Psalm lxv. 2.—“ 0 thou that hearest prayer ! unto thee
shall all flesh come.”
Or was it only that he was so penetrated and pos
sessed with the conviction, that Jehovah far excelled
all other gods in majesty and power, that it was better
to worship him than any other ?
Psalm lxxxii. 1.—“ God standeth in the congregation of
the mighty : he judgeth among the gods.”
Or was it only that Jehovah was the God, whom
his chosen people, the Jews, ought to worship, while
the other nations, whose God he was not, might do
well to worship the gods whom they knew 1
Judges xi. 24.—“ Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy God giveth thee to possess ? So, whomsoever the
Lord our God shall drive from out before us, them we will
possess.”
Whatever may have been the measure of truth,
which Asa was enabled to discern, it is clear that he
discerned it as the truth; and so forcibly, that he felt
constrained to exert all his energy and zeal, in the
destruction of the opposite falsehood. In Asa’s days,
the sword of the civil power was the most handy and
efficacious instrument of conversion, its arguments
not being easily resisted; and so Asa employed the
sword, probably with as good a conscience, and in as
good a cause, as it ever has been employed by any
teacher of religion; but can it be, that the interests
of true religion have ever been really and truly pro
moted by the use of persecuting power? Must we
not rather believe that, in all cases, judging of what
might have been, by comparison with what has in later
times been witnessed, the immediate gain, however
great apparently it was, could not fail to be far more
than counterbalanced by the deeper and more perma
nent loss; and that the weapons of truth alone, if left
and employed to do their own work, would, in Asa’s,
�When was the Book Lost?
and m every time, have sufficed to achieve conquests
tar more glorious, than the conversion of nations bv
the sword ?
J
In the earlier part of the history, we read of con
tentions between a proud priest and a king, in the
persons of Samuel and Saul; but, in those days, though
there were priests, there was no established priesthwd
and there is no trace of intolerance. The right to
differ, being a natural right, seems to have been gene-,
rally respected, though perhaps not formally recognised.
Saul, David, and Solomon were not over-scrupulous
a out putting men to death. All their enemies were
regarded as enemies of their God, and were to be ex
terminated without mercy; but we cannot learn, that
they ever thought of killing their friends and fellowcountrymen, merely because their religious beliefs
were wrong ■ much less did they ever make a cove
nant or law, to the effect that all heretics should
surely be put to death. But, when Asa reigned, the
temple had been open for fifty yearSj and the priests
of the temple, being an established hierarchy, had, in
that time, already developed somewhat of the doc
trine of the infallibility of the Church, which, in allits varied, forms, and everywhere, and always, has
produced intolerance and persecutions great or small;
and, while, in Asa’s reign, this notion of infallibility
already produced the covenant of intolerance, it is
three hundred years later, in the production of Hil
kiah the priest, in the book which he read to king
Josiah, that we find the legitimate outcome of the
growth of this priestly doctrine, whose influence and
power have never, from that time to this, ceased to be
felt; whether for good or evil,—who shall say ?
Who can tell, how much further or more rapidly
the progressive development of spiritual truth and
the freedom and power of individual thought might
have advanced, if their progress, which seems to have
been so far true, had not been thus early checked, by
�Asa to 'Jehoiada.
57
the counter-progress of intolerance and of submission to
authority,—had not been, so very soon, arrested in its
promising career, by the haste of the priesthood to
re-cast all that they discerned, or believed, or desired
to be truth, in the iron mould of infallibility; from
which, by the device and authority of Asas, Hilkiahs,
and Josiahs, the strange mixture issued, and strangely
has continued to issue, stamped as the word of God ?
Eabbinism, phariseeism, and worship of the letter,
dogmatism, formality, intolerance, and fanaticism
have, in various times, and in many different forms,
been the direct and immediate fruit of that same iron
mould, of which also irreligion, hatred and indiffer
ence to all truth have been the secondary, but no less
certain and natural consequences.
Without that iron mould, God alone knows what
might have been ! I dare not attempt to paint in
words the bright picture which rises before my im
agination. Perhaps those who dwell here a thousand
years hence may see it realised !
But then,—perhaps the way by which we have
been led may also have been the best or only way, by
which mankind could ultimately be brought to the
knowledge and discernment of good and evil. So
many evil things have been made the sources of good,
so altogether incapable are we of reckoning a distant
result, the means are often so very different, unlike
and remote from the ends, that we can only again ex
claim—Who can tell1? God alone knows what might
have been ; but let us beware of knowingly and wil
fully continuing in evil, even in order that good may
come.
Asa, the first orthodox persecutor, after reigning
forty-one years, was succeeded by his son Jehosha
phat, the first missionary king.
2 Chron. xvii. 7-9.—“ In the third year of his reign he
sent to his princes (five names) to teach in the cities of
Judah ; and with them he sent Levites (nine names) ; and
�58
When was the Book Lost ?
with them Eli-sliama and Jehoram, priests. And they
taught in Judah, and had the book of the law of the Lord
with them, and went about throughout all the cities of
Judah, and taught the people.”
After being converted by the sword, the people had
to be taught by the Levites and the book. Here at
length we seem to have found it; but then, what of
the brazen serpent and the second commandment I
what of the passover, the Sabbath day, the Sabbatical
year, the public reading of the law in that year, and
the tithes ? Not a word about any of these in the
reign of Jehoshaphat! And what of the high places ?
2 Chron. xvii. 6.—“And his (Jehoshaphat’s) heart was
lifted up in the ways of the Lord: moreover, he took away
the high places and groves out of Judah.”
But, alas! the same book again contradicts itself, and
is contradicted by the more trustworthy history.
2 Chron. xx. 32, 33.—“And he (Jehoshaphat) walked
in. the way of Asa his father, and departed not from it,
doing that which was right in the sight of the Lord: how
beit the high places were not taken away; for as yet the
people had not prepared their hearts unto the God of their
fathers.”
1 Kings xxii. 43.—“ And he walked in all the ways of
Asa his father; he turned not aside from it, doing that
which was right in the eyes of the Lord: nevertheless the
high places were not taken away; for the people offered and
burnt incense yet in the high places.”
It is impossible to believe the later narrative in
preference to that earlier authority, which consistently
and uniformly declares that the high places were not
removed until the reign of Hezekiah; whereas, ac
cording to the Chronicles, they were removed by
nearly every orthodox king. But, though the prac
tise of local worship was still tolerated in the days of
Asa and Jehoshaphat, and was not prohibited till
two hundred years later; we may be sure that in
those very orthodox and intolerant times the wor
�Asa to 'Jehoiada.
59
ship in the high places was the worship of Jehovah
alone, as it was in the days of Manasseh after his
repentance.
2 Chron. xxxiii. 17.—“The people did sacrifice still in
the high places, yet unto the Lord their God only.”
We cannot suppose that such irregularities would
have been tolerated by these zealous ancl covenanted
reformers, or that so many great ordinances of the
law would by them have been ignored, if they had
been in possession of the Pentateuch, as Josiah has
transmitted it to us. It would, therefore, appear that
the book which the missionaries of Jehoshaphat aresaid to have had, must have been, in these points at
least, and probably in many others, different from,
that which was produced by Hilkiah.
In connection with Jehoshaphat, an incident is re
corded which, whether or not intended to be received
as a literal fact, curiously displays the then prevailing,
notions of the moral character of God.
1 Kings xxii. 10, 12, 19-22.—“ The king of Israel and
Jehoshaphat king of Judah sat each on his throne ... at
the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before
them . . . saying, Go up to Ramoth Gilead and prosper,
for the Lord shall deliver it into the king’s hand. . . .
Micaiah said : I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all
the host of heaven standing by him, on his right hand and
on his left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab,
that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead ? . . . And
there came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord, and
said, I will persuade him : and the Lord said unto him,
Wherewith ? And he said, I will go forth and be a lying
spirit in the mouth of all his prophets : And he said, Thou
shalt persuade him, and prevail also; go forth and do so.”
Jehoshaphat reigned well and prosperously for
twenty-five years, and then lived four years after
giving up the kingdom to Joram (or Jehoram) his
son, with whom commenced that period of idolatrous
�6o
When was the Book Lost ?
backsliding which preceded and rendered necessary
the second reformation under Jehoiada,
2 Kings viii. 18.—“And he walked in the way of the
kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab, for the daughter
of Ahab (Athaliah) was his wife: and he did evil in the
sight of the Lord.”
He reigned only eight years, during the two last of
which he laboured under a severe and incurable
disease.
2 Kings viii. 24.—“And Joram slept with his fathers,
and was buried with his fathers in the city of David ; and
Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.”
In the other account of his burial, there is a dis
crepancy, similar to that which we have in last chapter,
observed in the accounts of the burials of Ahaz and of
Joash.
2 Chron. xxi. 20.—“ Howbeit they buried him (Joram)
in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.”
Joram was succeeded by his youngest son, Ahaziah,
who also preferred his mother’s religion. When he
had reigned only one year, he went to visit his near
relative, the king of Israel, at Samaria, and, while
there, was overtaken and included in the vengeance
which Jehu was commissioned to inflict on all the
house of Ahab.
2 Kings ix. 27, 28.—“But when Ahaziah the king of
Judah saw this, he fled by the way of the garden-house:
and Jehu followed after him, and said, Smite him also in the
chariot. And they did so, at the going up to Gur, which
is by Ibleam. And he fled to Megiddo, and died there.
And his servants carried him in a chariot to Jerusalem, and
buried him in his sepulchre with. his fathers in the city of
David."
But again the chronicler refuses to assign such
honour to the remains of an idolatrous king, and
gives a different account of the circumstances of his
death.
�Asa to Jeboiada.
6i
2 Chron. xxii. 9.—“And Jehu sought Ahaziah: and
they caught him, for he was hid in Samaria, and brought
him to Jehu : and, when they had slain him, they buried
him: because, said they, He is the son of Jehoshaphat,
who sought the Lord with all his heart.”
So that the heretic king is not only denied his own
place in the sepulchre of his fathers, but is represented
as indebted for even a grave in Samaria to the memory
of his grandfather, the orthodox Jehoshaphat.
It is very observable and worthy of notice, that in
such discrepancies between the twro authorities the
same orthodox or sacerdotal bias may always be re
marked in the book of Chronicles, and may be traced
in every page of that book; so much so, that we may
see in the constant manifestation of it a record, and
a very specimen of the bigotry of the Levitical mind,
with which our consideration of this subject thus
brings us literally into converse and contact.
2 .Chron. xxii. 10-12,—“ But when Athaliah the mother
of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and
destroyed all the seed royal of the house of Judali; but
Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash the son
of Ahaziah, and stole him from among the king’s sons that
were slain, and put him and his nurse in a bed-chamber.
So Jehoshabeath, the daughter of king Jehoram, the wife
of Jehoiada, the priest (for she w’as the sister of Ahaziah),
hid him from Athaliah, so that she slew him not. And he
was with them hid in the house of God six years.
Athaliah thought she had obtained secure posses
sion of the throne; but she reckoned without the
wise old man who had for many years been at the
head of the priesthood, who had grown with its
growth, and who could remember the glorious days
of Solomon, before the kingdom was divided; who
had lived in the covenanting times of King Asa, and
in whose heart the faithful zeal of that covenant still
burned.
The only things recorded about Queen Athaliah, are
her bloody usurpation, and its sudden end, after six
�61
When was the Book Lost?
years,when she was assassinated by conspirators, who
were instigated and directed by Jehoiada the priest.
2 Chron. xxiii. 14, 15.—“ The priest said, Slay her
not in the house of God. So they laid hands on her ; and
when she was come to the entering of the horse-gate by
the king’s house, they slew her there.”
J
True to his old covenant, Jehoiada’s first care, on
finding himself at the head of the government, was
to have it then forthwith renewed by king, priests,
and people.
’
2 Chron. xxiii. 16, 17.—“And Jehoiada made a
covenant between him, and between all the people, and be
tween the king, that they should be the Lord’s people.
Then all the people went to the house of Baal, and brake
it down, and brake his altars and his images in pieces
and slew Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars.”
Here we have plainly the same old covenant of in
tolerance and persecution, which seems to have been
again renewed by Hezekiah, and yet again by Josiah.
2 Chron. xxix. 10.—“(Hezekiah said), Now it is in mine
heart to make a covenant with the Lord God of Israel, that
his fierce wrath may turn away from us.”
2 Chron. xxxiv. 81, 32.—“And the king (Josiah)
stood in his place, and made a covenant before the Lord, to
walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and
his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart; and,
with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant
which are written in this book: and he caused all that
were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it;
and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to the
covenant of God, the God of their fathers.”
Jehoiada’s zeal for the covenant, and the fidelity
and prudence which he displayed in preserving alive
and concealing the young king, and in finally restoring
him to the throne of his fathers, are sure pledges that
he had not suffered the lamp of truth to be extinguished
in his hands, and that the book of the law of the Lord
was not lost in his time; but we have, on the other
hand, seen that such germs of the book as may then
�Solomon to Asa.
63
have existed did', in this period, first receive the stamp
of infallibility, the whole nation having been com
pelled, ostensibly at least, to surrender the right of
private judgment, and to submit their understandings
and their consciences to the predominant power and
authority of the orthodox covenanters. Under such
sovereigns as Asa and Jehoshaphat, the reign of
absolute intolerance would, of course, give to the
whole nation an outward semblance of religious con
formity ; but that same intolerance most probably was
the principal cause of the subsequent backslidings.
Tending ever to become more stringent and more
arrogant the longer it was cherished, it resulted in
provoking multitudes to throw off the restraints
which they could no longer bear, as Joram the son of
Jehoshaphat did, and as did Jehoiada’s pupil-king so
soon as his preceptor was dead.
CHAPTER V.
SEARCH CONTINUED.
SOLOMON TO ASA.—B.C. 1015 TO 955.
Having now considered the three periods of time,
which respectively followed the three reformations
under Asa, Jehoiada, and Hezekiah, taking, in each
chapter, a step further back from the finding of the
book, whose loss we seek to trace, or whose produc
tion we must endeavour to explain ; we find that the
next preceding period, which presents itself for exa
mination, is that which reaches from the building of
the temple, or from the accession of Solomon, till the
first reformation under Asa.
The earlier narrative records the opposition, which
�64
When was the Book Lost ?
the succession of Solomon to the throne encountered
from his elder brother Adonijah (1 Kings i., ii.),
whom Abiathar the priest, and Joab, the veteran
commander of the forces to David, supported as the
rightful heir; but Solomon, being the son of the
favourite Bathsheba, was preferred.
1 Kings i. 30, 31.—. . Assuredly Solomon thy son shall
reign after me. . . . Then Bathsheba bowed with her face
to the earth, and did reverence to the king, and said, Let
my lord king David live for ever.” (Compare Deut. xxi.
15,16.)
And Solomon was no sooner established in power
than, notwithstanding his promised protection, he put
to death Adonijah, with Abiathar and Joab, who had
been the two most tried and faithful friends of his
father David.
1 Kings ii. 35.—“ And the king put Benaiah, the son of
Jehoiada in his (Joab’s) room over the host; and Zadok
the priest did the king put in the room of Abiathar.”
Thus asserting his ecclesiastical supremacy in the
most unmistakable way.
All the priests, Levites, and musicians, had been,
according to the later narrative, arranged and ap
pointed to their several offices in the temple-service
by David (1 Chron. xxiv.—xxvii.), while the book of
Kings gives no account of these appointments at all;
but, from it, we learn that all this multitude of nomi
nations for the temple-service, if made by David, must
have preceded the opening of the temple by cd least
eleven years.
1 Kings vi. 38.—“In the eleventh year, in the month
Bui, which is the eighth month, was the house finished
throughout all the parts thereof, and according to all the
fashion of it. So was he seven years in building it.”
We may therefore regard these Levitical lists, as
apocryphal, such minute attention to ecclesiastical
details being quite opposed to the character of David,
as we shall have occasion to see in our next chapter.
�Solomon to Asa.
65
The absence from these lists of all notice of provision
for the support of the extensive sacerdotal establish
ment, is perhaps another argument against their trust
worthiness, such provision being, by the same his
torian, specially noted for the comparatively small
number of priests in the time of Hezekiah (2 Chron.
xxxi. 10-19). It is indeed very remarkable that we
have not a hint nor a trace of the tithe-law in connec
tion with Solomon's reign. Probably the numbers and
arrangements of the priesthood were nothing like so
great nor so complete as the chronicler represents them
to have been; but, whatever their real numbers were, it
would appear that the multitude of sacrifices and the
vast revenues of the king, from tribute, commerce, and
accumulated wealth, were at this time sufficient to
preclude the necessity of tithes for the priests.
1 Kings x. 14, 15.—“ Now the weight of gold that came
to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six
talents of gold (equal to £3,646,350 sterling) ; beside that
he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffic of the spice
merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of the gover
nors of the country.” (Read also 1 Chron. xxvi. 26-28.)
When at length the building of the temple was
completed, the ark was brought up from the city of
David, and set in its place.
2 Chron. v. 7.—“And the priests brought in the ark of
the covenant of the Lord unto his place, to the oracle of
the house, into the most holy place, even under the wings
of the cherubims.”
If we assume that the book had a previous existence, we must surely expect to find here, if anywhere,
unmistakable evidence of it. Now was the time
when the book should have been found, which Moses
wrote, and concerning which he commanded the
Levites saying:—
Deut. xxxi. 26.—“ Take this book of the law, and put it
in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God,
that it may be there for a witness against thee.”
E
�66
When was the Book Lost ?
But, for this great discovery the times were not
yet ripe: and so we have to read:—1 Kings viii. 9.—“ There was nothing in the ark, save the
two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when
the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when
they came out of the land of Egypt.” (Deut. x. 3-5.)
If the reader will compare Exod. xxxiv. and Exod.
xxiii. 10-19, he will find reason to doubt whether the
commandments on these tables were the same as our
decalogue; and this doubt is confirmed by the fact
that not until the reign of Asa, the third king after
Solomon, is there any record of idol-worship being
abolished, or of images being destroyed; and that
even Asa seems to have gone no further than the
destruction of the idols and images pertaining to the
worship of other gods, while the brazen serpent at
least, but probably also other Jehovistic symbols,
continued to be worshipped till the time of Hezekiah.
2 Kings xviii. 4, 5.—“ He (Hezekiah) removed the high
places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and
brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made:
for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense
to it: and he called it Nehushtan (a piece of brass!) He
trusted in the Lord God of Israel; so that after him was
none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that
were before him.'''
From which the unavoidable inference is, in the
absence of all evidence to the contrary, that Solomon,
even while worshipping Jehovah alone, saw no reason
why he should not be worshipped by images, whether
these were the ark, the cherubim, or the serpent.
1 Kings viii. 7.—“ For the cherubims spread forth their
two wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims
covered the ark and the staves thereof above.” (See page
87.)
Clearly the second commandment was, in those
�67
days, either different or differently understood, from
what it afterwards became.
Having thus not taken, or not fully achieved, the
first great step towards purity of worship, it is not
surprising to find that, even while his intentions were
good, he failed in many points of the law, as in later
times it came to be known.
1 Kings iii. 1, 3, 4.—“And Solomon made affinity with
Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh’s daughter.
(Comp. Dent. vii. 3.) And Solomon loved the Lord, walk
ing in the statutes of David his father: only he sacrificed
and burnt incense in high places. And the king went to
Gibeon to sacrifice there; for that was the great high place.”
But it has already been abundantly proved that the
sin of worshipping God, anywhere in his great
temple of the universe, was a sin not then known;—not
invented till, in the course of centuries, the priest
hood which Solomon established had developed much
of the dogmatism, intolerance, selfishness, and arro
gance which, unhappily, seem to have been the snares,
the misfortunes, and the sins of every priesthood
from that time to this. Nor need it be very surpris
ing to discover that, as his ideas of spiritual worship
were so imperfect, his notions of the unity of God
were equally so.
2 Chron. ii. 5.—“The house which I build is great: for
great is our God above all gods.”
These words are addressed to Hiram, King of
Tyre, and clearly acknowledge that the gods of Tyre
were real divinities, though inferior to the God of
Solomon; whereas Jephthah, at an earlier time, seems
to have recognized some degree of equality in the
God of the Ammonites.
Judges xi. 24.—“Wilt not thou possess that which
Chemosh thy God giveth thee to possess ? So whomsoever
the Lord our God shall drive out from before us, them will
we possess.”
And this enables us to understand, what must
nsaann
Solomon to Asa.
�68
When was the Book Lost ?
otherwise be quite incomprehensible, how that Solo
mon in his old age, when the temple-service was no
longer new, and when the ardour of his youthful
zeal had abated, thought it necessary to propitiate
other gods, though he never abandoned the worship
of Jehovah.
1 Kings xi. 6, 7.—“ And Solomon did evil in the sight of
the Lord, and went not fully after the Lord, as did David
his father. Then did Solomon build an high place for
Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is
before Jerusalem; and for Molech, the abomination of the
children of Ammon.”
Concerning which sad declension on the part of
Solomon, as well as concerning his disputed succession,
the later narrative is, consistently, altogether silent.
The prowess of David had conquered and united
the kingdom, and had bequeathed it to Solomon
in the highest state of wealth, strength, and pros
perity; one natural consequence of which was the
erection of a temple in the new capital, more or
less resembling those which neighbouring kingdoms
had long before possessed in honour of the gods
whom they acknowledged. The royal temple implied
an established hierarchy of priests and attendants;
.and it is here that we find the origin of that priest
hood, of whose organization in earlier times no trace
is to be found in the historic records, excepting some
very apocryphal genealogies of comparatively recent
date (1 Chron. i.) The people who had but recently
■become a nation were as yet only commencing their
-progress from barbarism to civilization, and from
polytheism to gradually more and more spiritual
motions of the Divine Unity; and as one strong mind
.after another was led by inspiration to see and to
utter something of the higher truth, in the office of
prophet, priest, or king; the wheat that was among
the chaff, like the handful of corn on the top of a
mountain, took root here and there, and brought
�Solomon to Asa.
69
forth fruit for future harvests, and thus the whole
nation was slowly led on, towards higher and higher
conceptions of the oneness and spirituality of God.
It seems to have been among the priesthood, in a
great measure, that these doctrines had their growth.
Their jealousy for the dignity and glory of their
God, above all other gods, ripened by degrees into
faith in Him, as the one God over all.
In all the prayers and orations of Solomon at the
opening of the temple, and in the direct verbal replies
which he is said to have received from God, there is
not a single reference to Moses nor to his law; nor
do we find that there was any reading of the book of
the law on this great occasion, nor throughout the
whole of Solomon’s reign. We cannot even find that
the priests and Levites had anything wherein to
instruct the people, nor that they gave them any
instruction at all, as is first said to have been done
in the reign of Jehoshaphat, and afterwards in the
reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah.
We have indeed mention made of statutes, judg
ments, and commandments:—
2 Chron. vii. 19.—“ But if ye turn away and forsake my
statutes and my commandments, which I have set before
you, and shall go and serve other gods and worship
them.” . . .
But such expressions may, most probably, refer to
the laws which Samuel and David had instituted, at
and after the foundation of the monarchy.
1 Kings iii. 3.—“And Solomon loved the Lord, walking
in the statutes of David his father.”
Which, being divinely inspired, were of course re
garded as divine laws. The statutes referred to may
also be those which were engraved on the tables of
stone •, but that these references do not apply to the
book of the law, can be shown by evident proofs.
We learn from the earlier narrative, that Solomon
offered sacrifice three times a year.
�When was the Book Lost ?
1 Kings ix. 25.—“ And three times in a year did Solomon
offer burnt-offerings and peace-offerings upon the altar
which he built unto the Lord, and he burnt incense upon
the altar that was before the Lord.”
The later historian greatly increases the number of
times for sacrifice, but gives names to the three great
occasions.
2 Chron. viii. 12, 13.—“ Then Solomon offered burntofferings unto the Lord, on the altar of the Lord which he
had built before the porch ; even after a certain rate every
day, offering according to the commandment of Moses on the
Sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts
three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread,
and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.”
The simpler and more trustworthy account would
suggest that these three festivals were the same as
those which most heathen nations, and which our own
Scandinavian ancestors observed.
Exod. xxiii. 14-16.—“Three times thou shalt keep a
feast unto me in the year. Thou shalt keep the feast of
unleavened bread, and the feast of harvest, the first-fruits
of thy labours which thou hast sown in thy field ; and the
feast of ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when
thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field.”
But, of the observance of the Passover and other
feasts, as enjoined by the law, we have not in either
narrative the slightest trace.
Deut. xvi. 16.—“ Three times in a year shall all thy males
appear before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall
choose ; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast
of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles ; and they shall not
appear before the Lord empty.”
In like manner the Sabbath is named in the later
narrative, but only named, as in the passage quoted
above (2 Chron. viii. 13); and it may well be that the
Sabbath, as a day of rest, had come down from the
earliest time.
�Solomon to Asa.
Exod. xxiii. 12.—“ Six days shalt thou do thy work, and
on the seventh thou shalt rest; that thine ox and thine ass
may rest, and the son of thy handmaid and the stranger
may be refreshed.”
But the negative evidence is complete, that Solomon
knew nothing of the Sabbath as a day 11 holy to the
Lord,” and as enforced in the law.
Exod. xxxv. 2, 3.—“ Six days shall work be done, but on
the seventh there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of
rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be
put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your
habitations upon the Sabbath day.” (Compare Num. xv.
32 and 36.)
If Solomon had observed the Sabbath day thus,—
if those who gathered sticks on Sabbath had been, in
his days, stoned to death, it would assuredly have
been noticed in the detailed and particular accounts,
which are given of his building operations, and of the
king’s daily provision (1 Kings iv. 22-28).
We have also the fullest negative proof that the law
concerning the Sabbatical year was unknown in
Solomon’s time.
Lev. xxv. 3, 4.—“Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and
six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the
fruit thereof; but, in the seventh year shall be a Sabbath
of rest unto the land, a Sabbath for the Lord : thou shalt
neither sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard.”
Such a practice as this, and the reading of the
law in the year of release, would surely have been
recorded in the history of Solomon’s time, if any
such observance had been then known; but the
positive evidence, which in a former chapter (p. 29)
we have adduced to prove that this law was not ob
served in the time of Hezekiah, serves equally to show,
that it was neglected or ignored, at any time, from
the commencement of the monarchy, to the Babylonish
captivity. Even during the earlier part of his reign,
while Solomon himself may have been free from the
�Jt
When was the Book Lost ?
sin of idolatry, there is not any evidence, that
it had ever, in his or in David’s times, been re
garded as a punishable offence, to worship idols, or
other gods besides Jehovah; or that the altars
and high places of other gods had ever been
destroyed, as being illegal; much less have we
any grounds for supposing, that the priests or wor
shippers of other gods, who, in those early and
tolerant times, were probably more numerous than
afterwards, had ever been put to death by David or
by Solomon on account of their religious errors; as
was done by the later reformers in the covenant
ing times.
All the evidence on record goes to prove, that not
only the worship in high places, but the worship also
of images and of other gods, was practised and toler
ated, until long after Solomon’s reign; and we may
be very sure that, if there had been any destruction
of images, or removal of high places by David or by
Solomon, it would have been recorded to their praise,
with the same jealous, and somewhat exaggerated
care, as in the histories of Asa, Hezekiah, and Josiah.
From all this the inference appears to be inevitable,
that Solomon did not know the second commandment;
and that, if he knew the first, “Thou shalt have
no other gods before me,'1 he must have understood these
words “ before me ” in a different sense from that in
which we are taught to understand them.
We are not at liberty to attribute the indifference
of Solomon to stupidity, for we are told :
1 Kings iv. 29, 30.—“ God gave Solomon wisdom and
understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even
as the sand that is on the sea-shore; and Solomon’s wisdom
excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country,
and all the wisdom of Egypt.”
Solomon’s ignorance of the law, because it was not
in existence, is the only rational, and indeed the only
possible explanation.
�Solomon to Asa.
73
Exod. xxii. 20.—“ He that sacrificeth unto any god, save
unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.”
Lev. xvii. 8, 9.—“ Whatsoever man there be of the house
of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that
offereth a burnt-offering or sacrifice ; and bringeth it not
unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer
it unto the Lord, even that man shall be cut off from among
his people.”
That such kings as David and Solomon should
know these to be Divine laws, and should yet
openly violate them, and constantly tolerate their
violation, is utterly inconceivable. The very intoler
ance of the law, in these and in numerous other
passages, marks it as the product of a later time than
the age of toleration, which continued up to, and
some time after the reign of Solomon.
Thus, instead of finding, as we might reasonably
have expected, clear and abundant evidence of the
knowledge of the book of the law, at the time when
the temple was dedicated, and when the priesthood
was established; we have found, instead, in this as in
each of our former steps backwards, from the finding
of the book, that we are only the further removed
from its influence, and that the traces of its existence
become gradually less;—in other words, we find the
law in each of these periods, at an earlier stage of
its growth, and therefore, in each case, notably less
and less developed.
According to the earlier narrative, the prosperity of
the kingdom was on the wane, before the death of
Solomon. Jeroboam, the future king of Israel, was a
high officer in the service of Solomon, “Ruler over
all the charge of the house of Joseph •” and we read that
“ even he lifted up his hand against the king,” being
instigated to this rebellion by the prophet Ahijah.
1 Kings xi. 30, 31, and 40.—“ And Abijah caught th
new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces
and he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces; for thus-
�74
When was the Book Lost ?
saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the
kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten
tribes to thee. . . . Solomon sought therefore to kill Jero
boam ; and Jeroboam arose and fled into Egypt, unto
Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death
of Solomon.”
But, on this subject, again the later historian is
quite consistently silent; and makes the close of
Solomon’s reign even to surpass its commencement, in
wisdom, righteousness, and triumphant prosperity
(2 Chron. ix.), reserving all the guilt and responsi
bility, as well as all the misfortune and calamity of
the approaching evil time, for his son Rehoboam, by
whom, after reigning forty years, he was succeeded.
Rehoboam was unfortunate in war, both foreign
and domestic, and in his days, the prediction of
Ahijah was fulfilled, by the separation of the ten
tribes of Israel, viewed in the earlier book as the
punishment merited by the idolatries of Solomon’s
old age.
1 Kings xi. 31, 33.—“Behold I will rend the kingdom
out of the hand of Solomon: . . . . because that they have
forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of
the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites,” &c.
Whereas the later narrative, though referring to
Ahijah’s prophecy, still throws a veil over Solomon’s
guilt.
2 Chron. x. 15.—“ For the cause was of God, that the
Lord might perform his word, which he spake by the hand
of Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat.”
According to the earlier narrative, Rehoboam seems
from the first to have continued the same system of
general toleration which had prevailed under his
predecessors, and which continued till the time of Asa.
1 Kings xiv. 21 and 22.—“ And Rehoboam the son of
Solomon reigned in Judah .... and his mother’s name
was Naamah, an Ammonitess. And Judah did evil in the
�Solomon to Asa.
75
sight of the Lord, and they provoked him to jealousy with
their sins which they had committed, above all that their
fathers had done : for they also built them high places, and
images and groves, on every high hill and under every green
tree.”
Whereas, according to the later narrative, as
Solomon had continued to the last in the path of
orthodoxy, so Rehoboam, during his first three years,
followed the same good example.
2 Chron. xi. 17.—“ So they strengthened the kingdom of
Judah, and made Rehoboam the son of Solomon strong
three years, for three years they walked in the way of
David and Solomon.”
2 Chron. xii. 1.—“ And it came to pass, when Rehoboam
had established the kingdom, and had strengthened himself,
he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him.”
From both narratives it thus appears that the great
sin, chargeable against Rehoboam, was that he was
not intolerant; that he acknowledged and protected
the right of his people to worship according to their
conscience, a right which, up to his time, seems never
to have been called in question by the civil power,
though it does appear to have already been challenged
by priests and prophets. Rehoboam did not compel
all his subjects, by a covenant of intolerance, to
worship Jehovah alone; but, that he was not hostile
to the orthodox worship, is abundantly manifest, from
the politic fears of his rival.
1 Kings xii. 26 and 27.—“ And Jeroboam said in his
heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David:
if this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord
at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again
unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and
they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah.”
Rehoboam’s good disposition may also be inferred
from the statement, that multitudes of the priests,
Levites, and devout persons, from the dominions of
Jeroboam, sought and found, at Jerusalem, that
�7&
When was the Book Lost ?
security and liberty of worship, which, in the neigh
bouring kingdom, they could no longer enjoy. (See
p. 51.)
Perhaps the political intolerance of Jeroboam,,
directed against these orthodox worshippers, may
have been the root and parent of that fiercer religious
intolerance, which, among the refugees and their
sympathizers, speedily grew so strong.
1 Kings xiv. 30.—“ And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all their days.”
It does not appear that Rehoboam’s reign was
wholly disastrous, or wholly wicked, for we read that:
2 Chron. xii. 12.—“ When he humbled himself, the
wrath of the Lord turned from him, that he would not
destroy him altogether: and also in Judah things went well."
After reigning seventeen years :—
1 Kings xiv. 31.—“ Rehoboam slept with his fathers,,
and was buried with, his fathers, in the city of David.”
In relating which, the more rigid Chronicler shows
the same strict discrimination, as in his accounts of
the burials of all the heretic kings : but, in this case,
so mildly that it would scarcely be noticed, if not
illustrated, by the same partiality, more strongly
marked in other instances. (See pp. 60, 61.)
2 Chron. xii. 16.—“And Rehoboam slept with hisfathers, and was buried in the city of David: and Abijah his.
son reigned in his stead.”
Abijah (or Abijam) is the only king who is repre
sented as idolatrous by the earlier authority, but
whose fame is untarnished and whose piety is recorded
by the later historian doubtless because he was a
friend and patron of the priests.
1 Kings xv. 3.—“ And he walked in all the sins of his
father, which he had done before him: and his heart was
�Solomon to Asa.
77
not perfect with the Lord his God, as the heart of David his
father.”
In Chronicles the chief thing recorded is a battle
with Jeroboam, in which Judah was victorious; and
a speech which, before the battle, Abijah addressed to
the opposing army, of which the key-note is :—
2 Chron. xiii. 12.—“ Behold God himself is with us
our captain, and his priests with sounding trumpets to
alarm against you. 0 children of Israel, fight ye
against the Lord God of your fathers, for you shall
prosper.”
for
cry
not
not
And, as the result of such faith, we read :
2 Chron. xiii. 18.—“ Thus the children of Israel were
brought under at that time,"and the children of Judah pre
vailed, because they relied upon the Lord God of their
fathers.”
From all which, two inferences may fairly be
drawn, first,—that in this, as in the former reigns,
there was no legal intolerance, nor violent suppression
of the mixed worship, which hitherto had prevailed ;
and second,—that the orthodox priesthood enjoyed
the royal favour, and had already attained to con
siderable power and influence; which, as usual, only
served to encourage them to hope and strive for
something more than they had yet achieved : even
for the entire extinction of heresy by the sword of
the law, and for the establishment of absolute intoler
ance, instead of that freedom of worship, and that
right to differ, with which no king hitherto had
interfered.
After reigning only three years, Abijah was suc
ceeded by his son Asa, under whom the priestly
doctrines of infallibility and intolerance, at length
obtained full sway.
In the period, to which this chapter has been
devoted, there has been unmistakably less ritualism,
less sacerdotalism, and less conformity to the Mosaic
law, than in any of the more recent periods, which we
�78
When was the Book Lost?
have examined ; but we have here seen the origin of
the established priesthood, consequent on the institu
tion of the temple service ; and we have seen a large
number of zealous priests, and of religious persons,
assembled at Jerusalem, in consequence of their ex
pulsion by Jeroboam. We have also already heard
the spirit of persecution, and of arrogant infallibility,
sounding in the blast of their trumpets ;—the same
spirit, the same trumpets, the same priests as those,
who, shortly afterwards, inspired and responded to Asa’s
covenanted law, that all heretics should surely be put
to death.
CHAPTER VI.
SEARCH CONTINUED.
THE JUDGES TO SOLOMON.—B.C. 1425 TO 1015.
Having traced the history of Judah through four
periods, extending from the finding of the book back
to the accession of Solomon and the building of the
temple; we now find that another step backwards
brings us to the very commencement of the continuous
history, in the time of Samuel; beyond which, the
records evidently cease to be historical in their
character, the book of Judges being undisguisedly
legendary and fragmentary ; while the assumed
authenticity and antiquity of the book of Joshua must
evidently and admittedly either stand or fall along
with that of the Pentateuch; so that, for our present
purpose, the book of Judges is the earliest source
whereto we can appeal for evidence; unless critical
and learned discrimination be employed, in which,
though I might perhaps follow, I cannot pretend to
lead.
Our earliest period must therefore be regarded as
commencing with the era of the Judges, which era is
�The Judges to Solomon.
79
variously estimated to extend from three hundred to
four hundred years, reaching from the death of
Joshua to the accession of Saul. The book of Judges
consists of a number of detached narratives of events,
to which none but the most arbitrary and uncertain
chronological arrangement can be applied. During
all this time there are only two instances, in which
priests or Levites are mentioned, and, in neither of
these, does the narrative afford the slightest support,
to the later doctrine of tribal distinction. In the
first of these cases, Micah, a man of Mount Ephraim
(Judges xvii. and xviii.), made for himself a “ house
of gods ” and images; and consecrated one of his
sons, who became his priest; but was glad, when he
afterwards had the opportunity, to secure a young
man of the family of Judah, who was a Levite, and
who, for a stipulated remuneration, continued to be
Micah’s priest, until the Danites violently carried off
both priest and images, to their new possessions in
the north; and founded there some kind of religious
institution, in which the priest-Levite, of the tribe of
Judah, was succeeded by a priestly family of whose
tribe there is no certain trace, for it is not clear that
Manasseh was their tribe.
Judges xviii. 30.—“ And the children of Dan set up
the graven image ; and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the
son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of
Dan, until the day of the captivity of the land.”
The only other passage, in which a Levite is men
tioned, is the story (Judges xix. and xx.) of the
barbarous outrage committed by the men of Gibeah,
on the Levite’s wife; and the bloody revenge exacted
for their crime; but the narrative throws no light
at all upon the worship, office, or tribe of this Levite.
In all this book there are only three sacrifices
described, at none of which, either priest or Levite
seems to have officiated.
�So
When was the Book Lost ?
Manoah, the father of Samson, of the tribe of Dan,
offered a sacrifice, which was visibly accepted.
Judges xiii. 20.—“ For it came to pass, when the flame
went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of
the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar.”
Gideon, an Abi-ezrite, and a mighty man of valour,
belonging to a heathen, or Baal-worshipping family,
but whose tribe is not named, was specially com
manded to offer sacrifice:
Judges vi. 26.—“ And build an altar unto the Lord thy
God upon the top of this rock, in the ordered place, and
take the second bullock, and offer a burnt sacrifice with the
wood of the grove, which thou shalt cut down.”
And Jephtha the Gileadite in fulfilment of his
horrid vow, said to have been made under the
influence of the Spirit of the Lord, (Judges xi.
29), offered up his daughter, as a burnt-offering to
the Lord; a deed recorded without a shadow of
disapproval, and which the Jews were taught to
regard with entire approbation; if we may judge
from the reference to it in the New Testament (Heb.
xi. 32).
When we compare the sacrifice offered by Jephtha
with that intended by Abraham (Gen. xxii. 10); and
when we consider the awe with which a similar
sacrifice, though offered by a heathen king, inspired
a victorious Jewish army:—
2 Kings iii. 26, 27.—“And when the king of Moab saw
that the battle was too sore for him. . . . Then he
took his eldest son, that should have reigned in his stead,
and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And
there was great indignation against Israel: and tl 2y
departed from him, and returned to their own land.”—
we are forced to conclude, that human sacrifices
were not so singular, nor even so uncommon among
the Jews, as we are apt to think; and they seem even
to be recognised by the law :—
�The Judges to Solomon.
81
Lev. xxvii. 28, 29.—“ No devoted thing, •which a man
shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, both of man
and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or
redeemed : every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord.
None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be
redeemed ; but shall surely be put to death.'"
Num. xviii. 15.—“Everything that openeth the matrix in
all flesh, which they bring unto the Lord, whether it be of
men or beasts, shall be thine : nevertheless the first born of
man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean
beasts shalt thou redeem.”
Exod. xxxiv. 20—“ But the firstling of an ass thou shalt
redeem with a lamb : and, if thou redeem him not, then
shalt thou break his neck. All the first born of thy sons
thou shalt redeem; and none shall appear before me empty.”
From all which, it seems much more than probable
that, in Jephthah’s, and even in later times, the
sacrifice of children was not very extraordinary; but
was regarded as the most acceptable orthodox worship,
and as the best evidence of sincere piety.
No candid reader will deny, that these passages in
the law, and other similar passages, must either be
founded on ancient customs, well-known before, and
only sanctioned and regulated by the promulgation of
the law; or else must be regarded as introducing, and
commanding, the practice of human sacrifice; and as
we find that such sacrifices were offered, at a time
when the Levitism of the law was wholly unknown;
and that these sacrifices were condemned and abol
ished when the Levitical law became fully developed,
it may be concluded that, in this case, the law was
founded on the custom, and not the custom on the
law. This does not, however, at all exclude the idea
that there may have been ancient laws instituting or
authorizing even the most ancient customs, and after
wards embodied, with too little discrimination, by
the compilers of the more recent code.
There is no description in the book of Judges of
any other sacrifice; and, while neither Manoah,
�82
When was the Book Lost ?
Gideon, nor Jephthah required the intervention of a
priest, it is no way attributed to them, as a sin, that
they usurped the priest’s office ; but on the contrary,
there are, in each case, manifest tokens of acceptance
and approval. Nor does there appear, either in the
parties themselves or in the narrator, the slightest
consciousness of irregularity in the circumstance, that
these sacrifices were offered at the three different
residences of the parties ; implying a total ignorance
of the law which was in later times enacted for the
suppression of the high places (Lev. xvii. 8, 9). In
the times which we are now considering, it is manifest
that no one had ever begun to think that there was
only one place in which God could be worshipped;
nor did this idea take the form of law, until the time
of Hezekiah, four hundred years after the last of the
judges.
Manoah, Gideon, Jephthah, and others are said to
have been favoured with direct guidance and instruc
tion from God; yet their manifest ignorance and
neglect of the ordinances of the Levitical law, and
the wholly unlevitical worship which they practised,
are never at all reproved. And while there is one
solitary voice raised against the worship oiother gods ;—
Judges vi. 8, 10.—“The Lord sent a prophet unto the
children of Israel, which said unto them, Thus saith the
Lord God of Israel, I brought you up from Egypt, and
brought you forth out of the house of bondage. . . . and
I said unto you, I am the Lord your God; fear not the
gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but ye have
not obeyed my voice ”—
yet the worship of God by images, though a pre
vailing custom, is not once rebuked, nor was it known
to be sinful, so far as we can learn from the narrative.
Gideon, whose piety is extolled both during his life
and after his death, while fully acknowledging the
Lord, and with the best intention, made a golden
image or ephod whereby to worship him (Judges viii.
�The Judges to Solomon.
83
22-35): and we have seen that Micah, with his Levite,
worshipped also by images: and that the Danites, who
robbed him, did the same.
As might be expected, in these rude and unsettled
times, there is abundance of evidence, that the pre
vailing notions of morality, and of the moral character
of "God, were extremely low; of which the story of
Jael and Sisera (Judges iv., v.) is a good illustration.
Sisera, whose army had been defeated by the Jews,
fled from the field, and sought refuge in the tent of
Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, a neutral, with
whom Sisera was at peace, Jael met him with offers
of hospitable concealment, and assurances of safety;
and, when she had lulled him to security and sleep,
for he was weary, she killed him by driving a nail
through his temples, and fastening it into the ground.
Deborah was a prophetess and judge over Israel; and,
in her song, inspired by the ‘Angel of the Lord,’ Jael
is praised in the highest terms, and 1 blessed above
women,’ for her cold-blooded treachery, and her mur
derous deed; on the horrible details of which, the
prophetess gloatingly dwells :—
Judges v. 24-26.—“ Blessed above women shall Jael the
wife of Heber the Kenite be; blessed shall she be above
women in the tent. He asked water and she gave him milk ;
she brought forth butter in a lordly dish. She put her hand
to the nail, and her right hand to the workman’s hammer ;
and with the hammer she smote Sisera ; she smote off his
head, when she had pierced and stricken through his
temples,” &c., &c.
These sentiments were uttered in a song of praise to
God, and were evidently regarded as acceptable to Him.
Judges v. 31.—“ So let all thine enemies perish, 0 Lord ;
but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth
in his might.”
The God, whom Deborah worshipped, is thus seen
to be one, whom for us to worship would be impos
sible ; his name might be the same as that of Him
�84
When was the Book Lost?
whom we adore; but God is not in a name, even as
God is not in an image.
Before leaving the book of Judges, let us pause to
reflect that the people, of whom this book is the onlyrecord, lived about six hundred years nearer to the
time of Moses, the great lawgiver, than did Hezekiah
and Josiah; and that we might therefore fairly ex
pect to trace, in their customs and in their worship,
fresh, continual, and indubitable proofs, of the exis
tence and recognition of the ‘Mosaic law;’ the pro
mulgation of which would to them have been a recent
tradition, as their fathers or grandfathers might have
been with Moses at Sinai. And let us then consider,
whether we have been, in the course of this inquiry,
approaching to, or receding from, the real date of the
law.
The book of Ruth relates to the time of the judges,
and the chief purpose of its writer seems to have been
to record and to honour the ancestry of David, whose
great-grandmother was Ruth (iv. 22).
In this book, there is nothing either prophetic or
Levitical; and, while marked by a fine religious sen
timent, it contains no allusion to priests, to sacrifice,
nor to any act of worship.
The ‘ custom,’ in accordance with which Boaz took
Ruth to be his wife, is akin to, but is quite distinct
from, that sanctioned by the law of Moses, (compare
Ruth iii. 13, iv. 5 & 8, with the precepts in Deut.
xxv. 5-10).
Neither Boaz nor the writer of the book seems to
have had the slightest idea that the marriage was
sinful or illegal; being a transgression of the law,
which forbade the Hebrews to intermarry with the
surrounding heathen nations.
Exod. xxxiv. 15 and 16.—“ Lest thou make a covenant
with the inhabitants of the land : . . . . and thou take of
their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a
�The Judges to Solomon.
85
whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring
after their gods.”
Deut. vii. 3.—“Neither shalt thou make marriages with
them ; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor
his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.”
But the conduct of Boaz, in marrying Ruth the
Moabitess, is recorded as if it were pious and unim
peachable, and as an incident honouring to the mem
ory of David’s ancestors; and the same ignorance of
this law may be traced through every stage of the
history, till after the finding of the book. David had
heathen wives, (2 Sam. iii. 3), and so had Solomon,
even while he was building the temple (1 Kings iii. 1).
Solomon’s mother was a Hittite; and Rehoboam’s was
an Ammonitess (2 Chron. xii. 13). But, in Ezra’s
times, the law was rigorously enforced; and such
mixed marriages were declared null and void, because
known to be illegal,
Ezra ix. 2.—“ They have taken of their daughters for
themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have
mingled themselves with the people of these lands: yea, the
hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this tres
pass.”
Ezra x. 10, 11, 19.—“ And Ezra the priest stood up, and
said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken
strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now
therefore make confession unto the Lord God of your
fathers, and do his pleasure ; and separate yourselves from
the people of the land and from the strange wives.............
And they gave their hands that they would put away their
wives; and, being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for
their trespass.”
Surely here the inference is unavoidable, that Ezra
was acquainted with a portion of the 1 Mosaic law,’
which, in the times of Boaz, David, and Solomon, did
not exist; and which was unknown to the author of
the book of Ruth.
In the book of Samuel, we have the earliest portion
�86
When was the Book Lost ?
of the continuous history of the Jewish nation ; and,
at its opening, we find the civil power in the hands
of a priest, Eli, who judged Israel forty years (1 Sam.
iv. 18.) Eli was succeeded in both his offices by the
great Samuel; in whose person the priesthood attained
to a degree of authority and influence, which seems
to have been always regarded by the later priests as
an example and a model, after which they ought to
strive whenever it was safe or possible to do so. For
us it must therefore be peculiarly interesting to note
the main features of Samuel’s career.
Samuel was a priest from his youth, having been
educated by Eli almost from his infancy, in the
Sanctuary at Shiloh, which is one of several places
mentioned in Samuel’s time as being Sanctuaries, or
houses of God; such as Mizpeh, Judges, xxi., 4, 5,
and 1 Sam. vii., 9, 11; Beth-el, (meaning house of
God) 1 Sam. vii. 16; Gilgal, 1 Sam. xi. 15 ; and
Gibeah, 2 Sam. vi. 2, 3 : all of which were most
probably included among those places of local worship,
which Hezekiah suppressed. Besides worshipping in
these, afterwards forbidden places, Samuel built an
altar at his own residence.
1 Sam. vii. 17.—“ And his return was to Ramah; for
there was his house ; and there he judged Israel, and there
he built an altar unto the Lord.”
Samuel had evidently no idea that, in thus
worshipping at various altars, he was guilty of violat
ing God’s law. (Lev. xvii. 8, 9; Josh. xxii. 29.)
In connection with Eli’s death, an incident is
recorded, which shows, in our opinion very clearly,
that the worship of Jehovah was, at that time,
scarcely, if at all, less idolatrous, than the worship of
other Gods. The Israelites had been defeated in a
battle with the Philistines, with the loss of four
thousand men; and before renewing the combat, they
said :—
�The Judges to Solomon.
87
1 Sam. iv. 8.—“ Let us fetch the ark of the covenant of
the Lord out of Shiloh unto us, that, when it cometh
among us, it may save us out of the hand of our enemies.”
This is the very earliest historic mention of the
ark, if we except a parenthetic clause (Judges xx. 27)
to which no importance can be attached, being man
ifestly an interpolation by some comparatively recent
hand.
Both Israelites and Philistines regarded the ark as
an idol; or, in other words, as a symbol of the Divine
presence ; for what is any idol or image, more than a
symbol of God ? The veriest idolater does not believe,
that his bit of wood or stone is God ; but that it is an
emblem, a sign, or a dwelling place of the Deity; and
that God is somehow represented by it, or present in
it. Hear what the Hindoo has to say for himself, and
it would be easy to multiply evidence of this kind,
“It is not the image that we worship as the Supreme
Being, but the Omnipresent Spirit that pervades the
image as He pervades the whole universe. If, firmly
believing as we do, in the omnipresence of God, we
behold, by the aid of our imagination, in the form of
an image, any of His glorious manifestations ; ought
we to be charged with identifying Him with the
matter of the image?” * In like manner, we suppose,
but only in like manner, neither did Jews nor
Philistines imagine, that the ark was God; though
both parties evidently regarded it as the visible eidolon
—symbol or idol, of God's invisible presence.
1 Sam. iv. 4, 5, 7.—“ So the people sent to Shiloh,
that they might bring from thence the ark of the covenant
of the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth between the cherubims.
.... and when the ark of the covenant of the Lord came
into the camp, all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that
the earth rang again............... And the Philistines were
afraid; for they said God is come into the camp. And they
* Prom an English lecture by a Hindoo, in defence of his
religion ; quoted in “ Good Words,” February 1869, p. 100.
�88
When was the Book Lost?
said, Woe unto us! for there hath not been such a thing
heretofore.”
But the Philistines were again victorious; the ark
was taken; the two sons of Eli were slain; the old
priest himself, when hearing the sad news, fell back
wards and broke his neck; and his daughter-in-law
died, in premature labour, naming her child Ichabod:
1 Sam. iv. 22.—“ And she said, the glory is departed
from Israel; for the ark of God is taken.”
The Philistines, however, suffered various miraculous
afflictions while they retained the ark ; and were glad
to send it back with a trespass offering (vi. 3.) It
was brought to Beth-shemesh, where, for looking into
the ark, fifty thousand people were slain !
1 Sam. vi. 19, 20.—“ And the people lamented, be
cause the Lord had smitten many of the people with a
great slaughter. And the men of Beth-Shemesh said, Who
is able to stand before this holy Lord God ? and to whom
shall he go up from us ? ”
Surely it is only prejudice, confirmed by, so-called,
orthodox training, that hinders so generally the
readers of the Bible, from here discerning the merest
idolatry and ignorance of the ever-present power of
Him who dwelleth not in temples made with hands.
Samuel had not a word to say against this image
worship, nor against the worship in high places ; but
he denounced the sin of worshipping other gods.
This was the great message of all the early prophets,
that the Jews ought to worship Jehovah alone—the
first step towards the higher truth, that God is One
by whatever name he may be called.
1 Sam. vii. 3.—“ And Samuel spake unto all the house of
Israel, saying, If ye do return unto the Lord with all your
hearts, then put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from
among you, and prepare your hearts unto the Lord, and
serve him only ; and he will deliver you out of the hand of
the Philistines.”
�The Judges to Solomon.
89
Amos iii. 2.—“ You only have I known of all the families
of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your
iniquities.”
We apprehend that these two quotations throw
light upon each other : and that, together, they afford
a fair criterion, by which to judge of the standard
religious sentiment of the Jews at the commencement
of the monarchy (compare Ezra iv. 2, 3, and 2
Kings xvii. 27, 28); the sentiment which Samuel,
David, Amos, and others strove to inculcate; but
which, for a long time, the people were slow to learn.
In the time of the earlier judges, the Jews were
far from being a united people; on the contrary, they
were a number of separate and independent tribes,
one or more of which, generally in a time of pressing
danger, appointed some one to govern them and to
lead their armies. Sometimes the tribes under the
judges fought against other tribes, and sometimes
against foreigners. The so-called judges were in fact
chieftains, generally selected or acknowledged on
account of their warlike prowess; and were, in some
cases, such men as would now be called freebooters or
brigands (Judges x. 18.)
Judges xi. 3, 5, 6.—“ Then Jephthah fled from his
brethren, and dwelt in the land of Tob; and there were
gathered vain men to Jephthah, and went out with him.
And it was so that when the children of Ammon made war
against Israel, the elders of Gilead went to fetch Jephthah
out of the land of Tob ; and they said unto Jephthah, come
and be our captain, that we may fight with the children of
Ammon.”
And so Jephthah became “judge,” and ruled for six
years. Samson was the last of these old judges, and
• _ in his days, the Jews were subject to the Philistines.
Judges xv. 11.—“ Knowest thou not that the Philistines
are rulers over us? ”
And Samson judged Israel twenty years (Judges xvi.
�90
When was the Book Lost?
31), frequently astonishing the Philistines, with his
feats of strength and prowess, but never effecting the
independence of his people. The spirit of freedom
seems to have been quenched, and the neck of Israel
was bowed to the yoke; as shown in the passage
from which the above quotation is taken. Probably
the Philistines would not allow a warlike judge to
succeed Samson; or, perhaps, there was no such man
to be found. The people were so subdued and servile,
that they submitted, for the first time, to be governed
by a priest.
The Bible narrrative does not show the connection
between the books of Judges and of Samuel, but, ac
cording to Josephus, Eli succeeded Samson (Ant. v.,
ix. 1). From the tenor of the three first chapters of
Samuel, we may gather, that till near the close of Eli’s
long life, there had been some thirty or forty years of
peaceful subjection, during which, perhaps through the
over-confident security of their rulers, the tribes seem
to have become more united, and to have developed
somewhat of a national spirit, and of a desire for
independence.
At last they made an effort to throw off the op
pressor’s sway, their disastrous failure in which was
the occasion of Eli’s death; but the attempt was re
newed and was finally successful under the rule of his
successor Samuel.
1 Sam. vii. 3-14.—“Prepare your hearts unto the Lord
and serve him only; and he will deliver you out of the hand
of the Philistines...............And Samuel said, Gather all
Israel to Mizpeh, and I will pray for you unto the Lord.
And they gathered together to Mizpeh, and drew water,
and poured it out before the Lord, and fasted on that day,
and said there, We have sinned against the Lord.............
And the children of Israel said to Samuel, Cease not to cry
unto the Lord our God for us, that he will save us out of
the land of the Philistines............... And Samuel took a
sucking lamb, and offered it for a burnt-offering wholly
unto the Lord, and Samuel cried unto the Lord for Israel;
�The Judges to Solomon.
91
and the Lord heard him............. So the Philistines were
subdued, and they came no more into the coast of Israel.
.... And the cities which the Philistines had taken from
Israel were restored to Israel.”
Here, we have probably the very earliest distinct view
of the priest making intercession for the people—a
mediator between God and man. In the times of
Gideon, Jephthah, and Manoah, the prayer of the
suppliant was addressed directly to Jehovah; every
man was his own priest, and might build his own
altar where he chose. But, now, we have the people
confessing their sins, and expressing their penitence
to the priest, and begging him to cry unto the Lord
for them. This notion had doubtless been growing in
Eli's time, and may perhaps be traced in his inter
course with Hannah (1 Sam. i. 17), but this is the
first clear expression of it that we have on record;
and thus we first become acquainted with that veil of
separation, which has served so long to obscure and
to discolour the light of divine truth, and which has
done so much to hinder the approach of man to God.
This is the real veil of the temple, about whose rend
ing, by the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth, there
can be no manner of doubt; and whether any veil ot
cloth was then rent or not is a question of small im
portance. But, though rent at that time, even from
the top throughout, and never since then thoroughly
repaired, it has been often, and in many places, won
derfully patched and mended up, and much, very
much of it, though decayed and decaying, still hangs
together, even at the present day.
I am greatly mistaken if the foregoing portion of
this chapter has not placed us in a position to discern
with clearness, that, according to our authorities, it is
in Samuel's time that we have the very first trace,
record, or evidence of the idea of a theocracy,—of
Jehovah’s direct government of the nation, in temporal
affairs, through the ministry of his vicegerent, the
�92
* When was the Book Lost?
priest. Samuel seems to have been the man who
originated also this great idea, closely akin to the
other one, that the priest was the appointed mediator
between God and man. We have seen evidence
enough, that, in the time of the early judges, no such
idea was known, but that the priest then occupied a
very subordinate position. If the theocracy had
really been established in the time of Moses and
Joshua, with the completely organized hierarchy of
priests and Levites, as described in the Pentateuch;
it must be marvellous, to say the least of it, that all
trace or record of such institutions should have, so
soon and so entirely, disappeared; and that it had
to be all reconstructed, from the very foundation bv
Eli and Samuel.
’
Samuel, combining in himself the power of the
supreme magistrate, with the office of the priesthood,
and with all the prestige of success in war, though
the first to teach this doctrine, was in a position to
assert for it a higher claim than any of his successors.
He had a great advantage over Jehoiada, in whose
days the people were accustomed to a dynasty of
kings; and had far more independent power than
Ezra and his successors, who ruled only by permission
of the Persian monarch.
Ezra vii. 12,13.—“ Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra
the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect
peace, and at such a time. I make a decree, that all they
of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites in my
realm, which are minded of their own free will to go up to
Jerusalem, go with thee. (Read also ver. 25 and 26.)
In Ezra’s time the people were again humbled and
broken in spirit, by their long captivity and by their
continued subjection to foreign power; and were
again prepared to acknowledge the supremacy of the
priesthood, by the restoration of the theocracy. In
these later times, accordingly, they endeavoured to
realize the great beau-ideal of which Samuel’s primi
�The Judges to Solomon.
93
tive example had been the prototype and germ;
growing and developing itself, in the minds of the
priesthood, through six intervening centuries, and
asserting itself, meanwhile, in various degrees, wher
ever circumstances would permit.
1 Sam. viii. 1, 4-7.—“ And it came to pass, when Samuel
was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.............
Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together,
and came to Samuel unto Ramah. And said unto him,
Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways:
now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But
the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king
to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the
Lord said unto Samuel............. They have not rejected thee,
but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over
them.”
1 Samuel x. 19.—“Ye have this day rejected your God
who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your
tribulations; and ye have said unto him, Nay, but set a
king over us.”
Samuel took the highest possible ground, by thus
declaring, in the name of God, that the desire of the
people to have an earthly king, instead of being ruled
by a succession of priests, was high treason, not
merely against the priest, as God’s vicegerent, but
against Jehovah himself. Manifestly Samuel was
not aware, that the people, in desiring to have a king,
were only following out the directions of the Mosaic
law; but indeed we may perhaps be justified, in re
garding this portion of the law, as written retrospect
ively, with a view to the events recorded in the book
of Samuel.
**
Deut. xvii. 14, 15.—“ When thou art come unto the land
which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it,
and shalt dwell therein, and thou shalt say, I will set
a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me ;
thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the
Lord thy God shall choose : one from among thy brethren
shalt thou set king over thee.”
�94
When was the Book Lost?
The people, however, seem to have been somewhat
sceptical about Samuel’s doctrine on this subject,
whether it was that they knew the law better than he
did, or that they were influenced only by a shrewd and
jealous regard for their natural rights and liberties.
1 Samuel viii. 19-22.—“ Nevertheless the people refused
to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay, but we
will have a king over us ; that we also may be like all the
nations ; and that our king may judge us, and go out before
us, and fight our battles. And Samuel heard all the words
of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord.
And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice and
make them a king.”—(Comp. 1 Sam. xii. 17.)
Samuel, after often repeated protests and protesting
to the very last, at length yielded to the unanimous
wish of the people; but still sought to terrify them
from their purpose, by telling them “ the manner of
the king ” that should reign over them.
1 Sam. viii. 14, 15.—“ He will take your fields and your
vineyards, even the best of them, and give them to his
servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of
your vineyards, and give to his officers and to his servants.”
This passage contains the only expression which
can be construed as an allusion to the tithe law in
the whole of Samuel’s history; which circumstance,
as well as the manner and purpose of its introduction
here, may suffice to prove that the tithe was a tax
which Samuel had never presumed to impose, and
which,' as the birth-right of the priests, was then
unknown.
By wisely yielding, before it was too late, Samuel
preserved to himself the power of choosing the new
king, and much other power; which in all probability
he would have lost entirely, if the nation had been
driven, by his obstinate resistance, to the adoption of
violent measures. Accordingly, we find that Saul
was, in the first instance, privately anointed as king
by Samuel.
�The Judges to Solomon.
95
1 Sam. ix. 27.—“And as they were going down to the
end of the city, Samuel said to Saul, Bid thy servant pass
on before us (and he passed on), but stand thou still a
while, that I may show thee the word of God.”
1 Sam. x. 1.—“ Then Samuel took a vial of oil and poured
it on his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because
the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over his inherit
ance ? ”
And the formal election, ostensibly by God, but
practically by the mediation of the priest, took place
afterwards in public.
1 Sam. x. 19-22.—“ Now therefore present yourselves
before the Lord, by your tribes and by your thousands.
And when Samuel had caused all the tribes of Israel to
come near, the tribe of Benjamin was taken. When he had
caused the tribe of Benjamin to come near by their families,
the family of Matri was taken, and Saul the son of Kish
was taken: and when they sought him he could not be
found. Therefore they enquired of the Lord further, if the
man should yet come thither. And the Lord answered,
Behold, he hath hid himself among the stuff.”
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on this transaction
is a fine specimen of orthodox interpretation, its
quaint simplicity being truly admirable :—“ He puts
them upon choosing their king by lot. He knew
whom God had chosen, and had already anointed
him; but he knew also the peevishness of that people,
and that there were those among them who would
not acquiesce in the choice, if it depended upon his
single testimony; and therefore that every tribe,
and every family of the chosen tribe, might please
themselves withjiaving a throw for it, he calls them
to the lot. Benjamin is taken out of all the tribes,
and out of that tribe Saul the son of Kish. By this
method, it would appear to the people, as it already
appeared to Samuel, that Saul was appointed of God
to be king, for the disposal of the lot is of the Lord.
When the tribe of Benjamin was taken, they might
easily foresee that they were setting up a family
�96
When was the Book Lost?
that would soon be put down again; for dying Jacob
had by the spirit of prophecy entailed the dominion
upon Judah (Gen. xlix. 10, 27). Those, therefore,
that knew the scriptures, could not be very fond of
doing that which they foresaw must ere long be
undone.” As we learn from the narrative, that
Samuel had previous and private knowledge of the
man who would, in this public and ceremonious
fashion, be chosen; so it is at least very natural
to suppose that Samuel may also have had information
as to where the man was to be found when he was
wanted. How very real and natural all this appears
if we would only read it aright!
1 Sam. x. 24, 25.—“ And all the people shouted and
said, God save the king.
Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom,
and wrote it in a took, and laid it up before the Lord. And
Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house.”
Samuel wrote, in a book that which he had told the
people. Does this mean that he made a copy of the
book, which he had read in their hearing ?
Deut. xvii. 18.—“ And it shall be, when he sitteth upon
the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of
this law in a book out of that which is before the priests,
the Levites.”
Was the book of Moses that which Samuel told and
wrote ? And did he do so in obedience to this law ?
But this law is one of those relating to the conduct
of the king, when he should be chosen to rule the
people; and, as we have seen a few pages back, that
Samuel ignored the lawfulness of the people choosing
a king, and was not guided by Jacob’s prediction
that the king should be of the tribe of Judah; so we
must infer that he was also ignorant of this law, re
lating to the king’s special duties. Thus the natural
sense of the words told and wrote, in the absence of
any reference or allusion to Moses or to his law, is
�Tbe Judges to Solomon.
gy
certainly the true sense, signifying that Samuel spoke
and wrote of his own wisdom and wit, with whatever
measure of inspiration he may have, enjoyed. The
law which he wrote for Saul, was most probably the
first national foundation upon which all the subse
quent Jewish law-making was built; this very law
for the conduct of a new king, being evidently con
structed on the example set by Samuel at the com
mencement of the monarchy.
Every particular in the history of Saul brings
forcibly to view the very primitive and rude state of
the people at that time. As an illustration let us
look at the first incident recorded in his reign. When
messengers came to tell him that one of his cities was
attacked by the Ammonites, and its inhabitants
threatened with having all their right eyes thrust out.
1 Sam. xi. 5, 6, 7.—“Behold Saul came after the herd
out of the field; and Saul said, What aileth the people that
they weep ? And they told him the tidings of the men of
Jabesh. And the Spirit of God came upon Saul when he
heard those tidings, and his anger was kindled greatly; and
he took a yoke of oxen and hewed them in pieces, and sent
them throughout all the coasts of Israel, by the hands of
messengers, saying, Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul
and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen. And
the fear of the Lord fell on the people, and they came out
with one consent.”
And so Jabesh was relieved, the Ammonites were
defeated, and Saul was confirmed in his kingdom. It
is clear, however, that Samuel still regarded the office
of the king,. as entirely subordinate to that of the
priest; for, in connection with Sauls next enterprise,
against the Philistines, we read, that the king himself
offered sacrifice, after waiting seven days for Samuel,
who did not come at the time appointed; and, though
the king condescended to plead with the priest, and
to state what appear to be genuine reasons, for what
he had done, yet the priest was not to be appeased.
G
�98
When was the Book Lost?
1 Sam. xiii. 11-14.—“ And Samuel said, What hast thou
done ? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were
scattered from me, and that thou earnest not within the
days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves
together at Michmash ; therefore said I, The Philistines will
come down now upon me to Gilgal and I have not made sup
plication to the Lord : I forced myself therefore, and offered
a burnt-offering. And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast
done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of
the Lord thy God which he commanded thee............... Thy
kingdom shall not continue ; the Lord hath sought him a
man after his own heart; and the Lord hath commanded
him to be captain over his people.”
Saul was not now at liberty, to suppose that he
could worship or make supplication to God, excepting
through the mediation of a priest. That, which the
old judges had piously done, with clear tokens and
full consciousness of the divine approval, was now to
be regarded as a heinous transgression of God’s law.
There can be little doubt, that the exclusive rights
and privileges of the priesthood, as Samuel conceived
that these ought to be, had been, much more than the
royal prerogative, strictly guarded and provided for,
in the book which Samuel had written : and, there
fore, the king was held inexcusable.
Unconsecrated men might no longer presume to
approach within the sacerdotal veil, which had now
been drawn between them and God; and any disre
gard of the barrier thus set up, was, by the priest,
denounced as sacrilege, and unpardonable sin.
Upon another occasion, the poor king had to submit
to a similar humiliating rebuke. By Samuel’s di
rection, Saul undertook an expedition against the
A malekites.
1 Sam. xv. 3, 8, 9.—“ Now go and smite Amalek, and
utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but
slay both man and woman, infant and suckling (!) ox and
sheep, camel and ass............... And he took Agag the king of
the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people
�The Judges to Solomon.
99
with the edge of the sword. But Saul and the people
spared Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the oxen.”
Clemency is the noblest prerogative of the crown;
but even this was denied, and trampled in the dust,
by the haughty priest.
1 Sam. xv. 23, 28, 33.—“Because thou hast rejected the
word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being
king............... The Lord hath rent the kingdom from thee
this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine that is
better than thou............ And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces
before the Lord in Gilgal.”
These are the only two faults or offences which are
recorded against Saul; unless we are to regard as
such his subsequent hostility to David and his sup
porters. He is not at all accused of worshipping
other gods, nor of any kind of immorality or excess.
He seems to have been even entirely innocent of any
such oppression and extortion as those which Samuel,
to serve his own selfish purpose, had predicted of him:
and when, in the time of his distress, at the very
close of his forty years’ reign, he once more humbled
himself to the shade of the old priest, whom he had
recalled from beyond the tomb; even then, when he
had lived his life, and when all his sins had been
committed, the ghost of Samuel, whatever or wher
ever that may have been, whether in the house of the
witch or in the mind of the historian, had none but
the same unforgiven offence, to allege as a reason for
the judgment, which was about to fall on the head of
the unfortunate king.
1 Sam. xxviii. 18.—“Because thou obeyedst not the voice
of the Lord, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek,
therefore hath the Lord done this thing unto thee this day.”
Saul appears to have had a superstitious dread of
Samuel; but yet he must in some way have asserted
his rights,.in opposition to Samuel’s interference, more
contumaciously than in either of these two cases, or
�IOO
When was the Book Lost ?
else we may be sure, that even Samuel would not
have deemed him unpardonable. So far as can be
inferred from the record, the honesty and moral char
acter of Saul was not only equal, but very far superior,
to that of either Samuel or David; and his exclusive
worship of Jehovah is never called in question. But,
for whatever reason, it appears that Samuel very soon
■discovered that he had been mistaken in his choice;
and that he already contemplated the overthrow of
Saul; to make way for another more hopeful nominee,
whom he thereafter proceeded privately to anoint.
1 Sam. xvi. 1.—“ And the Lord said unto Samuel, How
long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him
from reigning over Israel ? Fill thy horn with oil, and go;
I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have pro
vided me a king among his sons.”
This purpose or prediction, however, was not ful
filled in Samuel’s time ; though he thus did his best
to secure its fulfilment by stirring up David’s ambi
tion, and though he lived eighteen years after Saul
became king, and much of that time after anointing
his successor. Saul must have given great offence, for—■
1 Sam. xv. 35.—“ Samuel came no more to see Saul until
the day of his death; nevertheless Samuel mourned for
Saul; and the Lord repented that he had made Saul king
•over Israel.”
I believe it is very important clearly to understand
the leading incidents in the history of Samuel, be
cause there is manifestly much more simplicity and
reality, and therefore much more vivid representation,
in this most ancient portionof the narrative, than in the
more artificial writings of the later historians ; and
because there is reason to regard Samuel, and the
book of laws which he wrote, as, in spirit, purpose,
and action, the very prototypes and models of the
whole Jewish priesthood, and of the far more elaborate
book of the law, which they in course of time pro
�The Judges to Solomon.
IOI
duced. The sanctimonious pride, the political
shrewdness, the strict ritualism, the grasping ambi
tion and, doubtless, also, the genuine religious zeal
of Samuel may be recognized as the most prominent
characteristics of the priests in every stage of their
history; and may be read in almost every line of the
Mosaic law. In like manner, also, the superstitious
credulity and simplicity of Saul, alternating with his
times of wilfulness and self-assertion, may fairly be
regarded as typical in a very high degree, of the
natural character of the whole Jewish people.
At the time when Saul was anointed we read :
1 Sam. x. 9 and 10.—“ And it was so, that when he
turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him (Saul)
another heart; . . . . and the Spirit of God came upon
him, and he prophesied.”
So now, regarding the anointment of his successor:
1 Sam. xvi. 13 and 14.—“ Samuel took the horn of oil,
and annointed him in the midst of his brethren : and the
Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward:
.... but the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and
an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.”
There is no trace until a much later period of the
history of the notion of a personal devil, or ruling
spirit of evil; but good and bad spirits are alike
represented as directly executing the will of Jehovah,
to whom the immediate authorship of both good and
evil is unhesitatingly ascribed.
Isaiah xiv. 7.—“ I form the light and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil. I the Lord do all these
things.”
Isaiah xix. 14.—“ The Lord hath mingled a perverse
spirit in the midst thereof : and they have caused Egypt to
err in every work thereof.”
Amos iii. 6.—“ Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and
the people not be afraid ? Shall there be evil in a city, and
the Lord hath not done it ? ”
Exod. xiv. 17.—“ And I, behold, I will harden the hearts
�102
When was the Book Lost ?
of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them; and I will
get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host.”
Judges ix. 23.—“Then God sent an evil spirit between
Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of
Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.
1 Kings xxii. 23.—“Now therefore, behold, the Lord
hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets,
and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.”
It would be easy to multiply such illustrations; but
these, and others which we have previously noticed,
are amply sufficient to teach us, how very low was
the highest standard of morality among the ancient
Jews; and how grossly dark and heathenish were
their notions of the character of God. We must
observe that such sentiments as these not only show
a very low and somewhat devilish conception of God;
but that they are also indicative of a religious belief,
in which the terrors of superstition and the powers of
darkness (whatever these may be) count for more
than their share. It is not at all so difficult, as at
first sight appears, to realize how Saul, when he had
listened to the humiliating rebukes, and to the public
anathemas of the great Samuel, and when he found
that the back of his holiness was sternly turned on
him, should very thoroughly feel that an evil. spirit
from God had come to trouble him; much in the
same way as we may suppose that an ignorant but
sincere Roman Catholic might feel, if he had been
publicly cursed by his priest at the altar, and the
curses confirmed by the bishop and the pope.
When Saul was troubled with this evil spirit, he
was advised to try the soothing influence of music,
and his servants were commanded to provide a
musician.
1 Sam- xvi. 18.—“Then answered one of the servants,
and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man,
and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely
person, and the Lord is with him.”
�The Judges to Solomon. .
103
It is not easy to reconcile this description with the
account given in the following chapter of the same
book, of David's encounter with the Philistine giant.
1 Sam. xvii. 83, 42, 55, 56.—“ And Saul said to David,
Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight
with him: for thou art but a youth............. And when the
Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him ;
for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair counte
nance............And when Saul saw David go forth against the
Philistine, he said unto Abner, the captain of the host,
Abner, whose son is this youth ? And Abner said, As thy
soul liveth, 0 king, I cannot tell. And the king said, Enquire
thou, whose son this stripling is.”
It is very remarkable that David, the musician, was
a mighty valiant warrior and prudent in matters;
while David the champion was at a later time a
youthful stripling. We may also notice, that on each
of these occasions, we seem to have the account of a
first introduction of David as a stranger to Saul; and
that, on the later of the two, he was not recognized
as David, who had been musician and armour-bearer
to the king; but was designated David, the son of
Jesse the Bethlehemite (1 Sam. xvii. 58.)
David was, after his victory, received with favour
by the king, and promoted to the command of the
army.
1 Sam. xviii. 5.—“And David went out whithersoever
Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set
him over the men of war ; and he was accepted in the sight
of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul’s servants.”
But this pleasant state of matters did not long con
tinue. The jealousy of Saul was aroused by the fame,
which David’s prowess had gained for him, and which
seemed to eclipse the renown of Saul’s own achieve
ments.
1 Sam. xviii. 8, 9.—“ And Saul was very wroth, and
the saying displeased him ; and he said, They have ascribed
unto David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed
�104
When was the Book Lost ?
but thousands: and what can he have more but the kingdom ? And Saul eyed David from that day and forward.”
It soon became necessary for David to escape for
his life; Saul having, on several occasions, tried to
kill him, when under the influence of the evil spirit;
and, from this violence, as well as from the language
of Saul, it is manifest that some rumours of David’s
anointment, and of the ambitious views which he had
thus been led to entertain, had reached the ears of
the king.
1 Sam. xx. 30, 31.—Then Saul's anger was kindled
against Jonathan ; and he said unto him .... As long as
the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be
established nor thy kingdom; wherefore now send and fetch
him unto me, for he shall surely die.”
It would also appear that, in consequence of these
rumours, and of David’s popularity, Saul had soon
reason to suspect the loyalty even of some of his
immediate attendants.
1 Sam. xxii. 7, 8.—'“Then Saul said unto his servants
that stood about him, Hear now, ye Benjamites; will the
son of Jesse give every one of you fields and vineyards, and
make you all captains of thousands and captains of hundreds;
that all of you have conspired against me, and there is none
that sheweth me that my son hath made a league with the
son of Jesse?”
Even before his flight, David had a number of per
sonal adherents ; for, when Saul, in order to procure
his death, had proposed to give him his daughter in
marriage, on condition that he should slay one hundred
Philistines :—
1 Sam. xviii. 27.—“ David arose and went, he and his men,
and slew of the Philistines two hundred men .... And
Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.”
In the account of the first incident in David’s
flight, we learn that he had young men with him
(1 Sam. xxi. 4, 5), for whom and for himself, by
�The Judges to Solomon.
105
false pretences, he procured food, from Ahimelech
the priest of Nob.
1 Sam. xxi. 2.—“ And David said unto Ahimelech the
priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath
said unto me, Let no man know anything of the business
whereabout T send thee, and what I have commanded thee ;
and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place.”
Saul regarded the conduct of Ahimelech and the
other priests at Nob, as evidence of their treasonable
inclination to support the cause of David. The evil
spirit made him feel or fancy, that the whole influence
of the priesthood was turned against him.
1 Sam. xxii. 13.—“And Saul said unto Ahimelech, Why
have ye conspired against me, thou and the son of Jesse, in
that thou hast given him bread and a sword, and hast en
quired of God for him, that he should rise against me to lie
in wait as at this day.”
And all Ahimelech’s protestations of innocence did
not save him, and eighty of his family or friends,
from being put to death at the command of Saul;
of which crime, the responsibility, in a great degree,
rests upon David, his deceit having caused Ahimelee,h’s
destruction, as was indeed clearly acknowledged by
himself.
1 Sam. xxii. 22.—“ And David said unto Abiathar, I
knew it that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that
he would surely tell Saul: I have occasioned the death of all
the persons of thy father’s house.”
This seems to have been the turning point in the
history of Saul. The evil spirit of superstitious dread
had driven him to the opposite extreme. The threats
and curses, uttered against him by Samuel, would
naturally make him too ready to magnify the favour
shown to his rival by the priest of Nob; and, re
garding them as all combined to overturn his throne,
he now felt himself driven to bay. He must either
defy them, or else surrender the kingdom: and, having
�106
When ’was the Book Lost ?
once struck the decisive blow, his course was fixed.
We do not read of any more slaughtering, nor even
persecution, of priests; but neither do we read of
priests having, any longer, power to terrify Saul;
until, after many years, when trouble overwhelmed
him, and his spirit was again plunged in darkness.
May not this slaughter of the priests be the true
reason, why the comparatively slight offences, of
which Saul had been formerly accused, are recorded
as if they had been unpardonable 1
After David’s flight, the number of his followers
speedily increased.
1 Sam. xxii. 2.—“And everyone that was in distress, and
every one that was in debt, and every one that was discon
tented, gathered themselves unto him; and he became a
captain over them: and there were with him about four
hundred men,”
who, in the subsequent narrative, are frequently
referred to, as ‘David and his men: and they con
tinued to receive accessions to their number.
1 Sam. xxiii. 13.—“ Then David and his men, which were
about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and
went whithersoever they could go.”
They were outlaws, wanderers, and rebels; and it
does not appear that there were any legitimate re
sources for the support of such a company; but there
is much reason to suppose, both from the nature of
the case, and from the story of Nabal (1 Sam. xxv.),
that they subsisted, as similar parties have often done,
on the booty of their enemies, and on the black-mail
of their friends; acting on the principle, that might
makes right. To suppress and to punish such a
rebellion as this, Saul was bound, both by duty and
by interest, to exert his utmost vigour.
It would not illustrate the subject of our inquiry,
were we to follow David through the manifold adven
tures which are recorded of him, while he fled from
�The Judges to Solomon.
107
place to place, as a fugitive from Saul: nor can we
state the duration of his outlawry; because the nar
rative furnishes no exact data for such a calculation :
but it must have continued for a good many years,
terminating only after Saul’s death. Latterly, David
found it necessary to seek refuge with Achish, the
Philistine king, at Gath; who received him with
kindness and hospitality, and gave him the town of
Ziklag, for him and his men to dwell in. (1 Sam. xxvii.)
As he had deceived the priests at Nob, so now he
deceived Achish; for, having made a raid upon the
Amalekites and other friends of the Philistines, he
falsely told Achish, that his expedition had been
against Judah; and thus he succeeded in lulling the
suspicions and the fears, which the presence of so
many traditional enemies could not fail to awaken in
the minds of the Philistines.
1 Sam. xxvii. 11, 12.—“And David saved neither man
nor woman alive, to bring tidings to Gath, saying, Lest
they should tell on us, saying, So did David, and so will be
his manner all the while he dwelleth in the country of the
Philistines. And Achish believed David, saying, He hath
made his people Israel utterly to abhor him; therefore he
shall be my servant for ever.”
At this point the book of Chronicles takes up the
tale; and we have thenceforth, and throughout the
whole subsequent history, two very different narratives
to compare, and to contrast. We learn from the
Chronicles that David received great reinforcements
while he dwelt in Ziklag.
1 Chron. xii. 22.-—For, at that time, day by day, there
came to David to help him, until it was a great host, like
the host of God.”
While David was a fugitive, probably soon after his
flight, Samuel died. The Bible narrative does not
tell us exactly when this took place: but, in Josephus
we read, (Ant. vi. xiii. 5): “Samuel governed and
�108
When was the Book Lost ?
presided over the people alone, after the death of
Eli the High Priest, twelve years: and eighteen
years together with Saul the king.”
For a long time he had abstained from taking, or
trying to take, any prominent share in public affairs.
Finding that he could not be supreme, he had scorned
to accept a subordinate station; and, therefore, he
had held himself aloof. Saul and David, however
much, they differed, seem at least to have agreed, in
alike ignoring any such arrogant and ambitious claims,
as those which Samuel had put forward, on behalf of
the priesthood; and Samuel’s successor, if successor
he had, never had the chance of asserting such claims,
so far as we can learn. The example, which had been
set, was never lost sight of, and its influence may be
traced through the whole history of the priesthood;
but, while the monarchy lasted, these high Sacerdotal
pretensions had to remain more or less in abeyance;
none of their kings having ever been sufficiently
pious, to lay his crown absolutely at the feet of the
priests. During all the years of David’s exile,-—during all the time which intervened between the
death of Samuel and the death of Saul, there is only
one instance on record, in which the services of a
priest were employed; and this happened while David
was at Ziklag, not for sacrifice, but for divination, and
is recorded in terms, which clearly indicate the sub
ordinate position of the priest.
1 Sam. xxx. 7, 8.—“ And David said to Abiathar the
priest, Ahimelech’s son, I pray thee bring me hither the
ephod. And Abiathar brought thither the ephod to David.
And David enquired at the Lord, saying, Shall I pursue
after this troop ? shall I overtake them ? And he answered
him, Pursue : for thou shalt surely overtake them.”
Chronologers seem all to agree that Saul reigned
forty years, thus living twenty-two years after the
death of Samuel.
�The "Judges to Solomon.
109
Acts xiii. 21.—“ And afterward they desired a king: and
God gave them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of
Benjamin, by the space of forty years."
But of the latter portion of this long reign, there is
absolutely nothing recorded, except a few incidents of
David's history; until we come to the circumstances
which were immediately connected with the death of
Saul. From this silence, and from the fact that
David was all this time never more than a fugitive
and a refugee, we may fairly infer that Saul’s reign
was, on the whole, prosperous; and that, during all
these years, he had not been very much troubled with
the evil spirit. He seems, during these twenty-two
years, to have been endeavouring to free himself from
the dark terrors of superstition.
1 Sam. xxviii. 3.—“Now Samuel was dead............... and
Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the
wizards, out of the land.”
Upon which passage Matthew Henry’s Commentary is again well worth quoting :—“Perhaps, when
Saul was himself troubled with an evil spirit, he
suspected that he was bewitched; and for that reason,
cut off all that had familiar spirits.”
But, at length, the day of calamity came. The
possession of Ziklag had given David a fixed habita
tion, and a centre of power; and, according to the
chronicler, many of Saul’s best captains, and even some
of his kindred had gone there to bask in the rays of the
rising sun, and were now with David in' the enemy’s
country, and on the enemy’s side (1 Chrorn xii.
1-22). When, therefore, the Philistine army came
up against Saul, he found himself weakened by the
defection of those who ought to have been his most
reliable supporters; and, instead of his old warlike
spirit being roused, he felt only the sad forebodings
of defeat.
1 Sam. xxviii. 5, 6.—“And, when Saul saw the host of
�I IO
When was the Book Lost ?
the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart greatly trembled.
And when Saul enquired of the Lord, the Lord answered
him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.”
By the visible approach of ruinous disaster, the
door was again opened for the return of superstition.
He beheld in the dangers with which he was threatened
the probable fulfilment of the curses uttered against
him by Samuel, about thirty years before; and, as
Samuel had wrought the spell, he seems to have
thought that if he could, even then, propitiate the
shade of the departed priest, perhaps the spell might
still be broken. But how should he find access to
the world of spirits, having long before renounced the
devil, and all his agents and works ! Like those
who, in much later days, doomed witches to the
stake, he had not been able to banish the belief from
his mind; although he had banished or destroyed
its professors from his kingdom : and so, in the time
of his sore distress, he managed, not without search
and difficulty, to find a witch; and, through her
intervention, he seems to have obtained the interview,
which he desired, with the ghost of Samuel. But,
by this time, no supernatural wisdom was needed to
discern the certainty of the coming destruction, as
Saul himself had already discerned it; and so the
interview only served to confirm his despair, (1 Sam.
xxviii. 7-20). On the following day, the army of
Israel was defeated, and Saul and his sons were slain,
—the victims of priestcraft and superstition ; for was
it not Samuel who had balefully instigated the am
bitious rivalry of David 1 and was it not Samuel who
had woven the mantle of gloom around the whole
life and spirit of Saul ?
1 Sam. xxxi. 6.—“ So Saul died, and his three sons, and
his armour-bearer, and all his men, that same day together.”
2 Sam. i. 19, 23, 27.—“ The beauty of Israel is slain upon
thy high places: how are the mighty fallen I . . . . Saul
and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and
�The Judges to Solomon.
111
in their death they were not divided: they were swifter
than eagles, they were stronger than lions. . . . How are
the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished 1 ”
As the result of their victory, the Philistines took
possession of some cities (1 Sam. xxxi 7); but did
not render their conquest complete : for we find that
Saul was succeeded in his kingdom by his surviving
son.
2 Sam. ii. 10, 11.—“ Ish-bosheth, Saul’s son, was forty
years old when he began to reign over Israel, and reigned
two years. But the house of Judah followed David. And
the time that David was king in Hebron, over the house of
Judah, was seven years and six months.”
2 Sam. v. 4, 5.—“ David was thirty years old when he
began to reign, and he reigned forty years. In Hebron he
reigned over Judah, seven years and six months; and in
Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years, over all Israel
and Judah.”
2 Sam. iii. 1.—“Now there was long war between the
house of Saul and the house of David: but David waxed
stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker
and weaker.”
It is here that we come upon the first glaring
example of that bias and one-sidedness, which may
be clearly traced through the whole of the later
narrative in Chronicles; according to which, David
was at once unanimously chosen and accepted, as
king over all Israel. Immediately after the account
of Saul’s death, we read :—
1 Chron. xi. 1, 3.—“ Then all Israel gathered themselves
to David unto Hebron, saying, Behold we are thy bone and
thy flesh. . . . And David made a covenant with them in
Hebron before the Lord: and they anointed David king over
Israel, according to the word of the Lord by Samuel.”
1 Chron. xii. 38.—“ All these men of war, that could
keep rank, came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make
David king over all Israel; and all the rest also of Israel
were of one heart to make David king.”
1 Chron. xxix. 26, 27.—Thus David the son of Jesse
reigned over all Israel. And the time that he reigned over
�112
When was the Book Lost ?
Israel was forty years ; seven years reigned he in Hebron,
and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem.”
In this book, we accordingly find not a word about
the long war between David and the house of Saul,
(2 Sam. ii. iii); for the same reason that it tells us
nothing about the murder and the adultery of which
David was. guilty in the case of Uriah the Hittite
(2 Sam. xi.); nor about the rebellion of Absalom
(2 Sam, xv. 14); in these points, and in very many
others, studiously hiding whatever might tarnish or
injure; and magnifying whatever might exalt the
glory and the sacerdotalism of David and of his
reign.
At length, after a long and undecisive struggle, in
the course of which Abner, the chief captain and
mainstay of the house of Saul, had been treacherously
murdered by Joab (2 Sam. iii. 23-27), who stood in
the same relation to David, the question was finally
and suddenly settled by men who, presuming on
Joab’s example, contrived to assassinate Ish-bosheth,
the reigning son of Saul.
2 Sam. iv. 6, 7.—“ And they came thither into the midst
of the house, as though they would have fetched wheat;
and they smote him under the fifth rib. . . . and slew him,
and beheaded him, and took his head, and gat them away
through the plain all night.”
They expected that David would acknowledge and
reward the service, which they considered had thus
been rendered to his cause; and, therefore, they
brought their own report, and Ish-bosheth’s head, to
David, but their high hopes were grievously disap
pointed.
2 Sam. iv. 10, 11.—“ When one told me, saying, Behold
Saul is dead (thinking to have brought good tidings) I took
hold of him, and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I
would have given him a reward for his tidings. How much
more when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his
own house upon his bed,” &c.
�The Judges to Solomon.
113
The tribes of Israel being thus deprived, both of
their general and of their king, were now willing to
recognize the government of David, and to make him
king over them all.
2 Sam. v. 1, 3—“Then came all the tribes of Israel to
David unto Hebron, and spake, saying, Behold we are thy
bone and thy flesh. . . . And king David made a league
with them in Hebron before the Lord: and they anointed
David king over Israel.”
David was now firmly established on the throne of
a united nation; and his career was henceforth one
of conquest and of consolidation. His first success was
the taking of Jerusalem, which had hitherto been
occupied by the Jebusites.
2 Sam. v. 9, 10-—So David dwelt in the fort, and called
it the city of David. . . . And David went on, and grew
great: and the Lord God of hosts was with him.”
Up to this point in the history of David, we can
not find any trace of his worship, nor of his offering
sacrifice. On one or two occasions, he is said to have
enquired at God; and, in one or two cases priests
are mentioned, but that is all. David’s life had been
too restless, and too wild, for attending to Levitical
matters. But after he had fixed his residence in his
new capital; and after building for himself a house
there, with the assistance of Hiram king of Tyre;
after two successful wars with the Philistines; and
apparently after a series of marriages and births in
Jerusalem, (2 Sam. v. 11, 13, 17, 22); then David
thought of bringing up the ark of God from Gibeah,
where Saul had dwelt, (2 Sam. xxi. 6); and where,
therefore, the symbols of divinity, employed in Saul’s
worship, had their place.
2 Sam. vi. 4—“And they brought it out of the house of
Abinadab, which was at Gibeah, accompanying the ark of
God : and Ahio went before the ark.”
The ark was placed on a cart drawn by oxen, and
H
�114
When was the Book Lost ?
driven by Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab,
but when they had gone some distance, the oxen
stumbled, and Uzzah the driver took hold of the ark,
for the oxen shook it; for which presumption, Uzzah
was struck dead.
2 Sam. vi. 9—“And David was afraid of the Lord that
day ; and said, How shall the ark of God come to me ? ”
So he left it there, in the house of Obed-edom the
Gittite (man of Gath, 2 Sam. xxi. 19, 22) three
months; but, as no further harm came of it, he finally
brought it home, to the city of David.
2 Sam. vi. 13, 14—“And it was so, that when they that
bare the ark of the Lord had gone six paces, he sacrificed
oxen and fatlings. And David danced before the Lord
with all his might: and David was girded with a linen
ephod.”
In all this account, there is not a word of priests
or Levites, nor of anything at all Levitical; David
offered his own sacrifices, and is the only person said
to have worn the dress of a priest; but, in the book
of Chronicles, written six hundred years after the
event, we read —1 Chron. xv. 2—“Then David said, None ought to bear
the ark of God but the Levites: for them hath the Lord
chosen to carry the ark of God, and to minister unto him
for ever.”
And we have, accordingly, the whole chapter full
of Levitical arrangements; with classified lists of
about a thousand official personages, priests, Levites,
musicians, porters and doorkeepers, as these were
employed in the bringing up of the ark; and a remark
able reason for all this array is assigned.
1 Chron. xv. 13—“ For, because ye did it not at the first,
the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we
sought him not after the due order.”
By the 1 due order,’ which, according to this account
�The Judges to Solomon.
115
was so tardily remembered and observed by David,
is of course to be understood that which is described
in the Pentateuch.
Num. iv. 15—“ The sons of Kohath shall come to bear it
(the ark): but they shall not touch any holy thing lest
they die.”
Deut. x. 8—“ At that time, the Lord separated the tribe
of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to
stand before the Lord, to minister unto him, and to bless in
his name, unto this day.”
Of which ‘due order,’ it is certainly remarkable
that we can neither trace the observance nor the
conscious neglect, nor any recognition at all, in the
older narrative.
2 Sam. vi. 17—“And they brought in the ark of the
Lord, and set it in his place, in the midst of the tabernacle,
that David had pitched for it: and David offered burntofferings and peace-offerings before the Lord.”
1 Chron. xvi. 1—“So they brought the ark of God, and
set it in the midst of the tent that David had pitched for it:
and they offered burnt-sacrifices and peace-offerings before
God.”
This is the earliest notice, to be found in the
historic books, of a tabernacle for the ark. When the
ark had been returned, after its capture by the
Philistines, and after it had remained a short time at
Beth-shemesh, where fifty thousand men were slain
for looking into it, we read
1 Sam. vii. 1, 2—“Andthe men of Kirjath-jearim came,
and fetched up the ark of the Lord, and brought it into
the house of Abinadab, in the hill, and sanctified Eleazer
his son to keep the ark of the Lord. And it came to pass,
while the ark abode in Kirjath-jearim, that the time was
long : for it was twenty years: and all the house of Israel
lamented after the Lord.”
But what practical result their lamentations had,
we are nowhere directly informed; the ark being
never again referred to, until the present occasion,
�116
When was the Book Lost ?
when David fetches it out of the house of Abinaddb.
If our maps of Palestine are correct, the house of
Abinadab at Gibeah could not be the same place, as
the house of Abinadab at Kirjath-jearim; otherwise
the ark would appear to have rested in that house
for about fifty years, having been brought thither,
before Saul was made king, and having remained
during his reign of forty years, and during the seven
years of David’s reign in Hebron ; but, as we are
told that the ark remained only twenty years at
Kirjath-jearim, and that the people then ‘lamented
after the Lord; ’ it appears almost certain, that the
ark and Abinadab had been removed together, at the
end of the twenty years, from that place to Gibeah
of Saul, in order that they might be near the royal
residence; just as David, in his turn, now brought
up the ark, from Gibeah of Saul, (2 Sam. xxi. 6), to
the city of David ; and placed it in the new taber
nacle, which he had made for it there. It thus
clearly appears, that the ark had not dwelt in a
tabernacle for fifty years ; and the building in which
the ark was kept, before its capture by the Philistines,
was not called a tabernacle, but a house or a temple.
1 Sam. i. 24—“And when she (Hannah) had weaned
him (Samuel) she brought him unto the bouse of the Lord
in Shiloh.”
1 Sam. i. 9.—“ Eli the priest sat upon a seat by a post of
the temple of the Lord.”
1 Sam. iii. 3.—“ And ere the lamp of God went out in the
temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was, and Samuel
was laid down to sleep.”
It is not to be supposed that such a man as Samuel
would, in the days of his power, have permitted the
ark to remain in an improper building, either at Kirjath-Jearim or at Shiloh, if he had viewed the
matter as the writers of the Pentateuch and of the
Chronicles did, and it cannot surely be argued that a
man who enjoyed such direct divine guidance and in
�The Judges to Solomon.
117
spiration could be ignorant of the laws regarding the
ark and the tabernacle, if these laws had previously
been given. (Num. xviii. 2, 3, &c.) We must, there
fore, conclude that neither the tabernacle nor the
laws relating to it were in existence in Samuel’s
time, and that the tabernacle which David made for
the ark was really the first of which we have any
authentic record. Having thus recalled all that can
be known regarding the previous history of the ark,
we can perhaps appreciate the significance of the fol
lowing quotation :—
1 Chron. ix. 22-24.—“All these, which were chosen to be
porters in the gates, were two hundred and twelve. These
were reckoned by their genealogy in their villages, whom
David, and Samuel the seer, did ordain in their set office.
So they and their children had the oversight of the gates of
the house of the Lord, namely, the house of the tabernacle, by
wards. In four quarters were the porters, toward the
east, west, north, and south, &c.”
A right understanding of this passage is the key to
the purpose and spirit of the whole of the Book of
Chronicles, and we trust that our readers can now
discern its true value.
According to the older narrative, the later portion
of David’s life was in all respects conformable to what
his earlier history had been—a continued series of
wars and vicissitudes, crimes and adventures, amidst
which we cannot find a single instance in which a
priest was at all employed by David, as the instru
ment or medium of his sacrifices or of his prayers.
David’s prayers and psalms were addressed by him
self direct to God, without the intervention of a
priest.
2 Sam. xxii. 1.—“ And David spake unto the Lord the
words of this song in the day the Lord had delivered him,
&c.”
In all respects David, according to this book, claimed
and exercised the right of being his own priest, as we
�11 8
When was the Book Lost ?
have seen that the old judges did, but which poor
Saul was condemned for doing; and in the old primi
tive fashion David offered his own sacrifices :—
2 Sam, xxiv. 18, 24, 25.—“ And Gad came that day to
David, and said unto him, Go up, rear an altar unto the
Lord, in the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. . . .
So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty
shekels of silver (compare 1 Chron. xxi. 25). And David
built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered, burnt-offer
ings and peace-offerings.”
Priests, indeed, are only mentioned in two or three
passages, in all of which their position is clearly seen
to be subordinate, and their influence very small in
deed, as compared with that to which Samuel had laid
claim, and it would appear that the priests of those
days were very few, perhaps not more than two at a
time.
2 Sam. xx. 25.—“ And Sheva was scribe; and Zadok
and Abiathar were the priests.”
In a word, there is nothing at all L&vitical in the
older narrative, not a word in the whole of it about
Levites, nor about anything Levitical, but a natural
continuation of the old, simple, and personal worship
of Jehovah, as we have seen it under the judges; a
continuation also of the semi-barbarous and unsettled
state of the tribes, who were but slowly becoming
united as a nation. David’s reign was on the whole
victorious and prosperous; but as it was long dis
turbed by civil war at its commencement, so it was
afterwards rudely shaken by two other civil wars;
the first caused by the formidable and deep-laid rebel
lion of Absalom (2 Sam. xv. 10-14), and the second by
the revolt of the ten tribes under Sheba (2 Sam. xx.
1, 2, 22).
In this narrative we have also the account of a
famine, which seems to have immediately followed
these disturbances.
2 Sam. xxi. 1.—“ Then there was a famine in the days of
�The Judges to Solomon.
ii9
David three years, year after year; and David enquired of
the Lord. And the Lord answered, It is for Saul, and for
his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.”
In order to atone for this old crime, which is no
where else recorded, seven grandsons of Saul were put
to death.
2 Sam. xxi. 9.—“ And he (David) delivered them into
the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them up in
the hill before, the Lord: and they fell all seven together,
and were put to death in the days of harvest.”
We must remark how nearly this resembles a human
sacrifice, the indication of the victims by divination,
the motive of the sacrifice as an “atonement” for
crime (ver. 3), to avert a great national evil, and the
“hanging up” (vulgate, “crucifying”) “before the
Lord,” in the hill or high place at G-ibeon, of which
we elsewhere read :—1 Kings iii. 4.—“And the king (Solomon) went to Gibeon
to sacrifice there, for that was the great high place.”
Strange that David’s recent crime, in the matter of
Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. xi. 15, 27), is not regarded
as the cause of the calamity, nor David’s inhuman
cruelty to the conquered Ammonites (2 Sam. xii. 31).
Strange that the famine was not attributed to the sin
or folly of the people in the two civil wars which im
mediately preceded it, and which may have even been
its natural producing cause. Strange that the nation
should now be punished with famine for the sin com
mitted many years before by Saul; but strangest of
all, that the innocent grandsons should be sacrificed
thus as an atonement for the crime of their ancestor.
We would rather not more particularly notice how
dishonouring to God was such a sacrifice; but we
must observe that in this matter David’s standard of
morality was far below that which is afterwards attrib
uted to his descendant Amaziah.
2 Kings xiv. 6.—“ But the children of the murderers he
�120
When was the Book Lost ?
slew not: according unto that which is written in the book
of the law of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded saying,
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor
the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man
shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deut. xxiv. 16.)
It would appear that these seven were all the sur
viving descendants of Saul except one.
2 Sam. xxi. 7.—“ But the king spared Mephibosheth, the
son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the Lord’s oath
that was between them, between David and Jonathan the
son of Saul.”
2 Sam. ix. 13.—“ So Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem,
for he did eat continually at the king’s table; and was lame
on both his feet."
There is ample ground for supposing, that Mephi
bosheth may have been as much indebted to his lame
ness, as to the oath of David, for the clemency extended
to him; seeing that David’s oath to Saul was insuf
ficient to protect those who might have become David’s
rivals.
1 Sam. xxiv. 21,22.—“Swear now therefore unto me
by the Lord, that thou wilt not cut off my seed after me,
and that thou wilt not destroy my name out of my father’s
house. And David sware unto Saul.”
According to the earlier narrative, every incident
of David’s history only serves to fill up the picture of
him, as a rude, warlike, and cruel king ; whose grand
merit was that he was at length victorious over all his
enemies, and that he worshipped no other god but
Jehovah. His last dying words to Solomon, his suc
cessor, bear witness to the spirit that was in him
stronger than death.
1 Kings ii, 8-10.—“ And, behold thou hast with thee
Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim, which
cursed me with a grievous curse, in the day when I went to
Mahanaim : but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I
sware to him by the Lord, saying, I will not put thee to
death with the sword (2 Sam. xix. 16-23). Now therefore
�The Judges to Solomon.
12 1
hold him not guiltless; for thou art a wise man, and kuowest what thou oughtest to do unto him ; but his hoar head
bring thou down to the grave with blood. So David slept
with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.”
As represented by this authority, David’s worship
was as unlevitical, and his character at least as im
moral, as those of any wicked king in the whole
history ; but it does not appear that his irregularities
were known to be defects by the historian :
1 Kings xv. 5.—“ Because David did that which was
right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from
anything that he commanded him all the days of his life,
save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”
So that, with the exception of this one great sin,
David’s life and worship, as portrayed in the books
of Samuel and Kings, must be regarded as fairly ex
hibiting the standard of religion and of morality in
his time, and in the time of the writer, or writers,
of this history. But, if we now turn to the book of
Chronicles, we find that, both with regard to worship
and to manners, the standard has become very different,
and that David’s piety and prosperity are alike greatly
magnified. Here there is no record of the civil wars
and rebellions, nor of the murders of Ishbosheth and
of Abner, nor of the sacrifice of the grandsons of Saul,
nor of the legacy of treacherous revenge which was
bequeathed to Solomon ; but the last words recorded
of David are pious and devotional (1 Chron. xxix.
19, 20), and Bathsheba is only once mentioned, not
as the adulterous wife of Urijah, but as the mother
of Solomon and the daughter ofAmmiel (1 Chron. iii. 5).
David is here represented, as reigning over all Israel,
in uninterrupted triumph, without domestic strife, or
taint of immorality, all the time from the death of
Saul to the accession of Solomon. In this account
David no longer appears ignorant or indifferent about
Levitical matters. Besides the appointment of nearly
a thousand Levites for the service of the ark, when it
�122
When was the Book Lost ?
was first brought up to the City of David, we read of
extensive preparations for the building of the temple
(1 Chron. xxii., xxix.); and of a vast multitude of
Levitical arrangements for the future temple service.
1 Chron. xxiii. 1-5.—“ So, when David was old and full
of days, he made Solomon his son king over Israel, and he
gathered together all the princes of Israel, with the priests
and the Levites. Now the Levites were numbered from the
age of thirty years and upwards; and their number by their
polls, man by man, was thirty and eight thousand. Of
which, twenty and four thousand were to set forward the
work of the house of the Lord; and six thousand were
officers and judges. Moreover, four thousand were porters ;
and four thousand praised the Lord, with the instruments
which I made (said David) to praise therewith, &c., &c.”
Tbe contrast between the two pictures, when thus
compared, is so very glaring, that it is absolutely
impossible to give both writers credit for accurate
information and fidelity to truth; especially when
we find, that their statements not only differ, but
even contradict each other. If we remember that
David was emphatically an early king ; and, if we
consider the rude material out of which the nation
was growing, as that material is shown to us in the
books of Judges and of Samuel; we cannot fail to
conclude that the earlier narrative, being nearer in
point of time, as well as simpler and more primitive
in its description, has a much greater semblance and
probability of truth, than the later one—in which we
have constantly present, a manifest partiality; and,
constantly reflected, the full-blown Levitism or Sacer
dotalism of a much later age. There is internal
evidence, that the books of Chronicles were written
after the Babylonish Captivity.
1 Chron. ix. 1.—“ So all Israel were reckoned by gene
alogies ; and, behold, they were written in the book of the
kings of Israel and Judah, who were carried away to Babylon
for their transgression.”
�The Judges to Solomon.
123
And so far as we know, commentators are agreed
in regarding these books as written under the direction,
if not by the hand, of Ezra the scribe ; who ruled in
Jerusalem just six hundred years after David.
Ezra vii. 10, 12.—“For Ezra had prepared his heart
to seek the law of the Lord and to do it, and to teach in
Israel statutes and judgments............... Ezra the priest, a
scribe of the law of the God of heaven............ ”
On the other hand, there is both internal and ex
ternal evidence that the earlier narrative has been
compiled, not without some editorial touches, from
the successive records of contemporary prophets,
Samuel, Nathan, Gad, (1 Chron. xxix. 29), Ahijah,
Iddo, (2 Chron. ix. 29), Shemaiah, (2 Chron. xii. 15),
Jehu, (2 Chron. xx. 34), and Isaiah, (2 Chron. xxvi. 22).
Seeing that it is impossible to believe two entirely
different, and often contradictory, histories, we are
compelled either to reject them both, or to make a
selection, and to prefer that which appears to be the
more genuine ; being written nearer, in point of time,
to the events recorded, and possessing the more in
herent probability. It seems to be indubitable that the
earlier narrative contains, throughout, a much more
truthful representation than the later. But can we not
also discern the motive and purpose of the difference 1
The early writers appear to have recorded their own
impressions of events which they witnessed, or which
happened in their own time; while the later historian
had a more complicated task. He had before him a
code of laws, purporting to have come down from
remote antiquity ; with which, therefore, the ancient
history of his nation, and especially of its pious kings,
must be made to harmonize, and this is just the task
which the Chronicler, according to his lights, and to
the best of his ability, has endeavoured to accomplish.
These very discrepancies, therefore, and the uniform
sacerdotal bias, which is manifest in them all, are in
themselves proofs, that the author of Chronicles was
�124
When was the Book Lost 1
acquainted with the Mosaic law, which to the authors
of the earlier books was unknown; and if so, the law
must have been produced, or greatly developed,
between the dates of the two writings.
Neither David nor his prophets knew that it was
unlawful for the king to have many wives; or the
prophet Nathan, speaking in God's name, would not
have ignored this law.
2 Sam. xii. 7, 8.—“ Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,
I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out
of the hand of Saul; and I gave thee thy master’s house,
Ind thy master’s wives into thy bosom.”
2 Sam. v. 13.—“ And David took him more concubines
and wives, out of Jerusalem, after he was come from
Hebron.”
Deut. xvii. 17.—“ Neither shall he multiply wives unto
himself, that his heart turn not away.”
David must have been ignorant also of the law
that, for any one but a priest of the family of Aaron,
to presume to offer sacrifice was a crime to be
punished with death.
Num. xviii. 7.—“ Therefore thou and thy sons with thee
shall keep your priest’s office for everything of the altar, and
within the veil, and ye shall serve ; I have given your
priest’s office unto you as a service of gift: and the stranger
that cometh nigh shall be put to death.”
We have direct proof that neither Samuel, David,
nor any of the kings ever observed the feast of taber
nacles, and we cannot attribute this neglect to ignor
ance of an existing law on the part of men who were
led and taught by direct communications from heaven;
nor to the wilful disobedience of those whose piety
is recorded with unqualified approbation.
Nehem. viii. 14, 17, 18.—“ And they found written in
the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the
children of Israel should dwell in booths, in the feast of the
seventh month (Lev. xxiii. 34 and 42). And all the congre
gation, of them that were come again out of the captivity,
�The 'Judges to Solomon.
125
made booths, and sat under the booths: for, since the days
of Jeshua, the son of Nun, unto that day, had not the
children of Israel done so. And there was very great glad
ness. Also, day by day, from the first day unto the last,
he read in the book of the law of God.”
We have seen that David did not know the law,
that children should not be put to death for the sin
of their fathers; and, according to the history, he
must have been a worshipper, or at least must have
allowed the worship, of the brazen serpent, to which
incense was burned, until it was destroyed by king
Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii. 4). So far we have positive
proof that David was ignorant of the law ; but, as
might be expected from the nature of the case, the
negative evidence of his ignorance is more abundant,
and must be regarded as equally conclusive. We find
in David’s history not a single trace of the passover,
of the tithes, of the jubilee, of the Sabbatical year,
nor of the reading of the law to the people every
seventh year, as Ezra did in the feast of tabernacles,
(Deut. xxxi. 10, 11). Strangest of all, we find no
recognition of the Sabbath day, save only once, when
the word ‘ Sabbaths ’ occurs in the later book.
1 Chron. xxiii. 81.—“And to offer all burnt-sacrifices
unto the Lord, in the Sabbaths, in the new moons, and on
the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded
unto them.”
From all this we think it clearly appears that
David, the ‘ man after God’s own heart/ so far as can
be judged from his history, was not guided by the
Mosaic Law.
There is a great difficulty in the way of adducing
evidence from the Psalms, because there is so much
uncertainty and difference of opinion, as to the various
authorship and dates of these poetical writings. It is
manifest that some of them were written after the
return from Babylon (Psalm cxxxvii. 1); so that the
times of their production must have extended over at
�126
When was the Book Lost ?
least six hundred years; and it is well known that
the titles prefixed to some of them, are in many cases
of doubtful authority; there being even internal
evidence that psalms inscribed with the name of
David were written at a much later time (Psalm xiv.
7). It is, on this account, all the more remarkable,
that in none, of the Psalms is there any allusion to
the Sabbath day; and that in none which can, on
any grounds, be ascribed to David or to his time,
is there anything at all Levitical; nor any allusion to
the manifold observances of the ceremonial law. In
a few of the psalms, to which an early date is
attributed, laws, precepts, and commandments are
referred to (Psalm xix. 8 and 9); but, when we con
sider how very indefinite these expressions are, and
how uncertain is the authorship or date of any
particular psalm, it must be felt that such instances
have no weight at all against the mass of historical
evidence which we have reviewed. We are informed
that Samuel wrote a book of laws, which David would
doubtless regard as divine. We may assume that
David also had the two tables of stone, which Solomon
afterwards found in the ark. We cannot doubt that
David himself felt or believed that he enjoyed direct
guidance and instruction from God; and these con
siderations may sufficiently explain his devotional
admiration for God’s law; but we think it is clear,
beyond the possibility of doubt, that David had not
that book of the law which Hilkiah discovered, which
Ezra obeyed, and which has been transmitted to us.
It is, however, abundantly evident, both from the
history and from the psalms, that David worshipped
and promoted the worship of Jehovah alone; and
that by his example and influence in this respect; by
his bringing the ark to a temporary building in his
new capital; and by leaving his son Solomon in wealth
and prosperity; he prepared the way for the building
of the temple, for the institution of the temple service,
�Summary and Conclusion.
127
and for the establishment of the hierarchy of priests
and. Levites; who, to magnify their office, to increase
their emoluments, to extend their power, and, in a
word, to imitate Samuel, began immediately to build
that edifice of sacerdotalism, which we now have
before us in the ‘ Mosaic Law.’
I trust that I have been able to lay before my readers
such a view of the history of Samuel and of David, as
is fitted to throw no small amount of light on the ques
tion as to the alleged early date and Mosaic authorship
of the book which Hilkiah discovered or produced.
CHAPTER VII.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.
Having now passed in review the history of Judah
anterior to the finding of the book, through all its
stages, extending back to the pre-historic and legend
ary beginnings of the national existence, we have
only briefly to retrace and summarize the argument,
in order that we may the more clearly discern the
conclusion to which it points. In the earliest period
which preceded the opening of the continuous history,
and which lay very near to the ostensible date of the
great lawgiver, we should naturally expect the book
of the law to have occupied a prominent place, and to
be recognised by the notice of its observance, or else
of its guilty neglect, in every incident recorded; in
stead of which, it is precisely in this period that no
trace whatever of the law can be found, not even in
its germ. There is in this long time not the slightest
suggestion of the exclusive right of the family of
Aaron to minister at the altar, nor any trace of such
a right having ever before been asserted. The wor-
�128
Summary and Conclusion.
ship which the religious men of that age offered to
God with manifest and conscious acceptance was the
very same as that which the law afterwards de
nounced as impious, and as meriting the punishment
of death.
So far as we can judge, this primitive worship seems
to have been purer and more spiritual than that by
which it was succeeded. The judges did not dance
before the ark, nor offer their sacrifices to it; images
or symbols were not always employed ; no special
worthiness was ascribed to any one particular image,
nor was it considered necessary to bring the sacrifice
before any image, nor to any particular place.
What the distinctive office of the priest was in
those early times, the history does not show, and
therefore it can only be surmised. Clearly it was not
strictly peculiar nor exclusive, but probably consisted
in offering combined sacrifices for people who were
too poor, or too ignorant, or who otherwise felt them
selves unworthy or unfit to approach God on their
own account; but certainly it did not at all exclude
nor supersede the right of every man to be his own
priest, and to worship God when, where, and how he
chose, without the intervention of any mediator.
In all probability, however, the exercise of this
natural right was generally confined to the chieftains
or leading men, or to a few of the bolder or more en
lightened minds, while the common people would, as
a rule, resort to the ministry of the priests. Both
priests and people in such a case would almost
inevitably regard the independent worship of the
few, with some degree of jealousy, as savouring of
presumption. Now, what changes might naturally be
expected to follow when the priest’s office became
combined with that of the supreme magistrate?
Exactly those which the history records. The ex
clusive rights and privileges of the priesthood were
then asserted and vindicated, and the superstitious
�Summary and Conclusion.
129
veneration for the particular symbols or images
employed by the priest in his worship was greatly
increased.
When the monarchy was instituted a conflict was
unavoidable. It was simply impossible for Saul to be
king, and to submit to the insolent arrogance of
Samuel; but the people were determined to be
governed by a king, and so the proud priest was
compelled to submit, but submitted under a solemn
and vigorous protest; and though the high aims and
claims which had been asserted for the priesthood
had long to remain in various degrees of abeyance,
they were never abandoned nor lost sight of by
Samuel’s successors in office. Neither David nor
Solomon yielded anything like the same degree of
submission to the priesthood, as that which had been
yielded by Saul and rejected as insufficient by Samuel;
but the building of the temple and the establishment
of its regular priesthood laid the foundation of a new
power, whose progress and growth through many
vicissitudes coincided exactly with the gradual de
velopment of the Levitical law, as may be clearly
traced through the several stages of the history.
We are far from supposing that the policy of the
priests was instigated only by their desire for the
aggrandizement of their own order. Doubtless they
had also a zeal towards God, and believed sincerely
that His honour and glory were bound up with their
own dignity and prosperity as a church, and that He
could be truly and acceptably worshipped only through
their ordained ministry, and only by the rites and
ceremonies of the temple service at Jerusalem.
Strange as seems the combination of human pride
with religious zeal, it has been far too common to be
surprising. So far, indeed, from being extraordinary,
it has been exemplified in every age, and in every
country, varying only in degree, according to the
ignorance or enlightenment of the people, and accordI
�i jo
Summary and Conclusion.
ing to the various predominance of independent
thought or of superstitious credulity.
We are thus restrained from utterly condemning,
and even from greatly wondering at the course taken
by the temple priesthood, in teaching first, that God
could be worshipped under no other name, and by no
other symbols than those which they employed;
second, that they, the priests, were the mediators
through whom alone God could be approached with
acceptance; and third, that their temple at Jerusalem
was the only place in all the world where acceptable
worship could be offered to God.
These doctrines were not of simultaneous growth.
The first was undoubtedly believed by David, while
the other two were unknown or disregarded. Al
though the second had been held and maintained by
Samuel, it was manifestly set aside by all the early
kings, and the first clear instance of its resuscitation
is not found till the reign of Uzziah, when the priest
again rebuked the king for presuming to offer sacri
fice. The third must have been entirely unknown
even to Samuel, by whom it was habitually trans
gressed. It seems to have been very long a matter of
zealous and jealous ambition to the priesthood, be
cause in each successive reign we are told that even
when the king was pious and orthodox in other
things, “ Nevertheless, the high places were not
taken away;” and as this occurs chiefly in the earlier
narrative, we may, perhaps, infer that the advocates
of this new doctrine had very long tried to obtain for
it the sanction and authority of the civil power before
they were able to succeed. It was not till the third
reformation under Hezekiah that this doctrine became
law. When local worship was prohibited the high
places were destroyed, and the people were compelled
to bring all their sacrifices and offerings to the temple
at Jerusalem. These three doctrines may be regarded
as the heads under which nearly all the minor provi-
�Summary and Conclusion.
131
sions of the Levitical law may be distributed. From
the first it followed, as a matter of course, that to
worship or acknowledge the God or gods of any other
nation in the world was rank heresy and idolatry.
From the second, it necessarily resulted that as the
numbers and needs of the priesthood increased, a per
manent and liberal provision must be made for their
support in dignity and independence. The third led,
in the first place, to the legal institution of the great
national festivals at Jerusalem, and afterwards to the
enactment of a multiplicity of sacrifices, ceremonies,
and observances, in order that each of the many
priests employed about the one temple might have
some appointed duty or position, that their sacred
office might in all respects be magnified, and that
they might have as frequently as possible occasion to
receive contributions from the people, no rule being
more frequently insisted on than that none should
appear before the Lord empty. Whatever the priests
taught, it was, of course, condemnable heresy to
doubt; but it does not at all follow that they formed
either for themselves or for others any such theories
of plenary inspiration as those which have been
applied to their writings by modern divines, nor can
we suppose that their infallibility was at any time
during the monarchy undoubted, though it may at
times have appeared irresistible. Absolute intolerance
seems to have produced submission and external con
formity, and must have also tended to weaken the
very faculty of private judgment in the people. But
the fact that so many were always eager to throw off
the yoke of orthodoxy, whenever the liberty to do so
was accorded them, proves undeniably that, though all
open heresy or dissent might be effectually smothered
or crushed by intolerance, yet private scepticism and
differences of opinion must always have been very
widespread and lively.
Historical accuracy and critical analysis are entirely
�I 32
Summary and Conclusion.
modern acquirements; and are still, with very rare
exceptions, only beginning to be understood. That
a historian is guilty of dishonesty, in colouring, or
concealing, or adding to the ascertained facts, is an
idea, such as would probably never be conceived, by
priests or by people, among the ancient Jews, nor
among the ancient Britons. We suppose that the
priestly historian would not only consider himself to
be at liberty, but would even regard it as his duty,
so to write, as to magnify the goodness and the glory
of the orthodox kings, priests, and heroes, to confirm
and illustrate the doctrines taught by himself and by
his order; and to exhibit all that might be unfavour
able to these worthy ends, in the smallest or most
adverse light.
It would be difficult to find, anywhere, a clearer
example, or a more conclusive proof of this want
of the notion of accuracy, than is to be seen in the
placing of the books of Chronicles, side by side
with those of Samuel and of Kings, in the sacred
canon; and in the fact that both narratives have
been read by millions, and read many times, without
any discernment of their incongruities and contra
dictions ; either by the Jewish Priests and Babbis
who included them both in their Bible; or by the
vast majority of readers, ancient and modem. These
considerations may help us, in some measure, to
understand how it was, that, when Hilkiah announced
his discovery of the book, containing, as it did, many
old and well known laws, legends, customs, and
religious rites, combined with many new additions
and enlargements, a critical examination was not the
test, which, even ostensibly, it was thought necessary
to apply to his production; and how the oracular
deliverance of Huldah the prophetess, being declared
sufficient, by the king and by the priests, was
by the people received as infallible and conclusive
proof, when backed by such authority, that the book
�Summary and Conclusion.
133
which had been found was indeed what it professed
to be, “ the book of the law of the Lord given by
Moses.”
I have a strong conviction that the arguments deduc
ible from the historic books, which I have endeavoured
to lay before my readers, are amply and alone
sufficient to prove that the so-called Mosaic law had
its growth under the monarchy; and that it was
not completed before the reign of Josiah.
*
If my
exhibition of these arguments has failed to produce
conviction; the fault, I believe, must lie in the weak
ness and inefficiency of my statement, of which I am
deeply conscious. It may, however, be necessary to
remind some of my readers, that, in the testimony of
the prophets, and in the contents of the Pentateuch, other
fields lie open, yielding, even without the aid of
Hebrew scholarship, evidence, at least as strong and
as abundant, as that which has been here considered,
and all pointing to the same inevitable conclusion,
that the belief, hitherto regarded as orthodox, in the
Mosaic authorship, and early date of the Levitical
law, has been, after all, a popular delusion.
The immediate effect, and much of the purpose
of Hilkiah’s discovery, was greatly to increase
and to confirm the power of the priests; and to
multiply their exactions from the people. Tithes,
first-fruits, trespass-offerings, thank-offerings, and
others, were now enforced by the law. The first
born son, and the first-born of all cattle, were either
* I have not at all entered upon the question, as to whether
not the finding of the book was the final and complete de
velopment of the Levitical law, as it has been transmitted
to us. The dogma of infallibility may not even then have
been so clearly conceived and defined, as to prevent the possi
bility of later alterations and additions. Some of the evidence
here adduced, (for instance the quotation from Nehemiah on
page 124), seems to suggest this; but at present I express no
opinion on the subject, further than that the Pentateuch as we
have it was not completed before the reign of Josiah ; and this
is what I hope that I have demonstrated.
or
�134
Summary and Conclusion.
to be given up, or else to be redeemed with money,
according to fixed rules and rates (Lev. xxvii. 3); and
innumerable ceremonial observances and purifications
were made legally binding, in most of which the
services of the priesthood were indispensable. Life
would thus be rendered intolerable to any man who
should forfeit the favour of the priests; and we can
understand how the apostle Peter appealed only to
the well-known and universal sentiment of his hearers,
when he described the whole system as an intolerable
yoke, which neither they nor their fathers had been
able to bear (Acts xv. 10); and how the apostle Paul
referred to the same as a “ yoke of bondage ” (Gal.
v. 1-3).
Doubtless there would be sceptics when this law
was promulgated; but we should scarcely expect
their scepticism to be recorded by the orthodox
historians, or motives of prudence may have sufficed
entirely to prevent them from uttering their doubts.
Those were not the times for asserting with im
punity the rights of private judgment, and of
religious equality. Small chance for dissenters when
the priests were in power, and when the covenant of
intolerance was to be renewed !
Yet we may hear the voice of at least one bold
Protestant sounding still, over the long intervening
ages, if we will but listen to distinguish what he says.
Jeremiah was a prophet in Judea, if not in Jeru
salem, at the very time of Hilkiah’s great discovery.
Jerem. i. 1-8.—“ The words of Jeremiah, ... to whom
the word of the Lord came, in the days of Josiah, the son
of Amon, in the thirteenth year of his reign. It came also
in the days of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah.”
And, surely, lie was no enemy of the truth; but,
in Jeremiah’s prophecies, we find not the slightest
recognition, much less any triumphant proclamation,
of the sacred treasure, the book of the law, which
was in his days brought to light. On the contrary,
�Summary and Conclusion.
135
we may learn, from the scorn and indignation with
which he
speaks of the priests, his contem
poraries, that he was utterly opposed to the policy
of ambition and selfish aggrandizement, which seems
to have been a large ingredient in their religious zeal.
In other words, Jeremiah was a Protestant.
Jerem. i. 18.—“Behold, I have made thee this day a
defenced city, and an iron pillar, and brazen walls, against
the whole land, against the kings of Judah, against the princes
thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the people
of the land.”
Jerem. iii. 15, 16.—“ I will give you pastors according
to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and
understanding. And it shall come to pass, when ye be
multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith
the Lord, 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. {Marginal reading, Neither shall
it be magnified any more.)”
Jerem. vi. 13.—“ From the least of them even unto the
greatest of them, every one is given to covetousness ; and
from the prophet even unto the priest, every one dealeth
falsely.”
Jerem. vii. 4,11, 21, 22.—“ Trust ye not in lying words,
saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The
temple of the Lord are these.
“ Is this house, which is called by my name, become a
den of robbers in your eyes? Behold even I have seen it,
saith the Lord.
“ Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Put
your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. For
I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the
day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concern
ing burnt-offerings or sacrifices.”
Jerem. viii. 8.—“How do ye say, We are wise, and the
law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly the false pen of
the scribes worketh for falsehood." {Marginal reading.')
Jerem. xviii. 18.—“Then said they, Come, and let us
devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish
from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from
the prophet; come, and let us smite him with the tongue,
and let us not give heed to any of his words.”
�136
Reflections and Inferences.
Jerem. xx. 1, 2.—“Now Pashur the son. of Immer the
priest, who was also chief governor in the house of the Lord,
heard that Jeremiah prophesied these things. Then Pashur
smote Jeremiah the prophet, and put him in the stocks that
were in the high gate of Benjamin, which was by the house
of the Lord.”
Jerem. xxiii. 11.—“For both prophet and priest are
profane ; yea, in my house, have I found their wickedness,
saith the Lord.”
Lam. iv. 13.—“ For the sins of her prophets, and the
iniquities of her priests, that have shed the blood of the just
in the midst of her.”
From this constant antagonism it is clear that Jere
miah would not expect himself to be regarded as be
longing to the party of the priesthood; and we can well
understand the reason why he was not so regarded by
them, and why they did not think of asking for his
opinion or suggestions on the subject of their great dis
covery. Or perhaps Jeremiah was not then at Jerusa
lem, and his absence would be most opportune; but
with Huldah the case was different, and her counsel
might be relied upon. With Huldah the prophetess
they communed, when sent by the king to inquire of
God. Jeremiah, however, gave his opinion unsought;
and happily it remains on record, to open our eyes,
even at the present day !—
Jerem. v. 30, 31.—“A wonderful and horrible thing is
committed in the land ; the prophets prophesy falsely, and
the priests bear rule
their means; and my people love
to have it so : and what will ye do in the end thereof ? ”
CHAPTER VIII.
REFLECTIONS AND INFERENCES.
The evidence from the historical books of the Bible,
which in the foregoing chapters has been collected
�Reflections and Inferences.
137
and compared, exhibits, unless I have greatly failed
in my presentation of it, how utterly false and
unworthy of an enlightened people is the superstition,
that the entire Bible is the Holy, Authoritative,
Infallible Word of God.
Training, tradition, custom, and prejudice are
powerful influences, and the sentiments which are
nourished and appealed to by these are proverbially
difficult to overcome; but no one can doubt or refuse
to admit that the love of truth is infinitely nobler and
purer than any of these, and that this ought to be
our supreme rule and guide, never outrivalled nor
controlled by any other sentiment, in moulding our
intellectual conclusions. The vast majority of men, how
ever, seem to have been so trained as to make the love
of truth entirely subordinate, in their minds, to various
other sentiments. Multitudes are thus so blinded
with the veil of emotional attachment or traditional
submission to a standard of supreme external
authority, as to put darkness for light and light for
darkness,—calling evil good, and good evil,—false
hood truth, and truth falsehood; being all the time
wise in their eyes and prudent in their own sight.
(Isaiah v. 20, 21.)
The possibility of honestly and sincerely yielding
this submission of the intellect is not easily realized
by those whose minds are free, but, having long
experienced it, I know that it is a reality ; and there
fore I am very far from thinking that all who still
acknowledge the veil are dishonest or insincere in
doing so.
Micah vi. 8—“ Godhath shewed thee, 0 man, what is good:
and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly,
and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God ? ”
All real instruction, in the Bible and out of it,
proceeds on the assumption that we have the faculty
given us by God, but like all our other faculties
�138
Reflections and Inferences.
requiring cultivation, of judging for ourselves what
things are honest, just, pure, lovely, virtuous, and
of good report; else it would be useless and absurd
to bid us think on these things, (Phil. iv. 8). It
must, therefore, be either hypocrisy or delusion to
profess a belief that God is infinitely perfect in power,
wisdom, justice, goodness, holiness, and truth, while at
the same time, or even in the same breath, thoughts,
words, and actions are attributed to Him, which, if
we dare to weigh them in the balance of our reason,
God’s gift for our guidance, are necessarily judged to
be of an entirely opposite character.
To believe the written or spoken assertion of
prophet, priest, or layman, ancient or modern, that
God has willed or said or done anything which to
our reason appears false, evil, or capricious, is to
believe man rather than God,—it is to put darkness
for light, and light for darkness,—and it is directly
opposed to the spirit of the Gospel, even when it may
seem to be in accordance with its letter-, for it upholds
bondage, and darkness, and fear, instead of liberty,
light, and love; and renders impossible the worship
of Our Father in spirit and in truth.
God is not a man that He should lie. He abideth
faithful, and cannot deny Himself. It must be
instructive, it can do no harm, and cannot be wrong,
to search out, to consider, and to compare whatever
men, in any age, have seriously thought or said or
written concerning God and His dealings with our
race. But to believe that God has left us to grope for
all our knowledge of Him among the Biblical records,
various, incongruous, and often contradictory, of
ancient oriental opinions and superstitions, savours
quite as much of anti-christian infidelity as does the
creed of the Parsee, the Brahmin, or the Budhist;
because all these alike involve ignorance or disbelief
of the direct and immediate revelation, which God
is ever making to and in ourselves, of His constant
�Reflections and Inferences.
139
presence, power, goodness, and truth, in and over all
His works.
The Roman Catholic is required, and professes to
make an entire surrender of his private judgment to
the authority of the church or of the Pope. For him,
the question, What is truth ? is only another form of
expression for, What does the Pope teach ?
The very orthodox, among those who call them
selves Protestants, yield the same submission to the
doctrines of the Bible; and, with them, the question,
What is truth 1 is reverently made subordinate to
the enquiry, What does the Bible teach ? If the
utterance of the Bible is regarded as clear and
indisputable; then, beyond controversy, and without
further search, that is the truth. But, when the
teaching is obscure, or variously interpreted; when
conflicting views of the same passage have to be
compared; or when apparently conflicting passages
have to be weighed against each other; to what
tribunal must we appeal ? Let us take for example
the teaching of the Bible on the subject of slavery.
Lev. xxv. 44, 46.—“ 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. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for
your children after you, to inherit them for a possession :
they shall be your bondmen for ever ; but over your breth
ren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another
with rigour.”
So far from being repealed in the New Testament,
this law receives everywhere confirmation.
1 Tim. vi. 1—“ Let as many servants (slaves) as are
under the yoke, count their own masters worthy of all
honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not
blasphemed.”
Recognizing the right of Philemon as a slave-owner,
Paul sent the converted fugitive Onesimus back to
his master; and, in accordance with the law, thus
�140
Reflections and Inferences.
confirmed and illustrated, the whole Christian church
continued, for many centuries, not only to tolerate,
but to practise and to encourage slavery as a divine
institution. The church all along read, just as we
do, that other law :—
Mat. vii. 12.—“ All things, whatsoever ye would that
men should do to you, do ye even so to them : for this is
the law and the prophets.”
But no difficulty was experienced in so explaining
this precept that it should not interfere with the old
law. Until modern times, the church had no conscience
of the sin of enslaving the heathen. What, then,
enables us to say that the church was wrong ? Upon
what authority have we condemned and abolished
slavery, notwithstanding the express terms of the
old law, the apostolic sanction, and the example of
the early church 1 *
Again let us consider those passages, where it is said
that evil spirits, or lying spirits, were sent forth by
God, with the direct commission to lead men into sin
and misery, (see pp. 101, 102) as compared with the
New Testament doctrine :—
James i. 13, 14—“ Let no man say, when he is tempted,
* A venerable and learned friend, to whom the manuscript
of this essay has been submitted, says in his remarks on this
concluding chapter :—“ The only view which I do not quite
accept, is that of St. Paul’s dealing with slavery. Slavery is
primarily a political institution, as much as despotism. Both
are infringements on the rights of man, and contrary to pure
morality. But it was not St. Paul’s duty, and it would have
been very wrong of him, to have inculcated a doctrine which
would have led to a civil war, or one that would have excited
a rebellion against Casar. His office led him to implant and
foster those moral principles, which in time would undermine
both slavery and tyranny. The kidnapper av^pairo^urT^ is
classed by him amongst the vilest of the vile.” (1 Tim. i. 10.)
The truth and justice of these observations I most cordially
admit, assuming, as I suppose my friend does, that the
Apostle was merely a wise, good, earnest discerner and
teacher of the truth as applicable to his own generation;
�Reflections and Inferences.
141
am tempted of God : for God cannot be tempted with
neither tempteth he any man ; but every man is
tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and
enticed.”
I
evil,
And let us ask ourselves what guide we follow in
determining that the older views are dishonouring to
God, and must therefore be rejected, explained away,
or ignored as much as possible.
How is it that Christians can contemplate with
credulity the frequent commands said to have been
given by God to his ancient people, to massacre and
destroy, without mercy, man and woman, young and
old, infant and suckling, while they would not only
regard it as heathenish and blasphemous to attribute
such doings, at the present day, to the command of
God, but would denounce the spirit of such deeds as
diabolical and inhuman 1 (1 Sam. xv. 2, 3; Josh. x.
28-40, &c.)
Is there any reason why the song of Deborah, or
the 109th Psalm, can be read with a kind of mistily
explanative approval, having been written three
thousand years ago; while the same sentiments,
uttered by a poet of to-day, would be condemned
with horror and disgust ? In such cases—and they
or as he describes himself,—“ an able minister of the New
Testament, not of the letter but of the. spirit, for the letter
killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” (2 Cor. iii. 6.) But if the
letter of his writings be regarded as, in every word and
sentence, infallibly expressing the mind and will of God,
then it appears to me that the apostolic sanction and example
may, till the end of the world, be logically quoted, as in fact
they have long and largely been, in support of the sinful and
accursed institution, and against those who labour for its
overthrow, or who encourage and aid the escape of run-away
slaves.
My controversy is not with Paul, but with those who
place him and other writers of the Bible in a false light, by
erroneously ascribing to the language of their writings
attributes of infallibility and enduring authority, which
they do not claim for themselves, and which belong to God
alone.
�142
Reflections and Inferences.
are very numerous—what is it that enables us to
decide that this is right, and that that is wrong?
When two opposite standards thus seem to be set
up; or when the doctrines of the Bible are explained
in two or more contradictory senses, by different
ages, by different churches, or by different men;
what is it that enables us to make our choice ?
Many there are, as has been said, who have never
made any such choice at all, who have never felt
themselves called upon to choose, for whom the
choice has been made by others, and who are content
to receive their faith at second or third hand from
those who happen to be their parents, pastors, or
teachers, without any question or doubt. In such
persons the faculty of private judgment has either
never been aroused, or else has been deliberately
surrendered at the feet of those believed to have
authority. That this submission is not yielded to
authority, but only to superior knowledge, is no real
distinction, but one which only serves to blind the
mind to the fact of submission. The submission of
the Roman Catholic, so far as it is genuine, and not
merely external, is also rendered to superior know
ledge—to that combination of divine and human
wisdom, which he is taught to recognize in the
Church, or in its Head. The infallibility of the
Pope may be a delusion; but then so may be the
superior enlightenment ascribed to other teachers or
churches by those Protestants who are content to
hold fast that which they are taught, without caring
to prove all things for themselves. Even supposing
that all Protestant Churches were united into one
church of uniform doctrine, such passive submission
to its teaching would not, on that account, be the
less foolish and injurious; but, when we consider how
many and various are the sects and denominations in
this country and elsewhere, all calling themselves
Protestant, and all professing to derive their doctrines
�Reflections and Inferences.
143
only from the Bible; when we reflect that there is
not one, even the most fundamental doctrine of the
Christian faith, about which earnest and learned
Protestant men have not greatly differed; it becomes
indeed amazing, to behold with what assured com
placency the adherents of each particular creed,
church, or party, cherish the conviction that the
teaching of their teachers alone is right; and that
all others are wrong; or only right in so far as
agreement or resemblance to their own can be traced.
When a man leaves the duty of proving all things
to his church, or to his teachers, and rests satisfied,
for his own part, with holding fast those things
which they tell him are good, then we have the very
spirit and essence of Popery; and, though far from
being confined to the Roman Catholic Church, those
who are thus described are, in no degree, entitled to
the noble name of Protestant. To such men this
argument is not addressed.
But to Protestants, to men who admit and assert
the right of private judgment, we repeat the question,
When the doctrines or statements of the Bible seem
doubtful, incongruous, or contradictory, or when its
sentiments appear to be unworthy, what is it that, in
such cases, enables you to decide that one idea is to
be cherished, and that another is to be rejected; that
when the most obvious interpretation is dishonouring
to God, it must be set aside for another more worthy,
and therefore more true; that the law of mercy ig a guide
which we should never cease to follow, while treachery
and cruelty are examples to be shunned; that there
must be some mode of explaining away the evil
spirits whom God is said to have sent forth to deceive;
and that nothing inconsistent with perfect goodness
and holiness can, with truth or propriety, be attributed
to God 1 Those who regard the Bible as entirely
infallible, must look in vain to it for a settlement of
these points. No part of it can reasonably be em-
�144
Reflections and Inferences.
ployed by such persons to cancel another part. No
higher authority can consistently be ascribed by them
to one passage than to another. Everything contained
in it must be alike true; and a true representation of
the mind or will of God, must remain for ever true of
Him who is unchangeable.
How, then, does the Bible-Protestant deliver him
self from the necessity of believing that God is likely
to send forth lying spirits, specially commissioned, to
lure us to destruction ; that Deborah’s inspired song
should be our standard of morality, being a picture
of such conduct as God looks on with approval; and
that slavery of the heathen is a divine institution ?
These doctrines are not rejected on the authority of
the Bible ; but are brought by the Protestant before
an independent tribunal, where, being weighed in
the balance, they are found wanting. What tribunal
is that ? Where is the court of appeal ? The ques
tions are settled: they do not remain open: the
replies are not given doubtfully, but are very decided,
and are felt to be true. Whence do they cornel
Where does this authority reside, whose teaching is
so clearly beyond all dispute ? Beyond all controversy,
this revelation of God’s eternal unchangeable law
can only be read in the moral sentiment of each
individual Protestant, in that consciousness of the
Divine to which his mind has attained, in his faculty
of discernment, sharpened and quickened by the love
of truth, or blunted and crippled by its neglect—enlightened by knowledge, or darkened by ignorance.
James i. 16, 17.—“Do not err, my beloved brethren.
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and
cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no
variableness, neither shadow of turning.”
What dark superstitions, what innumerable deeds
of horrid cruelty, done by sincerely pious Christians,
have had for their voucher and warrant the law,
“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live!” (Ex. xxii.
�Reflections and Inferences.
145
18.) Why do we not still burn witches ? Why have
they become so rare among us? Why do we no
longer believe in the reality of their power ? The
answer is not to be found in the Bible; and the Bible
did not produce the change of opinion. The answer
is, Because superstition is the sister of ignorance; and
the change has been produced by the diffusion of
knowledge, elevating so far the faculty of discernment,
that men have seen, and do see, clear over the top of
the old law, “Put them to death.”
I have referred only to a few of those old errors,
from which the veil of authority, which sheltered and
maintained them, has already been removed, and to
the corresponding truths which, by this removal of
the veil, have been clearly revealed to us as a
nation, so that about them there is now among us
scarcely any doubt or difference of opinion; although
the agreement was formerly at least as unanimous on
the wrong side, the errors having been taught as
truth by the clergy and the Church, because appar
ently sanctioned by the Bible. I think, however,
that a little self-examination will convince every
Bible-Protestant that his own conscience or moral
sense must sit in judgment on every doctrine of the
Bible, before that doctrine can be truly and intelli
gently believed; and that, when the verdict is
adverse, as it sometimes is, the doctrine in question
must be rejected, reduced, or turned aside, by some
more or lfess convenient explanation. This is the
test which everything, to be believed, must pass,
before it can be accepted as true. The sharpness
and completeness of the test must, of course, depend
upon the degree of enlightened discernment which is
exercised by each individual. The faculty of dis
cerning what we may, and what we may not believe,
like all our other faculties, may be cultivated or
neglected; and we cannot think that it was ever
K
�146
Reflections and Inferences.
possessed by any man in such a perfect degree as to
be incapable of further cultivation.
This, then, is the final tribunal, to which the BibleProtestant must constantly, though perhaps uncon
sciously, appeal; and surely the integrity and accuracy
of its jurisdiction ought ever to be jealously guarded
and cultivated, with a view to its further improve
ment and extension. We believe it is fair and correct
to say that the Bible-Protestant considers it his duty
to believe any doctrine or statement so soon as he
believes that it is taught in the Bible, except those
which he may discern to be in themselves false or
unworthy, or to involve contradictions, and which
must therefore be set aside or explained away.
From this degree of submission, it would seem to
result that, while the doctrine or doctrines, the faith
of which constitutes the religion of the soul, are really
discerned to be true, the Spirit of God, bearing wit
ness with the human spirit, so that the truth is not
only believed but felt and realized, there are, at the
same time, many other doctrines, laws, and historical
statements, which lie remote from the centre of reli
gious life, and which, being more or less consciously
regarded as non-essential, receive at best a hazy and
passive assent, very different indeed from discerning
belief. While some have, doubtless, fully realized
this distinction for themselves, and while we may be
sure that in the faith of very many pious and simple
believers, who have been awakened to spiritual life,
this distinction is unconsciously drawn, it cannot be
doubted that, for multitudes far more numerous, no
such distinction exists. In their case the haze of
uncertainty, which encompasses the manifold outlying
stories, doctrines, mysteries, and explanations, com
pletely envelopes and obscures the brightness of the
central truths, which might be the sources of light
and life, but from which the soul is thus excluded
and cut off.
�Reflections and Inferences.
147
This I take to be the commonest of all cases,
among nominal Christians of the age in which we
live ; persons who acknowledge the authority of the
Bible, and who assent to its doctrines, because they
are its doctrines, without ever having felt the truth in
their hearts; without knowing what it is to be led by
the Spirit to the discernment of spiritual truth. Such
are the persons who suppose they believe, who hope
they believe, who wish to believe, who struggle to
believe, who pray for grace to believe, and who some
times even believe that they believe, while all the time
there is no light, no shining of the truth in its bright
ness and power, to regenerate, while it subdues the
soul. The numerous and complicated mass of nonessentials, claiming to rest on the same authority as
the one or two essential truths, become woven to
gether with these into a tangled web, where the
threads of gold are inextricably lost, while, but for
the multitude of cloudy twisted threads, they would
shine with unmistakable clearness.
It is difficult to imagine that any sane man believes
absolutely nothing about God, or about our relations
to Him; and yet, unless I am greatly mistaken,
there are very many who will experience a strange
and surprising difficulty, if they will set themselves,
earnestly, to find an answer to the question, which
I beg every reader to put to himself, who has not
already done so: What do I truly believe, exclusive of
all that I merely wish or hope to believe ?
So many things, of equal authority, have all along
been assented to, that, in all probability, no such dis
tinction has ever been drawn; and, in the case of
thousands, the one general belief, which is really
something more than a passive assent, on the subject
of religion, is, that all its doctrines and histories are
entirely beyond human comprehension, and that, there
fore, their truth cannot, without Divine assistance, be
discerned, but that we are, nevertheless, bound to
�148
Reflections and Inferences.
believe them all because they are in the Bible, so that
we are guilty of sin if we fail or refuse to do so.
I am greatly mistaken if I have not fairly de
scribed the most common of all experiences, at the
present time, among those whom, as defined above,
I have designated Bible-Protestants. These are
Protestants with a limitation, semi-Protestants, Pro
testants subject to authority—the authority of the
Bible. They understand the precept, “Prove all
things,” to mean, “ Prove all things according to the
Bible,” or, “ Prove all things except the Bible; ” or
“ Prove all things for yourselves, except those things
which the Bible has proved.”
True Protestantism, however, being a wide and
noble sentiment, cannot long rest satisfied with the
mere exchange of one standard of authority for another.
Protesting, against all recognition of authority in
matters of faith, it must proceed to declare the impos
sibility of faith being rendered as an act of obedience,
and to condemn the apparent or attempted degrada
tion of it as such. Proclaiming the sacred right, and
the solemn duty, of every man to prove all things for
himself, it must vindicate this right, in matters of
religion, against all limitation, by any authority what
soever. Kelying on the Spirit of Truth alone for
guidance and enlightenment, while nourishing himself
with the best available instruction or spiritual food, the
true Protestant refuses to believe, because it is abso
lutely impossible for him to believe, any doctrine or
statement of religion, except those which he, for him
self, discerns to be true, and, for all the rest, he answers,
“I do not know,” or otherwise, according to his lights.
If any man, even a truly pious man, who has not
already tried it, will earnestly set himself to ascertain
how much of his religious belief will bear this test,
how much of it he really discerns and feels to be true,
he will probably find it, at first, to be a rather puzzl
ing question, and, if he does succeed in giving to him
�Reflections and Inferences.
149
self a clear and definite answer, he will most likely be
surprised at the simplicity and brevity of the result.
This result, whether it be anything or nothing, is all
that to him is religion. The man who does not know
what it is to discern the truth, and to feel its power
in his heart, has no religious faith, and is still blind
to spiritual light, although he may be all the time
assenting to the most orthodox creed in Christendom.
The man who has religious faith, who does discern
the truth, and who feels its power in his soul, to
whatever Church or creed he may belong, will find,
if he succeeds in drawing the distinction which I
have indicated, that the truths, which he has thus
made his own, for the support of his spiritual life, are
few, grand, simple, and quite apart from the mani
fold outlying narratives and opinions of his creed;
about which, at the same time, perhaps he has no
active doubts; or, perhaps, though he may have such
doubts, they do not disturb his faith.
The creed of the true Protestant is limited to that
which he, for himself, can discern to be true, inform
ing and improving himself by the use of guides and
instructors, but allowing no kind of authority to be
interposed between his spirit and the Spirit of God,
whose teaching he recognises in the very power with
which the truth, when discerned, is brought home
to his soul, and whose sympathy he realizes in that
strong love of truth which he thenceforth cherishes
and enjoys.
It is truly lamentable to reflect that such multi
tudes on all sides are shut out from the knowledge of
God and of truth, by those very formulas and stand
ards of religion, which profess to be the vehicles, or
even the only vehicles of truth; but which carry their
precious cargo, so mixed and concealed, amidst a mass
of confused incongruities, that only one here and
there can discover and experience its regenerating
power. To the dogmatism of theology, which has
�150
Reflections and Inferences.
always been excessive, I unhesitatingly attribute the
appalling and unnatural prevalence of indifference
and hatred to all religious truth. The discernment
of truth is to the, soul what sight is to the eye.
Neither faculty can be exercised without light, of
which God has provided everywhere abundance; but
the highest capabilities of either faculty cannot be
developed,—its finest perceptions, and most exact
discriminations cannot be realized, unless each faculty
be trained and strengthened by suitable culture and
information, and unless each faculty be kept in con
stant and vigorous exercise. Either faculty may be
perverted, discoloured, or obscured by clouds, veils, or
obstacles interposed to modify or to exclude the light.
The mode in which God reveals himself to the
human soul has been well described by a recent com
mentator as follows :—“ The great and eternal One reveals himself through
and by man, in conformity with the gradual develop
ment of the human mind. The growth of man’s ap
prehension of God marks the progress of revelation.
The divine in man,—that which allies him to the om
niscient—unfolds itself in harmony with the law of
its nature, giving expression to itself in sensuous
forms. God speaks to man, or man speaks of God,
agreeably to the era described or the idiosyncracy of
the writer. A knowledge of the Supreme more or
less imperfect characterises such communications. The
communications are human ; but they are also divine,
as being the utterances of the divine in man at the
time. They are, in short, a divine revelation. . . .
When it is taught and received for orthodox, that
God only revealed himself to men in former times, by
certain occasional and external miracles, and that our
knowledge of Him is limited to what has been written
down of such communications, we have reason to fear
that we have too little sense that God is always actively
�Reflections and Inferences.
151
present with us now, and to suspect that our belief is
mechanical, sceptical, and superstitious at once.”*
When rationally considered, it is nothing short of
an absurdity and a contradiction of terms, to say that
faith can be rendered as an act of obedience to any
authority whatever. Faith is the free exercise of the
mind, resting only on the discernment of the truth;
just as sight is the free exercise of the eye, resting
only on the discernment of light; and no man can
possibly believe, in submission to authority, that
which he does not discern to be true, any more than
he can behold the sun at midnight in obedience to
an external command. A man may, indeed, be taught
to keep his eyes shut, and by discipline and training
may be brought not only to say, but even to fancy
that he sees whatever he is told ought to be seen,
distrusting his own natural perceptions. A man may
also be trained to look only and always through lenses
of a prescribed colour and form; ancl so to disuse and
to supersede his unassisted vision. So also may men,
yea nations and generations of men, be kept in more
or less of ignorance, distrust, and neglect of their own
faculty of discerning what is true ; and thus be made
to surrender, or never to know the right of private
judgment; so that even those things which are most
thoroughly believed by such men, are believed not
because they are conscious of their truth, but because
they have the sanction of authority.
This way of regarding faith or belief as an act of
obedience, or of submission to authority, is utterly
and entirely opposed to the spirit of the Gospel and
of Protestantism. The authority of the Church or
of the Pope may be denied ; but another authority
has been set up instead. No living standard of in
fallibility is recognised; but infallibility is ascribed
to a book. The teaching of the Church is no longer
s “Introduction to the Old Testament,” by Samuel David
son, D.D., vol. i., pp. 234, 239.
�152
Reflections and Inferences.
received, as the end of all truth; but only as a useful
aid toward the knowledge and understanding of that
which the Bible teaches. The Bible has for three
hundred years been the Pope of those who have
called themselves Protestants.
All our knowledge is built upon the foundation of
all past ages, its elements having been transmitted to
us by history, tradition, and records of all kinds.
Without this instruction, derived from our fathers,
none of us could for ourselves have attained the
knowledge of any kind which we now possess; but,
though our knowledge comes to us, in great measure,
by transmission, it never rests alone, nor even chiefly,
on the authority by which it is transmitted to us.
We might never have discovered the laws of gravita
tion, or the principles of astronomy, if we had not
been taught them ; but so far as any one really knows
these things, he believes them, not because he has
been taught them, not in submission to the authority
of his teachers, but because, and in proportion as, he
discerns that they must be true.
So is it also with religion and morality. Our con
ceptions of God, and our notions of right and wrong,
are probably very different from what they would
have been, if we had been left to discover, and to
evolve them for ourselves, from a state of blank ignor
ance ; but, in so far as these can be called our own,
in so far as we feel that they must be true, they do
not rest upon the authority which has transmitted
them to us, but upon our own discernment of their
truth.
We have said that knowledge never rests alone, nor
even chiefly on the testimony of those from whom we
receive it; but there is here an apparent exception
or rather a class of apparent exceptions, in which our
knowledge seems at first sight to have no other founda
tion on which to rest but the testimony of our in
structors. This is the case, for example, with history,
�Reflections and Inferences.
153
and especially with ancient history, for our know
ledge of which we must often depend entirely upon
the writings of historians. Yet even here, the in
quirer after truth must use instruction with discern
ment ; must make allowances for party spirit, for po
pular delusions, for national or peculiar habits of
thought, or forms of expression. He must, moreover,
be acquainted with all the histories in any degree re
lating to the subject of enquiry; and must scrutinise,
test, and compare these authorities with each other,
in order that he may, from a comprehensive view of
the whole evidence, form an impartial judgment.
The judgments, so formed, vary from total uncer
tainty or mere probability, to a strong presumption
or absolute conviction, according to the nature, cha
racter, and amount of the evidence.
The result is at best a judicial decision, and must
in every case be consciously held subject to modifica
tion or reversal by the always possible discovery of
further evidence. So far as the decision becomes
knowledge to the inquirer, it rests upon his discern
ment of its truth. He believes not in obedient sub
mission to any nor to all of his authorities, but in
accordance with the independent judgment of his own
mind, and may very often have good reasons for re
maining doubtful and incredulous, even when there
is no conflict of authority. All history remains con
stantly open to revision and correction, so that it has
of late become a proverb, that history requires, from
time to time, to be re-written. Hence there are, and
always have been, great diversities of opinion regard
ing it; the same evidence being very variously esti
mated or interpreted by different minds.
It seems like a mere truism to say that history
cannot be religion; that even the history of religion
cannot be spiritual truth, and that spiritual truth
cannot be proved in the same way that historical
facts can, just as the reverse would be equally true.
�154
Reflections and Inferences.
No amount of historical evidence would now suffice
to prove that witches rode through the air on broom
sticks ; that they and all heretics ought to be burned;
that finger-bones or napkins from the body of a saint
had the power of working miracles (Acts xix. 12); or
that the earth is a flat extended fixture, over which
the sun daily moves;—for all of which, and for many
other such things, there was abundant evidence to
satisfy our forefathers.
All our sentiments and faculties may be crippled,
or largely developed, according as they are neglected
or cultivated. The sentiments of liberty, of beauty,
and of music, have varied much in strength and
character from age to age, and their growth or
decline may be traced, not only in persons at differ
ent times, but through the history of nations and of
centuries. The enlightened views of justice, and
the refinements of taste and skill, which one age
may attain to, are ever owing, in a large degree, to
the culture, knowledge, and many other circumstan
ces, inherited from the preceding ages. So is it with
the sentiment of truth. For its cultivation instruc
tion is required, and can only be derived, as in other
matters, from teachers of various kinds, or in other
words, from the transmitted wisdom and attainments
of the past.
Our knowledge of religious truth comes to us partly
by transmission, as does our knowledge of scientific
truth; but in the one case, as in the other, it does not
become knowledge by virtue of the authority which
transmits it, but only by our own discernment of its
inherent truth. The faculty of discernment in art,
science, and religion, alike, may be sharpened and
strengthened, perhaps without limit, certainly without
known limit, by diligent exercise, and by the cultiva
tion of the corresponding sentiments, which, again,
are nourished and increased by each new acquisition
of knowledge.
�Reflections and Inferences.
155
There is nothing so well fitted to stimulate and
elevate the artist’s ideas and conceptions of the beau
tiful and the excellent in his art, as an intelligent
acquaintance with its history, and a correct apprecia
tion of the various stages of progress or of decline
through which it has had to pass before reaching its
present condition. The comparative estimate which
this historical knowledge enables him to form of the
merits and influences of different ages and of different
schools, will, more than anything else, assist him to
discern the elements of perfection after which he
strives. He derives inspiration from history.
The statesmen, who has made politics the study of
his life, and who seeks to discover the wisest and best
measures of legislation, must be very ill prepared for his
work, unless he is able to scan, with intelligence and
discrimination, a wide horizon of the history of nations.
The sentiments of beauty in the artist, and of jus
tice in the statesman, must either be formed on older
models, or else be rude and primitive; but it does not
at all follow that any one model, nor that all of them
put together, should be regarded as a standard of
perfection. Their light and assistance, as guides and
instructors, may be invaluable, or even indispensable,
while they are never thought of at all as infallible
authorities, even though, perhaps, their excellence may
defy imitation.
Such lessons from the past are the groundwork and
the spring of all our present attainments, of all that
distinguishes an educated man from an untutored
savage; but every one must be conscious that all the
knowledge which he can truly call his own, rests not
upon the authority of any teacher or teachers, but
upon his own discernment of its truth, being always
arrived at by a comparison of different teachers, and
of his own observations and experience, whose lessons
must be sifted and weighed against each other before
the bar of his own private judgment.
�156
Reflections and Inferences.
It cannot be otherwise in the matter of religion.
Spiritual truth, much more than any other kind of
knowledge, must be discerned before it can be believed.
Our knowledge of spiritual truth is, in a great measure,
founded on. the Bible, because it has been the teacher
of our teachers for eighteen hundred years, and its
doctrines are those which have been transmitted to
us, variously modified by ancient and modern inter
pretations. To the Bible, in the first instance, and
chiefly, we owe the vantage ground on which we
stand. The Bible, and its history, are the history of
our religion, from which we can best learn the various
stages through which it has passed, in its progress
from the rudest idolatry among the ancient Jews
down to these days of enlightenment.
If our conceptions of God and of truth are nobler
or clearer than those of the heathen, we are indebted
for that to the Bible, because it is the vehicle by
which the light of other days has been transmitted
to us. Our lamps have had almost no other kindling.
When viewed as the vehicle and history of religion,
the Bible is invaluable, and never can cease to be
studied with interest and with advantage; but to set
up the history as an infallible standard, and as an
authority commanding absolute submission, is a mon
strous absurdity, which Protestants are now rather
generally beginning to perceive, and which cannot
much longer be continued.
Protestantism must at length be consistent, and
the necessity of this becomes daily more felt. A
house divided against itself cannot stand. Of two
antagonistic principles, one must be false. Freedom
of opinion and submission to authority cannot be re
conciled. One or the other must prevail.
Protestantism ! What does it mean ? A protest
against the shackles of authority in matters of religion.
It must become, and is rapidly becoming, a protest
against all such authority, a vindication of man’s
�Reflections and Inferences.
157
inalienable right, and of his most sacred duty, to dis
cern spiritual truth for himself, and to believe only
that which he has so discerned.
A new reformation is needed, and has already
begun; another reformation from Popery—the Popery
of the Bible. The Bible has been made to us what
Samuel was to Saul, has been set up to supply the
place of the old temple-veil, separating between man
and God, mystifying and obscuring the Divine light,
instead of preparing us for its direct reception; and if
it has in many cases also done the latter, there can,
on the other hand, be no manner of doubt that the
preposterous claims made on its behalf have repelled,
and are repelling, many thousands from the search
after truth, and driven them to indifference or in
fidelity. This we believe to be the principal, if not
the only cause of the wide-spread aversion and hos
tility to religion, which is the most melancholy
characteristic of the age in which we live. Hence
the universal complaint that the churches are para
lysed by the rarity of faith, or of spiritual life, even
among their members and adherents. Hence the
reason why the so-called revivals of religion, whether
among ritualists, methodists, or others, have become
so far an offence and a reproach in the opinion of
most men of judgment and understanding; and why
they are almost entirely confined to the weak, the
simple, and the superstitious, whose emotional senti
ments are not directed nor controlled by their intel
lectual discernments.
I look forward to a genuine spiritual awakening,
greater than any which the world has yet seen, of
which all past reformations and revivals have been
but the harbingers and pioneers. The barriers are
already crumbling, and must ere long be swept away.
The veil has long been rent, and must soon be entirely
and for ever torn down. The usurping claims of
authority shall not for ever, nor for long, continue to
�158
Reflections and Inferences.
darken the souls of men. Protestantism shall assuredly
accomplish the triumph of its work, which meantime
remains incomplete, and must so remain, until it is
universally proclaimed that all religious books and
teachers are of use to men only in so far as they serve
to develope and to cultivate the sentiment of truth,
and to awaken the desire for the knowledge of God,
and for communion with Him,—a sentiment and a
desire which the Spirit of God alone can satisfy, by
that quickening and enlightening influence and sym
pathy, for which the earnest inquiring soul never yet
has thirsted nor prayed in vain. No real benefit can
accrue to us from the inspiration of ancient priests,
prophets, and apostles, until we have each of us some
measure of inspiration for ourselves; and, having that,
all questions regarding the various measures in which
the gift has been bestowed on others must be of small
importance. For my part, I am firmly persuaded
that inspiration has never been withheld, and that,
like all other divine gifts, its nature is unchangeable,
while its degrees are infinitely various, depending,
under God’s providence, upon many circumstances,
foremost among which are the presence or absence of
intervening obstacles, and the true or false preparation
on our part for its reception.
1 Cor. ii. 14, 15.—“ The natural man receiveth not the
things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto
him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet
he himself is judged of no man.”
Verily God is not far from any one of us, and He
does guide with His counsel now, as truly and as
surely as in the days of Samuel and David, every soul
of man that seeks in earnestness and simplicity to
know what it is to know God. This is the one great
source and spring of all true religion or spiritual life
-—the sympathy of the pure and perfect God with the
soul of every faithful worshipper. The record of this
�Reflections and Inferences.
159
may be read in the Bible, or in the experience of any
man whose spiritual life has been awakened. This
doctrine is the grand good thing which beyond all
else it behoves us to hold fast. This, we believe, is to
be the living principle of the new reformation, which
shall extend and apply to every creed and to every
nation under heaven.
The Bible is indeed our teacher, when cross-examined,
sifted, and compared, as all our teachers ought and
need to be; but it has been foolishly set up as our
idol, has been made to usurp the place of God, and to
bar the way of approach to Him. As Samuel tried to
impress upon the Jews and upon Saul that the rejec
tion of the priest was the rejection of God, so have we
been assiduously taught and trained to believe that if
we refuse to receive the whole Bible as a revelation of
the mind and will of God, we cannot escape the guilt
of rejecting God, and of rebelling against His revealed
Word. It is not wonderful that many of us have, like
Saul, been troubled with an evil spirit, seeing that our
Samuels have assured us that in refusing absolute
submission to their idol we are departing from the
only living and true God.
All idols must be utterly abolished; and when we
have purged ourselves from idolatry, we shall under
stand much better how to deal with the idolatry of
the heathen. When we have taken the beam out of
our own eye, then shall we see clearly to pull the mote
out of our brother’s eye.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span><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" /></span>
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
The finding of the book; an essay on the origin of the dogma of infallibility
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Robertson, John
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: xv, [2] 18-159 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. "John Robertson, Coupar Angus'. [Title page]. Dedicated to the Rt. Rev. John William Colenso, Lord Bishop of Natal. Includes bibliographical references and index. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh.
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
1870
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5495
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><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The finding of the book; an essay on the origin of the dogma of infallibility), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
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
Authority
Bible
Conway Tracts
Infallibility (Philosophy)
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/31dc372aac8a7e084500b5342c8b430e.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=hgmlgOCWDX9skUogWh-8Zg1JESbl-VwnSmT14%7EokMB-go-Idhn7fr66laNTi1Jp6RUbSnVlMUdbR45F1k3i2lw6wWQ2VRRJzxShQMYmJ2EoF52aE2hFF%7Elrufgkz0PHvVn7nPGExTM%7EihXOT9UTFZsO4VQMn-q5Bdf7o5ewuObS%7EHggvOlAf45YhsaxWNskvadRMxaX8PnPRiVsAWKfn01tgSIFsYQdARQjOiDDDwDOesqsj2utSPFCmctcosdevyJuH3uC-lLeSy2MBWQySVjCRxuPwzVkBry%7EgOqttkGdHciTzkMNTL6hLLFezE8OFAisuXXuHDctcQihpW-dhjg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
67bf747a392163bf3b160de22a1c0744
PDF Text
Text
CT
THE
TACTICS AND DEFEAT
OF THE
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY.
BY
THOMAS SCOTT.
Great men are not always wise; neither do the aged always under
stand judgment. Therefore I said, Hearken to me ; I also will show my
opinion. Behold, I waited for your words; I gave ear to your reasons,
whilst, ye searched out what to say. And lo! there was no reasoner for
Job, or an answerer of his sayings among you. I, therefore, will answer
also my part, I also will show my opinion.—Book of Job.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT.
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
1871.
Price Sixpence.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY 0. W, RETNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET.
HAYMARKET, W.
�THE TACTICS AND DEFEAT
OF THE
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY.
INCE, my ‘Challenge to the Members of the
Christian Evidence Society ’ was published, the
series of lectures to which the address of Archbishop Thompson was to serve as an introduction
has been given to the world ; and we have now before
us at least an outline of the grounds on which that
which this Society calls the Christian religion is
supposed to stand. The expression may be pardoned
if I say that the attitude assumed by these self-styled
upholders of Christianity is one of the most astonish
ing phenomena in the history of man,—so astonishing
that many have thought, and some have asserted, that
the Christian Evidence Society has never meant any
thing serious by the flourishing of its trumpets, and
that, far from seeking to overthrow its adversaries,
it has sought by its martial music only to cheer and
•encourage its own adherents. This is, of course, an
imputation of conscious dishonesty ; but all that I need
say is that it is for the members of the Society to
repel it, not for me.
But if we look upon these lectures as bond fide
attempts to convince those who are supposed to be
liberals, or sceptics, or infidels (whatever be the name
assigned to them), then, I repeat, the position of these
self-styled Christian advocates is most astounding.
S
�6
The Tactics and Defeat of the
The issue to be met by the Christian Evidence
Society is this. Here is a religion which asserts
that man was created perfectly innocent and good;
that by transgression he fell, and that his fall made
it impossible for the Father to admit man again to
His mercy, except by a redemption of blood; that
all the children of Adam became, further, in conse
quence of their first parent’s sin, children of wrath
and inheritors of a fire in which they should be tor
mented for ever; that, in course of time, after a
revelation supernaturally imparted and supernaturally
attested, the second Person of the triune Godhead
became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary
without the intervention of any earthly father ; that
the child born of Mary was a perfect man, but was
also Almighty God; that the birth of this child was
announced by wise men from the East, and by the
songs of angels in the sky ; that, after escaping the
malice of his enemies, and having repelled the tempta
tions of the evil spirit or devil, he began the work of
his mission, and continued for two or three years
preaching and teaching and doing wonderful works ;
that he calmed the sea, healed the sick, and raised
the dead, announcing at the same time his own
resurrection, which took place about thirty-six hours
after he died on the Cross; that after another interval
of forty days he rose up into heaven from Mount
Olivet, and that a band of angels told his disciples,
as they looked up after his departing form, that as
he had gone, so he would come again, to judge the
quick and the dead.
This outline of the belief of the various bodies of
Christendom may be filled up in various ways, and
be modified by various colours ; but, on the whole, it
will probably be allowed by all to be a correct out
line, and the conclusion at once follows that, although
this belief may contain a philosophy, yet its basis is
asserted to be altogether historical, and to consist of
�Christian Evidence Society,
y
a series of facts or events in the history of the world
as real as the struggle between the Crown and the
Parliament in the reign of Charles the First. It is
obvious that to this scheme of belief the objections
taken may be or rather must be of two kinds. It
may be asserted (1) that the philosophy is false, or
(2) that the facts on which it is stated to rest never
took place. It may be held (1) that the views of the
Divine Nature set forth in this creed are horrifying
and immoral, that they impute the worst injustice to
God, and that the enunciation of them is one of the
greatest calamities that have befallen mankind; or
(2) it may be held that the narratives which are said
to furnish authority for this belief either do not
furnish it, or are untrustworthy as historical docu
ments.
Now, it is perfectly clear that the business of a '
society which professes to treat of Christian Evidences
is to address itself to the establishment of these alleged
historical facts or incidents. It is foolish to raise the
superstructure before the foundation has been safely
laid ; and although the building raised without foun
dations may impose on some, it is plain that the
labour will be thrown away if any reply that their
first concern is to know whether the foundation
exists at all, and that they have no intention of dis
cussing the merits of the philosophy or creed, until
the existence of that foundation has been placed beyond
all doubt. With this issue the introductory address
of Archbishop Thompson had, as I have shown in my
Challenge to the Society,* nothing whatever to do.
His words might have some relevance for those who
have been perplexed or convinced by Positivists, or
Darwinists, or Atheists, whatever these may be ; but
they were utterly wasted for all who say, “ This is
not our present concern: what we want to know is
this, was Jesus conceived without the intervention of
* Challenge, p. 6.
�8
The Tactics and Defeat of the
a human father, or was he not ? Did he actually raise
the widow’s son or Lazarus from the dead, or did he
not ? Had he anything to do with John the Baptist,
or had he not ? Did he keep his Messiahship a secret
from all but two or three, and at the same time did
he preach it publicly, and make it a subject of con
troversy everywhere ? Is the story of his own resur
rection generally credible, and are there good his
torical grounds for the alleged event that at last he
went up in visible tangible form with visible raiment
to a heaven which always stands over the Mount of
Olives ? If these and the thousand other questions of
fact, of mere fact, which we must go on to ask, are
not satisfactorily answered, then the foundation of
which you speak does not exist, and your Christianity
has no authority, and therefore no claim on my accep
tance.”
To speak of a man who puts the matter in this
way and insists that his demands shall be fairly met,
as being necessarily an infidel, is not only mere waste
of breath; it is disingenuous shuffling, and may per
haps deserve a shorter and a harsher name. He may
be an infidel: he may suppose that there is no God, or
that men are descended from monkeys, or that mind
is only a modification of matter, or that men should
worship their grandmothers; but he may also hold
no such views. He may turn round on the self-styled
Christian advocate and say, “ I am a truer Christian
than you are. I have really a Gospel to preach to you
and to all men, the very Gospel which Christ preached.
I believe that all things are the work of an Eternal
Mind or Spirit, to which my mind or spirit stands
in a definite relation. I believe that this Eternal
Mind or Spirit is absolutely just, true, and loving;
and I cling to all the consequences which are involved
in this conviction. I believe that as His Will is to
bring us to our highest good, in other words to bring
our mind into perfect conformity with his Divine
�Christian Evidence Society.
<y
Mind, so also He has the power to do this ; that
this Power and Will are bringing about the perfect
vindication of his justice, and that his justice and
mercy are synonymous terms. I hold that, whatever
be the origin or descent of man, God has never been
absent from any of His creatures; that from the first
dawnings of his sense He has been educating and
training men, by a long process indeed and a painful
one, through the indefinite series of ages until they
have reached their present state, and that He will
continue this work in the long series of ages yet to
come. I believe that because we live in Him now,
we shall continue so to live after we have undergone
the change which we call death ; that the denial of
this cuts at the root of all morality and law, because
it cuts at the root of all love ; for what is the meaning
of growth in the knowledge of God, what is the
meaning of patience, forbearance, truthfulness, un
selfishness, if the wheels of a steam-engine may end
all my concern with them at any moment, or if I may
escape from my duty by throwing myself into the
sea ? I need not go further. I have said enough to
show you that I am not an infidel, and, as I think, to
show you that my faith is vastly higher, and is far
more nearly and really the faith of Christ, than is
yours. If, then, you imply in any part of the dis
cussion which may follow that I am an infidel, or that
I reject your conclusions through moral obliquity,
I shall at once leave you as a person who has placed
himself beyond the courtesies of an impartial judi
cial inquiry. And yet I, who believe what I have
told you that I believe, I who cling far more than
you do to the real teaching of Jesus, have examined
the narratives which profess to relate his life ; and
after the scrutiny of years my deliberate conclusion
is, that, as historical documents, these narratives are
generally untrustworthy, not so much for those por
tions which relate events confessedly extraordinary
�IO
The Tactics and Defeat of the
or supernatural, as for those portions which relate
the most ordinary matters. I need not weary my
self by going afresh through a history which has
been carefully analysed already; I content myself
with saying that I have read all your lectures or
essays, and a hundred other books which say much
what you have said, and that I have found in them
nothing which answers the questions put in the
‘ English Life of Jesus,’ nothing which even tends to
prove that the contrary of the conclusions reached by
the writer or writers of that work are tenable, nothing
which meets the objections to which Dean Alford
was challenged to reply in the pamphlets entitled
‘ Commentators and Hierophants,’ nothing which faces
the issue put forward later in the ‘ Challenge to the
Members of the Christian Evidence Society ; ’ and I
insist now that you shall meet these objections and
answer these questions, or confess your inability to
meet and answer them. If (to use words which you
may already have heard) you refuse to answer or
keep silence, I shall take your refusal or your silence
as an acknowledgment of defeat, and shall be justified
in publishing it as such to the world.”
If the members of the Christian Evidence Society
have any honesty or sense of fairness and truth, it
will be impossible for them to deny that their duty is
to address themselves to men who speak as I have
made my imaginary inquirer speak in the foregoing
sentences. What they have to show is, that the
narrative of the visit of the wise men, for instance,
is consistent with that of the purification of Mary
and the circumcision of Jesus in the temple ; that the
Gospels which say that during his whole ministry
only two or three were made aware of his Messiahship
may be reconciled with the other Gospel, in which his
character is known to the disciples before they receive
their call to be apostles, is declared everywhere, and
made the subject of repeated and vehement contro
�Christian Evidence Society.
11
versy in the most public places o£ Jerusalem; that
the narrative which relates the incidents following
the crucifixion is as free from difficulties, inconsisten
cies, and contradictions as a narrative of great events
must be before it can be accepted by an honest judge
and an impartial jury in a court of justice. In short,
to go through the whole subject, refuting at every
step the conclusions set forth, after examination of the
evidence in each case, in the ‘ English Life of Jesus,’
without the least reference to the truth or the
falsehood of any form of philosophy or belief, includ
ing among these all the forms of Christian faith or
opinion—this, and nothing less than this, is the work
of the Christian Evidence Society, if they really
think that their belief has any historical foundation
at all—if they really allow, as Archbishop Thompson
has allowed, that these alleged facts, which constitute
the foundation of their belief, are not to be taken for
granted, but are to be proved by evidence such as
would satisfy honest men approaching the subject
without prejudice or prepossession, or any secondary
motives whatsoever.
The lectures which have followed Archbishop
Thompson’s introductory essay abundantly show
what, in point of fact, we have to expect from these
so-called defenders of the faith. The writers of these
papers have handled, after their sort, topics of various
kinds. We have essays on materialistic theories,
on science and revelation, on Positivism and Pan
theism ; but all these may at once be swept aside.
Eor the present we have nothing to do with Comte,
or Darwin, or Huxley, or any of their theories, argu
ments, or conclusions. The only question which we
have to ask relates to the facts on which the Chris
tianity of the Christian Evidence Society is supposed
to rest; and that question may be put in four words,
Are these things so ?
Among these lectures, three only seem by their
�12
The Tactics and Defeat of the
titles likely to treat this question. We might have
supposed that Dr Stoughton’s paper on Miracles
wcfuld have gone, seriatim, through all the miracles
related in the New Testament, showing that each
really is an historical incident, just as an English
historian would examine the question whether the
Cowrie conspiracy was really planned by the earl and
his brother, or whether it was or was not a vile plot
on the part of James VI. to kill and take possession,
and murder the memories as well as the bodies of his
victims. Instead of this, as we turn over Dr Stough
ton’s pages, we find ourselves rambling in the old
labyrinth of arguments which are to show that
miracles were to be expected, and that in the ministry
of Jesus they are not to be overvalued or under
valued. All this has been repeated again and again ;
but if we look for any evidence which is to justify
our acceptance of the narrative of the miracle at
Cana, we shall look for it in vain.
The case remains unaltered when we turn to Dr
Harold Browne’s paper on “ Christ’s Teaching and
Influence on the World.” We have here some refer
ences to supposed facts, but they are mere references,
and no more. Bishop Browne has painted what he
supposes to be an historical picture; but as he simply
assumes the general trustworthiness of the Gospel
narratives, his paper, also, must be set aside, as fail
ing to meet the real point at issue. It is obvious
that his remarks have no force for those who will
say that their estimate of the influence of Christ on
the world is not altogether that of Bishop Browne ;
and that, even if it were, this would not help us to
determine whether the Sanhedrim placed a guard of
Boman soldiers at the grave of Jesus, and after
wards bribed them to tell Pilate a lie, or whether
they did not.
There remains only Mr Cook’s paper on “ The Com
pleteness and Adequacy of the Evidences of Chris
�Christian Evidence Society.
13
tianity.” The title certainly seems to show that the
editor of the “ Speaker’s Commentary ” understands
the real work of the Society, and that he is prepared
honestly to do that work. Let us see how he sets
about it.
I am compelled to quote from my “ Challenge to
the Society,” and here as there, I insist that from the
only question to which I have to demand an answer,
“ that which is called external evidence to the truth
of the Gospels is altogether excluded. I have
nothing to do with the testimony of Clement, or
Justin, or Tertullian, or Origen, or Jerome, or Augus
tine, or any other patristic writer whatsoever—with
the truth of the teaching of Jesus, or the high charac
ter of his Apostles. No external evidence can impart
authority or weight to narratives which are, in them
selves, incredible, or self-contradictory, or mutually
destructive; and I have the right to insist that they
who consider themselves my opponents, will make no
attempt to divert the controversy to this utterly
irrelevant issue.” *
The whole series of tracts put forth by the Society
makes it abundantly clear that they mean steadily to
confine themselves to this issue, and to ignore every
other. At starling, Mr Cook takes refuge under
the wing of the great men whose writings are sup
posed to uphold Christianity, in his acceptation of the
word. He refers us to the long series of writers
stretching from the earliest centuries to Grotius and
Leibnitz, to Luthardt, Steinmeyer, and Delitsch;
but even this he cannot do without using expressions
which come with a bad grace from one who is sup
posed to be speaking as an impartial examiner of evi
dence. England, we are told, holds a place among
the foremost champions of the cross. He rejoices to
think that, “ at this present hour, men sound in the
faith, full of the love and light of Christ, are bringing
* Challenge, p. 12.
�14
The Tactics and Defeat of the
the resources of profound learning and vigorous
intellect to bear upon the chaotic turmoil of antiChristian influences. Within this present year several
works have reached me in which infidelity is con
fronted, both in the sphere of general cultivation, and
in the abstrusest fastnesses of philosophy.” * Is this
the language of a man who approaches his task with
out prejudices, prepossessions, or secondary motives ?
What does he mean by the word infidelity, and by
what right does he employ, without definition, an
ambiguous term ? Would not a really truthful and
honest man say, “ I have to show you that Chris
tianity rests on a basis of historical events; and,
until I have shown you that the miracle at Gadara,
or the confusion of the Roman soldiers at the moment
of the resurrection, took place as certainly as the
battle of Hastings, or the discomfiture of the Gun
powder Plotters in the vaults of Westminster, I have
no right to speak of myself as orthodox, or of others
as infidels ; I have no right even to imply that the
teaching of Christ was better than that of all other
men, or even that it is true. I have first to prove
that the Magi came to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and
that, while Joseph and Mary were carrying the infant
Jesus straight from Bethlehem into Egypt, they also
spent a considerable time at Jerusalem; I have to
show that Peter first learnt the Messiahship of Jesus
by Divine revelation towards the close of his ministry,
and, also, that he was distinctly made aware of the
fact before he received his call to become one of the
Apostles ; I have to show that Judas really was dead,
or had fallen from his apostleship, when St Paul
declares that Jesus was seen of the twelve in the
interval between his resurrection and ascension.
When I have ’proved all this, I may then breathe
freely as having practically got through my task.
Until I have done this, I cannot apply to my own
* See Mr Cook's Essay, p. 3.
�Christian Evidence Society.
15
faith or religion a single epithet which is to imply its
superiority to any other religion whatsoever, unless I
openly abandon my historical position, and compare
these systems of belief on their own merits as such.”
Nevertheless, having spoken of men sound in the
faith as doing battle with infidels (that is, with those
who venture to think that Jesus cannot have been in
Jerusalem and in Egypt, in Cana and in the desert
with the devil, at one and the same time), Mr Cook
goes on to say that his purpose is “ to show that
those evidences of Christianity which are accessible
to every careful inquirer are complete and adequate.”*
We are naturally tempted to stop at these words, and
to say that this is the very thing we want, and that
now we may hope to learn how Jesus could have
been seen after the resurrection and before the
ascension by the twelve Apostles, when, at that
moment, there were only eleven Apostles living. We
are tempted, at least, to suppose that an effort will
be made to meet some one or more of such historical
difficulties. But, as we go on with the rest of the
sentence, we are made aware that Mr Cook’s evidence
is not at all of this sort, and therefore is not intended
to dispel any such perplexities. His evidences are
complete, inasmuch as they meet “ the fair require
ments of our moral and rational naturethey are
adequate “ with reference to their purpose, which is
not to teach the truth, but to bring us into contact
with the central and fundamental truths of our reli
gion, and with the Person of its Bounder.” It is
well to be candid: it is also a good thing to be clear.
If Mr Cook had said that his evidence was not to
teach us the truth of facts, he would have, at the
least, deserved the credit of perspicuity, although he
might by so speaking have put himself in a difficult
position in a discussion with a Mahometan or a
Brahman • for the Brahman might say, “ What force
* Essay, p. 4.
�16
The Tactics and Defeat of the
can your words have for me, when I can use pre
cisely the same words to those who doubt about the
truth of my creed ? If any one imparts to me his
doubts whether Agni has three tongues, or whether
Vishnu was really incarnate seven times, or whether
Indra really killed Ahi, I can tell him quite as easily
as you can, that the evidence which I have to lay
before him is not to teach him the truth, but to bring
him into contact with the central and fundamental
truths of our religion,—these truths being the good
ness, and justice, and long-suffering, and mercy, and
love of the One Being, whose perfections are variously
but feebly set forth under the names of Brahma, or
Vishnu, or Prajapati, or Krishna.”
Having thus declared the nature of Christian evi
dence, Mr Cook goes on to say that persons who meet
to consider the evidences of revealed religion may be
supposed to have “ previously satisfied themselves of
the existence and personality of God,” and that
“ materialism under any form, and Christianity in any
stage, are mutually exclusive.” But what is the use
of saying this when the question is confined simply
to the reality of certain alleged historical facts ?
What object can Mr Cook have in saying “ we can
only argue now with those who admit the possibility
of a revelation,” unless he defines first what he means
by revelation ? What will he say to a man who
replies, “ Certainly I believe not merely in the possi
bility of a revelation, but in the fact of one; but
perhaps I carryback this revelation somewhat further
than you do, for I am disposed to say, with Max
Muller, that ‘ it was an event in the history of man
when the ideas of father, mother, brother, sister, hus
band, wife, were first conceived and first uttered. . .
It was a revelation, the greatest of all revelations,
when the conception of a Creator, a Ruler, a Father
of man, when the name of God was for the first time
uttered in this world.’ ”
�17
Christian Evidence Society.
What will Mr Cook say if such a man should add,
“ The history of human speech, seems to show that
language for a long series of ages expressed nothing
but the merest sensuous conceptions ; but the idea of
a Creator, a Ruler, a Father of all men is not a sen
suous conception : hence a long series of ages had
passed before men came to form this idea and to
express it. If the history of language be read truly,
this is a plain historical fact; how am I to reconcile
this with what you tell me, that the very first man
spoke face to face with God, and hid himself from his
sight in the bushes of the garden of Eden ?”
The truth is that Mr Cook is not at ease unless he
is dealing with what he calls “ broad facts,” in other
words, with facts, or supposed facts, of which he can
speak in sufficiently vague terms.
“ Here is one fact,” he tells us, “ that at the central
point of the w'orld’s history, central both in time and
in historical import, equidistant from the end of what
men are agreed to call the pre-historic period, and our
own time, the man Jesus arose and claimed to be, in
a sense altogether apart from other men, the Teacher
and the' Saviour of the world. He claimed a direct
mission from God,—nay, more, to be, in a sense to be
hereafter ascertained, the Son of God. He assumed
that the truth which he had to teach was new, inas
much as it was one which man could not discover
for himself, but, at the same time, one to which man’s
conscience would bear testimony, which could not.
therefore, be rejected without sin. As credentials of
his mission, He appealed to works which those who
accepted him, and those who opposed him, admitted
could not be wrought without supernatural aid. To
one work, as the crowning work of all, he directed
his followers to appeal, as one capable of being at
tested and incapable of being explained away, even
His own resurrection from the dead.”*
* Essay, p. 6.
B
�18
The Tactics and Defeat of the
Before telling us of this very broad fact, Mr Cook
bids us put ourselves, “ if possible, in the position of
an inquirer to whom the facts might be new, and who
had simply to satisfy himself as to their bearings upon
his own convictions and the state of man.”
I will say, in reply to these words, that this has
already been attempted by the writer of ‘ Commenta
tors and Hierophants,’ who cites a sufficiently dispassionate inquirer to judge of certain narratives
written by men whom Dean Alford styled inspired,—
that is, moved by a Divine influence “ specially raising
them to, and enabling them for, their work in a man
ner which distinguishes them from all other writers
in the world, and their work from all other works.”*
Wearisome though it may be to go over the same
ground again and again, the cognate assumptions of
Dean Alford and Canon Cook at once justify and
compel me to quote the words in which the writer of
‘ Commentators and Hierophants ’ represents Thucy
dides as replying to the demands of Dr Alford : “I
really do not know what to say to this. If you ask
me to accept this proposition as a preliminary to the
examination of these books, you ask me to abandon
my judgment as an historian, and, in fact, bind me
beforehand to a particular conclusion. If I accept
this hypothesis before examining these books, I pledge
myself to examine them with a particular view, and
with one special purpose; in other words, I agree to
do a dishonest thing.”
We are as little justified in assuming Mr Cook’s
“ broad fact,” as in assuming, with Dean Alford, the
inspiration of the Evangelists. But when we come
to look into the sentence last quoted from Mr Cook’s
essay, what do we find but a string of assertions,
almost every one of which are at least open to dis
pute on the mere score of facts ? If by pre-historic
period, Mr Cook means a period preceding the rise
* ‘ Commentators and Hierophants,’ Part I., p. 9.
�Christian Evidence Society.
19
of contemporary chroniclers or historians, by what
right does Mr Cook extend the series of contemporary
annalists as far back as nearly nineteen hundred
years before the birth of Christ ? By what right
again does he insist that Jesus asserted the novelty
of the truth which he had to teach ? Granting for
a moment that the four Gospels are authentic and
trustworthy, I may ask, where does Jesus assume
this ? where does he say anything like it, except in
the passages of the fourth Gospel in which he speaks
of giving his disciples a commandment, which was both
new and old ? If we may take the hint given in these
passages, we may perhaps go far towards account
ing for the impression which his teaching produced
upon his hearers. It was the return to simple maxims
and truths (long ago known) from the stifling atmo
sphere of rabbinical tradition, which made the multi
tude rejoice that they had found a teacher who taught
them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
What again was the truth which man was not able to
discover for himself ? If Mr Cook is speaking of the
Sermon on the Mount, it would be hard to say what
portion of it was absolutely new. The whole passage
about the straight and rough way of life, and the
broad road to destruction, appears with scarcely
any change in the Works and Days assigned to
Hesiod. If Jesus speaks of the hairs of men’s heads
as being all numbered, there are Vedic hymns which
tell us that the winkings of men’s eyes are all
numbered by Varuna. If Mr Cook asserts that, as
credentials to his mission, Jesus appealed to his
miracles, the very point which we wish to ascertain is
whether he did so or not. If he did, it would be an
important fact by all means to be noted; but we can
not take the fact for granted on Mr Cook’s authority,
or forget the evidence which seems to point in
another direction.
“ It is noteworthy,” says the writer of the 1 English
�20
The Tactics and Defeat of the
Life of Jesus,’ “that after witnessing or hearing of
many of his miracles, the Pharisees still demand of
him a sign. How they could refuse this character to
the events just witnessed it is hard to imagine; hence
we seem almost justified in doubting whether they had
witnessed them, and if we say that they asked for a
sign only because they had not seen any of his mighty
works, then it is singular that they should have been
strangers to events which were happening constantly
in the eyes of all the people.” *
I am well aware that in saying even this much I
am giving Mr Cook an advantage which I ought not
to give him. The question turns not on the disposi
tion of the Pharisees, but on the authenticity and
credibility of the Gospel narratives, and with reference
to this point too much stress cannot be laid on the
argument urged in the ‘ English Life of Jesus,’ that
the contradictions in the narratives of the early years
of Jesus, and of his relations with the Baptist, belong
to the commonest matters of fact. “ Either the Bap
tist knew Jesus from his infancy, or he did not.
After the baptism, he either knew Jesus to be the
Eternal Logos, or he did not. Either Peter was
summoned by Andrew distinctly to find in Jesus the
Messiah, or he was not. Either Jesus drove out the
traffickers from the temple at the beginning of his
ministry, or he did not. Either a few days after his
baptism he was at a marriage feast in Galilee, or
he was not. On all these, as on many other points,
the Gospel narratives completely contradict each other
and themselves. The inevitable conclusion is that
the most ordinary matters of fact the Evangelists are not
trustworthy historians, and could not have been eye
witnesses of the events which they relate. But their
accounts are not confined to matters which fall
'within the ordinary range of human experience. They
abound in incidents which are astounding or incon* English Life of Jesus,’ Part IV., p. 41.
�Christian Evidence Society.
21
ceivable, and which run counter to all impressions
derived from an observation of natural phenomena.
At once, therefore, and before examining any of these
narratives, we are bound distinctly to affirm that, whether
•as witnesses or as historians of such alleged events, the
Evangelists are utterly unworthy of credit.
are
not called upon to show how these narratives came
into existence, although explanations apparently ade
quate may not be wanting ; we need not to concern
ourselves with theories of absolute or relative miracle.
. . . The fact that the Gospels are unhistorical in
common things, renders an examination of alleged
miraculous narratives a work of supererogation.'” *
Amongst these miraculous narratives so discredited
is that of the resurrection of Jesus; but by what
right does Mr Cook, if he cares to place himself in the
position of a dispassionate historical inquirer, speak
of this resurrection as the crowning work of all, or
assert that Jesus charged his disciples to appeal to
it ? Far from appealing to this as a crowning
miracle, Jesus, it seems more likely, never professed
to be a worker of miracle at all. The argument cuts
both ways. If the resurrection of Jesus was the
crowning miracle, then it would seem that there were
■other miracles of a like kind of which it was the crown.
In the narrative of the Acts, as the writer of the
‘ English Life of Jesus ’ remarks, no reference is made
to any miracles as wrought by Jesus except those of
healing, the arguments being based entirely on the
resurrection as an event beyond all conception un
expected and astonishing. But if they had been
accustomed to frequent raisings of the dead, if they
had sat at meat with one who had been dead in the
grave four days, how could the resurrection of Jesus
be in any way astonishing, even if it had been unex
pected ?
But, again, did Jesus speak to his disciples, before
* ‘ English Life of Jesus,’ Part IV., p. 40.
�11
The Tactics and Defeat of the
his suffering, either of the mode of his death or of
his resurrection ? The arguments against any such
supposition are given in detail in the fifth part of
the ‘ English Life of Jesus,’ and I content myself with
saying that nothing said by Mr Cook even tends toshake any one of them.
The path of assumption once taken, it is as easy to
walk in it as on the smooth broad road which leads,
to ruin. As professing to work miracles (of which
we have no conclusive evidence), Jesus is represented
as differing from Mahomet, although the story of thenight journey to Jerusalem is found in the Koran ;
and great stress is laid on the supposed fact that he
was expected. We are here going off into the alleged
external evidence, which I have already said that we
are bound to cast aside altogether, if the narratives
said to be thus attested are in themselves inconsistent,
or irreconcilable. We have nothing to do with
drawing pictures like that which graces the opening
pages of ‘ Ecce Homo; ’ but the assumption is not
less enormous when we read that his person, his
offices, his work, were foretold, and that when he did
begin to teach and work, his countrymen were familiar with a long series of texts, beginning with the first,,
and continued to the end, of those sacred books in
which they recognised descriptions of such a teacher.
This is a mere assertion ; the evidence contradicting
it is given in the ‘English Life of Jesus;’ but apart
from this, no more cogent evidence for the non
existence of this description, or at least for their
failure to recognise it, can be found than in the fact
that all the rulers of the people know nothing of such
descriptions. There is, in fact, no evidence whatever
that any such Messiah as Jesus was expected at all.
Nor is it less an ignoratio elenchi, as logicians
say, when Mr Cook goes on to draw a contrast
between the teaching of Jesus and that of any other
man, on the ground that faith in him took root, whiles
�Christian Evidence Society.
23
(it would seem to be implied) faith in all others has
died away. In the first place, facts seem scarcely to
bear out the statement. It may be very well for
Englishmen to say that Christianity is co-extensive
with the civilisation of the world, or that “beyond
the pale of Christendom the great mass of humanity,
which in past ages have shown equal capacities for
the highest culture, have at this present time no single
representative nation, Turanian, Semitic, or Aryan, in
which liberty, philosophy, nay even physical science^
with its serene indifference to moral or spiritual truth,
have a settled home or practical development.”* If
we choose to assert this, or to say that through the vast
regions of Islamism, Buddhism, and Confucianism,
elements of civilisation, although present, “ are stunted,
distorted, and, to all human ken, in hopeless and
chaotic ruin,” that is our opinion, an opinion not
shared by the inhabitants of China or Japan. But
whether the opinion be right or not, it does not touch
the point at issue. Long before the Christian era, the
western portion of the Aryan race had begun to show
a capacity for development indefinitely beyond that
of the Eastern Aryans, or of any branch of the Semitic
or Turanian families. Nor can it be denied that in
their law, their institutions, their modes of thought
and habits of life, they exhibit to this day more than
mere traces of a condition far more ancient than the
rise of Christianity. But, in truth, this discussion is
utterly irrelevant. The teaching of Jesus may have
been indefinitely higher than that which it is repre
sented to have been in the Gospels : it might not
only have taken root, nay it might absolutely have
conquered the world: and yet this victory would
impart not a jot more of historical authority to the
Gospel narratives, unless these narratives were
possessed of historical authority already. If the whole
world were Christian, and if there were no divisions
* Essay, p. 10.
�24
The Tactics and Defeat of the
among Christians, no anathematisation of particular
forms of Christianity, how would this prove that
Jesus kept his Messiahship secret, as he is said to
have done in the Synoptic story, or that he made
it a subject of constant public controversy, as he is
said to have done according to the Johannine narra
tive ? The reference to the subsequent history of
Christianity is altogether out of place, and carries with
it no force whatever, and we are conceding too much
to Mr Cook by noticing the matter at all.
In truth, this indulgence in irrelevant remarks
would be either ludicrous or contemptible, were the
subject less serious and important. But the patience
of unprejudiced thinkers must reach a low ebb, as
they follow Mr Cook through some more of what
he is pleased to term his facts, “ such as the pre
eminence in Christendom, in every age, of nations
which profess at least to acknowledge Him as their
Lord, and as the rapid disintegration and decay of
communities which have corrupted or abjured his
faith.”* This is indeed a dainty dish to set before
honest and unprejudiced men. The first part of the
sentence resolves itself into the proposition that mere
profession of belief in Christ is sufficient to secure pre
eminence for a nation; but it was scarcely necessary
to add that the pre-eminence must be in Christendom,
for a nation professing not to believe in Him would
by its own act shut itself out from that society. On
the other hand, it is perfectly clear that a mere pro
fession of Christianity is equivalent to a corruption
or even an abjuration of it; hence, in the second part
of the sentence, the communities which have been
said by mere profession to have secured pre-eminence
are said to undergo rapid disintegration and decay.
This, of course, cannot be Mr Cook’s meaning ; what
he probably means is that the Church of Rome or the
Greek Church has corrupted Christianity, and that
* Essay, p. 11.
�Christian Evidence Society.
o.$
therefore nations professing the Orthodox or Latin
faith are less flourishing and powerful than nations
which profess Protestantism. Certainly here we
have a plain issue of fact, or rather perhaps a hun
dred issues ; and it may fairly be doubted whether
we shall have done ourselves any good, even if we
should succeed in completely unravelling the tangled
knot. Certainly our success will not have carried us
on much nearer towards determining whether the
stories told about the Sanhedrim after the crucifixion
of Jesus be or be not true. But a few words may not
be wasted in showing the kind of thing which Mr
Cook would pass off as factors in the great aggregate
of “ Christian Evidences.” Whether the nations still
belonging professedly to the Latin Communion are
weak, or weaker than Protestant nations, and whether
if they are weak, their weakness is really due to this
cause and to this cause only, are points on which dis
passionate critics would probably decline to pronounce
any definite opinion : the glibness with which Mr
Cook lays down his proposition is in singular con
trast with the cautious method in which Macaulay, in
his essay on ‘ Ranke’s History of the Popes,’ handles
sundry cognate problems. After all, what are we
that we should make ourselves judges ? If the
power of the Sultan is waning away because he
refuses to subscribe to the Nicene Creed, it is hard
to be rebuked for saying that the men on whom the
tower in Siloam fell were sinners above all others
that dwelt at Jerusalem.
To speak briefly, Mr Cook has manufactured his his
tory, and then proceeded complacently to assert that
“ the broadest and simplest facts thus stated are suffi
cient for the one purpose we have now in view, suffi
cient to induce every one who cares to know the truth,
to go at once to that Man, to ask what he has to
teach, what he has to bestow.” Why an inaccurate
�0.6
The Tactics and Defeat of the
or garbled history should be a good or a sufficient
preparation for going to Him, it is not easy to see ;
but what will Mr Cook say if we reply, that this is
precisely what we wish to do, that we do wish to ask
what he has to teach and to bestow ? Did he then
affirm from the first to his Apostles, to the Samaritan
woman and her fellow-inhabitants of Sychar, and to
the assembled multitudes at the great feasts, that he
was the Messiah and the Logos, existing before all
worlds, or did he keep this a secret from all except
two or three during the whole of his ministry ? Did
he speak as he is said to have spoken in the Synoptics,
or as he is said to have spoken in the Johannine
Gospel ? Are these questions to be solved by a refer
ence to the condition of France at the present time
as contrasted with the condition of Germany or of
England ? The fact is that if we wish to know what
Jesus taught or bestowed, and if we are ever to learn
it, we must travel by the road of strict historical
inquiry, and take one by one the whole mass of
questions examined in the ‘ English Life of Jesus,’—
questions which I challenge Mr Cook and all the
members of the Christian Evidence Society to answer.
But Mr Cook’s efforts to divert us from the real
points at issue are not yet ended. He next finds it
convenient to make a thorough confusion between
the genuineness and authenticity of any given docu
ment, and, under cover of this confusion, to insinuate
that it is useless to question the orthodox position
about the several books of the New Testament. We
had supposed that the authenticity of a history de
pended on the truth of the incidents related in the
narrative, and that any honest man would be able and
ought to judge for himself whether the book contains
palpable inconsistencies, contradictions, or falsehoods.
We had thought that, if a record were forthcoming of
the Peloponnesian war which asserted that Pericles
strenuously urged the Athenians to concentrate all
�Christian Evidence Society.
27
their efforts on the extension of their dominion,* any
honest man ought to see and to say that this record
was in utter contradiction with the history of Thucy
dides, and that therefore, while both narratives could
not possibly be true, it was yet possible that both
might be false. It is one of the ugliest tricks of
sacerdotalism to throttle the intellect by denying it
liberty of investigating simple matters of fact. Boys
are not told that it is such an awfully serious and difficult matter to decide whether the alleged history of
Romulus or Numa is to be accepted or rejected. But
Mr Cook wishes to frighten us from examining into
the authority of the Johannine Gospel, and. he sets
about it thus :
“ An investigation into the authenticity of any an
cient book demands anamountof knowledgeandcritical
ability, a soundness and keenness of judgment, which
are the very rarest of qualifications. Turn to secular
literature, and you will find critics arguing for ages,
without any approximation to a settlement, touching
the genuineness of works attributed to men whoso
peculiarities of genius and of style would seem to
defy imitation. Who would venture, on his own
judgment, to determine how much of the Homeric
poems really belongs to
“ ‘That lord of loftiest song,
Who above others like an eagle soars ? ’ ”
I deny Mr Cook’s statements, and I say that they
are denied by the vast majority of scholars and critics.
If these are not to accept or reject any given opinion
about the Homeric poems on their own judgment, on
whose judgment are they to do so ? To state the
matter thus is either childish or impertinent. Mr
Cook is perfectly well aware that a vast number of
scholars deny that there ever was one individual
Homer, the author of the ‘ Iliad ’ or the ‘ Odyssey ’ ;
* ‘ Commentators and Hierophants,’ Part I., p. 11.
�18
The Tactics and Defeat of the
but even if we suppose that it were universally allowed
that one man dictated the ‘ Iliad,’ standing on one
leg, at the rate of two hundred lines per hour, how
wrould this help us to determine whether the history
of the Trojan war (if ever there was any Trojan war)
was after the fashion described in the ‘ Iliad,’ or as
it is represented by Thucydides in the introduction to
his history ? Having thus made the gateway terrible,
Mr Cook is good enough to say that they who will
not go in blindfold at his bidding, refuse because they
hate the idea of accepting documents “ which, if
genuine, supply substantial grounds for belief in super
natural works and a supernatural Person.”
Mr Cook’s facts are again wrong. The opponents
whom he is professing to throw down may believe
far more earnestly than himself in the righteousness
and love of the Being in whom all creatures live and
move; and it is impossible that they can have any
disinclination, a priori, to give credit to books which
tell the truth about Him, or about His works. But
Mr Cook has again dragged us away to wholly irre
levant matters. Let us grant to him the genuine
ness of all the books of the New Testament: let us
admit that the fourth Gospel was written by one who
was a personal friend of Jesus : let us allow it to be,
as Dr Tischendorf asserts, “ transparently clear that
our collective Gospels are to be referred back, at
least, to the beginning of the second century, or the
end of the first.” Let us concede that the small
interval still left of sixty or seventy years from the
time at which the events of the history are said to
have taken place, is of no real importance ; and what
follows? In the words of the writer of the ‘ Eng
lish Life of Jesus,’ simply this :
“ Not a single inconsistency is softened, not a single
contradiction is removed, not one impossible thing
rendered credible. What is done is to show that,
�Christian Evidence Society,
ig
within some twenty years after the death of Jesus,
men were to be found who had been his followers and
intimate friends, capable of writing down narratives
which profess to give the same history, but which
relate histories as different as the histories of Portugal
and England—men who could represent the teaching
of Jesus as being at the same time parabolic and not
parabolic, simple and confusing, soothing and exas
perating—men who could say that he kept his
Messiahship secret till down almost to the eve of the
crucifixion, and that he proclaimed it aloud from the
first to friends and enemies alike. . . . What it
does is to prove that the Evangelists were wilfully
and consciously dishonest; and that, as writers, they
are deserving of the severest censure for deliberately
deceiving their readers about events of which they
profess themselves eye-witnesses.” *
At this point we may very fairly stop. In the sub
sequent portion of his essay, Mr Cook occupies him
self chiefly with frank declarations of his own
opinions, and with efforts to convince his readers
that, if they will but think as he does about the
Person of Jesus and his character, they will feel
perfectly satisfied about the authority of the Gospels—
in other words, will be quite ready to believe that Jesus
was in Jerusalem and in Egypt at one and the same
time. By the same indirect (some might be tempted
to say almost sneaking) method, Mr Cook seeks to
convince his disciples that the Gospels contain the
whole scheme of the Athanasian doctrine of the rela
tion of Christ to God the Eather and God the Holy
Ghost. .All that I have to say here is that I am not
now concerned with this doctrine. It may be true or
it may be false ; but I must first have an answer to
all those questions which have been put to Dean Alford
in ‘ Commentators and Hierophants,’ and then I
* ‘English Life of Jesus,’ Part VI., p. 68.
�30
The Tactics and Defeat of the
must have a refutation of the whole ‘ English Life of
Jesus,’ before I can admit that we are justified in even
entering on any examination of Athanasian doctrine.
But, after all, after frightening his readers with the
awful difficulties of Biblical criticism and the fearful
responsibility involved in saying that the fourth
Gospel was not written by the son of Zebedee, Mr
Cook, when the convenient moment comes, turns round
and says to them, “ You have to judge for yourselves.
I do not profess to draw out the evidence, but simply
to show what is its nature and where it is to be
found.” * It is true that he is speaking here of the
evidence for the character of Christ; but this evidence
can exist only in the measure in which the books are
trustworthy, and thus we are brought again within
the circle of historical inquiry. But here, also, we
have the same confusions and contradictions. This
evidence, he says, will have weight with them in
proportion to their “ capacity to discern and appre
ciate moral goodness. If that character does not
attract, subdue, and win you, I freely admit all other
evidence will be useless so far as your innermost con
victions are concerned.” We might ask—useless or
useful for what ? The latent proposition would seem
to be that they who do not regard the Gospels as
trustworthy historical narratives, have no capacity to
discern and appreciate moral goodness. But Mr
Cook goes on immediately to say that, “ numerous as
are the cases of individuals who have remained in, or
relapsed into, a state of scepticism from various
causes, intellectual or moral, few, indeed, are the cases
of men who have not borne with them into that
dreary region an abiding sense of the personal and
supreme goodness of Jesus.” This is only saying, in
other words, that they retain their capacity for dis
cerning and appreciating moral goodness—in short,
* Essay, p. 20.
�Christian Evidence Society.
31
that they are none the worse in this respect for hold
ing that Jesus never uttered the discourses put into
his mouth in the fourth Gospel.
Then, having allowed that almost all sceptics retain
an abiding sense of the personal and supreme good
ness of Jesus, (if this were said of the orthodox, Mr
Cook would say that nothing more was needed,) he
goes onto say, “ You will soon find that you have no
alternative but either to give up all that has wrought
itself into your moral nature, and entwined itself
around the fibres of your affections, all your con
victions of the moral excellence of Jesus, or to accept
Him, even as He presents Himself, the God-Man.”*
I need only say that, by Mr Cook’s own admission,
most of those who refuse to do this, still retain an
abiding sense of the personal and supreme goodness
of Jesus, and what would he have more ? The
Christian is told that his duty is to rejoice with them
that are glad, and to weep with them that weep. Mr
Cook’s notion of the extent of Christian sympathy
is wider. He would have us see only what he sees
and when he sees it, and to shut our eyes when he
tells us that an object staring us in the face has no
existence.
It is not worth while to follow further the series of
evasive or inadequate arguments with which Mr Cook
seeks to hoodwink his hearers and himself. He chal
lenges any controversialist to deny that our Lord’s
teaching differed from that of all the Rabbis, not
merely in degree, but in kind, and he adds that “ it
differed in principle, in its processes, in its results, in
its tone, its spirit, in every essential characteristic.” f
Certainly I have no intention of denying this, but I
maintain fearlessly that these words apply with equal
force to the teaching of the two Isaiahs, of Ezekiel,
or of Jeremiah, to the teaching, in short, of all who
proclaimed a religion of the heart, and kicked against
* Essay, p. 22.
t Essay, p. 32.
�32
The Tactics and Defeat of the
the tyranny of sacerdotalism. The teaching of Jesus
did not differ in kind from the teaching of the Pro
phets, as is set forth, doubtless to Mr Cook’s perfect
satisfaction, more largely in the seventh of the Thirtynine Articles of the Church of England.
Nor is it much more worth while to note that Mr
Cook makes Christianity depend altogether on the
physical resurrection of the body of Jesus after his
death upon the cross. If this were all, I should pass
it by as an opinion or belief which he is perfectly free
to hold. But the case is altered when he asserts that
this event is attested under circumstances which make
it impossible to doubt the sincerity of those who are
said to have witnessed it. “ That the attestation was
given, that it was confirmed by outward effects other
wise psychologically impossible, by an immediate and
complete change in the character of the disciples, and
by the rapid triumph of the religion so attested, these
and kindred points you will find discussed in every
treatise on Christian evidence; they are, in fact, not
open to reasonable doubt.”*
If these words are designedly addressed to those
who have already made up their minds to believe
what Mr Cook believes, and who hate the very thought
of having to look at the other side, I should pass
them by without comment. If they are addressed to
honest and unprejudiced men, who wish only to ascer
tain the truth of facts, they are, (whatever may have
been the author’s intention in writing them,) a string
of lies. Let it be granted for a moment that the
physical resurrection did take place. It none the less
remains a fact that all the narratives of the resurrec
tion are inconsistent, contradictory, or mutually ex
clusive, and therefore that, in the words of the writer
of the 'English Life of Jesus,’ for the historic,al
resurrection we have no evidence whatever.!- Mr
Cook makes a simple assertion, apparently in the
* Essay, p. 39.
t Part VI., p. 39.
�Christian Evidence Society.
33
teeth of all the facts : the writer of the ‘ English Life
of Jesus’ goes patiently through all the narratives,
and the reader may satisfy himself at every step
whether the story is fairly or unfairly dealt with.
With greater truth it might be asserted that few
narratives could be found anywhere which convict
themselves more completely than the Gospel narra
tives of the resurrection.*
* Mr Cook deals in assertions and assumptions. I have asserted
that the writer of ‘The English Life of Jesus ’ has examined the whole
narrative in all its incidents. But it may be well that the reader should
again see with his own eyes what these inconsistencies are : “ The nar
ratives of the Resurrection exhibit, if possible, even greater inconsis
tencies and contradictions than those which have preceded them. In
Matthew (xxviii. 1, &c.) we read that Mary Magdalene and the other
Mary (i.e., two women) came to the sepulchre, as the day began to dawn;
that there was an earthquake, and that the angel (one angel) of the
Lord came down, and, rolling away the stone from the door of the
sepulchre, sat upon it, and, bidding the women not to be afraid, told
them that Jesus was risen, and that his disciples should see him in
Galilee, whither he had preceded them; that as they depart on this
errand, Jesus himself appears to them, and tells them just what the
angel had said to them a few minutes before, thus making the appari
tion and message of the angel quite superfluous. In Mark (xvi.) three
women, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome,
come to the sepulchre, for the purpose of anointing the body of Jesus,
after the sun had risen. As in Matthew, they are at a loss to know how
they shall remove the stone from the door ; but when they reach the
spot, instead of seeing an angel sitting on the stone, they simply see it
rolled on one side, and it is only when they enter the sepulchre (which
the women in Matthew do not enter) that they see a young man sitting
on the right side and clothed in a long white garment, who gives them
the same message which the angel gives to the two Marys in the first
Gospel. Then, at verse 9, the story seems to begin afresh by stating
that the risen Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, just as though a
narrative of the resurrection had not been given already. There is no
•mention of any earthquake in this account. In Luke (xxiv.) we are told
that the women (seemingly a great number') who came with Jesus from
Galilee visited the sepulchre very early in the morning, bringing spices
for the i urpose of embalming the body, they, like the women in the
other Gospels, having not the slighest expectation that he would rise
again. These also find the stone rolled away, and, entering the sepul
chre, they see two men in shining garments, who ask them why they
seek the living among the dead, and remind them (of what every one
of them had utterly forgotten) that Jesus had distinctly forewarned
them of his sufferings, death, and resurrection ; but no message is given
that the disciples are to seek Jesus in Galilee, nor does Jesus appear to
them himself as he does in the other Synoptics. The Evangelist then
adds that they went and told all these things to the eleven and all the
rest, and that the Apostles especially received their information from
Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, the names
being for the third time different. Far from believing their report, the
Apostles deride them as babblers of nonsense (Liddell and Scott, s. v.
Kypos, Luke xxiv. 11). Still Peter, incredulous as he is, has curiosity
0
�34
The Tactics and Defeat of the
I have said enough to show that Mr Cook’s Essay
is worse than worthless for all except those who are
ready to think what he thinks, and to say what he
says ; nor are the other lectures included in this series
in any larger degree addressed to honest and unpreju
diced thinkers, who are determined that they will not
enough to go to the tomb, where, stooping down, he beholds the linen
clothes laid by themselves, and, fully convinced by this somewhat slight
evidence, departs, “wondering in himself at that which was come to
pass.” In John (xx. 1, &c.). Mary Magdalene comes alone “ early, when
it was yet dark” (in Mark the sun has risen), and sees the stone taken
away from the sepulchre (where then was the guard, who thus suffered
her to approach near enough to find out in the dark that the sepulchre
was open ?) Instead of entering the tomb, as the women do in the
second and third Gospels, or seeing any angel or man as they do in all
the Synoptics, Mary Magdalene at once hastens back to Peter, James,
and the beloved disciple, and informs them not that Jesus is risen,
but that “ they have taken away the Lord from the sepulchre, and we
know not where they have laid him,” thus implying that, she had not
gone thither alone, as stated apparently in verse 1. Ou hearing this
Peter and the other disciple hasten to the tomb, both running, but the
other disciple outruns him, and stooping down at the sepulchre door,
looks in, and sees the linen clothes lying, but does not go in. Peter
then comes up, and going in, sees further that the napkin which had
been about the head of Jesus was not lying with the linen clothes, but
was wrapped together in a place by itself. The other disciple then goes
in, sees and believes. (This visit is related in words which are almost
verbatim the same with those in which Luke records the visit of Peter,
tne only difference being that the credit of being the first believer in
the resurrection is here transferred to the beloved disciple.) Without
waiting for anything further, the two disciples go home again; but
Mary lingers, ■weeping, not having reached their assurance of convic
tion. (Why did not the twd Apostles, seeing her in this grief, stay to
comfort her, and make her share their belief that Jesus was risen ?)
Stooping as she wept, and, looking into the sepulchre, she sees two
angels in white (who, as they came since Mary and the two disciples
stood at the door, must have entered through the solid rock or earth).
These angels are seated, the one at the head and the other at the feet
where the body of Jesus had lain. (In Mark the “young man” is
seated on the right side.) When they ask Mary the cause of her sorrow,
she replies that it is because she knows not where the body of Jesus
has been taken. Without waiting for any further words from the
angels, of whose real nature she seems to have no notion, Mary turns
herself back and sees Jesus standing, but fails to recognise him. (In
the Synoptics the women know him at once, at the mere sound of his
voice, and as in Matthew xxviii. 9, hold him by the feet and worship
him.) The question of Jesus, “Why weepest thou? whom seekest
thou ? ” sounds to her as coming from no familiar voice, and as
she looks at him she sees apparently nothing especially spiritual
or remarkable about his person, for, supposing him to be the gar
dener, she beseeches him, if he has taken the body away, to tell her
where he has placed it. Jesus answers by simply calling her by her
name ; and the spell which had held her thus far is dissolved. Mary,
turning round, greets him as Rabboni, her Master, and seemingly seeks
to touch him. But whereas in the Synoptics Jesus on his first appear
ance allows the women to embrace his feet, here he says to Mary
�Christian Evidence Society.
35
accept any incidents as facts until they have adequate
historical evidence to justify them in so doing. In
short, the Christian Evidence Society is not working
for those who question or reject any portion of that
evidence. It would be more candid to say this at
starting. It would be more honourable to sail under
genuine colours, and to admit that they write only for
those who agree with what they say. As it is, the policy
by which Christian advocates ignore the real points at
issue, and take refuge in generalities, is becoming
notorious throughout the land, and is branded more
and more as utter cowardice, and as gross dishonesty
and falsehood. From the Archbishop of York, down
wards, the so-called orthodox clergy and laity may,
like the ostrich, hide their heads in a bush, and think
that no one sees them ; but all who are determined that
they will accept no statement except on the evidence
of facts, are tempted to hold up such conduct to the
contempt and derision of mankind. They assail no
office, they asperse no one’s character ; they do but
say that clergy and laity alike are bound to tell the
truth about the events of the New Testament his
tory, as about the events of all other history;
and they say further, that the evasion of this duty is
equivalent to deliberate and gross lying. For the
present I will only add that, as this self-styled Chris
tian Evidence Society has deliberately disregarded
my challenge,—a challenge which, as every honest
man will feel, touches the root of the matter : and,
Magdalene, “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father,”
and then he gives her a message for his “ brethren,” which, however, is
not a charge (as in the other Gospels) that they should go to Galilee in
order to meet him, but the announcement, “I ascend unto my Father
and your Father, and to my God and your God.” This story is in almost
every particular a totally different story, which excludes the. Synoptic
narratives; and the latter again differ from each other in most important
particulars. As these, the Synoptic accounts, cannot be dismissed as
less truthworthy than the fourth Gospel, the Johannine story is at once
to be cast aside without foundation, while the contradictions of the
Synoptic narratives are such as to deprive them of all credit. Hence of
the historical resurrection of Jesus we have no evidence whatever.”
�36 Defeat of the Christian Evidence Society.
further, as this challenge was given long ago to the
late Dean Alford, who treated it after a like sort, I
hereby take the refusal of the Society to answer
my questions as being, on their part, an acknowledg
ment of defeat, and I publish it as such to the
world.
Thomas Scott,
Mount Pleasant, .
Pamsgate.
�POSTSCRIPT.
Speaking on behalf of' the Christian Evidence
Society, Mr Cook has asserted, that the evidences of
that which he styles Christianity are complete and
adequate. I appeal fearlessly to the honesty and inde
pendence of my countrymen to determine whether
this be the case or not; I rely on their fairness to
weigh dispassionately all the evidence bearing on the
subject, as it has been preserved to us; and, in this
confidence, I purpose to lay before them all the facts
or alleged facts in the history which is supposed to
furnish a basis for the dogmatic system of traditional
Christianity. These facts, or alleged facts, will be
examined fully, and in complete detail, in a new
edition of the 'English Life of Jesus,’ a work which
will confine itself to the scrutiny of facts, without
propounding any theories (after the method whether
of Strauss or Renan or any other writer) as to the
mode in which the narratives of these alleged facts
came into existence.
The work, in short, will lay before the reader the
thoughts of a writer who wishes only to ascertain the
truth, and who addresses himself to those who,
without prejudice or prepossession, are prepared in
every instance to ask themselves seriously, Are these
THINGS SO ?
�The following Pamphlets and Papers may be had on addressing
a letter enclosing the price in postage stamps to Mr Thomas
Scott, Mount Pleasant, Ramsgate.
Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held by the Clergy of the
Church of England. By “ Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d.
Letter and Spirit. By a Clergyman of the Church of England. Price 6d.
Science and Theology. By Richard Davies Hanson, Esq., Chief Justice of South
Australia. Price 4d.
A Few Words on the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and the Divinity and Incarnation of
Jesus. Price 6d.
Questions to which the Orthodox are Earnestly Requested to Give Answers.
Thoughts on Religion and the Bible. By a Layman and M. A. of Trin. Coll., Dublin. 6d.
The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss. Price 6d.
A Few Self-Contradictions of the Bible. Price Is., free by post.
English Life of Jesus, or Historical and Critical Analysis of the Gospels; complete
in Six Parts, containing about 500 pages. Price 7s. 6d., free by post.
Against Hero-Making in Religion By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Ritualism in the Church of England. By “Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d.
The Religious Weakness of Protestantism. By Prof. F. W. Newman. 7d., post free.
The Difficulties and Discouragements which Attend the Study of the Scriptures.
By the Right Rev. Francis Hare, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Chichester. 6d.
The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation. By a Beneficed
Clergyman of the Church of England. Price is. Id., post free.
On the Defective Morality of the New Testament. By Prof. F. W. Newman.
Price 6d.
The “ Church and its Reform. ” A Reprint. Price Is.
“ The Church of England Catechism Examined.” By Jeremy Bentham, Esq. A Reprint.
Price Is.
Original Sin. Price 6d.
Redemption, Imputation, Substitution, Forgiveness of Sins, and Grace. Price 6d.
Basis of a New Reformation. Price 9d.
Miracles and Prophecies. Price 6d.
Babylon. By the Rev P. S. Desprez, B.D. Price 6d.
The Church : the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Price 6d.
Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism. Price 6d.
Errors, Discrepancies, and Contradictions of the Gospel Records; with special
reference to the irreconcilable Contradictions between the Synopticsand the Fourth
Gospel. By Thos. Scott. Price Is.
The Gospel of the Kingdom. By a Bbneficed Clergyman of the Church of England. 6d.
The Meaning of the Age. By the Author of ‘ The Pilgrim and the Shrine.’ Price 6d.
“ James and Paul.” A Tract by Emer. Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Law and the Creeds. Price 6d.
Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Introductory Remarks.
By Ed. Vansittart Neale, M.A. and M.R.I. Price is.
A Confutation of the Diabolarchy, By Rev. John Oxlee. Price 6d.
The Bigot and the Sceptic. By Emer. Professor F. W. N ewman. Price 6d.
Church Cursing and Atheism. By the Rev. Thomas P. Kirkman, M.A., F.R.S., &c.,
Rector of Croft, Warrington. Price Is.
Practical Remarks on “ The Lord’s Prayer.” By a Layman. With Anno
tations by a Dignitary of the Church of England. Price 6d.
The Analogy of Nature and Religion—Good and Evil. By a Clergyman
of the Church of England. Price 6d.
Commentators and Hierophants ; or, The Honesty of Christian Commentators.
In Two Parts. Price 6d. each Part.
Free Discussion of Religious Topics. By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord
Bishop of Norwich. Part I., price Is. Part II., price Is. 6d.
The Evangelist and the Divine. By a Beneficed Clergyman of the Church
of England. Price is.
The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds,—Their Sense and their Non-Sense.
By a Country Parson. Parts ]., II., III. Price 6d. each Part.
�
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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span><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" /></span>
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
The tactics and defeat of the Christian Evidence Society
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Scott, Thomas
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: [3], 6-36, [2] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Publisher's list on unnumbered page at the end. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. The Christian Evidence Society is a UK Christian apologetics organisation founded in 1870.
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
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT152
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
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" /><br /><span>This work (The tactics and defeat of the Christian Evidence Society), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
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
Apologetics
Authority
Bible-Evidences
Christian Evidence Society
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/41fa78c743611bcef99ebed2b35d3fc8.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=jXYw5k35f8v8TgE9KXKpPdmtuXjn2UxzK4AnMlYODFmn8RW2qydbA3nOImtulzSUXsl%7E6lTAJaKSZQ-f6ApVuiPsI72EM9yO6rTeR1ePfH3dSdSqHQnrlcgFcq5lpmPfG-qCegaYm3AIOW2OchWiLwJeaQDbgyefka7B4V2q4vsVk-io5bXr7pe8Zpsp4i3cyiMzU1QMpKSbR3FKUh6X-pbaQSdvhqPFJpObknOrNlj8-SHtorFTTCIg1rcJ-%7ES-SJCkOqznazsR2YYuq5MStu%7ExNDOwF7aOchPcDOuy-K4211gKhuZJHIhNasS4aey2H6qrIcEJgzrSMDaFw38n5w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
15f83dad9d64cf22ec8b34b55326b43d
PDF Text
Text
B3l7°
KT62.8
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
No. 1] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE,
[i«.
BY
JOSEPH SYMES.
---------------------------------- ----------------------- - -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- >.
♦
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
Who was its author, when and where it was delivered, before
what audience, I do not care; the value of the discourse is no
greater though a great man uttered it; is no less, though the
production of a booby. If it descended or ascended from
heaven, it is no better or worse for that; if it sprung from
earth, or Purgatory, or Hell, that makes it no worse. If God
preached it, it is just as it is ; and you must admit no more
nor less, if the preacher was the Devil. If a Holy Ghost
inspired it, that does not enhance its value ; if a foul or filthy
spirit instigated its utterance, the sermon is no fouler or
cleaner for that. We may estimate the qualities' of' the
Author by those of the sermon ; but not those of the sermon
by those of the author.
Blessed are the poor in spirit (Matt, v., 3.) Poverty of
purse is bad enough; poverty of spirit is the condition of
fools, slaves, lunatics and idiots.—For theirs is the kingclo^
of heaven. What a blessed set, therefore, constitutes tm
kingdom of heaven! Wise men are excluded—by their
own choice, of course.
Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted
(v. 4). Common Sense says, Blessed are they who do not
need to be comforted,
word translated “blessed” all
through these “ beatitudes,” as they were piously and lacka
daisically denominated, should be rendered “ happy.’* The
*-Devised Version,” however, from which I quote, keeps the
old translation.
Perhaps the revisionists did not like to
expose their good book to ridicule. “ Happy are they that
mourn! ” To which I reply, Tall are they that are short !
7- at are they that are lean I Amen. It requires much grace
and divine enlightenment to understand a sermon, my
Brethren, and Sisters, specially when, like this on the Mount
�2
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
it abounds in absurdities. Not one of those who heard it
asked any questions ; discussion was not invited. And if they
had demanded an explanation, no doubt the good-natured
Jesus (if he was the preacher) would have mercifully damned
them for their impertinence.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth (v. 5),
History abounds with proofs of this truth. The meek
Israelites expelled and murdered all the Canaanites they could,
and took possession of all their victims had owned. The
meek Romans conquered the world, or a great part of it; and
the exceedingly meek Danes, Jutes, Saxons, and others con
quered and peopled England. The meek English stole India
and other countries, as the meek Spaniards stole South
and Central America.
Jesus did not understand history.
Gentleness is the characteristic of a strong man who has
strength enough to be self-controlled and goodness sufficient
to direct his power to worthy ends ; but meekness is mental
and moral paralysis. Gentleness is a virtue, meekness a vice. •
The former is independence, the latter absolute slavery to the
priesthood.
Blessed^re they that hunger and thirst after righteousness
(v. 6). Nonsense! Blessed are the righteous is the proper
thing to say. People who hunger and thirst after righteous
ness usually do nothing else, poor things ; their double appe
tite feeds upon themselves, and they are weak and miserable
as children.with worms.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy (v. 7).
It is so sometimes, though very often the contrary happens.
After all, the just are better than the merciful, though both
are good.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God (v. 8).
The pure in heart are good, though not always happy. They
will never see God, though. 1. If God is infinite, he can
never be seen, for there is no place where we could stand to
see him. 2. If . seen, he is not infinite. The pure in heart
have their own reward, and no more need a sight of God than
I do a sight of the Queen.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons
of God (v. 9), This is a joke equal to another I will perpe
trate : Blessed are the members of the Peace Society: for they
shall be called the sons of Alexander the Great, Juljps Casar,
Napoleon, Bismarck, Beaconsfield, or Bartie Frty. When
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
3
did God ever make peace or prevent war ? When was there
ever a war his servants did not ascribe to him ?
Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness'
sake ; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (v. 10). Then perse
cution also is a good thing ? If so, the persecutors ought to
be blessed too. To be persecuted is a nuisance, a great evil,
a shame, a disgrace to civilisation. And if the persecuted
have no compensation except the kingdom of heaven, their
case is more hopeless than that of the followers of Don Carlos
or of Jefferson Davis.
As for people now-a-days being persecuted and slandered
for the sake of Jesus, the conception is too grotesque for dis
cussion. It is his pretended and pretentious followers who
do all the persecution; and the kingdom of heaven consists,
not of victims, but of stupid and brutal persecutors. If the
“persecuted for righteousness’ sake” are to obtain a great
reward for their endurance, Hurrah 1 I mean, Hallelujah ! we
shall get the prize, and our Christian persecutors will go------ .
I do not know what will become of them.
Jesus says, “They so persecuted the prophets” (v. 11).
What prophets ? This preacher must have referred to a
different Old Testament from ours. The old Israelitish pro
phets were bitter persecutors when opportunity occurred;
but none of them suffered persecution, strictly so named.
To encourage persecution itself is not much worse than to
encourage its endurance by calling the persecuted happy.
The good teacher does his best to inculcate manliness and
justice, which will, in time, render persecution impossible.
, Matt. v.— Ye are the salt of the earth (v. 13). If Christians
ever were the salt of the earth, they must soon have lost
"their savor : as far as we can trace them back they have been
the world’s “ bitters,” witjtOut being anywise its tonics. Or
■—let me see ! Salt of the earth ! In large quantities salt
renders soil absolutely barren. And wherever Christianity
has reigned in unchecked sway, there has been a general
dearth of all good things. Ye are the light of the world. A
city set on a hill cannot be hid(y. 14). This was no doubt
intended to produce modesty, Those poor illiterate disciples
of an equally ignorant master were the light of the world!
Look at the Science, Philosophy and Art of the world, and
ask how much of it all is due to Jesus and his followers.
�4
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
Christianity never shed a ray of light upon anything. Its
lantern is a dark one, having neither wick nor oil.
No let your light shine before men, that they may see your
good works, and glorify your father which is in heaven (v. 16).
Let your rushlights shine, that men may honor the sun.
Amen.
What nonsense, to call upon twelve boobies to
confer honor upon an infinite being! If the Father in heaven
knew the rubbish his only begotten son was spouting on earth,
he would have shown his good sense to have corrected him.
It says little for that parent’s fatherly qualities that his
children behave so badly as they do. Worse behaved beings
than sons and daughters of God there never were—ignorance,
insolence and brutality are their usual characteristics; and
they are just like their father. Think not that I came to
destroy the law or theprophets(v. 17).—No, no, Jesus, youhadnot
the power, your countrymen still cling to them and leave your
doctrines and religion alone.—I came not to destroy, but to
fulfil. How fulfil ? To keep, do you mean ? To obey ? If
so, the Christian Church sorely misunderstands you. What
Jesus says about heaven and earth passing away is nonsense;
but what he says about those who disobey Moses and the
prophets shows him to be a Jew, not a Christian, and puts all
Christians in the wrong—if he was right. Jesus knew no
other law than that of Moses, no other inspired book than
the Jewish Scriptures, he never hinted that any other was
needed or would be written ; yet his professed followers have
almost superseded the Old Testament by the New, as they
supersede the New Testament by their creeds, confessions,
catechisms, and theological writings.
Jesus next proceeds to improve upon Moses, though he
above said he came only to fulfil. “ Thou shalt not kill,”
said Moses—though he was frightfully fond himself of killing.
Thou shalt nof be angry with thy brother, says Jesus; to be so,
thou shalt be in danger of the Judgment, or local petty court.
2/ thou say, Haca to thy brother, thou shalt be in danger of the
Council, the Sanhedrim, or the highest Jewish court; and to
call thy brother a fool, shall expose thee to hell fire ! (v. 21, 22).
Thus, it is bad to be angry, worse to say Baca, but a
damnable thing to call a brother a fool. Yet Jesus and Paul
did not hesitate to call people fools. I hope they are not
damned. If your brother is a fool, and gives you good reason
to tell him so, do it. It may open his eyes and lead to
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
a
improvement. The clergy usually try to give the word
“fool ” here some deep and mysterious and dreadful meaning,
in order to justify Jesus in his absurd denunciation of it; but
it means nothing worse than fool. It may be an impropriety
to call a foolish brother, or even a neighbor, a fool, but it is
not a crime.
As to offering gifts at the altar (v. 23, 24), had Jesus been
wise, he would not have sanctioned but condemned the
miserable superstition. Gifts are offered at the altar which
ought frequently to be paid as just debts to debtors ; in every
case it is disgraceful to waste upon gods what men, women
and children so much need for their life.
Agree with thine adversary quickly, etc. (v. 25). Surely
this ought to depend upon the justice of the case. If men
can honestly avoid law and lawyers, they are great fools to
have any connexion with them ; but there are many cases
when a man must be a coward and a fool to agree with his
adversary. Though if Jesus had agreed with his adversaries,
or even had made any rational defence before Pilate, he pro
bably would not have gone to the cross.
The 27th and 28th verses are simply atrocious, for they
condemn every healthy man that ever lived, and would, if
they could be obeyed, depopulate the earth. Licentiousness
is bad ; asceticism is a thousand times worse. Verses 29 and
31 are most brutal, and their moral tendency debasing in the
extreme. To fear hell at all is barbaric, to fear it to the
extent of mutilating oneself or its equivalent is brutalising.
Had Jesus been a married man he might have spoken
(v. 32) with some authority on the subject of divorce. None
of his utterances on the sexual relationships are at all edifying.
There are just causes of divorce ; a divorce which is not a
perfect divorce ought never to be effected ; when once effected,
the parties ought to be as free to marry again as bachelors
and spinsters.
What Jesus says respecting perjury and swearing (v. 33—
37) I entirely endorse, except that about the Evil One. To
swear is folly. A man that cannot be bound by a promise,
cannot be bound by an oath. But it is amusing to note how
Christians send Jesus to Coventry when it suits them. Their
conduct and teaching on oaths are the most perfect hypocrisy
that could be conceived. In most respects they are to-day, as
the result of purely secular influences, immeasurably superior
�6
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
to their Master ; in respect to the oath business they are as
far behind him. In that respect they are false, hypocritical
and brutal. If they had their way, they would depopulate
the world for the sake of their superstitions.
Resist not evil (Matt. v. 39). What must we resist then ?
Must we resist good ? Jesus seems to have been unable to
run from one extreme without rushing to the opppsite. Re
taliation, in most cases, may be foolish and wrong ; no general
rule can cover all cases. But non-resistance of evil is the
best way to encourage it. There is “a law in our members,”
much older and much more potent, which tells us to resist
evil with all our might—viz., the law of self-preservation.
And Jesus was as much under the force of that law as other
people. He nevei' turned the other cheek (v. 39), but gave
cheek for cheek whenever opportunity occurred. So did his
disciples. And his followers have always been more ready to
smite than be smitten.
Let him have thy cloak also (v. 40). Jesus was too poor to
know the value of clothes, hence this stupid rule of life.
Here, too, we have a most direct and thorough encouragement
to dishonesty. People are too fond of law as it is ; what
would be the state of society if every rogue who stole a coat
could get the owner’s cloak too by simply suing him ?
Verses 39—42 of this Sermon on the Mount are amply
sufficient, if put into practice, to destroy civilisation and
reduce mankind to a state of anarchy and violence. For
tunately, professing Christians have always, with an exception
or two, been more ready to steal than to throw away their
property, more ready to compel others to walk the “miles ”
than do it themselves. Bad as this is, it is better than what
Jesus taught.
Love your enemies (v. 44)—that you may be the children of
your Father which is in heaven (v. 45). No man can love his
enemy. The father in heaven cannot do it, or he would long
since have hugged and caressed the Devil. Jesus did not do
it, or he would have turned those stones into bread, as the
Devil requested him when they met in the wilderness. “' Do
good to them that hate you ! ” By what law ? It is con
trary to reason and nature both. Someone asked Confucius
what he had to say “ Concerning the principle that injury
should be recompensed with kindness ? ”—It was a very old
superstition, evidently—Confucius replied, “With what then
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
will you recompense kindness ? Recompense injury with
justice, and kindness with kindness.” That is good philo
sophy ; the language of Jesus is babyish.
He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and
sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust (v. 45). He does
nothing of the sort. The sun doesn’t rise ; it is the earth
that spins round in front of him, like a leg of mutton before
the fire. And if God did this work, he also makes his sun
scorch good and bad alike, and sends rains or drought indis
criminately. If we followed the heavenly father’s example,
no day would pass without our doing much mischief and
murdering more or fewer persons. Better leave him alone.
What reward have ge ? (v. 46—47). Just so. Jesus was
enslaved to the barbarous philosophy of rewards and punish
ments, and his followers have never grown out of it. The
Christian is taught to expect a reward for everything. If he
gives away money in charity, it is to get riches in heaven ; if he
spends his money upon church and chapel building, it is to get
an endless annuity in the New Jerusalem, or to be insured against
the unquenchable fire ; and those who hangfire at parting
with their cash are gravely assured that they will be “ recom
pensed at the resurrection of the just ”—the date of which
will be about the time the sky falls.
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men (Matt, vi., 1).
Christians read this the other way, viz. : Take heed to do
your alms before men, to be seen of them. They boast of what
they give out of their abundance and taunt us with not giving
what we do not possess. They accept challenges to debate at
times, on condition that the proceeds shall go to some charity,
not at all caring if we should be compelled to apply for charity
as a consequence of having to work for nothing. If Christians
were half as good as they pretend, they would be too good to
pretend at all; and if Christians would leave off wasting,
and robbing, and swindling, all would have enough, and
charity would no longer be needed.
When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites (Note,
Hypocrites meant originally an actor) ; for they love to pray,
standing in churches and chapels and in the corners of the
sti eets, that they may be seen of men (v. o).
Here I improve
both the translation and the original.
How many cf the
parsons would ever pray if no man or woman were by to
hear ?
J
�BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
Verily, I say unto you, They have their reward. True!
True! ranging from £50 per aunum to £15,000 and per
quisites. Not bad renumeration for actors in religious theatres.
But when ye pray, do not jabber like foreigners, etc. (v. 7).
I make the orthodox commentators a present of this rendering ;
it exactly gives the sense. A paraphrase is:—Don’t jabber
away like foreigners landed on a strange coast, who utter a
multitude of words in the hope of being able to make the
natives understand them. All the orthodox commentators
have missed the point of the advice. And most parsons have
a sort of regulation time for prayer, hoping that their God
will answer a long prayer, though he won’t a short one. In
fact, they treat their deity exactly like dishonest beggars
do their victims—they try the virtues of unlimited blarney.
Were I a god, I would much more readily relieve the Atheist
who never asks for anything than those who make a trade of
prayer—that is, begging. There are laws against begging,
but none against praying; which shows that Christian states
respect the public more than their God.
Your father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye
ask him (v. 8). He is a poor father, then, to wait to be
prayed to before doing his duty. It is a father’s duty to see
that his children have their wants supplied whether they ask
or not. The great father in heaven should spend a fortnight
at some well-conducted house to learn the ways of civilised
people. If he did this, he would burn the Bible and order
a new one, this time not written by his amanuenses, but
by men who could teach him more than all eternity has been
able to do.
The prayer that follows as a model, the Lord’s prayer, has
about all the faults a prayer can have, probably, except length.
There the pious pray for a kingdom to come. All just
government grows. We don’t want foreign rule, though we
can have no objection to God’s will being done on earth as in
heaven, because it is not done there at all. Men should work
for their daily bread, not pray for it. Forgive our debts, as
we forgive our debtors. If Christians believed in “ a prayer
answering god,” they would be afraid to pray thus : for they
do not forgive, and so, in effect, they ask not to be forgiven.
They are the most unforgiving of all people, being inspired
perhaps by the great father who will burn his enemies with
unquenchable fire. To pray not to be led into temptation, is
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
9
wise, if the Bible be true; for God tempted Abram to murder
his son, David to number Israel, etc. But to ask to be de
livered from the Evil One, is like a frightened child begging
his father to keep away the black man the nurse has been
speaking of.
Your father will forgive you, if you forgive others ; he
won’t if you don’t. Good example. Sublime morality!
You are to be perfect as your father (chap, v., 48), and he
threatens to be imperfect if you are so ! That is, you can
make him just what you will, forgiving or malicious, good or
bad; for his conduct is regulated by yours This is the very
highest point in New Testament morality!.
The directions Jesus gives (Matt, vi., 16—18) for fasting are
good enough, supposing fasting were itself of any conceivable
use. The only parties who ought to fast are they who have
eaten too much or whose health may probably be improved
by a short period of abstinence. Fasting as now practised in
Christendom is sheer hypocrisy. And as Christians do not
now honestly practise it, no more need be said, but that
•Christians would get far greater good by a little healthy
honesty than by all “the means of grace ” they employ.
The rest of Matthew vi., 19—34, is so openly antagonistic
both to civilisation and to clerical conduct, that the wonder
is modern Christians have not long since repudiated it as
•contrary to their religion :—
1. Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth (v. 19).
The best of Christians obey this by laying up all they can
upon earth.
2. But lay up............. treasures in heaven (v. 20). Many
Christians would do this too, but they know not where heaven
is. They would not object to treasures here and hereafter
both ; but having no prospect of heaven, and being wedded
as closely to the earth as any misers, they make sure of earthly
treasures, and trust in providence for the others.
3. For where your treasure is there will your heart be also
(v. 21). No people love the world more fully than Christians ;
and the “ love of the father,” of course, “ is not in them.”
What Jesus says of the single eye and the light of the
body (v. 22—23) may be ignored : he understood neither
physiology nor optics, nor was he any better instructed in
moral rights and obligations. He uttered rules, proverbs and
commands, which his followers are ever praising and ever
�10
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
deliberately breaking, and must break, or renounce civilisa
tion.
No man can serve two masters............. God and Mammon,
for example (v. 24). Another blunder. The clergy can serve
God and Mammon first rate. The first step is, perhaps, Hie
most difficult. You renounce the world in your baptism,
that is, your godfathers and godmothers do it for you, as
theirs did for them. This is all you need to do. Henceforth
you are safe ; your baptism regenerates you, and the “ new
man ” serves Mammon and God with the most perfect
assiduity for all the rest of life. If in any case God should
grumble at the rivalry of Mr. Mammon, he is politely kicked
out of doors, and Mammon reigns supreme. Jesus was not
half so clever as his followers ; the parsons could put him up
to many a dodge were he now on earth.
Take no thought for your life—neither for food nor raiment
(v. 25). This is the language of a pure barbarian or maniac.
The commentators say, “anxious thought,” “undue thought,”
etc. There is nothing in the gospels to authorise them.
Jesus never inculcates the duty of industry ; but here he
enjoins an absolute indifference for all worldly pursuits. The
fowls (26) are to be your model as regards providing food—
and they neither sow nor reap nor garner: but your heavenly
father feedeth them and will much more feed you, for you
are much better. And why care about clothes ? The lilies
are clothed by providence ; how much more will he clothe
you ? To all except perverse divines this language is so plain
that one wonders even at their temerity in trying to reconcile
it with common sense. But Jesus points it still more :—Can
you, by taking thought, add a cubit to your height? The
answer is obvious. Neither can you get food or clothes by
“ taking thought.” “ Therefore take no thoughtetc. (v. 31).
The Gentiles take thought; they seek food and clothes. But
you have a heavenly father who knows all about what you
need ; and if you only seek his kingdom and righteousness,
he will see to it that all your wants are supplied.
Good father!—How is it nobody trusts him ? I should
like to see a community founded on the principles of the
Sermon on the Mount. The bishops might take the lead in
such an undertaking. They have the best security. They
have a father who is all-good and almighty. He says he will
supply all their needs if they will seek first his kingdom, etc.
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
11
Their is neither bishop nor pastor who believes it. In that
they show their scepticism and good sense. They are
infidels—that is, unfaithful to their own professed principles;
we are infidels in a better sense—viz., we.no more believe the
truth and wisdom of Jesus’s teaching than they do, and we
say so'much. For our honesty we shall be damned, while
they will be saved for their hypocrisy. So be it.
Take therefore no thought for the morrow; for the morrow
shall take thought for the things of itself (v. 34). Confucius
said : “ If a man takes no thought about what is distant, he
will find sorrow near at hand.” If Jesus had taken thought
for the morrow he would have had a place “to lay his head
he would not have been poorer than foxes, as he admitted,
nor would he have gone hunger-bitten to the fig-tree and
cursed it for bearing no figs out of season.
Still there is in the world to-day something much worse
than even the fanaticism of Jesus or his poor insanity, and
that is the miserable cant, found even amongst Unitarians and
a few Freethinkers, which affects to admire and eulogise the
character and wisdom of the teachings of Jesus ! If those
panegyrists are honest they do not understand what they do;
if they understand, they xare veritable hypocrites. Every
enlightened man does habitually, and as a consequence of his
enlightenment, the very things Jesus condemned. He never
more plainly condemned adultery or murder than he did social
prudence and industry.
The early Christians understood their master as I now do,
and it was only the stern reality of life which showed them
how false and pernicious his doctrines are. Cave, in • his
“ Primitive Christianity,” p. 230, says : “ They never met
with opportunities to have advanced and enriched themselves,
but they declined and turned them off with a noble scorn.”
Origen, he says, obeyed the precept not to have two coats, to
wear shoes, nor to be (anxiously) careful for the morrow ”
(p. 242). Cave invents “anxiously ” here. “Nay,” says he,
“ so little kindness had they for this world, that they cared
not how little they stayed in it; and, therefore, readily offered
themselves for martyrdom at every turn ” (p. 246-7). This
agrees with Tertullian : Calamities, etc., “ injure us not; ing
the first place, because we have no further concern with th?
world than how we may most quickly depart from it ’
(“Apology,” c. xii.)
�12
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
When modem Christians exchange cant and hypocrisy for
truth and honesty they will either follow and obey Jesus in
reality or else openly renounce him. Which will they do ?
Judge not that ye be not judged. For with what judgment
7 e judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye
J
mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matt, vii., 1).__
Harsh judgments and censorious comments ought to be
avoided ; but honest judgment is one of the best means of
moral education, and moral education cannot be obtained
without it. Besides, no one ever violated this rule more than
Jesus himself. He judged and condemned in many cases ;
nor did he ever. make it appear that he understood the im
portance or the justice of a fair and open trial. Had he been
wise and good, he would have given some hint, at least,
respecting the forms and administration of justice. The codes
of civilised nations owe nothing to Jesus or to his religion.
His conceptions of justice and law were those of any petty
Oriental despot.
The mote and the shaft—spear-shaft—in the eyes consti
tute a figure of speech grotesquely overdone, and ridiculous
into the bargain. Who with a mote in his eye would wait
for some one to ask to extract or remove it ?—while a spear
shaft in the eye means the destruction of the organ and the
death of the owner.
It was not charity, but bitter and coarse satire, which
inspired what he says about giving holy things to dogs and
casting pearls before swine (v. 6, 7). If men are dogs and
swine, it must be because God made them so, that is Jesus, if
he was God. Why sneer at his own handiwork ? Why not
make them better ?
Ask and it shall be given you (v. 7, 8). If this were true,
how rich and prosperous and powerful the Church would be 1
How soon the world would be converted! How quickly they
would hear and see the last of the Freethinker and its wicked
crew. All the prayers in the world—I mean the Church—
cannot stop these Atheistic sermons, nor confound the preacher.
Let them try. Ask and receive ! The parson prays to God
and receives from men. Their prayers, indeed, are mostly
intended for human ears; and those that do not reach human
ears are never answered. The Church has never been
ashamed to beg, and it has got a million-fold more than it
has deserved. When the orthodox confess themselves un
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
13
worthy, we agree with them, and when most of them confess
themselves “miserable offenders,” we cannot but admit the
justice of the plea.
The contrast (v. 9—12) between earthly fathers and the
heavenly one is all in favor of the former. Most earthly
parents do something for their children ; the heavenly father
does nothing. By the way, how can a man have two fathers,
unless one is merely grandfather or father in a merely legal
or social sense ? If, then, we have earthly fathers, we have
no heavenly one.
Beware offalse prophets (v. 15). Amen. Amen. All pro
phets are false prophets. Truth is found only by experience,
not revelation. All pretenders to revelation are false prophets:
beware of them and their sermons and gospels and predictions.
All those who follow them only repeat the original lies. And
revelation lies have filled the world with confusion, bitterness
and blood.
They come in sheep’s clothing—good broad-cloth made of
wool; but they dress in many ways. Ye shall know them bu
their fruits (v. 16). Yes, yes ! What has revelation, what
have its prophets, done for man ? All the world’s science,
government, philosophy, sanitation, medicine, are due to the
prophet’s enemies. No prophet ever revealed a pregnant
truth that enriched or enlightened the world. To prophets
we owe persecution and darkness ; to secular workers and
thinkers we owe all the knowledge and all the wealth of the
world. By their fruits ye shall know them—if they bear any.
The bishops are barren, the Church is a desert, and the
parsons ever cry, “ Give, give !” We hope Jesus’ prophecy is
correct, that the useless trees shall be hewn down and cast
into the fire. Then the churches are doomed. They bear
no good fruit; they cumber the ground and produce poison.
If none but those who do the will of the father (v. 21—-24)
enter into the kingdom of heaven, there are few destined to
enter. There is no parson or priest now existing that con
forms his life to the Bible, and that is generally called the
will oi’ word of God. Who, then, will people the kingdom of
heaven ? I fancy the standard will have to be altered or the
kingdom will never be anything but a kingdom on paper.
And those who don’t go to that kingdom must, if popular
theology is correct, people the Devil’s kingdom. I have no
respect for the Devil, or his empire ; but he is going to beat
�14
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
the other gentleman. Not only most people belong to him,
bnt all the best are his. The parsons cannot question this,
for they belong to the Devil as much as I do, and they serve
him as heartily too. In face of existing facts, the kingdom of
heaven must be pronounced a complete failure, and its effects
are not worthy of a sale by auction. You, Jesus, need not
make the gate so narrow. Nobody will enter even if you
make a large gap in the fence.
The peroration (v. 24—29) of the Sermon on the Mount is
a splendid one. It fairly rises to the height of true oratory.
But it is awfully selfish and egoistic, besides being maliciously
unjust and severe. Who can do those sayings of thine, Jesus ?
Who can love his enemies ? Who can follow the example of
fowls and lilies ? Who can turn the other cheek, or give his
cloak to the thief who steals his coat ? If thine own rule is to
be the law, thou thyself art hopelessly condemned. There.' is
nought but destruction and ruin in store for thyself and thy
hearers and readers, if thy sermon is the standard of judg
ment. That sermon would damn all men, women and chil
dren ; all angels, archangels, seraphs, and cherubs ; and God
the Father, Son and Holy Ghost will be damned with the
rest; for there is not a being in the world who does or ever
did obey what it enjoins. And yet the orthodox belaud what
must damn them and all. I wonder if they’ll boast of that
sermon when it has damned them ?
THE
LORD’S
MERCIES.
“ The Lord is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all
his works.”—Psalm cxlv., 9.
This, be it remembered, is not an empty boast. The Psalmist
understood the matter well, being inspired by the Holy Spirit.
He did not, as sceptical and profane persons would have done,
look at the world and carnally survey the deeds and vicissi
tudes of life ; he piously closed his eyes, and thus saw plainly
that the Lord was “ good to all, and that his tender mercies
were over all his works.” The pious king—when have kings
not been pious?—adopted the only possible method of dis
covering that the Lord was good to all, etc., he saw it by
faith, as any one may who has faith enough.
�THE LORD’S MERCIES.
15
But this sdfelime and salutary and universally comforting
truth may be .proved to a demonstration.
I. The Lord is almighty, and can do whatsoever he will.
He can make two and two to be seven, or turn a summer
sault, or turn himself inside out, if you give him time enough
to do it in—that is, all time. He made all things in six days
the very first time he ever tried, and could no doubt do it in
six minutes now, were he so inclined. I mention these facts
to show that the Lord is quite able to do everything.
II. He is all-knowing too ; and so, in point of knowledge,
as well as power, perfectly competent to execute goodness and
extend his tender mercies to all.
III. Historical proofs may now be given of the above truth ;
and these are so numerous that we can merely select a few
out of an almost infinite miscellany.
1. He made a man and woman and put them into a garden,
where there was a^iree they were not to eat of on pain of
death. He also made a “ subtil ” serpent who tempted the
two to eat, and they did eat.” For this the Lord cursed
the pair, the serpent, and the very earth. All the posterity
of this couple were involved in their parents’ fate, and are to
this day doomed to pain, toil, want, sickness, misery, and
death for that old crime of eating forbidden fruit! This is
the first proof of divine goodness and tender mercies.
2. Less than 2,000 years later, when men were numerous
and not over good in their conduct, the Lord resolved to show
how far he could excel them all in criminality and cruelty.
There was not a man then living who would, if he could,
have drowned the whole world. But the Lord showed his
goodness by pouring down 1,000,000,000 (one thousand
million) cubic miles of water upon the earth, or two thirds of
a cubic mile for every man, woman, and child now in the
world ! So abundantly plentiful was the supply that each
man might have truly said with the grateful Psalmist, My
cup runneth over ”—if he could have spoken after being
drowned. It is true, the story says that eight persons were
saved in this universal deluge ; but they might just as well
have been drowned for any good we know of them. The
water, by the way, was so plentiful that it seems to have dis
gusted Mr. Noah, who broke the pledge and went out on the
spree as soon as he could get anything to tipple upon.
3. Not to confine his exhibition of tender mercies to a
�No. 5 ] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
;
BY
JOSEPH
SYMES,
.
.
[W.
_■
3
/' V?'
JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS,
And Noah . . . drank of the wine and was drunken (Gen.
lx., 20-21).—(1) Teetotallers pretend that some Bible wines
were not intoxicating ; but most were, or people might have
drunk them with impunity. The Bible was not written by
abstainers, nor was total abstinence ever contemplated by God,
except for a few peculiar people. (2) Noah was a saint, and
so it was no disgrace for him to get drunk and expose himself
as he did. (8) The verses of this chapter numbered twentytwo—twenty-seven are a curiosity. Ham, Noah’s youngest
son, saw the beastly conduct of the old man ; and Noah, when
he found it out, vented his curses upon Canaan, Ham’s son !
This was written by some unscrupulous Israelite to justify his
countrymen in exterminating the Canaanites. The roguery
is too transparent to be misunderstood—it is the assassin
endeavoring to stand well before those who know of his crime.
Suppose Noah had cursed Canaan for what Ham did! That
would stamp him an idiot. Besides, when did this happen ?
There were only eight human beings in the ark (1 Peter iii-,,
20). Canaajn was Ham’s fourth son, and could not have been
. old enough to have mocked or insulted his grandfather till
many years after the flood, though the story implies that it
. was not long after that event. What an ill-tempered old
grandfather Noah must have been to vent his spleen upon his
grandson, if he really did thus; and how much more illtempered and diobolical God must have been to execute Noah’s
curse upon Canaan’s innocent posterity so many hundreds of
years after the death of Noah ! No gods were ever much to
boast of; but the Jewish-Christian idol is worse than all the
others rolled into one. Besides, how stupid of him to save
�66
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE
such a paltry lot as Noah, and his family when drowning the
world! Any sensible god would have made a clean sweep
both, of animals and men, if he had proceeded as far as Genesis
describes, and then have started de novo with better races,
fashioned on an improved plan and made of better materials.
But this God is par excellence the God of blunders and
blunderers. Still, the Bible is anything but “ a comedy of
errors
it is a tragedy in which few but mad gods, mad pro
phets, mad angels, fools and helpless wretches bear their parts.
Homer’s Iliad turns upon the wrath of Achilles, and the Bible
upon the fury, the very fermented wine or expressed juice of,
the wrath of God.
Genesis x. and its pretended pedigrees of the nations may
be jumped over, for no doubt the writer, some very late scribe,
invented the names. Anybody could invent pedigrees, I
presume. Noah, I just this moment learn by inspiration,
had other sons in the ark with him. One of them ate a man
for his dinner, and they called him Man Chew. Was he not
the father of all those who dwell in Manchuria unto this
day ?
A nd the whole earth was of one language and of one speech
(Genesis xi., 1). Just so. This is a precious fragment of
the word of God. “ Read, mark, learn,” my reader, -‘and
digest.” .Men would build a tower—(why not?)—whose top
should reach to heaven—(well, Jacob’s ladder did)—so that
should there be another flood, they might climb the tower
and escape drowning ! Very sensible project I should say ;
but God viewed it in a totally different light. What! not
allow him to drown them when he felt disposed to have a
little sport that way ! Imagine, my reader, the feelings of
an angler, if all fishes united to wear wire respirator-things
or mouth screens, to defend them against hooks ! Fancy the
feelings of butchers, were sheep and oxen to adopt invulner
able armor that no weapon could pierce!
Conceive the
chagrin of fowlers and sportsmen, were all birds to use shot
proof dresses! Then you may comprehend in some faint
degree the chagrin, the fury of God when his creature man,
whom he had made for his own private and exclusive sport,
proved daring enough to unite to defeat his ends by building
a tower whose top should reach to heaven ! If the earth had
exploded like a modern bombshell, it would not have startled
and amazed him half as much!
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
67
And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower (Genesis
xi., 5).—In those days the Lord had no angels to go and come
for him, and so he went on his own errands. Later he made
angels; and then he hit upon a better expedient still—he
expanded himself until he filled all space. The Christians
still entreat him to come down into their temples and
dwellings, but he never heeds them. On this occasion he
went to see the wonderful city and tower, just as you might
go to the Fisheries Exhibition. But the sight alarmed him 1
And he exclaimed, when he saw the works, “Now nothing
will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to
do 1” In plain words, that means that Jehovah was really
afraid that men would raise the tower to heaven, and so secure
themselves against another flood! How extremely childish
this is must be apparent to all. The Lord is and always has
been in his dotage.
Therefore all must be children who
would go and dwell with him, “ for of such is the kingdom of
heaven.” Strong-minded men and women are not wanted
there.
The Lord having no engines by which to destroy the tower
—thunderbolts and earthquakes not having been invented—
undertook to confound the language of men, so that they
should not understand each other. The results were awful.
“Mortar!” shouted a bricklayer; and up came a hod of
bricks.
“Bricks!” cried another, and up went a hod of
mortar. “Bring up that plank!” shouted a third; and up
went a can of tea. A mason dubbed his man a blockhead,
and the man felt delighted at the compliment, and fully
expected higher wages on Saturday.
The architect gave
orders to push on as fast as possible with the building, for the
sky seemed threatening rain. Therefore, the master mason
gave instructions to his men to pull down the left wing and
rebuild it better. The men misunderstood him, and walled
up several of the windows. No two men spoke alike. If a man
said “Good morning,” to his fellow, his fellow thought he
called him names. Then they fought to assist their mutual
understanding. Things went on like this for two days, when
the whole world dissolved partnership, and supposing the
tower and its vicinity bewitched, all spontaneously left it,
rushing away to every point of the compass, some of them
never stopping till they met on the opposite side of the world.
The Lord and his party went back to heaven, climbing the
�68
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
unfinished tower, and stepping from its walls into paradise,
where they laughed till the universe shook again, at the
wonderful success of their joke.
And the Lord played a worse joke still some 1,800 to 1,900
years ago. He gave the world a revelation of his supreme
will, throwing together scraps of his autobiography, history,
romance, poetry, mythology, statistics, ritual, law, agriculture,
cosmogony, ethics, politics, criminal jurisprudence, lies,nonsense,
pointless jokes, puns, platitudes, false philosophy. This he
put together in a book called the Bible, and would have
printed if he had known how. And the result ? The
churches have been fighting about the meaning of this book
ever since—“ they rest not day and night ” praising the book
and quarrelling about its teachings. In this contest reason is
never allowed to intrude. Theological language is always at
sixes and sevens. Millions upon millions of human lives have
been destroyed to prove how divine and precious is the Bible ;
it has perverted the best and noblest sentiments of human
nature and social life ; it has confounded all those who have
endeavored to follow its lead ; it is a will-o’-the-wisp, an ignis
fatuus—a maze, a labyrinth, a whirlpool, in the midst of
which men neither understand themselves nor their
neighbors.
Another leap, and we find ourselves in the company of
Abram or Abraham, son of Terah and friend of God. The
very best parts of Abram’s biography are not in the Bible. I
beg to suggest that the gentlemen who meet in the Jerusalem
Chamber, Westminster Abbey, to improve the Bible, should
insert the Rabbinical stories of Abram and other saints, for
such additions, even if much that is now in the book should
be omitted to make room for them, will enhance the value of
the word of God a hundredfold.
Abram’s father was Terah and also Azer or the planet Mars ;
likewise Zarah and Athar. It is not every man who can
boast of five or six fathers. Abram’s father—(I relate the
story from memory)—lived in high honor at the court of
Nimrod ; and a prophecy went forth that a son of Terah
should dethrone the king.
Therefore his wife, reflecting
that Nimrod would destroy their new child, should it be a
boy, removed out of the town and took up her residence for
safety in a cave. There Abram was born. To make doubly
sure, his mother did not mention the event even to her hus
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS
6fl
band ; and she spent as little time in the cave as possible, to
avoid suspicion. Abram was a remarkable boy for his age,
and grew wonderfully fast. At fifteen months old he was as
big as an ordinary boy of fifteen years. And “ on what meats
did this our Abram feed, that he was grown so great ?”
There lies the point of the whole case. He merely sucked—
his thumbs or his fingers ! Don’t be sceptical; the Lord was
in those digits of Abram, just as he was in the burning bush
of Moses, as he is in a salvation drum, or the hallelujah beer
sold at the Eagle.”
Things turning out so unexpectedly, Mrs. Terah thought it
time to tell her husband ; and one evening she conducted
him to the cave on a visit to their extremely interesting son.
Lest any should doubt the divine truth I am relating, I will
mention an incident that took place a few months back at
Euston Station. I was in the waiting-room waiting for the
midnight train to Birmingham, my companions being a young
lady, and a gentleman with a little boy, apparently of four or
five years. He was running about the room. And his father
remarked to the young lady, “ That’s a wonderful child.
How old do you think he is ?” She said, “ Four years, per
haps.” “ He is only four months old,” replied the father ;
I am just come from Canada with him. Don’t you think
he is a wonderful child ?” I asked him if he had not made a
mistake ; and he solemnly assured me that the child was only
four months old. I gave in, thinking this child, like some in
Palestine in former days, might have been filled with the
Holy Ghost from his birth. Besides I reflected that I had no
means of proving that he was more than four months old ;
and if he had said four weeks, I should have been equally
silenced.
Your fathers dwelt on the other side oj the flood in old time,
even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor :
and they served other gods (Joshua xxiv., 2).—It is a long jump
from Genesis xi. to Joshua xxiv., no doubt, but the subject is
the same. The child Abraham, as previously reported, grew
at a marvellous rate ; and his mother took his father to see
the prodigy. Terah was a courtier, a class of men often
enough very cunning, but rarely remarkable for knowledge or
wisdom. Now when Terah saw his son he deemed it best to
present him at court, for although he knew there was some
danger in that step, he thought there would be much more
�BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
should Nimrod discover that he was hiding such a child from
him. So he and his wife resolved to take him home at once.
Terah soon found that his son was intellectually no less
wonderful than he was physically. On the road home the
precocious youth bored his father about the nature of the
gods, and which was the right and the true one. Terah’s
answers were anything but satisfactory, for Abraham seemed
determined to probe matters to the utmost. How he had
learnt to talk and reason the story does not say ; perhaps the
Holy Ghost could tell you if he would. However, he spoke
with such good effect that his poor father was thrown into
quite a perspiration, and foresaw trouble at the court of
Nimrod. Abraham was no courtier, and had no modesty to
check his impertinence; and Terah plainly foresaw that he
would as soon dispute with Nimrod as a chimney-sweep. Arti
ficial distinctions were unknown to this overgrown child, and
he was no more abashed in the presence of Nimrod than a
sensible man would be before the shadow of monarchy remain
ing in this country. Nimrod was as much confounded
Abraham as the Jewish rabbis were at a later date by the
twelve-year-old Jesus. And, of course, the king resolved on
vengeance, especially as Abraham scouted his gods.
But here I am met by a difficulty. There is no sort of
doubt at all that Nimrod did his uttermost to win the crown
of martyrdom for Abraham, and would have succeeded, had
not a miracle most inopportunely sprung up to rob him of that
eternal honor. But for that untoward miracle, Abraham would
have had the honor of figuring in the calendar as the young
martyr of only fifteen months old, who was put to death by
Nimrod because he could not withstand the wisdom with
which he spake. But it is not very clear why Abraham was
to be martyred; whether it was for confounding the king
before his whole court, or for another reason, does not clearly
appear. The better account of the two is this, substantially.
Terah was either a manufacturer of idols oi’ else he had charge
of Nimrod’s pantheon, where all the principal idols were kept
and taken care of. One day, some great national feast day.
all the city went out to the Ninevite Champ de Mars to enjoy
themselves. Abraham scorning to take any part in the
heathen festival, stayed away, and explored the city. In
the course o-f his investigations he stumbled into the chief
temple (some say it was his father’s workshop or warehouse),
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
71
and looked with not a spark of reverence upon the idols great
and small there set up. No more abashed before gods than
he had been before the court, he took an axe, and with most
sacrilegious hands proceeded to demolish the gods whose wor
shippers were too far away to defend them. He had destroyed
them all except the largest in the place, when a most happy
thought arrested the blow he was about to deal him. Instead
of demolishing that one he put it to a remarkably good pur
pose. He took a piece of cord and tied the axe around the
neck of the only surviving god, and then calmly awaited the
return of the people from the festival.
The first to arrive in the temple was his own father, who
for several seconds failed to realise where he was ; the chips
and rubbish about rather puzzled him. When he had fairly
taken in the situation he was horror-struck, and demanded
who had been guilty of this sacrilege. In almost the same
breath he accused his incomprehensible son, who, however,
pretended to be innocent. “ The fact is, my revered parent,”
said he, “ a woman came to the temple with an offering of
fine flour; and the gods all scrambled for it in so rude a
manner that it came to a deadly fight; and at last that big
one there took his axe and destroyed all the rest, as you see.
In proof of my veracity, behold the very axe still suspended
round the neck of the murderous god1”
This story only made Terah more furious. It was absurd,
he said, to suppose that idols, gods of wood, could quarrel
about an offering, or that one of them should destroy the rest.
Abraham did not forget the sarcastic and obvious remark
that it must be exceedingly absurd to worship gods that could
not do as he averred. But Terah was in no mood to argue;
his blood was up ; his piety—like that of Judge North—was
boiling over; and he resolved to bring his wicked son to con
dign punishment. So he dragged him before Nimrod and
told the mighty hunter how his son had treated the national
gods. Nimrod and his whole court were almost speechless
with horror and indignation. The fury of Jehovah himself
when his breath was hot enough to kindle coals (see Psalm
xviii., 8), scarcely exceeded it. So Nimrod ordered immediate
preparations to be set on foot for the execution of the culprit.
A large meadow was filled up with wood to a great height,
and, at the suggestion of the Devil, they constructed a large
engine, a kind of lithobolus or balista, or catapult, sufficient to
�72
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
hurl a man to a great distance. This was needed for special
reasons. The fire was to be so tremendous in size, and they
wished to light it and let it blaze up a little before flinging
the victim into it; and how, without' an engine of this sort,,
were they to get him into the midst of the fire ? When the
fire was just hot enough and the court and people were expect
ing eagerly the grand holiday sight of a heretic roasting, they
fastened poor Abraham to the engine and fired him off ! And
now, behold a wonder! The aim was correctly enough taken,
and the victim flew along the parabolic projectile-curve right
into the midst of—not the fire, not the pile of wood. The
whole pile, fire and all, disappeared in a twinkling. A flash
of lightning nevei’ came and went faster. And the young
saint fell upon a bed of flowers in the very midst of a beauti
ful meadow!
I do not know how Nimrod endured the disappointment ;•
though no doubt he learnt the lesson never to hunt saints
again or try to kill them. What became of Abraham imme
diately after I cannot say ; though I doubt not he thoroughly
enjoyed the day’s sport and fun, as much as some of us enjoy
the smashing of gods in these degenerate tunes.
Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy
country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father s house,
unto a land that I will show thee: and I will make of thee
a great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great;
and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that bless
thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all
families of the earth be blessed (G-en. xii., 1-3).—Having
delivered Abram from the fell designs of Nimrod and the
Devil, we may now resume his history in the Bible. The
pious reader will not fail to note (1) the unsocial nature of
the Lord’s religion, which begins by sending Abram from
home, (2) the low and vulgar promises held out to his ambi
tion, (3) the vengeful spirit of the Lord, who threatens to
curse the man that curses his favorite. This is a very
appropriate start for the Jewish-Ohristian religion—the Lord
seems never yet to have won a single follower except by means
of bribery or intimidation. He never will; and now those
old weapons are almost out of date.
This story of Abram’s leaving home is a good specimen of
Bible history. In chapter xi., 31, we are told it was Terah
who left his native place, Ur of the Chaldees, taking Abram
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
73
and Lot with him ; and they went forth to go to Canaan.
There is nothing here about leaving “ his father’s house
that house went with him. But the text quoted above from
chapter xii. says God told Abram to go out from his kindred
and his father’s house. Where Ur was, or Haran of Oharran,
cannot be ascertained—somewhere near New Jerusalem
perhaps.
And Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed out
of Haran (Gen. xii., 4).—Is it possible the Lord would send
a poor old fellow of that age on a long journey into an un
known land ? And did he talk to an old fogey of that age
about leaving lens, father s house, etc. ? If his poor old father was
still living, Abram should at least have stayed and buried him
before setting out. And if Terah was dead when God told this
youth to quit, as the last verse of chapter xi. says, what sense
was there in God talking to him about “his father’s house ?”
And there was a famine in the land (Gen. xii., 10).—Ah I
if the Lord had only told the saint how to prevent famines,
and the saint had imparted the secret to the world, then he
would have made him a blessing to mankind; as it is, the
world does not owe anything good to Abram yet, and I fear
it never will.
Abram’s example is instructive. In consequence of the
famine he went to Egypt. His wife, only ten years younger
than himself, is so fair that he fears the Egyptians will kill
him for her sake ; so he bids her tell a lie and pass as his
sister. This was a most ungodly saint, for. he had no faith
in the Lord to protect him in Egypt. What wonder if so
many saints to-day follow the example of this ancient infidel,
the father of the faithful, and trust in anything rather than
Jehovah ? The Egyptians must have had a plague, we sup
pose, just previous to this visit, in which nearly all the women
had been swept off. It is impossible otherwise to account for
Pharaoh’s selecting so old a woman for his harem. Is this
a story that Sarah herself told, when she returned from
Egypt, to some of her gossips over a cup of tea with a little
reviving spirit in it ? Anyhow, why did the Holy Ghost pen
or dictate so stupid and indecent a tale ?
And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver and in yold
(Gen. xiii., 2).—He does not appear to have had anything
when he went to Egypt: he returned a very rich man. Sarah
is said to have been beautiful; and Abram, friend of the
�74
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
most high God, enriched himself in the most unmanly and
immoral fashion to be conceived. Why had not the Holy
Ghost the decency to throw a veil over this part of the saint’s
life ? Yea, why did he ever mention such a man at all ?
Abram’s treatment of Lot is described by an Israelite so as
to redound to the glory of the former ; had one of Lot’s
descendants written Genesis xiii., no doubt Abram would have
been exhibited as the more selfish man.
I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth, so that ifa man
can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be
numbered (xiii., 16).—This is a good specimen of Bible pro
mises, preposterously impossible of fulfilment. The dust
caught up by one gust of wind, in what the Scotch call a
“ stoury day,” contains more particles than all the people that
have ever lived, most likely. Abram’s descendants, if he has
any at all, are not even among the most numerous of mankind.
Both Abram and his God are mere names, no doubt of beings
that never existed, except as Jupiter and Juno existed.
And Melchizcdek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and
wine : and he was the priest of the most high God (Gen. xiv.,
18).—Here is a delightful source of theological speculation!
Who was Melchizedek ? The Jews said he was Shem, son of
Noah. Some of the fathers'said he was an angel; some
heretics (that is, unfashionable Christians) held that he was
a Power, a Virtue, or Influence of God; others regarded him
as being the Holy Ghost. Some Christians thought he was
the son of God ; and some Jews their Messiah. The Epistle
to the Hebrews (v. and vii.) clears up the whole difficulty in
a style which leaves nothing to be desired: Melchizedek,
according to this, was not Shem, not on angel, not the Holy
Ghost, not the son of God, not the Messiah ; he was “ without
father, without mother, without descent, having neither
beginning of days nor end of life !” Here all difficulties
vanish in an outburst of faith ; and I have no doubt the
sceptical commentators who attempt to explain things beyond
this will be damned for their pains. For my part, I cannot
prove that he had parents ; they are not necessary for gods
and high priests. Those beings have the powei’ to create
themselves, and their ancestors also, when they care to
indulge in such luxuries. And he gave him tithes of all (xiv., 20).
Mobal
and
Practical Reflexions.—(1) How wonderfully
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
75
kind was our heavenly father thus to invent this lying story
for the sake of his servants the priests, who always take tithes
when they cannot get more ! (2) How marvellous are the
ways of God, to inspire one of the priests themselves to write
this story in his blessed book! (3) Note the marvellous
success that has followed this divine fraud. Had it originated
with a mere man it must have failed : but it has robbed the
dupes of the Bible of untold millions ; and this grand success
is a standing miracle calculated to show to all, except unde
ceivable sceptics, that the Bible is the word of God. There
are only two or three fatal points in the story, which we
must note:—
1. Salem is an unknown place, and divines don’t know
where to locate it. I may tell them from my own knowledge
that it is in the very middle of Utopia, and within a few
miles of the Garden of Paradise on the one side, and New
Jerusalem on the other. To the north is the mountain, from
the top of which the Devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms
of the world in a moment of time. Other interesting topo
graphical points might be mentioned; but these are amply
sufficient to lead any explorers to the very spot where Mel
chizedek still reigns and deals in bread and wine.
2. The god for whom Melchizedek was priest creates some
difficulty. It was Eliun, an old Phoenician god, who knew
nothing more of Jehovah than Jehovah did of him. They
are both with Melchizedek to this day, though he does not
recognise the difference between them.
3. .Abram swore by Eliun (v. 22) along with Jehovah ;
showing that he, too, was a polytheist, though Christians
absurdly claim him as a monotheist and a champion of that
cause.
I should note, further, that in the third century there arose
a sect of Melchizedekians, who held that he was the Holy
Ghost, and thus superior to Jesus Christ; for, said they, Mel
chizedek. was the intercessor and mediator for angels, Jesus
being only such for man. The priesthood of the latter, they
add, was a mere copy of the former. The latter point, I
must say, is purely scriptural. See the passages in Hebrews
above referred to. The Cocceians (disciples of Cocceius, a
Dutchman of the seventeenth century) and the Hutchinsonians
generally still believe that Jesus and Melchizedek were one
and the same. So do I. Jack-o’-the-Lantem, Will-o’-the-
�76
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
Wisp, Apollo, Baldur and Prester John are only other names
of the same individual. He is rarely seen now, and the
reason is, that the churches have neither faith nor grace
enough to induce him to visit them. He has retired in dis
gust, carrying his lantern and his bread and wine with him ;
and will never return until the churches renounce the world,
and parsons live upon charity begged from door to door.
Problem.—What will be the date of his reappearance ?
Abraham is called the Friend of God (2 Ohron. xx., 7 ;
Isaiah xli., 8; James ii., 23.) There is not much in the
Bible to warrant or suggest the relationship ; besides it is
ridiculous, if God be infinite. The Mahommedans have a
very good story on the subject, much better than any in the
Bible. In a time of dearth, say they, Abram sent to a- friend
in Egypt for meal. The friend refused, for he knew that
Abram would give it away instead of keeping it for his own
family. His servants being ashamed to be seen returning
with empty sacks filled them, for appearance sake, with a very
fine sand, closely resembling flour. They told Abram, but
not Sarah, of their failure to get meal, and the old man was
so overcome that he soon fell asleep.
Sarah, finding the
sacks full of flour, as she supposed, set to make some cakes;
and the smell of the new bread awoke her husband, who
demanded whetever she had obtained the meal. “ Why, your
friend in Egypt sent it,” replied she. “Nay,” said he, “it is
not my friend in Egypt who sent itj but my friend God
Almighty.”
Now such’a story is far more to Abram’s credit as a believer
than almost any in the Bible; and if it were inserted to the
exclusion of several others, the Bible would gain by it—
though the new editors might be damned for improving God’s
word. I sometimes think I will bring out a Bible of my own,
retaining all the good in the old one (not very much), and
improving it by a few genuine new revelations. I am quite
qualified, having as much Holy Ghost as any man that ever
lived.
And when the sun was going down a deep sleep fell upon
Abraham; andlo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.
(Genesis xv., 12).—Bead the context. Abram killed a heifer,
a she-goat, a ram, a turtle dove and a young pigeon, and
divided them all in pieces, except the birds. And when it
was dark he saw a fiery furnace, and a lamp that went
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
77
between the pieces. The cresset was, I presume, God the
father; the lamp, the son—the Holy Ghost not then being
born, perhaps.
The Mahommedan account of this transaction has the
merit of making a complete story of it, which the Bible does
not. They say Abram was in doubt or perplexity respecting
the mode in which God would raise the dead. Abram, at the
command of God, took an eagle (some say, dove), a peacock,
a raven and a cock, cut them up and pounded their flesh,
bones and feathers all up together in one mass, merely keep
ing their heads intact. Then he called them all by their
names, and the parts came together again, and the birds
resumed life as if nothing had happened. That is as true as
any miracle you ever heard or read of; and I do not for a
moment doubt that a sausage maker could obtain like results
any day, if he only had faith enough. For fear of revelations
of too startling a nature, however, it may be as well not to
suggest that to the fraternity.
Genesis xvi. and xvii. have not much quotable matter in
them. Verse 17 of the later tells us how Abram (in this
chapter his name grows one syllable longer) laughed when
God told him he and Sarah should have a son when their
respective ages were 100 and 90. In this matter all the
world now joins with the saint to laugh at God’s amusing
promises!
And God went up from Abraham (Genesis xvii., 22). This
must have been a very small god. The infinite one cannot
move ; he fills all spac’e, and has no room to move in. He is
an absolute solid, and that is the only quality he has—a per
fect block, but he does not know it. If Christians only read
and studied the Bible, instead of wilfully perverting some of
its words to fit them into others, and all its teachings to fit
them to their own views, how soon they would discover how
ridiculous the old book is, and how opposed to their creeds. I
suppose their God has given them the spirit of slumber to
prevent their understanding the defects of his word.
And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood
by him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the
tent door, and bowed himself towards the ground, etc. (Genesis
xviii., 2).—This story of Abraham' feeding God with veal and
bread (mustard, peper, salt and other condiments not men
tioned) is a puzzle to the orthodox. They believe their God
�78
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
to be almighty, and yet cannot understand how he could
make himself so very small; nor do they quite understand
how he managed to eat and digest Abraham's calf. It is a
bit puzzling, even to me, though I have the gift of the Holy
Ghost to guide me into all truth. However, let us hope
God’s teeth were sound, that his liver was in good order;
though I fear me, that badly-cooked veal sadly disagreed with
him, for immediately after his hasty dinner he went and
destroyed bodom and Gomorrah with fire ! No man could do
that—no god could—whose digestion was good. Good diges
tion when it waits on appetite, brings us into harmony with
all around, and we almost love our enemies—at least those
that are too weak to be able to harm us. If God had enjoyed
his dinner and readily digested it, Sodom and Gomorrah would
not have been so ruthlessly destroyed.
Modal.—When you invite God Almighty to dine with you,,
be sure to get good meat, well killed, well cooked, and well'
served; for if he does not digest it well and readily, he may,
under the influence of the internal burden and torment, go
and burn up a few more cities. Better never invite him than
produce such frightful results.
My own view of the story is this, that three young fellows,
good looking and well dressed, who knew that poor old
Abraham was near-sighted and immensely credulous, played
pranks with him, one of them pretending to be God the
father, and the other two the son and the Holy Ghost.
When they appeared before him and audaciously began to
play their role, Abraham, too conceited to doubt if God would
visit him, too delighted at the honor to be at all suspicious,
assisted the young fellows to gammon him. They found
the old man dying for an heir, and promised him one, at
which Sarah laughed till her aged sides shook again. (It was
the custom with saints in those days to laugh at God;
familiarity bred contempt. For fear of like treatment from
saints, he never appears now-a-days.) Those young fellows
by bribes and flattery, enlisted Sarah in the plot and instructed
her in the part she was to play. At the time appointed they
secretly sent a new-born babe, which Sarah, to content the
poor old man, told him was her own. Thus the divine pro
mise of Isaac was fulfilled; thus prophets and apostles were
sold : and thus the Jewish and the Christian communities
became the victims of a practical joke, and the world’s laugh
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
70
ing-stock unto this day! This view of the case makes every
thing plain ; the orthodox opinion leads only to a cluster of
absurdities.
The story of Sodom reflects little credit upon any of the
parties concerned in it. The Sodomites were bad enough;
Lot was worse ; and God worst of all. To commit wholesale
and indiscriminate murdei' is certainly the worst of crimes.
And stories of brutal punishment only brutalise those who
read and approve them. When I believed the Bible I was
barbarian enough to approve of capital punishment and even
hell torments; in growing out of superstition I grew more
humane.
But his ivife looked back from behind him, and she became a
pillar of salt (Gen. xix., 26).—Some people, alas! treat this
story as a myth. “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” But
if anybody doubts the transformation of Lot’s wife, let him
read some Classical Dictionary or Ovid’s Metamorphoses.
There he will find Daphne was turned into a laurel and Io
into a heifer; Actaeon was turned to a stag, and tom to pieces
by his own dogs; and Atlas was transformed, not into a
paltry pillar of salt, but into a mountain. If the Bible had
only said that this unfortunate lady had been turned into
mount Lebanon, of course all the world would have aagarded
the story as of divine origin; but, a pillar of salt! W hat
God would work a whole miracle for such a trifle ?
And# came to pass that God did tempt Abraham (Gen. xxii.,
1),__ This is fully confirmed by James, who assures us that
God tempteth no man (James i., 13). “Lead us not into
temptation” is a very appropriate prayer for Christians. Had
Abraham known the character of his God he might have used
the prayer and so have escaped the temptation. Can anyone
distinguish this temptation from a practical joke played by
one man upon another on April 1? I cannot—except it be
that here the fun is entirely absent, though that redeeming
feature is sometimes quite evident in a joke perpetrated by
man.
I believe, however, that this transaction really did
occur on April 1, a time when deity considered himself at
liberty to unbend, to resolve the monarch into the clown. So
he sent Abraham to Moriah to murder his son; and when
there, and about to do it, he cried, “ Stop! it is a ram you
have to kill, not Isaac!” Thereupon his courts rang with the
laughter of his flatterers, while Abraham felt himself deceived.
�80
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
And Abraham gave up the ghost (Genesis xxv., 8).—He had
lived 175 years, so the Bible says, and all the good recorded
of him might have been easily performed in 175 minutes.
There is nothing said about immortality in connexion with
the old patriarchs. Indeed, there can be no doubt the writer
made them live so long because he never expected, sensible
man that he was, that they would ever live a second time.
Had he expected his heroes to live again, he never would have
stretched them so long “upon the rack of this rude world.”
And Isaac loved Esau because he did eat his venison; but
Rebekah loved Jacob (Genesis xxv., 28).—“All scripture is
profitable,” says an apostle—chiefly, I should say, in teaching
you how you ought not to act. This family was a saintly
one. The husband and wife, equally pious, are at sixes and
sevens; the old father prefers one son before the other for
the sake of his venison, which he was ’too old to catch for him
self ; and his wife loved the other son only, it appears, because
his father made a favorite of his brother. Between the brothers
the most deadly hatred existed. Esau was a “'muff;” Jacob
was a swindler, a coward, a cheat—a very picture of his God.
and his special favorite. He robbed his brother of his birth
right, though nobody can exactly define how much or little
that meant. Jacob, of course,'was too clever a swindler to
plot and scheme for a trifle ; and no doubt he got at least a
million per cent, for his “mess of pottage,” bread Sind lentils
(verse 34).
The twenty-fourth chapter of Genesis may be skipped at a
bound, for it is false from end to end, a mere repetition of the
story .of Abraham’s sojourn in Gerar.
(To fee conclutZecJ in No. 6).
Printed and Published by Bamsey and Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
¥o. 4.] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
[id.
BY
JOSEPH SYMES.
JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
In verse 14, Cain is made to complain that he is driven
from the face of the Lord! Where did he wander ? And
from, thy face, says he, I shall be hid! And the Lord does
not correct him, therefore he must, I suppose, have been
right. The Lord was confined to some spot in those days ;
to-day he is nowhere.
Cain also feared he should be murdered ; and the Lord set
a mark upon him to prevent that, and threatened seven-fold
vengeance on whoever should slay him! This is curious.
The writer of this was evidently an Arab, a son of the desert,
where the kinsmen of a murdered man were bound to slay the
murderer. He has, in this romantic tale, supposed that this
method of punishing murcer was in vogue in the first family.
If the Holy Ghost inspired this, he too fell into the same inno
cent blunder.
But of whom was Cain afraid ? This question had better
not be pressed, if you wish to believe that Adam and Eve
were the first of living men and women. The story of Cain
implies that the earth was pretty well stocked with people ;
and that shows how fabulous is the tale of Adam and Eve.
The fact is, we are here dealing with nursery tales, which the
orthodox blasphemously ascribe to the inspiration of an
almighty and all-wise God. And the tales are so miserably
edited or compiled that all the learning of 1600 years has
been expended upon them in vain—they are as confused and
irrational as ever.
It may not be amiss to put the question here : How could
the murderer of Cain be punished seven-fold?
Was it
intended to kill him seven times over, or what ? Besides,
�52
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it
grieved him at his heart (vi., 6).—The Lord is unchangeable ;
here is one of the scripture proofs. He is the first to repent;
the conclusion is that he must have been the first sinner. His
repentance, however, did not do much good to anybody.
Instead of laying the blame where it all honestly fell, upon
himself, he blamed his creatures for being just what he made
them.
So God resolved to commit indiscriminate murder
because his creatures did not please him—a grand example
for all kings, rulers, parents, slaveholders and cattle-owners
for all time ! Any civilised deity would have made a distinction
between the good and the bad, and punished only the latter.
Any rational ruler, god or otherwise, would never have per
mitted his kingdom to become corrupt. In this case “ all
flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth —from man down
to the microscopic monad; there were only a handful of
saints left—viz., Noah and his family, and such other sacred
things as they had about their dwellings and persons.
Those shall be saved in the ark, along with others yet to be
named.
So Noah, being warned in time, set to building his ark. By
the way, they have just found the timbers, half-buried in the
snow, on Mount Ararat. No doubt they will discover the
stalls and cabinets, all labelled and numbered, in which Noah
kept the menagerie during the flood. Pity we can t bring
mountain and all to Great Britain; then sceptics must become
saints in no time at all.
The dimensions of the ark were as follows :—300 cubits
iong, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Altogether the area
was 15,000 square cubits, and the solid content 450,000
cubical cubits. A cubit originally was the length of the fore
arm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger, and it
varied at different times and places. The Jewish cubit was
sometimes 18 inches, at others 21.
Suppose we take the
larger value. Then the ark measured 525ft. long. 87tt. bin.
wide and 52ft. 6in. high. This ship was the largest ever built—
except the “ Great Eastern.” Of course Noah found no difficulty
in its construction. He merely had to get the wood, cut it into
shape, fasten it together in the desired fashion, pitch it within
and without, and lo ! it was prepared for the storm. Anyone
who questions the patriarch’s ability in so trifling a patter
had better lay down this book never to read it again. Of ail
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS
53
people in the world, sceptics and unbelievers are my dread.
You believe in the “Great Eastern,” why not believe in the
ark ? Must we bring its remains from Mount Ararat to con
vince you ? Must we resurrect Noah and his family, and
repeat the experiment of the flood to excite your faith ?
Into this ark Noah was ordered to collect two and two of all
animals in the world (vi., 19, 20). Some priest or Levite added
to the story later, and gave Noah orders to take clean animals
by sevens (vii., 2). “ If you have faith prepare to use it now !”
To build the ark would have been no trifle to a man not
inspired; but to collect pairs of all the animals in the world !
and no natural history book, no collection of specimens to
guide him ! Ah, Noah! much better had it been for thee
hadst thou but died prematurely at the age of 599 years,
instead of lingering on to 600 and having a task like this
imposed upon thee ! Prythee, good Patriarch, how many fly
catchers, bird-catchers, hunters, microscopists, animal tamers,
and others didst thou employ ? And how long did they take
to finish their work? And how didst thou knew when all
the animals were in ? Art sure that no species was omitted ?
How didst thou feed them when in ? Art perfectly sure the
pail’s were all rightly adjusted ? Art perfectly sure, good
Noah that, thou wast sober when thou toldest this tale of the
flood ? Couldst thou do the like again, thinkest thou ? For
my part, let me be set to drain the ocean with a sieve, rather
than have thy task to do!
There are said to be 400,000 different species of insects
now in the museums of civilised nations ; those have been
collected and classified by the labor of over a century, by
people who know their way about the world, and who have
means of transit such as modem times only can boast of.
They are not impeded by forests and marshes and the total
want of roads, as man must have been in the days of Noah.
There can harly be more species now than in ancient times, if
orthodoxy and not Darwinism be true, though there may be
fewer. And into the ark, if the story is true, all insects must
have found their way, except such as spend their whole time
in water.
A few details will now be given which will doubtless tend
to raise admiration for the divine wisdom and goodness,
and to show how totally God’s ways and thoughts differ from
ours.
�54
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt
thou bring into the ark (Gen. vi., 19).—My readers! I am
puzzled and bewildered, for I do not see how Noah did what
he was commanded. Some blasphemous parsons will tell
you that the flood was not universal; but such men are
“ clouds without water, cariied about of winds ; trees whose
fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the
roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame;
wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of dark
ness for ever,” because they contradict the Bible, which says
plainly that the flood should “ destroy all flesh from under
heaven ; and everything that is in the earth shall die ” (Gen. vi.,
17); “ and every living substance that I have made will I destroy
from off the face of the earth ” (vii., 4). Read the whole of
the seventh chapter, and you will find it stated that this
threat was executed to the letter—no living thing remaining
except those in the ark! By-the-bye, it seems rather unfair
that all land animals should have been drowned, while those in
the sea were not hurt, as verse 22 implies. Perhaps the “ finny
monsters of the deep ” had not sinned, though, and corrupted
their way. That is an interesting point for orthodox com
mentators to clear up. They have the holy ghost to guide
them into all truth ; he never assists me.
Noah took into the ark two and two of all flesh, and suit
able food for them all; a stock of provisions for a year or
more.
(1) Butterflies.—For the cabbage butterflies (Pieridi) he
must have planted a kitchen-garden in the ark ; nettles would
be needed for the vanessoe ; the white admiral lives on honey
suckles when a caterpillar; the poplar butterfly must have
horse-droppings ; the purple emperor would require an oak
tree or a gooseberry bush ; the satyridi live upon grasses,
elms and hawthorns.
Noah must have embarked a whole
country for butterflies alone. I have mentioned only a few.
(2) Moths would be equally difficult to manage. The bee
shaped sesia lays its eggs on the bark of poplars, and the
catterpillars eat into the tree. They remain catterpillars for
two years, by the way ; others must have flowers, the honey
of which they sip while on the wing ; another moth needs the
euphorbia to feed upon; others, oleanders, though fuchsias
are not refused on occasion ; the squeaking death’s-head moth
needs the potatoe plant or the jasmine, though it does not
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
55
object to a hive of honey ; to satisfy another moth, Noah
must have brought in a Banksia bush from Australia; the
lasiocampa is said to live on heather ; the lockey moth is fond
of apple-tree leaves ; the goat moth needs old trunks of elms
or willows to excavate into galleries ; the catterpillars of the
acronycta are fond of the mosses and lichens which grow on
trees, walls, etc. ; one kind of tortridna feeds on green peas
in the pods ; another gets into apples and pears; another
into plums; others into acorns and beech-nuts, chestnuts,
etc.; some of the tineidce moths are the pests that destroy
garments.
(3) Among hymenopterci. some of the saw-flies want rosetrees for their eggs, etc. ; others turnips ; others firs and
pines ; the gall-flies (Cynipsidas) need trees to puncture in
order that galls may grow and protect their eggs and larv®.
Ants are among the most interesting beings in the world.
It would probably be of little or no use to take two of them
into the ark. You need at least three to carry on the affairs
of an ant-nest. The male and female of the common ants have
wings, the workers none. The latter do all the work, con
struct the nest and keep it in repair, take special care of the
eggs, removing them from spot to spot to keep them at the
right temperature, rip them open to let the larvae out at the
right time, and nurse the young ones till able to do for them
selves. Two of them could not construct a nest. Moses and
the Holy Ghost did not know that. The mason ants and the
miner ants would be as helpless in pairs as the little red ones.
The formica fuliginosa lives in old trunks of trees, which
it tunnels in a most marvellous manner. Others get into the
beams of houses and hollow them out. What Noah would
have done with a few of those in his ark it is easy to imagine:
he and his whole menagerie would have gone to the bottom,
for they would have riddled his ship for him till it was no
stronger than a bandbox.
The polyergus rufens is a warrior ant. They are only males
and females and do no work. They make war upon the nests
of the black ants, steal their larvae, and carry them off to their
nests, where the prisoners are reared as slaves and compelled
to work for their masters. Certain American ants, also, are
said to follow this trade.
Noah might have been at his wit’s end with the Driver
ants of West Africa. They range about in large armies
�56
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
having, like the ancient saints, no certain dwelling place.
They march by night. The army is divided into three groups,
soldiers to attack and disable the prey, assistants to divide the
prey into portable portions, and the laborers.
They are
terrible things, and few animals can resist them. They have
been known to kill the python, the largest serpent in the
country.
When they enter a dwelling, rats, mice, lizards, and
cockroaches get out as fast as possible. They visit all dirty
houses and towns where scavengering is needed. A few of
those would have emptied the ark in a short timn.
The excavating insects would have given Noah no little
trouble. When adult they are strict vegetarians, and yet
they have to provide for flesh-eating offspring. There are
four species of them, which differ somewhat amongst them
selves. The mother digs a hole in the earth, a tree, or wall.
Having prepared the nest, she attacks caterpillars, spiders,
etc.. These she stings, so as to disable and paralyse, but not
to kill. The prey is placed in the nest and the eggs deposited.
The young larvae find ready for them living food as soon as
they are ready to eat it, and the victim, though stung and
half eaten, still lives till his enemy has had enough of bim.
Such is one of the ways of divine providence, though the
writer of Genesis did not know of it. The scolia goes to even
less trouble, for it finds a larva of a beetle in the ground, digs
down to it, stings it so as to render it helpless and torpid
without killing it; and then deposits its eggs under the skin of
its victim, which is by and by devoured by the young scolia.
How did Noah manage for all these ? Neither he nor his
God knew anything of these matters.
If they had they
would never have undertaken to save the twos and twos of all
flesh!
Need I mention the fact that bees also could not have been
preserved without more than a pair of each species ? I must
pass over beetles, spiders, and other insects, and merely men
tion the fact that most insects have parasites, as well as many
larger animals. Besides, why were some of them preserved at
all ? Fleas and bugs, the itch-insect, mosquitoes, pediculi
capitis, locusts, ticks, phylloxera, the tsetses, etc. ? And why
were the tapeworm and the trichina preserved ? Trichina
usually enters the human system in underdone pork ; I pre
sume it entered the ark in Ham.
�JUMPING- COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
57
More than half of the insects taken into the ark might well
have been excluded, and many of them would have been if
there had been an enlightened superintendent appointed to
oversee the embarkation. As it was, they were all taken in,
and Noah must have provided them with sufficient food for a
whole year and more. Those who know anything of natural
history can well enough perceive that he must have carried
in a slice of every country in the world, and must have had
some means of reproducing all the world’s various climates to
keep his freight alive and well. This must have been a heavy
task, for we must remember that during the whole year the
ark was floating five miles above the old sea-level, for the
flood was more than five miles deep, as we shall see later on ;
and though the rigors of this arctic temperature may have
been slightly modified by the general rise of what then was
the earth’s surface, yet the cold must have been intense ; and
the wonder is that the whole concern did not get crushed
amongst the myriads of icebergs which must have abounded.
Of course, nothing is too hard for the Lord—except to do a
sensible thing.
If Noah felt difficulty with the insects, what must he have
felt respecting the largest of the beasts ? There were giants
on the earth in those days, and giantesses too, and they had
to be got into the ark some way or other. Horses, cows,
camels and elephants were not easily disposed of. Some of
the giant birds might have exercised his skill—the moa, for
example, or other extinct monsters. Besides, the celebrated
phoenix—in whom the fathers believed as devoutly as they
did in the holy pigeon, alias Holy Ghost—could have
been embarked only as a unit, for a pair of them never
existed.
The dinotherium is estimated to have been eighteen feet
long. He was probably fond of marshy ground, or may
have spent his time much in the way the hippopotamus
does.
A pair of these, standing end to end, would reach
thirty-six feet—about half-way across the ark. Themselves
and their food and accommodation would require no trifling
portion of the space available for the whole menagerie.
Perhaps, however, like Milton’s devils in Pandemonium, the
animals in those days were not so rigid and exacting as now,
and may have accommodated themselves to the space allotted
them—
�58
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
“ . . . the signal given,
Behold a wonder! they but now who seemed
In bigness to surpa-s earth’s giant sons,
Now less than smallest dwarfs, in narrow room,
Throng numberless like that Pygmean race
Bejonu the Indian mount.”
There is, at any rate, nothing in the world so handy as a
miracle to help one out of a fix ; and as Noah must have sorely
needed a few of those accommodating events, of course piety
suggests that we suppose them, though we cannot prove them.
Anything is better than common sense in expounding the
Bible. No truly devout man ever tries that as a key to unlock
its secrets and mysteries. God forbid !
The megatherium was an animal from 12 to 18 feet long,
8 or 9 feet high, and 5 to 6 feet wide behind. His tail, stout
and strong in proportion as a kangaroo’s, was six feet long,
and his foot about a yard from heel to toe. It is supposed
that he lived upon roots which he dug out of ground, or else
upon twigs of trees. I should like to know how Noah found
him employment for claws and jaws during the voyage. It
would have been nothing to him to have scratched a few holes
through the bottom of the ark.
The mylodon (11 feet long) and the glyptodon (9 feet long)
must also have been preserved. The mammoth, which makes
the elephant look like a good-sized calf in comparison, must
have taken a large space ; and he did not live upon nothing.
A pair of these must have devoured many tons of vegetables
during the year.
How did the patriarch manage the megalosaurus, a land
lizard about 40 feet long, which very likely fed upon such
smaller lizards as crocodiles ?
Authorities differ as to the length of the iguanodon. Mantell
thought it must have been 70 feet long ; Professor Owen
brings it down to 30 feet. But its thigh-bone is 4 feet 8
inches long. Fancy four of those tremendous lizards (mega
losaurus and iguanodon), beasts 15 to 20 feet high, and more
than double that length, and broad in proportion—fancy
them, I say, having a fight in the ark, or running about to
catch such prey as crocodiles and alligators—scores of tons of
flesh and bones bouncing about on the floor of Noah’s box 1
And how would elephants, tigers, lions, behave when such a
row was forward ?
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
.59
It is all very well, of course, for divines to assume that the
giants above named were extinct before Noah’s day. They
may say so if they will; but what extinguished them ? I
will give my own inspired opinion ; and whoever shall receive
it shall save his soul alive. My own view is this : That when
Noah undertook to get pairs of all the animals into his ark he
assumed obligations he never contemplated. When he blew
his whistle as a signal for them all to appear, away they came,
each pair bringing a full year’s provisions with them—the
elephants had theirs packed in then’ trunks, of course, and
the kangaroos came with their pouches full ; the rest brought
their stock upon then’ backs. But when Noah saw the number
of animals approaching, the hundreds—where he had bargained,
as he thought, for twos—when he beheld the enormous sizes
of those above named he cried out: “ 0 Lord, thou hast
deceived me, and I was deceived (Jeremiah xx., 7). I will
back out of the bargain. It would take fifty arks to stow
away all this rabble ; and who, I should like to know, would
risk his life in a box for a year—for ten minutes even—with
all these ferocious beasts ?” And it came to pass that the
Lord answered and said unto Noah : “ I also am greatly
amazed at the multitude of living things and at the greatness
of them. Go to, therefore, shut the giants out and let them
drown, for it repenteth me that I made mammoth, and
megalonyx, and mastodon, and megalosaurus, and iguanodon
upon the earth. Lo, I will even put my hook in their nose
and my bridle in their jaws if I can, and lead them back by
the way they came, and thou shalt see them no more for ever.”
So Noah was comforted. Is it not written in the book of
Jasher and in the visions of Iddo the seer ?
And thus those enormous animals became extinct, and their
carcases were buried in the strata of the earth as a warning
to all beasts, lest they also should eat and drink and grow
too large, and thus provoke the Lord to cut them off from
the face of the ground. “ He that hath ears to hear, let him
hear.”
I have no wish, my reader, like commentators in general,
to bore you with further remarks tending to expose the abso
lute absurdity of the flood; though the subject might be
pursued to a very great length, and every step would only
tend to show how totally false or mythological is the narrative.
Even Christians themselves are beginning to throw ridicule upon
�60
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
it. Just recently they have spread reports of the finding of the
ark on Ararat; and one American journal has discovered that it
was insured in a New York office as a vessel to convey pas
sengers and animals, owned by Noah and Sons. Whether
the menagerie was insured has not yet been ascertained.
When sacred subjects such as this can be so treated in
common newspapers, honest men may rejoice to think that
malice and stupidity will not much longer send men to gaol
for doing what their Christian neighbors do,—viz., ridiculing
the holy and ever-blessed revelation God gave to the world to
enlighten and save mankind.
Pray don’t forget that the flood was universal; the earth
was encased in a shell of water, like an orange With its rind,
like the fruit with paste in an apple-dumpling. This shell of
water covered all the mountains, and they are over five miles
in perpendicular height.
We will now inquire into the quantity of water required to
drown the world, and speculate a little on the wisdom of so
expensive and clumsy a method of gratifying vengeance.
The earth is a globe (nearly so) 25,000 miles in circum
ference ; and the area of its whole surface equals about
200,000,000 square miles. Its highest mountains rise more
than 5 miles above the level of the sea ; the flood rose about
26 feet above the top of the highest of them. Therefore, the
earth must have been encased in a shell of extra water about
5-|- to 6 miles deep, the highest peak in the world being over
28,000 feet high. This equals an ocean 25,000 miles long,
by 8,000 wide, and 5^ to 6 miles deep, measuring down to
the ordinary sea-level. The solid content of this new and
universal ocean could not be less than about 1,000,000,000
cubic miles of water, or about l-80th of the solid contents of
the whole earth as it now is. If this water could be formed
into a river 1 mile wide and 10 yards in depth, it would stretch
out to the enormous length of 176,000,000,000 miles, almost
2,000 times the distance from the earth to the sun ! If the
water of that river flowed by at 7 miles per hour, it would
take 2,878,188 years to run away !
Whence did all this water come ? From heaven, and down
through its windows ? It must have been very many millions
of years on the road. And when it is remembered that the
earth is totally invisible from heaven, we must conclude that
he who fired or squirted all that water from his syringe must
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
61
have been a most excellent marksman indeed, not to have hit
the sun instead of so tiny a mark as the earth, and so abso
lutely invisible as it must have been. We cannot, I am sorry
to confess, sufficiently admire the goodness and wisdom of
God in this transaction, especially when we consider that he
must have shot the water from his syringe many millions of
years before either earth or sun was created!
Now this
shows divine skill in its most transcendant phase. Imagine,
my reader, a marksman who could fire his rifle, and while the
shot was flying could go and create the target and then
coolly wait for the flying bullet to hit the bull’s-eye!
Jehovah, the war-God, was the very best marksman evei’ yet
known. How carefully he calculated the time and the posi
tion of the moving target! Remember, this earth is flying
through space at the rate of about 65,000 miles an hour!
How clever of him to hit the mark under such conditions !
Then, how kind of him to arrange for drowning the world so
many millions of years before it was created!
What an
exhibition of foresight and providence !
Who would not
worship thee, 0 Jehovah! after this display of thy goodness
and wisdom?
What became of the water aftei’ it had done all the drown
ing, I am not able to say. Nor can I explain how it was that
so large a mass of water, falling from heaven with a velocity
some hundreds of times greater than a cannon ball has, did
not bear the earth before it as a falling drop of rain does an
invisible grain of dust. These are mysteries we had better
leave alone. Divine wisdom has thrown a veil over them.
Who shall dare to lift it now ?
There are many other incidents connected with the flood
that prudence bids us not to meddle with, if we would retain
our faith. Therefore, let them remain buried in the divine
oblivion which shrouds them.
When Noah escaped from his box he murdered one or more
of all the clean beasts and fowls he had with him, and burnt
them for Jehovah’s dinner. The Lord had kept Lent for over
a year, poor fellow ; and never had been so delighted in all his
days as he was with this sacrifice. He smelled but does not
seemed to have eaten it.
So delighted was he, that he
promised never to drown the world again. Perhaps he feared
he might lose all the animals in another flood, and so get no more
smoke of burning flesh as long as he lived. How extremely
�62
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
condescending, my friend, it was of the infinite God, who fills
all space, to stoop so low as to bring his nose near enough to
sniff up the reek of Noah’s sacrifice ! One might have thought
that he would have been above such conduct. But no ; the
Bible reveals God as having nothing better to do just then
than to enjoy himself smelling the burning animals. Of
course he has been wonderfully civilised since. The bishops
have taken him to task over a good many things, and you
wouldn’t know it was the same god now, so great a transfor
mation has there been in him. Indeed, the incident of Noah’s
sacrifice is now never mentioned in his presence. The slightest
allusion to it would produce an earthquake.
And surely your blood of your lives will 1 require; at the
hand of every beast, will I require it. and at the hand of every
man . . . whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood
be shed (Gen. ix., >5-6).—The Bible has been translated into
many languages, but not into all. Why are the poor beasts
forgotten ? They shed men’s blood, some of them ; and God
will require it at their hands. To this clay the beasts have
never been warned. How shocking ! Lions and tigers, mad
bulls and wolves have shed many a man’s blood because they
did not know the risk they ran. Why does not some pious
divine go and tell them that they will be damned if they shed
human gore ? Alas! to think of the many serpents and
ravenous beasts that might be tamed and converted by this
Bible text if they only knew it! And how hard-hearted are
the worshippers of God, that they don’t go and tell them.
Put up this text in all places where men and beasts meet, in
the languages of all the animal species of a dangerous nature ;
let them know the real price of human blood ; and neither
beast of prey, nor flea, nor bug will ever shed another drop as
long as the world shall last.
The latter part of the text is the stronghold of the public
executioner. But for the Bible the death-penalty would pro
bably disappear. In obedience to divine commands men have
burnt witches and heretics, and still hang murderers to glut
their taste for vengeance. What good is done to anybody by
hanging a man ? Does it restore his victim to life ? Does it
deter from crime ? Not at all. It is the result'of superstition,
and merely multiplies murder.
Behold I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed
after you ; and with every living creature that is with you, ofthe
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
63
fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you (Gen.
ix., 9-10).—Here Jehovah enters into a covenant with Noah
and all the beasts of the earth, pledging himself never to
drown the whole earth again for the term of his natural life.
What better evidence could we have that the writer was
demented ? The flood seems to have affected what little
brain he had ; and so he invents a treaty between the animals
and the extraordinary deity who first makes, then destroys,
and then makes a covenant with the animals ! I wonder if
he took them in the lump or canvassed them one by one !
And what could the animals think of him ? He who had
gone to such pains to destroy their fathers, mothers, brothers,
sisters and playfellows—with what delight they must have
welcomed his advances ! How readily they must have fallen
in with his proposals ! No prudent animal or man could
enter into covenant with such a God as Jehovah, so soon, too,
after his general massacre. They may not have uttered all
they felt when he was canvassing them ; but we can realise
it all notwithstanding their silence. Enter into covenant with
the universal destroyer ! The Bible writers had no conception
of a joke—unless the whole .book is to be regarded as a grim
and ghastly jest at the expense of the Jewish-Ohristian religion.
Certainly, whether the writer meant it or not, few jokes ever
equalled this story of the covenant; and the few stories that
do rival it are found in the Bible.
He would not drown the whole world again, so he would
not! How kind of him ! Does he think we can’t see through
it ? The fact is, all the water was gone, and he had no means
of drowning the world any more. At least, it would take
him several millions of years to do it, and he was not pre
pared to undertake the task a second time. So he made a
virtue of necessity ; pretended to Noah and the beasts that
he could if he would drown the world just as often as he
pleased, but he would not do so because the smoke of the
sacrifice had so delighted him.
And then he proceeds to indicate the sign, token, or proof
of the covenant. No deed was drawn up; neither God nor
Noah could write their names; they and the rest of the animals
could only make their marks. The rainbow, therefore, is
made the sign, the signature of the covenant; but only one
of the parties signifies adhesion to it—viz., God. And his
signature turns out to be a sham. The rainbow is as old as
�€4
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
rain and sunshine in unison. Ever since rain fell and sunbeams
flashed upon the falling drops, there the rainbow has lighted
up and beautified the scene. It not only skirts the rain-cloud;
it dances (or its sisters do) upon the spray of fountains and of
dashing breakers. And how could Noah be so hoodwinked ?
He had lived 600 years and more : could you persuade him
that he had never seen a rainbow before the flood ? Well,
the bow had been no guarantee" that God would behave
himself before the flood, and how could it be after ( For
well nigh 600 years he had seen the bow crossing the cloud
when he happened to be between the sun and the shower ;
and yet in his 601st year there was the universal deluge!
How, then, was it possible for Noah, or his sons, or his
daughters, or his wife, or his cattle, or anything that was
with him in the ark, to put any dependence on this covenant,
ratified by a well-known natural pheenomenon as old as the
nature which produced it ? Who would take the rainbow as
a receipt to a bill ?
And I will remember my covenant (Gen. ix„ 15).—Yes, God
will remember! He will look upon the bow to refresh his
memory, as he adds in the following verse. He who remembers
and refreshes his memory with a sign, may and does forget.
Other texts of scripture show this beyond doubt. “ Forget
not the humble ” (Psalm x., 12)—the very parties most likely
to be forgotten. “ How long wilt thou forget me, O Lord ?”
(Psalm xiii., 1). “Forget not the congregation of thy poor
for ever ” (Psalm lxxiv,, 19). “ Forget not the voice of thine
enemies ” (lxxiv., 23). Manifestly the Bible maligns God, or
he is liable to forget. I prefer the latter alternative. Of
course he can’t remember everything—the strongest-minded
man needs to keep a diary, how much more a God !
(To be conbimraed in No. 5).
Printed arid Published by Ramsey and Eoote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
No. 8.] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
[W
BY
JOSEPH SYMES.
_________ .
__
. .. Mi
HOW A FAIRY WAS TRANSFORMED.
Thebe once lived many ages ago a fairy king, named Mihole.
He dwelt in a far-away land, and was ruler over a very large
kingdom. Mihole was skilled in magic, and could work the
most astonishing wonders ; out of nothing he made worlds,
and living beings like men and women out of clay. But this
great king was wayward, cruel, jealous, headstrong; and de
lighted in nothing so much as shedding blood and inflicting
misery. So cruel was he that he even exerted his magic to
create living things for the sole purpose of tormenting them.
At one time he made a world of pretty large size, just like
the earth. Then he made all sorts of plants and animals grow
in it : and even made a pair in his own likeness, who could
talk and reason like men. This pair he put into a palace
where there was a room locked, which they were commanded
not to open on pain of death. He then gave them the key
and departed.
On leaving he chuckled with glee at the
thought that they would disobey him, as he knew perfectly
well they would. To be sure, they were mere babies, without
experience to guide them.
Now Mihole, in order to make sure that Madab and Biba (for
those were the names of the unfortunate pair) should unlock
the fatal door, sent a sort of monkey, named Jocko, to them,
who amused them exceedingly by his antics. This monkey
could talk, and was a clever, gay, sprightly fellow, of endless
fun and frolic. He was at once a favorite with Madab and
Biba, and they could not bear him to be out of their com
pany. One day Jocko snatched away the key from Madab
and began to examine it with pretended surprise ; and after a
time he fitted it into the lock of the room they were forbidden
to enter. Both Madab and Biba ran to him in alarm and
tried to persuade and coax him not to open the door, telling
•
�34
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
him that Mihole would kill them if they did. At this Jocko
laughed till the Palace rung again, saying, “Are you such
babies as to believe that Mihole was in earnest when he bade
you not to enter this room. Booh! He was only joking.
Come on ; we will see what is inside.”
He opened the door and entered, Madab aud Biba reluc
tantly and timidly following. When they were in they were
delighted beyond measure. Here were all things rich and
rare that Fairyland could ever produce, in the greatest pro
fusion too. In this room the three friends enjoyed themselves
the whole afternoon, and paid no heed to the waning of the
day. Before thev knew how late it was, they heard a loud
fierce voice, shouting. “ Madab! where the ------ are you ?
Here, I have been running all over the Palace looking for you
the last half-hour. What! ” he continned, seeing the door
of his secret room open, “ What! have you broken into my
treasury ? You shall pay for this, I promise you! ”
Madab and Biba, in dire confusion, and blank with terror,
excused themselves by throwing the blame upon poor Jocko.
And Mihole at once made a great dark pit full of fire and
brimstone, and there he shut up Jocko for ever. He would
have died, of course, from the fire and the stifling vapors,
but the cruel king magically kept him alive for the purpose
of inflicting pain and misery upon him. When he had dis
posed of Jocko, he turned to Madab and Biba, and told them
they would have to die. But here, too, he tortured before
killing.
You shall die,” said he, “ but not just yet. You
shall live and people this world with your miserable brood,
who shall suffer want, cold, hunger, cancers, coughs, rheu
matics, and a thousand horrible tortures. They shall die of
famine, flood, pestilence, earthquake, war, murder: and after
they have died once they shall live again, and be cast with
Jocko into the unquenchable fire, where they shall gnash
their teeth and yell with anguish and despair for ever and
ever.” Then he drove them out of the Palace to the open
field, fastened the door, put the key in his pocket, and went
away in a mighty rage.
All the evils he had threatened to Madab and Biba, and
their poor children, came trooping one after another, or alto
gether at times, so that their life was dreadfully bitter ; and
they cursed the day that Mihole had made them, as well they
might; for he meant them nothing but mischief from the first,
�HOW A FAIRY WAS TRANSFORMED.
35
and had even planned and incited their disobedience for the
sake of gratifying his own malignity in seeing them and their
children suffer every variety of torture.
Now fairies are not like men and women, for they live for
millions of years. Madab and Biba, after their disgrace, lived
on to old age, and then died, leaving their country to their
children, and they to theirs for thousands of years. In the
meantime poor Jocko was burning in his hell, with now and
then a holiday granted him by Mihole, who let him out for
nothing in the world but sheer mischief ; so that he might
have an excuse for punishing him yet more, and also have
the gratification of seeing multitudes of the children of Madab
and Biba enticed into his own lake of fire. Indeed the
wickedness of Mihole knew no bounds, and the older he
became the more and more malignant he grew, as the following
will show.
He had an only begotten son, whose mother was unknown
even to his best friends. There was a mystery about this
son ; though, being the only one, he was made much of. Now
a grand and awful scheme entered into the head of Mihole.
He bethought himself thus :—“ Those beings I made, Madab
and Biba, have deeply offended me, and I will never forgive
them. Of course, I planned it all; but I shall not forego the
gratification of punishing them on that account. I can do
what I will with my own. Still, I will not send the whole
race of their children into that fire; I will select a few and
bring them to my Palace to live with me. They will make
good sport fox’ me no doubt; and the craven-spirited wretches
will sing my praises and honor me, though they are well
aware that I am roasting their own flesh and blood in the
lake of fire. Yes! I will do it. But I must have satisfaction.
I am not going to save them from the fire for nothing. I
must and will have some equivalent. If I forego the pleasure
of damning them, I must and will have an equivalent of
pleasure in • another way.
“Now this is what I will do. I will take my only son
Jessah, and will transform him by magic into one of the de
scendants of Madab and Biba; and then I will get him
crucified ; and on the cross he shall suffer the most excrucia
ting tortures that even a fairy can endure. Bah !—never
mind the pain. I shall not feel it. I shall glory in it. And
t
�ss
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
thus I will redeem to myself a few of the doomed race. This
is my will, and it shall be, it must be done.”
“ Jessah ! ” shouted he to his son. His son came and paid
him his respects.
“ My son, you know I love you tenderly, do you not ? ’ said
Mihole.
“ Yes, sire,” replied the son, with no great enthusiasm.
“ Well, my boy, I have some work for you to do. You
remember how Madab and Biba disobeyed me about 4,000
years ago, and how I have had no good will towards the race
of them from that time till now. You know how I have
punished them, and how I have merely made a favourite now
and again of one or other of them whose crimes or stupidity
served to amuse me. Now I intend to save a few of them
from entering that fiery pit below there, and bring them
hither to live in this palace. But I must have an equivalent
»f suffering in another direction for the pain I am going to
remit to them. Do you understand me, my son ?”
l-1 believe I do, sire,” replied Jessah. •'•' And I am glad
you are going to show them mercy ; though I wish you would
forgive the whole race and Jocko, too, and not trouble about
any equivalent of pain.”
••Ah’, ah! Just like the child you are. You do not
understand business, my boy,” replied the old fairy. ••' Give
up a privilege without compensation ! No! No! I have
spent many a year of pleasure in hearing their groans, and
do you suppose I am going to forgive them and stop their
yelling ! I had rather give up all I have and die myself than
put out hell-fire or release a prisoner without compensation!
So no more on that point, my son ! No more !
Now listen to me. You go at once to the world where
the race of Madab live, and by a trick I will show you you
can transform yourself into a baby and be bom of one of the
the same race. I may tell you beforehand that I am going
to make you a sin-offering for that cursed race : and you willX
be crucified and die in awful agony to gratify mj fierce
wrath and justice. Then I will raise you up to life again,
you will return to the palace none the worse for your
journey, and be followed by a select number of the children
of Madab.”
Poor Jessah was wild with amazement, and begged and
prayed his cruel father to forego his design. But in vain.
�, HOW A FAIRY WAS TRANSFORMED.
37
You will do as I bid you, boy,” said be, “ or—do you see
yonder lake of fire ?—I’ll hurl you into that and roast you
there as long as I live. Take your choice. It is all one io
me.”
So the son yielded to the mad father’s whim, and became
incarnate ; lived a miserable life; was crucified by enemies
instigated thereto by his awful father, who heaped upon hint
all the agony in his power while dying. Three days after
death he restored his son to life and took him home. And
there was an end of the farce. Mihole was no more satisfied
than before. He resolved next to send his son again to the
world of Madab to call all its inhabitants to judgment; then
to bum up the world with fire, and to shut up most of the
unfortunate race in Jocko’s hell for- ever. But the son, sick
and disgusted, fled from his father’s den for ever, to escape
the misery and humiliation of executing his father’s mad
schemes and infernal wishes.
******
‘■ Which things are an allegory.” My Fahy Tale is the
Christian Scheme of Redemption, stript of its pious trappings,
writ as it ought to be writ, and exhibited in its gory features •
and its diabolic qualities. I hope it may help to throw comtempt upon the pious tomfooleries of Christmas-tide, and
expose to ridicule the farce of the incarnation of the Son of
God.
�38
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
No matter, for my present purpose, who wrote the Biblenor how old it may be. My jumping, skipping comments
relate only to the contents of the book, and will be just what
the title indicates, for I shall jump from one text to another,
instead of wasting time in noticing the intervening passages.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.—
Genesis i., 1. Beginning of what ? Time? Time never had
a beginning. Of the world ? It could not have been made in
its beginning, for it existed exactly the same moment it began to
be. Then what does it mean ? The beginning of God’s work ?
\ If so, he must have been a lazy fellow to idle away in doing
nothing at all the inmeasurable time or eternity which pre
ceded the moment he began to work. And what made him
begin just then, I wonder ? Had he been all his life before
making up his mind whether to create or not ? . I think it is
a pity that it should have taken him so long and not a little
longer. Surely a god who could do without a plaything dur
ing his early life might have done without one for ever. The
world seems to be his shuttlecock, created for this own amuse
ment ; and his sport involves the misery and death of his
creatures. It is no credit to a god to have made a world like
this. It is not the work of a good god!
The heaven!—That is a purely fictitious place. The
firmament or heaven is only an optical illusion, the mere
boundary of vision, larger or smaller in proportion to the
power of the eyes of the world. Modern astronomy shows
beyond the possibility of doubt that the heaven, or heavens,
do not exist, and never did. So the Bible opens with a
blunder which shows that the writer, instead of being inspired
by a being who knew everything, drew his inspiration from his
own narrow experience, and egregiously blundered in the first
sentence he wrote.
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was
upon the face of the deep.—i., 2. More nonsense. The earth
always had a form, pretty much the one it has now, too. As
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
39
for the darkness on the face of the deep, we will comment
upon that when we know what deep is meant. Does any one
know ?
The spirit of god or of the gods—if it means anything, it is
the wind. That need not have been mentioned, surely.
Let there be light—i., 3. Did God say that ? In what
language ? To whom ? Why did he say it ? If he had his
tinder-box by him, he need not have said anything about it ;
for flint and steel work no better for being spoken to.
And God divided the light from the darkness—i., 4. I am
sure he never did, for light and darkness never were mingled.
Light is the positive state ; darkness the negative. Darkness
is but the absence of light. How absurd, to talk of dividing
light from darkness ! You need inspiration to commit folly
like that.
And God made the firmament or heaven—i., 7. Why, he
made that in the beginning, and here the next day he makes
it again ! Did the first not please him ? Did he pull it down
and build it up again the next day ? Poor architect! Oh !
I forgot, he had no one to guide him, had no experience in
world-building. Were he to try now with all the advantages
human science could give him, perhaps he would make a
much better job of the whole affair. He could scarcely do
worse.
And the earth brought forth grass—i., 12. In the next
chapter (ii., 3-8) we are told that he made every plant and
herb before they grew and then “ planted ” them—no doubt
using a dibble and watering-pot, after digging the soil with
a fork or spade, as a regular ordained gardener would do
to-day. The reader had better believe both accounts. He is
not bound to understand either—better not try. The less
you know about God and his ways the better you like him.
Lights in the firmament—i., 14. There is no firmament.
Therefore no lights were placed in it.
Two great lights—i., 16. The sun is a light, the moon is
no more a light than the earth. It merely reflects the sun
light. The author of Genesis did not know that. To him
sun and moon seem to have been about equal; in reality the
sun is about 60,000,000 times larger than the moon. Besides,
for about one-half of its time the moon is next to useless for
lighting purposes, without reckoning wet and cloudy weather.
He made the stars also—i., 16. A mere fleabite, the
�40
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
making of the stars, evidently. They are so small.
No
doubt god made them of the sparks struck out by his flint
when lighting the sun. Why, the nearest of them all is so
distant that light takes three years and seven months to
travel from it to the earth: while others seen in the telescope
are so far away that light spends many thousands of years
upon the journey. And some of them must be at least hun
dreds of times larger than the sun! Had the author of
Genesis understood astronomy, he would not have written
this nonsense about the creation.
A nd god made the beasts of the earth .... and everything
that creepeth upon the earth—i., 25. He might have found
better employment than making serpents and snakes, hyaenas,
wolves, tigers, etc. And what was he thinking about when
he made parasites, such as trichina and tape-worms ? But
Darwinism shows that the vegetables and animals, good or
bad, were not manufactured in this sudden manner ; but were
gradually evolved or developed from older forms of life—a
subject too large to entei- upon here.
So god created man in his own image . . . . male and
female created he them—i., 27. In the Hebrew it is “gods ”
not god—the Elohim—that made man. They were evidently
male and female themselves, as all respectable deities were.
And Adam and Eve were made in their image ; in fact if you
had seen the creators and the created together you could not
tell which was which—stature and build, color, hair, and
everything were just alike. The only difficulty one meets
with is this; how could Adam and Eve be the parents of
snch diversified tribes and families of men as now people the
earth ? Black and white, of various shades ; short and tall;
fat and lean; round heads and long heads; Caucasians and
Negroes ; and all the endless variety existing to-day ? Which
of all these descendants are most like the first pair ? I should
say that most likely the lowest, ugliest and most degraded
couple to be found are just the very image of the first pair,
and they were exactly like their creator’s. Tut! tut! I
don’t wish you to worship such a pair of deities. Everyone
to his taste. But if you can worship the creator of a world
like this, you need not pretend to be squeamish.
Every seed-bearing herb and fruit-bearing tree ... to you
shall it be for meat (Gen. i., 29).—All herbs and trees bear
seed, and therefore all herbs and trees were for human food.
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
41
according to this. Poor first pair! Look through some
“Family Herald,” my reader, and see what those poor things
had set before them for food! There is no discrimination
exercised by the nurse ; but those two full-blown babies, who
had never sucked nor had pap given them, are just left to
themselves to select their food as best they may from a
universal Botanical Garden, teeming to excess with every
plant and weed that ever grew! The trees are included in
the stock. And no cookery yet invented! How .sickly they
must have been the first week or two! The marvel is they
did not get poisoned before the first sunset.
And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it
was very good (i., 31).—The man who wrote that had never
been chased by lion or tiger, nor bitten by a snake or serpent;
white ants had never destroyed his dwelling, nor moths spoilt
his wardrobe ; fleas and bugs had never teased him, nor
mosquitoes driven him mad ; thorns and thistles had never
pricked and-lacerated his flesh, nor miasma laid him down
with yellow fever ; tropical heat had never roasted him, nor
Arctic cold frozen his extremities. The world he describes is
not the one we live in ; he but echoes the dreams of the
golden age of poets and mythologists, and tells a tale of the
past that never was present. Geology tells the blunt truth
about it, and shows that this world has always been the scene
of strife, pain, misery and death almost ever since life itself
existed in it. If this world is a manufactured article, then
he who made it must have been the essence of folly and bar
barity. As we never hear anything of him now, I presume
he has had what the Scotch call “ a cast of grace ”—has
committed suicide to escape the wretched sight of his own
infernal handiwork. Pity he did not commit suicide before
creating the world!
Genesis ii.—The first three verses of this chapter belong
neither to the first nor the second properly. They were
added to the ancient story by some priest who wished to
impose the Sabbath upon the people beneath his charge, and
who knew that that could not be done without a good round
lie. He says :—
The heaven and the earth icere finished (ii., 1).—The
heavens, of course, neverjfexisted, any more than the Greek
Olympus or the Scandinavian Valhalla. But the earth never
has been finished yet. Geology teaches that the earth is just
�42
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
as much in course of creation now as ever it was. Coral
zoophytes, globigerinse, many plants ; all waves, streams,
rain-showers, frosts and snows, volcanoes and earthquakes, are
engaged in reconstructing and re-arranging the strata of the
earth. The process never was finished and never can be.
The earth, like every other material thing, except probably
ether and atoms, is a growth, not a manufactured thing, as
the Bible falsely teaches.
And he rested on the seventh dag, etc. (ii., 2).—‘‘ Behold I
show you a mystery!” An almighty god spent a whole
eternity in doing absolutely nothing ; five or six thousand
years ago he built the world, at which he worked six days ;
the putting of these few atoms together so exhausted him
that he rested the whole of the seventh day !—and has done
next to nothing since. To doubt this is blasphemy; to
believe it is piety ! If you ridicule it, the bishops and their
creatures will send you into solitary confinement for at least
nine months, and allow you nothing to read but this stupidest
of books!
These are the generations of the heavens and oj the earth,
when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the
earth and the heavens (ii., 4).—Here beginneth an entirely new
account of the creation by a writer who worshipped Jehovah
not the Elohim. It was the Elohim who created all things in
six days according to Genesis i. This chapter says Jehovah
Elohim did the work in one day—“ in the day that the lord
god made,” etc. Each of the stories is true ; divinely so,
though they so flatly contradict each other, and both equally
contradict known facts. Never mind. Believe both. Con
tradictions and lies constitute nine-tenths of the whole stock
of revealed truth. What then ? It is the fashion to pretend
at least to believe it all, and if you find a flaw, “ mum ” is
the word. To mention it might have the effect of damaging
the interests of spiritual policemen and tyrants “ set over you
in the lord ” and elsewhere, who rob the poor and the
starving to build temples and palaces for their own glory and
amusement.
The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (ii., 7).—This, my
reader, is very sublime language, praise the lord! Man’s
body consists, then, of dust of the ground ; and his soul is
nothing but a mixture of atmospheric air, carbonic acid and
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
43
water-vapor, breathed out of the lungs of his maker into his
own I A man’s first breath would expel most of what the
lord breathed into him, and a few subsequent acts of respira
tion would get rid of it all. He was soon without any soul,
except the constant inrush and outrush of air, etc., to and
from his lung.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of
it, etc. (ii., 17).—As divines long since gave up as hopeless
the task of trying to find where the Garden of Eden was, I
shall not notice it, except to remark that in the first chapter
man had all trees given him without exception; here he is
forbidden the tree of knowledge—almost the only one worth
eating of; and, by implication, he was forbidden to eat of the
tree of life also (iii.. 22).
The first man was exceedingly wise, however, without
eating of the tree of knowledge, for he gave names to all
cattle and fowls and beasts of the field ; and he seems to have
been no time about it either. A very precocious youth, cer
tainly ! The Lord could no faster make animals than Adam
gave them appropriate names. What language he used is
not said. Some contend it was Welsh, and I shall not
dispute it.
Adam’s wife was made of one of his own ribs; and yet
he calls her “ bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh
(ii., 21—23). But she was only bone of his bone. Besides,
if he was asleep when that surgical operation was performed
upon him, how did he know that his rib had been extracted
and used in this way ? He preferred Eve to all the animals
he had seen and labelled, as any fool might have done ; but
how did he know that she was like himself, never having seen
his own shape in a mirror ? Oh1 I forgot! God was just
like him, and no doubt told Adam so, and thus he knew his
own shape from his maker’s !
I may say that that bold, bad, blasphemous man, Bishop
Ellicott, in a new commentary on the Bible, has the audacity
to. affirm, in flat contradiction to God’s blessed and most holy
word, that Eve was not made out of a rib of Adam 1 He is
too respectable to send to Holloway Gaol; but wait till he is
dead; then he will go down to Dante’s Inferno, where so
many blaspheming bishops and popes are already “ suffering
the vengeance of eternal fire.”
The second chapter of Genesis closes with the confession
�44
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
that the Elohim or Jahveh had not the decency to clothe the
pair they had made. We need not be surprised. Gods and
goddesses have never been civilised enough to clothe them
selves. All the garments they have ever worn have been
woven and made by mythologists, painters and sculptors.
Not being clad themselves, the Elohim, including gods and
goddesses, never once thought that the human beings they
had made, just like themselves, had any need of garments.
Dr. Watts, in a hymn many of us learnt in childhood, seems
to regret that civilisation should have effected what God had
left undone. The hymn is both pious and edifying__
“ The art of dress did ne’er begin
Till Eve, our mother, learnt to sin ;
When first she put the covering on
Her robe of innocence was gone;
And yet her children vainly boast
Of those sad marks of glory lost!”
John Milton also, in "Paradise Lost," has something to
say upon the subject. That magnificent Zoroastrian or Mani
chaean poem should be read by all worshippers of orthodoxy.
Milton e real hero is Satan; his God is a pitiable thing.
Genesis iii.—The serpent was more subtle (sly) than any
beast of the field which the Lord God had made (iii., 1).—
Yes, the serpent was always an emblem or symbol of wisdom ;
though it required very little of that quality to out-wit the
Lord God and the first pair. Of course the story is a
" mystery ” in the old-fashioned sense of that word. The
language is emblematical, and intended to show that all gin
and evil, misery and death, spring from the union of the
sexes. It was written by some vile ascetic.
By the way, how is it all clothiers and manufacturers of
textile fabrics do not adopt the serpent as their symbol or as
their arms or trade mark ? The whole of their art is due to
the action of the serpent. Had he not been wiser than the
gods, clothes had never been adopted.
Lest anyone should be bold enough to question if the
serpent ever held the reported conversation with the woman,
let it be remembered that in " ASsop’s Fables ” nothing is
more common than for animals to talk; and nursery tales
and folklore abound with similar incidents. "Be not faith
less, but believing.” " Ye believe in AEsop, believe also in
Genesis.'5 If you doubt the speaking of the serpent, re
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
45
member Balaam’s donkey ; if you are tempted to doubt the
donkey-tale, remember that of the serpent. By thus com
paring scripture with scripture you may assure yourself of
the truth of one absurdity by reflecting upon another equally
bad. If you should still be tempted to doubt, remember that
all doubters will be damned; reflect upon the flames of hell
until the conception drives you half mad. You will be able
to believe anything then.
And Adam and Eve hid themselves from the presence of the
Lord God amongst the trees of the garden (iii., 8).—You need
not wonder now how the serpent dodged the Lord God and
got into the garden unknown to its owner ! They were out of
his presence ! He could not see them ; and had to call them
to find out where they were! If I wrote here that I hid
from the Lord God, and got out of his presence, I might go
to Holloway Gaol for blasphemy ; and if I pretended it was
revelation I was writing, and raised the late Archbishop of
Canterbury from the dead to prove my mission, Dr. Benson
and his party would give me an extra twelvemonths’ of soli
tary confinement for disturbing existing arrangements, while
the resurrected defunct would have to be disposed of or
" removed ” as fast as possible. God could not see far in
those early days, evidently ; and his presence was no more
extensive than Adam’s. In process of time he grew in bulk
till he became infinite—that is, ruptured and destroyed him
self like jEsop’s ambitious frog; and now men can no more
find God than God could find Adam and Eve. He is dis
sipated, like the gas of a ruptured balloon, or, rather, like
the vital spirit of the torn and tattered creeds.
With a kangaroo bound I leap over the other incidents of
the story, and alight plump upon the upshot of the first sin.
“ Behold the man (literally the Adam—that is, both the man
and the woman) is became as one of us, to know good and evil
(iii., 22).—I told you the creators were more than one.
They speak in the plural—one of us. The volumes of learned
rubbish written to explain this would surprise one, if he did
not reflect that twenty useless books are written for every
good one, and that for every great book you might find a
waggon-load of literary rubbish. This mystery is usually
explained by means of the trinity in unity—a mystery that
will clear up almost everything in theology. One of the
three is spoken to by the Elohim 1 That is, the unity speaks
�46
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
to one of the trinity, or to all three. That is, one of them at
least talks to himself—a sign of weak intellect generally.
That is, they all three speak with one voice, so lodged that
all can use it at once, or one of them alone. Where the said
voice was placed, or how it was managed I know not; I was
not there. As this communistic or socialistic voice uttered
what all three equally thought, each of the three heard with
his own pair of ears what he himself and his two companions
uttered; and thus each of the triad came to understand for
himself what all three knew equally well before all three
combined in this co-operative manner to pronounce it for the
benefit of himself and two companions. Ah, me! My last
sentence, I fear, is a bit mixed; so am I. It is that trinity
that has done it. I feel as poor Captain Webb did. probably,
in the Niagara whirlpools, so I’ll make for the shore.
So he drove out the man (literally, the Adam) iii., 24.__
This was an act of vengeance blind and cruel. It was an act
of jealousy. For the three, that is the one, felt afraid of Adam
and Eve. They knew too much. So they persecuted them,
just as the bigots persecute now. The gods and bigots have
always claimed a monopoly of knowledge: being densely
stupid themselves, they have always done their worst to pre
vent other people growing wise. To claim a monopoly of
knowledge is merely to wall up your windows with the object
of shutting in all the sunlight, and to find yourself in absolute
darkness as the result of such folly. Had gods and bigots
(they are both of the same species) been successful, the world
would never have emerged from brutal savagery. The act of
expulsion from Eden was one of mere spite—“ test he put,
forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live
for ever.v These wicked gods begrudgpd man knowledge.
The serpent assisted him, and he won it in spite of them
*
Then they deprived him of immortality. Here, too, the
monopoly proved fruitless. Men die; but the race of man
still subsists. The gods die, and leave no successors. Most of
them are dead. The Bible gods are as dead as the dead
languages that record their deeds.
When the horse was gone God shut the stable-door, and
set cherubs with a flaming sword to guard it! That is a
specimen of divine wisdom. Had he but set that guard at
first the serpent might never have got in ; had he not made
the serpent he could never have tempted Eve. Inexperience
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
47
and folly mark the whole of this story of the creation and
fall. Nothing to equal it in these particulars can be found
elsewhere. Most other nursery tales have some sense and
some humanity in them ; this is destitute of both, And yet
this silliest of stories is taught still as divine truth even in
Board schools, at the expense of the ratepayers. And those
who laugh at it are sent to prison, for the gratification of
bishops and other humbugs who fatten upon falsehoods and
grow rich out of the credulity of the poor.
Genesis IV.—This chapter gives an account of Cain and
Abel. The former seems to have been a vegetarian and a
sort of Buddhist, who refused to kill animals, lienee he
offered the lord the fruits of the ground, which were scorn
fully refused. Abel offered him some fine fat rams, which
delighted him.
I presume the story was invented' to
throw discredit upon agriculture, inasmuch as ploughing
or digging the soil disarranges the order of divine providence f
while the mere cattle-breeder was supposed to be living in a
state of friendship with the deities, only because he lived in a
state of nature. The writer or inventor of the story was in
favor of the nomad life of the desert, and so represented his
god to be of the same sentiments. Cain, the farmer, should
have had nothing to do with the shepard’s god; he should
have invented an agricultural god for his own particular
■ benefit. And so to-day, Atheists and heretics can never please
the gods that now exist; if they ever please any at all, they
must make gods for themselves, as others have done. By the
way, it is easier to invent a whole pantheon of gods than even
one priest. A priest must be a man of some kind ; a mere
name or epithet will do for a god.
The writer of Hebrews (xi., 2) says that faith was the
element that made Abel’s sacrifice acceptable to the Lord •
while the want of it led to the rejection of Cain’s. That is
sheer nonsense. The Lord wanted his breakfast, and a few
good fat lambs were just what his appetite required. Besides,
the way this writer puts it would lead to the conclusion that
Cain, the man of no faith, persecuted to the death Abel, who
had plenty of it! That is absurd. If Cain really did kill
Abel in this religious quarrel, he must have been the more
fanatical—that is, the better believer; and Abel the worse.
It never has been otherwise ; the man of no faith could not
persecute a believer. He might punish any other fault, bu
�*
4
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
not his religion, unless the religion led to open or secret acts
of violence, and then not the religion, but the acts of violence
would be punished.
Beloved reader, the lesson we learn from the story of those
ancient brothers is one of deep significance.
It will be
observed that they quarrelled merely about religion, a thing
neither of them understood. Before this we may suppose
they had lived as became brothers. Now in their full
manhood they fell out. Up to this time they seem to have had
no religion; consequently all went merry as a marriage-bell
with them. No sooner did they betake themselves to religion
than they differed, grew warm, because the thing intoxicated
them. They fought, and the stronger killed the, weaker! It
is a significant fact that the first time religion is introduced
in the Bible it leads to fractricide. From that day till now
the history of the Jewish-Christian religion is a history of
quarrels, lies and blood. Therefore, have nothing to do
with it.
And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel, thy brother ?
—iv., 9. Ah! If the Lord had only been present at the
quarrel, he might have prevented the murder ! But provi
dence and policemen are generally out of the way when most
needed. They are always at hand when sacrifices, offerings,
and rewards are to be presented.
The sentence pronounced upon Cain is full of nonsense.
The earth was cursing him (verse 11) ; would refuse to yield
him her strength when tilled! Why, land saturated with blood,
animal or human, is enriched thereby, and produces better
crops for being so manured! Nor does it know the difference
between a brother’s blood and that of a dog. Scarcely can
you take a step in the Bible without stumbling upon some
gross superstition. So far is the earth from cursing those
who saturate it with blood, that it yields better crops, for the
murderer and anyone else for it.
(To be continued in No. 4).
Printed and Published bv Ramsey and Eootei, at 2S-Stonecutter Street, E.C<
V YTVR&’T"UllXl
Ill AA'iiU'XA IRK
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
No. 2 ] blows AT THE BIBLE,
[id
BY
JOSEPH SYMES.
•«'.
t
This gentleman was the first that ever lived ; his father’s
-name was God (Luke iii., 38), and his mother was the
earth or the ground (Genesis ii., 7). Adam was made, or
begotten, or manufactured, or born, or produced twice at
least. In the first instance he was made the saline day with
his wife, viz., on the first Saturday that ever dawned ; and
after this gigantic effort the creator dropped work, “ rested
and was refreshed” (Exodus xxxi., 17) during • the first of
Sundays, and has, we belUye, done no work to speak of since.
his first creation Adam found the world prepared for
him. As Hood, one of his late descendants sung, he came
----------- “ tenderly ushered in
'
To a prospect all bright and burnished
*
No tenant he for life s back slums----He comes to the world as a gentleman comes
To a lodging ready furnished.”
-5 y
; r
There was the earth, in all its vastness of glory, furnished
with a crystalline roof (time, alas! has destroyed it long
since), in which were fixed the sun, moon, and stars—now,
sad to say, left to wander through space as best they can,
with no firmament to hold them fast 1 What would the
astronomer of to-day give to gaze upon the world as our first
fathei’ saw it 1 Overhead that beautiful sapphire vault, roof
at once of the lower world and floor of the musicians of the
gods ! What a pity it was ever permitted to decay I Had it
been kept in proper repair the theologian might confound his
sceptical foes by merely pointing upwards, and dramatically
crying, “Behold!”
�18
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
When Adam first opened his eyes upon the vegetable world
no parasites were found anywhere, and a fungus had never a
chance to grow. The leaves of the tree grew, but never de
cayed ; the blossoms consolidated into fruit, the fruit ripened,
but it never fell. The animals, too, were in a most extra
ordinary state. The lion played with the lamb, and the cat
with the mouse; if the hawk chased the sparrow it was
merely in fun ; and the veriest cormorant to be found would
as soon have dreamt of swallowing a crow-bar as a fish. In
those days all beasts of prey browsed in the meadows ; and
the whales and sharks grew fat upon nought but sea-weeds.
Then it was that tigers had neither fangs nor claws, the
wasps no stings, the serpents no poison ; mosquitoes had not
vet left their eggs, the locusts had never begun to devour,
and phylloxera and the Colorado beetle had never cast mur
derous eyes upon vine, grape or potato.
These were delightful times when our first parents sunned
hemselves in “Eden’s bonny yard,” untroubled by the
nought of debt or danger, untrammelled with skirts or pan
taloons, big romping babies that they were, the very image
of their father I
But Adam’s second Advent was different. In the first in
stance he was made, but of what material we know not: when
he was made the second time it was of dust (Genesis ii., 7).
Whether the dust was moistened and worked up with water,
like plaster of Paris, is not said. A modem man consists
chiefly of water ?• Adam’s one element was dust. Whether it
was stone dust, or clay dust, or saw dust, or gold dust, or
diamond dust, or brick dust, or coal dust, or a mingling of
them, we cannot say. Divine wisdom has not seen fit to en
lighten us further than to condescend to inform us that our
first father was made of the dust of the ground ; and as the
dust of the ground differs so in different regions, we must
leave the solution of this interesting problem till the Great
Day, when the whole of his descendants will, no doubt, rush
to him simultaneously and exclaim, “ Oh 1 Reverend sire, of
what dust did thy creator form thee ?” Adam s reply must,
I am sorry to add, be postponed sine die.
As Adam consisted of dust, and as sons and fathers are
usually of the same material. I presume it is but logical to
infer that Adam’s father—or God—was also of the dust. One
thing is certain, he has been turned to dust or something
�THE LIFE OF ADAM.
19
less substantial for many ages ; and his worshippers can
no more find a relic of his than they can one of Eve’s hair
pins.
When Adam was made on this second occasion, and the
dust was worked up into its required form, proportions, sym
metry, and consistency, his maker “ breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life, and man (Adam) became a living soul.”
The result must be pronounced wonderful and altogether
different from what might have been expected. It must be re
membered that he breathed into Adam, that is, the creator
breathed out of himself or expired his own breath ; and that
breath would have poisoned Adam if he had been previously
alive, for it must have been highly charged with carbonic acid.
So it appears that what would kill a live man will make a
dead man live.
Of course, we should not believe this story if we found it
in Homer—unless we had been coaxed to believe it by a
promise of heaven, or frightened to it by a threat of hell ; but
seeing it is in the Bible, and reflecting that we must be
damned if we doubt it, it seems safest to believe it.
When God the second time created Adam, he certainly did
not improve upon his work ; for this time Adam found the
earth bare ; he himself was the very first living thing created.
When he awoke to life there was nothing to eat, no one to
speak to. A little later he saw a garden rise suddenly
around him, and then beasts, and birds, and insects crowded
into life. But none of them suited him, though the creator
seems to have tempted him to amalgamate with beasts. The
Lord God thought it not good for Adam to be alone, and so
gave him a sleeping draught of extra power, and while he lay
in deep repose, proceeded to vivisect him. Opening the side
of the sleeper, the surgeon-creator extracted a rib, and then
stitched up the wound, leaving Adam a lighter if not a wiser
man. Of the extracted rib the creator now made a woman.
When Adam’s skeleton is dug up it may easily be identified
by being a rib short.
Here we face a decided difficulty. If Adam was an ordinary
man, a rib of his would make but a very small woman, and
merely a bone woman after all. A woman so small must
have been a very poor “ help meet ” for Adam, even if con
sisting of bones and flesh and all things human; and a
woman of bone, whatever hpr size or shape, must have been
�20
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
of far less value than one of ivory, not to mention marble or
the precious metals.
This, however, is merely a sceptical difficulty, and decidedly
dangerous. We prefer sticking to God’s holy word, though
we cannot tell how a rib, no more than a pound or so in
weight, could become a woman, weighing 140 lbs. For if
the rest of the material was taken from some other place,
then manifestly only one hundred-and-fortieth part of Eve
was due to that rib; and, therefore, the Lord God did not
make that extracted rib a woman, as the story avers. It would
have required all Adam’s ribs and nearly all the rest of him
to make a woman of respectable proportions as compared with
himself. Still it is better to believe than be damned.
After his second creation, as just related, Adam—in com
pany with Eve and the animals which he had named (if not
baptised) before he lost his rib—lived very pleasantly in
Paradise. This was a garden, as every Sunday scholar knows,
“planted ” in Eden, where grew the tree of life, of which if
one ate he would never die (Genesis iii., 22), and the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil, of which the happy couple
were forbidden to eat on pain of death.
Thus says holy writ. But the sceptic will be sure to ask
what sort of a tree it was ? 'Why they were forbidden to eat
of it ? and how they could be awed by a threat they could
not understand ? These deep questions are far too profound
for finite minds to solve, and we must leave them beneath
the dark veil divine revelation has seen fit to shroud them in.
Alas!
“ The best laid schemes o’ mice and gods
Gang aft agley.”
In stocking the world with animals the creator or creators
had manufactured the serpent, and the “ serpent was more
subtle than any beast of the field,” so much so that he began
to talk; and soon he showed himself a more powerful
and successful orator, reasoner and commander than all the
creators together. The creator told Adam and Eve not to
eat the tree or touch it, lest they should die. The serpent
said, “Pooh! pooh. It’s the best tree in all the garden—is
good for food, is pleasant and agreeable; and, besides, it
possesses the most astonishing educational properties ; for you
no sooner eat this fruit than you open your eyes, and know
�THE LIFE OF ADAM.
21
good and evil; in a word, Sir, Madam, yon no sooner swallow
a little of this delicious fruit than you become like the
gods themselves, who, out of jealousy, have forbidden you to
touch it.”
No pedlar ever succeeded better, no quack doctor ever
gained an easier victory. Before this, Eve would not have
touched that tree for the world; now she felt that she could
eat every apple it bore. The serpent’s eloquence and subtlety
prevailed ; Eve ate two apples on the spot, and ran off with
one in each hand to her husband, whom she speedily induced
to follow her example and eat of this marvellous fruit. The
serpent now chuckled with delight at the success of his exploit;
and Adam and Eve felt no worse, nor very much better for
the new food.
Their deity, however, who had probably seen the serpent
enter Paradise, suspected something wrong. He descended
in haste, and began to look about among the trees and bushes
for the disobedient pair. Adam heard him rustling through
the long grass, and hid himself among the bushes, rightly
judging that his maker was not in the sweetest of tempers.
At length in desperation he cried, “ Adam, where art thou ?
Hast thou eaten of that tree ?” Not daring to hide longer,
Adam now slowly crawled out of his hiding-place, begging his
majesty not to be so angry with him, as in truth, the woman
had pressed him to eat the fruit in question.
Still, the deity was not pacified, and he pronounced a curse
upon Adam and his descendants, upon the ground, upon the
pool’ woman, and upon the serpent that had deceived them ;
and then went back again to his mansion, his wrath still
burning as it will do for ever and ever.
This story, gentle reader, is extremely instructive. You
know that there are thorns in the world ; they are the results
of the above crime. Mothers, as you know, bear their off
springs in pain and sorrow; it is because Eve ate an apple or
two. All serpents go upon their belly; that is because the
first serpent, who, no doubt, crawled upon his back, temptec.
Eve to sin. Before that date pain and death were known
only by name ; since then there has been little else. Hell, at
that date, was peopled only by devils, and even they were not
regular denizens, but merely occasional visitors; ever since
about that date, men and women, and children have been
dropping into it in ever increasing numbers, whereas, not
�22
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
a human being would ever have sniffed so much as a whiff of
its sulphur, if Eve and Adam had not sinned. All which
shows what sort of a thing divine justice is, and demonstrates
that, of all beings known, none need so much to be civilised
as the gods.
Adam and Eve were next driven out of Paradise to prevent
their becoming gods, the older gods being afraid of the
possible consequences.
They knew that the serpent was
too subtle for the best of them, and they, no doubt, feared
that under his tuition Adam and Eve, should they eat of
the Tree of Life, would be more than a match for them.
Therefore, driving the unfortunate couple out, they guarded
the gate of Paradise by cherubs with a flaming sword.
Whether this was a Damascus blade or Toledo, I cannot say;
antiquaries having never yet lighted upon ii. Perhaps Dr.
Schliemann, when he has finished Troy, Mycene, and other
classical sites, may take a trip to Paradise to explore that
region.
Some little time before this expulsion, the guilty pair took
to vestments. They had been created naked ; nor did their
maker see the necessity of clothing them. Taking the hint,
no doubt, from the “ aprons ” he saw them wearing on the
day he cursed them, the creator next turned butcher, and
killed two beasts and flayed them (we hope he did not flay
them alive); then becoming a tailor, he made the skins into
two coats d la mode, no doubt, for the man and woman. Clothes
had not yet become “ differentiated,” and both sexes dressed
alike; coats, then, were all-sufficient; it was a later
civilisation that first demanded skirts and pantaloons.
After leaving Paradise, this interesting pair were blessed
with a family of sons and daughters, who intermarried with
each other, and came to but little good.
The eldest son
murdered the second, and then became a vagabond. Of the
rest we know nothing; though to judge from their
descendants, they were little to boast of. Adam himself
lived no more than 930 years and then died. If any should
fancy that he lived too long, let them reflect upon the misery
he might have inflicted upon the world if he had never eaten
the apple! In that case he would have lived for ever and
have been an endless nuisance to mankind. Eve, I presume,
never did die, for the Bible does not record any such event in
�---- 5,--t——*---------------------
L~------
THE LIFE OF ADAM.
23
her history ; and I should not like to incur the “ plagues ”
that will fall on those who “ add to ” the Word of God.
Such gentle reader, is a summary of the life of Adam (and
Eve in part) as given in the Bible. It is very interesting and
instructive, is it not ? The lessons we learn are : never to
listen to a talking, garrulous serpent; never to eat forbidden
fruit, nor too much of what is lawful; and if we should ever
have a chance to eat the fruit of the “ Tree of the knowledge
of good and evil,” and also of the “ Tree of life,” the fate of
Adam and Eve suggests that we should eat of the latter first,
for that, it seems, will ensure our immortality, eat of the
other while we may.
LOVE
NOT THE
WORLD.
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.
If any man love the world, the love of the father is not in
him.”—1 John ii., 15.
The apostle John, or indeed, all the apostles together, might
utter this cry on any Exchange in the world, from morning
to night, and from January to December, but he would make
no impression. The assembled merchants, traders, stock
brokers, and what-not would vote him a nuisance, laugh at his
fanaticism, chaff him and quiz him, or send for a policeman
to take him in charge. The most pious present as well as the
profane would all concur that the apostle was out of place ;
that he should keep his sermon for Sunday, a day specially
set apart in Protestant lands for hearing denunciations of the
week’s transactions and for forming resolutions and pious
resolves—to be—more worldly during the week to come.
And if our Exchanges and emporia are not the appropriate
places for such sermons, where shall they be preached. In
the churches, of course : where, no doubt, the preacher would
be listened to with profound and prayerful attention; his
words would sink deep into the hearts of the clergy, who
would confess their sins, bewail their worldly-mindedness,
acknowledge themselves “ miserable sinners,” as they really
are, and declare that they desired only to hold the world with
a slack hand, that they really valued nothing so little as the
�24
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
dung and dross which constituted the world’s wealth, that
they cared only for the wealth that did not fade, the riches
of the kingdom of heaven ; and would pour out volumes of
twaddle and heartless excuses, and resolutions never to be
kept.
Tell the Archbishop of Canterbury that he will be shut
out of heaven or be cl apt into hell, and you hardly impress
him. Tell him his palace is on fire, or his bank broken, his
railway and other shares rendered useless through some com
mercial disaster, and he would turn white as a sheet and be
ready to give up the ghost. Of course his grace does not
really love the world and the things in it; but then it looks
so much as if he did that neither you nor I, the Father, Son,
nor Holy Ghost, nor all together, with the Archbishop to
assist us, could tell the difference between real worldly love
and his grace’s counterfeit.
If you and I, having none of the grace of God, had a
splendid palace to live in, and £15,000 per annum to live
upon, and great titles and huge honors into the bargain, we
should almost certainly love them. But an archbishop has
divine grace sufficient for his very trying 'position, and his
strength is just sufficient to his day, and so exactly balances
his income, perquisites and privileges, that- this! Bight g,ev.
Father in God can love the world and the Father (?.e., himself) both at once and about equally. And besides God the
Father is not quite so particular now-a-days. In olden
time, when he, like the Pope, ruled mtteh of the world, he
-insisted upon all his rights and monopolies; bow he has to
beg a favor where he could formerly command ; and, on the
principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, he accepts
what he can get—just as all his followers do.
In dwelling profoundly upon this text, andhwith the assist
ance of the Holy Ghost who or which inspired it, I note that
it is entirely out of harmony with, I won^ say the world,
but the churches of to-day; and, therefore, either the text
or the churches must be faulty. The question is, Which?
It cannot be supposed that so many churches are at fault ;
they would enlighten each other, and naturally criticise
each other to so great an extent that - any serious deviation
from the truth amongst Christians is next to impossible,
especially on so plain a subject as loving the world or the
Father.
�LOVE NOT THE WORLD.
25
I presume it would be next to impossible for a person to
have a strong liking for anything and yet not know it. If
the Christians love the world, its wealth and pleasures, its
pomps and vanities, they can hardly be ignorant of the fact.
And if they love the Father to any great extent, they must
know it, whether lie does or not. It is also very unlikely
that Christians could hide their preferences from their
neighbors. If they love the Father and despise the world,
people must know it; if they loved the world and despised
the Father, they could not hide it. A tree is known by its
fruits ; and people’s likes and dislikes are ascertained by their
conduct.
Well, I know of no church that does not love the world
most intensely ; I know of no people who love it more than
those who pretend to renounce it. And the text says the
love of the father is not in such people. No doubt the text
is a blunder. The Holy Ghost and John were but babies
compared with the Christians of to-day. They thought that
religion was to be distinguished from the world ; the moderns
have discovered that God and the world are both one, and
that to love the Father is to love the world, and to renounce
the world would amount to renouncing the Father, so they
stick jb both. Bravo ! this is a grand discovery. And the
Church was not long in making it when once those stupid
apostles, who crucified the flesh, were dead and out of the
way. Christians to-day crucify the flesh of others and spare
their own—another great modern improvement.
To be sure, profane and illogical persons will say that if
Christian conduct is right, the Bible must be wrong. Not
at all. You must not understand either'party seriously.
When the Bible bids you not to love the world, it means the
other world, not this ; and when Christians to-day profess
to think lightly of the world, they mean “ the world to
come.” Christianity is a huge, grim, practical joke. The
Church started by renouncing the world, and culminated in
•the possession of most of it; then the civil power had forcibly
to wring from her her ill-gotten gains.
Churchmen still roll in riches and bedeck themselves with
honors, though they profess to be followers of that Jesus who
for their sakes became poor, and to be the spiritual descendants
of men who voluntarily went about in sheep-skins and goat
skins. In their baptism, by godfathers and godmothers, they
�26
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
renounce the world with its pomps and vanities, the flesh and
the devil. This serves them for life. It is a wholesale con
fession, followed by plenary absolution for all the sins they
will ever commit. Having thus hoodwinked the blessed
Trinity, they ever after love the world with all their heart,
and with all their mind, and with all their soul, and with all
their strength, and their neighbor, the flesh, as themselves.
I feel no doubt that Christianity and the churches’
hypocrisy will some day stand exposed before all men, and
become the world’s laughing-stock. But the people are so
blind and priest-ridden that it must take long to accomplish
the work. In the meantime our duty is plain—to expose, to
ridicule this greatest of shams with all our might.
THE MYSTERY OF SALVATION.
•• Ye worship ge know not what: we know what we worship:
for salvation is of the Jews."—John iv., 22.
Here is a text of three clauses, two false and one true.
Salvation is of the Jews !” This is absolutely contrary to
fact.
The Jews are a lost race themselves, and never
afforded salvation to anybody. For well nigh 1,500 years
they lived, if their chronology can be trusted, in Palestine.
But during that long period they produced no philosopher,
no great general, no architect, no discoverer, no scientist, no
statesman, an indifferent poet or two, no inventor. From
what, then, have the Jews contributed to save the world ?
The ancient Jews are remembered for almost nothing else
than sundry superstitions ; and superstitions are the curse,
not the salvation of man. Had the Jews never existed, the
Bible never been written, what would the world miss ? That
Jews in modern times have distinguished themselves I readily
admit; but never except in the midst of Gentilism and under
its inspiration.
Thus the last third of the text is disposed of as an empty
boast.
‘•We know what we worship.” This also is absolutely
untrue. No Jew then, no Jew nor Christian since, ever
�THE MYSTERY OF SALVATION.
27
knew what he worshipped. The only persons who really do
know their god or gods are those that worship tangible or
visible objects. The worshippers of the golden calf, sun
.and fire worshippers, the devotees of stocks and blocks, of
trees and running streams, knew something of their deities,
though not much ; for had they known the truth they would
not, could not have worshipped.
This, too, is purely an empty boast, though quite worthy
of the man who told people he lived before Abraham
(Jolrn viii., 58), that he “ came down from heaven ” (John vi.,
38), that “ all power was given unto him in heaven and in
earth” (Matt, xxviii., 18), and that he could raise the dead
again to life (John xi., 25—27). His was just the spirit
of every fanatic : “ I am right, you are wrong. I am divine,
you are stupid. I shall be saved, you will be damned—unless
you submit to me and adopt my creed.” It is a thousand pities
there was no Freethinker present when Jesus and the woman
of Samaria were conversing ; for he could very soon have
confounded both parties, and have exposed the pretended
knowledge of deity which Mary’s son was boasting of.
Though probably the world might have had one more martyr
to enroll in the “ noble army ;” for Jesus and his disciples (as
soon as they arrived) would no doubt have flung the sceptic
into “Jacob’s well.”
Finding no shred of truth in the second and third clauses,
let us turn to the first. Every Christian will inform you that
he worships “God,” and all the sects of Christendom would
have you believe that they all in common worship one and
the same God ; but of this they can have no proof whatso
ever, and facts are against them,
I. Jews, Mahommedans, and Unitarians have a God who is
one and indivisible. But that is only one section of the
orthodox God. This God is the father of all, be it remem
bered—The Father. He is the father of the earth and
heavens, the sun, planets, comets, stars ; the father of sun
shine and storm, of flood and fire, of earthquake, volcano,
epidemic and famine ; the father of health and of all diseases;
the father of vampires, serpents, snakes, fleas, bugs, mosquitos,
Colorado beetles, locusts, sharks, lions, tigers, jackals, hyaenas,
trichina, and tape-worms; the father of murderers, robbers,
pirates, popes, persecutors, and devils! What a family!
And every one of them all is the very image of his dad.
�r
”
■! ! » iW.rw-'-5 i
28
i
--------------- .1.
lW—
< K
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
What a father! What a God ! What an object of worship !
Verily I do not wonder that persons who can worship such a
deity call Atheists fools—it is the very highest compliment
they could pay us. No doubt the inmates of Bedlam, in like
manner, regard all outsiders as idiots. And we cannot help
it.
We need never wonder that this God’s worshippers
behaved so idiotically and cruelly while in power.
II. Most Christians add two or more extra wings or sections
to their deity, and increase him, at least by about two-thirds.
They have the father, of course, and the Catholics very
logically supply a fourth wing or section called the “ Mother,”
while Protestants half acknowledge and half repudiate this
addition. All, however, agree, except Unitarians, to accept
the Son and Holy Ghost. The fathei’ is, they say, such from
all eternity. But the son is of exactly the same age as his
father, and of the same size, and never was any smaller. He
was begotten, though never bom, from all eternity. These
two never began to be, yet one of them is father of the other;
and, as far as a profane Atheist can perceive, either of them
might equally well be the father or the son of the other. One
wonders if the divine two ever get confused over the matter
themselves! Possibly: they are both alike, both of an age,
height, complexion, and it is not known how the one dis
tinguishes himself from the other. They have never seen
themselves, for certain, for they are both infinite, both occupy
exactly the same space, they cannot move an inch out of each
other’s way, and no looking-glass could be large enough to
reflect them, either singly or together. That is to be regretted.
It is a pity they cannot see themselves.
Then, in addition to the two just named, there is the Holy
Ghost. He, she, or it, is also infinite and eternal, and also
occupies the same same space exactly that the Father and
Son fill so absolutely. The three are most unfortunate.
They are each infinite, and there is but one infinite room for
them to occupy. Three infinite persons in one infinite room
must be awfully uncomfortable, especially in hot weather. I
suspect they suffocated each other long ago, or died of unen
durable pressure.
To make things themselves a little more pleasant in their infi
nitely overcrowded one-roomed house, about 2,000 years ago it
was decided that the Son should “ be born again,” and this time
become a baby of 17 lbs. or so. It was done. This time he
L,!
�THE MYSTERY OF SALVATION.
29
had a different father, too. Tired of his old dad, he chose
the Holy Ghost as his father this time, and the Holy Ghost
chose a mother for him. The reader will not ask me to ex
plain—I cannot. And all Christian divines, commentators,
and gods are as helpless as I am in the matter. However,
here we are, face to face, and at the same time back to back,
with the Christian God ! How beautifully simple the Gospel
is ! “A wayfaring man, though a fool (provided he is a fool,
that is), need not err therein.”
“ He that runneth may
read ”—the posters are so large. 1st. A Father infinite and
eternal; 2nd, a Son, ditto ; 3rd, a Holy Ghost ditto; 4th,
a woman finite and rather young ; 5th, the Son of this woman
and the Holy Ghost, formerly the infinite and eternal son
of the father only, begotten but not bom. These five or six
persons are the two God the Fathers, the two God the Sons,
and the Holy Ghost and Mary. Here we have a double
Trinity in Unity ; and thus the Christians are twice as well
off in gods as they have ever directly let the world know.
Verily “great is the mystery of godliness ! ” “Who can
know it?” The Christian God is the most unmitigated sham
ever palmed off upon a credulous world. In fact, when they
do not pay their devotions to Mammon, to sensuous pleasures,
or other physical deities, all their worship is directed to they
“ know not what.” I would offer them a reward of £1,000,000
sterling, if I had it, on condition that they told me what
their God is. They much need the money, but could never
get it, for they “ worship they know not what.” And if men
were wise enough to see how they are duped, they would pay
not a farthing more for or to the Gospel until its priests in
formed the public who or what it is they worship. In that
case Christianity would be starved out in a few weeks. That
fate awaits it.
ANANIAS
AND
S A P P H I R A.
“And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many
as heard these things.”—Acts v., 11.
No doubt! No doubt! Peter was now in power : the Church
was at his feet. Peter, who always had a keen eye for the
main chance; who gave up nothing himself for or to his
�30
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
master except under promise of one hundredfold more in the
time that then was, and in the world to come life ever
lasting (Matt, xix., 28, 29). The most unconscionable money
lender or bill-discounter in the world never excelled that.
Peter was determined to do his best, while the new converts
were at the white heat of their “first love” and religious
excitement, to realise the promise of Jesus and secure the
one-hundredfold here, at any rate, whatever might be his fate
in the “ life to come! ”
In this respect, the followers of St. Peter, whether at Rome
or elsewhere, have closely copied his meritorious example,
and done their utmost to win the one-hundredfold, or the
millionfold, if that were possible.
Of course Peter soon saw that it would be highly impolitic
to allow these two, Ananias and his wife Sapphira, to give in
just what they pleased to the exchequer of the Church—
others might follow the example, and thus much wealth be
diverted from the proper channel.
Besides, something bold and terrible needed to be done
to impress the rabble, inside and outside the Church, with
the power of this new movement, and especially the power
of the leaders. It was not legitimate power they were con
tent to wield, but the power of superstition. The Church
started life without a single grain of objective truth; and to
support itself was compelled to have constant recourse tothe supernatural—that is, to fraud, to tricks, and to
jugglery.
Now, if Peter could only make away with
Ananias and Sapphira, and give it out that the Holy Ghost
had done it, what a deep and horrible impression it would
create ! and how effectually it would prevent anyone follow
ing the example of these two! So the deed was done.
I now proceed to give definite reasons for holding the
opinion that the Holy Ghost did not kill these two, nor any
other person of the Trinity :—
1. Those divine persons never hated lying—most of what
they themselves are reported to have said is of that stamp.
2. They not only indulged in this weakness themselves,
but had friends who did the same. Abraham told lies about
Sarah ; Jacob deceived his poor old blind father; Jesus said
he came down from heaven—a manifest falsehood; Peter
swore he did not know Jesus! Now, if the Holy Ghost
wanted to make an example of any person why not of one
�of those ? ’Tis tree, Jesus and Peter, if reports are to be
credited, did die violent deaths. Is that to be regarded as
proof that the Holy Ghost killed them for lying ?
3. It has never been the practice of the Holy Ghost,
Father, or Son to kill people for lying. If it had been, in
what age of the church would there have been half-a-dozen
saints left alive ? Why, there never could have been a
church without wholesale lying. The worst thing that could
happen to any Church is the dissemination of truth. Lying!
In it the Trinity, the church, and all other shams * live and
move, and have their being.” What! let the Holy Ghost go
through the church to-day and slay all that preach false
doctrine, and that do little else than teach conscious and un
conscious lies, and. the churches would be in the condition of
Sennacherib’s army—they would waken up next morning to
‘■'find that they were all dead corpses !” (Isaiah xxxvii., 36).
No, my brethren, the Holy Ghost never did kill liars ; they
are his very best friends.
But if the Holy Ghost did not kill Ananias and Sapphira,
' who did ? That is the question. There can be only one
answer, and that is—Peter was their murderer. Look at the
facts. They had offended Peter. He was furious with them.
Both these persons died suddenly in a place where Peter and
the officials of the Church were assembled. There were
certain “ young men ” who at once disposed of the bodies.
And that was the end of it.
1. Are Christians satisfied with the story and the cOTiduct
of reter ?
2. Could Peter possibly stand forth in a worse light ?
3. How was it he did not challenge investigation ? Why
were the corpses so suddenly, and without the least examina
tion, buried ?
4. Would not an honest man or church have done some
thing to clear themselves of suspicion in such a case ?
5. What would a few able detectives and an honest
coroner’s jury have brought to light, had they investigated
the Petro-Ananias and Sapphira case ? It is a fortunate
event for Christianity that it rose in an age and time when
coroner’s inquests were unknown, for in modern London the
killing of these two would have resulted in the sudden death
of the Church as well. And this double murder will even
tually help to kill the Church. Murder will out; and the
�-r
*
r
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
blood of those two cries, not to heaven, but to common sense,
for vengeance, and vengeance it will have.
There is nothing in the character of Peter to warrant or
even suggest his innocence; and fanaticism and crime Jjave
generally gone hand in hand. Witness the bloodthirsty
temper of Moses, of Joshua, of Abraham, of Jephtha, of the
Jews who murdered Jesus, and of Jesus who threatened
worse than murder against all who disbelieved and opposed
*
him ; witness the wholesale and horrible persecutions of they- *
Ghurch in all ages. Let any candid man weigh the matter,
as if he were on a jury trying the case, and say whether,b..
having regard to the whole circumstances and the. almost
invariable character of apostles, prophets, and religious
leaders in all countries and ages, the chances are not a
thousand to one that ■ Peter, the first of Popes, did what
Popes have rarely hesitated to do—committed murder for the sake of the Church’s peace, and covered his crime by a dread- o
ful falsehood in the interest of truth?
1 yLastly. I care not much who murdered Ananias and
Sapphira—they were murdered, whether Peter or the Holy
Ghost did it: the one had as a good right to kill as the
other. And even if either had possessed that right, the two
-I
offenders should, in common justice, have had a fail’ and open
trial. Instead of which, they were murdered, without the
least chance of self-defence.
We $eed not wonder that Christians to-day keep Mr. Brad
laugh from his seat by brute force ; they have never been
friends of justice—except for themselves. Their divine book
i
gives no example of an honest criminal trial ; the highest
judicial proceedings known to the Bible and the blessed »
Trinity are just those of the barbarians or of the “ unspeak- \
able Turk,” when he exhibits himself in his worst possible
fashion.
Reader, instead of “ remembering Lot’s wife,” Remember
Ananias and Sapphira, who, whatever their character, were
murdered for the good of the infant Church, as millions of
innocent people have been for the same institution and prin
ciples in later centuries.
Printed and PublisE& by jfctasey-and Foote, at 2S Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�No. 6.] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
[11.
BT
JOSEPH
SYMES.
JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
'^v.1
And Jacob said unto his father, I am Esau thy first-born
(Genesis xxvii., 19).—Ananias and his wife were struck dead
for lying; Jacob was protected and favored by the Lord im
mediately after this atrocious lie. As Jacob bamboozled his
earthly father, so most Christians to-day treat their father
who is in heaven. He is too blind to detect the fraud, or he
would soon make short work of the bishops, who rob the poor
Esaus of their birthright. Every priesthood lives by imitating Jacob. That is why the patriarch is so popular with them.
And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth,
and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of
God ascending and descending on it (Genesis xxviii., 12).—This
must have been a divine dream, or it would not have been
recorded. A ladder reaching to heaven ! How preposterous 1
Angels running up and down! This was probably before
they were fledged, or, as someone has suggested, it may have
been at the season when they were moulting, their wings then
being too tattered for a lengthy flight.
And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the
Lord is in this place ; and I knew it not (Genesis xxviii., 16).
—The saint did not know that his God was where he slept!
He had evidently not said his prayers before going to sleep.
He had left home without taking his God with him, and was
startled to find him going on the same journey. And he was
afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other
but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven (verse 17).
Ay ! ay ! it is always so. There is no place, except one, that
saints find so dreadful as the gate of heaven, and that is the
gate of its antipodes. If a saint ever needs comfort it is when
in sight of the heavenly city. Then he sends for the doctor
�82
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
—or two or three doctors, if he is rich enough—to kill the
messenger, the disease, God has sent to call him home. If
the doctors succeed, there is rejoicing; if they fail, the poor
saint shuffles off his mortal coil as reluctantly as he would
strip off his clothes in the Arctic regions; and he enters
heaven (that is, exits from life) with a face as long as he
would wear were he going to prison or the workhouse ! Ah!
yes—the gate of heaven is a dreadful spot, and I should not
be surprised to find it worse inside than out.
And he took the stone that he had put for the pillows, and set
it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it (verse 18).—
Here we land in absolute and widespread idolatry. Jacob
was a phallic worshipper, and he consecrated this stone in
the usual manner, his God, of course, being quite delighted
with the act. He anointed it, and so made a Christ of it,
that is, an anointed, greased, or smeared one.
And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and
will keep (that is, protect) me in this 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:
and this stone, ivhich I have set for a pillar, shall be God's
house ; and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the
tenth unto thee (verses 20-22),—This text is full of the mar
row of divinity. 1. Jacob enters into a bargain with God
and puts him to the test. He will have nothing to do with a
God that will do nothing for him. In that he was right.
Neither will I. 2. The vow shows that Jacob had not yet
received Jehovah into his pantheon, and was resolved to
experiment upon him before he did. Eight again. 3. If the
God did his duty, he should have that stone for his house 1
Very kind of Jacob; and the God did not object. Perhaps
the stone had a hole in it. 4. He will pay God ten per cent,
of all that God gives him ! That must have been very tempt
ing to Jehovah; and we must suppose he at once fell in with
the proposal and accepted the bargain.
Note.—We are often told of the disinterested love of God
and his saints. But the article cannot be found in anything
except words. The Bible exhibits no love but what expects
a reward.
We shall see in the sequel that, whatever the Lord did,
Jacob never performed his part of this vow. It was the off
spring of panic, as most vows are, never meant to be kept, but
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
83
only to appease the present wrath of the deity and ward off a
supposed or real danger. Religion, when dissected, is found
to be selfishness consecrated.
The story of Jacob and his married life had better be left
where it is—in the Bible, one of the few places really fit for
it. Comment is both unnecessary and impossible.
The way in which Jacob contrived to grow rich at Laban’s
expense was clever, ay, miraculous—which shows that God
was with the rogue all the way through. Honest men never
get nor need his assistance. To judge from what the Bible
teaches, especially in connexion with Jacob, Moses, Joshua
and Elijah, Jehovah was the patron God of cut-throats,
swindlers and thieves.
And Jacob stole away unawares to Laban the Syrian
(Genesis xxxi., 20).—Exactly so. Moses did the same from
Egypt; and delivered the Israelites from slavery under pre
tence of going out for a holiday—that is, to worship. But
God was with them.
Jaco& was Ze/ii a/one; and there wrestled a man with
him until the breaking of the day (Genesis xxxii., 24).—The
context shows that the man was a god, whom Jacob saw
“face to face.” The struggle between the almighty and his
servant Jacob, at that time nearly one hundred years old,
if Bible chronology can be trusted, was a very severe and
protracted one ; and for a long period it was doubtful which
would win. If I knew the language of the ring I would
describe the scene; but I fear me that would prove as great
a task for me as God found it to defend himself against Jacob.
After several throws on each side—angels, no doubt, being
seconds and bottle-holders—God gave in and acknowledged
that Jacob was too many for him. He thereupon surrendered
the belt, and begged Jacob to permit him to retire. When
he got back to heaven, I have been told, nobody knew him.
His wig, like John Gilpin’s, was “upon the road,” and his
person was all bespattered and covered with dust and per
spiration. However, a hot bath and a week s rest put him
all right again. It may be remarked that Jehovah rested
only one day after the week he spent in creating all things.
If I am rightly informed, he needed seven times the repose
after this wrestling bout. True, he was 2,000 years older
at the time he entered the ring with Jacob, though even then
he had not reached the years of discretion.
t
�84
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
Genesis xxxiv. must be passed over with the remark that
Jacob’s sons were chips of the old block in cunning, as may
be seen in their murders and plunder of Hamor and his son.
Jacob chid them, it is true, but only because he feared the
revenge of his neighbors. Saints usually love the Lord their
God, alias themselves, with all their heart, and so have no
love left for other people.
And Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem
(Genesis xxxv., 4).—Jacob had been in Canaan now for a long
period, and yet had not paid his vow to God; and the latter
reminded him that the debt was still standing, and ordered him
to the place where he had seen the ladder reaching up into
heaven. Though Jacob had conquered Jehovah in the ring,
he still deemed it best to be on good terms with him. So he
packed up to go to Bethel to worship, and he told his house
hold to put away the other gods they had. Those were handed
over to Jacob, and he merely buried them along with certain
jewels and trinkets under the tree. This was merely a com
promise ; the other gods were merely put out of the way
while Jehovah was being attended to—just as people to-day
go to churches and chapels, where they pretend to worship
God; though they are merely enduring the “ service ” until
they can rush back again to the pleasures and riches they
left behind them.
Jacob built his altar to God and offered sacrifice ; but he
did not give the tenth of all he had, as he had promised when
he had nothing at all to give. Of course not. Whoever
thinks of keeping his word with Jehovah ? With whom does
Jehovah keep his pledges ?
And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom,
before there reigned any king over the children of Israel
(Genesis xxxvi. 31 .—This is genuine revelation, and shows
us that Moses did not write Genesis. It must have been
written after Saul and David, for kings of Israel are mentioned
as having reigned at the time the writer lived. We know
not who did write Genesis. We know Moses did not; unless
his book has been largely interpolated and < orrupted. Though
it matters not the least who wrote it; one man is as likely to
be inspired as any other.
How Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Genesis
xxxvii., 3).—Gods and saints usually have favorites; and
nothing better exhibits their weakness. Jacob loved Joseph,
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
85
made a regular guy of him with a harlequin’s coat; he became
a spy upon his brothers, and reported what he saw to his
father. His brothers hated him, and sold him ; and that was
as good as he deserved. Joseph in Egypt turned out a full
blown professor of dreams, as his brothers had sneeringly
called him (xxxvii., 19) ; married the daughter of a priest of
On, or Heliopolis, a heathen; became grand vizier of Pharaoh
(a purely fabulous title, by the way), gathered up the corn
during the years of plenty, sold it out during the famine for
the people’s money, cattle, land, and themselves, thus making
all the people absolute slaves to the king. No doubt the
writer thought he was sketching a splendid and saintly
character; in truth he has presented us with one of the very
worst tools of despotism. He never interfered with the lands
of the priesthood (a priest wrote the story); their organisation
was too prwerful, and Joseph was too closely allied to that
guild to interfere with their possessions.
And Joseph fell upon his father s face, and wept upon him,
and kissed him (Genesis 1., 1).—Joseph was very affectionate.
For many years he enjoyed himself in Egypt without ever
inquiring for his friends, and would probably never have
sought them again if the famine had not thrown them in his
way; yet he makes an awful fuss now when he finds them
and afterwards when his father was dead !
My jumping, capering comments have now run quite through
the book of Genesis. I may just remark that many people
will regard my comments as altogether inadequate, and even
positively faulty in all respects. Well! I have written as I
thought best under the circumstances, and for the end I had
in view; as I have consulted my own whims and fancies in
writing, I should be sorry not to allow the reader the same
liberty.
My comments, faulty as they may be, are quite worthy
of the Bible, regarded as a divine revelation; considered
as an antiquity, no comment can be too good for it. My
object is not to damage the Bible, but to render it impossible
for men to damage themselves by worshipping it or its wornout God. Still I must say, my comment is more honest and
straightforward than any orthodox one ever written upon the
Bible; for I have not perverted a single text to support fore
gone conclusions; while orthodox commentaries consist of
little else than perversions of that nature.
�THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
The following true and faithful history of Jesus has just been
handed to me by the Holy Ghost for publication. This is
true, as true as the Bible. If any wicked sceptic disbelieves
it, I will not send him to hell—I would scorn to do such a
mean trick—but I will prove by a miracle that “ my record
is true.” I will even do this—Let a bishop or Tyler drink
enough strychnine to kill him; and when he is dead, I will
restore him to life. If Christians will not submit to so simple
and safe a test, let them doubt as they will; I will not waste
time in arguing with such idiotic people. The story I have
to relate is so evidently penned by the Holy Ghost—its morals
are so pure, its tone so serious and grand, its revelations so
far beyond the reach of mere reason, so immensely transcending
all that science or even romance ever wrote—that any person
with the least pretence to spiritual insight must at once
acknowledge that it could not have been written by a mere
man. Therefore, let all who value their credit for intelligence,
and who do not wish to be regarded as lunatics, acknowledge
at once that the following history is of divine inspiration.
The Holy Ghost told me, as he handed over the manuscript,
that he supposed few would believe it. He had never been
very successful since intelligence and science got abroad; but
still he thought it his duty to do what he could. “ At all
events,” said he, “ publish it. I give you carte, blanche as to
what you shall give to the world and what omit. You under
stand the ways of the world better than I, and I am bound to
say I am delighted to have secured you as my editor and
literary executor. This is my last work ; and I wish you to
render it as attractive as you can. A little embellishment, I
presume, will not be amiss ; and, of course, you are at liberty
to expand the miracles a little if you do not think them
striking enough for popular taste. I am told that sensation
is now the order of the day, especially with the churches ; so
do not be over-scrupulous.”
I promised to do my best, and the Holy Ghost left. All .
this, reader, is teue !—as true, I am bound to say, as that
�THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
87 ,
Moses saw the western side of God; as true as that the walls
of Jericho fell at the blast of rains’ horns ; as true as that
Jesus came down from heaven ; as true as that Paul was
caught up to the third heaven ; as true as that Tyler is honest
or sensible. And thou knowest, thou sceptical reader, thou!
that nothing can be truer than these.
If the wicked infidel wants further proof still that this
gospel is true, be it known unto him that I once went up to
the sixty-fifth heaven, and saw Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob
there, carrying on their old tricks as upon earth. There I
saw the beasts full of eyes before and behind; and one of
them calved while I was there. In fact, there is a whole
menagerie of curious beasts there now; and they are getting
so numerous that they wished me to buy up a number for
exportation. But it was not in my line. I was told that
they made Jacob the head overseer of all the animals, with
all the young beasts of a certain color that might be born as
his wages. Jacob, true to his character, increased his own
share artificially as he did when under Laban (Gen. xxx., 37).
When caught he denied it, but truthful Peter gave evidence
against him ; and “immediately the cock crew.” Then they
sent Jacob for twenty years to hell; but the Lord was with
him.
Thou foolish sceptic, dost thou now believe ? If thou,
believest not me who have been to the sixty-fifth heaven,
how canst thou believe Paul, who rose no higher than the
third ? Wilt thou compel me to boast yet further ? Be it
so. I will conquer thy unbelief. Once on a time, about
three thousand years before I was born (John viii., 58), I was
on tramp ; and coming to a mountain that stood in my way
I bade it be gone, and it skipped away like a sky-rocket, and
I saw it no more. Where the mountain stood there remained
a hole of immense size. Into that hole ran the river Jordan;
and that hole is the Dead Sea ! Dost thou now believe that
I am inspired by the Holy Ghost ? If not, I leave thee to
thy hardness of heart. Go thy way. Read this new gospel.
And may it open thine eyes! Amen.
The Gospel.
Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise : His mother Mary
had been a nun, and her cousin Elizabeth had been one also.
Now Elizabeth was gay, and her husband Zacharias was old
and well-stricken in years. And, behold, an angel of the
,
,
.
.
�88
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
Lord, about twenty-five, who served the Lord day and night
as a monk in a convent near her dwelling, came unto her by
night, and prophesied that she should have a son.
*
And in
process of time his prophecy was fulfilled.
Now it came to pass that for many days the husband of
Elizabeth, even the aged Zacharias, who was not ignorant of
the ways of the Lord’s angels, was dumb, and spake not unto
his wife either good or bad, for he perceived that she was
too subtil for him. Nor yet did he open his mouth when her
cousin Mary came to commune with her.
Now Mary, being young and well-favored, was betrothed
unto a man named Joseph, by trade a carpenter. And lo, he
was good-natured and gentle, one that feared God and his
espoused wife, believing all things, hoping all things. But
when he perceived that Mary was as became her not, he was
perplexed. Although he was aware that Gabriel, another
angel of the Lord, who was also a monk, had visited her,
saying,
All hail, beau ideal of women! The Lord hath
chosen thee to be his friend1” Mary not comprehending the
salutation, the angel explained, and went his way.
Now it came to pass as Joseph was sore perplexed and in
desperation, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him by
night and pleasantly greeted him, and bade him be of good
cheer f .... And the angel said, moreover, forasmuch as
thou art poor, behold, the Lord hath sent thee one hundred
pieces of silver to cheer thy heart withal. And Joseph was
content, and took his espoused wife unto himself.
Now when Jesus was born, there came twenty-five venerable
handmaidens of the Lord to commune with the young child
and his mother, for he was filled with marvellous wisdom
even before he was born, and could even speak “ as never
man spake ” before he could suck ; that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet—“ Out of the mouth of
babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise.” Now the
first words that Jesus uttered were these : “ Bring hither
those mine enemies, and slay them before me !” And Joseph,
being astonished at the miracle, even took his axe, and slew
fifty thousand and three-score and ten of the old women, as
* Using my discretion, I omit a few sentences here from the Holy
Ghost’s narrative, which are scarcely fit for ears polite.
f Here again I am compelled to omit a few sentences from the
Holy Ghost’s narrative.
�THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
89
it is written in the book of Samuel the prophet concering the
men of Beth-shemesh.
*
And all that heard thereof were
amazed, and gave glory to God in the highest, and on earth
peace and good will towards men. But when the king heard
thereof he was wrath, and sought to kill Joseph and Mary
and the young child. But Gabriel came to Joseph by night,
saying, “ Up ! Why tarriest thou ? Take the baby and his
mother, and get thee into the land of Egypt, and dwell there
till I send thee word; for the king seeks the young child’s
life.”
Then Joseph arose and took the young child and Mary his
mother, and fled to the land of Egypt; and there they
remained until the death of the king, which was accelerated
by Gabriel, who was even the king’s confessor ; and he gave
unto him the sacrament, and the king was sick, and lay down
upon his bed, and gave up the ghost.
Then did Gabriel send to Joseph, saying, “Up, return to
thine own land, and bring the young child and his mother
with thee, for thine enemy is dead. Blessed be the name of
the Lord.”
But, behold, or ever the message came Joseph was ready,
knowing that the king was dead. For it came to pass that
as the king gave up the ghost, even in that self-same moment,
Jesus rose in his cradle and cried, “Return to thy own land,
for thine enemy is dead!” And immediately he turned his
■cradle into an ass, ready saddled for the journey ! And all
that heard it did marvel beyond measure, saying, “ Why
should a child of so great power and wisdom flee .from his
enemies ?” But all this was done that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet, saying, “ Behold, I will
confound the wisdom of the wise ; and fools and folly shall
be exalted !”
And when Jesus was about fifteen months old he went into
the temple, even into the place where the scribes and elders
and bishops and all the Levites were diligently reading the
word of the Lord, and religiously quarrelling about the
meaning and interpretation thereof. And one said on this
wise, and another on that; and there was no wisdom nor
agreement amongst them, for the Lord had confounded them
giving a revelation which no man in heaven or earth could
* 1 Samuel vi., 19.
�90
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
understand. And behold, they did chide, and foam at the
mouth, and gnash with their teeth, and curse every man. his
fellow because of the multitude of opinions that prevailed.
Then Jesus stood in the midst of them and asked them ques
tions, and gave them answers which astounded all those that
heard him. And his fame spread abroad throughout, the
whole region and to every nation which is under heaven, inso
much that the newspapers reported nothing else but the
sayings of Jesus for weeks thereafter.
Then did Mary and her husband suddenly rush into the
temple, and when they found the child they took him away
to their home ; and Mary said, “ Why hast thou done thus
unto us ?” Then answered Jesus and said unto her, “Woman,
what have I to do with thee ? I’ll tell the old man of
Gabriel’s visits, if you don’t mind.” And Mary kept that
saying, and treasured it up in her heart.
After these things Jesus went out to the river Jordan,
wh ere his cousin John was conducting Salvation Army work
and dipping the people into the river to wash away their sins.
And Jesus, feeling his need of cleansing, prevailed upon John
to dip him. He stayed in the water too long, and caught a
violent chill. This brought on a fever and delirium, during
which he raved about a spirit (t was not I, certainly) driving
i
*
him into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil.
And, behold, Jesus, as he lay in his fever, . did rave
exceedingly, and said that the Devil had come to him in the
wilderness, where he had fasted forty days and forty nights,
and was very hungry. The Devil brought unto him a. pig and
tempted him to eat it; but he repelled the temptation, with
horror. Then the Devil caught him up and flew with him to
a battlement of the temple and hurled him over ; but an
angel caught him before he fell to the earth. Then the Devil
took him away to a mountain exceedingly high, and showed
him all the cities and kingdoms of the world, even in both
hemispheres at one view ; and promised to make him the ruler
of them all, if he would only worship him. This he refused
to do. And the Devil left him there upon the mountain, cold .
and hungry, and not knowing which way to turn to
road home. Then an army of angels, as soon as the Devil
was out of sight, and they were no longer afraid of him, took
* Parenthesis by the Holy Ghost.
�THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
91
Jesus up and bore him home to his bed in a moment of time.
And behold, he awoke and told his vision to his Mother Mary ;
and she perceived thereby that hei’ son would be great, and
that divine wisdom dwelt in him more than in all the prophets
that were before him.
And Jesus, when the fever had left him chose twelve
disciples, and their names were these : Simon alias Peter;
Andrew (Peter’s brother); James and John Zebedee (also
brothers) ; Philip ; Bartholomew ; Thomas alias Didymus ;
Matthew alias Levi; James Alphseus; Lebbaeus alias
Thaddaeus ; Simon the Canaanite ; and Judas Iscariot. These
he sent out to preach his Gospel. They were bidden not to
meddle with Gentiles, but only Jews; and to cry as they
went, “ The kingdom of heaven is at hand 1” They were
commanded to heal the sick and to cast out devils : for
Jesus would never forgive the king of the devils for tempting
him to eat pork. Therefore, would he have wai’ with him
and his angels for ever. And he commanded them, moreover,
to raise the dead to life. They were forbidden to take any
gold, silver, or brass with them he commanded them not to
have two coats ; and to wear sandals instead of shoes.
Then the disciples went everywhere shouting their cry
“The kingdom of heaven is at hand 1” and healing the sick
and raising the dead in multitudes ; insomuch that the doctors
and undertakers and the parsons were deprived of their occu
pation and their burial fees ; and they cried out against the
disciples with an exceeding bitter cry. And all as many as held
property under their fathers’ wills, when they found their
parents and ancestors rising up to life again, did gnash their
teeth with rage against the disciples of Jesus. And it came
to pass that all the devils whom they had cast out did unite
with the physicians, and the undertakers, and those whom
their fathers had disturbed and dispossessed, and the parsons
who had lost their fees : and they set upon the disciples, and
drove them out of their cities. And all men wondered at that
which they beheld, and said, “ Why could not those men who
raised the dead defend themselves against the living?”
After these things Jesus and his disciples and his mother
went to a wedding, so that the wine ran short. But Jesus
turned a large cistern full of water into prime old port; and
then “ the fun grew fast and furious
and many good toasts
were drunk and good songs were sung. And they all sang a
�92
BLOWS AT THB BIBLE.
new song, even the song of Moses and of the lamb, in honor
of Jesus, saying,
“For he’s a jolly good fellow!
For he’s a jolly good fellow!
For he’s a jolly good fellow !
Which nobody can deny,” etc.
And passing on from thence Jesus met one thousand old
women, very decrepid, withered and toothless. And when
they asked alms of him, he said, “ What will ye that I should
do unto you ?” And they say unto him, “ Lord, that we may
be restored to our youth and beauty.” And he healed them
all, insomuch that they became the most beautiful women
upon earth. Some of them remain even unto this day “ to
witness if I lie.” And when this was noised abroad, behold,
all that had old and decrepid wives and sisters besought him
to heal them also. But he passed by and hid himself in a
desert place.
And his disciples went into a ship to cross over the sea;
and lo, a great wind arose, and the ship was in danger of
being overwhelmed in the midst of the sea. And the disciples,
as becometh good Christians, were sore afraid, saying, “ Alas!
must we enter into the New Jerusalem before our time ?”
And Jesus breathed upon the sea and it dried up; and he
turned the ship into a chariot, and six sharks into horses, and
thus rode, he and his disciples to their own home. And all
men, as many as heard it, did marvel greatly at those things
that were done.
And going on from thence he met a man who had fifty
million devils in him. And he cast them all out, and the
man was empty. < And the devils he sent into a herd of swine ;
and behold, the pigs began to fly like eagles, until they were
over the sea. And then did they all tumble into the water,
and were drowned, they and the devils also. And when the
owners of the pigs heard thereof, they ran out, they and their
neighbors, and chased Jesus out of that region.
And when he came to a fig-tree, he went to see if there
were any figs thereupon ; for he was very hungry, But the
•season for figs was not yet come, and he found nothing on it
but leaves. Then he began to curse and to swear, and the fig
tree turned as pale as death with fright, and entreated Jesus
not to curse it so, fori was unreasonable to expect figs out
�THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
93
of season. But Jesus gave no heed to its entreaty, but he
answered and said, ‘ ‘ Because thou hast not borne figs to feed
me when I am in need, henceforth let no figs grow on thee
for ever! Selah!” And it came to pass that the fig-tree,
being condemned in his own conscience, suddenly fell down
and gave up the ghost, and became a pillar of salt, as it is
written in the book of Moses concerning Lot’s wife. And
behold the man whose fig-tree it was did weep and lament
exceeding sore, both he and his -wife and family, for that which
had befallen their tree.
And going on from thence, there encountered them certain
of the Pharisees and Sadducees. And it came to pass that as
they chid him and mocked him, behold he performed a
miracle and turned them all into cabbages; and when the
sun shone hot upon them, having no root, they withered away.
And all men wondered at that which had come to pass.
Then began Jesus to say unto his disciples and to the
multitude, “Behold, I came down from heaven.” And they
said unto him, “' When didst thou descend from heaven ? Lo,
wast thou not born in Bethlehem ? Didst thou come from
heaven before thou wast born ? Or hast thou been up to
heaven and returned therefrom ? Tell us, we pray thee, what
explanation thou canst give.” And Jesus was wrath, and
3aid, “ He that believeth not shall be damned. It shall be
worse for you that doubt my words than for Sodom and
Gomorrah.” And he shook off the dust of his feet against
them, and went his way.
And in those days when work was disagreeable and alms
were hard to get, Jesus and his disciples went a-fishing ; but
Jesus himself remained upon the shore. And, behold., as they
rowed and toiled the fish would not enter into their net, and
the disciples knew not what to do, being sore perplexed. Then
Jesus, who was skilled in magic, waved his hands over the sea,
and the spirit of God descended upon the fishes like a mighty
rushing wind ; and the disciples caught three thousand of
them in the twinkling of an eye. And when they drew the
net to land the fishes fell down before him and worshipped
him, saying, “Verily, thou art the Son of God.”*
Then Jesus began to say unto the twelve, “Whosoever he
* One version reads, “ Verily, thou art a son of a gun.” But this is
most probably spurious; for guns were unknown in those ctays.
�96
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
third part of the sea became bloodand a third of all fishes
and ships were destroyed. Then he smote the sun, moon,
and stars, and darkened one third of them. And he opened
the door of the bottomless pit, and let out the fiery locusts
which were shut up there; and they destroyed one-third of
mankind.
Then he mounted a white horse which came from heaven,
and called himself King of. Kings and Lord of Lords; and he
led his armies to war, all riding upon white horses, and there
was an exceedingly great slaughter, so that the blood rose even
unto the horse-bridles for the space of 200 miles ! Then did
he invite the beasts and birds of prey to come and feast them
selves upon the flesh of the millions who had fallen in battle,
for he refused them decent burial because of his hatred of
them.
It came to pass after these things that Judas, one of his
disciples, betrayed him into the hands of his enemies. He
did it on this wise. Finding his master asleep, he took awav
his magic wand, and cut off his hair, wherein resided his
great power. .Then he became powerless and like another
man. Then did Judas conduct his enemies to him, and they
caught him and bound him, and led him away captive, and
they carried him to Egypt and there crucified him (Rev. xi., 8).
Then one of his followers, Mary by name, whose character
was not the best, and out of whom Jesus had cast seven
devils, pretended to have seen him after his death. But even
his disciples treated the tale as a ghost story. They, howe\ er, believed that, like Hercules and Adonis and Osiris, he
had been raised to heaven ; and some there are who believe
it even unto this day.
He that testifieth these things saith true. And if he had
written all that Jesus said and did. the world itself would be
too small to hold the books that would be written. He that
BELIEVETH SHALL BE TAKEN INTO
THE
HEAVENLY
ASYLUM,
New Jerusalem ; he that believeth not shall be
condemned to wander with the wise ones of the earth, and be
at large and at liberty all the days of his life. Amen!
even the
Printed and Published by Ramsey and Foote, at 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span><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" /></span>
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
Blows at the Bible
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Symes, Joseph [1841-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 6 v. (96 p.) ; 19 cm.
Notes: Contents: No. 1: The sermon on the mount.--No. 2: The life of Adam. Love not the world. The mystery of salvation.--No. 3: How a fairy was transformed. Jumping comments on Genesis.-- Nos. 4, 5: Jumping comments on Genesis.--No. 6: Jumping comments on Genesis. The gospel of the Holy Ghost. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Ramsey and Foote]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N628
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><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Blows at the Bible), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
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
Authority
Bible-Criticism
Bible-Evidences
NSS